m2.tex

\RequirePackage{rotating}
\documentclass[format=acmsmall, natbib=false, anonymous=true, review=true]{acmart}

\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage{graphicx}  % another package that works for figures
\usepackage{epstopdf}
\usepackage{lscape}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{booktabs} % For formal tables
\usepackage{cleveref} % for better references
\usepackage{caption,subcaption}
\usepackage[english]{babel}% Recommended
\usepackage{csquotes}% Recommended

\usepackage{siunitx}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{xcolor}

\RequirePackage{rotating}

% % using biblatex
\let\citename\relax
% \RequirePackage[abbreviate=true, dateabbrev=true, natbib=true, isbn=false, doi=false, eprint=false, urldate=comp, url=false, maxbibnames=9, maxcitenames=2,  backref=false, backend=bibtex, style=ACM-Reference-Format,language=american]{biblatex}

\usepackage[abbreviate=true, dateabbrev=true, natbib=true, isbn=false, doi=false, eprint=false, urldate=comp, url=false, maxbibnames=9, maxcitenames=2,  backref=false, backend=biber, style=ACM-Reference-Format]{biblatex}
% \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
% \addbibresource{reference.bib}
\addbibresource{hari.bib}
\renewcommand{\bibfont}{\Small}

%% author color
\newcommand{\hs}[1]{{\color{red}{\bf hari: #1}}}
\newcommand{\tc}[1]{{\color{blue}{#1}}}
\newcommand{\lwt}[1]{{\color{olive}{#1}}}
\newcommand{\kk}[1]{{\color{violet}{#1}}}
\newcommand{\change}[1]{\color{blue}{#1}}

\acmConference[CSCW '21]{CSCW '21: The 24rd ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing}{Nov 03 -- 07, 2021}{Toronto, Canada}
\acmBooktitle{CSCW '21: The 24rd ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing,
Nov 03 -- 07, 2021, Toronto, Canada}
\acmPrice{15.00}
\acmISBN{978-1-4503-9999-9/18/06}
\acmSubmissionID{123-A56-BU3}
\begin{document}

%%
%% The "title" command has an optional parameter,
%% allowing the author to define a "short title" to be used in page headers.
% \title[QV vs Likert]{``\textellipsis I can show what I really like.'': 
% Comparing Quadratic Voting with Likert Surveys at aligning respondents' preferences}

\title{``I can show what I really like.'': Eliciting Preferences via Quadratic Voting}


%%
%% The "author" command and its associated commands are used to define
%% the authors and their affiliations.
%% Of note is the shared affiliation of the first two authors, and the
%% "authornote" and "authornotemark" commands
%% used to denote shared contribution to the research.
\author{Ti-Chung Cheng}
\authornote{Both authors contributed equally to this research.}
\email{tcheng10@illinois.edu}
\affiliation{%
  \institution{University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign}
}

\author{Tiffany Wenting Li}

\email{wenting7@illinois.edu}
\affiliation{%
  \institution{University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign}
}

\author{Yi-Hong Chou}
\email{hank0982@link.cuhk.edu.hk}
\affiliation{%
  \institution{Independent Researcher}
}

\author{Karrie Karahalios}
\email{kkarahal@illinois.edu}
\affiliation{%
  \institution{University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign}
}

\author{Hari Sundaram}
\email{hs1@illinois.edu}
\affiliation{%
  \institution{University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign}
}

% %%
% %% By default, the full list of authors will be used in the page
% %% headers. Often, this list is too long, and will overlap
% %% other information printed in the page headers. This command allows
% %% the author to define a more concise list
% %% of authors' names for this purpose.
\renewcommand{\shortauthors}{Ti-Chung Cheng and Wenting Li, et al.}

%%
%% The abstract is a short summary of the work to be presented in the
%% article.
\begin{abstract}
  Decision-makers frequently aggregate self-reported data from the crowd to inform their decisions. One common case of collective decision-making involves prioritizing a subset of given options under resource constraints. Researchers have developed a wide range of surveying techniques,  such as ratings and rankings approaches, over the past century. However, it remains a challenge to eliciting accurate and rich self-reported responses in a resource-constrained context. In this study, we examine Quadratic Voting (QV), an alternative voting mechanism recently developed by \textcite{posner2018radical}, and argue that it could elicit self-reported responses more accurately compared to Likert scale when the survey goal is to understand relative preferences under resource constraints. We conducted two randomized controlled experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk, one in the context of public opinion polling and the other in a human-computer interaction user study. Based on our Bayesian analysis results, a QV survey, with a sufficient amount of voice credits, aligned significantly closer to participants' incentive-compatible behaviors than a Likert scale survey, with a medium to high effect size. In addition, we extended QV's application scenario from typical public policy and education research to a problem setting familiar to the CSCW community: a prototypical HCI user study. Our experiment results, QV survey design, and QV interface serve as a stepping stone for HCI researchers to further explore this surveying methodology in their studies and encourage decision-makers from other fields to consider QV as a promising alternative.
%   While our study has shown QV's potential in obtaining more truthful self-reported relative preferences than Likert, the goal is not to claim that one survey instrument should replace another. Instead, we propose open questions about QV and encourage future research to consider promising alternative survey instruments that enhance self-reporting accuracy.
% Survey is a common approach to elicit individuals self-reported opinions in various fields. 
\end{abstract}

%%
%% The code below is generated by the tool at http://dl.acm.org/ccs.cfm.
%% Please copy and paste the code instead of the example below.
%%
% \begin{CCSXML}
% <ccs2012>
%    <concept>
%        <concept_id>10003120.10003130.10011762</concept_id>
%        <concept_desc>Human-centered computing~Empirical studies in collaborative and social computing</concept_desc>
%        <concept_significance>500</concept_significance>
%        </concept>
%    <concept>
%        <concept_id>10003120.10003130.10003134</concept_id>
%        <concept_desc>Human-centered computing~Collaborative and social computing design and evaluation methods</concept_desc>
%        <concept_significance>500</concept_significance>
%        </concept>
%    <concept>
%        <concept_id>10003120.10003121.10003122</concept_id>
%        <concept_desc>Human-centered computing~HCI design and evaluation methods</concept_desc>
%        <concept_significance>300</concept_significance>
%        </concept>
%  </ccs2012>
% \end{CCSXML}

\ccsdesc[500]{Human-centered computing~Empirical studies in collaborative and social computing}
\ccsdesc[500]{Human-centered computing~Collaborative and social computing design and evaluation methods}
\ccsdesc[300]{Human-centered computing~HCI design and evaluation methods}

%%
%% Keywords. The author(s) should pick words that accurately describe
%% the work being presented. Separate the keywords with commas.
\keywords{Quadratic Voting, Likert scale, Empirical studies, Collective decision-making}


%%
%% This command processes the author and affiliation and title
%% information and builds the first part of the formatted document.
\maketitle
% \input{content/0_Introduction.tex}
% \input{content/1_related_works.tex}
% \input{content/2.1_experiment_1.tex}
% \input{content/2.2_experiment_1_results.tex}
% \input{content/3.1_experiment_2.tex}
% \input{content/3.2_experiment_2_results.tex}
% \input{content/4_discussion.tex}
% \input{content/5_conclusion.tex}
% \input{content/98_acks.tex}
% \input{content/99_appendix}

% \bibliography{reference}
% \bibliographystyle{ACM-Reference-Format}
% \printbibliography

%\input{content/99_appendix.tex}


\input{content/0_Introduction.tex}
\input{content/2.1_experiment_1.tex}
\input{content/2.2_experiment_1_results.tex}
% \input{content/4_discussion.tex}
% \input{content/99_appendix.tex}

\newpage
\printbibliography
\end{document}