When AI is fairer than humans: The role of egocentrism in moral and fairness judgments of AI and human decisions

Algorithmic fairness is a core principle of trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI), yet how people perceive fairness in AI decision-making remains understudied. Prior research suggests that moral and fairness judgments are egocentrically biased, favoring self-interested outcomes. Drawing on the Computers Are Social Actors (CASA) framework and egocentric ethics theory we examine whether this bias extends to AI decision-makers, comparing fairness and morality perceptions of AI and human agents. Across three experiments (two preregistered, N = 1880, Prolific US samples), participants evaluated financial decisions made by AI or human agents. Self-interest was manipulated by assigning participants to conditions where they either benefited from, were harmed by, or remained neutral to the decision outcome. Results showed that self-interest significantly biased fairness judgments—decision-makers who made unfair but personally beneficial decisions were perceived as more moral and fairer than those whose decisions benefited others (Studies 1 & 2) or those who made fair but personally costly decisions (Study 3). However, this egocentric bias was weaker for AI than for humans, mediated by a lower perceived mind and reduced liking for AI (Studies 2 & 3). These findings suggest that fairness judgments of AI are not immune to egocentric biases, but are moderated by cognitive and social perceptions of AI versus humans. Our studies challenge the assumption that algorithmic fairness alone is sufficient for achieving fair outcomes. This provides novel insight for AI deployment in high-stakes decision-making domains, highlighting the need to consider both algorithmic fairness and human biases when evaluating AI decisions. • Self-interest biases moral and fairness judgements of both humans and AI decision-makers, leading people to perceive unfair decisions as more moral and fairer when they benefit from them. • The self-interest bias is stronger and more substantial for human decision-makers than for AI. • AI is judged more harshly due to lower perceived mind capabilities and reduced liking compared to human agents. • Findings challenge the notion that algorithmic fairness alone ensures just outcomes as human biases in fairness perception must also be addressed when designing AI systems.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Computers in Human Behavior Reports
Published
2025-06-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100719
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
7.16

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

When AI is fairer than humans: The role of egocentrism in moral and fairness judgments of AI and human decisions

Katarzyna Miazek, Konrad Bocian
5 citations
Computers in Human Behavior Reports
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
7.16
article

When AI is fairer than humans: The role of egocentrism in moral and fairness judgments of AI and human decisions

Katarzyna Miazek, Konrad Bocian
article en
5 citations

Abstract

Algorithmic fairness is a core principle of trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI), yet how people perceive fairness in AI decision-making remains understudied. Prior research suggests that moral and fairness judgments are egocentrically biased, favoring self-interested outcomes. Drawing on the Computers Are Social Actors (CASA) framework and egocentric ethics theory we examine whether this bias extends to AI decision-makers, comparing fairness and morality perceptions of AI and human agents. Across three experiments (two preregistered, N = 1880, Prolific US samples), participants evaluated financial decisions made by AI or human agents. Self-interest was manipulated by assigning participants to conditions where they either benefited from, were harmed by, or remained neutral to the decision outcome. Results showed that self-interest significantly biased fairness judgments—decision-makers who made unfair but personally beneficial decisions were perceived as more moral and fairer than those whose decisions benefited others (Studies 1 & 2) or those who made fair but personally costly decisions (Study 3). However, this egocentric bias was weaker for AI than for humans, mediated by a lower perceived mind and reduced liking for AI (Studies 2 & 3). These findings suggest that fairness judgments of AI are not immune to egocentric biases, but are moderated by cognitive and social perceptions of AI versus humans. Our studies challenge the assumption that algorithmic fairness alone is sufficient for achieving fair outcomes. This provides novel insight for AI deployment in high-stakes decision-making domains, highlighting the need to consider both algorithmic fairness and human biases when evaluating AI decisions. • Self-interest biases moral and fairness judgements of both humans and AI decision-makers, leading people to perceive unfair decisions as more moral and fairer when they benefit from them. • The self-interest bias is stronger and more substantial for human decision-makers than for AI. • AI is judged more harshly due to lower perceived mind capabilities and reduced liking compared to human agents. • Findings challenge the notion that algorithmic fairness alone ensures just outcomes as human biases in fairness perception must also be addressed when designing AI systems.

Computers in Human Behavior ReportsVol. 19
Sopot University of Applied Science (PL)
Narodowe Centrum Nauki
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
7.16
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.