Understanding User Beliefs About Algorithmic Curation in the Facebook News Feed
Abstract
People are becoming increasingly reliant on online socio-technical systems that employ algorithmic curation to organize, select and present information. We wanted to understand how individuals make sense of the influence of algorithms, and how awareness of algorithmic curation may impact their interaction with these systems. We investigated user understanding of algorithmic curation in Facebook's News Feed, by analyzing open-ended responses to a survey question about whether respondents believe their News Feeds show them every post their Facebook Friends create. Responses included a wide range of beliefs and causal inferences, with different potential consequences for user behavior in the system. Because user behavior is both input for algorithms and constrained by them, these patterns of belief may have tangible consequences for the system as a whole.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The algorithms embedded in social media adjust the content they feed each particular user such that each user will remain engaged with the platform for ever longer periods of time.
“The algorithms embedded in social media adjust the content they feed each particular user such that each user will remain engaged with the platform for ever longer periods of time”
From Ethics of the Attention Economy: The Problem of Social Media Addiction (2021) · cites this paper as Rader & Gray, 2015
Social media companies use adaptive algorithms that continuously refine their platforms such that they can become more addictive for each user.
“Social media companies use so-called adaptive algorithms that continuously refine their platforms such that they can become more addictive for each user.”
From Ethics of the Attention Economy: The Problem of Social Media Addiction (2021) · cites this paper as Rader & Gray, 2015
Cites
Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks
Kramer, A. D. I., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1320040111 · Cited by 3,687 · see citing works
(2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-6156 · Cited by 3,084 · see citing works
The role of social networks in information diffusion
Bakshy, E., Rosenn, I., Marlow, C., & Adamic, L. (2012) · Proceedings of the 21st international conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/2187836.2187907 · Cited by 1,526 · see citing works
Looking at, looking up or keeping up with people?: motives and use of facebook
Joinson, A. N. (2008) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1357054.1357213 · Cited by 1,393 · see citing works
Wright, D., & Meadows, D. H. (2012) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781849773386 · Cited by 1,373 · see citing works
Patterson, T. E. (1993) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,306 · see citing works
Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook
Bucher, T. (2012) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444812440159 · Cited by 1,305 · see citing works
Gillespie, T. (2014) · Media Technologies · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9042.003.0013 · Cited by 1,016 · see citing works
Mental Models: An Interdisciplinary Synthesis of Theory and Methods
Jones, N. A., Ross, H., Lynam, T., Perez, P., & Leitch, A. (2011) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-03802-160146 · Cited by 1,001 · see citing works
Sociotechnical principles for system design
Clegg, C. (2000) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/s0003-6870(00)00009-0 · Cited by 846 · see citing works
Blockbuster Culture's Next Rise or Fall: The Impact of Recommender Systems on Sales Diversity
Fleder, D. M., & Hosanagar, K. (2009) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1080.0974 · Cited by 749 · see citing works
Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization
Bozdag, E. (2013) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-013-9321-6 · Cited by 649 · see citing works
Nguyen, T. T., Hui, P.-M., Harper, F. M., Terveen, L., & Konstan, J. A. (2014) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/2566486.2568012 · Cited by 584 · see citing works
Recommended for you: The Netflix Prize and the production of algorithmic culture
Hallinan, B., & Striphas, T. (2014) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444814538646 · Cited by 542 · see citing works
User-generated visibility: Secondary gatekeeping in a shared media space
Singer, J. B. (2013) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444813477833 · Cited by 444 · see citing works
Item popularity and recommendation accuracy
Steck, H. (2011) · ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys) · doi:10.1145/2043932.2043957 · Cited by 333 · see citing works
User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization
Ricci⋆, F., Bontcheva, K., Conlan, O., & Lawless, S. (2015) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-20267-9 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
Gelman, S. A., & Legare, C. H. (2010) · Annual Review of Anthropology · doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145822 · Cited by 238 · see citing works
Bernstein, M. S., Suh, B., Hong, L., et al. (2010) · ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST) · doi:10.1145/1866029.1866077 · Cited by 163 · see citing works
WWW 2014 - Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web
Nguyen, T. T., Hui, P.-M., Harper, M., Terveen, L., & Konstan, J. A. (2014) · Cited by 146 · see citing works
A path to understanding the effects of algorithm awareness
Hamilton, K., Karahalios, K. G., Sandvig, C., & Eslami, M. (2014) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/2559206.2578883 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
What Recommenders Recommend – An Analysis of Accuracy, Popularity, and Sales Diversity Effects
Jannach, D., Lerche, L., Gedikli, F., & Bonnin, G. (2013) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38844-6_3 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Normative influences on thoughtful online participation
Sukumaran, A., Vezich, S., McHugh, M., & Nass, C. (2011) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1978942.1979450 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
User attitudes towards news content personalization
Lavie, T., Sela, M., Oppenheim, I., Inbar, O., & Meyer, J. (2009) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.09.011 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Learning to model relatedness for news recommendation
Lv, Y., Moon, T., Kolari, P., et al. (2011) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/1963405.1963417 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Chen, J., Nairn, R., & Ed, H. (2011) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1978942.1978974 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
(1977) · Teaching of Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15328023top0402_17 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Network-Centric Recommendation: Personalization with and in Social Networks
Sharma, A. K., & Cosley, D. (2011) · International Conference on Social Computing · doi:10.1109/passat/socialcom.2011.166 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
From Invisible Algorithms to Interactive Affordances: Data After the Ideology of Machine Learning
Hogan, B. (2014) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05467-4_7 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Understanding change in complex socio-technical systems
Rouse, W. B., & Serban, N. (2011) · Information Knowledge Systems Management · doi:10.3233/iks-2012-0184 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Friends, Strangers, and the Value of Ego Networks for Recommendation
Sharma, A. K., Gemici, M., & Cosley, D. (2021) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v7i1.14460 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Harding-Price, D., & Gibbon, J. (2003) · Nursing Standard · doi:10.7748/ns.17.37.27.s35 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Backstrom L., 2013, Aug.
- Lenhart A., 2009, Adults and social network sites. Tech. rep
- Sharma A., 2013, ICWSM '13
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ali, S., Abuhmed, T., El-Sappagh, S., Muhammad, K., Alonso-Moral, J. M., Confalonieri, R., Guidotti, R., Del Ser, J., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., & Herrera, F. (2023) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101805 · Cited by 1,762 · see citing works
The algorithmic imaginary: exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms
Bucher, T. (2016) · Information Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2016.1154086 · Cited by 1,420 · see citing works
“As Rader and Gray (2015) point out, the feedback-loop characteristics of these systems make user beliefs an important component in shaping the overall system behaviour.”
BackgroundInfluentialLee, M. K. (2018) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951718756684 · Cited by 1,338 · see citing works
“First, our research contributes to emerging studies that investigate people’s mental models and folk theories of algorithms (Bucher, 2016; Eslami et al., 2015; Rader and Gray, 2015), and social studies on automation, artificial intelligence and machine learning more broadly.”
BackgroundInfluentialA Multidisciplinary Survey and Framework for Design and Evaluation of Explainable AI Systems
Mohseni, S., Zarei, N., & Ragan, E. D. (2021) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/3387166 · Cited by 785 · see citing works
“In order to find out how an intelligent system should explain its behavior for non-experts, research on machine learning explanations has studied how users interpret intelligent agents [47, 164] and algorithms [171] to find out what users expect from machine explanations.”
BackgroundImproving Fairness in Machine Learning Systems: What Do Industry Practitioners Need?
Holstein, K., Wortman Vaughan, J., Daumé, H., Dudik, M., & Wallach, H. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3290605.3300830 · Cited by 777 · see citing works
“…influence every facet of our lives, including the quality of healthcare and education we receive [16, 31, 32, 49], which news or social media posts we see [4, 18, 84], who receives a job [46, 82], who is released from jail [8, 23], and who is subjected to increased policing [65, 71, 94].”
BackgroundManipulating and Measuring Model Interpretability
Poursabzi-Sangdeh, F., Goldstein, D. G., Hofman, J. M., Wortman Vaughan, J. W., & Wallach, H. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445315 · Cited by 728 · see citing works
“ent [33], judicial sentencing and bail [3, 14, 35, 37], and hiring [43]. In addition, these models influence decisions about what news people see on social media platforms (e.g., Twitter and Facebook, [2, 10, 48, 61]), provide recommendations for what movies to watch (e.g., Netflix, [7]) or what music to listen to on on…”
BackgroundHow Much Information?: Effects of Transparency on Trust in an Algorithmic Interface
Kizilcec, R. F. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858402 · Cited by 615 · see citing works
“Yet many users are unaware of this algorithm [7] or develop personal beliefs about it [22].”
BackgroundWest, S. M. (2018) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444818773059 · Cited by 445 · see citing works
“These theories are often incomplete, are generated out of each user’s personal experiences, and serve to help them both to filter information and to make decisions about how they interact with the world (Gelman and Legare, 2011; Jones et al., 2011; Rader and Gray, 2015).”
To be or not to be algorithm aware: a question of a new digital divide?
Gran, A.-B., Booth, P., & Bucher, T. (2021) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2020.1736124 · Cited by 410 · see citing works
“%) in their sample believe they do not see every post their friends create, but also that ‘ users vary widely in the degree to which they perceive and understand the behaviour of content fi ltering algorithms ’ (Rader & Gray, 2015, p. 181).”
BackgroundExplanations as Mechanisms for Supporting Algorithmic Transparency
Rader, E., Cotter, K., & Cho, J. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3173677 · Cited by 388 · see citing works
“Users may become aware of an algorithm through repeated experiences with a system [46].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationSwart, J. (2021) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051211008828 · Cited by 381 · see citing works
“Previous work has used various methods to study users’ algorithmic literacy, from survey questionnaires (Cotter & Reisdorf, 2020; Gran et al., 2020; Rader & Gray, 2015) and experiments (Eslami et al., 2015) to focus groups (Siles et al., 2019) and in-depth interviews, often aided by card sorts…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialMontag, C., Lachmann, B., Herrlich, M., & Zweig, K. (2019) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph16142612 · Cited by 387 · see citing works
“For a work dealing with user beliefs considering how the algorithm applied behind the ‘Newsfeed’ works, please see Rader & Gray [72].”
MethodFirst I "like" it, then I hide it: Folk Theories of Social Feeds
Eslami, M., Karahalios, K., Sandvig, C., Vaccaro, K., Rickman, A., Hamilton, K., & Kirlik, A. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858494 · Cited by 375 · see citing works
“Previous work investigated users’ awareness of curation algorithms, paths toward awareness and effects of awareness [9, 29], yet much remains unknown about which folk theories exist to make sense of these algorithms, the connection between design and the development of folk theory, and the utility…”
BackgroundHow do social media feed algorithms affect attitudes and behavior in an election campaign?
Guess, A. M., Malhotra, N., Pan, J., Barberá, P., Allcott, H., Brown, T., Crespo-Tenorio, A., Dimmery, D., Freelon, D., Gentzkow, M., et al. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abp9364 · Cited by 363 · see citing works
Karizat, N., Delmonaco, D., Eslami, M., & Andalibi, N. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3476046 · Cited by 376 · see citing works
“Rader and Gray argue that “because user behavior is both input for algorithms and constrained by them, these patterns of belief may have tangible consequences for the system as a whole” [64].”
BackgroundDigital inequalities in the age of artificial intelligence and big data
Lutz, C. (2019) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1002/hbe2.140 · Cited by 411 · see citing works
Ethics of the Attention Economy: The Problem of Social Media Addiction
Bhargava, V. R., & Velasquez, M. (2021) · Business Ethics Quarterly · doi:10.1017/beq.2020.32 · Cited by 292 · see citing works
“For an overview of philosophical theories of intention, see Setiya (2018). periods of time (Lanier, 2018; Rader & Gray, 2015).11 The algorithms do this by monitoring the amount of time particular kinds of content keep the particular user engaged with the platform, and they use that data to…”
BackgroundStand out of our Light: Freedom and Resistance in the Attention Economy
Williams, J. (2018) · doi:10.1017/9781108453004 · Cited by 303 · see citing works
DeVito, M. A., Gergle, D., & Birnholtz, J. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3025453.3025659 · Cited by 311 · see citing works
“, [5, 10, 11, 29]) have focused on operational theories, defining algorithmic awareness as starting at what we call operational folk theories.”
BackgroundInfluentialBreaking the filter bubble: democracy and design
Bozdag, E., & van den Hoven, J. (2015) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-015-9380-y · Cited by 375 · see citing works
“Recent studies indicate that most people are unaware of filters in social media (Eslami et al. 2015; Rader and Gray 2015).”
BackgroundDeVito, M. A., Birnholtz, J., Hancock, J. T., French, M., & Liu, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3173694 · Cited by 244 · see citing works
“People adjust their behavior once they are aware an algorithm is in play, including closely comparing who is shown in their feeds to their prior expectations, among other tactics [7, 11, 12, 42].”
InfluentialRawal, A., McCoy, J., Rawat, D. B., Sadler, B. M., & Amant, R. S. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tai.2021.3133846 · Cited by 243 · see citing works
“, investigated the users’ interpretations of the AI/ML systems and their algorithms [82] [83].”
BackgroundA Qualitative Exploration of Perceptions of Algorithmic Fairness
Woodruff, A., Fox, S. E., Rousso-Schindler, S., & Warshaw, J. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3174230 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
“For example, studies have found that some participants are not aware of algorithmic curation in the Facebook News Feed [31,69] or the gathering of online behavioral data and its use for inferencing [86], or underestimate the prevalence and scale of data gathering and its use in practical…”
BackgroundInformation Overload: An Introduction
Bawden, D., & Robinson, L. (2020) · Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1360 · Cited by 249 · see citing works
For You, or For"You"?: Everyday LGBTQ+ Encounters with TikTok
Simpson, E., & Semaan, B. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3432951 · Cited by 230 · see citing works
“Other studies have focused on individual experiences with algorithmic systems through examining the information sharing practices around visibility on Instagram [29], individual’s awareness of news feed personalization [47, 106, 107], and the ways algorithms can influence self-presentation on various dating applicatio…”
BackgroundFolk theories of algorithms: Understanding digital irritation
Ytre-Arne, B., & Moe, H. (2020) · Media Culture & Society · doi:10.1177/0163443720972314 · Cited by 226 · see citing works
“As mentioned, HCI studies have fruitfully applied folk theory frameworks to understand perceptions of algorithms (Eslami et al., 2016; Rader and Gray 2015, also French and Hancock 2017), underling the value of user perspectives and producing useful typologies.”
