00 HADLINGTON Prelims - SAGE Publications Ltd · used to it. There is a certain inevitability about...

00_HADLINGTON_Prelims.indd 3 3/25/2017 12:33:47 PM

SAGE Publications Ltd1 Oliver’s Yard 55 City RoadLondon EC1Y 1SP

SAGE Publications Inc.2455 Teller RoadThousand Oaks, California 91320

SAGE Publications India Pvt LtdB 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial AreaMathura RoadNew Delhi 110 044

SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte Ltd3 Church Street#10-04 Samsung HubSingapore 049483

Editor: Luke BlockEditorial assistant: Lucy DangProduction editor: Imogen RoomeCopyeditor: Neil DowdenProofreader: Leigh C. TimminsIndexer: Elske JanssenMarketing manager: Lucia SweetCover design: Wendy ScottTypeset by: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd, Chennai, IndiaPrinted in the UK

Lee Hadlington 2017

First published 2017

Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form, or by any means, only with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the publishers.

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016954335

British Library Cataloguing in Publication data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978-1-4739-5718-3ISBN 978-1-4739-5719-0 (pbk)

At SAGE we take sustainability seriously. Most of our products are printed in the UK using FSC papers and boards. When we print overseas we ensure sustainable papers are used as measured by the PREPS grading system. We undertake an annual audit to monitor our sustainability.

00_HADLINGTON_Prelims.indd 4 3/25/2017 12:33:47 PM

6

MULTITASKING

Learning Objectives

• To define the concept of multitasking in the context of the digital environment;

• to explore the theoretical underpinnings of multitasking from an information processing perspective;

• to highlight the impact multitasking can have on task performance;

• to explore the concept of media multitasking and examine how this can impact on performance;

• to examine the literature on smartphone and mobile phone use whilst performing other tasks to highlight the clear safety issues of such activities.

OverviewI would like to beg for the reader’s indulgence here and in doing so ask you to ponder the following quotes:

[T]he ability to multitask is considered to be a desirable job skill by many employers, which is not surprising given that, on average, workers shift between tasks every three minutes. (Monk et al., 2008: 299)

We are moving from a world where computing power was scarce to a place where it now is almost limitless, and where the true scarce commodity is increasingly human attention. (Satya Nadella, CEO Microsoft, 10 July 2014 (http://news.microsoft.com/ceo/bold-ambition/)

So that’s it – even if you have never multitasked in your life, you’d better get used to it. There is a certain inevitability about the quote from Monk et al. (2008), which would indicate that in today’s high-paced, digitally enhanced work envi-ronment the skill of multitasking is something that, if you haven’t got it, you’d

06_HADLINGTON_Ch 06.indd 85 3/25/2017 12:33:26 PM

86

Multitasking

better get it, and soon. However, there is ample research that has explored the impact of individuals trying to do more than two things at once, and the results aren’t really that great. For example, the research on divided attention examines our ability to attend to two things at once, with the key findings demonstrating that there are subsequent trade-offs in terms of performance and accuracy (Chun, 2011; Koch et al., 2010; Rosen, 2011; Wood and Cowan, 1995). The literature from psychology gets a little confused when we start to talk about multitasking as a concrete topic. Technically, multitasking doesn’t really exist; it is a misno-mer that is usually perpetrated by recruitment consultants and those who like to think they are good at doing two things at once. What most people would call multitasking is actually more accurately viewed as task switching. We are often presented with the illusion of multitasking as we are switching between tasks at such speed it appears that we are actually doing these things concurrently. Task switching can also be apparent when we get interrupted whilst we are focused on a primary task, something that we will look at in more detail later on.

Irrespective of how we conceptualise it, the term ‘multitasking’ has entered into everyday language and is used to describe a skill that is viewed as being good, but the consequences of engaging in such behaviour are far from positive (Becker et al., 2013). The term ‘polychronicity’ in this context refers to an individual’s preference to engage in multitasking as opposed to performing one task at any one time (Slocombe and Bluedorn, 1999). The notion of polychronicity is not a cognitively-based skill, but more a trait-based preference for shifting attention between ongoing tasks (Poposki and Oswald, 2009). However, research from Sanbonmatsu et al. (2013) would sug-gest that individuals have a massive disconnect between their perceived ability to multitask and their actual ability. Findings from their research showed that scores on a measure of multitasking were negatively correlated to self-reported multitask-ing activity. Similarly this measure was also negatively correlated to self-reported incidences of using a mobile phone whilst driving. So in essence it would appear that those who are least able to multitask are indeed those who are engaging in it more. Multitasking is presented as a mechanism through which individuals are able to achieve more in a shorter space of time, but what this chapter will do is explore the reality behind these anecdotal claims.

The Origins of MultitaskingThe actual term ‘multitasking’ has been adopted from computer science and originally made reference to the capacity for computers to complete a number of key operations simultaneously (Rosen, 2008). In contrast to computers, humans do not possess the hard-wired logic that allows such complex processes to be undertaken in the same space and time, and multitasking has taken on a variety


87

Multitasking

of different connotations. According to Rosen (2008), the term multitasking has evolved (or, if you prefer to use the original term presented by Rosen, ‘hijacked’) to describe ‘the human attempt to do simultaneously as many things as possible, as quickly as possible, preferably marshalling the power of as many technol-ogies as possible’ (p. 105). Other researchers, such as Delbridge (2000), have described the concept of multitasking as the attempt to perform multiple goals in the same general time period by ‘engaging in frequent switches between indi-vidual tasks” (p. 3). Yet others, such as Adler and Benbunan-Fich (2012), have noted that multitasking occurs when the individual is seen to shift their attention in order to perform several independent but concurrent computer-related tasks. It should be noted that these researchers place a direct emphasis on the use of computer technology in the process of multitasking, something that will become even more apparent as we move on through this chapter. Benbunan-Fich et al. (2011) noted that there are two key principles that should be adhered to when attempting to define an activity as multitasking. These are as follows:

• There must be some aspect of task independence, so that each of the tasks being conducted is self-contained and there is no cross-over in terms of the cognitive processes being used to conduct them.

• There is also an element of performance concurrency; this means that the two tasks are carried out in the same time frame, and there is some temporal overlap within a specific time period.

What is apparent from the definitions presented by Rosen and Delbridge is the repetition of the word ‘attempt’. This resonates well with previous research from cognitive psychology which indicates that doing more than one task at the same time is something that isn’t guaranteed to produce the best results. The other key aspect that strikes you when you are reading these definitions is the heady mix of technology within the melee of concurrent cognitive processes. Rosen (2008) presents a short but incisive discussion that essentially debunks the notion that multitasking is actually a possible cognitive process, and there is a great deal of evidence that suggests that this is true. Even James (1890) presented an exploration of multitasking, and viewed it in terms of a child-like inability to focus attention on one key task. Perhaps James had the fortune to view the future where the young and old alike are engaging in two tasks at any one time, usually accompa-nied by social networking apps, digital media and our beloved shiny smartphones.

Rather than multitasking being a state of two cognitive tasks engaged in at the same time, Dzubak (2007) argued that multitasking is more likely to be a sequence (hence something that occurs in serial rather than parallel order) of


88

Multitasking

processes that occur in rapid succession. This would also mean that multitask-ing is essentially task switching, a process that enables the individual to select information for attention, process that information and then encode it ready to be stored and then acted upon. For writers such as Delbridge (2000), the notion of ‘task switching’ is linked to attention switching – there must be a process through which attention is re-focused from the current task to the secondary, switched-to task. We will come to aspects of task switching when we explore the notion of interruptions in Chapter 7, but for now it is important for the reader to understand the cross-over between these two concepts.

Previous ResearchAs indicated at the start of this chapter, there is ample evidence from the literature in cognitive psychology that discusses the capacity for humans to perform more than one task at once. The conclusion from most researchers is that there is little capacity for two competing cognitive tasks to be conducted at the same time without there being some residual impact on performance (e.g. see Broadbent, 1957; Kahneman, 1973; Pashler et al., 2001). Such a suggestion links into the concept that attention is a limited resource and has a finite quality attached to it. This therefore means that the individual cannot attend to an unlimited amount of information simultaneously, and that by dividing resources between tasks, poorer performance will be evident. An example of this has been provided in work by Rubinstein et al. (2001), who noted that where individuals do engage in multitasking, the tasks take longer to complete and are usually accompanied by more errors in contrast to when they are focusing on a single task.

How Do We Organise Multiple Tasks?When we explore the research into the concept of multitasking there has been some attempt to understand how this process fits into the way in which we accom-plish tasks. Bluedorn et al. (1992) presented an exploration of how multiple tasks are organised in the context of three distinct temporal mechanisms. These essen-tially look at how timing comes into the process of conducting more than one thing at once, and are presented as follows:

• Sequential processing: Each task starts after the previous one has been finished. In this context there is no concurrency between tasks. In this instance this process is far removed from the notion of multitasking as the individual isn’t conducting multiple tasks in the same time frame.

• Parallel processing: All the things we are doing are attended to at the same time, hence there is the highest level of task overlap or concurrency.


89

Multitasking

The reality of this process is actually something of a near impossibility, but we can gain the illusion of doing two things at the same time. Similarly, attention is very hard to divide across multiple tasks unless there are key differences in the type of attention being used (such as writing and listen-ing to music at the same time). However, as we will see when we look at media multitasking later on, even this has its own set of issues.

• Interleaving: During the performance of a current task attention is reallo-cated through either voluntary or involuntary actions to another task. There is the potential for the primary task to be resumed, but the actual process of resuming the original task will actually have costs attached to it. This mechanism is the one that is more akin to task switching and can be linked to two key reasons for suspending the original task:

{{ An external disruption: Here there is something within our immediate environment that requires our urgent attention, therefore the current goal is displaced (e.g. getting a text message from a friend who has some ‘urgent’ gossip whilst you are writing an essay?!).

{{ An internal decision to stop: This may be due to an obstacle that cur-rently prevents the completion of the current goal or task. It might be related to a lack of specific information or resources (you can’t make that cake if you suddenly realise you haven’t got any eggs!). The goal will become suspended and another goal will become the focus of atten-tion (going to buy some eggs) until the obstacle is removed. These are often termed ‘self-imposed interruptions’ and are something that we will be exploring later on in Chapter 7 (Adler and Benbunan-Fich, 2012).

Theories for MultitaskingLimited Resource Capacity ModelsAs I have stressed throughout the first few chapters of this book, a variety of researchers have highlighted the notion that our cognitive resources are limited, directly associated with the limited capacity of human processing (Lang, 2000). When we have a number of tasks that have processing requirements that exceed the available resources we have, we usually see some form of decrement in per-formance. This could be in the form of errors or a longer time taken to perform the tasks. If you think about this in the context of your finances – if you only have £50 to spend on a pair of trousers and some decent shoes (for decent, don’t go mad, this isn’t a night out on the town, this is an emergency purchase!), and the shoes cost £30 and the trousers cost £40, you are essentially stuffed – so this is mostly a big decrement in performance.


90

Multitasking

Multiple Resource TheoriesThe limited capacity theory would suggest that there is just one common pool of resources available for us to use when conducting a task (so in the case of the previous example, this would be our wallet or purse containing some money). In contrast, the multiple resource theory proposed by researchers such as Wickens (2002) suggests that we have a set of specialised resources that subsume spe-cific functions related to cognition and perception. The theory holds that when we have two tasks that require the involvement of the same resources, competi-tion will occur, thus resulting in a similar decrement in performance (2002). For example, this could be multitasking on two activities that require an individual to pay attention to two visual tasks at the same time – obviously, as these two tasks share the same requirement for visual attention, there will be some issues related to performance. Individuals are often wise to this process, and for the most part will choose to multitask in a way that actually minimises disruption. For example, work by Carrier et al. (2009) would indicate that people are more likely to text or surf the Internet whilst listening to music, meaning there is less chance for competition between resources. However, as we will see in the context of media multitasking later, this isn’t always a guaranteed strategy.

The Unified Theory of MultitaskingThere has been some attempt to move towards a theoretical conceptualisation that focuses directly on multitasking. The Unified Theory of Multitasking Continuum (Salvucci et al., 2009) is an amalgamation of a number of other theoretical posi-tions. The theory itself views multitasking on a continuum (see Figure 6.1) where processes are viewed in the context of the time frame in which they occur. At the one end we have actions or tasks that are taking place within a matter of seconds, for instance the capacity to drive and talk at the same time. This requires an element of simultaneous processing where there is less control over switching between tasks as well as less time. In contrast, sequential multitasking could also perhaps be seen more as task switching, in which there is more direct control over the processes that are taking place and indeed more time between the switches.

The first component of the Unified Theory of Multitasking is the ACT-R Cognitive architecture proposed by Anderson et al. (2004). The main purpose of Anderson’s model was to be able to explore the processes involved in cognition on a practical or functional level. The model contains a number of individual modules each with their own respective purpose. The first one of these is the declarative memory module that contains information related to factual knowledge, including aspects such as episodic memory or instructions related to the current task. There is also a goal module, which contains information about the current goal for the


91

Multitasking

system as well as being able to keep track of the progress towards that particular goal. The problem representation module holds representations of the environment that are incomplete, but which are essential for successful completion of the cur-rent task. This could be a sub-total for a mental arithmetic problem or perhaps notes related to an essay or a report that is being written. The final component, the procedural module, is the overall controlling component that connects all of the other modules together. According to Salvucci et al. (2009) the ACT-R model is important in one key respect when it comes to multitasking as it allows the capacity for each of these modules to act in parallel. However, more importantly each of the modules can only be used in one single task at any one time.

The second component to this theory of multitasking is that of the threaded cognition theory presented by Salvucci and Taatgen (2008). Essentially each task is seen as being a thread of activity that can be interleaved through the modules which make up the ACT-R model. Threaded cognition allows for multiple tasks to be performed, but different tasks will compete for different resources (or modules); the point at which these tasks compete for the same module resources is the point at which interference is noted. This perspective shares some commonality with the multiple resource theory we have discussed

Figure 6.1 Unified Theory of Multitasking Continuum

Source: Salvucci et al. (2009)

Uni�ed Theory of Multitasking Continuum(Salvucci, Taatgen & Borst, 2009)

Simultaneous Processing(less time and less control)

Serial Processing(more time and control between switches)

ConcurrentMultitasking

SequentialMultitasking

Seconds Minutes Hours

Driving & talking Watching a �lm &talking to a friend

Cooking & readingA book

Listening &notetaking

Writing a paper &reading emails


92

Multitasking

above. The way this is presented in the threaded cognition framework is that in the instance where two tasks require the same module, one task or thread will be forced to wait its turn for the required module to be released. Accordingly this waiting period will cause a residual delay in task completion and produce an increase in the time it takes to finish off the current task and resume the previous one; this is referred to as the resumption lag (Salvucci et al., 2009).

The final element introduced by Salvucci et al. (2009) in the context of a theory towards multitasking is that on the memory for goal theory (Altmann and Trafton, 2002, 2004; Trafton et al., 2003). Where we are attempting to multitask, the new task goal must appear within our attentional system at a higher level of activation in comparison with the older tasks. After this point, the memory trace for the old task will fade. The consequences of this process mean that once the interrupting task is completed, the original task will take longer to resume. This is due to the process of ‘reactivating’ the memory trace of the older task that was interrupted, which means reviving the relevant instructions for the task, the goals as well as the current level of progress towards those goals. In the context of our present discussion, memory for goal theory would highlight the existence of key threads that exist according to each of the tasks the individual is undertaking. In the situation where one task is presented at the same time as another, the older thread is weakened and becomes faded, hence it will need more time to resume later on.

For now the essential point to take away from this theory is that multitasking as a process isn’t as clear cut as doing more than one thing at any one time. As we can see from this basic introduction, even the process of conceptualising the cognitive skills that underlie the process requires the amalgamation of more than one specific theory. It would appear that, at least from the information processing perspective, multitasking can and will result in a decrement in performance some-where along the line, and as we will see in the next section, such incidences have also been presented in the research literature.

Multitasking in the Digital Age: Media MultitaskingRight, now we have got the boring theory out of the way, let us turn our atten-tion to the actual research that has been conducted looking at multitasking in the context of digital media and technology. There is a surprising amount of research that covers this topic, with one of the most popular topics being that of media multitasking. To put this in a nutshell, the notion of media multitasking (or MMT) is the practice of engaging in more than one form of media at any given time (Ralph et al., 2013). This should start to sound familiar to lots of people, particularly those of us who like to surf the web … whilst listening to


93

Multitasking

music on our iPads … with the TV on … whilst we send a text … when we are doing work. The picture painted is all too familiar, but one that researchers have noted could have serious implications for our capacity to perform simple tasks.

Let us begin with some kind of sense check to put this type of work into context. Rideout et al. (2010) noted that those aged 8–18 have significantly increased the amount of time they spend using more than one medium at any given time. Approximately a quarter of the participants questioned in their study (29 per cent) said that they engaged in using two or more types of media concurrently. Furthermore, the using of digital media in multitasking was also apparent, with 48 per cent of young people saying that they multitask either ‘some of the time’ or ‘most of the time’ when playing video games, 46 per cent when using a computer and 73 per cent when listening to music. The research-ers also noted that those who fell into the heavy media-use group (more than 16 hours per day) were more likely to be getting into trouble to express feelings of sadness or unhappiness, or were bored. Similarly, 47 per cent of all the heavy media users in the survey said they usually got poorer grades in comparison with the moderate or light users group. The research presented on media multitasking has attempted to present some clear mechanisms for why high levels of MMT could lead to residual decrements in academic attainment. The focus on multi-tasking and education is something that we will be returning to in Chapter 8 so I won’t dwell on it more here, but safe to say that the results aren’t very promising.

In an original piece of work, Ophir et al. (2009) made the suggestion that those who were frequently engaged in MMT possessed a different approach to pro-cessing information in comparison with those who engage in MMT on a less frequent basis. According to these researchers, the process of consuming multiple streams of media at one time creates a cognitive bias in high MMT individuals, which means that they are taking in all information at any one time rather than just the relevant information they need. In this regard they suggest those in the higher-level MMT band are typified as follows:

• They have a poorer capacity to ignore information that is irrelevant to the tasks they are doing.

• They are less likely to ignore information that is contained within memory that is also not relevant to the current task.

• They are also less effective at preventing the activation of information related to previously completed tasks. Such suggestion is at odds with the previous theories discussed above that would see successful task switching (which involves the completion of one task to take up another one) as being critical to any multitasking behaviour.


94

Multitasking

The theoretical reasons as to why those who engage in high levels of MMT are more prone to distraction were also the focus of some discussion in the work by Ophir et al. (2009). They make two key suggestions:

• High MMT individuals are more easily distracted by multiple streams of media. This would suggest that they have a stimulus-driven (exogenous) attentional bias, meaning they are constantly on the lookout for new infor-mation within their immediate environment – irrespective of its relevance to the current task. According to Ophir et al. (2009) it would appear that those in the high MMT group actually sacrifice focus on one specific task in order to allow other pieces of information into their attentional field.

• Low MMT individuals are much better at directing their attention towards task-relevant information. This would suggest they are better at focusing attention using a top-down (endogenous) process allowing them to focus more easily on a single task.

There has been some work conducted into the concept of MMT since this work by Ophir et al. (2009). For example Alzahabi and Becker (2013) noted that those who reported as being in the high MMT group were significantly better at switch-ing between tasks in comparison with those in the low MMT group. They also found no significant differences in the ability to multitask between the high and low MMT groups. Additional work by Minear et al. (2013) noted that those in the high MMT group reported themselves as being more impulsive and performed less well on tests of fluid intelligence in comparison with those in the low MMT group. However, these researchers failed to find any support for the notion that high MMT individuals were worse in a multitasking situation and were unable to filter out irrelevant information.

Ralph et al. (2013) noted the disparity in such results, highlighting the fact that the relationship between MMT and laboratory-based tests are not as clear-cut as we would expect them to be. They presented their own set of findings, which focused specifically on media multitasking alongside the individuals’ own interpretation of their attentional control in daily life. The study actually made a comparison between the frequency of participants, engagement in MMT alongside incidences of attentional lapses they had experienced during their daily lives. The findings from this study go some way in supporting the original work by Ophir et al. (2013) where the level at which individuals engaged in MMT was directly associated with their level of inattention in daily life. Those reporting higher lev-els of MMT also showed positive correlations with attentional failures in daily life, symptomatic of things like sudden lapses in concentration or a spontaneous


95

Multitasking

capacity for mind wandering. They also found that there were no significant differences between MMT groups and subsequent memory failures, which was interpreted by the researchers as indicating that the issue is more directed towards an attentional component rather than on related to memory.

The results from Ralph et al. (2013) also noted that those with higher levels of MMT were associated with individuals actively withdrawing elements of atten-tion and demonstrated limited awareness of real world events or those related to past experiences. They were also more likely to display a number of attentional failures that were linked directly to them doing other things whilst failing to focus on current tasks. Ralph et al. (2013) again suggested that such a finding might be more evidence that those who engage in higher levels of MMT are more eas-ily distracted compared with those in the lower MMT groups. They presented a further notion that high MMT individuals possess a higher threshold of arousal in comparison with those from the low MMT group. This would mean that high MMT are actively seeking out additional forms of stimulation (in the shape of additional media) in order to satisfy this need.

We have to be careful when interpreting research such as this because the directionality of the results isn’t entirely clear. For example, it could be that being subjected to higher levels of MMT is actually creating these underlying changes in attentional processes. However, it could also be argued that these results could be linked to individual differences and may highlight already established atten-tional problems. This could be the notion that certain individuals could have an actual need or addiction to seek out multiple streams of information (Ralph et al., 2013). Findings related to individual differences in relation to multitasking are the focus of the next section.

Individual Differences and MultitaskingResearch has noted that some individuals do not show the expected decrement in performance whilst being engaged in multitasking (Rubinstein et al., 2001; Schumacher et al., 2001). The question remains as to why some people are more affected in the context of multitasking than others, and more importantly whether such elements can be trained so that an improvement in performance can be found. Many researchers have pointed towards underlying individual differences in cognitive processing that can coincidentally be linked to differences noted in multitasking performance (Brooking and Damos, 1991; Ishizaka et al., 2001). It should also be noted that gender differences and the capacity to multitask have also been debunked. For example, findings from Buser and Peter (2012) noted there was no significant difference in ability to multitask between men and women.


96

Multitasking

Elements of inhibitory control have been posited as one aspect of individual differences that may predict the individual’s propensity for multitasking. Sanbonmatsu et al. (2013) noted that two key traits, namely sensation seeking and impulsivity (which is directly linked to aspects of attentional control), have been widely associated with multitasking behaviour. In their exploration of these factors, they noted previous work that suggested that those who are categorised as high sensation seekers are more likely to engage in multitasking as it presents a capacity for them to experience a wider variety of sensations (Roberti, 2004; Sanbonmatsu et al., 2013; Zuckerman and Kuhlman, 2000). Similarly they also noted that sen-sation seekers are less likely to see loss in a negative light, meaning that they are more likely to focus on the enjoyment aspect of multitasking irrespective of the negatives (Franken et al., 1992; Horvath and Zuckerman, 1993; Sanbonmatsu et al., 2013). The results from Sanbonmatsu et al. (2013) supported the notion that sensation seekers do indeed show a higher preference for multitasking, and were more likely to report MMT as well as using a mobile phone whilst driving.

In wider research, Cain and Mitroff (2011) have also noted that certain individ-uals will choose to pay attention to a broader area of their environment, therefore meaning that they are more prone to distraction as well as having the potential for engaging in a secondary task. This point was also picked out by Sanbomatsu et al. (2013), who suggested that those individuals who have a higher level of executive control are perhaps the ones who are most likely to be able to multitask but are less likely to do so. This comes through in the context of impulsivity, a dispositional trait that has come into focus when discussing aspects of attentional control. For example, Gentile et al. (2012) noted that those who played action video games (AVGs) demonstrated higher levels of impulsivity and had greater problems in their capacity to focus attention. They also noted that this relationship goes both ways, inasmuch as individuals with issues related to attention and impulsivity will also have a proclivity to spend more time playing AVGs. Sanbonmatsu et al. (2013) also noted that those individuals with a higher level of impulsivity also present an inability to focus directly on the current task, often preferring to take on multiple tasks. Their findings would again support the link between impulsivity, attentional control and an inability to plan effectively, with each of these elements being posi-tively correlated to higher levels of self-reported multitasking. It would appear that the preference to engage in multitasking is directly linked to an inability to focus attention on one specific task in favour of a broader attentional capture.

Can There Be Supertaskers?Watson and Strayer (2010) present an interesting theoretical possibility that there might be a small proportion of the population who are bestowed with special


97

Multitasking

capacities when it comes to completing complex multitasking activities. For these individuals, they suggest that they do not experience the detrimental effects associated with completing two tasks in a similar time frame. They rely on exist-ing evidence from the literature on those individuals who display memory that falls outside the normal capacity limits (Price and Davis, 2008). Based on their work, they found that 2.5 per cent out of 200 participants exhibited the capac-ity to supertask, or more specifically be able to complete a simulated driving task whilst using a mobile phone without residual decrements in performance or attention. However, they do suggest there may be associated trade-offs in terms of other processing abilities, such as these individuals demonstrating a poorer capacity to plan or remember things. They also suggest that the reason for the limited proliferation of supertaskers throughout the human population is to do with selection. At present, the skill of supertasking is something that has become more specifically an advantage in the modern digital age, hence it is only just being realised in the current generation. According to Watson and Strayer (2010), such a skill will become more prevalent in future generations as the need to mul-titask becomes more and more important and evolutionarily beneficial.

When Multitasking Isn’t So GoodFor many of us, the use of multitasking skills is usually confined to times when the actual consequences may result in minor errors that would not have a significant impact on us. However, there is one area of research related to multitasking that does have significant implications for safety, and that is the use of mobile phones whilst conducting another activity. Much of these findings relate directly to the use of mobile phones whilst driving, but other researchers have demonstrated that even whilst we are walking, using a mobile phone can have a significant impact on our capacity to pay attention. Studies have noted that talking on a mobile phone can actually increase the risk of crashing by a factor of 4, which is why legislation has moved to prevent people from doing it (Strayer et al., 2011).

As we explored earlier, the capacity to perform two tasks at the same time will depend entirely on the extent to which a secondary activity shares similar demands to that of the primary task. Previous research exploring the use of hand-held devices focused directly on the physical interference that was caused as a result of holding the device and driving at the same time (Strayer et al., 2011; Young and Regan, 2007). As technology has changed with the prolif-eration of hands-free devices and consequent changes in legislation about the use of such devices whilst driving, the actual handling of the mobile phone has decreased (though not been abolished), but research has still noted a signif-icant threat from cognitive distractions. A number of researchers have noted


98

Multitasking

that there is no significant difference in terms of safety between using a hands-free mobile-phone system and a handheld phone whilst driving, although most of these focus more on talking rather than texting (Strayer et al., 2004, 2011; Young and Regan, 2007).

In a series of experiments, Strayer and colleagues (Strayer and Drews, 2007; Strayer and Johnston, 2001; Strayer et al., 2003) demonstrated that using a mobile phone could actually produce aspects of inattentional blindness. Just to recap, inattentional blindness is the notion that individuals fail to see novel or distinctive objects or elements within their immediate visual environment whilst engaged in a secondary, cognitively demanding task (Jensen et al., 2011). Strayer and Drews (2007) asked their participants to complete a simulated driving task whilst they were having a conversation on a mobile phone. Interestingly they noted that even though participants were looking directly at objects within the driving environ-ment, they failed to commit these elements to memory if they were talking on a mobile phone. If the capacity to multitask successfully relies directly on the extent to which both tasks are competing for the same resources, Strayer and Drews (2007) suggested that there shouldn’t really be any direct impact of talking on a mobile phone whilst driving. According to them, the auditory/verbal/vocal elements of the mobile phone conversation shouldn’t cross over with the visual/spatial/physical aspects of the driving task. However, there is a degree of inter-ference noted, which makes the models related to multitasking based around different pots of resources appear a little redundant.

So what about other activities in our daily life, such as walking and talking on a mobile phone? Surely we don’t miss really novel things whilst we are walking around if we are on our phones? Well, the short answer to this is actually yes, we can miss out on things within our immediate environment that we would assume should be perfectly visible. Hyman et al. (2010) presented some novel findings that highlight this suggestion pretty well. In their experiment, they compared participants according to their behaviour, for example if they were walking and talking on a mobile phone, if they were listening to music on an MP3 player, if they were walking in a pair or if they were just walking along. Their initial find-ings showed that those who were engaged in conversations on mobile phones took longer to walk across a predetermined route than those who were listen-ing to music and those walking alone. They also noted that mobile phone users were more likely to change direction as well as weave, which could potentially be linked to aspects of decreased spatial attention. In the second part of the study, the researchers introduced a novel stimulus: that of a unicycling clown. Now for most of us, we would surely be able to recount the amount of times we have walked around a city and encountered a unicycling clown, wouldn’t we? Well, for those of us who like to talk and walk at the same time, be prepared for a


99

Multitasking

shock – you’d have probably missed the clown! Those who were classified as using a mobile phone whilst walking were the group least likely to report see-ing the presence of the unicycling clown. Only 25 per cent of those participants questioned in the study who were walking and on their mobile phones noted the presence of the unicycling clown. To put this into context, over 61 per cent of people using the MP3 whilst walking reported seeing the clown, along with 71 per cent of people walking in pairs. What becomes apparent from this research is that even for a very concrete and well-practised skill such as walking, the deficit in attention when accompanied by the use of a mobile phone is tangible.

Incidences of injuries to pedestrians who are either walking whilst talking on their mobile phone or texting are becoming more commonplace (Nasar and Troyer, 2013; Nasar et al., 2008; Schwebel et al., 2012; Stavrinos et al., 2009). For instance, the study by Stavrinos et al. (2009) explored the simulated road crossing of children aged 10–11. In one condition, the children crossed the road whilst being simultaneously engaged in a mobile phone conversation with a person who was part of the research team. In the other conditions the children crossed the road without any specific dis-tractions other than those that usually accompany a typical road-based environment. The findings from their study demonstrated a significant impairment in the children’s awareness to their surroundings whilst being on a mobile phone. The children who were distracted paid less attention to traffic, reducing the amount of time between them crossing the road and the approach of another vehicle; they experienced more incidences of collisions or very close calls with oncoming traffic and had a longer delay in starting to cross the street. The research also examined whether the chil-dren’s previous experience of using mobile phones served to mitigate this safety risk. The results showed that there was no significant difference between those who had used a mobile phone previously and those who had not (Stavrinos et al., 2009).

Later work by Schwebel et al. (2012) expanded this work and explored the differences in distraction for participants who were randomly assigned to three different conditions. Participants aged 17–45 were asked to cross a road in an interactive simulation that portrayed a typical pedestrian street environment. The condition to which the participants were assigned included conducting a mobile phone conversation whilst crossing, texting and listening to music. Their performance was compared with a control group who crossed the road undistracted. The results demonstrated that those in the music and texting con-ditions were more likely to be ‘hit’ by a virtual vehicle compared with the participants in the other groups. They also noted that those in the texting group experienced more virtual hits than those who were having a conversation on their mobile, a result that contrasts with the work of Starvrinos et al. (2009) discussed above. It could be that texting – which involves not only the motor co-ordination to type a response, but also the facility to read and formulate a


100

Multitasking

reply (which means converting a verbal code into a symbolic one) – is more cognitively demanding and therefore more distracting in comparison to simply having a conversation on the phone. Schwebel et al. (2012) do, however, note that this is the first piece of research to produce such a finding and express the view that the aim should be to replicate these findings before we jump to massive conclusions.

The Rise of the ‘Zombie Smartphone User’: A World-Wide EpidemicThe issue of people using their smartphones has become such an problem that a variety of initiatives have been implemented around the world in an attempt to curb injuries and accidents related to their use. The problem has reached such serious levels in places like Japan that they have even invented their own term for it, that of ‘Aruki Sumaho’, or ‘smartphone walking’ (www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-23666695). In 2013 a news article by Renee Loth (www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/columns/2013/07/12/distracted-texting-rises- pedestrian-deaths/GGNWwpjuVDM6aEPf08PuoI/story.html) it was reported that the town of Fort Lee in New Jersey had implemented a new law that made walking whilst texting illegal, with pedestrians caught doing so risking a fine.

Figure 6.2 An example of the signs designed by Swedish designers Jacob Sempler and Emil Tiismann warning drivers that there might be distracted pedestrians about

Source: Photo: Jacob Sempler


101

Multitasking

Figure 6.3 A stark yet humorous warning to would-be Facebookers that they may be putting their lives at risk whilst texting

Source: Robert Galbraith/REUTERS (taken from http://www.wsj.com/articles/texting-while-walking- isnt-funny-anymore-1455734501)

Figure 6.4 In certain parts of the world pathway segregation has been implemented to stem the rise of collisions between distracted smartphone users and other walkers and cyclists

Source: Reuters (www.wsj.com/articles/texting-while-walking-isnt-funny-anymore-1455734501)


102

Multitasking

In the city of Stockholm designers have gone to the extreme measure of designing road signs warning car drivers of the potential threat of zombie-like pedestrians who might be walking around aimlessly trying to post images of their breakfast on Twitter. These signs (see Figure 6.2), designed by Swedish design-ers Jacob Sempler and Emil Tiismann (http://jacobandemil.com/#/new-page-1/) highlight two things: people are texting whilst walking, and they are doing it so much that motorists are being made aware of the fact!

Other designers have taken a bit more of a humorous, tongue-in-cheek approach to the issues of the zombie smartphone user, choosing to make them think more about the actions they are performing. The image in Figure 6.3 is taken from the town of Hayward in California, and makes the point of telling pedestrians that updating their social media probably isn’t worth doing whilst crossing the road!

And finally we have the image in Figure 6.4 from the popular tourist des-tination in Chongqing, China. The rise of the zombified smartphone user was becoming so much of an issue that they actually created a specific walkway for those who were using their smartphones whilst walking!

SummaryThe notion of multitasking as a ubiquitous skill that everyone possesses and every-one is really good at doesn’t really come across in the research literature we have explored above. For the most part the take-home message is that yes, we might think we are able to do two things at once and yes, we might think we are really good at it … but in actual fact we aren’t. Researchers have noted that the actual truth is that those who think they are good at multitasking are potentially those who aren’t. Conversely, those who have the capacity to be able to multitask may be those who choose not to!

Is the use of digital technology impacting upon our capacity to multitask? Well at the moment, the research just isn’t there to be able to draw this type of conclu-sion. According to the work of Watson and Strayer (2010), there is a possibility that our experiences with digital technology are driving a sort of evolutionary selection towards the notion of ‘supertasker’ who will be armed with the capacity to do several complex activities at the same time. However, such a suggestion is a long way off in terms of the development of humankind and its underlying cognitive processes. The reality of today is that we attempt to multitask on a daily basis, and digital technology is influencing the frequency of such activity. Both work and home environments present a plethora of opportunities for us to engage (and indulge) in multiple tasks at any one time. Sending a text whilst watching a video online, tweeting whilst walking, trying to send an email whilst on the phone


103

Multitasking

to a colleague ‒ all of these things are multitasking, and all present an opportunity for our cognitive resources to be stretched beyond their limits. The consequences of multitasking can span from the humorous (watch out for people walking into things whilst texting ‒ this is one of my favoured pastimes!) or the downright dangerous. What underlies this issue is the well-established fact that our cognitive systems are ill equipped to be able to do multiple tasks in what appears to be the same time frame. Rather than making the word multitasking a common term and a process we should all be striving for, perhaps we need to take a step back, estab-lish the reality and start to refocus on the things and tasks that are most important.


Date post:	26-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

00 HADLINGTON Prelims - SAGE Publications Ltd · used to it. There is a certain inevitability about...

Documents