skip to main content
10.1145/3295750.3298952acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Privacy Nudging in Search: Investigating Potential Impacts

Published:08 March 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

From their impacts to potential threats, privacy and misinformation are a recurring top news story. Social media platforms (e.g. Facebook) and information retrieval (IR) systems (e.g. Google), are now in the public spotlight to address these issues. Our research investigates an approach, known as Nudging, applied to the domain of IR, as a potential means to minimize impacts and threats surrounding both matters. We perform our study in the space of health search for two reasons. First, encounters with misinformation in this space have potentially grave outcomes. Second, there are many potential threats to personal privacy as a result of the data collected during a search task. Adopting methods and a corpus from previous work as the foundation, our study asked users to determine the effectiveness of a treatment for 10 medical conditions. Users performed the tasks on 4 variants of a search engine results page (SERP) and a control, with 3 of the SERP's being a Nudge (re-ranking, filtering and a visual cue) intended to reduce impacts to privacy with minimal impact to search result quality. The aim of our work is to determine the Nudge that is least impactful to good decision making while simultaneously increasing privacy protection. We find privacy impacts are significantly reduced for the re-ranking and filtering strategies, with no significant impacts on quality of decision making.

References

  1. Ahmed Allam, Peter Johannes Schulz, and Kent Nakamoto. 2014. The Impact of Search Engine Selection and Sorting Criteria on Vaccination Beliefs and Attitudes: Two Experiments Manipulating Google Output. Journal of Medical Internet research, Vol. 16, 4 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Bin Bi, Milad Shokouhi, Michal Kosinski, and Thore Graepel. 2013. Inferring the demographics of search users: Social data meets search queries. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web. ACM, 131--140. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Fernando Diaz. 2016. Worst Practices for Designing Production Information Access Systems. In ACM SIGIR Forum, Vol. 50. ACM, 2--11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. David Elsweiler, Christoph Trattner, and Morgan Harvey. 2017. Exploiting food choice biases for healthier recipe recommendation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. ACM, 575--584. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Steven Englehardt and Arvind Narayanan. 2016. Online tracking: A 1-million-site measurement and analysis. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. ACM, 1388--1401. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Steven Englehardt, Dillon Reisman, Christian Eubank, Peter Zimmerman, Jonathan Mayer, Arvind Narayanan, and Edward W Felten. 2015. Cookies that give you away: The surveillance implications of web tracking. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 289--299. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Norbert Fuhr, Anastasia Giachanou, Gregory Grefenstette, Iryna Gurevych, Andreas Hanselowski, Kalervo Jarvelin, Rosie Jones, YiquN Liu, Josiane Mothe, Wolfgang Nejdl, Isabella Peters, and Benno Stein. 2017. An Information Nutritional Label for Online Documents. In ACM SIGIR Forum, Vol. 51. ACM, 46--66. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Gerd Gigerenzer and Henry Brighton. 2009. Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in cognitive science, Vol. 1, 1 (2009), 107--143.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Ralph Hertwig and Till Grüne-Yanoff. 2017. Nudging and boosting: Steering or empowering good decisions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 12, 6 (2017), 973--986.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Eric Horvitz and Deirdre Mulligan. 2015. Data, privacy, and the greater good. Science, Vol. 349, 6245 (2015), 253--255.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Samuel Ieong, Nina Mishra, Eldar Sadikov, and Li Zhang. 2012. Domain bias in web search. In Proceedings of the fifth ACM international conference on Web search and data mining. ACM, 413--422. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Thorsten Joachims, Laura Granka, Bing Pan, Helene Hembrooke, and Geri Gay. 2005. Accurately Interpreting Clickthrough Data As Implicit Feedback. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR '05). ACM, 154--161. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Daniel Kahneman. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow.Macmillan.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. 1984. Choices, values, and frames. American psychologist, Vol. 39, 4 (1984), 341.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Diane Kelly, Jaime Arguello, Ashlee Edwards, and Wan-ching Wu. 2015. Development and evaluation of search tasks for IIR experiments using a cognitive complexity framework. In Proceedings of the 2015 international conference on the theory of information retrieval. ACM, 101--110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Jon Kleinberg, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Manish Raghavan. 2016. Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.05807 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Ninya Maubach, Janet Hoek, and Damien Mather. 2014. Interpretive front-of-pack nutrition labels. Comparing competing recommendations. Appetite, Vol. 82 (2014), 67--77.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Jonathan R Mayer and John C Mitchell. 2012. Third-party web tracking: Policy and technology. In 2012 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. IEEE, 413--427. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Alamir Novin and Eric Meyers. 2017. 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. ACM, 175--184. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Bing Pan, Helene Hembrooke, Thorsten Joachims, Lori Lorigo, Geri Gay, and Laura Granka. 2007. In Google We Trust: Users' Decisions on Rank, Position, and Relevance. Journal of computer-mediated communication, Vol. 12, 3 (2007), 01--823.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Eli Pariser. 2011. The filter bubble: What the Internet is Hiding From You.Penguin UK. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Frances A Pogacar, Amira Ghenai, Mark D Smucker, and Charles LA Clarke. 2017. 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. ACM, 209--216. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Michael Siegrist, Rebecca Leins-Hess, and Carmen Keller. 2015. Which front-of-pack nutrition label is the most efficient one? The results of an eye-tracker study. Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 39 (2015), 183--190.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Jaime Teevan, Susan T Dumais, and Eric Horvitz. 2005. Personalizing search via automated analysis of interests and activities. In Proceedings of the 28th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. ACM, 449--456. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Richard H Thaler and Cass R Sunstein. 2009. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness.Penguin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Zeynep Tufekci. 2015. Facebook said its algorithms do help form echo chambers, and the tech press missed it. New Perspectives Quarterly, Vol. 32, 3 (2015), 9--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, Vol. 185, 4157 (1974), 1124--1131.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Blase Ur, Pedro Giovanni Leon, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Richard Shay, and Yang Wang. 2012. Smart, useful, scary, creepy: perceptions of online behavioral advertising. In Proceedings of the eighth symposium on usable privacy and security. ACM, 4. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Erica Van Herpen and Hans CM Van Trijp. 2011. Front-of-pack nutrition labels. Their effect on attention and choices when consumers have varying goals and time constraints. Appetite, Vol. 57, 1 (2011), 148--160.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Ingmar Weber and Carlos Castillo. 2010. The demographics of web search. In Proceedings of the 33rd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. ACM, 523--530. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Ingmar Weber, Venkata Rama Kiran Garimella, and Erik Borra. 2012. Mining Web query logs to analyze political issues. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Web Science Conference. ACM, 330--334. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Ryen White. 2013. Beliefs and biases in web search. In Proceedings of the 36th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. ACM, 3--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Ryen W White. 2016. Interactions with search systems.Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Ryen W White and Ahmed Hassan. 2014. Content bias in online health search. ACM Transactions on the Web (TWEB), Vol. 8, 4 (2014), 25. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Zhonghao Yu, Sam Macbeth, Konark Modi, and Josep M Pujol. 2016. Tracking the trackers. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW 2016). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, 121--132. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Privacy Nudging in Search: Investigating Potential Impacts

              Recommendations

              Comments

              Login options

              Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

              Sign in
              • Published in

                cover image ACM Conferences
                CHIIR '19: Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval
                March 2019
                463 pages
                ISBN:9781450360258
                DOI:10.1145/3295750

                Copyright © 2019 ACM

                Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

                Publisher

                Association for Computing Machinery

                New York, NY, United States

                Publication History

                • Published: 8 March 2019

                Permissions

                Request permissions about this article.

                Request Permissions

                Check for updates

                Qualifiers

                • short-paper

                Acceptance Rates

                Overall Acceptance Rate55of163submissions,34%

              PDF Format

              View or Download as a PDF file.

              PDF

              eReader

              View online with eReader.

              eReader