Recommending Products When Consumers Learn Their Preference Weights

References

• Adam K (2001) Learning while searching for the best alternative. J. Econom. Theory 101(1):252–280.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Adamopoulos P, Tuzhilin A (2014) On unexpectedness in recommender systems: or how to better expect the unexpected. ACM Trans. Intelligent Systems Tech. 5(4):54:1–32.Google Scholar
• Adomavičius G, Tuzhilin A (2005) Toward the next generation of recommender systems: A survey of the state-of-the-art and possible extensions. IEEE Trans. Knowledge Data Engrg. 17(6):734–749.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ansari A, Essegaier S, Kohli R (2000) Internet recommendation systems. J. Marketing Res. 37(3):363–376.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bikhchandani S, Sharma S (1996) Optimal search with learning. J. Econom. Dynam. Control 20(1):333–359.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bodapati A (2008) Recommendation systems with purchase data. J. Marketing Res. 45(1):77–93.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Branco F, Sun M, Villas-Boas JM (2012) Optimal search for product information. Management Sci. 58(11):2037–2056.Link, Google Scholar
• Bronnenberg BJ, Kim J, Mela CF (2016) Zooming in on choice: How do consumers search for cameras online? Marketing Sci. 35(5):693–712.Google Scholar
• Castells P, Vargas S, Wang J (2011) Novelty and diversity metrics for recommender systems: choice, discovery and relevance. Macdonald C, Wang J, Clarke C, eds. Proc. Internat. Workshop Diversity Document Retrieval, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
• Celma Ò, Herrera P (2008) A new approach to evaluating novel recommendations. Proc. 2008 ACM Conf. Recommender Systems (ACM, New York), 179–186.Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Yao S (2016) Sequential search with refinement: Model and application with clickstream data. Management Sci. 63(12):4345–4365.Link, Google Scholar
• Chick SE, Frazier P (2012) Sequential sampling with economics of selection procedures. Management Sci. 58(3):550–569.Link, Google Scholar
• Chung J, Rao VR (2012) A general consumer preference model for experience products: Application to internet recommendation services. J. Marketing Res. 49(3):289–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cook J (2012) MiniDates schedules real-life (legitimately) blind dates for you. TechCrunch (May 30), https://techcrunch.com/2012/05/30/minidates-schedules-real-life-legitimately-blind-dates-for-you/.Google Scholar
• De Bruyn A, Liechty JC, Huizingh EKRE, Lilien GL (2008) Offering online recommendations with minimum customer input through conjoint-based decision aids. Marketing Sci. 27(3):443–460.Link, Google Scholar
• Dzyabura D, Jagabathula S (2018) Offline assortment optimization in the presence of an online channel. Management Sci. 64(6):2767–2786.Google Scholar
• Dzyabura D, Jagabathula S, Muller E (2019) Accounting for discrepancies between online and offline product evaluations. Marketing Sci. 38(1):88–106.Google Scholar
• Finkel EJ, Eastwick PW, Karney BR, Reis HT, Sprecher S (2012) Online dating: A critical analysis from the perspective of psychological science. Psych. Sci. Public Interest 13(1):3–66.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fleder D, Hosanagar K (2009) Blockbuster culture’s next rise or fall: The impact of recommender systems on sales diversity. Management Sci. 55(5):697–712.Link, Google Scholar
• Ge M, Delgado-Battenfeld C, Jannach D (2010) Beyond accuracy: Evaluating recommender systems by coverage and serendipity. Proc. 2008 ACM Conf. Recommender Systems (ACM, New York), 257–260.Google Scholar
• Ghose A, Ipeirotis PG, Li B (2012) Designing ranking systems for hotels on travel search engines by mining user-generated and crowdsourced content. Marketing Sci. 31(3):493–520.Link, Google Scholar
• Gittins JC (1979) Bandit processes and dynamic allocation indices. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B (Methodological) 41(2):148–177.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gittins JC, Glazebrook K, Weber R (2011) Multi-armed Bandit Allocation Indices (John Wiley & Sons, London).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenleaf EA, Lehmann DR (1995) Reasons for substantial delay in consumer decision making. J. Consumer Res. 22(2):186–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Häubl G, Trifts V (2000) Consumer decision making in online shopping environments: The effects of interactive decision aids. Marketing Sci. 19(1):4–21.Link, Google Scholar
• Hauser JR, Dong S, Ding M (2014a) Self-reflection and articulated consumer preferences. J. Product Innovation Management 31(1):17–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hauser JR, Liberali G, Urban GL (2014b) Website morphing 2.0: Switching costs, partial exposure, random exit, and when to morph. Management Sci. 60(6):1594–1616.Link, Google Scholar
• Hauser JR, Urban GL, Liberali G, Braun M (2009) Website morphing. Marketing Sci. 28(2):202–224.Link, Google Scholar
• Herlocker J, Konstan J, Terveen L, Riedl J (2004) Evaluating collaborative filtering recommender systems. ACM Trans. Inform. Systems 22(1):5–53.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hong H, Shum M (2006) Using price distributions to estimate search costs. RAND J. Econom. 37(2):257–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Honka E (2014) Quantifying search and switching costs in the US auto insurance industry. RAND J. Econom. 45(4):847–884.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacobs BJD, Donkers B, Fok D (2016) Model-based purchase predictions for large assortments. Marketing Sci. 35(3):389–404.Link, Google Scholar
• Jun T (2004) A survey on the bandit problem with switching costs. Economist 152(4):513–541.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ke TT, Shen Z-JM, Villas-Boas, JM (2016) Search for information on multiple products. Management Sci. 62(12):3576–3603.Google Scholar
• Kim JB, Albuquerque P, Bronnenberg BJ (2010) Online demand under limited consumer search. Marketing Sci. 29(6):1001–1023.Link, Google Scholar
• Lin S, Zhang J, Hauser JR (2014) Learning from experience, simply. Marketing Sci. 34(1):1–19.Link, Google Scholar
• Liu NN, Zhao M, Xiang E, Yang Q (2010) Online evolutionary collaborative filtering. Proc. 4th ACM Conf. Recommender Systems (ACM, New York), 95–102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lu S, Xiao L, Ding M (2016) A video-based automated recommender (VAR) system for garments. Marketing Sci. 35(3):484–510.Link, Google Scholar
• McNee S, Riedl J, Konstan J (2006) Accurate is not always good: How accuracy metrics have hurt recommender systems. Extended Abstracts on ACM Human Factors in Computing Systems (ACM, New York), 1097–1101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mersereau AJ, Rusmevichientong P, Tsitsiklis JN (2009) A structured multiarmed bandit problem and the greedy policy. IEEE Trans. Automatic Control 54(12):2787–2802.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Misra K, Schwartz EM, Abernethy J (2017) Dynamic online pricing with incomplete information using multi-armed bandit experiments. Working paper, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
• Moon S, Russell GL (2008) Predicting product purchase from inferred customer similarity: An autologistic model approach. Management Sci. 54(1):71–82.Link, Google Scholar
• Rogers A (2013) After you read the listings, your agent reads you. New York Times (March 26), F4.Google Scholar
• Schwartz EM, Bradlow ET, Fader PS (2017) Customer acquisition via display advertising using multi-armed bandit experiments. Marketing Sci. 36(4):500–522.Link, Google Scholar
• Seiler S (2013) The impact of search costs on consumer behavior: A dynamic approach. Quant. Marketing Econom. 11(2):155–203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• She J, MacDonald EF (2013) Trigger features on prototypes increase preference for sustainability. Proc. 25th ASME Internat. Conf. Design Theory Methodology, Portland, OR.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sheehy K (2013) Study: High school grads choosing wrong college majors. U.S. News World Rep. (November 11). http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2013/11/11/study-high-school-grads-choosing-wrong-college-majors.Google Scholar
• Tversky A (1972) Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psych. Rev. 79(4):281–299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Urban GL, Hauser JR (2004) ‘Listening-in’ to find and explore new combinations of customer needs. J. Marketing 68(2):72–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vargas S, Castells P (2011) Rank and relevance in novelty and diversity metrics for recommender systems. Proc. 5th ACM Conf. Recommender Systems (ACM, New York), 109–116.Google Scholar
• Weitzman ML (1979) Optimal search for the best alternative. Econometrica 47(3):641–654.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Whittle P (1988) Restless bandits: Activity allocation in a changing world. J. Appl. Probab. 25(A):287–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ying Y, Feinberg F, Wedel M (2006) Leveraging missing ratings to improve online recommendation systems. J. Marketing Res. 43(3):355–365.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang M, Hurley N (2008) Avoiding monotony: Improving the diversity of recommendation lists. Proc. 2008 ACM Conf. Recommender Systems (ACM, New York), 123–130.Google Scholar
• Zhou T, Kuscsik Z, Liu J-G, Medo M, Wakeling JR, Zhang Y-C (2010) Solving the apparent diversity-accuracy dilemma of recommender systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107(10):4511–4515.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ziegler C-N, McNee SM, Konstan JA, Lausen G (2005) Improving recommendation lists through topic diversification. ACM Proc. 14th Internat. Conf. World Wide Web (ACM, New York), 22–32.Crossref, Google Scholar