Lau Annie Y S, Coiera Enrico W
Centre for Health Informatics, University of New South Wales, UNSW Sydney NSW 2052, Australia.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 Jan-Feb;16(1):54-65. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2557. Epub 2008 Oct 24.
To test whether the anchoring and order cognitive biases experienced during search by consumers using information retrieval systems can be corrected to improve the accuracy of, and confidence in, answers to health-related questions.
A prospective study was conducted on 227 undergraduate students who used an online search engine developed by the authors to find health information and then answer six randomly assigned consumer health questions. The search engine was fitted with a baseline user interface and two modified interfaces specifically designed to debias anchoring or order effect. Each subject used all three user interfaces, answering two questions with each.
Frequencies of correct answers pre- and post- search and confidence in answers were collected. Time taken to search and then answer a question, the number of searches conducted and the number of links accessed in a search session were also recorded. User preferences for each interface were measured. Chi-square analyses tested for the presence of biases with each user interface. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test checked for equality of distribution of the evidence analyzed for each user interface. The test for difference between proportions and the Wilcoxon signed ranks test were used when comparing interfaces.
Anchoring and order effects were present amongst subjects using the baseline search interface (anchoring: p < 0.001; order: p = 0.026). With use of the order debiasing interface, the initial order effect was no longer present (p = 0.34) but there was no significant improvement in decision accuracy (p = 0.23). While the anchoring effect persisted when using the anchor debiasing interface (p < 0.001), its use was associated with a 10.3% increase in subjects who had answered incorrectly pre-search, answering correctly post-search (p = 0.10). Subjects using either debiasing user interface conducted fewer searches and accessed more documents compared to baseline (p < 0.001). In addition, the majority of subjects preferred using a debiasing interface over baseline.
This study provides evidence that (i) debiasing strategies can be integrated into the user interface of a search engine; (ii) information interpretation behaviors can be to some extent debiased; and that (iii) attempts to debias information searching by consumers can influence their ability to answer health-related questions accurately, their confidence in these answers, as well as the strategies used to conduct searches and retrieve information.
测试消费者使用信息检索系统进行搜索时所经历的锚定和顺序认知偏差是否可以得到纠正,以提高与健康相关问题答案的准确性和信心。
对227名本科生进行了一项前瞻性研究,他们使用作者开发的在线搜索引擎查找健康信息,然后回答六个随机分配的消费者健康问题。该搜索引擎配备了一个基线用户界面和两个经过专门设计以消除锚定或顺序效应偏差的修改界面。每个受试者使用所有三个用户界面,每个界面回答两个问题。
收集搜索前后正确答案的频率以及对答案的信心。还记录了搜索并回答一个问题所需的时间、搜索会话中进行的搜索次数和访问的链接数量。测量了用户对每个界面的偏好。卡方分析测试每个用户界面是否存在偏差。柯尔莫哥洛夫-斯米尔诺夫检验检查每个用户界面所分析证据分布的均等性。比较界面时使用比例差异检验和威尔科克森符号秩检验。
使用基线搜索界面的受试者中存在锚定和顺序效应(锚定:p < 0.001;顺序:p = 0.026)。使用消除顺序偏差的界面后,初始顺序效应不再存在(p = 0.34),但决策准确性没有显著提高(p = 0.23)。虽然使用消除锚定偏差的界面时锚定效应仍然存在(p < 0.001),但其使用与搜索前回答错误但搜索后回答正确的受试者增加10.3%相关(p = 0.10)。与基线相比,使用任何一种消除偏差用户界面的受试者进行的搜索较少,访问的文档较多(p < 0.001)。此外,大多数受试者更喜欢使用消除偏差的界面而不是基线界面。
本研究提供的证据表明:(i)可以将消除偏差策略整合到搜索引擎的用户界面中;(ii)信息解释行为在一定程度上可以消除偏差;以及(iii)试图消除消费者信息搜索偏差的做法可以影响他们准确回答与健康相关问题的能力、对这些答案的信心,以及用于进行搜索和检索信息的策略。