The effect of threshold priming and need for cognition on relevance calibration and assessment

Human assessments of document relevance are needed for the construction of test collections, for ad-hoc evaluation, and for training text classifiers. Showing documents to assessors in different orderings, however, may lead to different assessment outcomes. We examine the effect that \defineterm{threshold priming}, seeing varying degrees of relevant documents, has on people's calibration of relevance. Participants judged the relevance of a prologue of documents containing highly relevant, moderately relevant, or non-relevant ocuments, followed by a common epilogue of documents of mixed relevance. We observe that participants exposed to only non-relevant documents in the prologue assigned significantly higher average relevance scores to prologue and epilogue documents than participants exposed to moderately or highly relevant documents in the prologue. We also examine how \defineterm{need for cognition}, an individual difference measure of the extent to which a person enjoys engaging in effortful cognitive activity, impacts relevance assessments. High need for cognition participants had a significantly higher level of agreement with expert assessors than low need for cognition participants did. Our findings indicate that assessors should be exposed to documents from multiple relevance levels early in the judging process, in order to calibrate their relevance thresholds in a balanced way, and that individual difference measures might be a useful way to screen assessors.