Forget in a Flash: A Further Investigation of the Photo-Taking-Impairment Effect
[READ IN FULL AT SOURCE, a complete copy of the published article, both experiments and the General Discussion] Soares, J. S., & Storm, B. C. (2018). 'Forget in a Flash: A Further Investigation of the Photo-Taking-Impairment Effect.' Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 7, 154-160. SOARES FIRST AUTHOR, University of California, Santa Cruz, confirmed on the byline and the correspondence note. No conflicts declared. THE REPLICATION THAT HELD THE EFFECT AND DESTROYED ITS EXPLANATION. EXPERIMENT 1: 42 undergraduates, within-subjects, paintings on a screen, Observe against Camera against Snapchat, 15 seconds per painting, a 10-minute filled delay, 30 multiple-choice visual-detail questions. Camera against Observe d = 0.70, 95 per cent CI 0.24 to 1.16, t(41) = 3.12, p = .003, so the impairment replicated. Snapchat against Observe d = 1.21, CI 0.74 to 1.68, t(41) = 5.78, p < .001, so the impairment was LARGER when the photograph was not saved, which the offloading account cannot accommodate. They flag honestly that Snapchat may have consumed more of the 15-second window and that participants may not have fully believed the manipulation. EXPERIMENT 2: 51 undergraduates, sample size set by a power analysis on Experiment 1 giving 90 per cent power, Observe against Camera against Delete, with the viewing timer starting only AFTER the photograph was taken so the camera conditions got more total viewing time. Camera against Observe d = 0.58, CI 0.23 to 0.93, p = .026; Delete against Observe d = 0.61, CI 0.30 to 0.92, p = .005; Camera and Delete did not differ, t(50) = .25, p = .80. THEIR CONCLUSION, verbatim: photo-taking 'prospectively impairs how an experience is encoded even after the camera is put down', and the results 'are inconsistent with the offloading hypothesis'. They propose a metacognitive-illusion account and say they cannot rule out an implicit or automatic form of offloading. THEY RESOLVE THE CONTRADICTION WITH THE VOLITIONAL-PHOTOGRAPHY PAPER THEMSELVES, IN PRINT, verbatim: 'Thus, it is possible that taking pictures impairs memory by disrupting attentional engagement, but only when participants are not actively in control of deciding what to photograph. At this point we still know very little about exactly when and why photo-taking impairs memory.' CITATION NOTE: their reference list misspells Silverman as Silberman; cite the correct spelling. THE METACOGNITION FINDING: afterwards, 52 per cent of participants said taking photographs helps them remember, 26 per cent said no effect, 3 per cent had no guess and only 19 per cent correctly said it impairs memory, and of those who said it helps, 62.5 per cent had just remembered less about the paintings they photographed. THEY ALSO REPORT Niforatos and colleagues 2017 as replicating the effect for manually taken photographs but not for an automatic wearable camera; THAT PAPER WAS NOT READ IN THE ORIGINAL and reaches us only through this discussion.
[READ IN FULL AT SOURCE, a complete copy of the published article, both experiments and the General Discussion] Soares, J. S., & Storm, B. C. (2018). 'Forget in a Flash: A Further Investigation of the Photo-Taking-Impairment Effect.' Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 7, 154-160. SOARES FIRST AUTHOR, University of California, Santa Cruz, confirmed on the byline and the correspondence note. No conflicts declared. THE REPLICATION THAT HELD THE EFFECT AND DESTROYED ITS EXPLANATION. EXPERIMENT 1: 42 undergraduates, within-subjects, paintings on a screen, Observe against Camera against Snapchat, 15 seconds per painting, a 10-minute filled delay, 30 multiple-choice visual-detail questions. Camera against Observe d = 0.70, 95 per cent CI 0.24 to 1.16, t(41) = 3.12, p = .003, so the impairment replicated. Snapchat against Observe d = 1.21, CI 0.74 to 1.68, t(41) = 5.78, p < .001, so the impairment was LARGER when the photograph was not saved, which the offloading account cannot accommodate. They flag honestly that Snapchat may have consumed more of the 15-second window and that participants may not have fully believed the manipulation. EXPERIMENT 2: 51 undergraduates, sample size set by a power analysis on Experiment 1 giving 90 per cent power, Observe against Camera against Delete, with the viewing timer starting only AFTER the photograph was taken so the camera conditions got more total viewing time. Camera against Observe d = 0.58, CI 0.23 to 0.93, p = .026; Delete against Observe d = 0.61, CI 0.30 to 0.92, p = .005; Camera and Delete did not differ, t(50) = .25, p = .80. THEIR CONCLUSION, verbatim: photo-taking 'prospectively impairs how an experience is encoded even after the camera is put down', and the results 'are inconsistent with the offloading hypothesis'. They propose a metacognitive-illusion account and say they cannot rule out an implicit or automatic form of offloading. THEY RESOLVE THE CONTRADICTION WITH THE VOLITIONAL-PHOTOGRAPHY PAPER THEMSELVES, IN PRINT, verbatim: 'Thus, it is possible that taking pictures impairs memory by disrupting attentional engagement, but only when participants are not actively in control of deciding what to photograph. At this point we still know very little about exactly when and why photo-taking impairs memory.' CITATION NOTE: their reference list misspells Silverman as Silberman; cite the correct spelling. THE METACOGNITION FINDING: afterwards, 52 per cent of participants said taking photographs helps them remember, 26 per cent said no effect, 3 per cent had no guess and only 19 per cent correctly said it impairs memory, and of those who said it helps, 62.5 per cent had just remembered less about the paintings they photographed. THEY ALSO REPORT Niforatos and colleagues 2017 as replicating the effect for manually taken photographs but not for an automatic wearable camera; THAT PAPER WAS NOT READ IN THE ORIGINAL and reaches us only through this discussion.
Written from the rEAD IN FULL AT SOURCE, a complete copy of the published article, both experiments and the General Discussion.
What our sources record
Recorded when this source was checked, figures included, with page references and quotation marks removed.
Soares, J. S., & Storm, B. C. (2018). Forget in a Flash: A Further Investigation of the Photo-Taking-Impairment Effect. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7, 154-160