When more is less: the paradox of choice in search engine use

In numerous everyday domains, it has been demonstrated that increasing the number of options beyond a handful can lead to paralysis and poor choice and decrease satisfaction with the choice. Were this so-called paradox of choice to hold in search engine use, it would mean that increasing recall can actually work counter to user satisfaction if it implies choice from a more extensive set of result items. The existence of this effect was demonstrated in an experiment where users (N=24) were shown a search scenario and a query and were required to choose the best result item within 30 seconds. Having to choose from six results yielded both higher subjective satisfaction with the choice and greater confidence in its correctness than when there were 24 items on the results page. We discuss this finding in the wider context of "choice architecture"--that is, how result presentation affects choice and satisfaction.

[1]  Mu-Hsuan Huang,et al.  The influence of document presentation order and number of documents judged on users' judgments of relevance , 2004, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[2]  Päivi Majaranta,et al.  Eye-Tracking Reveals the Personal Styles for Search Result Evaluation , 2005, INTERACT.

[3]  Jaime Teevan,et al.  How people recall search result lists , 2006, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[4]  B. Schwartz,et al.  Maximizing Versus Satisficing : Happiness Is a Matter of Choice , 2002 .

[5]  Monika Henzinger,et al.  Analysis of a very large web search engine query log , 1999, SIGF.

[6]  Bertram C. Brookes.  Measurement in information science: Objective and subjective metrical space , 1980, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[7]  G. Wolford,et al.  Buying Behavior as a Function of Parametric Variation of Number of Choices , 2007, Psychological science.

[8]  S. Asch.  Forming impressions of personality. , 1946, Journal of Abnormal Psychology.

[9]  Ophir Frieder,et al.  Hourly analysis of a very large topically categorized web query log , 2004, SIGIR '04.

[10]  Edward Cutrell,et al.  What are you looking for?: an eye-tracking study of information usage in web search , 2007, CHI.

[11]  Michael Eisenberg,et al.  Order effects: A study of the possible influence of presentation order on user judgments of document relevance , 1988, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[12]  Shyama Balakrishnan,et al.  Principles of information retrieval , 2000 .

[13]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  The influence of task and gender on search and evaluation behavior using Google , 2006, Inf. Process. Manag..

[14]  Robert E. Johnson,et al.  Does Order of Presentation Affect Users' Judgment of Documents?. , 1990 .

[15]  G. Keppel,et al.  Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook , 1976 .

[16]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Eye-tracking analysis of user behavior in WWW search , 2004, SIGIR '04.

[17]  S. Iyengar,et al.  The Mere Categorization Effect: How the Presence of Categories Increases Choosers' Perceptions of Assortment Variety and Outcome Satisfaction , 2008 .

[18]  Michael A. Shepherd,et al.  A Goal-based Classification of Web Information Tasks , 2006, ASIST.

[19]  Amanda Spink,et al.  A temporal comparison of AltaVista Web searching , 2005, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[20]  B. Schwartz.  The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less , 2004 .

[21]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[22]  M. Lepper,et al.  The Construction of Preference: When Choice Is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing? , 2006 .

[23]  Kevin J. Clancy,et al.  POSITIONAL EFFECTS IN SHARED-COST SURVEYS , 1971 .

[24]  Gur Huberman,et al.  How Much Choice is Too Much?: Contributions to 401(k) Retirement Plans , 2003 .

[25]  Kurt Easterwood,et al.  Did you mean... , 2003 .

[26]  Andrei Broder,et al.  A taxonomy of web search , 2002, SIGF.

[27]  Charles L. A. Clarke,et al.  The influence of caption features on clickthrough patterns in web search , 2007, SIGIR.

[28]  Amanda Spink,et al.  Model for organizational knowledge creation and strategic use of information: Research Articles , 2005 .

[29]  Mika Käki,et al.  Information search and re-access strategies of experienced web users , 2005, WWW '05.

[30]  Amanda Spink,et al.  An Analysis of Web Documents Retrieved and Viewed , 2003, International Conference on Internet Computing.

[31]  Michael D. Byrne,et al.  The tangled Web we wove: a taskonomy of WWW use , 1999, CHI '99.

[32]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[33]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  In Google We Trust: Users' Decisions on Rank, Position, and Relevance , 2007, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..