Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Responsible Opinion Formation on Debated Topics in Web Search

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Information Retrieval (ECIR 2024)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 14611))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Web search has evolved into a platform people rely on for opinion formation on debated topics. Yet, pursuing this search intent can carry serious consequences for individuals and society and involves a high risk of biases. We argue that web search can and should empower users to form opinions responsibly and that the information retrieval community is uniquely positioned to lead interdisciplinary efforts to this end. Building on digital humanism—a perspective focused on shaping technology to align with human values and needs—and through an extensive interdisciplinary literature review, we identify challenges and research opportunities that focus on the searcher, search engine, and their complex interplay. We outline a research agenda that provides a foundation for research efforts toward addressing these challenges.

A. Rieger and T. Draws—Contributed equally.

D. Maxwell—The work undertaken by this author is not related to Booking.com’s activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Agrawal, R., Gollapudi, S., Halverson, A., Ieong, S.: Diversifying search results. In: Proceedings of the Second ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining - WSDM 2009, p. 5. ACM Press, Barcelona (2009). https://doi.org/10.1145/1498759.1498766. https://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1498759.1498766

  2. Ajjour, Y., Braslavski, P., Bondarenko, A., Stein, B.: Identifying argumentative questions in web search logs. In: Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR 2022, pp. 2393–2399. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3477495.3531864

  3. Alaofi, M., et al.: Where do queries come from? In: Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR 2022, pp. 2850–2862. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3477495.3531711

  4. Allam, A., Schulz, P.J., Nakamoto, K.: The impact of search engine selection and sorting criteria on vaccination beliefs and attitudes: two experiments manipulating google output. J. Med. Internet Res. 16(4), e100 (2014). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2642. http://www.jmir.org/2014/4/e100/

  5. Antelmi, A., Malandrino, D., Scarano, V.: Characterizing the behavioral evolution of twitter users and the truth behind the 90–9-1 rule. In: Companion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2019, pp. 1035–1038. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3308560.3316705

  6. Araujo, T., et al.: Osd2f: an open-source data donation framework. Comput. Commun. Res. 4(2), 372–387 (2022)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Arthur, C.: What is the 1% rule? (2006). https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2006/jul/20/guardianweeklytechnologysection2

  8. Asudeh, A., Jagadish, H.V., Stoyanovich, J., Das, G.: Designing fair ranking schemes. In: Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 1259–1276. ACM, Amsterdam (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3299869.3300079. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3299869.3300079

  9. Augenstein, I., Rocktäschel, T., Vlachos, A., Bontcheva, K.: Stance detection with bidirectional conditional encoding. In: Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 876–885. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Avula, S., Chadwick, G., Arguello, J., Capra, R.: Searchbots: User engagement with chatbots during collaborative search. In: Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Human Information Interaction & Retrieval, pp. 52–61 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Azzopardi, L.: Cognitive biases in search: a review and reflection of cognitive biases in information retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, pp. 27–37. ACM, Canberra (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3406522.3446023. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3406522.3446023

  12. Baden, C., Kligler-Vilenchik, N., Yarchi, M.: Hybrid content analysis: toward a strategy for the theory-driven, computer-assisted classification of large text corpora. Commun. Methods Meas. 14(3), 165–183 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1803247. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19312458.2020.1803247

  13. Baden, C., Springer, N.: Com(ple)menting the news on the financial crisis: The contribution of news users’ commentary to the diversity of viewpoints in the public debate. Eur. J. Commun. 29(5), 529–548 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323114538724. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0267323114538724

  14. Baden, C., Springer, N.: Conceptualizing viewpoint diversity in news discourse. Journalism 18(2), 176–194 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884915605028. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1464884915605028

  15. Baeza-Yates, R.: Bias on the web. Commun. ACM 61(6), 54–61 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3209581. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3209581

  16. Bail, C.A., et al.: Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 115(37), 9216–9221 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bar-Ilan, J., Keenoy, K., Levene, M., Yaari, E.: Presentation bias is significant in determining user preference for search results-a user study. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60(1), 135–149 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Beam, M.A.: Automating the news: how personalized news recommender system design choices impact news reception. Commun. Res. 41(8), 1019–1041 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Belkin, N.J.: Anomalous states of knowledge as a basis for information retrieval. Can. J. Inf. Sci. 5(1), 133–143 (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bernstein, M.S., Teevan, J., Dumais, S., Liebling, D., Horvitz, E.: Direct answers for search queries in the long tail. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 237–246 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bink, M., Schwarz, S., Draws, T., Elsweiler, D.: Investigating the influence of featured snippets on user attitudes. In: ACM SIGIR Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, CHIIR 2023. ACM, New York (2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3576840.3578323

  22. Bink, M., Zimmerman, S., Elsweiler, D.: Featured snippets and their influence on users’ credibility judgements. In: ACM SIGIR Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, CHIIR 2022, pp. 113–122. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3498366.3505766

  23. Blassnig, S., Mitova, E., Pfiffner, N., Reiss, M.V.: Googling referendum campaigns: analyzing online search patterns regarding swiss direct-democratic votes. Media Commun. 11(1), 19–30 (2023)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Van den Bogaert, L., Geerts, D., Harambam, J.: Putting a human face on the algorithm: co-designing recommender personae to democratize news recommender systems. Digital Journal. 1–21 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Boltanski, L., Thévenot, L.: On Justification: Economies of Worth, vol. 27. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2006)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Bondarenko, A., et al.: Overview of touché 2022: argument retrieval. In: Barrón-Cedeño, A., et al. (eds.) Experimental IR Meets Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Interaction, vol. 13390, pp. 311–336. Springer, Cham (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13643-6_21

