Rebecca A. Johnson, Simone Zhang
Sociological Science May 16, 2025
10.15195/v12.a15
Abstract
As institutions increasingly use predictive algorithms to allocate scarce resources, scholars have warned that these algorithms may legitimize inequality. Although research has examined how elite discourses position algorithms as fair, we know less about how the public perceives them compared to traditional allocation methods. We implement a vignette-based survey experiment to measure perceptions of algorithmic allocation relative to common alternatives: administrative rules, lotteries, petitions from potential beneficiaries, and professional judgment. Focusing on the case of schools allocating scarce tutoring resources, our nationally representative survey of U.S. parents finds that parents view algorithms as fairer than traditional alternatives, especially lotteries. However, significant divides emerge along socioeconomic and political lines—lower socioeconomic status (SES) and conservative parents favor the personal knowledge held by counselors and parents, whereas higher SES and liberal parents prefer the impersonal logic of algorithms. We also find that, after reading about algorithmic bias, parental opposition to algorithms is strongest among those who are most directly disadvantaged. Overall, our findings map cleavages in attitudes that may influence the adoption and political sustainability of algorithmic allocation methods.
As institutions increasingly use predictive algorithms to allocate scarce resources, scholars have warned that these algorithms may legitimize inequality. Although research has examined how elite discourses position algorithms as fair, we know less about how the public perceives them compared to traditional allocation methods. We implement a vignette-based survey experiment to measure perceptions of algorithmic allocation relative to common alternatives: administrative rules, lotteries, petitions from potential beneficiaries, and professional judgment. Focusing on the case of schools allocating scarce tutoring resources, our nationally representative survey of U.S. parents finds that parents view algorithms as fairer than traditional alternatives, especially lotteries. However, significant divides emerge along socioeconomic and political lines—lower socioeconomic status (SES) and conservative parents favor the personal knowledge held by counselors and parents, whereas higher SES and liberal parents prefer the impersonal logic of algorithms. We also find that, after reading about algorithmic bias, parental opposition to algorithms is strongest among those who are most directly disadvantaged. Overall, our findings map cleavages in attitudes that may influence the adoption and political sustainability of algorithmic allocation methods.
![]() | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. |
Reproducibility Package: The data underlying this article are available as part of our replication materials available at this link: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/EUJ1YZ. The data for the main analyses is the TESS .tab format file at this link: https://dataverse.harvard.edu/file.xhtml?fileId=10796997&version=1.0
- Citation: Johnson, A. Rebecca, Simone Zhang. 2025. “Predictive Algorithms and Perceptions of Fairness: Parent Attitudes Toward Algorithmic Resource Allocation in K-12 Education” Sociological Science 12: 322-356.
- Received: November 12, 2024
- Accepted: January 24, 2025
- Editors: Ari Adut, Filiz Garip
- DOI: 10.15195/v12.a15
Invalidating Factorial Survey Experiments Using Invalid Comparisons Is Bad Practice: Learning from Forster and Neugebauer (2024)