Two Key Studies of the Negative Influence of Technologies on Cognitive Processes (DP IB Psychology)
Revision Note
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?...
Examiner Tips and Tricks
Make sure that you don’t over-state any findings: Rosen et al. (2011) showed some difference in recall based on whether or not texting was done during the lecture but this was not a huge difference (10.6%) so make sure that you acknowledge this in your evaluation of the study.
Worked Example
EXTENDED RESPONSE QUESTION (ERQ)
22 MARKS
The question is, ‘Discuss the positive and/or negative influences of modern technologies on cognitive processes’. [22]
This command term requires you to offer a balanced range of arguments on the topic. Have a look at these exemplar paragraphs for guidance:
The findings of Rosen et al. (2011) suggest that it is not technology itself which has a negative influence on memory but how it is used and responded to that is the crux of the problem. The study found that delaying replying to a text message mediates any negative effect on memory and allows for better multitasking. These results suggest that when interruptions can be deferred users have a strong tendency to focus on the main task until mental workload has been minimised. This contradicts the idea that multitasking produces only undesirable effects and impacts learning negatively.
There is a school of thought which argues that digital technology actively and directly enhances memory via data input/output tools and electronic storage. Data-gathering and analysis is enhanced by computers, online databases, virtual simulations and online collaboration tools, all of which supplement and support our limited human long-term memory. In this way it could be argued that a shared, digital consciousness actually serves to benefit human memory.
You've read 0 of your 5 free revision notes this week
Sign up now. It’s free!
Did this page help you?