In AI we trust? Perceptions about automated decision-making by artificial intelligence

Fueled by ever-growing amounts of (digital) data and advances in artificial intelligence, decision-making in contemporary societies is increasingly delegated to automated processes. Drawing from social science theories and from the emerging body of research about algorithmic appreciation and algorithmic perceptions, the current study explores the extent to which personal characteristics can be linked to perceptions of automated decision-making by AI, and the boundary conditions of these perceptions, namely the extent to which such perceptions differ across media, (public) health, and judicial contexts. Data from a scenario-based survey experiment with a national sample ( N  = 958) show that people are by and large concerned about risks and have mixed opinions about fairness and usefulness of automated decision-making at a societal level, with general attitudes influenced by individual characteristics. Interestingly, decisions taken automatically by AI were often evaluated on par or even better than human experts for specific decisions. Theoretical and societal implications about these findings are discussed.

[1]  Ellen Timminga,et al.  Persuasiveness of expert systems , 1998, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[2]  E. Hudlicka.  Virtual training and coaching of health behavior: example from mindfulness meditation training. , 2013, Patient education and counseling.

[3]  Eric L. Piza,et al.  Risk Clusters, Hotspots, and Spatial Intelligence: Risk Terrain Modeling as an Algorithm for Police Resource Allocation Strategies , 2011 .

[4]  E. Siegel,et al.  Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Cardiac Imaging: Harnessing Big Data and Advanced Computing to Provide Personalized Medical Diagnosis and Treatment , 2013, Current Cardiology Reports.

[5]  Don A. Moore,et al.  Algorithm Appreciation: People Prefer Algorithmic To Human Judgment , 2018, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

[6]  Berkeley J. Dietvorst,et al.  Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously Avoid Algorithms after Seeing Them Err , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[7]  E. Topol,et al.  Adapting to Artificial Intelligence: Radiologists and Pathologists as Information Specialists. , 2016, JAMA.

[8]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[9]  Damian Trilling,et al.  My Friends, Editors, Algorithms, and I , 2018, Digital Journalism.

[10]  Ephraim Nissan,et al.  Digital technologies and artificial intelligence’s present and foreseeable impact on lawyering, judging, policing and law enforcement , 2015, AI & SOCIETY.

[11]  Andy P. Field,et al.  Discovering Statistics Using Ibm Spss Statistics , 2017 .

[12]  Min Kyung Lee.  Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management , 2018, Big Data Soc..

[13]  Nicholas Diakopoulos,et al.  Algorithmic Transparency in the News Media , 2017 .

[14]  Brian R. Dineen,et al.  Perceived fairness of web‐based applicant screening procedures: Weighing the rules of justice and the role of individual differences , 2004 .

[15]  Min Kyung Lee.  Algorithmic Mediation in Group Decisions: Fairness Perceptions of Algorithmically Mediated vs. Discussion-Based Social Division , 2017, CSCW.

[16]  Anton Nijholt,et al.  Break the Habit! Designing an e-Therapy Intervention Using a Virtual Coach in Aid of Smoking Cessation , 2006, PERSUASIVE.

[17]  Sushil Jajodia,et al.  Detecting Automation of Twitter Accounts: Are You a Human, Bot, or Cyborg? , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing.

[18]  Filippo Menczer,et al.  The rise of social bots , 2014, Commun. ACM.

[19]  Neil Thurman,et al.  THE FUTURE OF PERSONALIZATION AT NEWS WEBSITES , 2012 .

[20]  Douglas A. Wiegmann,et al.  Effects of Information Source, Pedigree, and Reliability on Operator Interaction With Decision Support Systems , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[21]  Dina Utami,et al.  Improving Access to Online Health Information With Conversational Agents: A Randomized Controlled Experiment , 2016, Journal of medical Internet research.

[22]  I. Kohane,et al.  Framing the challenges of artificial intelligence in medicine , 2018, BMJ Quality & Safety.

[23]  Hany Farid,et al.  The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism , 2018, Science Advances.

[24]  Sue Newell,et al.  Strategic opportunities (and challenges) of algorithmic decision-making: A call for action on the long-term societal effects of 'datification' , 2015, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[25]  Aspen Olmsted,et al.  Bot or not , 2017, 2017 12th International Conference for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions (ICITST).

[26]  D. McQuillan.  Algorithmic states of exception , 2015 .

[27]  Francesco Bonchi,et al.  Algorithmic Bias: From Discrimination Discovery to Fairness-aware Data Mining , 2016, KDD.

[28]  R. Dawes,et al.  Heuristics and Biases: Clinical versus Actuarial Judgment , 2002 .

[29]  Jon Kleinberg,et al.  Making sense of recommendations , 2019, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.

[30]  Tal Z. Zarsky,et al.  The Trouble with Algorithmic Decisions , 2016 .

[31]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Computers are social actors , 1994, CHI '94.

[32]  Matt Carlson,et al.  Automating judgment? Algorithmic judgment, news knowledge, and journalistic professionalism , 2018, New Media Soc..

[33]  Sanne Kruikemeier,et al.  Behavioral Advertising : A Literature Review and Research Agenda , 2017 .

[34]  C. Nass,et al.  Conceptualizing Sources in Online News , 2001 .

[35]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Source Orientation in Human-Computer Interaction , 2000, Commun. Res..

[36]  Pablo J. Boczkowski,et al.  The Relevance of Algorithms , 2013 .

[37]  S. C. Boerman,et al.  Exploring Motivations for Online Privacy Protection Behavior: Insights From Panel Data , 2018, Communication Research.

[38]  Rob Kitchin,et al.  The automatic management of drivers and driving spaces , 2007 .

[39]  S. Sundar.  The MAIN Model : A Heuristic Approach to Understanding Technology Effects on Credibility , 2007 .

[40]  E. Pierson.  Demographics and discussion influence views on algorithmic fairness , 2017 .

[41]  Apurv Jain.  Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy , 2017, Business Economics.

[42]  Nadine Bol,et al.  Understanding the Effects of Personalization as a Privacy Calculus: Analyzing Self-Disclosure Across Health, News, and Commerce Contexts† , 2018, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[43]  J. Dijck,et al.  The Platform Society: Public Values in a Connective World , 2018 .

[44]  M. C. Elish,et al.  Situating methods in the magic of Big Data and AI , 2018 .

[45]  Jennifer Marie Logg,et al.  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 2019 .

[46]  R. Kitchin,et al.  Thinking critically about and researching algorithms , 2014, The Social Power of Algorithms.

[47]  Ritu Agarwal,et al.  The Digital Transformation of Healthcare: Current Status and the Road Ahead , 2010 .

[48]  Anthony D. Cox,et al.  Communicating the Consequences of Early Detection: The Role of Evidence and Framing , 2001 .

[49]  Per E. Pedersen,et al.  Intentions to use mobile services: Antecedents and cross-service comparisons , 2005 .

[50]  Mariko Morimoto,et al.  Stay Away From Me , 2012 .

[51]  A. Graefe,et al.  Readers’ perception of computer-generated news: Credibility, expertise, and readability , 2018 .