skip to main content
10.1145/2702123.2702367acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
note

The Effects of Chronic Multitasking on Analytical Writing

Published:18 April 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

Chronic multitaskers perform worse on core multitasking skills: memory management, cognitive filtering and task switching, likely due to their inability to filter irrelevant stimuli [17]. Our experiment examines effects of chronic multitasking with task-relevant and irrelevant distractors on analytical writing quality. We found a general switch cost and, when controlling for that cost, effects of chronic multitasking habits: heavy multitaskers write worse essays in the irrelevant condition and better essays in the relevant condition. Our study changes multitasking research paradigms in two fundamental ways: it studied a realistic writing scenario including access to both irrelevant and relevant distractors. We found that the effect of chronic multitasking is complex; heavy multitaskers are seduced by unrelated distractors but able to integrate multiple sources of relevant information.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

p2967-lottridge.mp4

mp4

139.4 MB

References

  1. Adler, R.F., and Benbunan-Fich, R. Self-Interruptions in Discretionary Multitasking. Computers in Human Behavior 29, 4 (2013), 1441--1449. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Beers, S.F., and Nagy, W.E. Syntactic complexity as a predictor of adolescent writing quality: Which measures? Which genre? Reading & Writing 22, 2(2009), 185--200.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Borst, J.P., Taatgen, N.A., & Van Rijn, H. The problem state: A cognitive bottleneck in multitasking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 36, (2010), 363--382.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowman, L.L., Levine, L.E., Waite, B.M., and Gendron, M. Can students really multi task? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers & Education 5, 4 (2010), 927--931. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Clapp, W.C., Rubens, M.T., Sabharwal, J., and Gazzaley, A. Deficit in switching between functional brain networks underlies the impact of multitasking on working memory in older adults. Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 17 (2011), 7212--7217.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Dabbish, L., Mark, G., and Gonzalez, V. Why do I keep interrupting myself?: Self interruption, habit, and environment. Proc. CHI (2011), 3127- 3130. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Ellis, Y., Daniels, B., and Jauregui, A. The effect of multitasking on the grade performance of business students. Research in Higher Education Journal 8, (2010), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Flesch, R. A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology 32, (1948), 221--233.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Foehr, U.G. Media multitasking among American youth: Prevalence, pairings and predictors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation (2006), Stanford, CA, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Fox, A.B., Rosen, J., and Crawford, M. Distractions, Distractions: Does Instant Messaging Affect College Students' Performance on a Concurrent Reading Comprehension Task? Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12, 1 (2009), 51--53.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Hembrooke, H., and Gay, G. The Laptop and the Lecture: The Effects of Multitasking in Learning Environments. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 15, 1 (2003), 46--64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Iqbal, S.T., and Bailey, B.P. Leveraging Characteristics of task structure to predict costs of interruption. Proc. CHI (2006), 741--750. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Jeong, S.H., and Fishbein, M. Predictors of Multitasking with Media: Media Factors and Audience Factors. Media Psychology 10, 3 (2007), 364--384.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Kirsch, D. A Few Thoughts on Cognitive Overload. Intellectica 1, 30 (2000), 19--51.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuncel, N.R., Hezlett, S.A., and Ones, D.S. A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the Graduate Record Examinations: Implications for graduate student selection and performance. Psychological Bulletin 127, 1 (2001), 162--181.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. LaLonde, S.M. Transforming variables for normality and linearity-when, how, why and why not's. SAS NESUG (2005), 11--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Ophir, E., Nass, C., and Wagner, A. D. Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 37 (2009). 15583--15587.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Payne, S. J., Duggan, G. B., and Neth, H. Discretionary task interleaving: Heuristics for time allocation in cognitive foraging. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136, 3 (2007), 370--388.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Pea, R., Nass, C., Meheula, L., Rance, M., Kumar, A., Bamford, H., Nass, M., Simha, A., Stillerman, B., Yang, S., and Zhou, M. Media use, face-to-face communication, media multitasking, and social wellbeing among 8- to 12-year-old girls. Developmental Psychology 48, 2 (2012), 327--336.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Reader, W., and Payne, S. Allocating time across multiple texts: sampling and satisficing. HumanComputer Interaction 22, 3 (2007), 263--298. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Roberts, D.F., and Foehr, U.G. Trends in Media Use. The Future of Children. Children and Electronic Media 18, 1 (2008), 11--37.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Rosen, L.D., Carrier, L.M., and Cheever, N. A. Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior 29, 3 (2013), 948--958. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Salvucci, D. D., Taatgen, N. A., and Borst, J. P. Toward a unified theory of the multitasking continuum: from concurrent performance to task switching, interruption, and resumption. Proc. CHI (2009), 1819--1828. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Spink, A., and Park, M. Information and noninformation multitasking interplay. Journal of Documentation 61, 4 (2005), 548--555.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Tombu, M.N., Asplund, C.L., Dux, P.E., Godwin, D., Martin, J.W., and Marois, R. A Unified attentional bottleneck in the human brain. Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 33 (2011), 13426--13431.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Vega, V., McCracken, K., Nass, C.I., and Labs, L. Multitasking Effects on Visual Working Memory, Working Memory and Executive Control. ICA (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. The Effects of Chronic Multitasking on Analytical Writing

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '15: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2015
      4290 pages
      ISBN:9781450331456
      DOI:10.1145/2702123

      Copyright © 2015 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 18 April 2015

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • note

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '15 Paper Acceptance Rate486of2,120submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader