Research showed mixed findings regarding the relationships between daily multitasking experience and laboratory multitasking performance. One measurement issue was the low reliability and validity of using a single measurement for daily multitasking experience. Another measurement issue was the popular use of simple laboratory paradigms that may or may not capture well cognitive processes underlying real-life multitasking. The current study revisited the relationship between daily multitasking experience and multitasking performance with a better design. Multiple measurements were used to ensure good reliability and validity. This included a mobile phone task switching measurement—an arguably better proxy for daily multitasking experience and three realistic multitasking paradigms that mimic real life multitasking situations. The results showed that (1) phone switching was not significantly associated with the media multitasking index, suggesting that they were measuring different aspects of multitasking experience; (2) indicators of the multitasking performance were moderately correlated among themselves, suggesting that different realistic multitasking paradigms were measuring overlapping multitasking abilities; and, intriguingly, (3) no significant association between multitasking experience and performance indicators was found. One possibility is that people can only benefit from daily multitasking practice when they engaged in daily multitasking activities with an intention to improve the performance. Other possibilities and implications were also discussed.
AlzahabiR.BeckerM. W. (2013). The association between media multitasking, task-switching, and dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology:. Human Perception and Performance, 39(5), 1485–1495. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031208
2.
BaumgartnerS. E.WeedaW. D.van der HeijdenL. L.HuizingaM. (2014). The relationship between media multitasking and executive function in early adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 34(8), 1120–1144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431614523133
3.
BhererL.KramerA. F.PetersonM. S.ColcombeS.EricksonK.BecicE. (2008). Transfer effects in task-set cost and dual-task cost after dual-task training in older and younger adults: Further evidence for cognitive plasticity in attentional control in late adulthood. Experimental Aging Research, 34, 188–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610730802070068
4.
BraselS. A.GipsJ. (2011). Media multitasking behavior: Concurrent television and computer usage. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(9), 527–534. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0350
5.
BrüningJ.MücksteinM.ManzeyD. (2020). Multitasking strategies make the difference: Separating processing-code resources boosts multitasking efficiency when individuals prefer to interleave tasks in free concurrent dual tasking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 46(12), 1411–1433. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000865
6.
CalderwoodC.AckermanP. L.ConklinE. M. (2014). What else do college students “do” while studying? An investigation of multitasking. Computers & Education, 75, 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.004
7.
DuxP. E.TombuM. N.HarrisonS.RogersB. P.TongF.MaroisR. (2009). Training improves multitasking performance by increasing the speed of information processing in human prefrontal cortex. Neuron, 63, 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2009.06.005
8.
ElsmoreT. F. (1994). SYNWORK1: A PC-based tool for assessment of performance in a simulated work environment. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 26, 412–426. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204659
9.
EricssonK. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In EricssonK. A.CharnessN.FeltovichP. J.HoffmanR. R. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 683–704). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816796.038
10.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
11.
FinleyJ. R.BenjaminA. S.McCarleyJ. S. (2014). Metacognition of multi-tasking: How well do we predict the costs of divided attention?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(2), 158–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000010
12.
Grace-MartinM.GayG. (2001). Web browsing, mobile computing and academic performance. Educational Technology & Society, 4(3), 95–107.
13.
HambrickD. Z.OswaldF. L.DarowskiE. S.RenchT. A.BrouR. (2010). Predictors of multitasking performance in a synthetic work paradigm. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(8), 1149–1167. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1624
14.
HedgeC.PowellG.SumnerP. (2018). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 1166–1186. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1
15.
HembrookeH.GayG. (2003). The laptop and the lecture: The effects of multitasking in learning environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 15(1), 46–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02940852
16.
HildebrandtA.SchachtA.SommerW.WilhelmO. (2012). Measuring the speed of recognising facially expressed emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 26(4), 650–666. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.602046
17.
JeffreysH. (1935). Some tests of significance, treated by the theory of probability. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 31(2), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500410001330X
18.
JersildA. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology, 14, Article 89.
19.
JuddT.KennedyG. (2011). Measurement and evidence of computer-based task switching and multitasking by “net generation” students. Computers & Education, 56(3), 625–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.004
20.
LinL. (2009). Breadth-biased versus focused cognitive control in media multitasking behaviors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 15521–15522. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908642106
21.
LuiK. F. H.WongA. C.-N. (2012). Does media multitasking always hurt? A positive correlation between multitasking and multisensory integration. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(4), 647–653. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0245-7
LuiK. F. H.YipK. H.WongA. C. (2021). Gender differences in multitasking experience and performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74, 344–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820960707
24.
LussierM.GagnonC.BhererL. (2012). An investigation of response and stimulus modality transfer effects after dual-task training in younger and older. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, Article 129. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00129
25.
MartinB. (1996). The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics, 36(3), 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02129599
26.
MinearM.BrasherF.McCurdyM.LewisJ.YounggrenA. (2013). Working memory, fluid intelligence, and impulsiveness in heavy media multitaskers. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(6), 1274–1281. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0456-6
MiyakeA.FriedmanN. P.EmersonM. J.WitzkiA. H.HowerterA.WagerT. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
NijboerM.TaatgenN. A.BrandsA.BorstJ.van RijnH. (2013). Decision making in concurrent multitasking: Do people adapt to task interference?PLOS ONE, 8(11), Article e79583. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079583
31.
OphirE.NassC.WagnerA. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 106(37), 15583–15587. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903620106
32.
PashlerH. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220–244.
33.
PeregM.ShaharN.MeiranN. (2013). Task switching training effects are mediated by working-memory management. Intelligence, 41(5), 467–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.06.009
34.
PoposkiE. M.OswaldF. L. (2010). The multitasking preference inventory: Toward an improved measure of individual differences in polychronicity. Human Performance, 23(3), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2010.487843
35.
RedelmeierD. A.TibshiraniR. J. (1997). Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. The New England Journal of Medicine, 336, 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199702133360701
36.
RedickT. S.ShipsteadZ.MeierM. E.MontroyJ. J.HicksK. L.UnsworthN.. . .EngleR. W. (2016). Cognitive predictors of a common multitasking ability: Contributions from working memory, attention control, and fluid intelligence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(11), 1473–1492. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000219
37.
ReisslandJ.ManzeyD. (2016). Serial or overlapping processing in multitasking as individual preference: Effects of stimulus preview on task switching and concurrent dual-task performance. Acta Psychologica, 168, 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.04.010
38.
RogersR. D.MonsellS. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207
39.
RuthruffE.Van SelstM.JohnstonJ. C.RemingtonR. (2006). How does practice reduce dual-task interference: Integration, automatization, or just stage-shortening?Psychological Research, 70(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-004-0192-7
40.
SanaF.WestonT.CepedaN. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.003
41.
SanbonmatsuD. M.StrayerD. L.Medeiros-WardN.WatsonJ. M. (2013). Who multi-tasks and why? Multi-tasking ability, perceived multi-tasking ability, impulsivity, and sensation seeking. PLOS ONE, 8, Article e54402. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054402
42.
SchumacherE. H.SeymourT.GlassJ.FencsikD.LauberE.KierasD.MeyerD. (2001). Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science, 12, 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00318
43.
SpinkA.ParkM.JansenB. J.PedersenJ. (2006). Multitasking during web search sessions. Information Processing and Management, 42(1), 264–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2004.10.004
44.
StrobachT.FrenschP. A.SoutschekA.SchubertT. (2011). Investigation on the improvement and transfer of dual-task coordination skills. Psychological Research, 76, 794–811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0381-0
45.
TombuM.JolicoeurP. (2004). Virtually no evidence for virtually perfect time-sharing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(5), 795–810. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.5.795
46.
UllenF.HambrickD. Z.MosingM. A. (2016). Rethinking expertise: A multifactorial gene–environment interaction model of expert performance. Psychological Bulletin, 142(4), 427–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000033
47.
WendtM.KleinS.StrobachT. (2017). More than attentional tuning–investigating the mechanisms underlying practice gains and preparation in task switching. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 682. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00682
48.
WilhelmO.HerzmannG.KuninaO.DanthiirV.SchachtA.SommerW. (2010). Individual differences in perceiving and recognizing faces—One element of social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 530–548. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019972
49.
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, 167–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12070
50.
ZinkeK.EinertM.PfennigL.KliegelM. (2012). Plasticity of executive control through task switching training in adolescents. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, Article 41. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00041
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.
