René F. Kizilcec
ABSTRACT
The rising prevalence of algorithmic interfaces, such as curated feeds in online news, raises new questions for designers, scholars, and critics of media. This work focuses on how transparent design of algorithmic interfaces can promote awareness and foster trust. A two-stage process of how transparency affects trust was hypothesized drawing on theories of information processing and procedural justice. In an online field experiment, three levels of system transparency were tested in the high-stakes context of peer assessment. Individuals whose expectations were violated (by receiving a lower grade than expected) trusted the system less, unless the grading algorithm was made more transparent through explanation. However, providing too much information eroded this trust. Attitudes of individuals whose expectations were met did not vary with transparency. Results are discussed in terms of a dual process model of attitude change and the depth of justification of perceived inconsistency. Designing for trust requires balanced interface transparency - not too little and not too much.
- Frank Bannister and Regina Connolly. 2011. The Trouble with Transparency: A Critical Review of Openness in e-Government. Policy & Internet 3, 1 (2011), 1--30.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Bruce G Buchanan, Edward Hance Shortliffe, and others. 1984. Rule-based expert systems. Vol. 3. Addison-Wesley Reading, MA.Google Scholar
- Judee K Burgoon and Jerold L Hale. 1988. Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communications Monographs 55, 1 (1988), 58--79.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Karen S Cook, Chris Snijders, Vincent Buskens, and Coye Cheshire. 2009. eTrust: Forming relationships in the online world. Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
- Cynthia L Corritore, Beverly Kracher, and Susan Wiedenbeck. 2003. On-line trust: concepts, evolving themes, a model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 58, 6 (2003), 737--758. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Henriette Cramer, Vanessa Evers, Satyan Ramlal, Maarten Van Someren, Lloyd Rutledge, Natalia Stash, Lora Aroyo, and Bob Wielinga. 2008. The effects of transparency on trust in and acceptance of a content-based art recommender. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 18, 5 (2008), 455--496. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Motahhare Eslami, Aimee Rickman, Kristen Vaccaro, Amirhossein Aleyasen, Andy Vuong, Karrie Karahalios, Kevin Hamilton, and Christian Sandvig. 2015. "I always assumed that I wasn't really that close to {her}": Reasoning about invisible algorithms in the news feed. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 153--162. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Alyssa Glass, Deborah L McGuinness, and Michael Wolverton. 2008. Toward establishing trust in adaptive agents. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces. ACM, 227--236. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kevin Hamilton, Karrie Karahalios, Christian Sandvig, and Motahhare Eslami. 2014. A path to understanding the effects of algorithm awareness. In CHI'14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 631--642. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jonathan L Herlocker, Joseph A Konstan, and John Riedl. 2000. Explaining collaborative filtering recommendations. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM, 241--250. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hilary Johnson and Peter Johnson. 1993. Explanation facilities and interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Intelligent user interfaces. ACM, 159--166. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Julia H Kaufman and Christian D Schunn. 2011. Students' perceptions about peer assessment for writing: their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science 39, 3 (2011), 387--406.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jurgen Koenemann and Nicholas J Belkin. 1996. A case for interaction: a study of interactive information retrieval behavior and effectiveness. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 205--212. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chinmay Kulkarni, Koh Pang Wei, Huy Le, Daniel Chia, Kathryn Papadopoulos, Justin Cheng, Daphne Koller, and Scott R Klemmer. 2013. Peer and self assessment in massive online classes. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 20, 6 (2013), 33. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E Allan Lind and Tom R Tyler. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
- Jack Muramatsu and Wanda Pratt. 2001. Transparent Queries: investigation users' mental models of search engines. In Proceedings of the 24th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. ACM, 217--224. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Stephen J Payne. 2003. Users' mental models: the very ideas. HCI models, theories, and frameworks: Toward a multidisciplinary science (2003), 135--156.Google Scholar
- Richard E Petty and John T Cacioppo. 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Springer.Google Scholar
- Chris Piech, Jon Huang, Zhenghao Chen, Chuong Do, Andrew Ng, and Daphne Koller. 2013. Tuned Models of Peer Assessment in MOOCs. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Educational Data Mining.Google Scholar
- Wolter Pieters. 2011. Explanation and trust: what to tell the user in security and AI? Ethics and information technology 13, 1 (2011), 53--64. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pearl Pu and Li Chen. 2007. Trust-inspiring explanation interfaces for recommender systems. Knowledge-Based Systems 20, 6 (2007), 542--556. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Emilee Rader and Rebecca Gray. 2015. Understanding User Beliefs About Algorithmic Curation in the Facebook News Feed. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 173--182. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass. 1996. How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications and Cambridge university press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jens Riegelsberger, M Angela Sasse, and John D McCarthy. 2005. The mechanics of trust: A framework for research and design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 62, 3 (2005), 381--422. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Philip M Sadler and Eddie Good. 2006. The impact of self-and peer-grading on student learning. Educational assessment 11, 1 (2006), 1--31.Google Scholar
- Kay Sambell, Liz McDowell, and Sally Brown. 1997. "But is it fair?": an exploratory study of student perceptions of the consequential validity of assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation 23, 4 (1997), 349--371.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mien Segers and Filip Dochy. 2001. New assessment forms in problem-based learning: the value-added of the students' perspective. Studies in higher education 26, 3 (2001), 327--343.Google Scholar
- David K Sherman and Geoffrey L Cohen. 2002. Accepting threatening information: Self-Affirmation and the reduction of defensive biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science 11, 4 (2002), 119--123.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rashmi Sinha and Kirsten Swearingen. 2002. The role of transparency in recommender systems. In CHI'02 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 830--831. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Candace Thille, Emily Schneider, Rene F Kizilcec, Christopher Piech, Sherif A Halawa, and Daniel K Greene. 2014. The future of data-enriched assessment. Research & Practice in Assessment 9, 2 (2014), 5--16.Google Scholar
- Weiquan Wang and Izak Benbasat. 2007. Recommendation agents for electronic commerce: Effects of explanation facilities on trusting beliefs. Journal of Management Information Systems 23, 4 (2007), 217--246. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Meichun Lydia Wen and Chin-Chung Tsai. 2006. University students' perceptions of and attitudes toward (online) peer assessment. Higher Education 51, 1 (2006), 27--44.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- How Much Information?: Effects of Transparency on Trust in an Algorithmic Interface
Recommendations
Re-examining post-acceptance model of information systems continuance: A revised theoretical model using MASEM approach
AbstractThis study extends the post-acceptance model of information systems (IS) continuance, which is widely used to explain users’ satisfaction and IS continuance intentions. The extended model includes additional variables such as perceived ...
Highlights- This paper extends the post-acceptance model of information systems continuance.
Anthropomorphic agents, transparent automation and driver personality: towards an integrative multi-level model of determinants for effective driver-vehicle cooperation in highly automated vehicles
AutomotiveUI '15: Adjunct Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular ApplicationsThis paper introduces a model integrating research on antecedents of safe and enjoyable interaction with highly automated advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS). It focuses on the psychological processes during the initial encounters with a system, ...
RETRACTED ARTICLE: Acceptance and usage of a mobile information system services in University of Jordan
AbstractAlong with the significant development of information and communication technologies (ICTSs), an incredible number of mobile applications have become available. Hence, the main purpose of the current study is to investigate the use and acceptance ...
Comments