Taking photographs with cell phones rather than making longhand notes has become increasingly popular amongst college students (Morehead et al., 2019). The effect of photograph-taking on memory continues to be debated. Barasch et al. (2017) found that when participants visited a museum, photograph-taking improved visual memory but hampered auditory memory. Ditta et al. (2023) found that photograph-taking improved memory of lecture content. In contrast, some researchers showed that photograph-taking negatively impacts memory (Henkel, 2014; Lurie & Westerman, 2021; Soares & Storm, 2018, 2022) a phenomenon that is called the photograph-taking impairment effect. For example, Henkel (2014) instructed undergraduates to either photograph or simply view exhibits in a museum and found that those who photographed the exhibits recognized less information compared to students who viewed the exhibits. Soares and Storm (2022) found that participants who took 1–5 photographs of paintings had significantly worse memories of the paintings than did participants who did not take photographs.

 

There are two primary explanations regarding the mechanism underlying the photograph-taking impairment effect: attentional disengagement and cognitive offloading. The former is based on the scarcity of attentional resources (Kahneman, 1973). Under this view, physical actions such as picking up a camera, selecting the photographic object, and focusing on the photographic object while viewing the exhibit require a certain amount of attentional resources, decreasing the attentional resources available for processing the exhibit image and text and impairing information encoding (Niforatos et al., 2017; Soares & Storm., 2018). The cognitive-offloading explanation is based on transactive memory theory (Ward, 2013; Wegner, 1987). Cognitive offloading involves altering a task’s information-processing requirements through physical movements, which reduces the cognitive demand (Risko & Gilbert., 2016). Studies have shown that reliance on external information-storage devices during the encoding phase can negatively impact memory (Lu et al., 2020; Sparrow et al., 2011). Hamilton and Yao (2018) proposed that cognitive offloading leads to blurring of the boundaries between internal storage and external storage (e.g., with devices such as cell phones) of personal memory. The transition of information storage from conventional to digital methods may make individuals less motivated to process new information. As an external information storage device, cell phones may affect memory through cognitive offloading. However, only the attentional-disengagement explanation has been supported by empirical studies. For example, Niforatos et al. (2017) found that regarding the free recall of campus landmarks, a manual-picture-capture group utilizing smartphones had significantly lower scores than an automatic-picture-capture group equipped with a lightweight wearable camera programmed to capture images every 30 seconds, but there was no significant difference in scores between the automatic-picture-capture group and an observation (no capture) group. The authors speculated that this pattern was caused by attentional disengagement due to manual picture taking. Additionally, Soares and Storm (2018) supported the attentional-disengagement explanation over the cognitive-offloading explanation in their comparison of the recognition scores of participants under three scenarios: taking and saving photographs, taking and deleting photographs, and simply observing. Their results showed that the photograph-taking groups (regardless of whether the photographs were saved or deleted) had significantly lower recognition scores than the observing group. They concluded that attentional disengagement due to manual photograph taking caused this memory impairment (Soares & Storm, 2018).

 

Most previous studies on the photograph-taking impairment effect emphasized scenes or objects. To date, only two studies have examined this effect in terms of classroom learning. Wong and Lim (2023) asked undergraduates to take photographs, write longhand notes, or simply listen (without taking notes) to lecture materials during a video-recorded lecture played on a computer. The results showed that the longhand note-taking group performed better on a free-recall task than did photograph takers or control learners. However, the basis of the photograph-taking impairment effect, as described in prior research, suggests that photograph taking impairs memory when the photographs are not reviewed (Henkel, 2014; Lurie & Westerman, 2021; Soares & Storm, 2018). These studies focused on the negative impact of photograph taking on information processing. In contrast, Wong and Lim (2023) merely examined the free-recall performance of photograph takers who reviewed photographs and control learners who reviewed handouts. These results may simply indicate that photographs are as efficient as lecture handouts for storing information. Ditta et al (2023) found that taking photographs during an online video lecture improved participants’ memory recall compared to not taking photographs. However, in contrast to prior research, their participants were informed that they would take tests without the opportunity to review the photographs. Usually, photographs are taken to facilitate the review of lecture materials in the future. Informing participants that they could not review photographs before the experiments may have helped these undergraduates determine that the photographs were the subject of the investigation, such that they directed more of their attention to learning. Therefore, the result could differ in real-life classroom-learning scenarios. Research is needed to determine whether the photograph-taking impairment effect occurs in a classroom-learning context.

 

To ascertain the underlying cause of the photograph-taking impairment effect, Wong and Lim (2023) used thought probes to assess mind wandering during the study period and found that mind wandering was significantly and negatively correlated with recall performance. This suggests that taking photographs led to more frequent attentional disengagement than taking longhand notes. Cognitive offloading is more likely to occur when learners believe that they can later review the information; however, Wong and Lim did not examine this effect. Consequently, the effect of cognitive offloading should also be explored.

 

We conducted two experiments to (a) determine whether taking photographs with cell phones induced the photograph-taking impairment effect and (b) identify the cognitive mechanism behind this effect. In Experiment 1 we compared the learning outcomes of participants between photograph-taking and observation conditions to determine whether taking photographs interfered with learning. In Experiment 2 we aimed to disentangle the two processes of attentional disengagement (caused by manual capture) and cognitive offloading (caused by saving photographs). By establishing distinct conditions, we thus examined the cognitive mechanism underlying the photograph-taking impairment effect.

In reference to the effect size of d = 0.50 set by Lurie and Westerman (2021), we needed 34 participants for a statistical power analysis of 1 – β = .80 and α = .05 (G*Power 3.1.9.2). We recruited 44 participants from a college in China. Four students who did not follow the requirements were excluded. Among the remaining 40 valid participants, 28 were men (70%) and 12 were women (30%), with a mean age of 18.54 years (SD = 0.62). All participants provided written informed consent before the experiment began and were free to stop at any time. The methods did not cause any physical or psychological harm to the participants; therefore, this study was eligible for exemption from ethical review.

 

To simulate a real classroom setting, the experiment was carried out in a multimedia classroom. The multimedia playback device was a UCN860BS-C intelligent whiteboard (UCN, China) with an 86-inch screen and a resolution of 3840 × 2160 pixels. Before the experiment began, the participants were first assessed on their familiarity with eight key concepts in the learning materials using a 4-point Likert scale (1 = never heard of it to 4 = know well). Next, they were informed that they would participate in a simulated classroom-learning experiment and that they would use their cell phone to take pictures of the learning content they thought was important for review, and there would be a test afterward. Then, they were randomly assigned to watch one series of videos, using a different learning method for each video. For example, participants learned the first material by observation and then completed an interference task for 2 minutes after the video to prevent retention in short-term memory. Then, the participant evaluated the difficulty of the learning materials using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = extremely easy to 5 = extremely difficult) and took the test. After a 5-minute break, the participants studied the second material with photograph taking. They were told to take photographs of what they thought was important to facilitate review before the test, and then engaged in the interference task, and completed the test. To ensure that the learning time of the two experimental conditions was the same, the participants were not allowed to review the photographs before the test. To prevent distraction, cell phones were set to airplane mode during the experiment. The learning order was counterbalanced across participants. The test results were evaluated by an independent evaluator.

 

We adopted a within-subjects experimental design. The independent variable was the learning condition (photograph taking, observation), and the dependent variable was learning accuracy.

 

Lecture videos. To minimize the influence of prior knowledge, two unusual chemistry topics (ionic liquids, drug polymorphism) were selected as the experimental materials for the students, none of whom majored in chemistry. Lectures on these topics were prepared by two teachers and narrated by a lecturer in 11-minute videos. To ensure the consistency of materials, 37 students who did not participate in the formal experiment were recruited to assess the difficulty on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (extremely easy) to 5 (extremely difficult). The difficulties for the two materials were similar: M_{Material 1} = 3.59, SD = 0.50; M_{Material 2} = 3.54, SD = 0.61, t(36) = 0.624, p > .05, Cohen’s d = 0.09. The videos were combined into two series differing in order, with each series containing both videos.

 

Test materials. These were compiled by two teachers. Each test contained five fill-in-the-blank questions with answers related to parts of the slides presented in the video. Each question was worth 1 point, for a total possible score of 5 points.

We analyzed the results with JASP 0.15.0. A paired sample t test revealed no significant differences between the two materials in terms of either familiarity, M_{Material 1} = 1.12, SD = 0.11; M_{Material 2} = 1.09, SD = 0.10, t(39) = 1.03, p > .05, Cohen’s d = 0.16, or difficulty, M_{Material 1} = 3.63, SD = 0.67; M_{Material 2} 3.50, SD = 0.72, t(39) = 1.09, p > .05, Cohen’s d = 0.17.

 

Accuracy was significantly lower in the photograph-taking condition, M = 0.32, SD = 0.19, than in the observation condition, M = 0.44, SD = 0.21, t(39) = −2.97, p < .05, Cohen’s d = −0.47. These results suggest that the photograph-taking impairment effect occurred in the photograph-taking condition.

The results showed that college students performed better in the observation condition than in the photograph-taking condition, indicating the presence of the photograph-taking impairment effect on classroom learning.

Experiment 2 was designed to determine whether attentional disengagement or cognitive offloading underlie the photograph-taking impairment effect on classroom learning. We anticipated that if accuracy was significantly lower in the photograph condition compared to the no-photograph condition, this would suggest that the photograph-taking impairment effect is due to attentional disengagement. In contrast, if accuracy was significantly lower in the review condition compared to the no-review condition, this would indicate that cognitive offloading, caused by saving the photographs, leads to the photograph-taking impairment effect.

Regarding the effect size, f = 0.25, 128 participants were needed for a statistical power analysis 1 – β = .80 and α = .05 (G*Power 3.1.9.2). A different group of 132 college students participated in this experiment and were randomly divided into four groups. All participants signed informed consent forms. The data from four students who did not follow the requirements were excluded. The remaining 128 participants comprised 77 men (60%) and 51 women (40%) with a mean age of 18.89 years (SD = 0.84).

 

The experimental environment was essentially the same as that in Experiment 1. Participants were randomly divided into four groups. In the photograph-and-review group, participants were instructed to manually capture a photograph of each slide presented in the video using their cell phone and were informed that they could review the photographs before taking the test. In the photograph-and-no-review group, participants were required to manually take a photograph of each slide, but they were not permitted to review the photographs before the test. In the no-photograph-and-review group, participants were informed that the experimenter would capture all photographs and send them to their cell phones, and they would be able to review the photographs before the test. In the no-photograph-and-no-review group, participants learned the materials without taking photographs and were informed they could not review photographs. However, to ensure that the learning time was held constant across all conditions, participants engaged in the interference task immediately afterward and then completed the test without reviewing the photographs. The test results were evaluated by an independent evaluator.

 

We adopted a between-subjects experimental design. The independent variable was the combination of the photography condition (yes, no) × review condition (yes, no), and the dependent variable was accuracy.

 

The lecture video subject (ionic liquids) and test materials were the same as those in Experiment 1.

The mean scores and standard deviations are shown in Table 1. An analysis of variance of familiarity indicated that neither the main effect nor the interaction effect was significant (p > .05). Familiarity was taken into account as a covariate in an analysis of covariance of accuracy, which yielded a significant main effect of photograph condition, F(1, 124) = 4.467, p = .037, η_p² = .035. However, the main effect of review condition was not significant, F(1, 124) = 1.827, p = .179, η_p² = .015, nor was the interaction effect, F(1, 124) = 0.005, p = .982, η_p² < .001.

 

A post hoc Bonferroni test indicated that the accuracy in the photograph condition, M = 0.40, SD = 0.18, was significantly lower than that in the no-photograph condition, M = 0.49, SD = 0.25, p = .037, Cohen’s d = –0.374.

Accuracy was significantly lower in the photograph condition than in the no-photograph condition, suggesting that the distraction caused by photograph taking may have led to impaired memory. However, there was no significant difference in accuracy between the review and no-review conditions. This indicates that cognitive offloading may not be the primary factor contributing to the photograph-taking impairment effect.

General Discussion

This study examined the influence of taking photographs with cell phones on college students’ learning in a simulated classroom environment and explored the possible mechanisms underlying this effect. Our findings are consistent with those of studies employing scenes or exhibits as learning or memorization objects (Henkel, 2014; Lurie & Westerman, 2021; Soares & Storm, 2018; Wong & Lim, 2023), supporting the view that the photograph-taking impairment effect may be at least partly due to attentional disengagement.

Attentional resources are limited (Kahneman, 1973). College students need to deeply understand, integrate, and systematically organize knowledge during classroom learning, which requires attention resources. Photograph taking may result in less attentional resources being available for encoding, thus reducing the depth or fineness of the information encoded, therefore leading to reduced learning outcomes. Moreover, cognitive processing occurs continuously in classroom learning, so frequent alternation between photograph taking and learning may lead to attention residue, which occurs when switching attention between tasks, so that it is difficult to allocate all attentional resources to the task (Leroy, 2009; Leroy & Glomb, 2018). In classroom learning, when college students change from taking photographs back to learning, it may be difficult for them to allocate all attentional resources to the learning task, resulting in a decrease in the encoding quality of the learning content and the photograph-taking impairment effect.

However, Ditta et al. (2023) found a positive effect of photograph taking on learning when students knew in advance that they could not review the pictures. This disparity can potentially be accounted for by variations in the methodologies employed in their study and ours. To begin with, there is a discrepancy in the frequency of photograph taking. In the study conducted by Ditta et al. (2023), students captured 50% of the slides, equivalent to five slides, over a learning period of 10 minutes. Conversely, in Experiment 2, we instructed students to capture 11 slides within an 11-minute timeframe. It is plausible that a higher frequency of photograph taking may result in the utilization of additional cognitive resources, leading to distraction and ultimately diminishing the effectiveness of the learning process. Moreover, there is a potential discrepancy in the anticipated outcomes related to the action of taking photographs. Ditta et al. (2023) directed participants to capture images on every other slide, with the researchers suggesting that this experimental arrangement might intensify students’ anticipation, resulting in a heightened focus on the visual content and consequently augmenting the effectiveness of the educational experience. In contrast, Experiment 2 of our study required students in the photograph condition to capture images of each slide, without assurance of their inclusion in the subsequent assessment. As a result, students may not have devote extra attention to the depicted content while performing the assigned photographic task. Henkel (2014) discovered that when photographed content represents a specific component of an exhibit, there is no notable disparity in recognition accuracy between those taking photographs and those who solely observe. Henkel (2014) suggested that this phenomenon might be explained by the extra attention allocated to the content of the photographs while taking them, which compensates for the photograph-taking impairment effect. We speculate that the photograph-taking impairment effect is most likely to occur when students take pictures to store information and do not pay extra attention to the content of the photographs.

Our results do not seem to support the cognitive-offloading explanation for the photograph-taking impairment effect, which is consistent with previous studies (Niforatos et al., 2017; Soares & Storm, 2018). However, the role of cognitive offloading cannot be completely denied. In our study the learning difficulties of the experimental materials were moderate and the learning time was only 10 minutes, which might have led to a lower cognitive load. The occurrence of cognitive offload may be affected by cognitive load. When the number of memory items is large, the task is difficult, and the cognitive load is high, people are more likely to offload the content that they need to remember to an external storage device (Risko & Dunn, 2015).

Nevertheless, our conclusion is preliminary, and more research is needed to verify our results and provide multifaceted evidence. For example, most previous studies have examined the impact of photograph taking on declarative knowledge (Ditta et al., 2023; Henkel, 2014; Lurie & Westerman, 2021; Soares & Storm, 2018, 2022), but little attention has been paid to its effect on procedural knowledge. In addition, most prior studies used fact-based tests, but the impact of photographing on knowledge transfer has not yet been carried out. In the future, more effective ways that can separate the roles of impaired attention and cognitive offloading need to be explored. The cognitive-offloading explanation for the impairment effect may be subject to the cognitive load induced by the memory task, and it is necessary to further clarify the conditions in which cognitive offloading occurs by manipulating the cognitive load induced by the memory task.

In conclusion, taking photographs with cell phones during class induced the photograph-taking impairment effect in college students. The effect may be due to impaired attention caused by manual photograph taking. This study provides a scientific basis for warning college students to use photograph taking carefully in the classroom.

 

Barasch, A., Diehl, K., Silverman, J., & Zauberman, G. (2017). Photographic memory: The effects of volitional photo taking on memory for visual and auditory aspects of an experience. Psychological Science, 28(8), 1056–1066.

 

Ditta, A. S., Soares, J. S., & Storm, B. C. (2023). What happens to memory for lecture content when students take photos of the lecture slides? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 12(3), 421–430.

 

Hamilton, K. A., & Yao, M. Z. (2018). Blurring boundaries: Effects of device features on metacognitive evaluations. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 213–220.

 

Henkel, L. A. (2014). Point-and-shoot memories: The influence of taking photos on memory for a museum tour. Psychological Science, 25(2), 396–402.

 

Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Prentice-Hall.

 

Leroy, S. (2009). Why is it so hard to do my work? The challenge of attention residue when switching between work tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 168–181.

 

Leroy, S., & Glomb, T. M. (2018). Tasks interrupted: How anticipating time pressure on resumption of an interrupted task causes attention residue and low performance on interrupting tasks and how a “ready-to-resume” plan mitigates the effects. Organization Science, 29(3), 380–397.

 

Lu, X., Kelly, M. O., & Risko, E. F. (2020). Offloading information to an external store increases false recall. Cognition, 205, Article 104428.

 

Lurie, R., & Westerman, D. (2021). Photo-taking impairs memory on perceptual and conceptual memory tests. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 10(2), 289–297.

 

Morehead, K., Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Blasiman, R., & Hollis, R. B. (2019). Note-taking habits of 21st century college students: Implications for student learning, memory, and achievement. Memory, 27(6), 807–819.

 

Niforatos, E., Cinel, C., Mack, C. C., Langheinrich, M., & Ward, G. (2017). Can less be more? Contrasting limited, unlimited, and automatic picture capture for augmenting memory recall. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 1(2), Article 21.

 

Risko, E. F., & Dunn, T. L. (2015). Storing information in-the-world: Metacognition and cognitive offloading in a short-term memory task. Consciousness and Cognition, 36, 61–74.

 

Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688.

 

Soares, J. S., & Storm, B. C. (2018). Forget in a flash: A further investigation of the photo-taking-impairment effect. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(1), 154–160.

 

Soares, J. S., & Storm, B. C. (2022). Does taking multiple photos lead to a photo-taking-impairment effect? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29(6), 2211–2218.

 

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.

 

Ward, A. F. (2013). Supernormal: How the internet is changing our memories and our minds. Psychological Inquiry, 24(4), 341–348.

 

Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). Springer.

 

Wong, S. S. H., & Lim, S. W. H. (2023). Take notes, not photos: Mind-wandering mediates the impact of note-taking strategies on video-recorded lecture learning performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 29(1), 124–135.

 

Barasch, A., Diehl, K., Silverman, J., & Zauberman, G. (2017). Photographic memory: The effects of volitional photo taking on memory for visual and auditory aspects of an experience. Psychological Science, 28(8), 1056–1066.

 

Ditta, A. S., Soares, J. S., & Storm, B. C. (2023). What happens to memory for lecture content when students take photos of the lecture slides? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 12(3), 421–430.

 

Hamilton, K. A., & Yao, M. Z. (2018). Blurring boundaries: Effects of device features on metacognitive evaluations. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 213–220.

 

Henkel, L. A. (2014). Point-and-shoot memories: The influence of taking photos on memory for a museum tour. Psychological Science, 25(2), 396–402.

 

Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Prentice-Hall.

 

Leroy, S. (2009). Why is it so hard to do my work? The challenge of attention residue when switching between work tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 168–181.

 

Leroy, S., & Glomb, T. M. (2018). Tasks interrupted: How anticipating time pressure on resumption of an interrupted task causes attention residue and low performance on interrupting tasks and how a “ready-to-resume” plan mitigates the effects. Organization Science, 29(3), 380–397.

 

Lu, X., Kelly, M. O., & Risko, E. F. (2020). Offloading information to an external store increases false recall. Cognition, 205, Article 104428.

 

Lurie, R., & Westerman, D. (2021). Photo-taking impairs memory on perceptual and conceptual memory tests. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 10(2), 289–297.

 

Morehead, K., Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Blasiman, R., & Hollis, R. B. (2019). Note-taking habits of 21st century college students: Implications for student learning, memory, and achievement. Memory, 27(6), 807–819.

 

Niforatos, E., Cinel, C., Mack, C. C., Langheinrich, M., & Ward, G. (2017). Can less be more? Contrasting limited, unlimited, and automatic picture capture for augmenting memory recall. Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, 1(2), Article 21.

 

Risko, E. F., & Dunn, T. L. (2015). Storing information in-the-world: Metacognition and cognitive offloading in a short-term memory task. Consciousness and Cognition, 36, 61–74.

 

Risko, E. F., & Gilbert, S. J. (2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688.

 

Soares, J. S., & Storm, B. C. (2018). Forget in a flash: A further investigation of the photo-taking-impairment effect. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(1), 154–160.

 

Soares, J. S., & Storm, B. C. (2022). Does taking multiple photos lead to a photo-taking-impairment effect? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29(6), 2211–2218.

 

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.

 

Ward, A. F. (2013). Supernormal: How the internet is changing our memories and our minds. Psychological Inquiry, 24(4), 341–348.

 

Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). Springer.

 

Wong, S. S. H., & Lim, S. W. H. (2023). Take notes, not photos: Mind-wandering mediates the impact of note-taking strategies on video-recorded lecture learning performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 29(1), 124–135.