See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/50303151

Media Multitasking Behavior: Concurrent Television and Computer Usage

Article in Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking · March 2011

DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0350 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
289 1,573

2 authors, including:

James Gips
Boston College
58 PUBLICATIONS 4,163 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by James Gips on 04 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING
Volume 14, Number 9, 2011
ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0350

Media Multitasking Behavior:

Concurrent Television and Computer Usage

S. Adam Brasel, Ph.D.,1 and James Gips, Ph.D.2

Abstract

Changes in the media landscape have made simultaneous usage of the computer and television increasingly
commonplace, but little research has explored how individuals navigate this media multitasking environment.
Prior work suggests that self-insight may be limited in media consumption and multitasking environments,
reinforcing a rising need for direct observational research. A laboratory experiment recorded both younger and
older individuals as they used a computer and television concurrently, multitasking across television and
Internet content. Results show that individuals are attending primarily to the computer during media multi-
tasking. Although gazes last longer on the computer when compared to the television, the overall distribution of
gazes is strongly skewed toward very short gazes only a few seconds in duration. People switched between
media at an extreme rate, averaging more than 4 switches per min and 120 switches over the 27.5-minute study
exposure. Participants had little insight into their switching activity and recalled their switching behavior at an
average of only 12 percent of their actual switching rate revealed in the objective data. Younger individuals
switched more often than older individuals, but other individual differences such as stated multitasking pref-
erence and polychronicity had little effect on switching patterns or gaze duration. This overall pattern of results
highlights the importance of exploring new media environments, such as the current drive toward media
multitasking, and reinforces that self-monitoring, post hoc surveying, and lay theory may offer only limited
insight into how individuals interact with media.

Introduction television while also using the Internet on a computer, 34

percent of their Internet usage time was spent simultaneously

R ecent years have seen a fundamental shift in how in-

dividuals are choosing to use and consume their media.
Current media studies suggest that nearly 59 percent of
consuming television, an increase of 5 percent from 2008 to
2009. These changes in media consumption are growing in-
creasingly pervasive, and a better understanding of how
Americans watch television while also using their computers people consume and interact with media can offer contribu-
to access the Internet at least once per month, and the amount tion to the media industry, advertisers, and consumer psy-
of time spent media multitasking in the home grew 35 percent chology.
in 2009 alone.1 Media multitasking is rapidly becoming the Yet even with these growing incidence numbers, current
modal form of television and computer consumption for insight into actual consumer media multitasking remains
children under 182; individuals under 30 already estimate that limited outside of self-report studies, with little objective data
over 40 percent of their Internet and television usage occurs to illuminate how consumers attend to multiple screens. Al-
simultaneously.3 though prior academic work has called for further research in
As the move from desktop to laptop computers has made it the area of simultaneous media consumption,5,6 most current
easier for individuals to use both computer and television models of media behavior have been criticized for being
simultaneously, media multitasking is becoming an increas- monomedia-focused in design,7 and there remains a strong
ingly greater issue for computer usage. A large-scale ethno- need for foundational experimental work in this area.8 As
graphic study conducted in 20084 showed that computers stated in D’Alessio and Allen,9 ‘‘if we want to know what
have recently outpaced print and radio media as the second media do to people, it behooves us to figure out what people
most common medium consumed daily (in terms of duration) do with media.’’
after television. Although individuals in the Nielsen Com- In light of calls in the literature to use observational
pany study spent only 3.1 percent of their time watching methods to explore media multitasking behavior, the present

Departments of 1Marketing and 2Information Systems, Carroll School of Management, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts.

527
528 BRASEL AND GIPS

article uses a laboratory study combining analysis of frame- thought and choice in driving media behavior.16 Indeed, in-
by-frame video records of naturalistic media multitasking dividuals keeping real-time diaries of their media consump-
behavior with traditional survey measures to explore how tion underreported their media multitasking behavior by 50
individuals manage simultaneous media consumption. Re- percent17 when compared with electronic records of their
sults address five main questions. First, how do people allo- behavior. Self-reports of multitasking expertise also appear to
cate their attention across multiple screens? Second, does offer little insight into actual multitasking skill or ability, with
their visual attention differ for computer versus television high multitaskers exhibiting increased distraction by irrele-
media? Third, how often do people switch between media? vant stimuli, increased difficulty refocusing after changing
Fourth, do people have good immediate recall of or insight locus of attention, and increased difficulty maintaining an
into their media multitasking behavior? Finally, do age or organizational structure.18 Likewise, measures of poly-
other individual difference variables play a role in driving chronicity versus monochronicity (i.e., whether one views
patterns of media multitasking? time as fluid and continuous with a preference for parallel
Given the increasing importance of understanding how activities or as rigid and segmented with a preference for
people multitask in their media consumption, this area has serial activities) and measures of Type A behavioral patterns
been little explored within the literature. The limited prior (displaying traits such as aggressiveness, impatience, and
media multitasking attention research suffers from method- time urgency) have led to inconsistent findings when applied
ological limitations of using either using post hoc memory to multitasking environments.19,20
based measures on realistic stimuli or real-time measures on Age, as a particular individual difference variable, is a
abstract and truncated media stimuli. Our real-time video popular topic in multitasking research, with articles exploring
records of visual attention with natural stimuli provide a how the brain becomes less flexible with age.21 Numerous
grounded exploration into media visual attention in multi- studies22,23 have established that younger generations are
tasking environments that are becoming the modal form of more likely to multitask and use multiple media simulta-
media usage. Our work also illustrates a number of discon- neously than older generations. At the same time, it is unclear
nects in media consumption between what individuals are whether generational differences in media multitasking are
actually doing and what they believe or remember that they driven by age-related changes in perception and cognition, or
are doing. whether they reflect varying adoption rates of different
technologies. Recent work suggests the gap between gener-
ations may be closing. A European study24 showed a 75
Background
percent growth in media multitaskers over the age of 55 from
Work exploring gaze duration suggests that switching 2006 to 2009, and an American study showed that 20 percent
between media may be more rapid and frequent than ex- of computer usage occurred simultaneously with television
pected. In a study of gaze duration during television viewing, usage for people ages 55–64. This, coupled with the mounting
Hawkins et al.10 showed a strong peak of gazes lasting evidence that increased multitasking among younger con-
around 1.5 seconds, with a median gaze duration of under 2 sumers has not led to increases in multitasking ability,25
seconds. This would place the majority of gazes into their suggests that although younger generations may exhibit
monitoring (defined as quick glances of 1.5 seconds or less, to more frequent multitasking behavior and preference for
confirm prior schematic expectations) and orienting (defined multitasking, general styles of cross-media multitasking be-
as establishing gazes of 1.5 to 5 seconds, to identify characters havior may look similar across generational groups.26
and action) categories, both of which feature little active
cognition, conscious insight, or depth of processing. This Study: Exploring Media Multitasking
prior work focused on television viewing, however, and it is
To explore media multitasking behavior, an in-depth lab-
unclear whether this distribution of gaze durations transfers
oratory study was conducted at a large East Coast university.
to computer environments. Media differences can play a large
A naturalistic media environment with a television and a
role in shaping media attention; differing genres of television
laptop computer was provided for participants, who were
content had stronger effects on gaze duration distributions
recorded with two video cameras. These video records were
than individual psychological differences,11 and prior work
then analyzed frame by frame for location of participant vi-
has shown how different physical screen sizes generate dif-
sual attention to create an objective record of media multi-
ferent levels of attention and arousal.12 Therefore, previous
tasking behavior. The results were combined with post hoc
television findings may not map well onto an entirely dif-
survey responses to explore the five research questions out-
ferent medium such as the computer, much less a multi-
lined above.
tasking media environment of television and computer.
Prior work also has suggested that direct observation of
Method
individuals engaging in multitasking is necessary, as ad hoc
theories, self-insight, and post hoc survey design have shown Participants. Forty-two participants (M age ¼ 33.8 years,
limited ability to accurately represent multitasking behavior. SD ¼ 16; 23 women, 19 men) were recruited on campus. To
Work in visual psychology has highlighted that conscious obtain a wider variance of ages, both students (n ¼ 20) and
involvement in moment-to-moment visual attention is highly college staff (n ¼ 22) were recruited through various campus
limited,13 as is conscious insight into perception overall.14 e-mail distribution lists (student age M ¼ 19.5 years SD
Research has shown that much of our media consumption is 1.47, age range 18–22; staff age M ¼ 46.9 years SD ¼ 10.22,
also habitual, automatic, and nonconscious in nature,15 and age range 28–65). Participating staff included library workers,
many newer models of media selection and consumption administrative assistants, and faculty; participating students
raise habit and schema to a level equal to that of conscious were drawn from numerous majors. Students were com-
MEDIA MULTITASKING BEHAVIOR 529

pensated for their participation with a $10 gift certificate to havior that might result from the anticipated end of the
the campus bookstore or to a major online retailer, and staff stimulus presentation.
were compensated with a $20 gift certificate to either of the
same choices. Survey measures. The presurvey included various esti-
mates of daily media consumption (in hours) and media
Protocol. Each participant was run individually through equipment ownership (in yes/no and counts), as well as de-
the protocol by two laboratory assistants; the protocol took mographic questions, and took <5 minutes to complete. The
roughly 45 minutes to complete. Upon entering the lab, par- postsurvey included a mixture of Likert scale questions and
ticipants provided informed consent and completed a pre- categorical response questions and took 10 to 15 minutes to
survey on media habits and demographic information. complete. Participants were first asked how interesting, ex-
Participants were then seated at a table with a Windows citing, informative, educational, and visually appealing they
laptop computer that was turned on and connected to the found the television content and the computer content (7-
Internet with a Mozilla Firefox Web browser already open. A point Likert scales from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree
36-in. high-definition television was roughly 5 feet in front of for each attribute). This was followed by estimations of
the participant; the television was already turned on and multitasking switching rate (open-ended numerical). Pre-
connected to the university cable system. The participants ference for multitasking was measured using a 5-item Likert
were instructed that they would spend 30 minutes using the scale battery adapted from Waller27 featuring expressions
computer and television and were notified that they were such as, ‘‘I am comfortable doing several things at the same
being recorded on video. They were told to use the computer time.’’ Measures of Type A personality (adapted from
and television however they wished. The participants were Bortner28) and monochronicity–polychronicity (adapted from
told they had freedom to visit any Web site they wanted or to Lindquist29) were also included, as prior work has shown
use any program available on the laptop. Likewise, the tele- partial support for correlations between these constructs and
vision remote was available on the table and the participants multitasking behavior. Finally, a battery of questions ex-
could change channels as they wished among the 59 network plored participants’ estimates of multitasking behavior in
and cable channels offered. Participants were not, however, their everyday life (for example, ‘‘How often do you listen to
allowed to introduce other forms of media to the study, such music while reading?’’ as a 7-point scale from Never to Al-
as cell phones or print media. ways). For specific survey measure wording, see the survey
The behavior of the participants was recorded at 30 frames measures Supplementary Material available online at www
per second with two unobtrusive video cameras. One of these .liebertonline.com/cyber.
cameras was focused on the head and eyes of the participants;
because the television was located in a raised position Results
(roughly 5 feet off the ground) relative to the laptop screen
How do people allocate their attention
(which was at desk level), head and eye movement revealed
across multiple screens?
the locus of participants’ attention between the two screens.
The second video camera was located behind and to the side Although respondents did not rate the computer and
of the participant to record the television and Internet content television content as significantly different on the Interesting
chosen. After the 30 minutes of media usage, the television (4.28 vs. 5.15), Exciting (3.21 vs. 3.80), or Visually Appealing
and laptop were shut down, and the participants completed a scales (4.13 vs. 4.56, all ns, p > .19), the video record revealed
postsurvey on the experience. that the computer dominated the television for visual atten-
tion. Participants spent 68.4 percent of their time attending to
Video measures. Research assistants transformed the the computer (on average) and 30.6 percent of their time at-
raw videos of participant behavior into data files suitable for tending to the television (see Table 1, binomial probability
analysis. Each frame from the video was coded as to whether test versus 50/50 attentional split significant at p < 0.0001);
the participant was looking at the television, the computer, or 78.6 percent of participants spent more than half of their time
(rarely) somewhere else. Switches between these states were on the computer. This is echoed in their presurvey measures
also coded. From these, participants’ gaze durations were of everyday media consumption, with participants estimat-
computed. Opening new Web pages on the computer and ing 4.15 hours spent online per day versus only 1.64 hours
changing channels on the television were also noted. Al- spent watching television, paired-samples t(41) ¼ 6.36,
though stimulus exposure lasted 30 minutes, video records p < 0.001. This is also echoed in the amount of direct in-
were truncated at 27.5 minutes to eliminate changes in be- teraction with the media observed: participants visited an

Table 1. Participant Media Attention Summary

Mean time on Mean time on Standard Percent of participant Percent of participants

n Mean age computer, minutes television, minutes deviationa time on computer computer dominant

All participants 42 33.8 18.8 8.4 7.2 68.4 78.6

Students 20 19.5 18.6 8.6 6.7 67.6 75.0
Staff 22 46.9 19.0 8.3 7.8 69.2 81.8
a
As time on computer and time on television represents over 99 percent of visual attention during the study, standard deviations for the
two measures are essentially identical.
530 BRASEL AND GIPS

FIG. 1. (a) Distribution of gaze durations. (b) Cumulative distribution of gaze durations.

average of more than 12 new Web sites (and 29 new Web persed: 22.6 percent of computer gazes were <1.5 seconds, 49
pages) during the study but engaged in only five channel- percent were <5 seconds, and 64.5 percent were <10 seconds.
changing episodes, paired-samples t(41) ¼ 6.85, p < 0.001. Compared to television, computer attention also had a larger
portion of extended gazes: 7.4 percent of gazes to the com-
Does visual attention differ for the computer puter lasted longer than 60 seconds, whereas only 2.9 percent
versus the television? of television gazes broke the 1-minute barrier. Although
these extended gazes were few in number, they constituted a
The nature of gazes is different between the television and
significant portion of actual time spent on media, with 54.9
computer, with television capturing considerably shorter ga-
percent of computer time versus 47.9 percent of television time
zes than the computer (see Fig. 1a, b). Although both gaze
spent in gazes of longer than a minute.
length distributions followed a roughly log-normal pattern
(matching the television findings of Burns & Anderson30), the
How often do people switch between media?
distributions were significantly different (Mann-Whitney
Z ¼ 18.91, p < 0.001; Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z ¼ 8.07, p < 0.001). Video records reveal that participants switched between
The computer gaze distribution was considerably stretched media at an extremely high rate, averaging 120 switches in
out in comparison to the television gaze distribution. For the 27.5 minutes. This is reflected in a median gaze length of only
television, 46.2 percent of gazes were <1.5 seconds, with 75.8 1.77 seconds for television gazes and 5.3 seconds for com-
percent of gazes lasting <5 seconds and 86 percent lasting <10 puter gazes. Media dominance, defined as whether the par-
seconds. These numbers match quite closely with the short ticipant spent more time on the computer or the television,
gaze benchmarks established for television content in Hawkins had little effect on switching frequency; there was no signif-
et al.10,11 Although gazes on the computer were also heavily icant difference in the overall amount of switching behavior
biased toward shorter looks, their distribution was more dis- exhibited by television-dominant participants (M ¼ 109
MEDIA MULTITASKING BEHAVIOR 531

FIG. 2. Actual switches of gaze versus estimated switches of gaze.

