Exploring the Role of Cognitive Flexibility in Users' Information-Seeking Behavior

Articles in Press

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Jamileh Jahani ¹

Maryam Salami ²

Afshin Mousavi Chelak ³

Faeze Delghandi ⁴

¹ Ph.D. Candidate of Information Science and Knowledge, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran.

² Associate Professor, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran

³ Associate Professor, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran.

⁴ Assistant Professor, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Payame Noor University,Tehran, Iran.

10.22067/infosci.2026.98092.1274

Abstract

Introduction: With the rapid expansion of digital information environments, understanding the factors that shape users’ information-seeking behavior has become increasingly important. Among these factors, cognitive flexibility—defined as the ability to modify cognitive strategies and adapt to changing conditions and task demands—may play a critical role in managing information-search processes, making decisions, and solving information-related problems. Despite its potential importance, empirical evidence on the relationship between cognitive flexibility and information-seeking behavior and search success remains limited, particularly when users perform tasks that vary in complexity. Accordingly, the present study aimed to examine the role of different levels of cognitive flexibility in shaping the information-seeking behavior and search success of PhD students while performing simple and complex information-search tasks.
Methodology: This study employed a quantitative, quasi-experimental, causal-comparative research design. The study population comprised all PhD students enrolled at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad during the 2024–2025 academic year (N = 2,822). A two-stage sampling procedure was employed to establish participant groups based on different levels of cognitive flexibility. In the first stage, a researcher-developed Cognitive Flexibility Questionnaire, adapted from the Cognitive Flexibility Inventory developed by Dennis and Vander Wal (2010), was administered to 338 doctoral students selected through stratified random sampling. The questionnaire demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties. Its content validity was established through expert review, and its internal consistency was confirmed by a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.83. Based on the quartile distribution of questionnaire scores, 45 participants were purposively selected and allocated to three equal groups representing high, moderate, and low levels of cognitive flexibility, with 15 participants in each group. In the main phase of the study, participants’ cognitive flexibility was objectively assessed using the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), a well-established neuropsychological measure of cognitive flexibility and executive functioning. Each participant subsequently completed two controlled information-search tasks in a simulated search environment: one simple task and one complex task. The search scenarios were developed based on expert judgments in Information Science and Knowledge Studies and were evaluated for relevance, clarity, and cognitive complexity. Throughout the search process, participants’ interactions with the search environment were automatically recorded using log-file analysis through Screen Recorder (Version 11.2.1). Three behavioral indicators were extracted and analyzed as dependent variables: (1) number of clicks, representing the extent of users’ interaction with the search system; (2) search completion time, measured in seconds; and (3) search success, operationalized as the participant’s ability to identify the correct answer to each search task. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics. The normality of the data distribution was assessed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. To examine the research hypotheses, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), mixed-design ANOVA, post hoc pairwise comparisons, and the chi-square test were conducted, as appropriate to the measurement level and distribution of the variables. Statistical significance was set at α = 0.05.
Findings: The findings revealed significant differences in information-seeking behavior across the three levels of cognitive flexibility. These differences were observed in both simple and complex search tasks and were more pronounced under complex task conditions. Both task complexity and cognitive flexibility had significant main effects on search completion time. As expected, participants required significantly more time to complete complex search tasks than simple tasks. However, participants with high cognitive flexibility completed both types of tasks significantly faster than those with moderate or low cognitive flexibility. Furthermore, a significant interaction between task complexity and cognitive flexibility indicated that the increase in search time associated with greater task complexity was substantially smaller among participants with high cognitive flexibility. The results also demonstrated significant differences in search success across the cognitive-flexibility groups. Participants with high cognitive flexibility achieved significantly higher information-retrieval success rates than those with moderate or low cognitive flexibility in both simple and complex search tasks. In contrast, no statistically significant difference was observed between participants with moderate and low cognitive flexibility. Overall, these findings suggest that higher cognitive flexibility is associated with more efficient information seeking and greater search success, particularly when users encounter complex information-search tasks.
Discussion and conclusion: The findings indicate that cognitive flexibility is an important factor associated with information-seeking behavior and information-retrieval success. Compared with participants with moderate and low levels of cognitive flexibility, those with high cognitive flexibility demonstrated more efficient search behavior, completed search tasks in less time, and achieved higher levels of search success across both simple and complex information-search tasks. Furthermore, the significant interaction between task complexity and cognitive flexibility suggests that cognitive flexibility may buffer the adverse effects of increasing task complexity on search performance. Specifically, participants with high cognitive flexibility experienced smaller increases in search completion time as task complexity increased, indicating greater adaptability to more demanding search conditions. These findings suggest that cognitive flexibility may enhance the effectiveness of information-seeking behavior by facilitating adaptive strategy selection, supporting the management of cognitive demands, and enabling users to respond more effectively to complex information environments. From a practical perspective, users’ cognitive characteristics should therefore be considered in the design of information-retrieval systems, search interfaces, and information-literacy programs. Incorporating authentic and progressively complex search scenarios, together with instructional activities that promote flexible strategy use, may further enhance users’ information-seeking performance, particularly in complex information environments.
Originality: This study represents one of the relatively few empirical investigations of the role of cognitive flexibility in shaping the information-seeking behavior of postgraduate students. Its findings underscore the importance of cognitive flexibility for both information-seeking behavior and search performance. By combining an objective assessment of cognitive flexibility using the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) with real-time search-log analysis, the study provides a more comprehensive account of the relationship between cognitive characteristics and actual search behavior. Moreover, examining the interaction between cognitive flexibility and task complexity offers empirical insight into how individual cognitive differences may influence search performance under varying levels of information-search demands. These findings contribute to the growing body of research on user-centered information retrieval and offer practical implications for the development of cognitively informed information-retrieval systems, search interfaces, and information-literacy programs.

Keywords

Cognitive flexibility

Information-seeking Behavior

PhD Students

Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

Subjects

• Information Behavior

---

References

Abhishek, B. P., Kumari, K., Kajalia, Y., & Nagashreeya, D. (2023). Cognitive flexibility in younger and older bilingual adults: Evidence from confrontation naming and alternative fluency task. Indian Journal of Gerontology, 37(2), 243-255. ttps://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=09714189&AN=163813548&h=bkwxtpYdTyfMcmB7cnG9tdHs7VKRk9cnFha53VN3icQmg8876o5B0dSozUF6WdAdxCXgrlLUR2LrVeLYgiuBfA==&crl=c

Akhgar, M, Khalili, M. (2017). Investigating the role of personality traits in anticipating stress coping styles in male students. Research in Guidance and Counseling Education,3(6),78-93. https://civilica.com/doc/1599833/[In Persian]

Bates, M. J. (2002). Toward an Integrated Model of Information Seeking and Searching. Information Research, 7(1), 1-21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228589901_Toward_an_integrated_model_of_information_seeking_and_searching

Belkin, N.J. (1996). Intelligent information retrieval: Whose intelligence? In: ISI '96: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium for Information Science 25-31. Konstanz: Universtaetsverlag Konstanz. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240053046_Intelligent_Information_Retrieval_Whose_Intelligence

Bilal, D. (2009). Grounding Children’s information behavior and system design in child development theories. In Nahl, Diane and Bilal, Dania (Eds), information and emitions. New Delhi: Ess publication, 39-50. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220479913_D_Nahl_D_Bilal_eds_Information_and_emotion_the_emergent_affective_paradigm_in_information_behaviour_research_and_theory

Bruce, H.W. (1994). A Cognitive view of the situational dynamism of user-centered relevance estimation. Journalof the American Society for Information Science, 45(3), 142-148. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306457301000590

Bourland, P. (2000). Experimental components for the evaluation interactive information retrieval systems. Journal of Documentation, 56(1), 71-90. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007110

Canas, J. J., Antolí, A., Fajardo, I., & Salmerón, L. (2005). Cognitive inflexibility and the development and use of strategies for solving complex dynamic problems: effects of different types of training. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 6(1), 95-108. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233242485_Cognitive_inflexibility_and_the_development_and_use_of_strategies_for_solving_complex_dynamic_problems_Effects_of_different_types_of_training

Chevalier, A., & Chevalier, N. (2009). Influence of proficiency level and constraints on viewpoint switching: A study in web design. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 23(1), 126-137. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1448

Chevalier, A., Dommes, A., & Marquié, J. C. (2011). Information searching on the web: The cognitive difficulties experienced by older users in modifying unsuccessful information searches. In Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics: 9th International Conference, EPCE 2011, Held as Part of HCI International 2011, Orlando, FL, USA, July 9-14, 2011. Proceedings 9 (pp. 225-232). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2029174.2029202

Chevalier, A., Dommes, A., & Marquié, J. C. (2015). Strategy and accuracy during information search on the Web: Effects of age and complexity of the search questions. Computers in human behavior, 53, 305-315. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563215300261

Dervin, B. (1996). Sense-making theory and practice: An overview of user interests in knowledge seeking and use. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(2), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005347

Dennis, J. P., & Vander Wal, J. S. (2010). The cognitive flexibility inventory: Instrument development and estimates of reliability and validity. Cognitive therapy and research, 34(3), 241-253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10608-009-9276-4

Dommes, A., Chevalier, A., & Lia, S. (2011). The role of cognitive flexibility and vocabulary abilities of younger and older users in searching for information on the web. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 717-726. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563217301127

Ellis, D. (1993). Modeling the information-seeking patterns of academic researchers: A grounded theory approach. The Library Quarterly, 63(4), 469-486. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007204

Erfanmanesh, A. (2012). Investigating Information Seeking Anxiety among Postgraduate Students: A Case Study of Iranian Students in Malaysia.Library and Information Science Research,2(3): 53-72. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/3661 [In Persian]

 Kiss, A. N., Libaers, D., Barr, P. S., Wang, T., & Zachary, M. A. (2020). CEO cognitive flexibility, information search, and organizational ambidexterity.Strategic Management Journal, 41(12), 2200-2233. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-83172-003    

Kuhlthau, C. C. (1991). Inside the search process: Information seeking from the user’s perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199106)42:5<361::AID-ASI6>3.0.CO;2-%23

Mohta, R., & Halder, S. (2020). An exploratory study of internet use pattern, cognitive flexibility and quality of life in elderly population. Indian Journal of Gerontology, 34(4),413-427 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355141228_A_comparative_study_on_cognitive_emotional_and_social_functioning_in_adolescents_with_and_without_smartphone_addiction

Roca, M., Parr, A., & Owen, A. M. (2018). Cognitive flexibility in decision-making and its links to the brain: A neurocognitive perspective. Neuropsychologia, 118, 124-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.02.023

Rutter, S., Toms, E. G., & Clough, P. D. (2019). Representing search tasks in an information use environment: a case of English primary schools. Journal of Documentation, 75(6), 1370-1395. https://sheffield.ac.uk/ijc/people/paul-clough

Sanchiz, M., Chin, J., Chevalier, A., Fu, W. T., Amadieu, F., & He, J. (2017). Searching for information on the web: Impact of cognitive aging, prior domain knowledge and complexity of the search problems. Information Processing & Management, 53(1), 281-294. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306457316301923

Sim, J., Saunders, B., Waterfield, J., & Kingstone, T. (2018). Can sample size in qualitative research be determined a priori?. International journal of social research methodology, 21(5), 619-634. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1454643

Wilson, T. D. (1981). On user studies and information needs. Journal of Documentation, 37(1),3–15.https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026702.

Wilson, T. D. (1999). Models in Information Behaviour Research. Journal of Documentation, 55(3), 249-270. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40594-023-00407-w

Xie, I. (2009). Dimensions of tasks: influences on information‐seeking and retrieving process. Journal of Documentation, 65(3), 339-366. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40323814

Youmans, R. J., Bellows, B., Gonzalez, C. A., Sarbone, B., & Figueroa, I. J. (2013). Designing for the wisdom of elders: age related differences in online search strategies. In Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. User and Context Diversity: 7th International Conference, UAHCI 2013, Held as Part of HCI International 2013, Las Vegas, NV, USA, July 21-26, 2013, Proceedings, Part II 7 (pp. 240-249). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-39191-0_27

Zhou, X., Zhang, L., & Li, J. (2021). Cognitive flexibility and its role in executive functioning and decision-making under uncertainty. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 34(2), 235-247. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2220