Social Scoring Systems for Behavioral Regulation: An Experiment on the Role of Transparency in Determining Perceptions and Behaviors

Recent developments in artificial intelligence research have advanced the spread of automated decision-making (ADM) systems used for regulating human behaviors. In this context, prior work has focused on the determinants of human trust in and the legitimacy of ADM systems, e.g., when used for decision support. However, studies assessing people's perceptions of ADM systems used for behavioral regulation, as well as the effect on behaviors and the overall impact on human communities are largely absent. In this paper, we experimentally investigate people's behavioral adaptations to, and their perceptions of an institutionalized decision-making system, which resembled a social scoring system. Using social scores as incentives, the system aimed at ensuring mutual fair treatment between members of experimental communities. We explore how the provision of transparency affected people’s perceptions, behaviors, as well as the well-being of the communities. While a non-transparent scoring system led to disparate impacts both within as well as across communities, transparency helped people develop trust in each other, create wealth, and enabled them to benefit from the system in a more uniform manner. A transparent system was perceived as more effective, procedurally just, and legitimate, and led people to rely more strongly on the system. However, transparency also made people strongly discipline those with a low score. This suggests that social scoring systems that precisely disclose past behaviors may also impose significant discriminatory consequences on individuals deemed non-compliant.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society
Published
2024-10-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1609/aies.v7i1.31690
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Mental Health Research Topics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.52
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Social Scoring Systems for Behavioral Regulation: An Experiment on the Role of Transparency in Determining Perceptions and Behaviors

Mo Chen, Jens Großklags, Carmen Loefflad
3 citations
Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society
Mental Health Research Topics
1.52
article

Social Scoring Systems for Behavioral Regulation: An Experiment on the Role of Transparency in Determining Perceptions and Behaviors

Mo Chen, Jens Großklags, Carmen Loefflad
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Recent developments in artificial intelligence research have advanced the spread of automated decision-making (ADM) systems used for regulating human behaviors. In this context, prior work has focused on the determinants of human trust in and the legitimacy of ADM systems, e.g., when used for decision support. However, studies assessing people's perceptions of ADM systems used for behavioral regulation, as well as the effect on behaviors and the overall impact on human communities are largely absent. In this paper, we experimentally investigate people's behavioral adaptations to, and their perceptions of an institutionalized decision-making system, which resembled a social scoring system. Using social scores as incentives, the system aimed at ensuring mutual fair treatment between members of experimental communities. We explore how the provision of transparency affected people’s perceptions, behaviors, as well as the well-being of the communities. While a non-transparent scoring system led to disparate impacts both within as well as across communities, transparency helped people develop trust in each other, create wealth, and enabled them to benefit from the system in a more uniform manner. A transparent system was perceived as more effective, procedurally just, and legitimate, and led people to rely more strongly on the system. However, transparency also made people strongly discipline those with a low score. This suggests that social scoring systems that precisely disclose past behaviors may also impose significant discriminatory consequences on individuals deemed non-compliant.

Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and SocietyVol. 7
Technical University of Munich (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Mental Health Research Topics
1.52
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.