Counteracting Serial Position Effects in the CHOICLA Group Decision Support Environment

Decisions are often suboptimal due to the fact that humans apply simple heuristics which cause different types of decision biases. CHOICLA is an environment that supports decision making for groups of users. It supports the determination of recommendations for groups and also includes mechanisms to counteract decision biases. In this paper we give an overview of the CHOICLA environment and report the results of a user study which analyzed two voting strategies with regard to their potential of counteracting serial position (primacy/recency) effects when evaluating decision alternatives.

[1]  Martin Stettinger,et al.  WE-DECIDE: A Decision Support Environment for Groups of Users , 2013, IEA/AIE.

[2]  Alexander Felfernig,et al.  Configuring Decision Tasks , 2014, Configuration Workshop.

[3]  Alexander Felfernig,et al.  Group Decision Support for Requirements Negotiation , 2011, UMAP Workshops.

[4]  Alexander Felfernig,et al.  Automated Analysis in Feature Modelling and Product Configuration , 2013, ICSR.

[5]  Alexander Felfernig,et al.  Consumer decision making in knowledge-based recommendation , 2009, Journal of Intelligent Information Systems.

[6]  Johan Bollen,et al.  Smartocracy: Social Networks for Collective Decision Making , 2007, 2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07).

[7]  A. Tversky,et al.  Context-dependent preferences , 1993 .

[8]  Andreas Mojzisch,et al.  The Negative Effect of Learning the Other Group Members ’ Preferences on Decision Quality , 2010 .

[9]  Martin Stettinger.  Choicla: towards domain-independent decision support for groups of users , 2014, RecSys '14.

[10]  Gerhard Friedrich,et al.  Persuasive Recommendation: Serial Position Effects in Knowledge-Based Recommender Systems , 2007, PERSUASIVE.

[11]  Shawn P. Curley,et al.  Recommender systems, consumer preferences, and anchoring effects , 2011, RecSys 2011.

[12]  James S. Dyer,et al.  Maut — Multiattribute Utility Theory , 2005 .

[13]  José Ramón San Cristóbal Mateo,et al.  Multi-Attribute Utility Theory , 2012 .

[14]  Anthony Jameson,et al.  More than the sum of its members: challenges for group recommender systems , 2004, AVI.

[15]  Markus Stumptner,et al.  An overview of knowledgedbased configuration , 1997 .

[16]  Judith Masthoff,et al.  Group Recommender Systems: Combining Individual Models , 2011, Recommender Systems Handbook.

[17]  Alexander Felfernig,et al.  Minimization of decoy effects in recommender result sets , 2012, Web Intell. Agent Syst..

[18]  Stephen Chan,et al.  VERN: facilitating democratic group decision making online , 2005, GROUP.

[19]  A. Felfernig,et al.  Choicla : Intelligent Decision Support for Groups of Users in the Context of Personnel Decisions , 2014 .

[20]  Jay F. Nunamaker,et al.  Information technology for negotiating groups: generating options for mutual gain , 1991 .

[21]  James T. Miller,et al.  An Empirical Evaluation of the System Usability Scale , 2008, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[22]  Matthias Ehrgott,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys , 2005 .

[23]  Shawn P. Curley,et al.  De-biasing user preference ratings in recommender systems completed research paper , 2014, RecSys 2014.

[24]  Markus Stumptner,et al.  An Overview of Knowledge-Based Configuration , 1997, AI Commun..

[25]  Alexander Felfernig,et al.  Knowledge-Based Recommender Technologies for Marketing and Sales , 2007, Int. J. Pattern Recognit. Artif. Intell..

[26]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Measures of Anchoring in Estimation Tasks , 1995 .

[27]  Charles F. Hofacker,et al.  Primacy and Recency Effects on Clicking Behavior , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..