APM Welcome, APM North West Network Conference, Synergies Across Sectors
2013 02-11 - leeds lab
1. The third half of your brain:
Transactive memory, the internet, and the self
Adrian Ward
2. The Third Half of Your Brain
―We want
Google to be
the third half
of your
brain.‖
3. The Third Half of Your Brain
Transactive Memory
We form ―Transactive Memory
Systems‖ with the people in our
lives—a sense of shared memory
that is bigger than the sum of its
parts.
We don‘t only know what we know.
We also know what our friends and
family know.
6. Transactive Memory
Expertise:
Now, just for today, let‘s assume
that you (one participant) are the
expert in ______, and that you
(the other participant) are the
expert in _____.
Please try to remember the items
for which you are the expert.
7. Transactive Memory
Memory Task:
―Midori is a Japanese
melon liqueur‖
―Luke and Laura got married
on ‗General Hospital.‘‖
―Yeasts reproduce by budding.‖
22. Transactive Memory and the ‘N
% of items correctly remembered
Participants typed 40
Will people
Saved Erased
trivia statements into a
remember
0.3 computer.
information if they
0.25
They were told that this
believe they can
0.2
Sparrow, Liu, information would
0.15access it online
& Wegner (2011)
either be saved or
Remember
later?
erased.
23. Transactive Memory and the ‘N
We don‘t remember
RT after being asked hard trivia
questions
When we areWords
Search Engine asked
Participantswell when
things as answered
Brand Names
eitherdifficult easy
hard or
we know they are
GOOGLE
GREEN
700
RED
800 trivia questions, then
questions, we
being a modified
performed saved
Sparrow, Liu, automatically do we
digitally—but think
& Wegner (2011)
600
Stroop task.
500 of the internet.
tend to look online
for this info?
25. Transactive Hold On!and the ‘N
But Memory
There‘s a difference between the
internet being…
a transactive memory partner
the third of half of your brain
28. GoogleHold On! CSE
But Effects on
If people fail to differentiate
between info stored online and
info stored in their own
memories, then they should
feel responsible for
performance based on online
info.
29. Google Effects on CSE
In order to test whether people attribute
the internet‘s intelligence to themselves,
we developed a new measure:
The Cognitive Self-Esteem Scale
n=61
30. Google Effects on CSE
CSE Scores After Completing Trivia Quiz
5.7
Participants answered 10 trivia
5.6
5.5 questions and were either:
5.4
(1)Given no specific
5.3
F(2,384) = 3.52 instructions
5.2
p = .03 (2)Instructed not to use
5.1
Google
5
(3)InstructedGoogleuse Google
Control No to Google
* * = p < .05
*
31. Google Effects on CSE
Results – Other Potentially Related Scales
7
6
5
4
3 Control
No Google
2 Google
1
0
32. Google Effects on CSE
Alternative explanation:
CSE Scores After Completing Trivia Quiz
6
Performance-related feedback
5.8
5.6
5.4
Participants took a trivia quiz either:
5.2
5
F(2,151) = 7.19
(1) Without Google
4.8
p = (2) Without Google, but receiving False
4.6
.001
4.4
4.2
Feedback
4(3) With Google
No Google False Feedback Google
** ** = p < .01
**
33. Google Effects on CSE
So what does cause this effect?
Possibility: combination of a ―feeling of
knowing‖ (e.g., Nelson & Narens, 1980)
and the ―knew it all along‖ effect
(e.g., Fischhoff & Beyth, 1975)
We think we know the answer—and
Google ―confirms‖ our knowledge before
we can realize that we never actually
knew
34. Google Effects on CSE
―Slow Google‖ Study ―Write Answers‖ Study
6 6
5.8 5.8
5.6 5.6
5.4One way to interfere 5.4
with the ―feeling of
5.2
knowing‖ is to modify the speed of
5.2
5
Google 5
4.8 4.8
4.6 4.6
No Google Slow Google Google No Google Google, Write Google
Answer First
F(2,115) = 6.62, p = .002 F(2,130) = 6.56, p = .002
35. Google Effects on CSE
6
5.8
5.6
Another way to interfere with the ―feeling
5.4
of knowing‖ is to modify the difficulty of
5.2
No Google
Google
5 the questions.
4.8
4.6
Easy Medium Hard
ns p = .013 ns
Finteraction(2,353) = 3.00, p = .05
36. Google Effects on CSE
Boosts in CSE provide evidence that
we think of Google as a part of the self,
but there are better measures out
there…
Predictions of future performance;
Chance, Norton, Gino, Ariely (2011)
37. Google Effects on CSE
―Slow Google‖ Study ―Write Answers‖ Study
You will now be asked to take a second trivia
6.5 6.5
6 quiz.6
5.5 5.5
This quiz will be similar in difficulty and content
5 5
to the quiz you just took.
4.5 4.5
You will be unable to use any outside sources
4 4
3.5 for help.
3.5
3 3
Before you Google Google secondGoogle Writeplease take
No Google Slow begin the No quiz, Answers Google
your best guess as to how many questions (out
F(2,115) = 5.27, p = .006 F(2,130) = 6.14, p = .003
of 10 total) you think you will answer correctly.
38. Google Effects on CSE
When we use Google, we fail to realize
we are using an external source. We
treat Google as a part of our own
brains.
What other measures might tap into
the extent to which we see Google as a
part of the self?
The Inclusion of Other in the Self
scale (IOS); Aron, Aron, &
Smollan, 1992
39. Google Effects on CSE
You Google
You Google
You Google
You Google
When we are close to something or You Google
someone, we often think of it (or he, or
she) as being a part of who we are. This
often happens with friends and family You Google
members, and even with things we use
often - such as our computers, or even our
favorite clothing. You Google
40. Google Effects on CSE
IOS Means
6
5
4
3 You Google
2
1
0
Slow: No Google Write Answers: No Slow: Google Write Answers: Google
Google
41. Google Effects on CSE
IOS Means – Comparison Items
6
5
4
How does our relationship with
3
Google compare to our
2
relationships with other sources of
1
info?
0
42. Summary
Google Effects on CSE
(1) Our minds work like card catalogs—we
keep track of who knows what
(2) Google knows practically everything
(3) We incorporate Google into our card
catalogs—perhaps to the exclusion of
human memory partners
(4) We may fail to draw a distinction between
Google‘s knowledge and our own
(5) Google may be ―the third half‖ of our
brains
45. Other Stuff
(1) Data Bank Study
(2) Google as Internet (Use)
Visits Per Week (Experian)
3,500,000,000
3,000,000,000
2,500,000,000
2,000,000,000
1,500,000,000
1,000,000,000
500,000,000
0
46. Other Stuff
(1) Data Bank Study
(2) Google as Internet (Explicit)
Percent of Users Who Listed Each Site as First Associate
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Google Facebook Amazon Reddit Yahoo ESPN
47. Other Stuff
(1) Data Bank Study
(2) Google as Internet (Explicit)
Percent of Users Who Listed Each Site as First Associate
(with comparison data)
0.4
0.35
0.3
Our Sample
0.25
0.2
Comparison
0.15 (Nelson &
0.1 McEvoy, 2000)
0.05
0
Google Facebook Amazon Reddit Yahoo ESPN
48. Other Stuff
(1) Data Bank Study
(2) Google as Internet
(3) Ongoing Studies
(1) Google-as-internet LDT (Implicit)
(2) Source Confusion
(3) Positive/Negative Effects
Question:-how is Google use affecting us, specifically in terms of memory, cognition, and self-perceptions?
Sergey Brin – cofounder of Google-idea = merging of self with Google—with an external information source
1985/1986 – started as a study of cognitive interdependence in close relationships-Transactive memory is a way of merging with those around us; and it’s based on memory/cognition-This is adaptive. By dividing up the mental labor within our social networks, we free up cognitive resources which can be used to gain expertise in the fields for which we are responsible
We do this by keeping a mental card catalogFamily example:If you want to know about dinosaurs ask meIf you want to know about Mary Kay cosmetics, ask my momIf you want to know how to sneak into your brother’s room and break his favorite toys, ask my sister
For some couples, they were given no explicit instructions.Other couples were assigned categories of “Expertise” – remember, people with pre-existing relationships should already have an intuitive sense of this.This is messing with the pre-existing TMS
Given 40 items to memorize as a couple
If TMS rely on pre-existing assignments of responsibility for certain types of memory, then messing with that pre-existing structure could be a bad thingAssignment didn’t actually help impromptu couples (not significant) (you would think it would – division of labor)Without assignment, natural couple recalled more than impromptu couples (indicates something about an implicit knowledge of the other’s expertise/interests – you let things pass you by when you’re sure your partner will remember them).Crazy thing – assignment completely screws up couples. It’s like they’re so set in their transactive memory ways, that that’s just the way their memory works now – asking people to become experts in something they’re used to relying on their partner for is like asking a right-hander to throw left-handed…it just doesn’t work. If you had someone who had never thrown a ball before, there wouldn’t be that much of a difference – but since they’re already developed a system/pattern, the tradeoff is tremendous.Same results for individual performance – it’s as if, when you’re used to relying on you partner for something, you forget how to remember it yourself. You have an implicit belief that they’ll always handle it for you.
