Perceived fairness and perceived transparency of AI systems according to system's characteristics, personality traits and demographic characteristics

We collected data of 3197 users' fairness perception regarding various configurations of a AI-based system in the recruitment domain, as well as, the demographic and personally characteristics of the participants.

The dataset includes the following columns:

:System characteristics

 :Certification

Uncertificated  system (U)

Certificated system (C)

:Input data

High quality input data (H)

Low quality input data (L)

:Output

Positive outcome (P)

Borderline outcome (B)

Negative outcome (N)

:Explanation style

Control- no explanation (CON)

Case-based (CAS)

Certification-based (CER)

Demographic-based (DEM)

Input influence-based (INP)

Sensitivity-based (SEN)

:Demographic characteristics

:Gender

Female

Male

:Age

18-34

35-50

50+

:Residence

Unites states of America

India

Other

:Education level

High school degree or less

Bachelor's degree

Master's or doctoral degree

:Employment status

Not employed

Employed

:Income level

Above average

Average

Below average

:Personality characteristics

(TIPI questionnaire)

Extraverted, enthusiastic

1-7 (1= disagree strongly up to 7= agree strongly)

Critical, quarrelsome

1-7 (1= disagree strongly up to 7= agree strongly)

Dependable, self-disciplined

1-7 (1= disagree strongly up to 7= agree strongly)

Anxious, easily upset

1-7 (1= disagree strongly up to 7= agree strongly)

Open to new experiences, complex

1-7 (1= disagree strongly up to 7= agree strongly)

Reserved, quiet

1-7 (1= disagree strongly up to 7= agree strongly)

Sympathetic, warm

1-7 (1= disagree strongly up to 7= agree strongly)

Disorganized, careless

1-7 (1= disagree strongly up to 7= agree strongly)

Calm, emotionally stable

1-7 (1= disagree strongly up to 7= agree strongly)

Conventional, uncreative

1-7 (1= disagree strongly up to 7= agree strongly)

:Participants responses

:Fairness evaluation

The participants were requested to report their level of perceived fairness (their view about the fairness of the system - at what level they consider the system as a fair system) on a 6-point Likert scale, from "Extremely fair" (represented as 3) to "Extremely unfair" (represented as -3). The option of "neither fair or unfair" (represented as 0) was excluded from the scale.

:Transparency evaluation

the participants were requested to report their level of perceived transparency (their understanding why the system produced the specific output - at what level they understand why this output was given) on a 6-point Likert scale, from " Thoroughly understand" (represented as 3) to " Thoroughly don't understand" (represented as -3). The option of "neither understand or don't understand" (represented as 0) was excluded from the scale.

:Output Expectation

The participants were requested to report their expectation for the specific output based on the input they received according to the system's scale, 5-point Likert scale from "Strongly recommended" (represented as 2) to "Strongly not recommended" (represented as -2).