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Bondarenko, A., et al.: Overview of touché 2021: argument retrieval. In: Candan, K.S., et al. (eds.) Experimental IR Meets Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Interaction, vol. 12880, pp. 450–467. Springer, Cham (2021)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Van den Bosch, A., Bogers, T., De Kunder, M.: Estimating search engine index size variability: a 9-year longitudinal study. Scientometrics 107(2), 839–856 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bota, H., Zhou, K., Jose, J.M.: Playing your cards right: the effect of entity cards on search behaviour and workload. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, CHIIR 2016, pp. 131–140. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2854946.2854967

  30. Bowes, S.M., Costello, T.H., Lee, C., McElroy-Heltzel, S., Davis, D.E., Lilienfeld, S.O.: Stepping outside the echo chamber: is intellectual humility associated with less political myside bias? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 48, 150–164 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167221997619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Budzynska, K., Reed, C.: Advances in argument mining. In: Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Tutorial Abstracts, pp. 39–42. Association for Computational Linguistics, Florence (2019). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-4008. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P19-4008

  32. Burke, R.: Personalization, fairness, and post-userism. In: Perspectives on Digital Humanism, p. 145 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cacioppo, J.T., Petty, R.E., Morris, K.J.: Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 45, 805–818 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Canca, C.: Did you find it on the internet? ethical complexities of search engine rankings. In: Perspectives on Digital Humanism, p. 135 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Carroll, N..: In search we trust: exploring how search engines are shaping society. Int. J. Knowl. Soc. Res. 5(1), 12–27 (2014). https://doi.org/10.4018/ijksr.2014010102. https://services.igi-global.com/resolvedoi/resolve.aspx?doi=10.4018/ijksr.2014010102

  36. Chacoma, A., Zanette, D.H.: Opinion formation by social influence: from experiments to modeling. PLoS ONE 10(10), e0140406 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Chamberlain, J., Kruschwitz, U., Hoeber, O.: Scalable visualisation of sentiment and stance. In: Calzolari, N., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018). European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Miyazaki (2018). https://aclanthology.org/L18-1660

  38. Chen, S., Khashabi, D., Yin, W., Callison-Burch, C., Roth, D.: Seeing Things from a Different Angle: Discovering Diverse Perspectives about Claims. arXiv:1906.03538 [cs] (2019)

  39. Chen, T., Yin, H., Ye, G., Huang, Z., Wang, Y., Wang, M.: Try this instead: personalized and interpretable substitute recommendation. In: Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 891–900 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Cushion, S., Thomas, R.: From quantitative precision to qualitative judgements: professional perspectives about the impartiality of television news during the 2015 UK general election. Journalism 20(3), 392–409 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Deffler, S.A., Leary, M.R., Hoyle, R.H.: Knowing what you know: intellectual humility and judgments of recognition memory. Pers. Individ. Differ. 96, 255–259 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Draws, T., Inel, O., Tintarev, N., Baden, C., Timmermans, B.: Comprehensive Viewpoint Representations for a Deeper Understanding of User Interactions With Debated Topics. In: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGIR Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, CHIIR 2022, p. 11. ACM, New York (2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3498366.3505812. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cMUzKX9QkAGfTAM8WaDKRK7y23auzNn5/view?usp=sharing

  43. Draws, T., et al.: Explainable cross-topic stance detection for search results. In: ACM SIGIR Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, CHIIR 2023. ACM, New York (2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3576840.3578296

  44. Draws, T., Rieger, A., Inel, O., Gadiraju, U., Tintarev, N.: A checklist to combat cognitive biases in crowdsourcing. In: Proceedings on the Ninth AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing, HCOMP 2021. AAAI (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Draws, T., et al.: Viewpoint diversity in search results. In: Kamps, J., et al. (eds.) Advances in Information Retrieval. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 13980, pp. 279–297. Springer, Cham (2023)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  46. Draws, T., Tintarev, N., Gadiraju, U., Bozzon, A., Timmermans, B.: This is not what we ordered: exploring why biased search result rankings affect user attitudes on debated topics. In: Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 295–305. ACM, Virtual Event Canada (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3404835.3462851. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3404835.3462851

  47. Draws, T.A.: Understanding Viewpoint Biases in Web Search Results. Phd thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands (2023). https://doi.org/10.4233/uuid:1b177026-6af7-48f3-ba04-ab7109db3c36

  48. Drosou, M., Pitoura, E.: Search result diversification. SIGMOD Rec. 39(1), 7 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. van Drunen, M.Z., Helberger, N., Bastian, M.: Know your algorithm: what media organizations need to explain to their users about news personalization. Int. Data Privacy Law 9(4), 220–235 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Dumani, L., Neumann, P.J., Schenkel, R.: A framework for argument retrieval. In: Jose, J.M., et al. (eds.) ECIR 2020. LNCS, vol. 12035, pp. 431–445. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45439-5_29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  51. Eickhoff, C.: Cognitive biases in crowdsourcing. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pp. 162–170. ACM, Marina Del Rey (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3159652.3159654. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3159652.3159654

  52. Epstein, R., Robertson, R.E.: The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112(33), E4512–E4521 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1419828112. http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1419828112

  53. Epstein, R., Robertson, R.E., Lazer, D., Wilson, C.: Suppressing the search engine manipulation effect (SEME). In: Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 1(CSCW), 1–22 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3134677. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3134677

  54. Eskens, S., Helberger, N., Moeller, J.: Challenged by news personalisation: five perspectives on the right to receive information. J. Media Law 9(2), 259–284 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2017.1387353. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17577632.2017.1387353

  55. Figueira, Á., Oliveira, L.: The current state of fake news: challenges and opportunities. Procedia Comput. Sci. 121, 817–825 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Freiling, I., Krause, N.M., Scheufele, D.A.: Science and ethics of “Curing’’ misinformation. AMA J. Ethics 25, 228–237 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2023.228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Gao, R., Shah, C.: Toward creating a fairer ranking in search engine results. Inf. Process. Manag. 57(1), 102138 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2019.102138. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0306457319304121

  58. Gevelber, L.: How Mobile Has Changed How People Get Things Done: New Consumer Behavior Data. Think with Google (2016). https://think.storage.googleapis.com/docs/mobile-search-consumer-behavior-data.pdf

  59. Gevelber, L.: It’s all about ‘me’-how people are taking search personally. Technical report (2018). https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/marketing-strategies/search/personal-needs-search-trends/

  60. Gezici, G., Lipani, A., Saygin, Y., Yilmaz, E.: Evaluation metrics for measuring bias in search engine results. Inf. Retr. J. 24(2), 85–113 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10791-020-09386-w. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10791-020-09386-w

  61. Ghenai, A., Smucker, M.D., Clarke, C.L.: A think-aloud study to understand factors affecting online health search. In: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, pp. 273–282. ACM, Vancouver (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3343413.3377961. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3343413.3377961

  62. Giunchiglia, F., Kleanthous, S., Otterbacher, J., Draws, T.: Transparency paths - documenting the diversity of user perceptions. In: Adjunct Proceedings of the 29th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, pp. 415–420. ACM, Utrecht (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3450614.3463292. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3450614.3463292

  63. Gorichanaz, T.: Relating information seeking and use to intellectual humility. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 73, 643–654 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Gorichanaz, T.: Virtuous search: a framework for intellectual virtue in online search. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24832

  65. Groot Kormelink, T., Costera Meijer, I.: A user perspective on time spent: temporal experiences of everyday news use. Journal. Stud. 21(2), 271–286 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Guess, A., Nagler, J., Tucker, J.: Less than you think: prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on facebook. Sci. Adv. 5(1), eaau4586 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  67. Gupta, A., Basu, D., Ghantasala, R., Qiu, S., Gadiraju, U.: To trust or not to trust: how a conversational interface affects trust in a decision support system. In: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022, pp. 3531–3540 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  68. Haider, J., Sundin, O.: Invisible Search and Online Search Engines: The Ubiquity of Search in Everyday Life. Taylor & Francis (2019). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429448546

  69. Haider, J., Sundin, O.: Information literacy challenges in digital culture: conflicting engagements of trust and doubt. Inf. Commun. Soc. 25, 1176–1191 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1851389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Halavais, A.: Search Engine Society. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  71. Hanselowski, A., et al.: A retrospective analysis of the fake news challenge stance detection task. arXiv preprint arXiv:1806.05180 (2018)

  72. Harambam, J., Bountouridis, D., Makhortykh, M., Van Hoboken, J.: Designing for the better by taking users into account: a qualitative evaluation of user control mechanisms in (news) recommender systems. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pp. 69–77 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  73. Hassoun, A., Beacock, I., Consolvo, S., Goldberg, B., Kelley, P.G., Russell, D.M.: Practicing information sensibility: how gen Z engages with online information. In: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2023, pp. 1–17. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581328

  74. Helberger, N.: On the democratic role of news recommenders. Dig. Journal. 7(8), 993–1012 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1623700. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21670811.2019.1623700

  75. Helberger, N., Kleinen-von Königslöw, K., van der Noll, R.: Regulating the new information intermediaries as gatekeepers of information diversity. Info 17, 50–71 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1108/info-05-2015-0034

  76. Hermann, E.: Artificial intelligence and mass personalization of communication content-an ethical and literacy perspective. New Media Soc. 24(5), 1258–1277 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Hertwig, R., Grüne-Yanoff, T.: Nudging and boosting: steering or empowering good decisions. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 12, 973–986 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617702496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Hinman, L.M.: Searching Ethics: The Role of Search Engines in the Construction and Distribution of Knowledge. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75829-7

    Book  Google Scholar 

  79. van Hoof, M., Meppelink, C.S., Moeller, J., Trilling, D.: Searching differently? how political attitudes impact search queries about political issues. New Media Soc. 14614448221104405 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  80. van Hoof, M., Trilling, D., Meppelink, C., Moeller, J., Loecherbach, F.: Googling politics? the computational identification of political and news-related searches from web browser histories (2023)

    Google Scholar 

  81. Howe, L.C., Krosnick, J.A.: Attitude Strength. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 68, 327–351 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Hu, S., Dou, Z., Wang, X., Sakai, T., Wen, J.R.: Search result diversification based on hierarchical intents. In: Proceedings of the 24th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 63–72. ACM, Melbourne (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2806416.2806455. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2806416.2806455

  83. Hube, C., Fetahu, B., Gadiraju, U.: Understanding and mitigating worker biases in the crowdsourced collection of subjective judgments. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–12. ACM, Glasgow (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300637. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3290605.3300637

  84. Hwa-Froelich, D.A., Vigil, D.C.: Three aspects of cultural influence on communication: a literature review. Commun. Disord. Q. 25(3), 107–118 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Ingwersen, P., Järvelin, K.: Information retrieval in context: Irix. SIGIR Forum 39(2), 31–39 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1145/1113343.1113351

  86. Ingwersen, P., Järvelin, K.: The Turn: Integration of Information Seeking and Retrieval in Context. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3851-8

    Book  Google Scholar 

  87. Inman, S., Ribes, D.: “beautiful seams" strategic revelations and concealments. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–14 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  88. Joachims, T., Granka, L., Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Gay, G.: Accurately interpreting clickthrough data as implicit feedback. ACM SIGIR Forum 51(1), 8 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  89. Joachims, T., Swaminathan, A., Schnabel, T.: Unbiased learning-to-rank with biased feedback. In: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pp. 781–789. ACM, Cambridge (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3018661.3018699. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3018661.3018699

  90. Joho, H., Jose, J.M.: A comparative study of the effectiveness of search result presentation on the web. In: Lalmas, M., MacFarlane, A., Rüger, S., Tombros, A., Tsikrika, T., Yavlinsky, A. (eds.) ECIR 2006. LNCS, vol. 3936, pp. 302–313. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/11735106_27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  91. Jones-Jang, S.M., Mortensen, T., Liu, J.: Does media literacy help identification of fake news? information literacy helps, but other literacies don’t. Am. Behav. Sci. 65(2), 371–388 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Kammerer, Y., Gerjets, P.: How search engine users evaluate and select web search results: the impact of the search engine interface on credibility assessments. In: Web search engine research. Emerald Group Publishing Limited (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  93. Kaya, M., Bridge, D.: Subprofile-aware diversification of recommendations. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 29(3), 661–700 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-019-09235-6. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11257-019-09235-6

  94. Kennedy, A.M., Jones, K., Williams, J.: Children as vulnerable consumers in online environments. J. Consum. Aff. 53(4), 1478–1506 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Khder, M.A.: Web scraping or web crawling: state of art, techniques, approaches and application. Int. J. Adv. Soft Comput. Appl. 13(3) (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  96. Kim, D.H., Pasek, J.: Explaining the diversity deficit: value-trait consistency in news exposure and democratic citizenship. Commun. Res. 47(1), 29–54 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Kim, J., Thomas, P., Sankaranarayana, R., Gedeon, T., Yoon, H.J.: Understanding eye movements on mobile devices for better presentation of search results. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 67(11), 2607–2619 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  98. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Meng, J.: Looking the other way: selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Commun. Res. 36, 426–448 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209333030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Johnson, B.K., Westerwick, A.: Confirmation bias in online searches: impacts of selective exposure before an election on political attitude strength and shifts. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 20(2), 171–187 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12105. https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/20/2/171-187/4067554

  100. Koene, A., et al.: Ethics of personalized information filtering. In: Tiropanis, T., Vakali, A., Sartori, L., Burnap, P. (eds.) INSCI 2015. LNCS, vol. 9089, pp. 123–132. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18609-2_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  101. Kormelink, T.G., Meijer, I.C.: What clicks actually mean: exploring digital news user practices. Journalism 19(5), 668–683 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Kornblith, H.: Justified belief and epistemically responsible action. Phil. Rev. 92, 33–48 (1983). https://doi.org/10.2307/2184520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Kozyreva, A., Lewandowsky, S., Hertwig, R.: Citizens versus the internet: confronting digital challenges with cognitive tools. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 21, 103–156 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620946707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Krumrei-Mancuso, E.J., Haggard, M.C., LaBouff, J.P., Rowatt, W.C.: Links between intellectual humility and acquiring knowledge. J. Posit. Psychol. 15, 155–170 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1579359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Kulshrestha, J., et al.: Quantifying search bias: investigating sources of bias for political searches in social media. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, pp. 417–432. ACM, Portland (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998321. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2998181.2998321

  106. Kulshrestha, J., et al.: Search bias quantification: investigating political bias in social media and web search. Inf. Retr. J. 22(1–2), 188–227 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10791-018-9341-2. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10791-018-9341-2

  107. Kwak, H., An, J., Salminen, J., Jung, S.G., Jansen, B.J.: What we read, what we search: Media attention and public attention among 193 countries. In: Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2018, pp. 893–902. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3178876.3186137

  108. Landoni, M., Aliannejadi, M., Huibers, T., Murgia, E., Pera, M.S.: Have a clue! the effect of visual cues on children’s search behavior in the classroom. In: ACM SIGIR Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, pp. 310–314 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  109. Lawrence, J., Reed, C.: Combining argument mining techniques. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining, pp. 127–136. Association for Computational Linguistics, Denver (2015). https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/W15-0516. http://aclweb.org/anthology/W15-0516

  110. Lawrence, J., Reed, C.: Argument mining: a survey. Comput. Linguist. 45(4), 765–818 (2020)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Lazar, J., Feng, J.H., Hochheiser, H.: Research Methods in Human-Computer Interaction. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  112. Leary, M.R., et al.: Cognitive and interpersonal features of intellectual humility. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 43, 793–813 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217697695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Lewandowsky, S., van der Linden, S.: Countering misinformation and fake news through inoculation and prebunking. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 32, 348–384 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Lippi, M., Torroni, P.: Context-independent claim detection for argument mining. In: Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  115. Liscio, E.: Axies: identifying and evaluating context-specific values. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, AAMAS 2021, p. 10 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  116. Liu, J., Zhang, X.: The role of domain knowledge in document selection from search results. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 70, 1236–1247 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Loecherbach, F., Moeller, J., Trilling, D., van Atteveldt, W.: The unified framework of media diversity: a systematic literature review. Dig. Journal. 8(5), 605–642 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1764374. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21670811.2020.1764374

