Two Key Studies of the negative influence of technologies on cognitive processes: Sparrow et al. (2011); Rosen et al. (2011) (HL IB Psychology)

Key study 1: Sparrow et al. (2011)

Aim: To investigate the relationship between memory, technology, and the ‘Google effect’.

Participants: The original journal article does not give any details of the sample demographic. 

Procedure: Participants were asked to learn some new items of trivia that they had not known before the experiment and to enter this information into a computer. The independent variable consisted of two conditions: 

• Condition 1: The participants were told that the information they had entered into the computer would be saved and that they would be able to access it at a later date

• Condition 2: The participants were told that the information they had entered into the computer would be deleted

• Half of the participants in both condition 1 and condition 2 were told that they would have to remember the information they had learned as they would need it at some point later

Participants then completed a recognition task in which they were shown the 30 trivia statements, with half of them altered slightly. Participants were asked to make judgements about each statement: Is this exactly what you read earlier? Has the statement been saved or deleted? Has the statement been saved to a folder, if so which one?

Results: In condition 1 participants who were told that they could access the information at a later date did not recall it as well as participants who were told that the information would be deleted.  

Conclusion: The ‘Google effect’ i.e. reliance on technology to retain information may lead to ‘digital amnesia’, the state of being overly dependent on electronic sources to store and retrieve information and this may have a negative impact on memory.

Evaluation of Sparrow et al. (2011)

Strengths

• These findings could be used to inform intervention strategies to improve recall in educational settings i.e. to encourage children not to rely on electronic forms of memory but instead to work on their own memory ability

• The findings may reflect the idea that individual memory is changing to that of a ‘shared memory’ with the internet being the receptacle for information that is accessible to many rather than just to the individual which in turn increases the validity of the findings

Limitations

• In real life people may work harder to remember key information, particularly if it is of personal significance to them which means that this study lacks ecological validity

• It is almost impossible to generalise the results as nothing is known of the sample demographic i.e. were they similar in age? Were they all familiar with technology?
  Were they from a range of cultures or was the sample ethnocentric?

Key terms:

Google effect 

Digital amnesia 

Recognition task

Key study 2: Rosen et al. (2011)

Aim: To examine the extent to which texting during a lecture may impact recall of the lesson.

Participants: 185 college students (80% female; 20% male; age range 18-66 years; mean age=25 years).  83% of the sample was born between 1980 and 1989, and so belong to what is called the ‘Net Generation’, also known as ‘digital natives’. 

Procedure: 

• Participants were told that they were going to view a 30-minute videotaped lecture relevant to their course, and that during the session some of them would receive texts from the researchers, to which they should respond as promptly as possible

• Participants were informed that they would be tested on the material after the lecture 

• There were three conditions of the independent variable

• Condition 1: The 4-text condition (4 texts were sent to participants in this condition)

• Condition 2: The 8-text condition (8 texts were sent to participants in this condition)

• Condition 3: The no-text condition (no texts were sent to participants in this condition)

• After the lecture participants were asked to list information about the text messages, including time received, whether a response was sent and the number of words in the response

• The participants also noted any personal text messages they received during the lecture

• Participants were also asked questions about their typical texting behaviours in the classroom, and their attitudes about whether it was acceptable to text during class and whether texting during lectures was harmful to their ability to learn the material

Results: 

• 75% of participants agreed that receiving and sending texts negatively impacts the ability to learn from a lecture, but 40% agreed it was acceptable to text during a lecture

• 18% stated they never responded to a text in class, and 67% stated that they would respond to a friend’s text, and 75% would respond to a text from a family member

• The no/low texting group (conditions 1 and 3) performed 10.6% (memory score) better than the high texting group

• The test score was significantly negatively correlated with the total number of words sent and received i.e. the more texts sent/received the lower the score on the memory test

• Those participants who chose to wait more than 4-5 minutes to respond to a text message did substantially better in the test than those who responded more rapidly 

Conclusion: Students should be taught metacognitive strategies that focus on when it is appropriate to take a break and when it is important to focus without distractions in order to maximise their learning.

Evaluation of Rosen et al. (2011)

Strengths

• 83% of the sample was born between 1980 and 1989 which makes them ideal for this procedure as participants had to be familiar with and adept at texting

• The participants were in a familiar situation, doing what they would normally be doing so some ecological validity can be claimed

Limitations

• Although, as stated above, there is some ecological validity to this study the students watched a recorded lecture and were allocated to a condition by researchers (some of whom were texted by the researchers) which means that there are still artificial elements to the procedure

• This is a snapshot design so the results cannot point to the long-term effects of multitasking during a lecture i.e. texting whilst also trying to follow the lecture

Key terms:

Net Generation 

Digital natives 

Metacognition

One or two sneaky texts in a lesson won’t hurt…will they?...