Does taking multiple photos lead to a photo-taking-impairment effect?

Abstract

The photo-taking-impairment effect is observed when photographed information is less likely to be remembered than nonphotographed information. Three experiments examined whether this effect persists when multiple photos are taken. Experiment 1 used a within-subjects laboratory-based design in which participants viewed images of paintings and were instructed to photograph them once, five times, or not at all. Participants' memory was measured using a visual detail test, and the photo-taking-impairment effect was observed when participants took multiple photos. Experiment 2 examined the photo-taking-impairment effect using a between-subjects design. Participants either photographed all of the paintings they saw once, five times, or not at all, before being tested on their memory for the paintings. The photo-taking-impairment effect was observed in both photo-taking conditions relative to the no photo baseline. Experiment 3 replicated this pattern of results even when participants who took multiple photos were instructed to take five unique photos. These findings indicate that the photo-taking-impairment effect is robust, occurring even when multiple photos are taken, and after nonselective photo-taking.

Comparing functions of and recollection with recently taken and recently deleted smartphone camera photos

“…Indeed, photo‐taking goals could help elucidate the mixed literature examining photo‐taking effects on memory. Some studies have indicated that photo‐taking can impair memory for photographed information (Henkel, 2014; Lurie & Westerman, 2021; Soares & Storm, 2018, 2022b), while others have found the opposite effect: that photo taking benefits memory for photographed information (Barasch et al, 2017; Ditta et al, 2023). It is possible that taking photos with different goals in mind or in different situations could trigger different cognitive processes and result in different memory effects of photo taking.…”

AI Style Recognition Technological Artifact on Smart Campus UEL: Design of the Evaluation Photo-taking-impairment Effect on Architectural Heritage

“…Esses autores argumentam que o direcionamento no desenho do experimento de Henkel teria influenciado os resultados, pois as pessoas voluntariamente tirariam fotos envolvendo objetivos e processos atencionais não examinados na pesquisa anterior (Barasch et al, 2017). Ainda que pesquisas posteriores tenham confirmado de algum modo o efeito relatado (Soares & Storm, 2022;Lurie & Westerman, 2021;Soares & Storm, 2018;Niforatos et al, 2017), a preocupação com o desenho de pesquisa levantada por Barasch et al (2017) tem sido sempre discutida (Soares & Storm, 2022).…”

“…A descarga cognitiva, discutida por Henkel e apoiada em Sparrow et al (2011), sugere que os participantes tiveram uma perda em sua atenção porque passariam a confiar na memória externa da câmera. Por outro lado, o desengajamento atencional estaria relacionado com a dupla tarefa de usar uma câmera (Soares & Storm, 2018), onde o prejuízo de memória teria relação com uma desconexão da cena, impedindo os participantes de codificar o objeto observado (Soares & Storm, 2022). Soares e Storm (2022), mais recentemente, com novos experimentos, alegam ter encontrado evidências mais convincentes contra a hipótese da descarga cognitiva.…”

Photo age: Temporal preferences for external memory across the lifespan

“…The existence of such a cognitive offloading relationship is consistent with findings showing memory impairments after saving information externally. Indeed, memory impairments for information saved on a computer (Sparrow et al 2011), information obtained through an internet search (Fisher et al 2021), and photographed information (Henkel 2014; Soares and Storm 2018, 2022a) have been observed relative to memory for information that is not digitally stored. Consistent with this cognitive offloading mechanism, one study showed that participants only experienced memory impairments associated with saving information when they were shown in a practice trial that the saving process was reliable (Schooler and Storm 2021).…”