IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v35y2024i3p1479-1496.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Anchoring Effect, Algorithmic Fairness, and the Limits of Information Transparency for Emotion Artificial Intelligence

Author

Listed:
  • Lauren Rhue

    (Robert H. Smith School of Business, Decision, Operations, and Information Technologies, University of Maryland at College Park, College Park, Maryland 20740)

Abstract

Emotion artificial intelligence (AI) or emotion recognition AI may systematically vary in its recognition of facial expressions and emotions across demographic groups, creating inconsistencies and disparities in its scoring. This paper explores the extent to which individuals can compensate for these disparities and inconsistencies in emotion AI considering two opposing factors; although humans evolved to recognize emotions, particularly happiness, they are also subject to cognitive biases, such as the anchoring effect. To help understand these dynamics, this study tasks three commercially available emotion AIs and a group of human labelers to identify emotions from faces in two image data sets. The scores generated by emotion AI and human labelers are examined for inference inconsistencies (i.e., misalignment between facial expression and emotion label). The human labelers are also provided with the emotion AI’s scores and with measures of its scoring fairness (or lack thereof). We observe that even when human labelers are operating in this context of information transparency, they may still rely on the emotion AI’s scores, perpetuating its inconsistencies. Several findings emerge from this study. First, the anchoring effect appears to be moderated by the type of inference inconsistency and is weaker for easier emotion recognition tasks. Second, when human labelers are provided with information transparency regarding the emotion AI’s fairness, the effect is not uniform across emotions. Also, there is no evidence that information transparency leads to the selective anchoring necessary to offset emotion AI disparities; in fact, some evidence suggests that information transparency increases human inference inconsistencies. Lastly, the different models of emotion AI are highly inconsistent in their scores, raising doubts about emotion AI more generally. Collectively, these findings provide evidence of the potential limitations of addressing algorithmic bias through individual decisions, even when those individuals are supported with information transparency.

