Karrie Karahalios’s research while affiliated with University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and other places

Given that data-dependent algorithmic systems have become impactful in more domains of life, the need for individuals to promote their own interests and hold algorithms accountable has grown. To have meaningful influence, individuals must band together to engage in collective action. Groups that engage in such algorithmic collective action are likely to vary in size, membership characteristics, and crucially, objectives. In this work, we introduce a first of a kind framework for studying collective action with two or more collectives that strategically behave to manipulate data-driven systems. With more than one collective acting on a system, unexpected interactions may occur. We use this framework to conduct experiments with language model-based classifiers and recommender systems where two collectives each attempt to achieve their own individual objectives. We examine how differing objectives, strategies, sizes, and homogeneity can impact a collective's efficacy. We find that the unintentional interactions between collectives can be quite significant; a collective acting in isolation may be able to achieve their objective (e.g., improve classification outcomes for themselves or promote a particular item), but when a second collective acts simultaneously, the efficacy of the first group drops by as much as $75\%$. We find that, in the recommender system context, neither fully heterogeneous nor fully homogeneous collectives stand out as most efficacious and that heterogeneity's impact is secondary compared to collective size. Our results signal the need for more transparency in both the underlying algorithmic models and the different behaviors individuals or collectives may take on these systems. This approach also allows collectives to hold algorithmic system developers accountable and provides a framework for people to actively use their own data to promote their own interests.

Quadratic Surveys (QSs) elicit more accurate preferences than traditional methods like Likert-scale surveys. However, the cognitive load associated with QSs has hindered their adoption in digital surveys for collective decision-making. We introduce a two-phase "organize-then-vote'' QS to reduce cognitive load. As interface design significantly impacts survey results and accuracy, our design scaffolds survey takers' decision-making while managing the cognitive load imposed by QS. In a 2x2 between-subject in-lab study on public resource allotment, we compared our interface with a traditional text interface across a QS with 6 (short) and 24 (long) options. Two-phase interface participants spent more time per option and exhibited shorter voting edit distances. We qualitatively observed shifts in cognitive effort from mechanical operations to constructing more comprehensive preferences. We conclude that this interface promoted deeper engagement, potentially reducing satisficing behaviors caused by cognitive overload in longer QSs. This research clarifies how human-centered design improves preference elicitation tools for collective decision-making.

With the increasing adoption of smart home devices, users rely on device automation to control their homes. This automation commonly comes in the form of smart home routines, an abstraction available via major vendors. Yet, questions remain about how a system should best handle conflicts in which different routines access the same devices simultaneously. In particular---among the myriad ways a smart home system could handle conflicts, which of them are currently utilized by existing systems, and which ones result in the highest user satisfaction? We investigate the first question via a survey of existing literature and find a set of conditions, modifications, and system strategies related to handling conflicts. We answer the second question via a scenario-based Mechanical-Turk survey of users interested in owning smart home devices and current smart home device owners (N=197). We find that: (i) there is no context-agnostic strategy that always results in high user satisfaction, and (ii) users' personal values frequently form the basis for shaping their expectations of how routines should execute.

Interest has grown in designing algorithmic decision making systems for contestability. In this work, we study how users experience contesting unfavorable social media content moderation decisions. A large-scale online experiment tests whether different forms of appeals can improve users' experiences of automated decision making. We study the impact on users' perceptions of the Fairness, Accountability, and Trustworthiness of algorithmic decisions, as well as their feelings of Control (FACT). Surprisingly, we find that none of the appeal designs improve FACT perceptions compared to a no appeal baseline. We qualitatively analyze how users write appeals, and find that they contest the decision itself, but also more fundamental issues like the goal of moderating content, the idea of automation, and the inconsistency of the system as a whole. We conclude with suggestions for -- as well as a discussion of the challenges of -- designing for contestability.