What Are You Hiding? Algorithmic Transparency and User Perceptions
Open accessAbstract
Extensive recent media focus has been directed towards the dark side of intelligent systems, how algorithms can influence society negatively. Often, transparency is proposed as a solution or step in the right direction. Unfortunately, research is mixed on the impact of transparency on the user experience. We examine transparency in the context an interactive system that predicts positive/negative emotion from a users' written text. We unify seemingly this contradictory research under a single model. We show that transparency can negatively affect accuracy perceptions for users whose expectations were not violated by the system's prediction; however, transparency also limits the damage done when users' expectations are violated by system predictions.
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?
The unigram-based regression model is less accurate than state-of-the-art methods using deep neural networks, but provides a straightforward operationalization of transparency that is intuitively understandable while still appearing accurate and convincing to users.
“While such a model may be less accurate than state of the art methods using deep neural networks [19], it provides a straightforward operationalization of transparency that is intuitively understandable while still appearing accurate and convincing to users [78].”
From Progressive disclosure (2019) · cites this paper as [78]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe E-meter system and protocol have been successfully deployed in multiple previous experiments.
“The E-meter system and protocol have been successfully deployed in multiple previous experiments [76,78].”
From Progressive disclosure (2019) · cites this paper as [78]
The Users section (p. 2) reports that 41 users tested the E-meter system, and the E-meter System section (p. 2) describes the protocol. This supports its deployment in a previous experiment, but the paper describes two conditions within that study, not multiple previous experiments using the system and protocol. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn prior experiments, users judged the same algorithm to be accurate but not perfect; the median user response for accuracy was 'Accurate' (6 on a 7-point Likert scale with the highest rating ('7') being 'Very Accurate').
“In prior experiments, users judged the same algorithm to be accurate but not perfect; the median user response for accuracy was 'Accurate' (6 on a 7-point Likert scale with the highest rating ('7') being 'Very Accurate') [78].”
From Progressive disclosure (2019) · cites this paper as [78]
This replicates previous work [78] where the median user found the E-meter to be 'Accurate'.
“This replicates our previous work [78] where the median user found the E-meter to be 'Accurate'.”
From Progressive disclosure (2019) · cites this paper as [78]
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
An algorithm for suffix stripping
Porter, M. F. (1980) · Program · doi:10.1108/eb046814 · Cited by 8,096 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Text features were stemmed using the Porter stemming algorithm (Porter, 1980) and then the top 600 unigrams were selected by f-score.”
MethodMan is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings
Bolukbasi, T., Chang, K.-W., Zou, J., Saligrama, V., & Kalai, A. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1607.06520 · Cited by 1,615 · see citing works
How Much Information?: Effects of Transparency on Trust in an Algorithmic Interface
Kizilcec, R. F. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858402 · Cited by 615 · see citing works
Dice in the Black Box: User Experiences with an Inscrutable Algorithm
Springer, A., Hollis, V., & Whittaker, S. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1812.03219 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Bunt, A., Lount, M., & Lauzon, C. (2012). Are explanations always important?: a study of deployed, low-cost intelligent interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (pp. 169-178). ACM.
- Cummings, M. L. (2004). Automation bias in intelligent time critical decision support systems. In AIAA 1st Intelligent Systems Technical Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 557-562). AIAA.
- Hollis, V., Konrad, A., Springer, A., Antoun, C., Antoun, M., Martin, R., & Whittaker, S. (2017). What Does All This Data Mean for My Future Mood? Actionable Analytics and Targeted Reflection for Emotional Well-Being. Human-Computer Interaction . https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2016.1277724 · DOI · Paper page
- Lim, B. Y., & Dey, A. K. (2011). Investigating intelligibility for uncertain context-aware applications. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Ubiquitous computing (pp. 415-424). ACM. Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2030168
- Warshaw, J., Matthews, T., Whittaker, S., Kau, C., Bengualid, M., & Smith, B. A. (2015). Can an Algorithm Know the 'Real You'?: Understanding People's Reactions to Hyper-personal Analytics Systems (pp. 797-806). ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702274 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Springer, A., & Whittaker, S. (2019) · Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3301275.3302322 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
“Transparency increases positive perceptions of a system when the user experiences expectation violation; however, transparency decreases positive system perceptions when expectations are not violated [78].”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationProgressive Disclosure: When, Why, and How Do Users Want Algorithmic Transparency Information?
Springer, A., & Whittaker, S. (2020) · ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1145/3374218 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Springer, A., & Whittaker, S.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2018
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1812.03220
- OpenAlex
- W2903674080
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Keywords
- algorithmic transparency, user perception, emotion prediction, text classification, user expectations, interactive systems, explainable AI, user experience
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
