Disentangling Web Search on Debated Topics: A User-Centered Exploration
Pages 24 - 35
Abstract
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.
References
[1]
2023. Britannica ProCon.org. https://www.procon.org/. [Online; accessed 2023-02-01].
[2]
2023. Prolific. https://www.prolific.co/. [Online; accessed 2023-08-10].
[3]
2023. Qualtrics. https://www.qualtrics.com/. [Online; accessed 2023-08-10].
[4]
Eugene Agichtein, Eric Brill, and Susan Dumais. 2006. Improving Web Search Ranking by Incorporating User Behavior Information. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval(SIGIR ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/1148170.1148177
[5]
Hosam Al-Samarraie, Atef Eldenfria, and Husameddin Dawoud. 2017. The Impact of Personality Traits on Users’ Information-Seeking Behavior. Information Processing & Management 53 (2017), 237–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2016.08.004
[6]
Ahmed Allam, Peter Johannes Schulz, and Kent Nakamoto. 2014. The Impact of Search Engine Selection and Sorting Criteria on Vaccination Beliefs and Attitudes: Two Experiments Manipulating Google Output. Journal of Medical Internet Research 16 (2014), e2642. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2642
[7]
Kumaripaba Athukorala, Dorota Głowacka, Giulio Jacucci, Antti Oulasvirta, and Jilles Vreeken. 2016. Is exploratory search different? A comparison of information search behavior for exploratory and lookup tasks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67, 11 (2016), 2635–2651.
[8]
Leif Azzopardi. 2021. Cognitive biases in search: a review and reflection of cognitive biases in Information Retrieval. In Proceedings of the 2021 conference on human information interaction and retrieval. 27–37.
[9]
Ricardo Baeza-Yates. 2018. Bias on the Web. Commun. ACM 61 (2018), 54–61.
[10]
Markus Bink and David Elsweiler. 2024. Balancing Act: Boosting Strategies for Informed Search on Controversial Topics. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval(CHIIR ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 254–265. https://doi.org/10.1145/3627508.3638329
[11]
Robin Burke. 2022. Personalization, Fairness, and Post-Userism. Perspectives on Digital Humanism (2022), 145.
[12]
Matthew K. Buttice and Walter J. Stone. 2012. Candidates Matter: Policy and Quality Differences in Congressional Elections. The Journal of Politics 74 (2012), 870–887. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381612000394
[13]
John T. Cacioppo, Richard E. Petty, and Katherine J. Morris. 1983. Effects of Need for Cognition on Message Evaluation, Recall, and Persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 (1983), 805–818. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805
[14]
Cansu Canca. 2022. Did you find it on the internet? ethical complexities of search engine rankings. Perspectives on Digital Humanism (2022), 135.
[15]
Noel Carroll. 2014. In Search We Trust: Exploring How Search Engines Are Shaping Society. International Journal of Knowledge Society Research (IJKSR) 5 (2014), 12–27. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijksr.2014010102
[16]
Federico Maria Cau and Nava Tintarev. 2024. Navigating the Thin Line: Examining User Behavior in Search to Detect Engagement and Backfire Effects. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.11201 (2024).
[17]
Jason K. Clark and Duane T. Wegener. 2013. Chapter Four - Message Position, Information Processing, and Persuasion: The Discrepancy Motives Model. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Patricia Devine and Ashby Plant (Eds.). Vol. 47. Academic Press, 189–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00004-8
[18]
Tim Draws, Alisa Rieger, Oana Inel, Ujwal Gadiraju, and Nava Tintarev. 2021. A Checklist to Combat Cognitive Biases in Crowdsourcing. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing 9 (2021), 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1609/hcomp.v9i1.18939
[19]
Tim Draws, Nirmal Roy, Oana Inel, Alisa Rieger, Rishav Hada, Mehmet Orcun Yalcin, Benjamin Timmermans, and Nava Tintarev. 2023. Viewpoint Diversity in Search Results. In Advances in Information Retrieval(Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Jaap Kamps, Lorraine Goeuriot, Fabio Crestani, Maria Maistro, Hideo Joho, Brian Davis, Cathal Gurrin, Udo Kruschwitz, and Annalina Caputo (Eds.). Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 279–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28244-7_18
[20]
Tim Draws, Nava Tintarev, Ujwal Gadiraju, Alessandro Bozzon, and Benjamin Timmermans. 2021. This is not what we ordered: Exploring why biased search result rankings affect user attitudes on debated topics. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 295–305.
[21]
Carsten Eickhoff. 2018. Cognitive Biases in Crowdsourcing. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM, Marina Del Rey CA USA, 162–170. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159652.3159654
[22]
Robert Epstein and Ronald E. Robertson. 2015. The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, 33 (Aug. 2015), E4512–E4521. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1419828112
[23]
Ujwal Gadiraju, Ran Yu, Stefan Dietze, and Peter Holtz. 2018. Analyzing knowledge gain of users in informational search sessions on the web. In Proceedings of the 2018 conference on human information interaction & retrieval. 2–11.
