How do people search, not how does a person search. I’m currently more interested in how individuals search, and why they search. I think there is a difference in mood and tone, if nothing else.

What a great point! I think that a lot of HCI winds up falling into the sociological realms, since the stats are aggregated in sociological terms. The article you linked to regarding asian/euro-american visual perspeptual differences is a good example of a sociological approach. I remember when I took an honors Pschology/Sociology course our co-professors would argue from the different perspectives. I never did see them as truly opposed since individuals affect society and vice versa. But the tone is very different and the focus is far more specific.

I don’t think I’ve seen a lot of studies along this vein. I have seen developmental/educational studies that would qualilfy. However that is probably more limited than you want to see.
I have seen some studies of how the searcher’s affect affects their searching style & effectiveness.

You make some great points. I don’t think it is always true that search is a last resort or that it is always an indication of failure. For example, in terms of navigation, I think you are correct. I often use the Google Toolbar to do simple navigation versus my Favorites or other tools. Also, there are certainly times where people search just to kind of poke around the web. However, I would argue that these are exceptions to the rule.

The difference we are discussing is that you use the functionality of search to do things that aren’t neceearily related to “search” as an activity. Stated more simply, you might use the Google Toolbar to find what you want because it is easier but not because you are truly searching.

That is definitely a valid point. However, it doesn’t strike against my central point that search for “searching” is often a last resolt to many other possibilities. At least, I don’t feel that it does.

To your point, again, search is definitely useful as a navigational aid. Search might even be more important to “navigation” than navigational mechanisms such as Favorites, browser functionality, web site navgation bars, and so forth.

(Surprising that search, as a set of tools, is so powerful. Many people lump all things even somewhat related to search into a search bucket. That’s generally good for companies like Google but it is bad for folks that are trying to thinking freely about “search” as it applies to humans. Google isn’t the stopping point for all human searching.)

You state, “Search is actually a last resort. If you knew the answers, you wouldn’t need to search.” Is this always the case?

I know that Google is exceptional at certain types of searches, product web sites for example. In this case, I use Google as my first resort. I don’t even attempt to remember the web site for the product, remembering that I can type up the query again in Google to get the result, even to the extent of using the “Feeling Lucky” button.

So, in some cases, search is a primary navigation aid.

Are you talking about this, for example:
http://www2.parc.com/istl/members/pirolli/pirolli_files/NewScientist_pirolli.html

Well, I definitely *like* Pirolli’s material, but it is far more rooted in sociology than psychology. It is more about looking at web searching in light of group behaviors, or tribes. How do people search, not how does a person search. I’m currently more interested in how individuals search, and why they search. I think there is a difference in mood and tone, if nothing else.

John S. Rhode’s Webword site has just published an interesting three-part series on the Psychology of Search.  It may be found, with sample extracts, at:

The Psychology of Search:  Chapter 1

You don’t care much about the technol…