Gradual bipolar argumentation has been shown to be an
effective means for supporting decisions across a number of domains. Individual user preferences can be integrated into the domain knowledge represented by such argumentation frameworks and should be taken into account in order to provide personalised decision support. This however
requires the definition of a suitable method to handle user-provided preferences in gradual bipolar argumentation, which has not been considered in previous literature. Towards filling this gap, we develop a conceptual analysis on the role of preferences in argumentation and investigate some basic principles concerning the effects they should have on the evaluation of strength in gradual argumentation semantics. We illustrate an application of our approach in the context of a review aggregation system, which has been enhanced with the ability to produce personalised
outcomes based on user preferences.