{"id":1469,"date":"2022-06-27T10:00:53","date_gmt":"2022-06-27T09:00:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/?p=1469"},"modified":"2022-06-21T06:45:17","modified_gmt":"2022-06-21T05:45:17","slug":"extended-confirmation-bias-when-the-mind-leaks-into-algorithms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/extended-confirmation-bias-when-the-mind-leaks-into-algorithms\/","title":{"rendered":"Extended confirmation bias: When the mind leaks into algorithms"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0<\/strong>It\u2019s no secret that when we are online, websites (Google, Facebook, YouTube etc.) often use algorithms to infer our preferences, interests, or attitudes from our digital footprints<\/a> (our browsing, clicks, \u2018likes\u2019) to personalize content to us (about 12<\/a> to 47%<\/a> search results are personalized). Consequently, information we encounter online often matches our preferences and attitudes, and\u00a0 up to 20%<\/a> of relevant but preference-incongruent information may be missed. It\u2019s well known that this can promote political polarization, radicalization<\/a>, or \u2018filter bubbles\u2019<\/a>. How can we tackle this problem?<\/p>\n

Changing our thinking about people\u2019s interactions with websites might be a good start. Currently, website users are viewed as merely causally connected to personalization algorithms through their digital footprints. I think this overlooks key aspects of these interactions. Viewing the algorithms instead as sometimes literally part<\/em> of website users\u2019 minds avoids this and may provide useful resources for mitigating risks of online behavior. Specifically, I suggest that personalization algorithms are sometimes constitutive of people\u2019s confirmation bias<\/a>, their tendency to search for information that supports their favored beliefs and to ignore information that contradicts them.<\/p>\n

Linking online personalization to confirmation bias isn\u2019t new. Even Amazon founder Jeff Bezos acknowledged that the \u201cInternet in its current incarnation is a confirmation bias machine\u201d.<\/a> However, the relationship between people\u2019s confirmation bias and personalization algorithms is usually only construed as a causal one. Philosophers working on \u201cextended cognition\u201d<\/a> and the Internet<\/a>, too, haven\u2019t yet argued that people\u2019s confirmation bias might \u2018leak into\u2019 personalization algorithms. But building on previous work on extended implicit bias<\/a>, I think common conditions for identifying extended cognition (introduced here<\/a> and here<\/a>) support this.<\/p>\n

Consider an example. Suppose a pro-Brexit UK student, Nigel, routinely uses a laptop for online research, networking, news, and entertainment. The laptop is easily accessible to him, and he\u2019s never altered his cookie settings. Websites he regularly visits (YouTube, Facebook, Google, etc.) thus accurately personalize contents to his preferences and attitudes. One day, Nigel wonders whether Brexit will benefit UK academia. He gets on YouTube to learn more. YouTube\u2019s algorithms<\/a> previously inferred his pro-Brexit preferences from his past browsing and now filter down the potential recommended videos to a subset that conforms to his preferences while disregarding content that doesn\u2019t. Nigel, in turn, unintentionally clicks more on content supporting his (wishful<\/a>) view that Brexit will benefit UK academia and avoids material challenging it. He displays a confirmation bias in his online search<\/a>. Does it extend into the personalization algorithms he\u2019s interacting with?<\/p>\n

Since YouTube\u2019s algorithms infer Nigel\u2019s preferences from his browsing and serve them by choosing contents that match his views and omitting disconfirming material, they display to some extent functionally the same kind of selective information processing he would perform in his head if contents on the topic appeared without being personalized, requiring him to rank them. Clearly, if this filtering happened in his head, it would be an uncontroversial instance of confirmation bias. It isn\u2019t unreasonable, then, that when it\u2019s instead partly realized by algorithms, this process, too, counts as Nigel\u2019s confirmation bias because it\u2019s in relevant respects functionally on a par with his bias.<\/p>\n

It might be objected that the algorithms are just causally connected, external to him, as (unlike in the \u2018internal\u2019 bias case) other actors<\/a> (e.g., website operators) may also influence the filtering. However, this overlooks two points. YouTube\u2019s personalization algorithms continuously respond to Nigel\u2019s browsing, monitor his preferences (via his clicks, watch time, shares), and dynamically update contents, which then again influence (e.g., reinforce) his views, initiating new recommendation cycles. In these dynamic feedback loops, epistemically skewed information processing emerges as a systemic<\/em> property: It can\u2019t be attributed to Nigel, the laptop, or the algorithms alone but only to the system they form together.<\/p>\n

Moreover, there\u2019s a dense interdependence<\/a> between the interactants that makes it hard to decompose distinct inputs and outputs from one to the other: The algorithms\u2019 effects on Nigel partly originate from and so aren\u2019t wholly exogenous to his own ongoing browsing activity. These effects thus aren\u2019t plausibly viewed as mere inputs to his biased cognition, as they are partly its products. Similarly, his bias\u2019 effects on the algorithms via his browsing aren\u2019t wholly exogenous to the algorithms either: They are partly determined by the algorithms\u2019 own outputs. We thus can\u2019t clearly separate causes from effects between the interactants. This suggests that the interactants partly ontologically overlap, realizing Nigel\u2019s extended<\/em> confirmation bias.<\/p>\n

We could\u2019ve focused on personalization algorithms on other websites than YouTube (Facebook, Google, etc.) that people routinely use. Or we could\u2019ve invoked someone with another political orientation. Since accurate online personalization and relevant content recommendations are vital for websites to keep users engaged<\/a> (to make money from ads), the type of feedback loops outlined are likely pervasive online. Extended confirmation bias, too, should thus be pervasive.<\/p>\n

This has interesting upshots. Confirmation bias is generally viewed as negative. If personalization algorithms interact with people such that these systems literally extend people\u2019s confirmation bias, the unattractive notion of acquiring a supersized<\/a> confirmation bias may boost individuals\u2019 motivation to re-consider which search engine (personalized or non-personalized; e.g., DuckDuckGo<\/a>) to use, or whether to adjust privacy settings. Relatedly, if people\u2019s confirmation bias is sometimes realized by personalization algorithms, when website providers tweak the algorithms without users\u2019 consent (e.g., to maximize ad revenue), this could be construed as them literally altering the users\u2019 minds akin to brain surgery. Since interfering with a person\u2019s body without their consent is usually legally treated as personal assault<\/a>, existing legal frameworks may offer safeguards from such tweaks to algorithms by allowing us to view them as personal assault.<\/p>\n

Specifically, surveys suggest that while most people approve of personalized entertainment or shopping, 71%<\/a> find the use of political orientation for online personalization unacceptable. Yet, this information is currently often used for that purpose<\/a>, which may contribute to political polarization<\/a>. And website operators continuously adjust their algorithms<\/a> to better respond to such sensitive attributes, thus modifying these systems in ways people may reject. If such modifications can be viewed as personal assault, this may help de-politicize algorithmic personalization.<\/p>\n

Thus, while the notion of extended confirmation bias seems counterintuitive, exploring it in the context of people\u2019s interactions with websites can be valuable. It may offer ways in which we can use existing legal frameworks to reclaim power over personalization algorithms<\/a> from website operators. And it may help make the public more alert to the potential mind-changing effects of their interactions with websites.<\/p>\n

Picture<\/strong><\/p>\n

The blue image above is free for commercial use; no attribution is required:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/pixabay.com\/illustrations\/ai-artificial-intelligence-7114792\/<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\u00a0It\u2019s no secret that when we are online, websites (Google, Facebook, YouTube etc.) often use algorithms to infer our preferences, interests, or attitudes from our digital footprints (our browsing, clicks, […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":1471,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"Uwe Peters \"Extended confirmation bias: When the mind leaks into algorithms\" on Open for Debate","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[348,346,347],"custom_author":[345],"class_list":["post-1469","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-algorithm","tag-confirmation-bias","tag-personalisation","custom_author-peters-uwe"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-nH","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":1497,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/social-media-a-viral-promoter-of-social-ills\/","url_meta":{"origin":1469,"position":0},"title":"Social media: a viral promoter of social ills?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"August 8, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Public discourse is the currency in which we exchange our attitudes and beliefs. Social media has proven a double-edged sword with respect to this exchange. On the one hand, it has enabled debate and contact between citizens on a scale previously unimaginable. On the other, this ability to exchange ideas\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1617,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/testimonial-injustice-in-healthcare-an-alternative-diagnosis\/","url_meta":{"origin":1469,"position":1},"title":"Testimonial injustice in healthcare \u2013 an alternative diagnosis","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"January 23, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The common patient complaint of not feeling listened to is familiar to many and well tracked throughout various channels. Whether it be the UK governments 2020 report on endometriosis care that describe women who speak of the difficulty of getting healthcare professionals to take their pain seriously and not \u201cthink[ing]\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/01\/jon-tyson-vVSleEYPSGY-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/01\/jon-tyson-vVSleEYPSGY-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/01\/jon-tyson-vVSleEYPSGY-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/01\/jon-tyson-vVSleEYPSGY-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/01\/jon-tyson-vVSleEYPSGY-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2023\/01\/jon-tyson-vVSleEYPSGY-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1323,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/choosing-a-future-for-humanity-effective-altruism-and-longtermism-part-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":1469,"position":2},"title":"Choosing a future for humanity: effective altruism and longtermism: Part 2","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"November 29, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"In discussions among the charity evaluators whom I described in the previous post, Derek Parfit is often quoted as saying that we live at \u2018the hinge of history\u2019. What he meant is that we live at a time when we have at our disposal the means to do greater good\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/11\/mountain_goats_jumping_leaping_wildlife_nature_rocks_peak_wilderness-830974-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/11\/mountain_goats_jumping_leaping_wildlife_nature_rocks_peak_wilderness-830974-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/11\/mountain_goats_jumping_leaping_wildlife_nature_rocks_peak_wilderness-830974-2.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/11\/mountain_goats_jumping_leaping_wildlife_nature_rocks_peak_wilderness-830974-2.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/11\/mountain_goats_jumping_leaping_wildlife_nature_rocks_peak_wilderness-830974-2.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":438,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/implicit-bias-in-public-discourse\/","url_meta":{"origin":1469,"position":3},"title":"\u2018Implicit Bias\u2019 in public discourse","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"May 7, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"The news has been awash with discussion of implicit bias, and the role it seems to have played in the discriminatory treatment of two black men in a Philadelphia branch of Starbucks in the US. Donte Robinson and Rashon Nelson were waiting to meet a friend when they were asked\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2169,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/the-affective-in-affective-polarization\/","url_meta":{"origin":1469,"position":4},"title":"The \u201caffective\u201d in affective polarization","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"December 23, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Public opinion in many contemporary democracies shows increasing signs of polarization. In particular, animosity and dislike across political lines have become increasingly characteristic of Western mass publics (Boxell et al., 2024; Finkel et al., 2020; Wagner, 2024). Several empirical methodologies designed to measure citizens\u2019 opinions, which include questions about their\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/12\/affective1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/12\/affective1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/12\/affective1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/12\/affective1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1870,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/can-machines-manipulate-us\/","url_meta":{"origin":1469,"position":5},"title":"Can Machines Manipulate Us?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"January 22, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"YouTube, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, Pinterest, TikTok, and chatbots like ChatGPT and Bard\u2014all of them are manipulating you. More specifically, their algorithms are manipulating you. Or so we now commonly hear from pundits, activists, and academics. But just what would it mean for a machine, at least one short\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/01\/falling-7372662_1280.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/01\/falling-7372662_1280.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/01\/falling-7372662_1280.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/01\/falling-7372662_1280.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/01\/falling-7372662_1280.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/06\/AI.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1469","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1469"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1469\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1474,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1469\/revisions\/1474"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1471"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1469"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1469"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1469"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=1469"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}