attention and bias in social information networks

ATTENTION AND BIAS IN SOCIAL INFORMATION NETWORKSSCOTT COUNTS, MICROSOFT RESEARCH

flickr: alshepmcr

Looking time per tweet is short, memory is poor.

Looking time per tweet is short, memory is poor.

Looking time per tweet is short, memory is poor.

Including links, RTs, heavy tweeting all decrease attention and/or interest.

Including links, RTs, heavy tweeting all decrease attention and/or interest.

Including links, RTs, heavy tweeting all decrease attention and/or interest.

Including links, RTs, heavy tweeting all decrease attention and/or interest.

Personal contacts increase attention and memory.

Counts, S., & Fisher, K. (2011). Taking It All In? Visual Attention in Microblog Consumption. In Proc. ICWSM ‘11.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

How does a user’s name influence perception of her and her content?

ANONYMOUS SURVEY SCREEN

NON-ANONYMOUS SURVEY SCREEN

RESULTS – AUTHOR RATINGS

Fairly bimodal distributionsDownward shift in ratings when non-anonymous

RESULTS – RATING DISTRIBUTION

Good author get higher ratings when non-anon.Bad authors hurt most by namesAverage authors similar to good (KL div = .02) but hurt by name (KL div = .23; p < .001)

RESULTS – RATINGS & FOLLOWER COUNT

Results tighten up with names: R2 = .16 -> .21High follower count people get biggest boostMiddle group hurt

Pal, A., & Counts, S. (2011). What’s In a @Name? How Name Value Biases Judgment of Microblog Authors. In Proc. ICWSM ‘11.

CREDIBILITY AND TRUTH

CREDIBILITY AND TRUTH

CREDIBILITY AND TRUTH

CREDIBILITY AND TRUTH

CREDIBILITY AND TRUTH

CREDIBILITY AND TRUTH*

Name type impacts tweet and author credibilityCorrelations between truth and tweet (r = .39) and author (r = .29) modest

* Morris, M., Counts, S., Roseway, A., Hoff, A., & Schwartz, J. (2011). Under review.

BRINGING IT TOGETHER

BRINGING IT TOGETHER

Minimal visual processing/attention

Poor memory encoding

BRINGING IT TOGETHER

Minimal visual processing/attention

Poor memory encoding

Difficulty in determining truthfulness

Systematic use of heuristics (biases)

Friends

Name value

BRINGING IT TOGETHER

Minimal visual processing/attention

Poor memory encoding

Difficulty in determining truthfulness

Systematic use of heuristics (biases)

Friends

Name value

** Peripheral processing route **

IMPLICATIONS

IMPLICATIONS

Effective reach of social media

IMPLICATIONS

Effective reach of social media

Information diffusion

IMPLICATIONS

Effective reach of social media

Information diffusion

Social contagion: Stickiness* (increased adoption and sustained product use) and memory for content

* Aral, S., & Walker, D. (2010). Creating Social Contagion Through Viral Product Design: A Randomized Trial of Peer Influence Networks. Management Science.

ATTENTION AND BIAS IN SOCIAL INFORMATION NETWORKS

SCOTT COUNTS, MICROSOFT RESEARCH

low level :: your brain on facebook*

* Fisher, K., & Counts, S. (2010). Your Brain on Facebook: Neuropsychological Associations with Social Versus Other Media. In Proc. ICWSM ‘10.

social information networks :: levels of analysis

Math/Theory

Social media analytics

Computer-Mediated Communication

Social Cognition

Physiological

RESULTS – FACTORS FOR BIAS: GENDER

Most top authors are gender neutral (e.g., Time, Mashable)Men higher than women when anonymous, but drop more when names shownWomen get slight bump when names shown

Pal, A., & Counts, S. (2011). What’s In a @Name? How Name Value Biases Judgment of Microblog Authors. In Proc. ICWSM ‘11.

social information networks :: levels of analysis

Math/Theory

Social media analytics

Computer-Mediated Communication

Social Cognition

Physiological

PROBLEM STATEMENT

How does a user’s name influence perception of her and her content?

PROBLEM STATEMENT

How does a user’s name influence perception of her and her content?