開始時刻
前のセッションの直後
この勉強会は終了しました。ご参加ありがとうございました。
The deliberative potential of online platforms has been widely examined. However, little is known about how various interface-based reflection nudges impact the quality of deliberation. This paper presents two user studies with 12 and 120 participants, respectively, to investigate the impacts of different reflective nudges on the quality of deliberation. In the first study, we examined five distinct reflective nudges: persona, temporal prompts, analogies and metaphors, cultural prompts and storytelling. Persona, temporal prompts, and storytelling emerged as the preferred nudges for implementation on online deliberation platforms. In the second study, we assess the impacts of these preferred reflectors more thoroughly. Results revealed a significant positive impact of these reflectors on deliberative quality. Specifically, persona promotes a deliberative environment for balanced and opinionated viewpoints while temporal prompts promote more individualised viewpoints. Our findings suggest that the choice of reflectors can significantly influence the dynamics and shape the nature of online discussions.
As the practice of hiking becomes increasingly captured through personal data, it is timely to consider what kinds of alternative data encounters might support forms of noticing and connecting to nature as well as one’s self and life history over time. To investigate this emerging design space, we designed Capra — a system that brings together the capture, storage, and exploration of personal hiking data with an emphasis on longer-term, occasional yet indefinite use. Over four years, our team adopted a designer-researcher approach where we progressively designed, built, refined, and tested Capra. This process produced frictions in terms of balancing unobtrusiveness, transforming hiking data into evolving interconnected elements in the archive, and managing the sheer quantity and diversity of information with our goal of supporting open-ended and ongoing engagements. It is these insights that emerged through the practice-based design research approach involved in creating Capra that we reflect on in this paper.
Online polarisation can tear the fabric of civility through reinforcing social media's perceptions of division and discord. Social media platforms often rely on content-moderation to combat polarisation, contingent on the reactive removal or flagging of content. However, this approach often remains agnostic of the underlying debate's ideas and stifles open discourse. In this study, we use prompt-tuned language models to mediate social media debates, applying the strategies of the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI). We evaluate multiple mediation strategies in providing targeted responses to the debates, as shown to a debate audience. Our findings show that high-cooperativeness TKI strategies offered more persuasive arguments, while an accommodating argument strategy was the most successful at depolarising the audience's opinion. Furthermore, high-cooperativeness strategies also increased the perception that the debaters will reach a consensus. Our work paves the way for scalable and personalised tools that mediate social media debates to encourage depolarisation.
Exposure to diverse perspectives is helpful for bursting the filter bubble in online public video platforms. The recent advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) illuminates the potential of creating a debate chatbot that prompts users to critically examine their stances on a topic formed by watching videos. However, whether the viewer is influenced by the chatbot may depend on its persona. In this paper, we investigated the effect of two relevant persona attributes - social identity and rhetorical styles - on critical thinking. In a mixed-methods study (n=36), we found that chatbots with outgroup (vs. ingroup) identity (t(33)=-2.33, p=0.03) and persuasive (vs. eristic) rhetoric (t(44)=1.98, p=0.05) induced critical thinking most effectively, making participants re-examine their arguments. However, participants' stances remain largely unaffected, likely due to the chatbot's lack of contextual knowledge and human touch. Our paper provides empirical groundwork for designing chatbot persona for remedying filter bubbles in online communities.
As more users turn to video-sharing platforms like YouTube as an information source, they may consume misinformation despite their best efforts. In this work, we investigate ways that users can better assess the credibility of videos by first exploring how users currently determine credibility using existing signals on platforms and then by introducing and evaluating new credibility-based signals. We conducted 12 contextual inquiry interviews with YouTube users, determining that participants used a combination of existing signals, such as the channel name, the production quality, and prior knowledge, to evaluate credibility, yet sometimes stumbled in their efforts to do so. We then developed Viblio, a prototype system that enables YouTube users to view and add citations and related information while watching a video based on our participants' needs. From an evaluation with 12 people, all participants found Viblio to be intuitive and useful in the process of evaluating a video’s credibility and could see themselves using Viblio in the future.