Abstract:With the advent of artificial intelligence (AI) based systems, a new era has begun. Decisions that were once made by humans are now increasingly being made by these advanced systems, with the inevitable consequence of our growing reliance on AI in many aspects of our lives. At the same time, the opaque nature of AI-based systems and the possibility of unintentional or hidden discriminatory practices and biases raises profound questions not only about the mechanics of AI, but also about how users perceive the fairness of these systems. We hypothesize that providing various explanations for AI decision-making processes and output may enhance users' fairness perceptions and make them trust the system and adopt its decisions. Hence, we devised an online between-subject experiment that explores users' fairness and comprehension perceptions of AI systems with respect to the explanations provided by the system, employing a case study of a managerial decision in the human resources (HR) domain. We manipulated (i) the decision-maker (AI or human); (ii) the input (candidate characteristics); (iii) the output (recommendation valence), and (iv) the explanation style. We examined the effect of the various manipulations (and individuals' demographic and personality characteristics) using multivariate ordinal regression. We also performed a multi-level analysis of experiment components to examine the effects of the decision-maker type, explanation style, and their combination. The results suggest three main conclusions. The first conclusion is that there is a gap in users' fairness and comprehension perception of AI-based decision making systems compared to human decision making. The second conclusion is that knowing that an AI-based system provided the decisions negatively affects users' fairness and comprehension perceptions, compared to knowing that humans made the decision. Finally, the third conclusion is that providing case-based, certification-based, or sensitivity-based explanations can narrow this gap and may even eliminate it. Additionally, we found that users' fairness and comprehension perceptions are influenced by a variety of factors such as the input, output, and explanation provided by the system, as well as by individuals' age, education, computer skills, and personality. Our findings may help to understand when and how to use explanations to improve users' perceptions regarding AI-based decision-making. CCS CONCEPTS • Human computer interaction (HCI) → HCI design and evaluation methods → User studies • Human-centered computing → Human computer interaction (HCI) → Empirical studies in HCI • Applied computing → Law, social and behavioral sciences → Sociology

'It's Reducing a Human Being to a Percentage'; Perceptions of Justice in Algorithmic Decisions

When the Automated Fire Backfires: the Adoption of Algorithm-based HR Decision-making Could Induce Consumer's Unfavorable Ethicality Inferences of the Company

Human Perceptions of Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: A Case Study of Criminal Risk Prediction

Standardizing fairness-evaluation procedures: interdisciplinary insights on machine learning algorithms in creditworthiness assessments for small personal loans

"The Human Must Remain the Central Focus": Subjective Fairness Perceptions in Automated Decision-Making

Fairness perceptions of algorithmic decision-making: A systematic review of the empirical literature

Perceived algorithmic fairness: An empirical study of transparency and anthropomorphism in algorithmic recruiting

Disentangling Fairness Perceptions in Algorithmic Decision-Making: the Effects of Explanations, Human Oversight, and Contestability

People Perceive Algorithmic Assessments as Less Fair and Trustworthy Than Identical Human Assessments

Dimensions of Diversity in Human Perceptions of Algorithmic Fairness

Machine Decisions and Human Consequences

User Perceptions of Algorithmic Decisions in the Personalized AI System:Perceptual Evaluation of Fairness, Accountability, Transparency, and Explainability

Perception of fairness in algorithmic decisions: Future developers' perspective

Algorithms in the court: does it matter which part of the judicial decision-making is automated?

In AI we trust? Perceptions about automated decision-making by artificial intelligence

Algorithmic Decision-making, Employees' Justice Perception and Deviant Behaviors: the Moderating Role of Decision Favorableness

Who Made That Decision and Why? Users' Perceptions of Human Versus AI Decision-Making and the Power of Explainable-AI

Understanding Relations Between Perception of Fairness and Trust in Algorithmic Decision Making

Inequality threat increases laypeople's, but not judges', acceptance of algorithmic decision making in court

AI Decision Making with Dignity? Contrasting Workers’ Justice Perceptions of Human and AI Decision Making in a Human Resource Management Context

Transparency in Algorithmic and Human Decision-Making: Is There a Double Standard?