Impacts of Decoy Effects on the Decision Making Ability

Decision support systems found on many e-sales platforms, such as recommender- or configuration systems follow the aim of calculating and suggesting the best solution for a decision task (e.g. optimal product or service). When the optimality of the solution is defined in a multi-dimensional way(i.e. depending on multiple factors), calculating a single optimal solution item is typically not sufficient or representative. For example, the optimal product can be subject to price, availability, quality features, and many others. For such decision tasks it is normally more appropriate to come up with a set of possible solutions which the decision maker has to choose from. In decision situations with many solutions offering different advantages and disadvantages severe decision dilemmas may occur which can paralyze or delay decision making. Also the objectivity can be blurred as different decision biases can occur. This paper introduces the notion of decoy effects as one family of decision biases which not only impact on the decision outcome but also on the self confidence in decision making. Based on the results of a corresponding user experiment, an in-depth-analysis of the influences of decoy effects on the decision taking ability is given. To this end, the interactions of decoy effects, solution set size, decoy minimization (i.e. the concept of adding mutually neutralizing decoys), time consumption for decision making, and the self confidence in a decision situation are investigated. As significant impacts on the decision-taking ability can be shown, this paper forms the grounding forth implementation of intelligent mechanisms for customized decision support in terms of decision time, decision confidence, and objectivity.

[1]  Allan D. Shocker,et al.  Toward understanding the attraction effect: The implications of product stimulus meaningfulness and familiarity. , 1987 .

[2]  I. Simonson,et al.  Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects , 1989 .

[3]  Alexander Felfernig,et al.  Calculating Decoy Items in Utility-Based Recommendation , 2009, IEA/AIE.

[4]  Alexander Felfernig,et al.  Impacts of decoy elements on result set evaluations in knowledge-based recommendation , 2009, Int. J. Adv. Intell. Paradigms.

[5]  John W. Payne,et al.  The adaptive decision maker: Name index , 1993 .

[6]  Michael J. Pazzani,et al.  Learning and Revising User Profiles: The Identification of Interesting Web Sites , 1997, Machine Learning.

[7]  Alexander Felfernig,et al.  Asymmetric Dominance- and Compromise Effects in the Financial Services Domain , 2009, 2009 IEEE Conference on Commerce and Enterprise Computing.

[8]  Markus Stumptner,et al.  Configuration knowledge representations for Semantic Web applications , 2003, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[9]  P. Duttweiler,et al.  The Internal Control Index: A Newly Developed Measure of Locus of Control , 1984 .

[10]  Jonathan L. Herlocker,et al.  Evaluating collaborative filtering recommender systems , 2004, TOIS.

[11]  W. Edwards,et al.  Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research , 1986 .

[12]  Robin Burke,et al.  Knowledge-based recommender systems , 2000 .

[13]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choice in Context: Tradeoff Contrast and Extremeness Aversion , 1992 .

[14]  Alexander Felfernig,et al.  The asymmetric dominance effect and its role in e-tourism recommender applications , 2009 .

[15]  Alexander Felfernig,et al.  Minimization of Product Utility Estimation Errors in Recommender Result Set Evaluations , 2009, 2009 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology.

[16]  N. Klein,et al.  Context Effects on Effort and Accuracy in Choice: An Enquiry into Adaptive Decision Making , 1989 .

[17]  Shiu-li Huang.  Comparision of Utility-Based Recommendation Methods , 2008, PACIS.

[18]  David L. Schwarzkopf.  The Effects of Attraction on Investment Decisions , 2003 .

[19]  Oded Netzer,et al.  Alternative Models for Capturing the Compromise Effect , 2004 .

[20]  Daniel Sabin,et al.  Product Configuration Frameworks - A Survey , 1998, IEEE Intell. Syst..

[21]  Dan Ariely,et al.  Seeking Subjective Dominance in Multidimensional Space: An Explanation of the Asymmetric Dominance Effect , 1995 .

[22]  B. Schwartz,et al.  Maximizing Versus Satisficing : Happiness Is a Matter of Choice , 2002 .

[23]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  The adaptive decision maker , 1993 .

[24]  Izak Benbasat,et al.  Comparing Persuasiveness of Different Recommendation Agents As Customer Decision Support Systems in Electronic Commerce , 2004 .

[25]  Alexander Felfernig,et al.  A Dominance Model for the Calculation of Decoy Products in Recommendation Environments , 2008 .

[26]  Michael J. Sherrard,et al.  The role of sensation seeking and need for cognition on web-site evaluations : a resource-matching perspective , 2005 .

[27]  Christopher P. Puto,et al.  Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity & the Similarity Hypothesis. , 1981 .

[28]  Mathias Bauer,et al.  The MAUT-Machine: An Adaptive Recommender System , 2002 .