Google Expands ‘Results About You’ Tool to Include Government ID Monitoring

Reviewed By Asim BN.

Google announced on Feb. 10, 2026 that it is expanding its “Results about you” tool to help users find and request the removal of Search results containing government-issued identification numbers.

In a blog post, Product Manager Phoebe Wong said, “Over 10 million people have used the ‘Results about you’ tool to control how their sensitive personal information appears online, like a phone number or home address.” The company added that users can now find and request the removal of information such as “your driver’s license, passport, or Social Security number.”

Users can access the tool in the Google app by clicking their account photo and selecting “Results about you,” or by visiting goo.gle/resultsaboutyou. First-time users are prompted to “add the personal contact information you want to monitor,” including government ID numbers, while existing users can add ID numbers directly.

Image: Google / The Keyword Blog

Google said the tool “employs Google’s rigorous security protocols and advanced encryption to prevent misuse and ensure your privacy.” Once confirmed, the system automatically monitors Search results and notifies users if matches are found.

The company noted, “Removing this information from Google Search doesn’t remove it from the web entirely,” and said the update will roll out in the United States first, with plans for additional regions.

Google’s FAQ on the “Results about you” tool emphasizes that users’ personal information is handled with strict security standards. The company states, “We take that responsibility very seriously. To prevent misuse, we store your personal info in accordance with Google's high standards for sensitive personally identifiable information, which includes advanced encryption and access controls.”

The information users provide, such as phone numbers, home addresses, email addresses, and government-issued IDs, is used only for monitoring, to process removal requests, and to improve the monitoring and removal process, and is not shared across other Google products or used for advertising.

Although Google’s FAQ does not specifically address legal disclosures, information submitted through the tool could be provided to authorities under judicial oversight or other legally binding government requests, as confirmed by the DIW team from Google’s published privacy policy.

The company also warns that misuse of the tool may result in losing access or other consequences under its Terms of Service.

Notes: This post was improved with the assistance of AI tools.

Read next: When both partners work from home: the hidden cost of always-on technology

by Ayaz Khan via Digital Information World

When both partners work from home: the hidden cost of always-on technology

By Craig Donaldson. Edited by Asim BN.

Image: Jack Sparrow / Pexels

When partners work from home, constant digital interruptions increase after-work frustration, strain couples’ relationships and place a heavier psychological burden on women, UNSW research has found.

Work-from-home couples experience heightened frustration and relationship conflict when technology allows the intrusion of work into family time, according to new research from UNSW Business School.

Furthermore, women bear a disproportionate psychological burden from these digital interruptions, though simple planning strategies can help reduce the negative impacts of work technology on home life for couples.

The research examined what academics call ICT permeability, which describes how information and communication technologies such as email, text messaging, mobile phones and remote meeting applications pierce the once-solid barrier between work and home life.

When both partners work from home, this blurring of boundaries was associated with distinct challenges that differed markedly from households where only one partner worked remotely.

Understanding the research behind remote work challenges

Manju Ahuja, Scientia Professor in the School of Information Systems and Technology Management at UNSW Business School, investigated these challenges together with her co-authors in a comprehensive study, Work-Family Frustration When You and Your Partner Both Work from Home: The Role of ICT Permeability, Planning, and Gender.

Published in the Journal of the Association for Information Systems, the study is based on a 10-day diary study with 117 participants who lived with their partners while both worked from home full-time through the COVID-19 pandemic.

Participants responded to three daily online surveys over consecutive workdays, providing real-time insights into their experiences. This methodology enabled researchers to capture daily, real-time fluctuations in work-family dynamics and to reduce the retrospective bias common in traditional surveys.

This new study follows up on Prof. Ahuja’s previous research on the psychological and relational costs of working from home, despite the benefits of flexibility and avoiding the daily commute. “This overall stream of research explores the double-edged sword of technology (such as Zoom and Teams) and anytime-anywhere connectivity,” Prof. Ahuja explained.

“The previous research found that, while employees reported significantly improved productivity, they also tended to suffer from stress-related physiological symptoms (like headaches), and their relationships were adversely affected.

“With this new study, we wanted to examine whether these effects are exacerbated when both partners work from home. We were trying to understand what employees can do if they wish to maintain some form of work-life balance in the face of relentless connectivity and constant negotiations of home and work tasks with their partners.”

When work never stops

The study found that work-related technology use during personal time was associated with depletion of individuals’ limited cognitive and emotional resources, leading to what researchers termed “after-work frustration”. This frustration reflected the negative emotions people experienced when unable to fulfil family activities or personal responsibilities due to work-related interruptions.

The research also revealed a counterintuitive finding about productivity. After-work frustration was positively associated with increased job productivity in the short term, as individuals redirected their limited resources towards work tasks where they perceived higher likelihood of success and recognition.

However, this productivity boost came at a cost to family relationships. As the study noted, “attempting to complete family tasks while facing work-related activities is likely to induce frustration.”

“It is important to discuss the ways in which remote work affects work productivity in a meaningful and nuanced manner,” said Prof. Ahuja. “While it is important to look at the short-term productivity gains, it is equally important to look at the effects on the overall lives of employees because personal and professional get quite entangled in remote work settings, and eventually affect work outcomes.”

A gender divide emerges

Women experienced significantly stronger negative effects from technology-enabled work intrusions than men. The research demonstrated that despite increased workforce participation and evolving gender roles, women continued to shoulder greater responsibility for domestic chores, childcare and relationship maintenance.

The study found women are more adversely impacted for not fulfilling family demands, while men traditionally faced greater pressure to meet work obligations. This dynamic meant technology intrusions during family time were associated with more psychological distress for women.

The researchers observed that “women are often responsible for invisible labour – unnoticed and undervalued work at home that includes household chores, childcare, and emotional support for family members.”

When both partners worked from home simultaneously, neither could provide the buffering support typically available when only one partner worked remotely. Each partner faced their own technology intrusions while also managing their partner’s work demands, creating compound stress that intensified frustration levels.

Planning associated with reduced frustration

The research identified daily planning as a strategy associated with reduced frustration from technology-enabled work intrusions. Planning behaviour, which involved setting goals and prioritising tasks for both work and family activities, was linked to helping individuals maintain clearer boundaries between professional and personal domains.

The study also found that individuals who engaged in structured planning experienced weaker relationships between technology permeability and after-work frustration. Planning was associated with more effective resource allocation, reducing the sense of being overwhelmed by competing demands. The research showed that “planning behaviour is particularly salient in the context of working from home.”

“This suggests that when the remote-working partners engage in joint daily planning to account for meetings and video calls each has scheduled (which can be problematic in certain home office setups) and the domestic and childcare tasks that need to be accomplished at certain times, they face lower levels of frustration with each other and internally,” said Prof. Ahuja.

Practical implications for workers and organisations

For individuals, the research suggested actionable strategies. Couples can establish technology-free times and zones, such as a daily hour during dinner and family activities. Sharing schedules between partners allow for better coordination and reduced miscommunication about availability. Digital tools like shared calendars can also help manage the boundary between work and family time.

Organisations also have a role to play in supporting work-from-home arrangements. Employees can be trained in planning techniques to enhance time management skills and reduce family conflict.

Similarly, Prof. Ahuja said managers need to be trained in supervising remote workers and workplace cultures that accommodate home and relational life should be cultivated. “For example, employers can allow employees to block out personal time on shared calendars can also help reduce interruptions during family activities,” she said.

“The research recommended developing policies that granted employees control over flexible work while establishing clear boundaries. These policies could include restricting non-urgent work meetings after 6pm or during weekends and encouraging employees to communicate their availability within teams.”

“These proactive remote work management strategies are likely to lead to higher satisfaction of remote workers, leading to higher employee retention,” Prof. Ahuja concluded.

Note: This post was originally published on UNSW (The University of New South Wales) Sydney Newsroom and republished on DIW with permission.

Read next:

• Why comparisons between AI and human intelligence miss the point

• Why The Real Cost of Working From Home Varies Wildly in US Cities

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

Why comparisons between AI and human intelligence miss the point

Celeste Rodriguez Louro, The University of Western Australia and Jennifer Rodger, The University of Western Australia

Image: Amos K / Unsplash

Claims that artificial intelligence (AI) is on the verge of surpassing human intelligence have become commonplace. According to some commentators, rapid advances in large language models signal an imminent tipping point – often framed as “superintelligence” – that will fundamentally reshape society.

But comparing AI to individual intelligence misses something essential about what human intelligence is. Our intelligence doesn’t operate primarily at the level of isolated individuals. It is social, embodied and collective. Once this is taken seriously, the claim that AI is set to surpass human intelligence becomes far less convincing.

These claims rest on a particular comparison: AI systems are measured against individual human cognitive performance. Can a machine write an essay, pass an exam, diagnose disease, or compose music as well as a person? On these narrow benchmarks, AI appears impressive.

Yet this framing mirrors the limitations of traditional intelligence testing itself: cultural bias, and a reward for familiarity and practice. The rise of AI should therefore prompt more thought about what we mean by intelligence, pushing us to move beyond narrow cognitive metrics, and even beyond popular expansions such as emotional intelligence, toward richer, more contextual definitions.

Intelligence is not individual brilliance

Human cognitive achievements are often attributed to exceptional individuals, but this is misleading. Research in cognitive science and anthropology shows that even our most advanced ideas emerge from collective processes: shared language, cultural transmission, cooperation and cumulative learning across generations.

No scientist, engineer or artist works alone. Scientific discovery depends on shared methods, peer review and institutions. Language itself – arguably humanity’s most powerful cognitive technology – is a collective achievement, refined and modified over thousands of years through social interaction.

Studies of “collective intelligence” consistently show that groups can outperform even their most capable members when diversity of perspectives, communication and coordination are present. This collective capacity is not an optional add-on to human intelligence; it is its foundation.

AI systems, by contrast, do not cooperate, negotiate meaning, form social bonds or engage in shared moral reasoning. They process information in isolation, responding to prompts without awareness, intention or accountability.

Embodiment and social understanding matter

Human intelligence is also embodied. Our thinking is shaped by physical experience, emotion and social interaction. Developmental psychology shows that learning begins in infancy through touch, movement, imitation and shared attention with others. These embodied experiences ground abstract reasoning later in life.

AI lacks this grounding. Language models learn statistical patterns from text, not meaning from lived experience. They do not understand concepts in the way humans do; they approximate linguistic responses based on correlations in data.

This limitation becomes clear in social and ethical contexts. Humans navigate norms, values and emotional cues through interaction and shared cultural understandings we are socialised into. Machines do not.

A narrow slice of humanity

Proponents of AI progress often point to the vast amounts of data used to train modern systems. Yet this data represents a remarkably narrow slice of humanity.

Around 80% of online content is produced in just ten languages. Although more than 7,000 languages are spoken worldwide, only a few hundred are consistently represented on the internet – and far fewer in high-quality, machine-readable form.

This matters because language carries culture, values and ways of thinking. Training AI on a largely homogenised data set means embedding the perspectives, assumptions and biases of a relatively small portion of the world’s population.

Human intelligence, by contrast, is defined by diversity. Eight billion people, living in different environments and social systems, contribute to a shared but plural cognitive landscape.

AI does not have access to this richness, nor can it generate it independently. The data on which it is trained stems from a highly biased sample, representing only a percentage of world knowledge.

The limits of scaling

Another issue rarely addressed in claims about “superhuman” AI is data scarcity. Large models improve by ingesting more high-quality data, but this is a finite resource. Researchers have already warned that models are approaching the limits of available human-generated text suitable for training.

One proposed solution is to train AI on data generated by other AI systems. But this risks creating a feedback loop in which errors, biases and simplifications are amplified rather than corrected. Instead of learning from the world, models learn from distorted reflections of themselves.

This is not a path to deeper understanding. It is closer to an echo chamber.

Useful tools, not superior minds

None of this is to deny that AI systems are powerful tools. They can increase efficiency, assist research, support decision-making and expand access to information. Used carefully and with oversight, they can be socially beneficial.

But usefulness is not the same as intelligence in the human sense. AI remains narrow, derivative and dependent on human input, evaluation and correction. It does not form intentions, participate in collective reasoning or contribute to the cultural processes that make human intelligence what it is.

The rapid progress of AI has generated excitement – and, in some quarters, exaggerated expectations. The danger is not that machines will out-think us tomorrow, but that inflated narratives distract from real issues: bias, governance, labour impacts and the responsible integration of these tools into society.

A category error

Comparing AI to human intelligence as though they are competing on the same terms is ultimately a category error. Humans are not isolated information processors. We are social beings whose intelligence emerges from cooperation, diversity and shared meaning.

Until machines can participate in that collective, embodied and ethical dimension of cognition – and there is no evidence they can – the idea that AI will surpass human intelligence remains more hype than insight.

Celeste Rodriguez Louro, Associate Professor, Chair of Linguistics and Director of Language Lab, The University of Western Australia and Jennifer Rodger, Professor, The University of Western Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read next:

• Why The Real Cost of Working From Home Varies Wildly in US Cities

• Worried AI means you won’t get a job when you graduate? Here’s what the research says

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

Why The Real Cost of Working From Home Varies Wildly in US Cities

By Brent Singleton. Edited by Asim BN.

How much does it really cost to work from your living room? And, by the way, it really all depends on your zip code. Allwhere, a company that provides gear to distributed teams calculated the numbers across 50 of the nation’s major metros. What they discovered surprised a great many people. A remote worker in New York City drops roughly $5,180 a year for the task itself from home. A person doing the exact same work in Tulsa, Oklahoma? They pay $1,621. That’s more than three times the difference from the cost of a single arrangement.

So much for the notion of an equal monetary benefit from working from home.

Your Spare Bedroom Is Costing You More Than You Realise.

That is what nobody talks about. The corner of your apartment where you set up your desk? That's not your free space. You are paying rent on it. And when the study broke down where remote work money actually went, housing came out on top by a big margin. We're talking 61% of total costs. We 're talking about your own average monthly expenses! Think about it.

Every square foot you take in Manhattan is expensive stuff. That spare bedroom you transformed into an office could cost you more per month than some workers in Indianapolis pay for their entire remote arrangement. And it gets worse. Many people in expensive cities went in for bigger apartments specifically because they needed room to work, people needed space to live for the business. So, they’re paying even more in rent than they did at the start of the pandemic. It’s not really a problem for workers in the more affordable metros. But for all those people who live in New York, San Francisco and LA, that “free” home office is eating a sizable chunk of paycheck.

The Bills You Forgot About.

One big one is housing, but it’s not the only one. Let's talk utilities.

That meter will keep spinning when you’ve been home all day, running the heat in January or blasting AC in August. Most workers in Phoenix or Minneapolis feel this better than others. Extreme weather leads to extreme utility bills. And unlike at the office, nobody else is picking up the tab.

Then there's the internet. If you are in a city, you get moderate rates. But anyone in a rural area understands the misery of paying a little extra just to receive steady service. Some people might purchase business tier plans just so Zoom calls with their boss don't freeze up. This is an extra cost no one ever told them about.

And the equipment. Nobody budgets for a $400 ergonomic chair until their back hurts six months in. Standing desks, external monitors, webcams, ring lights for video calls. The shopping list gets long fast. Plus it's not a one time purchase. Ink cartridges run out. Keyboards break. Mouse stops clicking right.

The small things add up in a way that’s hard to see until you look at a whole year of receipts.

Even food is more expensive for some. Without the structure of an office, it can be simple to order delivery, or drop by the coffee shop, and leave the house. The $6 lattes add up relatively fast.

Why should employers care?

This is where it gets interesting for companies. The big problem here, however, is the 3.2x disparity between the most expensive and cheapest cities. Employers have begun to change stipends based on where workers actually live. Makes sense, right?

One hundred bucks a month is quite a bit more for Oklahoma than for Manhattan. Yet most companies have not kept pace. They are still giving out flat stipends that keep coastal workers on the losing end while Midwest workers have won the day.

We start to create resentment about that kind of gap, and it is something nobody says out loud. These workers in expensive cities feel as if they’re being shortchanged. And they're not wrong. If companies want to retain happy remote teams, they should start to consider location based support.

When working from home costs 300% more or less according to where you live, one size fits all doesn't fit.

This is Where Remote Work Costs Least.

For anyone considering moving out in an effort to stretch their living-understandably shrinking paycheck further now.

Tulsa topped the list as the cheapest city for remote work in the entire study. Affordable metros also include Oklahoma City, Memphis, Louisville and Indianapolis. These are areas where housing remains affordable, utilities don’t break the bank, and the overall cost of living allows remote workers to retain more of what they earn.

Some of those cities have chipped in on the opportunity. Local governments in places like Tulsa have even created relocation incentives to attract remote workers. They are rolling out the red carpet for people who want to escape costly coastal metros without sacrificing their jobs or wages.

It’s a kind of geographic arbitrage that didn’t exist until remote work became well-established. Now you can reside in a low cost city while making a high cost salary. The math is pretty nice for anyone who wants to make the move.

Where It Costs the Most.

No surprise here. The most expensive place to work remotely in the country was New York City. San Francisco, Boston, LA and Seattle followed close behind.

And the cost of living is more than just rent. Those added costs compound in each category. Utilities cost more. Internet plans cost more. Office supplies and coffee cost even more. Everything in these cities requires a markup, and remote workers know that in every area of their financial life.

Meanwhile, for workers trapped in these metros, the only viable alternatives are negotiating better stipends, scraping tax deductions where they can or even seriously considering a move.

What Workers Can Do.

For anyone working to negotiate a raise or stipend, that data is useful ammunition. You can just point to actual numbers and say: this is what it’s costing me to do this job from home in my city. That is a stronger argument than requesting extra money alone.

Audit yourself and also your configuration. Determine where your money is being spent. Track your spending for a few months. Find out what costs may qualify for tax deductions. Many of the remote employees put money on the table because they never put it all together. And for anyone considering moving, the numbers are telling.

If you transfer to Tulsa from San Francisco, thousands of dollars could be saved on an annual basis, but your salary doesn’t. That's not a small thing.

The Bottom Line.

Remote work was a promise of freedom and savings. And for many people, it delivered. However, the financial reality is far more complicated than the early excitement projected.

Where you live matters. A lot. The cash difference between paying $1,621 a year and $5,180 a year for having the privilege of working from home isn't simple. That's money that's real and that impacts real budgets.

Companies should be waking up to it. Nothing short of flat stipends can’t go it when costs differ so widely around the country. And workers need to know what they are, in fact, paying for the flexibility of remote work.

The office had its problems. Long commutes, rigid schedules, bad fluorescent lighting. But it also accepted a series of costs that now directly fall on workers. The question moving forward is who should pay for that and how.

No one has a perfect answer yet. But at least now we have the information to start the conversation.

About Author: Brent Singleton is a senior growth marketing leader with extensive experience scaling revenue and GTM operations across SaaS, marketplaces, and high-growth technology companies.

Read next:

• Why many Americans avoid negotiating, even when it costs them

• These Are the Best and Worst U.S. Metro Areas for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Professionals in 2026

• Where Do the Largest American Cities Rank in Annual Freelance Revenue Projections?

by Guest Contributor via Digital Information World

Worried AI means you won’t get a job when you graduate? Here’s what the research says

Lukasz Swiatek, UNSW Sydney

Image: Jeswin Thomas / Unsplash

The head of the International Monetary Fund, Kristalina Georgieva, has warned young people will suffer the most as an AI “tsunami” wipes out many entry-level roles in coming years.

Tasks that are eliminated are usually what entry-level jobs do at present, so young people searching for jobs find it harder to get to a good placement.

Georgieva is not alone. Other economic and business experts have warned about AI taking entry-level jobs.

As young people prepare to start or continue their university studies, they may be feeling anxious about what AI means for their job prospects. What does the current research say? And how can you prepare for a post-AI workforce while studying?

The situation around the world

At the moment, the impact of AI is uneven and depends on the industry.

A 2025 report from US think tank the Brookings Institution suggests, in general, AI adoption has led to employment and firm growth. Most importantly, AI has not led to widespread job loss.

At the same time, consulting firm McKinsey notes many businesses are experimenting with AI and redesigning how they work. So, some organisations are seeking more technically skilled employees.

Crucially, AI is affecting each industry differently. So, we might see fewer entry-level jobs in some industries, but more in others, or growth in specialist roles.

For example, international researchers have noted agriculture has been a slow adopter of AI. By contrast, colleagues and I have found AI is being rapidly implemented in media and communications, already affecting jobs from advertising to the entertainment industries. Here we are seeing storyboard illustrators, copywriters and virtual effects artists (among others) increasingly being replaced by AI.

So, students need to look carefully at the specific data about their chosen industry (or industries) to understand the current situation and predicted trends.

To do this, you can look at academic research about AI’s impacts on industries around the world, as well as industry news portals and free industry newsletters.

Get ready while studying

Students can also obviously build their knowledge and skills about AI while they are studying.

Specifically, students should look to move from “AI literacy” to “AI fluency”. This means understanding not just how AI works in an industry, but also how it can be used innovatively in different contexts.

If these elements are not already offered by your course, you can look at online guides and specific courses offered by universities, TAFE or other providers.

Students who are already familiar with AI can keep expanding their knowledge and skills. These students can discover the latest research from the world’s key publishers and keep up to date with other AI research news.

For students who aren’t really interested in AI, it’s still important to start getting to grips with the technology. In my research, I’ve suggested getting curious initially about three key things: opportunities, concerns and questions. These three elements can be especially helpful for getting across industry developments: how AI is being used, what issues it’s raising, and which impacts still need to be explored.

Free (online) courses, such as AI For Everyone and the Elements of AI, can help familiarise virtually anyone with the technology.

Strengthening other skills

All students, no matter how familiar they are with AI, can also concentrate on developing general competencies that can apply across any industry. US researchers have pinpointed six key “durable skills” for the AI age:

• effective communication, to engage with others successfully
• good adaptability, to respond to workplace, industry and broader social changes
• strong emotional intelligence, to help everyone thrive in a workplace
• high-quality creativity, to work with AI in innovative ways
• sound leadership, to help navigate the challenges that AI creates
• robust critical thinking, to deal with AI-related problems.

So, look for opportunities to foster these skills in and out of class. This could include engaging in teamwork, joining a club or society, doing voluntary work, or getting paid work experience.

Don’t forget ethics

Finally, students need to consider the ethical issues this new technology creates. Research suggests AI is bringing about changes in ethics across industries and students need to know how to approach AI dilemmas.

For example, they need to feel confident tackling questions about when to use and not use AI, and whether the technology’s environmental impacts outweigh its benefits in different situations.

Students can do this through focused discussions with classmates, facilitated by teachers to tease out the issues. They can also do dedicated courses on AI ethics.

Lukasz Swiatek, Lecturer, School of Arts and Media, UNSW Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Read next: From leadership to influencers: Why people choose to follow others

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

From leadership to influencers: Why people choose to follow others

New ASU research suggests status inequality may be built deep into human nature

Image: KOBU Agency / Unsplash

For a long time, most scientists believed that early human hunter-gatherer societies were mostly equal, with little hierarchy or leadership, and that strong inequalities only emerged later with farming and complex societies.

However, new research out of Arizona State University is challenging this.

Archaeological finds, ethnographic studies and now psychological research suggest that inequality in influence — who people listen to, copy and follow — may have been part of human societies deep into our evolutionary past.

