An empirical examination of the influence of biased personalized product recommendations on consumers' decision making outcomes

Abstract To assist consumers in product search and selection while shopping online, many e-commerce retailers have implemented web-based product recommendation agents (PRAs). However, consumers are empowered to the extent that the PRAs provide true personalization by recommending products based solely on, and thus best representing, consumers' preferences. This study constructs and empirically tests a theoretical model that examines how biased recommendations from PRAs influence consumers' decision quality and decision effort . The results of an online experiment show that consumers are extremely vulnerable to biased personalized recommendations from online PRAs. In addition, our results extend prior research by identifying perceived personalization as a critical mechanism driving the influence of biased PRA on consumers' decision quality and decision effort. This study fills a void in the literature and calls attention to an insidious form of manipulation made possible by innovative technologies supporting e-commerce.

[1]  Yubo Chen,et al.  Online Consumer Review: Word-of-Mouth as a New Element of Marketing Communication Mix , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[2]  Monideepa Tarafdar,et al.  Editorial , 2015, Inf. Syst. J..

[3]  James Y. L. Thong,et al.  Internet Privacy Concerns: An Integrated Conceptualization and Four Empirical Studies , 2013, MIS Q..

[4]  G. Oakes,et al.  The sales process and the paradoxes of trust , 1990 .

[5]  Valerie J. Trifts,et al.  Consumer Decision Making in Online Shopping Environments: The Effects of Interactive Decision Aids , 2000 .

[6]  Merrie Brucks,et al.  Selective Recall and Information Use in Consumer Preferences , 1992 .

[7]  Galit Shmueli,et al.  Research Commentary - Too Big to Fail: Large Samples and the p-Value Problem , 2013, Inf. Syst. Res..

[8]  Roderick M. Kramer,et al.  Collective Identity, Collective Trust, and Social Capital: Linking Group Identification and Group Cooperation , 2014 .

[9]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[10]  Robert W. Zmud,et al.  Inducing Sensitivity to Deception in Order to Improve Decision Making Performance: A Field Study , 2002, MIS Q..

[11]  Monideepa Tarafdar,et al.  Editorial: Dark side of information technology use , 2015 .

[12]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[13]  S. Sénécal,et al.  The influence of online product recommendations on consumers' online choices , 2004 .

[14]  Shuk Ying Ho,et al.  Understanding the Impact of Web Personalization on User Information Processing and Decision Outcomes , 2006, MIS Q..

[15]  Gang Xu,et al.  A Visitor's Guide to Effect Sizes – Statistical Significance Versus Practical (Clinical) Importance of Research Findings , 2004, Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice.

[16]  Gerald Häubl,et al.  "Double Agents": Assessing the Role of Electronic Product Recommendation Systems , 2005 .

[17]  Pattie Maes,et al.  Agents that reduce work and information overload , 1994, CACM.

[18]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[19]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Recommendation Agents for Electronic Commerce: Effects of Explanation Facilities on Trusting Beliefs , 2007, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[20]  Gerrit van Bruggen,et al.  DSS Effectiveness in Marketing Resource Allocation Decisions: Reality vs. Perception , 2004, Inf. Syst. Res..

[21]  Shuk Ying Ho,et al.  Personalization and choice behavior: the role of personality traits , 2008, DATB.

[22]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  The Effects of Personalizaion and Familiarity on Trust and Adoption of Recommendation Agents , 2006, MIS Q..

[23]  John G. Lynch,et al.  Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis , 2010 .

[24]  Paul Benjamin Lowry,et al.  Increasing Accountability Through User-Interface Design Artifacts: A New Approach to Addressing the Problem of Access-Policy Violations , 2015, MIS Q..

[25]  D. J. Hill,et al.  Electronic decision aids: Integration of a consumer perspective , 1994 .

[26]  Detmar W. Straub,et al.  A Practical Guide To Factorial Validity Using PLS-Graph: Tutorial And Annotated Example , 2005, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[27]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Product-Related Deception in E-Commerce: A Theoretical Perspective , 2011, MIS Q..

[28]  Rex Eugene Perera.  Optimizing Human-Computer Interaction for the Electronic Commerce Environment , 2000, J. Electron. Commer. Res..

[29]  A. Hayes.  Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium , 2009 .

[30]  Weiquan Wang.  Design of trustworthy online recommendation agents: explanation facilities and decision strategy support , 2005 .

[31]  Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli,et al.  Does the Users' Tendency to Seek Information Affect Recommender Systems' Performance? , 2017, J. Univers. Comput. Sci..

[32]  Jianan Wu,et al.  How well do shopbots represent online markets? A study of shopbots’ vendor coverage strategy , 2010, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[33]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  E-Commerce Product Recommendation Agents: Use, Characteristics, and Impact , 2007, MIS Q..

[34]  Eli Cohen,et al.  The perceived utility of information presented via electronic decision aids: A consumer perspective , 1996 .

[35]  Shuk Ying Ho,et al.  Examining the effects of malfunctioning personalized services on online users' distrust and behaviors , 2013, Decis. Support Syst..

[36]  P. D. Pechpeyrou.  How consumers value online personalization: a longitudinal experiment , 2009 .

[37]  Nancy B. Kurland.  Trust, Accountability, and Sales Agents’ Dueling Loyalties , 1996, Business Ethics Quarterly.

[38]  Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa,et al.  Consumer and Business Deception on the Internet: Content Analysis of Documentary Evidence , 2003, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

[39]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Assessing Screening and Evaluation Decision Support Systems: A Resource-Matching Approach , 2010, Inf. Syst. Res..

[40]  S. West,et al.  A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. , 2002, Psychological methods.

[41]  H. Raghav Rao,et al.  Community Intelligence and Social Media Services: A Rumor Theoretic Analysis of Tweets During Social Crises , 2013, MIS Q..

[42]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Research Note: The Influence of Recommendations and Consumer Reviews on Evaluations of Websites , 2006, Inf. Syst. Res..

[43]  Ting Li,et al.  Willing to pay for quality personalization? Trade-off between quality and privacy , 2012, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[44]  Cong Li,et al.  When does web-based personalization really work? The distinction between actual personalization and perceived personalization , 2016, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[45]  Yili Hong,et al.  Product Fit Uncertainty in Online Markets: Nature, Effects and Antecedents , 2014, Inf. Syst. Res..

[46]  Kai Riemer,et al.  Biased Listing in Electronic Marketplaces: Exploring Its Implications in On-Line Hotel Distribution , 2009, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

[47]  Fernando R. Jiménez,et al.  Too Popular to Ignore: The Influence of Online Reviews on Purchase Intentions of Search and Experience Products , 2013 .

[48]  M. F. Luce,et al.  Constructive Consumer Choice Processes , 1998 .

[49]  Shawn P. Curley,et al.  Do Recommender Systems Manipulate Consumer Preferences? A Study of Anchoring Effects , 2013, Inf. Syst. Res..

[50]  S. Sundar,et al.  Personalization versus Customization: The Importance of Agency, Privacy, and Power Usage , 2010 .

[51]  Shawn P. Curley,et al.  Exploring Explanation Effects on Consumers’ Trust in Online Recommender Agents , 2018, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[52]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  Effect size measures for mediation models: quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. , 2011, Psychological methods.

[53]  Ingoo Han,et al.  The Effect of On-Line Consumer Reviews on Consumer Purchasing Intention: The Moderating Role of Involvement , 2007, Int. J. Electron. Commer..

[54]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Interactive Decision Aids for Consumer Decision Making in E-Commerce: The Influence of Perceived Strategy Restrictiveness , 2009, MIS Q..

[55]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Research on the Use, Characteristics, and Impact of e-Commerce Product Recommendation Agents: A Review and Update for 2007–2012 , 2014 .

[56]  G. Häubl,et al.  Preference Construction and Persistence in Digital Marketplaces: The Role of Electronic Recommendation Agents , 2003 .

[57]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Designing Warning Messages for Detecting Biased Online Product Recommendations: An Empirical Investigation , 2015, Inf. Syst. Res..

[58]  Shuk Ying Ho,et al.  Web Personalization as a Persuasion Strategy: An Elaboration Likelihood Model Perspective , 2005, Inf. Syst. Res..

[59]  Nancy B. Kurland.  The ethical implications of the straight-commission compensation system — An agency perspective , 1991 .

[60]  William R. Cupach,et al.  The Influence of Compensation on Product Recommendations Made by Insurance Agents , 2006 .

[61]  Steven J. Plimpton,et al.  Massively parallel methods for engineering and science problems , 1994, CACM.