cscw2013 bursting your (filter) bubble
DESCRIPTION
Broadcast media are declining in their power to decide which issues and viewpoints will reach large audiences. But new information filters are appearing, in the guise of recommender systems, aggregators, search engines, feed ranking algorithms, and the sites we bookmark and the people and organizations we choose to follow on Twitter. Sometimes we explicitly choose our filters; some we hardly even notice. Critics worry that, collectively, these filters will isolate people in information bubbles only partly of their own choosing, and that the inaccurate beliefs they form as a result may be difficult to correct. But should we really be worried, and, if so, what can we do about it? Our panelists will review what scholars know about selectivity of exposure preferences and actual exposure and what we in the CSCW field can do to develop and test ways of promoting diverse exposure, openness to the diversity we actually encounter, and deliberative discussion.TRANSCRIPT
BURSTING YOUR (FILTER) BUBBLELearning from Selective ExposureR. Kelly Garrett | Asst. Professor | OSU School of CommunicationCSCW ’13, San Antonio, TXFebruary 25, 2013
SELECTIVE EXPOSURE Political attitudes influence what information
people consume (Lazarsfeld, et al., 1948; Frey, 1986)
Selective approach, selective avoidance (Garrett, 2009)
Not echo chambers (Gentzkow & Shapiro, 2011; Webster & Ksiazek , 2012, Garrett et al., 2013)
Context matters
Effective design can capitalize on what we’ve learned
CONTENT CUES Two experiments with similar design
One using source cues (Iyengar & Hahn, 2009) Other using content cues (Garrett & Stroud,
2012)
Strikingly different results Conservatives preferred Fox and avoided
CNN & NPR; Liberals the reverse Neither conservatives nor liberals
consistently avoided counter-attitudinal
Lesson: Content cues may help overcome some expressions of bias
PARTY AFFILIATION Republicans avoid predominantly
counter-attitudinal content
Democrats seek high levels of pro-attitudinal content
Both groups entertain diverse viewpoints
Lesson: Different mixes of content may appeal depending on the consumer’s political identity
Avoid this… But not this.
And this.Seek this…
MOTIVATED REASONING & GOALS News consumers’ information seeking varies
depending on their goals (Carnahan, 2013) Accuracy Directional Closure
For example, individuals who expect to publicly justify their position to experts are more balanced consumers
Lesson: If you can prime accuracy goals, you can make diverse exposure more palatable
EMOTIONS Anxiety (Valentino et al., 2009; Carnahan et al., 2011)
Individuals seek out diverse viewpoints when that information helps them alleviate the threat
Anger? We may avoid or abandon sources that make us
angry
Lessons: Users’ emotional states can provide clues to the types of content that will attract them
BROADER DESIGN IMPLICATIONS More sophisticated understanding of
preferences Don’t present users with an either/or choice Recommend sets or streams of information
Use context Provide counter-attitudinal content in form or
context that people find most palatable
Nudge Prime normative expectations, benefits of
counter-attitudinal exposure (or risks of ignorance), etc.