Cited by 98Ethics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Innovative Human-Technology Interaction

Toward User-Driven Algorithm Auditing: Investigating users’ strategies for uncovering harmful algorithmic behavior

Open access
DeVos, Alicia, Dhabalia, Aditi, Shen, Hong, Holstein, Kenneth, Eslami, Motahhare·2022·CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

Recent work in HCI suggests that users can be powerful in surfacing harmful algorithmic behaviors that formal auditing approaches fail to detect. However, it is not well understood how users are often able to be so effective, nor how we might support more effective user-driven auditing. To investigate, we conducted a series of think-aloud interviews, diary studies, and workshops, exploring how users find and make sense of harmful behaviors in algorithmic systems, both individually and collectively. Based on our findings, we present a process model capturing the dynamics of and influences on users’ search and sensemaking behaviors. We find that 1) users’ search strategies and interpretations are heavily guided by their personal experiences with and exposures to societal bias; and 2) collective sensemaking amongst multiple users is invaluable in user-driven algorithm audits. We offer directions for the design of future methods and tools that can better support user-driven auditing.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3491102.3517441

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. 2019. Holy $%#@: Religion & Conscious Language. panel at ACES Annual Conference. https://aceseditors.org/conference/past-conferences/2019/sessions
  2. Joshua Asplund, Motahhare Eslami, Hari Sundaram, Christian Sandvig, and Karrie Karahalios. 2020. Auditing Race and Gender Discrimination in Online Housing Markets. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 14, 1 (May 2020), 24-35. https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/7276
  3. Su Lin Blodgett, Solon Barocas, Hal Daumé III, and Hanna Wallach. 2020. Lan- guage (technology) is power: A critical survey of" bias" in nlp. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14050 (2020). · arXiv
  4. Andrew D Brown, Patrick Stacey, and Joe Nandhakumar. 2008. Making sense of sensemaking narratives. Human relations 61, 8 (2008), 1035-1062.
  5. Motahhare Eslami, Kristen Vaccaro, Karrie Karahalios, and Kevin Hamilton. 2017. Be careful; Things can be worse than they appear -Understanding biased algorithms and users' behavior around them in rating platforms". (2017), 62- 71. Funding Information: This work was funded by NSF grant CHS-1564041. Publisher Copyright: © Copyright 2017, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved.; 11th International Conference on Web and Social Media, ICWSM 2017 ; Conference date: 15-05-2017 Through 18-05-2017.
  6. Motahhare Eslami, Kristen Vaccaro, Min Kyung Lee, Amit Elazari Bar On, Eric Gilbert, and Karrie Karahalios. 2019. User attitudes towards algorithmic opacity and transparency in online reviewing platforms. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-14.
  7. Day S. Goldstone, R. L. and J. Y. Son. 2010. Comparison. In Towards a theory of thinking, Goel Vinod von Müller Albrecht Glatzeder, Britt (Ed.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 103-121.
  8. Aniko Hannak, Gary Soeller, David Lazer, Alan Mislove, and Christo Wilson. 2014. Measuring Price Discrimination and Steering on E-Commerce Web Sites. (2014), 305-318. https://doi.org/10.1145/2663716.2663744 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Safiya Umoja Noble. 2018. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. (2018). https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1pwt9w5
  10. Peter Pirolli and Stuart Card. 2005. The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology as identified through cognitive task analysis. In Proceedings of international conference on intelligence analysis, Vol. 5. McLean, VA, USA, 2-4.
  11. Latanya Sweeney. 2013. Discrimination in Online Ad Delivery. (2013). arXiv:1301.6822 [cs.IR] · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
DeVos, A., Dhabalia, A., Shen, H., Holstein, K., & Eslami, M.
Affiliations
  • Human-Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, United States
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2022-04-29
Pages
1-19
OpenAlex
W4224992683
Cited by
98
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 2
FWCI
19.13
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (2040942)
  • Cisco
  • Amazon
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
algorithmic auditing, social bias, search strategies, sensemaking, collective sensemaking, algorithmic transparency

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