Towards Psychologically-Grounded Dynamic Preference Models

Designing recommendation systems that serve content aligned with time varying preferences requires proper accounting of the feedback effects of recommendations on human behavior and psychological condition. We argue that modeling the influence of recommendations on people’s preferences must be grounded in psychologically plausible models. We contribute a methodology for developing grounded dynamic preference models. We demonstrate this method with models that capture three classic effects from the psychology literature: Mere-Exposure, Operant Conditioning, and Hedonic Adaptation. We conduct simulation-based studies to show that the psychological models manifest distinct behaviors that can inform system design. Our study has two direct implications for dynamic user modeling in recommendation systems. First, the methodology we outline is broadly applicable for psychologically grounding dynamic preference models. It allows us to critique recent contributions based on their limited discussion of psychological foundation and their implausible predictions. Second, we discuss implications of dynamic preference models for recommendation systems evaluation and design. In an example, we show that engagement and diversity metrics may be unable to capture desirable recommendation system performance.

[1]  Jan Willem Polderman,et al.  The Closed Loop Between Opinion Formation and Personalized Recommendations , 2018, IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems.

[2]  Dominik Kowald,et al.  Psychology-informed Recommender Systems , 2021, Found. Trends Inf. Retr..

[3]  Dylan Hadfield-Menell,et al.  Estimating and Penalizing Preference Shift in Recommender Systems , 2021, RecSys.

[4]  Jürgen Ziegler,et al.  The Dual Echo Chamber: Modeling Social Media Polarization for Interventional Recommending , 2021, RecSys.

[5]  Jakub Simko,et al.  An Audit of Misinformation Filter Bubbles on YouTube: Bubble Bursting and Recent Behavior Changes , 2021, RecSys.

[6]  Dimitris Kalimeris,et al.  Preference Amplification in Recommender Systems , 2021, KDD.

[7]  Lu Cheng,et al.  Mechanisms and Attributes of Echo Chambers in Social Media , 2021, ArXiv.

[8]  Mounia Lalmas,et al.  Where To Next? A Dynamic Model of User Preferences , 2021, WWW.

[9]  Christian Grimme,et al.  Is YouTube Still a Radicalizer? An Exploratory Study on Autoplay and Recommendation , 2021, MISDOOM.

[10]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Evaluating the scale, growth, and origins of right-wing echo chambers on YouTube , 2020, ArXiv.

[11]  Emil Noordeh,et al.  Echo Chambers in Collaborative Filtering Based Recommendation Systems , 2020, ArXiv.

[12]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Do Offline Metrics Predict Online Performance in Recommender Systems? , 2020, ArXiv.

[13]  Dietmar Jannach,et al.  Digital Nudging with Recommender Systems: Survey and Future Directions , 2020, Computers in Human Behavior Reports.

[14]  Jie Yang,et al.  Are We Evaluating Rigorously? Benchmarking Recommendation for Reproducible Evaluation and Fair Comparison , 2020, RecSys.

[15]  J. Irwin,et al.  All eyes on you: The social audience and hedonic adaptation , 2020 .

[16]  Ro’ee Levy Social Media, News Consumption, and Polarization: Evidence from a Field Experiment , 2020, American Economic Review.

[17]  Anna Zaitsev,et al.  Algorithmic Extremism: Examining YouTube's Rabbit Hole of Radicalization , 2019, First Monday.

[18]  Virgílio A. F. Almeida,et al.  Auditing radicalization pathways on YouTube , 2019, FAT*.

[19]  Hongyuan Zha,et al.  Recurrent Poisson Factorization for Temporal Recommendation , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[20]  B. Bernheim,et al.  A Theory of Chosen Preferences , 2020, American Economic Review.

[21]  Olivier Jeunen Revisiting offline evaluation for implicit-feedback recommender systems , 2019, RecSys.

[22]  Luke Munn,et al.  Alt-right pipeline: Individual journeys to extremism online , 2019, First Monday.

[23]  Tor Lattimore,et al.  Degenerate Feedback Loops in Recommender Systems , 2019, AIES.

[24]  Alexander Torgovitsky Nonparametric Inference on State Dependence in Unemployment , 2019, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[25]  Jan Lorenz,et al.  The triple‐filter bubble: Using agent‐based modelling to test a meta‐theoretical framework for the emergence of filter bubbles and echo chambers , 2018, The British journal of social psychology.

[26]  Barbara E. Engelhardt,et al.  How algorithmic confounding in recommendation systems increases homogeneity and decreases utility , 2017, RecSys.

[27]  G. Foxall Behavioral Economics in Consumer Behavior Analysis , 2017, The Behavior Analyst.

[28]  Fabio Stella,et al.  Contrasting Offline and Online Results when Evaluating Recommendation Algorithms , 2016, RecSys.

[29]  Elad Hazan,et al.  Introduction to Online Convex Optimization , 2016, Found. Trends Optim..

[30]  B. Skinner,et al.  The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis , 2016 .

[31]  Julie R. Irwin,et al.  Happily Ever After: The Effect of Identity-Consistency on Product Satiation , 2015 .

[32]  David M. Blei,et al.  Dynamic Poisson Factorization , 2015, RecSys.

[33]  Jeff Galak,et al.  Sentimental value and its influence on hedonic adaptation. , 2015, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[34]  Boi Faltings,et al.  Offline and online evaluation of news recommender systems at swissinfo.ch , 2014, RecSys '14.

[35]  Loren G. Terveen,et al.  Exploring the filter bubble: the effect of using recommender systems on content diversity , 2014, WWW.

[36]  Jöran Beel,et al.  A comparative analysis of offline and online evaluations and discussion of research paper recommender system evaluation , 2013, RepSys '13.

[37]  P. Hekkert,et al.  The mere exposure effect for consumer products as a consequence of existing familiarity and controlled exposure. , 2013, Acta psychologica.

[38]  David Lee,et al.  Biased assimilation, homophily, and the dynamics of polarization , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[39]  Eli Pariser,et al.  The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think , 2012 .

[40]  G. Foxall,et al.  A study of preferences in a simulated online shopping experiment , 2011 .

[41]  Floyd C. Mace,et al.  Schedules of reinforcement , 2011 .

[42]  G. Foxall Invitation to Consumer Behavior Analysis , 2010 .

[43]  Christoph Stahl,et al.  Mix me a list: Context moderates the truth effect and the mere-exposure effect , 2009 .

[44]  Stephen Marsland,et al.  Using habituation in machine learning , 2009, Neurobiology of Learning and Memory.

[45]  Jieping Ye,et al.  Tensor Completion for Estimating Missing Values in Visual Data , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[46]  Yehuda Koren,et al.  Collaborative filtering with temporal dynamics , 2009, KDD.

[47]  Leif D. Nelson,et al.  Interrupted Consumption: Disrupting Adaptation to Hedonic Experiences , 2008 .

[48]  Xiang Fang,et al.  An examination of different explanations for the mere exposure effect , 2007 .

[49]  Christie L. Nordhielm The Influence of Level of Processing on Advertising Repetition Effects , 2002 .

[50]  Dena S Cox,et al.  Beyond first impressions: The effects of repeated exposure on consumer liking of visually complex and simple product designs , 2002 .

[51]  K. Maich,et al.  Applied Behavior Analysis , 2018, Reference Module in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Psychology.

[52]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Well-being : the foundations of hedonic psychology , 1999 .

[53]  R. Bornstein Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. , 1989 .

[54]  J. Kafka The Cognitive Unconscious , 1987, Science.

[55]  D. Campbell,et al.  Hedonic relativism and planning the good society , 1971 .

[56]  R. Zajonc Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. , 1968 .

[57]  E. Jaynes Information Theory and Statistical Mechanics , 1957 .

[58]  C. B. Ferster,et al.  Schedules of reinforcement , 1957 .

[59]  P. R. Fuller,et al.  Operant conditioning of a vegetative human organism. , 1949, The American journal of psychology.

[60]  H. Helson Adaptation-level as frame of reference for prediction of psychophysical data. , 1947, The American journal of psychology.