Linguistic Determinants of Search Behaviour on Websites

Transcription

1 Linguistic Determinants of Search Behaviour on Websites Anett Kralisch & Bettina Berendt Institute of Information Systems Humboldt-University Berlin, Germany ~berendt}

2 Motivation personal and situational variables ease of finding informations use of Internet as information source Little research on linguistic determinants. Appropriate information access for users of different linguistic backgrounds? 2

3 Agenda 1. Verbal Information processing & Hypotheses 2. Method and Data 3. Results 4. Discussion and Outlook 3

4 Agenda 1. Verbal Information Processing & Hypotheses 2. Method and Data 3. Results 4. Discussion and Outlook 4

5 Verbal information processing Revised-Hierarchy-Model (Dufour & Krull 1995) Lexical: the word; tree, Baum Conceptual: the meaning; L2 lexical representation L1 lexical representation storedforeach iiilanguage separately conceptual representation shared across languages asymmetry in strengths of links iii(even at a high proficiency level!) 5

6 Verbal information processing Passive language Listening Reading vs. Active language Speaking Writing low cognitive effort high cognitive effort & L2 vocabulary development from passive to active language 6

7 Search options & Verbal information processing The brain is lazy. L2 users prefer search options that require less linguistic processing effort. Which search option(s) require for L2 users the least cognitive effort? SEARCH ENGINES? ALPHABETICALLY ORGANIZED LINKS? CONTENT-ORGANIZED LINKS? 7

8 Search options & Verbal information processing Search option Requirements Required vocabulary Preferred by? Search Engine Alphabetically organized links Contentorganized links 8

9 Search options & Verbal information processing Search option Requirements Required vocabulary Preferred by? Search Engine Enter keywords Active vocabulary Alphabetically organized links Contentorganized links 9

10 Search options & Verbal information processing Search option Requirements Required vocabulary Preferred by? Search Engine Enter keywords Active vocabulary Alphabetically organized links large # of links: word is produced availability is checked low # of links: each word can be displayed user chooses no contextprovided Active (if # of links is high) Contentorganized links 10

11 Search options & Verbal information processing Search option Requirements Required vocabulary Preferred by? Search Engine Enter keywords Active vocabulary Alphabetically organized links large # of links: word is produced availability is checked low # of links: each word can be displayed user chooses no contextprovided Active (if # of links is high) Contentorganized links user chooses from displayed links links integrated into context Predominantly passive 11

12 Search options & Verbal information processing Search option Requirements Required vocabulary Preferred by? Search Engine Enter keywords Active vocabulary L1 Alphabetically organized links large # of links: word is produced availability is checked low # of links: each word can be displayed user chooses no contextprovided Active (if # of links is high) L1 (if# of links is high) Contentorganized links user chooses from displayed links links integrated into context Predominantly passive L2 12

13 Agenda 1. Verbal Information processing 2. Method and Data 3. Results 4. Discussion and Outlook 13

14 Method & Data LOGFILE ANALYSIS of a website s user access data recorded between 11/2001 and 11/2002 The website: public health multilingual: German, English, Spanish, Portuguese search options: search engine, alphabetical links, content links The users: 277,809 user sessions 3,928,235 page requests 188 countries, 9,971 cities 14

15 Log data processing Webserver log 200.x4.xx.xx - - [09/Apr/2002:22:28: ] "GET /cgi-bin/ivw/cp/doia/image. asp. ivw?zugr=d&lang=e&cd=14&nr=87&diagnr= HTTP/1.0" " "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt)" 200.x4.xx.xx IP address doia/ &diagnr= requested page (also: search modus) etc. IP address Localization a user s native tongue IP_ADDRE CITY_ID COUNTRY CITY LATITUDE LONGITUD TIMEZONE CERTAINT 8x.7x.6x.xxx 5977 Albania Tirane : x3.1x4.xx.xxx 5978 Algeria Algiers :

16 Agenda 1. Verbal Information processing 2. Method and Data 3. Results 4. Discussion 16

17 RESULTS I 1. Which search options were used? N = 88,305 (those who did not use any search option were exluded) Chi-Square: p<0.001 for all (column-) pairwise tests L1 L2 2. In which combination were the search options used? N = 88,305 Chi-Square: p<.001 (for all (columns-) pairwise tests) 60% 56% 58% 30% 30% 30% 32% 29% 50% 48% 45% 25% 40% 30% 20% 10% 29% 31% 20% 15% 10% 5% 5% 4% 12% 10% 10% 9% 13% 12% 2% 2% 0% CL AL SE 0% all SE AL CL AL+ CL AL+ SE SE +CL 17

18 RESULTS II 3. In which order were the search options used? N = 26,076 (for SE) N = 49,738 (for AL N = 41,663 (for CL) (those who did not use any search option were exluded) SE AL CL 67% 66% 78% 74% 82% 87% 28% 28% 19% 23% 14% 10% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 4% 3% 5% 6% 3% 3% L1 L2 Mann- Whitney-U: p<.001 p<.032 p< Number of page requests prior to access? N see left side MANOVA (Pillai s trace): p = ,7 6,1 5,2 5,9 5,7 5,9 AL CL SE 18

19 RESULTS III 5. How often where the search options used? MANOVA (Pillai s Trace) : p<0.001 L1 L2 6. Frequency of use relative to the number of page requests? MANOVA (Pillai s trace): p =.002 4,5 4,2 4 3,5 3 3,8 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,31 0,25 2,5 2 1,5 1 1,8 1,8 1,5 1,7 0,2 0,2 0,1 0,07 0,07 0,19 0,15 0,5 0,1 0 SE AL CL 0,0 SE AL CL 19

20 RESULTS: Summary Search engine Alphabetical links Contentorganized links Our hypothesis L1 L1 L2 Which search options were used? In which combination? L2 L2 L1 L2 L2 L1 In which order? L2 (L1) L1 # of page requests prior to access? (L2) (L1) (L1) Frequency of use? L2 (L1) L2 Relative frequency of use? L1 L1 (L1) 20

21 RESULTS: Summary Search engine Alphabetical links Contentorganized links Our hypothesis L1 L1 L2 Which search options were used? L2 L2 L1 In which L2 L2 L1 combination? L2 L2 preferred preferredby byl2 L2 users users In which order? L2 unexpected unexpected (L1) result result L1 # of page requests prior to access? (L2) (L1) L1 Frequency of use? L2 (L1) L2 Relative frequency of use? L1 L1 (L1) 21 : expected results : unexpected results : difference between the groups is not significant

22 RESULTS: Summary Search engine Alphabetical links Contentorganized links Our hypothesis L1 L1 L2 Which search options were used? In which combination? L2 L2 L1 L2 L2 L1 In which order? L2 (L1) L1 # of page requests prior to access? (L2) (L1) L1 Frequency of use? L2 (L1) L2 Relative frequency of use? L1 L1 (L1) 22 : expected results : unexpected results : difference between the groups is not significant

23 Agenda 1. Verbal Information processing 2. Method and Data 3. Results 4. Discussion and Outlook 23

24 L1 and L2 users search behaviours exhibit similarities and discrepancies Similarities: use of alphabetical links > use of content-organized links > use of the search engine (consistent with e.g. Chimera 1994) both groups opted more often for the exclusive use of one search option than for a combined use alphabetical links are considered more often than search engines and content-organized hyperlinks, as an alternative to the other two search options Discrepancies: L2 users search more opposite of the expected patterns of use 24

25 How can the reversed results for L2 users be explained? SELF-SELECTION PROCESS??? L2 proficiency threshold for visiting this website? total # of L1 users: 236,507 (83.2%) total # of L2 users: 41,297(16.8%) lower than the equivalent share on the Internet (55.9%) Divergences in domain-knowledge? L1 users: patients? low level of medical knowledge content links L2 users: physicians? high level of medical knowledge search engine (consistent with Vakarri 1999; Navarro-Prieto et al. 1999) 25

26 How to explain reversed results for L2 users? SELF-SELECTION PROCESS??? L2 proficiency threshold for visiting this website? total # of L1 users: 236,507 (83.2%) total # of L2 users: 41,297(16.8%) lower than the equivalent share on the Internet (55.9%) Divergences in domain-knowledge? L1 users: patients? low level of medical knowledge content links L2 users: physicians? high level of medical knowledge search engine (consistent with Vakarri 1999; Navarro-Prieto et al. 1999) in line with results from a survey on website (10/ /2002) percentage of physicians: North-/Middle America:45.1%, Europe: 59.3%, Australia:58.8% Africa: 74.1%, Asia: 79.7%, South America: 80.8% 26

27 Evaluation of this study? + heaviliy frequented international website + amount of data + variability of users studied + non-reactive data HIGH ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY - Problems of session/ navigation path reconstruction - Control of situational/personal variables LIMITED INTERNAL VALIDITY exploratory nature 1st operational basis for future research interesting results concerning similarities & discrepancies in search behaviour 27

28 Recommendations for website design & future research Website selection process seems to be more important than the website design The threshold of the L2 proficiency level may potentially be mediated by iiiidomain knowledge. new questions were raised 28

29 Future Research prior domain knowledge to mediate lower linguistic proficiency levels? 29

30 Future Research prior domain knowledge to mediate low linguistic proficiency levels? Below which language proficiency threshold users do not visit a L2 website? 30

31 Future Research prior domain knowledge to mediate low linguistic proficiency levels? Is there a language proficiency threshold below which users do not visit a L2 website? objective information processing effort (L2 proficiency level) subjective information processing effort (e.g.habit,duetolargel1 information market) 31

32 Future Research prior domain knowledge to mediate low linguistic proficiency levels? Is there a language proficiency threshold below which users do not visit a L2 website? objective information processing effort (L2 proficiency level) subjectice information processing effort (e.g.habit,duetolargel1 information market) Did L2 visitors use search engines more often because they looked up more information or because they needed to reformulate queries? 32

33 Future Research prior domain knowledge to mediate low linguistic proficiency levels? Is there a language proficiency threshold below which users do not visit a L2 website? objective information processing effort (L2 proficiency level) subjectice information processing effort (e.g.habit,duetolargel1 information market) Did L2 visitors use search engines more often because they looked up more information or because they needed to reformulate queries? Would terminological support (e.g. synonym expansion) mediate language effects? 33

34 Vielen Dank für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit! (L1 ) Thank you for your attention! (L2 )