A configuration-based recommender system for supporting e-commerce decisions

European Journal of Operational Research

Volumn 259, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 205-215

  Scholz, Michael ^a   Dorner, Verena ^b   Schryen, Guido ^c   Benlian, Alexander ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PASSAU   (Germany)

^b KARLSRUHE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF REGENSBURG   (Germany)

^d DARMSTADT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Attribute weights; Configuration system; Decision support; E commerce; Recommender system

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; ELECTRONIC COMMERCE;

ATTRIBUTE IMPORTANCE; ATTRIBUTE WEIGHT; CONFIGURATION SYSTEM; DECISION SUPPORTS; LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS; MULTI-ATTRIBUTE VALUE THEORIES; PRODUCT CONFIGURATION; RECOMMENDATION ACCURACY;

RECOMMENDER SYSTEMS;

EID: 85005931203     PISSN: 03772217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2016.09.057     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Adomavicius, G., Tuzhilin, A., 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.
2. Akaah, I.P., Korgaonkar, P.K., An empirical comparison of the predictive validity of self-explicated, huber-hybrid, traditional conjoint, and hybrid conjoint models. Journal of Marketing Research 20:2 (1983), 187–197.
3. Ansari, A., Essegaier, S., Kohli, R., Internet recommendation systems. Journal of Marketing Research 37:3 (2000), 363–375.
4. Bettman, J., Johnson, E.J., Luce, M.F., Payne, J.W., Correlation, conflict, and choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology 19:4 (1993), 931–951.
5. Borcherding, K., Eppel, T., Von Winterfeldt, D., Comparison of weighting judgments in multiattribute utility measurement. Management Science 37:12 (1991), 1603–1619.
6. Butler, J., Jia, J., Dyer, J., Simulation techniques for the sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria decision models. European Journal of Operational Research 103:3 (1997), 531–545.
7. Dawes, R.M., The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. American Psychologist 34:7 (1979), 571–582.
8. De Bruyn, A., Liechty, J., Huizingh, E., Lilien, G., Offering online recommendations with minimum customer input through conjoint-based decision aids. Marketing Science 27:3 (2008), 443–460.
9. Dellaert, B., Dabholkar, P., Increasing the attractiveness of mass customization: The role of complementary on-line services and range of options. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 13:3 (2009), 43–70.
10. Dellaert, B., Häubl, G., Searchin in choice mode: Consumer decision processes in product search with recommendations. Journal of Marketing Research 49:2 (2012), 277–288.
11. Ding, M., An incentive-aligned mechanism for conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 44:2 (2007), 214–223.
12. Ding, M., Grewal, R., Liechty, J., Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 42:1 (2005), 67–82.
13. Edwards, W., Barron, F.H., SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60:3 (1994), 306–325.
14. Eisenführ, F., Langer, T., Weber, M., Rational decision making, 2010, Springer.
15. Fan, Z., Zhang, X., Chen, F., Liu, Y., Multi-attribute decision making considering aspiration-levels: A method based on prospect theory. Computers & Industrial Engineering 65:2 (2013), 341–350.
16. Fischer, G.W., Range sensitivity of attribute weights in multiattribute value models. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 62:3 (1995), 252–266.
17. Fishburn, P.C., Methods of estimating additive utilities. Management Science 13:7 (1967), 435–453.
18. Forsati, R., Mahdavi, M., Shamsfard, M., Sarwat, M., Matrix factorization with explicit trust and distrust side information for improved social recommendation. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 32:4 (2014), 17:1–17:38.
19. Hart, S., Staveland, L., Development of nasa-tlx (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology 52 (1988), 139–183.
20. Häubl, G., Trifts, V., Consumer decision making in online shopping environments: The effects of interactive decision aids. Marketing Science 19:1 (2000), 4–21.
21. Hauser, J.R., Consideration set heuristics. Journal of Business Research 67:8 (2014), 1688–1699.
22. Herlocker, J.L., Konstan, J.A., Terveen, L.G., Riedl, J.T., Evaluating collaborative filtering recommender systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 22:1 (2004), 5–53.
23. Hoeffler, S., Ariely, D., Constructing stable preferences: A look into dimensions of experience and their impact on preference stability. Journal of Consumer Psychology 8:2 (1999), 113–139.
24. Huang, S., Designing utility-based recommender systems for e-commerce: Evaluation of preference-elicitation methods. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 10:4 (2011), 398–407.
25. Keeney, R.L., Common mistakes in making value trade-offs. Operations Research 50:6 (2002), 935–945.
26. Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H., Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade-offs, 1976, Wiley, New York.
27. Kim, H.-N., El-Saddik, A., Jo, G.-S., Collaborative error-reflected models for cold-start recommender systems. Decision Support Systems 51:3 (2011), 519–531.
28. Lahtinen, T.J., Hämäläinen, R.P., Path dependence and biases in the even swaps decision analysis method. European Journal of Operational Research 249:3 (2016), 890–898.
29. Levi, A., Mokryn, O., Diot, C., Taft, N., Finding a needle in a haystack of reviews: Cold start context-based hotel recommender systems. Proceedings of the ACM conference on recommender systems, 2012.
30. Mustajoki, J., Hämäläinen, R.P., Salo, A., Decision support by interval SMART/SWING – incorporating imprecision in the SMART and SWING methods. Decision Sciences 36:2 (2005), 317–339.
31. Pfeiffer, J., Scholz, M., A low-effort recommendation system with high accuracy: A new approach with ranked Pareto-fronts. Business & Information Systems Engineering 5:6 (2013), 397–408.
32. Pöyhönen, M., Hämäläinen, R., On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods. European Journal of Operational Research 129 (2001), 569–585.
33. Pu, P., Faltings, B., Chen, L., Zhang, J., Viappiani, P., Recommender systems handbook. 2011, Springer, 511–545).
34. Scholz, M., Dorner, V., Franz, M., Hinz, O., Measuring consumers’ willingness-to-pay with utility-based recommendation systems. Decision Support Systems 72 (2015), 60–71.
35. Silver, N., Dunlap, W., Averaging correlation coefficients: Should fisher's z transformation be used?. Journal of Applied Psychology 72:1 (1987), 146–148.
36. Sun, M., Steuer, R.E., InterQuad: An interactive quad tree based procedure for solving the discrete alternative multiple criteria problem. European Journal of Operational Research 89:3 (1996), 462–472.
37. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185 (1974), 1124–1131.
38. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106:4 (1991), 1039–1061.
39. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 5:4 (1992), 297–323.
40. Valenzuela, A., Dhar, R., Zettelmeyer, F., Contingent response to self-customization procedures: Implications for decision satisfaction and choice. Journal of Marketing Research 46:6 (2009), 754–763.
41. Van Der Land, S., Schouten, A., Feldberg, F., Van Den Hooff, B., Huysman, M., Lost in space? cognitive fit and cognitive load in 3d virtual environments. Computers in Human Behavior 29:3 (2013), 1045–1064.
42. Van Ittersum, K., Pennings, J.M., Wansink, B., van Trijp, H.C., The validity of attribute-importance measurement: A review. Journal of Business Research 60:11 (2007), 1177–1190.
43. von Nitzsch, R., Weber, M., The effect of attribute ranges on weights in multiattribute utility measurement. Management Science 39:8 (1993), 937–943.
44. Wallenius, J., Dyer, J.S., Fishburn, P.C., Steuer, R.E., Zionts, S., Deb, K., Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: Recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Management Science 54:7 (2008), 1336–1349.
45. Wang, T., Venkatesh, R., Chatterjee, R., Reservation price as a range: An incentive compatible measurement approach. Journal of Marketing Research 44:2 (2007), 200–213.
46. Wansink, B., Kent, R.J., Hoch, S.J., An anchoring and adjustment model of purchase quantity decisions. Journal of Marketing Research 35:1 (1998), 71–81.
47. Weber, M., Borcherding, K., Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making. European Journal of Operational Research 67:1 (1993), 1–12.
48. Weng, L.-T., Xu, Y., Li, Y., Nayak, R., Exploiting item taxonomy for solving cold-start problem in recommendation making. Proceedings of IEEE international conference on tools with artificial intelligence, 2008.
49. von Winterfeldt, D., Edwards, W., Decision analysis and behavioral research, vol.604, 1986, Cambridge University Press Cambridge.
50. Wu, G., Markle, A.B., An empirical test of gain-loss separability in prospect theory. Management Science 54:7 (2008), 1322–1335.
51. Wyner, G.A., Uses and limitations of conjoint analysis-part ii. Marketing Research 4:3 (1992), 46–47.
52. Xiao, B., Benbasat, I., E-commerce product recommendation agents: Use, characteristics, and impact. MIS Quarterly 31:1 (2007), 137–209.
53. Xu, A.J., Wyer, R.S., Puffery in advertisement: The effects of media context, communications norms and consumer knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research 37:2 (2010), 329–343.
54. Xu, J., Benbasat, I., Cenfetelli, R.T., The nature and consequences of trade-off transparancy in the context of recommendation agents. MIS Quarterly 38:2 (2014), 379–406.
55. Yu, X., Ren, X., Sun, Y., Gu, Q., Sturt, B., Khandelwal, U., et al. Personalized entity recommendation: A heterogeneous information network approach. Proceedings of ACM international conference on web search and data mining, 2014.
56. Yue, S., Larson, M., Hanjalic, A., Collaborative filtering beyond the user-item matrix: A survey of the state of the art and future challenges. ACM Computing Surveys 47:1 (2014), 3:1–3:45.
57. Zhao, W.X., Li, S., He, Y., Chang, E.Y., Wen, J.-R., Li, X., Connecting social media to e-commerce: Cold-start product recommendation using microblogging information. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 28:5 (2016), 1147–1159.
58. Zigoris, P., Zhang, Y., Bayesian adaptive user profiling with explicit & implicit feedback. Proceedings of ACM international conference on information and knowledge management, 2006.