IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/28222.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Measuring Racial Discrimination in Algorithms

Author

Listed:
  • David Arnold
  • Will S. Dobbie
  • Peter Hull

Abstract

There is growing concern that the rise of algorithmic decision-making can lead to discrimination against legally protected groups, but measuring such algorithmic discrimination is often hampered by a fundamental selection challenge. We develop new quasi-experimental tools to overcome this challenge and measure algorithmic discrimination in the setting of pretrial bail decisions. We first show that the selection challenge reduces to the challenge of measuring four moments: the mean latent qualification of white and Black individuals and the race-specific covariance between qualification and the algorithm’s treatment recommendation. We then show how these four moments can be estimated by extrapolating quasi-experimental variation across as-good-as-randomly assigned decision-makers. Estimates from New York City show that a sophisticated machine learning algorithm discriminates against Black defendants, even though defendant race and ethnicity are not included in the training data. The algorithm recommends releasing white defendants before trial at an 8 percentage point (11 percent) higher rate than Black defendants with identical potential for pretrial misconduct, with this unwarranted disparity explaining 77 percent of the observed racial disparity in algorithmic recommendations. We find a similar level of algorithmic discrimination with regression-based recommendations, using a model inspired by a widely used pretrial risk assessment tool.

Suggested Citation

  • David Arnold & Will S. Dobbie & Peter Hull, 2020. "Measuring Racial Discrimination in Algorithms," NBER Working Papers 28222, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:28222
    Note: LS
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w28222.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Arnold & Will Dobbie & Peter Hull, 2022. "Measuring Racial Discrimination in Bail Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 112(9), pages 2992-3038, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Annie Liang & Jay Lu & Xiaosheng Mu, 2021. "Algorithm Design: A Fairness-Accuracy Frontier," Papers 2112.09975, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2023.
    2. E. Jason Baron & Joseph J. Doyle Jr. & Natalia Emanuel & Peter Hull & Joseph Ryan, 2024. "Unwarranted Disparity in High-Stakes Decisions: Race Measurement and Policy Responses," NBER Chapters, in: Race, Ethnicity, and Economic Statistics for the 21st Century, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Ash, Elliott & Durante, Ruben & Grebenshchikova, Mariia & Schwarz, Carlo, 2022. "Visual Representation and Stereotypes in News Media," CEPR Discussion Papers 16624, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. Brendan O'Flaherty & Rajiv Sethi & Morgan Williams, 2024. "The nature, detection, and avoidance of harmful discrimination in criminal justice," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(1), pages 289-320, January.
    5. Markus Eyting, 2022. "Why do we Discriminate? The Role of Motivated Reasoning," Working Papers 2208, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    6. Ashesh Rambachan, 2022. "Identifying Prediction Mistakes in Observational Data," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of Artificial Intelligence, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Eli Ben-Michael & D. James Greiner & Melody Huang & Kosuke Imai & Zhichao Jiang & Sooahn Shin, 2024. "Does AI help humans make better decisions? A methodological framework for experimental evaluation," Papers 2403.12108, arXiv.org.
    8. Marina Chugunova & Wolfgang J. Luhan, 2022. "Ruled by robots: Preference for algorithmic decision makers and perceptions of their choices," Working Papers in Economics & Finance 2022-03, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Business School, Economics and Finance Subject Group.
    9. Marina Chugunova & Wolfgang Luhan, 2023. "Ruled by Robots: Preference for Algorithmic Decision Makers and Perceptions of Their Choices," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 439, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    10. Eyting, Markus, 2022. "Why do we discriminate? The role of motivated reasoning," SAFE Working Paper Series 356, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    11. Joshua Grossman & Julian Nyarko & Sharad Goel, 2023. "Racial bias as a multi‐stage, multi‐actor problem: An analysis of pretrial detention," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 86-133, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jens Ludwig & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2021. "Fragile Algorithms and Fallible Decision-Makers: Lessons from the Justice System," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 35(4), pages 71-96, Fall.
    2. Nicolás Grau & Damián Vergara, "undated". "A Simple Test for Prejudice in Decision Processes: The Prediction-Based Outcome Test," Working Papers wp493, University of Chile, Department of Economics.
    3. Bharti, Nitin Kumar & Roy, Sutanuka, 2023. "The early origins of judicial stringency in bail decisions: Evidence from early childhood exposure to Hindu-Muslim riots in India," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    4. Paul Goldsmith-Pinkham & Peter Hull & Michal Koles'ar, 2021. "Contamination Bias in Linear Regressions," Papers 2106.05024, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    5. Enzo Brox & Riccardo Di Francesco, 2024. "The Cost of Coming Out," Papers 2403.03649, arXiv.org.
    6. Jason Abaluck & Leila Agha & David C. Chan Jr & Daniel Singer & Diana Zhu, 2020. "Fixing Misallocation with Guidelines: Awareness vs. Adherence," NBER Working Papers 27467, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Patrick Kline & Christopher Walters, 2021. "Reasonable Doubt: Experimental Detection of Job‐Level Employment Discrimination," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(2), pages 765-792, March.
    8. Claudia Williamson Kramer, 2023. "Individualism and racial tolerance," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 197(3), pages 347-370, December.
    9. Rahul Deb & Ludovic Renou, 2022. "Which wage distributions are consistent with statistical discrimination?," Working Papers tecipa-736, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    10. Benjamin Feigenberg & Conrad Miller, 2020. "Racial Disparities in Motor Vehicle Searches Cannot Be Justified by Efficiency," NBER Working Papers 27761, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Ivan A. Canay & Magne Mogstad & Jack Mountjoy, 2020. "On the Use of Outcome Tests for Detecting Bias in Decision Making," NBER Working Papers 27802, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Rehbeck, John, 2023. "Revealed Bayesian expected utility with limited data," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 81-95.
    13. Eli Ben-Michael & D. James Greiner & Melody Huang & Kosuke Imai & Zhichao Jiang & Sooahn Shin, 2024. "Does AI help humans make better decisions? A methodological framework for experimental evaluation," Papers 2403.12108, arXiv.org.
    14. Ashesh Rambachan, 2022. "Identifying Prediction Mistakes in Observational Data," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of Artificial Intelligence, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Joshua Grossman & Julian Nyarko & Sharad Goel, 2023. "Racial bias as a multi‐stage, multi‐actor problem: An analysis of pretrial detention," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 86-133, March.
    16. Paul Goldsmith-Pinkham & Peter Hull & Michal Kolesár, 2021. "On Estimating Multiple Treatment Effects with Regression," Working Papers 2021-41, Princeton University. Economics Department..

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C26 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Instrumental Variables (IV) Estimation
    • J15 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Minorities, Races, Indigenous Peoples, and Immigrants; Non-labor Discrimination
    • K42 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:28222. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.