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

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

Can AI Algorithmic Decision-making Improve Employees’ Perception of Procedural Fairness?

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

The dark side of AI-enabled HRM on employees based on AI algorithmic features

Algorithms in personnel selection, applicants' attributions about organizations' intents and organizational attractiveness: An experimental study

When Self-Humanization Leads to Algorithm Aversion

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

AI recruitment algorithms and the dehumanization problem

The Principles and Limits of Algorithm-in-the-Loop Decision Making

Consumer responses to human-AI collaboration at organizational frontlines: strategies to escape algorithm aversion in content creation

People Prefer Moral Discretion to Algorithms: Algorithm Aversion Beyond Intransparency

After Opening the Black Box: Meta-dehumanization Matters in Algorithm Recommendation Aversion

Employees Adhere More to Unethical Instructions from Human Than AI Supervisors: Complementing Experimental Evidence with Machine Learning

Designing Fair AI in Human Resource Management: Understanding Tensions Surrounding Algorithmic Evaluation and Envisioning Stakeholder-Centered Solutions

For Me or Against Me? Reactions to AI (vs. Human) Decisions That Are Favorable or Unfavorable to the Self and the Role of Fairness Perception

Ethics and discrimination in artificial intelligence-enabled recruitment practices

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

Are algorithms always fair? The study on public preferences toward algorithmic decision‐making: A case study from the perspectives of decision scenarios and social roles

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

The Digital Siren's Call: Accepting Unethical AI Advice

Ruled by robots: preference for algorithmic decision makers and perceptions of their choices