国外过滤气泡研究：基础、脉络与展望

doi:10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2021.10.008

情报学报

2021, Vol. 40

Issue (10): 1108-1117 DOI: 10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2021.10.008

情报学科研究与趋势

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

国外过滤气泡研究：基础、脉络与展望

姜婷婷^1,2, 许艳闰¹

1.武汉大学信息管理学院，武汉 430072
2.武汉大学信息资源研究中心，武汉 430072

Filter Bubbles—Induced by Personalized Recommendation Algorithms: A Review of Related Research

Jiang Tingting^1,2, Xu Yanrun¹

1.School of Information Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072
2.Center for Studies of Information Resources, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (0)

全文: PDF (1215 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要个性化的信息推荐促使网络世界中形成了一个个无形的过滤气泡，令用户局限于狭窄的信息接收范围。本研究采用系统性综述方法，广泛收集了发表于2010—2020年的61篇与过滤气泡相关的文献，对过滤气泡的理论、技术基础以及研究脉络进行了细致的梳理与分析。研究结果发现，①过滤气泡存在与否，在很大程度上取决于研究的角度及判断的标准；②过滤气泡在大多数情况下是一种不利的存在，可能阻碍个人及社会的正常发展；③为了应对过滤气泡，研究人员一方面通过信息过滤可视化来降低过滤气泡的影响，另一方面通过对个性化推荐算法进行优化，来破除过滤气泡或阻断其形成。本研究首次对“过滤气泡”的概念特征进行了全面的解读，强调了其与个性化推荐算法的密切关联，并指出其本质在于内部信息多样性低。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	姜婷婷
	许艳闰

关键词 ：过滤气泡, 信息过滤, 个性化推荐算法, 系统性综述

收稿日期: 2020-10-06

基金资助:国家自然科学基金面上项目“信息茧房的形成机理与联觉干预研究”（72074173），“在线信息偶遇过程中趋避行为的产生规律与神经机制研究”（71774125）。

作者简介: 姜婷婷，女，1981年生，博士，教授，博士生导师，主要研究领域为信息行为、用户心理、多感官交互、人本数据分析、用户体验度量，E-mail：tij@whu.edu.cn；许艳闰，女，1998年生，硕士研究生，主要研究领域为信息行；

引用本文:

姜婷婷, 许艳闰. 国外过滤气泡研究：基础、脉络与展望[J]. 情报学报, 2021, 40(10): 1108-1117.
Jiang Tingting, Xu Yanrun. Filter Bubbles—Induced by Personalized Recommendation Algorithms: A Review of Related Research. 情报学报, 2021, 40(10): 1108-1117.

链接本文:

http://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/10.3772/j.issn.1000-0135.2021.10.008 或 http://qbxb.istic.ac.cn/CN/Y2021/V40/I10/1108

