The Challenge of Understanding What Users Want: Inconsistent Preferences and Engagement Optimization
Open accessAbstract
Online platforms have a wealth of data, run countless experiments, and use industrial-scale algorithms to optimize user experience. Despite this, many users seem to regret the time they spend on these platforms. One possible explanation is that incentives are misaligned: platforms are not optimizing for user happiness. We suggest the problem runs deeper, transcending the specific incentives of any particular platform, and instead stems from a mistaken foundational assumption. To understand what users want, platforms look at what users do. This is a kind of revealed-preference assumption that is ubiquitous in the way user models are built. Yet research has demonstrated, and personal experience affirms, that we often make choices in the moment that are inconsistent with what we actually want. The behavioral economics and psychology literatures suggest, for example, that we can choose mindlessly or that we can be too myopic in our choices, behaviors that feel entirely familiar on online platforms. In this work, we develop a model of media consumption where users have inconsistent preferences. We consider a platform which wants to maximize user utility, but only observes behavioral data in the form of the user’s engagement. We show how our model of users’ preference inconsistencies produces phenomena that are familiar from everyday experience but difficult to capture in traditional user interaction models. These phenomena include users who have long sessions on a platform but derive very little utility from it, and platform changes that steadily raise user engagement before abruptly causing users to go “cold turkey” and quit. A key ingredient in our model is a formulation for how platforms determine what to show users: they optimize over a large set of potential content (the content manifold) parametrized by underlying features of the content. Whether improving engagement improves user welfare depends on the direction of movement in the content manifold: For certain directions of change, increasing engagement makes users less happy, whereas in other directions on the same manifold, increasing engagement makes users happier. We provide a characterization of the structure of content manifolds for which increasing engagement fails to increase user utility. By linking these effects to abstractions of platform design choices, our model thus creates a theoretical framework and vocabulary in which to explore interactions between design, behavioral science, and social media. This paper was accepted by Yan Chen, behavioral economics and decision analysis. Funding: This work was supported by the Vannevar Bush Faculty Fellowship and Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative [Grant W911NF-19-0217]. Supplemental Material: The online appendices are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.03683 .
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
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.
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?
Recent research in computer science has explored more effective methods for incorporating stated preference signals, making it increasingly feasible to optimize for these preferences.
“Nonetheless, recent research in computer science has explored more effective methods for incorporating stated preference signals [2,35,36], making it increasingly feasible to optimize for these preferences.”
From Twitter's Algorithm: Amplifying Anger, Animosity, and Affective Polarization (2023) · cites this paper as [35]
Section 5.1 (Surveys; page unavailable) proposes using survey responses alongside engagement data to better understand user utility, and the Conclusion says the model can help platforms improve optimization. But the paper does not establish that optimizing for stated preferences is becoming increasingly feasible; it notes that survey data are too sparse to serve as the sole optimization measure. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 32
- Charu C Aggarwal. Recommender systems. Springer, 2016.
- George A Akerlof. Procrastination and obedience. The american economic review, 81(2):1-19, 1991.
- Hunt Allcott, Matthew Gentzkow, and Lena Song. Digital addiction. American Economic Review, 112(7):2424-2463, 2022.
- James Alm and Steven M Sheffrin. Using behavioral economics in public economics. Public Finance Review, 45(1):4-9, 2017.
- Gary S Becker and Kevin M Murphy. A theory of rational addiction. Journal of political Economy, 96(4):675-700, 1988.
- Hyunsung Cho, Daeun Choi, Donghwi Kim, Wan Ju Kang, Eun Kyoung Choe, and Sung-Ju Lee. Reflect, not regret: Understanding regretful smartphone use with app feature-level analysis. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, pages 456:1-456:36, 2021.
- Cynthia Cryder, Simona Botti, and Yvetta Simonyan. The charity beauty premium: Satisfying donors'"want" versus "should" desires. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(4):605-618, 2017.
- Michael D Ekstrand and Martijn C Willemsen. Behaviorism is not enough: better recommendations through listening to users. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM conference on recommender systems, pages 221-224, 2016.
- Drew Fudenberg and David K Levine. A dual-self model of impulse control. American economic review, 96(5):1449-1476, 2006.
- Colin M Gray, Yubo Kou, Bryan Battles, Joseph Hoggatt, and Austin L Toombs. The dark (patterns) side of UX design. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pages 1-14, 2018.
- Alexis Hiniker, Sungsoo Hong, Tadayoshi Kohno, and Julie A Kientz. Mytime: designing and evaluating an intervention for smartphone non-use. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pages 4746-4757, 2016.
- Ruru Hoong. Self control and smartphone use: An experimental study of soft commitment devices. European Economic Review, 140:103924, 2021.
- Jon Kleinberg and Sigal Oren. Time-inconsistent planning: a computational problem in behavioral economics. In Proceedings of the fifteenth ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 547-564, 2014.
- Jon Kleinberg, Sigal Oren, and Manish Raghavan. Planning problems for sophisticated agents with present bias. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 343-360, 2016.
- David Laibson. Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112 (2):443-478, 1997.
- Kai Lukoff, Ulrik Lyngs, Himanshu Zade, J Vera Liao, James Choi, Kaiyue Fan, Sean A Munson, and Alexis Hiniker. How the design of YouTube influences user sense of agency. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1-17, 2021.
- Ulrik Lyngs, Reuben Binns, Max Van Kleek, and Nigel Shadbolt. So, tell me what users want, what they really, really want! In Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1-10, 2018.
- Ulrik Lyngs, Kai Lukoff, Petr Slovak, Reuben Binns, Adam Slack, Michael Inzlicht, Max Van Kleek, and Nigel Shadbolt. Self-control in cyberspace: Applying dual systems theory to a review of dig- ital self-control tools. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on human factors in computing systems, pages 1-18, 2019.
- Ulrik Lyngs, Kai Lukoff, Petr Slovak, William Seymour, Helena Webb, Marina Jirotka, Jun Zhao, Max Van Kleek, and Nigel Shadbolt. 'I just want to hack myself to not get distracted' evaluating design interventions for self-control on facebook. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1-15, 2020.
- Uliana Makarov. Networking or not working: A model of social procrastination from communica- tion. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 80(3):574-585, 2011.
- Katherine L Milkman, Todd Rogers, and Max H Bazerman. Highbrow films gather dust: Time- inconsistent preferences and online dvd rentals. Management Science, 55(6):1047-1059, 2009.
- Katherine L Milkman, Todd Rogers, and Max H Bazerman. I'll have the ice cream soon and the vegetables later: A study of online grocery purchases and order lead time. Marketing Letters, 21:17-35, 2010.
- Smitha Milli, Luca Belli, and Moritz Hardt. From optimizing engagement to measuring value. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pages 714-722, 2021.
- Carol Moser. Impulse buying: Designing for self-control with E-commerce. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, 2020.
- Ted O'Donoghue and Matthew Rabin. Doing it now or later. American economic review, 89(1): 103-124, 1999.
- Choonsung Shin and Anind K Dey. Automatically detecting problematic use of smartphones. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM international joint conference on Pervasive and ubiquitous computing, pages 335-344, 2013.
- Manya Sleeper, Alessandro Acquisti, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Patrick Gage Kelley, Sean A Munson, and Norman Sadeh. I would like to..., I shouldn't..., I wish I... exploring behavior-change goals for social networking sites. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, pages 1058-1069, 2015.
- Jonathan Stray, Ivan Vendrov, Jeremy Nixon, Steven Adler, and Dylan Hadfield-Menell. What are you optimizing for? Aligning recommender systems with human values. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.10939, 2021. · arXiv
- Richard H Thaler and Hersh M Shefrin. An economic theory of self-control. Journal of Political Economy, 89(2):392-406, 1981.
- Morten Tromholt. The facebook experiment: Quitting facebook leads to higher levels of well-being. Cyberpsychology, behavior, and social networking, 19(11):661-666, 2016.
- Songhua Xu, Yi Zhu, Hao Jiang, and Francis CM Lau. A user-oriented webpage ranking algorithm based on user attention time. In AAAI, volume 8, pages 1255-1260, 2008.
- Laura Y Zatz, Alyssa J Moran, Rebecca L Franckle, Jason P Block, Tao Hou, Dan Blue, Julie C Greene, Steven Gortmaker, Sara N Bleich, Michele Polacsek, et al. Comparing online and in-store grocery purchases. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 53(6):471-479, 2021.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Milli, S., Carroll, M., Wang, Y., Pandey, S., & Dragan, A. D. (2023) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.16941 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
Automating Automaticity: How the Context of Human Choice Affects the Extent of Algorithmic Bias
Agan, A., Davenport, D., Ludwig, J., & Mullainathan, S. (2023) · doi:10.3386/w30981 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Kleinberg, J., Mullainathan, S., & Raghavan, M.
- Affiliations
- Cornell University (US)
- University of Chicago (US)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Raghavan, Manish
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 2023-11-07
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W4388464161
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 7.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Management Science (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
- Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (W911NF-19-0217)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- user engagement, user welfare, revealed preference, user models, platform design, social media, myopia, engagement optimization, user retention
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