  118. Loos, E., Ivan, L., Leu, D.: “save the pacific northwest tree octopus": a hoax revisited. or: How vulnerable are school children to fake news? Inf. Learn. Sci. (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  119. Lorenz-Spreen, P., Geers, M., Pachur, T., Hertwig, R., Lewandowsky, S., Herzog, S.M.: Boosting people’s ability to detect microtargeted advertising. Sci. Rep. 11(1), 1–9 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Lorenz-Spreen, P., Lewandowsky, S., Sunstein, C.R., Hertwig, R.: How behavioural sciences can promote truth, autonomy and democratic discourse online. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 1102–1109 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0889-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Ludolph, R., Allam, A., Schulz, P.J.: Manipulating google’s knowledge graph box to counter biased information processing during an online search on vaccination: application of a technological debiasing strategy. J. Med. Internet Res. 18(6), e137 (2016). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5430. http://www.jmir.org/2016/6/e137/

  122. Mattis, N., Masur, P., Möller, J., van Atteveldt, W.: Nudging towards news diversity: a theoretical framework for facilitating diverse news consumption through recommender design. New Media Soc. 14614448221104413 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  123. McDuff, D., Thomas, P., Craswell, N., Rowan, K., Czerwinski, M.: Do affective cues validate behavioural metrics for search? In: Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 1544–1553 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  124. McKay, D., et al.: We are the change that we seek: information interactions during a change of viewpoint. In: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, pp. 173–182 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  125. Meij, E., Bron, M., Hollink, L., Huurnink, B., de Rijke, M.: Learning semantic query suggestions. In: Bernstein, A., et al. (eds.) ISWC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5823, pp. 424–440. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04930-9_27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  126. Miller, B., Record, I.: Justified belief in the digital age: on the epistemic implications of secret internet technologies. Episteme 10, 117–134 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2013.11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Milton, A., Pera, M.S.: Into the unknown: exploration of search engines’ responses to users with depression and anxiety. ACM Trans. Web (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  128. Minson, J.A., Chen, F.S., Tinsley, C.H.: Why won’t you listen to me? measuring receptiveness to opposing views. Manag. Sci. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Mohammad, S.M., Kiritchenko, S., Sobhani, P., Zhu, X., Cherry, C.: Semeval-2016 task 6: detecting stance in tweets. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, SemEval 2016, San Diego, California (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  130. Mohammad, S.M., Sobhani, P., Kiritchenko, S.: Stance and sentiment in tweets. Spec. Sect. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. Argument. Social Media 17(3) (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  131. Moore, R.J., Arar, R.: Conversational UX Design: A Practitioner’s Guide to the Natural Conversation Framework. Morgan & Claypool, San Rafael (2019)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  132. Mowshowitz, A., Kawaguchi, A.: Assessing bias in search engines. Inf. Process. Manag. 38(1), 141–156 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Mummolo, J.: News from the other side: how topic relevance limits the prevalence of partisan selective exposure. J. Polit. 78(3), 763–773 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Munson, S.A., Resnick, P.: Presenting diverse political opinions: how and how much. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1457–1466 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  135. N.D: Introducing chatgpt (2023). https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/

  136. Nickerson, R.S.: Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2(2), 175–220 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Niculae, V., Park, J., Cardie, C.: Argument Mining with Structured SVMs and RNNs. arXiv:1704.06869 [cs] (2017)

  138. Noble, S.U.: Algorithms of Oppression. New York University Press, New York (2018)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  139. Novin, A., Meyers, E.: Making sense of conflicting science information: exploring bias in the search engine result page. In: Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Conference Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, pp. 175–184. ACM, Oslo (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3020165.3020185. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3020165.3020185

  140. Nowotny, H.: Digital humanism: navigating the tensions ahead. In: Perspectives on Digital Humanism, p. 317 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  141. Nyhan, B., Reifler, J.: When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Polit. Behav. 32(2), 303–330 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Oliveira, B., Teixeira Lopes, C.: The evolution of web search user interfaces - an archaeological analysis of google search engine result pages. In: Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, CHIIR 2023, pp. 55–68. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3576840.3578320

  143. Olteanu, A., Castillo, C., Diaz, F., Kıcıman, E.: Social data: biases, methodological pitfalls, and ethical boundaries. Front. Big Data 2, 13 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  144. Ortloff, A.M., Zimmerman, S., Elsweiler, D., Henze, N.: The effect of nudges and boosts on browsing privacy in a naturalistic environment. In: Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, CHIIR 2021, pp. 63–73. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3406522.3446014

  145. Oswald, M.E., Grosjean, S.: Confirmation bias. Cogn. Illus. Handb. Fallacies Biases Thinking Judge. Memory 79, 83 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  146. Otterbacher, J.: Addressing social bias in information retrieval. In: Bellot, P., Trabelsi, C., Mothe, J., Murtagh, F., Nie, J.Y., Soulier, L., SanJuan, E., Cappellato, L., Ferro, N. (eds.) CLEF 2018. LNCS, vol. 11018, pp. 121–127. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98932-7_11

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  147. Otterbacher, J., Bates, J., Clough, P.: Competent men and warm women: gender stereotypes and backlash in image search results. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 6620–6631. ACM, Denver (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025727. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3025453.3025727

  148. Otterbacher, J., Checco, A., Demartini, G., Clough, P.: Investigating user perception of gender bias in image search: the role of sexism. In: The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 933–936. ACM, Ann Arbor (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3209978.3210094. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3209978.3210094

  149. Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Lorigo, L., Gay, G., Granka, L.. In google we trust: users’ decisions on rank, position, and relevance. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 12(3), 801–823 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00351.x. https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/12/3/801-823/4582975

  150. Pathiyan Cherumanal, S., Spina, D., Scholer, F., Croft, W.B.: Evaluating fairness in argument retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, pp. 3363–3367 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  151. Peels, R.: Responsible Belief: A Theory in Ethics and Epistemology. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  152. Pennycook, G., Rand, D.G.: Lazy, not biased: susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition 188, 39–50 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S001002771830163X

  153. Phillips-Wren, G., Jefferson, T., McKniff, S.: Cognitive bias and decision aid use under stressful conditions. J. Decis. Syst. 28(2), 162–184 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  154. Pirkola, A.: The effectiveness of web search engines to index new sites from different countries. Inf. Res. Int. Electron. J. 14(2) (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  155. Pogacar, F.A., Ghenai, A., Smucker, M.D., Clarke, C.L.: The positive and negative influence of search results on people’s decisions about the efficacy of medical treatments. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval, pp. 209–216. ACM, Amsterdam (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3121050.3121074. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3121050.3121074

  156. Porter, T., Elnakouri, A., Meyers, E.A., Shibayama, T., Jayawickreme, E., Grossmann, I.: Predictors and consequences of intellectual humility. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 1, 524–536 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00081-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  157. Pothirattanachaikul, S., Yamamoto, T., Yamamoto, Y., Yoshikawa, M.: Analyzing the effects of “People also ask" on search behaviors and beliefs. In: Proceedings of the 31st ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media, HT 2020, pp. 101–110. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3372923.3404786

  158. Potthast, M., et al.: Argument search: assessing argument relevance. In: Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 1117–1120 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  159. Prem, E.: Our digital mirror. In: Perspectives on Digital Humanism, p. 89 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  160. Purcell, K., Rainie, L., Brenner, J.: Search engine use 2012 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  161. Puschmann, C.: Beyond the bubble: assessing the diversity of political search results. Dig. Journal. 7(6), 824–843 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2018.1539626. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21670811.2018.1539626

  162. Qiu, M., Jiang, J.: A latent variable model for viewpoint discovery from threaded forum posts. In: Proceedings of the Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics-Human Language Technologies, pp. 1031–1040. Association for Computational Linguistics (2013). https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sis_research/1890/

  163. Qiu, S., Gadiraju, U., Bozzon, A.: Improving worker engagement through conversational microtask crowdsourcing. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–12 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  164. Qiu, S., Gadiraju, U., Bozzon, A.: Towards memorable information retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGIR on International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval, pp. 69–76 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  165. Radlinski, F., Craswell, N.: A theoretical framework for conversational search. In: Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Conference Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, CHIIR 2017, pp. 117–126. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3020165.3020183

  166. Ramos, J., Eickhoff, C.: Search result explanations improve efficiency and trust. In: Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. pp. 1597–1600 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  167. Reijula, S., Hertwig, R.: Self-nudging and the citizen choice architect. Behav. Public Policy 6, 119–149 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2020.5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  168. Ren, P., Chen, Z., Ren, Z., Kanoulas, E., Monz, C., De Rijke, M.: Conversations with search engines: SERP-based conversational response generation. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 39, 47:1–47:29 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3432726

  169. Reuver, M., et al.: Are we human, or are we users? the role of natural language processing in human-centric news recommenders that nudge users to diverse content. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on NLP for Positive Impact, pp. 47–59 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  170. Rezapour, R., Dinh, L., Diesner, J.: Incorporating the measurement of moral foundations theory into analyzing stances on controversial topics. In: Proceedings of the 32st ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media, pp. 177–188. ACM, Virtual Event USA (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3465336.3475112. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3465336.3475112

  171. Rieger, A., Bredius, F., Tintarev, N., Pera, M.S.: Searching for the whole truth: harnessing the power of intellectual humility to boost better search on debated topics. In: Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, xCHI EA 2023, pp. 117–126. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3544549.3585693

  172. Rieger, A., Draws, T., Theune, M., Tintarev, N.: 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, pp. 189–199 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  173. Rieger, A., Draws, T., Theune, M., Tintarev, N.: Nudges to mitigate confirmation bias during web search on debated topics: support vs. manipulation. ACM Trans. Web (2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3635034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  174. Robertson, R.E., Green, J., Ruck, D.J., Ognyanova, K., Wilson, C., Lazer, D.: Users choose to engage with more partisan news than they are exposed to on Google Search. Nature 1–7 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06078-5

  175. Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S.: Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Palgrave Commun. 5, 1–10 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0279-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  176. Salmerón, L., Kammerer, Y., García-Carrión, P.: Searching the web for conflicting topics: page and user factors. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29(6), 2161–2171 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  177. Santos, R.L.T., Macdonald, C., Ounis, I.: Search result diversification. Found. Trends™ Inf. Retr. 9(1), 1–90 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1561/1500000040. http://www.nowpublishers.com/article/Details/INR-040

