Loading field map
Information behavior is the subfield of information science that studies how people interact with information: how they recognize a need for it, seek it, evaluate it, use it, share it, and sometimes avoid or ignore it. Rather than focusing on information systems themselves—their databases, algorithms, or interfaces—information behavior centers on the human actor. Its core questions are deceptively simple: What do people actually do when they need information? Why do they do that, rather than something more rational or efficient? And how can the design of libraries, archives, search engines, and other information services better align with those realities?
The field's stakes are practical as well as theoretical. Every library reference desk, every search engine ranking, every health information campaign, and every corporate knowledge-management system embodies assumptions about how people seek and use information. When those assumptions are wrong, people fail to find what they need, misunderstand what they find, or give up entirely. Information behavior research aims to replace folk psychology with empirically grounded accounts of human information practices, and to feed those accounts back into the design of systems and services.
To understand information behavior, one must first understand what it reacted against. Mid-twentieth-century information science, shaped by the post-war growth of scientific literature and the rise of computing, largely treated information seeking as a problem of retrieval. The canonical model was the "information need" as a query: a person has a gap in knowledge, formulates a request, submits it to a system, and receives relevant documents. Research focused on improving the system—indexing, classification, search algorithms—rather than on examining whether the query formulation itself was a realistic description of human behavior.
This approach had a hidden assumption: that information seekers behave like rational, goal-directed problem solvers. They know what they do not know, can articulate it, and will pursue the most efficient path to resolution. The earliest systematic challenges to this assumption came from studies of scientists and engineers in the 1960s and 1970s, which found that researchers relied heavily on informal channels—colleagues, conferences, preprints—rather than formal literature searches, and that they often settled for "good enough" information rather than the best available. These findings suggested that information seeking was social, opportunistic, and satisficing rather than systematic and optimizing.
The decisive conceptual break came in the 1980s, when researchers began to argue that the field had been asking the wrong question. Instead of asking how people use information systems, they asked what people experience when they lack information. This shift, often associated with the work of Brenda Dervin and Carol Kuhlthau, moved the unit of analysis from the query to the person. Dervin's sense-making approach treated information not as a commodity to be transferred but as a construction that people build to bridge gaps in their understanding of a situation. Kuhlthau's research on library users showed that information seeking is an emotional as well as cognitive process, marked by uncertainty, confusion, and doubt before clarity emerges. These early user-centered approaches did not reject the value of systems; they insisted that systems must be designed around the user's experience rather than the system's logic.
The field is not unified by a single theory or method. Instead, it contains several overlapping research traditions that address different aspects of the information experience. These traditions are best understood as complementary lenses rather than competing schools, though they have at times been in tension.
The cognitive tradition, dominant from the 1980s through the early 2000s, treats information behavior as a mental process. Its central concept is the "information need," understood not as a simple gap but as an anomalous state of knowledge—a recognition that one's current mental model is inadequate for a task or situation. The researcher's job is to model how people perceive their needs, how they formulate and reformulate queries, and how they judge relevance.
This tradition produced influential models of the search process. Kuhlthau's Information Search Process (ISP) model, for example, describes six stages—initiation, selection, exploration, formulation, collection, and presentation—each with characteristic thoughts, feelings, and actions. The model's key insight is that uncertainty is not a failure but a normal early stage, and that premature attempts to resolve it can be counterproductive. Similarly, Thomas Wilson's models of information behavior distinguished between the immediate context of a search and the broader personal, social, and environmental factors that shape it, including intervening variables such as self-efficacy and source credibility.
The cognitive tradition's strength is its attention to the individual's internal experience. Its limitation is that it can overstate the rationality and deliberateness of information seeking. People often stumble upon information, receive it unsolicited, or act on habit and emotion rather than conscious assessment. The tradition also struggles to account for the deeply social nature of much information behavior, which the next tradition addresses.
Beginning in the 1990s, a growing body of research argued that information behavior cannot be understood by studying individuals in isolation. People are embedded in families, workplaces, communities, and cultures that shape what they consider information, what they need, and what they are willing to seek. This "contextual turn" drew on sociology, anthropology, and practice theory to reframe information seeking as a social practice rather than a cognitive process.
A key concept here is "information grounds"—physical or virtual places where people gather for other purposes but where information is created and shared incidentally. A hair salon, a church social, or a workplace break room can all function as information grounds. This concept, associated with Karen Fisher, highlights that much information behavior is opportunistic, informal, and inseparable from everyday life.
Another influential framework is "everyday life information seeking" (ELIS), developed by Reijo Savolainen. ELIS examines how people orient themselves in daily life—managing health, finances, hobbies, and relationships—using a "way of life" and "mastery of life" framework. It showed that people's information practices are shaped by their values, habits, and social worlds, and that they often prefer familiar sources over authoritative ones.
The social turn also brought attention to information poverty and information inequality. Researchers such as Elfreda Chatman studied marginalized communities—the poor, the elderly, prisoners—and found that people may avoid information that threatens their worldview or social standing, and that trust in sources is often more important than their accuracy. This work challenged the assumption that more information is always better, and that lack of access is the only barrier.
A more recent development, sometimes called the "practice approach," draws on practice theory from sociology to study information behavior as part of broader social practices. Rather than asking what individuals do with information, it asks how information is woven into the routines, norms, and material arrangements of a community or workplace. This approach is less concerned with the psychological states of individuals and more with the shared, often tacit rules that govern what counts as relevant, credible, and worth sharing.
For example, a study of nurses on a hospital ward might examine how shift handovers, patient charts, and informal conversations together constitute the ward's information practice. The unit of analysis is not the individual nurse's search but the collective, ongoing accomplishment of knowing. This approach has been particularly influential in studies of workplaces, scientific laboratories, and other settings where information is produced and used collaboratively.
The practice approach differs from the cognitive tradition in its assumptions about agency. Cognitive models tend to see the individual as the origin of information behavior; practice theory sees the individual as a carrier of practices that pre-exist and shape them. It also differs from the social turn in its emphasis on materiality—the role of documents, tools, and physical spaces—rather than on social relationships alone.
Information behavior research is methodologically plural. Early work relied heavily on questionnaires and interviews, often asking people to recall past searches. This approach has known weaknesses: memory is unreliable, and people's accounts of their behavior are shaped by what they think the researcher wants to hear. To address this, researchers have adopted diaries, think-aloud protocols during searches, observation, and analysis of transaction logs from search engines and library systems.
A significant methodological development has been the use of longitudinal and ethnographic methods. Kuhlthau's ISP model, for instance, was built from longitudinal studies of students working on research papers over months. Ethnographic studies, borrowed from anthropology, involve extended immersion in a setting to observe information behavior as it happens, rather than as it is retrospectively reported. These methods are time-consuming and produce findings that are difficult to generalize, but they capture the messiness and context-dependence of real behavior.
A persistent tension in the field is between idiographic and nomothetic aims—between understanding particular cases in depth and producing general laws. The field has largely favored the former, which has led to criticism that it produces rich descriptions but few testable predictions. Some researchers have responded by developing quantitative measures, such as information-seeking styles or search-strategy typologies, but these have not achieved the status of robust theories. The field's strength is its ecological validity—its findings reflect real behavior—but its weakness is its limited explanatory power.
Several issues continue to shape the field. The rise of the web and mobile computing has transformed the information environment, but it has not made information behavior obsolete. On the contrary, the abundance of information has made questions of evaluation, trust, and avoidance more pressing. Researchers now study how people judge the credibility of online sources, how they manage information overload, and how algorithmic recommendation systems shape their exposure to information—sometimes in ways they do not perceive.
A related development is the study of "information avoidance." Long recognized anecdotally, it has become a major research area, particularly in health contexts. People may avoid learning about a serious diagnosis, skip reading privacy policies, or unfollow news that causes anxiety. This research complicates the field's founding assumption that information is a good that people naturally want. It also connects to the study of misinformation, where the problem is not lack of information but the presence of misleading information that people may be motivated to accept.
Another durable theme is the relationship between information behavior and design. The field has always had an applied wing, feeding findings into the design of library services, information literacy instruction, and user interfaces. The user-centered design movement in human-computer interaction has absorbed many of the field's insights, even if it does not always cite them. At the same time, the field's critical edge—its insistence on studying what people actually do rather than what systems assume they do—remains relevant as search engines, social media platforms, and artificial intelligence systems make ever more consequential decisions about what information people see.
The field's boundaries are porous. It overlaps with human-computer interaction, communication studies, psychology, and sociology. Its practitioners are found in library and information science schools, but also in computer science, health informatics, and management. This interdisciplinary character is a source of vitality, but it also means the field sometimes struggles to maintain a distinct identity. What holds it together is a shared commitment to a simple but radical question: not "How should people seek information?" but "How do they, and why?"