Advances in artificial intelligence contribute to increasing automation of decisions. In a healthcare-scheduling context, this study compares effects of decision agents and explanations for decisions on decision-recipients’ perceptions of justice. In a 2 (decision agent: automated vs. human) × 3 (explanation: no explanation vs. equality-explanation vs. equity-explanation) between-subjects online study, 209 healthcare professionals were asked to put themselves in a situation where their vacation request was denied by either a human or an automated agent. Participants either received no explanation or an explanation based on equality or equity norms. Perceptions of interpersonal justice were stronger for the human agent. Additionally, participants perceived human agents as offering more voice and automated agents as being more consistent in decision-making. When given no explanation, perceptions of informational justice were impaired only for the human decision agent. In the study’s second part, participants took the perspective of a decision-maker and were given the choice to delegate decision-making to an automated system. Participants who delegated an unpleasant decision to the system frequently externalized responsibility and showed different response patterns when confronted by a decision-recipient who asked for a rationale for the decision.

人工智能的进步有助于提高决策的自动化程度。在卫生保健计划的背景下，本研究比较了决策者和决策解释对决策接收者对正义的理解的影响。在2名受试者之间的在线研究中（决策者：自动化与人之间）×3（解释：无解释vs.平等-解释vs.公平-解释），要求209位医疗保健专业人员将自己置于假期中人工或自动代理拒绝了该请求。参与者没有收到任何解释，也没有收到基于平等或公平准则的解释。对于人为代理人，人际正义的观念更强。此外，参与者认为人类代理商提供了更多的声音，而自动化代理商则在决策中更加一致。如果不作任何解释，则仅对于人类决策者会损害对信息正义的认识。在研究的第二部分中，参与者从决策者的角度出发，可以选择将决策权委派给自动化系统。将不愉快的决定委派给系统的参与者经常外在地承担责任，并且在面对寻求该决定理由的决策接收者时表现出不同的响应方式。参与者从决策者的角度出发，可以选择将决策委托给自动化系统。将不愉快的决定委派给系统的参与者经常外在地承担责任，并且在面对寻求该决定理由的决策接收者时表现出不同的响应方式。参与者从决策者的角度出发，可以选择将决策委托给自动化系统。将不愉快的决定委派给系统的参与者经常外在地承担责任，并且在面对寻求该决定理由的决策接收者时表现出不同的响应方式。