The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Is seeing believing?: how recommender system interfaces affect users' opinions
Abstract
Recommender systems use people's opinions about items in an information domain to help people choose other items. These systems have succeeded in domains as diverse as movies, news articles, Web pages, and wines. The psychological literature on conformity suggests that in the course of helping people make choices, these systems probably affect users' opinions of the items. If opinions are influenced by recommendations, they might be less valuable for making recommendations for other users. Further, manipulators who seek to make the system generate artificially high or low recommendations might benefit if their efforts influence users to change the opinions they contribute to the recommender. We study two aspects of recommender system interfaces that may affect users' opinions: the rating scale and the display of predictions at the time users rate items. We find that users rate fairly consistently across rating scales. Users can be manipulated, though, tending to rate toward the prediction the system shows, whether the prediction is accurate or not. However, users can detect systems that manipulate predictions. We discuss how designers of recommender systems might react to these findings.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Item-based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithms
Sarwar, B., Karypis, G., Konstan, J., & Riedl, J. (2001) · Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/371920.372071 · Cited by 9,135
Self-citationMachines and Mindlessness: Social Responses to Computers
Nass, C., & Moon, Y. (2000) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00153 · Cited by 4,022
Explaining collaborative filtering recommendations
Herlocker, J. L., Konstan, J. A., & Riedl, J. (2000) · Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work · doi:10.1145/358916.358995 · Cited by 1,731
Self-citation
Cited by
Evaluating collaborative filtering recommender systems
Herlocker, J. L., Konstan, J. A., Terveen, L. G., & Riedl, J. T. (2004) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/963770.963772 · Cited by 5,798
Self-citationIntroduction to Recommender Systems Handbook
Ricci, F., Rokach, L., & Shapira, B. (2011) · Recommender Systems Handbook · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-85820-3_1 · Cited by 2,378
Polis, G. A., Anderson, W. B., & Holt, R. D. (1997) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.289 · Cited by 2,362
Collaborative Filtering Recommender Systems
Schafer, J. B., Frankowski, D., Herlocker, J., & Sen, S. (2007) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-72079-9_9 · Cited by 2,120
E-Commerce Product Recommendation Agents: Use, Characteristics, and Impact1
Xiao, B., & Benbasat, I. (2007) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148784 · Cited by 1,081
Metadata
- Authors
- Cosley, D., Lam, S. K., Albert, I., Konstan, J. A., & Riedl, J.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2003-04-05
- Pages
- 585-592
- OpenAlex
- W2116354394
- Cited by
- 467
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 7.74
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Is seeing believing?: how recommender system interfaces affect users' opinions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/642611.642713
- The paper
- Cosley, D., Lam, S. K., Albert, I., Konstan, J. A., & Riedl, J. (2003). Is seeing believing?: how recommender system interfaces affect users' opinions. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642713
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.