IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijidsc/v8y2016i4p378-403.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the effectiveness of intentional preferences versus preferences over specific choices: a user study

Author

Listed:
  • Panagiotis Papadakos
  • Yannis Tzitzikas

Abstract

Many works have proposed the enrichment of database query languages with preferences, aiding the user to better rank the results. In this work we propose and examine the hypothesis that effective preference specification in many cases presupposes knowledge of the information space and the available choices. Otherwise, the expression of intentional preferences can be a tiresome process, leading to non-optimal results. We designed a user study from an information systems perspective, where participants had to express their preferences for buying a new car (intentional preferences) and then select the most preferred car from a list (preferences over specific choices). The results showed that only 20% of the users expressed intentional preferences that led to the finally selected car. The conducted statistical hypothesis testing supports the results with a 1% error. Consequently, we argue that the ability to gradually express preferences while exploring the available choices is beneficial for effectively and efficiently ranking a set of choices.

Suggested Citation

  • Panagiotis Papadakos & Yannis Tzitzikas, 2016. "Comparing the effectiveness of intentional preferences versus preferences over specific choices: a user study," International Journal of Information and Decision Sciences, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(4), pages 378-403.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijidsc:v:8:y:2016:i:4:p:378-403
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=80462
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijidsc:v:8:y:2016:i:4:p:378-403. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=306 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.