算法可访问性是否足够?可及性和问责制在自动化决策中形成信任的关键作用

IF 3.1 3区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Huanhuan Li, Zongfeng Sun
{"title":"算法可访问性是否足够?可及性和问责制在自动化决策中形成信任的关键作用","authors":"Huanhuan Li,&nbsp;Zongfeng Sun","doi":"10.1111/gove.70067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>The widely accepted view that algorithmic accessibility and accountability enhance the perceived trustworthiness of automated decision-making has not yet been fully validated. This study fills this research gap by conducting two survey experiments using “real-world” scenarios. We examine participants' trust preferences when exposed to varying levels of algorithmic accessibility and accountability, under different degrees of decision risks. Our findings highlight that algorithmic accountability exerts a stronger influence on the perceived trustworthiness of both algorithms and bureaucrats compared to algorithmic accessibility. Additionally, our research uncovers that the interaction between algorithmic accountability and contextual factors (e.g., high vs. low-risk scenarios) significantly affects trust in algorithm. This study offers novel empirical insights into the intricate dynamics among algorithmic accessibility, accountability, decision risk, and trust perceptions.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48056,"journal":{"name":"Governance-An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions","volume":"38 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Algorithmic Accessibility Sufficient? The Pivotal Role of Accessibility and Accountability in Shaping Trust in Automated Decision-Making\",\"authors\":\"Huanhuan Li,&nbsp;Zongfeng Sun\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/gove.70067\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>The widely accepted view that algorithmic accessibility and accountability enhance the perceived trustworthiness of automated decision-making has not yet been fully validated. This study fills this research gap by conducting two survey experiments using “real-world” scenarios. We examine participants' trust preferences when exposed to varying levels of algorithmic accessibility and accountability, under different degrees of decision risks. Our findings highlight that algorithmic accountability exerts a stronger influence on the perceived trustworthiness of both algorithms and bureaucrats compared to algorithmic accessibility. Additionally, our research uncovers that the interaction between algorithmic accountability and contextual factors (e.g., high vs. low-risk scenarios) significantly affects trust in algorithm. This study offers novel empirical insights into the intricate dynamics among algorithmic accessibility, accountability, decision risk, and trust perceptions.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48056,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Governance-An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions\",\"volume\":\"38 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Governance-An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gove.70067\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Governance-An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gove.70067","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

广泛接受的观点认为,算法的可访问性和问责制增强了自动决策的可信赖性,但尚未得到充分验证。本研究通过使用“现实世界”场景进行两次调查实验,填补了这一研究空白。我们研究了参与者在不同程度的决策风险下,面对不同程度的算法可及性和问责制时的信任偏好。我们的研究结果强调,与算法可及性相比,算法问责制对算法和官僚的感知可信度都有更大的影响。此外,我们的研究发现,算法问责制和上下文因素(例如,高风险与低风险场景)之间的相互作用显著影响对算法的信任。本研究为算法可及性、问责性、决策风险和信任感知之间复杂的动态关系提供了新颖的实证见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Is Algorithmic Accessibility Sufficient? The Pivotal Role of Accessibility and Accountability in Shaping Trust in Automated Decision-Making

Is Algorithmic Accessibility Sufficient? The Pivotal Role of Accessibility and Accountability in Shaping Trust in Automated Decision-Making

The widely accepted view that algorithmic accessibility and accountability enhance the perceived trustworthiness of automated decision-making has not yet been fully validated. This study fills this research gap by conducting two survey experiments using “real-world” scenarios. We examine participants' trust preferences when exposed to varying levels of algorithmic accessibility and accountability, under different degrees of decision risks. Our findings highlight that algorithmic accountability exerts a stronger influence on the perceived trustworthiness of both algorithms and bureaucrats compared to algorithmic accessibility. Additionally, our research uncovers that the interaction between algorithmic accountability and contextual factors (e.g., high vs. low-risk scenarios) significantly affects trust in algorithm. This study offers novel empirical insights into the intricate dynamics among algorithmic accessibility, accountability, decision risk, and trust perceptions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
10.30%
发文量
91
期刊介绍: Governance provides a forum for the theoretical and practical discussion of executive politics, public policy, administration, and the organization of the state. Published in association with International Political Science Association''s Research Committee on the Structure & Organization of Government (SOG), it emphasizes peer-reviewed articles that take an international or comparative approach to public policy and administration. All papers, regardless of empirical focus, should have wider theoretical, comparative, or practical significance.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信