Search

Clustering is a fundamental problem in machine learning and operations research. Therefore, given the fact that fairness considerations have become of paramount importance in algorithm design, fairness in clustering has received significant attention from the research community. The literature on fair clustering has resulted in a collection of interesting fairness notions and elaborate algorithms. In this paper, we take a critical view of fair clustering, identifying a collection of ignored issues such as the lack of a clear utility characterization and the difficulty in accounting for the downstream effects of a fair clustering algorithm in machine learning settings. In some cases, we demonstrate examples where the application of a fair clustering algorithm can have significant negative impacts on social welfare. We end by identifying a collection of steps that would lead towards more impactful research in fair clustering.

We study the canonical fair clustering problem where each cluster is constrained to have close to population-level representation of each group. Despite significant attention, the salient issue of having incomplete knowledge about the group membership of each point has been superficially addressed. In this paper, we consider a setting where errors exist in the assigned group memberships. We introduce a simple and interpretable family of error models that require a small number of parameters to be given by the decision maker. We then present an algorithm for fair clustering with provable robustness guarantees. Our framework enables the decision maker to trade off between the robustness and the clustering quality. Unlike previous work, our algorithms are backed by worst-case theoretical guarantees. Finally, we empirically verify the performance of our algorithm on real world datasets and show its superior performance over existing baselines.

Responsible artificial intelligence (RAI) is increasingly recognized as a critical concern. However, the level of corporate RAI prioritization has not kept pace. In this work, we conduct 16 semi-structured interviews with practitioners to investigate what has historically motivated companies to increase the prioritization of RAI. What emerges is a complex story of conflicting and varied factors, but we bring structure to the narrative by highlighting the different strategies available to employ, and point to the actors with access to each. While there are no guaranteed steps for increasing RAI prioritization, we paint the current landscape of motivators so that practitioners can learn from each other, and put forth our own selection of promising directions forward., Comment: AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES) 2024

Large language models (LLMs) are increasing in capability and popularity, propelling their application in new domains -- including as replacements for human participants in computational social science, user testing, annotation tasks, and more. In many settings, researchers seek to distribute their surveys to a sample of participants that are representative of the underlying human population of interest. This means in order to be a suitable replacement, LLMs will need to be able to capture the influence of positionality (i.e., relevance of social identities like gender and race). However, we show that there are two inherent limitations in the way current LLMs are trained that prevent this. We argue analytically for why LLMs are likely to both misportray and flatten the representations of demographic groups, then empirically show this on 4 LLMs through a series of human studies with 3200 participants across 16 demographic identities. We also discuss a third limitation about how identity prompts can essentialize identities. Throughout, we connect each limitation to a pernicious history that explains why it is harmful for marginalized demographic groups. Overall, we urge caution in use cases where LLMs are intended to replace human participants whose identities are relevant to the task at hand. At the same time, in cases where the goal is to supplement rather than replace (e.g., pilot studies), we provide inference-time techniques that we empirically demonstrate do reduce, but do not remove, these harms.

This workshop Report Out focuses on the foundational elements of trustworthy AI and OR technology, and how to ensure all AI and OR systems implement these elements in their system designs. Four sessions on various topics within Trustworthy AI were held, these being Fairness, Explainable AI/Causality, Robustness/Privacy, and Human Alignment and Human-Computer Interaction. Following discussions of each of these topics, workshop participants also brainstormed challenge problems which require the collaboration of AI and OR researchers and will result in the integration of basic techniques from both fields to eventually benefit societal needs.

Motivated by mitigating potentially harmful impacts of technologies, the AI community has formulated and accepted mathematical definitions for certain pillars of accountability: e.g. privacy, fairness, and model transparency. Yet, we argue this is fundamentally misguided because these definitions are imperfect, siloed constructions of the human values they hope to proxy, while giving the guise that those values are sufficiently embedded in our technologies. Under popularized methods, tensions arise when practitioners attempt to achieve each pillar of fairness, privacy, and transparency in isolation or simultaneously. In this position paper, we push for redirection. We argue that the AI community needs to consider all the consequences of choosing certain formulations of these pillars -- not just the technical incompatibilities, but also the effects within the context of deployment. We point towards sociotechnical research for frameworks for the latter, but push for broader efforts into implementing these in practice., Comment: Contributed Talk, NeurIPS 2022 Workshop on Algorithmic Fairness through the Lens of Causality and Privacy; To be published in 2023 IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML)

Restless multi-armed bandits are often used to model budget-constrained resource allocation tasks where receipt of the resource is associated with an increased probability of a favorable state transition. Prior work assumes that individual arms only benefit if they receive the resource directly. However, many allocation tasks occur within communities and can be characterized by positive externalities that allow arms to derive partial benefit when their neighbor(s) receive the resource. We thus introduce networked restless bandits, a novel multi-armed bandit setting in which arms are both restless and embedded within a directed graph. We then present Greta, a graph-aware, Whittle index-based heuristic algorithm that can be used to efficiently construct a constrained reward-maximizing action vector at each timestep. Our empirical results demonstrate that Greta outperforms comparison policies across a range of hyperparameter values and graph topologies., Comment: Accepted to AAAI 2023

Facial analysis systems have been deployed by large companies and critiqued by scholars and activists for the past decade. Many existing algorithmic audits examine the performance of these systems on later stage elements of facial analysis systems like facial recognition and age, emotion, or perceived gender prediction; however, a core component to these systems has been vastly understudied from a fairness perspective: face detection, sometimes called face localization. Since face detection is a pre-requisite step in facial analysis systems, the bias we observe in face detection will flow downstream to the other components like facial recognition and emotion prediction. Additionally, no prior work has focused on the robustness of these systems under various perturbations and corruptions, which leaves open the question of how various people are impacted by these phenomena. We present the first of its kind detailed benchmark of face detection systems, specifically examining the robustness to noise of commercial and academic models. We use both standard and recently released academic facial datasets to quantitatively analyze trends in face detection robustness. Across all the datasets and systems, we generally find that photos of individuals who are $\textit{masculine presenting}$, $\textit{older}$, of $\textit{darker skin type}$, or have $\textit{dim lighting}$ are more susceptible to errors than their counterparts in other identities., Comment: NeurIPS Datasets & Benchmarks Track 2022

Recommender systems influence many of our interactions in the digital world -- impacting how we shop for clothes, sorting what we see when browsing YouTube or TikTok, and determining which restaurants and hotels we are shown when using hospitality platforms. Modern recommender systems are large, opaque models trained on a mixture of proprietary and open-source datasets. Naturally, issues of trust arise on both the developer and user side: is the system working correctly, and why did a user receive (or not receive) a particular recommendation? Providing an explanation alongside a recommendation alleviates some of these concerns. The status quo for auxiliary recommender system feedback is either user-specific explanations (e.g., "users who bought item B also bought item A") or item-specific explanations (e.g., "we are recommending item A because you watched/bought item B"). However, users bring personalized context into their search experience, valuing an item as a function of that item's attributes and their own personal preferences. In this work, we propose RecXplainer, a novel method for generating fine-grained explanations based on a user's preferences over the attributes of recommended items. We evaluate RecXplainer on five real-world and large-scale recommendation datasets using five different kinds of recommender systems to demonstrate the efficacy of RecXplainer in capturing users' preferences over item attributes and using them to explain recommendations. We also compare RecXplainer to five baselines and show RecXplainer's exceptional performance on ten metrics., Comment: Awarded the Best Student Paper at TEA Workshop at NeurIPS 2022

Face recognition systems are widely deployed in safety-critical applications, including law enforcement, yet they exhibit bias across a range of socio-demographic dimensions, such as gender and race. Conventional wisdom dictates that model biases arise from biased training data. As a consequence, previous works on bias mitigation largely focused on pre-processing the training data, adding penalties to prevent bias from effecting the model during training, or post-processing predictions to debias them, yet these approaches have shown limited success on hard problems such as face recognition. In our work, we discover that biases are actually inherent to neural network architectures themselves. Following this reframing, we conduct the first neural architecture search for fairness, jointly with a search for hyperparameters. Our search outputs a suite of models which Pareto-dominate all other high-performance architectures and existing bias mitigation methods in terms of accuracy and fairness, often by large margins, on the two most widely used datasets for face identification, CelebA and VGGFace2. Furthermore, these models generalize to other datasets and sensitive attributes. We release our code, models and raw data files at https://github.com/dooleys/FR-NAS.

