Recollecting trivial and sometimes dull Facebook posts is easier than recalling the same information in a book. It also takes less effort to remember posted patter than someone's face, according to new research.

The result could be due to the colloquial and largely spontaneous nature of Facebook posts. Whereas books and newspapers typically are combed over by fact-checkers and carefully rewritten by editors, Facebook posts tend to be free flowing and more closely resemble speech. "It's a new way of thinking about memory," says John Wixted, an experimental psychologist at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved in the research. "Our minds are naturally prepared to encode what is naturally produced."

If memories are the product of evolution, then the ability to remember socially derived conversations may have provided an advantage that helped early humans survive, he adds.

The study involved three different experiments with a sample that largely included undergraduate females and controlled for such factors as the use of emoticons, variations in character size and emotional content. What the research team found didn't make sense—at first.

Laura Mickes, a cognitive psychologist at U.C. San Diego and lead author of the study, says colleagues in her department were amazed by the consistency of the results. "To our surprise the microblogs, the Facebook posts, are much more memorable than one would expect," Mickes says. "People mostly think they're mundane and would be easily forgotten."

Even accounting for associative thinking—such as, "that is something my friend Emily would post"—the social networking site still had a pronounced effect on the extent to which information was remembered by study subjects. Facebook's advantage over books and faces is on the same scale as the advantage that the average person has over the memory-impaired, Mickes wrote in the January 2013 Memory & Cognition. Both Mickes and Wixted agree that additional experiments are needed before these findings can be applied broadly, largely due to the lack of diversity among the study subjects.

Still, the implications are profound. Marketing firms could use Facebook-like advertisements to increase brand recognition. Teachers, too, might incorporate shorter, more colloquial sentences on study guides and in textbooks to raise test scores. The applications could be extensive: "I think there are implications for the way we teach, for how we advertise, how we generally communicate," Mickes says. "There are already professors who are into tech who have incorporated social media into their classrooms."

According to the study, Facebook users in total post more than 30 million times per hour. Whether it’s easier on the brain, that's a lot to remember.

6 Comments

1. 1. jtdwyer 12:57 PM 1/24/13

   Does this mean that we remember dumb remarks better than precise, factual statements? Perhaps we're simply filling our heads with a bunch of stupid misinformation? This comment should be truly memorable, then!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. OlgatheGreat 06:50 PM 1/24/13

   *head desk*
   
   You used current college students for the experiment and you're generalizing to human nature? How about the way more likely hypothesis that people remember best from sources they're socially trained to remember? The ancient greeks recited Homer's epic by memory and reading was once condemned for degrading oral memory (which it did).

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. sjfone 07:18 AM 1/25/13

   Well said, jtd.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. annabanna 01:50 PM 1/25/13

   Honestly, I remember the content of fiction novels better than I do nonfiction books. I remember novels better because I connect to the main character, and facts are just empty of connection for me. Maybe, the memories of the college students are strengthened by Facebook because the information comes from a person known to the reader. College females especially might learn best if the info is constructed in such way that it is interpersonal. I wonder if people who aren't as social, those with autism have the same memory effects as the college students did.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. vagnry 02:03 PM 1/25/13

   Are "a sample that largely included undergraduate females " representative of all humankind?
   
   I, a month from 63 years, can't remember anything from Facebook (I'm on, but very infrequently), but I remember several passages verbatim from books I read more than 50 years ago, and from books I read now, as well as from info I have googled, probably because the information interests me.
   
   As others have said, it's training, but extrapolating from undergraduate females (or any other special group) is absurd.
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Olga Werby 12:39 PM 1/31/13

   I think people remember stories -- not just on new media but in all forms: verbal, visual, audio, and told via text. The more abstract the information the harder it is to turn it into a story. Knowing that this is true, I teach my class in product design by telling lots of stories. I also written the textbook with this in mind, and many of my students told me it makes the ideas and concepts in my book more memorable. Here's a link: http://www.interfaces.com/blog/the-book/

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this