△ MENU/TOP △

Holtz Communications + Technology

Shel Holtz
Communicating at the Intersection of Business and Technology
SearchClose Icon

Study explodes the myth of Internet-based information overload

Study explodes the myth of Internet-based information overload

the information overload mythListen to enough hysterical warnings and dire forecasts and you’d think that information overload is leading us to some kind of bleak, post-apocalyptic future. In an Advertising Age column he wrote back in 2007, Edelman Senior VP Steve Rubel said, “A crash is coming, folks. But this time it’s not financial—it’s personal.” The attention crisis, he said, is an epidemic. “There’s no more room at the inn. People will cut back.”

Outlets ranging from The New York Times to Lifehack.org have addressed the consequences of too much online information. Personally, I’ve never bought it. More than a decade ago, I argued that people can stand all the information you can possibly throw at them—about things in which they’re interested. The stuff they don’t care about? They don’t waste time with it. As for the worry about too many sources of information, content and conversation, I figure people will adjust based on their interests and the time they have available. Tools that consolidate, aggregate and curate have helped, too.

But now, there’s proof that all this worry about information overload, message meltdown and attention crash is overinflated hyperventilating. A study out of Northwestern University finds that “very few Americans feel bogged down or overwhelmed b y the volume of news and information at their fingertips and on their screens.”

Published in the journal The Information Society, the findings were based on seven focus groups with 77 participants from around the country. According to study author Eszter Hargittai, associate professor of communication studies, “We found that the high volume of information available these days seems to make most people feel empowered and enthusiastic. People are able to get their news and information from a diverse set of sources and they seem to like having those options.”

Study participants were asked specifically about the volume of content at their fingertips, but few said anything about feeling overwhelmed or suffering from overload. According to a report on the study, typical responses included the following:

  • Participants had near-unanimous enthusiasm about the new media environment
  • Online news was regarded more positively than TV news
  • Cable news was often criticized for its sensationalism and stream of repetitive stories
  • Trivial social media posts and opinionated political pundits are top sources of frustration when seeking information

In fact, rather than feeling buried by information, people are getting more critical of its quality. “But these frustrations were accompanied by enthusiasm and excitement on a more general level about overall media choices,” Hargittai said.

As for the few who did feel overwhelmed, these tended to be participants with low levels of Internet skill, people who can’t navigate search engine results or filter through social media updates.

Incidentally, if you’re shaking your head at the idea that information overload is an overblown issue because of the amount of information you deal with at work, that’s another story! There’s ample data to support employee claims of being buried in information; the email inbox alone is enough to drive some people over the edge. Fortunately, IABC’s Research Foundation has produced a report on sources and solutions for the enterprise overload problem.

Comments
  • 1.I agree they won't pay ATTENTION to what they don't care about so isn't ATTENTION the real issue?

    Thomas Ho | September 2012 | Orlando, Florida USA

  • 2.Shel:

    I think this is exactly why professional communicators are more important ever. It's our job to make sure our stuff stands out, that people can instantly recognize that it's something they want/need to read, and that we create compelling content that won't go into the "ignore that" pile.

    There IS more stuff coming at people. They may not be overwhelmed, but they are being very selective. If we don't sell our stuff and package our stuff properly, they're not going to look at it.

    Steve Crescenzo | September 2012

  • 3.
    They did focus groups with only 77 participants? Really? That seems like a nano-sized sample. I am not an expert in research methodology, but survey design counts, and I'm skeptical that this one study really "explodes the myth" of info overload. It's one thought-provoking perspective only.

    As a comms pro who has overlaid social media on top of all that's gone before, I find I face a veritable tsunami of info, channels, posts and comments, etc. It takes a special kind of mind to select, grasp, and integrate the best of the offerings with the value previously created through more traditional channels (F2F, destination intranets, websites, etc.) I see you have referred to this in your last paragraph - thanks, I'll check out your reference to the IABC report. FWIW, The Atlantic has published some thoughtful features here:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/09/is-google-making-us-stupid/62964/ and here:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/is-facebook-making-us-lonely/308930/

    Anne Mowat | September 2012 | Canada

  • 4.Anne, for a qualitative study, 77 people representing a geographically valid sampling is adequate. You'd be surprised how few people are needed for a quantitative sample. I routinely hear people criticize studies that reflect American opinion with 1,000 or so participants, but statistically, it's a valid sample with a very low margin of error.

    Note that the study was published in an scholarly journal, so its methodology passed muster with the journal's review committee.

    Shel Holtz | September 2012

  • 5.Wow. Live and learn. Thanks for responding, Shel. And so fast! You must never sleep. :-)
    Anne

    Anne Mowat | September 2012

  • 6.Shel -- great post. There's certainly no doubt that there's a massive increase in the amount of content being created and shared everyday, but most people aren't aimlessly wandering around the web (or if they are they've opted in to that kind of browsing approach) so in practice this issue gets over blown. There's so many ways today to better navigate the web and "surf with a purpose" -- we can now receive targeted updates from friend's social newsfeed updates in Facebook, follow relevant people on Twitter, visit pre-selected bookmarked sites, receive email newsletters based on opt-in subscriptions or use a tablet-app like Flipboard or Pulse with customized channels based on our interests.

    It would be very interesting to see/compare a similar study for the work place. Has anyone seen one?. We do need better business-oriented filtering tools beyond email. RSS isn't the solution.

    Professional curators who sift through the web looking for the best content around specific topics offers an emerging (and improved) content solution for professionals.

    Matt Kumin, CEO PublishThis | September 2012 | United States

  • 7.I've never been overly troubled by the volume of information, but I think the bigger concern (which Anne pointed to with her links) is the question of how we manage that flow and how that affects the depth of our understanding of the information we consume. I don't subscribe to the "google is making us stupid" view. But I think there is some validity to the argument that we skim more than ever. It's part of how we manage the flow, but at what cost to us as consumers and to us as communicators?

    Rueben | September 2012

Comment Form

« Back