Skip to main content

Conflict resolution in group decision making: insights from a simulation study

Abstract

An individual’s conflict resolution styles can have a large impact on the decision making process of a group. This impact is affected by a variety of factors, such as the group size, the similarity of the group members, and the type of support offered by the recommender system, if the group is using one. Measuring the effect of these factors goes beyond the capability of a live user study. In this article we show that simulation-based experiments can be effectively exploited to analyse the effect of the group members’ conflict resolution styles and to help researchers to formulate additional research hypotheses, which could be individually tested in ad hoc user studies. We therefore propose a group discussion procedure that simulates users’ actions while trying to make a group decision. The simulated users adopt alternative conflict resolution styles derived from the Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Model. The simulation procedure is informed by the analysis of real users’ interaction logs with a group discussion support system. Our experiments are conducted on scenarios characterized by four group factors, namely, conflict resolution style, inner-group similarity, interaction length and group size. We demonstrate the effect of these factors on the recommendation quality. This is measured by the loss in the utility obtained by an individual when choosing the recommended group choice rather than his/her individual best choice. We also measure the difference between the highest and lowest utility that the group members obtain, in order to understand the fairness of the group recommendation identified by the system. The experimental results show (among other findings) that if group members have similar tastes then groups composed of users with the competing conflict resolution style obtain the largest utility loss, compared to groups whose members adopt the cooperative styles (accommodating and collaborating), and yet, whatever their conflict resolution styles, there is no distinct difference in their utility for the group choice (they are treated equally). Conversely, when group members have diverse preferences, the average utility loss of competing members is still the largest, but the differences in their utility is the lowest (they all get a similar but lower utility). Some of the findings of our simulation experiments also match observations made in real group discussions and they pave the way for new user studies aimed at further supporting the reported findings.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Notes

  1. 1.

    The aggregation of rating predictions can also be referred to as the aggregation of recommendations (Baltrunas et al. 2010; Masthoff 2015).

  2. 2.

    http://www.lts.it.

  3. 3.

    We make the simplifying assumptions that the features of items are independent of each other, and that group members are supposed to tell the truth about their preferences.

  4. 4.

    In this work, the problem is solved by an off-the-shelf R package named cccp.

  5. 5.

    This must not be considered a “rating”, as there is no group rating that can be collected. It is just an aggregated score that, as in other GRSs, can be used to rank items in a proper way for the group.

  6. 6.

    https://appetize.io.

  7. 7.

    https://www.browserstack.com/app-live/.

  8. 8.

    There could be different ways to simulate turn-taking in proposing the items. In this work, we simply conjecture that users have the same probability \(p_p(u)\).

  9. 9.

    In our experiments, we identified 5 clusters (\(k=5\)) as this is the maximum number of users in a group that we considered.

  10. 10.

    This is based on the widely-used rationality assumption, i.e., that people make rational decisions to some extent (Rosenfeld and Kraus 2018). Arguably, it is not always the case in practice.

References

  1. Ardissono, L., Goy, A., Petrone, G., Segnan, M., Torasso, P.: Intrigue: personalized recommendation of tourist attractions for desktop and hand held devices. Appl. Artif. Intell. 17(8–9), 687–714 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bales, R.F.: A set of categories for the analysis of small group interaction. Am. Sociol. Rev. 15, 257–263 (1950)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baltrunas, L., Makcinskas, T., Ricci, F.: Group recommendations with rank aggregation and collaborative filtering. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Recommender systems, pp. 119–126 (2010)

  4. Barile, F., Masthoff, J., Rossi, S.: The adaptation of an individual’s satisfaction to group context: the role of ties strength and conflicts. In: Proceedings of the 25th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, pp. 357–358. ACM (2017)

  5. Bekkerman, P., Kraus, S., Ricci, F.: Applying cooperative negotiation methodology to group recommendation problem. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Recommender Systems in 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI 2006), pp. 72–75 (2006)

  6. Ben-Akiva, M.E., Lerman, S.R.: Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand, vol. 9. MIT Press, Cambridge (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Berkovsky, S., Freyne, J.: Group-based recipe recommendations: analysis of data aggreagation strategies. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pp. 111–118 (2010)

  8. Blanco, H., Ricci, F.: Inferring user utility for query revision recommendation. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 245–252 (2013)

  9. Boratto, L., Carta, S.: The rating prediction task in a group recommender system that automatically detects groups: architectures, algorithms, and performance evaluation. J. Intell. Inf. Syst. 45(2), 221–245 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Braunhofer, M., Elahi, M., Ricci, F., Schievenin, T.: Context-aware points of interest suggestion with dynamic weather data management. Inf. Commun. Technol. Tour. 2014, 87–100 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  11. De Pessemier, T., Dooms, S., Martens, L.: Comparison of group recommendation algorithms. Multimed. Tools Appl. 72(3), 2497–2541 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Delic, A., Masthoff, J.: Group recommender systems. In: Proceedings of the 26th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization, pp. 377–378. ACM (2018)

  13. Delic, A., Neidhardt, J., Nguyen, T.N., Ricci, F., Rook, L., Werthner, H., Zanker, M.: Observing group decision making processes. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pp. 147–150 (2016)

  14. Delic, A., Neidhardt, J., Rook, L., Werthner, H., Zanker, M.: Researching individual satisfaction with group decisions in tourism: experimental evidence. In: Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2017, pp. 73–85. Springer, New York (2017)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Delic, A., Neidhardt, J., Nguyen, T.N., Ricci, F.: An observational user study for group recommender systems in the tourism domain. Inf. Technol. Tour. 19(1–4), 87–116 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Forsyth, D.R.: Group Dynamics, 6th edn. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Boston (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gartrell, M., Xing, X., Lv, Q., Beach, A., Han, R., Mishra, S., Seada, K.: Enhancing group recommendation by incorporating social relationship interactions. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work, pp. 97–106. ACM (2010)

  18. Guzzi, F., Ricci, F., Burke, R.: Interactive multi-party critiquing for group recommendation. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pp. 265–268 (2011)

  19. Jameson, A.: More than the sum of its members: challenges for group recommender systems. In: Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, pp. 48–54 (2004)

  20. Jameson, A., Smyth, B.: Recommendation to groups. The Adaptive Web. LNCS 4321, 596–627 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kilmann, R.H., Thomas, K.W.: Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling behavior: the mode instrument. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 37(2), 309–325 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Knijnenburg, B.P., Reijmer, N.J., Willemsen, M.C.: Each to his own: how different users call for different interaction methods in recommender systems. In: Proceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pp. 141–148 (2011)

  23. Lops, P., De Gemmis, M., Semeraro, G.: Content-based recommender systems: State of the art and trends. In: Recommender Systems Handbook, pp. 73–105. Springer, New York (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mahmood, T., Ricci, F.: Learning and adaptivity in interactive recommender systems. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 75–84 (2007)

  25. Márquez, JOÁ, Ziegler, J.: Preference elicitation and negotiation in a group recommender system. In: Human–Computer Interaction, pp. 20–37. Springer, New York (2015)

  26. Masthoff, J.: Group modeling: selecting a sequence of television items to suit a group of viewers. Personalized Digital Television, pp. 93–141 (2004)

  27. Masthoff, J.: Group recommender systems: aggregation, satisfaction and group attributes. In: Ricci, F., Rokach, L., Shapira, B. (eds.) Recommender Systems Handbook, pp. 743–776. Springer, New York (2015)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Masthoff, J., Gatt, A.: In pursuit of satisfaction and the prevention of embarrassment: affective state in group recommender systems. User Model. User-Adapt. Interact. 16(3–4), 281–319 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. McCarthy, K., Salamó, M., Coyle, L., McGinty, L., Smyth, B., Nixon, P.: Cats: A synchronous approach to collaborative group recommendation. In: Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, pp. 86–91 (2006)

  30. McGinty, L., Smyth, B.: Comparison-based recommendation. In: European Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, pp. 575–589 (2002)

  31. Nguyen, T.N., Ricci, F.: Dynamic elicitation of user preferences in a chat-based group recommender system. In: Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1685–1692 (2017)

  32. Nguyen, T.N., Ricci, F.: A chat-based group recommender system for tourism. Inf. Technol. Tour. 18(1), 5–28 (2018a)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nguyen, T.N., Ricci, F.: Situation-dependent combination of long-term and session-based preferences in group recommendations: an experimental analysis. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1366–1373. ACM (2018b)

  34. Osogami, T.: Human choice and good choice. In: The Role and Importance of Mathematics in Innovation, pp. 1–10. Springer, New York (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Quijano-Sanchez, L., Recio-Garcia, J.A., Diaz-Agudo, B., Jimenez-Diaz, G.: Social factors in group recommender systems. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. (TIST) 4(1), 8 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Recio-Garcia, J.A., Jimenez-Diaz, G., Sanchez-Ruiz, A.A., Diaz-Agudo, B.: Personality aware recommendations to groups. In: Proceedings of the Third ACM Conference on Recommender Systems, pp. 325–328. ACM (2009)

  37. Ricci, F., Rokach, L., Shapira, B.: Recommender systems: introduction and challenges. Recommender Systems Handbook, pp. 1–34. Springer, New York (2015)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Rosenfeld, A., Kraus, S.: Predicting human decision-making: from prediction to action. Synth. Lect. Artif. Intell. Mach. Learn. 12(1), 1–150 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Rossi, S., Di Napoli, C., Barile, F., Liguori, L.: A multi-agent system for group decision support based on conflict resolution styles. In: International Workshop on Conflict Resolution in Decision Making, pp. 134–148 (2016)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Stettinger, M., Felfernig, A., Leitner, G., Reiterer, S., Jeran, M.: Counteracting serial position effects in the choicla group decision support environment. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 148–157 (2015)

  41. Thomas, K.W.: Thomas-kilmann conflict mode. TKI Profile and Interpretive Report, pp. 1–11 (2008)

  42. Tkalcic, M., Delic, A., Felfernig, A.: Personality, Emotions, and Group Dynamics. Springer, New York (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Trabelsi, W., Wilson, N., Bridge, D., Ricci, F.: Comparing approaches to preference dominance for conversational recommenders. In: Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pp. 113–120 (2010)

  44. Trattner, C., Said, A., Boratto, L., Felfernig, A.: Evaluating Group Recommender Systems. Springer, New York (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Viappiani, P., Pu, P., Faltings, B.: Preference-based search with adaptive recommendations. AI Commun. 21(2–3), 155–175 (2008)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Wood, V.F., Bell, P.A.: Predicting interpersonal conflict resolution styles from personality characteristics. Personal. Individ. Differ. 45(2), 126–131 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thuy Ngoc Nguyen.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nguyen, T.N., Ricci, F., Delic, A. et al. Conflict resolution in group decision making: insights from a simulation study. User Model User-Adap Inter 29, 895–941 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-019-09240-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Group decision-making process
  • Conflict resolution styles
  • Group recommendations
  • Simulation design