Close
today i learned (til)

How Binge-Watching Ruins Your Memory

October 25, 2019

A Tale of Binge-Watching and You

After years of saying ‘I don’t need it’ or ‘it will waste my time,’ I finally caved last year and started using Netflix. My friend decided to celebrate the occasion by trying to hook me on the show, You. We huddled on her couch and watched the first two episodes together. Afterwards, she left it up to me to finish the season. However, like I tend to do with many things, I put it off. Over a month passed before I finally decided to finish the show. I sat down the following Saturday afternoon to begin episode three and came to my senses hours later when I realized I had finished the entire series. I had been so eager to feel the rush of the story and not be left on cliffhangers that I gave up my entire afternoon to gain some closure. While part of me felt a little empty inside due to forking over so much continuous time to the show, I did actually enjoy its contents and was eager to discuss it with my friend. However, I was not able to see her until 2 weeks later. When this chance finally arose for me to devour every detail of the show and its story, I suddenly started drawing up blanks. I could remember those first two episodes fairly well, but when it came to the nine episodes I watched in the same day, I could really only remember the ending and a few select events in detail. Everything else blurred together. He did what in which episode? Wait, did she actually do that? My memory was foggy and nothing stood out clearly but those first two episodes. Why did I remember those so well even though it had been well over a month since I had seen them and yet all the more recent episodes I watched were already well-faded in my memories? Besides just wasting my time, did binge-watching have some unforeseen consequences on me?

The answer is yes. A recent study has linked binge-watching to the reduction of long-term memories of basic details related to watched shows (Hattie, Horto, Horvath & Lodge, 2017). When compared to normal television viewers who tend to watch one new episode per week, binge-watchers scored lower on basic assessments regarding common details of specific episodes and characters of the shows they’ve seen. Why though does binge-watching have this effect on individuals? The science behind this is connected with memory consolidation and a little phenomenon called the temporal distinctiveness theory.

Memory Consolidation and Your Brain

Memory consolidation refers to the process of converting a temporary memory into a long-lasting one. For a memory to become permanent, the memory must be transported from the hippocampus (the part of the brain related to short-term gains and instinct) to the neocortex (part of the brain connected to rational thought/deeper thinking)(Squire, Genzel, Wixted & Morris, 2015).During this transfer, the long-term memory is established by increasing the complexity, distribution, and connectivity of the neocortex with respect to the other parts of the brain. Without this transfer and shifts in the neocortex, the initial memory becomes lost to the person within a short period of time. 

A couple of different factors can influence how well someone can consolidate a memory. For example, the amount of prior knowledge one has on a topic can influence the strength of one’s ability to make these long-term memories. Another factor that affects this process of consolidation is time, and this time factor can be explained by the temporal distinctness theory.

Temporal Distinctiveness Theory: The Gap Between Memories

Temporal distinctiveness theory essentially states that by increasing the time gap between solidifying new long-term memories, you can better recall them more distinctly at a later time (Cowan, 2008). When a single item/event has been given time to be isolated by itself, then that memory can be transferred into the neocortex as a much more distinct and identifiable memory versus if multiple consecutive memories are trying to be stored in the neocortex at once. This “downtime” for memories to be installed into the neocortex is called neutral memory consolidation (Brown, Ecker & Lewandowsky, 2014). During neutral consolidation, the brain is either doing low mental activities or sleep, giving it a chance to successfully transfer the memories from the hippocampus to the neocortex. When I watched the first two episodes of You and then gave myself time to absorb what occurred in those episodes, I was able to better create distinct long-term memories from those experiences and recall more specific details from the show. However, when I binged-watched the other nine episodes, I did not give myself time between each episode to consolidate my memories, which is why all of my memories regarding those episodes (barring the very end) were foggy and jumbled together. Binge-watching my show, while enjoyable at the time, stripped me away from my ability to better remember what happened in it in the future. 

So Netflix or TV?

We all hate that feeling of watching a captivating show on TV and then being forced to wait a week or month for its conclusion. It feels so rewarding to just get that immediate answer to a question without being forced to suffer and mull over all the possibilities of what’s going to happen to your favorite character. However, for this quick satisfaction, we relinquish part of our ability to better remember the content that we witness. Binge-watching does not give you brain the chance to transfer that event into long-term memory. Though, at the end of the day, it is still up to you to decide your viewing experience. Which part of the trade-off will you accept: binge-watching’s instantaneous enjoyment but long-term haziness, or TV’s long-lasting remembrance but painful wait time? I’ve already decided my choice for the next series on my Netflix list: Bojack Horseman season 6. I’ll be taking it one episode at a time, so I can make distinct memories to stay with me well after I finish the show. What about you?  

 

Citations

  • Brown, G. D. A., Ecker, U. K. H. & Lewandowsky, S. (2014). Memory Without Consolidation: Temporal Distinctiveness Explains Retroactive Interference. Cognitive Science. Volume 39. Issue 7. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12214 
  • Cowan N. (2008). What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working memory?. Progress in brain research, 169, 323–338. doi:10.1016/S0079-6123(07)00020-9
  • Hattie, J.A.C., Horto, A. J., Horvath, J.C., & Lodge, J. M. (2017). The impact of binge-watching on memory and perceived comprehension. First Monday. Volume 22. Number 9. https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/7729/6532 
  • Squire, L. R., Genzel, L., Wixted, J. T., & Morris, R. G. (2015). Memory consolidation. Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology, 7(8), a021766. doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a021766
0Likes
About Author

Lindsay is a undergraduate Computational Media student at Georgia Tech. She loves reviewing the history of medicine and science and making connections to the present-day. In her free time, she loves drawing cartoons and painting.

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
Are All-Nighters in College Actually Beneficial?
today i learned (til)
How To Cope With Depression
today i learned (til)
I Got My Brain Scanned for Science
today i learned (til)
Matcha Magic

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.