Using Google might spark your creativity, or it might stifle it, but this depends on the circumstances, according to a new study. We know the internet isn’t going anywhere, but we may need to hold on to our humanity to use technology more effectively.
To effectively adapt to changing situations and environments, humans need to be able to come up with new ideas and creative solutions to problems. This kind of creativity has been associated with the “fixation effect,” where people get stuck in a certain way of thinking (i.e., fixated) because they’ve been exposed to specific examples or ideas.
New research by Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) has examined the impact of internet access on creativity. Specifically, whether being able to “Google” something helps or hinders a person’s ability to come up with new ideas.
“Our hope is that by studying how human thought interacts with technology use, we can figure out ways to glean the best of the internet while minimizing the negative consequences,” said Mark Patterson, PhD, an assistant teaching professor in CMU’s Department of Social and Decision Sciences (SDS), director of the Quantitative Social Science Scholars (QSSS) Program, and the study’s co-author. “For some of these bigger, tough, societal-level challenges that we’re facing, I think taking advantage of real diversity and a wide range of solutions requires groups to come up with a lot of different solution strategies.”
The researchers explored how internet access, specifically the use of Google, affected individual and group creativity. They wanted to understand whether having access to online information helped or hindered people’s ability to come up with creative ideas, especially when working collectively. Two hundred and forty-four university students aged between 18 and 22 were recruited and randomly assigned to conditions with or without access to Google. Participants were asked to generate novel uses for either a shield or an umbrella, and had three minutes to list as many uses as possible. The researchers evaluated the number and quality of responses per person (individual creativity), as well as combined responses from multiple individuals as if they were a brainstorming group.
In terms of individual performance, when Google provided a lot of suggestions, as was the case with “umbrella,” participants with internet access generated more ideas. When Google had fewer suggestions, as with “shield,” there was no advantage to having internet access. In groups, those without Google access consistently produced more diverse and unique ideas, especially as group size increased. Groups with Google access often converged on the same common ideas, resulting in redundancy and reduced diversity. Non-Google groups contributed more to “singleton” ideas, that is, ideas that originated from only one person, which boosted collective creativity.
To gauge the quality of ideas generated, the researchers rated the participants’ responses according to three categories: how useful the idea was (effectiveness), how surprising it was (novelty), and its creativity. Results showed that groups without internet access outperformed or matched Google groups in most of the three categories. The advantage of not using Google was strongest for effectiveness and creativity, but less consistent for novelty.
“This appears to be due to the fact that Google users came up with the same common answers, often in the same order, as they relied on Google, while non-Google users came up with more distinct answers,” said lead and corresponding author Danny Oppenheimer, PhD, a professor in CMU’s SDS. “This study is the first evidence of fixation effects being induced by internet search.
“For example, a person trying to brainstorm ‘things you might spread’ who sees other people, or Google, give answers like ‘butter’ or ‘jam’ is more likely to come up with other foods, such as cream cheese, and less likely to come up with non-food-based answers, like disease or rumors.”
The study has limitations. Only two items – shield, umbrella – were used. They differ in familiarity and complexity, which might’ve affected results. A three-minute brainstorming session may have limited deeper idea generation and nuanced internet searches. Participants were college students from elite institutions; results may differ in broader or more diverse populations.
Nonetheless, the study’s findings have some practical implications in the real world. On an individual level, while some individuals might benefit from online tools for idea generation, groups using the same tools often end up duplicating ideas and losing creative diversity. Relying on internet searches during brainstorming may lead to conformity and less innovation, particularly in larger teams. On a societal level, many societal problems require novel, out-of-the-box thinking. If everyone turned to the same online sources, we risk homogenizing creative output, which could hinder problem-solving at scale.
The researchers aren’t suggesting that we stop using internet search engines altogether out of a fear that our creativity will be stifled, though. The point, they said, is that there is room for improvement and increased efficiency, especially since this technology is here to stay.
“The internet isn’t making us dumb, but we may be using it in ways that aren’t helpful,” Oppenheimer said.
“Many of us are sort of rethinking what our relationships with technology are like,” added Patterson. “It feels like every week there’s some sort of mind-blowing new advance, and I think one interpretation of our paper is a reminder about the important advantages that we have just as regular people trying to solve problems.
“Even though it sounds like the kind of messaging you might get from your preschool teacher. Like, ‘You’re you, and you’re different and you’re unique.’ That messaging actually does matter. We want to hold on to our individuality and our regular, un-tech-aided humanity, because it’s one thing that’s going to make us solve problems slightly differently than other people, and that can be really valuable.”
The study was published in the journal Memory & Cognition.
Source: Carnegie Mellon University
