Decisions made by human experts can be as inscrutable as those made by algorithms — but we don’t realise it

By Emma Young Let’s say you’ve been found guilty of stealing a car. Would you prefer that a judge decided your punishment — or an algorithm? Algorithms are increasingly taking over from people in making decisions in everything from the hiring of new employees to healthcare, as well as criminal punishment. But, as the authors of a new paper in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General note, there is mounting public concern about just how algorithms reach their decisions. In some US states, for example, companies that use algorithms in hiring are now obliged to explain the steps of the process. However, “this emphasis on making algorithmic decision-making transparent, although well-motivated, raises a paradox,” argue Andrea Bonezzi at New York University and colleagues. Judges, recruiters and doctors aren’t required to explain every decision. So why do we have such a problem with algorithms doing the same thing? The team thinks it’s because we misguidedly believe that we understand human decision-making better than algorithmic decision-making. In fact, they argue, human decision-makers “are often just as much of a black box as the algorithms that are meant to replace them”. To explore this, the team ran a series of studies. In the first, groups of online participants were asked to consider one of three scenarios in which either a human expert or an algorithm had to make a decision. One scenario involved evaluating the risk of a cr...
Source: BPS RESEARCH DIGEST - Category: Psychiatry & Psychology Authors: Tags: Decision making Source Type: blogs