CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 174

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Beyond user experience: What constitutes algorithmic experiences?

Shin, Donghee, Zhong, Bu, Biocca, Frank A.·2020·International Journal of Information Management
DOI 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.102061
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.102061

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the context of an algorithm, integrity can be explained in terms of fairness, transparency, and accountability.

    “In the context of an algorithm, integrity can be explained in terms of fairness, transparency, and accountability (Shin and Park, 2019; Shin et al., 2020).”

    From Why do users trust algorithms? A review and conceptualization of initial trust and trust over time (2022) · cites this paper as Shin et al., 2020

  • The greater the integrity in terms of accountability an algorithm demonstrates, the higher the probability of building initial trust in AI-based algorithms.

    “Proposition P2e. The greater the integrity in terms of accountability an algorithm demonstrates, the higher the probability of building initial trust in AI-based algorithms.”

    From Why do users trust algorithms? A review and conceptualization of initial trust and trust over time (2022) · cites this paper as Shin et al., 2020

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Alexander, 2018, Why trust an algorithm? Performance, cognition, and neurophysiology, Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 279, 10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.026 · DOI
  2. Alvarado, 2018, Towards algorithmic experience, Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 286
  3. Bedi, 2014, Empowering recommender systems using trust and argumentation, Information Sciences, 279, 569, 10.1016/j.ins.2014.04.012 · DOI
  4. Courtois, 2018, Cracking the tinder code: An experience sampling approach to the dynamics and impact of platform governing algorithms, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 23, 1, 10.1093/jcmc/zmx001 · DOI
  5. Crain, 2018, The limits of transparency: Data brokers and commodification, New Media & Society, 10.1177/1461444816657096 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Diakopoulos, 2016, Accountability in algorithmic decision making, Communications of the ACM, 59, 58, 10.1145/2844110 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Ettlinger, 2018, Algorithmic affordances for productive resistance, Big Data & Society, 5, 1, 10.1177/2053951718771399 · DOI
  8. Helberger, 2018, Exposure diversity as a design principle for recommender systems, Information, Communication and Society, 21, 191, 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1271900 · DOI
  9. Hong, 2013, The mediating role of consumer trust in an online merchant in predicting purchase intention, International Journal of Information Management, 33, 927, 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.08.007 · DOI
  10. Hughes, 2019, Blockchain research, practice and policy, International Journal of Information Management, 49, 114, 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.02.005 · DOI
  11. Ismagilova, 2020, Perceived helpfulness of eWOM: Emotions, fairness and rationality, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.02.002 · DOI
  12. Kim, 2019, Designing an algorithm-driven text generation system for personalized and interactive news reading, International Journal of Human-computer Interaction, 35, 109, 10.1080/10447318.2018.1437864 · DOI
  13. Kitchin, 2017, Thinking critically about and researching algorithms, Information, Communication and Society, 20, 14, 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154087 · DOI
  14. Knijnenburg, 2012, Explaining the user experience of recommender systems, User Modeling and User-adapted Interaction, 22, 441, 10.1007/s11257-011-9118-4 · DOI
  15. Konstan, 2012, Recommender systems, User Modeling and User-adapted Interaction, 22, 101, 10.1007/s11257-011-9112-x · DOI
  16. Lee, 2017, Conceptualizing transparency: Propositions for the integration of situational factors and stakeholders’ perspectives, Public Relations Inquiry, 6, 233, 10.1177/2046147X17694937 · DOI
  17. Li, 2016, When does web-based personalization really work?, Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 25, 10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.049 · DOI
  18. Moller, 2018, Do not blame it on the algorithm, Information, Communication and Society, 21, 959, 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1444076 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Montal, 2017, I, robot. you, journalist. Who is the author?, Digital Journalism, 5, 829, 10.1080/21670811.2016.1209083 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Parizi, 2016, EmoNews, Journal of Digital Information Management, 14, 392
  21. Pu, 2012, Evaluating recommender systems from the users perspective, User Modeling and User-adapted Interaction, 22, 317, 10.1007/s11257-011-9115-7 · DOI
  22. Rana, 2017, Citizens’ adoption of an electronic government system, Information Systems Frontiers, 19, 549, 10.1007/s10796-015-9613-y · DOI · Paper page
  23. Shin, 2010, The effects of trust, security and privacy in social networking: A security-based approach to understand the pattern of adoption, Interacting With Computers, 22, 428, 10.1016/j.intcom.2010.05.001 · DOI
  24. Shin, 2017, The role of affordance in the experience of virtual reality learning: Technological and affective affordances in virtual reality, Telematics and Informatics, 34, 1826, 10.1016/j.tele.2017.05.013 · DOI
  25. Shin, 2019, How do users experience the interaction with an immersive screen?, Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 302, 10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.010 · DOI
  26. Shin, 2018, Exploring immersive experience in journalism what makes people empathize with and embody immersive journalism?, New Media & Society, 20, 2800, 10.1177/1461444817733133 · DOI
  27. Shin, 2019, Role of fairness, accountability, and transparency in algorithmic affordance, Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 277, 10.1016/j.chb.2019.04.019 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Shin, 2019, Prospectus and limitations of algorithmic governance: An ecological evaluation of algorithmic trends, Digital Policy Regulation and Governance, 24, 369, 10.1108/DPRG-03-2019-0017 · DOI
  29. Sloan, 2017, When is an algorithm transparent? Predictive analytics, privacy, and public policy, IEEE Security & Privacy
  30. Soffer, 2019, Algorithmic personalization and the two-step flow of communication, Communication Theory
  31. Sundar, 2014, User experience of on-screen interaction techniques: An experimental investigation of clicking, sliding, zooming, hovering, dragging & flipping, Human-Computer Interaction, 29, 109, 10.1080/07370024.2013.789347 · DOI
  32. Tamilmani, 2019, The battle of brain vs. heart: A literature review and meta-analysis of hedonic motivation use in UTAUT2, International Journal of Information Management, 46, 222, 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.008 · DOI
  33. Thurman, 2019, My friends, editors, algorithms, and I, Digital Journalism, 7, 447, 10.1080/21670811.2018.1493936 · DOI
  34. Wilson, 2017, Algorithms (and the) everyday, Information, Communication and Society, 20, 137, 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1200645 · DOI
  35. Wolker, 2020, Algorithms in the newsroom? News readers’ perceived credibility and selection of automated journalism, Journalism
  36. Zheng, 2014, Modeling and broadening temporal user interest in personalized news recommendation, Expert Systems with Applications, 47, 3168
  37. Zheng, 2018, When algorithms meet journalism: The user perception to automated news in a cross-cultural context, Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 266, 10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.046 · DOI
  38. Ziewitz, 2016, Governing algorithms myth, mess, and methods, Science, Technology & Human Values, 41, 3, 10.1177/0162243915608948 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Shin, D., Zhong, B., & Biocca, F. A.
Venue
International Journal of Information Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-06
Volume
52
Pages
102061
ISSN
0268-4012
DOI
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.102061
Cited by
174
References
11
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review