BackgroundPlatforms, People, and Perception: Using Affordances to Understand Self-Presentation on Social Media
DeVito, M. A., Birnholtz, J., & Hancock, J. T. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing · doi:10.1145/2998181.2998192 · Cited by 227 · see citing works
“…the possibility of context collapse [8, 41, 58] and makes it hard for users to understand which audiences they are “performing” their self for [18, 48], exacerbating the existing problem of inaccurately imagined audiences, where the user’s own idea of who will likely see content diverges from the…”
BackgroundNasarian, E., Alizadehsani, R., Acharya, U. R., & Tsui, K.-L. (2024) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2024.102412 · Cited by 207 · see citing works
Ku, K. Y. L., Kong, Q., Song, Y., Deng, L., Kang, Y., & Hu, A. (2019) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2019.05.004 · Cited by 207 · see citing works
Trick and Please. A Mixed-Method Study On User Assumptions About the TikTok Algorithm
Klug, D., Qin, Y., Evans, M. C., & Kaufman, G. F. (2021) · ACM Web Science Conference (WebSci) · doi:10.1145/3447535.3462512 · Cited by 238 · see citing works
“Research on user theories about recommendation algorithms covers, for example, Facebook news feed curation [21, 22, 44], or Spotify music suggestions [49], and how user assumptions influence user engagement [15].”
BackgroundDing, W., Abdel‐Basset, M., Hawash, H., & Ali, A. M. A. (2022) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2022.10.013 · Cited by 196 · see citing works
Lower Artificial Intelligence Literacy Predicts Greater AI Receptivity
Tully, S. M., Longoni, C., & Appel, G. (2025) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/00222429251314491 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
“Academic work has often con fl ated AI knowledge with opinions about how algorithms operate in speci fi c settings like Facebook News Feed and TikTok (e.g., Rader and Gray 2015; Siles, Valerio-Alfaro, and Meléndez-Moran 2022), or measured knowledge in terms of self-reported assessments of competency.”
Development and Validation of an Algorithm Literacy Scale for Internet Users
Dogruel, L., Masur, P., & Joeckel, S. (2022) · Communication Methods and Measures · doi:10.1080/19312458.2021.1968361 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
“…point of view, most of these studies were qualitative analyses of user perceptions of algorithmic curation embedded in these particular services, partly through probing perceptions of algorithms at work (e.g., Bucher, 2017; Eslami et al., 2015; Hamilton et al., 2014; Rader & Gray, 2015).”
BackgroundWohn, D. Y., & Bowe, B. J. (2016) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305115626750 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
“Consistent with previous studies (Eslami et al., 2015; Rader & Gray, 2015), many participants did not understand that Facebook’s information display is highly dictated by opaque algorithms that are not well understood.”
ResultZarouali, B., Boerman, S. C., & de Vreese, C. H. (2021) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2021.101607 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
Crossmod: A Cross-Community Learning-based System to Assist Reddit Moderators
Chandrasekharan, E., Gandhi, C., Mustelier, M. W., & Gilbert, E. (2019) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3359276 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
“Most online platforms today curate content generated by their users in different ways—presenting content in an ordered form to increase user engagement (e.g., Facebook NewsFeed [56]), promoting sponsored content (e.g., ads [44]), and moderating (or screening) undesirable content [33, 41, 63].”
BackgroundStand Out of Our Light: Freedom and Resistance in the Attention Economy
Williams, J. (2018) · Cited by 151 · see citing works
User attitudes towards algorithmic opacity and transparency in online reviewing platforms
Eslami, M., Vaccaro, K., Lee, M. K., Elazari Bar On, A., Gilbert, E., & Karahalios, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3290605.3300724 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
“For example, recent work studied users’ of awareness of opaque social media feed curation algorithms [14] and users’ folk theories on how algorithms work [8, 12, 16, 36].”
BackgroundAdaptive Folk Theorization as a Path to Algorithmic Literacy on Changing Platforms
DeVito, M. A. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3476080 · Cited by 173 · see citing works
“As work on more general populations [25, 26, 31, 32, 88] focuses only on initial folk theory formation, we do not yet have a detailed understanding of the everyday process of repeated folk theorization and adaptation that casual, non-professional users employ to maintain their ability to…”
BackgroundInfluentialTowards Algorithmic Experience
Alvarado, O., & Wærn, A. (2018) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3173860 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
“…and Gray discuss how the algorithms employed in e.g. Facebook create a feedback loop, in which the user’s behavior (shares or likes) define what he/she also consumes, creating a loop in which the algorithm always presents items that the user in turn will almost certainly interact with [23:173].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialPark, C. S. (2019) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305119872956 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
“Algorithms display subsets of a corpus of information for consumption by prioritizing, classifying, associating, and filtering information (Eslami et al., 2015; Rader & Gray, 2015).”
BackgroundExciting, Useful, Worrying, Futuristic: Public Perception of Artificial Intelligence in 8 Countries
Kelley, P. G., Yang, Y., Heldreth, C., Moessner, C., Sedley, A., Kramm, A., Newman, D. T., & Woodruff, A. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society · doi:10.1145/3461702.3462605 · Cited by 158 · see citing works
“We note that interpretation of the term is further confounded by the “AI effect” (the phenomenon that once AI successfully solves a problem and the solution becomes commonplace, it is no longer considered to be AI) [40], as well as lack of awareness of algorithmic processing in common systems [22, 49, 58].”
The Algorithmic Crystal: Conceptualizing the Self through Algorithmic Personalization on TikTok
Lee, A. Y., Mieczkowski, H., Ellison, N. B., & Hancock, J. T. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3555601 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
“Further, because algorithms change as a result of the data input they receive in a kind of feedback loop [50, 55], Bucher [9] even argues that these perceptions can then influence the nature of the algorithms themselves.”
BackgroundModelling opinion dynamics in the age of algorithmic personalisation
Perra, N., & Rocha, L. E. C. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-43830-2 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
How Transfeminine TikTok Creators Navigate the Algorithmic Trap of Visibility Via Folk Theorization
DeVito, M. A. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3555105 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
“Early work on folk theorization suggested that baseline algorithmic awareness was low, and that user folk theories were mostly abstract, focused on what a system does and why, not how [22, 23, 43] — what I have previously referred to as functional folk theorization [13].”
Background(Why) Is Misinformation a Problem?
Adams, Z., Osman, M., Bechlivanidis, C., & Meder, B. (2023) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916221141344 · Cited by 130 · see citing works
“Opaque algorithmic curation that takes humans out of the loop aims to maximize consumption and interactions, possibly causing viral appeal to take precedence over truthfulness (Rader & Gray, 2015).”
BackgroundOtterbacher, J., Bates, J., & Clough, P. D. (2017) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3025453.3025727 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
“Even when users are intimately familiar with a system, they are often unaware that algorithms filter their access to information [14] and users hold beliefs about algorithms, which, true or not, influence how they use systems [39].”
BackgroundToward human-centered algorithm design
Baumer, E. P. (2017) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951717718854 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
“…obscured as trade secrets, computational imaginaries are necessary to interpret algorithmically based systems ranging from the Facebook news feed (Eslami et al., 2015; Rader and Gray, 2015), to Google Play’s app recommender system (Ananny, 2011), to Twitter’s trending topics (Gillespie, 2011).”
BackgroundThe Who in XAI: How AI Background Shapes Perceptions of AI Explanations
Ehsan, U., Passi, S., Liao, Q. V., Chan, L., Lee, I.-H., Muller, M., & Riedl, M. O. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642474 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
“In contrast, explanation generation methods–used in this paper– aim to explain models that are not directly human-understandable (e.g., deep neural networks).”
MethodConstructing the Platform-Specific Self-Brand: The Labor of Social Media Promotion
Scolere, L., Pruchniewska, U., & Duffy, B. E. (2018) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305118784768 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Algorithmic Anxiety and Coping Strategies of Airbnb Hosts
Jhaver, S., Karpfen, Y., & Antin, J. (2018) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3173995 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
“As Rader and Gray assert, mismatch between user’s and algorithm’s goals can create tensions among users [35].”
BackgroundDhanorkar, S., Wolf, C. T., Qian, K., Xu, A., Popa, L., & Li, Y. (2021) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021 · doi:10.1145/3461778.3462131 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
What do we know about algorithmic literacy? The status quo and a research agenda for a growing field
Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., & Neubaum, G. (2023) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448231182662 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
“Awareness has also been addressed through somewhat more focused questions, leading users to speculate about why content is presented to them, but still usually without explicit reference to algorithms (e.g. Koenig, 2020; Powers, 2017; Rader and Gray, 2015).”
XAI Systems Evaluation: A Review of Human and Computer-Centred Methods
Lopes, P., Silva, E., Braga, C., Oliveira, T., & Rosado, L. (2022) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app12199423 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
“Rader and Gray [28] investigated user understanding of algorithmic curation in Facebook’s News Feed, and whether they believed that all their friends’ posts appeared on their feed.”
BackgroundInternet Skills and Why They Matter
Hargittai, E., & Micheli, M. (2019) · Society and the Internet · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198843498.003.0007 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Zhan, E. S., Molina, M. D., Rheu, M., & Peng, W. (2023) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2023.2261731 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
“Previous research (DeVito et al., 2017; Eslami et al., 2015; Rader & Gray, 2015) discovered that individuals’ understanding of AI technologies or systems often contains misperceptions and assumptions because general end users do not have inner knowledge about how algorithms work backstage.”
Eslami, M., Vaccaro, K., Karahalios, K. G., & Hamilton, K. (2017) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14898 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
“…studies have investigated users’ awareness of and interaction with algorithms — including news feed curation algorithms (Eslami et al. 2015; 2016; Rader and Gray 2015) and ridesharing management algorithms (Lee et al. 2015) — but how users perceive and manage the bias that an algorithm brings to…”
Background”Because AI is 100% right and safe”: User Attitudes and Sources of AI Authority in India
Kapania, S., Siy, O., Clapper, G., SP, A. M., & Sambasivan, N. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3517533 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
“Rader and Gray [102] studied user beliefs about news feed curation on Facebook, the algorithmic behaviors that users notice and the behaviors to which they respond.”
BackgroundBrasse, J., Broder, H. R., Förster, M., Klier, M., & Sigler, I. (2023) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-023-00644-5 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
“Confronted with an opaque system, humans cannot build appropriate trust; they often either blindly follow the system’s decisions and recommendations or do not use the sys-tem (Herse et al., 2018; Rader & Gray, 2015).”
BackgroundFairness and Transparency in Recommendation: The Users’ Perspective
Sonboli, N., Smith, J. J., Berenfus, F. C., Burke, R., & Fiesler, C. L. (2021) · ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP) · doi:10.1145/3450613.3456835 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
“Folk theories can help us understand how users perceive the systems that they are interacting with [12, 20, 39], including uncovering inaccurate knowledge that users might have about a system in order to intervene onmisguided or even harmful behavior on the platform [13, 20, 39].”
BackgroundSuppressing the Search Engine Manipulation Effect (SEME)
Epstein, R., Robertson, R. E., Lazer, D. M. J., & Wilson, C. (2017) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3134677 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
“The processes through which users become aware of and react to algorithms has been a topic of recent research interest [33–35, 37, 106].”
BackgroundCharting the Sociotechnical Gap in Explainable AI: A Framework to Address the Gap in XAI
Ehsan, U., Saha, K., Choudhury, M. D., & Riedl, M. O. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3579467 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
“In attempting to chart the sociotechnical gap in XAI, this paper thus builds on and extends the CSCW community’s long-standing tradition of designing and studying explainable computing systems [52, 69, 83, 93, 101, 122, 135].”
BackgroundSriraman, A., Dhanotia, A., & Wenisch, T. F. (2019) · Proceedings - International Symposium on Computer Architecture/Proceedings · doi:10.1145/3307650.3322227 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
“” These stories are then characterized into dense feature vectors by feature extractors and learned models [17,26–28].”
BackgroundFairness Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence: A Review and Path Forward
Narayanan, D., Nagpal, M., McGuire, J., Schweitzer, S., & Cremer, D. D. (2023) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2023.2210890 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?Preprint
Holstein, K., Vaughan, J. W., Daumé, H., Dudík, M., & Wallach, H. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1812.05239 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
“…influence every facet of our lives, including the quality of healthcare and education we receive [16, 31, 32, 49], which news or social media posts we see [4, 18, 84], who receives a job [46, 82], who is released from jail [8, 23], and who is subjected to increased policing [65, 71, 94].”
BackgroundSriraman, A., & Dhanotia, A. (2020) · International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems (ASPLOS) · doi:10.1145/3373376.3378450 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
“Feed2 aggregates various leaf microservices’ responses into discrete “stories” that are then characterized into dense feature vectors by feature extractors and learned models [26, 51, 101, 132].”
BackgroundLu, Y., & Lee, J. K. (2018) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444818793421 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Algorithmic Personalization and the Two-Step Flow of Communication
Soffer, O. (2019) · Communication Theory · doi:10.1093/ct/qtz008 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
‘Networks that work too well’: intervening in algorithmic connections
van der Nagel, E. (2018) · Media International Australia · doi:10.1177/1329878x18783002 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
“, 2017) and ‘intuitive causal explanatory theories’ (Rader and Gray, 2015) about how they work.”
