Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2019-3
Can an Algorithm Reduce the Perceived Bias of News? Testing the Effect of Machine Attribution on News Readers’ Evaluations of Bias,Anthropomorphism,and Credibility
Although accusations of editorial slant are ubiquitous to the contemporary media environment, recent advances in journalism such as news writing algorithms may hold the potential to reduce readers’ perceptions of media bias. Informed by the Modality-Agency-Interactivity-Navigability (MAIN) model and the principle of similarity attraction, an online experiment (n = 612) was conducted to test if news attributed to an automated author is perceived as less biased and more credible than news attributed to a human author. Results reveal that perceptions of bias are attenuated when news is attributed to a journalist and algorithm in tandem, with positive downstream consequences for perceived news credibility.
AmazeenM. A.MuddimanA. R. (2018). Saving media or trading on trust? The effects of native advertising on audience perceptions of legacy and online news publishers. Digital Journalism, 6, 176-195. doi:10.1080/21670811.2017.1293488
2.
AndersonC. W. (2013). Towards a sociology of computational and algorithmic journalism. New Media & Society, 15, 1005-1021. doi:10.1177/1461444812465137
3.
ApplemanA.SundarS. S. (2016). Measuring message credibility: Construction and validation of an exclusive scale. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(1), 59-79. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015606057
4.
BartneckC.SuzukiT.KandaT.NomuraT. (2007). The influence of people’s culture and prior experiences with Aibo on their attitude towards robots. AI & Society, 21, 217-230. doi:10.1007/s00146-006-0052-7
5.
BellurS.SundarS. S. (2014). How can we tell when a heuristic has been used? Design and analysis strategies for capturing the operation of heuristics. Communication Methods and Measures, 8, 116-137. doi:10.1080/19312458.2014.903390
6.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980
7.
ByrneD. (1997). An overview (and underview) of research and theory within the attraction paradigm. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 417-431. doi:10.1177/0265407597143008
8.
CarlsonM. (2016). Automated journalism: A post man future for digital news? In FranklinB.EldridgeS. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to digital journalism studies (pp. 226-234). New York, NY: Routledge.
9.
CarterR. F.GreenbergB. S. (1965). Newspapers or television: Which do you believe?Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 42, 29-34. doi:10.1177/107769906504200104
10.
ChaikenS.LibermanA.EaglyA. E. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In UlemanJ. S.BarghJ. A. (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
11.
ChenS.ChaikenS. (1999). The heuristic systematic model in its broader context. In ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73-96). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
12.
ClerwallC. (2014). Enter the robot journalist: Users’ perceptions of automated content. Journalism Practice, 8, 519-531. doi:10.1080/17512786.2014.883116
13.
CliffordS.JewellR. M.WaggonerP. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology?Research & Politics, 2(4). doi:10.1177/2053168015622072
14.
CoddingtonM. (2015). Clarifying journalism’s quantitative turn: A typology for evaluating data journalism, computational journalism, and computer-assisted reporting. Digital Journalism, 3, 331-348. doi:10.1080/21670811.2014.976400
15.
CohenS.HamiltonJ. T.TurnerF. (2011). Computational journalism. Communications of the ACM, 54(10), 66-71. doi:10.1145/2001269.2001288
16.
DörrK. N. (2015). Mapping the field of algorithmic journalism. Digital Journalism, 4, 700-722. doi:10.1080/21670811.2015.1096748
17.
EdwardsC.EdwardsA.SpenceP. R.SheltonA. K. (2014). Is that a bot running the social media feed? Testing the differences in perceptions of communication quality for a human agent and a bot agent on Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 372-376. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.08.013
18.
EvelandW. P.ShahD. V. (2003). The impact of individual and interpersonal factors on perceived news media bias. Political Psychology, 24, 101-117. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00318
19.
Giner-SorollaR.ChaikenS. (1994). The causes of hostile media judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 165-180. doi:10.1006/jesp.1994.1008
GraefeA.HaimM.HaarmannB.BrosiusH.-B. (2016). Readers’ perceptions of computer-generated news: Credibility, expertise, and readability. Advance online publication. Journalism. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1464884916641269
22.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
23.
HayesA. F.PreacherK. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67, 451-470. doi:10.1111/bmsp.12028
24.
HoustonJ. B.HansenG. J.NisbettG. S. (2011). Influence of user comments on perceptions of media bias and third person effect in online news. Electronic News, 5, 79-92. doi:10.1177/1931243111407618
25.
HovlandC. I.WeissW. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650. doi:10.1086/266350
26.
IyengarS.HahnK. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59, 19-39. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x
27.
KangH.BaeK.ZhangS.SundarS. S. (2011). Source cues in online news: Is the proximate source more powerful than distal sources?Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88, 719-736. doi:10.1177/107769901108800403
28.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.MengJ. (2009). Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude consistent information and counterattitudinal political information. Communication Research, 36, 426-448. doi:10.1177/00936502093330
29.
LeeE.-J. (2012). That’s not the way it is: How user-generated comments on the news affect perceived media bias. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 32-45. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01597.x
30.
LeeK. M.PengW.JinS.-A.YanC. (2006). Can robots manifest personality? An empirical test of personality recognition, social responses, and social presence in human-robot interaction. Journal of Communication, 56, 754-772. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00318.x
31.
LokotT.DiakopoulosN. (2015). News bots: Automating news and information dissemination on Twitter. Digital Journalism, 4, 682-699. doi:10.1080/21670811.2015.1081822
32.
McCroskeyJ. C. (1966). Scales for the measurement of ethos. Speech Monographs, 33, 65-72. doi:10.1080/03637756609375482
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J.EyalK.LemusD. R.MccannR. M. (2003). Credibility for the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. Annals of the International Communication Association, 27, 293-335. doi:10.1080/23808985.2003.11679029
35.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J.MeddersR. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60, 413-439. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x
36.
MontoyaR. M.HortonR. S. (2013). A meta-analytic investigation of the processes underlying the similarity attraction effect. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 64-94. doi:10.1177/0265407512452989
37.
MoskowitzG. B.SkurnikI.GalinskyA. D. (1999). The history of dual-process notions, and the future of preconscious control. In ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 12-40). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
38.
NassC.MoonY. (2000). Machines and mindfulness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 81-103. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00153
39.
NowakK. L.BioccaF. (2003). The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users’ sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12, 481-494. doi:10.1162/105474603322761289
40.
NowakK. L.HamiltonM. A.HammondC. C. (2009). The effect of image features on judgments of homophily, credibility, and intention to use as avatars in future interactions. Media Psychology, 12, 50-76. doi:10.1080/15213260802669433
41.
NowakK. L.RauhC. (2008). Choose your “buddy icon” carefully: The influence of avatar androgyny, anthropomorphism and credibility in online interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1473-1493. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.005
42.
O’KeefeD. J. (2015). Trends and prospects in persuasion theory and research. In O’KeefeD. J. (Ed.), Persuasion: Theory and research (pp. 214-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
43.
ReevesB.NassC. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Stanford, CA: Cambridge University Press.
44.
SchwartzM. S. (2017). Corporate social responsibility. London, England: Routledge.
45.
SimonsH. W.BerkowitzN. N.MoyerJ. R. (1970). Similarity, credibility, and attitude change: A review and a theory. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 1-16. doi:10.1037/h0028429
46.
SundarS. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73-100). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
47.
SundarS. S.JiaH.WaddellT. F.HuangY. (2015). Toward a theory of interactive media effects: Four models for explaining how interface features affect user psychology. In SundarS. S. (Ed.), Handbook of psychology of communication technology (pp. 47-86). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
48.
SundarS. S.NassC. (2001). Conceptualizing sources in online news. Journal of Communication, 51, 57-72. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02872.x
49.
TodorovA.ChaikenS.HendersonM. D. (2002). The heuristic-systematic model of social information processing. In DillardJ. P.PfauM. (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 195-212). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
50.
ValloneR. P.RossL.LepperM. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577-585. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577
51.
WiseK.BollsP. D.ShaeferS. R. (2008). Choosing and reading online news: How available choice affects cognitive processing. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52, 69-85. doi:10.1080/08838150701820858
52.
YoungM. L.HermidaA. (2014). From Mr. and Mrs. Outlier to central tendencies: Computational journalism and crime reporting at the Los Angeles Times. Digital Journalism, 3, 381-397. doi:10.1080/21670811.2014.976409
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
