The study of web-search behaviour and performance is one of the topics of interest to researchers in the field of information science. This research aimed to investigate the impact of alternating, selective and sustained attention levels on web-search strategies, navigational styles, query reformulation, information processing approaches, satisfaction and success rate during web-search. Using a causal-comparative design, participants first completed a computerised attention test comprising the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Stroop Test and Continuous Performance Test, after which they performed two web-search tasks on Google. Their behaviours were recorded and analysed using chi-square tests for categorical variables and one-way analysis of variance for performance measures. The findings showed that users with a high level of alternating attention preferred the combined search strategy and used more ‘Replace’ strategies in their query reformulations. However, in other measures of behaviour and performance, they did not exhibit any significant difference compared with the inattentive group. Also, users with a high level of selective attention preferred the scanning processing approach and used more ‘New’ and ‘Add’ strategies in their query reformulations; however, in other measures of behaviour and performance, they did not show any significant difference compared with the inattentive group. However, users with a high level of sustained attention preferred the reading processing approach and performed more successfully in their web-search tasks. However, in other measures of behaviour and performance, they did not show any significant difference compared with the inattentive group. These findings highlight the need to consider users’ cognitive profiles when designing search engine interfaces.
LewandowskiDHaiderJSundinO.JASIST special issue editorial: re-orienting search engine research in information science. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol2024; 75: 503–511.
MaloneTCConleyDJFisherTR, et al. Scales of nutrient-limited phytoplankton productivity in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries1996; 19: 371–385.
4.
ZhengG. Web navigation systems for information seeking: In: Khosrow-PourDBAM (ed.) Advances in Information Quality and Management. IGI Global, pp. 7693–7701.
5.
KlahrDWallaceJG. Class inclusion processes*. In: Farnham-diggoryS (ed.) Information Processing in Children. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, pp. 143–172.
6.
HalttunenK.Students’ conceptions of information retrieval: implications for the design of learning environments. Libr Inf Sci Res2003; 25: 307–332.
7.
BarakaHABarakaHAEL-GamilyIH.Information systems performance evaluation, introducing a two-level technique: case study call centers. Egypt Inform J2015; 16: 9–22.
8.
GregoryKGrothPCousijnH, et al. Searching data: a review of observational data retrieval practices in selected disciplines. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol2019; 70: 419–432.
9.
MaoSWangDTangC, et al. Students’ online information searching strategies and their creative question generation: the moderating effect of their need for cognitive closure. Front Psychol2022; 13, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.877061 (2022, accessed 5 January 2024)
10.
BaiLLiuXSuJ.ChatGPT: the cognitive effects on learning and memory. Brain-x2023; 1: e30.
JalolovT.Understanding the role of attention and consciousness in cognitive psychology. J Univers Sci Res2023; 1: 839–843.
13.
BurgoyneAPMashburnCATsukaharaJS, et al. Attention control and process overlap theory: searching for cognitive processes underpinning the positive manifold. Intelligence2022; 91: 101629.
14.
WatzlS.What attention is. The priority structure account. Wires Cogn Sci2023; 14: e1632.
15.
DraheimCPakRDraheimAA, et al. The role of attention control in complex real-world tasks. Psychon Bull Rev2022; 29: 1143–1197.
16.
DrigasAKaryotakiM.Attention and its role: theories and models. Int J Emerg Technol Learn IJET2019; 14: 169–182.
17.
ChanRCKMKLaiIH.RobertsonLatent structure of the test of everyday attention in a non-clinical Chinese sample. Arch Clin Neuropsychol2006; 21: 477–485.
18.
GiovannoliJMartellaDCasagrandeM.Assessing the three attentional networks and vigilance in the adolescence stages. Brain Sci2021; 11: 503.
19.
ManlyT.The absent mind: further investigations of sustained attention to response. Neuropsychologia1999; 37: 661–670.
20.
PosnerMIPetersenSE.The attention system of the human brain. Annu Rev Neurosci1990; 13: 25–42.
21.
CasagrandeMMarottaAMartellaD, et al. Assessing the three attentional networks in children from three to six years: a child-friendly version of the attentional network test for Interaction. Behav Res Methods2022; 54: 1403–1415.
22.
WolfeJMHorowitzTS.Five factors that guide attention in visual search. Nat Hum Behav2017; 1: 0058.
WilsonTD.Models in information behaviour research. J Doc1999; 55: 249–270.
25.
KinleyKTjondronegoroDPartridgeH, et al. Modeling users’ web search behavior and their cognitive styles. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol2014; 65: 1107–1123.
26.
KaufmannMWilkeGPortmannE, et al. Combining bottom-up and top-down generation of interactive knowledge maps for enterprise search. In: BuchmannRKiforCVYuJ (eds) Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management. Cham: Springer, 2014, pp. 186–197.
27.
HuRLuKJooS.Effects of topic familiarity and search skills on query reformulation behavior: effects of topic familiarity and search skills on query reformulation behavior. Proc Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2013; 50: 1–9.
28.
SimonABechSLoquetG, et al. Electrodes selection for cortical auditory attention decoding with EEG during speech and music listening. In: 2022 25th International Conference on Information Fusion (FUSION), Linköping, 4–7July2022. New York: IEEE.
29.
Stjepan ŽEBECMŠakićMKotrla TopićM. Analysis of the relationship between speed of information processing, reading comprehension and school achievement in lower grades of primary school. Druš Istraživanja Časopis Za Opća Druš Pitanja2009; 18: 763–784.
30.
LiuMLiuYMaoJ, et al. ‘Satisfaction with Failure’ or ‘Unsatisfied Success’: investigating the relationship between search success and user satisfaction. In: Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference on World Wide Web – WWW ’18, Lyon, 23–27April2018, pp. 1533–1542. New York: IEEE.
31.
KellyD.Methods for evaluating interactive information retrieval systems with users. Found Trends® Inf Retr2007; 3: 1–224.
32.
AliRBegMMS. An overview of Web search evaluation methods. Comput Electr Eng2011; 37: 835–848.
33.
ZhangFZhouKShaoY, et al. How well do offline and online evaluation metrics measure user satisfaction in web image search? In: The 41st International ACM SIGIR conference on research & development in information retrieval, Ann Arbor, MI, 8–12 July 2018, pp. 615–624. New York: IEEE.
GuoQYuanSAgichteinE. Detecting success in mobile search from interaction. In: Proceedings of the 34th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. Beijing, China, pp. 1229–1230. New York: ACM.
36.
LiXLiuYCaiR, et al. Investigation of user search behavior while facing heterogeneous search services. In: Proceedings of the Tenth ACM international conference on web search and data mining, Cambridge, 6–10 February 2017, pp. 161–170. New York: ACM.
37.
Salvador-OlivánJAMarco-CuencaGArquero-AvilésR.Errors in search strategies used in systematic reviews and their effects on information retrieval. J Med Libr Assoc JMLA2019; 107: 210–221.
38.
BramerWMde JongeGBRethlefsenML, et al. A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc JMLA2018; 106: 531–541.
WangFBaumeisterRFTangY-Y.Editorial: new paradigm of attention and attention training: mechanisms and applications. Front Hum Neurosci2023; 17: 1122941.
41.
FortenbaughFCDeGutisJEstermanM.Recent theoretical, neural, and clinical advances in sustained attention research. Ann N Y Acad Sci2017; 1396: 70–91.
SohlbergMMMateerCA.Effectiveness of an attention-training program. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol1987; 9: 117–130.
44.
ZhangYMaQ.Dual attention model for citation recommendation with analyses on explainability of attention mechanisms and qualitative experiments. Comput Linguist2022; 48: 403–470.
PalmerJDavisE.Visual search and attention: an overview. Spat Vis2004; 17: 249–255.
47.
KasparKGameiroRRKönigP.Feeling good, searching the bad: positive priming increases attention and memory for negative stimuli on webpages. Comput Hum Behav2015; 53: 332–343.
48.
AhnJ-HBaeY-SJuJ, et al. Attention adjustment, renewal, and equilibrium seeking in online search: an eye-tracking approach. J Manag Inf Syst2018; 35: 1218–1250.
49.
WuDZhangS.Does visual attention help? Towards better understanding and predicting users’ good abandonment behavior in mobile search. Libr Hi Tech. Epub ahead of print 1 January 2022. DOI: 10.1108/LHT-01-2022-0076.
50.
PengMChenXZhaoQ, et al. Attentional scope is reduced by Internet use: a behavior and ERP study. PLoS ONE2018; 13: e0198543.
51.
RieserLFurneauxB.Share of attention: exploring the allocation of user attention to consumer applications. Comput Hum Behav2022; 126: 107006.
52.
PutkonenANiocheALaineM, et al. Fragmented visual attention in web browsing: Weibull analysis of item visit times. In: KampsJGoeuriotLCrestaniF, et al. (eds) Advances in Information Retrieval. Cham: Springer, pp. 62–78.
53.
HarveyMPointonM. Searching on the Go: the effects of fragmented attention on mobile web search tasks. In: Proceedings of the 40th International ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan, 7–11 August 2017, pp. 155–164. New York: ACM.
54.
WuJ-YXieC.Using time pressure and note-taking to prevent digital distraction behavior and enhance online search performance: perspectives from the load theory of attention and cognitive control. Comput Hum Behav2018; 88: 244–254.
55.
LiTWangSZhouD, et al. Consumer attention and market concentration in e-commerce: an agent-based perspective. J Econ Interact Coord. Epub ahead of print 11 March 2025. DOI: 10.1007/s11403-025-00443-5.
56.
TorabiMMirzabeigiMAbbaspourJ, et al. Exploring the variations in browsing and dwell time behaviours in web pages among users with different levels of attention. J Librariansh Inf Sci. Epub ahead of print 6 September 2025. DOI: 10.1177/09610006251363976.
57.
ArguelloJWuW-CKellyD, et al. Task complexity, vertical display and user interaction in aggregated search. In: Proceedings of the 35th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval, Portland, OR, 12–16 August 2012, pp. 435–444. New York: ACM.
58.
BhatiaS.Attention and attribute overlap in preferential choice. Q J Exp Psychol2017; 70: 1174–1196.
59.
GusenbauerMHaddawayNR.Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Res Synth Methods2020; 11: 181.
60.
FordNMillerDMossN.Web search strategies and human individual differences: a combined analysis. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol2005; 56: 757–764.
61.
KinleyKTjondronegoroDPartridgeH, et al. Relationship between the nature of the search task types and query reformulation behaviour. In: Proceedings of the Seventeenth Australasian document computing symposium, pp. 39–46. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
62.
StevensCBavelierD.The role of selective attention on academic foundations: a cognitive neuroscience perspective. Dev Cogn Neurosci2012; 2: S30.
63.
VeneriGFedericoARufaA.Evaluating the influence of motor control on selective attention through a stochastic model: the paradigm of motor control dysfunction in cerebellar patient. Biomed Res Int2014; 2014: 162423.
64.
BootWRBecicEKramerAF.Stable individual differences in search strategy? The effect of task demands and motivational factors on scanning strategy in visual search. J Vis2009; 9: 7.
65.
NettletonD. Chapter e15 – Analysis of data on the Internet II – search experience analysis. In: NettletonD (ed.) Commercial Data Mining. Boston, MA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. e15–e26.
66.
ChenZQinYPengM, et al. Event-related potential patterns of selective attention modulated by perceptual load. Brain Behav2023; 13: e2907.
67.
FordNMillerDMossN.Web search strategies and approaches to studying. JASIST2003; 54: 473–489.
68.
ChenH-CWangC-CHungJC, et al. Employing eye tracking to study visual attention to live streaming: a case study of Facebook live. Sustainability2022; 14: 7494.
69.
DwivediYKHughesLBaabdullahAM, et al. Metaverse beyond the hype: multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. Int J Inf Manag2022; 66: 102542.
MoriartyD. 2 – Information processing. In: MoriartyD (ed.) Practical Human Factors for Pilots. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 11–75.
72.
GallenCLSchaerlaekenSYoungerJW, et al. Contribution of sustained attention abilities to real-world academic skills in children. Sci Rep2023; 13: 2673.
73.
IlgazHAltunAAşkarP.The effect of sustained attention level and contextual cueing on implicit memory performance for e-learning environments. Comput Hum Behav2014; 39: 1–7.
74.
DesjarlaisM.Internet exploration behaviours and recovery from unsuccessful actions differ between learners with high and low levels of attention. Comput Hum Behav2013; 29: 694–705.
75.
ShanmugasundaramMTamilarasuA.The impact of digital technology, social media, and artificial intelligence on cognitive functions: a review. Front Cogn2023; 2: 1203077.
76.
MaidelV.Searching as thinking: the role of cues in query reformulation. Diss – ALL, 2014, https://surface.syr.edu/etd/73
77.
DwivediYKKshetriNHughesL, et al. Opinion paper: ‘So what if ChatGPT wrote it?’ multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. Int J Inf Manag2023; 71: 102642.
