As digital information expands at an unprecedented pace, reference librarians in academic libraries face growing cognitive strain, commonly known as information overload (IO). This study investigates whether personality traits (extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness to experience), professional variables (self-efficacy, empowerment, and cognitive appraisals), and environmental factors (library disciplinary field and institutional type) are associated with academic librarians’ perceptions of IO. The study used a quantitative method, included 146 academic reference librarians and took place in Israel. Findings suggest that academic reference librarians’ perception of IO is mainly shaped by threat appraisal, self-efficacy, and the disciplinary field of their library. These insights improve the understanding academic reference librarians’ perception of IO and support the development of training and education programs that address discipline-specific information needs, helping academic reference librarians manage information overload more effectively.
AadlandMGHeinströmJ (2024) “It never seems to stop”. Six high school students experiences of information overload. Information Research29(2): 159–172.
2.
AharonyN (2009a) Librarians’ attitudes towards marketing library services. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science41(1): 39–50.
3.
AharonyN (2009b) Web 2.0 use by librarians. Library & Information Science Research31(1): 29–37.
4.
AharonyN (2011) Librarians’ attitudes toward knowledge management. College & Research Libraries72(2): 111–126.
5.
AharonyN (2014) The effect of personal and situational factors on LIS students’ and professionals’ intentions to use e-books. Portal Libraries and the Academy36(2): 106–113.
6.
AharonyN (2015) Why do students use What’s App? An exploratory study. Aslib Journal of Information Management67(2): 136–158.
7.
AharonyNGazitT (2019) Factors affecting students’ information literacy self-efficacy. Library Hi Tech37(2): 183–196.
8.
AharonyNGazitT (2020) Students’ information literacy self-efficacy: An exploratory study. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science52(1): 224–236.
9.
AharonyNGurH (2019) The relationships between personality, perceptual, cognitive and technological variables and students’ level of information literacy. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science51(2): 527–544.
10.
AharonyNPreborG (2015) Librarians’ and information professionals’ perspectives towards discovery tools — An exploratory study. The Journal of Academic Librarianship41(4): 429–440.
11.
AkinL (1998) Methods for examining small literatures: Explication, physical analysis, and citation patterns. Library & Information Science Research20(3): 251–270.
12.
AllenDWilsonTD (2003) Information overload: Context and causes. The New Review of Information Behaviour Research4(1): 31–44.
13.
AppelbaumSHKarasekRLapointeF, et al. (2015) Employee empowerment: Factors affecting the consequent success or failure (part II). Industrial and Commercial Training47(1): 23–30.
14.
ArshadAAmeenK (2021) Comparative analysis of academic scientists, social scientists and humanists’ scholarly information seeking habits. Journal of Academic Librarianship47(1): 102297.
15.
AshtonMCLeeK (2005) Honesty-humility, the big five, and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality73(5): 1322–1354.
16.
BanduraA (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review84(2): 191–215.
17.
BanduraA (1993) Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist28(2): 117–148.
18.
BanduraA (2001) Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology52(1): 1–26.
19.
BartleyCERoeschSC (2011) Coping with daily stress: The role of conscientiousness. Personality and Individual Differences50(1): 79–83.
20.
BawdenDRobinsonL (2009) The dark side of information: overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies. Journal of Information Science, 35(2): 180–191.
21.
BawdenDRobinsonL (2011) Individual differences in information related behaviour: What do we know about information styles? In: SpinkAHeinströmJ (eds) New Directions in Information Behaviour. Library and Information Science, 1. London: Emerald, pp. 127–158.
22.
BawdenDRobinsonL (2020) Information overload: an overview. In: Oxford Encyclopedia of Political Decision Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
BelabbesMARuthvenIMoshfeghiY, et al. (2023) Concept of information overload: A concept analysis. Journal of Documentation79(1): 144–159.
24.
BellSJ (2004) The infodiet: How libraries can offer an appetizing alternative to Google. The Chronicle of Higher Education50(24): B15.
25.
BhambriG (2021) Information overload in business organizations and entrepreneurship: An analytical review of the literature. Business Information Review38(4): 193–200.
26.
BlaschovichJ (2008) Challenge and threat. In: ElliottAJ (ed) Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation. New York: Psychology Press, pp. 431–445.
27.
BlockJ (2010) The five-factor framing of personality and beyond: Some ruminations. Psychological Inquiry21(1): 2–25.
28.
BlomF (2011) Information Overload and the Growing Infosphere: A Comparison of the Opinions and Experiences of Information Specialists and General Academics on the Topic of Information Overload. Master’s thesis, Uppsala University, Sweden.
29.
BouhnikDReichNAharonyN (2021) Willingness to information security as a function of personality characteristics and threat assessment among adolescents. Online Information Review45(5): 912–929.
30.
BowersJ (2014) Research in the social sciences. In: KeeranPLevine-ClarkM (eds) Research Within the Disciplines: Foundations for Library Reference Instruction. 2nd edn.Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 79–114.
31.
BoyleGJ (2008) Critique of the five-factor model of personality. In: BoyleGJMatthewsGSaklofskeDH (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Personality Theory and Assessment, Vol 1, Personality Theories and Models. SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 295-312
32.
BrightonAT (2009) Information Overload and Its Impact Upon Cambridge University library. MSc Thesis, City University, London.
33.
BronsteinJ (2011) The role and work perceptions of academic reference librarians: A qualitative inquiry. Portal: Libraries and the Academy11(3): 791–811.
34.
BurnsCSBossallerJ (2012) Communication overload: A phenomenological inquiry into academic reference librarianship. Journal of Documentation68(5): 597–617.
35.
ChenG.GullySM (1997) Specific self-efficacy, general self-efficacy, and self-esteem: Are they distinguishable constructs? In: 57th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Boston, MA.
36.
ChenVYChenGM (2020) Shut down or turn off? The interplay between news overload and consumption. Atlantic Journal of Communication28(2): 125–137.
37.
CheungFMCheungSFLeungK, et al. (2003) The English version of the Chinese personality assessment inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology34(4): 433-452
38.
CostaPTMcCraeRR (1992) NEO PI-R – Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
39.
EdmundAMorrisA (2000) The problem of information overload in business organizations: A review of the literature. International Journal of Information Management20(1): 17–28.
40.
EpplerMMengisJ (2004) The concept of information overload: A review of the literature from organization science, accounting, MIS, and related disciplines. South African Journal of Information Management20(5): 325–344.
41.
EtzionDLaskiS (1998) The Big Five Personality Traits Inventory – Hebrew Version. Tel Aviv University, Faculty of Management, School of Business Administration.
42.
EysenckHJ (1992) The definition and measurement of psychoticism. Personality and Individual Differences13(7): 757–785.
43.
FrancescatoDLauriolaMGiacomantonioM, et al. (2020) Do personality traits and personal values predict career efficacy and career progression of successful political women? An exploratory study. Personality and Individual Differences160: 109918.
44.
FuertesMCMJoseBMDNem SinghMAA, et al. (2020) The moderating effects of information overload and academic procrastination on the information avoidance behavior among Filipino undergraduate thesis writers. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science52(3): 694–712.
45.
GazitT (2021) Exploring leadership in Facebook communities: Personality traits and activities. In: Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, pp. 3027–3036.
46.
GazitTAharonyN (2018) Factors explaining participation in WhatsApp groups: An exploratory study. Aslib Journal of Information Management70(4): 390–413.
47.
GordonIDCameronBDChavesD, et al. (2020) Information seeking behaviors, attitudes, and choices of academic mathematicians. Science and Technology Libraries39(3): 253–280.
48.
GrafBAntoniCH (2020) The relationship between information characteristics and information overload at the workplace – A meta-analysis. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology30(1): 143–158.
49.
GreenbergRBar-IlanJ (2017) Library metrics – Studying academic users information retrieval behavior: A case study of an Israeli university library. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science49(9): 454–467.
50.
GrahamEKWestonSJGerstorfD, et al. (2020) Trajectories of big five personality traits: A coordinated analysis of 16 longitudinal samples. European Journal of Personality34(3): 301–321.
51.
GusenbauerM (2021) The age of abundant scholarly information and its synthesis – A time when ‘just google it’ is no longer enough. Research Synthesis Methods12(6): 684–691.
52.
HalderSRoyAChakrabortyPK (2010) The influence of personality traits on information seeking behavior of students. Malaysian of Library & Information Science15(1): 41–53.
53.
HamlettAGeorgasH (2019) In the wake of discovery: Student perceptions, integration, and instructional design. Journal of Web Librarianship13(3): 230–245.
54.
HardestySSugarmanT (2007) Academic librarians, professional literature, and new technologies: A survey. The Journal of Academic Librarianship33(2): 96–205.
55.
HavivO (2006) Inaction Bias, Self-Efficacy and Escalation of Commitment. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan.
56.
HeinströmJ (2003) Five personality dimensions and their influence on information behavior. Information Research9(1): paper 165.
57.
HeinströmJ (2010) From fear to flow: Personality and information Reactions. Oxford: Chandors.
58.
HeinströmJ (2013) Personality theory. In: WilsonT (ed) Theory in Information Behaviour Research. Sheffield, UK: Eiconics Limited, Chapter4.
59.
HeinströmJSormunenESavolainenR, et al. (2020) Developing an empirical measure of everyday information mastering. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology71(7): 729–741.
60.
HuangC (2022) Social media addiction and personality: A meta-analysis. Asian Journal of Social Psychology25(4): 747–761.
61.
