This article reports the development of a scale designed to measure an individual’s tendency to engage in serendipitous information encountering behaviour online. We relied on the simplified process model of information encountering to derive an initial item pool. In Study 1, a total of 3037 participants completed a preliminary 24-item scale. Using a split-half principal components analysis and confirmatory factor analysis to determine the underlying factor structure, we reduced the scale to 12 items. In Study 2 (N = 66), we demonstrated the revised scale’s test–retest reliability and showed that it distinguishes between information encountering and other conceptually related constructs. In Study 3, behavioural data from 304 participants showed that the information encountering scale is associated with various indicators of online information-seeking, such as page visits and visit duration. Collectively, these studies yield a valid and easily implemented scale to better understand online information encountering. We describe the development of this scale and discuss its implications for both the measurement and study of serendipity in online information behaviour.
MakriSBlandfordA. Coming across information serendipitously – part 1: a process model. J Doc2012; 68(5): 684–705.
2.
JiangTGuoQXuYet al. A diary study of information encountering triggered by visual stimuli on micro-blogging services. Inf Process Manag2019; 56(1): 29–42.
3.
YaqubO. Serendipity: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Res Policy2018; 47(1): 169–179.
4.
ReviglioU. Serendipity as an emerging design principle of the infosphere: challenges and opportunities. Ethics Inf Technol2019; 21: 151–166.
5.
BjörnebornL. Three key affordances for serendipity: toward a framework connecting environmental and personal factors in serendipitous encounters. J Doc2017; 73(5): 1053–1081.
McCay-PeetLTomsEG. Investigating serendipity: how it unfolds and what may influence it. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol2015; 66(7): 1463–1476.
8.
AgarwalNK. Towards a definition of serendipity in information behaviour. Inf Res2015; 20(3): 675.
9.
ErdelezSMakriS. Information encountering re-encountered: a conceptual re-examination of serendipity in the context of information acquisition. J Doc2020; 76: 731–751.
10.
ErdelezS. Information encountering. In: FisherK.E.ErdelezS.McKechnieE (eds) Theories of information behavior. Medford, NJ: Information Today, 2005.pp. 1–3.
11.
JiangTLiuFChiY. Online information encountering: modeling the process and influencing factors. J Doc2015; 71(6): 1135–1157.
12.
JiangTFuSErdelezSet al. Understanding the seeking-encountering tension: roles of foreground and background task urgency. Inf Process Manag2022; 59(3): 102910.
13.
BjörnebornL. Serendipity dimensions and users’ information behaviour in the physical library interface. Inf Res2008; 13(1): 370.
McCay-PeetLTomsEG. Researching serendipity in digital information environments. Synth Lect Inform Concep Retriev Serv2017; 9(6): 1–91.
16.
ErdelezS. Information encountering: it’s more than just bumping into information. Bull Am Soc Inf Sci1999; 25: 26–29.
17.
ErdelezS. Information encountering: an exploration beyond information seeking. Doctoral Dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, 1995.
18.
McCay-PeetLTomsEGKellowayEK. Examination of relationships among serendipity, the environment, and individual differences. Inf Process Manag2015; 51(4): 391–412.
19.
LiuYQinCMaXet al. Serendipity in human information behavior: a systematic review. J Doc2022; 78: 435–462.
20.
SunXZhouXWangQet al. A review of research methodologies employed in serendipity studies in the context of information research. Pac Asia J Assoc Inf Sys2021; 13(2): 72–90.
21.
AwanWAAmeenKSoroyaSH. Research information encountering and keeping behaviour of post-graduate students of social sciences in an online environment. Online Inf Rev2020; 45(1): 21–45.
22.
SunXZhouXWangQet al. Investigating the impact of emotions on perceiving serendipitous information encountering. J. Assoc Inf Sci Technol2022; 73(1): 3–18.
23.
ErdelezS. Investigation of information encountering in the controlled research environment. Inf Process Manag2004; 40: 1013–1024.
24.
VerplankenBHazenbergPTPalenewenGR. Need for cognition and external information search effort. J Res Pers1992; 26(2): 128–136.
BoatengGONeilandsTBFrongilloEAet al. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Publ Hlth2018; 6: 149.
27.
ChristianLMParsonsNLDillmanDA. Designing scalar questions for web surveys. Soc Method Res2009; 37: 393–425.
28.
GravetterFJWallnauLB. Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences. 8th ed.Wadsworth, OH: Belmont, 2013.
29.
HuLTBentlerPM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model1999; 6(1): 1–55.
30.
FornellCLarckerDF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark1981; 18: 39–50.
31.
ChurchillGA. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J Mark Res1979; 16(1): 64–73.
32.
PettyRECacioppoJT. Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1986.
33.
RotterJB. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Am Psychol1966; 80: 1–28.
34.
LeavittJWaltonJ. Development of a scale for innovativeness. Adv Consum Res1975; 2: 545–554.
35.
WangJCalderBJ. Media engagement and advertising: transportation, matching, transference and intrusion. J Consum Psychol2009; 19(3): 546–555.
