Cited by 87Mobile Crowdsensing and CrowdsourcingComputational and Text Analysis MethodsEthics and Social Impacts of AI

A Checklist to Combat Cognitive Biases in Crowdsourcing

Open access
Draws, Tim, Rieger, Alisa, Inel, Oana, Gadiraju, Ujwal, Tintarev, Nava·2021·Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing

Abstract

Recent research has demonstrated that cognitive biases such as the confirmation bias or the anchoring effect can negatively affect the quality of crowdsourced data. In practice, however, such biases go unnoticed unless specifically assessed or controlled for. Task requesters need to ensure that task workflow and design choices do not trigger workers’ cognitive biases. Moreover, to facilitate the reuse of crowdsourced data collections, practitioners can benefit from understanding whether and which cognitive biases may be associated with the data. To this end, we propose a 12-item checklist adapted from business psychology to combat cognitive biases in crowdsourcing. We demonstrate the practical application of this checklist in a case study on viewpoint annotations for search results. Through a retrospective analysis of relevant crowdsourcing research that has been published at HCOMP in 2018, 2019, and 2020, we show that cognitive biases may often affect crowd workers but are typically not considered as potential sources of poor data quality. The checklist we propose is a practical tool that requesters can use to improve their task designs and appropriately describe potential limitations of collected data. It contributes to a body of efforts towards making human-labeled data more reliable and reusable.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1609/hcomp.v9i1.18939

Cites

71 of 71 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

5 of the 76 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Draws, T., Rieger, A., Inel, O., Gadiraju, U., & Tintarev, N.
Affiliations
  • Delft University of Technology (NL)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
Venue
Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing
Published
2021-10-04
Volume
9
Pages
48-59
ISSN
  • 2769-1330 (ISSN-L)
  • 2769-1349
OpenAlex
W3212896246
Cited by
86
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 22
FWCI
18.68
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
cognitive biases, crowdsourcing, confirmation bias, anchoring effect, crowdsourced data quality, checklists, task design, data reuse, search results

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