Researchers at Carnegie Mellon examined how internet access influences creativity. The study, published in Memory & Cognition, looked at whether using Google helps or hinders people when brainstorming. While individuals using the internet produced more ideas in some cases, the researchers found that group creativity often dropped when everyone relied on search engines.
The experiment involved 244 undergraduate students who completed a three-minute brainstorming task. Each person had to think of alternative uses for either a shield or an umbrella. Half the group had internet access during the task. The rest were told to stay offline.
The umbrella prompt gave online users an edge. Google searches turned up long lists of creative ideas. Those users came up with more suggestions compared to the offline group. But when the object was a shield, which returned fewer useful results in search, there was no meaningful difference in idea count.
Groups Without Internet Performed Better
To see how group creativity compared, researchers used a method called nominal group analysis. This technique combines responses from individuals into simulated groups. The goal was to measure how many distinct ideas each group generated.
Larger groups without internet access performed better across the board. They produced more unique and less repetitive ideas. As group size increased, the benefit of staying offline became more obvious. People who used Google often repeated the same ideas and listed them in similar order.
Even when the internet led to more suggestions per person, those ideas tended to overlap across the group. This led to less variety overall. In contrast, participants working without online help offered a wider spread of ideas, some of which stood out as more original.
Ratings Confirm Offline Advantage
To rate quality, independent coders scored each idea on creativity, novelty, and effectiveness. Ideas judged to be more original or useful were counted separately. Across multiple comparisons, the offline groups produced higher-scoring ideas more consistently.
In one part of the analysis, researchers re-examined a separate dataset from an earlier study. Even with a five-idea cap in that version, the pattern held. Larger nominal groups without Google still outperformed those with it. Among the 20 best-rated ideas across both studies, 19 came from users who stayed offline.
This finding adds weight to concerns about digital tools shaping how people think. When multiple users rely on the same search engine, they often land on the same information. That overlap can stifle variety, especially in group settings where idea diversity matters.
Fixation Linked to Search Engine Use
The researchers connected their findings to a cognitive phenomenon known as fixation. This happens when people get stuck on a familiar example and fail to think beyond it. Seeing a few common ideas in a search result may cause others to fade into the background. That effect can limit creative thinking, especially when many people see the same prompts.
Even though Google can boost idea quantity for individuals, it seems to limit originality when used by a group. The internet serves up popular suggestions first. As a result, people often travel down the same mental paths. The study found that in online groups, responses tended to cluster around those shared routes.
Human Thinking Still Has an Edge
Study author Danny Oppenheimer emphasized that the findings don’t mean the internet makes people less intelligent. Instead, he pointed out that how people use tools like Google matters more than the tools themselves. “The internet isn’t making us dumb,” he told Smithsonian Magazine. “But we may be using it in ways that aren’t helpful.”
Coauthor Mark Patterson also stressed the value of human thought in solving complex problems. He said that even though search engines and AI tools keep evolving, individuals bring unique perspectives that can’t be replicated. “It feels like every week there’s some sort of mind-blowing, new advance,” Patterson said. “But our own thinking, unaided by tech, still has serious value.”
The researchers pointed out that search results tend to direct people toward conventional solutions. This behavior can limit creative options, especially in group settings. As a way to avoid these “fixation effects,” they suggest doing a round of offline brainstorming before turning to the internet.
The team is now exploring whether different prompt strategies, sometimes called prompt engineering, can help people use digital tools more effectively. Their goal is to find approaches that preserve creativity while making smart use of online resources.
For everyday tasks, fixation may not cause much harm. But for broader challenges that require original solutions, Patterson noted that encouraging more diversity in thought could make a difference. “Solving big problems often means finding solutions that others haven’t thought of yet,” he said.
Study Limitations and Next Steps
The authors noted several constraints in their research. All participants were university students, and the study only used two objects, an umbrella and a shield. That narrow scope might not reflect how broader populations respond in other settings. The time limit may also have limited how deeply participants could explore search results.
Despite these limits, the pattern repeated across different measures, coders, and datasets. In tests of both quantity and quality, offline groups came out ahead more often. Even when different methods were used to define what counted as a good idea, the outcome leaned in the same direction.
The researchers are now exploring how people might use search tools or language models more effectively. Future work could focus on guiding users to avoid getting stuck on similar ideas, especially when working in teams.
Key Takeaway
When working alone, a quick search might help get the ball rolling. But when brainstorming as a group, turning to the internet too soon could narrow the creative field. Sometimes, keeping it offline leaves more room for fresh ideas to take root.
Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools. Image: DIW-Aigen.
Read next: Your Phone May Be a Germ Hub and You’re Likely Cleaning It All Wrong