> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://meta.niceshare.site/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
# Google Effect
> Google Effect is lower recall when people expect to reach a fact again. In 2011 the place advantage was cued, and a color-naming result later failed.
**Category**: Effects
**Type**: Lower later recall of information people expect to reach again, and, when the place test supplies a cue the fact test does not, higher recall of where that information was kept
**Origin**: Betsy Sparrow, Jenny Liu, and Daniel M. Wegner, "Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips," *Science* 333, 5 August 2011, pages 776–778. Received 2 May 2011, accepted 27 June 2011, published online 14 July 2011. DOI 10.1126/science.1207745
**Also known as**: the 2011 article title, Google Effects on Memory
**Quick Answer** — Google Effect is lower later recall of information people expect to reach again, together with higher recall of where it was kept when that place test is cued. Sparrow, Liu, and Wegner reported four studies in *Science* in 2011. In the fourth, mean recall of the folder was 0.49 and mean recall of the statement was 0.23. The folder question supplied a word from the statement. The statement question did not.
## What is Google Effect?
Google Effect is lower later recall of information people expect to reach again, and higher recall of where that information was kept when the place test gives a cue the fact test does not.
> The results of four studies suggest that when faced with difficult questions, people are primed to think about computers and that when people expect to have future access to information, they have lower rates of recall of the information itself and enhanced recall instead for where to access it.
That sentence is the 2011 abstract. It does not mention a cue. The cue is in the body of the fourth study. People read trivia, typed it, and were told each entry had been saved in a folder with a generic name. They then had 10 minutes to write the statements. A later question named a word from the statement and asked for the folder. Mean recall of the folder was 0.49. Mean recall of the statement was 0.23. The authors write that the folder question had a cue the statements did not.
Leaving a dose in a phone note has the shape of expecting access. It does not inherit 0.49 or 0.23. Those two proportions are mean shares of the statements in that fourth study. [Spacing Effect](/effects/spacing-effect) is better later recall when two studies of the same item sit at least 1 second apart. A gap between two looks is not a belief that a file will still be there.
### Google Effect in 3 Depths
* **Beginner**: When people were told the computer would erase what they typed, mean recall of 40 trivia statements was 0.31. When they were told it would save the typing, mean recall was 0.22. Both cells had no extra instruction to remember. The 0.31 and the 0.22 are proportions of statements, not proportions of people.
* **Practitioner**: If the later use is a blank page, the 2011 save message is the condition that recalled less. An added line that told people to remember did not have a significant main effect. The paper prints that conclusion and does not print a separate test statistic for the instruction alone.
* **Advanced**: The 0.49 folder score was cued recall. In the third study, recognition of the specific folder was 0.23, while recognition that a folder-saved statement was exactly the one they had read was 0.85. A color-naming delay after a hard question is a different contrast, and two later tests did not recover it.
## Origin
The four studies, and the English title Google Effects on Memory, are the 2011 report. This page keeps the name Google Effect for that report. The plural title is the article, not a second finding.
Betsy Sparrow was at Columbia University, 1190 Amsterdam Avenue, New York. Jenny Liu was at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1202 West Johnson Street, Madison. Daniel M. Wegner was at Harvard University, 33 Kirkland Street, Cambridge. The manuscript was received on 2 May 2011 and accepted on 27 June 2011. It was published online on 14 July 2011 and printed in *Science* 333 on 5 August 2011, pages 776–778. The author PDF read here prints the DOI 10.1126/science.1207745. Columbia University supported Sparrow. National Science Foundation grant BNS-0841746 supported Wegner.
The paper places the studies next to transactive memory. It cites Daniel M. Wegner, in *Theories of Group Behavior*, edited by Brian Mullen and George R. Goethals (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1986), pages 185–208, and Wegner, *Social Cognition* 13, 319 (1995). Those two works were not re-read. No sentence from them is on this page. The 2011 paper's own description is a mix of memory a person holds and memory the person can reach because someone else holds it. The paper then asks whether a search engine has become that outside store. The flag question in the introduction, whether any country has only one color in its flag, is the authors' illustration. It is not reported as one of the trivia items.
## Key Points
Four cuts keep a saved note from inheriting a proportion it did not measure. The color name, the erase message, the recognition question, and the cue each have their own number.
In the first study, people answered easy or hard yes-or-no trivia, then named the color of a word printed in blue or red. After the hard block, computer words took a mean of 712 milliseconds, with a standard deviation of 413. General words took 591 milliseconds, standard deviation 204. The paired test is t(68) = 3.26, P below 0.003, two-tailed. After the easy block the means were 603 and 559, t(68) = 2.98, P below 0.005. For Google and Yahoo against Target and Nike, the interaction with block difficulty is F(1, 66) = 5.02, P below 0.03. After the hard block, the two search names averaged 818 milliseconds, standard deviation 517, against 614 for the two product names, standard deviation 226. That simple effect is F(1, 66) = 4.44, P below 0.04. A millisecond is a color name. It is not a forgotten sentence. [Priming Effect](/effects/priming-effect) is a faster correct decision that two letter strings are words when the words are common associates. The 1971 gap is between word pairs. It is not a color name after a trivia block.
In the second study, people read 40 trivia statements and typed them. One example in the paper is that an ostrich's eye is bigger than its brain. Another is that the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated during re-entry over Texas in February 2003. Half were told the computer would save the typing. Half were told it would erase it. Half of each of those groups were also asked to remember the statements. The printed omnibus test is F(3, 56) = 2.80, P below 0.05. Erase without the remember line: mean proportion 0.31, standard deviation 0.04. Erase with the remember line: 0.29, standard deviation 0.07. Save without it: 0.22, standard deviation 0.07. Save with it: 0.19, standard deviation 0.09. The paper says the comparisons among the erased cells, and among the saved cells, were not significant, and that the main effect of the remember instruction was not significant. It does not print a separate statistic for that instruction.
In the third study, 30 statements were split three ways. The screen said the entry had been saved, or saved into one of six folders named FACTS, DATA, INFO, NAMES, ITEMS, or POINTS, or erased. A practice trial let people open the folders, so the saved entries were expected to remain available. On the later recognition test, half the statements had a name or a date changed. For "Was this exactly what you read?", the means were 0.93 erased, 0.88 saved with no folder, and 0.85 saved to a folder. The printed test is F(1, 27) = 4.01, P below 0.03. For "Was this saved or erased?", the means were 0.61, 0.66, and 0.51 in that same order, F(1, 27) = 5.34, P below 0.03. People were more accurate about the saved entries than about the erased ones on that second question. The two questions do not trade one proportion for the other.
The third study also asked which folder, and offered the folder names plus "no specific folder" and "erased." Mean recognition that an erased item had been erased was 0.54. Mean recognition of a generic save was 0.30. Mean recognition of the specific folder was 0.23. The printed test is F(1, 27) = 21.67, P below 0.001. The specific folder is the low score on that question. The fourth study's 0.49 is a different task, described in the case below. [Illusory Truth Effect](/effects/illusory-truth-effect) is a higher truth rating after a statement is repeated. A truth rating is not a folder name, and it is not the gap from 0.31 to 0.22.
## Applications
Use the contrast when someone treats any saved note, or any slow color name, as the proportion from one of the four studies. Keep 0.31, 0.22, 0.49, and 0.23 inside the questions that produced them.
The second study's save cells recalled less of the typed trivia than the erase cells. A closed-book quiz has the shape of having to produce the sentence. The remember line in that study did not carry a significant main effect. A slide that will still be online is closer to the save message than to the erase message.
The fourth study's folder question included a word from the statement. The statement recall did not include a folder name as a cue. A label such as FACTS, written only inside the file, was not available at the moment of the uncued recall. Copy the one sentence you would need if the folder name were the only thing left.
After hard questions, computer words took 712 milliseconds and general words took 591. That pair is the first study. It is not the 0.31 and it is not the 0.49. A search box that is slow to ignore is not evidence that the fact was dropped.
The 0.31 is the mean share of 40 typed statements among people told the computer would erase them, with no remember line. A parent who says the dose is in the phone is outside that cell. A team that parks a decision in a shared folder is outside it too. Neither setting inherits 0.22.
## Case Study
In the fourth study, Sparrow, Liu, and Wegner asked whether people would recall where a statement was kept more often than they would recall the statement. Everyone was led to expect that each typed trivia statement would be saved in a folder with a generic name, the same kind of name as FACTS in the third study. There was no practice trial. The paper says the names and the number of folders were never explicitly pointed out. People were not told that there were six names. They then had 10 minutes to write as many statements as they could. After that, an identifying word from a statement was given, and they had to type the folder name. For the ostrich sentence, the question was which folder the statement about the ostrich had been saved in. The dialog box was called Items. Folder names were not mentioned again after the original typing.
Mean recall of the place was 0.49, standard deviation 0.26. Mean recall of the statement was 0.23, standard deviation 0.14. The paper prints this comparison as a between-subject t(31) = 6.70, P below 0.001, two-tailed. The two scores come from the same people. The authors also write the caveat in the same section. The folder question had a cue from the trivia statement. The statement recall did not. They write that they were not able to counterbalance the trivia and the folders so that the folders were as numerous as the statements, which would have been needed to balance the cued and uncued tasks.
They then split each person's statements into four kinds of outcome. Both the statement and the folder: mean 0.17, standard deviation 0.16. The statement but not the folder: 0.11, standard deviation 0.08. Neither: 0.38, standard deviation 0.24. The folder but not the statement: 0.30, standard deviation 0.16. The printed omnibus test is F(1, 31) = 11.57, P below 0.003. The paper says the comparison of the first two cells was not significant, and the comparison of the last two cells was not significant. The pattern they describe is that the folder score shows up when the statement does not. That description sits next to those two non-significant pairs. It is not a claim that 0.30 is reliably above 0.38.
The lesson is a cued place score above an uncued fact score, among statements people expected to remain saved. It is not a rate at which a class remembers a chapter, and it is not the third study's 0.23 for recognizing the specific folder when the folder names were on the screen.
## Boundaries and Failure Modes
Google Effect is the wrong summary when a cued folder is treated as uncued place memory, when the third study's low folder recognition is ignored, or when a color-naming delay is treated as a settled reflex.
The first boundary is the cue. The authors write that the 0.49 looks unexpected because the statements were memorable and the folder names were not, and then they give the cue as the reason for caution. A file path remembered only after someone says "the ostrich one" is the cued question. A blank page is the uncued question. The standard deviation of 0.26 on the 0.49 is the spread of that cued mean. It is not a guarantee for each statement.
The second boundary is the third study's folder question. When the folder names were offered, specific-folder recognition was 0.23, standard deviation 0.14, against 0.85 for recognizing the exact wording of a folder-saved statement. The paper itself calls the folder recognition dismal next to the fourth study's recall. Believing an entry was saved did raise memory for the fact that it could be reached, on the saved-or-erased question, with means 0.61 and 0.66 against 0.51 for erased. That is memory for the access tag. It is not memory for which of the six names was used. [Von Restorff Effect](/effects/von-restorff-effect) is better memory for the one item that differs in kind from similar neighbors. Six generic folder names were chosen to be interchangeable. An odd neighbor is not one of those names.
The third boundary is the color-naming contrast, and it is the common misuse. The supporting material, as quoted by Guido Hesselmann in *PeerJ* (2020), says 46 Harvard undergraduates, 28 women and 18 men, were tested. The main text prints t(68) and F(1, 66). Hesselmann writes that the printed t, F, and p values agree better with 69 people, and that the degrees of freedom are not right for either headcount. Colin F. Camerer and colleagues, in the supplementary information to *Nature Human Behaviour* 2 (2018), pages 637–644, write that the paper reports n = 46 but that n = 69 was actually used, and that the original authors said so only after the replication. That replication did not recover the color-naming result. The team did not receive the original materials. Wegner had died in 2013. Afterward, the original authors listed three design differences: a new six-digit number before each word in the original, against one number held for the whole block; 24 color-naming trials against 48; and mistakes kept in the original analysis, against mistakes removed. The supplementary information says the non-replication conclusion is unchanged for the first 24 trials and for an analysis that keeps mistakes. It also says the load difference cannot be ruled out. Planned power was 90 percent. Achieved power was 82.0 percent in the first collection and 80.7 percent in the pooled collection, because the sample-size error changed the estimated effect used for planning. Hesselmann, at the Psychologische Hochschule Berlin, then ran a closer procedure. Of 117 people tested, the reported test uses 89. The interaction contrast was t(88) = −1.04, p = 0.301. The Bayes factor BF01 was 5.07 in favor of no interaction. After easy questions, computer words averaged 901 milliseconds and general words 830. After hard questions, computer words averaged 821 and general words 825. The slowdown sat on the easy block. Those two replications tested the color name. They did not test the 0.31 against the 0.22.
## Common Misconceptions
Three retellings turn a cued folder into uncued place memory, treat a remember instruction as a cure, or read any search as this report.
The fourth study's 0.49 against 0.23 is cued place recall against uncued statement recall. The third study offered the folder names and still got 0.23 for the specific folder, against 0.85 for the exact statement in the folder-saved condition. The paper prints both patterns. A mean of 0.49 with a standard deviation of 0.26 is not a rule that every saved sentence leaves its address and loses its wording.
In the second study, erase with a remember instruction was 0.29, and erase without it was 0.31. Save with the instruction was 0.19, and save without it was 0.22. The paper says the main effect of that instruction was not significant. The printed omnibus test is the four-cell F(3, 56) = 2.80. A plan that adds "remember this" on top of a file that will remain available is still on the save side of the result the paper does print.
The second, third, and fourth studies typed statements and then manipulated whether people expected the typing to remain. They did not measure a search followed by a feeling that the answer is now one's own. No percent from a survey of everyday search is on this page. [Frequency Illusion](/effects/frequency-illusion) is the belief that a noticed thing happens a whole lot. One afternoon of looking facts up is a single run. It is not the four cells, and it is not the 712 milliseconds.
## Related Concepts
The saved-note result sits next to a millisecond word decision, a study gap, a truth rating after repetition, memory for one odd neighbor, and the belief that a noticed thing happens a whole lot.
A faster correct decision that two letter strings are words, when the words are common associates. The 1971 gap is 85 milliseconds between word pairs. It is not a color name for Google after a hard trivia block, and it is not the drop from 0.31 to 0.22.
Better later recall when two studies of the same item sit at least 1 second apart than when the item is studied in one uninterrupted bout. A gap between looks is not a message that the computer saved the typing.
A higher truth rating after a statement is repeated. The rating is not recall of a typed sentence, and it is not recognition of the folder FACTS.
Better memory for the one item that differs in kind from similar neighbors. The six folder names were generic on purpose. Remembering one odd fact is not the 0.23 for a specific folder.
The belief that a phenomenon happens a whole lot once it has been noticed. One search that felt memorable is a single outcome. It is not the four 2011 studies.
## One-Line Takeaway
If you expect a file to still be there, write the one sentence you would need on a blank page, and do not treat a cued folder name as that sentence.
This documentation is built and hosted on [Mintlify](https://mintlify.com), a developer documentation platform.