“At some point in our past, humans became reliant on culture,” said Thomas Morgan, an evolutionary anthropologist at ASU. “We don’t solve problems on our own; we have to work as a team and learn from each other. In this context, people who are really skilled, intelligent or charismatic are valuable. It's like a talent marketplace, and if you have a skill, you can leverage that into status.”

Morgan is a research scientist at the Institute of Human Origins and associate professor at the School of Human Evolution and Social Change at ASU.

These prestige hierarchies are very different from the dominance hierarchies seen in many animal groups, like nonhuman primates. Instead of becoming a leader by aggression, strength or fighting ability, with prestige, leaders rise to the top because others feel they are skilled, knowledgeable and successful — they want them to lead.

“The collective nature of human social life changed how our societies are organized,” Morgan said. “Our ancestors were no longer just individuals in competition with their group mates for resources or mates; instead, they also began organizing themselves in competition with other groups. But the challenge is to find effective leaders, and because this is hard, people keep an eye on who others defer to and have a tendency to just follow suit. So when people see others copying or listening to someone, they are more likely to do the same.”

“Over time, this creates a snowball effect,” added Robin Watson, a lecturer at the University of Lincoln and a visiting researcher at ASU. “The more people follow one individual, the more influential that person becomes. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. If those with influence have useful information, then prestige provides us with an accessible shortcut to help us decide who to learn from.”

How does inequality form?

To test their theories, researchers from ASU and the United Kingdom created computer models, conducted laboratory-style experiments and ran evolutionary simulations.

For one part, the scientists placed 800 volunteers in small groups and asked them to analyze groups of colored dots. The volunteers were then asked which color appeared most often.

After making their own guess, participants were required to copy someone else’s answer. Participants could see two things about the others in their group: how often each person had been right in the pastand how often other people had already copied each individual.

The results were clear. People did not copy randomly. They gravitated toward those who were already popular, sometimes even more than toward those who were objectively accurate.

“As you might expect, people cared about how accurate their group mates were, and they were more likely to learn from skillful people,” Morgan said. “But they also cared about how many times their group members were copied by others. This created the snowball effect, and very quickly, a small number of people ended up leading their groups.”

In many groups, just one or two people ended up shaping most decisions. This kind of inequality appeared fast, within minutes. The level of imbalance was similar to income inequality seen in many modern societies.

The evolution of prestige

From an evolutionary point of view, this tendency makes sense.

Paying attention to skilled or successful people usually helps us learn faster and make better decisions. Over thousands of generations, humans who followed good role models likely survived and thrived. But figuring out who will be a good leader is a tough problem, and humans don’t solve problems on our own — we do it as a group. So we monitor not just how good people are, but who others are following, too.

The study’s evolutionary simulations show that this instinct to follow prestige would have been favored by natural selection, backing up the behavior of the experimental participants and suggesting such choices are a common feature of human psychology today.

These findings help explain patterns we still see everywhere: in workplaces, politics, schoolyards and social media.

Understanding this tendency doesn’t mean hierarchy is inevitable or always good. But it does suggest that inequality in influence isn’t just a feature of modern societies — it may be part of how human groups have always worked.

Other authors for this work included Hillary Lenfesty, an assistant research professor at the Institute for Human Origins and School of Human Evolution and Social Change, and Charlotte Brand, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Exeter.

The article, “Human Prestige Psychology Can Promote Adaptive Inequality in Social Influence,” was published in Nature Communications.

Editor Notes: This article was originally published on Arizona State University (ASU) News and republished here with permission and as per the ASU Communications team. AI was used for parts of this article. Edited by Asim BN.

Read next: The Real Price of Digital Clutter in the Workplace

by External Contributor via Digital Information World

The Real Price of Digital Clutter in the Workplace

By Igor deVasconcelos. Edited by Asim BN.

In today’s workplace, almost all work starts with a screen and digital clutter has become an invisible toll on productivity. From an overwhelming number of open tabs to full mailboxes and disorganized desktops, professionals lose not only time but something far more valuable than that. SmallPDF recently published a study revealing the impact of disorganization on digital workspaces not only on work itself but on motivation and professional growth as well.

A Productivity Drain Hidden in Plain Sight

A survey of 1,005 employees in the United States has found that digital clutter is not only an annoyance but a serious disruption to work. Employees are spending an average of 4.5 hours a week looking for a file, an e-mail, or a link that they have already accessed before. That is equivalent to 29 workdays a year.

Some industries are more hit than others. Hybrid employees search an average of 5.2 hours a week for content, while Gen Z employees surpass the average with 5.6 hours a week. Finance professionals are the most hit industry group, averaging 6.1 hours a week.

Browser overload is another key aspect. The average employee has 8.5 browser tabs open at a given time. Also, 28% of the respondents have 10 or more browser tabs open. Remote workers have more browser tabs open than the rest. The average is 10.8 browser tabs. Also, the average employee using a Mac has two more browser tabs open than a Windows user.

Digital Disarray Delays Work and Affects Performance

However, the ramifications of a disordered digital workspace are not limited to frustration. In fact, according to the study, a disordered digital workspace affects performance and task completion in the following ways:

• 12% of workers submit their work after the deadline on a weekly basis because of disorganization.
• Another 12% feel they are not able to perform their work because of it.
• A staggering 47% admit to procrastinating about tasks simply because they involve cleaning up digital clutter.

Handling inbox overload is still the most frequently cited problem at 33%, followed by poorly named or misplaced files at 21%, and 15% of respondents saying that too many open tabs/windows affect their efficiency.

The psychological impacts are also alarming. About 45% of employees feel frustrated, and 20% feel stressed as a result of their digital surroundings. More than half of them mentally tune out because of unread emails (54%) or browser tabs (51%).

Habits in the Workplace and the Long-Term Effects on a

Despite the obvious cons, only 40% of employees clean or organize their digital workspace on a weekly basis. Most of them do it occasionally (47%), and 13% of them rarely or never do it. However, 77% of respondents feel that employees who have cleaner digital workspaces are more productive and successful.

It does seem as if there is a definite benefit to cleanliness:

• Individuals who clean up regularly are more than twice as likely to have received a promotion in the past year than those who clean less than or never clean.
• The average increase in salaries for people who use weekly organizers is 6.2% compared with 2.5% for those who are less organized.

Digital disorder can lead to more severe issues. Approximately 7% of the workforce has been cautioned, fired, or both for the state of their digital workspace.

The Psychological Toll of File Fatigue

In addition to what happens when deadlines are not met and productivity declines, there is an emotional impact to digital clutter that subtly affects dynamics at work. The findings from this study show that:

• 47% of employees are reluctant to perform tasks that involve the organization of files.
• 37% have experienced embarrassment in sharing their screens because of disorganized files.
• 36% have confessed that they have missed deadlines or made mistakes because of documents that have the wrong or misplaced names.

Digital clutter not only creates disengagement but can also affect professional confidence. When employees feel stifled in their digital environment, focus and quality performance become a problem.

Easy Repairs, Big Gains

The results indicate that small attempts at digital cleanliness may have significant effects. Organizing computer files, storing old content, and habituating oneself to close unnecessary tabs may help employees save time and alleviate anxiety.

As a consequence, employees will benefit from both a cleaner computer desktop and improved concentration, employee satisfaction, and opportunities for promotion. Because it has been established that most of the workforce is aware of the importance of digital cleanliness, it appears that there is a gap between awareness and implementation.

By practicing small and doable habits, it could be possible to make digital organization an essential part of achieving success in one's profession.

Order Fuels Output

Digital clutter is more than just eye sore; it is the quiet time suck. As evident in the SmallPDF example, decluttering the digital office is more than just a preference; it is the key to increased productivity and happiness. With the rise of the digital age and the increased reliance on digital tools in the world of knowledge work, keeping the digital office organized may be the most effective method of maintaining forward momentum.

About author:
Igor deVasconcelos is a content strategist at Fractl working at the intersection of data, storytelling, and SEO.

Read next: 

• When employees feel slighted, they work less

• I studied 10 years of Instagram posts. Here’s how social media has changed

by Guest Contributor via Digital Information World