Do I Look Like a Criminal? Examining how Race Presentation Impacts Human Judgement of Recidivism
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Understanding how racial information impacts human decision making in online systems is critical in today's world. Prior work revealed that race information of criminal defendants, when presented as a text field, had no significant impact on users' judgements of recidivism. We replicated and extended this work to explore how and when race information influences users' judgements, with respect to the saliency of presentation. Our results showed that adding photos to the race labels had a significant impact on recidivism predictions for users who identified as female, but not for those who identified as male. The race of the defendant also impacted these results, with black defendants being less likely to be predicted to recidivate compared to white defendants. These results have strong implications for how system-designers choose to display race information, and cautions researchers to be aware of gender and race effects when using Amazon Mechanical Turk workers.
Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 4 Feb 2020.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 3; 2022: 4; 2023: 1; 2024: 2; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.
11 papers.
- 2021Towards a Science of Human-AI Decision Making: A Survey of Empirical Studiescited by 85
- 2024Complementarity in Human-AI Collaboration: Concept, Sources, and Evidencecited by 35
- 2022Explanations, Fairness, and Appropriate Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Makingcited by 25
- 2021The Impact of Algorithmic Risk Assessments on Human Predictions and its Analysis via Crowdsourcing Studiescited by 13
- 2022Towards Involving End-users in Interactive Human-in-the-loop AI Fairnesscited by 12
- 2022Towards Responsible AI: A Design Space Exploration of Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence User Interfaces to Investigate Fairnesscited by 9
- 2023Fairness Evaluation in Text Classification: Machine Learning Practitioner Perspectives of Individual and Group Fairnesscited by 7
- 2021On Meritocracy in Optimal Set Selectioncited by 3
- 2026The Consensus Trap: Dissecting Subjectivity and the "Ground Truth" Illusion in Data Annotationcited by 1
- 2022Human Response to an AI-Based Decision Support System: A User Study on the Effects of Accuracy and Biascited by 0
- 2024Underspecified Human Decision Experiments Considered Harmfulcited by 0
- 2026The Consensus Trap: Dissecting Subjectivity and the "Ground Truth" Illusion in Data Annotation11 Feb 2026
- 2024Complementarity in Human-AI Collaboration: Concept, Sources, and Evidence21 Mar 2024
- 2024Underspecified Human Decision Experiments Considered Harmful25 Jan 2024
- 2023Fairness Evaluation in Text Classification: Machine Learning Practitioner Perspectives of Individual and Group Fairness1 Mar 2023
- 2022Explanations, Fairness, and Appropriate Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making23 Sep 2022
- 2022Towards Responsible AI: A Design Space Exploration of Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence User Interfaces to Investigate Fairness1 Jun 2022
- 2022Towards Involving End-users in Interactive Human-in-the-loop AI Fairness22 Apr 2022
- 2022Human Response to an AI-Based Decision Support System: A User Study on the Effects of Accuracy and Bias24 Mar 2022
- 2021Towards a Science of Human-AI Decision Making: A Survey of Empirical Studies21 Dec 2021
- 2021The Impact of Algorithmic Risk Assessments on Human Predictions and its Analysis via Crowdsourcing Studies3 Sep 2021
- 2021On Meritocracy in Optimal Set Selection23 Feb 2021