CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Memory Processes and InfluencesCognitive Functions and MemoryPersonal Information Management and User Behavior

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

Schooler, Joel N., Storm, Benjamin C.·2021·Memory
DOI 10.1080/09658211.2021.1962356
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09658211.2021.1962356

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The reliability of the external store affects whether people offload (and consequently forget) information.

    “Beyond these results concerning controls of devices, Schooler and Storm (2021) found that the reliability of the external store affects whether people offload (and consequently forget) information.”

    From The Cognitive Architecture of Digital Externalization (2023) · cites this paper as Schooler and Storm (2021)

  • There are several studies demonstrating impaired internal memory for information that is saved in an external resource, at least when the saving process is perceived as reliable, and studies showing that taking photos of objects can impair memory for these objects.

    “there are several studies demonstrating impaired internal memory for information that is saved in an external resource (Sparrow et al., 2011) at least when the saving process is perceived as reliable (Schooler & Storm, 2021) as well as studies showing that taking photos of objects can impair memory for these objects (Henkel, 2014; for a potential explanation, see Barasch et al., 2017).”

    From Understanding Autobiographical Memory in the Digital Age: The AMEDIA-Model (2024) · cites this paper as Schooler & Storm, 2021

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Schooler, J. N., & Storm, B. C.
Affiliations
University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
Corresponding author
Schooler, Joel N.
ORCID
Venue
Memory
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2021-08-02
Volume
29
Issue
9
Pages
1101-1110
ISSN
  • 0965-8211 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0686
DOI
10.1080/09658211.2021.1962356
OpenAlex
W3191002165
Cited by
25
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 2
FWCI
2.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Memory (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
Keywords
Google effect, cognitive offloading, replicability, boundary conditions
MeSH terms
Humans, Mental Recall, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review