Cognitive Differences:

Personal characteristics
facet
Jacek Gwizdka
Assistant Professor
Department of Library and Information Science

CONTACT:
www.jsg.tel
 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 http://bit.ly/email_keep_clean
 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 http://bit.ly/email_keep_clean
 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 http://bit.ly/email_keep_clean
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 http://bit.ly/tagcloud_search
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 http://bit.ly/tagcloud_search
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
http://www.jsg.tel
http://www.comminfo.rutgers.edu/~jacekg/
http://www.gwizdka.com

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
www.jsg.tel
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 http://bit.ly/tagcloud_search
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