Cognitive Differences:
Personal characteristics
facet
Jacek Gwizdka
Assistant Professor
Department of Library and Information Science
CONTACT:
[Link]
What types of cognitive differences?
• Cognitive ability – refers to some aspect human ability to
perform cognitive tasks, that is, tasks ‘in which correct and
appropriate processing of mental information is critical to
successful performance’ (Carroll, 1993)
– Best known systems of cognitive abilities is Carroll’s 3-stratum theory
– Examples of cognitive abilities: Working memory, Spatial ability,
Verbal closure
• Cognitive style – personality dimension that influences
how people collect, analyze, evaluate, and interpret
information (Harrison & Rainer, 1992)
– Example of cognitive style: field dependence / field independence (FD/FI)
What is being personalized?
• Information presentation
• Information interaction style
Individual Differences – Example 1
Cognitive differences and
information finding
in web directories
Individual Differences – FD/FI : definition
Cognitive Style: field-dependence / independence (FD
/ FI)
FD FI
holistic perception (whole objects) analytic perception (parts)
global focus focus on detail
external references internal references
passive in locating information active in locating information
Witkin et al. (1971)
Individual Differences – FD/FI : implications
Cognitive Style: field-dependence / independence (FD
/ FI)
FD FI
less information more (dense) information
externally imposed structure own structure
extra guidance locate info directly
sorted by relevance alphabetical organization
category / sub-category organization
breadth (more main cats, less sub-cats) depth (less main cats, more sub-cats)
separate category levels category levels shown together
Example 1 – Web Directory Presentation
Field Dependent Field Independent
sorted by relevance sorted alphabetically
one level of categories
multiple levels of categories
From: Chen, S. Y., Magoulas, G. D., & Macredie, R. D. (2004). Cognitive styles and users’ responses to
structured information representation. International Journal on Digital Libraries, V4(2), 93-107.
Individual Differences – Example 2
Cognitive differences and
information keeping in &
out of email
From: Gwizdka, J. (2004). Email task management styles: The cleaners and the keepers. CHI '04 Extended
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vienna, Austria. 1235 - 1238. : ACM Press. DOI:
10.1145/985921.986032 [Link]
Individual Differences – FD/FI : definition
Cognitive Style: field-dependence / independence (FD
/ FI)
FD FI
holistic perception (whole objects) analytic perception (parts)
global focus focus on detail
external references internal references
passive in locating information active in locating information
Witkin et al. (1971)
Example 2 – Information Keeping in Email
Can we relate difference in email habits with cognitive styles?
The Cleaners: transfer time sensitive messages (e.g., to-do’s) from email
The Keepers: keep time sensitive messages in email
Email Habit Variables The Cleaners The Keepers
Keep events in email no yes
Keep to-do's in email no yes
Search in email no yes
From: Gwizdka, J. (2004). Email task management styles: The cleaners and the keepers. CHI '04 Extended
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vienna, Austria. 1235 - 1238. : ACM Press. DOI:
10.1145/985921.986032 [Link]
Example 2 – Information Keeping in Email
Can we relate difference in email habits with cognitive styles?
The Cleaners: transfer time sensitive messages (e.g., to-do’s) from email
The Keepers: keep time sensitive messages in email
Field dependent Field independent
Email Habit Variables The Cleaners The Keepers
Keep events in email no yes
Keep to-do's in email no yes
Search in email no yes
From: Gwizdka, J. (2004). Email task management styles: The cleaners and the keepers. CHI '04 Extended
Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vienna, Austria. 1235 - 1238. : ACM Press. DOI:
10.1145/985921.986032 [Link]
Individual Differences – Example 3
Cognitive differences and
information finding
search results overview (tag
cloud)
Gwizdka, J. (2009). "What a difference a tag cloud makes: effects of tasks and cognitive abilities on search
results interface use" Information Research, 14(4) paper 414 [Link]
Individual Differences – Example 3
• User Interface - List
Individual Differences – Example 3
• User Interface – List + Overview
Example 3 – Information Finding using
Overview
• Cognitive ability: Verbal Closure = The ability to
identify visually presented words when some letters are
missing, scrambled, or embedded among other letters
(Ekstrom, 1976).
• Overview made low verbal closure people more efficient
(38 vs. 60 seconds per query reformulation)
• Overview made high verbal closure people faster (146s
vs. 240s, at the same level of efficiency ~33s per query
reformulation)
Gwizdka, J. (2009). "What a difference a tag cloud makes: effects of tasks and cognitive abilities on search
results interface use" Information Research, 14(4) paper 414 [Link]
Yes, Individual Differences - So What?
Approaches:
• provide alternative interfaces for different users
• create interfaces that can be adapted by users
• create interfaces that adapt to users
Thank You
Questions?
Jacek Gwizdka
Dept. of Library & Information Science
School of Communication and Infromation
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, NJ, USA
[Link]
[Link]
[Link]
This research was partially funded by a grant from IMLS: LG-06-07-0105-07
“Personalization of the Digital Library Experience”
© Jacek Gwizdka 17
Cognitive Load and Web Search Tasks
• Understand mental demands of search tasks and
interfaces
higher average higher peak
cognitive load: Q & B cognitive load: C
user interface
CONTACT: differences: L
[Link]
Example 3 – Information Finding using
Overview
• Cognitive ability: Verbal Closure = The ability to
identify visually presented words when some letters are
missing, scrambled, or embedded among other letters.
Low Verbal Closure High Verbal Closure
List 238 4 240 7
Overview 206 5.5 146 4.5
(list + tags)
59.5 34.3
37.5 32.4
Gwizdka, J. (2009). "What a difference a tag cloud makes: effects of tasks and cognitive abilities on search
results interface use" Information Research, 14(4) paper 414 [Link]
Individual Differences – Example 5
Cognitive differences and
information scanning
(in email)
Example 5 - Scanning Email Messages
Scanning Task: find message in inbox based on partial header
info
Differences in cognitive abilities: working memory WM, visual
memory VM, flexibility of closure CF
UI-”Visual” UI-”Text”
(Gwizdka, CASCON’2002, PhD’2004, Interacting with Computers’2004)
Example 5 - Scanning Email Messages
• better visual memory
• (mv1 & mv2)
1.0
Scrolling scrollt
less scrolling
scrolldt scrollct
0.8
CF • better working memory
0.6
scrollmt • (wm)
0.4
cf2 less sorting
sorttodt
to
r2F
c
a
0.2 WM
MV2 Sorting
sorttoct better
MV1
0.0 wmahc1
sorttot • flexibility of closure
sorttomt • (cf2)
-0.2 mv2
mv1
more scrolling
-0.4
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Individual Differences - Example 4
Cognitive differences and
information search
(different search engines
and interfaces)
Individual Differences – Example 4
“plain”
result list
Google
“faceted” search - ALVIS
© Jacek Gwizdka 25
Example 4: Results cognitive ability and UI
Working Memory (WM) influenced task performance
on ALVIS, but not on Google
• hi-WM more search effort on ALVIS (more pages, more
bookmarks, spent more time) than on Google
• lo-WM less effort on ALVIS than on Google
search high WM
effort
low WM
Google ALVIS
Cognitive Differences (Personal characteristics
facet; Task facet)
• People differ with respect to their information processing
ability and their preferred cognitive style. These differences
affect how they interact with information search systems. I
argue that personalization should take into account a
whole range of factors, including the person’s cognitive
abilities. In the world of scarce attention, a system that
does not match cognitive abilities may require extra
cognitive processing and impose an unnecessary cognitive
load. This extra load may prevent the person from
completing their information tasks and may even lead to
the system avoidance or abandonment. I will present some
findings that demonstrate the effects of the cognitive
differences among people on their execution of information
tasks.
27