Cited by 48Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorInnovative Human-Technology InteractionMisinformation and Its Impacts

This Item Might Reinforce Your Opinion: Obfuscation and Labeling of Search Results to Mitigate Confirmation Bias

Open access
Rieger, Alisa, Draws, Tim, Theune, Mariët, Tintarev, Nava·2021·Proceedings of the 32st ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media

Abstract

During online information search, users tend to select search results that confirm previous beliefs and ignore competing possibilities. This systematic pattern in human behavior is known as confirmation bias. In this paper, we study the effect of obfuscation (i.e., hiding the result unless the user clicks on it) with warning labels and the effect of task on interaction with attitude-confirming search results. We conducted a preregistered, between-subjects crowdsourced user study (N=328) comparing six groups: three levels of obfuscation (targeted, random, none) and two levels of task (joint, two separate) for four debated topics. We found that both types of obfuscation influence user interactions, and in particular that targeted obfuscation helps decrease interaction with attitude-confirming search results. Future work is needed to understand how much of the observed effect is due to the strong influence of obfuscation, versus the warning label or the task design. We discuss design guidelines concerning system goals such as decreasing consumption of attitude-confirming search results, versus nudging users toward a more analytical mode of information processing. We also discuss implications for future work, such as the effects of interventions for confirmation bias mitigation over repeated exposure. We conclude with a strong word of caution: measures such as obfuscations should only be used for the benefit of the user, e.g., when they explicitly consent to mitigating their own biases.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3465336.3475101

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rieger, A., Draws, T., Theune, M., & Tintarev, N.
Affiliations
  • Delft University of Technology (NL)
  • University of Twente (NL)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
Venue
Proceedings of the 32st ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media
Publisher
ACM
Published
2021-08-25
Pages
189-199
OpenAlex
W3193320751
Cited by
48
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
FWCI
7.88
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media (HT) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Twente Research Information (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (86062)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
confirmation bias, warning labels, web information retrieval, task design, information seeking, bias mitigation, nudging, user consent

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