Self-efficacy in getting information, which is defined as individuals’ judgments of their own capabilities to search, compare and evaluate information they need, is critical given the negative effects of information overload in the modern information society. This study focuses on digital library users with the purpose of identifying the user groups with lower levels of self-efficacy in getting information so as to provide insights for targeted user training. Specifically, this study explores the effect of individual differences on self-efficacy in getting information in terms of gender, current position, field and experience with using the digital library. The findings suggest that there are no significant differences between male and female users regarding self-efficacy in getting information. Undergraduate students as well as master or doctoral students and the users coming from the fields of arts and humanities as well as social sciences perceive lower levels of self-efficacy in getting information. The users who have longer experience with using the digital library perceive higher levels of self-efficacy in getting information. These findings and implications are discussed.
AhlinBDrnovsekMHisrichRD (2014) Entrepreneurs’ creativity and firm innovation: The moderating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Small Business Economics43(1): 101–117.
ArmsWY (2012) The 1990s: the formative years of digital libraries. Library Hi Tech30(4): 579–591.
4.
BanduraA (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review84(2): 191–215.
5.
BanduraA (1982) Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist37(2): 122–147.
6.
BawdenDRobinsonL (2009) The dark side of information: Overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies. Journal of Information Science35(2): 180–191.
7.
BawdenDHolthamCCourtneyN (1999) Perspectives on information overload. ASLIB Proceedings51(8): 249–255.
8.
BeaudoinCE (2008) Explaining the relationship between Internet use and interpersonal trust: Taking into account motivation and information overload. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13 (3): 550–568.
9.
BockGWMahmoodMSharmaSKangYJ (2010) The impact of information overload and contribution overload on continued usage of electronic knowledge repositories. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce20(3): 257–278.
10.
ChiuSI (2014) The relationship between life stress and smartphone addiction on Taiwanese university student: A mediation model of learning self-efficacy and social self-efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior34: 49–57.
11.
DavisFDBagozziRPWarshawPR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science35(8): 982–1003.
12.
EdmundsAMorrisA (2000) The problem of information overload in business organisations: a review of the literature. International Journal of Information Management20(1): 17–28.
13.
EpplerMJMengisJ (2004) The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. Information Society20(5): 325–344.
14.
FallisD (2008) Toward an epistemology of Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology59(10): 1662–1674.
15.
FarhoomandAFDruryDH (2002) Managerial information overload. Communications of the ACM45(10): 127–131.
16.
FongCJKrauseJM (2014) Lost confidence and potential: A mixed methods study of underachieving college students’ sources of self-efficacy. Social Psychology of Education17(2): 249–268.
17.
HempP (2009) Death by information overload. Harvard Business Review87(9): 83–89.
18.
HeradioRFernandez-AmorosDCabrerizoFJHerrera-ViedmaE (2012) A review of quality evaluation of digital libraries based on users’ perceptions. Journal of Information Science38(3): 269–283.
19.
HoltonAEChyiHI (2012) News and the overloaded consumer: Factors influencing information overload among news consumers. Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking15 (11): 619–624.
20.
HuJHuhmannBAHymanMR (2007) The relationship between task complexity and information search: The role of self-efficacy. Psychology & Marketing24(3): 253–270.
21.
HuangYMLiuCHLeeCYHuangYM (2012) Designing a personalized guide recommendation system to mitigate information overload in museum learning. Educational Technology & Society15(4): 150–166.
22.
JacksonTWFarzanehP (2012) Theory-based model of factors affecting information overload. International Journal of Information Management32(6): 523–532.
23.
JonesQRavidGRafaeliS (2004) Information overload and the message dynamics of online interaction spaces: A theoretical model and empirical exploration. Information Systems Research15(2): 194–210.
24.
KeselmanA. (2010) Adapting semantic natural language processing technology to address information overload in influenza epidemic management. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology61(12): 2531–2543.
25.
KockNParenteRVervilleJ (2008) Can Hofstede’s model explain national differences in perceived information overload? A look at data from the US and New Zealand. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication51(1): 33–49.
26.
KurbanogluSSAkkoyunluBUmayA (2006) Developing the information literacy self-efficacy scale. Journal of Documentation62(6): 730–743.
27.
KwanyaTStilwellCUnderwoodPG (2011) Library 2.0 versus other library service models: a critical analysis. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science44(3): 145–162.
28.
LeeCCHsiehMCHuangHC (2011) The influence of mobile self-efficacy on attitude towards mobile advertising. Advances in Information Sciences and Service Sciences3(3): 100–108.
29.
LeeSYHwangHHawkinsRPingreeS (2008) Interplay of negative emotion and health self-efficacy on the use of health information and its outcomes. Communication Research35(3): 358–381.
30.
LimSKwonN (2010) Gender differences in information behavior concerning Wikipedia, an unorthodox information source?Library & Information Science Research32(3): 212–220.
31.
LuHPLeeMR (2010) Demographic differences and the antecedents of blog stickiness. Online Information Review34(1): 21–38.
32.
Machin-MastromatteoJD (2014) Thinking outside of literacy: Moving beyond traditional information literacy activities. Information Development30(3): 288–290.
NovOYeC (2008) Users’ personality and perceived ease of use of digital libraries: the case for resistance to change. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5): 845–851.
35.
OldroydJBMorrisSS (2012) Catching falling stars: a human resource response to social capital’s detrimental effect of information overload on star employees. Academy of Management Review37(3): 396–418.
36.
PavlouPAFygensonM (2006) Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: an extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Quarterly30(1): 115–143.
37.
PellasNKazanidisI (2014) The impact of computer self-efficacy, situational interest and academic self-concept in virtual communities of inquiry during the distance learning procedures through Second Life. World Wide Web–internet and Web Information Systems17(4): 695–722.
38.
PorcelCMorales del CastilloJMCoboMJRuizAAHerrera-ViedmaE (2010). An improved recommender system to avoid the persistent information overload in a university digital library. Control and Cybernetics39 (4): 899–923.
39.
RenWH (2000) Library instruction and college student self-efficacy in electronic information searching. The Journal of Academic Librarianship26(5): 323–328.
40.
RheeaHSKimbCRyucYU (2009) Self-efficacy in information security: Its influence on end users’ information security practice behavior. Computers & Security28(8): 816–826.
41.
RossLSennyeyP (2008) The library is dead, long live the library! The practice of academic librarianship and the digital revolution. Journal of Academic Librarianship34(2): 145–152.
42.
RossMPerkinsHBodeyK (2013) Information literacy self-efficacy: The effect of juggling work and study. Library & Information Science Research35(4): 279–287.
43.
SavolainenR (2007) Filtering and withdrawing: Strategies for coping with information overload in everyday contexts. Journal of Information Science33 (5): 611–621.
44.
StraubDWBoudreauMCGefenD (2004) Validation guideline for IS positivist research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems13(1): 380–427.
45.
StewartLA (2000) Choosing between print and electronic resources: The selection dilemma. The Reference Librarian, 34(71): 79–97.
46.
StviliaBTwidaleMSmithLCGasserL (2008) Information quality work organization in Wikipedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology59(6): 983–1001.
47.
TangYQTsengHW (2013) Distance learners’ self-efficacy and information literacy skills. The Journal of Academic Librarianship39(6): 517–521.
48.
TierneyPFarmerSM (2002) Creative self-efficacy: its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal45(6): 1137–1148.
49.
UsluelYK (2007) Can ICT usage make a difference on student teachers’ information literacy self-efficacy. Library & Information Science Research29(1): 92–102.
50.
WestWLMillerHS (2011) Electronic journals: Cataloging and management practices in academic libraries. Serials Review37(4): 267–274.
51.
WhiteMDormanSM (2000) Confronting information overload. Journal of School Health70(4): 160–161.
52.
YanYLZhaXJ (2014) Comparison between user affinity with digital libraries and virtual communities. Learned Publishing27(2): 135–143.
53.
YangHLChengHH (2009) Creative self-efficacy and its factors: An empirical study of information system analysts and programmers. Computers in Human Behavior25(2): 429–438.
54.
ZhaXJXiaoZLZhangJC (2014) A survey of user perceptions of digital library e-quality and affinity. Serials Review40(1): 3–11.
55.
ZhaXJZhangJCYanYL (2014) Exploring the effect of individual differences on user perceptions of print and electronic resources. Library Hi Tech32 (2): 346–367.
56.
ZhouT (2012) Understanding users’ initial trust in mobile banking: An elaboration likelihood perspective. Computers in Human Behavior28 (4): 1518–1525.
57.
ZhuYQChenLYChenHGChernCC (2011) How does Internet information seeking help academic performance? –The moderating and mediating roles of academic self-efficacy. Computers & Education57(4): 2476–2484.
