Users’ Responsiveness to Persuasive Techniques in Recommender Systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
of the recommendation algorithm was the ultimate goal for most systems designers. However, researchers and practitioners have realized that providing accurate recommendations is insufficient to enhance users' acceptance. A recommender system needs to focus on other factors that enhance its interactions with the users. Recent researches suggest augmenting these systems with persuasive capabilities. Persuasive features lead to increasing users' acceptance of the recommendations, which, in turn, enhances users' experience with these systems. Nonetheless, the literature still lacks a comprehensive view of the actual effect of persuasive principles on recommender users. To fill this gap, this study diagnoses how users of different characteristics get influenced by various persuasive principles that a recommender system uses. The study considers four users' aspects: age, gender, culture (continent), and personality traits. The paper also investigates the impact of the context (or application domain) on the influence of the persuasive principles. Two application domains (namely eCommerce and Movie recommendations) are considered. A within-subject user study was conducted. The analysis of (279) responses revealed that persuasive principles have the potential to enhance users' experience with recommender systems. The study also shows that, among the considered factors, culture, personality traits, and the domain of recommendations have a higher impact on the influence of persuasive principles than other factors. Based on the analysis of the results, the study provides insights and guidelines for recommender systems designers. These guidelines can be used as a reference for designing recommender systems with users' experience in mind. We suggest that considering the results presented in this paper could help to improve recommender-users interaction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it