Reconsidering the “Google Effect”: Reduced Productivity in Externalized Information Recognition Is Expedient

The decrease in an ability to independently recall information when it is externalized (e. g., stored on digital devices), also known as the “Google effect”, has become a subject of empirical investigation and a growing concern regarding the Internet’s negative impact on cognition. Several studies have questioned the reproducibility of this effect; however, recent work has replicated it under conditions where participants were confident in the reliability of subsequent access to the information, or in other words, in their ability to use the information in future activities. The findings of this study suggest that the mnemonic “Google effect” may be expedient, meaning that the reduction in recall of information stored on an external source does not occur “automatically”, as previously thought, but in accordance with an individual’s current purposeful and holistic activity. To test this hypothesis, we conducted an empirical study (N = 69, Me = 20 years) that simulated the work of detective, who assisted the police in investigating crimes. Initially, participants were presented with graphic stimuli (“clues”), with instructions based on a narrative explaining what action to take with each (delete, save,  scroll through) and how much the material would be needed later (remember the clue, do not remember, or no clear objective). One week later, there was a memory test that involved recognizing and selecting stimuli from the first part, as part of the investigative activity in a detective story. Significantly, clues that needed to be remembered and deleted were recognized more often compared to those that needed to be remembered and saved or skipped. Meanwhile, clues that did not need to be remembered were recognized at the same level regardless of the action taken, significantly better than guess level. Thus, the mnemonic “Google effect” was reproduced, but only under conditions where the externalization of information was purposeful.

Bono, R., Alarcon, R., Blanca, M. J. (2021). Report quality of generalized linear mixed models in psychology: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 666182.

Brabazon, T. (2006). The Google effect: Googling, blogging, wikis and the flattening of expertise. Libri, 56 (3), 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1515/libr.2006.157

Brinkmann, L., Baumann, F., Bonnefon, J. F., Derex, M., Muller, T. F., Nussberger, A. M., Czaplicka, A., Acerbi, A., Griffits, Th. L., Henrich, J., Leibo, J. Z., McElreath, R., Oudeyer, P. Yv., Stray, J., Rahwan, I. (2023).

Machine culture. Nature Human Behaviour, 7 (11), 1855–1868.

Chu, K. (2015). Agent-technology interactions: Is the computer a transactive memory partner? Dissertation Thesis. Sydney, University of Sydney.

Dellermann, D., Ebel, P., Sollner, M., Leimeister, J. M. (2019). Hybrid intelligence. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 61 (5), 637–643.

Fabri, L., Hackel, B., Oberlander, A. M., Rieg, M., Stohr, A. (2023). Disentangling Human-AI Hybrids. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 65 (6), 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-023-00810-1

Falikman, M. V. (2020). Digital mediation: New frontiers of the cultural-historical approach. Voprosy psikhologii, 2, 3–14. (In Russian)

Fayola, E., Voiskunsky, A. E., Bogacheva, N. V. (2016). Augmented human: The formation of cyberconsciousness. Voprosy filosofii, 3, 147–162. (In Russian)

Friede, E. T. (2013). Googling to Forget: The Cognitive Processing of Internet Search. CMC Senior Theses. Claremont, Claremont McKenna College.

Gliebus, G. P. (2018). Memory dysfunction. Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology, 24 (3), 727–744. 

Heiling, H. M., Rashid, N. U., Li, Q., Ibrahim, J. G. (2024). glmmPen: High dimensional Penalized Generalized

Linear Mixed Models. The R Journal, 15 (4), 106–128. https://doi.org/10.32614/rj-2023-086

Heyes, C. (2018). Cognitive Gadgets: The cultural evolution of thinking. Harvard, Harvard University Press.

Johnson, B. (2017). Learning disabilities in children: Epidemiology, risk factors and importance of early intervention. BMH Medical Journal, 4 (1), 31–37.

Kornilova, T. V., Tikhomirov, O. K. (1990). The acceptance of intellectual decisions in dialogue with a computer. Moscow, Moscow University Press. (In Russian)

Laskov, G. D., Bukinich, A. M., Nourkova, V. V. (2019). Mnemonic “Google-effect” in the context of gaming simulation of a detective activity. Digital Society in Cultural-historical paradigm (collective monograph) (pp. 195–202). Moscow, Moscow Pedagogical University Press. (In Russian)

Moroshkina, N. V., Zverev, I. V., Nezdoimyshapko, L. A., Tikhonov, R. V. (2023). Metacognitive monitoring and control in the situation of distributed cognition. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Psychology, 13 (3), 324–346. (In Russian)

Nourkova, V. V. (2019). The evolutionary turn of cultural-historical psychology and the theory of cognitive gadgets: Analogs or homologs? Voprosy psikhologii, 4, 29–40. (In Russian)

Pinker, S. (2011). Not at all. In: J. Brockman (ed.). Is the Internet changing the way you think? The net’s impact on our minds and future (pp. 86–87). New York, HarperCollins.

Pylaeva, N. M., Akhutina, T. V. (2012). Neuropsychology and school. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Ser. 14. Psikhologiia, 2, 116–122. (In Russian) Rajaram, S., Marsh, E. (2019). Cognition in the Internet age: What are the important questions? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8, 46–49. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.jarmac.2019.01.004

Risko, E. F. (2019). Examining the implications of internet usage for memory and cognition: Prospects and promise. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8 (1), 36–39.

Schooler, J. N., Storm, B. C. (2021). Saved information is remembered less well than deleted information, if the saving process is perceived as reliable. Memory, 29 (9), 1101–1110.

Schwartz, A. E., Hopkins, B. G., Stiefel, L. (2021). The effects of special education on the academic performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 40 (2), 480–520.

Skulmowski, A. (2023). The cognitive architecture of digital externalization. Educational Psychology Review, 35 (4), 1–21.

Sparrow, B., Liu, J., Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333 (6043), 776–778.

Stepanova, M. A. (2021). Interiorization and/or exteriorization. Voprosy psikhologii, 2, 91–105. (In Russian)

Storm, B. C., Soares, J. S. (2021). Memory in the digital age. In: M. J. Kahana, A. D. Wagner (eds). Handbook of Human Memory: Foundations and applications. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Tattersall, I. (2001). Evolution, genes, and behavior. Zygon, 36 (4), 657–666.

Tikhomirov, O. K. (1976). Artificial intelligence and psychology. Moscow, Nauka Publ. (In Russian)

Vygotsky, L. S., Zaporozhets, A. V. (1984). Problems of general psychology. In: Sobranie sochinenii: v 6 t. T. 2: Problemy obshchei psikhoogii. Moscow, Pedagogika Publ. (In Russian)

Ward, A. F. (2013). Supernormal: How the Internet is changing our memories and our minds. Psychological Inquiry, 24 (4), 341–348.

Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In: Theories of Group Behavior (pp. 185–208). New York, Springer New York.