Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-03-2022 | Original Article

Does framing an assignment as involving one or multiple components influence subjective experiences of attentional engagement?

Auteurs: Emilie E. Caron, Allison C. Drody, Brandon C. W. Ralph, Jonathan S. A. Carriere, Daniel Smilek

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 1/2023

Abstract

Across two studies, we explored whether framing an assignment as involving either multitasking or single-tasking (Srna et al. Psychol Sci 29(12):1942–1955, 2018) leads to differences in both subjective ratings of attentional engagement (i.e., depth of concentration and attentional control) and performance during the assignment. In Experiment 1, we manipulated task framing in the context of an assignment in which participants (N_collected = 238) simultaneously completed a word-search and an anagram task (Srna et al. Psychol Sci 29(12):1942–1955, 2018). While we replicated prior findings that participants who receive multitasking instructions perform better than those who receive single-tasking instructions, we did not find any influence of task framing on participants’ subjective evaluations of their attentional engagement. Exploratory analyses, however, revealed that regardless of group assignment, those who believed they were multitasking reported greater levels of attentional engagement than those who believed they were single-tasking. In Experiment 2 (N_collected = 238), task framing was varied in the context of the 2-back task (Kirchner J Exp Psychol 55(4): 352, 1958). Unexpectedly, we found that, relative to participants who received single-tasking instructions, those who received multitasking instructions reported exerting less attentional control over their thoughts and showed a greater number of incorrect responses to non-target trials on the 2-back. Taken together, the results do not support a straightforward conclusion regarding the influence of task framing on either subjective reports of attentional engagement or task performance. Nevertheless, they provide insight into our understanding of the role of task framing in contexts ranging from commonly performed real-world tasks to typical laboratory tasks.

vorige artikel The experiential basis of compatibility effects in reading-by-rotating paradigms

volgende artikel Language does arithmetic: linguistic differences in children’s place-value processing

In the present paper, we detail two of four experiments conducted to investigated whether task framing leads to differences in performance and attention. We chose not to include the first two experiments because they included different methodology than the present studies and an error in one of our primary measures of subjective engagement. However, the methods and results of these experiments can be found on OSF in the Preliminary Experiments folder (https://osf.io/v2kjx/).

We felt this was an acceptable deviation from Srna et al.’s Study 2b design given that the authors obtained the same pattern of results in their Study 2a, in which participants completed the same paradigm with a fixed 4-min time frame.

In our pre-registration, we had specified that we would remove those with too few words submitted to the assignment. Importantly, during the process of collecting data, we became aware that participants might have been using anagram decoders to obtain higher scores on the assignment. To address this, we also removed those with greater than 42 correct words submitted.

Results of Levene’s test indicated that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was violated, F(1, 224) = 15.44, p < .001. The outcome of the ANOVA did not change however, when correcting for unequal variances, Welch’s F(1, 210.88) = 42.76, p < .001.

We did not analyze the number of incorrect words submitted as the word-search was designed in such a way that participants could not submit incorrect words. Once a correct word of four letters or longer was selected, the word would appear in a darker colour on the word-search and would be registered as a response.

Results of Levene’s test indicated that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was violated, F(1, 224) = 7.05, p = .009.The outcome of the ANOVA did not change however, when correcting for unequal variances, Welch’s F(1, 209.2) = 5.44, p = .021.

Levene’s test revealed that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was violated, F(1, 180) = 9.70, p = .002. Nevertheless, the outcome of the ANOVA did not change when correcting for unequal variances, Welch’s F(1, 168.96) = 19.44, p < .001.

For a different configuration of the 2-back that also failed to yield an effect of task framing on 2-back performance, see our preregistration documents https://osf.io/v2kjx).

