1. “Yours is Better!” Participant Response Bias in HCI Nicola Dell, Vidya Vaidyanathan, Indrani Medhi, Edward Cutrell, William Thies CHI 2012 Joon-won Lee Jimin Han Jincheul Jang

2. Motivation HCI researchers frequently work with groups of people that differ significantly from themselves Little attention has been paid to the effects these differences have on the evaluation of HCI systems. They measure participant response bias due to interviewer demand characteristics and the role of social and demographic factors in influencing that bias.

3. What is “Demand characteristic”? Participants in an experiment often share with the experimenter the hope that the study will be successful. Frequently, a participant will want to ensure that she makes a useful contribution to the study and so will strive to be a ‘good’ participant and provide the experimenter with the ‘right’ results. participant may resent the experimenter and actively work to disprove the hypothesis.

4. Lack of research in HCI They found only one study that specifically addresses demand characteristics in HCI. ( At ‘trial of trials’ Brown et al. found that participants changed their system usage partly to give researchers ‘good’ data) Scarcity of research that quantifies participant response bias due to demand characteristics in HCI setting. Only one research

5. 4 Contribution to HCI Survey existing literature to bring demand characteristics and their known effects to the attention. If participants believe that a particular technological artifact is favored by the interviewer, their responses are biased to favor it. If interviewer is a foreign researcher who requires a translator, responses are even more biased towards the technology favored by the interviewer. For a foreign interviewer with translator, participants report a preference for an obviously inferior technology.

6. Experimental Design H.1 If participants believe that the interviewer favors a technology, their responses will be biased to favor it as well H.2 If the interviewer is a foreign researcher requiring a translator, participants’ responses will be even more biased towards the technology favored by the interviewer H.3 Participants will express a preference for an obviously inferior technology if they believe it is favored by the interviewer

7. Experimental Design Total 450 Participants, Field study in Bangalore, India Experiment1 : Test H.1 & H.2 - participants were shown video clip on each of 2 smartphone in this time one of smartphone will be associated with interviewer Experiment2 : Test H.1, H.2 & H.3 - degrading one of the video clips - seeing participants preference for the degraded video when it was associated with the interviewer

8. Experimental Procedure (1/2) Between subjects design Sample size of 50 per each experimental condition Each interview lasting between 2 and 3 minutes Same general interview procedure across all experimental condition Demand characteristics : association (Bold font in Script)

9. Experimental Procedure (2/2) The order of video (associated or not) was randomized to prevent ordering effect Interviewer recorded participant responses and comment Responses were coded into 3 distinct classes – 1. favored the video associated with interviewer – 2. favored the video not associated with interviewer – 3. same (will not used in this paper)

10. Interviewers Vary the social status of the interviewers 2 different female, graduate student - 29 year-old English-speaking Caucasian  foreign interviewer (not born in Bangalore, distinguishable as an outsider) - 33 year-old Kannada and English-speaking Indian  local interviewer (She grew up in the Bangalore, identifiable as a local member) Foreign interviewer required a translator In this region, language associated with prestige and opportunity  high social status

11. Participants 2 distinct social group – 1. male university students (elite student)  speak English, experienced high technology, 200 male student – 2. local auto rickshaw drivers  high-school education, daily income $5~$10, possess cheap mobile phone and not experience high technology, 250 male driver (Socio-demographic difference is larger than 1 st group) Simplified interview script for rickshaw driver

12. 2x2 factorial design – Interviewer (F/L) – Participants (Driver/Student) Dependent variable: video chosen Response bias in all cases The largest bias? Experiment 1: Identical videos

13. Why Chi-Square Test? e.g. Yes/No e.g.

14. H1. Presence of Response Bias – Experiment 1: Identical videos Significant bias n=103+41

15. H1. Presence of Response Bias – Foreign interviewer Rickshaw Drivers University Student – Local interviewer Rickshaw Drivers University Student Rickshaw + Student Experiment 1: Identical videos Significant bias ns.

16. H2. Impact of Foreign Interviewer – 2 comparison Foreign-Rickshaw vs. Foreign-Student Foreign-Rickshaw vs. Local-Rickshaw Experiment 1: Identical videos 5x 2.1x 2.3x

17. H2. Impact of Foreign Interviewer – No significant relationship between the video chosen and the interviewer the video chosen and the participant Experiment 1: Identical videos

18. Making one of the video clips noticeably worse than the other – the interviewer associate herself to the degraded clip Loading the low-quality video clip on one smartphone and the high-quality clip on the other Modifying scripts Randomizing the playing order in order to avoid order effect Experiment 2: Degraded video

19. Adding a condition: without association – By changing the script, this condition represented a baseline that minimized demand characteristics Not performing local interviewer with university student – In experiment 1, two groups showed no significant differences Experiment 2: Degraded video

20. No response bias in group a, b Group d (Foreign interviewer with student) more biased than group b In the case of rickshaw drivers, the response bias occurred Experiment 2: Degraded video

21. H1: Presence of Response Bias – Using chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test to improve the accuracy – Foreign interviewers with rickshaw drivers (p<.001) – Foreign interviewers with university students (p=.008) – Local interviewers with rickshaw drivers (p=.003) Experiment 2: Degraded video

22. H2: Impact of Foreign Interviewer Experiment 2: Degraded video Significant association between interviewers and video chosen (response bias)

23. H3: Preference for Inferior Tech – In the case of foreign interviewers with rickshaw drivers, the participants select the low-quality video (27/50 = 54%) – In the case of local interviewers, Experiment 2: Degraded video ns.

24. Summary of Hypotheses tests Experiment 1Experiment 2 H.1 If participants believe that the interviewer favors a technology, their responses will be biased to favor it as well Foreign-rickshaw: sig. Foreign-student: sig. Local-rickshaw: ns. Sig. H.2 If the interviewer is a foreign researcher requiring a translator, participants’ responses will be even more biased towards the technology favored by the interviewer ns.Rickshaw: sig. H.3 Participants will express a preference for an obviously inferior technology if they believe it is favored by the interviewer -ns.

25. Discussion, Recommendation Participants did not tell the interviewer the ‘right’ response while secretly thinking otherwise, but rather that participants seemed to genuinely believe the interviewer’s artifact to be superior and identified convincing reasons to justify their choice. Researchers pay more attention to the types of response bias that might result from working with any participant population and actively take steps to minimize this bias.

26. Generalization and Limitations Consideration of gender – Davis et al. (2010) suggested that gender might be an important factor that could influence participant response. This study avoided examining the extent to which gender may play a role in any bias observed. All experiments in this paper recruited “male” participants and performed interviews with “female” interviewers. Cultural differences More sophisticated analysis

27. Conclusion (1) if participants believe that a particular technological artifact is favored by the interviewer, their responses are biased to favor it as well (2) the bias due to interviewer demand characteristics is exaggerated much further when the interviewer is a foreign researcher requiring a translator (3) in response to a foreign interviewer with a translator, participants of lower social status report a preference for an obviously inferior technology, which they otherwise do not prefer