Expressiveness, Cost, and Collectivism: How the Design of Preference Languages Shapes Participation in Algorithmic Decision-Making
Samantha Robertson, Tonya Nguyen, Cathy Hu, Catherine Albiston, Afshin Nikzad, Niloufar Salehi
Abstract
Emerging methods for participatory algorithm design have proposed collecting and aggregating individual stakeholders’ preferences to create algorithmic systems that account for those stakeholders’ values. Drawing on two years of research across two public school districts in the United States, we study how families and school districts use students’ preferences for schools to meet their goals in the context of algorithmic student assignment systems. We find that the design of the preference language, i.e. the structure in which participants must express their needs and goals to the decision-maker, shapes the opportunities for meaningful participation. We define three properties of preference languages – expressiveness, cost, and collectivism – and discuss how these factors shape who is able to participate, and the extent to which they are able to effectively communicate their needs to the decision-maker. Reflecting on these findings, we offer implications and paths forward for researchers and practitioners who are considering applying a preference-based model for participation in algorithmic decision making.
Ask about this paper
Ask your agent about it.
Lune has read the top-tier papers around this one, so every answer names the papers it rests on.
Cited by top-tier papers2
- Understanding Contestability on the Margins: Implications for the Design of Algorithmic Decision-making in Public ServicesNaveena Karusala, Sohini Upadhyay, Rajesh Veeraraghavan, Krzysztof Z. GajosCHI 2024 · 33 citations
- People Can Accurately Predict Behavior of Complex Algorithms That Are Available, Compact, and Aligned CSCW031Lindsay Popowski, Helena Vasconcelos, Ignacio Javier Fernandez, Chijioke Chinaza Mgbahurike et al.CSCW 2026
Related papers
- Modeling Assumptions Clash with the Real World: Transparency, Equity, and Community Challenges for Student Assignment AlgorithmsSamantha Robertson, Tonya Nguyen, Niloufar SalehiCHI 2021 · 57 citations
- Definitions of Fairness Differ Across Socioeconomic Groups & Shape Perceptions of Algorithmic DecisionsTonya Nguyen, Sabriya Alam, Cathy Hu, Catherine Albiston et al.CSCW 2024 · 4 citations
- Diametrically Opposed Attributes? Review Process Preferences and Priorities When Contesting Algorithmic DecisionsHenrietta Lyons, Tim Miller, Eduardo VellosoCSCW 2025 · 2 citations
- U.S. Southerners’ Attitudes Towards Algorithmic Analysis of Voice Data for High-Stakes Employment and Education EvaluationsAndrea Gallardo, Lily Klucinec, Lujo Bauer, Lorrie Faith CranorCSCW 2026
- A Human-Centered Review of Algorithms in Decision-Making in Higher EducationKelly McConvey, Shion Guha, Anastasia KuzminykhCHI 2023 · 31 citations
