nach oben

Universal Access in the Information Society

Erschienen in:

05.09.2022 | Long Paper

User acceptance on content optimization algorithms: predicting filter bubbles in conversational AI services

verfasst von: Hosoo Cho, Daeho Lee, Jae-Gil Lee

Erschienen in: Universal Access in the Information Society | Ausgabe 4/2023

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

As the role of artificial intelligence (AI) agents in information curation has emerged with recent advancements in AI technologies, the present study explored which users would potentially be susceptible to the filter bubble phenomenon. First, a large-scale analysis of conversational agent users in South Korea (N = 2808) was conducted to investigate the relative importance of content optimization algorithms in shaping positive user experience. Five user clusters were identified based on their information technology proficiency and demographics, and a multiple-group path analysis was performed to compare the influences of content optimization algorithms across the user groups. The results indicated that the personalization algorithm generally exhibited a stronger impact on evaluations of an AI agent’s usefulness than the diversity algorithm. In addition, increased user age and greater Internet usage were found to decrease the importance of objectivity in shaping trust in AI agents. This study improves the understanding of the social influence of AI technology and suggests the necessity of segmented approaches in the development of AI technology.

Vorheriger Artikel Interactive communication in the process of physical education: are social media contributing to the improvement of physical training performance

Nächster Artikel Readability of Wikipedia pages on andrology and gynecology: comparative study

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Hoy, M.B.: Alexa, Siri, Cortana, and more: an introduction to voice assistants. Med. Ref. Serv. Q. 37, 81–88 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2018.1404391CrossRef

Nass, C.I., Brave, S.: Wired for speech: how voice activates and advances the human-computer relationship. MIT press, Cambridge (2005)

Pinker, S.: The language instinct: how the mind creates language. Penguin, New York (2003)

Le Bigot, L., Caroux, L., Ros, C., Lacroix, A., Botherel, V.: Investigating memory constraints on recall of options in interactive voice response system messages. Behav. Inf. Technol. 32(2), 106–116 (2013)CrossRef

Sunstein, C.R.: Infotopia: how many minds produce knowledge. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2006)

Sunstein, C.R.: Republic.Com 2.0. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (2009). https://www.amazon.com/Republic-com-2-0-Cass-R-Sunstein/dp/0691143285

Haim, M., Graefe, A., Brosius, H.-B.: Burst of the filter bubble?. Effects of personalization on the diversity of google news. Digit. J. 6, 1–14 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1338145CrossRef

Smyth, B., McClave, P.: Similarity vs. diversity. ICCBR 2080, 347–361 (2001)MATH

Di Noia, T., Rosati, J., Tomeo, P., Di Sciascio, E.: Adaptive multi-attribute diversity for recommender systems. Inf. Sci. 382–383, 234–253 (2017)CrossRef

10.

Jordan, M.I.: Artificial intelligence—the revolution hasn’t happened yet. Harv. Data Sci. Rev. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.f06c6e61CrossRef

11.

Castañeda, J.A., Muñoz-Leiva, F., Luque, T.: Web acceptance model (WAM)—moderating effects of user experience. Inf. Manag. 44, 384–396 (2007)CrossRef

12.

Sundar, S.S., Marathe, S.S.: Personalization versus customization: the importance of agency, privacy, and power usage. Hum. Commun. Res. 36, 298–322 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01377.xCrossRef

13.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 27(3), 425 (2003)CrossRef

14.

Kendall, L., Chaudhuri, B., Bhalla, A.: Understanding technology as situated practice: everyday use of voice user interfaces among diverse groups of users in Urban India. Inf. Syst. Front. 22, 585–605 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10015-6CrossRef

15.

Sundar, S.S.: Rise of machine agency: a framework for studying the psychology of human–AI interaction (HAII). J. Comp. Mediat. Comm. 52, 286–315 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz026CrossRef

16.

Chen, T.-W., Sundar, S.S.: This app would like to use your current location to better serve you - importance of user assent and system transparency in personalized mobile services. CHI 6, 1–13 (2018)

17.

Zhang, B., Wu, M., Kang, H., et al. Effects of security warnings and instant gratification cues on attitudes toward mobile websites. CHI 111–114 (2014)

18.

Ge, M., Delgado-Battenfeld, C., Jannach, D.: Beyond accuracy: evaluating recommender systems by coverage and serendipity, pp. 257–260. ACM Press, New York (2010)

19.

Wang, W., Xu, J.D., Wang, M.: Effects of recommendation neutrality and sponsorship disclosure on trust vs. distrust in online recommendation agents—moderating role of explanations for organic recommendations. Manag. Sci. 64, 5198–5219 (2018)CrossRef

20.

Knijnenburg, B.P., Willemsen, M.C., Gantner, Z., et al.: Explaining the user experience of recommender systems. User Model. User-Adap. Inter. 22, 441–504 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-011-9118-4CrossRef

21.

Pariser, E.: The filter bubble: what the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin, New York (2011)

22.

Rhodes, S.C.: Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and fake news: how social media conditions individuals to be less critical of political misinformation. Polit. Commun. 39(1), 1–22 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2021.1910887CrossRef

23.

Corbett, C.F., Wright, P.J., Jones, K., Parmer, M.: Voice-activated virtual home assistant use and social isolation and loneliness among older adults: mini review. Front. Public Health 9 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.742012

24.

Nilashi, M., Jannach, D., Bin Ibrahim, O., et al.: Recommendation quality, transparency, and website quality for trust-building in recommendation agents. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 19, 70–84 (2016)CrossRef

25.

Karimi, M., Jannach, D., Jugovac, M.: News recommender systems—survey and roads ahead. Inf. Process. Manag. 54, 1203–1227 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2018.04.008CrossRef

26.

Wang, W., Benbasat, I.: Recommendation agents for electronic commerce: effects of explanation facilities on trusting beliefs. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 23, 217–246 (2007). https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222230410CrossRef

27.

Sohn, K., Kwon, O.: Technology acceptance theories and factors influencing artificial Intelligence-based intelligent products. Telemat. Inform. 47, 101324 (2020)CrossRef

28.

Chung, S., Wo, K.P.: Using consumer perceptions of a voice-activated speaker device as an educational tool. JMIR Med. Educ. 6(1), e17336 (2020)CrossRef

29.

Vargas, S., Baltrunas, L., Karatzoglou, A., Castells, P.: Coverage, redundancy and size-awareness in genre diversity for recommender systems. Rec. Sys. 209–216 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2645710.2645743

30.

Liang, T.-P., Lai, H.-J., Ku, Y.-C.: Personalized content recommendation and user satisfaction: theoretical synthesis and empirical findings. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 23, 45–70 (2014). https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222230303CrossRef

31.

Wang, W., Qiu, L., Kim, D., Benbasat, I.: Effects of rational and social appeals of online recommendation agents on cognition- and affect-based trust. Decis. Support Syst. 86, 48–60 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2016.03.007CrossRef

32.

Burke, R.D.: Hybrid recommender systems—survey and experiments. User Model. User Adapt. Interact. 12, 331–370 (2002)CrossRefMATH

33.

Carlson, M.S., Desai, M., Drury, J.L., et al. Identifying factors that influence trust. In: Proceedings of the workshop on Etiquette

34.

Jannach, D., Zanker, M., Felfernig, A., Friedrich, G.: Recommender systems: an introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)CrossRef

35.

Hong, T., Kim, E.: Segmenting customers in online stores based on factors that affect the customerâ€™s intention to purchase. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, 2127–2131 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.07.114CrossRef

36.

Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13, 319 (1989)CrossRef

37.

Komiak, S.Y., Benbasat, I.: The effects of personalization and familiarity on trust and adoption of recommendation agents. MIS Q. 30(4), 941–960 (2006)CrossRef

38.

Nguyen, T.T., Maxwell Harper, F., Terveen, L., Konstan, J.A.: User personality and user satisfaction with recommender systems. Inf. Syst. Front. 20, 1173–1189 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9782-yCrossRef

39.

Pasquale, F.: The black box society: the secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2015)CrossRef

40.

