Mitigating Information Overload in e-Commerce Interactions with Conversational Agents

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 32)


Information overload influences users’ satisfaction and performance when completing a complex task. In e-commerce interactions, this has the effect that customers’ decision making becomes confused, less accurate and less effective. For websites, numerous countermeasures to mitigate information overload have been presented, whereas not many attempts have been made to reduce cognitive load when conversational agents are used instead. Conversational agents are expected to increase the perceived overload due to the voice interface characteristics. In this pilot study, the cognitive load of subjects was measured during an online shopping task which required different custom shopping skills for Amazon Alexa. It was tested if the countermeasure filtered repetition can reduce subjects’ perceived overload when using the voice assistant and which load differences can be found in comparison to a shopping website. To measure the mental load, the skin conductance level was recorded.


Information overload Conversational agents Skin conductance level 


  1. 1.
    Anteil der Online-Käufer an der Bevölkerung in Deutschland von 2000 bis 2016.
  2. 2.
    Jacoby, J.: Information load and decision quality: Some contested issues. Journal of Marketing Research, 569–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huffman, C., & Kahn, B. E. (1998). Variety for sales: Mass customization or mass confusion? Journal for Retailing, 74(4), 491–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacoby, J., & Morrin, M. (1998). “Not manufactured or authorized by …”: Recent federal cases involving trademark disclaimers. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17(1), 97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mitchell, V.-W., & Papavassiliou, V. (1999). Marketing causes and implications for consumer confusion. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 8(4), 319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eppler, M., & Mengis, J. (2004). The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing. Information Society, 20(5), 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lester, J., Branting, K., & Mott, B. (2004). Conversational agents. In The Practical Handbook of Internet Computing (pp. 220–240).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schmutz, P. Heinz, S., Métrailler, Y., & Opwis, K. (2009). Cognitive load in eCommerce applications—Measurement and effects on user satisfaction. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, 1–9.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cohen M. J., Giangola J. P., Balogh, J. (2004). Voice user interface design (pp. 6ff). Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schnelle, D., & Lyardet, F. (2006). Voice user interface design patterns. In Proceedings of 11th European Conference on Pattern Languages of Programs EuroPlopm (pp. 1–27).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Singh, A.-M., Marcus, N., & Ayres, P. (2012). The transient information effect: Investigating the impact of segmentation on spoken and written text. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(6), 848–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leahy, W., & Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory, modality of presentation and the transient information effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(6), 943–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wong, A., Leahy, W., Marcus, N., & Sweller, J. (2012). Cognitive load theory the transient information effect and e-learning. Learning and Instruction, 449–457.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brünken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2002). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educationl Psychology, 38(1), 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vazquez-Alvarez, Y., & Brewster S. (2011). Eyes-free multitasking: The effect of cognitive load on mobile spatial audio interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems—CHI’11 (pp. 2173–2176).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wood, E., Zivcakova, L., Gentile, P., Archer, K., De Pasquale, D., & Nosko, A. (2012). Examining the impact of off-task multi-tasking with technology on real-time classroom learning. Computers & Education, 58(1), 365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shi, Y., Ruiz, N., Taib, R., Choi, E., & Chen, F. (2007). Galvanic skin response (GSR) as an index of cognitive load. In CHI’07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2651–2656).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hart, S. G., & Straveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schmutz, P., Roth, S. P., Sechler, M., & Opwis, K. (2010). Designing product listing pages—Effects on sales and users’ cognitive workload. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68, 423–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Camelot ITLab GmbHMannheimGermany
  2. 2.University of MannheimMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations