Bart P. Knijnenburg
Niels J.M. Reijmer
Martijn C. Willemsen
ABSTRACT
This paper compares five different ways of interacting with an attribute-based recommender system and shows that different types of users prefer different interaction methods. In an online experiment with an energy-saving recommender system the interaction methods are compared in terms of perceived control, understandability, trust in the system, user interface satisfaction, system effectiveness and choice satisfaction. The comparison takes into account several user characteristics, namely domain knowledge, trusting propensity and persistence. The results show that most users (and particularly domain experts) are most satisfied with a hybrid recommender that combines implicit and explicit preference elicitation, but that novices and maximizers seem to benefit more from a non-personalized recommender that just displays the most popular items.
- Aksoy, L. 2006. Should Recommendation Agents Think Like People? Journal of Service Research. 8, 4, 297--315. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094670506286326Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Al-Natour, S. et al. 2006. The role of design characteristics in shaping perceptions of similarity: The case of online shop-ping assistants. J. Assoc. for Inform. Syst. 7, 12, 821--861.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. 1987. Dimensions of Con-sumer Expertise. Journal of Consumer Research. 13, 4, 411--422. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209080Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bettman, J.R. et al. 1998. Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of consumer research. 25, 3, 187--217. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209535Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chernev, A. 2003. When More Is Less and Less Is More: The Role of Ideal Point Availability and Assortment in Con-sumer Choice. Journal of Consumer Research. 30, 2, 170--183. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/376808Google ScholarCross Ref
- Coupey, E. et al. 1998. Product Category Familiarity and Preference Construction. Journal of Consumer Research. 24, 4, 459--468. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209521Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fitzsimons, G.J. and Lehmann, D.R. 2004. Reactance to Recommendations: When Unsolicited Advice Yields Contra-ry Responses. Marketing Science. 23, 1, 82--94. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1030.0033 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fogg, B. 2003. Persuasive technology/: using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jameson, A. 2003. Adaptive interfaces and agents. Human-computer interaction handbook. J. A. Jacko and A. Sears, eds. Laurence Earlbaum Ass., New York, NY. 305--330. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jones, N. et al. 2009. How Users Perceive and Appraise Per-sonalized Recommendations. User Modeling, Adaptation, and Personalization. G.-J. Houben et al., eds. Springer, Hei-delberg, Germany. 461--466. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02247-0_53 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kamis, A. and Davern, M.J. 2004. Personalizing to product category knowledge: exploring the mediating effect of shop-ping tools on decision confidence. Proc. of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 10 pp. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265476 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Knijnenburg, B.P. and Willemsen, M.C. 2010. The effect of preference elicitation methods on the user experience of a recommender system. Extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, NY, 3457--3462. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1753846.1754001 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Knijnenburg, B.P. and Willemsen, M.C. 2009. Understand-ing the effect of adaptive preference elicitation methods on user satisfaction of a recommender system. Proc. of the third ACM conf. on Recommender systems. ACM, New York, NY, 381--384. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1639714.1639793 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Knijnenburg, B.P. et al. Explaining the user experience of recommender systems. Accepted to User Modeling and Us-er-Adapted Interaction. http://t.co/cC5qPr9 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Komiak, S.Y.X. and Benbasat, I. 2006. The effects of per-sonalization and familiarity on trust and adoption of recommendation agents. Mis Quarterly. 30, 4, 941--960. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kramer, T. 2007. The Effect of Measurement Task Transparency on Preference Construction and Evaluations of Personalized Recommendations. J. of Marketing Research. 44, 2, 224--233. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.2.224Google ScholarCross Ref
- McNee, S.M. et al. 2002. On the recommending of citations for research papers. Proc. of the 2002 ACM conf. on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, New York, NY, 116--125. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/587078.587096 Google ScholarDigital Library
- McNee, S.M. et al. 2003. Interfaces for Eliciting New User Preferences in Recommender Systems. User Modeling 2003. P. Brusilovsky et al., eds. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany. 178--187. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/3-540-44963-9_24 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Pereira, R.E. 2000. Optimizing human-computer interaction for the electronic commerce environment. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research. 1, 1, 23--44.Google Scholar
- Pu, P. et al. 2008. Evaluating product search and recom-mender systems for E-commerce environments. Electronic Commerce Research. 8, 1-2, 1-27. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10660-008-9015-z Google ScholarDigital Library
- Randall, T. et al. 2007. User Design of Customized Products. Marketing Science. 26, 2, 268--280. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1050.0116 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Reijmer, N.J.M. Willemsen, M.C. and Knijnenburg, B.P. The effect of user characteristics on the satisfaction of different interaction methods for recommender systems. Technical report. http://bit.ly/ofPenDGoogle Scholar
- Schwartz, B. 2004. The paradox of choice why more is less. HarperCollins, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- Schwartz, B. et al. 2002. Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 83, 5, 1178--1197. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.5.1178Google ScholarCross Ref
- Spiekermann, S. and Paraschiv, C. 2002. Motivating human-agent interaction: Transferring insights from behavioral marketing to interface design. Electronic Commerce Res. 2, 3, 255--285. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1016062632182 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Vries, P. 2004. Trust in systems: effects of direct and indirect information. PhD thesis. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.Google Scholar
- Wang, W. and Benbasat, I. 2007. Recommendation agents for electronic commerce: Effects of explanation facilities on trusting beliefs. J. of Manage. Inform. Syst. 23, 4, 217--246. DOI= http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222230410 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Xiao, B. and Benbasat, I. 2007. E-commerce Product Rec-ommendation Agents: Use, Characteristics, and Impact. Mis Quarterly. 31, 1, 137--209. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Each to his own: how different users call for different interaction methods in recommender systems
Recommendations
Inspectability and control in social recommenders
RecSys '12: Proceedings of the sixth ACM conference on Recommender systemsUsers of social recommender systems may want to inspect and control how their social relationships influence the recommendations they receive, especially since recommendations of social recommenders are based on friends rather than anonymous "nearest ...
A 3D Item Space Visualization for Presenting and Manipulating User Preferences in Collaborative Filtering
IUI '17: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User InterfacesWhile conventional Recommender Systems perform well in automatically generating personalized suggestions, it is often difficult for users to understand why certain items are recommended and which parts of the item space are covered by the ...
Understanding the role of latent feature diversification on choice difficulty and satisfaction
People like variety and often prefer to choose from large item sets. However, large sets can cause a phenomenon called "choice overload": they are more difficult to choose from, and as a result decision makers are less satisfied with their choices. It ...
Comments