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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.10408 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/1801.10408/

## Key facts

- Cited by 91 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 31 Jan 2018.

## Built on by (most cited first, 30 of 91)

- [What Do We Want From Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)? -- A Stakeholder Perspective on XAI and a Conceptual Model Guiding Interdisciplinary XAI Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.07817/) (2021)
- [Towards a Science of Human-AI Decision Making: A Survey of Empirical Studies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.11471/) (2021)
- [Towards Human-centered Explainable AI: A Survey of User Studies for Model Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.11584/) (2022)
- [If Only We Had Better Counterfactual Explanations: Five Key Deficits to Rectify in the Evaluation of Counterfactual XAI Techniques](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.01035/) (2021)
- [Explanations in Autonomous Driving: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.05154/) (2021)
- [Understanding the Role of Human Intuition on Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making with Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.07255/) (2023)
- [Who Should I Trust: AI or Myself? Leveraging Human and AI Correctness Likelihood to Promote Appropriate Trust in AI-Assisted Decision-Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.05809/) (2023)
- [The Who in XAI: How AI Background Shapes Perceptions of AI Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.13509/) (2021)
- [Is Stack Overflow Obsolete? An Empirical Study of the Characteristics of ChatGPT Answers to Stack Overflow Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.02312/) (2023)
- [Towards Human-AI Deliberation: Design and Evaluation of LLM-Empowered Deliberative AI for AI-Assisted Decision-Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.16812/) (2024)
- [Interpretable Data-Based Explanations for Fairness Debugging](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.09745/) (2021)
- [Selective Explanations: Leveraging Human Input to Align Explainable AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.09656/) (2023)
- [Fairness Perceptions of Algorithmic Decision-Making: A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.12016/) (2021)
- [Outlining Traceability: A Principle for Operationalizing Accountability in Computing Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.09385/) (2021)
- [Explain, Edit, and Understand: Rethinking User Study Design for Evaluating Model Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.09669/) (2021)
- [Explanations, Fairness, and Appropriate Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.11812/) (2022)
- [Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) from a user perspective- A synthesis of prior literature and problematizing avenues for future research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.15343/) (2022)
- [A Framework and Benchmarking Study for Counterfactual Generating Methods on Tabular Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.04680/) (2021)
- ["There Is Not Enough Information": On the Effects of Explanations on Perceptions of Informational Fairness and Trustworthiness in Automated Decision-Making](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.05758/) (2022)
- [Dissonance Between Human and Machine Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.07337/) (2021)
- [Counterfactual Explanations as Interventions in Latent Space](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.07754/) (2021)
- [A Framework for Fairness: A Systematic Review of Existing Fair AI Solutions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.05700/) (2021)
- [CounterNet: End-to-End Training of Prediction Aware Counterfactual Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.07557/) (2021)
- [XAIR: A Framework of Explainable AI in Augmented Reality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16292/) (2023)
- [Features of Explainability: How users understand counterfactual and causal explanations for categorical and continuous features in XAI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.10152/) (2022)
- [A Critical Survey on Fairness Benefits of Explainable AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13007/) (2023)
- [Multi-Agents are Social Groups: Investigating Social Influence of Multiple Agents in Human-Agent Interactions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.04578/) (2024)
- [Out of Context: Investigating the Bias and Fairness Concerns of "Artificial Intelligence as a Service"](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.01448/) (2023)
- [Directive Explanations for Actionable Explainability in Machine Learning Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.02671/) (2021)
- [Co-Writing with AI, on Human Terms: Aligning Research with User Demands Across the Writing Process](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.12488/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Data-driven decision-making consequential to individuals raises important questions of accountability and justice. Indeed, European law provides individuals limited rights to 'meaningful information about the logic' behind significant, autonomous decisions such as loan approvals, insurance quotes, and CV filtering. We undertake three experimental studies examining people's perceptions of justice in algorithmic decision-making under different scenarios and explanation styles. Dimensions of justice previously observed in response to human decision-making appear similarly engaged in response to algorithmic decisions. Qualitative analysis identified several concerns and heuristics involved in justice perceptions including arbitrariness, generalisation, and (in)dignity. Quantitative analysis indicates that explanation styles primarily matter to justice perceptions only when subjects are exposed to multiple different styles---under repeated exposure of one style, scenario effects obscure any explanation effects. Our results suggests there may be no 'best' approach to explaining algorithmic decisions, and that reflection on their automated nature both implicates and mitigates justice dimensions.