Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates human moderation biases in online power-asymmetric conflicts, specifically between consumers and merchants, and examines the impact of AI suggestions on these biases. Through a mixed-design experiment with 50 participants moderating real-world conflicts, the study identifies biases favoring the more powerful party (merchants). The key finding is that while AI assistance generally mitigates human biases, it can also exacerbate certain biases in power-asymmetric scenarios.
Human moderators show a systematic bias towards powerful entities (e.g., merchants) in online disputes, and surprisingly, AI assistance can sometimes amplify these biases.
Online power-asymmetric conflicts are prevalent, and most platforms rely on human moderators to conduct moderation currently. Previous studies have been continuously focusing on investigating human moderation biases in different scenarios, while moderation biases under power-asymmetric conflicts remain unexplored. Therefore, we aim to investigate the types of power-related biases human moderators exhibit in power-asymmetric conflict moderation (RQ1) and further explore the influence of AI's suggestions on these biases (RQ2). For this goal, we conducted a mixed design experiment with 50 participants by leveraging the real conflicts between consumers and merchants as a scenario. Results suggest several biases towards supporting the powerful party within these two moderation modes. AI assistance alleviates most biases of human moderation, but also amplifies a few. Based on these results, we propose several insights into future research on human moderation and human-AI collaborative moderation systems for power-asymmetric conflicts.
