"You Can Always Do Better!" The Impact of Social Proof on Participant Response Bias
Authors
Evaluations of technological artifacts in HCI4D contexts are known to suffer from high levels of participant response bias---where participants only provide positive feedback that they think will please the researcher. This paper describes a practical, low-cost intervention that uses the concept of social proof to influence participant response bias and successfully elicit critical feedback from study participants. We subtly exposed participants to feedback that they perceived to be provided by people 'like them', and experimentally controlled the tone and content of the feedback to provide either positive, negative, or no social proof. We then measured how participants' quantitative and qualitative evaluations of an HCI artifact changed based on the feedback to which they were exposed. We conducted two controlled experiments: an online experiment with 245 MTurk workers and a field experiment with 63 women in rural India. Our findings reveal significant differences between participants in the positive, negative, and no social proof conditions, both online and in the field. Participants in the negative condition provided lower ratings and a greater amount of critical feedback, while participants in the positive condition provided higher ratings and a greater amount of positive feedback. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that social proof is a practical and generalizable technique that could be used by HCI researchers to influence participant response bias in a wide range of contexts and domains.
Research Questions / Practical Problems
Question signals indexed for this paper.
- 75%
Pay Attention, Please: Formal Language Improves Attention in Volunteer and Paid Online Experiments
CHI '19· User Research Methods (Interviews, Surveys, Observation)
- 60%
Asian CHI Symposium: Emerging HCI Research Collection
CHI '18· Developing Countries & HCI for Development (HCI4D) +1
- 60%
Crowdlicit: A System for Conducting Distributed End-User Elicitation and Identification Studies
CHI '19· Crowdsourcing Task Design & Quality Control +1
- 60%
Studying the Effects of Cognitive Biases in Evaluation of Conversational Agents
CHI '20· Conversational Chatbots +1
- 60%
QButterfly: Lightweight Survey Extension for Online User-Interaction Studies for Non-Tech-Savvy Researchers
CHI '23· User Research Methods (Interviews, Surveys, Observation) +1
Based on Jaccard similarity of research subtopics & professions (≥60%)