  178. Sapiezynski, P., Zeng, W., E Robertson, R., Mislove, A., Wilson, C.: Quantifying the impact of user attentionon fair group representation in ranked lists. In: Companion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference, pp. 553–562. ACM, San Francisco (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3308560.3317595. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3308560.3317595

  179. Schiaffonati, V., et al.: Explorative experiments and digital humanism: Adding an epistemic dimension to the ethical debate. In: Perspectives on Digital Humanism, p. 77 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  180. Schmitt, J.B., Debbelt, C.A., Schneider, F.M.: Too much information? predictors of information overload in the context of online news exposure. Inf. Commun. Soc. 21(8), 1151–1167 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1305427. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1305427

  181. Shah, C., Bender, E.M.: Situating search. In: ACM SIGIR Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, CHIIR 2022, pp. 221–232. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3498366.3505816

  182. Slechten, L., Courtois, C., Coenen, L., Zaman, B.: Adapting the selective exposure perspective to algorithmically governed platforms: the case of google search. Commun. Res. 49, 1039–1065 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502211012154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  183. Smith, C.L., Rieh, S.Y.: Knowledge-context in search systems: toward information-literate actions. In: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, CHIIR 2019, pp. 55–62. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3295750.3298940

  184. Springer, A., Garcia-Gathright, J., Cramer, H.: Assessing and addressing algorithmic bias-but before we get there... In: AAAI Spring Symposia (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  185. Sun, Q., Wang, Z., Zhu, Q., Zhou, G.: Stance detection with hierarchical attention network. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 2399–2409 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  186. Sundin, O., Lewandowski, D., Haider, J.: Whose relevance? web search engines as multisided relevance machines. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 73, 637–642 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  187. Swanson, R., Ecker, B., Walker, M.: Argument mining: extracting arguments from online dialogue. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, pp. 217–226. Association for Computational Linguistics, Prague (2015). https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W15-4631. http://aclweb.org/anthology/W15-4631

  188. Swar, B., Hameed, T., Reychav, I.: Information overload, psychological ill-being, and behavioral intention to continue online healthcare information search. Comput. Hum. Behav. 70, 416–425 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  189. Swire-Thompson, B., Lazer, D.: Public health and online misinformation: challenges and recommendations. Ann. Rev. Public Health 41, 433–451 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  190. Tavani, H.: Search engines and ethics. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, fall 2020 edn. (2020). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/ethics-search/

  191. Thaler, R.H., Sunstein, C.R.: Nudge: The Final Edition. Yale University Press, New Haven (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  192. Thonet, T., Cabanac, G., Boughanem, M., Pinel-Sauvagnat, K.: users are known by the company they keep: topic models for viewpoint discovery in social networks. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 87–96. ACM, Singapore (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3132847.3132897. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3132847.3132897

  193. Toch, E., Wang, Y., Cranor, L.F.: Personalization and privacy: a survey of privacy risks and remedies in personalization-based systems. User Model. User-Adap. Inter. 22, 203–220 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-011-9110-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  194. Trabelsi, A., Zaiane, O.R.: Finding arguing expressions of divergent viewpoints in online debates. In: Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Language Analysis for Social Media (LASM), pp. 35–43. Association for Computational Linguistics, Gothenburg (2014). https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/W14-1305. http://aclweb.org/anthology/W14-1305

  195. Trippas, J.R., Spina, D., Thomas, P., Sanderson, M., Joho, H., Cavedon, L.: Towards a model for spoken conversational search. Inf. Process. Manag. 57, 102162 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2019.102162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  196. Tsfati, Y., Cappella, J.N.: Why do people watch news they do not trust? the need for cognition as a moderator in the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Media Psychol. 7, 251–271 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  197. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases: biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science 185(4157), 1124–1131 (1974)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  198. Valkenburg, P.M., Peter, J.: The differential susceptibility to media effects model. J. Commun. 63(2), 221–243 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  199. Van Couvering, E.: Is relevance relevant? market, science, and war: discourses of search engine quality. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 12, 866–887 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00354.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  200. Van Mierlo, T.: The 1% rule in four digital health social networks: an observational study. J. Med. Internet Res. 16(2), e2966 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  201. van Strien, J.L.H., Kammerer, Y., Brand-Gruwel, S., Boshuizen, H.P.A.: How attitude strength biases information processing and evaluation on the web. Comput. Hum. Behav. 60, 245–252 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  202. Vaughan, L., Thelwall, M.: Search engine coverage bias: evidence and possible causes. Inf. Process. Manag. 40(4), 693–707 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  203. Vedejová, D., Čavojová, V.: Confirmation bias in information search, interpretation, and memory recall: evidence from reasoning about four controversial topics. Think. Reason. 28(1), 1–28 (2022)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  204. Vrijenhoek, S., Bénédict, G., Gutierrez Granada, M., Odijk, D., De Rijke, M.: Radio-rank-aware divergence metrics to measure normative diversity in news recommendations. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pp. 208–219 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  205. Vrijenhoek, S., Kaya, M., Metoui, N., Möller, J., Odijk, D., Helberger, N.: Recommenders with a mission: assessing diversity in newsrecommendations. arXiv:2012.10185 [cs] ( 2020)

  206. Wachsmuth, H., Syed, S., Stein, B.: Retrieval of the best counterargument without prior topic knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 1: Long Papers, pp. 241–251 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  207. Wang, R., Zhou, D., Jiang, M., Si, J., Yang, Y.: A survey on opinion mining: from stance to product aspect. IEEE Access 7, 41101–41124 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2906754. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8672602/

  208. Weber, I., Jaimes, A.: Who uses web search for what: and how. In: Proceedings of the Fourth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, pp. 15–24 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  209. Werthner, H., Prem, E., Lee, E.A., Ghezzi, C. (eds.): Perspectives on Digital Humanism. Springer, Heidelberg (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86144-5

  210. White, R.: Beliefs and biases in web search. In: Proceedings of the 36th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 3–12. ACM, Dublin (2013). https://doi.org/10.1145/2484028.2484053. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2484028.2484053

  211. White, R.W., Dumais, S.T., Teevan, J.: Characterizing the influence of domain expertise on web search behavior. In: Proceedings of the Second ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, WSDM 2009, pp. 132–141. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2009). https://doi.org/10.1145/1498759.1498819

  212. White, R.W., Hassan, A.: Content bias in online health search. ACM Trans. Web 8(4), 1–33 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2663355. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2663355

  213. White, R.W., Horvitz, E.: Belief dynamics and biases in web search. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 33(4), 1–46 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2746229. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2746229

  214. Winter, S.J., Butler, B.S.: Responsible technology design: conversations for success. In: Perspectives on Digital Humanism, pp. 271–275 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  215. Wolfgang, J.D., Vos, T.P., Kelling, K., Shin, S.: Political journalism and democracy: how journalists reflect political viewpoint diversity in their reporting. Journal. Stud. 22(10), 1339–1357 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  216. Wu, Z., Draws, T., Cau, F., Barile, F., Rieger, A., Tintarev, N.: Explaining search result stances to opinionated people. In: Longo, L. (ed.) xAI 2023. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 1902, pp. 573–596. Springer, Cham (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44067-0_29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  217. Xu, L., Zhuang, M., Gadiraju, U.: How do user opinions influence their interaction with web search results? In: Proceedings of the 29th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, pp. 240–244 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  218. Yang, K., Stoyanovich, J.: Measuring fairness in ranked outputs. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database Management, pp. 1–6. ACM, Chicago (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3085504.3085526. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3085504.3085526

  219. Yang, K., Stoyanovich, J., Asudeh, A., Howe, B., Jagadish, H., Miklau, G.: A nutritional label for rankings. In: Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 1773–1776. ACM, Houston (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3183713.3193568. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3183713.3193568

  220. Yin, D., et al.: Ranking relevance in yahoo search. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD 2016, pp. 323–332. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939677

  221. Yom-Tov, E., Dumais, S., Guo, Q.: Promoting civil discourse through search engine diversity. Social Sci. Comput. Rev. 32(2), 145–154 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439313506838. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0894439313506838

  222. Yue, Y., Patel, R., Roehrig, H.: Beyond position bias: examining result attractiveness as a source of presentation bias in clickthrough data. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, pp. 1011–1018 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  223. Zamani, H., Bendersky, M., Wang, X., Zhang, M.: Situational context for ranking in personal search. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW 2017, pp. 1531–1540. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3038912.3052648

  224. Zehlike, M., Yang, K., Stoyanovich, J.: Fairness in ranking, part i: score-based ranking. ACM Comput. Surv. 55(6), 1–36 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  225. Zhang, D., Vakili Tahami, A., Abualsaud, M., Smucker, M.D.: Learning trustworthy web sources to derive correct answers and reduce health misinformation in search. In: Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR 2022, pp. 2099–2104. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2022). https://doi.org/10.1145/3477495.3531812

  226. Zheng, K., Wang, H., Qi, Z., Li, J., Gao, H.: A survey of query result diversification. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 51(1), 1–36 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  227. Zhou, X., Zafarani, R.: A survey of fake news: fundamental theories, detection methods, and opportunities. ACM Comput. Surv. 53, 109:1–109:40 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1145/3395046

  228. Zhu, L., He, Y., Zhou, D.: Hierarchical viewpoint discovery from tweets using Bayesian modelling. Expert Syst. Appl. 116, 430–438 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.09.028. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0957417418306055

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 860621.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Alisa Rieger, Ujwal Gadiraju, Alessandro Bozzon & Maria Soledad Pera

  2. OTTO, Hamburg, Germany

    Tim Draws

  3. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Nicolas Mattis

  4. Booking.com, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    David Maxwell

  5. University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany

    David Elsweiler

  6. RMIT University Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Dana McKay

Authors
  1. Alisa Rieger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tim Draws
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicolas Mattis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David Maxwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. David Elsweiler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ujwal Gadiraju
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dana McKay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Alessandro Bozzon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Maria Soledad Pera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alisa Rieger .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Georgetown University, Washington, WA, USA

    Nazli Goharian

  2. University of Pisa, PISA, Pisa, Italy

    Nicola Tonellotto

  3. King's College London, London, UK

    Yulan He

  4. University College London, London, UK

    Aldo Lipani

  5. University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

    Graham McDonald

  6. University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

    Craig Macdonald

  7. University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

    Iadh Ounis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Rieger, A. et al. (2024). Responsible Opinion Formation on Debated Topics in Web Search. In: Goharian, N., et al. Advances in Information Retrieval. ECIR 2024. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 14611. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56066-8_32

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56066-8_32

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-56065-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-56066-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation