skip to main content
10.1145/3020165.3022151acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesirConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Investigating Information Seekers' Selection of Interpersonal and Impersonal Sources

Published:07 March 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Information source selection is essential to individuals' information seeking behaviors. Existing studies have focused on the criteria seekers employ when choosing information sources, such as sources' accessibility and quality, as well as the contextual factors that shape a seeker's selection. However, existing findings are somewhat conflicting and lack in-depth understanding of the reasons behind individuals' choices. The study reported here invited 53 participants from diverse backgrounds to perform simulated information seeking tasks over a two-day period and to report their experiences and findings in an online logbook. Semi-structured interviews with 23 of them were also conducted in order to examine the issues that arose from the logbooks. Our preliminary findings present several factors associated with participants' choices between impersonal and interpersonal sources. While interpersonal sources are deemed to be more suitable in capturing the context of an information query and providing personalized information, impersonal sources are found to be more accessible under a time constraint while depicting no emotion towards sensitive issues.

References

  1. Agarwal, N.K. 2011. Information source and its relationship with the context of information seeking behavior. In Proc. of the iConference'11 (Seattle, USA, February 08-11, 2011). ACM, New York, NY, 48--55. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Chowdhury, S., Gibb, F., and Landoni, M. 2011. Uncertainty in information seeking and retrieval: A study in an academic environment. Inform. Process. Manag. 47, 2 (March 2011), 157--175. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Fidel, R., and Green, M. 2004. The many faces of accessibility: Engineers' perception of information sources. Inform. Process. Manag. 40, 3 (May 2004), 563--581. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Hardy, A.P. 1982. The selection of channels when seeking information: Cost/benefit vs least-effort. Inform. Process. Manag. 18, 6 (1982), 289--293.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Hertzum, M. 2014. Expertise seeking: A review. Inform. Process. Manag. 50, 5 (September 2014), 775--795. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Hirsh, S., and Dinkelacker, J. 2004. Seeking information in order to produce information: An empirical study at Hewlett Packard labs. JASIST. 55, 9 (July 2004), 807--817. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Lin, Y., Cole, C., and Dalkir, K. 2014. The relationship between perceived value and information source use during KM strategic decision-making: A study of 17 Chinese business managers. Inform. Process. Manag. 50, 1 (January 2014), 156--174. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Lu, L., and Yuan, Y.C. 2011. Shall I Google it or ask the competent villain down the hall? The moderating role of information need in information source selection. JASIST. 62, 1 (January 2011), 133--145. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Mansourian, Y., and Ford, N. 2007. Search persistence and failure on the Web: A "bounded rationality" and "satisficing" analysis. Journal of Documentation. 63, 5, 680--701.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Marton, C., and Choo, C.W. 2002. A question of quality: The effect of source quality on information seeking by women in it professions. In Proc. of ASIST (November 2002), 39, 1, 140--151.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Mason, W., and Suri, S. 2012. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods. 44, 1 (March 2012), 1--23.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Morrison, E. W., and Vancouver, J. B. 2000. Within-person analysis of information seeking: The effects of perceived costs and benefits. Journal of Management. 26, 1 (February 2000), 119--137.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., Hecht, B., Morris, M.R., Teevan, J., and Gergle, D. 2014. To search or to ask: The routing of information needs between traditional search engines and social networks. In Proc. of CSCW'14 (Baltimore, MD, USA, February 15-19, 2014). ACM, New York, NY, 16--27. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Savolainen, R. 2015. Cognitive barriers to information seeking. J. Inform. Sci. 41, 5 (October 2015), 613--623. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Shapiro, D. N., Chandler, J., and Mueller, P.A. 2013. Using Mechanical Turk to study clinical populations. Clinical Psychological Science. 1, 2 (2013), 213--220.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Świgoñ, M. 2011. Information limits: Definition, typology and types. Aslib Proceedings. 63, 4 (2011), 364--379.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Wang, Y., and Shah, C. 2016. Exploring support for the unconquerable barriers in information seeking. In Proc. of the 79th ASIS&T Annual Meeting (Copenhagen, Denmark, October 14-18, 2016). ACM, New York, NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Wildemuth, B.M., and Freund, L. 2012. Assigning search tasks designed to elicit exploratory search behaviors. In Proc. of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction and Information Retrieval (Cambridge, MA, USA, October 4-5, 2012). ACM, New York, NY. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Wilson, T.D. 1999. Models in information behavior research. Journal of Documentation. 55, 3, 249--270.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Woudstra, L., van den Hooff, B., and Schouten, A. 2015. The quality versus accessibility debate revisited: A contingency perspective on human information source selection. JASIST. 67, 9 (September 2016), 2060--2071. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Zimmer, J.C., Henry, R.M., and Butler, B.S. 2007. Determinants of the use of relational and nonrelational information sources. J. Manage. Inform. Syst. 24, 3,297--331. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Investigating Information Seekers' Selection of Interpersonal and Impersonal Sources

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        CHIIR '17: Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Conference Human Information Interaction and Retrieval
        March 2017
        454 pages
        ISBN:9781450346771
        DOI:10.1145/3020165
        • Conference Chairs:
        • Ragnar Nordlie,
        • Nils Pharo,
        • Program Chairs:
        • Luanne Freund,
        • Birger Larsen,
        • Dan Russel

        Copyright © 2017 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 7 March 2017

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • short-paper

        Acceptance Rates

        CHIIR '17 Paper Acceptance Rate10of48submissions,21%Overall Acceptance Rate55of163submissions,34%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader