Autocomplete is a popular search feature that automatically generates query suggestions for any keywords entered in the search bar. In this research, I examine regular end-users’ folk theories of how general-purpose search engines produce such suggestions. Drawing on interviews with 20 search engine users, I found that users conceptualize Autocomplete as an automated agent that is influenced by three main factors: (1) searcher’s personal search history and profile, (2) aggregate population-wide queries, and (3) commercial advertising. Users’ assumption of these influences raises for them critical concerns about privacy, transparency, information insularity, targeted data manipulation, and the reproduction of societal biases in Autocomplete’s outputs. My analysis also shows that users view explanations as a promising mechanism to enhance accountability in Autocomplete systems. I highlight the factors that shape users’ mental models of Autocomplete and discuss how their algorithmic imaginaries stabilize platforms’ revenue models.
BakerPPottsA (2013) “Why do White people have thin lips?” Google and the perpetuation of stereotypes via auto-complete search forms. Critical Discourse Studies10(2): 187–204.
2.
BaumanZ (2013) Consuming Life. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
3.
BeerD (2019) The social power of algorithms. In: BeerD (ed.) The Social Power of Algorithms. New York: Routledge, pp. 1–13.
4.
BilalDKirbyJ (2002) Differences and similarities in information seeking: children and adults as web users. Information Processing & Management38(5): 649–670.
5.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
6.
BucherT (2019) The algorithmic imaginary: exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. In: BeerD (ed.) The Social Power of Algorithms. New York: Routledge, pp. 30–44.
7.
ButlerJ (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.
8.
ColemanMC (2021) Leveraging the rhetorical energies of machines: Covid-19, misinformation, and persuasive labor. Human-Machine Communication3: 11–26.
9.
DeVitoMA (2021) Adaptive folk theorization as a path to algorithmic literacy on changing platforms. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5(CSCW2): 1–38.
10.
DeVitoMAGergleDBirnholtzJ (2017) Algorithms ruin everything: #RIPTwitter, folk theories, and resistance to algorithmic change in social media. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Denver, CO, 6–11 May, pp. 3163–3174. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
11.
DogruelLFacciorussoDStarkB (2022) ‘I’m still the master of the machine.’ Internet users’ awareness of algorithmic decision-making and their perception of its effect on their autonomy. Information, Communication & Society25(9): 1311–1332.
12.
DraperNATurowJ (2019) The corporate cultivation of digital resignation. New Media & Society21(8): 1824–1839.
13.
ElmerG (2003) Profiling Machines: Mapping the Personal Information Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
EpsteinRAriesSGrebbienK, et al. (2024) The search suggestion effect (SSE): a quantification of how autocomplete search suggestions could be used to impact opinions and votes. Computers in Human Behavior160: 108342.
15.
EslamiMKarahaliosKSandvigC, et al. (2016) First I “like” it, then I hide it: folk theories of social feeds. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, San Jose, CA, 7–12 May, pp. 2371–2382. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
16.
FuchsC (2011) A contribution to the critique of the political economy of Google. Fast Capitalism8: 31–50.
17.
GoffmanE (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
GrahamR (2022) Investigating Google’s Search Engine: Ethics, Algorithms, and the Machines Built to Read Us. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
20.
GrahamR (2023) The ethical dimensions of Google autocomplete. Big Data & Society10(1): 20539517231156518.
21.
GuzmanAL (2023) Human-machine communication: rethinking communication, technology, and ourselves. In: GuzmanAL (ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Human-Machine Communication. New York: SAGE Publications Limited, pp. 221–237.
22.
HaEKongHJhaverS (2025) Examining racial stereotypes in YouTube autocomplete suggestions. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 26 June. DOI: 10.1177/14614448251346503.
23.
HiemstraD (2009) Information retrieval models. In: GokerADaviesJ (eds) Information Retrieval: Searching in the 21st Century. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1–19.
24.
HolmanL (2011) Millennial students’ mental models of search: implications for academic librarians and database developers. The Journal of Academic Librarianship37(1): 19–27.
25.
JhaverSZhangA (2023) Do users want platform moderation or individual control? Examining the role of third-person effects and free speech support in shaping moderation preferences. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 19 December. DOI: 10.1177/14614448231217993.
26.
JunejaPZhangWSmith-RennerAM, et al. (2024) Dissecting users’ needs for search result explanations. In: Proceedings of the 2024 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Honolulu, HI, 11–16 May, pp. 1–17. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
27.
KarizatNDelmonacoDEslamiM, et al. (2021) Algorithmic folk theories and identity: how TikTok users co-produce knowledge of identity and engage in algorithmic resistance. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction5(CSCW2): 1–44.
28.
LeidingerARogersR (2023) Which stereotypes are moderated and under-moderated in search engine autocompletion? In: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM conference on fairness accountability and transparency, Chicago, IL, 12–15 June, pp. 1049–1061. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
29.
MagerA (2012) Algorithmic ideology: how capitalist society shapes search engines. Information, Communication & Society15(5): 769–787.
30.
MarkhamA (2016) The dramaturgy of digital experience. In: EdgleyC (ed.) The Drama of Social Life. London: Routledge, pp. 279–293.
31.
MarkhamA (2024) Algorithms as conversational partners: looking at Google auto-predict through the lens of symbolic interaction. New Media & Society26(9): 5059–5080.
32.
MarkhamAN (2021) Echolocation as theory of digital sociality. Convergence27(6): 1558–1570.
33.
MillerBRecordI (2017) Responsible epistemic technologies: a social-epistemological analysis of autocompleted web search. New Media & Society19(12): 1945–1963.
34.
MorrowGWihbeyJ (2023) Marketplace of ideas 3.0? A framework for the era of algorithms. Richmond Journal of Law and Technology29. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4430158
35.
MorrowGSwire-ThompsonBPolnyJM, et al. (2020) The emerging science of content labeling: contextualizing social media content moderation. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology73(10): 1365–1386.
36.
MuramatsuJPrattW (2001) Transparent queries: investigation users’ mental models of search engines. In: Proceedings of the 24th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development tin information retrieval, New Orleans, LA, 9–13 September, pp. 217–224. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
37.
NormanD (2013) The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Basic Books.
38.
NormanDA (1983) Some observations on mental models. In: GentnerDStevensAL (eds) Mental Models. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 7–14.
39.
OlteanuADiazFKazaiG (2020) When are search completion suggestions problematic?Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction4(CSCW2): 171.
40.
PariserE (2011) The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. New York: Penguin Books.
41.
PlettenbergNNakayamaJBelavadiP, et al. (2020) User behavior and awareness of filter bubbles in social media. In: International conference on human-computer interaction. Copenhagen, 19–24 July, pp. 81–92. Cham: Springer.
42.
RiedlMJWhippleKNWallaceR (2021) Antecedents of support for social media content moderation and platform regulation: the role of presumed effects on self and others. Information, Communication & Society. Epub ahead of print 26 January. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2021.1874040.
SaracevicT (2007) Relevance: a review of the literature and a framework for thinking on the notion in information science. Part III: behavior and effects of relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology58(13): 2126–2144.
45.
SeaverN (2017) Algorithms as culture: some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big Data & Society4(2): 2053951717738104.
46.
SinghJAnandA (2019) EXS: explainable search using local model agnostic interpretability. In: Proceedings of the twelfth ACM international conference on web search and data mining, WSDM ’19, Melbourne VIC, Australia, 11–15 February, pp. 770–773. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
ThomasPBillerbeckBCraswellN, et al. (2019) Investigating searchers’ mental models to inform search explanations. ACM Transactions on Information Systems38(1): 10.
49.
VaidhyanathanS (2012) The Googlization of Everything: (And Why We Should Worry). Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
50.
Van CouveringE (2008) The history of the internet search engine: navigational media and the traffic commodity. In: SpinkAZimmerM (eds) Web Search: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Berlin: Springer, pp. 177–206.
51.
Ytre-ArneBMoeH (2021) Folk theories of algorithms: understanding digital irritation. Media, Culture & Society43(5): 807–824.
52.
ZhangY (2008) Undergraduate students’ mental models of the web as an information retrieval system. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology59(13): 2087–2098.
53.
ZuboffS (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York: Public Affairs.
