Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Group Modeling: Selecting a Sequence of Television Items to Suit a Group of Viewers

  • Published:
User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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 article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ardissono, L. and Buczak, A. (eds.) (2002).Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Personalization in Future TV, Malaga, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 78 adaptivity, International Workshops OHS-7, SC-3, and AH-3, 2001. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2266, Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 280–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. (1950).A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. Journal of Political Economics, 58, 328–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. (1951). Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: John Wiley and Sons

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise, P. and Ehrenberg, A. (1988). Television and Its Audience. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borda, J.C. (1781).Memoire sur les elections au scrutine. Histoire de l’Acade mie Royale des Sciences.

  • Cohen, W., Schapire, R. and Singer, Y. (1999). Learning to order things. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 10, 243 270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Condorcet, Marquis de (1785). Essai sur l’application de l’analyse a la probalité des décisions rendues a’ la pluralitédes voix. Paris.

  • Copeland,A.H.(1951).A ReasonableSocialWelfareFunction. 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,WashingtonUniversity.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.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fagin, R., Lotem, A. and Naor, M. (2003). Optimal aggregation algorithms for middleware. Journal of Computing System Sciences, 66, 614–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, M. (1985). Mood states and consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 281–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 2 nd Workshop on Personalization in Future TV, Malaga, Spain, pp. 95–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 3348.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, K.O. (1952). A set of independent, necessary and sufficient conditions for simple majority decision. Econometrica, 20, 680–684.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, J. and Anagnost, T. (1998).MusicFX: An arbiter of group preferences for computer supported collaborative workouts. ACM1998 Conference on CSCW, Seattle, WA, pp. 363–372.

  • Meloy, M. (2000). Mood-driven distortion of product information. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 345–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O ‘ Conner, M., Cosley, D., Konstan, J.A. and Riedl, J. (2001). PolyLens: 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-camerafinalpdf.

  • 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).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pareto, V. (1897). Cours d’economie politique. Lausanne: Rouge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattanaik, P.K. (1971).Voting and CollectiveChoice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 eCommerce, Malaga, Spain, 148–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, A. (1995) Mathematics and politics: Strategy, voting, power and proof. New York: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Evra, J. (1998). Television and Child Development. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Brighton, UK

    Judith Masthoff

Authors
  1. Judith Masthoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Masthoff, J. Group Modeling: Selecting a Sequence of Television Items to Suit a Group of Viewers. User Model User-Adap Inter 14, 37–85 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:USER.0000010138.79319.fd

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:USER.0000010138.79319.fd

Search

Navigation