Shani, G., Gunawardana, A.: Evaluating recommendation systems. In: Ricci, F., Rokach, L., Shapira, B., Kantor, P.B. (eds.) Recommender systems handbook, pp. 257–297. Springer, Boston (2011)CrossRef

41.

Ekstrand, M.D., Harper, F.M., Willemsen, M.C., Konstan, J.A.: User perception of differences in recommender algorithms. Rec. Sys.161–168 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2645710.2645737

42.

McNee, S.M., Riedl, J., Konstan, J.A.: Being accurate is not enough: how accuracy metrics have hurt recommender systems, pp. 1097–1101. ACM Press, New York (2006)

43.

Yi, C., Jiang, Z.J., Benbasat, I.: Designing for diagnosticity and serendipity—an investigation of social product-search mechanisms. Inf. Syst. Res. 28, 413–429 (2017)CrossRef

44.

Gunning, D., Aha, W.: DARPA’s explainable artificial intelligence program. AI Mag. 40, 44–58 (2019)

45.

Lee, J.D., See, K.A.: Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum. Factors 46, 50–80 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392CrossRef

46.

Benbasat, I., Wang, W.: Trust in and adoption of online recommendation agents. J. AIS 6(3), 72–101 (2005)

47.

Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W.: Trust and TAM in online shopping—an integrated model. MIS Q. 27, 51–90 (2003)CrossRef

48.

Qiu, L., Benbasat, I.: Evaluating anthropomorphic product recommendation agents: a social relationship perspective to designing information systems. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 25, 145–182 (2014). https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222250405CrossRef

49.

Martínez-López, F.J., Esteban-Millat, I., Cabal, C.C., Gengler, C.: Psychological factors explaining consumer adoption of an e-vendor’s recommender. Industr. Manag. Data Syst. 115, 284–310 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-10-2014-0306CrossRef

50.

Lee, S., Choi, J.: Enhancing user experience with conversational agent for movie recommendation: effects of self-disclosure and reciprocity. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 103, 95–105 (2017)CrossRef

51.

Kowalczuk, P.: Consumer acceptance of smart speakers: a mixed methods approach. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 12, 418–431 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-01-2018-0022CrossRef

52.

Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 39, 273–315 (2008)CrossRef

53.

Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46, 186–204 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926CrossRef

54.

Albashrawi, M., Motiwalla, L.: Privacy and personalization in continued usage intention of mobile banking—an integrative perspective. Inf. Syst. Front. 21(5), 1031–1043 (2019)CrossRef

55.

Xiao, B., Benbasat, I.: E-commerce product recommendation agents: use, characteristics, and impact. MIS Q. 31, 137–209 (2007). https://doi.org/10.5555/2017327.2017335CrossRef

56.

Koufaris, M., Kambil, A., Labarbera, P.A.: Consumer behavior in web-based commerce: an empirical study. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 6, 115–138 (2001)CrossRef

57.

Ong, C.-S., Lai, J.-Y.: Gender differences in perceptions and relationships among dominants of e-learning acceptance. Comput. Hum. Behav. 22, 816–829 (2006)CrossRef

58.

Guner, H., Acarturk, C.: The use and acceptance of ICT by senior citizens: a comparison of technology acceptance model (TAM) for elderly and young adults. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 19, 311–330 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-018-0642-4CrossRef

59.

IMD (2021) IMD world digital competitiveness ranking. IMD world competitiveness center, pp. 110–111

60.

Salih, W. K.: Does auditor objectivity impact on the relationship between information technology and efficiency and effectiveness of auditing: evidence from Iraq. J. Rev. Glob. Econ. 8, 226–238 (2019). https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-7092.2019.08.20CrossRef

61.

Jauhari, H., Singh, S.: Perceived diversity climate and employees’ organizational loyalty. Equality Divers. Incl. Int. J. 32, 262–276 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-12-2012-0119CrossRef

62.

Kim, N., Park, Y., Lee, D.: Differences in consumer intention to use on-demand automobile-related services in accordance with the degree of face-to-face interactions. Tech Fore Soc Change 139, 277–286 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.11.014CrossRef

63.

