An essential characteristic for unbiased and diligent information-seeking that can enable informed opinion formation and decision-making is intellectual humility (IH), the awareness of the limitations of one's knowledge and opinions. While researchers have recognized the potential to boost IH in individuals, the effect of such interventions on their search behavior, along with the broader significance of IH in the context of web search on debated topics remains unexplored. In this paper, we present the results of a preregistered user study (N = 299) that we conducted to (1) test the effect of three interventions that boost self-reported IH on opinionated individuals' search behavior and (2) explore the role of IH in the search process of opinionated individuals more broadly. IH-boosting interventions did not affect search behavior; we attribute this to the high familiarity of the search environment, prompting searchers to default to their usual search behavior. Still, explorations of the role of IH in the search process indicate that IH and IH-related search intentions should be considered as relevant factors in the pursuit of supporting unbiased and diligent search on debated topics. Based on our exploratory findings, we argue that future research should investigate interventions that are more directly integrated into the search process, as well as such that combine boosting IH with encouraging searchers to approach the search task in an IH-driven way and promoting transparency for appropriate reliance on the search system and ranking.

When people use web search engines to find information on debated topics, the search results they encounter can influence opinion formation and practical decision-making with potentially far-reaching consequences for the individual and society. However, current web search engines lack support for information-seeking strategies that enable responsible opinion formation, e.g., by mitigating confirmation bias and motivating engagement with diverse viewpoints. We conducted two preregistered user studies to test the benefits and risks of an intervention aimed at confirmation bias mitigation. In the first study, we tested the effect of warning labels, warning of the risk of confirmation bias, combined with obfuscations, hiding selected search results per default. We observed that obfuscations with warning labels effectively reduce engagement with search results. These initial findings did not allow conclusions about the extent to which the reduced engagement was caused by the warning label (reflective nudging element) versus the obfuscation (automatic nudging element). If obfuscation was the primary cause, this would raise concerns about harming user autonomy. We thus conducted a follow-up study to test the effect of warning labels and obfuscations separately. According to our findings, obfuscations run the risk of manipulating behavior instead of guiding it, while warning labels without obfuscations (purely reflective) do not exhaust processing capacities but encourage users to actively choose to decrease engagement with attitude-confirming search results. Therefore, given the risks and unclear benefits of obfuscations and potentially other automatic nudging elements to guide engagement with information, we call for prioritizing interventions that aim to enhance human cognitive skills and agency instead.

When using web search engines to conduct inquiries on debated topics, searchers' interactions with search results are commonly affected by a combination of searcher and system biases. While prior work has mainly investigated these biases in isolation, there is a lack of a comprehensive understanding of web search on debated topics. Addressing this gap, we conducted an exploratory user study (N = 255), aimed at advancing the understanding of the intricate searcher-system interplay. Particularly, we investigated the relations between (i) search system exposure, searchers' attitude strength, prior knowledge, and receptiveness to opposing views, (ii) search interactions, and (iii) post-search epistemic states. We observed that search interaction was shaped by search system exposure, attitude strength, and prior knowledge, and that attitude change was influenced by the level of confirmation bias and initial attitude strength, but not search system exposure. Insights from this work suggest the need to adapt interventions that mitigate the risks of searcher and system bias to searchers' nuanced pre-search epistemic states. They further emphasize the threat of customizing the search ranking to enhance user satisfaction in the context of debated topics to responsible opinion formation.

We often use search engines when seeking information for opinion-forming and decision-making on debated topics. However, searching for resources on debated topics to gain well-rounded knowledge is cognitively demanding, leaving us vulnerable to cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias. This can impede well-informed decision-making, and on a societal level, snowball to compel extremism and polarization. Most existing approaches to support better search apply nudges that directly modify user behavior. Such interventions bear the risk of harming user autonomy. Here, we discuss the shift we envision towards autonomy-preserving interventions that boost users' metacognitive skills, specifically their intellectual humility (IH)-the ability to recognize the fallibility of one's beliefs and the limits of one's knowledge. While simple interventions to boost IH have shown promise, the effect on users' search behavior has yet to be investigated. We present critical research questions, challenges, and an initial research plan to advance knowledge in this area.

Social choice aggregation strategies have been proposed as an explainable way to generate recommendations to groups of users. However, it is not trivial to determine the best strategy to apply for a specific group. Previous work highlighted that the performance of a group recommender system is affected by the internal diversity of the group members’ preferences. However, few of them have empirically evaluated how the specific distribution of preferences in a group determines which strategy is the most effective. Furthermore, only a few studies evaluated the impact of providing explanations for the recommendations generated with social choice aggregation strategies, by evaluating explanations and aggregation strategies in a coupled way. To fill these gaps, we present two user studies (N=399 and N=288) examining the effectiveness of social choice aggregation strategies in terms of users’ fairness perception, consensus perception, and satisfaction. We study the impact of the level of (dis-)agreement within the group on the performance of these strategies. Furthermore, we investigate the added value of textual explanations of the underlying social choice aggregation strategy used to generate the recommendation. The results of both user studies show no benefits in using social choice-based explanations for group recommendations. However, we find significant differences in the effectiveness of the social choice-based aggregation strategies in both studies. Furthermore, the specific group configuration (i.e., various scenarios of internal diversity) seems to determine the most effective aggregation strategy. These results provide useful insights on how to select the appropriate aggregation strategy for a specific group based on the level of (dis-)agreement within the group members’ preferences.

Adverse phenomena such as the search engine manipulation effect (SEME), where web search users change their attitude on a topic following whatever most highly-ranked search results promote, represent crucial challenges for research and industry. However, the current lack of automatic methods to comprehensively measure or increase viewpoint diversity in search results complicates the understanding and mitigation of such effects. This paper proposes a viewpoint bias metric that evaluates the divergence from a pre-defined scenario of ideal viewpoint diversity considering two essential viewpoint dimensions (i.e., stance and logic of evaluation). In a case study, we apply this metric to actual search results and find considerable viewpoint bias in search results across queries, topics, and search engines that could lead to adverse effects such as SEME. We subsequently demonstrate that viewpoint diversity in search results can be dramatically increased using existing diversification algorithms. The methods proposed in this paper can assist researchers and practitioners in evaluating and improving viewpoint diversity in search results.

With increasing digitalization, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is becoming ubiquitous. AI-based systems to identify, optimize, automate, and scale solutions to complex economic and societal problems are being proposed and implemented. This has motivated regulation efforts, including the Proposal of an EU AI Act. This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them, focusing on (but not limited to) the Proposal. We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives. Then, we map these perspectives along three axes of interests: (i) Standardization vs. Localization, (ii) Utilitarianism vs. Egalitarianism, and (iii) Consequential vs. Deontological ethics which leads us to identify a pattern of common arguments and tensions between these axes. Positioning the discussion within the axes of interest and with a focus on reconciling the key tensions, we identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.

While the web offers a great potential to find and share information, the cognitively demanding conditions of online interactions can leave users vulnerable to cognitive biases, such as the confirmation bias-the tendency to favor information that confirms prior attitudes and beliefs when searching for, selecting, interpreting, sharing, and recalling information. This can negatively impact individuals' decision-making and is likely to drive ideological polarization and extremism. With my dissertation, I am investigating whether and how interactive bias mitigation interventions, with a special focus on confirmation bias, could empower web users in making informed, unbiased, and autonomous choices. Based on my findings and observations, I plan to build a framework of user-and context-adaptive bias mitigation approaches during different kinds of web interactions.

Online debates allow for large-scale participation by users with different opinions, values, and backgrounds. While this is beneficial for democratic discourse, such debates often tend to be cognitively demanding due to the high quantity and low quality of non-expert contributions. High cognitive demand, in turn, can make users vulnerable to cognitive biases such as confirmation bias, hindering well-informed attitude forming. To facilitate interaction with online debates, counter confirmation bias, and nudge users towards engagement with online debate, we propose (1) summaries of the arguments made in the debate and (2) personalized persuasive suggestions to motivate users to engage with the debate summaries. We tested the effect of four different versions of the debate display (without summary, with summary and neutral suggestion, with summary and personalized persuasive suggestion, with summary and random persuasive suggestion) on participants' attitude-opposing argument recall with a preregistered user study (N = 212). The user study results show no evidence for an effect of either the summary or the personalized persuasive suggestions on participants' attitude-opposing argument recall. Further, we did not observe confirmation bias in participants' argument recall, regardless of the debate display. We discuss these observations in light of additionally collected exploratory data, which provides some pointers towards possible causes for the lack of significant findings. Motivated by these considerations, we propose two new hypotheses and ideas for improving relevant properties of the study design for follow-up studies.

During online information search, users tend to select search results that confirm previous beliefs and ignore competing possibilities. This systematic pattern in human behavior is known as confirmation bias. In this paper, we study the effect of obfuscation (i.e., hiding the result unless the user clicks on it) with warning labels and the effect of task on interaction with attitude-confirming search results. We conducted a preregistered, between-subjects crowdsourced user study (N=328) comparing six groups: Three levels of obfuscation (targeted, random, none) and two levels of task (joint, two separate) for four debated topics. We found that both types of obfuscation influence user interactions, and in particular that targeted obfuscation helps decrease interaction with attitude-confirming search results. Future work is needed to understand how much of the observed effect is due to the strong influence of obfuscation, versus the warning label or the task design. We discuss design guidelines concerning system goals such as decreasing consumption of attitude-confirming search results, versus nudging users toward a more analytical mode of information processing. We also discuss implications for future work, such as the effects of interventions for confirmation bias mitigation over repeated exposure. We conclude with a strong word of caution: measures such as obfuscations should only be used for the benefit of the user, e.g., when they explicitly consent to mitigating their own biases.