Abstract
Systems aiming to aid consumers in their decision-making (e.g., by implementing persuasive techniques) are more likely to be effective when consumers trust them. However, recent research has demonstrated that the machine learning algorithms that often underlie such technology can act unfairly towards specific groups (e.g., by making more favorable predictions for men than for women). An undesired disparate impact resulting from this kind of algorithmic unfairness could diminish consumer trust and thereby undermine the purpose of the system. We studied this effect by conducting a between-subjects user study investigating how (gender-related) disparate impact affected consumer trust in an app designed to improve consumers’ financial decision-making. Our results show that disparate impact decreased consumers’ trust in the system and made them less likely to use it. Moreover, we find that trust was affected to the same degree across consumer groups (i.e., advantaged and disadvantaged users) despite both of these consumer groups recognizing their respective levels of personal benefit. Our findings highlight the importance of fairness in consumer-oriented artificial intelligence systems.
T. Draws, Z. Szlávik and B. Timmermans—Current affiliation.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Since conducting this study in June 2019, Figure Eight has been renamed to Appen. More information can be found at https://appen.com.
- 2.
The null model in this procedure consisted of only an intercept.
References
Ahmad, W.N.W., Ali, N.M.: A study on persuasive technologies: the relationship between user emotions, trust and persuasion. Int. J. Interact. Multimed. Artif. Intell. 5(1), 57–61 (2018). https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2018.02.010
Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., Kirchner, L.: Machine bias: there’s software used across the country to predict future criminals and it’s biased against blacks. ProPublica (2019). https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing
Araujo, T., Helberger, N., Kruikemeier, S., de Vreese, C.H.: In AI we trust? Perceptions about automated decision-making by artificial intelligence. AI Soc. 35(3), 611–623 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00931-w
Arnold, M., et al.: FactSheets: increasing trust in AI services through supplier’s declarations of conformity. IBM J. Res. Dev. 63(4–5) (2019). https://doi.org/10.1147/JRD.2019.2942288
Baeckström, Y., Silvester, J., Pownall, R.A.: Millionaire investors: financial advisors, attribution theory and gender differences. Eur. J. Financ. 24(15), 1333–1349 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/1351847X.2018.1438301
Barocas, S., Selbst, A.D.: Big data’s disparate impact. Calif. Law Rev. 104(671), 671–732 (2016)
Bellamy, R.K., et al.: AI fairness 360: an extensible toolkit for detecting and mitigating algorithmic bias. IBM J. Res. Dev. 63(4–5) (2019). https://doi.org/10.1147/JRD.2019.2942287
Corbett-Davies, S., Goel, S.: The Measure and Mismeasure of Fairness: A Critical Review of Fair Machine Learning. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1808.00023 (2018)
Cramer, A.O.J., et al.: Hidden multiplicity in exploratory multiway ANOVA: prevalence and remedies. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 23(2), 640–647 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0913-5
Cummings, M.L.: Automation bias in intelligent time critical decision support systems. Collect. In: AIAA 1st Intelligent Systems Technical Conference, Technical Paper, vol. 2, pp. 557–562 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2004-6313
Diab, D.L., Pui, S.Y., Yankelevich, M., Highhouse, S.: Lay perceptions of selection decision aids in US and non-US samples. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 19(2), 209–216 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2011.00548.x
Dietvorst, B.J., Simmons, J.P., Massey, C.: Algorithm aversion: people erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 144(1), 114–126 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000033
Feldman, M., Friedler, S.A., Moeller, J., Scheidegger, C., Venkatasubramanian, S.: Certifying and removing disparate impact. In: Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 259–268 (2015)
Ham, J., van den Bos, K.: Not fair for me! the influence of personal relevance on social justice inferences. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44(3), 699–705 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.04.009
Hardt, M., Price, E., Srebro, N.: Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In: Advances Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 3323–3331 (2016)
JASP Team: JASP (Version 0.14) (2020)
Jeffreys, H.: Theory of Probability. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1939)
Lee, M.D., Wagenmakers, E.J.: Bayesian Cognitive Modeling: A Practical Course. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2014). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139087759
Lee, M.K.: Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management. Big Data Soc. 5(1), 1–16 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718756684
Lieber, R.: Financial Advice for People Who Aren’t Rich, April 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/12/your-money/start-ups-offer-financial-advice-to-people-who-arent-rich.html
Mary, J.J., Calauzènes, C., Karoui, N.E.: Fairness-aware learning for continuous attributes and treatments. In: ICML 97, pp. 4382–4391 (2019). http://proceedings.mlr.press/v97/mary19a.html
Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., Galstyan, A.: A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1908.09635 (2019)
Muir, B.M., Moray, N.: Trust in automation. Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics 39(3), 429–460 (1996)
Mullainathan, S., Noeth, M., Schoar, A.: The market for financial advice: an audit study. SSRN Electron. J. (2012). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1572334