BackgroundInfluentialExploring Echo-Systems: How Algorithms Shape Immersive Media Environments
Cohen, J. N. (2018) · Journal of Media Literacy Education · doi:10.23860/jmle-2018-10-2-8 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
“…and social networking sites; users are often unaware that news media and informative content consumed on social media news feeds or timelines are uniquely customized to each user’s preferences (Flynn, Nyhan, & Reifler, 2017; Qiu, Oliveira, Shirazi, Flammini, & Menczer, 2017; Rader & Gray, 2015).”
BackgroundPractical knowledge of algorithms: The case of BreadTube
Cotter, K. (2022) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448221081802 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
“For example, both Rader and Gray (2015) and Eslami et al. (2016) investigated whether or not users knew that Facebook did not display all available posts in their news feeds.”
BackgroundA Survey of Evaluation Methods and Measures for Interpretable Machine LearningPreprint
Mohseni, S., Zarei, N., & Ragan, E. D. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 69 · see citing works
When people and algorithms meet: user-reported problems in intelligent everyday applications
Eiband, M., Völkel, S. T., Buschek, D., Cook, S., & Hussmann, H. (2019) · Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3301275.3302262 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
“A similar study was conducted by Rader and Gray [37], who classified a wide range of user beliefs about Facebook’s news feed algorithm.”
MethodThe Illusion of Control: Placebo Effects of Control Settings
Vaccaro, K., Huang, D., Eslami, M., Sandvig, C., Hamilton, K., & Karahalios, K. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3173590 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
“Many researchers have explored sensemaking around social media and news feeds [7, 12, 18, 20, 48].”
BackgroundBig Data Analytics of Social Networks for the Discovery of “Following” Patterns
Leung, C. K.-S., & Jiang, F. (2015) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22729-0_10 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
“In the current era of big data (including big social network data), various social networking sites or services—such as Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Weibo [16,17]—are commonly in use.”
BackgroundVoorveld, H. A. M., Meppelink, C. S., & Boerman, S. C. (2024) · International Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/02650487.2023.2264045 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
“A small number of studies have investigated users’ awareness of algorithms in general, in domains other than brand communication (Bucher 2017; eslami et al. 2015; gran, Booth, and Bucher 2021; Klawitter and Hargittai 2018; Rader and gray 2015).”
Unexpected expectations: Public reaction to the Facebook emotional contagion study
Hallinan, B., Brubaker, J. R., & Fiesler, C. L. (2019) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444819876944 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
“Previous research has examined expectations for particular features, including the Facebook Like button (Scissors et al., 2016), algorithmic curation (Bucher, 2017; Eslami et al., 2015; Rader and Gray, 2015), and design changes (Eslami et al., 2016).”
BackgroundI agree with the decision, but they didn't deserve this
Kasinidou, M., Kleanthous, S., Barlas, P., & Otterbacher, J. (2021) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445931 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
“An algorithm is even deciding on the posts and news people will see on social media [40, 44].”
BackgroundExploring Peoples' Perception of Autonomy and Reactance in Everyday AI Interactions
Sankaran, S., Zhang, C., Aarts, H., & Markopoulos, P. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.713074 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Platform-Specific Self-Branding
Duffy, B. E., Pruchniewska, U. M., & Scolere, L. (2017) · International Conference on Social Media and Society (SMSociety) · doi:10.1145/3097286.3097291 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
What's the Folk Theory? Reasoning About Cyber-Social SystemsPreprint
French, M., & Hancock, J. T. (2017) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2910571 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Forberg, P. L. (2021) · Journal of Contemporary Ethnography · doi:10.1177/08912416211040560 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
“…algorithms for bias, but what is missing from these investigations is frequently the human component: how these algorithms manifest themselves in people’s experiences of their devices is often assumed rather than demonstrated (Eslami et al. 2015; Hamilton et al. 2014; Rader and Gray 2015).”
BackgroundMediating Community-AI Interaction through Situated Explanation
Kou, Y., & Gui, X. (2020) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3415173 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
“When algorithmic systems are opaque, end-users may develop folk theories to explain how the underlying algorithms operate and the outcomes and consequences of the systems [18,26,79].”
BackgroundNews recommender systems: a programmatic research review
Mitova, E., Blassnig, S., Strikovic, E., Urman, A., Hannák, A., de Vreese, C. H., & Esser, F. (2022) · Annals of the International Communication Association · doi:10.1080/23808985.2022.2142149 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
“…with some pointing to low awareness of the existence of algorithms and limited understanding of how they filter information (Eslami et al., 2015; Gran et al., 2021; Powers, 2017; Swart, 2021; Zarouali et al., 2021), while others detect a high awareness thereof (Proferes, 2017; Rader & Gray, 2015).”
