The Impact of Algorithmic Risk Assessments on Human Predictions and its Analysis via Crowdsourcing Studies
As algorithmic risk assessment instruments (RAIs) are increasingly adopted to assist decision makers, their predictive performance and potential to promote inequity have come under scrutiny. However, while most studies examine these tools in isolation, researchers have come to recognize that assessing their impact requires understanding the behavior of their human interactants. In this paper, building off of several recent crowdsourcing works focused on criminal justice, we conduct a vignette study in which laypersons are tasked with predicting future re-arrests. Our key findings are as follows: (1) Participants often predict that an offender will be rearrested even when they deem the likelihood of re-arrest to be well below 50%; (2) Participants do not anchor on the RAI's predictions; (3) The time spent on the survey varies widely across participants and most cases are assessed in less than 10 seconds; (4) Judicial decisions, unlike participants' predictions, depend in part on factors that are orthogonal to the likelihood of re-arrest. These results highlight the influence of several crucial but often overlooked design decisions and concerns around generalizability when constructing crowdsourcing studies to analyze the impacts of RAIs.
Code (1)
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Algorithmic Risk Assessments Can Alter Human Decision-Making Processes in High-Stakes Government Contexts
Governments are increasingly turning to algorithmic risk assessments when making important decisions, such as whether to release criminal defendants before trial. Policymakers assert that providing public servants with a…
Decision MakingDoubting AI Predictions: Influence-Driven Second Opinion Recommendation
Effective human-AI collaboration requires a system design that provides humans with meaningful ways to make sense of and critically evaluate algorithmic recommendations. In this paper, we propose a way to augment human-A…
The Decoy Dilemma in Online Medical Information Evaluation: A Comparative Study of Credibility Assessments by LLM and Human Judges
Can AI be cognitively biased in automated information judgment tasks? Despite recent progresses in measuring and mitigating social and algorithmic biases in AI and large language models (LLMs), it is not clear to what ex…
Information RetrievalMisinformationAlgorithmic Assistance with Recommendation-Dependent Preferences
When an algorithm provides risk assessments, we typically think of them as helpful inputs to human decisions, such as when risk scores are presented to judges or doctors. However, a decision-maker may not only react to t…
Decision MakingOn Using Neural Networks to Learn Safety Speed Reduction in Human-Robot Collaboration: A Comparative Analysis
In Human-Robot Collaboration, safety mechanisms such as Speed and Separation Monitoring and Power and Force Limitation dynamically adjust the robot's speed based on human proximity. While essential for risk reduction, th…