進階搜尋


   電子論文尚未授權公開,紙本請查館藏目錄
(※如查詢不到或館藏狀況顯示「閉架不公開」,表示該本論文不在書庫,無法取用。)
系統識別號 U0026-1402201621443500
論文名稱(中文) 從指示性遺忘看 Google Effect 的機制
論文名稱(英文) The mechanism behind Google Effect – In the perspective of directed forgetting
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 心理學系
系所名稱(英) Department of Psychology
學年度 104
學期 1
出版年 105
研究生(中文) 鄧怡凡
研究生(英文) Yi-Fan Teng
學號 U76011069
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
論文頁數 97頁
口試委員 指導教授-林君昱
口試委員-李玉琇
口試委員-李皇謀
中文關鍵字 谷歌效應  指示性遺忘  記憶  人機互動 
英文關鍵字 Google Effect  directed forgetting  memory  human-computer interaction 
學科別分類
中文摘要 資訊科技的發展,提高了網際網路的可及性,成為我們「觸手可及」的主要外部記憶工具,甚至是一同分擔工作的夥伴,讓我們不需再去費心記憶那些可以寄託給 3C 產品與網際網路的資訊。Sparrow,Liu和 Wegner在 2011 年的研究中發現,當資訊因為儲存於電子產品中而具有唾手可得的可及性時,我們就會比較不記得資訊本身,他們稱這樣的現象為 Google Effect。本研究的主要目的即是試著進一步了解 Google Effect 背後的機制。我們在實驗一中重製了 Sparrow et al. (2011) 中的實驗二,並且成功複製出了刪除組記憶強度高於儲存組的結果。在我們的實驗二中,再加入了控制組,並且針對認知負荷進行操弄,分別用來進一步了解儲存詞及刪除詞間的記憶量差異來源,以及 Google Effect 背後的機制。實驗組中的儲存詞記憶強度比控制組少,但刪除詞記憶強度兩組則沒差,顯示 Google Effect 中儲存詞與刪除詞之間記憶強度差距,可能主要來自於受試者對儲存詞的不複誦或是抑制,且刪除詞並沒有因此在測驗時更容易被提取出來。在我們的實驗中,Google Effect 只產生了損失(cost,指相較於控制組,受試者較不記得儲存詞),但沒有預期中的優勢(benefit,指相較於控制組,受試者可以記得更多刪除詞),這意味著 Google Effect 可能只與記得較少的儲存詞有關。另,我們發現受試者對儲存詞的記憶強度會因為負荷作業而有變差的傾向,顯示造成 Google Effect 損失的機制應該不是受試者對儲存詞進行提取式抑制,而比較可能是造成登錄差異的選擇性複誦。
英文摘要 The advent of the Internet has made the “cloud” a primary form of external memory. Sparrow, Liu and Wegner (2011) found that if information can be accessed later, people are less likely to remember it. This phenomenon is called the "Google Effect". One of the main goals of the present research is to explore the mechanisms behind Google Effect. In our experiment 1, the second experiment of Sparrow et al.’s research (2011) was successfully replicated, showing that the DELETED group recalled more items than the SAVED group did. In the experiment 2, we added a control group and manipulated the cognitive load. The absence of the benefit of Google Effect suggested that the difference in the recall rates of the SAVED and the DELETED words was mainly due to less SAVED words recalled (higher cost), but not more DELETED words recalled (no benefit). Both DELETED and SAVED words were recalled less in the LOADING block. This results suggested that selective rehearsal is more likely to be the source of Google Effect than retrieval inhibition.
論文目次 摘要 I
致謝 VIII
目錄 IX
表目錄 XII
圖目錄 XIII
第一章 研究目的與動機 1
第二章 文獻探討 3
第一節 什麼是 Google Effect? 3
第二節 Google Effect 何以重要 3
第三節 外部記憶對記憶造成的影響:Google Effect 與其他相關研究 5
外部記憶工具讓我們記不得被儲存的資訊 5
外部記憶工具有助於我們更有效率的記得不可再次取得的資訊 7
第四節 Google Effect 與指示性遺忘 10
第五節 指示性遺忘實驗典範 11
列表法 12
項目法 13
第六節 指示性遺忘的機制 13
選擇性複誦 14
提取式抑制 15
指示性遺忘的其他解釋:雙原因論 16
第三章 研究焦點 18
第四章 前導研究一:「儲存」動作的可信度 21
第一節 實驗方法 21
參與者 21
實驗材料 21
實驗設計 22
實驗程序 22
第二節 結果 24
第三節 討論 24
第五章 前導研究二:打字造成的認知負荷 26
第一節 實驗方法 26
參與者 26
實驗設計 26
實驗程序 26
第二節 結果 27
第三節 討論 29
第六章 實驗一 31
第一節 實驗方法 31
參與者 31
實驗程序 31
第二節 結果 31
回想測驗 31
再認測驗 34
第三節 討論 36
成功複製 Google Effect 36
打字速度對 Google Effect 的影響 36
第七章 實驗二 38
第一節 實驗方法 39
參與者 39
實驗材料 39
實驗設計 39
實驗程序 40
第二節 結果 43
回想作業 43
再認作業 48
第三節 討論 54
Google Effect 損失背後的機制 55
Google Effect 的優勢沒有出現的原因 57
第八章 綜合討論 61
第一節 實驗限制 61
跟真實生活脫節 61
實驗方法造成的侷限 62
認知負荷對 Google Effect 造成的影響 63
第二節 未來方向 64
儲存失敗造成的影響 64
處理深度可能對 Google Effect 造成影響 64
利用外在儲存資訊學習的可能性 65
第三節 結論 66
參考文獻 67
附錄 A:前導研究與實驗一閱讀階段用 40 則小知識 73
附錄 B:前導研究與實驗一用作答紙 75
附錄 C:前導研究一指導語 80
附錄 D:前導研究二指導語 82
附錄 E:實驗一指導語 84
附錄 F:實驗二練習實驗用 24 個中文雙字詞 87
附錄 G:實驗二正式實驗用 80 個中文雙字詞 88
附錄 H:實驗二指導語 89
附錄 I:實驗二試後網路問卷截圖 93
參考文獻 張松年(2002)。抑制與指示遺忘:線索時間與工作記憶的影響(碩士論文)。取自 http://handle.ncl.edu.tw/11296/ndltd/45986631445797450611
Agarwal, P. K., Karpicke, J. D., Kang, S. H. K., Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (2008). Examining the testing effect with open- and closed-book tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(7), 861–876. http://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1391
Anderson, J. R., & Bower, G. H. (1972). Recognition and retrieval processes in free recall. Psychological Review, 79(2), 97–123. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0033773
Anderson, M. C. (2005). The Role of Inhibitory Control in Forgetting Unwanted Memories: A Consideration of Three Methods. In N. Ohta, C. M. MacLeod, & B. Uttl (Eds.), Dynamic Cognitive Processes (pp. 159–189). Springer Tokyo. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/4-431-27431-6_8
Bjork, R. A. (1989). Retrieval inhibition as an adaptive mechanism in human memory. Varieties of Memory & Consciousness, 309–330.
Bui, D. C., Myerson, J., & Hale, S. (2013). Note-taking with computers: Exploring alternative strategies for improved recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 299–309. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0030367
Dulaney, C. L., Marks, W., & Link, K. E. (2004). Aging and Directed Forgetting: Pre-Cue Encoding and Post-Cue Rehearsal Effects. Experimental Aging Research, 30(1), 95–112. http://doi.org/10.1080/03610730490251504
Epic Apps. (n.d.). 10fastfingers.com. Retrieved from http://10fastfingers.com/typing-test/traditional-chinese
Eskritt, M., & Ma, S. (2014). Intentional forgetting: Note-taking as a naturalistic example. Memory & Cognition, 42(2), 237–246. http://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0362-1
Gardiner, J. M., Gawlik, B., & Richardson-Klavehn, A. (1994). Maintenance rehearsal affects knowing, not remembering; elaborative rehearsal affects remembering, not knowing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(1), 107–110. http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200764
Henkel, L. A. (2013). Point-and-Shoot Memories The Influence of Taking Photos on Memory for a Museum Tour. Psychological Science, 0956797613504438. http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613504438
Hodges, S., Berry, E., & Wood, K. (2011). SenseCam: A wearable camera that stimulates and rehabilitates autobiographical memory. Memory, 19(7), 685–696. http://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2011.605591
Hogge, M., Adam, S., & Collette, F. (2008). Directed Forgetting and Aging: The Role of Retrieval Processes, Processing Speed, and Proactive Interference. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 15(4), 471–491. http://doi.org/10.1080/13825580701878065
Kalnikaité, V., & Whittaker, S. (2007). Software or Wetware?: Discovering when and Why People Use Digital Prosthetic Memory. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 71–80). New York, NY, USA: ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240635
Kang, S. H. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4-5), 528–558. http://doi.org/10.1080/09541440601056620
Lee, Y. S. (2011). Cognitive load hypothesis of item-method directed forgetting. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(6), 1110–1122. http://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2011.644303
Lee, Y. S. (2013). Costs and Benefits in Item-Method Directed Forgetting: Differential Effects of Encoding and Retrieval. The Journal of General Psychology, 140(3), 159–173. http://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2012.750591
Lee, Y. S., & Lee, H. M. (2011). Divided attention facilitates intentional forgetting: Evidence from item-method directed forgetting. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(3), 618–626. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2010.09.008
Lee, Y. S., Lee, H. M., & Tsai, S. H. (2007). Effects of post-cue interval on intentional forgetting. British Journal of Psychology, 98(2), 257–272. http://doi.org/10.1348/000712606X120410
MacLeod, C. M. (2012). Directed forgetting. In Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 993–995). Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_1084
Pastötter, B., & Bäuml, K.-H. (2010). Amount of postcue encoding predicts amount of directed forgetting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(1), 54–65. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0017406
Rose, D. E., & Levinson, D. (2004). Understanding User Goals in Web Search. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web (pp. 13–19). New York, NY, USA: ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/988672.988675
Sahakyan, L., & Delaney, P. F. (2005). Directed Forgetting in Incidental Learning and Recognition Testing: Support for a Two-Factor Account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(4), 789–801. http://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.4.789
Sahakyan, L., & Foster, N. L. (2009). Intentional forgetting of actions: Comparison of list-method and item-method directed forgetting. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(1), 134–152. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.02.006
Schönpflug, W. (1986). The trade-off between internal and external information storage. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(6), 657–675. http://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(86)90042-2
Sheard, E. D., & MacLeod, C. M. (2005). List Method Directed Forgetting: Return of the Selective Rehearsal Account. In N. Ohta, C. M. MacLeod, & B. Uttl (Eds.), Dynamic Cognitive Processes (pp. 219–248). Springer Tokyo. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/4-431-27431-6_10
Sparrow, B., & Chatman, L. (2013). Social Cognition in the Internet Age: Same As It Ever Was? Psychological Inquiry, 24(4), 273–292. http://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2013.827079
Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776–778. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207745
Storm, B. C., & Stone, S. M. (2014). Saving-Enhanced Memory The Benefits of Saving on the Learning and Remembering of New Information. Psychological Science, 0956797614559285. http://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614559285
Titz, C., & Verhaeghen, P. (2010). Aging and directed forgetting in episodic memory: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 25(2), 405–411. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0017225
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2021-02-18起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2021-02-18起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw