Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/2484028.2484053acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Beliefs and biases in web search

Published: 28 July 2013 Publication History

Abstract

People's beliefs, and unconscious biases that arise from those beliefs, influence their judgment, decision making, and actions, as is commonly accepted among psychologists. Biases can be observed in information retrieval in situations where searchers seek or are presented with information that significantly deviates from the truth. There is little understanding of the impact of such biases in search. In this paper we study search-related biases via multiple probes: an exploratory retrospective survey, human labeling of the captions and results returned by a Web search engine, and a large-scale log analysis of search behavior on that engine. Targeting yes-no questions in the critical domain of health search, we show that Web searchers exhibit their own biases and are also subject to bias from the search engine. We clearly observe searchers favoring positive information over negative and more than expected given base rates based on consensus answers from physicians. We also show that search engines strongly favor a particular, usually positive, perspective, irrespective of the truth. Importantly, we show that these biases can be counterproductive and affect search outcomes; in our study, around half of the answers that searchers settled on were actually incorrect. Our findings have implications for search engine design, including the development of ranking algorithms that con-sider the desire to satisfy searchers (by validating their beliefs) and providing accurate answers and properly considering base rates. Incorporating likelihood information into search is particularly important for consequential tasks, such as those with a medical focus.

References

[1]
Agichtein, E., Brill, E., and Dumais, S. (2006). Improving web search ranking by incorporating user behavior information. Proc. SIGIR, 19--26.
[2]
Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions. Harper Collins.
[3]
Baron, J. (2007). Thinking and Deciding. Cambridge Press.
[4]
Belkin, N.J., Oddy, R.N., and Brooks, H.M. (1982). ASK for information retrieval: Part I - background and theory. J. Documentation, 38(2): 61--71.
[5]
Bennett, P.N. et al. (2012). Modeling the impact of short- and long-term behavior on search personalization. Proc. SIGIR, 185--194.
[6]
Bilenko, M. and White, R.W. (2008). Mining the search trails of the surfing crowds: identifying relevant websites from user activity. Proc. WWW, 51--60.
[7]
Brennan, R.L. and Prediger, D.J. (1981). Coefficient Kappa: Some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educational and Psychological Measurement, (41): 687--699.
[8]
Cho, J. and Roy, S. (2004). Impact of search engines on page popularity. Proc. WWW, 20--29.
[9]
Clarke, C., Agichtein, E., Dumais, S., and White R.W. (2007). The influence of caption features on clickthrough patterns in Web search. Proc. SIGIR, 135--142.
[10]
Craswell, N., Zoeter, O., Taylor, M., and Ramsey, B. (2008). An experimental comparison of click position-bias models. Proc. WSDM, 87--94.
[11]
Dou, Z., Song, R., and Wen, J.R. (2007). A large-scale evaluation and analysis of personalization search strategy. Proc. WWW, 581--590.
[12]
Dumais, S. et al. (2002). Web question answering: is more always better? Proc. SIGIR, 291--298.
[13]
Fleiss, J.L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5): 378--382.
[14]
Fortunato, S., Flammini, A., Menczer, F., and Vespignani, A. (2006). Topical interests and the mitigation of search engine bias. PNAS, 103(34): 12684--12689.
[15]
Gigerenzer, G. and Todd, P.M. (2000). Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford University Press.
[16]
Ieong, S., Mishra, N., Sadikov, E., and Zhang, I. (2012). Do-main bias in Web search. Proc. WSDM, 413--422.
[17]
Ingwersen, P. (1994). Polyrepresentation of information needs and semantic entities: Elements of a cognitive theory for information retrieval interaction. Proc. SIGIR, 101--110.
[18]
Inlander, C.B. (1993). Good operations, Bad operations: The People's Medical Society's Guide to Surgery. Viking Adult.
[19]
Joachims, T. (2002). Optimizing search engines using click-through data. Proc. SIGKDD, 132--142.
[20]
Joachims, T. et al. (2007). Evaluating the accuracy of implicit feedback from clicks and query reformulations in web search. ACM TOIS, 25(2).
[21]
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1974). Judgment under un-certainty: heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157): 1214--1231.
[22]
Klayman, J. and Ha, Y. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94: 211--228.
[23]
Kuhlthau, C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user's perspective. JASIST, 42(5): 361--371.
[24]
Marchionini, G. (1995). Information Seeking in Electronic Environments. Cambridge University Press.
[25]
Mowshowitz, A. and Kawaguchi, A. (2002). Bias on the Web. CACM, 45(9): 56--60.
[26]
Nickerson, R.S. (1998). Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. Gen. Psych., 2(2): 175--220.
[27]
Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What is the Internet Hiding from You? Penguin Press.
[28]
Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books.
[29]
Radlinski, F. and Joachims, T. (2006). Minimally invasive randomization for collecting unbiased preferences from click-through logs. Proc. AAAI.
[30]
Salton, G., Wong, A., and Yang, C.S. (1975). A vector space model for automatic indexing. CACM, 18(11): 613--620.
[31]
Saracevic, T. (1997). The stratified model of information retrieval interaction: Extensions and applications. Proc. ASIS, 34: 313--327.
[32]
Schwarz, J. and Morris, M.R. (2011). Augmenting Web pages and search results to help people find trustworthy information online. Proc. SIGCHI, 1245--1254.
[33]
Simon, H. (1991). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 125--134.
[34]
Snow, R., O'Connor, B., Jurafsky, D., and Ng, A.Y. (2008). Cheap and fast -- but is it good? Evaluating non-expert annotations for natural language tasks. Proc. EMNLP, 254--263.
[35]
Sontag, D. et al. (2012). Probabilistic models for personalizing web search. Proc. WSDM, 433--442.
[36]
Tang, T.T., Hawking, D., Craswell, N., and Griffiths, K. (2005). Focused crawling for both topical relevance and quality of medical information. Proc. CIKM, 147--154.
[37]
Taylor, R.S. (1968). Question-negotiation and information seeking in libraries. College and Res. Libraries, 29: 178--194.
[38]
Teevan, J., Dumais, S.T., and Horvitz, E. (2005). Personalizing search via automated analysis of interests and activities. Proc. SIGIR, 449--456.
[39]
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(1): 207--233.
[40]
Vaughn, L. and Thelwall, M. (2004). Search engine coverage bias: evidence and possible causes. IP&M, 40(4): 693--707.
[41]
Wason, P.C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task, Q. J. of Exp. Psychology, 12: 129--140.
[42]
White, R.W., Bennett, P.N., and Dumais, S.T. (2010). Predict-ing short-term interests using activity-based search context. Proc. CIKM, 1009--1018.
[43]
White, R.W. and Drucker, S.M. (2007). Investigating behavioral variability in Web search. Proc. WWW, 21--30.
[44]
White, R.W. and Horvitz, E. (2009). Cyberchondria: Studies of the escalation of medical concerns in web search. ACM TOIS, 27(4): 23.
[45]
White, R.W. and Horvitz, E. (2012). Studies on the onset and persistence of medical concerns in search logs. Proc. SIGIR, 265--274.
[46]
Xiang, B. et al. (2010). Context-aware ranking in web search. Proc. SIGIR, 451--458.
[47]
Yue, Y., Patel, R., and Roehrig, H. (2010). Beyond position bias: Examining result attractiveness as a source of presentation bias in clickthrough data. Proc. WWW, 1011--1018.
[48]
Zhai, C., Cohen, W.W., and Lafferty, J. (2003). Beyond independent relevance: Methods and evaluation metrics for subtopic retrieval. Proc. SIGIR, 10--17.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Evaluating Cognitive Biases in Conversational and Generative IIR: A TutorialProceedings of the 2024 Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval in the Asia Pacific Region10.1145/3673791.3698437(287-290)Online publication date: 8-Dec-2024
  • (2024)Cognitively Biased Users Interacting with Algorithmically Biased Results in Whole-Session Search on Debated TopicsProceedings of the 2024 ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval10.1145/3664190.3672520(227-237)Online publication date: 2-Aug-2024
  • (2024)A framework to support experimentation in the context of Cognitive Biases in Search as a Learning processProceedings of the 20th Brazilian Symposium on Information Systems10.1145/3658271.3658310(1-9)Online publication date: 20-May-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences
SIGIR '13: Proceedings of the 36th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval
July 2013
1188 pages
ISBN:9781450320344
DOI:10.1145/2484028
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 28 July 2013

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. beliefs
  2. biases
  3. health search
  4. search interaction

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Conference

SIGIR '13
Sponsor:

Acceptance Rates

SIGIR '13 Paper Acceptance Rate 73 of 366 submissions, 20%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 792 of 3,983 submissions, 20%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)140
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)7
Reflects downloads up to 20 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Evaluating Cognitive Biases in Conversational and Generative IIR: A TutorialProceedings of the 2024 Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval in the Asia Pacific Region10.1145/3673791.3698437(287-290)Online publication date: 8-Dec-2024
  • (2024)Cognitively Biased Users Interacting with Algorithmically Biased Results in Whole-Session Search on Debated TopicsProceedings of the 2024 ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval10.1145/3664190.3672520(227-237)Online publication date: 2-Aug-2024
  • (2024)A framework to support experimentation in the context of Cognitive Biases in Search as a Learning processProceedings of the 20th Brazilian Symposium on Information Systems10.1145/3658271.3658310(1-9)Online publication date: 20-May-2024
  • (2024)Balancing Act: Boosting Strategies for Informed Search on Controversial TopicsProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval10.1145/3627508.3638329(254-265)Online publication date: 10-Mar-2024
  • (2024)From Potential to Practice: Intellectual Humility During Search on Debated TopicsProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval10.1145/3627508.3638306(130-141)Online publication date: 10-Mar-2024
  • (2024)Search under Uncertainty: Cognitive Biases and Heuristics - Tutorial on Modeling Search Interaction using Behavioral EconomicsProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval10.1145/3627508.3638297(427-430)Online publication date: 10-Mar-2024
  • (2024)Disentangling Web Search on Debated Topics: A User-Centered ExplorationProceedings of the 32nd ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization10.1145/3627043.3659559(24-35)Online publication date: 22-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Search under Uncertainty: Cognitive Biases and Heuristics: A Tutorial on Testing, Mitigating and Accounting for Cognitive Biases in Search ExperimentsProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval10.1145/3626772.3661382(3013-3016)Online publication date: 10-Jul-2024
  • (2024)Language Fairness in Multilingual Information RetrievalProceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval10.1145/3626772.3657943(2487-2491)Online publication date: 10-Jul-2024
  • (2024)Worse Than Ignorance10.1017/9781009289542Online publication date: 4-Apr-2024
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media