Dataset Information

Artificial fairness? Trust in algorithmic police decision-making.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Test whether (1) people view a policing decision made by an algorithm as more or less trustworthy than when an officer makes the same decision; (2) people who are presented with a specific instance of algorithmic policing have greater or lesser support for the general use of algorithmic policing in general; and (3) people use trust as a heuristic through which to make sense of an unfamiliar technology like algorithmic policing.

Methods

An online experiment tested whether different decision-making methods, outcomes and scenario types affect judgements about the appropriateness and fairness of decision-making and the general acceptability of police use of this particular technology.

Results

People see a decision as less fair and less appropriate when an algorithm decides, compared to when an officer decides. Yet, perceptions of fairness and appropriateness were strong predictors of support for police use of algorithms, and being exposed to a successful use of an algorithm was linked, via trust in the decision made, to greater support for police use of algorithms.

Conclusions

Making decisions solely based on algorithms might damage trust, and the more police rely solely on algorithmic decision-making, the less trusting people may be in decisions. However, mere exposure to the successful use of algorithms seems to enhance the general acceptability of this technology.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11292-021-09484-9.

SUBMITTER: Hobson Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8435155 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The United States has experienced prolonged severe shortages of vital medications over the past two decades. The causes underlying the severity and prolongation of these shortages are complex, in part due to the complexity of the underlying supply chain networks, which involve supplier-buyer interactions across multiple entities with competitive and cooperative goals. This leads to interesting challenges in maintaining consistent interactions and trust among the entities. Furthermore, disruptions in supply chains influence trust by inducing over-reactive behaviors across the network, thereby impacting the ability to consistently meet the resulting fluctuating demand. To explore these issues, we model a pharmaceutical supply chain with boundedly rational artificial decision makers capable of reasoning about the motivations and behaviors of others. We use multiagent simulations where each agent represents a key decision maker in a pharmaceutical supply chain. The agents possess a Theory-of-Mind capability to reason about the beliefs, and past and future behaviors of other agents, which allows them to assess other agents' trustworthiness. Further, each agent has beliefs about others' perceptions of its own trustworthiness that, in turn, impact its behavior. Our experiments reveal several counter-intuitive results showing how small, local disruptions can have cascading global consequences that persist over time. For example, a buyer, to protect itself from disruptions, may dynamically shift to ordering from suppliers with a higher perceived trustworthiness, while the supplier may prefer buyers with more stable ordering behavior. This asymmetry can put the trust-sensitive buyer at a disadvantage during shortages. Further, we demonstrate how the timing and scale of disruptions interact with a buyer's sensitivity to trustworthiness. This interaction can engender different behaviors and impact the overall supply chain performance, either prolonging and exacerbating even small local disruptions, or mitigating a disruption's effects. Additionally, we discuss the implications of these results for supply chain operations.