Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:623–645

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-09982-4

Patterns of multitasking behaviours of adolescents

in digital environments

Karen Ettinger 1 & Anat Cohen 1

Received: 11 May 2019 / Accepted: 26 July 2019 / Published online: 10 August 2019
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
The centrality of multitasking in teenagers’ lives has triggered vast interest in popular
and academic discussion. Due to a large inconsistency in the study and multitasking
reporting, we endeavoured to better understand and characterize multitasking behav-
iors. We researched multitasking patterns, prevalence, types, combinations and gender
differences of adolescents using observations, in-depth interviews and questionnaires.
The results showed a large variety of multitasking prevalence and types that we
categorized as simultaneous multitasking and task switching. Most of the observed
multitasking was actually task switching with a higher frequency of multitasking during
leisure than during study time. An interesting finding is a connection between the
natures of tasks: passive, active or incidental and the multitasking type. We demon-
strated that most multitasking involved combinations of music, texting or activities on
social networks, but seldom combining video games. Gender differences in multitask-
ing were also observed, especially with regard to the nature of the task combinations.

Keywords Multitasking . Task switching . Adolescent behavior . Digital technology .

Attention

1 Introduction

We all multitask, almost all of the time. When we drive, we are listening to the radio
and simultaneously following instructions on our navigating systems. While we are
participating in meetings we are also checking our smartphones for messages. We
switch from WhatsApp to Facebook where we are constantly jumping from post to
post. If multitasking is common in the adult world, it is very much more so in the

* Anat Cohen
anatco@tauex.tau.ac.il

1
The Jaime and Joan Constantiner School of Education, Tel Aviv University, POB 39040,
6997801 Tel Aviv, Israel

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 624 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:623–645

younger generation. In fact, multitasking has been recognized as one of the identifying
characteristics of the “digital natives” who were born into a digital reality that has
influenced the ways they communicate, learn, work and spend their leisure time
(Savina et al. 2017; Rideout 2015; Rideout et al. 2010; Rosen 2010; Tapscott 2009;
Carrier et al. 2009; Palfrey and Gasser 2011; Carlson 2005; Prensky 2001).
Multitasking is frequently viewed as a negative activity affecting quality of produc-
tivity, hindering learning and promoting unsocial behavior (Martin-Perpiñá et al. 2019;
Uzun and Kilis 2019; Uncapher et al. 2017; Kirschner and De Bruyckere 2017; Cain
et al. 2016; Rosen et al. 2013; Junco and Cotten 2012). The public domain is also
flooded with articles warning against this harming phenomenon (Khan 2018;
Lapowsky 2013; Merril 2012). However, it is clear from reading both the popular
and academic literature about multitasking, that not only this behavior is not sufficiently
understood, but that there is much inconsistency when studying and reporting this
behavior, as is conveyed in the literature review below.
Therefore, in this current study we endeavored to achieve a better understanding of
multitasking behaviors of adolescents and to characterize the different behavioral
patterns. Consequently, in this research the following question was raised: What are
the multitasking patterns of youth in technological environments? These patterns were
examined within three aspects: a) prevalence; b) task combinations; and c) types of
multitasking. Within each of these aspects, possible gender differences were also
researched. In order to achieve this, we performed a mixed method study, in which
observations and in-depth interviews of 8 high-school students were conducted. In
addition, an anonymous online questionnaire was distributed (N = 83). The question-
naire referred to multitasking and task switching practices and prevalence. The subjects
reported on their own multitasking practices, their perceptions about their multitasking
as well at their beliefs about these behaviors. The subjects were asked to provide an
estimate of time they spend multitasking and the combination of tasks performed. In
addition, demographic information was collected from the participants as well as
general information about use of technology.
This study provides new information about the variety of multitasking patterns of
adolescents. These different behaviors have been precisely characterized, in order to
better understand the way teenagers actually multitask. In addition, this study gives a
unique angle for learning about teenagers’ multitasking – through their own eyes and
their own perception. In contrast to other studies, in this study the teens themselves
report on their choices, awareness and adjustments to their needs. We believe that
understanding multitasking is the first step in learning how to cope and adapt this
behavior, so as to enable maximizing its benefits and minimizing its disadvantages.

2 Literature review

Multitasking is the subject of many academic papers, however many have indicated
that there is a lack of common language and terms to describe multitasking (Altschuller
and Benbunan-Fich 2017; Rosen et al. 2013; Katidioti and Taatgen 2014; Judd 2013;
Liang et al. 2015; Hwang et al. 2014; Alzahabi and Becker 2013; Poposki and Oswald
2010; Buser and Peter 2012, Wallis 2010). Some have defined multitasking as the
capability to deal with more than one task simultaneously (Pashler 2000; Lee and

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:623–645 625

Taatgen 2002; Salvucci and Taatgen 2008). Others claim that humans are not capable of
focusing on multiple tasks due to the cognitive “bottleneck” of absorbing, processing
and retrieving information (Oberauer and Kliegl 2004). Multitasking, according to this
view, is actually task-switching, performing multiple activities separately in a rapid and
linear way. (Kirschner and De Bruyckere 2017; Czerwinski et al. 2004; Appelbaum
et al. 2008). Unfortunately, the terms multitasking and task-switching are used incon-
sistently, sometimes within the same article.
Literature also deals with the factors that may influence the effectiveness of multi-
tasking and the choice of task combinations. Studies refer to internal or external
motivation (Altschuller and Benbunan-Fich 2017; Jez 2011), the degrees of automation
and the cognitive price necessary for performing the tasks (Rosen et al. 2013; Bannister
and Remenyi 2009). Kahneman (1973) and Navon and Gopher (1979) suggest that
tasks can require different modalities: visual, audio or verbal. If simultaneous multi-
tasking involves tasks using the same modality, such as listening to music while
holding a conversation, the outcome of the tasks will be lowered since both tasks are
competing for the same attention resource.
The way people multitask is affected by many factors such as: complexity, famil-
iarity, cognitive and attention demands, expertise, goals and prioritization of the
combined tasks. (Adler and Benbunan-Fich 2015; König and Waller 2010; Jez 2011).
Judd (2013) emphasized the importance of understanding the “mechanics” of multi-
tasking and categorized this behavior into the following groups: little or no task-
switching (focused), task-switching without multitasking (sequential) and multitasking.
Multitasking, according to Judd, is actually rapid transition of attention for very short
periods of time, and he does not relate to tasks that are executed simultaneously.
According to this definition, multitasking is actually a matter of resolution and if we
“zoom-in”, tasks that seem to be simultaneous are actually task-switching. Other
researchers do refer to simultaneous multitasking, such as Stoet et al. (2013), who
examined gender differences in multitasking. Some studies examined the motivation
and stimuli causing multitasking. When multitasking is caused by internal stimulus,
people can choose the right moment to do this. When the stimulus is external,
multitasking may be less successful due to the difficulty in choosing the best moment
to combining the tasks (Adler and Benbunan-Fich 2015; Katidioti and Taatgen 2014;
Yeykelis et al. 2014). Studies also examined the intensity of the switches and found that
these take place in average once every 15–19 s, however even switches every 5 s were
also common when using Facebook or reading email. This study also showed longer
intervals between the switches of up to 4 min, which occurred when the participants
were watching video films. Younger people were found to switch more often than older
ones (Yeykelis et al. 2014; Brasel and Gips 2011; Baumgartner et al. 2014).
Popular belief claims that women multitask better than men, however, could this be
proven in academic research? To answer this question, it is important to understand if
there are gender differences with regardsto general use of technology. Studies show that
girls use social media applications more than boys, they also listen more to music than
boys. Boys play video games and watch online movies more than girls. Girls use
cellular phones more than boys for both calls and text messages. Another difference is
that a third of the girls between 14 and 17 are “mostly-cell internet users” in compar-
ison with only a quarter of the boys (Jambulingam et al. 2014; Cotten et al. 2014;
Rideout et al. 2010; Madden et al. 2013). With regard to multitasking, some researchers

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 626 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:623–645

report the superiority of women such as in a research that showed that men’s results in
standard cognitive tests, were considerably lower while multitasking, while women’s
results improved in multitasking situations (Ren et al. 2009). Liu and Gu (2019)
showed that girls performed better than boys in reading tasks simulating multitasking
conditions. Other studies reported that men showed better multitasking performance
than women or seemed to be faster in multitasking situations (Ryan 2017; Stoet et al.
2013). Finally, other researchers have come to the conclusion that there are no
significant gender differences in multitasking behaviors (Buser and Peter, 2012). In
studies with teens, there were also significant gender differences, however, some
showed that girls multitasked more than boys and others showed the opposite
(Roberts and Foehr 2008; Rideout et al. 2010; Judd and Kennedy 2011; Mäntylä 2013).
Another area of controversy is about the effect of multitasking. Some studies have
shown that multitasking does not significantly impair cognitive activities, while others
even show that multitasking is a skill that enables people to cope with the information
overload of these times. Studies suggest that multitasking is essential to enable
functioning in the levels of productivity required in today’s academic and work
environments. Research also showed a correlation between higher levels of multitask-
ing in a technological environment and higher multi-sensoric integration (Palfrey and
Gasser 2011; Rideout et al. 2010; Tran 2012; Lee et al. 2012; Madjar and Shalley 2008;
Courage et al. 2015; Lui and Wong 2012).
Opposing these views are researchers who believe that multitasking is detrimental to
successful performance. According to this view, multitasking causes lowered perfor-
mance, distraction, mistakes, loss of time and mental pressure. Studies showed negative
correlation between grades and time spent on Facebook and the amount of text messages
sent and received (Martin-Perpiñá et al. 2019; Uzun and Kilis 2019; Savina et al. 2017;
Junco and Cotten 2012; Levine et al. 2007; Bowman et al. 2010). Ophir et al. (2009)
reported that “good multitaskers” (according to self-reports) were actually the worst in
their ability to evaluate and organize information while switching between assignments.
Much has been said and written about the tendency of adolescents to adopt new
technologies and behaviors such as multitasking. When defining the young people of
today, researchers have claimed that they are different from prior generations in the way
they learn, communicate and socialize, earning them names such as “digital natives”,
“netgeners” and even “homo zapiens” (Prensky 2001; Tapscott 2009; Barnes et al.
2007; Veen 2007; Palfrey and Gasser 2011). Many studies have shown that multitask-
ing is an integral part of the young people’s lifestyle, and this tendency has increased
since the spreading of use of mobile devices (Uncapher et al. 2017; Carlson 2005;
Carrier et al. 2009; Rosen 2010; Madden et al. 2013; Mills 2013; Rideout et al. 2010).
The younger generation also spends many hours multitasking. The reports show a high
amount of hours of daily technology and media consumption, but the actual amount
varies, ranging from 9 hours to seven and a half hours daily (Rideout 2015; Uncapher
et al. 2017). Wiradhany and Baumgartner (2019) also referred to the variety in
multitasking behavior and frequency across populations. Another study showed a
positive correlation between owning a cell phone and multitasking (Cotten et al.
2014) therefore, we may assume that multitasking is increasing as ownership of
smartphone increases among adolescents (Lenhart et al. 2015).
What are the teenagers actually doing when they are multitasking? Wiradhany and
Baumgartner (2019) refer to studies using the Media Multitasking Index (MMI)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:623–645 627

developed by Ophir et al. (2009) to describe the phenomenon. They state that not
enough is known about the combinations of the media underlying the score. However,
some research has been done on the topic, showing a tendency to combine tasks with
music, texting, eating, watching television and surfing on the internet, while they
generally do not multitask while playing video games or making phone or face-to-
face conversations (Wiradhany and Baumgartner 2019; Kaushik 2017; Carrier et al.
2009; Roberts and Foehr 2008; Rideout et al. 2010; van Der Schuur et al. 2015;
Voorveld and van der Goot 2013). Other studies reported on a high prevalence of
using Facebook in task-switching situations (Judd 2013; Yeykelis et al. 2014). Music is
often mentioned as a key multitasking component. Research has shown that in many
cases music does not have negative effects on behavior or attention. Others have even
shown that listening to music or audio books can help concentrating and contributes to
wellbeing (Felix 2018; Nowosielski et al. 2018), while some researchers have even
gone as far as recommending that students be allowed to listen to certain kinds of music
while studying (Carrier et al. 2009; Rosen et al. 2013; Kämpfe et al. 2011).
This study was performed in order to gain a wider understanding of the multitasking
practices of adolescents and to characterize these practices. Consequently, the following
question was asked: What are the multitasking patterns of youth in technological
environments? We examined these patterns within these three aspects: a) prevalence;
b) task combinations; and c) types of multitasking. Within each of these aspects we also
researched possible gender differences. Observations and in-depth interviews of 8 high-
school students were performed, and information from an online anonymous question-
naire (N = 83) was collected.

3 Methods

This research was carried out in two stages using qualitative and quantitative methods.
The first stage focused on qualitative characterization of multitasking patterns of youth
in their natural technological environments. We performed eight observations on five
boys and three girls aged fourteen to eighteen, studying in Israeli public high schools.
These observations were carried out in the homes of the subjects, using their own
computers and devices. The observations lasted between 17 and 50 min (average
27 min) based on the length of the computer session of the subject. No task was
presented to the subject, since our goal was to observe their authentic use of technology
in ways that they chose. During the observation the observer was seated at a small
distance behind the subject, and all his/her activities were recorded in an observation
table (see Appendix 1). After the observations, the subjects were interviewed in order to
clarify the reasons and considerations that affected the recorded behavior (see
Appendix 2). The subjects were also asked about their general multitasking preferences
and behaviors. These eight observations were the basis for the questionnaire develop-
ment that was distributed at the second stage. This, with the understanding that more
observations should be done in following studies.
The second stage of the research was to supply data for a quantitative analysis. This
was achieved by an anonymous online survey created on Google Forms. The ques-
tionnaire was distributed on Facebook groups that are frequented by high school
students and children of relevant ages of acquaintances and colleagues. The survey

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 628 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:623–645

was open for 1 month, and 83 teenagers aged fourteen to eighteen answered, enabling
an examination of multitasking with a wider population and from a continuous point of
view, and not within the defined time span of an individual observation or interview.
The respondents were asked to rate their agreement with 83 statements that characterize
their technology use and multitasking behaviors (α = 0.92 > 0.6) in ordinal scale from 1
to 5 (1 meaning strongly disagree or very rarely and 5 meaning strongly agree or very
often). The questionnaire began with questions about demographic variables and
general questions about use of technology. The next section of the questionnaire
referred to multitasking or task switching behavior. The subjects reported on their
own multitasking practices, their perceptions about their multitasking, as well at their
beliefs about these behaviors. Quantitative questions asked the subjects to provide an
estimate on the time they spend multitasking and the combination of tasks performed.

4 Results

In order to understand and to characterize the multitasking patterns of youth, we

examined the following aspects: prevalence, modes of multitasking and task combina-
tions. These aspects were also tested for gender differences.

4.1 Multitasking patterns - prevalence

The first aspect of multitasking researched was the prevalence of the phenomenon.
Close to 45% of the teens reported that they multitask often or very often, a third
answered that they multitask quite often and only 22% reported that they seldom or
never multitask (Fig. 1). In another question, almost half of the teens agreed with the
sentence: “I always do several things together” (M = 3.51, SD = 1.043). When asked
about their multitasking, a third of the adolescents gave answers such as: “always”,
“most of the time”, “whenever I can”. When asked to describe the situations when they
multitasked, participants answered:

I multitask most of the time. When I read, when I'm on the computer or when I
study, I listen to music.
[I multitask] all the time. My phone is always on me and while doing other things
I am always using my phone to surf the web, WhatsApp. All of the time on
Instagram. Whatever is needed, I am always available.

Fig. 1 Estimate of time spent multitasking

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:623–645 629

Notably, no significant gender differences were found in regard to multitasking prevalence

in the T-Test analysis. One interesting quote from the survey, referring to a question about
reasons for multitasking, pointed at a popular belief about multitasking and gender:

I am a girl, we girls are capable of doing it and it comes to us easily (I think)

without noticing.

Observations also provided information on multitasking prevalence, and showed

that the subjects multitasked during most of the observation sessions (Table 1).
In general, the table presents a wide variety of multitasking prevalence during the
observations, from Sagi who did not multitask at all to Tiltan, who multitasked during
71% of the observation session with an average of 2.27 tasks per minute (Fig. 2). Adir
multitasked between YouTube and Facebook but mainly switched frequently within
each application. Our analysis showed that 22% of the observation time Adir was
multitasking with an average of 1.3 activities per minute. However, these calculations
were only for multitasking within different applications and had we calculated single-
application multitasking the average would probably have been higher. It is interesting
to note that in the following observation, Adir said: “I do not usually do things
together.” Also Shiri said: “I hardly multitask at all”, but from the observation analysis
it seems that she actually multitasked during 60% of the session, either with simulta-
neous multitasking or task-switching. This indicates that there is a gap between the
actual multitasking practice and awareness to having done it.
As opposed to the other subjects, we observed Oren in two different situations: one
when he was studying and another during leisure time. We observed a significant
difference between the multitasking during leisure and while studying. During leisure,
Oren multitasked 58% of the session in comparison with 46% while he was studying.
Another difference was that during leisure Oren performed 1.87 tasks per minute as
opposed to 1.46 tasks per minute while studying.

Table 1 Frequency of multitasking in the observations

Name Gender Age Goal Focused? Observation % time Average tasks

length (mins.) multi-tasking per minute

Adir Male 15 Leisure No 22 22% 1.3

Aviv Male 15 Leisure No 30 60% 1.63
Lioz Male 18 Study Yes 17 41% 1.41
Shachaf Female 16 Study Yes 21 65% 1.8
Shiri Female 17 Study Yes 20 60% 1.65
Sagi Male 15 Leisure Yes 17 0 1
Oren Male 18 Leisure No 48 58% 1.87
Oren (2nd observation) Male 18 Study Yes 26 46% 1.46
Tiltan Female 18 Leisure No 41 71% 2.27

*All names in the study reports have been changed in order to protect the adolescents’ privacy

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 630 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:623–645

Fig. 2 Summary of first 20 minutes of Tiltan’s observation session

4.2 Multitasking patterns – task combinations

Another important aspect of multitasking is task combination. Table 2 shows the

percentage of different task combinations, according to the subjects’ reports in the
online questionnaire. As can be seen in the table, the most common task combinations
included music and texting, while the least common combinations included watching
TV and playing computer games.
The interviews and open-ended questions questionnaire and observations provided
statements about the task-combination preferences. These statements show similar
trends to those derived from the observations: a high frequency of combining music
and texts when multitasking and a low frequency in combining games and television.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:623–645 631

Table 2 Task combination frequency

Task A Task B Average prevalence

Music Text messaginga 4.32 (s = 0.978)

Music Internet surfing 4.0 (s = 1.38)
Music Surfing on social networksb 3.78 (s = 1.44)
Television Text messaging 3.68 (s = 1.36)
Internet surfingc Speaking on the phone 3.1 (s = 1.39)
Television Surfing on social networks 2.98 (s = 1.57)
Computer games Music 2.9 (s = 1.57)
Television Internet surfing 2.8 (s = 1.6)
Computer games Speaking on the phone 2.4 (s = 1.49)
Computer games Internet surfing 2.3 (s = 1.4)
Computer games Television 1.85 (s = 1.85)
Music Television 1.58 (0.6)

(Scale: 1 = very often to 5 = very seldom)

aA task described as text messaging includes SMS, WhatsApp and other instant messaging services
b A task described as “surfing on social networks” includes Facebook, Google + and other social network platforms

cA task described as “Internet surfing” includes surfing on any technological device

Half of the answers in the questionnaire and most of the interviewees mentioned
combinations including music

"I mostly combine listening to music and another task, for example reading, talking
to people, doing homework and preparing for class and other things like this."
"If I don't need to especially focus on something, I like to do things together, for
example music. If I am not doing urgent things or if I don't need to concentrate,
there will always be music in the background…" (Aviv)
"Even though I prefer doing tasks separately, if I do multitask it will be with music.
For example: listening to music while I am studying for a test or while I am cooking.
I prefer to watch movies separately without performing other tasks." (Shiri)

Many references were also given to task-combinations including texting:

"[I mostly] combine learning for a test and texting, listening to music, and texting
and hanging out laundry and texting"
"When I am on the computer I don’t do other things, I am concentrating. If I
receive a text message, I answer but I don't always notice it. Only when I watch
TV I do other things." (Sagi)

When reporting task combinations, many subjects reported combining tasks with “the
phone” without stating the specific use. For this reason, the frequency of combining
texting with other tasks may be even higher than reported.
Another 20% of the subjects reported that they combine other tasks with watching
television or watching television programs on their digital devices. Close to half of the

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 632 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:623–645

subjects reported combining technological tasks with non-technological ones, such as

eating, face to face conversations and even ironing:

"When I talk to a friend on the phone I do other things at the same time – I tidy
my room, wash up, look at messages that were sent during our phone call…"

Other answers provided interesting information about tasks that were not commonly
combined:

"[I don't usually combine] anything that involves the same sense, for example
talking on the phone and speaking with a friend."
"[I usually don't combine] work on the computer for school with listening to
music, or cooking and talking on the cell phone because it distracts me and I
forget where I stopped and I get confused."
"When I watch movies I don't do other things at the same time…" (Adir)

Interesting results were found between the genders in regard to task-combination

(Table 3). The average combination of cell phone use together with games was
significantly higher in boys (M = 2.46, SD = 1.598) [t(44) = −2.170, p < 0.05] than the
average of the girls (M = 1.71, SD = 1.088). Multitasking together with playing com-
puter games was also significantly higher amongst boys (M = 3.03, SD = 1.592)
[t(69) = −3.278, p < 0.005] than amongst girls (M = 1.90, SD = 1.303).
In comparison, combination of music together with surfing on social media was
significantly more common amongst girls (M = 4.10, SD = 1.188) [t(46) = 2.132,
p < 0.05] than amongst boys (M = 3.32, SD = 1.657). The average combination frequency
of watching television together with texting showed a similar trend with a higher frequency
of girls [t(64) = 2.970, p < 0.005] (M = 4.44, SD = 08.808) in comparison with the average

Table 3 Gender comparison in task combination

Task combination Average Average Sig (Two Df T value

combination combination tailed)
frequency in girls frequency in boys

Listening to music + 4.10 (s = 1.188) 3.32 (s = 1.657) .038 46 2.132

surfing on social networks
Using cell phone + 1.71 (s = 1.088) 2.46 (s = 1.598) .035 44 −2.17
playing computer games
Watching television + 4.05 (s = 0.808) 3.08 (s = 1.239) .004 64 2.970
text messaging
Watching television + 3.32 (s = 1.556) 2.44 (s = 1.474) .027 64 2.265
surfing on social networks
Using computer + 3.72 (s = 1.403) 2.348 (s = 1.597) .019 70 2.409
surfing on social networks
Using computer + 1.90 (s = 1.303) 3.03 (s = 1.592) .002 69 −3.278
playing computer games
Using cell phone + 3.24 (s = 1.635) 2.29 (s = 1.487) .016 68 2.474
watching television

(Scale – 1 = very seldom …. 5 = very often)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:623–645 633

of boys (M = 4.14, SD = 1.239). The same trend is shown in the table in regard to watching
television together with surfing on social networks, surfing on the internet together with
social networks and using the cell phone together with watching the television.
Also, in the combination of watching television together with surfing on social network
platforms, the average of the girls (M = 3.32, SD = 1.556) was significantly higher [t(64) =
2.265, p < 005] than that of the boys (M = 2.44, SD = 1.474). A combination of surfing on
the computer with activities on social network platforms showed a similar trend, with the
average of girls (M = 3.72, SD = 1.403) significantly higher [t(70) = 2.409, p < 0.05].
Finally, also the combination of using a cell phone together with watching the television
showed that the average of girls (M = 3.24, SD = 1.635) was significantly higher [t[68) =
2.474, p < 0.05] than the average of boys (M = 2.29, SD = 1.487).

4.3 Multitasking patterns – multitasking types

In this study, two distinct patterns of multitasking were observed during the observa-
tions. Often multitasking is performed in a linear sequence with tasks performed rapidly
one after the other, such as switching between Facebook and websites. This type of
multitasking is defined as task-switching. Multitasking can also be performed simulta-
neously such as when listening to the navigating system while driving. In this study this
behavior is defined as simultaneous multitasking.
In this study both types of multitasking were observed and differentiated. Most of
the observed multitasking behavior was actually task-switching in a rapid, sometimes
very rapid, sequence. One example was when Adir glanced rapidly at many different
Facebook posts and when Oren switched between different Word windows when
working on a study assignment. During one minute of the observation, Tiltan switched
between Facebook, Word and her Email service. Figure 3 shows both types of
multitasking that were observed during eight minutes of Shiri’s observation (simulta-
neous multitasking is marked in green and task-switching is marked in pink.)
Simultaneous multitasking was observed mainly in situations when the subject was
listening to music in the background while performing another task at the same time. Shiri,
for example, surfed an educational website while listening to music in the background.
During all of Aviv’s observation he was simultaneously multitasking when he listened to
music while performing other tasks at the same time. It is important to note that music is
commonly combined in both task-switching and simultaneous multitasking. Music can be
passively in the background while combining other tasks in simultaneous multitasking
such in Aviv’s observation. In other cases, as in Shiri’s observation, combining a task
together with actively searching for music playlists results in task-switching. After
choosing her playlist, Shiri returned to the passive simultaneous multitasking behavior.
The observations also enabled differentiating between the types of tasks combined in
multitasking behaviors. We defined active tasks as those that required concentration and
attention, for example reading a text on the computer. Passive tasks are those that did not
require concentration and attention, such as listening to music. A third type of task was the
incidental task which was not planned nor anticipated,requiring concentration and attention
such as receiving a WhatsApp notification. During Shachaf’s observation we noticed cases
of incidental tasks, for example, while she was surfing the internet she received a phone call.
Shachaf stopped her surfing and only spoke on the phone. After the conversation she had a
face to face conversation with her mother. In these cases we observed a combination of an

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 634 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:623–645

Fig. 3 Partial view of observation of shiri with differentiation between types of multitasking

active task (surfing) with incidental tasks (phone call and conversation with her mother).
Next, Shachaf began typing a Word document in addition to searching for other documents.
Both of these activities were active and the multitasking type observed was also task-
switching. In Aviv’s observation we noticed much simultaneous multitasking of surfing and
listening to music. The surfing was an active task, and the music, in contrast, was a passive
task. Active and passive music tasks were seen in Oren’s study observation. Most of the
time, Oren was simultaneously multitasking as he typed Word documents while listening to
songs from YouTube. Oren’s activity on Word was an active task and it was carried out
simultaneously with the passive listening to music. However, on the ninth minute of the
observation, the playlist ended and the multitasking stopped. Only a few minutes later, Oren
actively chose new playlist from YouTube. Now, Oren was performing two active tasks –
working on Word document and searching for content on YouTube. This multitasking was
of a task-switching type.

