ABSTRACT
The use of recommendation systems is widespread in online commerce. Depending on the algorithm that is used in the recommender system different types of data are recorded from user interactions. Typically, better recommendations are achieved when more detailed data about the user and product is available. However, users are often unaware of what data is stored and how it is used in recommendation. In a survey study with 197 participants we introduced different recommendation techniques (collaborative filtering, content-based recommendation, trust-based and social recommendation) to the users and asked participants to rate what type of algorithm should be used for what type of product category (books, mobile phones, contraceptives). We found different patterns of preferences for different product categories. The more sensitive the product the higher the preference for content-based filtering approaches that could work without storing personal data. Trust-based and social approaches utilizing data from social media were generally rejected.
Supplemental Material
Available for Download
Supplemental files.
- Gediminas Adomavicius and Alexander Tuzhilin. 2005. Toward the next generation of recommender systems: A survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions. IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering 17, 6 (2005), 734--749. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Frederik Aust and Marius Barth. 2018. papaja: Create APA manuscripts with R Markdown. https://github.com/crsh/papaja R package version 0.1.0.9709.Google Scholar
- Guido Beier. 1999. Kontrollüberzeugungen im Umgang mit Technik. Report Psychologie 9 (1999), 684--693.Google Scholar
- Robin Burke. 2002. Hybrid Recommender Systems: Survey and Experiments. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 12, 4 (Nov. 2002), 331--370. Google ScholarDigital Library
- André Calero Valdez and Martina Ziele. 2018. The users' perspective on the privacy-utility trade-offs in health recommender systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies (2018).Google Scholar
- André Calero Valdez, Martina Ziele, and Katrien Verbert. 2016. HCI for Recommender Systems: The Past, the Present and the Future. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 123--126. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Geoff Cumming. 2014. The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological science 25, 1 (2014), 7--29.Google Scholar
- Robert F DeVellis. 2016. Scale development: Theory and applications. Vol. 26. Sage publications.Google Scholar
- Kevin Hamilton, Karrie Karahalios, Christian Sandvig, and Motahhare Eslami. 2014. A path to understanding the effects of algorithm awareness. In CHI'14 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 631--642. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jonathan L Herlocker, Joseph A Konstan, and John Riedl. 2000. Explaining collaborative filtering recommendations. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM, 241--250. Google ScholarDigital Library
- FO Isinkaye, YO Folajimi, and BA Ojokoh. 2015. Recommendation systems: Principles, methods and evaluation. Egyptian Informatics Journal 16, 3 (2015), 261--273.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yuan Li. 2014. The impact of disposition to privacy, website reputation and website familiarity on information privacy concerns. Decision Support Systems 57, 1 (2014), 343--354. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Greg Linden, Brent Smith, and Jeremy York. 2003. Amazon. com recommendations: Item-to-item collaborative filtering. IEEE Internet computing 7, 1 (2003), 76--80. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jie Lu, Dianshuang Wu, Mingsong Mao, Wei Wang, and Guangquan Zhang. 2015. Recommender system application developments: a survey. Decision Support Systems 74 (2015), 12--32. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D Harrison McKnight, Vivek Choudhury, and Charles Kacmar. 2002. Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information systems research 13, 3 (2002), 334--359. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sean M McNee, John Riedl, and Joseph A Konstan. 2006. Being accurate is not enough: how accuracy metrics have hurt recommender systems. In CHI'06 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 1097--1101. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Frank McSherry and Ilya Mironov. 2009. Differentially private recommender systems: Building privacy into the netflix prize contenders. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining. ACM, 627--636. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Richard D Morey et al. 2008. Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). reason 4, 2 (2008), 61--64.Google Scholar
- Anthony Morton. 2013. Measuring inherent privacy concern and Desire for Privacy: A pilot survey study of an instrument to measure Dispositional Privacy Concern. Proceedings - SocialCom/PASSAT/BigData/EconCom/BioMedCom 2013 (2013), 468--477. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Helen Nissenbaum. 2011. A contextual approach to privacy online. Daedalus 140, 4 (2011), 32--48.Google ScholarCross Ref
- John O'Donovan and Barry Smyth. 2005. Trust in recommender systems. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces. ACM, 167--174. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jose Pinheiro, Douglas Bates, Saikat DebRoy, Deepayan Sarkar, and R Core Team. 2018. nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme R package version 3.1-137.Google Scholar
- Anne Kathrin Schaar, André Calero Valdez, and Martina Ziele. 2013. The impact of user diversity on the willingness to disclose personal information in social network services. In Human factors in computing and informatics. Springer, 174--193.Google Scholar
- Viswanath Venkatesh, James YL Thong, and Xin Xu. 2012. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS quarterly (2012), 157--178. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Heng Xu, Tamara Dinev, H. J. Smith, and Paul Hart. 2008. Examining the formation of individual's privacy concerns: Toward an integrative view. International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) 2008 Proceedings (2008), 1--16.Google Scholar
- Jinjuan ZHOU, Meili TANG, Yuan TIAN, Abdullah AL-DHELAAN, Mznah ALRODHAAN, Sungyoung LEE, et al. 2015. Social network and tag sources based augmenting collaborative recommender system. IEICE transactions on Information and Systems 98, 4 (2015), 902--910.Google Scholar
Index Terms
User preferences in recommendation algorithms: the influence of user diversity, trust, and product category on privacy perceptions in recommender algorithms
Recommendations
Hybrid Trust-Aware Model for Personalized Top-N Recommendation
CODS '17: Proceedings of the 4th ACM IKDD Conferences on Data SciencesDue to the large quantity and diversity of content being easily available to users, recommender systems (RS) have become an integral part of nearly every online system. They allow users to resolve the information overload problem by proactively ...
The effects of transparency on trust in and acceptance of a content-based art recommender
The increasing availability of (digital) cultural heritage artefacts offers great potential for increased access to art content, but also necessitates tools to help users deal with such abundance of information. User-adaptive art recommender systems aim ...
A social recommendation method based on an adaptive neighbor selection mechanism
An adaptive neighbor selection mechanism is proposed for recommender systems.The proposed method incorporates social information into recommendation process.The quality of predicted ratings is evaluated using a reliability measure.A new confidence model ...
Comments