Advertisement

Modeling the Changing of the Individual Satisfaction in a Group Context: A Study on Two Sized Groups

  • Francesco BarileEmail author
  • Judith Masthoff
  • Silvia Rossi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11298)

Abstract

General approaches for Group Recommendation Systems start from the individual recommendations and merge them in a way to determine the best choice for the whole group. The results presented in the literature showed that traditional aggregation techniques do not seem to capture all the features of real-world scenarios. Furthermore, recent studies in Behavioral Economics evidence the necessity to define utility models that are not compatible with the self-interested utility-maximizing behavior of the traditional economic paradigm. In this work, starting from Other-Regarding Preference models that characterize the utility of an individual considering his/her own behavioral characteristics and the utility of another individual, we aim at obtaining a general model where such characteristics are described in terms of interpersonal relationships, such as, tie strength and conflict. We started by performing an analysis on opinion shifts based on a two sized groups user study, with the aim to empirically determine the extent of the considered parameters on a possible model. The results show that the opinion shifting on the evaluation of an activity to be performed in a group is related to the two considered factors.

Keywords

Group Recommendation Systems Social dynamics Other Regarding Preferences 

References

  1. 1.
    Alina Christensen, I., Schiaffino, S.: Social influence in group recommender systems. Online Inf. Rev. 38(4), 524–542 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnaboldi, V., Guazzini, A., Passarella, A.: Egocentric online social networks: analysis of key features and prediction of tie strength in Facebook. Comput. Commun. 36(10), 1130–1144 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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, UMAP 2017, pp. 357–358. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blanco, M., Engelmann, D., Normann, H.T.: A within-subject analysis of other-regarding preferences. Games Econ. Behav. 72(2), 321–338 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bolton, G.E., Ockenfels, A.: Erc: a theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. Am. Econ. Rev. 90, 166–193 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cox, J.C., Friedman, D., Gjerstad, S.: A tractable model of reciprocity and fairness. Games Econ. Behav. 59(1), 17–45 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dufwenberg, M., Heidhues, P., Kirchsteiger, G., Riedel, F., Sobel, J.: Other-regarding preferences in general equilibrium. Rev. Econ. Stud. 78(2), 613–639 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dunbar, R.I., Spoors, M.: Social networks, support cliques, and kinship. Hum. Nat. 6(3), 273–290 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elfenbein, H.A.: The many faces of emotional contagion: an affective process theory of affective linkage. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 4(4), 326–362 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fehr, E., Schmidt, K.M.: A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Q. J. Econ. 114(3), 817–868 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fehr, E., Schmidt, K.M.: Chapter 8 the economics of fairness, reciprocity and altruism - experimental evidence and new theories. In: Kolm, S.C., Ythier, J.M. (eds.) Foundations, Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, vol. 1, pp. 615–691. Elsevier (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gilbert, E., Karahalios, K.: Predicting tie strength with social media. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 211–220. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Granovetter, M.S.: The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78(6), 1360–1380 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guo, J., Zhu, Y., Li, A., Wang, Q., Han, W.: A social influence approach for group user modeling in group recommendation systems. IEEE Intell. Syst. 31(5), 40–48 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mäs, M., Flache, A.: Differentiation without distancing. Explaining bi-polarization of opinions without negative influence. PloS One 8(11), e74516 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rossi, S., Barile, F., Caso, A., Rossi, A.: Pre-trip ratings and social networks user behaviors for recommendations in touristic web portals. In: Monfort, V., Krempels, K.-H., Majchrzak, T.A., Turk, Ž. (eds.) WEBIST 2015. LNBIP, vol. 246, pp. 297–317. Springer, Cham (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30996-5_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rossi, S., Caso, A., Barile, F.: Combining users and items rankings for group decision support. In: Bajo, J., et al. (eds.) Trends in Practical Applications of Agents, Multi-Agent Systems and Sustainability. AISC, vol. 372, pp. 151–158. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19629-9_17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rossi, S., Cervone, F.: Social utilities and personality traits for group recommendation: a pilot user study. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Agents and Artificial Intelligence, pp. 38–46 (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Salehi-Abari, A., Boutilier, C.: Empathetic social choice on social networks. In: 13th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 693–700 (2014)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Senot, C., Kostadinov, D., Bouzid, M., Picault, J., Aghasaryan, A., Bernier, C.: Analysis of strategies for building group profiles. In: De Bra, P., Kobsa, A., Chin, D. (eds.) UMAP 2010. LNCS, vol. 6075, pp. 40–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13470-8_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sobel, J.: Interdependent preferences and reciprocity. J. Econ. Lit. 43(2), 392–436 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Takács, K., Flache, A., Mäs, M.: Discrepancy and disliking do not induce negative opinion shifts. PLOS One 11(6), e0157948 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157948CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesco Barile
    • 1
    Email author
  • Judith Masthoff
    • 2
    • 3
  • Silvia Rossi
    • 4
  1. 1.Free University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly
  2. 2.University of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  3. 3.Utrecht UniversityUtrechtNetherlands
  4. 4.University of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations