IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/2yf6r.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Ensembling AI and Public Managers Improves Decision-Making

Author

Listed:
  • Keppeler, Florian
  • Borchert, Jana
  • Pedersen, Mogens Jin
  • Nielsen, Vibeke Lehmann

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications are transforming public sector decision-making. However, most research conceptualizes AI as a form of specialized algorithmic decision support tool. In contrast, this study introduces the concept of human-AI ensembles, where humans and AI tackle the same tasks together, rather than specializing in certain parts. We argue that this is particularly relevant for many public sector decisions, where neither human nor AI-based decision-making has a clear advantage over the other in terms of legitimacy, efficacy, or legality. We illustrate this design theory within access to public employment, focusing on two key areas: (a) the potential of ensembling human and AI to reduce biases and (b) the inclinations of public managers to use AI advice. Study 1 presents evidence from the assessment of real-life job candidates (n = 2,000) at the intersection of gender and ethnicity by public managers compared to AI. The results indicate that ensembled decision- making may alleviate ethnic biases. Study 2 examines how receptive public managers are to AI advice. Results from a pre-registered survey experiment involving managers (n = 538 with 4 observations each) show that decision-makers, when reminded of the unlawfulness of hiring discrimination, prioritize AI advice over human advice.

Suggested Citation

  • Keppeler, Florian & Borchert, Jana & Pedersen, Mogens Jin & Nielsen, Vibeke Lehmann, 2024. "How Ensembling AI and Public Managers Improves Decision-Making," OSF Preprints 2yf6r, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:2yf6r
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/2yf6r
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/66c5c875d696426ac4c5d346/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/2yf6r?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. Buurman, Margaretha & Delfgaauw, Josse & Dur, Robert & Van den Bossche, Seth, 2012. "Public sector employees: Risk averse and altruistic?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(3), pages 279-291.
    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. Maria Cotofan, 2019. "Learning from Praise: Evidence from a Field Experiment with Teachers," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 19-082/V, Tinbergen Institute.
    2. Bucciol, Alessandro & Burro, Giovanni, 2022. "Is there a happiness premium for working in the public sector? Evidence from Italy," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    3. Daniel H. Bowen & Stuart Buck & Cary Deck & Jonathan N. Mills & James V. Shuls, 2015. "Risky business: an analysis of teacher risk preferences," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(4), pages 470-480, August.
    4. Janne Tukiainen & Sebastian Blesse & Albrecht Bohne & Leonardo M. Giuffrida & Jan Jäässkeläinen & Ari Luukinen & Antti Sieppi, 2021. "What Are the Priorities of Bureaucrats? Evidence from Conjoint Experiments with Procurement Officials," EconPol Working Paper 63, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    5. Non, Arjan & Rohde, Ingrid & de Grip, Andries & Dohmen, Thomas, 2022. "Mission of the company, prosocial attitudes and job preferences: A discrete choice experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    6. Ayaita Adam & Yang Philip & Gülal Filiz, 2019. "Where Does the Good Shepherd Go? Civic Virtue and Sorting into Public Sector Employment," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 20(4), pages 571-599, December.
    7. Mirco Tonin & Michael Vlassopoulos, 2015. "Are public sector workers different? Cross-European evidence from elderly workers and retirees," IZA Journal of Labor Economics, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 4(1), pages 1-21, December.
    8. Galina Besstremyannaya & Sergei Golovan, 2019. "Physician’s altruism in incentive contracts: Medicare’s quality race," CINCH Working Paper Series 1903, Universitaet Duisburg-Essen, Competent in Competition and Health.
    9. de Grip, Andries & Fouarge, Didier & Montizaan, Raymond, 2020. "Redistribution of individual pension wealth to survivor pensions: Evidence from a stated preferences analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 402-421.
    10. Rinor KURTESH, 2018. "A Systematic Review Of The Internal And External Barriers To Public Sector Innovation In Kosovo," Business Excellence and Management, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 8(3), pages 12-23, September.
    11. Karl Ove Aarbu, 2017. "Asymmetric Information in the Home Insurance Market," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 84(1), pages 35-72, March.
    12. Köllő, János, 2013. "A közszféra bérszintje és a magánszektorból átlépők szelekciója 1997-2008 között [Public-sector pay and flows from the private to the public sector]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(5), pages 523-554.
    13. Diego Cagigas & Judith Clifton & Daniel Díaz-Fuentes & Marcos Fernández-Gutiérrez & Juan Echevarría-Cuenca & Celia Gilsanz-Gómez, 2022. "Explaining public officials’ opinions on blockchain adoption: a vignette experiment [Robots and jobs: Evidence from US labor markets]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(3), pages 343-357.
    14. Stephanie Prümer & Claus Schnabel, 2019. "Questioning the Stereotype of the “Malingering Bureaucrat”: Absence from Work in the Public and Private Sector in Germany," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(4), pages 570-603, November.
    15. Shuping Wu & Zan Yang, 2023. "Government Behavior on Urban Land Supply: Does it Follow a Prospect Preference?," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 264-286, August.
    16. Jung, SeEun & Choe, Chung & Oaxaca, Ronald L., 2018. "Gender wage gaps and risky vs. secure employment: An experimental analysis," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 112-121.
    17. Tina Haussen, 2018. "Intra-Household Income Inequality and Preferences for Redistribution," Jena Economics Research Papers 2018-004, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    18. Banuri, Sheheryar & Keefer, Philip, 2013. "Intrinsic motivation, effort and the call to public service," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6729, The World Bank.
    19. Min-Seok Pang, 2017. "Politics and Information Technology Investments in the U.S. Federal Government in 2003–2016," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 33-45, March.
    20. Dur Robert & Zoutenbier Robin, 2015. "Intrinsic Motivations of Public Sector Employees: Evidence for Germany," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 16(3), pages 343-366, August.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:osfxxx:2yf6r. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.