This Item Might Reinforce Your Opinion

Obfuscation and Labeling of Search Results to Mitigate Confirmation Bias

Conference Paper (2021)
Author(s)

Alisa Rieger (TU Delft - Web Information Systems)

T.A. Draws (TU Delft - Web Information Systems)

Mariët Theune (University of Twente)

N. Tintarev (Maastricht University)

Research Group
Web Information Systems
Copyright
© 2021 A. Rieger, T.A. Draws, Mariët Theune, N. Tintarev
DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.1145/3465336.3475101
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2021
Language
English
Copyright
© 2021 A. Rieger, T.A. Draws, Mariët Theune, N. Tintarev
Related content
Research Group
Web Information Systems
Pages (from-to)
189-199
ISBN (electronic)
9781450385510
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

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.

Files

3465336.3475101.pdf
(pdf | 1.53 Mb)
License info not available