Is Algorithmic Accessibility Sufficient? The Pivotal Role of Accessibility and Accountability in Shaping Trust in Automated Decision‐Making

ABSTRACT The widely accepted view that algorithmic accessibility and accountability enhance the perceived trustworthiness of automated decision‐making has not yet been fully validated. This study fills this research gap by conducting two survey experiments using “real‐world” scenarios. We examine participants' trust preferences when exposed to varying levels of algorithmic accessibility and accountability, under different degrees of decision risks. Our findings highlight that algorithmic accountability exerts a stronger influence on the perceived trustworthiness of both algorithms and bureaucrats compared to algorithmic accessibility. Additionally, our research uncovers that the interaction between algorithmic accountability and contextual factors (e.g., high vs. low‐risk scenarios) significantly affects trust in algorithm. This study offers novel empirical insights into the intricate dynamics among algorithmic accessibility, accountability, decision risk, and trust perceptions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Governance
Published
2025-09-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.70067
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Is Algorithmic Accessibility Sufficient? The Pivotal Role of Accessibility and Accountability in Shaping Trust in Automated Decision‐Making

Zongfeng Sun, H. Li
Governance
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Is Algorithmic Accessibility Sufficient? The Pivotal Role of Accessibility and Accountability in Shaping Trust in Automated Decision‐Making

Zongfeng Sun, H. Li
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT The widely accepted view that algorithmic accessibility and accountability enhance the perceived trustworthiness of automated decision‐making has not yet been fully validated. This study fills this research gap by conducting two survey experiments using “real‐world” scenarios. We examine participants' trust preferences when exposed to varying levels of algorithmic accessibility and accountability, under different degrees of decision risks. Our findings highlight that algorithmic accountability exerts a stronger influence on the perceived trustworthiness of both algorithms and bureaucrats compared to algorithmic accessibility. Additionally, our research uncovers that the interaction between algorithmic accountability and contextual factors (e.g., high vs. low‐risk scenarios) significantly affects trust in algorithm. This study offers novel empirical insights into the intricate dynamics among algorithmic accessibility, accountability, decision risk, and trust perceptions.

GovernanceVol. 38(4)
Shandong University (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 74%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
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.