Advertisement

Reinforcement Sensitivity and Engagement in Proactive Recommendations: Experimental Evidence

  • Laurens RookEmail author
  • Adem Sabic
  • Markus Zanker
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 25)

Abstract

We drew on revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory to claim that users with an anxiety-related behavioral inhibition would experience proactively delivered recommendations as potential threats. Such users would display higher user engagement especially when they were interrupted by inaccurate (vs. accurate) recommendations, because they ruminate about them. This prediction was tested and confirmed in a controlled experiment that exposed participants to proactive recommendations on their smartphone. Results highlight the need to gain more knowledge on the neural correlates of anxiety, and to apply such insights to human–computer interaction design for recommender systems.

Keywords

Behavioral inhibition Fight-flight-freeze system Recommendation delivery Proactivity Human–computer interaction 

References

  1. 1.
    Ricci, F., Rokach, L., Shapira, B.: Recommender Systems Handbook. Springer, New York (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jannach, D., Resnick, P., Tuzhilin, A., Zanker, M.: Recommender systems: beyond matrix completion. Comm. ACM. 59, 94–102 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dimoka, A., Pavlou, P.A., Davis, F.: NeuroIS: the potential of cognitive neuroscience for information systems research. Inform. Syst. Res. 22, 687–702 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gray, J.A., McNaughton, N.: The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the Functions of the Septo-Hippocampal System. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gray, J.A.: The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry into the Functions of the Septo-Hippocampal System. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1982)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Corr, P.J.: Anxiety: splitting the phenomenological atom. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 50, 889–897 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tops, M., Boksem, M.A.S.: Cortisol involvement in mechanisms of behavioral inhibition. Psychophysiology 48, 723–732 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Perkins, A.M., Corr, P.J.: Anxiety as an adaptive emotion. In: Gerrod Parrott, W. (ed.) The Positive Side of Negative Emotions, pp. 37–54. The Guilford Press, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Corr, P.J., McNaughton, N., Wilson, M.R., Hutchison, A., Burch, G., Poropat, A.: Neuroscience of motivation and organizational behavior: putting the reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) to work. In: Kim, S., Reeve, J.M., Bong, M. (eds.) Recent Developments in Neuroscience Research on Human Motivation: Advances in Motivation and Achievement, vol. 19, pp. 65–92. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dimoka, A.: What does the brain tell us about trust and distrust? evidence from a functional neuroimaging study. MIS Q. 34, 373–396 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carver, C.S., White, T.L.: Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: the BIS/BAS scales. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 67, 319–333 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Franken, I.H.A., Muris, P., Rassin, E.: Psychometric properties of the Dutch BIS/BAS scales. J. Psychopathol. Behav. 27, 25–30 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heym, N., Ferguson, E., Lawrence, C.: An evaluation of the relationship between gray’s revised RST and Eysenck’s PEN: distinguishing BIS and FFFS in Carver and White’s BIS/BAS scales. Pers. Individ. Differ. 45, 709–715 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keiser, H.N., Ross, S.R.: Carver and Whites’ BIS/FFFS/BAS scales and domains and facets of the five factor model of personality. Pers. Individ. Differ. 51, 39–44 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rich, B.L., LePine, J.A., Crawford, E.R.: Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance. Acad. Manage. J. 31, 599–627 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ray, S., Kim, S.S., Morris, J.G.: The central role of engagement in online communities. Inform. Syst. Res. 25, 528–546 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Walker, B.R., Jackson, C.J.: How the five factor model and revised reinforcement sensitivity theory predict divergent thinking. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 57, 54–58 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McNee, S.M., Riedl, J., Konstan, J.A.: Being accurate is not enough: how accuracy metrics have hurt recommender systems. In: Proceedings of the CHI’06 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1097–1101. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Riedl, R., Kindermann, H., Auinger, A., Javor, A.: Technostress from a neurobiological perspective: system breakdown increases the stress hormone cortisol in computer users. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2, 61–69 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dimoka, A., Banker, R.D., Benbasat, I., Davis, F.D., Dennis, A.R., Gefen, D., Gupta, A., Ischebeck, A., Kenning, P.H., Pavlou, P.A., Müller-Putz, G., Riedl, R., vom Brocke, J., Weber, B.: On the use of neurophysiological tools in IS research: developing a research agenda for NeuroIS. MIS Q. 36, 679–702 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Alpen-Adria-University KlagenfurtKlagenfurtAustria
  3. 3.Free University of Bozen-BolzanoBolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations