IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ecopol/v37y2025i1p420-441.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Bing Wang
  • Longxiang Luo
  • Xiuli Wang

Abstract

The integration of algorithmic decision‐making into daily life gives rise to a need to understand public attitudes toward this phenomenon. This study uses online experiments to explore how decision scenarios and roles influence public preferences for algorithms. In‐depth interviews were conducted to examine interpretations of algorithmic fairness. The findings indicate a preference for algorithms, yet a stronger preference for human decision‐making in ethically complex scenarios. Decision‐makers demonstrate greater acceptance of algorithms. Participants perceive algorithmic fairness from social and technical perspectives, emphasizing autonomy and transparency. Despite a general preference for algorithms, concerns persist, revealing a nuanced view of algorithmic fairness as a form of societal power.

Suggested Citation

  • Bing Wang & Longxiang Luo & Xiuli Wang, 2025. "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," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 420-441, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:ecopol:v:37:y:2025:i:1:p:420-441
    DOI: 10.1111/ecpo.12325
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ecpo.12325
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ecpo.12325?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ecopol:v:37:y:2025:i:1:p:420-441. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0954-1985 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.