Descriptions of moment-by-moment changes in attention contribute critical elements to theory and practice about how people process media. We introduce a new concept called screenertia and use new screen-capture methodology to empirically evaluate its occurrence. We unobtrusively obtained 400,000+ screenshots of 30 participants’ laptop screens every 5 seconds for 4 days to examine individuals’ attention to their screens and how the distribution of attention differs across media content. All individuals’ screen segments were best described by a log-normal survival function—evidence of screenertia. Consistent with the literature on uses and gratifications of media, news/entertainment activities were the most “sticky.” These findings indicate that screenertia is not only related to the level of interactivity of media content but is also related to its modality and agency. Discussion of the findings highlights the importance of theorizing, examining, and modeling the specific time scales at which media behaviors manifest and evolve.
AhnJ.ParkJ. M.LeeW. H.NohG. Y. (2021). Website interactivity and processing: Menu customization and sense of agency are keys to better interaction design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 147, 102581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102581
2.
AndersonD. R.LorchE. P. (1983). Looking at television: Action or reaction? In BryantJ.AndersonD. R. (Eds.), Children’s understanding of television: Research on attention and comprehension (pp. 1–34). Academic Press.
3.
AndersonD. R.LorchE. P.FieldD. E.SandersJ. (1981). The effects of TV program comprehensibility on preschool children’s visual attention to television. Child Development, 52, 151–157. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129224
4.
AndrewsS.EllisD. A.ShawH.PiwekL. (2015). Beyond self-report: Tools to compare estimated and real-world smartphone use. PLoS One, 10(10), e0139004. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139004
5.
BeyensI.PouwelsJ. L.van DrielI. I.KeijsersL.ValkenburgP. M. (2020). The effect of social media on well-being differs from adolescent to adolescent. Scientific Reports, 10, 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67727-7
6.
BozdoganH. (1987). Model selection and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC): The general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika, 52(3), 345–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02294361
7.
BrinbergM.RamN.YangX.ChoM.-J.SundarS. S.RobinsonT. N.ReevesB. (2021). The idiosyncrasies of everyday digital lives: Using the Human Screenome Project to study user behavior on smartphones. Computers in Human Behavior, 114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106570
8.
BrownA.AizpuruaA.JayC.EvansM.GlancyM.HarperS. (2019). Contrasting delivery modes for second screen TV content—push or pull?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 129, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.03.007
9.
BurnsJ. J.AndersonD. R. (1993). Attentional inertia and recognition memory in adult television viewing. Communication Research, 20(6), 777–799. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365093020006002
10.
CalvertS. L.HustonA. C.WatkinsB. A.WrightJ. C. (1982). The relation between selective attention to television forms and children’s comprehension of content. Child Development, 53, 601–610. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129371
11.
DunawayJ.SearlesK.SuiM.PaulN. (2018). News attention in a mobile era. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 23(2), 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmy004
12.
GeertsD.CesarP.BultermanD. (2008, October22–24). The implications of program genres for the design of social television systems [Conference session]. Proceeding of the 1st International Conference on Designing Interactive User Experiences for TV and Video, Silicon Valley, CA, United States. 10.1145/1453805.1453822
HawkinsR. P.PingreeS.HitchonJ.RadlerB.GorhamB. W.KahlorL.GilliganE.SerlinR. C.SchmidtT.KannaovakunP.KolbeinsG. H. (2005). What produces television attention and attention style? Genre, situation, and individual differences as predictors. Human Communication Research, 31(1), 162–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2005.tb00868.x
15.
HolmesM. E.JosephsonS.CarneyR. E. (2012, March28–30). Visual attention to television programs with a second-screen application [Conference session]. Proceedings of the Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications, Santa Barbara, CA, United States. 10.1145/2168556.2168646
16.
JacksonC. H. (2016). Flexsurv: A platform for parametric survival modeling in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 70(8), i08. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v070.i08
17.
JensemaC. J.DanturthiR. S.BurchR. (2000). Time spent viewing captions on television programs. American Annals of the Deaf, 145(5), 464–468. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2012.0144
LangA. (2006a). Motivated cognition (LC4MP): The influence of appetitive and aversive activation on the processing of video games. InMessarsisP.HumphriesL. (Eds.), Digital media: Transformations in human communication (pp. 237–256). Peter Lang.
21.
LangA. (2006b). Using the limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing to design effective cancer communication messages. Journal of Communication, 56(suppl_1), S57–S80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00283.x
22.
LinJ. C.-C. (2007). Online stickiness: Its antecedents and effect on purchasing intention. Behaviour & Information Technology, 26(6), 507–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290600740843
23.
MarkG.GonzalezV. M.HarrisJ. (2005, April2–7). No task left behind? [Conference session]. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Portland, OR, United States. https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055017.
24.
MarkG.IqbalS. T.CzerwinskiM.JohnsP. (2014, April26–May1). Bored Mondays and focused afternoons [Conference session]. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Toronto, ON, Canada. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557204.
25.
MungerK.GuessA. M.HargittaiE. (2021). Quantitative description of digital media: A modest proposal to disrupt academic publishing. Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media, 1, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.51685/jqd.2021.000
26.
NapoliP. M. (2011). Audience evolution: New technologies and the transformation of media audiences. Columbia University Press.
27.
OhJ.BellurS.SundarS. S. (2018). Clicking, assessing, immersing, and sharing: An empirical model of user engagement with interactive media. Communication Research, 45(5), 737–763. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215600493
28.
OhmeJ.AraujoT.de VreeseC. H.PiotrowskiJ. T. (2021). Mobile data donations: Assessing self-report accuracy and sample biases with the iOS screen time function. Mobile Media & Communication, 9(2), 293–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157920959106
29.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
30.
ReevesB.RamN.RobinsonT. N.CummingsJ. J.GilesC. L.PanJ.ChiattiA.ChoM. J.RoehrickK.YangX.GagnejaA.BrinbergM.MuiseD.LuY.LuoM.FitzgeraldA.YeykelisL. (2021). Screenomics: A framework to capture and analyze personal life experiences and the ways that technology shapes them. Human-Computer Interaction, 36(2), 150–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2019.1578652
31.
ReevesB.ThorsonE.RothschildM. L.McDonaldD.HirschJ.GoldsteinR. (1985). Attention to television: Intrastimulus effects of movement and scene changes on alpha variation over time. International Journal of Neuroscience, 27(3-4), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.3109/00207458509149770
32.
RichardsJ. E.AndersonD. R. (2004). Attentional inertia in children’s extended looking at television. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 32, 163–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2407(04)80007-7
33.
RichardsJ. E.CroniseK. (2000). Extended visual fixation in the early preschool years: Look duration, heart rate changes, and attentional inertia. Child Development, 71(3), 602–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00170
34.
SiefertC.GallentJ.JacobsD.LevineB.StippH.MarciC. (2008). Biometric and eye-tracking insights into the efficiency of information processing of television advertising during fast-forward viewing. International Journal of Advertising, 27(3), 425–446. https://doi.org/10.2501/s0265048708080050
35.
SobkowiczP.ThelwallM.BuckleyK.PaltoglouG.SobkowiczA. (2013). Lognormal distributions of user post lengths in Internet discussions - a consequence of the Weber-Fechner law?EPJ Data Science, 2(2), https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds14
36.
SundarS. S.LimperosA. M. (2013). Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(4), 504–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2013.845827
37.
ThelenE.SmithL. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of perception and action. MIT Press.
38.
TherneauT. M.GrambschP. M. (2000). Modeling survival data: Extending the Cox model. Springer.
39.
ValkenburgP.BeyensI.PouwelsJ. L.van DrielI. I.KeijsersL. (2021). Social media use and adolescents’ self-esteem: Heading for a person-specific media effects paradigm. Journal of Communication, 71(1), 56–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaa039
40.
van GeertP. (1998). A dynamic systems model of basic developmental mechanisms: Piaget, Vygotsky, and beyond. Psychological Review, 105(4), 634–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.105.4.634-677
41.
VossJ. (2005, July24–28). Measuring Wikipedia [Conference session]. International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Stockholm, Sweden.
42.
VragaE.BodeL.Troller-RenfreeS. (2016). Beyond self-reports: Using eye tracking to measure topic and style differences in attention to social media content. Communication Methods and Measures, 10(2-3), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2016.1150443
43.
WangZ.LangA.BusemeyerJ. R. (2011). Motivational processing and choice behavior during television viewing: An integrative dynamic approach. Journal of Communication, 61(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01527.x
44.
WangZ.TchernevJ. M.SollowayT. (2012). A dynamic longitudinal examination of social media use, needs, and gratifications among college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1829–1839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.001
45.
WickhamH. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag.
46.
XuS.WangZ.WoodsK. (2019). Multitasking and dual motivational systems: A dynamic longitudinal study. Human Communication Research, 45(4), 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqz009
47.
YangJ.PavelkoR.UttS. H. (2015). College students use videos more than photo slideshows. Newspaper Research Journal, 36(2), 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739532915587299
48.
YeykelisL.CummingsJ. J.ReevesB. (2014). Multitasking on a single device: Arousal and the frequency, anticipation, and prediction of switching between media content on a computer. Journal of Communication, 64(1), 167–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12070
49.
YeykelisL.CummingsJ. J.ReevesB. (2018). The fragmentation of work, entertainment, e-mail, and news on a personal computer: Motivational predictors of switching between media content. Media Psychology, 21(3), 377–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2017.1406805
50.
ZillmannD. (1988). Mood management through communication choices. American Behavioral Scientist, 31(3), 327–340. https://doi:10.1177/000276488031003005.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
