View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Saved information is remembered less well than deleted information, if the saving process is perceived as reliable.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Saved information is remembered less well than deleted information, if the saving process is perceived as reliable.
Authors: Schooler, Joel N. (AUTHOR), Storm, Benjamin C. (AUTHOR)
Source: Memory. Oct 2021, Vol. 29 Issue 9, p1101-1110. 10p.
Subjects: Memory, Trivia contests, Computers
Abstract: Prior research has shown that people are more likely to remember information that is deleted from a computer than information that is saved on a computer, presumably because saving serves as a form of cognitive offloading. Given recent concerns about the robustness and replicability of this "Google Effect," we conducted two experiments seeking to replicate and extend the phenomenon by identifying a potential boundary condition for when it is observed. In Experiment 1, we replicated the Google Effect, but only when participants experienced a practice phase demonstrating the reliability of the saving process. No evidence of a Google Effect was observed when participants experienced a practice phase demonstrating the saving process to be unreliable. In Experiment 2, we replicated the results of Experiment 1 in the reliable condition, while demonstrating the effect to be robust across 10 different topics of trivia statements. Taken together, these results suggest that the Google Effect is a replicable phenomenon, but that the perceived reliability of the saving process is critical for determining whether it is observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Memory is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: pbh
DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
An: 153474598
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Saved information is remembered less well than deleted information, if the saving process is perceived as reliable.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Schooler%2C+Joel+N%2E%22">Schooler, Joel N.</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Storm%2C+Benjamin+C%2E%22">Storm, Benjamin C.</searchLink> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Memory%22">Memory</searchLink>. Oct 2021, Vol. 29 Issue 9, p1101-1110. 10p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Memory%22">Memory</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Trivia+contests%22">Trivia contests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computers%22">Computers</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Prior research has shown that people are more likely to remember information that is deleted from a computer than information that is saved on a computer, presumably because saving serves as a form of cognitive offloading. Given recent concerns about the robustness and replicability of this "Google Effect," we conducted two experiments seeking to replicate and extend the phenomenon by identifying a potential boundary condition for when it is observed. In Experiment 1, we replicated the Google Effect, but only when participants experienced a practice phase demonstrating the reliability of the saving process. No evidence of a Google Effect was observed when participants experienced a practice phase demonstrating the saving process to be unreliable. In Experiment 2, we replicated the results of Experiment 1 in the reliable condition, while demonstrating the effect to be robust across 10 different topics of trivia statements. Taken together, these results suggest that the Google Effect is a replicable phenomenon, but that the perceived reliability of the saving process is critical for determining whether it is observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Memory is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=153474598
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/09658211.2021.1962356
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 1101
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Memory
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Trivia contests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computers
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Saved information is remembered less well than deleted information, if the saving process is perceived as reliable.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Schooler, Joel N.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Storm, Benjamin C.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Text: Oct 2021
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 09658211
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 29
            – Type: issue
              Value: 9
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Memory
              Type: main
ResultId 1