Information Seeking Behavior

Previous research has suggested that information· behavior is lawful and that the levels of information are dependent upon alterations of the nature and conditions under which the information is soug-ht. However, in previous research only two variables were manipulated. One the similarity of the information to the subject seeking the information. This variable proved significant and could be used to_predict the relative levels of information seeking. The other variable was the race, black or white, of the indi­ vidual for whom one was seeking information. This variable proved to be not significant. The current study is designed to validate the findings of the first study and to expand the variables studied in order to more clearly specify the nature of information seeking behavior and its laws. In order to do this, the following research was carried out. Forty, randomly selected, Wheaton undergraduates were given attitude questionnaires to fill out. The first contained items which have been demonstrated to be of low importance and the second contained items demonstrated to be of high importance. From the responses of the subjects individual protocols were constructed to appear as similar or dissimilar to the subject. Thus, four protocols were available as follows: High Important S.imilar Information, Low Important Similar In­ formation, High Important Dissimilar Information and Low seeking seeking

The other variable was the race, black or white, of the indi vidual for whom one was seeking information. This variable proved to be not significant.
The current study is designed to validate the findings of the first study and to expand the variables studied in order to more clearly specify the nature of information seeking behavior and its laws. In order to do this, the following research was carried out.
Forty, randomly selected, Wheaton undergraduates were given attitude questionnaires to fill out. The first contained items which have been demonstrated to be of low importance and the second contained items demonstrated to be of high importance. From the responses of the subjects individual protocols were constructed to appear as similar or dissimilar to the subject. Thus, four protocols were available as follows: High Important S.imilar Information, Low Important Similar In formation, High Important Dissimilar Information and Low seeking seeking the was Important Dissimilar Information.
The items were presented one at a time to the subjects and they were allowed to seek as much or as little as they required in order to make a decision of acceptance or rejection.   (1) A subject is given a series of attitude questions.
(2) From the subject's answers bogus sets of answers are constructed to appear in one case dissimilar to the subject and in another case similar to the subject. (3) The subject is then given the bogus sets of answers and asked to rate them on some dimension of interpersonal attraction.
(4) The predictions which have been supported so far involve the notion that, all things being equal, subjects will show a higher degree of interpersonal attraction to an individual who appears more similar to themselves than they will to an individual who appears dissimilar. (1) Formal Social Acceptance, which included such items as, "I would admire the ideas of," "I would ask for opinion of," etc.
(2) Marital Acceptance, which included such items as, "Fall in love with, 11 "Go out on a date with," etc.
(3) Friendship Acceptance, which included such items as, "Accept as an intimate friend," "Go fishing with," etc.
(4) Hostile Acceptance, which included such items as, "Permit to do me a favor," "Admit as a tourist in my country," etc.

16
In the 1966 study their method was as follows: A naive subject engages four strangers, con federates of the experimenter, in a group discussion about an important or situationally relevant topic. Two of the confederates are white and two are Negro. One white and one Negro agree with the subject, and one white and one Negro disagree with him. The sub ject is then asked to state preference for two of the four confederates.
One of the situations involved a university setting and the other involved a situation in which subjects were actual job applicants.
Using the two paradigms, both the 1960 study (Rokeach,

Smith, & Evans) and the 1966 study (Rokeach & Mezei) yielded
results consistent with the belief theory and showed that simi larity or dissimilarity of perceived belief was the major factor in social choices. The authors were careful to point out in both studies that the belief hypothesis was only being tested in the absence of external pressure to discriminate along racial lines.
Byrne {1961) extended the belief theory to studies of strangers. He hypothesized that "a stranger who is known to have attitudes similar to those of the subject is better liked (attraction hypothesis) than a stranger with attitudes dis similar to those of the subject." In addition he proposed that strangers with similar attitudes are judged to be more in� telligent, better informed, more moral, and better adjusted (evaluation �ypothesis) than a stranger with dissimilar atti tudes. The �tudy included both black and white strangers.
The pre-testing of subject attitudes and the subsequent use of  In the previous study the questionnaire which was used was not 25 free of items which transmitted a sense of deviance when only . dissimilarity was intended. In response to this concern the items which will be used in the current study have been selected they have been demonstrated to be free of the sugges deviance in cases where the an swers to the questions are dissimilar to the subject: ':s responses (Byrne 1971). In addition, the previous study did not offer the opportunity to the interactive effects of similarity with other varia associated with the information seeking process. The pre sent study will include some of these additiorial variables.
Another variable which has proved to be of considerable importance in the literature from which the present study was suggested is that of interpersonal or social distance. Trian dis (1964) was able to demonstrate a social distance factor in his work on interpersonal attraction. Byrne (1971) has also raised the question as to whether or not a person' s response to similarity and dissimilarity in another individual is a func tion of how much social or interpersonal distance exists in the relationship.
In terms of the present study the question will be raised in terms of the effect of social distance on informa tion seeking behavior. That is , do we seek information differently for close social situations as compared to distant ones? Thus , subjects will be asked to seek information under two different sets of instructions. The first will be to seek information in order to select a roommate and the second will (4) There is an interaction between similarity and 27 social distance which will affect the amount of information a subject will require to make an interpersonal evaluation of a stimulus individual.
(6) There is an interaction between the importance of the information and the social distance which will affect the amount of information a subject requires to make an interpersonal evaluation of a stimulus individual.
(7) There is an interaction between the similarity of a stimulus, ·the importance of the information and the social distance which will affect the amount of information a subject requires to make an inter personal evaluation of a stimulus individual.
At this time it is felt that increased similarity results in increased information seeking, decreased item im portance results in increased seeking and decreased social distance results in increased information seeking. (1) Similar responses to high importance items.
(2) Similar responses to low importance items.
(3) Dissimilar responses to high importance items.
(4) Dissimilar responses to low importance items. Instructions for the task involving far social distance were as follows: "We are interested in the process by which individuals are able to form impressions of other individuals on the basis of limited information concerning their attitudes. Each of the packages you have received con tains 20 envelopes with an individual's responses to the questions on the questionnaire which you took two weeks ago. Each envelope contains one item and· its response. · They are numbered from 1 · through 20 and you are to open each· envelope in order. We are not only interested in your impression but also the amount of information it takes for you to form that impression. Sometimes people need a lot of information to make a judgment and sometimes it requires little information.
You are to use only as much information (as many enve lopes) as you need to make a comfortable decision about whether or not you feel that you would like to have the individual attend Wheaton College. When you have made your decision indicate it in the space provided as well as the number of envelopes you used to come to that decision." Instructions for the (close) social distance task were as follows: "We are interested in the process by which individuals make decisions about other individuals on the basis of limited information concerning their attitudes. Each of the packages you have received contains 20 envelopes with an individual's responses to the questions on the questionnaire which you took two weeks ago. Each enve lope contains one items and its response. performed for the amount of information used to accept or re-_ject individuals under different information conditions (see Table II). The interaction effects of social distance and item similarity, social distance and item importance, item similarity and item importance are all statistically signi ficant (p<.Ol). The main effects were not statistically significant (p>.OS). In order to interpret the significant interaction effect, main effect tests were performed for each of the three significant interactions.
The effect of social distance on information seeking was statistically significant (p<.Ol) at both levels of social distance (see Table IV and Fig. 2).
The effect of item importance on information·seeking was statistically significant (p<.Ol) at both levels of social distance (see Table V and Fig. 3).
The effect of social distance on information seeking was statistically significant {p<.01) at both levels of item importance (see Table VI and Fig. 4).

36
The effect of item importance on information seeking was not statistically significant (p) .05) when the informa tion one was seeking was similar to the subject but was stat istically significant (p( .01) when the information one was seeking was dissimilar (see Table VII and Fig. 5).
The effect of item similarity on information seeking was not statistically significant (p) .05) when the infor mation one was seeking was of high importance but was statis tically significant (p ( • 01) when the information one was seeking was of low importance (see Table VIII and Fig. 6).
The mean number of items used by subjects in seeking information under different conditions is presented in Table   IX. A test of F max 19; p) .0l).
was not significant (F max = 5.1; df = 8, It should be noted that there were two kinds of inter actions observed. Social distance, as it was manipulated at its two levels, seems to cause a reversal in the amount of information subjects used to select or reject individuals. A good example of.this can be seen in Fig. 2. At close social distance on the average of 11.9 similar items were required to make decisions while only on the average of 6.6 dissimilar items were required. However, at far social distances on the average of 7.0 similar items were required while 13.2 dissimilar items were required. The same thing was seen for the 'interaction between social distance and item importance (see

Far Social Distance
The effect of similarity on information seeking at two conditions of social distance.
____ similarity ------dissimilarity  The effect of item importance on information seeking at two conditions of social distance.

__ ._High Importance Items
----Low Importance Items    The effect of item importance on information seeking at two conditions of similarity.
.i::,.    Table XII).    . 4). Close social distance acts to decrease information seeking while far social distance acts to increase infor mation seeking if the information has low importance.

Item Importance and Information Seeking
There is no ·significant effect of item importance if the information is similar to the seeker (see Fig. 5). How ever, high importance acts to decrease information seeking while low importance acts to increase information seeking if the information is dissimilar to the seeker.
The overall results are summarized in Table XIII.
More simply put, i_ f one were to do some social engi neering in order to increase interest and communications be tween whites and blacks, for example, and if one were dealing with black-white groups who were dissimilar to each other, the optimal arrangement (according to the current data) would  the process of information seeking may be seen to be occuring as like that of a socially close situation. The process of seeking dissimilar information terminates and only more and more similar information (supporting ideas) is sought.
In this way dissonance (dissimilarity) is reduced and the attitude or belief �hich the individual has become committed to increases its attractiveness.

Interpersonal Attraction
In the previous study (Sternlight, 1972)  In other words, in order to maximize the acceptance of dis similar individuals they must be presented under conditions --I dislike reading novels very much.
--I dislike reading novels to a slight degree.
--I enjoy reading novels -i:o a slight degree.
--I enjoy reading novels.
--I enjoy reading novels very much.
Classical Music (check one} --I dislike classical music very much.
I dislike classical music.
----I dislike classical music to a slight degree.
--I enjoy classical music to a slight degree.
--I enjoy classical music.
--I enjoy classical music very much. --I enjoy keeping pets.
--I enjoy keeping pets to a slight degree.
--I dislike keeping pets to a slight degree.
--I dislike keeping pets very much. ----I dislike musical comedies to a slight degree.
--I enjoy musical comedies to a slight degree.
--I enjoy musical comedies very much. --I dislike situation comedies to a slight degree.

Tipping
--I enjoy situation comedies to a slight degree.
--I enjoy situation comedies very much. --I enjoy foreign movies.
--I enjoy foreign movies to a slight degree.
--I dislike foreign movies to a slight degree.
--I dislike foreign movies very much. --I enjoy science fiction very much.
--I enjoy science fiction.
--I enjoy science fiction to a slight degree.
--I dislike science fiction to a -slight degree.
I dislike science fiction.