"People can change, and patterns can be broken": Contextualizing Tradeoffs in Automated Decision-Making Systems
Automated decision-making (ADM) systems are increasingly deployed in domains such as mortgage lending, prison sentencing, health insurance coverage, and hiring. Designing a responsible ADM system in such high-stakes domains requires ensuring privacy protection, fairness across demographic groups, and robustness against adversarial manipulation. However, prioritizing one of these objectives comes at the cost of another, forcing a choice as to which tradeoff to accept in a deployment. These tradeoffs explicitly or implicitly impact the life, safety, and fundamental rights of the people in a society, and thus, the perceptions and priorities of this population are needed before we can produce appropriate solutions. To this end, we conducted a quasi-experimental study (N = 777) in which participants evaluated four decision-making scenarios with controlled tradeoffs. Participants significantly preferred human decision-making (HDM) over ADM in three of four scenarios, emphasizing the value of human judgment, contextual understanding, and the ability to incorporate non-quantifiable factors. Furthermore, in terms of tradeoffs, our findings not only show that participants' preferences are highly context-dependent, but also that their perception of a specific objective, fairness, extends beyond formal definitions. Participants interpret fairness through multiple lenses, including privacy risks and susceptibility to manipulation, and view unfair or manipulated outcomes as failures of accuracy. Overall, our findings highlight the importance of context-aware and human-centered approaches when designing and governing ADM systems in high-stakes situations. Rather than purely technical objectives, it is essential to evaluate ADM systems based on how their tradeoffs align with specific expectations within a given domain, as well as with societal values and perceptions of harm and fairness.