Intersectional Experiences of Unfair Treatment Caused by Automated Computational Systems
Tom van Nuenen, Jose M. Such, Mark Coté
Abstract
This paper reports on empirical work conducted to study perceptions of unfair treatment caused by automated computational systems. While the pervasiveness of algorithmic bias has been widely acknowledged, and perceptions of fairness are commonly studied in Human Computer Interaction, there is a lack of research on how unfair treatment by automated computational systems is experienced by users from disadvantaged and marginalised backgrounds. There is a need for more diversification in terms of the investigated users, domains, and tasks, and regarding the strategies that users employ to reduce harm. To unpack these issues, we ran a prescreened survey of 663 participants, oversampling those with at-risk characteristics. We collected occurrences and types of conflicts regarding unfair and discriminatory treatment and systems, as well as the actions taken towards resolving these situations. Drawing on intersectional research, we combine qualitative and quantitative approaches in order to highlight the nuances around power and privilege in the perceptions of automated computational systems. Among our participants, we discuss experiences of computational essentialism, attribute-based exclusion, and expected harm. We derive suggestions to address these perceptions of unfairness as they occur.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 36c32c79-1dc2-4fa8-a502-6fd460169402Cited by top-tier papers3
- Healthcare Voice AI Assistants: Factors Influencing Trust and Intention to UseXiao Zhan, Noura Abdi, William Seymour, Jose SuchCSCW 2024 · 39 citations
- Multiuser Privacy and Security Conflicts in the CloudEman Alhelali, Kopo M. Ramokapane, Jose M. SuchCHI 2023 · 3 citations
- Expecting Too Much, Getting Too Little: Exploring the Challenges and Design Opportunities of Asynchronous AI InterviewersMd Nazmus Sakib, Naga Manogna Rayasam, Sanorita DeyCSCW 2026
Builds on8
- Critical Race Theory for HCIIhudiya Finda Ogbonnaya-Ogburu, Angela D. R. Smith, Alexandra To, Kentaro ToyamaCHI 2020 · 397 citations
- Algorithmic Folk Theories and Identity: How TikTok Users Co-Produce Knowledge of Identity and Engage in Algorithmic ResistanceNadia Karizat, Daniel Delmonaco, Motahhare Eslami, Nazanin AndalibiCSCW 2021 · 338 citations
- Problematic Machine Behavior: A Systematic Literature Review of Algorithm AuditsJack BandyCSCW 2021 · 190 citations
- Everyday Algorithm Auditing: Understanding the Power of Everyday Users in Surfacing Harmful Algorithmic BehaviorsHong Shen, Alicia DeVos, Motahhare Eslami, Kenneth HolsteinCSCW 2021 · 156 citations
- Who Is Included in Human Perceptions of AI?: Trust and Perceived Fairness around Healthcare AI and Cultural MistrustMin Kyung Lee, Katherine RichCHI 2021 · 135 citations
Related papers
- Skin-Deep Bias: How Avatar Appearances Shape Perceptions of AI HiringKa Hei Carrie Lau, Philipp Stark, Efe Bozkir, Enkelejda KasneciCHI 2026 · 1 citation
- Lay Perceptions of Algorithmic Discrimination in the Context of Systemic InjusticeGabriel Lima, Nina Grgic-Hlaca, Markus Langer, Yixin ZouCHI 2025 · 6 citations
- Bounding and Approximating Intersectional Fairness through Marginal FairnessMathieu Molina, Patrick LoiseauNeurIPS 2022 · 16 citations
- Articulation Work and Tinkering for Fairness in Machine LearningMiriam Fahimi, Mayra Russo, Kristen M. Scott, Maria-Esther Vidal et al.CSCW 2024 · 4 citations
- Intersectional AI: A Study of How Information Science Students Think about Ethics and Their ImpactNora McDonald, Shimei PanCSCW 2020 · 43 citations
