The Google Effect: Is the Internet making us stupid?

By Stephen Venneman

What is the Google Effect?

The popular trivia game, “Geeks Who Drink” discourage it. So do Trivial Pursuit players and the order line workers at Illegal Pete’s, but in any other circumstance the Google Effect is our default setting when it comes to remembering anything. Need an answer? Google it! Stuck on a definition for a word? Google it! How do you ask for the bathroom in Dutch? Google it!

The Google Effect is a term that researchers use to refer to the cognitive effect of easy access to information. It is the result of near-constant Internet access and the ease of accessing web search engines via smartphones, tablets, or laptop computers. The effect, researchers say, comes from our reliance on the Internet to store our memories for us. We take a picture on vacation and post it to social media. Our intent is to share the event, but the reality is that once that memory is uploaded our brains dispose of that event to make room for new information. The hazard of the Google Effect, and also possibly the benefit, is the inability to form connections between new information and old memories. Hazard, because researchers may miss critical connections between established information and new data. Valuable time and resources get wasted when scientists have to look up information that should be stored in their long-term memory. Benefit, because when those same researchers delve into stored information, they are not burdened by memories and are therefore able to be more creative, form new connections that might not have been formed, and explore topics in new ways.

A History Lesson

People have always recorded information in one form or another. From cave paintings to cuneiform markings in clay to metadata on Internet usage, we are always surrounded by information that is not specifically relevant to our daily lives. Doctors remember anatomy so we don’t have to. Engineers understand the tensile strength of steel I-beams so we don’t have to. With this method of information storage, we could simply ask the doctor or the engineer a question within their area of expertise, and we would expect that they would do the same when they need information that is outside their knowledge. Today, the Internet can provide us with the answers we seek, regardless of the subject. For example, an A36 steel beam can support up to 36,000 pounds per square inch without bending or deforming. I just looked that up. What this means is, we no longer have to specialize our memories to recall important information.

The problem seems to be growing as more people have access to smartphones. A 2015 report by The Pew Research Center states that 68% of Americans have a smartphone, up from 35% in 2011. Ownership of tablet devices has increased as well, from 3% to 45% over the same time frame. Add to that a study by Kaspersky Labs that shows proximity to these devices, particularly smartphones, negatively affects concentration, and the effect of digital devices begins to show itself.

So What?

What is the effect of depending on technology to remember information or life events? As the designation, “Digital Amnesia,” alludes, we forget the event because we know it is stored elsewhere. In other words, we record an event, save or post it, then delete it from our memory to ensure space is available for more important information.

A study published in 2014 examined just one aspect of the Google Effect, the act of photographing an object rather than viewing it with the naked eye. A group of students went on a guided tour of a museum. Each student received a list of objects and a digital camera, and instructions to either look at the item for 20 seconds before taking a photo or look at the item for 30 seconds with no photo. The students were then brought back in the next day and asked about the items on the tour. The data show the students remembered more from just observing the item compared to taking a picture. The researchers concluded that, “the act of photographing the object appears to enable people to dismiss the object from memory, thereby relying on the external devise [sic] of the camera to remember for them.” Henkel’s research supported a study from 2011 on the effect of instant access to information on human cognitive ability. In the 2011 study, researchers concluded that people tend to remember where information is stored rather than the information itself. In this case, the research subjects were relying on the Internet or a computer’s file system to remember for them. Kaspersky Labs continued the research studies of Sparrow and her colleagues as well as Henkel, addressing not only Digital Amnesia but the apparent vulnerability of such digital devices to loss or illegal access by hackers.

How Extensive is This?

Earlier I mentioned the Pew Research Center survey of technology device ownership. As a reminder, Americans are buying more smart phones and tablets. The more devices we own, the more opportunities we have to search for information on the Internet. In 2011, Google alone recorded more than 1.1 trillion web searches. The following year, that number increased by more than 100 billion. As of October 23, 2016, more than 1.45 trillion Google searches took place. There were still 69 days left in the year.

Where is the explosive growth of Google searches leading us? Dr. C. S. Schreiner recounts a story of a friend who, turned back from a weekend drive in Japan because the GPS in his rental car had malfunctioned. Schreiner points out that his friend speaks Japanese and has visited the area before, but his friend says he was not comfortable without the GPS. As Schreiner puts it, “it is not just memory that is being outsourced to technology; he outsourced common sense spatial orientation to the GPS.”

Sadly, in the same article Schreiner recounts a staff meeting where university administrators encouraged staff members to embrace the new technology, to step away from the rote memorization of facts such as dates, names, and other errata and instead focus on context, analysis, and critical thinking. Schreiner disagreed. Without the ability to recall pieces of information such as names and dates, he said, we lose the ability to critically analyze data and put it into context. Without the previous data to draw on, there is no context, no way to see how new information fits. Schreiner, who teaches English at the University of Guam, believes that it is through retention that critical thought is possible. He points out how actors, by memorizing scripts and performing a role, seemingly become the characters they portray. Retention, he says, creates the framework that allows the human spirit to flourish.

Effect on Educators

Easy access to information is certainly a benefit for educators and students. A class can research information immediately and incorporate that information into a lesson. The Pew Research Center interviewed technology experts and the majority agreed that the ability to quickly access information online is an asset. They also agreed that instant access leads to shortened attention spans, impatience, and the increased likelihood of accepting the first piece of information without properly assessing accuracy. Educators are encouraged to explore ways to incorporate multimedia into lesson plans to combat the shortening attention spans of students by using videos, links to texts and information, and other online resources to help capture and hold a student’s attention.

Potential benefits

Journalist Katie Wright points out a possible benefit to Digital Amnesia and the Google Effect. Wright explains that the need to look up information that previously would be in our long-term memory can spark creativity, create new connections, and help lead to innovations. She cites a study, also done by Kaspersky Lab, that indicates people feel more creative when they are not forced to memorize information. The report also shows that 63% of those surveyed say rediscovering older information has led to some of their best ideas.

Conclusion

The available literature shows there is a definite cost for reliance on the Internet and digital devices in the form of diminished memory and a tendency not to vet information. As a result, we may be quick to find needed information and we may be more creative once we have it but we are also less likely to remember important events in our own lives. However, there is the idea that discovery leads to creativity and connections not likely when data is stored in long-term memory. Is that enough, though? I do not think so. We have managed over the past 4,000 years or so to grow from a population of nomads to splitting the atom and sending robots to Mars. We have gone from crude cave paintings to the Mona Lisa. We have advanced from pictographs and hieroglyphics to a multitude of languages with tens of thousands of words, from using a reed and wet clay to count sheep to Shakespeare. It is sad that in the span of 15 years we have gone from curing disease through study and research to cat memes and a complete inability to spell words correctly.

The problem we as members of society face now is, how do we roll back this unfortunate trend? What can we do to go from today’s low-information population to a well-educated populace, knowledgeable on current events and classic literature? That is beyond my scope. I can only hope that I can teach my children that just because you can look it up, does not mean that you should. At least, not on your smart phone.