SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Sander de Jong

Publications and source records attributed to Sander de Jong.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Understanding, Challenging, and Demystifying Perceptions of Gig Worker Vulnerabilities

Across service domains, platform-based gig workers often face a wide range of severe yet hidden vulnerabilities, including opaque pay practices, illusions of flexibility, health and safety risks, and privacy violations. To the general public and inexperienced workers such latent vulnerabilities remain largely unknown and concealed by intentional platform design that gives illusions of adequate labor protections, or $\textit{myths}$. This study examines how workers perceive (and shift their beliefs away from) five commonly held misconceptions regarding gig worker vulnerabilities. In $Phase~I$, crowdworkers ($N~=~236$) rated their agreement with five common myths surrounding vulnerabilities in gig work:$~227$ of them believed one or more myth(s). In $Phase~II$, we challenged these workers to defend their views by presenting an expert- or LLM-generated counterargument. Our findings show workers' underexposure to personal and shared vulnerabilities of gig work, revealing a knowledge gap where persuasive interventions can scalably raise awareness around such hidden labor conditions. We reflect on the effectiveness of different persuasion strategies and discuss implications for promoting more accurate public perceptions that support collective bargaining of workers' rights.

cs.HC

Confirmation Bias as a Cognitive Resource in LLM-Supported Deliberation

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in group decision-making, but their influence risks fostering conformity and reducing epistemic vigilance. Drawing on the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning, we argue that confirmation bias, often seen as detrimental, can be harnessed as a resource when paired with critical evaluation. We propose a three-step process in which individuals first generate ideas independently, then use LLMs to refine and articulate them, and finally engage with LLMs as epistemic provocateurs to anticipate group critique. This framing positions LLMs as tools for scaffolding disagreement, helping individuals prepare for more productive group discussions.

cs.HC