IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v22y2011i4p867-884.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research Note ---The Influence of Trade-off Difficulty Caused by Preference Elicitation Methods on User Acceptance of Recommendation Agents Across Loss and Gain Conditions

Author

Listed:
  • Young Eun Lee

    (Graduate School of Business, Fordham University, New York, New York 10023)

  • Izak Benbasat

    (Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T 1Z2 Canada)

Abstract

Prior studies on product recommendation agents (RAs) have been based on the effort-accuracy perspective in which the amount of effort required to make a decision and the accuracy of such decisions are two dominant antecedents of user acceptance of RAs. The current study extends the effort-accuracy perspective by considering trade-off difficulty, a type of negative emotion that arises when attainment of one's goals is blocked by the attainment of other goals; consequently, one must make trade-offs among the conflicting goals. Many product purchase choices for which RAs are used require users to make trade-offs among conflicting product attributes. A key feature of RAs, the preference elicitation method (PEM), often compels users to make explicit trade-offs. We examine whether an RA's PEM generates trade-off difficulty, which, in turn, affects users' evaluations (i.e., perceived amount of effort and perceived accuracy of recommendations) and the resultant acceptance of the RA. Trade-off difficulty influences users' evaluations of an RA via perceived control over execution of the RA PEM. In addition, the decision context in which users employ a PEM moderates the degree to which that PEM generates trade-off difficulty. Specifically, a PEM generates a greater degree of trade-off difficulty in a choice context that leads to a loss than in a choice context that leads to a gain. Consequently, users exert more effort to cope with trade-off difficulty in a loss condition. Because users voluntarily spend more effort, the negative influence of perceived effort on users' acceptance of an RA---which is supported in prior studies---decreases in a loss condition. A laboratory experiment was conducted using two between-subject factors: two RAs, one that employed a trade-off-compelling PEM and the other a trade-off-hiding PEM, and two decision contexts, one of which was a loss condition and the other a gain condition. The results supported all of the hypotheses.

Suggested Citation

  • Young Eun Lee & Izak Benbasat, 2011. "Research Note ---The Influence of Trade-off Difficulty Caused by Preference Elicitation Methods on User Acceptance of Recommendation Agents Across Loss and Gain Conditions," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 867-884, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:22:y:2011:i:4:p:867-884
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.1100.0334
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0334
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.1100.0334?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simonson, Itamar, 1989. "Choice Based on Reasons: The Case of Attraction and Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 16(2), pages 158-174, September.
    2. Richard H. Thaler & Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman & Alan Schwartz, 1997. "The Effect of Myopia and Loss Aversion on Risk Taking: An Experimental Test," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 647-661.
    3. Viswanath Venkatesh, 2000. "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 342-365, December.
    4. Todd, Peter & Benbasat, Izak, 1994. "The Influence of Decision Aids on Choice Strategies: An Experimental Analysis of the Role of Cognitive Effort," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 36-74, October.
    5. Kottemann, Jeffrey E. & Davis, Fred D. & Remus, William E., 1994. "Computer-Assisted Decision Making: Performance, Beliefs, and the Illusion of Control," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 26-37, January.
    6. Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
    7. Aloysius, John A. & Davis, Fred D. & Wilson, Darryl D. & Ross Taylor, A. & Kottemann, Jeffrey E., 2006. "User acceptance of multi-criteria decision support systems: The impact of preference elicitation techniques," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 273-285, February.
    8. Peter Todd & Izak Benbasat, 1991. "An Experimental Investigation of the Impact of Computer Based Decision Aids on Decision Making Strategies," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 2(2), pages 87-115, June.
    9. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    10. Luce, Mary Frances, 1998. "Choosing to Avoid: Coping with Negatively Emotion-Laden Consumer Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(4), pages 409-433, March.
    11. Peter Todd & Izak Benbasat, 1999. "Evaluating the Impact of DSS, Cognitive Effort, and Incentives on Strategy Selection," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 356-374, December.
    12. Paul A. Pavlou & Angelika Dimoka, 2006. "The Nature and Role of Feedback Text Comments in Online Marketplaces: Implications for Trust Building, Price Premiums, and Seller Differentiation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 392-414, December.
    13. Viswanath Venkatesh & Fred D. Davis, 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(2), pages 186-204, February.
    14. Gerald Häubl & Valerie Trifts, 2000. "Consumer Decision Making in Online Shopping Environments: The Effects of Interactive Decision Aids," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(1), pages 4-21, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pascal Meier & Jan Heinrich Beinke & Christian Fitte & Jan Schulte to Brinke & Frank Teuteberg, 2021. "Generating design knowledge for blockchain-based access control to personal health records," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 13-41, March.
    2. Pei-Fang Hsu & Tuan (Kellan) Nguyen & Chen-Ya Wang & Pei-Ju Huang, 2023. "Chatbot commerce—How contextual factors affect Chatbot effectiveness," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-22, December.
    3. Argyris, Young Anna & Kim, Yongsuk & Roscizewski, Alexa & Song, Won, 2021. "The mediating role of vaccine hesitancy between maternal engagement with anti- and pro-vaccine social media posts and adolescent HPV-vaccine uptake rates in the US: The perspective of loss aversion in," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).
    4. Lior Fink & Daniele Papismedov, 2023. "On the Same Page? What Users Benefit from a Desktop View on Mobile Devices," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 423-441, June.
    5. Weiquan Wang & Jingjun (David) Xu & May Wang, 2018. "Effects of Recommendation Neutrality and Sponsorship Disclosure on Trust vs. Distrust in Online Recommendation Agents: Moderating Role of Explanations for Organic Recommendations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(11), pages 5198-5219, November.
    6. Marshall, Thomas E. & Drum, Dawna & Morris, Steven & Lambert, Sherwood Lane, 2021. "Leveraging research within a pedagogical protocol for enhanced integrated-competency student learning," Journal of Accounting Education, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mark Heitmann & Andreas Herrmann, 2007. "Die Zufriedenheit mit dem Entscheidungsprozess als Determinante der Kundenbindung," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 59(5), pages 530-566, August.
    2. Netsanet Haile & Jörn Altmann, 2016. "Structural analysis of value creation in software service platforms," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 26(2), pages 129-142, May.
    3. Georgios Gerasimou, 2016. "Asymmetric dominance, deferral, and status quo bias in a behavioral model of choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 295-312, February.
    4. Tarnanidis, Theodore & Owusu-Frimpong, Nana & Nwankwo, Sonny & Omar, Maktoba, 2015. "Why we buy? Modeling consumer selection of referents," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 24-36.
    5. Viswanath Venkatesh, 2000. "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 342-365, December.
    6. Cheng, Yin-Hui & Chuang, Shih-Chieh & Pei-I Yu, Annie & Lai, Wan-Ting, 2019. "Change in your wallet, change your choice: The effect of the change-matching heuristic on choice," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 67-76.
    7. J-J Huang, 2009. "Revised behavioural models for riskless consumer choice," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(9), pages 1237-1243, September.
    8. Müller, Holger & Benjamin Kroll, Eike & Vogt, Bodo, 2010. "“Fact or artifact? Empirical evidence on the robustness of compromise effects in binding and non-binding choice contextsâ€," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 441-448.
    9. O. Alan Tidwell & Paul Gallimore, 2014. "The influence of a decision support tool on real estate valuations," Journal of Property Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(1), pages 45-63, March.
    10. Calder, Bobby J. & He, Sharlene & Sternthal, Brian, 2023. "Using theoretical frameworks in behavioral research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    11. Fernandes, Semila & Venkatesh, V.G. & Panda, Rajesh & Shi, Yangyan, 2021. "Measurement of factors influencing online shopper buying decisions: A scale development and validation," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    12. Chuan-Hoo Tan & Hock-Hai Teo & Izak Benbasat, 2010. "Assessing Screening and Evaluation Decision Support Systems: A Resource-Matching Approach," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(2), pages 305-326, June.
    13. Utpal M. Dholakia & Itamar Simonson, 2005. "The Effect of Explicit Reference Points on Consumer Choice and Online Bidding Behavior," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 206-217, October.
    14. Kurt Carlson & Chris Janiszewski & Ralph Keeney & David Krantz & Howard Kunreuther & Mary Luce & J. Russo & Stijn Osselaer & Detlof Winterfeldt, 2008. "A theoretical framework for goal-based choice and for prescriptive analysis," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 241-254, December.
    15. Maier, Erik, 2016. "Supply and demand on crowdlending platforms: connecting small and medium-sized enterprise borrowers and consumer investors," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 143-153.
    16. Simonson, Itamar & Ofir, Chezy, 2000. "The Effect of Expecting to Evaluate on Quality and Satisfaction Evaluations," Research Papers 1608, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    17. William M. Hedgcock & Raghunath Singh Rao & Haipeng (Allan) Chen, 2016. "Choosing to Choose: The Effects of Decoys and Prior Choice on Deferral," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2952-2976, October.
    18. Ravaja, Niklas & Korhonen, Pekka & Köksalan, Murat & Lipsanen, Jari & Salminen, Mikko & Somervuori, Outi & Wallenius, Jyrki, 2016. "Emotional–motivational responses predicting choices: The role of asymmetrical frontal cortical activity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 56-70.
    19. Viswanath Venkatesh & Ritu Agarwal, 2006. "Turning Visitors into Customers: A Usability-Centric Perspective on Purchase Behavior in Electronic Channels," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(3), pages 367-382, March.
    20. Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W. & Bettman, James R., 2000. "Coping with Unfavorable Attribute Values in Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 274-299, March.

    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:inm:orisre:v:22:y:2011:i:4:p:867-884. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.