Natural couple are remembering UNIQUE items – they are only remembering the things that they are best at(do differences for any other groups)
With the rise of the internet, it may be that our mental card catalogs really only need one card.-instead of turning to our friends, family members, or other acquaintances, we can simply Google it.
Recent research suggests that this is no longer the case-now we have things like Google and Wikipedia-# of articles on Wikipedia has grown exponentially since 2001-but % growth has declined-this suggests that the information is becoming saturated with info-as such, it is the perfect transactive memory partner—it knows everything, it’s fast, and it’s always accessible
With the rise of the internet, it may be that our mental card catalogs really only need one card.-instead of turning to our friends, family members, or other acquaintances, we can simply Google it.
With the rise of the internet, it may be that our mental card catalogs really only need one card.-instead of turning to our friends, family members, or other acquaintances, we can simply Google it.
Final study—not just remembering to look online, but remembering where over what
With the rise of the internet, it may be that our mental card catalogs really only need one card.-instead of turning to our friends, family members, or other acquaintances, we can simply Google it.
There’s a big difference between using the internet as a transactive memory partnerand actually treating it like the “third half of your brain”The difference: if something is truly a part of us, we don’t realize that we’re using an external source; we attribute Google’s intelligence to ourselves
If there’s an overlap between self/Google
Scale is composed of items tapping into the extent to which people think they are good at thinking about and remembering information—AT A TRAIT LEVEL-If people score higher on this scale after using Google, this may suggest that they are attributing Google’s intelligence to themselves
Scale is composed of items tapping into the extent to which people think they are good at thinking about and remembering information—AT A TRAIT LEVEL-If people score higher on this scale after using Google, this may suggest that they are attributing Google’s intelligence to themselves
To test this, we had people take a trivia quiz.-After using Google, people think that they themselves are smarter (not just that they tapped into a smart resource)-difference is that using Google increases CSE, not that not using Google decreases it
Why such a large n? So we could test other potentially related phenomena-none were significant
Alternate explanation: people who use Google perform better, so they think they’re smarter
Checking Google is faster than searching our own memories-pay attention to pronouns—”checking”
Results suggest that interfering with the speed of Google may allow undermine the “feeling of knowing”Results suggest that explicitly undermining the feeling of knowing has an even stronger effectSide note: another way to interfere with the “feeling of knowing” is to adjust the difficulty of the information being asked for-doesn’t work for especially easy or especially hard questions
Results suggest that interfering with the speed of Google may allow undermine the “feeling of knowing”Results suggest that explicitly undermining the feeling of knowing has an even stronger effectSide note: another way to interfere with the “feeling of knowing” is to adjust the difficulty of the information being asked for-doesn’t work for especially easy or especially hard questions
Checking Google is faster than searching our own memories-pay attention to pronouns—”checking”
Alternate explanation: people who use Google perform better, so they think they’re smarter
IOS – measure of extent to which we include others into our sense of self-usually used for romantic relationships
Actual intsructions-1-7 scale
People think of Google as overlapping with the self, regardless of whether or not they have just used it-average of ~4, which looks like this-it could be that Google is such a pervasive part of our lives, that a simple manipulation—using it for a specific task—doesn’t have an effect
Note: Only people who have siblings/cousins/believe in God-didn’t have a high enough N to run the stats because so few people met all criteriaWe see Google as a big part of who we are-but people could take this in different ways—our parents are part of who we are, but we don’t actually carry their minds around with us.Interesting/unsolved question – IOS doesn’t change with manipulation of Google use in the moment, but our other attribution measure—predictions of performance in Quiz 2--does
