تعدیل‌کننده‌های نظریه اضافه بار انتخاب در موتور جستجوی گوگل در میان دانشجویان برپایه تیپ‌های شخصیتی بیشینه‌خواهی و بسنده‌خواهی

نویسندگان

دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

چکیده

امروزه تحلیل رفتار کاربران در موتورهای جستجو بسیار مورد توجه است. نتایج زیاد بازیابی شده در موتورهای جستجو، کاربران را وادار به انتخاب می­‌کند. زمانی که انتخاب به شدت پیچیده شود، مردم به این فکر می‌افتند که ساده‌ترین قاعده تصمیم را اتخاذ کنند، یعنی تصمیم نگیرند. روانشناسان این وضعیت را پیامد «اضافه بار انتخاب» می‌نامند. اضافه بار انتخاب مفهومی است که توانایی پردازش اطلاعات توسط افراد را برای انتخاب بررسی می­‌کند. به عبارت ساده­‌تر، روبرو شدن افراد با اطلاعات زیاد منجر به نتایج منفی می­‌شود.

این پژوهش با هدف شناسایی تعدیل­ کننده­‌های نظریه اضافه بار انتخاب در موتور جستجوی گوگل انجام شد. پژوهش حاضر از نوع کاربردی و با روش پیمایشی است. با استفاده از روش نمونه­‌گیری تصادفی طبقه­‌ای غیرنسبیتی، 72 نفر از دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی دو دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی و فنی و مهندسی دانشگاه فردوسی به عنوان نمونه پژوهش انتخاب شدند و از پرسشنامه استاندارد و مرورگر HCI جهت گردآوری داده­‌ها استفاده شد. تجزیه و تحلیل داده­‌ها به کمک نرم­‌افزار آماری SPSS (نسخه 18) و آزمون­‌های آماری شاپیرو-ویلکس، تی مقایسه زوجی و ویلکاکسون انجام شد.

یافته‌های پژوهش نشان داد که بدون در نظر گرفتن تیپ شخصیتی افراد (بیشینه­‌خواهی و بسنده­‌خواهی) و تنها با بررسی نوع جستجو، نمی­‌توان در مورد رخداد نظریه اضافه بار انتخاب اظهار نظر قطعی کرد. با در نظر گرفتن دو متغیر واسطه نوع جستجو و تیپ شخصیتی، تفاوت معنی­‌دار بین میزان رضایت دو تیپ ­شخصیتی از نتایج بازیابی شده کم و زیاد مشاهده شد. بدین معنا که در بیشینه­‌خواهان، در هر دو حالت جستجوی خاص و عام، میزان رضایت افراد از نتایج بازیابی شده کم بیشتر از نتایج بازیابی شده زیاد بود (رخداد اضافه بار انتخاب). همچنین در این گروه در هنگام جستجوی عام، تفاوت معنی­‌داری بین میزان رضایت از نتایج بازیابی شده کم و زیاد وجود داشت. اما بنا به تیپ شخصیتی این افراد و با توجه به نظریه رویداد غیرمنتظره، با بیشتر شدن نتایج بازیابی شده، نه تنها اضافه بار انتخاب رخ نداد، بلکه رضایت بسنده‌خواهان بیش‌تر شد. از این رو می­‌توان به اهمیت دو عامل نوع جستجو و تیپ شخصیتی افراد به عنوان تعدیل­‌کننده­‌های رخداد اضافه بار انتخاب پی برد. به طور کلی هر دو تیپ شخصیتی از سرعت بازیابی نتایج در موتور جستجوی گوگل رضایت داشتند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Modulators of choice overload in Google search engine

نویسندگان [English]

  • Fahimeh Mansouri
  • Mohsen Nowkarizi
  • Rahmatollah Fattahi
چکیده [English]