JacksonTWFarzanehP (2012) Theory-based model of factors affecting information overload. International Journal of Information Management32(6): 523–532.
62.
JohnOPDonahueEMKentleRL (1991) The Big Five inventory’ (Versions 4a and 54). Berkeley, CA: University of California, Institute of Personality and Social Research.
63.
JohnsonJD (2014) Controlling the flood: When more of a dose is less. Journal of Documentation70(3): 330–345.
64.
KangWGuzmanKMalvasoA (2023) Big five personality traits in the workplace: Investigating personality differences between employees, supervisors, managers, and entrepreneurs. Frontiers in Psychology14(March): 1–8.
65.
KazazS (2004) From Stress to Empowerment: Personal and Organizational Variables That Lower Work Stress and Contribute to the Empowerment Feeling at Work. Master’s Thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan.
66.
KeeranP (2014) Research in the Humanities. In KeeranPLevine-ClarkM (eds) Research Within the Discipline: Foundations for Reference and Library Instruction. 2nd edn.Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 1–34.
67.
KoellingGRussoA (2021) Teaching assistants’ research assignments and information literacy’Portal: Libraries and the Academy21(4): 773–795.
68.
KwonNSongH (2011) Personality traits, gender, and information competency among college students. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science16(1): 87–107.
69.
LampropoulosGAnastasiadisTSiakasK, et al. (2022) The Impact of personality traits on social media use and engagement: An overview. International Journal on Social and Education Sciences4(1): 34–51.
70.
LauriLVirkusSHeidmetsM (2021) Information cultures and strategies for coping with information overload: Case of Estonian higher education institutions. Journal of Documentation77(2): 518–541.
71.
LazarusRS (1993) Coping theory and research: Past, present, and future. Psychosomatic Medicine55(3): 234–247.
72.
LazarusRSFolkmanS (1984) Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.
73.
LuYPapagiannidisSAlamanosE (2019) Exploring the emotional antecedents and outcomes of technology acceptance. Computers in Human Behavior90: 153–169.
74.
MatthesJKarsayKSchmuckD, et al. (2020) Too much to handle: Impact of mobile social networking sites on information overload, depressive symptoms, and well-being. Computers in Human Behavior105: 106217.
75.
McAdamsDP (1992) The five-factor model in personality: A critical appraisal. Journal of Personality60(2): 329–361.
76.
McAdamsDPOlsonB (2010) Personality development: Continuity and change over the life course. In: FiskeSSchacterDSternbergR (eds) Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 61. Annual Reviews, Inc, pp: 517–542.
77.
McClellandDCKoestnerRWeinbergerJ (1989) How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ?Psychological Review96(4): 690–702.
78.
McCraeRRCostaPTJr (2013) Introduction to the empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor model of personality traits. In: WidigerTACostaPT Jr (eds) Personality Disorders and the Five-Factor Model of Personality, 3rd ed. American Psychological Association. pp 15–27.
79.
McCraeRRJohnOP (1992) An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality60(2): 175–215.
80.
MillerGA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus tow: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review63(2): 81–97.
81.
MooreLJVineSJWilsonMR, et al. (2012) The effect of challenge and threat states on performance: An examination of potential mechanisms. Psychophysiology49(10): 1417–1425.
82.
NahlD (2004) Measuring the affective information environment of web searchers. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology41(1): 191–197.
83.
NahlD (2006) Affective and cognitive information behavior: Interaction effects in internet use. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology42(1).
84.
Ocón PalmaMCSeegerAMHeinzlA (2020) Mitigating information overload in e-commerce interactions with conversational agents. In: DavisFRiedlRVom BrockeJ, et al. (eds) Information Systems and Neuroscience, Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisationvol. 32. Cham: Springer. pp. 207–215.
85.
ParkCLFolkmanS (1997) Meaning in the context of stress and coping. Review of General Psychology1(2): 115–144.
86.
PavlouPAFygensonM (2006) Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Quarterly30(1): 115–143.
87.
PenleyJATomakaJ (2002) Associations among the Big Five, emotional responses, and coping with acute stress. Personality and Individual Differences32(7): 1215–1228.
88.
PontisSBlandfordAGreifenederE, et al. (2017) Keeping up to date: An academic researcher’s information journey. Journal of the Association for the Information Science and Technology68(1): 22–35.
89.
PowersA (2010) Librarian’s anxiety? How community college librarians feel about their reference desk service. Community and Junior College Libraries16(1):54–70.
90.
RapeeRMHeimbergRG (1997) A cognitive–behavioral model of anxiety in social phobia. Behavior Research and Therapy35(8): 741–756.
91.
RoetzelPG (2019) Information overload in the information age: A review of the literature from business administration, business psychology, and related disciplines with a bibliometric approach and framework development. Business Research12(2): 479–522.
92.
