Cited by 96Recommender Systems and TechniquesMobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

Leveraging position bias to improve peer recommendation

Open access
Lerman, Kristina, Hogg, Tad·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

With the advent of social media and peer production, the amount of new online content has grown dramatically. To identify interesting items in the vast stream of new content, providers must rely on peer recommendation to aggregate opinions of their many users. Due to human cognitive biases, the presentation order strongly affects how people allocate attention to the available content. Moreover, we can manipulate attention through the presentation order of items to change the way peer recommendation works. We experimentally evaluate this effect using Amazon Mechanical Turk. We find that different policies for ordering content can steer user attention so as to improve the outcomes of peer recommendation.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0098914

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • Research into human choice suggests that both explicit and implicit choices systematically vary based on context, especially the other options that are present when choosing.

    “Research into human choice suggests that both explicit and implicit choices systematically vary based on context, especially the other options that are present when choosing [56–59].”

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: 1

  1. [9]Craswell N, Zoeter O, Taylor M, Ramsey B (2008) An experimental comparison of click positionbias models. In: Proceedings of the international conference on Web search and web data mining. WSDM’ 08, 87–94.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lerman, K., & Hogg, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Institute for Molecular Manufacturing (US)
Corresponding author
Lerman, Kristina
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-06-11
Volume
9
Issue
6
Pages
e98914
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2025574664
Cited by
96
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2
FWCI
32.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (W911NF- 12-1-0034)
  • Air Force Office of Scientific Research (FA9550-, FA9550-10-1-, FA9550-10-1-0569)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Keywords
peer recommendations, position bias, presentation order, user attention, cognitive biases, social media
MeSH terms
Attention, Humans, Peer Group, Probability, Social Media

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