Perceived algorithmic fairness: An empirical study of transparency and anthropomorphism in algorithmic recruiting
Abstract
Despite constant efforts of organisations to ensure a fair and transparent personnel selection process, hiring is still characterised by systematic inequality. The potential of algorithms to produce fair and objective decision outcomes has attracted the attention of academic scholars and practitioners as a conceivable alternative to human decision-making. However, applicants do not necessarily consider an objective algorithm as fairer than a human decision maker. This study examines the conditions under which applicants perceive algorithms as fair and establishes a theoretical foundation of algorithmic fairness perceptions. We further propose and investigate transparency and anthropomorphism interventions as strategies to actively shape these fairness perceptions. In an online application scenario with eight experimental groups (*N* = 801), we analyse determinants for algorithmic fairness perceptions and the impact of the proposed interventions. Embedded in a stimulus-organism-response framework and drawing from organisational justice theory, our study reveals four justice dimensions (procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational justice) that determine algorithmic fairness perceptions. The results further show that transparency and anthropomorphism interventions mainly affect dimensions of interpersonal and informational justice, highlighting the importance of algorithmic fairness perceptions as critical determinants for individual choices.
Study specs
An online application scenario with eight experimental groups analyzing fairness perceptions using a stimulus-organism-response framework and organizational justice theory.
- Authors
- J Ochmann,L Michels,V Tiefenbeck
- Discipline
- Information Systems
- Sample Size
- N=801
- Study Type
- Experimental Study
- Year
- 2024
- Human Data Platform
- Prolific
- Source
- View Source DOI Google Scholar
Measured Outcomes
Perceptions of algorithmic fairness based on justice dimensions (procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational justice) and the impact of transparency and anthropomorphism interventions.
Peer Review & Critical Discussion
Potential Selection Bias in 2023 Cohort
The participant pool shows a concerning overrepresentation of users from high-income demographics. Looking at Table 3, we can see that 78% of respondents had annual incomes above $75k, which significantly limits the generalizability of these findings to broader populations.
Non-naive Participants Issue
I've noticed a methodological concern regarding participant naivety. Given that Prolific users often complete multiple studies, there's a real risk that participants had prior exposure to similar experimental paradigms, which could confound the results.
RLHF Applicability to This Study Design
The implications for RLHF training pipelines are understated. If we accept the authors' conclusions about preference stability, this has direct consequences for how we should structure reward model training. The temporal decay effect described in Section 4.2 is particularly relevant.
Verify your expertise to join discussion
Create an account and verify your credentials to participate in peer discussions.