SadanE (2008) Empowerment as a key term in contemporary humanization discourse. In: AloniN (ed) Empowering Dialogues in the Humanistic Education. Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad. pp. 48–67
93.
SavolainenR (2007) Filtering and withdrawing: Strategies for coping with information overload in everyday contexts. Journal of Information Science33(5): 611–621.
94.
SavolainenR (2014) Emotions as motivators for information seeking: A conceptual analysis. Library and Information Science Research36(1): 59–65.
95.
SavolainenR (2015) Cognitive barriers to information seeking: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Information Science41(5): 613–623.
96.
SchmittJBDebbeltCA.SchneiderFB (2018) Too much information? Predictors of information overload in the context of online news exposure. Information, Communication & Society21(8): 1151–1167.
97.
ShachafOAharonyNBaruchsonS (2016) The effects of information overload on reference librarians. Library and Information Science Research38(4): 301–307.
98.
SchmidtTWolffC (2016) Personality and information behavior in web search. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology53(1): 1–6.
99.
ShonfeldMAharonyNNadel-KritzN (2022) Teachers’ perceived information literacy self-efficacy. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science54(3): 494–507.
100.
ShkediA (2003) Words of Meaning Qualitative Research - Theory and Practice. Tel-Aviv: Ramot.
101.
StewartS (2019) To What Extent Do Library and Information Professionals Actively Manage Change? An Investigation into Organizations Based in London and Surrounding Areas. PhD Thesis. City, University of London.
102.
StokesPPriharjoRUrquhartC (2021) Validation of information-seeking behavior of nursing students confirms most profiles but also indicates desirable changes for information literacy support. Journal of Documentation77(3): 680–702.
103.
StričevićIRubinićD (2023) Librarians’ assistance to students in the information seeking process: Perspectives of higher education teachers and librarians. Journal of Academic Librarianship49(1): paper 102629.
104.
TaddeiSContenaB (2013) Privacy, trust and control: Which relationships with online self-disclosure?Computers in Human Behavior29(3): 821–826.
105.
TellegenA (1993) Folk concepts and psychological concepts of personality and personality disorder. Psychological Inquiry4: 122–130.
106.
TenopirCChristianLKaufmanJ (2019) Seeking, reading, and use of scholarly articles: An international study of perceptions and behavior of researchers. Publications7(1): 18.
107.
TidlineTJ (2010) Information overload. In BatesMJMaackNL (eds). Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, 3rd edn., pp. 2483–2494.
108.
UsluNADurakHY (2022) The relationships between university students’ information-seeking strategies, social-media specific epistemological beliefs, information literacy, and personality traits. Library and Information Science Research44(2): 101155.
109.
VanScoyA (2013) Fully engaged practice and emotional connection: Aspects of the practitioner perspective of reference and information service. Library and Information Science Research35(4), 272–278.
110.
VanScoyA (2015) Uncertainty in reference and information service. Information Research20(1), 227–230.
111.
VanScoyAHandsASŠvabK, et al. (2024) Surfacing the ‘silent foundation’: which information behaviour theories are relevant to public library reference service?Information Research29(2): 589–601.
112.
WangTVossJG (2022) Information overload in patient education: A Wilsonian concept analysis. Nursing Science Quarterly35(3): 341–349.
113.
WilmotMPWanbergCRKammeyer-MuellerJD, et al. (2019) Extraversion advantages at work: A quantitative review and synthesis of the meta-analytic evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology104(12):1447–1470.
114.
WilsonP (1996) Interdisciplinary research and the information overload. Library Trends44(2): 192–204.
115.
WilliamsonJEakerPELounsburyJ (2012) The information overload scale. Paper presented at The Association for Information Science & Technology (ASIST) Conference, Baltomore, MD.
116.
WongMA (2022) “The teaching of reference must keep pace”: Teaching sources and searching in evolving reference environment. Library Trends71(1): 36–51.
117.
WoodBAGuimaraesABHolmCE, et al. (2020) Academic librarian burnout: A survey using the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI). Journal of Library Administration60(5): 512–531.
118.
WoolfsonB (2010) Information Overload and Other Problems of Legal Information Provision. Master’s Thesis. City, University of London.
119.
WurmanRS (2001) Information Anxiety 2. Indianapolis, Ind: Que.
120.
YanYZhaDYanA, et al. (2016) Exploring the effect of individual differences on self-efficacy in getting information. Information Development32(4): 1097–1108.
121.
YatcillaJKFosmireM (2014) Research in the sciences. In: KeeranP.Levine-ClarkM (eds) Research Within the Discipline: Foundations for Reference Library Instruction, 2nd edn.Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 185–201.
122.
Yevelson-ShorsherABronsteinJ (2018) Three perspectives on information literacy in academia: Talking to librarians, faculty, and students. College & Research Libraries79(4): 535–553.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
