Perception and Selection of Information Sourcesby Undergraduate Students: Effects of AvoidantStyle, Confidence, and Personal Control inProblem-Solvingby Kyung-Sun Kim and Sei-Ching Joanna Sin

Available online 7 November 2007

A survey of undergraduate students examinedhow students’ beliefs about their

problem-solving styles and abilities (includingavoidant style, confidence, and personal controlin problem-solving) influenced their perception

and selection of sources, as reflected in (1)perceived characteristics of sources, (2) sourcecharacteristics considered important as selection

criteria, and (3) frequency of source use. Thefindings can be helpful in designing

bibliographic instruction and informationliteracy programs.

Kyung-Sun Kim is Associate Professor,School of Library and Information Studies,

University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA<kskim@slis.wisc.edu>;

Sei-Ching Joanna Sin is Doctoral Student,School of Library and Information Studies,

University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA<sjsin@wisc.edu>.

The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 33, Number 6, pages 655–665

With advances in information technology such as theInternet, there has been a proliferation of informationsources and channels.1 In colleges and universities,

students have access to a wide range of resources throughuniversity libraries as well as other information servicesavailable on the Web. Evaluating and selecting quality infor-mation sources are crucial and have become key components inbibliographic instruction (BI) and information literacy (IL)training. Despite efforts in helping them to select optimalsources, research indicates that students still choose to usesources that are not necessarily accurate or reliable.2 Suchselection behaviors are not unique to the student populationonly, however. Studies suggest that users often turn toinformation sources they prefer rather than those more suitablefor their tasks.3 In order to better understand users' sourceselection behavior, it is important to identify factors affectingthe source selection and to understand their effects on theselection behavior. This study aims at examining how users'affective propensity – especially beliefs underlying theirproblem-solving ability and style – plays a role in influencingtheir perception and selection of information sources.

Surveying undergraduate students, this study examined threedifferent aspects related to their source selection behavior: (1)frequency of source use, (2) criteria used for source selection,and (3) perceived characteristics of sources. The study focusedon how students' beliefs of problem-solving styles influencetheir perception and selection of information sources. The studywill help explain how student users with different characteristicsview sources differently and what makes these users selectcertain sources over others. Findings of the study will helpidentify key factors and their influence on the source selectionbehavior. Such knowledge will contribute to the improvementof IL programs through enhanced ability to teach students theselection of the best sources.

LITERATURE REVIEW

With the shift to a user-centered paradigm in the 1980s, morestudies have been conducted on users' information behaviorand have recognized the individuality and diversity of usersand their behavior. Research has also suggested that users'information behaviors are not always the result of purely

December 2007 655

rational calculation.4 With respect to the selection of informa-tion sources, it has been found that users do not always chooseto use the optimal ones. Factors other than source quality, suchas familiarity, perceived accessibility, or distrust of sources,often influence the selection behavior.5 Because selectingsuitable sources is critical to the satisfaction of informationneeds, one of the key questions in information behavior researchis: What sources are selected for information, and why?6

For academic librarians, IL instructors, and educators, theselection and use of information sources by college studentshave also become a key issue.7 This issue is particularlypressing in this age when students have access to a wide varietyof information sources housing information with varyingquality. Studies using surveys, interviews, and citation analysismethods have been conducted to investigate students' sourceselection and use behavior; and have generally agreed thatundergraduate students make quite frequent, or even exclusive,use of open Web resources.8 In a citation analysis of about twohundred bibliographies submitted by freshmen in 1996, 1999,and 2000, Philip Davis found a significant increase in citationsto newspapers and Web resources, and a decrease in bookcitations.9 The increasing use of Web resources has raisedconcerns among faculty and library and information profes-sionals, as college students often use unevaluated Webresources to support their academic work. For example, Grimesand Boening's analyses of Web citations and interviews withstudents and faculty revealed that undergraduate students oftenuse unauthenticated Web sources without critical evaluation.10

In a survey of 436 students and 316 non-students, MiriamMetzger and her colleagues also found that students do notverify the quality of Web information often. In addition, thestudents were found to rate open Web resources as moderatelycredible.11 Nicholas Tomaiuolo surveyed 120 university andcommunity college faculty members regarding the use of Webresources by themselves and their students. When asked toassess the quality of the information retrieved from the openWeb by their students, about 38 percent of the faculty membersfelt that the quality of information their students retrieved wasquestionable.12 Apparently, college students tend to use openWeb sources without much critical evaluation.

Studies also suggest that the extent of using Web sourcesvaries depending on individuals. In 2002, OCLC (OnlineComputer Library Center) surveyed 1050 college students andfound that 42 percent of the respondents used Web searchengines and 20 percent used Web portals for every assignment.However, 4 percent of the students reported that they did not useany Web search engines; and 17 percent did not use any Webportals, for their assignments.13 Such variations in source usageare also observed for other print and electronic resources. JurisDilevko and Lisa Gottlieb, for example, surveyed 394 under-graduate students and found that, on average, 39.6 percent ofthe respondents relied exclusively or almost exclusively ononline resources. Students used other types of sources as well.About 26 percent of the participants used print resources, and23.4 percent used print journals, about 90 to 100 percent of thetime.14 In order to improve the source evaluation and selectionamong undergraduate students, further investigation is neededon factors affecting the source selection behavior. Some studiesexamined how user variables, such as academic disciplines andyears in the program,15 influence the source selection behavior.However, little effort has been made to study the effect of users'cognitive or affective characteristics on their source selection

656 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

behavior. Cognitive characteristics are certain tendencies orpreferences in acquiring and processing information. Cognitivestyles (the characteristic approach to acquire and processinformation) and cognitive abilities (the content and level ofmental activities involved in acquiring and processing infor-mation) are examples. Affective characteristics, on the otherhand, refer to emotional and temperamental characteristicssuch as confidence.16 The importance of users' cognitive/affective characteristics in understanding information behaviorhas long been recognized, and a number of studies have beenconducted to investigate the impact of such characteristicson it.17 While some efforts have been made to examine therelationship between such user characteristics and how aparticular type of source is used, little has been done to studythe relationship between these characteristics and how sourcesare selected.

Scholars consider users' affect as an important factorinfluencing information behavior. Tom Wilson, for example,emphasized that information seeking behavior is not onlyinfluenced by a person's physiological and cognitive needs, butalso his or her affective needs.18 Affective aspect is also anintegral part of Carol Kuhlthau's information search processes(ISP) model. Kuhlthau's research on high school and collegestudents demonstrated that users often feel uncertain andanxious, especially in the early stage of information search;and these feelings affect their problem articulation andrelevance judgment.19 Clearly, understanding the role ofusers' affect is crucial to the understanding of the complexhuman information behavior.

Some studies examined how users' affective characteristicsinfluence the use of particular resources, such as libraries andelectronic resources. Studies on library anxiety revealed thatanxiety might lead to ineffective use of libraries.20 Subsequentresearch has explored the relation between library anxiety andother variables. Affective characteristics such as self-perceptionhave been found to be related to library anxiety. Qun Jiao andAnthony Onwuegbuzie examined the correlation betweenLibrary Anxiety Scale (LAS)21 and the Self-Perception Profilefor College Students (SPPCS). They found that users with a lowlevel of self-efficacy (specifically in a low level of perceivedscholastic competence, perceived intellectual ability, perceivedcreativity, and perceived social acceptance) tended to have ahigh level of library anxiety.22 Affective characteristics are alsofound to be influential in the use of electronic resources amongcollege students. In a study surveying undergraduate studentsfrom an introductory English composition course, Wen-HuaRen found a positive correlation between the use of libraryelectronic resources and the level of self-efficacy.23 Similarresults were also found in other studies. Surveying freshmen ina psychology class, Micaela Waldman found that students whowere motivated to use the electronic resources or those whoviewed electronic resources easy to use tended to have a highlevel of self-efficacy.24

Although some studies investigated how users' affectivecharacteristics influence the use of a particular type of source,little is known regarding effects of such characteristics on theperception and selection of a wide array of information sources.Today, college students have access to a variety of sources andshould be able to select appropriate ones for their academicwork. By including several different types of informationsources, this study aims at understanding how undergraduatestudents' affective characteristics influence their perception of

various sources, the criteria used for source selection, and thefrequency of using different sources.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The goal of this study is to examine the relationship betweencollege students' self-appraisal of problem-solving and theirperception, selection, and use of information sources foracademic work. Research questions will focus on three aspects:(1) What kind of information sources do students use morefrequently? Do students with different appraisals of theirproblem-solving abilities and styles use different sources morefrequently? (2) What kind of source characteristics do studentsconsider important when selecting information sources? Dostudents with different appraisals of their problem-solvingabilities and styles consider certain source characteristics moreimportant than others when selecting information sources? (3)How do students perceive different sources? Do students withdifferent self-appraisals of their problem-solving abilities andstyles perceive sources differently?

“The goal of this study is to examine therelationship between college students’

self-appraisal of problem solving and theirperception, selection and use of information

sources for academic work.”

METHODS

Data were collected in fall 2005 through a survey. Acombination of paper-and-pencil and Web-based questionnaireswas used to collect data on users' characteristics and theirperception and selection of information sources. Undergraduatestudents enrolled in a public university participated in the study.Sampling of the participants was done based on conveniencesampling. Five instructors teaching introductory level classeshelped the researcher to distribute the call for participation totheir students. The participation was voluntary and rewarded byeither extra credit or monetary compensation. From about 800students in different introductory classes, 225 students partici-pated in the study, resulting in a response rate of 28 percent.While open to all undergraduate students, the participatingclasses were in humanities and social science areas. As a result,the sample group of the study had a higher concentration ofstudents in these areas than the university's undergraduatestudent body as a whole.

Instruments

The user's beliefs and self-appraisals of problem-solvingabilities and styles were measured using a standardizedpsychological instrument, Problem-Solving Inventory (PSI).25

The purpose of the PSI is to assess an individual's perceptionsof his or her own problem-solving abilities and styles. Theinventory has been used in research of psychological health andadjustment, career decision, attribution, and others.26 The PSI isa 35-item instrument consisting of three component scales:problem-solving confidence, approach-avoidance style, andpersonal control. Problem-solving confidence (hereafter, Con-fidence) refers to “self-assurance while engaging in problem-

solving activities.” Approach-avoidance style (hereafter, Avoid-ance) signifies “a general tendency of individuals to approachor avoid problem-solving activities” whereas Personal control(hereafter, Control) measures “the extent to which individualsbelieve that they are in control of their emotions and behaviorwhile solving problems.”27 Low scores reflect a positiveappraisal of each component. Test–retest reliability of PSI isbetween 0.81 and 0.89, and the validity is 0.61 when RotterInternal-External Locus of Control Scale is used as the criterionmeasure.28

Data related to users' source perception and use werecollected through a Web-based survey. The survey includedboth closed and open-ended questions on the following aspects:(1) the frequency of using different information sources for theircourse-related academic work; (2) the source characteristicsconsidered important when selecting information sources fortheir academic work; and (3) the perceived characteristics ofdifferent sources.

