Evaluación de estilo de aprendizaje.

Analysis of the recommendations made by participants indicate variability in the specificity of the recommendations across tasks and within tasks as shown in Table 5.5. Most of the recommendations made were specific (n=63) or described at a high level of detail but ambiguously (n=16), especially for the mesh wifi (n=14), donate car (n=17), and move dogs tasks (n=14). Fewer participants made recommendations that were specific or described unambiguously for the other topics. The recommendation decisions for each topic are summarized below with the tasks with the most specific responses discussed first.

For the mesh wifi task, most participants made a very specific recommendation (n=9): their friend should wait until they are settled to decide if they need mesh, their friend does not need mesh wifi, or the participant recommended a specific product for their friend to buy. Five other participants described a product in detail but did not provide enough detail for the friend to choose without doing some additional research: a brand and product line but not a model; a brand plus the price but no mention of the product line, model, or store/website; or a brand with a rating (“the one rated the best”) without a mention of who gave the rating. One other participant recommended a type of option by recommending a brand name. One participant recommended a general approach by recommending an information source by URL to their friend to use to choose their own product.

For the move dogs task, most participants made (n=5) or described (n=9) a specific recommendation: a specific company to use to move the dogs by ground, a specific airline to use to fly the dogs, or offered to drive the dogs to their new home. One participant recommended a company that connects people with independent movers that their friend could use to try to find someone to move their dogs.

For the board dogs task, the first version of the board dog task asked participants to recommend somebody to take care of their pets while their friend traveled (n=7). Only one participant recommended a specific pet sitter; however, this pet sitter was in Chapel Hill and would not be useful to their friend who was moving to Austin. Other participants did not recommend someone to watch the dogs but recommended using a specified website to find a petsitter, contacting an organization for pet sitters, or asking a new colleague. The second version of this task asked participants to recommend a place to board their dogs in Austin. Nine participants made specific recommendations including a specific boarding kennel, a specific pet sitting service, or boarding at a specific veterinary office. Two of the participants who made specific boarding recommendations left off a key detail that may have made it more difficult for their friend: one recommended

Table 5.5: Study 1 recommendations: specificity, accuracy, and information sources.

item overall mesh

wifi move dogs board dogs housing donate car trans. car plants Specificity of recommendation specific option 63 9 9 9 6 16 11 3 described 16 5 5 1 1 1 1 2 type 7 1 0 0 0 1 2 3 general approach 14 1 1 7 2 0 3 0 none 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Accuracy of recommendation inline 95 14 15 15 9 18 17 7 intentionally diff 4 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 out of line 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0

Recommended specific information source?

yes 86 15 12 11 9 17 14 8

no 15 1 3 6 1 1 3 0

nt asks 101 16 15 17 10 18 17 8

an organization that only boards dogs that had previously completed their training program, and the other did not indicate which location in Austin. The one participant who did not make a specific recommendation recommended several information sources (websites and people) their friend could use to make their own decision including putting their friend in contact with another friend who lives in Austin and has dogs.

For the short-term housing task, six participants made specific recommendations such as apartment complexes or extended stay hotels. Another participant described finding several options on Craigslist and gave some information about one option but did not include enough details for their friend to be able to find it. Two participants recommended contacting someone for more information: one recommended their friend contact a real estate agency (but did not specify which agency) and another would connect their friend with another friend who lives in Austin. One participant said they searched for options, but they could not make any recommendation for their friend without knowing the dates.

For the donate car task, nearly all participants recommended an organization to which to donate the car (e.g., Wheels for Hope, Kidney Foundation, Orange Habitat, WUNC, etc.). One participant recommended a type of option (“hospice”).

For the transport car task, most participants made specific recommendations: specific companies that specialize in transporting cars, a specific company that connects people to auto movers, or having their regular

mover transport the car. One participant volunteered to drive the friend’s car with their partner in exchange for plane tickets home. Five other participants made less specific recommendations including hiring an unspecified company, recommending a website their friend could use to find a professional, or recommending their friend contact some companies as they do their own research. Four of the participants who made specific recommendations mentioned that they did not want to input information online to get specific quotes but would have in real life.

For the plants task, three participants made a specific recommendations for their friend: they need to move the plants themselves, use a specific moving company, or give them to a specific organization that will redistribute the plants. The other five participants made less specific recommendations including selling the plants, or giving the plants away to friends, family, or to an unspecified recipient.

5.4.1 Recommendations without searching. As shown in Table 6.6 and described in Section 5.2.3, there were 15 tasks in which participants (a) thought they could make a good recommendation without searching but searched anyway (npar t=5), (b) thought they could make a good recommendation without

searching and did not search (npar t=5), (c) or did not think they could make a good recommendation without

searching and did not search (npar t=5). The recommendations made in these tasks are described in more

detail below.

Since one of the purposes of Study 1 was to understand if/when participants made recommendations without searching, these tasks are described in more detail below.

For five tasks on three topics (move dogs=2, donate car=2, transport car=1), participants thought they could make good recommendations before starting the task but searched anyway. In two tasks, participants searched for a specific company to recommend (move dogs, transport car topics). In the other tasks, the participants already had a recommendation in mind but searched to verify what they thought they knew. One searched to find the cost of flying to make sure that offering to drive was worth the financial savings (move dogs), and another searched to find the donation policy for the car donation task to verify the organization they knew about accepted cars (donate car). One participant searched to find additional information about an organization they already knew and noted in the interview that they would may or may not havesearched before recommending in real life (donate car).

For five tasks, participants thought they could make a good recommendation without searching and did not search for tasks on two topics: donating a car and plants. For the car donation task, the two participants

knew the organization they recommended well, and one had previously donated a car to the organization they recommended. For the plants task, the three participants recommended selling or giving away plants to an unspecified person (n=3).

For five tasks, participants did not search and did not think they could make a good recommendation before the task. These participants made recommendations that were not specific: they recommended the friend find someone to drive their car (n=1), offered to work with their friend or connect their friend to another person (n=2), recommended donating a car to an unspecified hospice (n=1), or suggested giving plants to unspecified friends or family (n=1).