Abstract:To better understand discriminations and the effect of affirmative actions in selection problems (e.g., college admission or hiring), a recent line of research proposed a model based on differential variance. This model assumes that the decision-maker has a noisy estimate of each candidate's quality and puts forward the difference in the noise variances between different demographic groups as a key factor to explain discrimination. The literature on differential variance, however, does not consider the strategic behavior of candidates who can react to the selection procedure to improve their outcome, which is well-known to happen in many domains. In this paper, we study how the strategic aspect affects fairness in selection problems. We propose to model selection problems with strategic candidates as a contest game: A population of rational candidates compete by choosing an effort level to increase their quality. They incur a cost-of-effort but get a (random) quality whose expectation equals the chosen effort. A Bayesian decision-maker observes a noisy estimate of the quality of each candidate (with differential variance) and selects the fraction $\alpha$ of best candidates based on their posterior expected quality; each selected candidate receives a reward $S$. We characterize the (unique) equilibrium of this game in the different parameters' regimes, both when the decision-maker is unconstrained and when they are constrained to respect the fairness notion of demographic parity. Our results reveal important impacts of the strategic behavior on the discrimination observed at equilibrium and allow us to understand the effect of imposing demographic parity in this context. In particular, we find that, in many cases, the results contrast with the non-strategic setting.

On Meritocracy in Optimal Set Selection

Shallow Meritocracy

“They Never Had a Chance”: Unequal Opportunities and Fair Redistributions

Fairness in Matching under Uncertainty

Can selecting the most qualified candidate be unfair? Learning about socioeconomic advantages and disadvantages reduces the perceived fairness of meritocracy and increases support for socioeconomic diversity initiatives in organizations.

Merit-Based Sortition in Decentralized Systems

Fairness and limited information: Are people Bayesian meritocrats?

Fairness in Selection Problems with Strategic Candidates

Enforcing Group Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: Utility Maximization Under Sufficiency

(Un)certainty of (Un)fairness: Preference-Based Selection of Certainly Fair Decision-Makers

Can cognitive dissonance explain beliefs regarding meritocracy?

Subset Selection Based On Multiple Rankings in the Presence of Bias: Effectiveness of Fairness Constraints for Multiwinner Voting Score Functions

Merit norms in the ultimatum game: an experimental study of the effect of merit on individual behavior and aggregate outcomes

The Unfairness of $\varepsilon$-Fairness

Achievement and Fragility of Long-term Equitability

Meritocracy, Elitism and Inequality

Economic Inequality and Belief in Meritocracy in the United States

Dynamic Modeling and Equilibria in Fair Decision Making

Long-Term Fairness in Sequential Multi-Agent Selection with Positive Reinforcement

In Search of Excellence and Equity in Physics

Optimal and Fair Encouragement Policy Evaluation and Learning