The survey questionnaire included semantic differentialrating scales to assess the perceived characteristics of ninedifferent sources. Under each information source, a list ofadjectives was presented with “polar” opposites. Two adjectivesof each pair were separated by a seven-step scale, andparticipants were asked to rate based on their perception ofthe information source. This kind of rating method is based on awell-established theory;29 and is widely used to assess anindividual's perception of and attitude towards objects/con-cepts.30 Adjectives included in the survey were selected basedon extant studies on information sources and the results frompilot tests. The questionnaire used in the study was developedthrough three stages. First, about fifty students in library andinformation science (LIS) were asked to submit a list of sourcesthey use for academic work. They were also asked to submitcharacteristics associated with different sources, and criteriaused for source selection. From the participants' response, ninedifferent types of information sources were identified andtwenty-five sets of source characteristics were extracted.Second, a questionnaire was developed incorporating thesources and their characteristics identified in the first stage,and a pilot test was conducted using the questionnaire. Anothergroup of fifty LIS students participated in the test. The result ofthe pilot test was analyzed using factor analysis, and the surveywas streamlined and modified based on the result of the study.Finally, the survey was revised and tested with twenty students.On the final version of the survey, nine different types ofsources were rated on eleven sets of source characteristics.Open-ended questions were added to collect participants' inputon preferred sources and selection criteria. The items andoptions included in the survey were not intended to beexhaustive; they were selected based on the research focus ofthe current study and responses from sample groups in pilotstudies.

Data Analysis

To answer the three research questions, data were analyzedthrough four-way mixed ANOVAs (ANalysis Of VAriance).The mixed model ANOVAs included three between-subjectsvariables representing the user's appraisal of problem-solvingabilities and styles (Confidence, Avoidance, and Control), andone within-subject variable (repeated-measure variable). Theinclusion of within-subject variable reflects the research designin which each participant rated multiple sources and selection

December 2007 657

Table 2Information Sources and TheirFrequency of Use (n=225)

Information Sources/ChannelsFrequency oUse (Mean)

Web search engines 4.75

Web sites/Portal 4.17

Books (Print) 3.69

Online databases and online journals 3.44

Online library catalogs 3.08

Friends/Family members 3.07

Journals (Print) 2.61

Dictionaries/Encyclopedias (Print) 2.39

Librarians 1.15

0: not use; 6: used daily.

criteria. A within-subject design has advantages of increasingthe control of subject variability, and helps reduce the size ofthe error term. Such a reduction in subject variability and errorscould contribute to a greater test power than a between-subjectsdesign with the same number of observations. However, within-subject design requires the additional assumption of ‘spheri-city.’ To account for the sphericity, all the repeated-measuresanalyses carried out in the study used Greenhouse–Geissercorrection in which the F-test result was evaluated against amore stringent critical value.31 In the cases where post hocpairwise comparisons were conducted, Bonferroni adjustmentwas used to help control the chance of Type I error and keep thefamilywise error rates at 0.05 level.

RESULTS

Participants

A total of 225 undergraduate students in a public universityparticipated in the study. About 66 percent of the participants(n=148) were female, and the rest were male. Among theparticipants, 57 percent of them (n=128) were in their lateteens, and 43 percent in their twenties. The participants weremostly from classes in social studies and humanities. That is,49.8 percent (n=112) were from social sciences, 41.3 percent(n=93) from arts and humanities, 7.6 percent (n=17) fromsciences, and 1.3 percent (n=3) undecided. The averagescores for Approach-avoidance style (Avoidance), Problem-solving confidence (Confidence), and Personal control (Con-trol) were 46.92, 26.50, and 18.41, respectively (see Table 1).These scores were comparable to the norms obtained from asample of 1451 university students.32 Median split was usedto categorize the participants as follows: High-Avoidance(individuals who tend to avoid problem-solving activities) orLow-Avoidance (individuals who tend to approach rather thanavoid problems); High-Confidence (individuals who are self-assured while engaging in problem-solving activities) or Low-Confidence (individuals who are less self-assured whileengaging in problem-solving activities); and High-Control(individuals who feel more in control of their emotions andbehavior while solving problems) or Low-Control (individualswho feel less in control of their emotions and behavior whilesolving problems).

Frequency of Source Use

Participants were asked to rate how frequently they use eachof nine different information sources for their course-relatedacademic work. The scale used for measuring the frequency of

Table 1Scores of PSI Component Scales:

pproach-Avoidance (Avoidance), Problem-SolvingConfidence (Confidence), and Personal

Control (Control)

PossibleRangesof Scores

Rangesfrom theStudy

MeanScore

(n=225) SD

Norm (fromHeppner,1988)

voidance 16–96 22–88 46.92 10.06 46.10

onfidence 11–66 12–55 26.50 7.19 25.70

A

A

C

Control 5–30 8–30 18.41 4.18 17.25

658 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

f

usage ranged from 0 to 6, with 0 indicating ‘not used’ and 6‘used daily.’ Table 2 shows the average scores based on thefrequency. Among the nine sources, Web search engines wasthe most frequently used source, followed by Web sites/Portal,and Books (Print).

A four-way mixed ANOVA with a Greenhouse–Geissercorrection was conducted to further examine the effect of usercharacteristics and source types on the frequency of sourceusage. User variables (i.e., Avoidance, Confidence, and Control)were the between-subject variables and source type was thewithin-subject variable in this 2×2×2×9 design.

The analysis result revealed a significant main effect forsource types: F(6.054,1736)=103.32 (pb0.001). Significantinteraction effects were also found: a two-way interactionbetween Avoidance and source (F(6.054,1736)=2.55, pb0.05),and a three-way interaction between Avoidance, Confidence,and source (F(6.054,1736)=2.35, pb0.05). The three-wayinteraction suggested that the way in which two variables (i.e.,Avoidance and source) interacted varied in the two groups withdifferent levels of the third variable (i.e., High and Low inConfidence).

Post hoc analyses of the three-way interaction showed that inthe group of participants who tend to feel confident about theirproblem-solving abilities (High-Confidence), those with ahighly avoidant style (High-Avoidance) used Web sites moreoften, and dictionaries less frequently, than their counterparts(Low-Avoidance). In the Low-Confidence group, no significantdifference between High-Avoidance and Low-Avoidance userswas found in terms of the source use.

Selection Criteria

Participants were asked about the source characteristics theyconsidered important as criteria for selecting sources for theiracademic work. They were asked to select the five mostimportant characteristics as selection criteria and rank thembased on their perceived level of importance. The mostimportant criteria received 5 points, the second most importantcriteria 4 points and so on. ‘Accuracy/trustworthiness’ receivedthe highest score (Mean=3.58). ‘Accessibility’ (Mean=2.51)and ‘ease of use’ (Mean=1.57) were the second and third,respectively (Table 3).

Table 3Importance of Source Characteristics as Selection

Criteria (n=225)

Selection CriteriaImportance

Rating (Mean)

Accurate/Trustworthy 3.58

Accessible 2.51

Easy to use 1.57

Comprehensive 1.40

Efficient/Time saving 1.22

Free 1.12

Active/Updated 0.76

Organized 0.71

Objective 0.70

Interesting 0.50

Familiar 0.33

5: most important.

FPerceived Charact

A four-way mixed ANOVA (2×2×2×11) with a Greenhouse–Geisser correction was conducted with Avoidance, Confidence,and Control as the between-subject variables, and the selectioncriteria as the within-subject variable. The dependent variablewas the importance rating of source characteristics as theselection criteria. A significant main effect for criteria wasfound (F(7.31,1586.311)=71.23, pb0.001). A significantinteraction effect was also found between criteria and Control(F(7.31,1586.311)=3.973, pb0.001). The post hoc pairwisecomparisons revealed that participants who believed that theycould not control their emotions and behavior well while

igureeristi

solving problems (Low-Control) tended to give lower scores toaccuracy (indicating that they considered ‘accuracy’ as lessimportant) than the High-Controls. In addition, the Low-Controls also tended to give ‘ease of use,’ and ‘familiarity’higher scores than the High-Controls.

Perception of Sources

The study sought to obtain an in-depth understanding ofhow an information source is perceived on different dimen-sions of characteristics. Participants were asked to rate each ofthe nine sources on eleven dimensions of characteristics. Theresults allowed for a more detailed comparison of sources interms of their perceived strengths and weaknesses. Aparticularly noteworthy finding was that Web search enginesand Web sites were rated highly in most dimensions except‘accuracy,’ ‘objectivity’ and level of ‘organization.’ Partici-pants tended to perceive that resources available on the Webwere highly accessible and easy to use. However, theirperception of library electronic resources was less positive.While online catalogs (Online Public Access Catalogs:OPACs) received a high rating on ‘accessibility,’ they wererated low on ‘ease of use.’ Perhaps a more noteworthy result isthe participants’ perception of online databases. While theywere the fourth most frequently used information source,online databases were rated below average on almost alldimensions except on ‘objectivity.’ Online databases wereperceived as less accessible, and less easy to use. Surprisingly,they were also viewed as less accurate. Librarians wereperceived as highly organized, accurate, and free, while lessaccessible or updated (Figs. 1–3).

In addition to examining how different sources were viewed,the study investigated how users' beliefs of their problem-solving abilities and styles affected the perception of sourcecharacteristics on different dimensions. In other words, the

1cs of Print Sources

December 2007 659

Figure 2Perceived Characteristics of Online Sources

questionwas examinedwhether students with different problem-solving appraisals would have a significantly positive ornegative perception of certain information sources. To investi-gate this research question, a series of four-way mixed ANOVAswas conducted with Avoidance, Confidence, and Control as thebetween-subject variables and the sources as the within-subjectvariable. Dependent variables were the top five dimensions ofsource characteristics that the participants considered were

FigurePerceived Characteristics

660 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

important as source selection criteria. The results are presentedin Table 4.

AccessibilityThe ANOVA analysis revealed significant main effects for

Avoidance and also for sources. In addition, a significant three-way interaction was found among Avoidance, Confidence, andsources. A post hoc investigation showed that in the Low-

3of People as Sources

Table 4Mixed ANOVA Results on Perception of Source Characteristics

Accessible Accurate Comprehensive Easy to Use Efficient

Between group

Avoidance 15.843 ⁎ 1.275 3.076 2.244 1.034

Confidence 2.835 4.937 ⁎ 6.17 ⁎ 8.366 ⁎ 7.305 ⁎

Control 2.176 2.512 0.057 0.278 2.351

Avoidance×Confidence 0.014 1.394 1.774 0.165 0.004

Avoidance×Control 0.821 0.642 2.214 3.015 1.265

Confidence×Control 0.096 2.328 1.955 1.356 0.874

Avoidance×Confidence×Control 1.625 0.683 0.82 0.786 0.129

Error between [3.879] [2.966] [3.657] [4.155] [5.454]

Within group

Source 70.486 ⁎ 119.373 ⁎ 18.937 ⁎ 63.535 ⁎ 19.069 ⁎

Source×Avoidance 1.127 2.393 ⁎ 1.291 1.574 1.517

Source×Confidence 0.827 0.464 1.459 0.876 2.209 ⁎

Source×Control 1.989 0.662 0.832 1.632 0.868

Source×Avoidance×Confidence 2.369 ⁎ 1.448 0.502 0.968 0.913

Source×Avoidance×Control 0.399 0.377 1.29 0.82 1.488

Source×Confidence×Control 1.35 1.476 0.715 1.009 1.116

Source×Avoidance×Confidence×Control 1.2 1.415 1.057 0.871 1.324

Error within [2.042] [1.881] [1.707] [2.152] [2.24]

⁎ pb0.05.

Confidence group, those with a high avoidant style (High-Avoidance) tended to rate dictionary (print), journal (print), andfriends/family as less accessible than the Low-Avoidances did.In the High-Confidence group, the High-Avoidances rateddictionary (print), OPAC, Web search engine, and librarians asless accessible than did the Low-Avoidances.

AccuracySignificant main effects for Confidence and for sources were

found. TheHigh-Confidence users tended to perceive sources asbeing more accurate than the Low-Confidences did. Asignificant interaction effect between Avoidance and sourceswas also found. Post hoc pairwise comparison results showedthat compared to the Low-Avoidances, the High-Avoidanceusers tended to perceive journals (print) as less accurate.

EfficiencyThe ANOVA result indicated that there were significant main

effects for Confidence and for sources. It also revealed a two-

TableRatings on Comprehen

Dictionaries/Encyclopedias (Print) OPACs Books (Print)

Web SearchEngines

6.07 5.90 5.79 5.74

way interaction between Confidence and sources. Post hocpairwise comparison results showed that the High-Confidenceusers tended to view OPACs and Web search engines as moreefficient than the Low-Confidences did.

Comprehensiveness and Ease of UseThe ANOVA result revealed a main effect for sources.

Tables 5 and 6 present ratings of sources on ‘comprehensive-ness’ and ‘ease-of-use’ dimensions, respectively. Pairwisecomparisons with Bonferroni adjustments were conducted todetect significant differences among sources. The resultshowed that dictionaries, OPACs, books, and Web searchengines were perceived as highly comprehensive while onlinedatabases and Web sites were not. Regarding the ‘ease of use’dimension, a notable finding was that Web search enginesreceived a significantly higher rating than other sources.Journals, OPACs, and online databases were viewed as ratherdifficult to use. The ANOVA also revealed a significant maineffect for Confidence. That is, when the scores for different

5siveness by Source

LibrariansJournals(Print)

Friends/Family

OnlineDatabases Web Sites

5.38 5.27 5.22 5.09 4.97

December 2007 661

Table 6Ratings on Ease of Use by Source

Web SearchEngines Web Sites

Friends/Family

Dictionaries/Encyclopedias (Print) Books (Print) Librarians Journals (Print) OPACs

OnlineDatabase

6.585 6.309 6.09 6.014 5.252 5.249 4.699 4.657 4.441

dimensions were averaged across all nine sources, the High-Confidence users were found to give higher ratings to thesources than the Low-Confidences. In other words, participantsconfident about their problem-solving abilities and stylestended to view the information sources more positively.

DISCUSSION

The study examined how college students perceive and usedifferent information sources for their academic work. Threeaspects related to the source use behavior were investigated:(1) the frequency of using different information sources, (2)source characteristics considered as important criteria forsource selection, and (3) perceived characteristics of informa-tion sources. How users' self-evaluation of their ownproblem-solving abilities and styles influences such behaviorswas also studied. Findings suggested that users' belief in theirproblem-solving abilities/styles has an impact on the threeaspects related to the source use behavior. Among thesubscales measuring participants' problem-solving styles,confidence in their problem-solving abilities/styles (Confi-dence) and approach-avoidance style (Avoidance) were foundto affect the perception and use of sources while personalcontrol of their emotions/behavior (Control) influenced theselection criteria. In this section, the findings will beexamined in depth and implications for information literacytraining will be discussed.

Perception of Personal Control

Personal Control (Control) measures the extent to whichusers believe that they are in control of their emotions andbehavior. Findings revealed that Control was not related to thesource perception or the source usage. However, it was the onlyuser variable that had a significant impact on the ratings ofselection criteria. Compared to the High-Controls, the Low-Control users (feeling less in control of their emotions/behavior)tended to value ‘ease of use’ and ‘familiarity’ highly asimportant criteria for source selection. Interestingly, theyconsidered ‘accuracy’ as a less important selection criterion.This finding has implications for information literacy (IL)education. In addition to emphasizing the importance of‘accuracy’ as source selection criteria, IL might also need toactively seek to change the users' perception and attitudetowards sources (especially the perception/attitude of those whofeel less in control of their emotions/behavior), by helping theusers become more familiar with different sources. Oncestudents become familiar with most of the available sources,they would be able to focus on other more important criteria,such as ‘accuracy,’ when selecting sources. Hands-on trainingactivities and course assignments that require students to usespecific information sources could be beneficial in this respect.Source/system designers might also want to make their systemsas user-friendly as possible, so that students can find thesystems easy to use and use them.

662 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Confidence in Problem-Solving Abilities

Confidence in problem-solving abilities measures the user'sself-assurance while engaging in problem-solving activities.Findings suggest that Confidence has a significant impact onthe perception of sources. The Low-Confidence users who feelless assured while solving problems tended to have a rathernegative perception of information sources in general. Theyviewed information sources less comprehensive, less familiar,less interesting, and less easy to use. They also perceived mostsources to be more costly to use, than the High-Confidencesdid.

With regard to the perception of specific types ofinformation sources, the Low-Confidence users perceivedOPACs and Web search engines as less efficient than theHigh-Confidences did. Problems that users experience withOPACs have been well documented in the LIS literature. Usershave difficulties in using Boolean searching and controlledvocabularies, which poses barriers to efficient retrieval. ManyOPAC searches resulted in failure (e.g., no hits or too manyresults).33 In view of the extant literature, the finding that theLow-Confidences considered OPACs to be less efficient is notsurprising. However, it is interesting to find that the Low-Confidences perceived Web search engines as less efficientthan the High-Confidences did. In general, Web search engineswere viewed as the most efficient and easy source to use byparticipants in the study, which coincides with findings ofother existing studies.34 The finding that the Low-Confidencesperceived Web search engines less efficient suggests that theusers' problems in using or searching a source might not besolely related to complex interfaces or Boolean search features.The Low-Confidences might experience more fundamentalproblems related to query formulation and reformulation,evaluation of search results, and execution of searches, withconfidence. Previous studies suggested that individuals withlow level of self-efficacy tend to be more easily frustratedwhen faced with difficulties.35 If information cannot beretrieved “successfully” in their initial attempts, individualswith low self-efficacy might experience more uncertainty andstress than those with high self-efficacy. This might, in turn,contribute to less efficient searches and also low level ofsatisfaction with the search process as suggested in previousstudies.36 It is possible that the Low-Confidences who lackconfidence about their problem-solving abilities experience ahigh level of stress and that such stressful experience affectstheir view of sources. To help users feel less stressed, it mightbe useful that IL programs introduce Kuhlthau's InformationSearch Process model. Especially for those with littleconfidence, instructors should underscore that confusions andanxieties are commonly experienced during the search process,and that having difficulties in searching is not necessarily anindication of failure. User training can also support such usersby helping them develop and practice effective strategies forquery formulation and reformulation (such as the use of

synonyms, thesaurus of index terms), and for finding andusing alternative sources.

In general, the High-Confidences seem to have a positiveperception of information sources, but it does not imply thatIL programs would not be beneficial to them. One of thethings that the High-Confidences might need to be aware ofis the possibility of being overly confident about theirsearch ability and the source quality. In general, mostcollege students exhibit confidence in their search ability.OCLC's study of The Information Habits of CollegeStudents found that 75 percent of the student respondentswere confident about their ability of searching andevaluating information on the Web.37 However, studiesreporting the views of faculties, researchers, and practi-tioners indicated that many of the Web resources studentsselected were of questionable quality, and that studentsmight have overestimated the quality of the information theyfound on the Web.38

Users with a high level of confidence (High-Confidence)and high avoidant style (High-Avoidance) might need moreattention from the IL instructors. Findings from the analysisof source usage suggest that the High-Confidence users withHigh-Avoidance style tend to use Web sites more often, anddictionaries/encyclopedia less frequently, than did the High-Confidence users with Low-Avoidance. This is noteworthybecause Web sites were usually perceived as highlyaccessible and less accurate, while dictionaries/encyclopediawere viewed exactly the opposite, by participants of thestudy. A possible explanation for the frequent use of the Websites by the High-Confidences with High-Avoidance is thatcharacteristics of the High-Avoidances who tend to avoid,rather than approach, solving problems might be associatedwith a high inclination of selecting accessible sourcesregardless of the source quality. In addition, the High-Confidences tend to trust their ability to identify and evaluatehigh quality information sources; and subsequently theymight be more willing to use accessible resources (such asthe Web) in spite of the risk of encountering low-qualityinformation. More research is needed to further investigatethe interaction between users' confidence in problem-solvingand their avoidant style. It might be interesting to find out ifsuch interactions are common in other populations; and if so,why.

Approach-Avoidance Style

Approach-Avoidance style (Avoidance) measures a generaltendency of individuals to approach or avoid problem-solvingactivities. In the study, Avoidance seemed to influence users'perception of information sources, especially on ‘accessibility’and ‘accuracy,’ which incidentally are found to be the twomost important criteria for source selection. In general,participants with high tendency of avoiding problem-solving(High-Avoidance) tended to perceive information sources to beless accessible than participants with low avoidance (Low-Avoidance). In the Low-Confidence group, those with a highavoidant style (High-Avoidance) viewed dictionaries/encyclo-pedia, journals (print), and even friends/family as lessaccessible than the Low-Avoidances did. Even in the High-Confidence group, the High-Avoidances perceived diction-aries/encyclopedia, OPACs, Web search engines, and librar-ians as less accessible. This finding is intriguing as‘accessibility’ was ranked as the second most important

