Self-imposed Filter Bubble Model for Argumentative Dialogues
Authors
During their information seeking people tend to filter out all the parts of the available information that do not fit their existing beliefs or opinions. In this paper we present a model for this "Self-imposed Filter Bubble" (SFB) consisting of four dimensions. Thereby, we aim to 1) estimate the probability of the user being caught in an SFB and consequently, 2) identify suitable clues to reduce this probability in the further course of a dialogue. Using an exemplary implementation in an argumentative dialogue system, we demonstrate the validity and applicability of this model in an online user study with 102 participants. These findings serve as a basis for developing a system strategy to break the user's SFB and contribute to a sustainable and profound reflection on a topic from all viewpoints.
Research Questions / Practical Problems
Question signals indexed for this paper.
Research Questions
3- How do users form and maintain self-filtering bubbles (SFBs) in argumentative dialogue?Category: Fairness in Recommendation and Ranking SystemsSimilar questionsarrow_forward
- Can information bias be intervened upon by modeling dynamic changes in users' SFBs?Category: Fairness in Recommendation and Ranking SystemsSimilar questionsarrow_forward
- In what ways can quantified SFB models enhance cooperative argumentative dialogue systems (ADSs)?Category: Fairness in Recommendation and Ranking SystemsSimilar questionsarrow_forward
Practical Problems
1- Users easily fall into bias when acquiring information and are unwilling to engage with views that contradict their own.Category: Fairness in Recommendation and Ranking SystemsSimilar questionsarrow_forward
- 100%
Conversational Inoculation to Enhance Resistance to Misinformation
CHI '26· Conversational Chatbots +1
- 60%
Microblog Analysis as a Programme of Work
CHI '18· Social Platform Design & User Behavior +1
- 60%
NewsComp: Facilitating Diverse News Reading through Comparative Annotation
CHI '23· Misinformation & Fact-Checking +1
- 60%
Assessing enactment of content regulation policies: A post hoc crowd-sourced audit of election misinformation on YouTube
CHI '23· Content Moderation & Platform Governance +1
- 60%
Who Does Not Benefit from Fact-checking Websites? A Psychological Characteristic Predicts the Selective Avoidance of Clicking Uncongenial Facts
CHI '23· Voice Accessibility +1
Based on Jaccard similarity of research subtopics & professions (≥60%)