5 Discussion

Multitasking is everywhere – at the workplace, recreation places, at the home and even in
schools. Amongst the youth, this phenomenon is even more prevalent, playing a central
role in their social, study and family life (Rideout et al. 2010; Roberts and Foehr 2008;
Madden et al. 2013; Cotten et al. 2014; Rosen 2010; Rosen et al. 2013). Many articles are
critical of multitasking, reporting that it decreases the quality of task performance and
also harms the multitasker’s health and social wellbeing (Junco and Cotten 2012;
Bowman et al. 2010; Ophir et al. 2009). However, others when observing the digital
native’s lives, indicate that benefits can arise from this unique way of performing tasks
(Rosen 2010; Palfrey and Gasser 2011). This study endeavored to gather impartial
information about multitasking. In order to differentiate between popular perceptions
and reality, we believe that it is important to understand this reality by collecting
information about this behavior and to define its different aspects and attributes.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:623–645 635

Many of the reports on multitasking describe multitasking in laboratory environments,

which may actually represent artificial multitasking. This study, in comparison, strives to
present results that reflect the reality as much as possible. Rosen (2010 (discusses the
difference between multitasking in laboratory conditions and multitasking in natural
settings, and blames, in part, social criticism of multitasking for the fact that most
studies do not report natural multitasking. In laboratory conditions multitasking is
limited to a given time, and the tasks are not authentic ones. In natural settings, there is
the possibility to be flexible about performing tasks and therefore one can choose the
timing and the best strategy for successful multitasking. In every task, explains Rosen,
there are times when one slows down, enabling effective multitasking. An example of this
is utilizing time to look at a Facebook page while waiting for a response on WhatsApp.
Rosen (2010) also notes that in everyday life, tasks have a meaning and purpose which
provide both motivation and the means to prioritize and combine tasks successfully. In
summary, Rosen asserts that if there is no time constraint to the performance of tasks, most
studies show the quality of the work done while multitasking is not impaired.

5.1 Multitasking patterns - prevalence

Literature describes the centrality of multitasking in the society, and specifically in the
lives of adolescents (Rosen 2010; Palfrey and Gasser 2011; Rideout et al. 2010;
Madden et al. 2013). Reports provide information about the extent of multitasking
among children and teens showing that they consume media for many hours during the
day, usually while combining more than one task (Madden et al. 2013; Judd 2013; Judd
and Kennedy 2011; Rosen et al. 2013; Cotten et al. 2014; Junco and Cotten 2012;
Roberts and Foehr 2008; Rideout et al. 2010). Our findings in both the observations
and the questionnaires show a varied picture as to the prevalence of multitasking during
computer sessions. While most of the subjects report that they often or very often
multitask, others multitask very seldom or not at all. The observations also showed a
variety of the number of tasks performed during each minute of the observations.
Another interesting result was the difference between multitasking behavior during
leisure or more focused computer sessions, such as while studying. In this respect it was
interesting to compare the two observations of Oren, one during study time and another at
leisure time. This comparison shows that the prevalence of multitasking and the number of
combined tasks were much higher during leisure than while studying. This finding is
consistent with those of Judd and Kennedy (2011) and Yeykelis et al. (2014), who observed
twice the amount of task-switching than in observations involving focused computer use.
It is interesting to note that almost 20% of the subjects reported seldom multitasking.
This might be explained by the fact that most of the data was collected during the school-
year when the students had less time to spend online or the parents limited “online-time”.

5.2 Multitasking patterns – task combinations

An important part of understanding multitasking is examining the task combinations. Our

findings show that music together with texting or surfing in social media platforms are the
most common multitasking combinations. Watching television is also often performed with
reading and writing text messages. Activities on Facebook are also frequently done together
with other tasks. In contrast, playing video games is seldom combined with other tasks, as

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 636 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:623–645

are listening to music together with watching television. These results are compatible with
other studies and match the multitasking behaviors of adolescents globally. (Carrier et al.
2009; Roberts and Foehr 2008; Rideout et al. 2010; van der Schuur et al. 2015).
Studies describe much multitasking with watching television; however, this was not
as common in our study. This may be due to changes in the patterns of media
consumption amongst young people. Reports show a decline in watching programs
on television devices, despite an increase of consuming television content on the
internet (Silva et al. 2014; Rideout et al. 2010).
This study also provides information about multitasking together with Facebook.
Articles have reported a decline of the popularity of Facebook among young people
(Begley 2014). Our study shows, similarly to other academic studies, that Facebook is
still very popular with this age group and is very commonly combined with different
tasks. This was especially apparent in the observation of Tiltan and Or who were in
Facebook in an average of once every 2 minutes during the observation session. Our
observations showed that Shiri and Adir’s multitasking behaviors always combined
Facebook. It seems that the high frequency of multitasking combining Facebook is due
to the centrality of this platform to adolescents today. One might even say that
Facebook, and other online social networks, are a “watering hole” that young people
return to time and time again in order to connect, to update and to communicate (Judd
2013; Rideout et al. 2010; Carrier et al. 2009; Rosen et al. 2013; Baumgartner et al.
2014; Yang and Brown 2013).
Another interesting finding of this study was the high prevalence of music in
adolescent multitasking, reflecting the special relationship that teenagers have with
music. When asked about multitasking with music, the subjects reported that they do
not feel that multitasking with music impairs their ability to carry out cognitive tasks,
and that in some cases it even contributes to effective performance of tasks. This finding
is also consistent with studies that report a high prevalence of music in multitasking.
Studies show indeed that multitasking with music does not influence cognitive functions
or very little. Other researchers have shown that multitasking with music has a positive
emotional effect promoting motivation and general well-being (Yeykelis et al. 2014;
Voorveld and van der Goot 2013; Kämpfe et al. 2011; Carrier et al., 2015).
The task combination preferences, as seen in this study and others, are not coincidental.
The research refers to a variety of preferences and factors that influence these preferences,
such as the complexity of the tasks, previous knowledge of the task and its content, the
goals for the tasks, cognitive requirements and the amount of concentration needed to
carry out the tasks (König and Waller 2010; Jez 2011). The “Cognitive Load” model of
Sweller et al. (1998) and the “Threaded Cognition” theory of Salvucci and Taatgen (2008)
provide an understanding of these factors by describing a cognitive mechanism with
limited cognitive resources available for performing several cognitive tasks together.
When the “price” of combining tasks is “cheap” or “low” in “cognitive resource curren-
cy”, multitasking will be effective and vice versa; when the price of combining tasks is
high, multitasking with be less effective. For this reason we can see that combining tasks
such as listening to music while texting is common. Texting is indeed a task that requires
attention but listening to music has a “low cognitive price” thus, it has little or no influence
on the effectivity of multitasking. Surfing the internet or activities on social networks are
done almost automatically by the “digital natives”, and they are well acquainted with the
“language” of the online content. Since they are skilled in these activities they also have a

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:623–645 637

“low cognitive price”, and therefore these are easily combined with other tasks. In
comparison, multitasking is seldom performed with video games that require much
attention, and therefore the “cognitive price” is high, making multitasking ineffective.
Another model referring to dividing attention between different stimuli deals with the
different modalities in which the tasks are performed: visual, auditory or verbal. When
multitasking is attempted by combining tasks that use a common modality, such as
listening simultaneously to two different conversations, it is very hard to effectively
perform both tasks, since they both compete for the same cognitive resource
(Kahneman 1973). This theory can explain why listening to music and watching television
are seldom combined, as reported in this study and others (Judd 2013; Rideout et al. 2010;
Rideout et al. 2010; Carrier et al. 2009; Rosen et al. 2013; van Der Schuur et al. 2015).

5.3 Multitasking patterns – multitasking types

In order to understand adolescent multitasking, it is crucial to describe the behavior

accurately. Given the inconsistency of the definition of multitasking and its different
manifestations in the academic literature today, this study suggests a distinction that
enables considering different types of multitasking in a consistent way. As presented in
our findings, multitasking can be defined as two different behaviors: simultaneous
multitasking and task-switching.
In research literature of multitasking, few studies examined the way multitasking was
performed. Judd (2013) emphasized the importance of understanding the way multitasking
was performed, and suggested categories to classify these behaviors. However, Judd only
referred to multitasking as tasks performed in different resolutions of task-switching and did
not refer to simultaneous multitasking. Alzahabi and Becker (2013) also stressed the
importance of classifying multitasking. They showed that if multitasking is defined as
simultaneous, one may draw the conclusion that heavy multitaskers show low multitasking
skills, as reported by Ophir et al. (2009). However, Alzahabi and Becker showed in their
research that if multitasking is actually defined as a rapid linear sequence of tasks – task-
switching – heavy multitaskers actually improved these multitasking skills with time.
The large increase of use of mobile devices has also affected multitasking and the
findings of this study. In the past, one surfed the internet on a desktop computer, listened
to music on a stereo sound system or Mp3 device, called a friend on a phone, watched
television programs on a television set and watched films with a video player – today we can
do all of these things on a smartphone. As a result, much of the multitasking performed
today is actually performed on one device and not between several devices or screens. This
phenomenon was seen when the subjects of the observations switched rapidly between
different applications on the same device or platform. Thus, if we observe on high resolution,
it will become obvious that even in one application there is multitasking between different
areas, for example: watching videos, chatting, playing games, reading and writing posts – all
of this without leaving the Facebook environment.
Our observations enabled us to distinguish between types of multitasking and the
types of combined tasks. Our results demonstrated two modes of multitasking: simul-
taneous multitasking and task-switching. Our observations showed that task-switching
was much more common than simultaneous multitasking. Task-switching was ob-
served between different devices and within one single device. The results also showed
that there was great variation in the frequency of task-switching among the subjects,

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 638 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:623–645

Fig. 4 Relationship between type of multitasking and task combination

from one example of a frequency of more than two tasks per minute in average to a
subject who only performed one task per minute. However, these results do not reflect
reality since the average includes times where no multitasking was performed at all.
Different studies show a variety of task-switching frequencies, but much of this is due
to differences in measurement and data collection. However, common to all of the
researches of task-switching frequency is that the switches are rapid and frequent (Judd
2013; Yeykelis et al. 2014). The contribution of this research in this capacity is a
confirmation of these findings in real-time and not in artificial laboratory conditions.
An interesting finding that evolved from the results of this research was the relationship
between the type of multitasking and the combined tasks. We classified the different tasks as
active tasks that require attention and awareness and are usually initiated by the user, passive
tasks that are performed in the background and involve little awareness, and incidental tasks
that require attention but are initiated by an external factor. Our findings show that when an
active task is combined with a passive task, we will observe simultaneous multitasking such
as listening to music (passive) and surfing on Facebook (active). When combining incidental
and active tasks we will observe task-switching, such as answering a phone call while
playing a video game. When two active tasks are combined, such as surfing the internet and
texting, we will also observe task-switching (Fig. 4).

5.4 Multitasking and gender

Public opinion states that women multitask more often than men and do so more
effectively; the question is, is this true? This study also compared multitasking patterns
in boys and girls in an attempt to provide academic insights to this issue.
Our study did not focus on the effectivity of multitasking, but our results show
gender differences in regard to the prevalence of the multitasking and the task combi-
nations. The observations showed that girls multitasked more time during the sessions
than boys, in total they multitasked for more than 60% of the sessions. Girls also
performed more tasks per minute in average than boys in their multitasking. Despite the
fact that it is impossible to draw statistical information from our small research group,
these are interesting findings that should be further researched.
The information derived from our questionnaire showed significant differences
between task combination of girls and boys. Girls reported combining social networks,
texting, watching television and listening to music more than boys, and the boys
reported combining tasks with video games more than girls. These results are also
supported by literature and are compatible with technology consumption preferences of
the genders (Cotten et al. 2014; Jambulingam et al. 2014; Rideout et al. 2010). These

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:623–645 639

results prove that multitasking is an integral part of the general technology use of
adolescents. The “digital natives” do not multitask when they are performing specific or
unique tasks; they multitask as part of their regular technology use.

5.5 Research limitations

This study describes patterns of multitasking among adolescents in technological

environments. The digital world in which we are living is very dynamic and changes
continuously, which is the main limitation of this and other researches on the topic. For
this reason there is much need for a constant, continuous research of technological
multitasking. Another limitation is the “observer effect” that says, similarly to the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle from physics research, that the act of looking at a
phenomenon influences the phenomenon being looked at1. Observations, such as those
performed in this study, invade the private space of the subjects and to a certain degree
affect their behavior. In addition, while the online survey enables studying a large
population, the observation group was small. In future studies it is important to increase
the size of the observation group in order to improve the validity of the results. It will
also be of great importance to study gender groups of equal size in order to understand
better the differences in multitasking between boys and girls.

5.6 Summary

Much has been written and said about multitasking in the academic world, in the media and
in society as a whole. Many people criticize this behavior and focus on the harming effects
it might have, but academic research does not support this view unequivocally. The results
of this work show that there is a large variety of multitasking behaviors among teenagers.
This variety lies in the prevalence of multitasking, the type of multitasking behavior and
also in the combination of tasks. Instead of the perceived obsessive multitasker, it seems
that digital natives demonstrate a large range of multitasking behaviors.
Certainly there is a need to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of multitasking,
but is this discussion not too late? Even if we find that multitasking behaviors of adolescents
are damaging, we have to be honest – are we prepared to change these behaviors? Are we
prepared to give up “man’s new best friend” – the smartphone with its multiple possibil-
ities? If not – we must realize that the focus on the disadvantages of multitasking is not
useful and sometime even harmful, since it diverts the focus from trying to understand
multitasking. Instead of complaining about the harm technology causes, it is important to
think about how it affects us. It is important to understand how technology has changed
society and the individual, especially for those who were born into the digital era. In order
achieve this understanding we need to have a common terminology and classification of the
phenomenon and a continuous research. Better understanding of multitasking will enable
society to react meaningfully to this phenomenon, in a way that will help us benefit from of
our ability to perform more than one task at a time while enhancing awareness and control
that will help reduce the potential negative effects of multitasking.

1
https://onderzoekonderwijs.net/2014/11/02/heisenberg-uncertainty-principle-in-research-on-learning-and-
education/

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 640

Appendix 1
Observation Table

Name of the Subject _______________ Age ________ Session goal – Leisure / Study

Minutes Tasks Comments

Video Game FB TV Music Active Music Passive Texts Surfing Word Email Phone Call Apps Phone F2F Conversation PIM Other Other
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:623–645

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:623–645 641

Appendix 2 – Interview Questions

The observation session

& What was the main goal of the session?

– Study
– Leisure
– Other (not study) ________

& How much multitasking do you think you did during the observation session?

– Very much
– A lot
– A little
– None

& What tasks are easier to combine with others?

& What is easier to multitask with – surfing or texting?
& What is easier to multitask with – reading Facebook posts or playing computer
games?

Examples of specific questions

& During the observation I noticed that when you were doing X you didn’t do Y.
Were you aware of this?
If so, why did you do this?
& I noticed that you did X, why did you do this?
& During the observation session you multitasked during X minutes combining Y
(number) of tasks, such as Facebook, YouTube, online shopping site and
WhatsApp.
Did you notice this?
Did it distract you?
Do you do multitasks like this on other occasions?
& In which situations do you multitask with music?
& When do you only perform single tasks?
& During the session you stopped doing your main task X when Y occurred.
Did you remember what you were doing on the main task?

General questions about multitasking

& Are there benefits to performing different tasks at the same time? If so – what
are they?
& Does it cause damage to perform different tasks at the same time? If so – what
damage does it cause?

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 642 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:623–645

& Is it always effective to multitask?

& Do you like to multitask?
& Which tasks do you commonly combine?
& Which tasks do you prefer not to combine?

References

Adler, R. F., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2015). The effects of task difficulty and multitasking on performance.
Interacting with Computers, 27(4), 430–439. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwu005.
Altschuller, S., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2017). An integrated perspective of multitasking and multiple team
membership. Communications of the IIMA, 15(1), 1.
Alzahabi, R., & Becker, M. W. (2013). The association between media multitasking, task-switching, and dual-
task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(5),
1485–1495. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031208.
Appelbaum, S. H., Marchionni, A., & Fernandez, A. (2008). The multi-tasking paradox: Perceptions,
problems and strategies. Management Decision, 46(9), 1313–1325. https://doi.org/10.1145
/985692.985715.
Bannister, F., & Remenyi, D. (2009). Multitasking: The uncertain impact of technology on knowledge workers
and managers. The Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation, 12(1), 1–12.
Barnes, K., Marateo, R. C., & Pixy Ferris, S. (2007). Teaching and learning with the net generation. Innovate:
Journal of Online Education, 3(4), 1.
Baumgartner, S. E., Weeda, W. D., van der Heijden, L. L., & Huizinga, M. (2014). The relationship between
media multitasking and executive function in early adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 34(8),
1120–1144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431614523133.
Begley, S. (2014). U.S. teens are deserting Facebook faster than ever. Time.com http://time.com/3641760
/teens-leaving-facebook/. Accessed 10 Dec 2018.
Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Gendron, M. (2010). Can students really multitask? An
experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers & Education, 54(4), 927–931.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.024.
Brasel, S. A., & Gips, J. (2011). Media multitasking behavior: Concurrent television and computer usage.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(9), 527–534. https://doi.org/10.1089
/cyber.2010.0350.
Buser, T., & Peter, N. (2012). Multitasking. Experimental Economics, 15(4), 641–655. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s10683-012-9318-8.
Cain, M. S., Leonard, J. A., Gabrieli, J. D. E., & Finn, A. S. (2016). Media multitasking in adolescence.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(6), 1932–1941. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1036-3.
Carlson, S. (2005). The net generation goes to college: Tech savvy “Millenials” have lots of gadgets, like to
multitask, and expect to control what, when and how they learn. Should we cater to them. The Chronicle
of Higher Education A, 34.
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(2), 483–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.10.012.
Cotten, S. R., Shank, D. B., & Anderson, W. A. (2014). Gender, technology use and ownership, and media-
based multitasking among middle school students. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 99–106.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.041.
Courage, M. L., Bakhtiar, A., Fitzpatrick, C., Kenny, S., & Brandeau, K. (2015). Growing up multitasking:
The costs and benefits for cognitive development. Developmental Review, 35, 5–41. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.dr.2014.12.002.
Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E., & Wilhite, S. (2004). A diary study of task switching and interruptions. In
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 175–182). ACM.
https://doi.org/10.1145/985692.985715.
Felix, C. N. (2018). Effects of listener-selected music on writing readability of intensive Reading students. PhD
diss., Barry University.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:623–645 643

Hwang, Y., Kim, H. R. J., & Jeong, S.-H. (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.
Jambulingam, M., Selvarajah, C. S., & Thuraisingam, A. S. (2014). Social media networks and Gen Y.
Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 8(8), 1041–1044.
Jez, V. (2011). Searching for the meaning of multitasking. NOKOBIT, 2011, 157–166.
Judd, T. (2013). Making sense of multitasking: Key behaviours. Computers & Education, 63, 358–367.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.017.
Judd, T., & Kennedy, G. (2011). Measurement and evidence of computer-based task switching and multi-
tasking by ‘Net Generation’students. Computers & Education, 56(3), 625–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2010.10.004.
Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic
performance. Computers & Education, 59(2), 505–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.023.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort (Vol. 1063). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Kämpfe, J., Sedlmeier, P., & Renkewitz, F. (2011). The impact of background music on adult listeners: A
meta-analysis. Psychology of Music, 39(4), 424–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735610376261.
Katidioti, I., & Taatgen, N. A. (2014). Choice in multitasking: How delays in the primary task turn a rational
into an irrational multitasker. Human Factors, 56(4), 728–736. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0018720813504216.
Kaushik, S. (2017). Inter generation media habits of urban respondents. PhD diss., CCSHAU.
Khan, R. (2018). Long working hours and less sleep: Are we inadvertently becoming cheaters? Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/roomykhan/2018/02/01/long-working-hours-and-less-sleep-are-we-
inadvertently-becoming-cheaters/#3da736de4fbe. Accessed 10 Dec 2018.
Kirschner, P. A., & De Bruyckere, P. (2017). The myths of the digital native and the multitasker. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 67, 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.001.
König, C. J., & Waller, M. J. (2010). Time for reflection: A critical examination of polychronicity. Human
Performance, 23(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959281003621703.
Lapowsky, I. (2013). Don't multitask, your brain will thank you. Time. http://business.time.com/2013/04/17
/dont-multitask-your-brain-will-thank-you/. Accessed 10 Dec 2018.
Lee, F. J., & Taatgen, N. A. (2002, August). Multitasking as skill acquisition. In Proceedings of the twenty-
fourth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 572–577).
Lee, J., Lin, L., & Robertson, T. (2012). The impact of media multitasking on learning. Learning, Media and
Technology, 37(1), 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2010.537664.
Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Perrin, A., Stepler, R., Rainie, H., & Parker, K. (2015). Teens, social media &
technology overview 2015. In Pew research center [internet & American life project].
Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Bowman, L. L. (2007). Electronic media use, reading, and academic
distractibility in college youth. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10(4), 560–566. https://doi.org/10.1089
/cpb.2007.9990.
Liang, Y., Horrey, W. J., & Hoffman, J. D. (2015). Reading text while driving: Understanding drivers’ strategic
and tactical adaptation to distraction. Human Factors, 57(2), 347–359. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0018720814542974.
Liu, Y., & Gu, X. (2019). Media multitasking, attention, and comprehension: A deep investigation into
fragmented reading. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s11423-019-09667-2.
Lui, K. F. H., & Wong, A. C.-N. (2012). Does media multitasking always hurt? A positive correlation between
multitasking and multisensory integration. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(4), 647–653. https://doi.
org/10.3758/s13423-012-0245-7.
Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Cortesi, S., Gasser, U. (2013). Teens and technology 2013. Pew
Internet & American Life Project, 2005.
Madjar, N., & Shalley, C. E. (2008). Multiple tasks' and multiple goals' effect on creativity: Forced incubation
or just a distraction? Journal of Management, 34(4), 786–805. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0149206308318611.
Mäntylä, T. (2013). Gender differences in multitasking reflect spatial ability. Psychological Science, 24(4),
514–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612459660.
Martin-Perpiñá, M., Poch, F. V. i., & Cerrato, S. M. (2019). Media multitasking impact in homework,
executive function and academic performance in Spanish adolescents. Psicothema, 31(1), 81–87.
https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.178.
Merril, D. (2012). Why multitasking Doesn't work. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/douglasmerrill/2012
/08/17/why-multitasking-doesnt-work/#z3677e2b76ada. Accessed 10 Dec 2018).

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 644 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:623–645

Mills, M. (2013). Mobile devices and multitasking in the classroom. In Society for Information Technology &
Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3757–3758). Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education (AACE).
Navon, D., & Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human-processing system. Psychological Review,
86(3), 214–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.86.3.214.
Nowosielski, R. J., Trick, L. M., & Toxopeus, R. (2018). Good distractions: Testing the effects of listening to
an audiobook on driving performance in simple and complex road environments. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 111, 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.11.033.
Oberauer, K., & Kliegl, R. (2004). Simultaneous cognitive operations in working memory after dual-task
practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(4), 689–707.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.4.689.
Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583–15587. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903620106.
Palfrey, J. G., & Gasser, U. (2011). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of digital natives. Basic
Books, ReadHowYouWant. com.
Pashler, H. (2000). 12 task switching and multitask performance. In Control of cognitive processes (p. 277).
Poposki, E. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2010). The multitasking preference inventory: Toward an improved measure
of individual differences in polychronicity. Human Performance, 23(3), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1080
/08959285.2010.487843.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6. https://doi.
org/10.1108/10748120110424816.
Ren, D., Zhou, H., & Fu, X. (2009). A deeper look at gender difference in multitasking: Gender-specific
mechanism of cognitive control. In Natural Computation, 2009. ICNC'09. Fifth International Conference
on (Vol. 5, pp. 13–17). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICNC.2009.542.
Rideout, V. J. (2015). The common sense census: Media use by tweens and teens. Common Sense Media
Incorporated, 10, 138–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2016.1129808.
Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M 2: Media in the Lives of 8-to 18-year-olds.
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
Roberts, D. F., & Foehr, U. G. (2008). Trends in media use. The Future of Children, 18, 11–37. https://doi.
org/10.1353/foc.0.0000.
Rosen, L. D. (2010). Rewired: Understanding the iGeneration and the way they learn. NY: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Rosen, L. D., Whaling, K., Mark Carrier, L., Cheever, N. A., & Rokkum, J. (2013). The media and technology
usage and attitudes scale: An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2501–2511.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.006.
Ryan, Anna. "Can measures of executive functions and spatial ability predict multitasking performance?."
(2017).
Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2008). Threaded cognition: An integrated theory of concurrent multitask-
ing. Psychological Review, 115(1), 101–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.101.
Savina, E., Mills, J. L., Atwood, K., & Cha, J. (2017). Digital media and youth: A primer for school
psychologists. Contemporary School Psychology, 21(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-017-
0119-0.
Silva, K. S., Lopes, A. d. S., Dumith, S. C., Garcia, L. M. T., Bezerra, J., & Nahas, M. V. (2014). Changes in
television viewing and computers/videogames use among high school students in southern Brazil
between 2001 and 2011. International Journal of Public Health, 59(1), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s00038-013-0464-3.
Stoet, G., O’Connor, D. B., Conner, M., & Laws, K. R. (2013). Are women better than men at multi-tasking?
BMC Psychology, 1(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/2050-7283-1-18.
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional
design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205.
Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital. Boston: McGraw-Hill Education, 2008.
Tran, P.D. (2012). The effects of online communication while reading on content knowledge, reading
comprehension, and long-term memory. Los Angeles: California State University.
Uncapher, M. R., Lin, L., Rosen, L. D., Kirkorian, H. L., Baron, N. S., Bailey, K., Cantor, J., Strayer, D. L.,
Parsons, T. D., & Wagner, A. D. (2017). Media multitasking and cognitive, psychological, neural, and
learning differences. Pediatrics, 140(Supplement 2), S62–S66.
Uzun, A. M., & Kilis, S. (2019). Does persistent involvement in media and technology lead to lower academic
performance? Evaluating media and technology use in relation to multitasking, self-regulation and

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Education and Information Technologies (2020) 25:623–645 645

academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 196–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

chb.2018.08.045.
van Der Schuur, Winneke, A., Baumgartner, S. E., Sumter, S. R., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). The
consequences of media multitasking for youth: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 204–215.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.035.
Veen, W. (2007). Homo zappiens and the need for new education systems. In CERI-new millennium learners-
meetings and conferences, Italy-OECD seminar on digital natives and education, Florence, Italy.
Voorveld, H. A. M., & van der Goot, M. (2013). Age differences in media multitasking: A diary study. Journal
of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(3), 392–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2013.816709.
Wallis, C. (2010). The impacts of media multitasking on children’s learning and development: Report from a
research seminar. In The Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop, New York.
Wiradhany, W., & Baumgartner, S. E. (2019). Exploring the variability of media multitasking choice
behaviour using a network approach. Behaviour & Information Technology, 1–14.
Yang, C.-C., & Brown, B. B. (2013). Motives for using Facebook, patterns of Facebook activities, and late
adolescents’ social adjustment to college. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(3), 403–416. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10964-012-9836-x .
Yeykelis, L., Cummings, J. J., & Reeves, B. (2014). Multitasking on a single device: Arousal and the
frequency, anticipation, and prediction of switching between media content on a computer. Journal of
Communication, 64(1), 167–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12070.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at

onlineservice@springernature.com