A Novel Strategy for Fighting Discrimination on Online Platforms
Skip to content
Social Impact Mar 1, 2023

A Novel Strategy for Fighting Discrimination on Online Platforms

Profile pictures build trust on peer-to-peer platforms—but they can also breed discrimination. Small changes to profile photos could make a difference.

person holding phone in front of profile pictures

Michael Meier

Based on the research of

Susan Athey

Dean Karlan

Emil Palikot

Yuan Yuan

Online platforms often feature users’ profile pictures to build trust and connection.

Fundraising sites like Donors Choose, for instance, commonly display photos of the teachers whose classrooms will benefit from the donations, while homesharing services like Airbnb often include photos of both guests and hosts in their respective profiles.

“If you want to make a reservation in a hotel, nobody would ask you to send a personal photo,” says Emil Palikot, a postdoctoral researcher at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. But “online platforms give big prominence to personal images.”

One major problem, though, is that these images can enable discrimination: users might not offer services to people based on their race, gender, or other characteristics. Yet removing photos—as some critics have advocated—might discourage many people from using the platform at all.

In a new study, Dean Karlan, a professor of finance at Kellogg and codirector of the school’s Global Poverty Research Lab, along with Palikot, Susan Athey at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, and Yuan Yuan at Carnegie Mellon University, investigated a different approach to reducing discrimination: offering guidelines for the photos that would benefit any type of user, but would be designed to disproportionately help disadvantaged groups.

The team focused on the microlending site Kiva, which connects borrowers to lenders. First they looked at a number of the stylistic features of the borrowers’ photos that were in a borrower’s control, like whether a photo was taken inside or outside. They found that some of these features were associated with raising money more quickly.

Then the researchers confirmed that different demographic groups used these features differently, on average. This meant that members of already-disadvantaged groups on the platform could actually be punished twice: once by discrimination, and then again by their tendency to prefer a certain style of photo.

By encouraging all users to take photos using the same, optimally effective features, the researchers suggest, online platforms can do two things at once. They can increase the efficiency of the platform overall—a particularly worthy goal for sites like Kiva, which aim to benefit people living in poverty—and they can reduce any inequities that are exacerbated by differences in the types of photos that different groups post.

“There are some features of profile photos—ones that people have control over—that could be contributing to inequality on these sites,” says Karlan, who is also chief economist at USAID. “Platforms that design policies based on images need to think about this.”

The team’s research provides recommendations of steps platforms might take to reduce disparities between user groups. “The size and reach of online platforms mean that inequities on these platforms affect outcomes for a lot of people,” Palikot says. “We hope that our research moves the ball forward, providing methods that quantify the extent of the problem and evaluate alternative approaches to mitigating it.”

Striking inequities

This line of research began when another team reported in 2014 that Black Airbnb hosts in New York City charged 12 percent less than hosts of other races for similar properties. The discrepancy apparently arose because Black hosts, whose photos were visible on their profiles, had a harder time booking guests.

Similar patterns have been attributed to discrimination based on users’ names. For instance, Airbnb guests whose names sounded typical of Black people were 16 percent less likely to receive positive responses from hosts than guests with typically white names. And UberX drivers were about twice as likely to cancel a ride when they found out the passenger had a distinctively Black-sounding name, compared with passengers with white-sounding names.

The magnitude of these inequities is “striking,” Karlan says.

The researchers decided to investigate the effect of choices that users could control about their photos, which went beyond demographic characteristics. If the researchers could identify which styles of images were the most compelling to other users, perhaps they could recommend policies for profile photos that—in combination with antidiscrimination practices—would help even out inequities.

Boosting cash flow

The team obtained data on more than half a million borrowing campaigns on the microfinance platform Kiva from April 2006 to May 2020. Borrowers, who typically lived in areas with little access to financial services, asked for small loans to support their businesses, education, or families. Individual lenders could give loans to borrowers based on the information on the borrowers’ profile pages.

To find out if lenders’ decisions were partly driven by borrowers’ profile photos, the team ran software that focused on 55 features in the images. These included characteristics that were largely fixed, which they called “type” features: gender, face shape, race/ethnicity, and so on. They also included changeable “style” features, such as wearing sunglasses or using a flash.

“The size and reach of online platforms mean that inequities on these platforms affect outcomes for a lot of people.”

Emil Palikot

Next, the team analyzed whether any style features were linked to receiving more cash per day, controlling for all other features identified by the software. They found that certain style choices, such as using an outdoor background, posing for the photo, or smiling, tended to boost funding; other features, such as using flash or having the person’s body occupy most of the frame, had a negative effect. For instance, taking the picture outside increased the average daily cash collected by about $9, and body-shot framing reduced cash per day by $10.

Importantly, such features were not linked with the probability of a borrower repaying the loan. This suggests that stylistic choices lead to inequities that are not explained by the lenders’ underlying risk of investment, Palikot explains.

An advantage for women

The researchers then tackled a trickier question.

Consider the scenario in which one demographic group tends to get fewer benefits from a platform. It’s also possible that members of this group, on average, make similar photo-styling choices—choices that differ from ones made by other groups. For example, older users might take pictures in a different way than younger users.

If the disadvantaged group chose less-compelling style features, those choices could widen the discrimination gap. If they instead made choices that were more compelling, they could narrow the gap.

To look for these patterns, the researchers examined style differences linked to gender. On Kiva, male borrowers’ campaigns tended to be less successful; on average, women raised $36 more per day than did men. The team found that men were also less likely to smile and more likely to use body-shot framing.

Lenders may have preferred to give to female borrowers for other reasons. For example, women generally have less access to entrepreneurial finance. But one factor seems to be that “women are just better at making impactful images,” Palikot says.

To look deeper into this finding, the team ran a controlled experiment to evaluate the effect of gender, smiling, and body-shot framing. To do so, they used software that can create “deepfakes,” convincing alterations of photographs. For example, they could take a profile picture that resembled ones used by female Kiva borrower and make the person look male. Or they could take a photo of a person with a serious expression and make it look like they were smiling.

Then they recruited 400 people on the online research platform Prolific.co who had previously donated to charity. Each participant was shown six pairs of fabricated images and asked which picture they preferred.

The experiment confirmed the researchers’ earlier results. Study participants were 31 percent less likely to choose pictures of borrowers who looked male. Adding a smile to a person’s photo increased the chances of being selected by 34 percent, while using a body shot decreased the chances by 17 percent.

Narrowing the gap

Finally, the team considered which steps could be taken to counteract inequities. Online platforms like Kiva often have to balance fairness and efficiency, the researchers say. By “efficiency,” they mean how much the platform is achieving its intended goal—for Kiva, that might be the amount of money given in loans.

A platform that prioritized fairness could boost a disadvantaged group by making their profiles more prominent. But if that group tended to choose less-attractive style features, on average, then efficiency on the platform would drop.

Alternatively, platforms could suggest that all users make more attractive style choices. If more people avoided body shots, for instance, efficiency would go up. Fairness could increase too, if the gap in photo styles between demographic groups would narrow.

For example, consider a scenario in which 75 percent of people with indoor photos responded to the platform’s new recommendations by swapping in outdoor photos. If most of those users were in the disadvantaged group—because that group was less likely to use compelling photo features to begin with—then the difference in the fraction of people with outdoor backgrounds between groups would shrink.

Platforms could also use a combination of policies. If they wanted to emphasize fairness and were willing to take a hit in efficiency, they could issue photo-styling recommendations to everyone while also bumping up the disadvantaged group’s profiles.

“It’s up to the platform to what extent they care about one versus the other,” Palikot says. The decision isn’t necessarily clear-cut; for example, higher efficiency on Kiva means more help overall for impoverished people.

It’s also debatable whether the gender gap in borrowing campaigns would be considered an inequity that should be corrected, given women’s lower access to financing and the gender-based discrimination they likely encounter in other parts of their lives. It’s up to Kiva to make the call, Palikot says. He says the team used the gender gap as an example, but their methods could be applied to other groups.

The study shouldn’t be taken to mean that the burden is on users to counteract discrimination by changing their profile pictures. Platforms need to keep pushing and enforcing antidiscrimination policies, Palikot says. For example, Airbnb has taken some steps in that direction, such as showing guest photos to hosts only after a booking is confirmed and kicking out users who won’t agree to commit to inclusion.

But photos may not disappear entirely, and the reality is that antidiscrimination policies haven’t completely eliminated gaps. Any small changes that continue to reduce inequities “are also a change in a good direction,” Palikot says.

Featured Faculty

Professor of Economics and Finance, Frederic Esser Nemmers Chair, Co-Director of the Global Poverty Research Lab at Kellogg

Most Popular This Week
  1. 3 Things to Keep in Mind When Delivering Negative Feedback
    First, understand the purpose of the conversation, which is trickier than it sounds.
  2. Podcast: Workers Are Stressed Out. Here’s How Leaders Can Help.
    On this episode of The Insightful Leader: You can’t always control what happens at work. But reframing setbacks, and instituting some serious calendar discipline, can go a long way toward reducing stress.
  3. What Went Wrong at Silicon Valley Bank?
    And how can it be avoided next time? A new analysis sheds light on vulnerabilities within the U.S. banking industry.
    People visit a bank
  4. How Are Black–White Biracial People Perceived in Terms of Race?
    Understanding the answer—and why black and white Americans may percieve biracial people differently—is increasingly important in a multiracial society.
    How are biracial people perceived in terms of race
  5. Will AI Eventually Replace Doctors?
    Maybe not entirely. But the doctor–patient relationship is likely to change dramatically.
    doctors offices in small nodules
  6. Leaders, Don’t Be Afraid to Admit Your Flaws
    We prefer to work for people who can make themselves vulnerable, a new study finds. But there are limits.
    person removes mask to show less happy face
  7. Which Form of Government Is Best?
    Democracies may not outlast dictatorships, but they adapt better.
    Is democracy the best form of government?
  8. What Went Wrong at AIG?
    Unpacking the insurance giant's collapse during the 2008 financial crisis.
    What went wrong during the AIG financial crisis?
  9. What Happens to Worker Productivity after a Minimum Wage Increase?
    A pay raise boosts productivity for some—but the impact on the bottom line is more complicated.
    employees unload pallets from a truck using hand carts
  10. At Their Best, Self-Learning Algorithms Can Be a “Win-Win-Win”
    Lyft is using ”reinforcement learning” to match customers to drivers—leading to higher profits for the company, more work for drivers, and happier customers.
    person waiting for rideshare on roads paved with computing code
  11. When You’re Hot, You’re Hot: Career Successes Come in Clusters
    Bursts of brilliance happen for almost everyone. Explore the “hot streaks” of thousands of directors, artists and scientists in our graphic.
    An artist has a hot streak in her career.
  12. Why Do Some People Succeed after Failing, While Others Continue to Flounder?
    A new study dispels some of the mystery behind success after failure.
    Scientists build a staircase from paper
  13. Immigrants to the U.S. Create More Jobs than They Take
    A new study finds that immigrants are far more likely to found companies—both large and small—than native-born Americans.
    Immigrant CEO welcomes new hires
  14. Take 5: Tips for Widening—and Improving—Your Candidate Pool
    Common biases can cause companies to overlook a wealth of top talent.
  15. Why Well-Meaning NGOs Sometimes Do More Harm than Good
    Studies of aid groups in Ghana and Uganda show why it’s so important to coordinate with local governments and institutions.
    To succeed, foreign aid and health programs need buy-in and coordination with local partners.
  16. How Has Marketing Changed over the Past Half-Century?
    Phil Kotler’s groundbreaking textbook came out 55 years ago. Sixteen editions later, he and coauthor Alexander Chernev discuss how big data, social media, and purpose-driven branding are moving the field forward.
    people in 1967 and 2022 react to advertising
  17. How Peer Pressure Can Lead Teens to Underachieve—Even in Schools Where It’s “Cool to Be Smart”
    New research offers lessons for administrators hoping to improve student performance.
    Eager student raises hand while other student hesitates.
  18. How Much Do Campaign Ads Matter?
    Tone is key, according to new research, which found that a change in TV ad strategy could have altered the results of the 2000 presidential election.
    Political advertisements on television next to polling place
  19. Take 5: How Fear Influences Our Decisions
    Our anxieties about the future can have surprising implications for our health, our family lives, and our careers.
    A CEO's risk aversion encourages underperformance.
More in Social Impact