BackgroundWeinshel, B., Wei, M., Mondal, M., Choi, E., Shan, S., Dolin, C., Mazurek, M. L., & Ur, B. (2019) · ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) · doi:10.1145/3319535.3363200 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
“People do not always understand the output of algorithms [29, 72] despite having many opinions about what should be done if algorithms are biased [31], imperfect [30], or discriminatory [5, 70].”
Background"Our Privacy Needs to be Protected at All Costs"
Xia, H., Wang, Y., Huang, Y., & Shah, A. (2017) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3134748 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
“Inspired by a prior study [47], before our respondents entered the survey we also emphasized that detailed responses would support our analysis and improve MTurk workers’ future experience.”
ResultAgent, Gatekeeper, Drug Dealer
Wu, E. Y., Pedersen, E., & Salehi, N. (2019) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3359321 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
“In all cases, researchers have emphasized that users’ intuitive theories about how social media feeds are composed affect their behaviors on those platforms [25, 30, 69].”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSharabi, L. L. (2020) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650219896936 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
“For instance, Rader and Gray (2015) conducted a qualitative inquiry of people’s beliefs surrounding Facebook’s algorithm, which uncovered various ways they adapted their behavior in response to perceptions of algorithmic curation in their newsfeeds.”
BackgroundDealing With Information Overload in Multifaceted Personal Informatics Systems
Jones, S. L., & Kelly, R. (2017) · Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/07370024.2017.1302334 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Does Reviewer Recommendation Help Developers?
Kovalenko, V., Tintarev, N., Pasynkov, E., Bird, C., & Bacchelli, A. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2018.2868367 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
“media content filtering, feedback can undermine the diversity of users’ interaction scopes [55].”
BackgroundZarouali, B., Boerman, S. C., Voorveld, H. A. M., & van Noort, G. (2022) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-01-2021-0049 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Naveed, S., Stevens, G., & Robin-Kern, D. (2024) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app142311288 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Perrotta, C., Selwyn, N., & Ewin, C. (2024) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448221075296 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
“In addition to critical scholarship and commentary on extractive AI and its hidden labour, we orient this article towards recent research that examines the sensemaking that occurs when humans encounter algorithms within the mundane interactions on digital platforms (Rader and Gray, 2015).”
BackgroundDelmonaco, D., Mayworm, S., Thach, H., Guberman, J., Augusta, A., & Haimson, O. L. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3637431 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
“Social media algorithms rely on user behavior to curate platform feeds, but often there can be mismatch between user goals and the algorithm’s functioning [108].”
BackgroundLeavitt, A., & Robinson, J. J. (2017) · Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work · doi:10.1145/2998181.2998299 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
“In particular, participation in platforms that employ designs that affect information visibility (e.g., Facebook’s News Feed) have consequences for people based on how much they understand these systems to work [18,44].”
BackgroundRegulating Recommending: Motivations, Considerations, and PrinciplesPreprint
Cobbe, J., & Singh, J. P. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3371830 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Tsuriel, K., Dvir-Gvirsman, S., Ziv, L., Afriat, H., & Ivan, L. (2019) · Journalism · doi:10.1177/1464884919849417 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
“However, while regular users invent folk stories as a way of explaining Facebook’s mechanism (Rader and Gray, 2015), editors – who also devise theories – can put these theories to the test, much like a ‘naïve scientist’.”
BackgroundInformation Flow Solipsism in an Exploratory Study of Beliefs About Twitter
Proferes, N. (2017) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/2056305117698493 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
“…survey methods, information flow solipsism Critical algorithm studies scholars have argued that the algorithms of spaces such as Twitter and Facebook are opaque, often misunderstood by users and thus carry the potential to negatively impact users’ experiences (Bucher, 2016; Rader & Gray, 2015).”
BackgroundTubes and bubbles topological confinement of YouTube recommendations
Roth, C., Mazières, A., & Menezes, T. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0231703 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
“For one, users may variously seek diversity [12], be variously responsive to recommendation [1], use it for various purposes [13] or have various expectations about it [14] — in these respects, the “average user” does not really exist.”
BackgroundAttitudes and Folk Theories of Data Subjects on Transparency and Accuracy in Emotion Recognition
Grill, G., & Andalibi, N. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3512925 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
“While the concept has significant overlap with “folk theories” and has received considerable attention, in this study, we adopt the terminology of folk theories, developed and adopted in particular within CSCW and CHI [45,46,55,89,116,142].”
Method
- Authors
- Rader, E., & Gray, R.
- Affiliations
- Michigan State University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2015-04-18
- Pages
- 173-182
- OpenAlex
- W2140553307
- Semantic Scholar
- 24f0e8db461cb8a35f642bf07ab407d546c9a0ab
- Cited by
- 386
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 45 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 124.87
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1217212)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Keywords
- algorithmic curation, Facebook News Feed, algorithm awareness, causal inference, user behavior, social networking sites, information curation
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