Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ardissono, L. and Buczak, A. (eds.) (2002). Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Personalization in Future TV, Malaga, Spain.
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 adaptivity, International Workshops OHS-7, SC-3, and AH-3, 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2266, Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 280–295.
Arrow, K. (1950). A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. Journal of Political Economics, 58, 328–346.
Arrow, K. (1951). Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Barwise, P. and Ehrenberg, A. (1988). Television and Its Audience. London: Sage.
Borda, J.C. (1781). Mémoire sur les elections au scrutine. Histoire de ľAcadémie Royale des Sciences.
Cohen, W., Schapire, R. and Singer, Y. (1999). Learning to order things. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 10, 243–270.
Condorcet, Marquis de (1785). Essai sur ľapplication de ľanalyse à la probalité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix. Paris.
Copeland, A.H. (1951). A Reasonable Social Welfare Function. Mimeo, University of Michigan.
Cotter, P. and Smyth, B. (2000). PTV: Intelligent personal TV guides. 12th Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference, Austin, Texas, pp. 957–964.
Cranor, L.F. (1996). Declared-strategy voting: An instrument for group decision-making. Ph.D. Thesis, Washington University. http://ccrc.wustl.edu/~lorracks/dsv/diss/node4.html
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.
Ephrati, E. and Rosenschein, J.S. (1996). Deriving consensus in multi agent systems. Artificial Intelligence, 87, 21–74.
Fagin, R., Lotem, A. and Naor, M. (2003). Optimal aggregation algorithms for middleware. Journal of Computing System Sciences, 66, 614–656.
Gardner, M. (1985). Mood states and consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 281–300.
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 http://www.aba.gov.au/abanews/conf/1999/pdfrtf/20years gillard.rtf..
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 2nd Workshop on Personalization in Future TV, Malaga, Spain, pp. 95–102.
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.
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.
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.
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, 33–48.
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.
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.
Lijphart, A. (1994). Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-seven Democracies 1945, 1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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 http://www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/Media/people/slivingstone/young people report.pdf.
Masthoff, J. (2002). Modeling a group of television viewers. Future TV: Adaptive Instruction in Your Living Room Workshop, San Sebastian, Spain, pp. 34–42.
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.
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.
May, K.O. (1952). A set of independent, necessary and sufficient conditions for simple majority decision. Econometrica, 20, 680–684.
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).
McCarthy, J. and Anagnost, T. (1998). MusicFX: An arbiter of group preferences for computer supported collaborative workouts. ACM 1998 Conference on CSCW, Seattle, WA, pp. 363–372.
Meloy, M. (2000). Mood-driven distortion of product information. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 345–359.
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.
O’ Conner, M., Cosley, D., Konstan, J.A. and Riedl, J. (2001). Poly Lens: A recommender system for groups of users. In: Proceedings of ECSCW 2001, Bonn, Germany, pp. 199–218. As accessed on http://www.cs.umn.edu/Research/GroupLens/poly-camerafinal.pdf.
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).
Pareto, V. (1897). Cours ďeconomie politique. Lausanne: Rouge.
Pattanaik, P.K. (1971). Votingand Collective Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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 e Commerce, Malaga, Spain, 148–154.
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.
Taylor, A. (1995) Mathematics and politics: Strategy, voting, power and proof. New York: Springer Verlag.
Van Evra, J. (1998). Television and Child Development. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Masthoff, J. (2004). Group Modeling: Selecting a Sequence of Television Items to Suit a Group of Viewers. In: Personalized Digital Television. Human-Computer Interaction Series, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2164-X_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2164-X_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-2163-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-2164-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive