A Review of the Psychological Factors and the Type of Search Affecting the Choice Overload in Information Retrieval Systems

Document Type : مقالات پژوهشی

Authors

• Fahimeh Mansouri
• Mohsen Nowkarizi
• Rahmattolah Fattahi

Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

10.22067/riis.v0i0.65996

Abstract

Introduction: the purpose of this study was to study the effect of psychological factors and the search type on choice overload in the information retrieval systems.
Methodology: This study used a descriptive review method and was done based on the study of relevant literature on the choice overload theory. Collection of related articles was done with using the keywords of ‘‘Too-much-choice effect’’, ‘‘hyperchoice’’, ‘‘tyranny of choice’’, ‘‘paradox of choice’’, ‘‘lure of choice’’ and their combinations with the keywords of ‘‘maximizer’’, ‘‘satisficer’’, ‘‘type of search’’, ‘‘modulators’’ and ‘‘Google’’ in databases of SID, Magiran, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar in the time span of 1990-2017.
Findings: The findings showed that factors such as restrictions on cognitive ability and occurring cognitive overload (cognitive overload theory), feeling regret about not including all items and then regret about the choice that leads to so-called "berry picking" or information selection with obsession (serendipity theory), and trying to select relevant information regarding to the cognitive capacity constraints (selective attention theory) are dissatisfaction factors in many retrieved results. Browsing researches in this area shows that amongst psychological factors, the personality factor is an effective factor in the choice overload.
Conclusion: Users personality and search type are both effective variables in determining the level of satisfaction. According to the information retrieval systems' more direction toward customization, considering the type of personality and the type of search will lead to some retrieval with more satisfied users.

Keywords

• choice overload theory
• psychological factors
• search type
• Personality
• information retrieval systems

---

References

آبام، زویا. (1389). بررسی رفتار جست‌وجوی مروری و عوامل مؤثر بر قضاوت ربط در مرور محیط فراپیوند وب (پایان‌نامۀ دکتری). دانشگاه فردوسی، مشهد.

آبام، زویا، فتاحی، رحمت‌الله، پریرخ، مهری و صالحیفدردی، جواد. (1390). بررسی چگونگی تعامل کاربران مختلف با محیط فراپیوندی وب و مطالعه عملکرد آن‌ها در جست‌وجوی مروری. کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی، 55، 51-82.

آرمور، فیل و دالی، مری. (1دی‌ماه1387). پس‌اندازهای بازنشستگی و خطاهای تصمیم (محمدصادق الحسینی و اکرم جهانشاهی، مترجمان). دنیای اقتصاد. بازیابی 10 خرداد 1394 از http://www.donya-e-eqtesad.com/news/487388/#ixzz3al1 NVvXP

جوکار، بهرام و سپهری، صفورا. (1385). رابطه شادی و شیوه‌های گزینش. مطالعات روانشناختی، 2 (3). 125-137.

خسروی، عبدالرسول. (1390). بررسی کارآمدی عبارتهای پیشنهادی موتورهای کاوش در بسط جست‌وجو از دیدگاه کاربران بر اساس اصل کمترین تلاش و نظریه بار شناختی (پایان‌نامۀ دکتری). دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد.

خسروی، عبدالرسول، فتاحی، رحمت‌الله، پریرخ، مهری و دیانی، محمدحسین. (1391). تحلیل بسط جست‌وجوی کاربران در موتور کاوش گوگل بر پایه نظریه بارشناختی. فصلنامه کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی، 58 (2). بازیابی 15 مرداد 95 از http://lis.aqr-libjournal.ir/article_43005.html

سیدین، الهام. (1388). رابطه هدف‌گرایی، شیوه‌های گزینش و شادی (پایان‌نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد). دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز.

عرب‌مازاریزدی، محمد، مسیح‌آبادی، ابوالقاسم و پوریوسف، اعظم. (1391). سبک‌شناختی حسابرس، حجم اطلاعات و کیفیت اظهارنظر نسبت به تدوام فعالیت. بررسی‌های حسابداری و حسابرسی، 19(2). 73-96.

قهرمانیان، پروین. (1393). بررسی کشف تصادفی اطلاعات در رفتار اطلاعاتی کارمندان شرکت کالای الکتریک (پایاننامۀ کارشناسی ارشد). دانشگاه بیرجند، بیرجند.

کیانی، محمدرضا. (1391). تحلیل و آزمون الگوی روابط میان عدم استفاده اجباری از اطلاعات با اجتناب‌شناختی، جهت‌گیری منفی به مشکل و عدم تحمل بلاتکلیفی بر اساس مدل مستخرج از دسته‌بندی هیوسین (با رویکردی شناختی) (پایان‌نامۀ دکتری). دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد.

منصوری، فهیمه، نوکاریزی، محسن و فتاحی، رحمت‌الله. (1396). تعدیلکننده‌های نظریه اضافه‌بار انتخاب در موتور جست‌وجوی گوگل در میان دانشجویان، برپایه تیپ‌های شخصیتی بیشینه‌خواهی و بسنده‌خواهی. پژوهشنامه پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات، 33(2)، 857-884.

Anderson, Ch. (2008). The long tail: Why the future of business is selling less of more. New York: Hyperion.

Andre, P., Schraefel, M. C., Teevan, J., & Dumais, S. T. (October, 2009). Discovery is never by chance: Designing for (UN) serendipity. Paper presented at the Seventh ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition, Berkely, California, USA. Retrieved March27, 2016 from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~pandre/pubs/fp392-andre.pdf

Ariely, D., Levav, J. (2000). Sequential choice in group settings: Taking the road less traveled and less enjoyed. Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (3), 279–290.

Awaisu, M., Zivkovic, J., & Ume, A. (2012). Hyperchoice and its impact on Nigerian Consumer’s level of satsifacation. The Allied Academy. USA: Las Vegas.

Bates, Marcia J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review,19(5), 407-424. Retrieved May 15, 2015 from http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/bates/berrypicking.html

Besides, T., Deck, C., Sarangi, S., Shor, M. (2014). Reducing choice overload without reducing choices. Retrieved June 8, 2015 from http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~tbesedes3/besedes-breakdown.pdf

Björneborn, L. (2008). Serendipity dimensions and users' information behaviour in the physical library interface. Information Research, 13(4). May 15, 2015 from http://www.informationr.net/ir/13-4/paper370.html

Bons, P. (2008). The art of choosing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Maastricht University, Netherlands.

Borle, Sh., Boatwright, P., Kadane, J. B., Nunes, J. C., & Shmueli, G. (2005). The effect of product assortment changes on customer retention. Marketting Science, 24(4), 616-622.

Bown, N. J., Read D., & Summers, B. (2003). The lure of choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(3), 297–308.

Chiravirakul, P. (2014). Search satisfaction: choice overload, variety seeking and serendipity in search engine use (Doctoral dissertation). University of Bath, UK.

DeBruijn, O. & Spence, R. A. (2008). New framework for theory-based interaction design applied to serendipitous information retrieval, ACM TOCHI, 15(1), 1-38.

Diehl, K. & Poynor, C. (2010). Great expectations?! Assortment size, expectations and satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research. 47 (2), 312-322.

Erdelez, S. (1999). Information encountering: It's more than just bumping into information. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, 25(3), 25--29.

Erdelez, S. (2004). Investigation of information encountering in the controlled research environment. Information Processing and Management, 40(6), 1013-1025.

Fasolo, B., Hertwig, R., Huber, M., & Ludwig, L. (2009). Size, entropy, and density: What is the difference that makes the difference between small and large real-world assortments? Psychology and Marketing, 26(3), 254–79.

Fattahi, R., Parirokh, M., Dayyani, M. H., Khosravi, A. & Zareivenovel, M. (2016). Effectiveness of Google keyword suggestion on users’ relevance judgment: A mixed

Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and Judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 39-66.

Foster, A. & Ford, N. (2003). Serendipity and information seeking: An empirical study, J. Documentation, 59(3), 321-340.

Frias-Martinez, E., Chen, S. Y., McCredie, R. D., Liu, X. (2007). The role of human factors in stereotyping behavior and perception of digital library users: A robust clustering approach. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 17(3), 305-337.

Hoch, S. J., Bradlow, E. T., & Wansink, B. (1999). The variety of an assortment. Marketing Science, 18(4), 527– 546

Hukkinen, J. P. (2011). Less is more –the paradox of choice in search-engine use (Master’s thesis). The University of Helsinki, Finland.

Hutchinson, J. M. C. (2005). Is more always desirable? Evidence and arguments from leks, food selection, and environmental enrichment. Biological Reviews, 80(1), 73–92.

Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 995– 1006.

Iyengar, S. S., Wells, R.E., Schwartz, B. (2006). Doing better but feeling worse. Looking for the "best" job undermines satisfaction. Psychol Sci, 17(2), 143-50.

Lamport, L. (1984). Buridan's principle (Report No. 5). Retrieved June 20, 2015 from http://research.microsoft.com/enus/um/people/lamport/pubs/buridan.pdf

Lenton, A. P., Fasolo, B., & Todd, P.M. (2008). When less is more in ‘shopping’ for a mate: Expectations vs. actual preferences in online mate choice. IEEE transaction on professional communication, 51(2), 169-182.

Mogilner, C., Rudnick, T., & Iyengar, S.S. (2008). The mere categorization effect: How the presence of categories increases choosers’ perceptions of assortment variety and outcome satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 202–15.

Nutefall, J. E., & Ryder, Ph. M. (2010). The serendipitous research process. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 36(3), 228-234.

Oulasvirta, A., Hukkinen, J., Schwartz, B. (2009). When more is less: The paradox of choice in search engine use. proc. SIGIR. ACM Press, 516-23.

Peck, M. S. (2003). The road less traveled, 25th anniversary edition: A new psychology of love, traditional values and spiritual growth. New York: Touchstone Rockefeller Centy.

Peng, S. (2013). Maximizing and satisficing in decision-making dyads.Wharton Research Scholars. 98(5). Retrieved June 20, 2015 from http://repository.upenn.edu/wharton_research_scholars/98

Protopsaltis, A., Bouki, V. (2008, September). Gender and information processing in electronic age. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 26th annual ACM International Conference on Design of Communication. Lisbon, Portugal.

Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., & Todd, P. M. (2009). What moderates the too-much-choice effect? Psychology and Marketing, 26 (3), 229–53.

Schwartz, B. (2000). Self-determination: The tyranny of freedom. American Psychologist, 55(1), 79–88.

Schwartz, B. (2002). The tyranny of choice. Retrieved May 28, 2015 from http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bschwar1/Sci.Amer.pdf

Schwartz, B. (2005). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. Harper Perennial.

Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K., & Lehman, D. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 1178–1197.

Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(4), 99–118.

Singer, G., Norbisrath, U., & Lewandowski, D., (2012). Ordinary Search Engine Users Carrying Out Complex SearchTasks. Journal of Informatiom Science, 42(4), 1-13.

Suzuki, S. (1997). Effects of number of alternatives on choice in humans. Behavioural Processes, 39(5), 205-214.

Suzuki, S. (2000). Choice between single-response and multichoice tasks in humans. Psychological Record, 50(4), 105-115.

Timmermans, D. (1993). The impact of task complexity on information use in multi-attribute decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 6(2), 95–111.

Toms, E. (2000). Serendipitous information retrieval, Proc of the First DELOS Network of Excellence Workshop on Information Seeking, Searching and Querying in Digital Libraries.

Voss, S.C. & Homzie, M. J. (1970). Choice as a value. Psychological Reports, 26(3), 912-914.

Wan, Y., Menon, S., and Ramaprasad, A. (2003). How It happens: A conceptual explanation of choice overload in online decision-making by individuals. AMCIS, 2003 Proceedings. 309. http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2003/309

White, K., Lehman, D. R., & Schwartz, B. (2002). [Rumination tendencies among maximizers and satisficers]. Unpublished raw data.