Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

HearHere: Mitigating Echo Chambers in News Consumption through an AI-based Web System

Published 28 Feb 2024 in cs.HC and cs.AI | (2402.18222v2)

Abstract: Considerable efforts are currently underway to mitigate the negative impacts of echo chambers, such as increased susceptibility to fake news and resistance towards accepting scientific evidence. Prior research has presented the development of computer systems that support the consumption of news information from diverse political perspectives to mitigate the echo chamber effect. However, existing studies still lack the ability to effectively support the key processes of news information consumption and quantitatively identify a political stance towards the information. In this paper, we present HearHere, an AI-based web system designed to help users accommodate information and opinions from diverse perspectives. HearHere facilitates the key processes of news information consumption through two visualizations. Visualization 1 provides political news with quantitative political stance information, derived from our graph-based political classification model, and users can experience diverse perspectives (Hear). Visualization 2 allows users to express their opinions on specific political issues in a comment form and observe the position of their own opinions relative to pro-liberal and pro-conservative comments presented on a map interface (Here). Through a user study with 94 participants, we demonstrate the feasibility of HearHere in supporting the consumption of information from various perspectives. Our findings highlight the importance of providing political stance information and quantifying users' political status as a means to mitigate political polarization. In addition, we propose design implications for system development, including the consideration of demographics such as political interest and providing users with initiatives.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (78)
  1. Vijaya Ahire and Swati Borse. 2022. Emotion detection from social media using machine learning techniques: a survey. In Applied Information Processing Systems: Proceedings of ICCET 2021. Springer, 83–92.
  2. Computer Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW) and Network Issues: A Survey. International Information Institute (Tokyo). Information 16, 11 (2013), 7995.
  3. Approaches, tools and applications for sentiment analysis implementation. International Journal of Computer Applications 125, 3 (2015).
  4. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348, 6239 (2015), 1130–1132.
  5. J Martin Bland and Douglas G Altman. 1995. Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. Bmj 310, 6973 (1995), 170.
  6. Is the internet causing political polarization? Evidence from demographics. Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research.
  7. Markus Brauer and Abdelatif Er-Rafiy. 2011. Increasing perceived variability reduces prejudice and discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47, 5 (2011), 871–881.
  8. Political ideology predicts perceptions of the threat of COVID-19 (and susceptibility to fake news about it). Social Psychological and Personality Science 11, 8 (2020), 1119–1128.
  9. Smitashree Choudhury and John G Breslin. 2010. User sentiment detection: a YouTube use case. (2010).
  10. Survey on sentiment analysis: evolution of research methods and topics. Artificial Intelligence Review (2023), 1–42.
  11. Lincoln Dahlberg. 2001a. Computer-mediated communication and the public sphere: A critical analysis. Journal of Computer-mediated communication 7, 1 (2001), JCMC714.
  12. Lincoln Dahlberg. 2001b. The Internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, communication & society 4, 4 (2001), 615–633.
  13. Mixed-initiative creative interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 628–635.
  14. Tim Donkers and Jürgen Ziegler. 2021. The Dual Echo Chamber: Modeling Social Media Polarization for Interventional Recommending. In Fifteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 12–22.
  15. Elizabeth Dubois and Grant Blank. 2018. The echo chamber is overstated: the moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society 21, 5 (2018), 729–745.
  16. Ullrich KH Ecker and Li Chang Ang. 2019. Political attitudes and the processing of misinformation corrections. Political Psychology 40, 2 (2019), 241–260.
  17. The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology 1, 1 (2022), 13–29.
  18. Do people keep believing because they want to? Preexisting attitudes and the continued influence of misinformation. Memory & cognition 42 (2014), 292–304.
  19. Opinion space: a scalable tool for browsing online comments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1175–1184.
  20. Knowledge graph augmented political perspective detection in news media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.03861 (2021).
  21. James S Fishkin and Robert C Luskin. 2005. Experimenting with a democratic ideal: Deliberative polling and public opinion. Acta politica 40, 3 (2005), 284–298.
  22. Jennifer Fleming. 2014. Media literacy, news literacy, or news appreciation? A case study of the news literacy program at Stony Brook University. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 69, 2 (2014), 146–165.
  23. Andy Furlong and Fred Cartmel. 2006. Young people and social change. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
  24. Burst your bubble! an intelligent system for improving awareness of diverse social opinions. In 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 371–383.
  25. Reducing controversy by connecting opposing views. In Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 81–90.
  26. R Kelly Garrett and Robert M Bond. 2021. Conservatives’ susceptibility to political misperceptions. Science Advances 7, 23 (2021), eabf1234.
  27. R Kelly Garrett and Paul Resnick. 2011. Resisting political fragmentation on the Internet. Daedalus 140, 4 (2011), 108–120.
  28. Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse M Shapiro. 2011. Ideological segregation online and offline. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 126, 4 (2011), 1799–1839.
  29. Me, my echo chamber, and I: introspection on social media polarization. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference. 823–831.
  30. Paul Gilster and Paul Glister. 1997. Digital literacy. Wiley Computer Pub. New York.
  31. Asymmetric ideological segregation in exposure to political news on Facebook. Science 381, 6656 (2023), 392–398.
  32. Leo A Goodman. 1961. Snowball sampling. The annals of mathematical statistics (1961), 148–170.
  33. Ideological group influence: central role of message meaning. Social influence 13, 1 (2018), 1–17.
  34. Eric Horvitz. 1999. Principles of mixed-initiative user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 159–166.
  35. David C Howell. 2012. Statistical methods for psychology. Cengage Learning.
  36. Shanto Iyengar and Kyu S Hahn. 2009. Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of communication 59, 1 (2009), 19–39.
  37. FashionQ: an ai-driven creativity support tool for facilitating ideation in fashion design. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18.
  38. ChamberBreaker: Mitigating the Echo Chamber Effect and Supporting Information Hygiene through a Gamified Inoculation System. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–26.
  39. Dan M Kahan. 2013. Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study (November 29, 2012). Judgment and Decision making 8 (2013), 407–24.
  40. StarryThoughts: Facilitating Diverse Opinion Exploration on Social Issues. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–29.
  41. KHAN: knowledge-aware hierarchical attention networks for accurate political stance prediction. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023. 1572–1583.
  42. Imagesense: An intelligent collaborative ideation tool to support diverse human-computer partnerships. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 4, CSCW1 (2020), 1–27.
  43. Supporting reflective public thought with considerit. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 265–274.
  44. Arie W Kruglanski. 1996. Motivated social cognition: Principles of the interface. (1996).
  45. Chang Li and Dan Goldwasser. 2019. Encoding social information with graph convolutional networks forpolitical perspective detection in news media. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 2594–2604.
  46. Chang Li and Dan Goldwasser. 2021. Mean: Multi-head entity aware attention networkfor political perspective detection in news media. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on NLP for Internet Freedom: Censorship, Disinformation, and Propaganda. 66–75.
  47. Q Vera Liao and Wai-Tat Fu. 2014. Can you hear me now? Mitigating the echo chamber effect by source position indicators. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing. 184–196.
  48. Scaling policy preferences from coded political texts. Legislative studies quarterly 36, 1 (2011), 123–155.
  49. Leanna Lucero. 2017. Safe spaces in online places: Social media and LGBTQ youth. Multicultural Education Review 9, 2 (2017), 117–128.
  50. Sendhil Mullainathan and Andrei Shleifer. 2005. The market for news. American economic review 95, 4 (2005), 1031–1053.
  51. Encouraging reading of diverse political viewpoints with a browser widget. In Proceedings of The International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 7. 419–428.
  52. Jaime L Napier and John T Jost. 2008. Why are conservatives happier than liberals? Psychological Science 19, 6 (2008), 565–572.
  53. (Re) Design to Mitigate Political Polarization: Reflecting Habermas’ ideal communication space in the United States of America and Finland. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–25.
  54. The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis) trust science. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 658, 1 (2015), 36–66.
  55. Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler. 2010. When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior 32, 2 (2010), 303–330.
  56. Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial. Pediatrics 133, 4 (2014), e835–e842.
  57. Like-minded sources on Facebook are prevalent but not polarizing. Nature (2023), 1–8.
  58. I lead, you help but only with enough details: Understanding user experience of co-creation with artificial intelligence. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.
  59. Meena Rambocas and Barney G Pacheco. 2018. Online sentiment analysis in marketing research: a review. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 12, 2 (2018), 146–163.
  60. Jeba Rezwana and Mary Lou Maher. 2022. Designing Creative AI Partners with COFI: A Framework for Modeling Interaction in Human-AI Co-Creative Systems. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (2022).
  61. This item might reinforce your opinion: Obfuscation and labeling of search results to mitigate confirmation bias. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM conference on hypertext and social media. 189–199.
  62. Jon Roozenbeek and Sander Van der Linden. 2019. Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Palgrave Communications 5, 1 (2019), 1–10.
  63. The Denver model for groupware design. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin 28, 1 (1996), 52–58.
  64. Listening to misinformation while driving: Cognitive load and the effectiveness of (repeated) corrections. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition (2022).
  65. Ben Shneiderman and Pattie Maes. 1997. Direct manipulation vs. interface agents. interactions 4, 6 (1997), 42–61.
  66. Fake news detection on social media: A data mining perspective. ACM SIGKDD explorations newsletter 19, 1 (2017), 22–36.
  67. Polis: Scaling Deliberation by Mapping High Dimensional Opinion Spaces. Recerca: Revista de Pensament i Anàlisi 26, 2 (2021).
  68. Jonathan A Smith. 2015. Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. Qualitative psychology (2015), 1–312.
  69. Stance detection with hierarchical attention network. In Proceedings of the 27th international conference on computational linguistics. 2399–2409.
  70. Processing political misinformation: Comprehending the Trump phenomenon. Royal Society open science 4, 3 (2017), 160802.
  71. Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations. Journal of applied research in memory and cognition 9, 3 (2020), 286–299.
  72. Charles S Taber and Milton Lodge. 2006. Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American journal of political science 50, 3 (2006), 755–769.
  73. A survey on sentiment detection of reviews. Expert Systems with Applications 36, 7 (2009), 10760–10773.
  74. I Want to Break Free! Recommending Friends from Outside the Echo Chamber. In Fifteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 23–33.
  75. Laurens Van der Maaten and Geoffrey Hinton. 2008. Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of machine learning research 9, 11 (2008).
  76. Mixed-initiative photo collage authoring. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM international conference on Multimedia. 509–518.
  77. Mixed-initiative co-creativity. (2014).
  78. Qinfeng Zhu and Marko M Skoric. 2021. From context collapse to “safe spaces”: Selective avoidance through tie dissolution on social media. Mass Communication and Society 24, 6 (2021), 892–917.
Citations (2)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Sign Up to Summarize

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate All Videos Subscribe on YouTube

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Generate Now

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Generate Now

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Sign Up

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 3 tweets with 2 likes about this paper.

Sign Up for Free