“Tell Me Why”: using natural language justifications in a recipe recommender system to support healthier food choices
Users of online recipe websites tend to prefer unhealthy foods. Their popularity under- mines the healthiness of traditional food recommender systems, as many users lack nutritional knowledge to make informed food decisions. Moreover, the presented infor- mation is often unrelated to nutrition or di...
Gespeichert in:
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Users of online recipe websites tend to prefer unhealthy foods. Their popularity under- mines the healthiness of traditional food recommender systems, as many users lack nutritional knowledge to make informed food decisions. Moreover, the presented infor- mation is often unrelated to nutrition or difficult to understand. To alleviate this, we present a methodology to generate natural language justifications that emphasize the nutritional content, health risks, or benefits of recommended recipes. Our framework takes a user and two recipes as input and produces an automatically generated natural language justification as output, based on the user’s characteristics and the recipes’ features, following a knowledge-based recommendation approach. We evaluated our methodology in two crowdsourcing studies. In Study 1 (N = 502), we compared user food choices for two personalized recommendation approaches, based on either a (1) single-style justification or (2) comparative justification was shown, using a no justification baseline. The recommendations were either popularity-based or health- aware, the latter based on the health and nutritional needs of the user. We found that comparative justification styles were effective in supporting choices for our health- aware recommendations, confirming the impact of our methodology on food choices. In Study 2 (N = 504), we used the same methodology to compare the effectiveness of eight different comparative justification strategies. We presented pairs of recipes twice to users: once without and once with a pairwise justification. Results indicated that justifications led to significantly healthier choices for first course meals, while strategies that compared food features and emphasized health risks, benefits, and a user’s lifestyle were most effective, catering to health-related choice motivations. |
---|