Implications of AI (un-)fairness in higher education admissions: the effects of perceived AI (un-)fairness on exit, voice and organizational reputation

Frank Marcinkowski, Kimon Kieslich, C. Starke, Marco Lünich
{"title":"Implications of AI (un-)fairness in higher education admissions: the effects of perceived AI (un-)fairness on exit, voice and organizational reputation","authors":"Frank Marcinkowski, Kimon Kieslich, C. Starke, Marco Lünich","doi":"10.1145/3351095.3372867","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Algorithmic decision-making (ADM) is becoming increasingly important in all areas of social life. In higher education, machine-learning systems have manifold uses because they can efficiently process large amounts of student data and use these data to arrive at effective decisions. Despite the potential upsides of ADM systems, fairness concerns are gaining momentum in academic and public discourses. The criticism largely focuses on the disparate effects of ADM. That is, algorithms may not serve as objective and fair decision-makers but, rather, reproduce biases existing within the respective training data. This study adopted a different approach by focusing on individual perceptions of fairness. Specifically, we looked at two different dimensions of perceived fairness: (i) procedural fairness and (ii) distributive fairness. Using cross-sectional survey data (n = 304) from a large German university, we tested whether students' assessments of fairness differ with respect to algorithmic vs. human decision-making (HDM) within the higher education context. Furthermore, we investigated whether fairness perceptions have subsequent effects on three different outcome variables, which are hugely important for universities: (1) exit, (2) voice, and (3) organizational reputation. The results of our survey suggest that participants evaluated ADM higher than HDM in terms of both procedural and distributive fairness. Concerning the subsequent effects of fairness perceptions, we find that (1) distributive fairness as well as procedural fairness perceptions have a negative impact on the intention to protest against an ADM system, whereas (2) only procedural fairness perceptions negatively affect the likelihood of exiting. Finally, (3) distributive fairness, but not procedural fairness perceptions have a positive effect on organizational reputation. For universities aiming to implement ADM systems, it is crucial, therefore, to take possible fairness issues and their further implications into account.","PeriodicalId":377829,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency","volume":"1163 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"75","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372867","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 75

Abstract

Algorithmic decision-making (ADM) is becoming increasingly important in all areas of social life. In higher education, machine-learning systems have manifold uses because they can efficiently process large amounts of student data and use these data to arrive at effective decisions. Despite the potential upsides of ADM systems, fairness concerns are gaining momentum in academic and public discourses. The criticism largely focuses on the disparate effects of ADM. That is, algorithms may not serve as objective and fair decision-makers but, rather, reproduce biases existing within the respective training data. This study adopted a different approach by focusing on individual perceptions of fairness. Specifically, we looked at two different dimensions of perceived fairness: (i) procedural fairness and (ii) distributive fairness. Using cross-sectional survey data (n = 304) from a large German university, we tested whether students' assessments of fairness differ with respect to algorithmic vs. human decision-making (HDM) within the higher education context. Furthermore, we investigated whether fairness perceptions have subsequent effects on three different outcome variables, which are hugely important for universities: (1) exit, (2) voice, and (3) organizational reputation. The results of our survey suggest that participants evaluated ADM higher than HDM in terms of both procedural and distributive fairness. Concerning the subsequent effects of fairness perceptions, we find that (1) distributive fairness as well as procedural fairness perceptions have a negative impact on the intention to protest against an ADM system, whereas (2) only procedural fairness perceptions negatively affect the likelihood of exiting. Finally, (3) distributive fairness, but not procedural fairness perceptions have a positive effect on organizational reputation. For universities aiming to implement ADM systems, it is crucial, therefore, to take possible fairness issues and their further implications into account.
高等教育录取中人工智能(非)公平的含义:感知人工智能(非)公平对退出、声音和组织声誉的影响
算法决策(ADM)在社会生活的各个领域变得越来越重要。在高等教育中,机器学习系统有多种用途,因为它们可以有效地处理大量学生数据,并利用这些数据做出有效的决策。尽管ADM系统有潜在的优势,但对公平的关注在学术和公共话语中正在获得动力。批评主要集中在adm的不同影响上。也就是说,算法可能不能作为客观和公平的决策者,而是再现各自训练数据中存在的偏见。这项研究采用了一种不同的方法,关注个人对公平的看法。具体来说,我们研究了感知公平的两个不同维度:(i)程序公平和(ii)分配公平。使用来自德国一所大型大学的横断面调查数据(n = 304),我们测试了在高等教育背景下,学生对算法决策和人类决策(HDM)的公平性评估是否不同。此外,我们还调查了公平感知是否会对三个不同的结果变量产生后续影响,这三个变量对大学来说非常重要:(1)退出,(2)发言权和(3)组织声誉。我们的调查结果表明,参与者在程序和分配公平方面对ADM的评价高于HDM。关于公平感知的后续效应,我们发现:(1)分配公平感知和程序公平感知对抗议ADM制度的意愿有负向影响,而(2)只有程序公平感知对退出可能性有负向影响。最后,(3)分配公平感知对组织声誉有正向影响,而程序公平感知对组织声誉没有正向影响。因此,对于旨在实施ADM系统的大学来说,考虑可能的公平问题及其进一步影响是至关重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信