Aral, S., Brynjolfsson, E., & Van Alstyne, M. (2012). Information, technology, and information worker productivity. Information Systems Research, 23(3-part-2), 849–867.CrossRef

Armstrong, G., & Chung, L. (2000). Background television and reading memory in context: Assessing TV interference and facilitative context effects on encoding versus retrieval processes. Communication Research, 27(3), 327–352.CrossRef

Bachmann, O., Grunschel, C., & Fries, S. (2019). Multitasking and feeling good? Autonomy of additional activities predicts affect. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(3), 899–918.CrossRef

Beatty, J., & Lucero-Wagoner, B. (2000). The pupillary system. Handbook of psychophysiology (4th ed., pp. 142–162)

Bertolotti, F., Mattarelli, E., Vignoli, M., & Macrì, D. M. (2015). Exploring the relationship between multiple team membership and team performance: The role of social networks and collaborative technology. Research Policy, 44(4), 911–924.CrossRef

Borger, R. (1963). The refractory period and serial choice reactions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15(1), 1–12.CrossRef

Bradley, M. M., Miccoli, L., Escrig, M. A., & Lang, P. J. (2008). The pupil as a measure of emotional arousal and autonomic activation. Psychophysiology, 45(4), 602–607.CrossRef

Buser, T., & Peter, N. (2012). Multitasking. Experimental Economics, 15(4), 641–655.CrossRef

Creamer, L. R. (1963). Event uncertainty, psychological refractory period, and human data processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(2), 187–194.CrossRef

Ewolds, H., Broeker, L., de Oliveira, R. F., Raab, M., & Künzell, S. (2021). No impact of instructions and feedback on task integration in motor learning. Memory and Cognition, 49(2), 340–349.CrossRef

Forrin, N. D., Risko, E. F., & Smilek, D. (2019). On the relation between reading difficulty and mind-wandering: A section-length account. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 83(3), 485–497.CrossRef

Franklin, M., Broadway, J., Mrazek, M., Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. (2013). Window to the wandering mind: Pupillometry of spontaneous thought while reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 66(12), 2289–2294.CrossRef

Furnham, A., & Bradley, A. (1997). Music while you work: The differential distraction of background music on the cognitive test performance of introverts and extraverts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11(5), 445–455.CrossRef

Grandchamp, R., Braboszcz, C., & Delorme, A. (2014). Oculometric variations during mind wandering. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 31–31. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00031CrossRef

Hill, L., Rybar, J., Styer, T., Fram, E., Merchant, G., & Eastman, A. (2015). Prevalence of and attitudes about distracted driving in college students. Traffic Injury Prevention, 16(4), 362–367.CrossRef

Hoeks, B., & Levelt, W. J. (1993). Pupillary dilation as a measure of attention: A quantitative system analysis. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 25(1), 16–26.CrossRef

Junco, R. (2012). In-class multitasking and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2236–2243.CrossRef

Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic performance. Computers and Education, 59(2), 505–514.CrossRef

Kahneman, D., & Beatty, J. (1966). Pupil diameter and load on memory. Science, 154(3756), 1583–1585.CrossRef

Katz, B., Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Shah, P., & Jonides, J. (2018). The effect of monetary compensation on cognitive training outcomes. Learning and Motivation, 63, 77–90.CrossRef

Kieras, D. E., Meyer, D. E., Ballas, J. A., & Lauber, E. J. (2000). Modern computational perspectives on executive mental processes and cognitive control: Where to from here. Control of Cognitive Processes: Attention and Performance, XVIII, 681–712.

Kirchner, W. K. (1958). Age differences in short-term retention of rapidly changing information. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55(4), 352. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043688CrossRef

Kurapati, S., Lukosch, H., Eckerd, S., Verbraeck, A., & Corsi, T. (2017). Relating planner task performance for container terminal operations to multi-tasking skills and personality type. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 51, 47–64.CrossRef

Lovecraft to Brooklyn. (2011). Said “How do I concentrate without music playing?” [Online forum post]. Ask MetaFilter. Retrieved from https://ask.metafilter.com/189072/How-do-I-focus-without-music

Lu, J. G., Akinola, M., & Mason, M. F. (2017). “Switching On” creativity: Task switching can increase creativity by reducing cognitive fixation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 139, 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.01.005CrossRef

Marchewka, M. (2018). The effects and determinants of multitasking. Aspirare: an International Journal of Commerce and Management, 5, 1–7.

Marshall, S. P. (2005). Assessing cognitive engagement and cognitive state from eye metrics. Foundations of Augmented Cognition, 11, 312–320.

McVay, J. C., Meier, M. E., Touron, D. R., & Kane, M. J. (2013). Aging ebbs the flow of thought: Adult age differences in mind wandering, executive control, and self-evaluation. Acta Psychologica, 142(1), 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.11.006CrossRef

Miller, J., Ulrich, R., & Rolke, B. (2009). On the optimality of serial and parallel processing in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Effects of the distribution of stimulus onset asynchronies. Cognitive Psychology, 58(3), 273–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006CrossRef

Mittner, M., Boekel, W., Tucker, A. M., Turner, B. M., Heathcote, A., & Forstmann, B. U. (2014). When the brain takes a break: A model-based analysis of mind wandering. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(49), 16286–16295. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2062-14.2014CrossRef

Nunes, L., & Recarte, M. (2002). Cognitive demands of hands-free-phone conversation while driving. Transportation Research: Part F, Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8478(02)00012-8CrossRef

Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 44. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.2.220CrossRef

Ralph, B., Seli, P., Wilson, K. E., & Smilek, D. (2020). Volitional media multitasking: Awareness of performance costs and modulation of media multitasking as a function of task demand. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 84(2), 404–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1056-xCrossRef

Schooler, J. W., Reichle, E. D., & Halpern, D. V. (2004). Zoning out while reading: Evidence for dissociations between experience and metaconsciousness. Thinking and seeing: visual metacognition in adults and children, pp. 203–226. http://www.azmonyar.com/DownloadPDF/

Seli, P., Konishi, M., Risko, E. F., & Smilek, D. (2018). The role of task difficulty in theoretical accounts of mind wandering. Consciousness and Cognition, 65, 255–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2018.08.005CrossRef

Smallwood, J., McSpadden, M., & Schooler, J. W. (2007). The lights are on but no one’s home: Meta-awareness and the decoupling of attention when the mind wanders. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14(3), 527–533. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194102CrossRef

Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2006). The restless mind. Psychological Bulletin, 132(6), 946–958. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.946CrossRef

Smart, K. (2019). I can’t write without music. The writing cooperative. https://writingcooperative.com/i-cant-write-without-music-1e94de49ff78.

Srna, S., Schrift, R. Y., & Zauberman, G. (2018). The illusion of multitasking and its positive effect on performance. Psychological Science, 29(12), 1942–1955. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618801013CrossRef

Teasdale, J. D., Dritschel, B. H., Taylor, M. J., Proctor, L., Lloyd, C. A., Nimmo-Smith, I., & Baddeley, A. D. (1995). Stimulus-independent thought depends on central executive resources. Memory and Cognition, 23(5), 551–559. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197257CrossRef

Thomson, D. R., Besner, D., & Smilek, D. (2013). In pursuit of off-task thought: Mind wandering-performance trade-offs while reading aloud and color naming. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 360–360. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00360CrossRef

Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2005). Testing the predictions of the central capacity sharing model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(4), 790–802. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.4.790CrossRef

Unsworth, N., & Robison, M. K. (2016). Pupillary correlates of lapses of sustained attention. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 16(4), 601–615. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-016-0417-4CrossRef

Unsworth, N., Robison, M. K., & Miller, A. L. (2018). Pupillary correlates of fluctuations in sustained attention. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 30(9), 1241–1253.CrossRef

Van Der Schuur, W. A., Baumgartner, S. E., Sumter, S. R., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). The consequences of media multitasking for youth: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.035CrossRef

Wang, Z., & Tchernev, J. M. (2012). The “myth” of media multitasking: Reciprocal dynamics of media multitasking, personal needs, and gratifications. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 493–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01641.xCrossRef

Titel: Does framing an assignment as involving one or multiple components influence subjective experiences of attentional engagement?
Auteurs: Emilie E. Caron
Allison C. Drody
Brandon C. W. Ralph
Jonathan S. A. Carriere
Daniel Smilek
Publicatiedatum: 01-03-2022
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 1/2023
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01651-5

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2023

Diagnosing eyewitness identifications with reaction time-based concealed information test: the effect of observation time

Enhanced declarative memory in long-term mindfulness practitioners

The experiential basis of compatibility effects in reading-by-rotating paradigms

Similar proactive effect monitoring in free and forced choice action modes

The molecular genetic basis of creativity: a mini review and perspectives

Explicit vs. implicit spatial processing in arrow vs. eye-gaze spatial congruency effects