Online videos have become a prevalent means for people to acquire information. Videos, however, are often polarized, misleading, or contain topics on which people have different, contradictory views. In this work, we introduce natural language explanations to stimulate more deliberate reasoning about videos and raise users' awareness of potentially deceiving or biased information. With these explanations, we aim to support users in actively deciding and reflecting on the usefulness of the videos. We generate the explanations through an end-to-end pipeline that extracts reflection triggers so users receive additional information to the video based on its source, covered topics, communicated emotions, and sentiment. In a between-subjects user study, we examine the effect of showing the explanations for videos on three controversial topics. Besides, we assess the users' alignment with the video's message and how strong their belief is about the topic. Our results indicate that respondents' alignment with the video's message is critical to evaluate the video's usefulness. Overall, the explanations were found to be useful and of high quality. While the explanations do not influence the perceived usefulness of the videos compared to only seeing the video, people with an extreme negative alignment with a video's message perceived it as less useful (with or without explanations) and felt more confident in their assessment. We relate our findings to cognitive dissonance since users seem to be less receptive to explanations when the video's message strongly challenges their beliefs. Given these findings, we provide a set of design implications for explanations grounded in theories on reducing cognitive dissonance in light of raising awareness about online deception.
Most recommender systems propose items to individual users. However, in domains such as tourism, people often consume items in groups rather than individually. Different individual preferences in such a group can be difficult to resolve, and often compromises need to be made. Social choice strategies can be used to aggregate the preferences of individuals. We evaluated two explainable modified preference aggregation strategies in a between-subject study (n=200), and compared them with two baseline strategies for groups that are also explainable, in two scenarios: high divergence (group members with different travel preferences) and low divergence (group members with similar travel preferences). Generally, all investigated aggregation strategies performed well in terms of perceived individual and group satisfaction and perceived fairness. The results also indicate that participants were sensitive to a dictator-based strategy, which affected both their individual and group satisfaction negatively (compared to the other strategies).
For group recommendations, one objective is to recommend an ordered set of items, a top-N, to a group such that each individual recommendation is relevant for everyone. A common way to do this is to select items on which the group can agree, using so-called 'aggregation strategies'. One weakness of these aggregation strategies is that they select items independently of each other. They therefore cannot guarantee properties such as fairness, that apply to the set of recommendations as a whole.
Recent legislation proposals have significantly increased the demand for eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) in many businesses, especially in so-called `high-risk' domains, such as recruitment. Within recruitment, AI has become commonplace, mainly in the form of job recommender systems (JRSs), which try to match candidates to vacancies, and vice versa. However, common XAI techniques often fall short in this domain due to the different levels and types of expertise of the individuals involved, making explanations difficult to generalize. To determine the explanation preferences of the different stakeholder types - candidates, recruiters, and companies - we created and validated a semi-structured interview guide. Using grounded theory, we structurally analyzed the results of these interviews and found that different stakeholder types indeed have strongly differing explanation preferences. Candidates indicated a preference for brief, textual explanations that allow them to quickly judge potential matches. On the other hand, hiring managers preferred visual graph-based explanations that provide a more technical and comprehensive overview at a glance. Recruiters found more exhaustive textual explanations preferable, as those provided them with more talking points to convince both parties of the match. Based on these findings, we describe guidelines on how to design an explanation interface that fulfills the requirements of all three stakeholder types. Furthermore, we provide the validated interview guide, which can assist future research in determining the explanation preferences of different stakeholder types.
Research in the area of human information interaction (HII) typically represents viewpoints on debated topics in a binary fashion, as either against or in favor of a given topic (e.g., the feminist movement). This simple taxonomy, however, greatly reduces the latent richness of viewpoints and thereby limits the potential of research and practical applications in this field. Work in the communication sciences has already demonstrated that viewpoints can be represented in much more comprehensive ways, which could enable a deeper understanding of users' interactions with debated topics online. For instance, a viewpoint's stance usually has a degree of strength (e.g., mild or strong), and, even if two viewpoints support or oppose something to the same degree, they may use different logics of evaluation (i.e., underlying reasons). In this paper, we draw from communication science practice to propose a novel, two-dimensional way of representing viewpoints that incorporates a viewpoint's stance degree as well as its logic of evaluation. We show in a case study of tweets on debated topics how our proposed viewpoint label can be obtained via crowdsourcing with acceptable reliability. By analyzing the resulting data set and conducting a user study, we further show that the two-dimensional viewpoint representation we propose allows for more meaningful analyses and diversification interventions compared to current approaches. Finally, we discuss what this novel viewpoint label implies for HII research and how obtaining it may be made cheaper in the future.
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.
Multistakeholder recommender systems are those that account for the impacts and preferences of multiple groups of individuals, not just the end users receiving recommendations. Due to their complexity, evaluating these systems cannot be restricted to the overall utility of a single stakeholder, as is often the case of more mainstream recommender system applications. In this article, we focus our discussion on the intricacies of the evaluation of multistakeholder recommender systems. We bring attention to the different aspects involved in the evaluation of multistakeholder recommender systems - from the range of stakeholders involved (including but not limited to producers and consumers) to the values and specific goals of each relevant stakeholder. Additionally, we discuss how to move from theoretical principles to practical implementation, providing specific use case examples. Finally, we outline open research directions for the RecSys community to explore. We aim to provide guidance to researchers and practitioners about how to think about these complex and domain-dependent issues of evaluation in the course of designing, developing, and researching applications with multistakeholder aspects.
Diversity in personalized news recommender systems is often defined as dissimilarity, and operationalized based on topic diversity (e.g., corona versus farmers strike). Diversity in news media, however, is understood as multiperspectivity (e.g., different opinions on corona measures), and arguably a key responsibility of the press in a democratic society. While viewpoint diversity is often considered synonymous with source diversity in communication science domain, in this paper, we take a computational view. We operationalize the notion of framing, adopted from communication science. We apply this notion to a re-ranking of topic-relevant recommended lists, to form the basis of a novel viewpoint diversification method. Our offline evaluation indicates that the proposed method is capable of enhancing the viewpoint diversity of recommendation lists according to a diversity metric from literature. In an online study, on the Blendle platform, a Dutch news aggregator, with more than 2000 users, we found that users are willing to consume viewpoint diverse news recommendations. We also found that presentation characteristics significantly influence the reading behaviour of diverse recommendations. These results suggest that future research on presentation aspects of recommendations can be just as important as novel viewpoint diversification methods to truly achieve multiperspectivity in online news environments.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
