Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
41 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
41 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
7 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Algorithmic amplification of biases on Google Search (2401.09044v1)

Published 17 Jan 2024 in cs.CY, cs.HC, and cs.IR

Abstract: The evolution of information-seeking processes, driven by search engines like Google, has transformed the access to information people have. This paper investigates how individuals' preexisting attitudes influence the modern information-seeking process, specifically the results presented by Google Search. Through a comprehensive study involving surveys and information-seeking tasks focusing on the topic of abortion, the paper provides four crucial insights: 1) Individuals with opposing attitudes on abortion receive different search results. 2) Individuals express their beliefs in their choice of vocabulary used in formulating the search queries, shaping the outcome of the search. 3) Additionally, the user's search history contributes to divergent results among those with opposing attitudes. 4) Google Search engine reinforces preexisting beliefs in search results. Overall, this study provides insights into the interplay between human biases and algorithmic processes, highlighting the potential for information polarization in modern information-seeking processes.

PDF HTML Abstract

The paper "Algorithmic amplification of biases on Google Search," explores the complex interaction between human biases and algorithmic processes. This paper is particularly pertinent given how search engines like Google have dramatically reshaped how people access information. The authors focus on how individual preexisting attitudes influence the search results presented by Google, using the contentious topic of abortion as a case paper. The research employs a combination of surveys and structured information-seeking tasks to derive its conclusions.

Key Findings:

  1. Diverse Search Results Based on Attitudes:
    • People with opposing views on abortion receive different search results. This divergence suggests that the algorithm tailors the information to align more closely with the user's preexisting beliefs.
  2. Influence of Vocabulary Choices:
    • The paper finds that the specific words and phrases users select when formulating their queries significantly influence the search results. This indicates that individuals' belief systems manifest in their language choices, which in turn affect the information they are exposed to.
  3. Impact of Search History:
    • The user’s search history also plays a crucial role in creating divergent experiences. Personalized search results based on previous behavior can reinforce existing attitudes by consistently presenting information aligned with the user's historical search patterns.
  4. Reinforcement of Preexisting Beliefs:
    • Perhaps the most critical insight is that Google Search engines reinforce preexisting beliefs. This phenomenon can lead to a kind of information polarization, where individuals are continuously exposed to viewpoints that corroborate their existing opinions, potentially limiting exposure to a broader spectrum of information.

Overall, the paper sheds light on how algorithmic processes can exacerbate human biases. It underscores the dual role of users and algorithms in shaping modern information-seeking behavior, raising important questions about information polarization and the responsibility of search engines in mitigating bias. This research is crucial for understanding how digital platforms might influence public opinion and the potential need for intervention to ensure more balanced information dissemination.