Suggested Citation

  • Lauren Rhue, 2024. "The Anchoring Effect, Algorithmic Fairness, and the Limits of Information Transparency for Emotion Artificial Intelligence," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 1479-1496, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:35:y:2024:i:3:p:1479-1496
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.2019.0493
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.2019.0493
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.2019.0493?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Prithwiraj Choudhury & Dan Wang & Natalie A. Carlson & Tarun Khanna, 2019. "Machine learning approaches to facial and text analysis: Discovering CEO oral communication styles," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(11), pages 1705-1732, November.
    2. Mochon, Daniel & Frederick, Shane, 2013. "Anchoring in sequential judgments," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 69-79.
    3. Bartlett, Robert & Morse, Adair & Stanton, Richard & Wallace, Nancy, 2022. "Consumer-lending discrimination in the FinTech Era," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(1), pages 30-56.
    4. Bates, Douglas & Mächler, Martin & Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve, 2015. "Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 67(i01).
    5. Furnham, Adrian & Boo, Hua Chu, 2011. "A literature review of the anchoring effect," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 35-42, February.
    6. Logg, Jennifer M. & Minson, Julia A. & Moore, Don A., 2019. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 90-103.
    7. Lily Morse & Mike Horia M. Teodorescu & Yazeed Awwad & Gerald C. Kane, 2022. "Do the Ends Justify the Means? Variation in the Distributive and Procedural Fairness of Machine Learning Algorithms," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(4), pages 1083-1095, December.
    8. Gediminas Adomavicius & Jesse C. Bockstedt & Shawn P. Curley & Jingjing Zhang, 2013. "Do Recommender Systems Manipulate Consumer Preferences? A Study of Anchoring Effects," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 956-975, December.
    9. Jorge Mejia & Chris Parker, 2021. "When Transparency Fails: Bias and Financial Incentives in Ridesharing Platforms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(1), pages 166-184, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bauer, Kevin & Gill, Andrej, 2021. "Mirror, mirror on the wall: Machine predictions and self-fulfilling prophecies," SAFE Working Paper Series 313, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    2. Ekaterina Jussupow & Kai Spohrer & Armin Heinzl & Joshua Gawlitza, 2021. "Augmenting Medical Diagnosis Decisions? An Investigation into Physicians’ Decision-Making Process with Artificial Intelligence," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 713-735, September.
    3. Kevin Bauer & Andrej Gill, 2024. "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Algorithmic Assessments, Transparency, and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 226-248, March.
    4. Efendić, Emir & Van de Calseyde, Philippe P.F.M. & Evans, Anthony M., 2020. "Slow response times undermine trust in algorithmic (but not human) predictions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 103-114.
    5. Keding, Christoph & Meissner, Philip, 2021. "Managerial overreliance on AI-augmented decision-making processes: How the use of AI-based advisory systems shapes choice behavior in R&D investment decisions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    6. Adam J. L. Harris & Han-Hui Por & Stephen B. Broomell, 2017. "Anchoring climate change communications," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 387-398, February.
    7. Magdalena Brzozowicz & Michał Krawczyk & Przemysław Kusztelak, 2017. "Do anchors hold for real? Anchoring effect and hypothetical bias in declared WTP," Working Papers 2017-24, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    8. Magdalena Brzozowicz & Michał Krawczyk, 2020. "Honey, Mugs and Caricatures: anchors on prices of consumer goods only hold hypothetically," Working Papers 2020-40, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    9. Köcher, Sören & Jugovac, Michael & Jannach, Dietmar & Holzmüller, Hartmut H., 2019. "New Hidden Persuaders: An Investigation of Attribute-Level Anchoring Effects of Product Recommendations," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 24-41.
    10. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    11. Daniel Fonseca Costa & Francisval Carvalho & Bruno César Moreira & José Willer Prado, 2017. "Bibliometric analysis on the association between behavioral finance and decision making with cognitive biases such as overconfidence, anchoring effect and confirmation bias," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1775-1799, June.
    12. JANSSENS, Jochen & DE CORTE, Annelies & SÖRENSEN, Kenneth, 2016. "Water distribution network design optimisation with respect to reliability," Working Papers 2016007, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    13. Teruaki Kido & Yuko Yotsumoto & Masamichi J. Hayashi, 2025. "Hierarchical representations of relative numerical magnitudes in the human frontoparietal cortex," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-15, December.
    14. Raymond Hernandez & Elizabeth A. Pyatak & Cheryl L. P. Vigen & Haomiao Jin & Stefan Schneider & Donna Spruijt-Metz & Shawn C. Roll, 2021. "Understanding Worker Well-Being Relative to High-Workload and Recovery Activities across a Whole Day: Pilot Testing an Ecological Momentary Assessment Technique," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-17, October.
    15. Christopher Hassall & Michael Nisbet & Evan Norcliffe & He Wang, 2024. "The Potential Health Benefits of Urban Tree Planting Suggested through Immersive Environments," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-12, February.
    16. Siddiqi, Hammad, 2015. "Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic: A Unified Explanation for Equity Puzzles," MPRA Paper 68729, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Jie Zhao & Ji Chen & Damien Beillouin & Hans Lambers & Yadong Yang & Pete Smith & Zhaohai Zeng & Jørgen E. Olesen & Huadong Zang, 2022. "Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    18. Elisabeth Beckmann & Lukas Olbrich & Joseph Sakshaug, 2024. "Multivariate assessment of interviewer-related errors in a cross-national economic survey (Lukas Olbrich, Elisabeth Beckmann, Joseph W. Sakshaug)," Working Papers 253, Oesterreichische Nationalbank (Austrian Central Bank).
    19. Sanroman Graciela & Bertoletti Lucía & Borraz Fernando, 2024. "Consumer Debt and Poverty: the Default Risk Gap," Asociación Argentina de Economía Política: Working Papers 4765, Asociación Argentina de Economía Política.
    20. F J Heather & D Z Childs & A M Darnaude & J L Blanchard, 2018. "Using an integral projection model to assess the effect of temperature on the growth of gilthead seabream Sparus aurata," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-19, May.

    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:inm:orisre:v:35:y:2024:i:3:p:1479-1496. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.