Diversity of social identities can improve the performance of groups through varied cognitive and communicative pathways. Recently, research efforts have focused on identifying when we should expect to see these potential benefits in real-world settings. While most research to date has studied this topic at individual and interpersonal levels, in this paper, we develop an agent-based model to explore how various aspects of homophily, the tendency of individuals to associate with similar others, affects performance at a larger scale. Study 1 examines how two types of homophily---identity-driven and opinion-driven---impact collective performance on a sequential decision-making task via modulating network formation and trust relations. Study 2 considers how the presence of identity-based conformity pressure can affect the findings from the first study. Overall, we find that the effect of homophily on performance is complex, depending on the operative dimensions of similarity, mediating pathways, and the specific outcome of interest. Finally, we discuss the implications of our results for policy interventions aiming to improve group performance.

As algorithmic tools increasingly aid experts in making consequential decisions, the need to understand the precise factors that mediate their influence has grown commensurately. In this paper, we present a crowdsourcing vignette study designed to assess the impacts of two plausible factors on AI-informed decision-making. First, we examine homophily---do people defer more to models that tend to agree with them?---by manipulating the agreement during training between participants and the algorithmic tool. Second, we considered incentives---how do people incorporate a (known) cost structure in the hybrid decision-making setting?---by varying rewards associated with true positives vs. true negatives. Surprisingly, we found limited influence of either homophily and no evidence of incentive effects, despite participants performing similarly to previous studies. Higher levels of agreement between the participant and the AI tool yielded more confident predictions, but only when outcome feedback was absent. These results highlight the complexity of characterizing human-algorithm interactions, and suggest that findings from social psychology may require re-examination when humans interact with algorithms.

How can an organization systematically and reproducibly measure the ethical impact of its AI-enabled platforms? Organizations that create applications enhanced by artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) are increasingly asked to review the ethical impact of their work. Governance and oversight organizations are increasingly asked to provide documentation to guide the conduct of ethical impact assessments. This document outlines a draft procedure for organizations to evaluate the ethical impacts of their work. We propose that ethical impact can be evaluated via a principles-based approach when the effects of platforms’ probable uses are interrogated through informative questions, with answers scaled and weighted to produce a multi-layered score. We initially assess ethical impact as the summed score of a project’s potential to protect human rights. However, we do not suggest that the ethical impact of platforms is assessed exclusively through preservation of human rights alone, a decidedly difficult concept to measure. Instead, we propose that ethical impact can be measured through a similar procedure assessing conformity with other important principles such as: protection of decisional autonomy, explainability, reduction of bias, assurances of algorithmic competence, or safety. In this initial draft paper, we demonstrate the application of our method for ethical impact assessment to the principles of human rights and bias.