Who errs? Algorithm aversion, the source of judicial error, and public support for self-help behaviors

People often turn to self-help behaviors when formal processes of the state deteriorate, becoming inaccessible or ineffective. This deterioration can often include real or alleged inaccuracies in the courts that lower trust and confidence in the judicial system. Increasingly, one potential source of...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:  
Bibliographische Detailangaben
1. VerfasserIn: Ireland, Leanna (Verfasst von)
Medienart: Elektronisch Aufsatz
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: 2020
In: Journal of crime and justice
Jahr: 2020, Band: 43, Heft: 2, Seiten: 174-192
Online-Zugang: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Verfügbarkeit prüfen: HBZ Gateway
Schlagwörter:

MARC

LEADER 00000naa a22000002c 4500
001 1777328705
003 DE-627
005 20211112112238.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 211112s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1080/0735648X.2019.1655781  |2 doi 
035 |a (DE-627)1777328705 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1777328705 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
100 1 |a Ireland, Leanna  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Who errs? Algorithm aversion, the source of judicial error, and public support for self-help behaviors 
264 1 |c 2020 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a People often turn to self-help behaviors when formal processes of the state deteriorate, becoming inaccessible or ineffective. This deterioration can often include real or alleged inaccuracies in the courts that lower trust and confidence in the judicial system. Increasingly, one potential source of error in the courts is algorithmic, with more and more facets of the judicial system incorporating actuarial assessments. In this paper, I examine whether trust and confidence, separate from legitimacy, and the source of judicial error - humans or algorithms - matter for declared support of self-help behaviors, such as naming and shaming on social media, protesting, and violent economic protesting. In the experiment, respondents read information about identical levels of judicial error made by either a human or algorithm. They then indicated their attitudes towards the judicial systems and self-help behaviors. Respondents that read about algorithm-error had greater odds of supporting some self-help behaviors. In addition, the level of trust in the courts, and not legitimacy, mattered most for support of self-help behaviors. The paper discusses potential mechanisms behind the differences between the human- and algorithmic-error groups as well as the distinction between trust and legitimacy for self-help behaviors. 
650 4 |a Self-help 
650 4 |a Algorithm aversion 
650 4 |a Courts 
650 4 |a Legitimacy 
650 4 |a Risk assessments 
650 4 |a Trust 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Journal of crime and justice  |d London [u.a.] : Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 1984  |g 43(2020), 2, Seite 174-192  |h Online-Ressource  |w (DE-627)654743452  |w (DE-600)2599262-4  |w (DE-576)352346353  |x 2158-9119  |7 nnas 
773 1 8 |g volume:43  |g year:2020  |g number:2  |g pages:174-192 
856 4 0 |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2019.1655781  |x Resolving-System  |z lizenzpflichtig  |3 Volltext 
951 |a AR 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4001777096 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1777328705 
LOK |0 005 20211112112238 
LOK |0 008 211112||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-21-110  |c DE-627  |d DE-21-110 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-21-110 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a krub  |a krzo 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw