Improving User Experience with Recommender Systems by Informing the Design of Recommendation Messages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advice-giving systems such as decision support systems and recommender systems (RS) utilize algorithms to provide users with decision support by generating ‘advice’ ranging from tailored alerts for situational exception events to product recommendations based on preferences. Related extant research of user perceptions and behaviors has predominantly taken a system-level view, whereas limited attention has been given to the impact of message design on recommendation acceptance and system use intentions. Here, a comprehensive model was developed and tested to explore the presentation choices (i.e., recommendation message characteristics) that influenced users’ confidence in—and likely acceptance of—recommendations generated by the RS. Our findings indicate that the problem and solution-related information specificity of the recommendation increase both user intention and the actual acceptance of recommendations while decreasing the decision-making time; a shorter decision-making time was also observed when the recommendation was structured in a problem-to-solution sequence. Finally, information specificity was correlated with information sufficiency and transparency, confirming prior research with support for the links between user beliefs, user attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Implications for theory and practice are also discussed.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".