1 Tarus J K, Niu Z D, Yousif A. A hybrid knowledge-based recommender system for e-learning based on ontology and sequential pattern mining[J]. Future Generation Computer Systems, 2017, 72: 37-48.
2 Xu K, Zheng X S, Cai Y, et al. Improving user recommendation by extracting social topics and interest topics of users in uni-directional social networks[J]. Knowledge-Based Systems, 2018, 140: 120-133.
3 Chu S L, Brown S, Park H, et al. Towards personalized movie selection for wellness: investigating event-inspired movies[J]. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 2020, 36(16): 1514-1526.
4 何顺民, 曹文泉. 网购平台个性化推荐算法的伦理困境及规制——以移动电商“淘宝”为例[J]. 城市学刊, 2019, 40(3): 1-6.
5 喻国明, 侯伟鹏, 程雪梅. 个性化新闻推送对新闻业务链的重塑[J]. 新闻记者, 2017(3): 9-13.
6 窦维萌, 郑秋爽, 孙宗锟. 基于DB-CF算法的音乐平台个性化推荐研究[J]. 软件导刊, 2020, 19(3): 57-59.
7 Pariser E. The filter bubble: what the Internet is hiding from you[M]. New York: The Penguin Press, 2011.
8 Sunstein C R. Infotopia: how many minds produce knowledge[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006: 9.
9 彭燕林. 个性化推荐中的“过滤气泡”现象相关研究综述[J]. 科技创业月刊, 2019, 32(4): 135-139.
10 Shoemaker P J, Vos T. Gatekeeping theory[M]. New York: Routledge, 2009: 20.
11 DeIuliis D. Gatekeeping theory from social fields to social networks[J]. Communication Research Trends, 2015, 34(1): 4-23.
12 Bruns A. Gatekeeping, gatewatching, real-time feedback: new challenges for Journalism[J]. Brazilian Journalism Research, 2011, 7(2): 117-136.
13 Bozdag E. Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization[J]. Ethics and Information Technology, 2013, 15(3): 209-227.
14 Anitha J, Kalaiarasu M. Optimized machine learning based collaborative filtering (OMLCF) recommendation system in e-commerce[J]. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 2021, 12(6): 6387-6398.
15 Yang X W, Guo Y, Liu Y, et al. A survey of collaborative filtering based social recommender systems[J]. Computer Communications, 2014, 41(5): 1-10.
16 Barragáns-Martínez A B, Costa-Montenegro E, Burguillo J C, et al. A hybrid content-based and item-based collaborative filtering approach to recommend TV programs enhanced with singular value decomposition[J]. Information Sciences, 2010, 180(22): 4290-4311.
17 Geschke D, Lorenz J, Holtz P. The triple-filter bubble: using agent-based modelling to test a meta-theoretical framework for the emergence of filter bubbles and echo chambers[J]. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2019, 58(1): 129-149.
18 Krafft T D, Gamer M, Zweig K A. What did you see? Personalization, regionalization and the question of the filter bubble in Google’s search engine[J]. EPJ Data Science, 2019, 8: 1-23.
19 Ricci F, Rokach L, Shapira B. Introduction to recommender systems handbook[M]// Recommender Systems Handbook. Boston: Springer, 2011: 13.
20 Kitchenham B A, Charters S. Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering (EBSE 2007-001)[R]. Keele University and Durham University, 2017: 3.
21 Siddaway A P, Wood A M, Hedges L V. How to do a systematic review: a best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses[J]. Annual Review of Psychology, 2019, 70: 747-770.
22 Bruns A. Filter bubble[J]. Internet Policy Review, 2019, 8(4): 1426.
23 Spohr D. Fake news and ideological polarization[J]. Business Information Review, 2017, 34(3): 150-160.
24 Dutton W H, Reisdorf B, Dubois E, et al. Social shaping of the politics of Internet search and networking: moving beyond filter bubbles, echo chambers, and fake news[C]// Proceedings of the 45th Research Conference on Communications, Information, and Internet Policy, Arlington, 2017: 1-26.
25 Parisi L, Comunello F. Dating in the time of “relational filter bubbles”: exploring imaginaries, perceptions and tactics of Italian dating app users[J]. The Communication Review, 2020, 23(1): 66-89.
26 Fletcher R, Nielsen R K. Automated serendipity: the effect of using search engines on news repertoire balance and diversity[J]. Digital Journalism, 2018, 6(8): 976-989.
27 Sindermann C, Elhai J D, Moshagen M, et al. Age, gender, personality, ideological attitudes and individual differences in a person's news spectrum: how many and who might be prone to “filter bubbles” and “echo chambers” online?[J]. Heliyon, 2020, 6(1): e03214.
28 Cardenal A S, Aguilar-Paredes C, Galais C, et al. Digital technologies and selective exposure: how choice and filter bubbles shape news media exposure[J]. The International Journal of Press, 2019, 24(4): 465-486.
29 Courtois C, Slechten L, Coenen L. Challenging Google Search filter bubbles in social and political information: disconforming evidence from a digital methods case study[J]. Telematics and Informatics, 2018, 35(7): 2006-2015.
30 Hannak A, Sapiezynski P, Molavi Kakhki A, et al. Measuring personalization of web search[C]// Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web. New York: ACM Press, 2013: 527-538.
31 Haim M, Arendt F, Scherr S. Abyss or shelter? On the relevance of web search engines’ search results when people Google for suicide[J]. Health Communication, 2017, 32(2): 253-258.
32 Puschmann C. Beyond the bubble: assessing the diversity of political search results[J]. Digital Journalism, 2019, 7(6): 824-843.
33 Nechushtai E, Lewis S C. What kind of news gatekeepers do we want machines to be? Filter bubbles, fragmentation, and the normative dimensions of algorithmic recommendations[J]. Computers in Human Behavior, 2019, 90: 298-307.
34 Bechmann A, Nielbo K L. Are we exposed to the same “news” in the news feed? An empirical analysis of filter bubbles as information similarity for Danish Facebook users[J]. Digital Journalism, 2018, 6(8): 1-13.
35 Min Y, Jiang T, Jin C, et al. Endogenetic structure of filter bubble in social networks[J]. Royal Society Open Science, 2019, 6(11): 190868.
36 Dillahunt T R, Brooks C A, Gulati S. Detecting and visualizing filter bubbles in Google and Bing[C]// Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press, 2015: 1851-1856.
37 Haim M, Graefe A, Brosius H B. Burst of the filter bubble?[J]. Digital Journalism, 2018, 6(3): 330-343.
38 Mikki S, Ruwehy H A A, Gjesdal ? L, et al. Filter bubbles in interdisciplinary research: a case study on climate and society[J]. Library Hi Tech, 2018, 36(2): 225-236.
39 Wheeler-Mackta H J, Allen D P, Campo J R. The effects of music recommendation engines on the filter bubble phenomenon[EB/OL]. [2020-06-15]. https://digitalcommons.wpi.edu/iqp-all/3086.
40 Bozdag E, Gao Q, Houben G J, et al. Does offline political segregation affect the filter bubble? An empirical analysis of information diversity for Dutch and Turkish Twitter users[J]. Computers in Human Behavior, 2014, 41: 405-415.
41 Holone H. The filter bubble and its effect on online personal health information[J]. Croatian Medical Journal, 2016, 57(3): 298-301.
42 Powers E. My news feed is filtered?[J]. Digital Journalism, 2017, 5(10): 1315-1335.
43 Ribeiro B, Gon?alves C, Pereira F, et al. Digital bubbles: living in accordance with personalized seclusions and their effect on critical thinking[C]// Proceedings of the World Conference on Information Systems and Technologies. Cham: Springer, 2019: 463-471.
44 Burbach L, Halbach P, Ziefle M, et al. Bubble trouble: strategies against filter bubbles in online social networks[C]// Proceedings of International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Cham: Springer, 2019: 441-456.
45 Ayre L, Craner J. Algorithms: avoiding the implementation of institutional biases[J]. Public Library Quarterly, 2018, 37(3): 341-347.
46 Bozdag E, van den Hoven J. Breaking the filter bubble: democracy and design[J]. Ethics and Information Technology, 2015, 17(4): 249-265.
47 Perra N, Rocha L E C. Modelling opinion dynamics in the age of algorithmic personalisation[J]. Scientific Reports, 2019, 9: 7261.
48 Liao Q V, Fu W. Beyond the filter bubble: interactive effects of perceived threat and topic involvement on selective exposure to information[C]// Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press, 2013: 2359-2368.
49 Menchaca F. The future is in doubt: librarians, publishers, and networked learning in the 21st century[J]. Journal of Library Administration, 2012, 52(5): 396-410.
50 Prakash S. Filter bubble: how to burst your filter bubble[J]. International Journal of Engineering and Computer Science, 2016, 5(10): 18321-18325.
51 Salvador Casara B G, Suitner C, Bettinsoli M L. Viral suspicions: vaccine hesitancy in the Web 2.0[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2019, 25(3): 354-371.
52 Bozdag E, Timmermans J. Values in the filter bubble: ethics of personalization algorithms in cloud computing[C]// Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Values in Design-Building Bridges between RE, HCI and Ethics, 2011: 7-15.
