“…for each task (Bowman & Pace, 2014;Vandierendonck, De Vooght, & Van der Goten, 1998;Zimbardo, Snyder, Thomas, Gold, & Gurwitz, 1970). For these studies, we calculated effect sizes by selecting the task outcomes for which sufficient statistics were reported.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, a dimension related to task output is behavioral responses, which refers to whether the task requires users to engage in some behavior beyond cognitive processing (Wang et al, ). Some multitasking studies presented tasks that require behavioral responses, such as solving puzzles (Armstrong & Greenberg, ), matching cards (Bowman & Pace, ), responding to email (Grawitch & Barber, ), or texting and messaging (Bowman, Levine, Waite, & Gendron, ; Fante, Jacobi, & Sexton, ; Lawson, ). Behavioral responses would increase resource demands and, thus, we predict:H8: Multitasking will have greater effects on cognitive and attitudinal outcomes when behavioral responses are required (vs. not required).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We coded behavioral responses based on the extent to which the tasks in a given study required behavioral responses, such as solving puzzles (Armstrong & Greenberg, 1990) and matching cards (Bowman & Pace, 2014). There were three types of studies: neither task requiring behavioral responses (e.g., Armstrong & Chung, 2000), one task requiring behavioral responses (e.g., Armstrong & Greenberg, 1990), and both tasks requiring behavioral responses (e.g., Bowman & Pace, 2014).…”
Section: Moderatorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among the other eight studies included in this meta‐analysis were five studies that had one control group performing the two tasks sequentially (Chowdhury, Finn, & Olsen, ; Gamble, Howard, & Howard, ; Srivastava, ; Tran, Carrillo, & Subrahmanyam, ; Zhang et al, ). The other three studies that had two independent control groups for each task (Bowman & Pace, ; Vandierendonck, De Vooght, & Van der Goten, ; Zimbardo, Snyder, Thomas, Gold, & Gurwitz, ). For these studies, we calculated effect sizes by selecting the task outcomes for which sufficient statistics were reported.…”
Despite the recent proliferation of research on media multitasking, a comprehensive meta‐analytic review of its effects has not been available. Based on a review of 49 media multitasking studies, this meta‐analysis showed that multitasking has negative effects on cognitive outcomes, whereas it has positive effects on attitudinal (or persuasion‐related) outcomes. Moderator analyses suggested that the negative effects of multitasking on cognitive outcomes varied by (a) user control, (b) task relevance, and (c) task contiguity. Specifically, multitasking had greater effects (a) when media users had less control over the media, (b) for tasks that were unrelated, and (c) for tasks that were physically distant. Implications for future multitasking research are further discussed.
“…for each task (Bowman & Pace, 2014;Vandierendonck, De Vooght, & Van der Goten, 1998;Zimbardo, Snyder, Thomas, Gold, & Gurwitz, 1970). For these studies, we calculated effect sizes by selecting the task outcomes for which sufficient statistics were reported.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, a dimension related to task output is behavioral responses, which refers to whether the task requires users to engage in some behavior beyond cognitive processing (Wang et al, ). Some multitasking studies presented tasks that require behavioral responses, such as solving puzzles (Armstrong & Greenberg, ), matching cards (Bowman & Pace, ), responding to email (Grawitch & Barber, ), or texting and messaging (Bowman, Levine, Waite, & Gendron, ; Fante, Jacobi, & Sexton, ; Lawson, ). Behavioral responses would increase resource demands and, thus, we predict:H8: Multitasking will have greater effects on cognitive and attitudinal outcomes when behavioral responses are required (vs. not required).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We coded behavioral responses based on the extent to which the tasks in a given study required behavioral responses, such as solving puzzles (Armstrong & Greenberg, 1990) and matching cards (Bowman & Pace, 2014). There were three types of studies: neither task requiring behavioral responses (e.g., Armstrong & Chung, 2000), one task requiring behavioral responses (e.g., Armstrong & Greenberg, 1990), and both tasks requiring behavioral responses (e.g., Bowman & Pace, 2014).…”
Section: Moderatorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among the other eight studies included in this meta‐analysis were five studies that had one control group performing the two tasks sequentially (Chowdhury, Finn, & Olsen, ; Gamble, Howard, & Howard, ; Srivastava, ; Tran, Carrillo, & Subrahmanyam, ; Zhang et al, ). The other three studies that had two independent control groups for each task (Bowman & Pace, ; Vandierendonck, De Vooght, & Van der Goten, ; Zimbardo, Snyder, Thomas, Gold, & Gurwitz, ). For these studies, we calculated effect sizes by selecting the task outcomes for which sufficient statistics were reported.…”
Despite the recent proliferation of research on media multitasking, a comprehensive meta‐analytic review of its effects has not been available. Based on a review of 49 media multitasking studies, this meta‐analysis showed that multitasking has negative effects on cognitive outcomes, whereas it has positive effects on attitudinal (or persuasion‐related) outcomes. Moderator analyses suggested that the negative effects of multitasking on cognitive outcomes varied by (a) user control, (b) task relevance, and (c) task contiguity. Specifically, multitasking had greater effects (a) when media users had less control over the media, (b) for tasks that were unrelated, and (c) for tasks that were physically distant. Implications for future multitasking research are further discussed.
“…seeing and hearing (Wickens, 2002). Experimental studies confirm these conjectures, demonstrating a negative effect of sensory interference on a variety of performed tasks (J. M. Bowman & Pace, 2014; L. L. Bowman et al, 2010;Fante et al, 2013;Hwang & Jeong, 2018;Jeong & Fishbein, 2007;Pool et al, 2003;Yeykelis et al, 2014).…”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