Credit is an essential component of financial wellbeing in America, and unequal access to it is a large factor in the economic disparities between demographic groups that exist today. Today, machine learning algorithms, sometimes trained on alternative data, are increasingly being used to determine access to credit, yet research has shown that machine learning can encode many different versions of "unfairness," thus raising the concern that banks and other financial institutions could -- potentially unwittingly -- engage in illegal discrimination through the use of this technology. In the US, there are laws in place to make sure discrimination does not happen in lending and agencies charged with enforcing them. However, conversations around fair credit models in computer science and in policy are often misaligned: fair machine learning research often lacks legal and practical considerations specific to existing fair lending policy, and regulators have yet to issue new guidance on how, if at all, credit risk models should be utilizing practices and techniques from the research community. This paper aims to better align these sides of the conversation. We describe the current state of credit discrimination regulation in the United States, contextualize results from fair ML research to identify the specific fairness concerns raised by the use of machine learning in lending, and discuss regulatory opportunities to address these concerns.

We study the problem of post-processing a supervised machine-learned regressor to maximize fair binary classification at all decision thresholds. By decreasing the statistical distance between each group's score distributions, we show that we can increase fair performance across all thresholds at once, and that we can do so without a large decrease in accuracy. To this end, we introduce a formal measure of Distributional Parity, which captures the degree of similarity in the distributions of classifications for different protected groups. Our main result is to put forward a novel post-processing algorithm based on optimal transport, which provably maximizes Distributional Parity, thereby attaining common notions of group fairness like Equalized Odds or Equal Opportunity at all thresholds. We demonstrate on two fairness benchmarks that our technique works well empirically, while also outperforming and generalizing similar techniques from related work.

As facial recognition systems are deployed more widely, scholars and activists have studied their biases and harms. Audits are commonly used to accomplish this and compare the algorithmic facial recognition systems' performance against datasets with various metadata labels about the subjects of the images. Seminal works have found discrepancies in performance by gender expression, age, perceived race, skin type, etc. These studies and audits often examine algorithms which fall into two categories: academic models or commercial models. We present a detailed comparison between academic and commercial face detection systems, specifically examining robustness to noise. We find that state-of-the-art academic face detection models exhibit demographic disparities in their noise robustness, specifically by having statistically significant decreased performance on older individuals and those who present their gender in a masculine manner. When we compare the size of these disparities to that of commercial models, we conclude that commercial models - in contrast to their relatively larger development budget and industry-level fairness commitments - are always as biased or more biased than an academic model., Comment: This preprint and arXiv:2108.12508 were combined and a more rigorous analysis added to result in the NeurIPS Datasets & Benchmark 2022 paper arXiv:2211.15937

Much recent research has uncovered and discussed serious concerns of bias in facial analysis technologies, finding performance disparities between groups of people based on perceived gender, skin type, lighting condition, etc. These audits are immensely important and successful at measuring algorithmic bias but have two major challenges: the audits (1) use facial recognition datasets which lack quality metadata, like LFW and CelebA, and (2) do not compare their observed algorithmic bias to the biases of their human alternatives. In this paper, we release improvements to the LFW and CelebA datasets which will enable future researchers to obtain measurements of algorithmic bias that are not tainted by major flaws in the dataset (e.g. identical images appearing in both the gallery and test set). We also use these new data to develop a series of challenging facial identification and verification questions that we administered to various algorithms and a large, balanced sample of human reviewers. We find that both computer models and human survey participants perform significantly better at the verification task, generally obtain lower accuracy rates on dark-skinned or female subjects for both tasks, and obtain higher accuracy rates when their demographics match that of the question. Computer models are observed to achieve a higher level of accuracy than the survey participants on both tasks and exhibit bias to similar degrees as the human survey participants.

Facial detection and analysis systems have been deployed by large companies and critiqued by scholars and activists for the past decade. Critiques that focus on system performance analyze disparity of the system's output, i.e., how frequently is a face detected for different Fitzpatrick skin types or perceived genders. However, we focus on the robustness of these system outputs under noisy natural perturbations. We present the first of its kind detailed benchmark of the robustness of three such systems: Amazon Rekognition, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud Platform. We use both standard and recently released academic facial datasets to quantitatively analyze trends in robustness for each. Across all the datasets and systems, we generally find that photos of individuals who are older, masculine presenting, of darker skin type, or have dim lighting are more susceptible to errors than their counterparts in other identities.

Global demand for donated blood far exceeds supply, and unmet need is greatest in low- and middle-income countries; experts suggest that large-scale coordination is necessary to alleviate demand. Using the Facebook Blood Donation tool, we conduct the first large-scale algorithmic matching of blood donors with donation opportunities. While measuring actual donation rates remains a challenge, we measure donor action (e.g., making a donation appointment) as a proxy for actual donation. We develop automated policies for matching donors with donation opportunities, based on an online matching model. We provide theoretical guarantees for these policies, both regarding the number of expected donations and the equitable treatment of blood recipients. In simulations, a simple matching strategy increases the number of donations by 5-10%; a pilot experiment with real donors shows a 5% relative increase in donor action rate (from 3.7% to 3.9%). When scaled to the global Blood Donation tool user base, this corresponds to an increase of around one hundred thousand users taking action toward donation. Further, observing donor action on a social network can shed light onto donor behavior and response to incentives. Our initial findings align with several observations made in the medical and social science literature regarding donor behavior., Comment: An early version of this paper appeared at EC'20. (https://doi.org/10.1145/3391403.3399458)

Restless and collapsing bandits are often used to model budget-constrained resource allocation in settings where arms have action-dependent transition probabilities, such as the allocation of health interventions among patients. However, state-of-the-art Whittle-index-based approaches to this planning problem either do not consider fairness among arms, or incentivize fairness without guaranteeing it. We thus introduce ProbFair, a probabilistically fair policy that maximizes total expected reward and satisfies the budget constraint while ensuring a strictly positive lower bound on the probability of being pulled at each timestep. We evaluate our algorithm on a real-world application, where interventions support continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy adherence among patients, as well as on a broader class of synthetic transition matrices. We find that ProbFair preserves utility while providing fairness guarantees.

Clustering is a fundamental problem in unsupervised machine learning, and fair variants of it have recently received significant attention due to its societal implications. In this work we introduce a novel definition of individual fairness for clustering problems. Specifically, in our model, each point $j$ has a set of other points $\mathcal{S}_j$ that it perceives as similar to itself, and it feels that it is fairly treated if the quality of service it receives in the solution is $\alpha$-close (in a multiplicative sense, for a given $\alpha \geq 1$) to that of the points in $\mathcal{S}_j$. We begin our study by answering questions regarding the structure of the problem, namely for what values of $\alpha$ the problem is well-defined, and what the behavior of the \emph{Price of Fairness (PoF)} for it is. For the well-defined region of $\alpha$, we provide efficient and easily-implementable approximation algorithms for the $k$-center objective, which in certain cases enjoy bounded-PoF guarantees. We finally complement our analysis by an extensive suite of experiments that validates the effectiveness of our theoretical results., Comment: To appear at AISTATS 2022

As machine learning algorithms have been widely deployed across applications, many concerns have been raised over the fairness of their predictions, especially in high stakes settings (such as facial recognition and medical imaging). To respond to these concerns, the community has proposed and formalized various notions of fairness as well as methods for rectifying unfair behavior. While fairness constraints have been studied extensively for classical models, the effectiveness of methods for imposing fairness on deep neural networks is unclear. In this paper, we observe that these large models overfit to fairness objectives, and produce a range of unintended and undesirable consequences. We conduct our experiments on both facial recognition and automated medical diagnosis datasets using state-of-the-art architectures.

In many labor markets, workers and firms are connected via affiliative relationships. A management consulting firm wishes to both accept the best new workers but also place its current affiliated workers at strong firms. Similarly, a research university wishes to hire strong job market candidates while also placing its own candidates at strong peer universities. We model this affiliate matching problem in a generalization of the classic stable marriage setting by permitting firms to state preferences over not just which workers to whom they are matched, but also to which firms their affiliated workers are matched. Based on results from a human survey, we find that participants (acting as firms) give preference to their own affiliate workers in surprising ways that violate some assumptions of the classical stable marriage problem. This motivates a nuanced discussion of how stability could be defined in affiliate matching problems; we give an example of a marketplace which admits a stable match under one natural definition of stability, and does not for that same marketplace under a different, but still natural, definition. We conclude by setting a research agenda toward the creation of a centralized clearing mechanism in this general setting.

As deep neural networks (DNNs) get adopted in an ever-increasing number of applications, explainability has emerged as a crucial desideratum for these models. In many real-world tasks, one of the principal reasons for requiring explainability is to in turn assess prediction robustness, where predictions (i.e., class labels) that do not conform to their respective explanations (e.g., presence or absence of a concept in the input) are deemed to be unreliable. However, most, if not all, prior methods for checking explanation-conformity (e.g., LIME, TCAV, saliency maps) require significant manual intervention, which hinders their large-scale deployability. In this paper, we propose a robustness-assessment framework, at the core of which is the idea of using machine-checkable concepts. Our framework defines a large number of concepts that the DNN explanations could be based on and performs the explanation-conformity check at test time to assess prediction robustness. Both steps are executed in an automated manner without requiring any human intervention and are easily scaled to datasets with a very large number of classes. Experiments on real-world datasets and human surveys show that our framework is able to enhance prediction robustness significantly: the predictions marked to be robust by our framework have significantly higher accuracy and are more robust to adversarial perturbations., Comment: 22 pages, 12 figures, 11 tables

Data poisoning and backdoor attacks manipulate training data in order to cause models to fail during inference. A recent survey of industry practitioners found that data poisoning is the number one concern among threats ranging from model stealing to adversarial attacks. However, it remains unclear exactly how dangerous poisoning methods are and which ones are more effective considering that these methods, even ones with identical objectives, have not been tested in consistent or realistic settings. We observe that data poisoning and backdoor attacks are highly sensitive to variations in the testing setup. Moreover, we find that existing methods may not generalize to realistic settings. While these existing works serve as valuable prototypes for data poisoning, we apply rigorous tests to determine the extent to which we should fear them. In order to promote fair comparison in future work, we develop standardized benchmarks for data poisoning and backdoor attacks., Comment: 19 pages, 4 figures

Deep neural networks (DNNs) are increasingly used in real-world applications (e.g. facial recognition). This has resulted in concerns about the fairness of decisions made by these models. Various notions and measures of fairness have been proposed to ensure that a decision-making system does not disproportionately harm (or benefit) particular subgroups of the population. In this paper, we argue that traditional notions of fairness that are only based on models' outputs are not sufficient when the model is vulnerable to adversarial attacks. We argue that in some cases, it may be easier for an attacker to target a particular subgroup, resulting in a form of \textit{robustness bias}. We show that measuring robustness bias is a challenging task for DNNs and propose two methods to measure this form of bias. We then conduct an empirical study on state-of-the-art neural networks on commonly used real-world datasets such as CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, Adience, and UTKFace and show that in almost all cases there are subgroups (in some cases based on sensitive attributes like race, gender, etc) which are less robust and are thus at a disadvantage. We argue that this kind of bias arises due to both the data distribution and the highly complex nature of the learned decision boundary in the case of DNNs, thus making mitigation of such biases a non-trivial task. Our results show that robustness bias is an important criterion to consider while auditing real-world systems that rely on DNNs for decision making. Code to reproduce all our results can be found here: \url{https://github.com/nvedant07/Fairness-Through-Robustness}, Comment: Accepted at ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) 2021

Collaborative work often benefits from having teams or organizations with heterogeneous members. In this paper, we present a method to form such diverse teams from people arriving sequentially over time. We define a monotone submodular objective function that combines the diversity and quality of a team and propose an algorithm to maximize the objective while satisfying multiple constraints. This allows us to balance both how diverse the team is and how well it can perform the task at hand. Using crowd experiments, we show that, in practice, the algorithm leads to large gains in team diversity. Using simulations, we show how to quantify the additional cost of forming diverse teams and how to address the problem of simultaneously maximizing diversity for several attributes (e.g., country of origin, gender). Our method has applications in collaborative work ranging from team formation, the assignment of workers to teams in crowdsourcing, and reviewer allocation to journal papers arriving sequentially. Our code is publicly accessible for further research., Comment: Journal of Mechanical Design

Given AI's growing role in modeling and improving decision-making, how and when to present users with feedback is an urgent topic to address. We empirically examined the effect of feedback from false AI on moral decision-making about donor kidney allocation. We found some evidence that judgments about whether a patient should receive a kidney can be influenced by feedback about participants' own decision-making perceived to be given by AI, even if the feedback is entirely random. We also discovered different effects between assessments presented as being from human experts and assessments presented as being from AI.

Planning for death is not a process in which everyone participates. Yet a lack of planning can have vast impacts on a patient's well-being, the well-being of her family, and the medical community as a whole. Advance Care Planning (ACP) has been a field in the United States for a half-century. Many modern techniques prompting patients to think about end of life (EOL) involve short surveys or questionnaires. Different surveys are targeted to different populations (based off of likely disease progression or cultural factors, for instance), are designed with different intentions, and are administered in different ways. There has been recent work using technology to increase the number of people using advance care planning tools. However, modern techniques from machine learning and artificial intelligence could be employed to make additional changes to the current ACP process. In this paper we will discuss some possible ways in which these tools could be applied. We will discuss possible implications of these applications through vignettes of patient scenarios. We hope that this paper will encourage thought about appropriate applications of artificial intelligence in ACP as well as implementation of AI in order to ensure intentions are honored., Comment: Accepted for a poster presentation at the 4th International Workshop on Health Intelligence (W3PHIAI-20), colocated with AAAI 2020

Rideshare platforms, when assigning requests to drivers, tend to maximize profit for the system and/or minimize waiting time for riders. Such platforms can exacerbate biases that drivers may have over certain types of requests. We consider the case of peak hours when the demand for rides is more than the supply of drivers. Drivers are well aware of their advantage during the peak hours and can choose to be selective about which rides to accept. Moreover, if in such a scenario, the assignment of requests to drivers (by the platform) is made only to maximize profit and/or minimize wait time for riders, requests of a certain type (e.g. from a non-popular pickup location, or to a non-popular drop-off location) might never be assigned to a driver. Such a system can be highly unfair to riders. However, increasing fairness might come at a cost of the overall profit made by the rideshare platform. To balance these conflicting goals, we present a flexible, non-adaptive algorithm, \lpalg, that allows the platform designer to control the profit and fairness of the system via parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ respectively. We model the matching problem as an online bipartite matching where the set of drivers is offline and requests arrive online. Upon the arrival of a request, we use \lpalg to assign it to a driver (the driver might then choose to accept or reject it) or reject the request. We formalize the measures of profit and fairness in our setting and show that by using \lpalg, the competitive ratios for profit and fairness measures would be no worse than $\alpha/e$ and $\beta/e$ respectively. Extensive experimental results on both real-world and synthetic datasets confirm the validity of our theoretical lower bounds. Additionally, they show that $\lpalg$ under some choice of $(\alpha, \beta)$ can beat two natural heuristics, Greedy and Uniform, on \emph{both} fairness and profit., Comment: 8 pages, 4 figures, Accepted at AAAI 2020 & AIES (Oral) 2020

Bias in machine learning has manifested injustice in several areas, such as medicine, hiring, and criminal justice. In response, computer scientists have developed myriad definitions of fairness to correct this bias in fielded algorithms. While some definitions are based on established legal and ethical norms, others are largely mathematical. It is unclear whether the general public agrees with these fairness definitions, and perhaps more importantly, whether they understand these definitions. We take initial steps toward bridging this gap between ML researchers and the public, by addressing the question: does a lay audience understand a basic definition of ML fairness? We develop a metric to measure comprehension of three such definitions--demographic parity, equal opportunity, and equalized odds. We evaluate this metric using an online survey, and investigate the relationship between comprehension and sentiment, demographics, and the definition itself.

Accurately modeling human decision-making in security is critical to thinking about when, why, and how to recommend that users adopt certain secure behaviors. In this work, we conduct behavioral economics experiments to model the rationality of end-user security decision-making in a realistic online experimental system simulating a bank account. We ask participants to make a financially impactful security choice, in the face of transparent risks of account compromise and benefits offered by an optional security behavior (two-factor authentication). We measure the cost and utility of adopting the security behavior via measurements of time spent executing the behavior and estimates of the participant's wage. We find that more than 50% of our participants made rational (e.g., utility optimal) decisions, and we find that participants are more likely to behave rationally in the face of higher risk. Additionally, we find that users' decisions can be modeled well as a function of past behavior (anchoring effects), knowledge of costs, and to a lesser extent, users' awareness of risks and context (R2=0.61). We also find evidence of endowment effects, as seen in other areas of economic and psychological decision-science literature, in our digital-security setting. Finally, using our data, we show theoretically that a "one-size-fits"-all emphasis on security can lead to market losses, but that adoption by a subset of users with higher risks or lower costs can lead to market gains.