53 Kanai A, McGrane C. Feminist filter bubbles: ambivalence, vigilance and labour[J/OL]. Information, Communication & Society, (2020-05-12). https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1760916.
54 Ott K. Social media and feminist values: aligned or maligned?[J]. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 2018, 39(1): 93-111.
55 Faridani S, Bitton E, Ryokai K, et al. Opinion space: a scalable tool for browsing online comments[C]// Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press, 2010: 1175-1184.
56 Kriplean T, Toomim M, Morgan J, et al. REFLECT: aupporting active listening and grounding on the Web through restatement[C]// Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York: ACM Press, 2011: 791-802.
57 Kriplean T, Morgan J, Freelon D, et al. Supporting reflective public thought with ConsiderIt[C]// Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York: ACM Press, 2012: 265-274.
58 Freelon D G, Kriplean T, Morgan J, et al. Facilitating diverse political engagement with the living voters guide[J]. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 2012, 9(3): 279-297.
59 Xing X Y, Meng W, Doozan D, et al. Exposing inconsistent web search results with bobble[C]// Proceedings of the International Conference on Passive and Active Network Measurement. Cham: Springer, 2014: 131-140.
60 Tabrizi S A, Shakery A. Perspective-based search: a new paradigm for bursting the information bubble[J]. FACETS, 2019, 4(1): 350-388.
61 Nagulendra S, Vassileva J. Understanding and controlling the filter bubble through interactive visualization: a user study[C]// Proceedings of the 25th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media. New York: ACM Press, 2014: 107-115.
62 Munson S A, Lee S Y, Resnick P, et al. Encouraging reading of diverse political viewpoints with a browser widget[C]// Proceedings of the 7th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Palo Alto: AAAI Press, 2013: 419-428.
63 Resnick P, Garrett R K, Kriplean T, et al. Bursting your (filter) bubble: strategies for promoting diverse exposure[C]// Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. New York: ACM Press, 2013: 95-100.
64 Chakraborty A, Ghosh S, Ganguly N, et al. Optimizing the recency-relevance-diversity trade-offs in non-personalized news recommendations[J]. Information Retrieval Journal, 2019, 22(5): 447-475.
65 Erdelez S, Makri S. Information encountering re-encountered: a conceptual re-examination of serendipity in the context of information acquisition[J]. Journal of Documentation, 2020, 76(3): 731-751.
66 Jiang T T, Fu S T, Song E M. Toward a description framework of information encountering experiences: guidance for diarists in story telling[J]. Journal of Documentation, 2020, 76(4): 807-827.
67 De Pessemier T, Dooms S, Vanhecke K, et al. Context and activity recognition for personalized mobile recommendations[C]// Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies. Heidelberg: Springer, 2014: 243-262.
68 McCay‐Peet L, Toms E G. Investigating serendipity: how it unfolds and what may influence it[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2015, 66(7): 1463-1476.
69 Maccatrozzo V. Burst the filter bubble: using semantic web to enable serendipity[C]// Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Conference. Heidelberg: Springer, 2012: 391-398.
70 Symeonidis P, Coba L, Zanker M. Counteracting the filter bubble in recommender systems: novelty-aware matrix factorization[J]. Intelligenza Artificiale, 2019, 13(1): 37-47.
71 Yokoyama M, Ma Q. Topic model-based freshness estimation towards diverse tweet recommendation[C]// Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Big Data and Smart Computing. IEEE, 2019: 1-8.
72 Lunardi G M. Representing the filter bubble: towards a model to diversification in news[C]// Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Conceptual Modeling. Cham: Springer, 2019: 239-246.
73 Bright J. Explaining the emergence of political fragmentation on social media: the role of ideology and extremism[J]. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2018, 23(1): 17-33.
74 Kotkov D, Wang S Q, Veijalainen J. A survey of serendipity in recommender systems[J]. Knowledge-Based Systems, 2016, 111: 180-192.
75 Paltemaa L, Vuori J A, Mattlin M, et al. Meta-information censorship and the creation of the Chinanet Bubble[J]. Information, Communication & Society, 2020, 23(14): 2064-2080.