6 May 2016
We outline 8 major sources of bias in social media below, from an imaginary user's perspective, and then how our proprietary research software tackles these biases.
Your go on Twitter, read a few things in your stream, and maybe retweet something, maybe post something.
Whose tweets are you reading? Friends, family, people with similar interests. However broad a research sample is, each micro-group is highly selective, and this influences the sorts of things people say and how they interact. That is over and above the fact that Twitter users are not (yet) demographically representative of the population, and it is difficult to say what sorts of people are likely to be the most active on Twitter.
You go on LinkedIn, look at a few posts, and profiles, learn a few tips, make a few comments.
Inherent in the system is interacting for professional benefit, and people tread very carefully to praise and interest each other, and there is very little dissent. Motivation, honesty, in short, quality of response is very hard to gauge. Other social media networks have similar, but less obvious attributes.
You are a teenager, you have one Facebook account for your friends, and another that’s visible to your parents and family.
Your own personal social network can profoundly affect what you say, and your persona online. The same person can be provocative and conservative. Which one’s opinion should be trusted?
You see a post by a family member that espouses political views you profoundly disagree with. Underneath that is a post of a panda sneezing. Which one do you engage with?
You are presented with a stream of content that you can skim very easily and choose what to engage with. This introduces bias in terms of content and engagement, and also leads to…
You’re going on holiday and check out TripAdvisor for reviews of your chosen hotel. How much do you take these reviews as a representative sample of guest experience?
Of course people are much more likely to post a review on TripAdvisor if they have had a very good or very bad experience. Maybe sets of reviews can be compared against others, but it is hard to generalise about a hotel. In the same way, different groups of people are more active on social media, and people express extremes of opinion. Extrapolation to public opinion as a whole is a significant exercise. See here for some interesting research.
A controversial political post appears in your stream with a large amount of likes (maybe because it has a large amount of likes!). Maybe it has a comment or like from a friend of yours. Does that affect your response?
It’s called social media, not anti-social media. Never mind any fundamental human and cultural propensity for agreement and socialisation, this is the underlying purpose of social media. Individual confirmation bias, the tendency to support views similar to your pre-existing beliefs, and acquiescence bias, the tendency to agree in general, is built in to the system. This can lead to herd behaviour, which can cause gross distortions in data.
At Voxter we understand the good and bad in social, interactive systems. On the one hand they are engaging and fun but on the other they are very difficult to pick apart and correct for imbalances. Our approach has been to keep the engagement and fun but to sacrifice some of the ‘social’ in the system to reduce bias at source:
Research into large-scale group interaction at the London School of Economics has led to our software design. We believe it strikes a better balance between quality and volume.