Motivation for Using Search Engines: A Two-Factor Model

Ling-Ling Wu and Ya-Lan Chuang

Department of Information Management, National Taiwan University, Number 1, Section 4, Roosevelt Road,
Taipei 106, Taiwan (R.O.C.). E-mail: llwu@management.ntu.edu.tw, amber_chuang@trend.com.tw
Pin-Yuen Chen
Department of Mathematics, Syracuse University, 215 Carnegie Building, Syracuse, NY 132441150.
E-mail: pinchen@syr.edu

From a user-centered perspective, an effective search

engine needs to attract new users to try out its features, and retain those users so that they continue using
the features. In this article, we investigate the relations
between users motivation for using (i.e., trying out and
continuing to use) a search engine and the engines
functional features. Based on Herzbergs two-factor
theory (F. Herzberg, 2003; F. Herzberg, M. Bernard, &
B. Snyderman, 1959), the features can be categorized as
hygiene factors and motivation factors. Hygiene factors
support the query process and provide a basic task context for information seeking that allows users to access
relevant information. Motivation factors, on the other
hand, help users navigate (i.e., browse) and comprehend
the retrieved information, related to the task-content
aspect of information seeking. Given the consistent findings that hygiene factors induce work motivation for a
shorter period of time, it is hypothesized that hygiene
factors are more effective in attracting users; while motivation factors are more effective in retaining than in
attracting users. A survey, with 758 valid participants,
was conducted to test the hypotheses. The empirical
results provide substantial support for the proposed
hypotheses and suggest that the two-factor theory can
account for the motivation for using a search engine.

Introduction
Search engines have become one of the most important
Web services because of the rapid growth in the amount of
information available on the Internet. Increasingly advanced
features are being developed to improve the standard of service provided to search engine users. However, for search
engine designers, choosing from the abundance of features
on a design checklist presents a challenging task. Therefore,
a theoretical framework should be developed as the basis
Received April 21, 2007; revised April 16, 2008; accepted April 16, 2008
2008 ASIS&T Published online 9 July 2008 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/asi.20889

for systematic categorization of search engine features. Such

a framework also should take account of the relationships
between categories of features and users motivations for
using them. By knowing what kinds of features motivate
usage, search engine designers can focus on and improve
the features that stimulate and strengthen a users motivation
rather than on enhancing aspects of the physical systems
performance that are not as highly appreciated by users.
Inspired by the two-factor theory of job motivation
(Herzberg, 2003; Herzberg, Bernard, & Snyderman, 1959),
we propose classifying search engine features in terms of
hygiene and motivation factors. It is assumed that there
exists an analogy between the motives of search engine operators in servicing peoples information-seeking needs and
the motives of organizations that encourage employees to
work harder. In other words, both provide basic functionalities to support a tasks context (i.e., hygiene factors) and
motivating features that enhance the challenge of a tasks
content (i.e., motivation factors). Search engines are used for
information-seeking tasks, which involve gathering, navigating, and comprehending information to purposefully change
an individuals knowledge state (Marchionini & Komlodi,
1998). As such, the context features that support information
seeking make relevant information accessible to users while
the content features help users comprehend the meaning
of the retrieved information so that they can find the specific information they need. Following this context/content
dichotomy in Herzbergs theory, the hygiene factors for
search engines are basic functionalities that support the context of information seeking by retrieving relevant information
from the vast amount of data on the Internet. Motivation factors, on the other hand, are usability features that support
users in browsing information content, including navigating,
comprehending, and learning new knowledge. These features, which are similar to the motivation features of a job,
are challenging for users and engender a sense of growth and
advancement by changing their knowledge state. The purpose

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 59(11):18291840, 2008

of this research is to assess how hygiene and motivation

factors affect users motivations for using search engines.
Motivation is defined as the psychological forces that
determine the direction, amount of effort, and level of persistence manifested in a persons behavior (Kanfer, 1990).
Note that in Herzbergs theory, motivation to work is differentiated from motivation factors, which refer to the content
features of the work itself instead of workers willingness to
perform tasks. Motivation in organizations involves a timeduration component, as does the motivation for using search
engines (Allport, 1961; Pashler, 1998; Peece et al., 1994).
Accordingly, we posit that there are two kinds of motivation for using search engines: (a) try-out motivation and (b)
keep-using motivation. When try-out motivation is stimulated, users are attracted to use a search engine for a short
period of time. They spend some time learning how to use
the system and testing its features. This type of motivation is
frequently observed when a sample of software or a product
is distributed to potential users to test. Try-out activity might
be spread over several visits to the search engine. Since such
activity involves test usage, it could last for as long as the
user does not consider the target search engine as a major
search engine for information-seeking tasks. On the other
hand, keep-using motivation occurs when users decide to continue using a search engine to meet their future information
needs. We say that users are retained by the search engine
when keep-using motivation is stimulated. This distinction
between attract and retain is very important because the
switching costs involved in changing to other search engines
are very low for Web users. Thus, in such an environment,
strategies to retain users are crucial for Web service providers
to successfully run search engines. Given that motivation
factors related to work induce a more long-lasting job motivation in employees than do hygiene factors, it would be
interesting to investigate whether motivation factors related
to search engines have similar effects on users. Therefore, in
this research, we construct a dichotomy of hygiene and motivation factors in relation to search engines, and study how
they affect peoples try-out and keep-using motivations for
using them.
The remainder of this article is organized as follows.
In the next section, we review the literature on the twofactor theory and information-seeking behavior to assess the
validity of applying the theory to the motivation for using
search engines. Next, based on related works, we develop our
research hypotheses and discuss the methodology for testing
them. In the fourth section, we analyze the results of the
online survey. We then present some concluding remarks and
consider the managerial implications of our findings.

Related Work
Herzbergs Two-Factor Theory
The two-factor theory was proposed by Herzberg et al.
(1959) to account for workers job motivation. Herzberg et al.
asked people what they liked and did not like about their
1830

jobs. Interestingly, they found that the absence of features

that induce liking a job was not the reason for disliking
a job. The theory distinguishes between two kinds of job
factorshygiene factors and motivation factorsthat affect
peoples motivation to work. Hygiene factors refer to the environmental features (or so-called contextual features) of an
organization that support work (e.g., work conditions, company policy, salary, interpersonal relations, and supervision).
Motivation factors, on the other hand, refer to the characteristics of the work itself (or so-called content features) such
as challenging work, a sense of achievement, responsibility,
advancement and growth, and recognition (Herzberg, 1966,
2003). Moreover, Herzberg hypothesized that hygiene factors and motivation factors affect job motivation differently.
Hygiene factors are associated with dissatisfaction whereas
motivation factors are associated with the satisfaction felt by
workers. When hygiene factors are inadequate, people feel
very dissatisfied, but when hygiene factors are adequate, people are only placated and not necessarily satisfied. In contrast,
when motivation factors are inadequate, workers do not feel
satisfied but they also do not feel dissatisfied. When the motivation factors are adequate, however, workers are motivated
and satisfied. In other words, the presence of hygiene factors
is necessary, but not sufficient for satisfaction. As a result,
they only generate short bursts of work motivation whereas
motivation factors can induce long-lasting work motivation.
This dual structure of motivation has attracted a great deal
of attention from researchers since Herzberg and colleagues
(1959) published their seminal work. Although many subsequent studies have supported the two-factor model (Maidani,
1991; Murphy & Fraser, 1978; Schwab & Cummings, 1970;
Soliman, 1970; Whitsett & Winslow, 1967), some studies
that adopted different methodologies have failed to replicate Herzberg et al.s findings (French, Metersky, Thaler
& Trexler, 1973; Grigaliunas & Herzberg, 1971; House &
Wigdor, 1967; Wernimont, 1972). Despite the criticism of
Herzberg et al.s methodology, their work inspired the movement to redesign jobs, which indeed increased the quality
of work performance and satisfaction levels (Hackman &
Oldham, 1975; Kopelman, 1986). Herzbergs theory has been
widely used by managers in different industries through
building motivation factors into the content of work (Rantz,
Scott, & Porter, 1996). In recent years, further research has
shown that the theory also is applicable to motivation in other
areas and activities such as library instruction (Stamatoplos
& Mackoy, 1998), education (Poppleton, 1988), consumer
motivation (Maddox, 1981; Tuten & August, 1998), and
knowledge sharing (Hendriks, 1999). The two-factor theory
also has been applied to understanding peoples motivation
for using Web services. The research results of Liang and Lai
(2002) have shown that hygiene factors are basic conditions
that determine whether consumers enter the e-market in the
first place whereas motivation factors play a key role when
consumers choose which electronic store to use. Similarly,
Zhang and von Dran (2000) suggested that hygiene factors
are critical to ensuring that Web sites are functional and provide good service whereas motivation factors add value to

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYSeptember 2008
DOI: 10.1002/asi

a Web site by contributing to user satisfaction. Given that

search engines provide a kind of Web service, there is a need
for more in-depth research to investigate what specific search
engine features correspond to hygiene and motivation factors; and to assess if these two kinds of factors account for
try-out motivation and keep-using motivation when people
use search engines to execute information-seeking tasks.
Information Seeking Through Search Engines and
Application of the Two-Factor Theory
Information seeking is a continuous process of information gathering, comprehension, evaluation, and learning in
which humans engage to purposefully change their state of
knowledge (Marchionini & Komlodi, 1998). Thus, information seeking via search engines is actually a cognitive process
that involves the following stages: recalling and inputting a
query, navigating the query results, understanding the query
results, judging the relevance of the results, learning the new
information contained in the results, and refining the query if
necessary. During this process, two fundamental informationseeking strategies, query (also referred to as search in the
literature) and browse, are adopted. Query strategies involve
retrieving information from the Internet and providing an
environment that makes the relevant information accessible to users. This process provides the basic task context
for information seeking so that the activities of navigating
and finding the desired information are possible. Therefore,
features that support query strategies are hygiene factors. On
the other hand, browsing strategies involve judging the relevance of, capturing, and learning information contained in
a long list of query results. That is, a change of knowledge
state, which relates to the task-content aspect of information seeking, most likely occurs in the process of browsing.
Therefore, features that support browse strategies are motivation factors. Marchionini and Komlodi (1998) suggested
a similar dichotomy and noted that information retrieval
only provides the environment for the cognitive process to
function whereas the nature of the information-seeking process demands continuous and persistent human attention and
cognition.
These two information-seeking strategies reflect the search
behavior of consumers for product information. Initially, an
information seeker may not have a specific purpose in mind or
sufficient knowledge to define clear-cut criteria for comparing alternatives. For example, a consumer who does not have
any knowledge about a product may start the query process
by inputting a general and vague keyword such as cars to a
search engine that indexes a wide range of cars. Such query
results allow the user to conduct simultaneous searches and
compare different cars at the same time (Chade & Smith,
2006; Stern, 1989). While browsing the information about
different cars, the user might gradually form a clearer preference for certain features and decide on criteria for judging the
quality of cars. At this point, a more refined query is formed to
reflect this newly acquired information need. Then, the user
can sequentially search for cars that fulfill the criteria and

stop when the expected search cost is higher than the benefits that would be gained from searching further (Bearden &
Connolly, 2007; Deck & Wilson, 2006; Manning & Morgan,
1982; Zwick, Rapoport, Lo, & Muthukrishnan, 2003).
From the aforementioned analysis, it is clear that these two
strategiesquerying and browsingoccur alternately, as
noted by Bates (1989). Information seekers might start with a
query, and then browse the query results to learn new information, which might modify their information needs and mold
another query. This alternating process might continue until
the information seeker finds satisfactory results. Bates called
this process an evolving search. Research articles in a special
issue of the Communications of the ACM (Marchionini, 2006;
White, Kules, Drucker, & Schraefel, 2006) support Bates
concept, but called the phenomenon exploratory search. This
idea of evolving search sheds new light on the functions that
should be provided in search engines. Given that querying and
browsing are interdependent and therefore complementary
information-seeking strategies, features that support browsing (i.e., motivation factors) should be provided in a search
engine in addition to the features that support querying (i.e.,
hygiene factors). As the number of query results can be very
large, the features that support browsing allow users to extract
important information from a long list of query results and
help them accomplish the task of finding needed information.
Although previous studies have identified many search
engine features, they did not categorize them based on any
theoretical framework. Traditional features such as recall
and precision, coverage, overlap, search time, and validity
of links are usually deemed essential for search engines (Chu
& Rosenthal, 1996; Gordon & Pathak, 1999). Less popular features include response time, recency, expected search
length, relevance ranking, accuracy, cost, reliability, and stability (Lawrence & Giles, 1998a; Vaughan, 2004). Recently
added features such as a multilanguage search/query function, a multimedia search/query function, a summary of query
results, and advanced search instructions, which have yet to
be discussed thoroughly in the literature, also are considered
in this research. In total, 23 features of search engines are
identified and listed, along with their references, in Table 1.
We believe that these features can be related to the specific
dimensions of the hygiene and motivation factors defined by
Herzberg (2003), as shown in Table 2. Since the two-factor
theory distinguishes between hygiene factors and motivation
factors, we propose that the same dichotomy can be applied
to the features of search engines. Hygiene factors, which
support query tasks, include features such as the response
time, recall rate, precision rate, number of results, stability,
and live links. On the other hand, motivation factors, which
support the browse strategy, include features such as ranking, catalog browsing, and understandable result summaries.
Such features, which are similar to the motivation features
of a job, are challenging for users and engender a sense of
growth and advancement through learning. Zhang and colleagues (Zhang & von Dran, 2000; Zhang, von Dran, Small, &
Barcellos, 1999, 2000) suggested a similar classification for
Web services designed for information seeking.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYSeptember 2008
DOI: 10.1002/asi

1831

TABLE 1.

Hygiene factors and motivation factors of search engines.

Hygiene factors

1. Recall: The number of relevant documents retrieved divided by the

total number of relevant documents in the collection

Clarke & Willett (1997); Gordon & Pathak (1999);

Su & Chen (1999)

2. Response time: Time to wait for the results

Su, Chen, & Dong (1998); Chignell, Gwizdka, & Bodner

(1999); Lawrence & Giles (1998a); Su & Chen (1999);
Dempsy Vreeland, Summer, & Yang (2000)

3. Percentage of nonresult information: Percentage of nonresult or unnecessary

information on the homepage or result page of the search engine

Su (2003a, 2003b)

4. Precision: The number of relevant documents retrieved divided by the

total number of documents retrieved

Clarke & Willett (1997); Su et al. (1998);

Chignell et al. (1999); Gordon & Pathak (1999);
Hawking, Craswell, Thistlewaite, & Harman (1999);
Leighton & Srivastava (1999); Su & Chen (1999)

5. Validity of links: Accessibility (number of dead ends) of the hyperlinks of

search results

Lawrence & Giles (1998); Su, Chen, & Dong (1998);

Chignell et al. (1999); Leighton & Srivastava (1999);
Su & Chen (1999)

6. System stability: Stability of the search engine system

OLeary (1999); Vaughan (2004)

7. Recency: Update frequency of the search database

Lawrence & Giles (1998a)

8. Diversity of result sources (Overlap): Diversity of Web sites that the results
are obtained from

Clarke & Willett (1997); Lawrence & Giles (1998b);

Gordon & Pathak (1999); Leighton & Srivastava (1999)

9. Use instruction of system: Clarity of the instructions for using the search
engine system

Su (2003a, 2003b)

10. Number of results

11. Multilanguage search: The functionality to search in a specific language
12. Multimedia search: The functionality to search different types of information
(e.g., text, image, audio, and video)
13. Accessibility of system use instruction: Ease of finding the system use instructions
on the search engines Web site

Su (2003a, 2003b)

14. Search instructions: Providing instructions to formulate search queries or search

examples on the search engine Web site

Su (2003a, 2003b)

Motivation factors
15. Readability of search results: Ease of reading the search results
16. Understandability of the summary of search results: A summary that is
easy to understand and helps a user decide whether he/she needs the result
17. Ranking: The degree that the relevance ranking of search results
meets the users needs

Su & Chen (1999); Su et al. (1998);

Chowdhury & Soboroff (2002)

18. Consistency of search-result presentation: Consistency of the display

format of each result

Su (2003a, 2003b)

19. Information highlighting: Highlights important information in the

search results with different font, font size, or color (e.g., title and relevance)

Su (2003a, 2003b)

20. Advanced search: Ease of using advanced search functions to process the
search results
21. Search tips: Provides tips for improving queries when the search results are not
satisfactory

Su (2003a, 2003b)

22. Browse catalogs: Provides browse catalogs in addition to search functions

23. Presents the total number of search results

In the Introduction, we defined two kinds of motivation

for using search engines: (a) try-out motivation and (b) keepusing motivation. Try-out motivation has a much shorter time
span than keep-using motivation. Based on the two-factor
theory, hygiene factors, which are associated with dissatisfaction, induce a short burst of motivation to behave in a
certain way whereas motivation factors, which are associated
with satisfaction, really contribute to long-lasting motivation
1832

(Herzberg, 2003). Similarly, previous studies have suggested

that the effects of intrinsic motivational factors enhance users
satisfaction with expert systems (Gill, 1996) or Web sites
(Liang & Lai, 2002; Zhang & von Dran, 2000). Therefore, in relation to search engines, it is logical to infer that
hygiene factors are more likely to be associated with try-out
motivation whereas motivation factors are more likely to be
associated with keep-using motivation.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYSeptember 2008
DOI: 10.1002/asi

TABLE 2.

Application of Herzbergs two-factor theory to search engines.

Herzbergs hygiene
factors

Examples of Herzbergs
hygiene factors

Theorized applications
in search engines

Theorized examples of hygiene

features in search engines

Working conditions

Tools or equipment required

to complete tasks

Basic functions that

facilitate query searches

Live links.
Stability of the system.
Retrieve a large amount of relevant information.
Diverse sources of information.

Company policy

Rules for performing tasks

Requirements for performing

query tasks

Instruction available for users to learn how to

use the system.
Easy to find the instructions.

Feedback or response

Response time.
Provides instructions about formulating
new queries.
n/a

Salary

Wages

n/a

Interpersonal relations

Coworkers attitudes

n/a

n/a

Supervision

Authority, availability of
a supervisor

Availability of designers

Availability of designers to provide

further information

The work itself

Challenging, interesting,
meaningful work

Quality of info content.

Organization of info.

Readability of query results.

Understandability of the summary of
query results.
Ranking.
Consistency of query result presentation.
Information highlighting.

Achievement

Task completion

n/a

n/a

Responsibility

Control over the job

User control

Provides catalogs for browsing.

Presents all the query results.

Advancement and growth

Growth potential in terms of task

capability, knowledge, or skill

Knowledge or skills gained

Advanced search/query.
Search/query tips.

Recognition

Recognition from peers or supervisors

n/a

n/a

Try-out motivation occurs when a search engine attracts

users to test and experience the engines functionalities for a
short period of time. When people first use search engines,
they want to retrieve as much relevant information as possible. Therefore, hygiene factors can attract users to try out a
search engine further. However, willingness to try out a search
engine or product does not necessarily lead to willingness
to continue using it. Hygiene factors do not automatically
lead to successful information seeking by simply providing ample relevant information to users, especially when
the number of query results is extremely large. Recall that
hygiene factors tend to engender relatively short-lived work
motivation, which is analogous to try-out motivation for using
search engines. Thus, it is hypothesized that hygiene factors
of search engines work better in attracting than in retaining
users. Based on the arguments detailed earlier, we put forward
our first hypothesis:
H1: Hygiene factors are more effective in attracting than
retaining search engines users.

The benefits of motivation factors might not be apparent

during the initial stages of the information-seeking process.
Instead, they gradually become apparent through the repetitive query and browse process. At this point, hygiene factors
are still very important because they are necessary for retrieving information, without which the next step of information

seeking would not be possible. As suggested by Soliman

(1970), hygiene and motivation factors are complementary
in that when hygiene factors are adequate, motivation factors
become more powerful as sources of satisfaction. Similarly,
in the case of search engines, hygiene factors have to be adequate for motivation factors to be effective. However, at this
stage of information seeking, users not only need to have
access to relevant information but they also must be able to
cognitively process (i.e., browse) the query results so that
they can find specific information. Only when this task has
been completed will a search engine be able to satisfy users
and retain them. In addition, motivation factors tend to induce
a long-lasting motivation to work, which is analogous to
the motivation to keep using the same search engine (i.e.,
a stronger motivation than merely trying it out). Therefore,
motivation factors should work better in retaining than in
attracting users of search engines. This leads to our second
hypothesis:
H2: Motivation factors are more effective in retaining than in
attracting search engine users.

We do not argue that only hygiene factors can attract users

and that only motivation factors can retain them. They probably have both effects. However, we posit that the effects
of these two kinds of factors are different. As hygiene factors tend to engender shorter job motivation than do the

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYSeptember 2008
DOI: 10.1002/asi

1833

motivation factors, such effects also could be manifest in

the motivation to use search engines. Therefore, we hypothesize that for search engines, hygiene factors are more
effective in attracting new users than in retaining existing users whereas motivation factors are more effective in
retaining users than in attracting new ones.
Research Methods
Measurements
We used the survey method to collect data. The survey
comprised three components: (a) demographic questions;
(b) experience in using computers, the Internet, and search
engines; and (c) motivation for using a search engine, which
is described in the given scenario. The first two components, especially the information about experience, were
needed to ascertain whether participants were representative of search engine users. Background information about
experience included the history, duration, frequency, and
purpose of using search engines. The results of the third
component were used to test our research hypotheses.
Participants were given a scenario where they had to
consider using a search engine developed by a new operator. All respondents were asked to answer two questions
about their motivation for using the search engine: (a) Which
factors would discourage you from trying out the search
engine (to measure try-out motivation)? (b) Which factors
would encourage you to continue using the search engine
(to measure keep-using motivation)? For both questions, the
23 features (shown on Table 1) were randomly listed for
the respondents to tick the features they deemed appropriate. The features listed for both questions were exactly the
same except that they were stated in negative terms for
the first question (attract) and in positive terms for the second question (retain). The use of positive/negative terms in
statements about alternatives is typical of research based on
the two-factor theory (Herzberg, 2003; Zhang & von Dran,
2000). Respondents were required to answer both questions.
Statistical Analysis Method
The results of use motivation are based on the frequency
that each feature was ticked for the two questions about tryout and keep-using motivation. For each of the 23 features,
two frequencies were thus obtained: the frequency of attract
and the frequency of retain. Given that all respondents
answered the two questions in parallel, the probabilities
of ticking attract and retain do not sum up to 100%.
Therefore, the two sets of frequencies are nonmetric, not
contingent on each other, and possibly correlated because
they were answered simultaneously by the same people. The
chi-square test can be used only on nonoverlapped two-way
contingent tables, so it is not appropriate for analyzing our
data. However, Bonferronis multivariate analysis method
can deal with the issue of possible correlations among the
23 features (Timm, 2002). As our survey collected data that
1834

included simultaneous measurements of many different variables (i.e., 14 hygiene factors and nine motivation factors), it
is necessary to use multivariate analysis, such as Bonferronis
method, to understand the relationships between the variables
(Johnson & Wichern, 2002). Bonferronis method allows
simultaneous comparison among correlated components
of vector measurements without increasing the probability of
Type I errors (i.e., falsely rejecting the null hypotheses).
Therefore, the method is more appropriate for our study
than are tests that require independent groups, such as the
chi-square and Tukey tests.
To test the hypotheses, the differences between attract
and retain responses were calculated for each of the 23
features selected by each respondent. Therefore, for each
respondent, there were 23 analysis units (pair differences
between attract and retain), the value of which could
be 1, 0, or 1. The means of the 23 matched pair differences
(range = 1 to 1) were compared to zero simultaneously
to test the hypotheses that the two factors (hygiene vs.
motivation) play different roles in attracting and retaining users. For hygiene factors (Factors 114 in Table 1),
the null hypothesis is D = 0,1 and the alternative hypothesis is D > 0 (asttract > retain). On the other hand,
for motivation factors (Factors 1523 in Table 1), the null
hypothesis is D = 0, and the alternative hypothesis is D < 0
(attract < retain).
Data-Collection Procedure
The survey was posted on the Web in October 2005 to
collect data. The incentive for participating in the survey was
a movie-ticket lottery. In total, 804 surveys were collected
in 2 weeks. After removing duplicate submissions, incomplete answers, and surveys that had the same answer for more
than five consecutive questions, 758 (94.3%) of the collected
surveys were deemed valid. Next, we discuss the empirical
results of the survey.
Empirical Results
Demographics and Experience of Using the
Internet and Search Engines
Sample demographics of this research are shown in the
left-hand part of Table 3. The results show that 95% of
the respondents were between 18 and 30 years old, and
70.45% were students. Compared with the Survey of Taiwan
Internet Usage by Yam.com in 2005 (the right-hand part of
Table 3), the sample demographics of this research were obviously biased in terms of age, education, and occupation. We
studied other large-scale Internet surveys to see if the Internet
use of our respondents deviated from that of the general population of Internet users. Compared with the demographics of
an Internet survey by Taiwans Ministry of Transportation and
Communications, the history and frequency of Internet use
of our sample were similar to those of the general population
1

denotes the mean of the population of the matched pair difference.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYSeptember 2008
DOI: 10.1002/asi

TABLE 3.

Sample demographics of this research and Yam.com.

Sample of this research

Variable

Yam.com survey

Frequency

(%)

(%)

Age

<17 years
1823 years
2429 years
3035 years
3640 years
4146 years
>47 years

3
483
237
25
7
1
2

(0.40)
(63.72)
(31.27)
(3.30)
(0.92)
(0.13)
(0.26)

<19 years
2024 years
2529 years
3034 years
3539 years
4044 years
>45 years

(14)
(19)
(24)
(17)
(12)
(7)
(6)

Gender

Male
Female

355
403

(46.83)
(53.17)

Male
Female

(41)
(59)

Education

Elementary school
Junior high school
Senior high school
College
Masters
Ph.D.

2
2
13
516
218
7

(0.26)
(0.26)
(1.72)
(68.07)
(28.76)
(0.92)

<Elementary school
Junior high school
Senior high school
College
Masters

(3)
(4)
(22)
(62)
(9)

Occupation

Not student
Student

224
534

(29.55)
(70.45)

Not student
Student

(75)
(25)

TABLE 4.

Respondents history and frequency of using the Internet.

History and frequency of

using the Internet
Variable

Sample of this
research
Frequency

(%)

Taiwan
government
survey
(%)

History

<1 year
13 years
35 years
>5 years

4
30
158
566

0.52
3.96
20.84
74.68

2.3
13.3
24.1
58.2

Frequency

Once per month

Once 2 weeks
Once per week
Once or more
per day

1
4
10
743

0.13
0.53
1.32
98.03

1.4
1.2
28.7
64.2

in Taiwan, as shown in Table 4. Both surveys show that the

majority of people sampled (>50%) had used the Internet
at least once a day for more than 5 years. Given that our
sample was student-saturated, we compared student and nonstudent participants in terms of their experience of Internet
use. The results did not exhibit significant differences in their
history of Internet use, 2 (3) = 4.24, n.s., search engine
use, 2 (3) = 7.28, n.s., and frequency of Internet use, 2
(2) = 0.667, n.s. Although student and nonstudent samples in
our data showed significant differences in the frequency of
search engine use, 2 (2) = 11.6, p < .01, both groups can be
regarded as heavy users of search engines (A total of 86.7% of
students and 95.1% of nonstudents reported that they used a
search engine at least once a day.) Since this research focused
on motivation and user behavior when using search engines,
the sample was considered valid based on the experience and
demographics of the participants.
In the survey, we also asked the respondents about the
major search engines they used. The findings were as follows. A total of 96% of our respondents used Google and

TABLE 5. Respondents satisfaction with and continued use of their major

search engines.
Satisfaction
Frequency
Very dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Neutral
Somewhat
satisfied
Satisfied
Very satisfied

8
6
16
136
126
393
73

(%)
0.52 Yes
3.96 Probably
20.84 Not certain
74.68 Probably not
16.62 Absolutely not

Continued use
Frequency

(%)

582
157
15

76.78
20.71
1.98

3
1

0.40
0.13

0.13
0.53

Yahoo!, the two major search engines in Taiwan. Almost all

respondents were satisfied with the search engine that they
were using at the time. The participants expressed loyalty
to their chosen search engine (see Table 5). The percentage
of participants (62.66%) who chose Google as their major
search engine was significantly higher than the percentage
who chose Yahoo! (35.49%), 2 (1) = 112.01, p < .0001.
Moreover, our results show that Google users were more satisfied 2 (6) = 70.76, p < .0001, and more loyal than Yahoo!
Users, 2 (4) = 57.20, p < .0001. Theses findings are consistent with those of a survey by NPD New Media Services
(2000). Again, the results show that our research sample
demonstrated the same patterns of search engine use as the
samples in renowned large-scale surveys, which suggests that
our sample was sufficiently representative.
Results of Hygiene Factors and Motivation Factors
The 23 search engine features are categorized as hygiene
factors and motivation factors based on our definitions of

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYSeptember 2008
DOI: 10.1002/asi

1835

800
Frequency

Hygiene factors

Motivation factors

600
Attract
400

Retain

200
0

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Factors of search engines

(numbered the same as Table 1)

FIG. 1.

these two constructs, as shown in Table 2. To validate this

categorization, seven graduate students voluntarily participated in the task of categorizing the 23 features (either into
hygiene or motivation factors) according to the provided definitions. This validation method is similar to that adopted
by Zhang et al. (2000). The seven graduate students, all of
whom majored in Information Management, were not aware
of our hypotheses and were all experienced search engines
users. Of the 161 responses (7 students 23 features), the
similarity of the classification by the seven subjects with our
categorization was as high as 81.99% (132/161). Moreover,
the categorization results (i.e., classification of the majority
of the subjects for each of the 23 features) agreed with our
categorization for 20 of the 23 features (86.96%). The three
discrepant features were advanced search, search tips, and
the percentage of nonresult information. As noted by Zhang
et al. (2000), people find it difficult to understand the concepts of hygiene and motivation factors. Therefore, following
the method used by Zhang et al. (2000), we gave the seven
subjects a detailed explanation of Herzbergs theory and its
relatedness to the features of search engines. After that, most
of their responses agreed with our classification of the three
discrepant features (18/21, 85.71%).
The frequencies of attract responses (black bars) and
retain responses (white bars) for hygiene and motivation
factors are shown in Figure 1. The 23 features are numbered
in the same way as those in Table 1. The effects of hygiene
factors and motivation factors in attracting and retaining users
are obviously quite different, as shown in Figure 1. Hygiene
factors tend to generate more attract responses than retain
responses while motivation factors tend to generate more
retain responses than attract responses. The results support our hypotheses that hygiene factors and motivation
factors have different effects on users motivation for trying
out and continuing to use a search engine.
Bonferronis method was used to test if the differences
between attract and retain responses for hygiene factors
and motivation factors were significant. For each participant,
we calculated the matched pair differences between attract
and retain responses for each of the 23 features, and then
tested the means against zero. Table 6 shows the means of the
pair differences for each of the 23 features and Bonferronis
99% simultaneous confidence intervals, which allow us to
make inferences about the statistical significance of the means
1836

at the level of 0.01. The means that are significantly different

from zero are marked with an asterisk.
As shown in Table 6, the means of the pair differences for
12 (of 14) hygiene factors were significantly larger than zero
(i.e., attract > retain), which shows that there were more
attract responses than retain responses for those factors.
More respondents considered those hygiene factors as critical for trying a new search engine than for continuing to use
the same search engine. The results strongly support Hypothesis 1, which states that hygiene factors are more effective in
attracting than in retaining users. Nevertheless, two hygiene
factors, multimedia search and search instructions, do not
show this kind of preference.
With regard to motivation factors, the means of pair
differences for six (of nine) motivation factors were significantly smaller than zero (i.e., attract < retain) and agreed
with our hypothesis. The results show that more participants
thought motivation factors were vital for them to continue
using a search engine rather than to try it out. This result
supports Hypothesis 2, which states that motivation factors
are more important for retaining users than for attracting new
ones; however, there are still three motivation factors (understandability of result summaries, information highlighting,
and result format consistency) that do not exhibit this pattern.
Even so, the empirical results strongly support our hypotheses. In other words, hygiene factors are more effective in
attracting than in retaining users whereas motivation factors
are more effective in retaining than in attracting users.
We analyzed the data about Google and Yahoo! users further to see if they differed from each other in their attract
and retain responses for the 23 features. In our analysis,
we used the z test because the sample size was very large
(Google: n = 475; Yahoo: n = 269). We also used the common z test instead of Bonferronis test because (a) we did
not test among correlated components by simultaneous confidence intervals; and (b) Google users and Yahoo! users
were separate groups, and the percentages obtained from
each group could be considered independent. The statistical
results show that Google and Yahoo! users achieved the same
scores for 37 of 46 comparisons. For attract responses, the
differences between Google users andYahoo! users were significant only for three features (two hygiene factors and one
motivation factor) at the .05 level. For retain responses,
the differences between two groups were significant for six

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYSeptember 2008
DOI: 10.1002/asi

TABLE 6.

Means of pair differences between attract and retain responses for hygiene and motivation factors.
99% Bonferroni simultaneous
confidence interval

No.

Description

Hygiene factors
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Recall
Response time
Percentage of nonresult information
Precision
Validity of links
System stability
Recency
Diversity of result sources
Use instructions for the system
No. of results
Multilanguage search
Multimedia search
Accessibility of instructions for using the system
Search instructions

Motivation factors
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Readability of search results

Understandability of the summary of search results
Ranking
Consistency of search result presentation
Information highlighting
Advanced search
Search tips
Browse catalogs
Presenting the total number of search results

Significantly

SD

Lower bound

Upper bound

Significance

0.067
0.139
0.153
0.053
0.198
0.108
0.036
0.113
0.110
0.066
0.034
0.158
0.024
0.042

0.213
0.193
0.302
0.135
0.299
0.284
0.275
0.365
0.351
0.286
0.208
0.289
0.187
0.159

0.066
0.138
0.152
0.052
0.197
0.107
0.035
0.112
0.108
0.065
0.033
0.159
0.023
0.043

0.068
0.139
0.154
0.053
0.199
0.109
0.037
0.115
0.111
0.067
0.035
0.157
0.025
0.042

0.0238
0.01715
0.0594
0.01451
0.06992
0.0594
0.0106
0.0343
0.0211

0.327
0.300
0.273
0.252
0.303
0.267
0.267
0.181
0.145

0.025
0.016
0.061
0.013
0.069
0.061
0.012
0.035
0.022

0.022
0.018
0.058
0.016
0.071
0.058
0.009
0.033
0.020

different from 0.

features (five hygiene factors and one motivation factor) at the

.05 level. Interestingly, the differences arose because fewer
Google users than Yahoo! users regarded these hygiene factors as retaining features. That is, the differences between
Google and Yahoo! users actually concord with our hypotheses. Overall, it is clear that Google users and Yahoo! users
did not differ significantly in their responses since they only
disagreed on 9 of the 46 comparisons. The probability of 9 or
fewer losses in 46 trials of a half-win/half-loss game is about
.00002, which is an unusually low chance.
Conclusion, Discussion, and Managerial
Implications
Search engines have existed for more than 10 years. When
IR researchers study search techniques and develop objective
measures, some research should focus on evaluations from
the perspective of user motivation. In this study, we surveyed
758 people to address this issue. The empirical results support
the hypotheses that hygiene factors are more likely to attract
than retain search engine users whereas motivation factors
are more likely to retain than attract such users. Hence, being
willing to try out a search engine and being willing to continue using it represent different degrees of user motivation
that may be affected differently by hygiene factors and motivation factors. In other words, the results suggest that to be
effective, a search engine should provide powerful features

to support the query process as well as features to facilitate

browsing and comprehension. This finding is in accord with
the following widely accepted opinion about the Web: The
new environment of the Web not only provides universal
access, ubiquitous context, and multimedia context, but also
enables integrated and distributed tasks that maximize user
control, learning and information seeking as a process seamlessly embedded in a larger work process (Marchionini &
Komlodi, 1998, p. 99).
Even though our results suggest that browse-supportive
features deserve more attention than they usually receive,
we do not argue that motivation factors are more important
than hygiene factors, or vice versa. Instead, we consider that
both factors are important and complementary aspects of
search engines, and both are essential for successful information seeking. Although hygiene factors are more effective
in attracting than in retaining users, it does not mean that
they stop being effective when users decide to remain with
a particular search engine. Instead, they are essential to a
search engine in the sense that they provide the fundamental environment for motivation factors to be able to operate.
Meanwhile, motivation factors are usability features that help
users easily browse query results. No matter how much value
motivation factors might add to a users information-seeking
process, they will not be as effective if hygiene factors do
not work well. The results do not suggest superiority of one
over the other. On the contrary, search engines should provide

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYSeptember 2008
DOI: 10.1002/asi

1837

browse-supportive features as well query-supportive features

to continuously motivate users.
As mentioned earlier, the results suggest that browsesupportive features are important in retaining search engine
users. Thus, it is puzzling that Yahoo!, which is famous
for the strength of its browse-supportive features such as
Yahoo! Directory, has a smaller market share than Google.
Even though our study does not address this issue directly
since the target search engine in the survey is neither Google
nor Yahoo!, we can speculate about the causes of this phenomenon. First, the feature that ranks query results, which is
a motivation factor, is executed in Google according to the
relevance of the results whereas ranking priority in Yahoo!
can be purchased, at least in Taiwan. This could be one of the
reasons why Google and Yahoo! only share 3.8 of the top10 results (Dogpile, 2007; Gunn, 2006; Jux2, 2006). Second,
even though Yahoo! is famous for its subject directory, this
strength has not been incorporated with its search engine as
the basis for classifying query results. Finally, the market
share of search engines can be affected by factors other than
their performance. Although Google is the market leader in
Taiwan (where the survey in this study was conducted) and
worldwide (Market Share, 2008), it is still experiencing fierce
competition in other Asian countries such as Japan, China and
South Korea for reasons not directly resulting from performance of search engines, per se. For instance, the leading
search engine in China is Baidu, which enjoys strong support from the government. Yahoo! leads the market in Japan
because of its millions of registered e-mail users.
Several managerial implications can be derived from the
results of our study. First, when online service providers plan
a development schedule, they should align their plan with
users motivation. For example, the first step should be to
concentrate on hygiene factors, and then later improve the
motivation factors. In this way, the online service would
appeal to potential customers and help retain existing customers. Second, in addition to query-related features, users
also need help with browsing and learning from the retrieved
information when they use search engines to find information. It is widely recognized that querying and browsing are
actually two complementary facets of information seeking
on the Web. Given that motivation factors are more likely to
retain users, it is suggested that these factors be employed
to fulfill the needs of users. Third, the distinction between
attract and retain is very important, both for commercial
search engines and small search engines embedded in individual Web sites. Commercial search engines need to both
attract and retain users because their revenue derives primarily from advertising sponsorships. Hence, search engine
operators need to attract and retain customers if they want to
maximize their profits. For small search engines, knowledge
of these two kinds of factors could help designers determine the functionalities that would at least meet the basic
needs of users. As a result, the designers could allocate their
limited resources more effectively. Fourth, motivation factors might provide competitive advantages for commercial
search engines. Since hygiene factors are core competences
1838

of a search engine, they all are highly developed in modern

search engines. The quality of hygiene factors is quite similar
in different search engines due to intense competition; hence,
it is difficult to generate competitive advantages by focusing
only on hygiene factors. On the other hand, motivation factors are usually perceived as peripheral features of search
engines, so most search engine operators pay less attention
to them. We argue that motivation factors could help generate strong competitive advantages if operators were to place
more emphasis on them. Through developing such factors,
designers could give users a more efficient and more satisfying search experience by helping them switch more smoothly
between querying and browsing.
Limitations and Future Work
The first limitation of this research is the large percentage of students in the sample. Although we believe that our
sample is representative of the general population, it would
be better to use a sample as demographically similar to the
population as possible. Second, the list of 23 features is definitely not all-inclusive given the rapid improvements being
made in this type of Web service. There might be some emerging features that have not been included in this research but
could be included in future research. Third, the yes/no mode,
used for measuring try-out motivation and keep-using motivation, makes the questionnaire simple and short to encourage
online participation. It is possible, however, that features that
are chosen at the same time might actually have different
degrees of importance for the users. Therefore, a better way
to differentiate the importance of features is to employ the
7-point Likert scale in the survey.
In addition to using the 7-point Likert scale, there are
other possible avenues for future research. First, hygiene factors and motivation factors may well have different impacts
on other aspects of user evaluations (e.g., satisfaction and
dissatisfaction). As shown by the survey in this research,
Google users tend to be more satisfied and more likely to
continue using their present search engine than are Yahoo!
users. It would be very interesting to investigate whether the
two-factor theory can account for these differences between
Google and Yahoo! users. Second, it also would be interesting to investigate how hygiene factors and motivation
factors complement one another. Soliman (1970) found that
adequate hygiene factors make motivation factors more powerful, so it is important to empirically investigate how the
presence or absence of hygiene factors affects users motivation for using search engines. Third, contextual variables
such as time constraints, information-seeking goals, and individual characteristics such as gender, age, occupation, and
level of expertise might act as moderators in the relationship
between search engine features and user behavior. For example, hygiene factors would be sufficient if a user has a specific
goal and knows the keywords he or she should use to query
for information. However, if a user does not have a specific
goal and only wants to surf the Web to browse for useful information, he or she may benefit more from motivation factors.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYSeptember 2008
DOI: 10.1002/asi

If the effects of contextual variables and individual characteristics can be determined, we could provide customized
functionalities in search engines to serve users with different
goals, tasks, and expertise. Finally, besides the dual structure
proposed by Herzberg et al. (1959), other theories such as
prospect theory (Kahneman, & Tversky, 1979) and Kanos
model of attractive quality (Kano, Seraku, Takahashi, &
Tsuji, 1984) can provide different perspectives on the impact
of hygiene factors and motivation factors in relation to search
engines. As we assess the effects of hygiene factors in negative terms and motivation factors in positive terms, prospect
theory provides another interesting theoretical foundation
because it hypothesizes different effects in terms of loss and
gain. Moreover, Kanos model extends Herzbergs two-factor
theory to a model with five categories of quality features, and
emphasizes the dynamic impacts of these features. Hence, it
also would be interesting to consider if search engine features can be classified according to these five categories and
if they have different impacts on user behavior along with the
development of search engines.
As Zhang and von Dran (2000, p. 1256) noted, an effective information retrieval system should not only ensure
technical functionality . . . , but also seek to maximize user
capabilities to control, enjoy and manipulate the information seeking process. The suggested future-research avenues
outlined earlier are intended to improve the effectiveness of
search engines from the perspective of users. After all, a successful information-seeking process lies in fluent interaction
between a powerful system and satisfied users.
Acknowledgments
We thank the anonymous referees for their invaluable comments, which have helped us improve the article significantly.
In addition, we express our gratitude to Professor Shan-Yu
Chou, who provided us with a great deal of information and
many suggestions about the literature on consumer information search behavior. Finally, we thank Professor Yu-zer
Joung for his insightful comments on the revision of this
article.
References
Allport, G.W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Bates, M.J. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for
the online search interface. Online Review, 13(5), 407424.
Bearden, J.N., & Connolly, T. (2007). Multi-attribute sequential search.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 147158.
Chade, H., & Smith, L. (2006). Simultaneous search. Econometrica, 74(5),
12931307.
Chignell, M.H., Gwizdka, J., & Bodner, R.C. (1999). Discriminating
meta-search: A framework for evaluation. Information Processing and
Management, 35, 337362.
Chowdhury, A., & Soboroff, I. (2002). Automatic evaluation of World Wide
Web search services. Proceedings of SIGIR02 (pp. 421422). New York:
ACM Press.
Chu, H., & Rosenthal, M. (1996). Search engines for the World Wide Web: A
comparative study and evaluation methodology. Proceedings of the 59th
American Society for Information Science, 33, 127135.

Clarke, S.J., & Willett, P. (1997). Estimating the recall performance of Web
search engines. Aslib proceedings, 49(77), 184189.
Deck, C.A., & Wilson, B.J. (2006). Tracking customer search to price
discriminate. Economic Inquiry, 44(2), 280295.
Dempsy, B.J., Vreeland, R.C., Summer, R.G. Jr., & Yang, K. (2000). Design
and empirical evaluation of search software for legal professionals on the
WWW. Information Processing and Management, 36, 253273.
Dogpile.com. (2007). Different engines, different results: Web searchers not
always finding what theyre looking for online. A Research Study by
Dogpile.com, in Collaboration with Researchers from Queensland
University of Technology and the Pennsylvania State University.
French, E.B., Metersky, M.L., Thaler, D.S., & Trexler, J.T. (1973).
Herzbergs two factor theory: Consistency versus method dependency.
Personnel Psychology, 26(3), 369375.
Gill, T.G. (1996). Expert systems usage: Task change and intrinsic motivation. MIS Quarterly, Summer, 310329.
Gordon, M., & Pathak, P. (1999). Finding information on the World Wide
Web: The retrieval effectiveness of search engines. Information Processing
and Management, 35(2), 141180.
Grigaliunas, G.S., & Herzberg, F. (1971). Relevancy in the testing
of motivation-hygiene theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55,
7379.
Gunn, H. (2006). Searching the Web with multisearch interfaces. Teacher
Librarian, 34(2), 6469.
Hackman, J.R., & Oldman, G.R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic
survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 159170.
Hawking, D., Craswell, N., Thistlewaite, P., & Harman, D. (1999). Results
and challenges in Web search evaluation. Computer Networks, 31,
13211330.
Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the
motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management,
6(2), 91100.
Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. Cleveland, OH: World
Publishing.
Herzberg, F. (2003). One more time: How do you motivate employees?
Harvard Business Review, January, 8796.
Herzberg, F., Bernard, M., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work.
Snyderman, NY: Wiley.
House, R.J., & Wigdor, L.A. (1967). Herzbergs dual-factor theory of job
satisfaction and motivation: A review of the evidence and a criticism.
Personnel Psychology, 20(4), 369389.
Johnson, R.A., & Wichern, D.W. (2002). Applied multivariate statistical
analysis (5th ed.). London: Prentice Hall.
Jux2. (2006). Search engines are more different than people think. Retrieved
July 24, 2006, from www.jux2.com/stats.php
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of
decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263291.
Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 75170). Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., & Tsuji, S. (1984). Attractive quality
and must-be quality. Hinshitsu, 14(2), 147156.
Kopelman, R.E. (1986). Managing productivity in organizations. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Lawrence, S., & Giles, C.L. (1998a). Inquirus, the NECI meta search engine.
Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, 30, 95105.
Lawrence, S., & Giles, C.L. (1998b). Searching the World Wide Web.
Science, 280, 98100.
Leighton, H.V., & Srivastava, J. (1999). First 20 precision among World Wide
Web search services (search engines). Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 50, 870881.
Liang, T.-P., & Lai, H.-J. (2002). Effect of store design on consumer
purchases: An empirical study of on-line bookstores. Information &
Management, 39, 431444.
Maddox, R.N. (1981). Two-factor theory and consumer satisfaction:
Replication and extension. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(1),
97102.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYSeptember 2008
DOI: 10.1002/asi

1839

Maidani, E.A. (1991). Comparative study of Herzbergs two-factor theory

of job satisfaction among public and private sectors. Public Personnel
Management, 20(4), 441448.
Manning, R., & Morgan, P.B. (1982). Search and consumer theory. Review
of Economic Studies, 49(2), 203216.
Marchionini, G. (2006). Exploratory search: From finding to understanding.
Communication of the ACM, 49(4), 4146.
Marchionini, G., & Komlodi, A. (1998). Design of interfaces for information seeking. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 33,
89130.
Market Share. (2008). Retrieved May 31, 2008, from http://marketshare.
hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=4
Murphy, G.C., & Fraser, B.J. (1978). Intuitive-theoretical scales of content
and context satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 31(3), 485.
NPD New Media Services. (2000, July 13). Googles success story continues: Google ranked No. 1 in loyalty and satisfaction measures by
search engine users in independent survey. BusinessWire. Available at:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2000_July_13/ai_
63371222
OLeary, D.E. (1999). Internet-based information retrieval systems. Decision
Support Systems, 27, 319327.
Pashler, H. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Peece, J., Roger, Y., Sharp, H., Benyon, D., Holland, S., & Carey, T. (1994).
Humancomputer interaction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Poppleton, P. (1988). Teacher professional satisfaction: Its implications
for secondary education and teacher education. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 18(1), 516.
Rantz, M.J., Scott, J., & Porter, R. (1996). Employee motivation: New perspectives of the age-old challenge of work motivation. Nursing Forum,
31(3), 2936.
Schwab, D.P., & Cummings, L.L. (1970). Theories of performance and
satisfaction: A review. Industrial Relations, 9, 408430.
Soliman, H.M. (1970). Motivation-hygiene theory of job attitudes: An
empirical investigation and an attempt to reconcile both the one- and twofactor theories of job attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54(5),
452461.
Stamatoplos, A., & Mackoy, R. (1998). Effects of library instruction on
university-students satisfaction with the library: A longitudinal study.
College & Research Libraries, 59(4), 323334.
Stern, S. (1989). Estimating a simultaneous search model. Journal of Labor
Economics, 7(3), 348369.

1840

Su, L.T. (2003a). A comprehensive and systematic model of user evaluation

of Web search engines: I. Theory and background. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(13), 11751192.
Su, L.T. (2003b). A comprehensive and systematic model of user evaluation
of Web search engines: II. An evaluation by undergraduates. Journal of
the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(13),
11931223.
Su, L.T., & Chen, H. (1999). Evaluation of Web search engines by undergraduate students. Proceedings of the 62nd American Society for Information
Science, 36, 98114.
Su, L.T., Chen, H., & Dong, X. (1998). Evaluation of Web-based search
engines from the end-users perspective: A pilot study. Proceedings of the
61st American Society for Information Science, 35, 348361.
Timm, N.H. (2002). Applied multivariate analysis. Berlin: Springer.
Tuten, T.L., & August, R.A. (1998). Understanding consumer satisfaction in
services settings: A bidimensional model of service strategies. Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality, 13(3), 553564.
Vaughan, L. (2004). New measurements for search engine evaluation
proposed and tested. Information Processing and Management, 40(4),
677691.
von Dran, G.M., Zhang, P., & Small, R. (1999, August). Quality websites:
An application of the Kano model to website design. Proceedings of the
5th American Conference on Information Systems. pp. 898900.
Wernimont, P.A. (1972). A system view of job satisfaction. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 56, 173176.
White, R., Kules, B., Drucker, S.M., & Schraefel, M.C. (2006). Supporting
exploratory search. Communication of the ACM, 49(4), 3739.
Whitsett, D.A., & Winslow, E.K. (1967). An analysis of studies critical of
the motivator-hygiene theory. Personnel Psychology, 20, 391415.
Zhang, P., & von Dran, G.M. (2000). Satisfier and dissatisfiers: A two-factor
model for website design and evaluation. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science, 54(14), 12531268.
Zhang, P., von Dran, G.M., Small, R.V., & Barcellos, S. (1999). Websites
that satisfy users: A theoretical framework for web user interface design
and evaluation. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences.
Zhang, P., von Dran, G.M., Small, R.V., & Barcellos, S. (2000). A two factory
theory for website design. Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences.
Zwick, R., Rapoport,A., Lo,A.K., & Muthukrishnan,A.V. (2003). Consumer
sequential search: Not enough or too much? Marketing Science, 22(4),
503519.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYSeptember 2008
DOI: 10.1002/asi