User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 37–85 | Cite as

Group Modeling: Selecting a Sequence of Television Items to Suit a Group of Viewers

  • Judith Masthoff


Watching television tends to be a social activity. So, adaptive television needs to adapt to groups of users rather than to individual users. In this paper, we discuss different strategies for combining individual user models to adapt to groups, some of which are inspired by Social Choice Theory. In a first experiment, we explore how humans select a sequence of items for a group to watch, based on data about the individuals’ preferences. The results show that humans use some of the strategies such as the Average Strategy (a.k.a. Additive Utilitarian), the Average Without Misery Strategy and the Least Misery Strategy, and care about fairness and avoiding individual misery. In a second experiment, we investigate how satisfied people believe they would be with sequences chosen by different strategies, and how their satisfaction corresponds with that predicted by a number of satisfaction functions. The results show that subjects use normalization, deduct misery, and use the ratings in a non-linear way. One of the satisfaction functions produced reasonable, though not completely correct predictions. According to our subjects, the sequences produced by five strategies give satisfaction to all individuals in the group. The results also show that subjects put more emphasis than expected on showing the best rated item to each individual (at a cost of misery for another individual), and that the ratings of the first and last items in the sequence are especially important. In a final experiment, we explore the influence viewing an item can have on the ratings of other items. This is important for deciding the order in which to present items. The results show an effect of both mood and topical relatedness.

adaptation group modeling interactive television recommender social choice 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ardissono, L. and Buczak, A. (eds.) (2002).Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Personalization in Future TV, Malaga, Spain.Google Scholar
  2. Ardissono, L., Goy, A., Petrone, G., Segnan, M. and Torasso, P. (2002).Tailoring the recommendation of tourist information to heterogeneous user groups. In: S. Reich, M. Tzagarakis, and P. De Bra (eds.), Hypermedia: Openness, structural awareness, and 78 adaptivity, International Workshops OHS-7, SC-3, and AH-3, 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2266, Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 280–295.Google Scholar
  3. Arrow, K. (1950).A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. Journal of Political Economics, 58, 328–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arrow, K. (1951). Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: John Wiley and SonsGoogle Scholar
  5. Barwise, P. and Ehrenberg, A. (1988). Television and Its Audience. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Borda, J.C. (1781).Memoire sur les elections au scrutine. Histoire de l’Acade mie Royale des Sciences.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, W., Schapire, R. and Singer, Y. (1999). Learning to order things. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 10, 243 270.Google Scholar
  8. Condorcet, Marquis de (1785). Essai sur l’application de l’analyse a la probalité des décisions rendues a’ la pluralitédes voix. Paris.Google Scholar
  9. Copeland,A.H.(1951).A ReasonableSocialWelfareFunction. Mimeo, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  10. Cotter, P. and Smyth, B. (2000). PTV: Intelligent personal TV guides. 12th Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, Austin, Texas, pp. 957–964.Google Scholar
  11. Cranor,L.F.(1996).Declared-strategy voting An instrument for group decision-making.Ph.D.Thesis,WashingtonUniversity. Scholar
  12. Dwork, C., Kumar, R., Naor, M. and Sivakumar, D. (2001).Rank aggregation methods for the web. Tenth International World Wide Web Conference, Hong Kong, pp. 613–622.Google Scholar
  13. Ephrati, E. and Rosenschein, J.S. (1996). Deriving consensus in multi agent systems. Artificial Intelligence, 87, 21–74.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Fagin, R., Lotem, A. and Naor, M. (2003). Optimal aggregation algorithms for middleware. Journal of Computing System Sciences, 66, 614–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gardner, M. (1985). Mood states and consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gillard, P. (1999). The child audience: Who are they and how are they using TV and new media? Paper presented at the Children’s Television Policy Forum and Reception, Sydney, 22 July. As accessed on 20years gillard.rtf.Google Scholar
  17. Goren-Bar, D. and Glinansky, O. (2002).Family stereotyping: A model to filter TV programs for multiple viewers. In: L. Ardissono and A. Buczak (eds.) Proceedings of the 2 nd Workshop on Personalization in Future TV, Malaga, Spain, pp. 95–102.Google Scholar
  18. Hogg, L. and Jennings, N.R. (1999).Variable sociability in agent-based decision making. Sixth International Workshop on Agent Theories Architectures and Languages, Orlando, FL, USA, pp. 276–289.Google Scholar
  19. Kamins, M.A., Marks, L.J. and Skinner, D. (1991).Television commercial evaluation in the context of program induced mood: Congruency versus consistency effects. Journal of Advertising, 20(2), 1–14.Google Scholar
  20. Kasari, H., Nurmi, S. (1992). TV audience segments based on viewing behaviour. In: Advertising Research Foundation (ARF ) and European Society for Opinion and Marketing Research(ESOMAR),Worldwide Broadcast Audience Research symposium. Toronto.Google Scholar
  21. Kotler, J., Wright, J. and Huston, A. (2001).Television use in families with children. In: J. Bryant and J.A. Bryant (eds.), Television and the American family. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3348.Google Scholar
  22. Lekakos, G., Papakiriakopoulos, D. and Chorianopoulos, K. (2001). An integrated approach to interactive and personalized TV advertising. In: L. Ardissono and Y. Faihe (eds.) Proceedings of the 2001 Workshop on Personalization in Future TV, Sonthofen, Germany.Google Scholar
  23. Lieberman, H., van Dyke, N. and Vivacqua, A. (1999) Let’s browse: A collaborative web browsing agent. 1999 International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 65–68.Google Scholar
  24. Lijphart, A. (1994). Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-seven Democracies 1945, 1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Livingstone, S. and Bovill, M. (1999).Young people, new media. Summary report of the research project: Children, young people and the changing media environment. As accessed on people report.pdf.Google Scholar
  26. Masthoff, J. (2002). Modeling a group of television viewers. Future TV: Adaptive Instruction in Your Living Room Workshop, San Sebastian, Spain, pp. 34–42.Google Scholar
  27. Masthoff, J. (2003).Modeling the multiple people that are me. In: P. Brusilovsky, A. Corbett, and F. de Rosis (eds.) Proceedings of the 2003 User Modeling Conference, Johnstown, PA, Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 258 262.Google Scholar
  28. Masthoff J. and Luckin, R. (eds.) (2002). Proceedings of the workshop Future TV: Adaptive Instruction in Your Living Room, associated with the Intelligent Tutoring Systems Conference, San Sebastian, Spain.Google Scholar
  29. May, K.O. (1952). A set of independent, necessary and sufficient conditions for simple majority decision. Econometrica, 20, 680–684.Google Scholar
  30. Maybury,M.T., Greiff,W. Boykin, S., Ponte, J., McHenry, C. and Ferro, L. (2004). Personal Casting: Tailored broadcast news. 14, 119–144 (this issue).Google Scholar
  31. McCarthy, J. and Anagnost, T. (1998).MusicFX: An arbiter of group preferences for computer supported collaborative workouts. ACM1998 Conference on CSCW, Seattle, WA, pp. 363–372.Google Scholar
  32. Meloy, M. (2000). Mood-driven distortion of product information. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 345–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Murray, J., Lastovicka, J. and Singh, S. (1992).Feeling and liking responses to television programs: An examination of two explanations for media-context effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 441–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. O ‘ Conner, M., Cosley, D., Konstan, J.A. and Riedl, J. (2001). PolyLens: A recommender system for groups of users. In: Proceedings of ECSCW 2001, Bonn, Germany, pp. 199 218. As accessed on Scholar
  35. O’ Sullivan, D., Smyth, B., Wilson, D.C., McDonald, K. and Smeaton, A. (2004). Improving the quality of the personalized electronic program guide. 14, 5–35 (this issue).Google Scholar
  36. Pareto, V. (1897). Cours d’economie politique. Lausanne: Rouge.Google Scholar
  37. Pattanaik, P.K. (1971).Voting and CollectiveChoice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Pennock, D., Horvitz, E. and Giles, C. L. (2000). Social choice theory and recommender Systems: Analysis of the axiomatic foundations of collaborative filtering. 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Austin, TX, pp. 729–734.Google Scholar
  39. Plua, C. and Jameson, A. (2002). Collaborative preference elicitation in a group travel recommender system. In F. Ricci and B. Smyth (eds.) Proceedings of the AH’2002 Workshop Recommendation and Personalization in eCommerce, Malaga, Spain, 148–154.Google Scholar
  40. Schumann, D. and Thorson, E. (1990). The influence of viewing context on commercial effectiveness: A selection-processing model. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 12, 1–24.Google Scholar
  41. Taylor, A. (1995) Mathematics and politics: Strategy, voting, power and proof. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  42. Van Evra, J. (1998). Television and Child Development. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  43. Zimmerman, J., Parameswaran, L. and Kurapati, K. (2002). Celebrity recommender. In: L. Ardissono and A. Buczak (eds.) Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Personalization in Future TV, Malaga, Spain, pp. 33–41.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judith Masthoff
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BrightonUK

Personalised recommendations