We can all agree that the internet is an never-ending repository of information. But new research out of Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) has found that, in some cases, “Googling” can get in the way of a good brainstorm session and actually hinder creativity.
In a recent study published in the journal Memory & Cognition, researchers asked participants to brainstorm new ways to use one of two common objects—a shield or an umbrella—either with or without internet access. In some trials, study participants could access Google search; in other trials, they couldn’t use a search engine.
Of the groups, those with access to Google, for the most part, came up with the same common answers, often in the same exact order.
“[That’s because] they relied on Google, while non-Google users came up with more distinct answers,” explained lead study author Daniel Oppenheimer, a professor at CMU’s Department of Social and Decision Sciences.
That is to say, researchers found that while individual creativity may be enhanced by internet access, groups articulate fewer novel solutions when provided internet access, suggesting that internet access may constrain collective creative fluency.
Said another way: “Thinking outside the box means thinking outside the search engine.”
This could be an example of “fixation effects”: Showing a possible solution to participants influences them to think of similar answers, and also obstructs them from thinking of new or different answers. For example, Oppenheimer said, when given a prompt such as “things you might spread,” participants with access to Google might suggest “butter” or “jam,” while others who lack internet search access might suggest something along the lines of “disease” or “rumors.”
Oppenheimer said we should accept that internet access is changing the way people think and solve problems, but instead of banning search engines, we should learn how to use them better. “The internet isn’t making us dumb, but we may be using it in ways that aren’t helpful,” he added.
Oppenheimer and study coauthor Mark Patterson, an assistant teaching professor at CMU’s Department of Social and Decision Sciences, think different prompt engineering strategies might lead to different, even better, results.
“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,” Patterson said.
Their advice: Do some offline brainstorming before turning to the internet.
