Effects of decision space information on MAUT-based systems that support purchase decision processes

Decision Support Systems

Volumn 97, Issue , 2017, Pages 43-57

  Scholz, Michael ^a   Franz, Markus ^b   Hinz, Oliver ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PASSAU   (Germany)

^b DARMSTADT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Decision space; Multiattribute utility theory; Product search; Visualization

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS; FLOW VISUALIZATION; SINGULAR VALUE DECOMPOSITION; VISUALIZATION;

DECISION SITUATION; DECISION SPACE; ECONOMIC SUCCESS; LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS; MULTI-ATTRIBUTE UTILITY THEORY; PRODUCT SEARCH; PURCHASE DECISION; VISUALIZATION METHOD;

DECISION THEORY;

EID: 85015322172     PISSN: 01679236     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2017.03.004     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. [1] Amazon. Movies & TV: Blu-ray: Kids & Family: Last 90 days., 2016 http://www.amazon.com.
2. [2] Grenci, R., Todd, P., Solutions-driven marketing. Commun. ACM 45:2 (2002), 64–71.
3. [3] van der Heijden, H., Mobile decision support for in-store purchase decisions. Decis. Support. Syst. 42:2 (2006), 656–663.
4. [4] Xiao, B., Benbasat, I., E-commerce product recommendation agents: use, characteristics, and impact. MIS Q. 31:1 (2007), 137–209.
5. [5] Dellaert, B., Häubl, G., Searching in choice mode: consumer decision processes in product search with recommendations. J. Mark. Res. 49:2 (2012), 277–288.
6. [6] Häubl, G., Trifts, V., Consumer decision making in online shopping environments: the effects of interactive decision aids. Mark. Sci. 19:1 (2000), 4–21.
7. [7] Van Ittersum, K., Pennings, J., Wansink, B., Trijp, H., The validity of attribute-importance measurement: a review. J. Bus. Res. 60:11 (2007), 1177–1190.
8. [8] Song, J., Jones, D., Gudigantala, N., The effects of incorporating compensatory choice strategies in web-based consumer decision support systems. Decis. Support. Syst. 43 (2007), 359–374.
9. [9] Karniouchina, E., Moore, W., van der Rhee, B., Verma, R., Issues in the use of ratings-based versus choice-based conjoint analysis in operations management research. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 197:1 (2009), 340–348.
10. [10] Schuwirth, N., Reichert, P., Lienert, J., Methodological aspects of multi-criteria decision analysis for policy support: a case study on pharmaceutical removal from hospital wastewater. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 220:2 (2012), 472–483.
11. [11] Wood, S., Lynch, J., Prior knowledge and complacency in new product learning. J. Consum. Res. 29:3 (2002), 416–426.
12. [12] Xu, A., Wyer, R., Puffery in advertisements: the effects of media context, communication norms, and consumer knowledge. J. Consum. Res. 37:2 (2010), 329–343.
13. [13] Tan, W.T., Tan, C.H., Teo, H.H., Consumer-based decision aid that explain which to buy: decision confirmation or overconfidence bias?. Decis. Support. Syst. 53:1 (2012), 127–141.
14. [14] Bettman, J., Johnson, E., Luce, M., Payne, J., Correlation, conflict, and choice. J. Exp. Psychol. 19:4 (1993), 931–951.
15. [15] Gregor, S., Benbasat, I., Explanations from intelligent systems: theoretical foundations and implications for practice. MIS Q. 23:4 (1999), 497–530.
16. [16] Dyer, J., Fishburn, P., Steuer, R., Wallenius, J., Zionts, S., Multiple criteria decision making multiattribute utility theory: the next ten years. Manag. Sci. 38:5 (1992), 645–654.
17. [17] Wallenius, J., Dyer, J., Fishburn, R., Steuer, R., Zionts, S., Deb, K., Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Manag. Sci. 54:7 (2008), 1336–1349.
18. [18] Yang, N., Liao, X., Huang, W.W., Decision support for preference elicitation in multi-attribute electronic procurement auctions through an agent-based intermediary. Decis. Support. Syst., 57, 2014.
19. [19] Huang, S., Designing utility-based recommender systems for e-commerce: evaluation of preference-elicitation methods. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 10:4 (2011), 398–407.
20. [20] Scholz, M., Dorner, V., Franz, M., Hinz, O., Measuring consumers willingness-to-pay with utility-based recommendation systems. Decis. Support. Syst. 72 (2015), 60–71.
21. [21] Scholz, M., Dorner, V., Schryen, G., Benlian, A., A configuration-based recommender system for supporting e-commerce decisions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 259:1 (2017), 205–215.
22. [22] Muth, J., Rational expectation and the theory of price movements. Econometrica 29:3 (1961), 315–335.
23. [23] Au, Y., Kauffman, R., What do you know? Rational expectation in information technology adoption and investment. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 20:2 (2003), 49–76.
24. [24] Oliver, R., A cognitive model of antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. J. Mark. Res. 17:4 (1980), 460–469.
25. [25] Kramer, T., The effect of measurement task transparency on preference construction and evaluations of personalized recommendations. J. Mark. Res. 44:2 (2007), 224–233.
26. [26] Brown, S., Venkatesh, V., Goyal, S., Expectation confirmation in technology use. Inf. Syst. Res. 23:2 (2012), 474–487.
27. [27] Vessey, I., Galletta, D., Cognitive fit: an empirical study of information acquisition. Inf. Syst. Res. 2:1 (1991), 63–84.
28. [28] MacEachren, A., Hardisty, F., Dai, X., Pickle, L., Supporting visual analysis of Federal Geospatial Statistics. Commun. ACM 46:1 (2003), 59–60.
29. [29] Gettinger, J., Kiesling, E., Stummer, C., Vetschera, R., A comparison of representations for discrete multi-criteria decision problems. Decis. Support. Syst. 54 (2013), 976–985.
