pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.10751 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-12 · 💻 cs.IR · cs.HC

Recognition: unknown

From Query to Conscience: The Importance of Information Retrieval in Empowering Socially Responsible Consumerism

Frans van der Sluis , Leif Azzopardi , Florian Meier
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.IR cs.HC
keywords information retrievalsocially responsible consumerismethical shoppingintention-behavior gapproduct searchinformation asymmetryconsumer decision making
0
0 comments X

The pith

Information Retrieval can help close the intention-behavior gap by supporting ethical product searches.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that barriers to ethical shopping often stem from information-seeking difficulties rather than lack of consumer intent. A survey of over 600 consumers showed that limited or inaccessible information leads to decisions made under uncertainty and undermines desires for responsible choices. By presenting three perspectives, the authors reposition IR as a means to reduce information asymmetries, lower the effort of complex searches, and calibrate consumer knowledge. If true, everyday product queries could become opportunities for more informed and aligned purchases. The work calls for new IR systems tailored to the needs of socially responsible consumerism.

Core claim

Responsible consumption should be reframed as an information extraction problem to reduce asymmetries, product search redefined as a complex task that needs interfaces lowering the cost of responsible decisions, and search reimagined as a knowledge calibration process that bridges awareness gaps, collectively turning queries into opportunities for ethical choices.

What carries the argument

Three interrelated perspectives that treat responsible consumption as information extraction, product search as a complex task, and search as knowledge calibration to address barriers in ethical decision-making.

If this is right

  • Novel IR systems and interfaces that explicitly support ethical information needs during product search.
  • Reduced information asymmetries that allow consumers to act on their intentions more consistently.
  • Lower burden on users when searching for responsible options, making ethical choices more convenient.
  • Everyday searches transformed into processes that calibrate consumer knowledge and awareness.
  • A research agenda within IR focused on technologies aligned with economic and ethical realities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • E-commerce platforms might integrate ethical data layers into default search rankings to influence behavior at scale.
  • Policy efforts could require search systems to surface standardized sustainability information, testable via adoption metrics.
  • Similar IR approaches could apply to other domains like health or finance where intention-behavior gaps exist due to information complexity.

Load-bearing premise

That providing better information access and search interfaces will lead consumers to make more ethical purchases instead of price or convenience dominating their decisions.

What would settle it

A user study or field experiment in which participants given new IR tools for ethical product information show no measurable increase in responsible purchases compared to standard search conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.10751 by Florian Meier, Frans van der Sluis, Leif Azzopardi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Engel et al. [37]’s consumer purchasing model. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: 2D Scatter plot of participants with K-Means [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Influence of EMCB cluster on participants’ intention-search gap. The gap is expressed in terms of participants’ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Participants’ selections of pre-listed reasons for not searching on aspects related to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Millions of consumers search for products online each day, aiming to find items that meet their needs at an acceptable price. While price and quality are major factors in purchasing decisions, ethical considerations increasingly influence consumer behavior, giving rise to the socially responsible consumer. Insights from a recent survey of over 600 consumers reveal that many barriers to ethical shopping stem from information-seeking challenges, often leading to decisions made under uncertainty. These challenges contribute to the intention-behaviour gap, where consumers' desire to make ethical choices is undermined by limited or inaccessible information and inefficacy of search systems in supporting responsible decision-making. In this perspectives paper, we argue that the field of Information Retrieval (IR) has a critical role to play by empowering consumers to make more informed and more responsible choices. We present three interrelated perspectives: (1) reframing responsible consumption as an information extraction problem aimed at reducing information asymmetries; (2) redefining product search as a complex task requiring interfaces that lower the cost and burden of responsible search; and (3) reimagining search as a process of knowledge calibration that helps consumers bridge gaps in awareness when making purchasing decisions. Taken together, these perspectives outline a path from query to conscience, one where IR systems help transform everyday product searches into opportunities for more ethical and informed choices. We advocate for the development of new and novel IR systems and interfaces that address the intricacies of socially responsible consumerism, and call on the IR community to build technologies that make ethical decisions more informed, convenient, and aligned with economic realities.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. This perspectives paper argues that the field of Information Retrieval (IR) can play a critical role in empowering socially responsible consumerism by addressing information-seeking barriers that contribute to the intention-behavior gap. Drawing on insights from a survey of over 600 consumers, it outlines three interrelated perspectives: (1) reframing responsible consumption as an information extraction problem to reduce asymmetries; (2) redefining product search as a complex task requiring interfaces that lower the burden of ethical searches; and (3) reimagining search as a knowledge calibration process to bridge awareness gaps. The paper advocates for novel IR systems and interfaces that make ethical purchasing decisions more informed, convenient, and aligned with economic realities.

Significance. If the perspectives hold, the manuscript could meaningfully shape future IR research by connecting the field to societal challenges in sustainability and ethical consumption. It offers a clear conceptual roadmap that may inspire new evaluation criteria, interface designs, and algorithms focused on multi-attribute decision support. The work is timely given broader interest in responsible AI, though its long-term significance will hinge on whether the community develops and tests concrete implementations.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that barriers to ethical shopping 'stem from information-seeking challenges' rests on insights from a survey of over 600 consumers, yet the manuscript provides no methodology, sampling details, questionnaire items, or quantitative results. This weakens the evidential foundation for the subsequent perspectives.
  2. [Three perspectives] Three perspectives (as described in the abstract and body): The central assertion that improved IR access and interfaces will reduce the intention-behavior gap assumes information is the dominant barrier, but offers no references to empirical consumer-behavior studies or proposed evaluation protocols (e.g., A/B tests measuring actual purchase shifts). A concrete test or pilot outline would be needed to substantiate the advocacy position.
minor comments (2)
  1. The manuscript would benefit from one or two concrete examples of how existing IR techniques (such as attribute-aware reranking or conversational search) could be extended to surface ethical product attributes.
  2. Clarify the relationship between the three perspectives to avoid any appearance of overlap; a short diagram or table summarizing their distinct contributions would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and insightful comments on our perspectives paper. The work is conceptual in nature, aiming to outline directions for the IR community rather than deliver primary empirical results. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that barriers to ethical shopping 'stem from information-seeking challenges' rests on insights from a survey of over 600 consumers, yet the manuscript provides no methodology, sampling details, questionnaire items, or quantitative results. This weakens the evidential foundation for the subsequent perspectives.

    Authors: We agree that additional transparency on the survey would benefit readers. The survey was a preliminary internal study by the authors to motivate the perspectives, but full details were omitted to keep the focus on conceptual arguments in this perspectives format. In the revision, we will add a concise methods summary (e.g., online panel sampling with demographic stratification, key questionnaire items on information barriers, and high-level aggregate results such as the proportion of respondents identifying search difficulties). We will also note the availability of further details upon request or in supplementary material. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Three perspectives] Three perspectives (as described in the abstract and body): The central assertion that improved IR access and interfaces will reduce the intention-behavior gap assumes information is the dominant barrier, but offers no references to empirical consumer-behavior studies or proposed evaluation protocols (e.g., A/B tests measuring actual purchase shifts). A concrete test or pilot outline would be needed to substantiate the advocacy position.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the paper is advocacy-oriented and does not include new empirical tests or exhaustive citations, consistent with its perspectives genre. To address this, we will revise by adding references to established consumer behavior literature on the intention-behavior gap (e.g., works highlighting information asymmetries in ethical consumption). We will also include a new subsection proposing evaluation protocols, such as adapted A/B testing designs for ethical IR interfaces and metrics for tracking shifts in purchase behavior, providing a concrete roadmap for future validation by the community. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

This is a perspectives paper that advances three high-level research directions for the IR community through logical reframing of responsible consumption, product search, and knowledge calibration, supported by a consumer survey summary. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters, models, or formal predictions appear in the manuscript. The central claim that IR systems can help reduce the intention-behavior gap is presented as an advocacy position rather than a result derived from any internal chain that reduces to its own inputs or self-citations. The argument is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and contains no load-bearing steps that could be circular by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on the domain assumption that information access is the primary barrier to ethical consumption, drawn from the referenced survey, with no free parameters, invented entities, or additional axioms stated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Many barriers to ethical shopping stem from information-seeking challenges that undermine consumers' desire to make ethical choices.
    Directly stated in the abstract as the source of the intention-behaviour gap.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5584 in / 1141 out tokens · 28589 ms · 2026-05-10T15:08:04.810533+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 91 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Icek Ajzen. 1985. From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. In Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior, Julius Kuhl and Jürgen Beckmann (Eds.). 11–39. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2 1985

  2. [2]

    George A. Akerlof. 1970. The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism.The quarterly journal of economics84, 3 (aug 1970), 488–500. doi:10.2307/1879431

    work page doi:10.2307/1879431 1970

  3. [3]

    Alba and J

    Joseph W. Alba and J. Wesley Hutchinson. 2000. Knowledge calibration: what consumers know and what they think they know.The Journal of Consumer Research27, 2 (2000), 123–156. doi:10.1086/314317

    work page doi:10.1086/314317 2000

  4. [4]

    Alaa Altammami, Vania Dimitrova, and Evangelos Pournaras. 2024. What you see, What you get? Mapping Inconsistencies of Sustainability Judgements among Experts and Consumers. InProceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Information Technology for Social Good(Bremen, Germany)(GoodIT ’24). 443–452. doi:10.1145/3677525.3678695

    work page doi:10.1145/3677525.3678695 2024

  5. [5]

    Azzurra Annunziata, Sara Ianuario, and Paola Pascale. 2011. Consumers’ attitudes toward labelling of ethical products: The case of organic and fair trade products.Journal of Food Products Marketing17, 5 (10 2011), 518–535. doi:10.1080/10454446.2011.618790

    work page doi:10.1080/10454446.2011.618790 2011

  6. [6]

    White, Patrick Pantel, Susan T

    Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, Ryen W. White, Patrick Pantel, Susan T. Dumais, and Yi Min Wang. 2014. Supporting complex search tasks. InCIKM 2014 - Pro- ceedings of the 2014 ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 829–838. doi:10.1145/2661829.2661912

    work page doi:10.1145/2661829.2661912 2014

  7. [7]

    Leif Azzopardi. 2014. Modelling interaction with economic models of search. InProceedings of the 37th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’14). 3–12. doi:10.1145/2600428. 2609574

    work page doi:10.1145/2600428 2014

  8. [8]

    Leif Azzopardi and Frans Van Der Sluis. 2024. Seeking Socially Responsible Consumers: Exploring the Intention-Search-Behaviour Gap. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (CHIIR ’24). 153–164. doi:10.1145/3627508.3638324

    work page doi:10.1145/3627508.3638324 2024

  9. [9]

    Leif Azzopardi, Wim Vanderbauwhede, and Mahmoud Moadeli. 2009. Develop- ing energy efficient filtering systems. InProceedings of the 32nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’09). 664–665

    2009

  10. [10]

    Leif Azzopardi and Vishwa Vinay. 2008. Accessibility in Information Retrieval. In Advances in Information Retrieval. 482–489. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78646-7_46

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78646-7_46 2008

  11. [11]

    Leif Azzopardi and Vishwa Vinay. 2008. Retrievability: an evaluation measure for higher order information access tasks. InProceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM ’08). 561–570. doi:10.1145/ 1458082.1458157

    work page arXiv 2008

  12. [12]

    Belkin, R.N

    N.J. Belkin, R.N. Oddy, and H.M. Brooks. 1982. ASK for information retrieval: Part I. Background and theory.Journal of Documentation38, 2 (feb 1982), 61–71. doi:10.1108/eb026722

    work page doi:10.1108/eb026722 1982

  13. [13]

    2023.Increasing the effectiveness of sustainability tags

    Jens Bergener, Maike Gossen, Marek Veneny, Zsofia Paszternak, and Ruben Korenke. 2023.Increasing the effectiveness of sustainability tags. Empirical ev- idence from user tests and a field study on Ecosia Shopping.Technical Report. Technische Universität Berlin. doi:10.14279/depositonce-19689

    work page doi:10.14279/depositonce-19689 2023

  14. [14]

    Jens Bergener, Robin Jadkowski, Ruben Korenke, Patricia Jankowski, and Marek Veneny. 2023.Der Einfluss von Nachhaltigkeitshinweisen auf Kaufentscheidun- gen#05 Driving sustainable choices for consumer electronics: the influence of sus- tainability cues on purchasing decisions. Technical Report. Technische Universität Berlin. doi:10.14279/depositonce-19188

    work page doi:10.14279/depositonce-19188 2023

  15. [15]

    Biega, Krishna P

    Asia J. Biega, Krishna P. Gummadi, and Gerhard Weikum. 2018. Equity of Attention: Amortizing Individual Fairness in Rankings. InThe 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’18). 405–414. doi:10.1145/3209978.3210063

    work page doi:10.1145/3209978.3210063 2018

  16. [16]

    Bloch, Daniel L

    Peter H. Bloch, Daniel L. Sherrell, and Nancy M. Ridgway. 1986. Consumer Search: An Extended Framework.Journal of Consumer Research13, 1 (1986), 119–126. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2489291

    work page arXiv 1986

  17. [17]

    Petter Bae Brandtzaeg and Asbjørn Følstad. 2017. Trust and distrust in online fact-checking services.Commun. ACM60, 9 (23 aug 2017), 65–71. doi:10.1145/ 3122803

    2017

  18. [18]

    Andrei Broder. 2002. A taxonomy of web search.SIGIR Forum36, 2 (Sept. 2002), 3–10. doi:10.1145/792550.792552

    work page doi:10.1145/792550.792552 2002

  19. [19]

    Browne, Mitzi G

    Glenn J. Browne, Mitzi G. Pitts, and James C. Wetherbe. 2007. Cognitive Stopping Rules for Terminating Information Search in Online Tasks.MIS Quarterly31, 1 (2007), 89–104. doi:10.2307/25148782

    work page doi:10.2307/25148782 2007

  20. [20]

    Erik Brynjolfsson and Michael D. Smith. 2000. Frictionless Commerce? A Comparison of Internet and Conventional Retailers.Manage. Sci.46, 4 (April 2000), 563–585. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2661602

    work page arXiv 2000

  21. [21]

    Georg Buscher, Edward Cutrell, and Meredith Ringel Morris. 2009. What do you see when you’re surfing? using eye tracking to predict salient regions of web pages. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Boston, MA, USA)(CHI ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 21–30. doi:10.1145/1518701.1518705

    work page doi:10.1145/1518701.1518705 2009

  22. [22]

    Marylyn Carrigan, Isabelle Szmigin, and Joanne Wright. 2004. Shopping for a better world? An interpretive study of the potential for ethical consumption within the older market.Journal of Consumer Marketing21 (10 2004). doi:10. 1108/07363760410558672

    2004

  23. [23]

    Carrington, Benjamin A

    Michal J. Carrington, Benjamin A. Neville, and Gregory J. Whitwell. 2014. Lost in translation: Exploring the ethical consumer intention–behavior gap.Journal of Business Research67, 1 (2014), 2759–2767. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.09.022

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.09.022 2014

  24. [24]

    Beatriz Casais and Joana Faria. 2022. The Intention-Behavior gap in Ethical Consumption: Mediators, Moderators and Consumer Profiles Based on Ethical Priorities.Journal of Macromarketing42, 1 (3 2022), 100–113. doi:10.1177/ 02761467211054836

    2022

  25. [25]

    Eloi Chazelas, Mélanie Deschasaux, Bernard Srour, Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot, Chantal Julia, Benjamin Alles, Nathalie Druesne-Pecollo, Pilar Galan, Serge Hercberg, Paule Latino-Martel, Younes Esseddik, Fabien Szabo, Pierre Slamich, Stephane Gigandet, and Mathilde Touvier. 2020. Food additives: distribution and co-occurrence in 126,000 food products of the Fre...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-020-60948-w 2020

  26. [26]

    Bogeum Choi, Jaime Arguello, Robert Capra, and Austin R. Ward. 2021. OrgBox: A Knowledge Representation Tool to Support Complex Search Tasks. InPro- ceedings of the 2021 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (CHIIR ’21). 219–228. doi:10.1145/3406522.3446029

    work page doi:10.1145/3406522.3446029 2021

  27. [27]

    Bogeum Choi, Robert Capra, and Jaime Arguello. 2019. The Effects of Working Memory during Search Tasks of Varying Complexity. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval(Glasgow, Scotland UK)(CHIIR ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 261–265. doi:10.1145/3295750.3298948

    work page doi:10.1145/3295750.3298948 2019

  28. [28]

    Cole, Jacek Gwizdka, Chang Liu, Ralf Bierig, Nicholas J

    Michael J. Cole, Jacek Gwizdka, Chang Liu, Ralf Bierig, Nicholas J. Belkin, and Xiangmin Zhang. 2011. Task and user effects on reading patterns in information search.Interacting with Computers23, 4 (05 2011), 346–362

    2011

  29. [29]

    Angelo Geninatti Cossatin, Noemi Mauro, and Liliana Ardissono. 2023. En- riching Recommender Systems Results with Data about Sustainability and Ethical Standards of Brands. InIEEE/WIC International Conference on Web Intel- ligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT ‘23). 238–242. doi:10.1109/WI- IAT59888.2023.00037

    work page doi:10.1109/wi- 2023

  30. [30]

    Angelo Geninatti Cossatin, Noemi Mauro, and Liliana Ardissono. 2024. Pro- moting Green Fashion Consumption Through Digital Nudges in Recommender Systems.IEEE Access12 (2024), 6812–6829. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3349710

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2024.3349710 2024

  31. [31]

    Ward, Yuan Li, and Rob Capra

    Anita Crescenzi, Austin R. Ward, Yuan Li, and Rob Capra. 2021. Supporting Metacognition during Exploratory Search with the OrgBox. InProceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR ’21). 1197–1207. doi:10.1145/3404835.3462955

    work page doi:10.1145/3404835.3462955 2021

  32. [32]

    Iain Andrew Davies and Sabrina Gutsche. 2016. Consumer motivations for mainstream “ethical” consumption.European Journal of Marketing50, 7/8 (1 2016), 1326–1347. doi:10.1108/EJM-11-2015-0795

    work page doi:10.1108/ejm-11-2015-0795 2016

  33. [33]

    Sebastião Vieira de Freitas Netto, Marcos Felipe Falcão Sobral, Ana Regina Bez- erra Ribeiro, and Gleibson Robert da Luz Soares. 2020. Concepts and forms of greenwashing: A systematic review.Environmental Sciences Europe32, 1 (2020),

    2020

  34. [34]

    doi:10.1186/s12302-020-0300-3

    work page doi:10.1186/s12302-020-0300-3

  35. [35]

    Elmira Djafarova and Sophie Foots. 2022. Exploring ethical consumption of generation Z: theory of planned behaviour.Young Consumers23, 3 (7 2022), 413–431. doi:10.1108/YC-10-2021-1405

    work page doi:10.1108/yc-10-2021-1405 2022

  36. [36]

    David Dunning. 2011. Chapter five - The Dunning–Kruger Effect: On Being Ignorant of One’s Own Ignorance. InAdvances in Experimental Social Psychology, James M. Olson and Mark P. Zanna (Eds.). Vol. 44. 247–296. doi:10.1016/B978-0- 12-385522-0.00005-6

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0- 2011

  37. [37]

    Pam Ellen, Joshua Wiener, and Cathy Cobb-Walgren. 1991. The Role of Per- ceived Consumer Effectiveness in Motivating Environmentally Conscious Be- haviors.Journal of Public Policy & Marketing10 (9 1991), 102–117. doi:10.1177/ 074391569101000206

    1991

  38. [38]

    1990.Consumer behavior (sixth ed.)

    James F Engel, Roger D Blackwell, and Paul W Miniard. 1990.Consumer behavior (sixth ed.). Dryden Press, Hinsdale, IL

    1990

  39. [39]

    Yi Fang, Ashudeep Singh, and Zhiqiang Tao. 2024. Fairness in search systems. Foundations and Trends®in Information Retrieval18, 3 (2024), 262–416. doi:10. 1561/1500000101

    2024

  40. [40]

    Alexander Felfernig, Manfred Wundara, Thi Ngoc Trang Tran, Seda Polat- Erdeniz, Sebastian Lubos, Merfat El Mansi, Damian Garber, and Viet-Man Le

  41. [41]

    Frontiers in Big Data6 (2023)

    Recommender systems for sustainability: overview and research issues. Frontiers in Big Data6 (2023). doi:10.3389/fdata.2023.1284511

    work page doi:10.3389/fdata.2023.1284511 2023

  42. [42]

    Carlos Flavián-Blanco, Raquel Gurrea-Sarasa, and Carlos Orús-Sanclemente

  43. [43]

    Analyzing the emotional outcomes of the online search behavior with search engines.Computers in Human Behavior27, 1 (1 2011), 540–551. doi:10. 1016/j.chb.2010.10.002

    2011

  44. [44]

    Anindya Ghose, Panagiotis G Ipeirotis, and Beibei Li. 2014. Examining the Impact of Ranking on Consumer Behavior and Search Engine Revenue.Management Science60, 7 (2 2014), 1632–1654. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2013.1828

    work page doi:10.1287/mnsc.2013.1828 2014

  45. [45]

    Robertson, and Christo Wilson

    Jeffrey Gleason, Alice Koeninger, Desheng Hu, Jessica Teurn, Yakov Bart, Samsun Knight, Ronald E. Robertson, and Christo Wilson. 2024. Search Engine Revenue from Navigational and Brand Advertising.Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media18, 1 (May 2024), 488–501. doi:10.1609/ icwsm.v18i1.31329 From Query to Conscience: The ...

    2024

  46. [46]

    Alexander Haas and Julian Unkel. 2017. Ranking versus reputation: perception and effects of search result credibility.Behaviour & information technology36, 12 (2 12 2017), 1285–1298. doi:10.1080/0144929X.2017.1381166

    work page doi:10.1080/0144929x.2017.1381166 2017

  47. [47]

    Haider, M

    J. Haider, M. Rödl, and S. Joosse. 2022. Algorithmically embodied emissions: the environmental harm of everyday life information in digital culture.Information Research: an international electronic journal27 (2022). doi:10.47989/colis2224

    work page doi:10.47989/colis2224 2022

  48. [48]

    Vüsal Hasanzade, Victoria Sophie Osburg, and Waldemar Toporowski. 2018. Selecting decision-relevant ethical product attributes for grocery shopping. Management Decision56, 3 (3 2018), 591–609. doi:10.1108/MD-12-2016-0946

    work page doi:10.1108/md-12-2016-0946 2018

  49. [49]

    M A Hearst. 2006. Design recommendations for hierarchical faceted search interfaces. InProc. SIGIR 2006, Workshop on Faceted Search. 26–30

    2006

  50. [50]

    Jeff Huang, Ryen White, and Georg Buscher. 2012. User see, user point: gaze and cursor alignment in web search. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12). 1341–1350. doi:10.1145/2207676. 2208591

    work page doi:10.1145/2207676 2012

  51. [51]

    Md Saiful Islam, Adiba Mahbub Proma, Caleb Wohn, Karen Berger, Serena Uong, Varun Kumar, Katrina Smith Korfmacher, and Ehsan Hoque. 2023. SEER: Sustain- able E-commerce with Environmental-impact Rating.Cleaner Environmental Systems8 (2023), 100104. doi:10.1016/j.cesys.2022.100104

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cesys.2022.100104 2023

  52. [52]

    Speller, and Carol A

    Jacob Jacoby, Donald E. Speller, and Carol A. Kohn. 1974. Brand Choice Behavior as a Function of Information Load.Journal of Marketing Research11, 1 (1974), 63–69. doi:10.1177/002224377401100106

    work page doi:10.1177/002224377401100106 1974

  53. [53]

    Dietmar Jannach, Alan Said, Marko Tkalčič, and Markus Zanker. 2024. Recom- mender Systems for Good (RS4Good): Survey of Use Cases and a Call to Action for Research that Matters. arXiv:2411.16645 [cs.IR] https://arxiv.org/abs/2411. 16645

    work page arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Jansen, Danielle L

    Bernard J. Jansen, Danielle L. Booth, and Amanda Spink. 2008. Determining the informational, navigational, and transactional intent of Web queries.Information Processing & Management44, 3 (2008), 1251–1266. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2007.07.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2007.07.015 2008

  55. [55]

    Hideo Joho. 2009. Cognitive Effects in Information Seeking and Retrieval. InECIR ’09 Workshop on Contextual Information Access, Seeking and Retrieval Evaluation (CIRSE ’09). Toulouse, France

    2009

  56. [56]

    2022.The Better World Shopping Guide:: Every Dollar Makes a Difference

    Ellis Jones. 2022.The Better World Shopping Guide:: Every Dollar Makes a Difference. New Society Publishers

    2022

  57. [57]

    Sebastian Jäger, Alexander Flick, Jessica Adriana Sanchez Garcia, Kaspar von den Driesch, Karl Brendel, and Felix Biessmann. 2022. GreenDB – A Dataset and Benchmark for Extraction of Sustainability Information of Consumer Goods. arXiv:2207.10733 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.10733

    work page arXiv 2022

  58. [58]

    Surya Kallumadi, Yubin Kim, Tracy Holloway King, Shervin Malmasi, Maarten de Rijke, and Jacopo Tagliabue. 2023. eCom’23: The SIGIR 2023 Workshop on eCommerce. InProceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval(Taipei, Taiwan)(SIGIR ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3539618.3591927 2023

  59. [59]

    Jaurès Styve Kameni Homte, Bernabé Batchakui, and Roger Nkambou. 2022. Search engines in learning contexts: A literature review.International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET)17, 02 (31 jan 2022), 254–272. doi:10. 3991/ijet.v17i02.26217

    2022

  60. [60]

    Frank R Kardes, Steven S Posavac, David Silvera, Maria L Cronley, David M Sanbonmatsu, Susan Schertzer, Felicia Miller, Paul M Herr, and Murali Chan- drashekaran. 2006. Debiasing omission neglect.Journal of Business Research59, 6 (2006), 786–792. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.016 2006

  61. [61]

    Tony Ke, Zuo Jun Max Shen, and J

    T. Tony Ke, Zuo Jun Max Shen, and J. Miguel Villas-Boas. 2016. Search for information on multiple products.Management Science62, 12 (12 2016), 3576–

    2016

  62. [62]

    doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2316

    work page doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2316 2015

  63. [63]

    Kevin Lane Keller and Richard Staelin. 1987. Effects of Quality and Quantity of Information on Decision Effectiveness.Journal of Consumer Research14, 2 (9 1987), 200–213. doi:10.1086/209106

    work page doi:10.1086/209106 1987

  64. [64]

    Knijnenburg, Saadhika Sivakumar, and Daricia Wilkinson

    Bart P. Knijnenburg, Saadhika Sivakumar, and Daricia Wilkinson. 2016. Recom- mender Systems for Self-Actualization. InProceedings of the 10th ACM Confer- ence on Recommender Systems (RecSys ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 11–14. doi:10.1145/2959100.2959189

    work page doi:10.1145/2959100.2959189 2016

  65. [65]

    Lee Giles

    Steve Lawrence and C. Lee Giles. 1999. Accessibility of information on the web. Nature400, 6740 (1999), 107–107. doi:10.1038/21987

    work page doi:10.1038/21987 1999

  66. [66]

    Tong Lin, Tianliang Xu, Amit Zac, and Sabina Tomkins. 2023. SUSTAINABLES- IGNALS: An AI Approach for Inferring Consumer Product Sustainability. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intel- ligence (IJCAI ‘23). 6067–6075. doi:10.24963/ijcai.2023/673

    work page doi:10.24963/ijcai.2023/673 2023

  67. [67]

    Jiqun Liu, Shawon Sarkar, and Chirag Shah. 2020. Identifying and predicting the states of complex search tasks. InProceedings of the 2020 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval (CHIIR ‘20). 193–202. doi:10.1145/3343413. 3377976

    work page doi:10.1145/3343413 2020

  68. [68]

    Xiaoping Liu, Lijing Mao, and Wenxiang Deng. 2018. The influence of consumer mindset and corporate social responsility on purchase intention.Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal46, 10 (2018), 1647–1656. doi:10.2224/ sbp.7025

    2018

  69. [69]

    Astrid Mager. 2012. Algorithmic Ideology.Information, Communication & Society15, 5 (2012), 769–787. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.676056

    work page doi:10.1080/1369118x.2012.676056 2012

  70. [70]

    Byeong-Joon Moon. 2004. Consumer adoption of the internet as an information search and product purchase channel: some research hypotheses.International Journal of Internet Marketing and Advertising1, 1 (1 2004), 104–118. doi:10.1504/ IJIMA.2004.003692

    work page arXiv 2004

  71. [71]

    Nil Ozcaglar-Toulouse, Edward Shiu, and Deirdre Shaw. 2006. In search of fair trade: Ethical consumer decision making in France.International Journal of Consumer Studies30, 5 (2006), 502–514. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2006.00532.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2006.00532.x 2006

  72. [72]

    Eleni Papaoikonomou, Carmen Valor, and Matias Ginieis. 2018. Looking for info? Understanding ethical consumer information management using a diary approach.Management Decision56, 3 (3 2018), 645–662. doi:10.1108/MD-11- 2016-0761

    work page doi:10.1108/md-11- 2018

  73. [73]

    Gourab K Patro, Abhijnan Chakraborty, Ashmi Banerjee, and Niloy Ganguly

  74. [74]

    InFourteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys ‘20)

    Towards Safety and Sustainability: Designing Local Recommendations for Post-pandemic World. InFourteenth ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys ‘20). 358–367. doi:10.1145/3383313.3412251

    work page doi:10.1145/3383313.3412251

  75. [75]

    Bruce E Pfeiffer, Hélène Deval, Frank R Kardes, Douglas R Ewing, Xiaoqi Han, and Maria L Cronley. 2014. Effects of Construal Level on Omission Detection and Multiattribute Evaluation.Psychology & Marketing31, 11 (11 2014), 992–1007. doi:10.1002/mar.20748

    work page doi:10.1002/mar.20748 2014

  76. [76]

    Peter Pirolli and Wai-tat Fu. 2003. SNIF-ACT: A model of information foraging on the world wide web.Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on User Modeling. doi:10.1007/3-540-44963-9_8

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-44963-9_8 2003

  77. [77]

    Girish N Punj and David W Stewart. 1983. An Interaction Framework of Con- sumer Decision Making.Journal of Consumer Research10, 2 (9 1983), 181–196. doi:10.1086/208958

    work page doi:10.1086/208958 1983

  78. [78]

    Ekstrand

    Amifa Raj and Michael D. Ekstrand. 2022. Fire Dragon and Unicorn Princess: Gender Stereotypes and Children’s Products in Search Engine Responses. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGIR Workshop on eCommerce (SIGIR eCom ’22). 1–9. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2206.13747

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.13747 2022

  79. [79]

    Jennifer Rowley. 2000. Product search in e-shopping: a review and research propositions.Journal of Consumer Marketing17, 1 (1 feb 2000), 20–35. doi:10. 1108/07363760010309528

    2000

  80. [80]

    Rucker, Zakary L

    Derek D. Rucker, Zakary L. Tormala, Richard E. Petty, and Pablo Briñol. 2014. Consumer conviction and commitment: An appraisal-based framework for attitude certainty.Journal of Consumer Psychology24, 1 (jan 2014), 119–136. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2013.07.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2013.07.001 2014

Showing first 80 references.