Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The use of attention resources in navigation versus search

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Personal information management research has consistently shown navigation preference over search. One possible explanation for this is that search requires more cognitive attention than navigation. We tested this hypothesis using the dual-task paradigm. We read a list of words to each of our 62 participants, asked them to navigate or search to a target file, and then compared the number of words recalled in each condition. Participants remembered significantly more words when retrieving by navigation than by search. The fact that they performed better at the secondary task when navigating indicates that it required less cognitive attention than search. Our results also cast doubt on the assumption that search is more efficient and easier to use than navigation: Search took nearly three times longer than navigation, was more vulnerable to mistakes and retrieval failures and was perceived as more difficult on a subjective evaluation. Our results also support the folk belief that women are better than men and that younger people are better than older ones, at multitasking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Similar results regarding navigation retrieval time were obtained in [27].

References

  1. Barreau DK, Nardi BA (1995) Finding and reminding: file organization from the desktop. SIGCHI Bull 27(3):39–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Boardman R, Sasse MA (2004) “Stuff goes into the computer and doesn’t come out”: a cross-tool study of personal information management In: SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Vienna, Austria. ACM Press, 985766, pp 583–590, doi:10.1145/985692.985766

  3. Kirk D, Sellen A, Rother C, Wood K (2006) Understanding photowork. In: SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Montreal. ACM. doi: 10.1145/1124772.1124885

  4. Teevan J, Alvarado C, Ackerman MS, Karger DR (2004) The perfect search engine is not enough: a study of orienteering behavior in directed search. In: SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Vienna, Austria. ACM Press, pp 415–422

  5. Bergman O, Beyth-Marom R, Nachmias R, Gradovitch N, Whittaker S (2008) Improved search engines and navigation preference in personal information management. ACM Trans Inform Syst 26(4):1–24. doi:10.1145/1402256.1402259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kidd A (1994) The marks are on the knowledge worker In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: celebrating interdependence. ACM Press, Boston, MA, pp 186–191

  7. Malone TW (1983) How do people organize their desks? Implications for the design of office information systems. ACM Trans Off Inform Syst 1:99–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Whittaker S, Sidner C (1996) Email overload: exploring personal information management of email. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems: common ground. ACM Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, pp 276–283

  9. Dumais ST, Cutrell E, Cadiz JJ, Jancke G, Sarin R, Robbins DC (2003) Stuff I’ve seen: a system for personal information retrieval and re-use. In: Proceedings of the 26th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. ACM Press, Toronto, Canada, pp 72–79

  10. Lansdale MW (1988) The psychology of personal information management. Appl Ergon 19(1):55–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Russell D, Lawrence S (2007) Search everything. In: Jones W, Teevan J (eds) Personal information management. University of Washington Press, Seattle, pp 153–166

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cutrell E, Dumais ST, Teevan J (2006) Searching to eliminate personal information management. Commun ACM 49(1):58–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dourish P, Edwards WK, LaMarca A, Lamping J, Petersen K, Salisbury M, Terry DB, Thornton J (2000) Extending document management systems with user-specific active properties. ACM Trans Inf Syst 18(2):140–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Freeman E, Gelernter D (1996) Lifestreams: a storage model for personal data. SIGMOD Rec 25 (1):80–86. doi:10.1145/381854.381893

  15. Raskin J (2000) The humane interface: new directions for designing interactive systems. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Boston

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kobayashi M, Takeda K (2000) Information retrieval on the web. ACM Comput Surv 32(2):144–173. doi:10.1145/358923.358934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Capra RG, Pérez-Quiñones MA (2005) Using web search engines to find and refind information. Computer 38(10):36–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Whittaker S, Bergman O, Clough P (2009) Easy on that trigger dad: a long term family pictures retrieval study. Pers Ubiquit Comput 13(5):17–30

    Google Scholar 

  19. Whittaker S, Matthews T, Cerruti J, Badenes H, Tang J (2011) Am I wasting my time organizing email? A study of email refinding. In: Conference on human factors in computing systems, Vancouver

  20. Brown J (1958) Some tests of the decay theory of immediate memory. Q J Exp Psychol 10:12–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Peterson LR, Peterson MG (1959) Short-term retention of individual verbal items. J Exp Psychol 58(3):193–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gwizdka J (2010) Distribution of cognitive load in Web search. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 61(11):2167–2187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim YM, Rieh SY (2005) Dual-task performance as a measure for mental effort in library searching and web searching. In: 68th annual meeting of the American society for information science & technology, USA

  24. Wicken CD (2002) Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 3(2):159–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Baddeley A (1992) Working memory. Science 255(5044):556–559. doi:10.1126/science.1736359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Miller G (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 63(2):81–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bergman O, Whittaker S, Sanderson M, Nachmias R, Ramamoorthy A (2010) The effect of folder structure on personal file navigation. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 61(12):2426–2441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ingwersen P (1996) Cognitive perspectives of information retrieval interaction: elements of a cognitive IR theory. J Doc 52(1):3–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hambrick DZ, Oswald FL, Darowski ES, Rench TA, Brou R (2010) Predictors of multitasking performance in a synthetic work paradigm. Appl Cogn Psychol 24(8):1149–1167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ren D, Zhou H, Fu X (2009) A deeper look at gender difference in multitasking: Gender-specific mechanism of cognitive control. Paper presented at the fifth international conference on natural computation, Tianjin

  31. Peter N (2010) Gender differences in multitasking. Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  32. Fisher H (1999) The first sex: the natural talents of women and how they are changing the world. Random House

  33. Popper KR (1963) Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge

  34. Gurian M, Stevens K (2004) With boys and girls in mind. Educ Leadersh 62(3):21–26

    Google Scholar 

  35. Carrier LM, Cheever NA, Rosen LD, Benitez S, Chang J (2009) Multitasking across generations: multitasking choices and difficulty ratings in three generations of Americans. Comput Hum Behav 25(2):483–489. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.10.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank our participants, Prof. Ruth Beyth-Marom, and Smadar Pilo. This research was partially funded by the European Union Marie Curie Grant, PERG-GA-2009-248997.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Science, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 52900, Israel

    Ofer Bergman, Maskit Tene-Rubinstein & Jonathan Shalom

Authors
  1. Ofer Bergman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maskit Tene-Rubinstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jonathan Shalom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ofer Bergman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bergman, O., Tene-Rubinstein, M. & Shalom, J. The use of attention resources in navigation versus search. Pers Ubiquit Comput 17, 583–590 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-012-0544-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-012-0544-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation