Fairness Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence: A Review and Path Forward

References

• Acikgoz, Y., Davison, K. H., Compagnone, M., & Laske, M. (2020). Justice perceptions of artificial intelligence in selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 28(4), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adadi, A., & Berrada, M. (2018). Peeking inside the black-box: A survey on explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). IEEE Access. 6, 52138–52160. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2870052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ahnert, G., Smirnov, I., Lemmerich, F., Wagner, C., & Strohmaier, M. (2021, June). The FairCeptron: A framework for measuring human perceptions of algorithmic fairness. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 29th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (pp. 401–403). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3450614.3463291
   Google Scholar
• Alan, A., Costanza, E., Fischer, J., Ramchurn, S. D., Rodden, T., Jennings, N. R. (2014). A field study of human-agent interaction for electricity tariff switching. 13th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2014) (pp. 965–972).
   Google Scholar
• Alarie, B., Niblett, A., & Yoon, A. H. (2018). How artificial intelligence will affect the practice of law. University of Toronto Law Journal, 68(Suppl. 1), 106–124. https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj.2017-0052
   Google Scholar
• Albach, M., & Wright, J. R. (2021). The role of accuracy in algorithmic process fairness across multiple domains. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (pp. 29–49). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3465456.3467620
   Google Scholar
• Ambrose, M. L., & Cropanzano, R. (2003). A longitudinal analysis of organizational fairness: An examination of reactions to tenure and promotion decisions. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.266
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antifakos, S., Kern, N., Schiele, B., & Schwaninger, A. (2005). Towards improving trust in context-aware systems by displaying system confidence. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices & Services, MobileHCI ’05 (pp. 9–14). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1085777.1085780
   Google Scholar
• Araujo, T., Helberger, N., Kruikemeier, S., & De Vreese, C. H. (2020). In AI we trust? Perceptions about automated decision-making by artificial intelligence. AI & Society, 35(3), 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00931-w
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barredo Arrieta, A., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., Garcia, S., Gil-Lopez, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., Chatila, R., & Herrera, F. (2020). Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Information Fusion, 58(C), 82–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012
   Google Scholar
• Bai, B., Dai, H., Zhang, D., Zhang, F., Hu, H. (2021). The impacts of algorithmic work assignment on fairness perceptions and productivity. In Academy of Management Proceedings Vol. 2021, No. 1, (pp. 12335). Academy of Management. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2021.175
   Google Scholar
• Bankins, S., Formosa, P., Griep, Y., & Richards, D. (2022). AI decision making with dignity? contrasting workers’ justice perceptions of human and AI decision making in a human resource management context. Information Systems Frontiers, 24(3), 857–875. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10796-021-10223-8/FIGURES/3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banks, J. (2021). Good robots, bad robots: Morally valenced behavior effects on perceived mind, morality, and trust. International Journal of Social Robotics, 13(8), 2021–2038. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00692-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bansal, G., Wu, T., Zhou, J., Fok, R., Nushi, B., Kamar, E., Ribeiro, M. T., & Weld, D. (2021). Does the whole exceed its parts? The effect of AI explanations on complementary team performance. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–16). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445717
   Google Scholar
• Barberis, N., & Thaler, R. (2003). A survey of behavioral finance. In G. M. Constantinides, M. Harris, & R. M. Stulz (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of finance (Vol. 1, pp. 1053–1128). Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Barlas, P., Kleanthous, S., Kyriakou, K., & Otterbacher, J. (2019, June). What makes an image tagger fair? In Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (pp. 95–103). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3320435.3320442
   Google Scholar
• Barnett, A., Savic, M., Pienaar, K., Carter, A., Warren, N., Sandral, E., Manning, V., & Lubman, D. I. (2021). Enacting ‘more-than-human’care: Clients’ and counsellors’ views on the multiple affordances of chatbots in alcohol and other drug counselling. The International Journal on Drug Policy, 94(3), 102910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102910
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Barsky, A., & Kaplan, S. A. (2007). If you feel bad, it’s unfair: A quantitative synthesis of affect and organizational justice perceptions. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 286–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.286
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben Mimoun, M. S., Poncin, I., & Garnier, M. (2017). Animated conversational agents and e- consumer productivity: The roles of agents and individual characteristics. Information and Management, 54(5), 545–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.11.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benbya, H., Davenport, T. H., & Pachidi, S. (2020). Artificial intelligence in organizations: Current state and future opportunities. MIS Quarterly Executive, 19(4), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3741983
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43–55). JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Binns, R. (2020, January). On the apparent conflict between individual and group fairness. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 514–524). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372864
   Google Scholar
• Binns, R. (2022a). Analogies and disanalogies between machine-driven and human-driven legal judgement. Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Research in Computational Law, 1(1). https://journalcrcl.org/crcl/article/view/5
   Google Scholar
• Binns, R. (2022b). Human Judgment in algorithmic loops: Individual justice and automated decision‐making. Regulation & Governance, 16(1), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12358
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Binns, R., Van Kleek, M., Veale, M., Lyngs, U., Zhao, J., Shadbolt, N. (2018, April). It’s reducing a human being to a percentage’ perceptions of justice in algorithmic decisions. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–14). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Bird, S., Dudík, M., Edgar, R., Horn, B., Lutz, R., Milan, V., Sameki, M., Wallach, H., Walker, K. (2020). Fairlearn: A toolkit for assessing and improving fairness in AI. [Microsoft, Technical Report No. MSR-TR-2020-32].
   Google Scholar
• Brockner, J., De Cremer, D., van Dijke, M., De Schutter, L., Holtz, B., & Van Hiel, A. (2021). Factors affecting supervisors’ enactment of interpersonal fairness: The interactive relationship between their managers’ informational fairness and supervisors’ sense of power. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(6), 800–813. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2466
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brockner, J., Konovsky, M., Cooper-Schneider, R., Folger, R., Martin, C., & Bies, R. J. (1994). Interactive effects of procedural justice and outcome negativity on victims and survivors of job loss. Academy of Management Journal, 37(2), 397–409. https://doi.org/10.2307/256835
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, A., Chouldechova, A., Putnam-Hornstein, E., Tobin, A., Vaithianathan, R. (2019, May). Toward algorithmic accountability in public services: A qualitative study of affected community perspectives on algorithmic decision-making in child welfare services. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–12). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Butcher, J., & Beridze, I. (2019). What is the state of artificial intelligence governance globally? The RUSI Journal, 164(5–6), 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/03071847.2019.1694260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camerer, C. (1999). Behavioral economics: Reunifying psychology and economics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96(19), 10575–10577. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.19.10575
   Google Scholar
• Castelvecchi, D. (2016). Can we open the black box of AI? Nature, 538(7623), 20–23. https://doi.org/10.1038/538020a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, M. L., Trafton, G., McCurry, J. M., & Thomaz, A. L. (2021, August). Unfair! perceptions of fairness in human-robot teams. In 2021 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN (pp. 905–912). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/RO-MAN50785.2021.9515428
   Google Scholar
• Charisi, V., Imai, T., Rinta, T., Nakhayenze, J. M., & Gomez, R. (2021, June). Exploring the concept of fairness in everyday, imaginary and robot scenarios: A cross-cultural study with children in Japan and Uganda [Paper presentation]. Interaction Design and Children (pp. 532–536). https://doi.org/10.1145/3459990.3465184
   Google Scholar
• Chen, B. M., Stremitzer, A., & Tobia, K. (2021). Having your day in robot court. UCLA School of Law, Public Law Research Paper (pp. 21–20).
   Google Scholar
• Cheng, H.-F., Stapleton, L., Wang, R., Bullock, P., Chouldechova, A., Wu, Z. S. S., & Zhu, H. (2021). Soliciting stakeholders’ fairness notions in child maltreatment predictive systems. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–17). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445308
   Google Scholar
• Choi, S., Mattila, A. S., & Bolton, L. E. (2021). To err is human (-oid): How do consumers react to robot service failure and recovery? Journal of Service Research, 24(3), 354–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520978798
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chouldechova, A., Benavides-Prado, D., Fialko, O., & Vaithianathan, R. (2018). A case study of algorithm-assisted decision making in child maltreatment hotline screening decisions [Paper presentation]. Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (pp. 134–148). PMLR.
   Google Scholar
• Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. (2015). Chapter 8. Measuring justice and fairness. In R. S. Cropanzano & M. L. Ambrose (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Justice in the Workplace (pp. 187). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Colquitt, J. A., Hill, E. T., & De Cremer, D. (2023). Forever focused on fairness: 75 years of organizational justice in personnel psychology. Personnel Psychology, 76(2), 413–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12556
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 199–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031757
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, K. S., & Hegtvedt, K. A. (1983). Distributive justice, equity, and equality. Annual Review of Sociology, 9(1), 217–241. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.09.080183.001245
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corbett-Davies, S., Pierson, E., Feller, A., Goel, S., & Huq, A. (2017). Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Part F1296 (pp. 797–806). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3097983.3098095
   Google Scholar
• Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cowgill, B. (2018). Bias and productivity in humans and algorithms: Theory and evidence from resume screening (pp. 29). Columbia Business School, Columbia University.
   Google Scholar
• Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., Mohler, C. J., & Schminke, M. (2001). Three roads to organizational justice. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 20, pp. 1–123). Elsevier Science/JAI Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-7301(01)20001-2
   Google Scholar
• Daileyl, R. C., & Kirk, D. J. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as antecedents of job dissatisfaction and intent to turnover. Human Relations, 45(3), 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679204500306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daly, J. P., & Tripp, T. M. (1996). Is outcome fairness used to make procedural fairness judgments when procedural information is inaccessible? Social Justice Research, 9(4), 327–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02196989
   Google Scholar
• De Cremer, D. (2007). Emotional effects of distributive justice as a function of autocratic leader behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(6), 1385–1404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00217.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Cremer, D. (2020). What does building a fair AI really entail? Harvard Business Review
   Google Scholar
• De Cremer, D., & Chun, J. (2021). Algorithmic evaluation and its unfairness: The centrality of respect and the lack thereof [Unpublished manuscript].
   Google Scholar
• De Cremer, D., & De Schutter, L. (2021). How to use algorithmic decision-making to promote inclusiveness in organizations. AI and Ethics, 1(4), 563–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00073-0
   Google Scholar
• De Cremer, D., Kasparov, G. (2021). AI should augment human intelligence, not replace it. Harvard Business Review.
   Google Scholar
• De Cremer, D., & McGuire, J. (2022). Human–algorithm collaboration works best if humans lead (because it is fair!). Social Justice Research, 35(1), 33–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-021-00382-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Managing group behavior: The interplay between procedural justice, sense of self, and cooperation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 151–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37003-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Cremer, D., Brockner, J., Fishman, A., van Dijke, M., van Olffen, W., & Mayer, D. M. (2010). When do procedural fairness and outcome fairness interact to influence employees’ work attitudes and behaviors? The moderating effect of uncertainty. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017866
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Cremer, D., Narayanan, D., Deppeler, A., Nagpal, M., & McGuire, J. (2022). The road to a human-centred digital society: Opportunities, challenges and responsibilities for humans in the age of machines. AI and Ethics, 2(4), 579–583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00116-6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• De Cremer, D., Zeelenberg, M., & Murnighan, J. K. (2013). Social Psychology and Economics. Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• de Fine Licht, K., & de Fine Licht, J. (2020). Artificial intelligence, transparency, and public decision-making. AI & Society, 35(4), 917–926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00960-w
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb01000.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeVito, M. A., Gergle, D., & Birnholtz, J. (2017). Algorithms ruin everything’: #RIPTwitter, folk theories, and resistance to algorithmic change in social media. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI ’17. (pp. 3163–3174). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025659
   Google Scholar
• Diakopoulos, N. (2015). Algorithmic accountability: Journalistic investigation of computational power structures. Digital Journalism, 3(3), 398–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2014.976411
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diakopoulos, N., & Koliska, M. (2017). Algorithmic transparency in the news media. Digital Journalism, 5(7), 809–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2016.1208053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietvorst, B. J., & Bartels, D. M. (2022). Consumers object to algorithms making morally relevant tradeoffs because of algorithms’ consequentialist decision strategies. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 32(3), 406–424. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1266
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietvorst, B. J., & Bharti, S. (2020). People reject algorithms in uncertain decision domains because they have diminishing sensitivity to forecasting error. Psychological Science, 31(10), 1302–1314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620948841
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2018). Overcoming algorithm aversion: People will use imperfect algorithms if they can (even slightly) modify them. Management Science, 64(3), 1155–1170. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2643
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietz, J., Robinson, S. L., Folger, R., Baron, R. A., & Schulz, M. (2003). The impact of community violence and an organization’s procedural justice climate on workplace aggression. Academy of Management Journal, 46(3), 317–326. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040625
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dineen, B. R., Noe, R. A., & Wang, C. (2004). Perceived fairness of web‐based applicant screening procedures: Weighing the rules of justice and the role of individual differences. Human Resource Management, 43(2–3), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodge, J., Liao, Q. V., Zhang, Y., Bellamy, R. K., Dugan, C. (2019, March). Explaining models: An empirical study of how explanations impact fairness judgment. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 275–285). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, L., & Veale, M. (2017). Slave to the algorithm: Why a right to an explanation is probably not the remedy you are looking for. Duke Law & Technology Review's, 16, 18–84. https://doi.org/10.31228/osf.io/97upg
   Google Scholar
• Elahi, M., Abdollahpouri, H., Mansoury, M., & Torkamaan, H. (2021, June). Beyond algorithmic fairness in recommender systems. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 29th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (pp. 41–46). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3450614.3461685
   Google Scholar
• Eslami, M., Vaccaro, K., Lee, M. K., Elazari Bar On, A., Gilbert, E., & Karahalios, K. (2019). User attitudes towards algorithmic opacity and transparency in online reviewing platforms. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–14). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300724
   Google Scholar
• Ferraro, A., Serra, X., & Bauer, C. (2021, August). What is fair? Exploring the artists’ perspective on the fairness of music streaming platforms. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 562–584). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Firestone, C. (2020). Performance vs. competence in human–machine comparisons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(43), 26562–26571. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1905334117
   Google Scholar
• Fjeld, J., Achten, N., Hilligoss, H., Nagy, A., & Srikumar, M. (2020). Principled artificial intelligence: Mapping consensus in ethical and rights-based approaches to principles for AI. Berkman Klein Center Research Publication.
   Google Scholar
• Fleisher, W. (2021, July). What’s fair about individual fairness? In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 480–490). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462621
   Google Scholar
• Fleiß, J., Bäck, E., Thalmann, S. (2020). Explainability and the intention to use AI-based conversational agents. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Explainable and Interpretable Machine Learning (XI-ML 2020).
   Google Scholar
• Folger, N., Brosi, P., Stumpf-Wollersheim, J., & Welpe, I. M. (2022). Applicant reactions to digital selection methods: A signaling perspective on innovativeness and procedural justice. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37(4), 735–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09770-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Formosa, P., Rogers, W., Griep, Y., Bankins, S., & Richards, D. (2022). Medical AI and human dignity: Contrasting perceptions of human and artificially intelligent (AI) decision making in diagnostic and medical resource allocation contexts. Computers in Human Behavior, 133, 107296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107296
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fountaine, T., McCarthy, B., & Saleh, T. (2019). Building the AI-powered organization technology isn’t the biggest challenge, culture is. Harvard Business Review, 97(4), 62–74. https://hbr.org/2019/07/building-the-ai-powered-organization
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gamez, P., Shank, D. B., Arnold, C., & North, M. (2020). Artificial virtue: The machine question and perceptions of moral character in artificial moral agents. AI & Society, 35(4), 795–809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00977-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gino, F., & Pisano, G. (2008). Toward a theory of behavioral operations. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 10(4), 676–691. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.1070.0205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glikson, E., & Woolley, A. W. (2020). Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 627–660. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldfarb, A., & Lindsay, J. (2020). Artificial intelligence in war: Human judgment as an organizational strength and a strategic liability. Brookings Institution.
   Google Scholar
• Goldman, E. (2005). Search engine bias and the demise of search engine utopianism. Yale JL & Tech, 8, 188. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/7858
   Google Scholar
• Gonçalves, J., Weber, I., Masullo, G. M., Torres da Silva, M., & Hofhuis, J. (2021). Common sense or censorship: How algorithmic moderators and message type influence perceptions of online content deletion. New Media & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211032310
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman, B., & Flaxman, S. (2017). European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a “right to explanation”. AI Magazine, 38(3), 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v38i3.2741
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, B. (2020, January). The false promise of risk assessments: Epistemic reform and the limits of fairness. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 594–606). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Green, B. (2022). Escaping the impossibility of fairness: From formal to substantive algorithmic fairness. Philosophy & Technology, 35(4), 90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00584-6
   Google Scholar
• Green, B., & Chen, Y. (2019). Disparate interactions: An algorithm-in-the-loop analysis of fairness in risk assessments. In FAT* 2019 – Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 90–99). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287563
   Google Scholar
• Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600208
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1993.1004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenberg, J. (2002). Advances in organizational justice. Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Greenberg, J., & Cropanzano, R. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Grgić-Hlača, N., Redmiles, E. M., Gummadi, K. P., & Weller, A. (2018a). Human perceptions of fairness in algorithmic decision making: A case study of criminal risk prediction. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference (pp. 903–912). ACM.https://doi.org/10.1145/3178876.3186138
   Google Scholar
• Grgić-Hlača, N., Weller, A., & Redmiles, E. M. (2020). Dimensions of diversity in human perceptions of algorithmic fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.00808.
   Google Scholar
• Grgić-Hlača, N., Zafar, M. B., Gummadi, K. P., Weller, A. (2018b, April). Beyond distributive fairness in algorithmic decision making: Feature selection for procedurally fair learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 32, No. 1). https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11296
   Google Scholar
• Grudin, J. (1996). The organizational contexts of development and use. ACM Computing Surveys, 28(1), 169–171. https://doi.org/10.1145/234313.234384
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gunning, D., Stefik, M., Choi, J., Miller, T., Stumpf, S., & Yang, G. Z. (2019). XAI—Explainable artificial intelligence. Science Robotics, 4(37), eaay7120. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aay7120
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta, M., Parra, C. M., & Dennehy, D. (2021). Questioning racial and gender bias in AI-based recommendations: Do espoused national cultural values matter? Information Systems Frontiers, 24(5), 1465–1481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10156-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hakami, E., & Hernández Leo, D. (2020). How are learning analytics considering the societal values of fairness, accountability, transparency and human well-being?: A literature review. In A. Martínez-Monés, A. Álvarez, M. Caeiro-Rodríguez, Y. Dimitriadis, (Eds.). LASI-SPAIN 2020: Learning analytics summer institute Spain 2020: Learning analytics. Time for adoption? (p. 121–141). CEUR.
   Google Scholar
• Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., Schaefer, K. E., Chen, J. Y., De Visser, E. J., & Parasuraman, R. (2011). A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human–robot interaction. Human Factors, 53(5), 517–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811417254
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannan, J., Chen, H. Y. W., & Joseph, K. (2021, July). Who gets what, according to whom? an analysis of fairness perceptions in service allocation. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 555–565). ACM.https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462568
   Google Scholar
• Harrison, G., Hanson, J., Jacinto, C., Ramirez, J., & Ur, B. (2020). An empirical study on the perceived fairness of realistic, imperfect machine learning models. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 392–402). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372831
   Google Scholar
• Hase, P., & Bansal, M. (2020). Evaluating explainable AI: Which algorithmic explanations help users predict model behavior? In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 5540–5552). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.491
   Google Scholar
• Helberger, N., Araujo, T., & de Vreese, C. H. (2020). Who is the fairest of them all? Public attitudes and expectations regarding automated decision-making. Computer Law & Security Review, 39, 105456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105456
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hobson, Z., Yesberg, J. A., Bradford, B., & Jackson, J. (2021). Artificial fairness? Trust in algorithmic police decision-making. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 19(1), 165–189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Höddinghaus, M., Sondern, D., & Hertel, G. (2021). The automation of leadership functions: Would people trust decision algorithms? Computers in Human Behavior, 116, 106635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106635
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holstein, K., Wortman Vaughan, J., Daumé, H., III, Dudik, M., Wallach, H. (2019, May). Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need? In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–16). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Htun, N. N., Lecluse, E., & Verbert, K. (2021, April). Perception of fairness in group music recommender systems. In 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 302–306). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3397481.3450642
   Google Scholar
• Hunkenschroer, A. L., & Luetge, C. (2022). Ethics of AI-enabled recruiting and selection: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 178(4), 977–1007. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05049-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarrahi, M. H., Newlands, G., Lee, M. K., Wolf, C. T., Kinder, E., & Sutherland, W. (2021). Algorithmic management in a work context. Big Data & Society, 8(2), 205395172110203. 20539517211020332. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211020332
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
   Google Scholar
• Jones, D. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2013). How perceptions of fairness can change: A dynamic model of organizational justice. Organizational Psychology Review, 3(2), 138–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386612461665
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaibel, C., Koch-Bayram, I., Biemann, T., Mühlenbock, M. (2019). Applicant perceptions of hiring algorithms-uniqueness and discrimination experiences as moderators. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2019(1), 18172. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.210
   Google Scholar
• Karizat, N., Delmonaco, D., Eslami, M., Andalibi, N. (2021). Algorithmic folk theories and identity: How TikTok users co-produce knowledge of identity and engage in algorithmic resistance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW2), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3476046
   Google Scholar
• Kasinidou, M., Kleanthous, S., Barlas, P., & Otterbacher, J. (2021). I agree with the decision, but they didn’t deserve this: future developers’ perception of fairness in algorithmic decisions. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 690–700). Canada: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445931
   Google Scholar
• Kasirzadeh, A. (2022). Algorithmic fairness and structural injustice: Insights from feminist political philosophy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.00945. https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534188
   Google Scholar
• Kaur, H., Nori, H., Jenkins, S., Caruana, R., Wallach, H., Wortman Vaughan, J. (2020). Interpreting interpretability: Understanding data scientists’ use of interpretability tools for machine learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–14). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366–410. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0174
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kieslich, K., Keller, B., & Starke, C. (2022). Artificial intelligence ethics by design. Evaluating public perception on the importance of ethical design principles of artificial intelligence. Big Data & Society, 9(1), 205395172210929. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517221092956
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, T. Y., & Leung, K. (2007). Forming and reacting to overall fairness: A cross-cultural comparison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104(1), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.01.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleanthous, S., Kasinidou, M., Barlas, P., & Otterbacher, J. (2022). Perception of fairness in algorithmic decisions: Future developers’ perspective. Patterns, 3(1), 100380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2021.100380
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Köbis, N., & Mossink, L. D. (2021). Artificial intelligence versus Maya Angelou: Experimental evidence that people cannot differentiate AI-generated from human-written poetry. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 106553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106553
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konradt, U., Garbers, Y., Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. (2016). Patterns of change in fairness perceptions during the hiring process. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 24(3), 246–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12144
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kushwaha, A. K., Pharswan, R., & Kar, A. K. (2021). Always trust the advice of AI in difficulties? Perceptions around AI in decision making. In Conference on e-Business, e-Services and e-Society (pp. 132–143). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kuutti, K., Bannon, L. J. (2014, April). The turn to practice in HCI: Towards a research agenda. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3543–3552). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Lai, M. C., Brian, M., & Mamzer, M. F. (2020). Perceptions of artificial intelligence in healthcare: Findings from a qualitative survey study among actors in France. Journal of Translational Medicine, 18(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-019-02204-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langer, M., & Landers, R. N. (2021). The future of artificial intelligence at work: A review on effects of decision automation and augmentation on workers targeted by algorithms and third-party observers. Computers in Human Behavior, 123(4), 106878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106878
   Google Scholar
• Langer, M., Baum, K., König, C. J., Hähne, V., Oster, D., & Speith, T. (2021). Spare me the details: How the type of information about automated interviews influences applicant reactions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 29(2), 154–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12325
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langer, M., König, C. J., & Papathanasiou, M. (2019). Highly automated job interviews: Acceptance under the influence of stakes. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 27(3), 217–234. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12246
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langer, M., König, C. J., Back, C., & Hemsing, V. (2022). Trust in Artificial Intelligence: Comparing trust processes between human and automated trustees in light of unfair bias. Journal of Business and Psychology, 38(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09829-9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Latonero, M. (2018). Governing artificial intelligence: Upholding human rights & dignity. Data & Society, 1–37. https://datasociety.net/library/governing-artificial-intelligence/
   Google Scholar
• Le Bui, M., & Noble, S. U. (2020). We’re missing a moral framework of justice in artificial intelligence. In Dubber, M. D., Pasquale, F., & Das, S. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ethics of AI, (pp. 163–179). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, M. K. (2018). Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management. Big Data & Society, 5(1), 205395171875668. 2053951718756684. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718756684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, M. K., Baykal, S. (2017, February). Algorithmic mediation in group decisions: Fairness perceptions of algorithmically mediated vs. discussion-based social division. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (pp. 1035–1048). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, M. K., & Rich, K. (2021, May). Who is included in human perceptions of AI?: Trust and perceived fairness around healthcare AI and cultural mistrust. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–14). https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445570
   Google Scholar
• Lee, M. K., Jain, A., Cha, H. J., Ojha, S., Kusbit, D. (2019a). Procedural justice in algorithmic fairness: Leveraging transparency and outcome control for fair algorithmic mediation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359284
   Google Scholar
• Lee, M. K., Kusbit, D., Kahng, A., Kim, J. T., Yuan, X., Chan, A., See, D. (2019b). WeBuildAI: Participatory Framework for Algorithmic Governance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359283
   Google Scholar
• Lepri, B., Oliver, N., Letouzé, E., Pentland, A., & Vinck, P. (2018). Fair, transparent, and accountable algorithmic decision-making processes. Philosophy & Technology, 31(4), 611–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0279-x
   Google Scholar
• Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations. In L. Berkowitz & W. Walster (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 91–131). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Li, L., Lassiter, T., Oh, J., Lee, M. K. (2021, July). Algorithmic hiring in practice: Recruiter and HR professional’s perspectives on AI use in hiring. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (pp. 166–176). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Lima, G., Grgić-Hlača, N., & Cha, M. (2021, May). Human perceptions on moral responsibility of AI: A case study in AI-assisted bail decision-making. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–17). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445260
   Google Scholar
• Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Litoiu, A., Ullman, D., Kim, J., & Scassellati, B. (2015, March). Evidence that robots trigger a cheating detector in humans. In Proceedings of the Tenth Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 165–172). https://doi.org/10.1145/2696454.2696456
   Google Scholar
• Logg, J. M., Minson, J. A., & Moore, D. A. (2019). Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Longoni, C., Bonezzi, A., & Morewedge, C. K. (2019). Resistance to medical artificial intelligence. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(4), 629–650. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucz013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyons, H., Velloso, E., & Miller, T. (2021). Fair and Responsible AI: A focus on the ability to contest. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.10787
   Google Scholar
• Marcinkowski, F., Kieslich, K., Starke, C., Lünich, M. (2020, January). Implications of AI (un-) fairness in higher education admissions: The effects of perceived AI (un-) fairness on exit, voice and organizational reputation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 122–130). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, K. (2019). Ethical implications and accountability of algorithms. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(4), 835–850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3921-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Masrour, F., Tan, P. N., & Esfahanian, A. H. (2020, November). Fairness perception from a network-centric perspective. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) (pp. 1178–1183). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDM50108.2020.00145
   Google Scholar
• McGuire, J., & De Cremer, D. (2022). Algorithms, leadership, and morality: Why a mere human effect drives the preference for human over algorithmic leadership. AI and Ethics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00192-2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2022). A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(6), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3457607
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, S. M., & Keiser, L. R. (2021). Representative bureaucracy and attitudes toward automated decision making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, T. (2019). Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial Intelligence, 267(C), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007
   Google Scholar
• Mirowska, A., & Mesnet, L. (2022). Preferring the devil you know: Potential applicant reactions to artificial intelligence evaluation of interviews. Human Resource Management Journal, 32(2), 364–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12393
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, S., Potash, E., Barocas, S., D'Amour, A., & Lum, K. (2021). Algorithmic fairness: Choices, assumptions, and definitions. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 8(1), 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-042720-125902
   Google Scholar
• Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 205395171667967. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morse, L., Teodorescu, M. H. M., Awwad, Y., & Kane, G. C. (2022). Do the ends justify the means? Variation in the distributive and procedural fairness of machine learning algorithms. Journal of Business Ethics, 181(4), 1083–1095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04939-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagtegaal, R. (2021). The impact of using algorithms for managerial decisions on public employees’ procedural justice. Government Information Quarterly, 38(1), 101536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101536
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, D. T., Fast, N. J., & Harmon, D. J. (2020). When eliminating bias isn’t fair: Algorithmic reductionism and procedural justice in human resource decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 149–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.03.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble, S. M., Foster, L. L., & Craig, S. B. (2021). The procedural and interpersonal justice of automated application and resume screening. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 29(2), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12320
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble, S. U. (2013). Google search: Hyper-visibility as a means of rendering black women and girls invisible. InVisible Culture, 19. https://doi.org/10.47761/494a02f6.50883fff
   Google Scholar
• Nørskov, S., Damholdt, M. F., Ulhøi, J. P., Jensen, M. B., Ess, C., & Seibt, J. (2020). Applicant fairness perceptions of a robot-mediated job interview: A video vignette-based experimental survey. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 7(163), 586263. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2020.586263
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ogunniye, G., Legastelois, B., Rovatsos, M., Dowthwaite, L., Portillo, V., Perez Vallejos, E., Zhao, J., & Jirotka, M. (2021). Understanding user perceptions of trustworthiness in E-recruitment systems. IEEE Internet Computing, 25(6), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2021.3115670
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ötting, S. K., & Maier, G. W. (2018). The importance of procedural justice in human–machine interactions: Intelligent systems as new decision agents in organizations. Computers in Human Behavior, 89(479), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.022
   Google Scholar
• Park, H., Ahn, D., Hosanagar, K., & Lee, J. (2021, May). Human-AI interaction in human resource management: Understanding why employees resist algorithmic evaluation at workplaces and how to mitigate burdens. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–15). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445304
   Google Scholar
• Pierson, E. (2017). Demographics and discussion influence views on algorithmic fairness. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.09124
   Google Scholar
• Rader, E., Cotter, K., & Cho, J. (2018). Explanations as mechanisms for supporting algorithmic transparency. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–13). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173677
   Google Scholar
• Rader, E., & Gray, R. (2015). Understanding user beliefs about algorithmic curation in the facebook news feed. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI’15 (pp. 173–82). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702174
   Google Scholar
• Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajkomar, A., Hardt, M., Howell, M. D., Corrado, G., & Chin, M. H. (2018). Ensuring fairness in machine learning to advance health equity. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(12), 866–872. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-1990
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Renier, L. A., Mast, M. S., & Bekbergenova, A. (2021). To err is human, not algorithmic–Robust reactions to erring algorithms. Computers in Human Behavior, 124(C), 106879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106879
   Google Scholar
• Robert, L. P., Pierce, C., Marquis, L., Kim, S., & Alahmad, R. (2020). Designing fair AI for managing employees in organizations: A review, critique, and design agenda. Human–Computer Interaction, 35(5–6), 545–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2020.1735391
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rolland, F., & Steiner, D. D. (2007). Test‐taker reactions to the selection process: Effects of outcome favorability, explanations, and voice on fairness perceptions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(12), 2800–2826. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00282.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saha, D., Schumann, C., Mcelfresh, D., Dickerson, J., Mazurek, M., Tschantz, M. (2020, November). Measuring non-expert comprehension of machine learning fairness metrics. In International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 8377–8387). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Saxena, N. A., Huang, K., DeFilippis, E., Radanovic, G., Parkes, D. C., & Liu, Y. (2020). How do fairness definitions fare? Testing public attitudes towards three algorithmic definitions of fairness in loan allocations. Artificial Intelligence, 283(5), 103238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2020.103238
   Google Scholar
• Schadenberg, B. R., Reidsma, D., Heylen, D. K., & Evers, V. (2021). “I see what you did there” understanding people’s social perception of a robot and its predictability. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 10(3), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3461534
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schick, J., & Fischer, S. (2021). Dear computer on my desk, which candidate fits best? An assessment of candidates’ perception of assessment quality when using AI in personnel selection. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 4868. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.739711
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlicker, N., Langer, M., Ötting, S. K., Baum, K., König, C. J., & Wallach, D. (2021). What to expect from opening up ‘black boxes’? Comparing perceptions of justice between human and automated agents. Computers in Human Behavior, 122(4), 106837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106837
   Google Scholar
• Schoeffer, J., & Kuehl, N. (2021, October). Appropriate fairness perceptions? On the effectiveness of explanations in enabling people to assess the fairness of automated decision systems. In Companion Publication of the 2021 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (pp. 153–157). ACM.https://doi.org/10.1145/3462204.3481742
   Google Scholar
• Schoeffer, J., Machowski, Y., & Kuehl, N. (2021). A study on fairness and trust perceptions in automated decision making. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.04757
   Google Scholar
• Selbst, A. D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J. (2019, January). Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 59–68). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287598
   Google Scholar
• Shandilya, A., Dash, A., Chakraborty, A., Ghosh, K., & Ghosh, S. (2021). Fairness for whom? Understanding the reader’s perception of fairness in text summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.12406
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, D. L., Buttner, E. H., & Barry, B. (1994). Explanations: What factors enhance their perceived adequacy? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58(3), 346–368. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shin, D. (2020). User perceptions of algorithmic decisions in the personalized AI system: Perceptual evaluation of fairness, accountability, transparency, and explainability. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 64(4), 541–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2020.1843357
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shin, D. (2022). How do people judge the credibility of algorithmic sources? AI & Society, 37(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01158-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shin, D., & Park, Y. J. (2019). Role of fairness, accountability, and transparency in algorithmic affordance. Computers in Human Behavior, 98(1), 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.019
   Google Scholar
• Shin, D., Zaid, B., & Ibahrine, M. (2020, November). Algorithm appreciation: algorithmic performance, developmental processes, and user interactions. In 2020 International Conference on Communications, Computing, Cybersecurity, and Informatics (CCCI) (pp. 1–5). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CCCI49893.2020.9256470
   Google Scholar
• Short, E., Hart, J., Vu, M., & Scassellati, B. (2010, March). No fair!! an interaction with a cheating robot. 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI (pp. 219–226). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI.2010.5453193
   Google Scholar
• Shulner-Tal, A., Kuflik, T., & Kliger, D. (2022). Fairness, explainability and in-between: Understanding the impact of different explanation methods on non-expert users’ perceptions of fairness toward an algorithmic system. Ethics and Information Technology, 24(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-022-09623-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simshaw, D. (2018). Ethical issues in robo-lawyering: The need for guidance on developing and using artificial intelligence in the practice of law. Hastings Law Journal, 70(1), 173. https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol70/iss1/4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skewes, J., Amodio, D. M., & Seibt, J. (2019). Social robotics and the modulation of social perception and bias. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, 374(1771), 20180037. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0037
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner, Z., Brown, S., & Walsh, G. (2020, April). Children of color’s perceptions of fairness in AI: An exploration of equitable and inclusive co-design. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, (pp. 1–8). ACM.https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3382901
   Google Scholar
• Smith, J., Sonboli, N., Fiesler, C., & Burke, R. (2020). Exploring user opinions of fairness in recommender systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.06461.
   Google Scholar
• Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonboli, N., Smith, J. J., Cabral Berenfus, F., Burke, R., & Fiesler, C. (2021, June). Fairness and transparency in recommendation: The users’ perspective. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (pp. 274–279). ACM.https://doi.org/10.1145/3450613.3456835
   Google Scholar
• Srivastava, M., Heidari, H., Krause, A. (2019, July). Mathematical notions vs. human perception of fairness: A descriptive approach to fairness for machine learning. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (pp. 2459–2468). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Stai, B., Heller, N., McSweeney, S., Rickman, J., Blake, P., Vasdev, R., Edgerton, Z., Tejpaul, R., Peterson, M., Rosenberg, J., Kalapara, A., Regmi, S., Papanikolopoulos, N., & Weight, C. (2020). Public perceptions of artificial intelligence and robotics in medicine. Journal of Endourology, 34(10), 1041–1048. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2020.0137
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stapleton, L., Lee, M. H., Qing, D., Wright, M., Chouldechova, A., Holstein, K., Wu, Z. S., & Zhu, H. (2022). Imagining new futures beyond predictive systems in child welfare: A qualitative study with impacted stakeholders. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 1162–1177). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533177
   Google Scholar
• Starke, C., Baleis, J., Keller, B., & Marcinkowski, F. (2021). Fairness perceptions of algorithmic decision-making: A systematic review of the empirical literature. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.12016
   Google Scholar
• Stellmach, H., & Lindner, F. (2019). Perception of an uncertain ethical reasoning robot. i-com, 18(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1515/icom-2019-0002
   Google Scholar
• Streicher, B., Jonas, E., Maier, G. W., Frey, D., & Spießberger, A. (2012). Procedural fairness and creativity: Does voice maintain people’s creative vein over time? Creativity Research Journal, 24(4), 358–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.730334
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suen, H. Y., Chen, M. Y. C., & Lu, S. H. (2019). Does the use of synchrony and artificial intelligence in video interviews affect interview ratings and applicant attitudes? Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swart, J. (2021). Experiencing algorithms: How young people understand, feel about, and engage with algorithmic news selection on social media. Social Media + Society, 7(2), 205630512110088. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211008828
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Telkamp, J. B., & Anderson, M. H. (2022). The Implications of diverse human moral foundations for assessing the ethicality of artificial intelligence. Journal of Business Ethics, 178(4), 961–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05057-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1978). A theory of procedure. California Law Review, 66(3), 541. https://doi.org/10.2307/3480099
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomaino, G., Abdulhalim, H., Kireyev, P., & Wertenbroch, K. (2020). Denied by an (Unexplainable) Algorithm: Teleological Explanations for Algorithmic Decisions Enhance Customer Satisfaction (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3683754). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3683754
   Google Scholar
• Törnblom, K. Y., & Vermunt, R. (1999). An integrative perspective on social justice: Distributive and procedural fairness evaluations of positive and negative outcome allocations. Social Justice Research, 12(1), 39–64. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023226307252
   Google Scholar
• Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283
   Google Scholar
• Tulk, S., Wiese, E. (2018). Trust and approachability mediate social decision making in human-robot interaction. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 62(1), 704–708. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931218621160
   Google Scholar
• Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (2015). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In Applied social psychology and organizational settings (pp. 77–98). Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vaccaro, K., Sandvig, C., Karahalios, K. (2020). “At the End of the Day Facebook Does What ItWants” How users experience contesting algorithmic content moderation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 4, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415238
   Google Scholar
• Vaccaro, M., & Waldo, J. (2019). The effects of mixing machine learning and human judgment. Communications of the ACM, 62(11), 104–110. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359338
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Bavel, J. J., & Pereira, A. (2018). The partisan brain: An identity-based model of political belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(3), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Berkel, N., Goncalves, J., Hettiachchi, D., Wijenayake, S., Kelly, R. M., Kostakos, V. (2019). Crowdsourcing perceptions of fair predictors for machine learning: A recidivism case study. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359130
   Google Scholar
• van Berkel, N., Goncalves, J., Russo, D., Hosio, S., & Skov, M. B. (2021). Effect of information presentation on fairness perceptions of machine learning predictors. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445365
   Google Scholar
• van Berkel, N., Sarsenbayeva, Z., & Goncalves, J. (2023). The methodology of studying fairness perceptions in Artificial Intelligence: Contrasting CHI and FAccT. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 170(C), 102954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102954
   Google Scholar
• van Berkel, N., Tag, B., Goncalves, J., & Hosio, S. (2022). Human-centred artificial intelligence: A contextual morality perspective. Behaviour & Information Technology, 41(3), 502–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1818828
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A., & Lind, E. A. (1998). When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(6), 1449–1458. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1449
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verma, S., & Rubin, J. (2018). Fairness definitions explained. In 2018 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Software Fairness (Fairware) (pp. 1–7). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1145/3194770.3194776
   Google Scholar
• Vimalkumar, M., Gupta, A., Sharma, D., & Dwivedi, Y. (2021). Understanding the effect that task complexity has on automation potential and opacity: Implications for algorithmic fairness. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 13(1), 104–129. https://doi.org/10.17705/1thci.00144
   Google Scholar
• Walker, K., Croak, M. (2021). An update on our progress in responsible AI innovation. Google Blog. https://blog.google/technology/ai/update-our-progress-responsible-ai-innovation/
   Google Scholar
• Wang, A. J. (2018). Procedural justice and risk-assessment algorithms. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3170136 or https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3170136
   Google Scholar
• Wang, R., Harper, F. M., Zhu, H. (2020, April). Factors influencing perceived fairness in algorithmic decision-making: Algorithm outcomes, development procedures, and individual differences. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–14). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, X., & Yin, M. (2021). Are explanations helpful? A comparative study of the effects of explanations in AI-assisted decision-making. In 26th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 318–28). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3397481.3450650
   Google Scholar
• Wangmo, T., Lipps, M., Kressig, R. W., & Ienca, M. (2019). Ethical concerns with the use of intelligent assistive technology: Findings from a qualitative study with professional stakeholders. BMC Medical Ethics, 20(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0437-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Werth, R. (2019). Risk and punishment: The recent history and uncertain future of actuarial, algorithmic, and “evidence‐based” penal techniques. Sociology Compass, 13(2), e12659. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12659
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiener, M., Cram, W., & Benlian, A. (2021). Algorithmic control and gig workers: A legitimacy perspective of Uber drivers. European Journal of Information Systems. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2021.1977729
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, H. J., & Daugherty, P. R. (2018). Collaborative intelligence: Humans and AI are joining forces. Harvard Business Review, 96(4), 114–123. https://hbr.org/2018/07/collaborative-intelligence-humans-and-ai-are-joining-forces
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wojcieszak, M., Thakur, A., Ferreira Gonçalves, J. F., Casas, A., Menchen-Trevino, E., & Boon, M. (2021). Can AI enhance people’s support for online moderation and their openness to dissimilar political views? Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 26(4), 223–243. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wonseok, J., Woo, K. Y., & Yeonheung, K. (2021). Who made the decisions: Human or robot umpires? The effects of anthropomorphism on perceptions toward robot umpires. Telematics and Informatics, 64, 101695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101695
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodruff, A., Fox, S. E., Rousso-Schindler, S., & Warshaw, J. (2018, April). A qualitative exploration of perceptions of algorithmic fairness. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–14). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174230
   Google Scholar
• Yalcin, G., Lim, S., Puntoni, S., & van Osselaer, S. M. (2022). Thumbs up or down: Consumer reactions to decisions by algorithms versus humans. Journal of Marketing Research, 59(4), 696–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437211070016
   Google Scholar
• Yang, S. J. H., Ogata, H., Matsui, T., & Chen, N.-S. (2021). Human-centered artificial intelligence in education: Seeing the invisible through the visible. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100008
   Google Scholar
• Zahedi, Z., Sengupta, S., & Kambhampati, S. (2020). Why didn’t you allocate this task to them?'Negotiation-Aware Task Allocation and Contrastive Explanation Generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.01640
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, L., & Yencha, C. (2022). Examining perceptions towards hiring algorithms. Technology in Society, 68(C), 101848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101848
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, P., Nah, F. F. H., & Preece, J. (2004). Guest editorial: HCI studies in management information systems. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(3), 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290410001669905
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, J., Verma, S., Mittal M.., & F., Chen. (2021). Understanding relations between perception of fairness and trust in algorithmic decision making. In 2021 8th International Conference on Behavioral and Social Computing (BESC) (pp. 1–5). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1109/BESC53957.2021.9635182
   Google Scholar