Napierala, M.A.: What Is the Bonferroni correction? (2012). http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/apr12/research7.asp
Nickel, P., Spahn, A.: Trust, discourse ethics, and persuasive technology. In: Persuasive Technology: Design for Health and Safety, 7th International Conference Persuasive Technology 2012, pp. 37–40. Linköping University Electronic Press (2012)
Ntoutsi, E., et al.: Bias in data-driven artificial intelligence systems—an introductory survey. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 10(3), 1–14 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1356
Oinas-Kukkonen, H., Harjumaa, M.: Towards deeper understanding of persuasion in software and information systems. In: Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Advanced Computer Interaction, ACHI 2008 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACHI.2008.31
Önkal, D., Goodwin, P., Thomson, M., Gönül, S., Pollock, A.: The relative influence of advice from human experts and statistical methods on forecast adjustments. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 22(4), 390–409 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.637
Orji, R., Moffatt, K.: Persuasive technology for health and wellness: State-of-the-art and emerging trends. Health Inform. J. 24(1), 66–91 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/1460458216650979
Otterbacher, J., Checco, A., Demartini, G., Clough, P.: Investigating user perception of gender bias in image search: the role of sexism. In: 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR 2018, pp. 933–936 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3209978.3210094
Promberger, M., Baron, J.: Do patients trust computers? J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 19(5), 455–468 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.542
Purpura, S., Schwanda, V., Williams, K., Stubler, W., Sengers, P.: Fit4Life: the design of a persuasive technology promoting healthy behavior and ideal weight. In: Proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 423–432 (2011)
Rossi, F.: Building trust in artificial intelligence. J. Int. Aff. 72(1), 127–133 (2019)
Sattarov, F., Nagel, S.: Building trust in persuasive gerontechnology: user-centric and institution-centric approaches. Gerontechnology 18(1), 1–14 (2019). https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2019.18.1.001.00
Smith, J., Sonboli, N., Fiesler, C., Burke, R.: Exploring user opinions of fairness in recommender systems. In: CHI 2020 Workshop Human-Centered Approaches to Fair Responsible AI (2020). http://arxiv.org/abs/2003.06461
Toreini, E., Aitken, M., Coopamootoo, K., Elliott, K., Zelaya, C.G., van Moorsel, A.: The relationship between trust in AI and trustworthy machine learning technologies. In: Proceedings of 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAT* 2020, pp. 272–283 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372834
Van Den Bergh, D., et al.: A tutorial on conducting and interpreting a Bayesian ANOVA in JASP. Annee Psychol. 120(1), 73–96 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3917/anpsy1.201.0073
Varshney, K.R.: Trustworthy machine learning and artificial intelligence. XRDS Crossroads ACM Mag. Students 25(3) (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3313109
Varshney, K.R.: On mismatched detection and safe, trustworthy machine learning. In: 2020 54th Annual Conference on Information Sciences and Systems, CISS 2020 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/CISS48834.2020.1570627767
Verbeek, P.P.: Persuasive technology and moral responsibility toward an ethical framework for persuasive technologies. Persuasive 6, 1–15 (2006)
Verma, S., Rubin, J.: Fairness definitions explained. In: Proceedings of International Workshop on Software Fairness, FairWare 2018, pp. 1–7. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3194770.3194776
Vigdor, N.: Apple card investigated after gender discrimination complaints. New York Times (2019)
Wagenmakers, E.-J., et al.: Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 25(1), 35–57 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1343-3
Woodruff, A., Fox, S.E., Rousso-Schindler, S., Warshaw, J.: A qualitative exploration of perceptions of algorithmic fairness. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, vol. 2018-April, pp. 1–14 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174230
Yang, Q., Banovic, N., Zimmerman, J.: Mapping machine learning advances from HCI research to reveal starting places for design innovation. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, vol. 2018-April, pp. 1–11 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173704
Zafar, M.B., Valera, I., Rodriguez, M.G., Gummadi, K.P.: Fairness beyond disparate treatment & disparate impact: learning classification without disparate mistreatment. In: 26th International World Wide Web Conference on WWW 2017, pp. 1171–1180 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3038912.3052660
Acknowledgements
This research has been supported by the Think Forward Initiative (a partnership between ING Bank, Deloitte, Dell Technologies, Amazon Web Services, IBM, and the Center for Economic Policy Research – CEPR). The views and opinions expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Think Forward Initiative or any of its partners.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Draws, T., Szlávik, Z., Timmermans, B., Tintarev, N., Varshney, K.R., Hind, M. (2021). Disparate Impact Diminishes Consumer Trust Even for Advantaged Users. In: Ali, R., Lugrin, B., Charles, F. (eds) Persuasive Technology. PERSUASIVE 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12684. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79460-6_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79460-6_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-79459-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-79460-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)