Advertisement

Trust-Based Individualization for Persuasive Presentation Builder

  • Amirsam KhataeiEmail author
  • Ali Arya
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9170)

Abstract

For most people, decision-making involves collecting opinion and advice from others who can be trusted. Personalizing a presentation’s content with trustworthy opinions can be very effective towards persuasiveness of the content. While the persuasiveness of presentation is an important factor in face-to-face scenarios, it becomes even more important in an online course or other educational material when the “presenter” cannot interact with audience and attract and influence them. As the final layer of our personalization model, the Pyramid of Individualization, in this paper we present a conceptual model for collecting opinionative information as trustworthy support for the presentation content. We explore selecting a credible publisher (expert) for the supporting opinion as well as the right opinion that is aligned with the intended personalized content.

Keywords

Presentation Personalized Trust Opinion mining 

References

  1. 1.
    Khataei, A., Arya, A.: Personalized Presentation Builder. In: CHI, Toronto (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hovland, C.I., Janis, I.L., Kelley, H.H.: Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change. Yale UP, New Haven (1953)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sternthal, B., Dholakia, R., Leavit, C.: The persuasive effect of source credibility: tests of cognitive response. J. Consum. Res. 4(4), 252–260 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khataei, A., Arya, A.: Personalized presentation builder for persuasive communication. ACM SIGDOC’s Communication Design Quarterly (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giffin, K.: The contribution of studies of source credibility to a theory of interpresonal trust in the communication process. Psychol. Bull. 68(2), 104–120 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pang, B., Lee, L.: Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Found. Trends Inf. Retrieval 2(1–2), 1–135 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu, J., Cao, Y., Lin, C.Y., Huang, Y., Zhou, M.: Low-quality product review detection in opinion summarization. In: Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning, Prague (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghose, A., Ipeirotis, P.G.: Estimating the helpfulness and economic impact of product reviews: mining text and reviewer characteristics. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 23(10), 1498–1512 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Massa, P., Avesani, P.: Trust-aware recommender systems. In: RecSys, New York, NY, USA (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ma, H., King, I., Lyu, M.R.: Learning to recommend with social trust ensemble. In: SIGIR 2009 Proceedings of the 32nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, New York, NY, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Golbeck, J., Hendler, J.: Inferring binary trust relationships in Web-based social networks. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 6(4), 497–529 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Castillo, C., Mendoza, M., Poblete, B.: Information credibility on twitter. In: 20th International Conference on World Wide Web, Hyderabad, India (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cho, K.S., Ryu, J.-S., Jeong, J.-H., Kim, Y.-H., Kim, U.-M.: Credibility evaluation and results with leader- weight in opinion mining. In: Cyber-Enabled Distributed Computing and Knowledge Discovery, Huangshan (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pennebaker, J.W., Francis, M.E., Booth, R.J.: Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count. LIWC.net, Austin (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Horrigan, J.: Online shopping. Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, D.C. (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dreyfus, H.L., Dreyfus, S.E.: Mind Over Machine: The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise in the Age of the Computer. Blackwell, Basil (1986)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Xiang, R., Neville, J., Rogati, M.: Modeling relationship strength in online social networks. In: The 19th International Conference on World Wide Web, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kincaid, J.P., Fishburne, R.P., Rogers, R.L., Chissom, B.S.: Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count, and Flesch Reading Ease formula) for Navy Enlisted personnel. Chief of Naval Technical Training: Naval Air Station MemphisGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gunning, R.: The Technique of Clear Writing, pp. 36–37. MCGraw-Hill, New York (1952)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Coleman, M., Liau, T.L.: A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. J. Appl. Psychol. 60, 283–284 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tsytsarau, M., Palpanas, T.: Survey on mining subjective data on the web. Data Min. Knowl. Disc. 24(3), 478–514 (2012)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sauri, R., Verhagen, M., Pustejovsky, J.: Annotating and recognizing event modality in text. In: FLAIRS, pp. 33–339 (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information TechnologyCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations