Compared to search engine result pages (SERPs), AI-generated podcasts represent a relatively new and relatively more passive modality of information consumption, delivering narratives in a naturally engaging format. As these two media increasingly converge in everyday information-seeking behavior, it is essential to explore how their interaction influences user attitudes, particularly in contexts involving controversial, value-laden, and often debated topics. Addressing this need, we aim to understand how information mediums of present-day SERPs and AI-generated podcasts interact to shape the opinions of users. To this end, through a controlled user study (N = 483), we investigated user attitudinal effects of consuming information via SERPs and AI-generated podcasts, focusing on how the sequence and modality of exposure shape user opinions. A majority of users in our study corresponded to attitude change outcomes, and we found an effect of sequence on attitude change. Our results further revealed a role of viewpoint bias and the degree of topic controversiality in shaping attitude change, although we found no effect of individual moderators.

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 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.

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.

Abstract 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.

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.

Recent research has demonstrated that cognitive biases such as the confirmation bias or the anchoring effect can negatively affect the quality of crowdsourced data. In practice, however, such biases go unnoticed unless specifically assessed or controlled for. Task requesters need to ensure that task workflow and design choices do not trigger workers’ cognitive biases. Moreover, to facilitate the reuse of crowdsourced data collections, practitioners can benefit from understanding whether and which cognitive biases may be associated with the data. To this end, we propose a 12-item checklist adapted from business psychology to combat cognitive biases in crowdsourcing. We demonstrate the practical application of this checklist in a case study on viewpoint annotations for search results. Through a retrospective analysis of relevant crowdsourcing research that has been published at HCOMP in 2018, 2019, and 2020, we show that cognitive biases may often affect crowd workers but are typically not considered as potential sources of poor data quality. The checklist we propose is a practical tool that requesters can use to improve their task designs and appropriately describe potential limitations of collected data. It contributes to a body of efforts towards making human-labeled data more reliable and reusable.

To be accepted in our everyday life and to be valuable interaction partners, robots should be able to display emotional and empathic behaviors. That is why there has been a great focus on developing empathy in robots in recent years. However, there is no consensus on how to measure how much a robot is considered to be empathic. In this context, we decided to construct a questionnaire which specifically measures the perception of a robot's empathy in human-robot interaction (HRI). Therefore we conducted pretests to generate items. These were validated by experts and will be further validated in an experimental setting.