Algorithmic Decisions, Desire for Control, and the Preference for Human Review over Algorithmic Review.

In this paper, we explore why decision subjects generally express a preference for human reviewers of algorithmic decisions over algorithmic reviewers. We theorise that decision subjects desire control over the decision-making process in order to increase their chance of receiving a favourable outcome. To this end, human reviewers will be seen as easier to influence than algorithmic reviewers, thus providing more control. Using an online study we find that: (1) people who have a greater Desire for Control over their lives exhibit a stronger preference for human review; (2) interaction with a reviewer is important because it enables influence and ensures understanding; and (3) the higher the impact of a decision, the greater the incentive to influence the outcome, and the greater the preference for human review. Our qualitative results confirm that outcome favourability is a driver for reviewer preference, but so is the desire to be treated with dignity.