criteria for source selection in the study. It has been found that‘accessibility’ is highly related to source use.39 While‘accessibility’ is not one of the important criteria for sourceevaluation in IL education, it seems to play a crucial role inthe source selection in reality. Inaccessibility might be acritical barrier to the use of sources that might otherwise beappropriate for a particular task. While some informationsources such as print materials are indeed physically lessaccessible, IL programs could incorporate activities that canalter the ‘perceived accessibility’ of some sources. Toencourage the use of high quality sources, especially amongthe users with a high avoidant style, IL education could helpusers become aware of the availability and accessibility ofhigh quality sources. For example, IL programs can highlightthe fact that some resources that are not physically accessiblecould be delivered fairly quickly through document deliveryservices; and that librarians are easily accessible through avariety of channels (e.g., phone, e-mail, live chat, instantmessaging, and in person). Users with a high avoidant style, inparticular, would benefit from more training that focuses onthe use of high quality sources including printed journals. Thestudy findings indicated that the High-Avoidances perceivedprinted journals both less accessible and less accurate. It seemsthat IL education should dispel such false impressions andpsychological barriers.

“While ‘accessibility’ is not one of the importantcriteria for source evaluation in IL education,

it seems to play a crucial role in thesource selection in reality.”

Future Research

The current study investigated the relationship betweencollege students' belief in their problem-solving abilities andstyles and their source perception and selection behavior. Ituncovered some misconceptions that users have toward certainsources, which could help IL instructors develop activities tolead users to overcome such fallacies and to select optimalsources. It also identified certain users who would benefit morefrom IL training. Findings of the study should be generalizedwith caution, however. As the study was not based on a randomor systematic sampling, its findings were not intended to begeneralized to all students.

This study is one of the few that examined the relationshipbetween users' affective propensity and their informationbehavior; and it is the first focusing on the effect of perceivedproblem-solving abilities/styles on the source perception andselection behavior. This is just a first step toward an under-standing of the complex relationship between users' affectivecharacteristics and their source selection behavior. Futureresearch will need to introduce some other user variables (suchas self-efficacy, locus of control, tolerance of ambiguity) andexamine how these influence the source perception andselection behavior in different contexts. Research withdifferent user groups will also help further test and verifythe relationship between users and their source selectionbehavior.

December 2007 663

Acknowledgment: The research was made possible by aresearch grant from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. OCLC. “2004 Information Format Trends Content, Not Contain-ers.” OCLC, http://www.oclc.org/reports/2004format.htm

2. Juris Dilevko and Lisa Gottlieb. “Print Sources in an ElectronicAge: A Vital Part of the Research Process for UndergraduateStudents.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 28, no. 6 (2002):381–92;Miriam J. Metzger, Andrew J. Flanagin, and Lara Zwarun. “CollegeStudent Web Use, Perceptions of Information Credibility, andVerification Behavior.” Computers and Education 41, no. 3 (2003):271–90;Deborah J. Grimes, and Carl H. Boening. “Worries with the Web: ALook at Student Use of Web Resources.” College & ResearchLibraries 62, no. 1 (2001): 11–23.

3. Charles A. O'Reilly, “Variations in Decision Makers Use ofInformation-Sources – the Impact of Quality and Accessibility ofInformation.” Academy of Management Journal 25, no. 4 (1982):756–771;James Krikelas. “Information-Seeking Behavior – Patterns andConcepts.” Drexel Library Quarterly 19, no. 2 (1983): 5–20;Elfreda A. Chatman. “Life in a Small World – Applicability ofGratification Theory to Information-Seeking Behavior.” Journal ofthe American Society for Information Science 42, no. 6 (1991):438–449.

4. Brenda Dervin and Michael Nilan, “Information Needs and Uses,”Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 21 (1986):3–33.

5. O'Reilly. “Variations in Decision Makers”; Chatman. “Life in aSmall World”; Gloria J. Leckie, Karen E. Pettigrew, and ChristianSylvain. “Modeling the Information Seeking of Professionals: AGeneral Model Derived from Research on Engineers, Health CareProfessionals, and Lawyers.” The Library Quarterly 66 (1996):161–93.

6. Krikelas. “Information-Seeking Behavior.”7. Association of College and Research Libraries. “InformationLiteracy Competency Standards for Higher Education.” (2000),http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/standards.pdf.

8. Dilevko and Gottlieb. “Print Sources in an Electronic Age”;Metzger, Flanagin, and Zwarun. “College Student Web Use”;Nicholas G. Tomaiuolo. “Faculty Views of Open Web ResourceUse by College Students.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship31, no. 6 (2005): 559–66.

9. Philip M. Davis, “The Effect of the Web on Undergraduate CitationBehavior: A 2000 Update,” College & Research Libraries 63, no. 1(2002): 53–60.

10. Grimes and Boening. “Worries with the Web”; Tomaiuolo. “FacultyViews.”

11.Metzger, Flanagin, and Zwarun. “College Student Web Use.”12. Tomaiuolo. “Faculty Views.”13. OCLC. “OCLC White Paper on the Information Habits of College

Students. How Academic Librarians Can Influence Students' Web-Based Information Choices.” http://www5.oclc.org/downloads/community/informationhabits.pdf.

14. Dilevko and Gottlieb. “Print Sources in an Electronic Age.”15. Ibid; Leigh Watson Healy. “The Voice of the User: Where Students

and Faculty Go for Information Highlights of Outsell/DLF Study ofthe Academic Information Environment” (2002), http://libraries.uta.edu/planning/retreat2003/leigh-watson.pdf; Michelle Twait.“Undergraduate Students' Source Selection Criteria: A QualitativeStudy.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 31, no. 6 (2005):567–73.

16. David H. Jonassen and Barbara Louise Grabowski. Handbook ofIndividual Differences, Learning, and Instruction. Hillsdale, N.J.:L. Erlbaum Associates, 1993; Michael Kent. The Oxford

664 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

Dictionary of Sports Science & Medicine. 3rd ed. Oxford: NewYork, 2006.

17. Diane Nahl and Carol Tenopir. “Affective and Cognitive SearchingBehavior of Novice End-Users of a Full-Text Database.” Journal ofthe American Society for Information Science 47, no. 4 (1996):276–86; Dania Bilal. “Children's Use of the Yahooligans! WebSearch Engine: I. Cognitive, Physical, and Affective Behaviors onFact-Based Search Tasks.” Journal of the American Society forInformation Science 51, no. 7 (2000): 646–65;Ingrid Hsieh-Yee. “Research on Web Search Behavior.” Library &Information Science Research, 167–85, 2001;K. S. Kim. “Information-Seeking on the Web-Effects of User andTask Variables.” Library & Information Science Research 23, no. 3(2001): 233–55;Diane Nahl. “Affective and Cognitive Information Behavior:Interaction Effects in Internet Use.” In Proceedings 68th AnnualMeeting of the American Society for Information Science andTechnology (ASIST) 42, edited by Andrew Grove. Charlotte, NC(US), 2005.

18. T.D. Wilson, “On User Studies and Information Needs,” Journal ofDocumentation 37 (1981): 3–15.

19. Carol C. Kuhlthau, “Inside the Search Process: InformationSeeking from the User's Perspective,” Journal of theAmerican Society for Information Science 42, no. 5 (1991):361–371.

20. Constance A. Mellon, “Library Anxiety: A Grounded Theory andIts Development,” College & Research Libraries 47 (1986):160–165.

21. Sharon Lee Bostick, “The Development and Validation of theLibrary Anxiety Scale.” In Research in Reference Effectiveness:Proceedings of a Preconference Sponsored by the Research andStatistics Committee, Management and Operation of PublicServices Section, Reference and Adult Services Division.edited byMarjorie E. Murfin, 1­7. San Francisco: American LibraryAssociation., 1992.

22. Qun G. Jiao and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, “Self-Perception andLibrary Anxiety: An Empirical Study,” Library Review 48, no. 3(1999): 140–147.

23.Wen-Hua Ren, “Library Instruction and College Student Self-Efficacy in Electronic Information Searching,” Journal of Aca-demic Librarianship 26, no. 5 (2000): 323.

24.Micaela Waldman, “Freshmen's Use of Library ElectronicResources and Self-Efficacy,” Information Research 8 (2003):(http://informationr.net/ir/8-2/paper150.html).

25. P. Paul Heppner. The Problem-Solving Inventory: Manual. PaloAlto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1998.

26. P. Paul Heppner, Thomas E. Witty and Wayne A. Dixon,“Problem-Solving Appraisal and Human Adjustment: A Reviewof 20 Years of Research Using the Problem SolvingInventory,” The Counseling Psychologist 32, no. 3 (2004):344–428.

27. Heppner. The Problem-Solving Inventory: Manual.28. J.B. Rotter, “Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External

Control of Reinforcement,” Psychological Monographs 80, no. 1(1966): 1–28.

29. Charles E. Osgood, George J. Suci and Percy Tannenbaum.The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois,1957.

30. Joseph F. Pentony. “Effects of Negative Campaigning on Vote,Semantic Differential, and Thought Listing.” Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology 28, no. 23 (1998): 2131–49;Andrew A. Helwig, and Nanci Avitable. “School Children'sResponses on a Semantic Differential over a 10-Year Span.”Psychological Reports 95, no. 1 (2004): 345–54.

31. Geoffrey Keppel, and Thomas D. Wickens. Design and Analysis: AResearcher’s Handbook. Upper Saddle River, N.J. Pearson PrenticeHall, 2004.

32. Heppner. The Problem-Solving Inventory: Manual.

33. Christine L. Borgman. “Why Are Online Catalogs Still Hard toUse?” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 47,no. 7 (1996): 493–503;Charles R. Hildreth. “The Use and Understanding of KeywordSearching in a University Online Catalog.” Information Technology& Libraries 16, no. 2 (1997): 52;Dennis Halcoussis, Aniko L. Halverson, Anton D. Lowenberg, andSusan Lowenberg. “An Empirical Analysis of Web Catalog UserExperiences.” Information Technology & Libraries 21, no. 4(2002): 148; Eric Novotny. “I Don't Think I Click: A ProtocolAnalysis Study of Use of a Library Online Catalog in the InternetAge.” College & Research Libraries 65, no. 6 (2004): 525–37.

34. OCLC. “OCLC White Paper on the Information Habits.”

35. Deborah R. Compeau & Christopher A. Higgins, “Computer Self-Efficacy – Development of a Measure and Initial Test,” MISQuarterly 19, no. 2 (1995): 189–211 (Nahl. Affective andCognitive Information Behavior).

36. Nigel Ford, David Miller, & Nicola Moss, “The Role of IndividualDifferences in Internet Searching: An Empirical Study,” Journal ofthe American Society for Information Science & Technology 52, no.12 (2001): 1049–1066.

37. OCLC. “OCLC White Paper on the Information Habits.”38. Grimes and Boening. “Worries with the Web”; Tomaiuolo. “Faculty

Views.”39. O'Reilly, “Variations in Decision Makers”; Krikelas. “Information-

Seeking Behavior.”

December 2007 665