Artificial fairness? Trust in algorithmic police decision-making.
Ontology highlight
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
Similar Datasets
Project description:In healthcare, the development and deployment of insufficiently fair systems of artificial intelligence (AI) can undermine the delivery of equitable care. Assessments of AI models stratified across subpopulations have revealed inequalities in how patients are diagnosed, treated and billed. In this Perspective, we outline fairness in machine learning through the lens of healthcare, and discuss how algorithmic biases (in data acquisition, genetic variation and intra-observer labelling variability, in particular) arise in clinical workflows and the resulting healthcare disparities. We also review emerging technology for mitigating biases via disentanglement, federated learning and model explainability, and their role in the development of AI-based software as a medical device.
| S-EPMC10632090 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceSurgeons make complex, high-stakes decisions under time constraints and uncertainty, with significant effect on patient outcomes. This review describes the weaknesses of traditional clinical decision-support systems and proposes that artificial intelligence should be used to augment surgical decision-making.ObservationsSurgical decision-making is dominated by hypothetical-deductive reasoning, individual judgment, and heuristics. These factors can lead to bias, error, and preventable harm. Traditional predictive analytics and clinical decision-support systems are intended to augment surgical decision-making, but their clinical utility is compromised by time-consuming manual data management and suboptimal accuracy. These challenges can be overcome by automated artificial intelligence models fed by livestreaming electronic health record data with mobile device outputs. This approach would require data standardization, advances in model interpretability, careful implementation and monitoring, attention to ethical challenges involving algorithm bias and accountability for errors, and preservation of bedside assessment and human intuition in the decision-making process.Conclusions and relevanceIntegration of artificial intelligence with surgical decision-making has the potential to transform care by augmenting the decision to operate, informed consent process, identification and mitigation of modifiable risk factors, decisions regarding postoperative management, and shared decisions regarding resource use.
| S-EPMC7286802 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the current study, we separately tested whether coordinated decision-making increases altruism and whether it increases trust. To this end, we implemented a paradigm in which participants repeatedly perform a coordinated decision-making task either with the same partner on every trial, or with a different partner on each trial. When both players coordinate on the same option, both are rewarded. In Experiment 1 (N = 52), participants were sometimes presented with tempting opportunities to defect. In Experiment 2 (N = 97), participants sometimes had to decide whether or not to trust that their partners had resisted such tempting opportunities. The results show that repeatedly coordinating with the same partner increased participants’ resistance to temptation (Experiment 1) but did not increase trust (Experiment 2). These findings support the hypothesis that coordinating with a partner increases altruistic motivation towards that partner; they do not support the hypothesis that coordinating boosts trust.
| S-EPMC9531816 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7028279 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Facial impressions contribute to evaluations of trustworthiness. Older adults are especially vulnerable to trust violations, incurring risks for deception and exploitation. Using the newly developed social Iowa Gambling Task (S-IGT), we examined age-group differences in the impact of facial trustworthiness on decision-making and learning. In the congruent condition (CS-IGT), advantageous decks were paired with trustworthy faces and disadvantageous decks with untrustworthy faces. In the incongruent condition (IS-IGT), this pairing was reversed. Younger (n = 143) and older (n = 129) participants completed either the standard Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), CS-IGT, or IS-IGT. Both age groups preferred trustworthy faces in their initial choices. Older adults performed worse than younger adults across all tasks over time. Further, compared to younger adults, older adults performed worse on the IS-IGT, suggesting that incongruent facial cues interfered with older adults' performance, which aligns with reduced sensitivity to negative social reputations in aging. Multilevel modeling also indicated that age-group differences were most pronounced across all tasks in the last 40 trials. Together these findings suggest that differences between younger and older adults in experience-dependent decision-making are magnified in social contexts that involve a "wolf in sheep's clothing," which may reflect age-related difficulties in integrating incongruent information.
| S-EPMC10762071 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Racial and ethnic minorities have borne a particularly acute burden of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. There is a growing awareness from both researchers and public health leaders of the critical need to ensure fairness in forecast results. Without careful and deliberate bias mitigation, inequities embedded in data can be transferred to model predictions, perpetuating disparities, and exacerbating the disproportionate harms of the COVID-19 pandemic. These biases in data and forecasts can be viewed through both statistical and sociological lenses, and the challenges of both building hierarchical models with limited data availability and drawing on data that reflects structural inequities must be confronted. We present an outline of key modeling domains in which unfairness may be introduced and draw on our experience building and testing the Google-Harvard COVID-19 Public Forecasting model to illustrate these challenges and offer strategies to address them. While targeted toward pandemic forecasting, these domains of potentially biased modeling and concurrent approaches to pursuing fairness present important considerations for equitable machine-learning innovation.
| S-EPMC9090910 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6710912 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Punishing norm violations is considered an important motive during rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game (UG). The present study investigates the impact of the power to punish norm violations on people's responses to unfairness and associated neural correlates. In the UG condition participants had the power to punish norm violations, while an alternate condition, the impunity game (IG), was presented where participants had no power to punish norm violations since rejection only reduced the responder's income to zero. Results showed that unfair offers were rejected more often in UG compared to IG. At the neural level, anterior insula and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex were more active when participants received and rejected unfair offers in both UG and IG. Moreover, greater dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity was observed when participants rejected than accepted unfair offers in UG but not in IG. Ventromedial prefrontal cortex activation was higher in UG than IG when unfair offers were accepted as well as when rejecting unfair offers in IG as opposed to UG. Taken together, our results demonstrate that the power to punish norm violations affects not only people's behavioral responses to unfairness but also the neural correlates of the fairness-related social decision-making process.
| S-EPMC4678221 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportancePredictive models using machine learning techniques have potential to improve early detection and management of Alzheimer disease (AD). However, these models potentially have biases and may perpetuate or exacerbate existing disparities.ObjectiveTo characterize the algorithmic fairness of longitudinal prediction models for AD progression.Design, setting, and participantsThis prognostic study investigated the algorithmic fairness of logistic regression, support vector machines, and recurrent neural networks for predicting progression to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD using data from participants in the Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative evaluated at 57 sites in the US and Canada. Participants aged 54 to 91 years who contributed data on at least 2 visits between September 2005 and May 2017 were included. Data were analyzed in October 2022.ExposuresFairness was quantified across sex, ethnicity, and race groups. Neuropsychological test scores, anatomical features from T1 magnetic resonance imaging, measures extracted from positron emission tomography, and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers were included as predictors.Main outcomes and measuresOutcome measures quantified fairness of prediction models (logistic regression [LR], support vector machine [SVM], and recurrent neural network [RNN] models), including equal opportunity, equalized odds, and demographic parity. Specifically, if the model exhibited equal sensitivity for all groups, it aligned with the principle of equal opportunity, indicating fairness in predictive performance.ResultsA total of 1730 participants in the cohort (mean [SD] age, 73.81 [6.92] years; 776 females [44.9%]; 69 Hispanic [4.0%] and 1661 non-Hispanic [96.0%]; 29 Asian [1.7%], 77 Black [4.5%], 1599 White [92.4%], and 25 other race [1.4%]) were included. Sensitivity for predicting progression to MCI and AD was lower for Hispanic participants compared with non-Hispanic participants; the difference (SD) in true positive rate ranged from 20.9% (5.5%) for the RNN model to 27.8% (9.8%) for the SVM model in MCI and 24.1% (5.4%) for the RNN model to 48.2% (17.3%) for the LR model in AD. Sensitivity was similarly lower for Black and Asian participants compared with non-Hispanic White participants; for example, the difference (SD) in AD true positive rate was 14.5% (51.6%) in the LR model, 12.3% (35.1%) in the SVM model, and 28.4% (16.8%) in the RNN model for Black vs White participants, and the difference (SD) in MCI true positive rate was 25.6% (13.1%) in the LR model, 24.3% (13.1%) in the SVM model, and 6.8% (18.7%) in the RNN model for Asian vs White participants. Models generally satisfied metrics of fairness with respect to sex, with no significant differences by group, except for cognitively normal (CN)-MCI and MCI-AD transitions (eg, an absolute increase [SD] in the true positive rate of CN-MCI transitions of 10.3% [27.8%] for the LR model).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, models were accurate in aggregate but failed to satisfy fairness metrics. These findings suggest that fairness should be considered in the development and use of machine learning models for AD progression.
| S-EPMC10630899 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo identify with children, parents and physicians the objectives to be used as parameters for algorithmic decision-making systems (ADMSs) adapting treatments in childhood asthma.MethodsWe first conducted a qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews to explore the objectives that children aged 8-17 years, their parents, and their physicians seek to achieve when taking/giving/prescribing a treatment for asthma. Following the grounded theory approach, each interview was independently coded by two researchers; reconciled codes were used to assess code frequency, categories were defined, and the main objectives identified. We then conducted a quantitative study based on questionnaires using these objectives to determine how children/parents/physicians ranked these objectives and whether their responses were aligned.ResultsWe interviewed 71 participants (31 children, 30 parents and 10 physicians) in the qualitative study and identified seven objectives associated with treatment uptake and five objectives associated with treatment modalities. We included 291 participants (137 children, 137 parents, and 17 physicians) in the quantitative study. We found little correlation between child, parent, and physician scores for each of the objectives. Each child's asthma history influenced the choice of scores assigned to each objective by the child, parents, and physician.ConclusionThe identified objectives are quantifiable and relevant to the management of asthma in the short and long term. They can therefore be incorporated as parameters for future ADMS. Shared decision-making seems essential to achieve consensus among children, parents, and physicians when choosing the weight to assign to each of these objectives.
| S-EPMC10883132 | biostudies-literature