switches) versus computer-dominant participants (M ¼ 123 predictive effect on the number of switches between media,
switches), t(40) ¼ 0.438, p > 0.60. Examining the number of pattern of gaze duration, or the ratio of computer to television
frames spent on the computer versus the television also viewing observed in the study (all three regression Fs < 1.5,
yielded no significant predictive effect on the total number of ps > 0.30).
switches (regression F ¼ 1.35, p > 0.25). This high number of
switches was only partially explained by quick ‘‘monitoring’’ Do age or other individual difference variables
glances toward the other medium; when switches that hap- impact media multitasking behavior?
pen within 1.5 seconds of other switches are removed, par-
Comparing student to staff participants can provide in-
ticipants still average 73 switches. Surprisingly, participants’
sight into age-based differences in multitasking behavior.
switch rates and gaze durations did not change over the
Students reported enjoying multitasking in general more than
course of the study; regressing gaze duration on the timecode
staff (5.68 vs. 4.50), t(40) ¼ 2.18, p < 0.05, and also reported
for that gaze yielded no significant effect, and breaking the
that they felt more effective at multitasking in general (5.10
study duration into 10 equal-length blocks of 2.75 minutes
vs. 4.01), t(40) ¼ 2.06, p < 0.05. In addition, students scored
showed no significant difference in amount of switches,
higher on both the Type A measure (5.03 vs. 3.64) and the
mean, or median gaze duration across the blocks.
polychronicity measure (5.00 vs. 3.94, both differences sig-
nificant at p < 0.05). Survey results indicated that students
Do people have good insight into their own media
estimate 46.28 percent of their media is consumed simulta-
multitasking behavior?
neously with a second media source, whereas staff estimate
Participants significantly underestimated the amount of only 22.73 percent of their media is simultaneously consumed
switching that they do (Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test Z ¼ [t(40) ¼ 2.91 p < 0.01]. Do these differences in general media
5.58, p < 0.001). The mean number of survey-reported preferences result in differences within the study environ-
switches was 14.8, which is 12.3 percent of the actual amount ment?
of switching taking place (see Fig. 2 for a comparison of es- Comparing gaze length distributions revealed significant
timated to actual switches across participants). Although es- differences between students and staff (Mann-Whitney
timated switches were a significant predictor of the actual Z ¼ 6.74, p < 0.001; Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z ¼ 2.93, p < 0.001).
number of switches (regression F ¼ 13.254, p < 0.01), the R2 Students switched significantly more often than staff between
was not strong at 0.235, and the average individual under- the media (144 vs. 98), t(40) ¼ 2.26, p < 0.05 (see Fig. 3), and
estimated his or her switching behavior by 103 switches. In- had shorter gazes overall than staff, with a median gaze
deed, out of the pooled 5,082 gazes across all participants, duration of 2.3 seconds versus 3.1 seconds for staff. The dif-
only 98 gazes (1 percent of television gazes and 3 percent of ference between students and staff was strongest for short-
computer gazes) lasted longer than 2 minutes, the mean du- duration gazes, with 40 percent of student gazes lasting <1.5
ration of gaze that would be necessary to make the partici- seconds compared to 32.6 percent for staff gazes (Z ¼ 5.72,
pant estimated switching rate of 14.8 per 30 minutes feasible. p < 0.001); this difference decreased steadily across time. Al-
Personal recollections of everyday media usage also had though both students and staff strongly underestimated the
little bearing on the observational measures of media con- amount of switching taking place, regressing actual switches
sumption. Estimated hours spent watching television per on estimated switches appeared stronger for students
day, estimated hours spent on the computer per day, esti- (R2 ¼ 0.32, F ¼ 9.489, p < 0.01) than for staff (R2 ¼ 0.21,
mated percentage of computer use while watching television F ¼ 6.23, p < 0.05). Other measures, however, showed few
and television use while using the computer, and estimated differences between age groups. Students and staff exhibited
percentage of truly mixed media usage had no significant similar levels of computer attention within the study (67.6
532 BRASEL AND GIPS

FIG. 3. Age and switching behavior.

percent vs. 69.2 percent, ns p > 0.55), and students and staff Limitations
did not significantly differ on the number of channels chan-
While the present study uses real-world media stimuli for a
ged (4.55 vs. 5.36, p > 0.70) or the number of Web sites opened
realistic study environment, the experimental design also
(12.35 vs. 12.41, p > 0.75). These results suggest that switching
places a number of necessary limitations on the implications
rates may decrease with age, but interaction within a partic-
and extensibility of the results. Note that the current study
ular media and the overall allocation of attention across me-
limits participants to the computer and television; they were
dia might not vary highly across age groups.
not allowed to use their cell phones or consume printed
Echoing the mixed results of their use in prior multitasking
material. Media multitasking is certainly not limited to binary
studies, neither the Monochronicity-Polychronicity index nor
consumption environments, and switching patterns and gaze
the Type A Personality index had any effect on the amount of
durations could appear quite different with further degrees of
switching taking place, media dominance, or accuracy of
media splintering. Participants also completed the study
switch rate recollection. Gender also had little effect on the
alone, whereas much of modern media consumption takes
overall amount of switching taking place (male ¼ 116 vs. fe-
place in social contexts. Further work must be undertaken to
male ¼ 123; t ¼ 0.251, p > 0.75). Participants’ Preference for
explore how the role of others and social settings might
Multitasking index weakly but significantly predicted their
change media multitasking consumption patterns. Also,
actual number of switches (R2 ¼ .115, F ¼ 6.309, p < 0.05) as
while the current study provides insight into the allocation of
well as their reported number of switches (R2 ¼ .085, F ¼ 4.73,
visual attention, we cannot immediately extrapolate to
p < 0.05) but did not significantly predict the accuracy of their
higher-order cognitive structures, and future work is needed
switching prediction or their level of computer dominance.
to build predictive causal models based on content or explore
the effects of multitasking onto subsequent content memory.
Discussion
Results of an experimental study recording media multi-
Implications and Future Directions
tasking behavior show that individuals switch their attention
between media at a high rate, averaging 120 switches per 27.5 The brevity of gaze durations on both computer and tele-
minutes of media multitasking. Participants spent roughly vision content in this multitasking environment suggests a
two-thirds of their time attending to the computer rather than fracturing of attention with rapid attentional shifts and re-
the television, and the average duration of a gaze on the orientation; both media seem to have limited ability to ‘‘hook’’
computer was far longer than the average gaze on the tele- a participant into extended runs of attention. Television at-
vision. The majority of gazes for both media, however, were tention is especially composed of very quick gazes overall,
quite short, with 78 percent of television gazes and 49 percent supporting the contention that much of television viewing is
of computer gazes lasting <5 seconds. automatic and involves little cognitive effort or attention.31
Comparing participants’ survey record of their behavior While this may be partially due to the distracting nature of
with the objective behavior revealed large differences and a the highly interactive Internet media that is simultaneously
drastic underestimation of media switching behavior, sug- presented, it is interesting how closely attention to television
gesting that individuals lack the ability to recall much of their in this current multitasking study matched the distributions
media multitasking behavior. Even when very short glances and hazard rates of gaze durations found in the Hawkins
were removed from the analysis, participants still under- et al.11 work exploring television attention in a natural setting
estimated their switching behavior by a factor of five. without the Internet present. Although computer content
Younger participants switched more frequently than older received longer gazes compared to television content, com-
participants, but beyond an increased switching rate, age or puter attention was still heavily biased toward very short
other individual difference variables had little effect on the gazes, with nearly 50 percent of gazes lasting <5 seconds and
patterns of results. with only 7.4 percent of gazes lasting longer than 1 minute.
MEDIA MULTITASKING BEHAVIOR 533

This suggests we need to further examine the common as- Conclusion

sumption that the more interactive and involving nature of
This work provides an initial objective exploration into
Internet media can more effectively capture attention:32 An
media multitasking behavior and how individuals split their
individual’s gaze leaves the computer screen quite fre-
attention across computer and television media content. Video
quently, and extended gazes are rare.
results of an experiment where participants used computer
That participants underreported their switching behavior
and television media simultaneously showed that the com-
so drastically echoes recent work in the applied multitasking
puter screen received the majority of attention during media
field that illustrates how individuals tend to overestimate
multitasking, averaging nearly two-thirds of visual attention.
their multitasking ability and how heavy multitaskers are
Gazes on computer content trended longer than gazes on
more prone to distraction. Participants have little ability to
television content, but gazes on both media were very short
recall their moment-to-moment visual attention in multi-
overall. Only half of visual attention took place during media
media environments, and indeed much of their visual at-
gazes longer than 1 minute, and more than 75 percent of tele-
tention is confined to short monitoring and orienting looks
vision and 49 percent of computer gazes lasted <5 seconds.
involving little conscious involvement or deep processing.
Switching between media was rapid and frequent, with indi-
The results of this study indicate that even surveys taken
viduals averaging 120 switches per 27.5 minutes. Individuals
immediately following multitasking behavior can be unre-
have little awareness or memory of their switching behavior,
liable indicators of actual switching behavior and that
underestimating their switching behavior by 88 percent. Al-
post hoc or reflective data methods must be used with care
though younger participants switched more often and featured
when studying media attention or multitasking issues. This
somewhat shorter gazes overall, other individual differences
reinforces prior work suggesting that people have little self-
presented few effects in multitasking behavior. These findings
insight into multitasking behavior, and it also highlights the
highlight the importance of direct observation and exploration
nonconscious, and habitual nature of much of media con-
of media multitasking behavior and illustrate the changing
sumption.
ways consumers are using and consuming media in their lives.
One area for future work would be to explore the interplay
between internally driven media switching, created by the
Disclosure Statement
participant’s cognition, affect, or behavioral impulses, and
externally driven media switching, created by stimuli and cues No competing financial interests exist.
in the media environment. Does the mere presence of media
alternatives create a ‘‘pressure’’ to switch attention? Are there References
any inherent rhythms to this internal pressure to switch if it
1. The Nielsen Company. Television, Internet and mobile us-
exists? Are there characteristics of certain users or media
age in the US. Three Screen Report 2010; 8. www.tvb.org/
programming that might consistently inspire increased atten- pdf/multiplatform/Nielsen_Three_Screen_Report_Q12010
tional capture or extended gaze durations? Our preliminary .pdf (accessed Aug. 1, 2010).
explorations using Fast-Fourier Transform analysis to uncover 2. Roberts D, Foehr U, Rideout V, et al. (2004) Kids and media in
underlying frequencies of switching across participants inde- America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
pendent of media content did not yield significant results, but 3. Armbruster A. TV central in mixology of multimedia:
future work might isolate and explore internal versus external Medium generates most consumer response, triggers online
switching triggers and drivers of gaze duration. search. Television Week 2008. www.tvweek.com (accessed
The current study simulated a common home scenario Aug. 1, 2010).
where one is engaging in general Internet behavior while 4. Council for Research Excellence, Ball State Center for Media
watching television. It would also be of interest to explore Design. (2009) Video consumer mapping study. www
how behavior may change in more explicitly goal-driven .researchexcellence.com/vcmstudy.php (accessed Aug. 1,
environments, or environments where media can be explicitly 2010).
categorized as primary and secondary. Does someone 5. Jäckel M, Wollscheid S. More and more and more—and all
working on a specific task, such as a homework assignment, at the same time: Main and secondary activities of TV au-
exhibit similar media-switching patterns as an exploratory diences. Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie 2007; 19:23–33.
media multitasker? Likewise, would the pattern of results 6. Pilotta JJ, Schultz DE. Simultaneous media experience and
change for someone watching a particularly cherished tele- synesthesia. Journal of Advertising Research 2005; 45:19–26.
vision show versus casual television viewing? The role of 7. Pilotta JJ, Schultz DE, Drenik G, et al. Simultaneous media
usage: A critical consumer orientation to media planning.
goals within media multitasking could yield fruitful insight
Journal of Consumer Behavior 2004; 3:285–292.
into media multitasking behavior.
8. McDonald DG, Meng J. (2009) The multitasking of enter-
Finally, future work might create an experimenter-controlled
tainment. In Kleinman S, ed. The culture of efficiency: Tech-
subset of content choices for each medium, to explore how nology in everyday life. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 142–157.
switching between media affects comprehension and retention 9. D’Alessio D, Allen M. (2007) The selective exposure hy-
for stimuli presented. Given that prior work exploring single- pothesis and media choice processes. In Preiss RW, et al., eds.
screen multitasking has shown large impacts on completion Mass media effects research: Advances through meta-analysis.
time but not comprehension for self-paced media,33 how se- Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 103–118.
verely do switching costs and the attentional bottleneck across 10. Hawkins R, Pingree S, Bruce L, et al. Strategy and style in
multiple screens impact overall media comprehension? And attention to television. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
does television audio information help overall retention of Media 1997; 41:245–264.
television content while interfering with retention of simulta- 11. Hawkins R, Pingree S, Hitchon J, et al. What produces
neously consumed computer-based media? television attention and attention style? genre, situation, and
534 BRASEL AND GIPS

individual differences as predictors. Human Communica- 25. Levine LE, Waite BM, Bowman LL. Electronic media use,
tions Research 2005; 31:162–167. reading and academic distractibility in college youth. Cy-
12. Reeves B, Lang A, Kim EY, et al. The effects of screen size berpsychology & Behavior 2007; 10:560–566.
and message content on attention and arousal. Media Psy- 26. Carrier LM, Cheever NA, Rosen LR, et al. Multitasking
chology 1999; 1:49–67. across generations: Multitasking choices and difficulty rat-
13. Belopolsky AV, Kramer AF, Theeuwes J. The role of ings in three generations of Americans. Computers in Hu-
awareness in processing of oculomotor capture: Evidence man Behavior 2009; 25:483–489.
from event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neu- 27. Waller MJ. (2007) Preferences, behaviors, and strategies in
roscience 2008; 20:2285–2297. multiple task performance. In Dansereau F, Yammarino FJ,
14. Van der Stigchel S, Belopolsky AV, Peters JC, et al. The limits eds. Multi-level issues in organizations and time. Oxford:
of top-down control of visual attention. Acta Psychologica Elsevier, pp. 239–248.
2009; 132:201–212. 28. Bortner RW. A short rating scale as a potential measure of
15. Saling L, Phillips J. Automaticity: Efficient not mindless. pattern A behavior. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1969; 22:87–91.
Brain Research Bulletin 73, 1–20. 29. Lindquist JD. The polychronic–monochronic tendency
16. Larose R. (2009) Media habits. Paper presented at the annual model. Time & Society 2007; 16:253–285.
meeting of the International Communication Association, 30. Burns JL, Anderson DR. Attentional intertia and recognition
Chicago, IL. memory in adult television viewers. Communication Re-
17. Papper RA, Holmes ME, Popovich MN. Middletown media search 1993; 20:777–799.
studies: Media multitasking … and how much people really 31. Hess M, Madansky M, eds. (2005) Media meshing. In Truly,
use the media. The International Digital Media and Arts madly, deeply engaged, pp. 20–23. us.yimg.com/i/adv/
Association Journal 2004; 1:5–50. tmde_05/truly_madly_final_booklet.pdf (accessed Aug. 1,
18. Ophir E, Nass CI, Wagner AD. Cognitive control in media 2010).
multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- 32. Stewart DW, Pavlou PA. From consumer response to active
ences, USA 2009; 106:15583–15587. consumer: Measuring the effectiveness of interactive media.
19. Zhang Y, Goonetilleke R, Plocher T, et al. Time related be- Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2002; 30:
havior in multitasking situations. International Journal of 376–396.
Human-Computer Studies 2005; 62:425–455. 33. Fox AB, Rosen J, Crawford M. Distractions, distractions:
20. Ishizaka K, Marshall S, Conte J. Individual differences in Does instant messenging affect college student’s perfor-
attentional strategies in multitasking situations. Human mance on a concurrent reading comprehension task?
Performance 2001; 14:339–358. Cyberpsychology & Behavior 2009; 12:51–53.
21. Sarter M, Lustig C. (2009) Attention and learning and
memory. In Squire LR, ed. New encyclopedia of neuroscience.
Oxford: Elsevier.
22. Jeong S, Fishbein M. Predictors of multitasking with media: Address correspondence to:
Media factors and audience factors. Media Psychology 2007; S. Adam Brasel, Ph.D.
10:364–384. Department of Marketing
23. Rohm A, Sultan F, Bardhi F. The multitasking paradox: Carroll School of Management
Media consumption among young consumers. Marketing Boston College
Management 2009; December: 20–25. 140 Commonwealth Ave.
24. European Interactive Advertising Association. (2009) EIAA Chestnut Hill, MA 02467
media multi-tasking report. www.eiaa.co.uk (accessed Aug.
1, 2010). E-mail: [email protected]
This article has been cited by:

1. Levine Laura E., Waite Bradley M., Bowman Laura L.. 2013. Use of Instant Messaging Predicts Self-Report but Not Performance
Measures of Inattention, Impulsiveness, and Distractibility. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 16:12, 898-903.
[Abstract] [Full Text HTML] [Full Text PDF] [Full Text PDF with Links]

View publication stats