Bias Cues and the Turn to AI: Perspectives from Minority and Marginalized Groups

AI is often criticized for perpetuating social inequality, yet the people most vulnerable to human prejudice may embrace AI as a fairer referee. We tested this paradox across four vignette pre-registered experiments conducted in two social contexts (gender and race), manipulating bias cues (equal vs. unequal) and psychological perspective in the scenario (self vs. third person). When bias was made salient, participants consistently preferred AI to humans. In the gender context, female participants increased AI preference when they imagined themselves as the victim of discrimination, whereas participants with higher perceived marginalization did so when the threat was described in the third person. Such differences between self- and third-person perspectives were not found in the race context. These findings suggest a complex, strategic calculus among vulnerable populations, yet highlight an ethical tension: relying on an ‘impartial’ AI risks masking systemic inequities individuals are attempting to bypass.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
Published
2026-10-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2026.2750610
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

Bias Cues and the Turn to AI: Perspectives from Minority and Marginalized Groups

S. Mo Jones-Jang, Yunju Kim
International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Bias Cues and the Turn to AI: Perspectives from Minority and Marginalized Groups

S. Mo Jones-Jang, Yunju Kim
article en

Abstract

AI is often criticized for perpetuating social inequality, yet the people most vulnerable to human prejudice may embrace AI as a fairer referee. We tested this paradox across four vignette pre-registered experiments conducted in two social contexts (gender and race), manipulating bias cues (equal vs. unequal) and psychological perspective in the scenario (self vs. third person). When bias was made salient, participants consistently preferred AI to humans. In the gender context, female participants increased AI preference when they imagined themselves as the victim of discrimination, whereas participants with higher perceived marginalization did so when the threat was described in the third person. Such differences between self- and third-person perspectives were not found in the race context. These findings suggest a complex, strategic calculus among vulnerable populations, yet highlight an ethical tension: relying on an ‘impartial’ AI risks masking systemic inequities individuals are attempting to bypass.

International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction
Boston College (US), Korea University (KR), Korea University (JP)
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
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.

Laika access coming soon