The Social Impact of Decision-Making Algorithms: Reviewing the Influence of Agency, Responsibility and Accountability on Trust and Blame

Despite the ever-growing use of decision-making algorithms in daily life, there has been limited examination of how the supposed agency, responsibility and accountability of these algorithms can have impact on whether users trust them or blame them for failures. Therefore, this contribution reviews current literature relating to these concepts to synthesise present ideas around the social impact of these systems. We highlight the challenges of defining and operationalising these concepts in the context of algorithmic governance and discuss the need for more empirical research on how decision-making algorithms impact trust and blame in practice. We also foreground the importance of presumed agency and whether human agency is mitigated by increased algorithmic agency. After this, we use the AREA 4P responsible research and innovation framework to reflect on the findings of the literature review, which emphasises the need for a more nuanced understanding of the impact of agency, responsibility and accountability on trust and blame in algorithmic decision-making. By addressing these concerns and gaps in research, the authors argue that scholars can develop more effective strategies for ensuring responsible and ethical governance of decision-making algorithms.

[1]  J. Fischer,et al.  Critical reflections on three popular computational linguistic approaches to examine Twitter discourses , 2023, PeerJ Comput. Sci..

[2]  Garfield Benjamin.  #FuckTheAlgorithm: algorithmic imaginaries and political resistance , 2022, FAccT.

[3]  W. D. Holford.  ‘Design-for-responsible’ algorithmic decision-making systems: a question of ethical judgement and human meaningful control , 2022, AI and Ethics.

[4]  P. Lehoux,et al.  Responsible innovation in health and health system sustainability: Insights from health innovators’ views and practices , 2021, Health services management research.

[5]  Q. Vuong,et al.  Bosses without a heart: socio-demographic and cross-cultural determinants of attitude toward Emotional AI in the workplace , 2021, AI & SOCIETY.

[6]  S. McLennan,et al.  COVID-19 contact tracing apps: UK public perceptions , 2021, Critical public health.

[7]  Lambert Hogenhout,et al.  A Framework for Ethical AI at the United Nations , 2021, ArXiv.

[8]  Till Feier,et al.  Hiding Behind Machines: When Blame Is Shifted to Artificial Agents , 2021, ArXiv.

[9]  Alexis Tsoukias,et al.  Social Responsibility of Algorithms , 2020, Integrated Series in Information Systems.

[10]  M. Wehner,et al.  Discriminated by an algorithm: a systematic review of discrimination and fairness by algorithmic decision-making in the context of HR recruitment and HR development , 2020, Business Research.

[11]  Joanna J. Bryson,et al.  The Artificial Intelligence of the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence , 2020 .

[12]  Guang-Zhong Yang,et al.  XAI—Explainable artificial intelligence , 2019, Science Robotics.

[13]  Mark Coeckelbergh,et al.  Artificial Intelligence, Responsibility Attribution, and a Relational Justification of Explainability , 2019, Science and Engineering Ethics.

[14]  Tina Blegind Jensen,et al.  A systematic review of algorithm aversion in augmented decision making , 2019, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.

[15]  Marcello Ienca,et al.  Artificial Intelligence: the global landscape of ethics guidelines , 2019, ArXiv.

[16]  L. Floridi,et al.  A Unified Framework of Five Principles for AI in Society , 2019, Issue 1.

[17]  S. Fuchs.  Trust and Power , 2019, Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews.

[18]  Danah Boyd,et al.  Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems , 2019, FAT.

[19]  Jess Whittlestone,et al.  The Role and Limits of Principles in AI Ethics: Towards a Focus on Tensions , 2019, AIES.

[20]  Francesca Rossi,et al.  AI4People—An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks, Principles, and Recommendations , 2018, Minds and Machines.

[21]  Mariarosaria Taddeo,et al.  How AI can be a force for good , 2018, Science.

[22]  Mehdi Chehel Amirani,et al.  Detection of preterm labor by partitioning and clustering the EHG signal , 2018, Biomed. Signal Process. Control..

[23]  Tony Doyle,et al.  Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy , 2017, Inf. Soc..

[24]  Joseph B. Lyons,et al.  Certifiable Trust in Autonomous Systems: Making the Intractable Tangible , 2017, AI Mag..

[25]  Jeanna Neefe Matthews,et al.  Toward algorithmic transparency and accountability , 2017, Commun. ACM.

[26]  Bernd Carsten Stahl,et al.  Responsible research and innovation in the digital age , 2017, Commun. ACM.

[27]  Taina Bucher,et al.  The algorithmic imaginary: exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms , 2017, The Social Power of Algorithms.

[28]  Mariarosaria Taddeo,et al.  The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate , 2016, Big Data Soc..

[29]  André Vellino,et al.  Ethical Decision Making in Robots: Autonomy, Trust and Responsibility - Autonomy Trust and Responsibility , 2016, ICSR.

[30]  P. Brown,et al.  Improving Environmental Health Literacy and Justice through Environmental Exposure Results Communication , 2016, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[31]  Seth Flaxman,et al.  European Union Regulations on Algorithmic Decision-Making and a "Right to Explanation" , 2016, AI Mag..

[32]  N. Diakopoulos.  Accountability in algorithmic decision making , 2016, ACM Queue.

[33]  J. Burrell.  How the machine ‘thinks’: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms , 2016, Big Data Soc..

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

[35]  Iyad Rahwan,et al.  The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles , 2015, Science.

[36]  Frank A. Pasquale.  The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information , 2015 .

[37]  J. Söderberg.  Media Technologies - Essays on Communication, Materiality, and Society , 2014 .

[38]  Issam c.,et al.  A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance,... , 2014 .

[39]  J. Stilgoe,et al.  Developing a framework for responsible innovation* , 2013, The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering and Clean Energy.

[40]  Jatinder Singh,et al.  Critical appraisal skills programme , 2013 .

[41]  N. Tognazzini,et al.  Blame Its Nature and Norms , 2012 .

[42]  J. Stilgoe,et al.  Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society , 2012, Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance.

[43]  Melanie C. Green,et al.  Trust and social interaction on the Internet , 2009 .

[44]  J. Arnett.  The neglected 95%: why American psychology needs to become less American. , 2008, The American psychologist.

[45]  M. Bovens.  Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework , 2007 .

[46]  D. Wiegmann,et al.  Similarities and differences between human–human and human–automation trust: an integrative review , 2007 .

[47]  Trevor Darrell,et al.  Privacy in Context , 2001, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[48]  K. Vohs,et al.  Case Western Reserve University , 1990 .

[49]  Philip Pettit,et al.  A Theory of Freedom: From the Psychology to the Politics of Agency , 2001 .

[50]  M. Archer.  Being Human: The Problem of Agency , 2000 .

[51]  A. Bandura.  Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. , 1999, Annual review of psychology.

[52]  Larry Diamond,et al.  The Self Restraining State: Power and Accountability in New Democracies , 1999 .

[53]  Mark Bovens,et al.  The Quest for Responsibility: Accountability and Citizenship in Complex Organisations , 1998 .

[54]  P. Rozin,et al.  Moralization and Becoming a Vegetarian: The Transformation of Preferences Into Values and the Recruitment of Disgust , 1997 .

[55]  Roy F. Baumeister,et al.  Evil: Inside human cruelty and violence , 1996 .

[56]  R. Wallace,et al.  Responsibility and the moral sentiments , 1996 .

[57]  J. H. Davis,et al.  An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust , 1995 .

[58]  R. Baumeister,et al.  The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. , 1995, Psychological bulletin.

[59]  Bonnie M. Muir,et al.  Trust Between Humans and Machines, and the Design of Decision Aids , 1987, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[60]  A. Kellerman,et al.  The Constitution of Society : Outline of the Theory of Structuration , 2015 .

[61]  Karen S. Cook,et al.  Distributive Justice, Equity, and Equality , 1983 .

[62]  Morteza Lahijanian,et al.  Social Trust: A Major Challenge for the Future of Autonomous Systems , 2016, AAAI Fall Symposia.

[63]  Andrew D. Selbst,et al.  Big Data's Disparate Impact , 2016 .

[64]  S. Rompf.  The Social Construction of Trust , 2015 .

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

[66]  Jonathan G. S. Koppell.  Pathologies of Accountability: ICANN and the Challenge of “Multiple Accountabilities Disorder” , 2005 .

[67]  I. Marková.  Dialogicality and social representations: The dynamics of mind. , 2003 .

[68]  D. Ferrin,et al.  Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[69]  Dale T. Miller,et al.  Disrespect and the experience of injustice. , 2001, Annual review of psychology.

[70]  R. Mulgan.  'Accountability': an ever-expanding concept? , 2000 .

[71]  B. Zimmerman,et al.  Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn. , 2000, Contemporary educational psychology.

[72]  Roderick M. Kramer,et al.  Swift trust and temporary groups. , 1996 .

[73]  D. Gilbert,et al.  The correspondence bias. , 1995, Psychological bulletin.

[74]  P. Tetlock.  The Impact of Accountability on Judgment and Choice: Toward A Social Contingency Model , 1992 .

[75]  A. Giddens.  The consequences of modernity , 1990 .

[76]  L. Ross.  The Intuitive Psychologist And His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process1 , 1977 .