Top

Gepubliceerd in:

18-09-2019 | Original Article

The relation between task-unrelated media multitasking and task-related motivation

Auteurs: Brandon C. W. Ralph, Alyssa C. Smith, Paul Seli, Daniel Smilek

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 1/2021

Abstract

In two experiments, we explored the relation between participants’ (a) levels of motivation to complete a task and (b) task-unrelated media multitasking. In Experiment 1, we examined the extent to which participants’ levels of motivation to complete a task influenced their tendency to engage in task-unrelated media multitasking. Participants completed a 1-back task, while having the opportunity to turn on and off an unrelated, optional video. Results showed that participants who were told they would finish the experiment early if they achieved a sufficient level of performance (the motivated group) were significantly less likely to play the optional video during the 1-back task than those who were not given the opportunity to finish early (control condition). In Experiment 2, we examined the extent to which engaging in task-unrelated media multitasking affected task-related motivation. Three groups of participants completed a 1-back task, while (a) no video was presented, (b) a video was continuously played, or (c) participants could turn on and off a video at their leisure (as in Experiment 1). At both the beginning and the end of Experiment 2, participants were asked to indicate their level of motivation to complete the task. Interestingly, results revealed that continuously having the video playing helped sustain task-related motivation. Thus, although greater motivation to perform a task reduces the likelihood of engaging in task-unrelated media multitasking, such media multitasking also appears to increase levels of motivation.

vorige artikel Task duration and task order do not matter: no effect on self-control performance

volgende artikel Change deafness can be reduced, but not eliminated, using brief training interventions

Here, we use the term ‘task-related motivation’ to refer to a person’s level of motivation to perform well on her primary/focal task.

This instruction has been effectively used to increase participant motivation in a study examining the effects of motivational manipulations on mind wandering: Seli, Schacter, Risko, and Smilek (2017).

Due to a programming error, targets occurred slightly higher than the intended target frequency of 16.67%.

A Chi-square test indicated that endorsements of ‘Yes’ (5 Control, 6 Motivated), ‘No’ (48 Control, 41 Motivated), and ‘N/A’ (25 Control, 32 Motivated), did not vary by group, χ²(2) = 1.50, p = 0.474.

We computed a Bayes Factor for the Motivation Probe by Group interaction using the R package “BayesFactor.” We interpreted our Bayes Factors based on the recommendations of Jeffreys (1961). The Bayes Factor for the model with main effects was 1795.84, whereas the Bayes Factor for the model with the full interaction was 576.68. Therefore, the data are 3.11 times more likely under the main effects model than the full interaction model. This is moderate evidence against the inclusion of the interaction.

Given the slightly skewed distribution of proportion hits in the Motivated Group, a non-parametric Wilcox ranked-sum test might also be used to compare hits between the two groups. This test indicates that participants in the Motivated Group had a higher proportion of hits than participants in the Control Group, W = 2253, p = 0.003.

Due to a programming error, targets occurred slightly more frequently than the intended target frequency of 16.67%.

We computed a Bayes Factor for the Motivation Probe by Group interaction using the R package “BayesFactor.” The Bayes Factor for the model with main effects was 1.54 × 10¹², whereas the Bayes Factor for the model with the full interaction model was 8.94 × 10¹¹. Therefore, the data are 1.72 times more likely under the main effects model than the full interaction model. This is weak evidence against the inclusion of the interaction.

Motivation ratings across the three groups did not differ at the beginning of the experiment, F(2, 233) = 0.21, p = 0.814, η² < 0.01, but bordered on significance at the end of the experiment, F(2, 233) = 3.03, p = 0.05, η² = 0.03. At the end of the experiment, motivation was higher in the Video On group than the Control, t(153.25) = 2.18, p = 0.031, d = 0.35, and Video-Toggle group, t(153.39) = 2,08, p = 0.039, d = 0.33. Motivation did not vary across the Control and Video-Toggle groups, t(152.52) = 0.28, p = 0.779, d = 0.04.

We also computed a Bayes Factor for the change in motivation between groups, addressed in each of the Welch t tests, using the R package “Bayes Factor.” The Bayes Factor for the t test comparing the decline in motivation from Pre- to Post-Experiment in the Video On Group compared to the Control Group was 1.78. This indicates that there is anecdotal evidence for a greater decline of motivation, Pre- to Post-Experiment, in the Video On Group compared to the Control Group. The Bayes Factor for the t test comparing the decline in motivation from Pre- to Post-Experiment in the Video-Toggle Group compared to the Control Group was 0.213 indicating moderate evidence for the null hypothesis. Lastly, the Bayes Factor for the t test comparing the decline in motivation from Pre- to Post-Experiment in the Video On Group compared to the Video-Toggle Group was 0.73, indicating anecdotal evidence for the null hypothesis.

Levene’s test indicated unequal variance between groups, F = 5.42, p = 0.022.

Armstrong, G. B., & 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, 327–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365000027003003.CrossRef

Armstrong, G. B., & Greenberg, B. S. (1990). Background television as an inhibitor of cognitive processing. Human Communication Research, 16, 355–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1990.tb00215.x.CrossRef

Becker, M. W., Alzahabi, R., & Hopwood, C. J. (2013). Media multitasking is associated with symptoms of depression and social anxiety. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 132–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/cyber.2012.0291.CrossRef

Calderwood, C., Ackerman, P. L., & Conklin, E. 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.CrossRef

Carrier, L. M., Cheever, N. A., Rosen, L. D., Benitez, S., & Chang, J. (2009). Multitasking across generations: Multitasking choices and difficulty ratings in three generations of Americans. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 483–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.10.012.CrossRef

Carrier, L. M., Rosen, L. D., Cheever, N. A., & Lim, A. F. (2015). Causes, effects, and practicalities of everyday multitasking. Developmental Review, 35, 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2014.12.005.CrossRef

Chang, Y. (2016). Why do young people multitask with multiple media? Explicating the relationships among sensation seeking, needs, and media multitasking behavior. Media Psychology, 4, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2016.1247717.CrossRef

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper & Row.

Drews, F. A., Pasupathi, M., & Strayer, D. L. (2008). Passenger and cell phone conversations in simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 392–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013119.CrossRefPubMed

Eastwood, J. D., Frischen, A., Fenske, M. J., & Smilek, D. (2012). The unengaged mind: Defining boredom in terms of attention. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 482–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612456044.CrossRefPubMed

Feng, S., D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. C. (2013). Mind wandering while reading easy and difficult texts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 586–592. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0367-y.CrossRef

Fenske, M. J., & Raymond, J. E. (2006). Affective influences of selective attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 312–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00459.x.CrossRef

Fisher, C. D. (1998). Effects of external and internal interruptions on boredom at work: Two studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 503–522. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199809)19:5%3c503:AID-JOB854%3e3.0.CO;2-9.CrossRef

Fox, J. G., & Embrey, E. D. (1972). Music—an aid to productivity. Applied ergonomics, 3, 202–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-6870(72)90101-9.CrossRefPubMed

Furedi. (2015). https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/age-of-distraction-why-the-idea-digital-devices-are-destroying-our-concentration-and-memory-is-a-a6689776.html. Accessed 20 Apr 2019.

Hancock, P. A., Lesch, M., & Simmons, L. (2003). The distraction effects of phone use during a crucial driving maneuver. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, 501–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00028-3.CrossRefPubMed

Hwang, Y., Kim, H., & Jeong, S. (2014). Why do media users multitask?: Motives for general, medium-specific, and content-specific types of multitasking. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 542–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.040.CrossRef

Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of Probability. Oxford: Clarendon.

Junco, R. (2012). In-class multitasking and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 2236–2243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.031.CrossRef

Junco, R., & Cotton, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic performance. Computers & Education, 59, 505–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.023.CrossRef

Keller, J., Ringelhan, S., & Blomann, F. (2011). Does skills-demands compatibility result in intrinsic motivation? Experimental test of a basic notion proposed in the theory of flow-experiences. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6, 408–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2011.604041.CrossRef

Kennedy, P., Miele, D. B., & Metcalfe, J. (2014). The cognitive antecedents and motivational consequences of the feeling of being in the zone. Consciousness and Cognition, 30, 48–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.07.007.CrossRefPubMed

Kononova, A., & Chiang, Y. H. (2015). Why do we multitask with media? Predictors of media multitasking among Internet users in the United States and Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.052.CrossRef

Lin, L., Robertson, T., & Lee, J. (2009). Reading performance between novices and experts in different media multitasking environments. Computers in the Schools, 26, 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380560903095162.CrossRef

May, K. E., & Elder, A. D. (2018). Efficient, helpful, or distracting? A literature review of media multitasking in relation to academic performance. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0096-z.CrossRef

Pool, M. M., van der Voort, T. H. A., Beentjes, J. W. J., & Koolstra, C. M. (2000). Background television as an inhibitor of performance on easy and difficult homework assignments. Communication Research, 27, 293–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365000027003002.CrossRef

Ralph, B. C. W., Seli, P., Wilson, K. E., & Smilek, D. (2018). Volitional media multitasking: awareness of performance costs and modulation of media multitasking as a function of task demand. Psychological Research., 1, 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1056-x. (Epub ahead of print).CrossRef

Ralph, B. C. W., Smith, A. C., Seli, P., & Smilek, D. (2019). Yearning for distraction: Evidence for a trade-off between media multitasking and mind wandering. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000186. (Epub ahead of print).CrossRefPubMed

Ralph, B. C. W., Thomson, D. R., Cheyne, J. A., & Smilek, D. (2014). Media multitasking and failures of attention in everyday life. Psychological Research, 78, 661–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-013-0523-7.CrossRefPubMed

Raymond, J. E., Fenske, M. T., & Tavassoli, N. D. (2003). Selective attention determines emotional responses to novel visual stimuli. Psychological Science, 14, 537–542. https://doi.org/10.1047/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1462.x.CrossRefPubMed

Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generations M [superscript 2]: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds. San Francisco: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Scerbo, M. W. (1998). What’s so boring about vigilance? In R. R. Hoffman, M. F. Sherrick, & J. S. Warm (Eds), Viewing Psychology as a Whole: The Integrative Science of William N. Dember (pp. 145–166). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10290-006.

Scerbo, M. W., Greenwald, C. Q., & Sawin, D. A. (1992). Vigilance: It’s boring, it’s difficult, and I can’t do anything about it. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 36, 1508–1512. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193129203601831.CrossRef

Seli, P., Cheyne, J. A., Xu, M., Purdon, C., & Smilek, D. (2015). Motivation, intentionality, and mind wandering: Implications for assessments of task-unrelated thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 1417–1425. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000116.CrossRefPubMed

Seli, P., Kane, M. J., Smallwood, J., Schacter, D. L., Maillet, D., Schooler, J. W., & Smilek, D. (2018). Mind-wandering as a natural kind: A family-resemblances view. Trends in Cognitive Science, 22, 479–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.03.010.CrossRef

Seli, P., Schacter, D. L., Risko, E. F., & Smilek, D. (2017). Increasing participant motivation reduces rates of intentional and unintentional mind wandering. Psychological Research, 1, 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0914-2. (Epub ahead of print).CrossRef

Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2012). A 21 word solution. Dialogue, 26, 4–7. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2160588.CrossRef

Smallwood, J. M., Baracaia, S. F., Lowe, M., & Obonsawin, M. (2003). Task unrelated thought whilst encoding information. Consciousness and Cognition, 12, 452–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8100(03)00018-7.CrossRefPubMed

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

Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Crouch, D. J. (2006). A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver. Human Factors, 48, 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872006777724471.CrossRefPubMed

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

Thomson, D. R., Besner, D., & Smilek, D. (2016). A critical examining of the evidence for the sensitivity loss in modern vigilance tasks. Psychological Review, 123, 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000021.CrossRefPubMed

Unsworth, N., & McMillan, B. D. (2013). Mind wandering and reading comprehension: Examining the roles of working memory capacity, interest, motivation, and topic experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 832–842. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029669.CrossRefPubMed

Wammes, J. D., & Smilek, D. (2017). Examining the influence of lecture format on degree of mind wandering. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.01.015.CrossRef

Wang, Z., Irwin, M., Cooper, C., & Srivastava, J. (2015). Multidimensions of media multitasking and adaptive media selection. Human Communication Research, 41, 102–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12042.CrossRef

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

Xu, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2016). Studying in the region of proximal learning reduces mind wandering. Memory & Cognition, 44, 681–695. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0589-8.CrossRef

Zhang, W., & Zhang, L. (2012). Explicating multitasking with computers: Gratifications and situations. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1883–1891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.006.CrossRef

Titel: The relation between task-unrelated media multitasking and task-related motivation
Auteurs: Brandon C. W. Ralph
Alyssa C. Smith
Paul Seli
Daniel Smilek
Publicatiedatum: 18-09-2019
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 1/2021
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01246-7

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2021

Response control by primes, targets, and distractors: from feedforward activation to controlled inhibition

The effect of unitization on associative recognition was not moderated by the unitization–congruence between original and rearranged picture pairs (UC) for picture stimuli

The role of differential outcomes-based feedback on procedural memory

Screen size matches of familiar images are biased by canonical size, rather than showing a memory size effect

Affective perception of Euro banknotes: cognitive factors and interindividual differences

Executive Functions and Visual-Spatial Skills Predict Mathematical Achievement: Asymmetrical Associations Across Age