Lee, J., Ryu, M. H., Lee, D.: A study on the reciprocal relationship between user perception and retailer perception on platform-based mobile payment service. J Retail. and Cons. Serv. 48, 7–15 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.007CrossRef

64.

Yeon, J., Park, I., Lee, D.: What creates trust and who gets loyalty in social commerce? J. of Retail. and Cons. Serv. 50, 138-144 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.009CrossRef

65.

Yen, C-H., Lu, H-P.: Effects of e‐service quality on loyalty intention: an empirical study in online auction. Managing Serv. Qual. Int. J. 18, 127–146 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520810859193CrossRef

66.

Von Luxburg, U., Belkin, M., Bousquet, O.: Consistency of spectral clustering. Ann. Stat. 36, 555–586 (2008)MathSciNetMATH

67.

Marsden, A.: Eigenvalues of the Laplacian and their relationship to the connectedness of a graph. University of Chicago, REU (2013)

68.

von Luxburg, U.: A tutorial on spectral clustering. Stat. Comput. 17, 395–416 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11222-007-9033-zMathSciNetCrossRef

69.

James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R.: An introduction to statistical learning. Springer, New York (2013)CrossRefMATH

70.

Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., Mullen, M.R.: Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 6, 53–60 (2008)

71.

Hu, L.T., Bentler, P.M.: Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 6, 1–55 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118CrossRef

72.

Byrne, B.M.: Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge, New York, NY (2016)CrossRef

73.

Shardanand, U., Maes, P. Social information filtering—algorithms for automating “word of mouth”. CHI 210–217 (1995)

74.

Lam, X.N., Vu, T., Le, T.D., Duong, A.D.: Addressing cold-start problem in recommendation systems. ICUIMC (2008). https://doi.org/10.1145/1352793.1352837CrossRef

75.

Bellaachia, A., Alathel, D.: Improving the recommendation accuracy for cold start users in trust-based recommender systems. Int. J. Comput. Commun. Eng. 5, 206–214 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/223904.223931CrossRef

76.

Yoo, K.-H., Gretzel, U.: Creating more credible and persuasive recommender systems—the influence of source characteristics on recommender system evaluations. In: Ricci, F., Rokach, L., Shapira, B., Kantor, P.B. (eds.) Recommender systems handbook, pp. 455–477. Springer, Boston (2011)CrossRef

77.

Cramer, H., Evers, V., Ramlal, S., et al.: The effects of transparency on trust in and acceptance of a content-based art recommender. User Model. User Adap. Inter. 18, 455–496 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-008-9051-3CrossRef

78.

von Hippel, W., Silver, L.A., Lynch, M.E.: Stereotyping against your will: the role of inhibitory ability in stereotyping and prejudice among the elderly. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 26, 523–532 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200267001CrossRef

79.

Heid, A.R., Zarit, S.H., Fingerman, K.L.: “My parent is so stubborn!”—perceptions of aging parents’ persistence, insistence, and resistance. GERONB 71, 602–612 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbu177CrossRef

80.

Lee, M.-C.: Explaining and predicting users’ continuance intention toward e-learning: an extension of the expectation-confirmation model. Comput. Educ. 54, 506–516 (2010)CrossRef

Titel: User acceptance on content optimization algorithms: predicting filter bubbles in conversational AI services
verfasst von: Hosoo Cho
Daeho Lee
Jae-Gil Lee
Publikationsdatum: 05.09.2022
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Universal Access in the Information Society / Ausgabe 4/2023
Print ISSN: 1615-5289
Elektronische ISSN: 1615-5297
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00913-8

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2023

Analyzing repositories of OER using web analytics and accessibility tools

Older adults’ prevention and communication to beat anxiety: the diminishing utility of proactive coping actions

An instrument for the determination of learning objects quality for students with visual impairment integrating the services theory (ILOBlind)

Readability of Wikipedia pages on andrology and gynecology: comparative study

Toward automatic motivator selection for autism behavior intervention therapy

Accessibility evaluation of Arabic University websites for compliance with success criteria of WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0

Premium Partner