Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Consumer decision making in knowledge-based recommendation

  • Published:
Journal of Intelligent Information Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In contrast to customers of bricks and mortar stores, users of online selling environments are not supported by human sales experts. In such situations recommender applications help to identify the products and/or services that fit the user’s wishes and needs. In order to successfully apply recommendation technologies we have to develop an in-depth understanding of decision strategies of users. These decision strategies are explained in different models of human decision making. In this paper we provide an overview of selected models and discuss their importance for recommender system development. Furthermore, we provide an outlook on future research issues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. Note that we use the robot product domain in the following examples.

  2. www.pandora.com

References

  • Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 41, 258–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R., & Koren, Y. (2007). Improved neighborhood-based collaborative filtering. 1st KDDCup’07, San Jose, California.

  • Bertini, M., & Wathieu, L. (2006). The framing effect of price format. Working Paper, Harvard Business School.

  • Bettman, J. R., & Kakkar, P. (1977). Effects of information presentation format on consumer information acquisition strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 3, 233–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, J., Luce, M., & Payne, J. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 187–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, J. R., Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1991). Consumer decision making. Handbook of consumer behavior (pp. 50–84).

  • Burke, R. (2000). Knowledge-based recommender systems. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Systems, 69(32), 180–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, R. (2002). Hybrid recommender systems: Survey and experiments. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 12(4), 331–370.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, L., & Pu, P. (2005). Trust building in recommender agents. 1st international workshop on web personalization, recommender systems and intelligent user interfaces (WPRSIUI’05) (pp. 135–145). Reading, UK.

  • Chen, L., & Pu, P. (2007). The evaluation of a hybrid critiquing system with preference-based recommendations organization. 1st ACM conference on recommender systems (pp. 169–172). Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

  • Crowder, R. G. (1976). Principles of learning and memory. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebbinghaus, H. (1964). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. New York: Dover. (Original work published 1885).

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel, J. F., Kollat, D. J., & Blackwell, R. D. (1968). Consumer behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erasmus, A. C., Boshoff, E., & Rousseau, G. G. (2001). Consumer decision-making models within the discipline of consumer science: A critical approach. Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, 29, 82–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felfernig, A., & Burke, R. (2008). Constraint-based recommender systems: Technologies and research issues. ACM international conference on electronic commerce (ICEC’08), Aug. 19–22 (pp. 1–8). Innsbruck, Austria.

  • Felfernig, A., Friedrich, G., Jannach, D., & Stumptner, M. (2004). Consistency-based diagnosis of configuration knowledge bases. Artificial Intelligence, 2(152), 213–234.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Felfernig, A., Friedrich, G., Gula, B., Hitz, M., Kruggel, T., Melcher, R., et al. (2007). Persuasive recommendation: Exploring serial position effects in knowledge-based recommender systems. 2nd international conference of persuasive technology (Persuasive 2007) (Vol. 4744, pp. 283–294). Springer.

  • Felfernig, A., Gula, B., Leitner, G., Maier, M., Melcher, R., Schippel, S., et al. (2008a). A dominance model for the calculation of decoy products in recommendation environments. AISB 2008 symposium on persuasive technology (pp. 43–50).

  • Felfernig, A., Teppan, E., Leitner, G., Melcher, R., Gula, B., & Maier, M. (2008b). Persuasion in knowledge-based recommendation. 2nd international conference on persuasive technologies (Persuasive 2008) (Vol. 5033, pp. 71–82).

  • Felfernig, A., Friedrich, G., Schubert, M., Mandl, M., Mairitsch, M., & Teppan, E. (2009). Plausible repairs for inconsistent requirements. 21st international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’09) (pp. 791–796). Pasadena, California, USA.

  • Felfernig, A., Mandl, M., Tiihonen, J., Schubert, M., & Leitner, G. (2010). Personalized user interfaces for product configuration. International conference on intelligent user interfaces (IUI’2010) (pp. 317–320).

  • Ganzach, Y., & Schul, Y. (1995). The influence of quantity of information and goal framing on decision. Acta Psychologica, 89, 23–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, A., Heitmann, M., & Polak, B. (2007). The power of defaults. Absatzwirtschaft, 6, 46–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. N. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J., Payne, W., & Puto, C. (1982). Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 90–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huffman, C., & Kahn, B. (1998). Variety for sale: Mass customization or mass confusion. Journal of Retailing, 74(4), 491–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, J., Speller, D. E., & Kohn, C. A. (1974a). Brand choice behavior as a function of information load. Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 63–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, J., Speller, D. E., & Berning, C. K. (1974b). Brand choice behavior as a function of information load: Replication and extension. Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 33–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J., & Thaler, R. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassarjian, H. (1982). The development of consumer behavior theory. Advances in Consumer Research, 9(1), 20–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konstan, J., Miller, B., Maltz, D., Herlocker, J., Gordon, L., & Riedl, J. (1997). GroupLens: Applying collaborative filtering to Usenet news Full text. Communications of the ACM, 40(3), 77–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, B. K., & Lee, W. N. (2004). The effect of information overload on consumer choice quality in an on-line environment. Psychology & Marketing, 21(3), 159–183.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 374–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, I., Schneider, S., & Gaeth, G. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Processes, 76, 90–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linden, G., Smith, B., & York, J. (2003). Amazon.com recommendations: Item-to-item collaborative filtering. IEEE Internet Computing, 7, 76–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lussier, D. A., & Olshavsky, R. W. (1979). Task complexity and contingent processing in brand choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 154–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marteau, T. M. (1980). Framing of information: Its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 89–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McSherry, D. (2004). Maximally successful relaxations of unsuccessful queries. 15th conf. on artificial intelligence and cognitive science (pp. 127–136). Galway, Ireland.

  • Murphy, J., Hofacker, C., & Mizerski, R. (2006). Primacy and recency effects on clicking behavior. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(2), 522–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Nicosia, F. (1966). Consumer decision process: Marketing and advertising implications. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, B., Papadopoulos, A., Faltings, B., & Pu, P. (2007). Representative explanations for over-constrained problems. AAAI’07 (pp. 323–328).

  • Payne, J. W. (1976). Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 366–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J., Bettman, J., & Johnson, E. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pazzani, M., & Billsus, D. (1997). Learning and revising user profiles: The identification of interesting web sites. Machine Learning, 27, 313–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piñón, A., & Gärling, T. (2004). Effects of mood on adoption of loss frame in risky choice. Göteborg Psychological Reports, 34, No. 5.

  • Reilly, J., Zhang, J., McGinty, L., Pu, P., & Smyth, B. (2007). A comparison of two compound critiquing systems. 12th international conference on intelligent user interfaces (IUI’07) (pp. 317–320). Honolulu, Hawaii.

  • Richarme, M. (2005). Consumer decision-making models, strategies, and theories. Oh My! Quirks Marketing Research.

  • Ritov, I., & Baron, J. (1992). Status-quo and omission biases. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(2), 49–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roe, R., Busemeyer, J., & Townsend, T. (2001). Multialternative decision field theory: A dynamic connectionist model of decision making. Psychological Review, 1, 7–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo, J. E. (1974). More information is better: A reevaluation of Jacoby, Speller and Kohn. Journal of Consumer Research: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 1, 68–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 108(2), 370–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 281–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summers, J. O. (1974). Less information is better? Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 467–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teppan, E., & Felfernig, A. (2009a). Calculating decoy items in utility-based recommendation (pp. 183–192). Springer LNCS: Next-Generation Applied Intelligence.

  • Teppan, E., & Felfernig, A. (2009b). The asymmetric dominance effect and its role in e-tourism recommender applications, Wirtschaftsinformatik’09 (pp. 791–800). Vienna, Austria.

  • Teppan, E. C., & Felfernig, A. (2009c). Impacts of decoy elements on result set evaluation in knowledge-based recommendation. International Journal of Advanced Intelligence Paradigms, 1, 358–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsang, E. (1993). Foundations of constraint satisfaction. London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, New Series, 211, 453–458.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59(4), 251–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, S., & Simonson, I. (2008). Choice set configuration as a determinant of preference attribution and strength. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 324–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The presented work has been developed within the scope of the research project XPLAIN-IT (funded by the Privatstiftung Kärnter Sparkasse).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Software Technology, Graz University of Technology, Inffeldgasse 16b, 8010, Graz, Austria

    Monika Mandl, Alexander Felfernig & Monika Schubert

  2. Applied Informatics, University of Klagenfurt, Universitätsstrasse 65-67, 9020, Klagenfurt, Austria

    Erich Teppan

Authors
  1. Monika Mandl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexander Felfernig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erich Teppan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Monika Schubert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monika Mandl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mandl, M., Felfernig, A., Teppan, E. et al. Consumer decision making in knowledge-based recommendation. J Intell Inf Syst 37, 1–22 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-010-0134-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-010-0134-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation