User Acceptance of Gender Stereotypes in Automated Career Recommendations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Currently, there is a surge of interest in fair Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) research which aims to mitigate discriminatory bias in AI algorithms, e.g. along lines of gender, age, and race. While most research in this domain focuses on developing fair AI algorithms, in this work, we show that a fair AI algorithm on its own may be insufficient to achieve its intended results in the real world. Using career recommendation as a case study, we build a fair AI career recommender by employing gender debiasing machine learning techniques. Our offline evaluation showed that the debiased recommender makes fairer career recommendations without sacrificing its accuracy. Nevertheless, an online user study of more than 200 college students revealed that participants on average prefer the original biased system over the debiased system. Specifically, we found that perceived gender disparity is a determining factor for the acceptance of a recommendation. In other words, our results demonstrate we cannot fully address the gender bias issue in AI recommendations without addressing the gender bias in humans.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 75 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Jun 2021.
Builds on
15 of 75 references.
References · 15
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
- 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
- 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,304
- 2017Neural Collaborative Filteringcited by 1,108
- 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 802
- 2018Mitigating Unwanted Biases with Adversarial Learningcited by 663
- 2018A Reductions Approach to Fair Classificationcited by 585
- 2016Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatmentcited by 368
- 2018An Intersectional Definition of Fairnesscited by 126
- 2017Beyond Parity: Fairness Objectives for Collaborative Filteringcited by 93
- 2017On Formalizing Fairness in Prediction with Machine Learningcited by 65
- 2019Attenuating Bias in Word Vectorscited by 64
3 more
- 2020Factors Influencing Perceived Fairness in Algorithmic Decision-Making: Algorithm Outcomes, Development Procedures, and Individual Differencescited by 41
- 2018Bayesian Modeling of Intersectional Fairness: The Variance of Biascited by 23
- 2019Discrimination through optimization: How Facebook's ad delivery can lead to skewed outcomescited by 15
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 0; 2024: 3.
4 papers.
- 2024Leveraging Large Language Models in Human-Robot Interaction: A Critical Analysis of Potential and Pitfallscited by 5
- 2024Measuring Machine Learning Harms from Stereotypes Requires Understanding Who Is Harmed by Which Errors in What Wayscited by 4
- 2022Efficient Gender Debiasing of Pre-trained Indic Language Modelscited by 3
- 2024Interactive Counterfactual Exploration of Algorithmic Harms in Recommender Systemscited by 1
- 2024Interactive Counterfactual Exploration of Algorithmic Harms in Recommender Systems10 Sep 2024
- 2024Leveraging Large Language Models in Human-Robot Interaction: A Critical Analysis of Potential and Pitfalls26 Mar 2024
- 2024Measuring Machine Learning Harms from Stereotypes Requires Understanding Who Is Harmed by Which Errors in What Ways6 Feb 2024
- 2022Efficient Gender Debiasing of Pre-trained Indic Language Models8 Sep 2022