30. [30] Chambers, J., Cleveland, W., Kleiner, B., Tukey, P., Graphical Methods for Data Analysis. 1983, Wadsworth & Brooks, Belmont.
31. [31] Feldman, R., Filled radar charts should not be used to compare social indicators. Soc. Indic. Res. 111:3 (2013), 709–712.
32. [32] Theetranont, C., Haddawy, P., Krairit, D., Integrating visualization and multi-attribute utility theory for online product selection. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making 6:4 (2007), 723–750.
33. [33] Moorthy, S., Ratchford, B., Talukdar, D., Consumer information search revisited: theory and empirical analysis. J. Consum. Res. 23:4 (1997), 263–277.
34. [34] Roweis, S., Saul, L., Nonlinear dimensionality reduction by locally linear embedding. Science 290:5500 (2000), 2323–2326.
35. [35] Zhang, L., Marron, J., Shen, H., Zhu, Z., Singular value decomposition and its visualization. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 16:4 (2007), 833–854.
36. [36] Jolliffe, I., Principal Component Analysis. 2002, Springer, Heidelberg.
37. [37] Kagie, M., van Wezel, M., Groenen, P., A graphical shopping interface based on product attributes. Decis. Support. Syst. 46:1 (2008), 265–276.
38. [38] Härdle, W., Simar, L., Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. 2003, Springer, Heidelberg.
39. [39] Greenacre, M., Correspondence Analysis and Practice. 2007, Chapman & Hall, Boca Raton.
40. [40] Baker, J., Jones, D., Burkman, J., Using Visual Representations of Data to Enhance Sensemaking in Data Exploration Tasks. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 10:7 (2009), 533–559.
41. [41] Kim, K., Proctor, R., Salvendy, G., Comparison of 3D and 2D menus for cell phones. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27:5 (2011), 2056–2066.
42. [42] Nah, F.H., Eschenbrenner, B., DeWebster, D., Enhancing brand equity through flow and telepresence: a comparison of 2D and 3D virtual worlds. MIS Q. 35:3 (2011), 731–747.
43. [43] Adomavicius, G., Tuzhilin, A., Toward the next generation of recommender systems: a survey of state-of-the-art and possible extensions. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 17:6 (2005), 734–749.
44. [44] Gilbride, T., Allenby, G., A choice model with conjunctive, disjunctive, and compensatory screening rules. Mark. Sci. 23:3 (2004), 391–406.
45. [45] Hauser, J., Wernerfelt, B., An evaluation cost model of consideration sets. J. Consum. Res. 16:4 (1990), 393–408.
46. [46] Schlereth, C., Eckert, C., Schaaf, R., Skiera, B., Measurement of preferences with self-explicated approaches: a classification and merge of trade-off- and non-trade-off-based evaluation types. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 238:1 (2014), 185–198.
47. [47] Jamieson, L., Bass, F., Adjusting stated intention measures to predict trial purchase of new products: a comparison of models and methods. J. Mark. Res. 26:3 (1989), 336–345.
48. [48] Churchill, G., Surprenant, C., An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction. J. Mark. Res. 19:4 (1982), 491–504.
49. [49] Al-Natour, S., Benbasat, I., Cenfetelli, R., The adoption of online shopping assistants: perceived similarity as an antecedent to evaluation beliefs. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 12:5 (2011), 347–374.
50. [50] Davis, F., Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13:3 (1989), 319–340.
51. [51] Au, N., Ngai, E., Cheng, T., Extending the understanding of end user information systems satisfaction formation: an equitable needs fulfillment model approach. MIS Q. 32:1 (2008), 43–66.
52. [52] Chin, W., Johnson, N., Schwarz, A., A fast form approach to measuring technology acceptance and other constructs. MIS Q. 32:4 (2008), 687–703.
53. [53] Reichheld, F., The one number you need to grow. Harv. Bus. Rev. 81:12 (2003), 46–54.
54. [54] Basoglu, N., Daim, T., Polat, E., Exploring adaptivity in service development: the case of mobile platforms. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 31:3 (2004), 501–515.
55. [55] Venkatesh, V., Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Inf. Syst. Res. 11:4 (2000), 342–365.
56. th international conference on information systems, 2015.
57. [57] Xu, J., Benbasat, I., Cenfetelli, R., The nature and consequences of trade-off transparency in the context of recommendation agents. MIS Q. 38:2 (2014), 379–406.
58. [58] Keeney, R., Common mistakes in making value trade-offs. Oper. Res. 50:6 (2002), 935–945.
59. th ACM conference on recommender systems, 2012.
60. [60] Van Doorn, J., Leeflang, P., Tijs, M., Satisfaction as a predictor of future performance: a replication. Int. J. Res. Mark. 30:3 (2013), 314–318.
61. [61] Chen, P.Y., Hitt, L., Measuring switching costs and the determinants of customer retention in internet-enabled businesses: a study of the online brokerage industry. Inf. Syst. Res. 13:3 (2002), 255–274.
62. [62] Louviere, J., Islam, T., A comparison of importance weights and willingness-to-pay measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling. J. Bus. Res. 61:9 (2008), 903–911.
63. [63] Pöyhönen, M., Hämäläinen, R., On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 129:3 (2001), 569–585.
64. [64] Triantaphyllou, E., Mann, S.H., An examination of the effectiveness of multi-dimensional decision-making methods: a decision-making paradox. Decis. Support. Syst. 5:3 (1989), 303–312.
65. [65] Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., Straub, D., Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Q. 27:1 (2003), 51–90.
66. [66] Wang, W., Benbasat, I., Trust in and adoption of online recommendation agents. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 6:3 (2005), 72–101.