File Document Download Save Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com PDF File Document Download Save Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Markdown Bookmark Chat Bubble Oval Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Chat (Pro)
Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (31)
  1. [n. d.]. Google Search Status Dashboard. https://status.search.google.com/products/rGHU1u87FJnkP6W2GwMi/history.
  2. [n. d.]. The Propagandists’ Playbook.
  3. [n. d.]. Ranking Results – How Google Search Works. https://www.google.com/search/howsearchworks/how-search-works/ranking-results/.
  4. [n. d.]. Search Engine Market Share Worldwide. https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share.
  5. Vocabulary Choice as an Indicator of Perspective. In Proceedings of the ACL 2010 Conference Short Papers, Jan Hajič, Sandra Carberry, Stephen Clark, and Joakim Nivre (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, Uppsala, Sweden, 253–257.
  6. Semantics Derived Automatically from Language Corpora Contain Human-like Biases. Science 356, 6334 (April 2017), 183–186. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal4230
  7. Pew Research Center. 2022. America’s Abortion Quandary.
  8. Walter Daelemans. 2013. Explanation in Computational Stylometry. In Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Alexander Gelbukh (Ed.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 451–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37256-8_37
  9. Lotfi Ghazal. 2007. Learning Vocabulary in EFL Contexts through Vocabulary Learning Strategies. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language) 1, 2 (June 2007), –.
  10. Abyss or Shelter? On the Relevance of Web Search Engines’ Search Results When People Google for Suicide. Health Communication 32, 2 (Feb. 2017), 253–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2015.1113484
  11. Measuring Personalization of Web Search. arXiv:1706.05011 [cs]
  12. Jennifer A. Hess and Justin D. Rueb. 2005. Attitudes toward Abortion, Religion, and Party Affiliation among College Students. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues 24 (2005), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-005-1002-0
  13. Gallup Inc. 2018. Abortion Trends by Party Identification. https://news.gallup.com/poll/246278/abortion-trends-party.aspx.
  14. A Field Study Characterizing Web-based Information-Seeking Tasks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58, 7 (2007), 999–1018. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20590
  15. Measuring Political Personalization of Google News Search. In The World Wide Web Conference (WWW ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2957–2963. https://doi.org/10.1145/3308558.3313682
  16. Advances in Pre-Training Distributed Word Representations. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018), Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Christopher Cieri, Thierry Declerck, Sara Goggi, Koiti Hasida, Hitoshi Isahara, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Hélène Mazo, Asuncion Moreno, Jan Odijk, Stelios Piperidis, and Takenobu Tokunaga (Eds.). European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Miyazaki, Japan.
  17. C. Thi Nguyen. 2020. ECHO CHAMBERS AND EPISTEMIC BUBBLES. Episteme 17, 2 (June 2020), 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.32
  18. Rodrigo Ochigame and Katherine Ye. 2021. Search Atlas: Visualizing Divergent Search Results Across Geopolitical Borders. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2021. ACM, Virtual Event USA, 1970–1983. https://doi.org/10.1145/3461778.3462032
  19. French-English Bilingual Children with SLI: How Do They Compare with Their Monolingual Peers? Journal of speech, language, and hearing research: JSLHR 46, 1 (Feb. 2003), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2003/009)
  20. Eli Pariser. 2011. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. Penguin Press, New York.
  21. James Pennebaker and Laura King. 2000. Linguistic Styles: Language Use as an Individual Difference. Journal of personality and social psychology 77 (Jan. 2000), 1296–312. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.77.6.1296
  22. Cornelius Puschmann. 2019. Beyond the Bubble: Assessing the Diversity of Political Search Results. Digital Journalism 7, 6 (July 2019), 824–843. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1539626
  23. Introduction to Recommender Systems Handbook. In Recommender Systems Handbook, Francesco Ricci, Lior Rokach, Bracha Shapira, and Paul B. Kantor (Eds.). Springer US, Boston, MA, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-85820-3_1
  24. Users Choose to Engage with More Partisan News than They Are Exposed to on Google Search. Nature (May 2023), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06078-5
  25. Auditing Partisan Audience Bias within Google Search. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (Nov. 2018), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274417
  26. Daniel E. Rose and Danny Levinson. 2004. Understanding User Goals in Web Search. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM, New York NY USA, 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/988672.988675
  27. Tagging, Communities, Vocabulary, Evolution. ([n. d.]).
  28. Adapting the Selective Exposure Perspective to Algorithmically Governed Platforms: The Case of Google Search. Communication Research 49, 8 (Dec. 2022), 1039–1065. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502211012154
  29. Yla R. Tausczik and James W. Pennebaker. 2010. The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29, 1 (March 2010), 24–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676
  30. Michael Taylor and George Whitehead. 2014. The Measurement of Attitudes toward Abortion. Modern Psychological Studies 20, 1 (Sept. 2014).
  31. Searching Differently? How Political Attitudes Impact Search Queries about Political Issues. New Media & Society (July 2022), 14614448221104405. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221104405
User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (8)
  1. Hussam Habib (8 papers)
  2. Ryan Stoldt (2 papers)
  3. Andrew High (1 paper)
  4. Brian Ekdale (2 papers)
  5. Ashley Peterson (1 paper)
  6. Katy Biddle (1 paper)
  7. Javie Ssozi (1 paper)
  8. Rishab Nithyanand (27 papers)
Citations (1)
View on Semantic Scholar