Algorithm Control and Responsibility: Shifting Blame to the User?

We conducted a laboratory experiment where participants could either choose between an equal or unequal allocation, either delegate the choice to an algorithm controlled by another participant. This participant either has a high control on the algorithm (the algorithm follow perfectly the participants' decision) either a low control (the algorithm sometimes follows the participants' decisions). Our results suggest that a high level of control by the participants over the algorithm implies that participants bear full responsibility in the event of an unequal decision. A low level of control by the participants over the algorithm implies that the participants are perceived as 56.17% less responsible than participants who have a high level of control over the algorithm. The delegator is perceived as 56.52% more responsible than the delegator who delegates to an algorithm that is fully controlled. Finally, we demonstrate that participants with low control over the algorithm are more likely to choose an unequal allocation when they can hide themselves behind the algorithm. These results imply that companies might prioritize an algorithm's profitability over ethical considerations, effectively shifting the burden of responsibility to the user.