[24]
Lisa Gevelber. 2018. It’s all about ‘me’—how people are taking search personally. Technical Report. https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/marketing-strategies/search/personal-needs-search-trends/
[25]
Tim Gorichanaz. 2022. Relating Information Seeking and Use to Intellectual Humility. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 73 (2022), 643–654. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24567
[26]
Tim Gorichanaz. 2023. Virtuous Search: A Framework for Intellectual Virtue in Online Search. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology n/a (2023). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24832
[27]
Jutta Haider and Olof Sundin. 2019. Invisible Search and Online Search Engines: The Ubiquity of Search in Everyday Life. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429448546
[28]
Uriel Haran, Ilana Ritov, and Barbara A. Mellers. 2013. The Role of Actively Open-Minded Thinking in Information Acquisition, Accuracy, and Calibration. Judgment and Decision Making 8 (2013), 188–201.
[29]
Eszter Hargittai, Lindsay Fullerton, Ericka Menchen-Trevino, and Kristin Yates Thomas. 2010. Trust Online: Young Adults’ Evaluation of Web Content. International Journal of Communication 4 (2010), 27.
[30]
William Hart, Dolores Albarracín, Alice H. Eagly, Inge Brechan, Matthew J. Lindberg, and Lisa Merrill. 2009. Feeling Validated versus Being Correct: A Meta-Analysis of Selective Exposure to Information. Psychological Bulletin 135 (2009), 555–588. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015701
[31]
Amelia Hassoun, Ian Beacock, Sunny Consolvo, Beth Goldberg, Patrick Gage Kelley, and Daniel M. Russell. 2023. Practicing Information Sensibility: How Gen Z Engages with Online Information. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581328
[32]
Lauren C. Howe and Jon A. Krosnick. 2017. Attitude Strength. Annual Review of Psychology 68 (2017), 327–351. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033600
[33]
Thorsten Joachims. 2002. Optimizing Search Engines Using Clickthrough Data. In Proceedings of the Eighth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining(KDD ’02). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1145/775047.775067
[34]
Thorsten Joachims, Laura Granka, Bing Pan, Helene Hembrooke, and Geri Gay. 2017. Accurately Interpreting Clickthrough Data as Implicit Feedback. ACM SIGIR Forum 51 (2017), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3130332.3130334
[35]
Dan M. Kahan. 2015. The Politically Motivated Reasoning Paradigm.
[36]
Matthew Kelly. 2021. Epistemology, Epistemic Belief, Personal Epistemology, and Epistemics: A Review of Concepts as They Impact Information Behavior Research. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 72 (2021), 507–519. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24422
[37]
Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick and Jingbo Meng. 2009. Looking the Other Way: Selective Exposure to Attitude-Consistent and Counterattitudinal Political Information. Communication Research 36 (2009), 426–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209333030
[38]
Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick, Benjamin K. Johnson, and Axel Westerwick. 2015. Confirmation Bias in Online Searches: Impacts of Selective Exposure Before an Election on Political Attitude Strength and Shifts. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 20 (2015), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12105
[39]
Hilary Kornblith. 1983. Justified Belief and Epistemically Responsible Action. The Philosophical Review 92 (1983), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/2184520
[40]
Mark R. Leary, Kate J. Diebels, Erin K. Davisson, Katrina P. Jongman-Sereno, Jennifer C. Isherwood, Kaitlin T. Raimi, Samantha A. Deffler, and Rick H. Hoyle. 2017. Cognitive and Interpersonal Features of Intellectual Humility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 43 (2017), 793–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217697695
[41]
Jingjing Liu and Xiangmin Zhang. 2019. The Role of Domain Knowledge in Document Selection from Search Results. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 70 (2019), 1236–1247. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24199
[42]
David Maxwell and Claudia Hauff. 2021. LogUI: Contemporary Logging Infrastructure for Web-Based Experiments. In European Conference on Information Retrieval. Springer, 525–530.
[43]
Microsoft Bing. 2023. Web Search API. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/bing/apis/bing-web-search-api. [Online; accessed 2023-08-10].
[44]
Boaz Miller and Isaac Record. 2013. Justified Belief in the Digital Age: On the Epistemic Implications of Secret Internet Technologies. Episteme 10 (2013), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2013.11
[45]
Julia A. Minson, Frances S. Chen, and Catherine H. Tinsley. 2019. Why Won’t You Listen to Me? Measuring Receptiveness to Opposing Views. Management Science (2019). https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3362
[46]
Safiya Umoja Noble. 2018. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. In Algorithms of Oppression. New York University Press. https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479833641.001.0001
[47]
Rik Peels. 2016. Responsible Belief: A Theory in Ethics and Epistemology. Oxford University Press.
[48]
Gloria Phillips-Wren and Monica Adya. 2020. Decision Making under Stress: The Role of Information Overload, Time Pressure, Complexity, and Uncertainty. Journal of Decision Systems 29 (Aug. 2020), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2020.1768680
[49]
Frances A. Pogacar, Amira Ghenai, Mark D. Smucker, and Charles L.A. Clarke. 2017. The Positive and Negative Influence of Search Results on People’s Decisions about the Efficacy of Medical Treatments. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval(ICTIR ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1145/3121050.3121074
[50]
Tenelle Porter, Abdo Elnakouri, Ethan A. Meyers, Takuya Shibayama, Eranda Jayawickreme, and Igor Grossmann. 2022. Predictors and Consequences of Intellectual Humility. Nature Reviews Psychology 1 (2022), 524–536. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00081-9
[51]
Tenelle Porter and Karina Schumann. 2018. Intellectual Humility and Openness to the Opposing View. Self and Identity 17 (2018), 139–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2017.1361861
[52]
Tenelle Porter, Karina Schumann, Diana Selmeczy, and Kali Trzesniewski. 2020. Intellectual Humility Predicts Mastery Behaviors When Learning. Learning and Individual Differences 80 (2020), 101888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101888
[53]
Emmanuel M. Pothos, Stephan Lewandowsky, Irina Basieva, Albert Barque-Duran, Katy Tapper, and Andrei Khrennikov. 2021. Information Overload for (Bounded) Rational Agents. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 288 (Feb. 2021), 20202957. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2020.2957
[54]
Kristen Purcell, Lee Rainie, and Joanna Brenner. 2012. Search engine use 2012. (2012).
[55]
Alisa Rieger, Frank Bredius, Mariët Theune, and Maria Soledad Pera. 2024. From Potential to Practice: Intellectual Humility During Search on Debated Topics. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval(CHIIR ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1145/3627508.3638306
[56]
Alisa Rieger, Frank Bredius, Nava Tintarev, and Maria Soledad Pera. 2023. Searching for the Whole Truth: Harnessing the Power of Intellectual Humility to Boost Better Search on Debated Topics. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(CHI EA ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544549.3585693
[57]
Alisa Rieger, Tim Draws, Nicolas Mattis, David Maxwell, David Elsweiler, Ujwal Gadiraju, Dana McKay, Alessandro Bozzon, and Maria Soledad Pera. 2024. Responsible Opinion Formation on Debated Topics in Web Search. In Advances in Information Retrieval, Nazli Goharian, Nicola Tonellotto, Yulan He, Aldo Lipani, Graham McDonald, Craig Macdonald, and Iadh Ounis (Eds.). Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 437–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56066-8_32
[58]
Alisa Rieger, Tim Draws, Mariët Theune, and Nava Tintarev. 2021. This Item Might Reinforce Your Opinion: Obfuscation and Labeling of Search Results to Mitigate Confirmation Bias. In Proceedings of the 32st ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media. ACM, Virtual Event USA, 189–199. https://doi.org/10.1145/3465336.3475101
[59]
Alisa Rieger, Tim Draws, Mariët Theune, and Nava Tintarev. 2023. Nudges to Mitigate Confirmation Bias during Web Search on Debated Topics: Support vs. Manipulation. ACM Transactions on the Web (2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3635034
[60]
Ronald E. Robertson, Jon Green, Damian J. Ruck, Katherine Ognyanova, Christo Wilson, and David Lazer. 2023. Users Choose to Engage with More Partisan News than They Are Exposed to on Google Search. Nature (2023), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06078-5
[61]
Nirmal Roy, Manuel Valle Torre, Ujwal Gadiraju, David Maxwell, and Claudia Hauff. 2021. Note the highlight: incorporating active reading tools in a search as learning environment. In Proceedings of the 2021 conference on human information interaction and retrieval. 229–238.
[62]
Ladislao Salmerón, Yvonne Kammerer, and Pilar García-Carrión. 2013. Searching the Web for Conflicting Topics: Page and User Factors. Computers in Human Behavior 29 (2013), 2161–2171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.04.034
[63]
Reijo Savolainen. 2016. Elaborating the Conceptual Space of Information-Seeking Phenomena. Information Research: An International Electronic Journal 21 (2016).
[64]
Chirag Shah and Emily M. Bender. 2022. Situating Search. In ACM SIGIR Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval(CHIIR ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 221–232. https://doi.org/10.1145/3498366.3505816
[65]
Laura Slechten, Cédric Courtois, Lennert Coenen, and Bieke Zaman. 2022. Adapting the Selective Exposure Perspective to Algorithmically Governed Platforms: The Case of Google Search. Communication Research 49 (2022), 1039–1065. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502211012154
[66]
Catherine L. Smith and Soo Young Rieh. 2019. Knowledge-Context in Search Systems: Toward Information-Literate Actions. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval(CHIIR ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/3295750.3298940
[67]
Olof Sundin, Dirk Lewandowski, and Jutta Haider. 2022. Whose Relevance? Web Search Engines as Multisided Relevance Machines. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 73 (2022), 637–642. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24570
[68]
Charles S. Taber, Damon Cann, and Simona Kucsova. 2009. The Motivated Processing of Political Arguments. Political Behavior 31 (2009), 137–155.
[69]
Kjerstin Thorson and Chris Wells. 2016. Curated Flows: A Framework for Mapping Media Exposure in the Digital Age. Communication Theory 26 (2016), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12087
[70]
Eran Toch, Yang Wang, and Lorrie Faith Cranor. 2012. Personalization and Privacy: A Survey of Privacy Risks and Remedies in Personalization-Based Systems. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 22 (2012), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-011-9110-z
[71]
Zakary L. Tormala and Derek D. Rucker. 2018. Attitude Certainty: Antecedents, Consequences, and New Directions. Consumer Psychology Review 1 (2018), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/arcp.1004
[72]
Johan L. H. van Strien, Yvonne Kammerer, Saskia Brand-Gruwel, and Henny P. A. Boshuizen. 2016. How Attitude Strength Biases Information Processing and Evaluation on the Web. Computers in Human Behavior 60 (2016), 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.057
[73]
Dáša Vedejová and Vladimíra Čavojová. 2022. Confirmation Bias in Information Search, Interpretation, and Memory Recall: Evidence from Reasoning about Four Controversial Topics. Thinking & Reasoning 28 (2022), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2021.1891967
[74]
Henning Wachsmuth, Martin Potthast, Khalid Al-Khatib, Yamen Ajjour, Jana Puschmann, Jiani Qu, Jonas Dorsch, Viorel Morari, Janek Bevendorff, and Benno Stein. 2017. Building an Argument Search Engine for the Web. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Argument Mining. Association for Computational Linguistics, Copenhagen, Denmark, 49–59. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-5106
[75]
Ryen White. 2013. Beliefs and Biases in Web Search. In Proceedings of the 36th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval(SIGIR ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/2484028.2484053
[76]
Ryen W. White. 2014. Belief Dynamics in Web Search. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65 (2014), 2165–2178. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23128
[77]
Ryen W. White, Susan T. Dumais, and Jaime Teevan. 2009. Characterizing the Influence of Domain Expertise on Web Search Behavior. In Proceedings of the Second ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining(WSDM ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1145/1498759.1498819
[78]
Ryen W. White and Eric Horvitz. 2015. Belief Dynamics and Biases in Web Search. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 33 (2015), 18:1–18:46. https://doi.org/10.1145/2746229
[79]
Ryen W. White and Resa A. Roth. 2009. Exploratory Search: Beyond the Query-Response Paradigm. Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval, and Services 1 (2009), 1–98. https://doi.org/10.2200/S00174ED1V01Y200901ICR003
[80]
Zhangyi Wu, Tim Draws, Federico Cau, Francesco Barile, Alisa Rieger, and Nava Tintarev. 2023. Explaining Search Result Stances to Opinionated People. In Explainable Artificial Intelligence(Communications in Computer and Information Science), Luca Longo (Ed.). Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 573–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44067-0_29
[81]
Ran Yu, Ujwal Gadiraju, Peter Holtz, Markus Rokicki, Philipp Kemkes, and Stefan Dietze. 2018. Predicting user knowledge gain in informational search sessions. In The 41st international ACM SIGIR conference on research & development in information retrieval. 75–84.
Index Terms
- Disentangling Web Search on Debated Topics: A User-Centered Exploration
Recommendations
From Potential to Practice: Intellectual Humility During Search on Debated Topics
CHIIR '24: Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Human Information Interaction and RetrievalAn 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 ...
Nudges to Mitigate Confirmation Bias during Web Search on Debated Topics: Support vs. Manipulation
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, ...
Understanding How Algorithmic and Cognitive Biases in Web Search Affect User Attitudes on Debated Topics
SIGIR '21: Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information RetrievalWeb search increasingly provides a platform for users to seek advice on important personal decisions but may be biased in several different ways. One result of such biases is the search engine manipulation effect (SEME): when a list of search results ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
June 2024
338 pages
ISBN:9798400704338
DOI:10.1145/3627043
Copyright © 2024 Owner/Author.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 22 June 2024
Check for updates
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Funding Sources
Conference
UMAP '24: 32nd ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization
July 1 - 4, 2024
Cagliari, Italy
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 162 of 633 submissions, 26%
Upcoming Conference
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 298Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)298
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)75
Reflects downloads up to 20 Feb 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML FormatLogin options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in