Nowadays, analyzing user behavior on search engines is highly regarded. Lots of options in retrieved results in the search engines, makes users to choose. Once the selection is extremely complex, people will think the simplest decision rule, they decided that not to decide and select. Psychologists know this situation the consequence of "choice overload". Bons (2008) believes that choice overload is the ability of process the information by the people to select. In simpler terms, dealing with a lot of information, lead to the negative results. This study has been done with the goal to identify modulators of Google search engine. The present study is a survey and an applied research. Using stratified random non-relativistic sampling, 72 MS and PhD students of faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences and Engineering of Ferdowsi University were selected as a sample. The tools used for collecting data were standard questionnaire (maximizing scale by Schwartz et al 2002) and HCI browser. The results showed that regardless of the personality types (maximizer and satisfier) and only by regarding of the type of search, you cannot say a definitive statement about choice overload theory. Considering two variables of personality and search type, a significant difference between satisfaction of two types personality from the number of retrieved results were observed.This means that maximizers are, in both special and general search, more satisfied from small results than large results (choice overload). But satisfiers, in special search, the number of retrieved results had no effect on the satisfaction of them (the non-occurrence of choice overload). Also in satisfiers, in general search results, there was a significant difference between satisfaction from the small and large retrieved results. However, according to their personality and serendipity theory, with increasing the retrieved results, not only choice overload did not occur, but satisfaction of them was more. Hence we can the importance of two factors: the type of search and personality as modulators of choice overload. In general both personality types were satisfied with the speed of retrieve of results in Google search engine.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Google search engine
  • personality types (maximizer and satisfier)
  • choice overload
  • type of search (special and general search)
  • choice satisfaction
Anderson, C. 2008. The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More. New York: Hyperion. Ariely, D., & J. Levav. 2000. Sequential Choice in Group Settings: Taking the Road Less Traveled and Less Enjoyed. Journal of Consumer Research 27 (3): 279–90. Bernard, M., R. Baker, & M. Fernandez. 2002. Paging vs. scrolling: Looking for the best way to present search results. Usability News 4 (1). Retrieved from http://usabilitynews.org/paging-vs-scrolling-looking-for-the-best-way-to-present-search-results/ (accessed May 27, 2015). Borle, S., P. Boatwright, J. B. Kadane, J. C. Nunes, & G. Shmueli 2005. The Effect of Product Assortment Changes on Customer Retention. Marketing Science 24 (4): 616-622. Bons, P. 2008. The art of choosing. Unpublished PhD dissertation. Maastricht University, Netherlands. Cheris, A. 2015. Top 10 search engines in the World. Retrieved from https://www.reliablesoft.net/top-10-search-engines-in-the-world/ (accessed June 27, 2015). Chernev, A. 2003. When more is less and less is more: The role of ideal point availability and assortment in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research 30: 170–183. Chiravirakul, P. 2014. Search satisfaction: choice overload, variety seeking and serendipity in search engine use. PhD dissertation. University of Bath. _____. and S. J. Payne. 2014. Choice overload in search engine use? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (1285–1294). NewYork, NY: ACM. ComScore. 2015. comScore Releases February 2015 U.S. Desktop Search Engine Rankings February 2015. Retrieved from https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Rankings/comScore-Releases-February-2015-US-Desktop-Search-Engine-Rankings (accessed June 5< 2015). Chowdhury, G., & S. Soboroff. 2002. Automatic evaluation of World Wide Web search services. Retrieved from https://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/myciteseer/login (accessed June 3< 2015). Diehl, K. & C. Poynor. 2007. Great Expectations?! Assortment Size, Expectations and Satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research 47 (2): 312-322. Eickhoff, C., P. Dekker & A. P. Veries. 2012. Supporting Children’s Web Search in School Environments. Proceedings of the 4th Information Interaction in Context Symposium, 129-137. Retrieved from http://dmirlab.tudelft. nl/sites/default/files/final_0.pdf (March 5, 2016). Fasolo, B., R. Hertwig, M. Huber, & L. Ludwig. 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. Henry, L. A. 2005. Information search strategies on the Internet: A critical component of new literacies. Webology, 2(1), Article 9. Available at: http://www.webology.org/2005/v2n1/a9.html Hoch, S. J., E. T., Bradlow & B. Wansink. 1999. The variety of an assortment. Marketing Science 18 (4): 527–546. Huang, M., & H. Wang. 2004. The Influence of Document Presentation Order and Number of Documents Judged on Users’ Judgments of Relevance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science And Technology 55 (11): 970–979. 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., & M. R. Lepper. 2000. When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (6): 995– 1006. Jansen, B. J., A. Spink, & T. Saracevic. 2000. Real life, real users, and real needs: a study and analysis of user queries on the web. Information Processing and Management 36: 207-227. Laurie, A. H. 2005. Information Search Strategies on the Internet: A Critical Component of New Literacies. Webology, 2(1). Retrieved April 20, 2016 from: http://www.webology.org/2005/v2n1/a9.html. Lenton, A. P., B. Fasolo, & P.M. Todd. 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. Lilly, P. 2014. Best Search Engine: Google, Bing, and DuckDuckGo Compared! Retrieved from http://www.maximumpc.com/best-search-engine-2014/ (accessed Aug. 22, 2015). Mogilner, C., T. Rudnick, & S. S. Iyengar. 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. Nachmias, R. & A. Gilad. 2002. Needle in a hyperstack: Searching for information on the World Wide Web. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 34: 475-486. Oppewal, H., & K. Koelemeijer. 2005. More Choice Is Better: Effects of Assortment Size and Composition on Assortment Evaluation. International Journal of Research in Marketing 22 (1): 45–60. Oulasvirta, A., J. Hukkinen, & B. Schwartz. 2009. When more Is less: the paradox of choice in search engine use. In proceedings of the 32nd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval (SIGIR 09) (516-523). Boston, MA: ACM. Pan, B., H. Hembrooke, T. Joachims, L. Lorigo, G. Gay, & L. Granka. 2007. In Google we trust: Users’ decisions on rank, position, and relevance. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12 (3): 823-801. Pinzi, V. 2014. Enriching news for supporting usersʼ information needs using schema-driven classification of entities and relations. A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the Degree of Master in the Department of Science, University of Amsterdam. Retrieved from http://dare.uva.nl/cgi/arno/show. cgi?fid=551054 (accessed May 17, 2015). Pokorny, J. 2004. Web searching and information retrieval. IEEE Computer Software 6 (4): 43–48. Purgailis Parker, L. M., & R. E. Johnson. 1990. Does Order of Presentation Affect Users’ Judgmentof Documents? Journal of the American Society for Information Science 41 (7): 493-494. Reutskaja, E. and R. M. Hogarth. 2009. Satisfaction in Choice as a function of the number of alternatives: When ‘Goods Satiate. Psychology and Marketin. 26 (3): 197–203. Savoy, J., & J. Picard. 2001. Retrieval effectiveness on the Web. Information Processing and Management 37: 543-569. Scheibehenne, B., R. Greifeneder, & P. M. Todd. 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., A. Ward, J. Monterosso, S. Lyubomirsky, K. White, & D. Lehman. 2002. Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83: 1178–1197. Search Engine Watch. 2007. U.S. search engine rankings and top 50 web rankings, January 2007. Retrieved from http://searchenginewatch.com/show Page.html?page=3625081 (accessed June 3, 2015). Shah, A. M., and G. Wolford. 2007. Buying Behavior as a Function of Parametric Variation of Number of Choices. Psychological Science 18 (5): 369–70. Simon, T. W. 1995. Democracy and Social Injustice: Law, Politics, and Philosophy, Rowman & Littlefield. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Overchoice#cite_note-simon-2 (accessed June 3, 2015).