PDF(1801 KB)
PDF(1801 KB)
PDF(1801 KB)
文章标记是否能抵消“谷歌效应”对记忆的负面影响?——基于心理学实验的讨论
Can the Effects of Text Signals Counteract the Negative Impact of the “Google Effect” on Memory? A Discussion Based on Psychological Experiment
随着搜索引擎的日常化，“谷歌效应”日益凸显，人们自身记忆能力被削弱。而文章标记对阅读理解和记忆存在明显促进作用。本文使用文章作为实验材料，设计了一个2×2的实验来考察在“谷歌效应”下，文章标记如何影响人们的记忆效果。结果发现，文章标记可以明显提高网络环境下的记忆效果，这一发现拓展了文章标记效应的研究场景，为数字化阅读提供了实际的记忆保持策略。尽管文章标记未完全抵消“谷歌效应”，但为减轻搜索引擎依赖提供了理论支持和实证依据。进一步的研究可以探究宏观标记与微观标记的可能差异。在方法上，也可以通过功能性磁共振成像等神经科学技术，考察文章标记是如何影响大脑的记忆编码与提取过程的，解析其抵消“谷歌效应”的神经机制。
As search engines become a part of everyday life, the “Google Effect” - the weakening of individuals’ memory capabilities - has become increasingly prominent. However, text signals have been shown to significantly enhance reading comprehension and memory. This study uses a news article as experimental material and designs a 2×2 experiment to investigate how text signals impact people’s memory performance under the “Google Effect”. The results show that text signals can significantly improve memory performance in an online environment. These findings broaden the scope of research into the effects of text signals, providing practical memory retention strategies for digital reading. Although text signals do not fully counteract the “Google Effect”, they provide theoretical support and empirical evidence for reducing reliance on search engines. Future research could explore possible differences between macro and micro signals. Methodologically, neuroscientific techniques such as functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) could be used to examine how text signals affect the brain's memory encoding and retrieval processes, deciphering the neural mechanisms through which they counteract the “Google Effect”.
谷歌效应 / 文章标记 / 搜索引擎 / 数字化阅读 / 编码机制
google effect / text signals / search engines / digital reading / encoding mechanisms
| [1] |
巢乃鹏.(2010). 大学生搜索引擎使用行为研究. 《图书馆情报工作》. 54(24),50-55.
|
| [2] |
陈辉(1988). 短时记忆容量的年龄特点和材料特点. 《天津师大学报(社会科学版)》,(04),25-30.
|
| [3] |
陈力丹(2019). 人的记忆、搜索引擎与新闻传播学研究——搜索引擎批判. 《新闻界》,(01),52-59.
|
| [4] |
崔剑霞, 吴艳红, 刘艳芳(2004). 短时记忆容量的重新思考. 《北京大学学报(自然科学版)》, 40(4),676-682.
|
| [5] |
邓怡凡(2016). 《从指示性遗忘看Google Effect的机制》.成功大学硕士论文.台湾.
|
| [6] |
乔纳森·福斯特(2009/2016). 《记忆》(刘嘉译). 南京: 译林出版社.
|
| [7] |
郭恋(2012). 《手机移动阅读效果影响因素的实验研究》.浙江师范大学硕士论文.浙江.
|
| [8] |
何先友(2004). 不同阅读水平与文章熟悉程度条件下文章标记效应的研究. 《心理科学》,(03),595-597.
|
| [9] |
何先友, 莫雷(2000). 国外文章标记效应研究综述. 《心理学动态》,(03),36-42.
|
| [10] |
何先友, 莫雷(2002). 文章标记效应的初步实验研究. 《心理科学》,(03),279-282+381.
|
| [11] |
贾会宾(2014). 《记忆的谷歌效应:认知与神经机制》. 华中师范大学硕士论文.武汉.
|
| [12] |
尼古拉斯·卡尔(2010/2015). 《浅薄:你是互联网的奴隶还是主宰者》(刘纯毅译). 北京: 中信出版社.
|
| [13] |
李寿欣, 罗良, 宫大志, 戴桂旭(2009). 呈现方式与认知方式对文章标记效应的影响. 《心理与行为研究》, 7(02),104-108.
|
| [14] |
刘汝建.(2011). 大学生搜索引擎搜索语法使用调查与分析. 《图书馆学刊》, 33(12),129-133.
|
| [15] |
刘小群, 王立军(2008). 文章体裁对文章标记效应的影响. 《邵阳学院学报(社会科学版)》, 7(06),151-153.
|
| [16] |
娄颖颖(2018). 《互联网对记忆的影响》.浙江理工大学硕士论文.浙江.
|
| [17] |
邵鹏(2014). 《媒介作为人类记忆的研究》.浙江大学博士论文.浙江.
|
| [18] |
王蓉, 阎国利, 白学军(2004). 文章标记对阅读信息保持的影响及其作用机制的研究. 《心理与行为研究》,(03),549-554.
|
| [19] |
叶文, 褚建勋, 汤书昆.(2009). 学习型组织中的虚拟团队知识共享模型研究. 《管理学报》, 6(5),635-640.
|
| [20] |
曾新荣, 刘志方, 张兰兰, 闫国利(2009). 英语文章阅读过程中的文章标记效应研究. 《心理学探新》, 29(01),32-36.
|
| [21] |
詹一虹, 熊峰, 丁冬.(2011). 交互记忆系统理论在虚拟团队中的应用研究. 《管理世界》.(04),180-181.
|
| [22] |
张晓慧(2014a). 《网络环境下文章标记对英语阅读的影响研究》.河北大学硕士论文.河北.
|
| [23] |
张晓慧(2014b). 近十五年我国文章标记效应研究综述. 《河北大学成人教育学院学报》, 16(02),54-58.
|
| [24] |
赵磊(2016). 《数字化阅读的文章标记效应实验研究》.江苏师范大学硕士学位论文.江苏.
|
| [25] |
祝倩萌(2015). 《搜索引擎使用行为对大学生信息记忆的影响》.陕西师范大学硕士论文.陕西.
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
Two studies examined whether photographing objects impacts what is remembered about them. Participants were led on a guided tour of an art museum and were directed to observe some objects and to photograph others. Results showed a photo-taking-impairment effect: If participants took a photo of each object as a whole, they remembered fewer objects and remembered fewer details about the objects and the objects’ locations in the museum than if they instead only observed the objects and did not photograph them. However, when participants zoomed in to photograph a specific part of the object, their subsequent recognition and detail memory was not impaired, and, in fact, memory for features that were not zoomed in on was just as strong as memory for features that were zoomed in on. This finding highlights key differences between people’s memory and the camera’s “memory” and suggests that the additional attentional and cognitive processes engaged by this focused activity can eliminate the photo-taking-impairment effect.
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
This study examined how transactive memory systems (TMSs) emerge and develop to affect the performance of knowledge-worker teams. Sixty-four MBA consulting teams (261 members) participated in the study. I proposed that the role and function of TMSs change to meet different task and knowledge demands during a project. Hypotheses predicting that TMSs emerge during a project-planning phase as a function of a team's initial conditions, and later develop and mature as a function of the nature and frequency of communication were generally supported, as were hypothesized relationships between TMSs and team performance and viability. Findings suggest that teams with initially distributed expertise and familiar members are more likely to develop a TMS. Frequent face-to-face communication also led to TMS emergence, but communication via other means had no effect. Teams with more established TMSs later benefited from face-to-face communication, but they were less helped by frequent communication via other means, suggesting that transactive retrieval processes may have been triggered during face-to-face communication and suppressed during other types of communication. TMSs were positively related to team viability and team performance, suggesting that developing a TMS is critical to the effectiveness of knowledge-worker teams.
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
|
| [39] |
|
| [40] |
|
| [41] |
|
| [42] |
|
| [43] |
|
| [44] |
|
| [45] |
|
| [46] |
|
| [47] |
Owing to Internet search, we are more likely to encode “where” aspects of memory rather than “what.”
|
| [48] |
|
| [49] |
|
| [50] |
|
| [51] |
|
1. 有研究表明性别对记忆效果的影响不显著（参见祝倩萌，2015）。有研究发现女性主要在言语生成、情节记忆、面孔识别任务中比男性存在明显的优势，而男性的优势则仅表现在视空间任务中，如视空间情节记忆任务（参见Herlitz & Lovén，2009）。
2. 年龄是一个影响记忆的重要因素。然而，在考虑年龄问题时，研究设计通常是对比不同年龄组（如青年和老年组）。本研究与斯帕罗等人的研究（Sparrow，Liu & Wegner，2011）设计类似，采用的是集中于年轻人群体的记忆模式进行设计。另外，不同年龄段的人对交互记忆系统（transactive memory system，TMS，如电脑、书籍等）类型的偏好可能有所不同，因此“谷歌效应”可能会因年龄段不同而有所不同。有研究发现，参与者的记忆力和计算机使用能力与年龄有关。然而，对于老年参与者的记忆策略是否因其接触计算机和互联网的机会不同而与年轻参与者不同，目前还没有足够的证据可以下结论（参见Glen，2016；Regan，2014；Siler，2013）。
3. 出于实验的便利性和科学性，前测阅读短文及文后测试使用了祝倩萌在2015年其硕士学位论文《搜索引擎使用行为对大学生信息记忆的影响》中的实验前测阅读材料。材料由其学校教师结合相关知识点予以确认。
4. 该报道为华凌（2019）。新高考要用多把尺子“量”人才。科技日报。
5. 尽管通过网站的防作弊设置，一定程度上避免了被试实验过程中不规范操作的行为，但是被试参与实验的完成时间、实验状态和实验器材都难以控制，可能对实验结果产生了较大影响。
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
