Decision Making Based on Bimodal Rating Summary Statistics - An Eye-Tracking Study of Hotels

  • Ludovik CobaEmail author
  • Markus Zanker
  • Laurens Rook
Conference paper


Rating-based summary statistics have become ubiquitous, and of key relevance to compare offers on booking platforms. Largely left unexplored, however, is the issue to what extent the descriptives of rating distributions influence the decision making of online consumers. In this work a conjoint experiment was eye-tracked to explore how different attributes of these rating summarisations, such as the mean rating value, the bimodality of the ratings distribution as well as the overall number of ratings impact users’ decision making. Furthermore, participants’ maximising behavioural tendencies were analysed. Depending on their scores on Decision Difficulty, participants were guided by different patterns in their assessment of the characteristics of rating summarisations, and in the intensity of their exploration of different choice options.


e-Tourism Rating summaries Conjoint analysis Explanations Recommender systems 



The authors would like to acknowledge Gabriela Boyadjiyska for supporting the eye-tracking experimentation as part of her thesis project.


  1. 1.
    Werthner H, Alzua-Sorzabal A, Cantoni L, Dickinger A, Gretzel U, Jannach D, Neidhardt J, Pröll B, Ricci F, Scaglione M, Stangl B, Stock O, Zanker M (2015) Future research issues in it and tourism. Inf Technol Tour 15(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Xiang Z, Magnini VP, Fesenmaier DR (2015) Information technology and consumer behavior in travel and tourism: insights from travel planning using the internet. J Retail Consum Serv 22:244–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Law R, Qi S, Buhalis D (2010) Progress in tourism management: a review of website evaluation in tourism research. Tour Manag 31(3):297–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gretzel U, Yoo KH (2008) Use and impact of online travel reviews. In: O’Connor P, Höpken W, Gretzel U (eds) Information and communication technologies in tourism 2008, pp 35–46, Vienna, Springer ViennaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Xie KL, Zhang Z, Zhang Z (2014) The business value of online consumer reviews and management response to hotel performance. Int J Hosp Manag 43:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Xiang Z, Qianzhou D, Ma Y, Fan W (2017) A comparative analysis of major online review platforms: implications for social media analytics in hospitality and tourism. Tour Manag 58:51–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Xie H (Jimmy), Miao L, Kuo P-J, Lee B-Y (2011) Consumers responses to ambivalent online hotel reviews: the role of perceived source credibility and pre-decisional disposition. Int J Hosp Manag 30(1):178–183Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Knijnenburg BP, Willemsen MC (2011) 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 - RecSys ’11, pp 141–148Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Payne JW (1976) Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis. Organ Behav Hum Perform 16(2):366–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bettman JR, Luce MF, Payne JW (1998) Processes, constructive consumer choice, source. J Consum Res 25(3):187–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simon HA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ 69(1):99–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schwartz B, Ward A, Lyubomirsky S, Monterosso J, White K, Lehman DR (2002) Maximizing versus satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice. J Personal Soc Psychol 83(5):1178–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jugovac M, Nunes I, Jannach D (2018) Investigating the decision-making behavior of maximizers and satisficers in the presence of recommendations. In: 26th conference on user modeling, adaptation and personalization (UMAP’18)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zwerina K, Huber J, Kuhfeld WW (1966) A general method for constructing efficient choice designs. Durham, NC: Fuqua School of Business, Duke Univesrsity, 39–59Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zanker M, Schoberegger M (2014) An empirical study on the persuasiveness of fact-based explanations for recommender systems. CEUR Workshop Proc 1253:33–36Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Glaholt MG, Reingold EM (1985) Eye movement monitoring as a process tracing methodology in decision making research 4(2):125–146 (1985)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Orquin JL, Loose SM (2013) Attention and choice: a review on eye movements in decision making. Acta Psychologica 144(1), 190–206:9Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rao VR (2008) Developments in conjoint analysis. In: Handbook of marketing decision models, pp 23–53. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chung J, Rao VR (2012) A general consumer preference model for experience products: application to internet recommendation services. J Market Res 49(3):289–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Coba L, Zanker M, Rook L, Symeonidis P (2018) Exploring users’ perception of collaborative explanation styles. In: 2018 IEEE 20th conference on business informatics (CBI), pp 70–78Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Coba L, Zanker M, Rook L, Symeonidis P (2018) Exploring users’ perception of rating summary statistics. In: Proceedings of the 26th conference on user modeling, adaptation and personalization, UMAP 18, 353–354. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2018)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Coba L, Zanker M, Rook L, Symeonidis P (2018) Decision making of maximizers and satisficers based on collaborative explanations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.11537
  23. 23.
    Hu N, Zhang J, Pavlou PA (2009) Overcoming the J-shaped distribution of product reviews. Commun ACM 52(10):144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    de Langhe B, Fernbach PM, Lichtenstein DR (2016) Navigating by the stars: investigating the actual and perceived validity of online user ratings. J Consum Res 42(6):817–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pfister R, Schwarz KA, Janczyk M, Dale R, Freeman JB (2013) Good things peak in pairs: a note on the bimodality coefficient. Front Psychol 4:700Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fuchs M, Zanker M (2012) Multi-criteria ratings for recommender systems: an empirical analysis in the tourism domain. In: Lecture notes in business information processing, vol 123 LNBIP, pp 100–111Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jannach D, Zanker M, Fuchs M (2014) Leveraging multi-criteria customer feedback for satisfaction analysis and improved recommendations. Inf Technol Tour 14(2):119–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Holmqvist K, Nyström M, Andersson R, Dewhurst R, Jarodzka H, Van De Weijer J (2011) Eye tracking. Oxford University Press, A comprehensive guide to methods and measuresGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sauro J, Lewis JR (2010) Average task times in usability tests. In: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’10, p 2347, New York, New York, USA, 2010. ACM PressGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schwartz B, Ward A, Monterosso J, Lyubomirsky S, White K, Lehman DR (2002) Maximizing versus satisficing: happiness is a matter of choice. J Perso Soc Psychol 83(5):1178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nenkov GY, Morrin M, Ward A, Schwartz B, Hulland J (2008) A short form of the maximization scale: factor structure, reliability and validity studies. Judgm Decis Mak 3(5):371–388Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Free University of Bozen - BolzanoBolzanoItaly
  2. 2.TU DelftDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations