New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Neural Networking: Online Social Content Easier to Recall Than Printed Info

Call it the Facebook Effect—humans are better at remembering information if it appears as a social network post

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

 

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."


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


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.

Mollie Bloudoff-Indelicato is an environmental reporting fellow at E&E Publishing, covering the impact of climate change on everything from the international chocolate industry to methane hydrates in Antarctica. She has a master's degree from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism with concentrations in science journalism and radio reporting. She is searching for a full-time position with a science-oriented publication that is interested in developing their social media presence and expanding their multimedia department. Contact her at news@mbloudoff.com, and follow her on Twitter at @mbloudoff.

More by Mollie Bloudoff-Indelicato

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe