| Title |
Multitasking as a choice: a perspective
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Psychological Research, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00426-017-0938-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura Broeker, Roman Liepelt, Edita Poljac, Stefan Künzell, Harald Ewolds, Rita F. de Oliveira, Markus Raab |
| Abstract |
Performance decrements in multitasking have been explained by limitations in cognitive capacity, either modelled as static structural bottlenecks or as the scarcity of overall cognitive resources that prevent humans, or at least restrict them, from processing two tasks at the same time. However, recent research has shown that individual differences, flexible resource allocation, and prioritization of tasks cannot be fully explained by these accounts. We argue that understanding human multitasking as a choice and examining multitasking performance from the perspective of judgment and decision-making (JDM), may complement current dual-task theories. We outline two prominent theories from the area of JDM, namely Simple Heuristics and the Decision Field Theory, and adapt these theories to multitasking research. Here, we explain how computational modelling techniques and decision-making parameters used in JDM may provide a benefit to understanding multitasking costs and argue that these techniques and parameters have the potential to predict multitasking behavior in general, and also individual differences in behavior. Finally, we present the one-reason choice metaphor to explain a flexible use of limited capacity as well as changes in serial and parallel task processing. Based on this newly combined approach, we outline a concrete interdisciplinary future research program that we think will help to further develop multitasking research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 98 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Professor | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 11% |
| Unknown | 37 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 25 | 26% |
| Engineering | 7 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 5 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 12% |
| Unknown | 40 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,367,260
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from Psychological Research
#476
of 973 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,392
of 328,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychological Research
#11
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 973 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,615 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.