Users’ Responsiveness to Persuasive Techniques in Recommender Systems
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".