#15 Digital Distraction & Multi-Tasking
Distracted and Multi-tasking
Lukas Otteson
Professor Pittman
CMST Digital Media and Society 301-6984
University of Maryland University College
October 28, 2018
Introduction
I selected Topic 1: Digital Media as a Distraction. This topic appeals to me because I’ve been cautious with my use of social media, video games, television, and smartphones for a few years now. Some of the classes I needed to take in pursuit of my Associate’s Degree exposed me to the growing concern toward technologies that we’ve become infatuated with and saturated by. I began questioning whether or not the world I was being conditioned by was healthy for me. Was distraction something that made me more easily manipulated? I began feeling betrayed by the culture and society. So began my journey to seek out and find the influences that I found to be hindering to the pursuit of being the best version of myself.
It is a bit paradoxical, though. The more one removes themselves from the distractions, the more social obligations they are likely to neglect. Improving self-discipline can mean more social difficulties. As one continues to ignore that which was socially desired and accepted, the more their behavior is scapegoated by those who wish to maintain delusion or dysfunction, in line with cognitive dissonance theory. It is less stressful to say something is wrong with the person going against the norm, than it is for someone who doesn’t question the world to suddenly do so.
All that said, one still needs to be aware of the ways in which they’re being distracted.
It is not only about what we are being distracted by, but also what we’re being distracted from. Awareness of this issue is key to this generation, because if we continue to be consumed and distracted by digital media without filtering out what is important to ourselves, then we will be unable to be self-reliant. We won’t be free. Our minds will be, more or less, controlled. Taking back control starts with learning more about distractions. From there, we find balance.
For this paper, though, we will focus on the aspects of distraction that are psychological. We will focus on the cognitive effects of media distraction, the aspects of distraction that can weaken our abilities to think contemplatively. When we come to a common ground regarding how easily our minds are influenced if we aren’t critical of what we feed them, then we can begin to tackle the societal distractions. Our un-questioning embrace of media and the patterns of thinking that they reinforce can result of changing our brain structures. That is hardly anything to be non-critical and un-questioning about. For the majority of people to truly buy into and belief with conviction that this is a true concern, they need to be shown empirical evidence. Even so, many people will not seek out the truth about this issue because it is easier to maintain the status quo than it is to take an honest look at ourselves and change. This is more important than many people living today realize. It is more than a passing conversation; it is something that our generation will be concerned about from now on or regret not taking seriously.
Discuss My Topic as Presented
In Week 1, we discussed “Digital Media as a Distraction” after watching Digital Nation: Life on the Virtual Frontier - Chapter 1: Distracted by Everything, a PBS Online Video Documentary Series (2010).
The documentary showed MIT students using technology while socializing and/or in class (Frontline, 2010). David Jones, Associate Professor at MIT, says that there are two ways to test students: on lectures and on reading and that students aren’t doing well at either (Frontline, 2010). He tested his students on information from a lecture and said that if students had been attending to the lecture, they should have gotten 100%, but the mean score was about 75 (Frontline, 2010). He said it wasn’t because they were dumb or not trying, but because they’re “trying in a way that isn’t as effective as it could be because they’re distracted by everything else” (Frontline, 2010).
Professor Sherry Turkle, Director of the MIT Initiative on Technology and Self, says she believes students have “done themselves a disservice by drinking the Kool Aid and believing that a multi-tasking learning environment will serve their best purposes, (Frontline, 2010)” She adds, “There really are important things you can’t think about unless it’s still and you’re only thinking about one thing at a time. There are just some things that are not amenable, being thought about in conjunction with 15 other things,” (Frontline, 2010).
An MIT student, Lauren, states that Professors need to accept that students can multitask very well, that they “do at all times,” and if Professors restrict students it is unfair because they are “completely capable,” (Frontline, 2010).
A Stanford University Professor, Clifford Nass, used brain imaging to study multi-tasking and says that our brains can’t multi-task (Frontline, 2010). Nass selected students that juggle 5 or 6 tasks “all the time” and revealed that these multi-tackers were better when focusing on one task at a time than when multi-tasking and “lousy at it,” (Frontline, 2010). Nass says, “They get distracted constantly, their memory is disorganized” and that they are worse at analytic reasoning (Frontline, 2010). Nass worries that multi-tasking is going to create people who “can’t think well and clearly,” (Frontline, 2010).
Dr. Gary Small, neuroscientist at UCLA, studies the effects of the internet on our brains and he compared brain MRIs from people reading books and people searching on Google and found that there is almost a two-fold difference and much more frontal activity, serving as a reason for further research into the discussion (Frontline, 2010).
At the time, I agreed with Professor Turkle’s opinion on multi-tasking. I had been told by previous professors that multi-tasking was actually just switching attention between tasks and performing all of them at a lower quality than if you were to give your undivided attention to each at a time. The Irish Examiner says that, “cyberpsychologist Dr. Mary Aiken agrees students often rate themselves for being good at doing several things at once. But, she says, our brain doesn’t really do tasks simultaneously — we just switch tasks quickly,” and added that “instead of doing one thing well, students may in fact be doing three or four things poorly,” (2017). The experiment from "Digital Media" showed that multi-taskers get distracted constantly, have disorganized memories, may be worse at analytical thinking, and may be unable to think well and clearly and that influenced my opinion. I formed a conclusion based on evidence. Professor Jones’ midterm, based on in-class material and readings assigned, that they "should have gotten 100% on" showed an average score of 75%, in a class wrought with multi-taskers (Frontline, 2010). Professor Jones warned that multi-taskers can learn, but possibly not as well as they would otherwise (Frontline, 2010). I concluded that multi-tasking may be a convenient way of phrasing someone's lack of willpower to buckle down and pay attention and that the chances of missing something in class or not making an interesting neural connection with a new idea may increase with every switch the working memory has to do.
Andrew Snyder disagree with me and asserted that “some people are just not cut out to multitask as well as others” and that some people may be “physically and mentally unable to multitask.” Digital Nation showed that people like Andrew are outright wrong (Frontline, 2010). That said, he did recommend a more layered approach to researching multi-tasking, for whatever that is worth. The Irish Examiner reports on teacher and Studyclix.ie founder Luke Saunders’ experience with digital media and distraction:
“When he gets students to compare quality of their study, while being constantly interrupted by their smartphone, with quality of study when they do it in 25-minute blocks with their phone on airplane mode or using a distraction blocker (thereby banishing interruptions), they see how vastly more productive the uninterrupted study session is. ‘When they see it for themselves, they buy into it,’ (2017).
This could be the simple solution required to address this problem. Making the problem easier to see may help people be more honest with themselves.
This topic is relevant in a course on digital and social media. The negative aspects of digital media on society need to be in the minds of everyone living in it. If we aren’t aware of how we are affected by new technology, then we’ll continue to expose ourselves to them. It could even be a slippery slope with advances in technology being approved because previous or current technology was not adequately researched. More specifically to this paper, this topic is relevant because multi-tasking and a shorter attention-span may be seen as normal because of something like a social standard deviation.
Additional Research
David Sanbonmatsu, David Strayer, Nathan Medeiros-Ward, and Jason Watson conducted a study which examined the relationship between personality and individual differences in multi-tasking ability (2013). This source is relevant because the present conversation surrounding multi-tasking and media as a distraction is currently allowing disagreements to co-exist rather than a truth being adopted as a conclusion. That said, knowing who tends to multi-task, and why, is important because a pattern could help in determining a plan to extinguish a movement that may be detrimental to higher-level thinking. Showcasing the truth of what the ability to multi-task actually entails, scientifically, may be vital to traversing the divide between those who develop opinions and conclusions based on evidence and those who haven’t been. This study is published in PLOS ONE, known for being a source of rigorous scientific research. Sabonmatsu et al.’s study is accurate because it includes all of its data and its limitations; it doesn’t claim to have more generalizability that it really has. In the abstract: it is stated plainly and clearly that the funders for the study had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and the authors declared they had no competing interests (Sabonmatsu et al., 2013). In addition to that, Sabonmatsu, Strayer, Medeiros-Ward, and Watson are professors at the University of Utah (Department of Psychology), held to a high standard and afforded a considerable level of credibility from their positions.
So, who multi-tasks and why? Sabonmatsu et al. found that the people most capable of multi-tasking effectively are not the people most likely to simultaneously engage in multiple tasks (2013). They say that multi-tasking activity was negatively correlated with “actual multi-tasking ability,” and that multi-tasking was positively correlated with “participants’ perceived ability to multi-task ability [sic] which was found to be significantly inflated,” (Sabonmatsu et al., 2013). Sabonmatsu et al. reported, “Participants with a strong approach orientation and a weak avoidance orientation – high levels of impulsivity and sensation seeking – reported greater multi-tasking behavior” (2013). Sabonmatsu et al. concluded that their findings suggest that “people often engage in multi-tasking because they are less able to block out distractions and focus on a singular task” and that “participants with less executive control – low scorers on the Operation Span task and persons high in impulsivity – tended to report higher levels of multi-tasking activity,” (2013). People who perceive themselves as able multi-taskers may be less capable of doing so and multi-tasking behavior itself may be more of a lack of executive control and impulse control than it is a superior brain function. This study validates concern of the growing collective distractedness and, at the very least, is reason for caution regarding the adoption of multi-tasking behavior and for future research.
Michael Waterston asked the question, “how does the human mind respond physiologically to our interruption-rich world?” (2011). This article is relevant because it goes beyond the behavioral studies and anecdotes that people believe themselves to be the exception to (however strong they may be), into the physiology of the human brain in relation to interruption, distraction, and media (Waterston, 2011). The article is credible because it was published in the Journal of the American Society on Aging, not Wikipedia or a blog from someone in their basement. The article is unbiased because it presents both sides of the argument at hand, positive and negative effects of today’s computer-based technologies (Waterston, 2011). It is accurate because it includes a wide-range of sources within it and its conclusions are evidence-based rather than opinion.
So, how does the human mind respond physiologically to our interruption-rich world? Waterston opens his article by saying that distraction is a “constant feature of our personal surroundings,” “the proliferation of mobile devices supporting multiple types of media delivery means there are always multiple types of information you could be attending to,” and “the human brain, which has a remarkable ability to adapt to its environment, is changing to accommodate this reality,” (2011). Waterston noted a few instances in which different technologies had been used to increase abilities like flying a plane, attending to multiple objects, or switching tasks quickly (2011). Waterston played devil’s advocate, but there wasn’t enough to outweigh the negative aspects of this shift toward task-switching and lesser collective attention span. Junco and Cotton (as cited in Waterston, 2011) reported that 57% of college students who instant message while studying report a detrimental effect on their academic performance. Strayer, Drews, and Crouch’s study (as cited in Waterston, 2011), “showed studies of cell phone use in subjects operating driving simulators find driver safety compromised more profoundly than driving at the 0.8 percent weight/volume alcohol limit.” Like Sabonmatsu et al.’s study, psychological testing by Ophir et al. (as cited in Waterston, 2011) “demonstrated that media multitasking is strongly related to difficulty in focusing on relevant information,” and exposed high media multi-taskers as being less able to exclude distracting information and taking longer to switch between tasks when directed. Waterston states “the similarity in switching difficulty reported in high media multitaskers and aging adults suggest that our media-rich environment introduces some deficits of aging earlier in life,” (2011). He concluded, “media multitasking clearly interferes with current task performance but also leads to higher distractibility and difficulty with task switching overall,” (Waterston, 2011).
Conclusion
The additional research adds to the same uneasiness that Digital Nation expressed. It is clear what the current research has to say about multi-tasking. Those perceive themselves as great multi-taskers have actually been shown to be worse at it, controlling their impulses and ignoring distractions, and task-switching than those who multi-task less (Sabonmatsu et al., 2013; Waterston, 2011). The pattern of multi-taskers believing that they’re simply superior at multi-tasking is not supporting by scientific evidence or studies. In the end, it will hurt them, but it will also perpetuate the normalcy of multi-tasking and becoming increasingly distracted as a population. These individuals’ behavior is not simply isolated to affected them alone. Without delving into the macro-issues of media’s relationship with distraction, there are cognitive reasons for concern. That alone is reason enough to behoove anyone to ere on the side of caution. Pascal’s wager may be adapted to encourage some of the more stubborn supporters of distraction to think about their behavior more critically: if you’re right, then you can do the same things you were going to do anyway with more switching between things you’re doing, but if you’re wrong, then you may be making yourself more impulsive, losing control of your attention, and simply performing tasks worse than you could be otherwise. Doing as Luke Saunders instructs may show anyone their own individual truth: compare their quality of studying while being constantly distracted and interrupted for 25 minutes with the quality of their 25-minute distraction free study session (Irish Examiner, 2017). Let’s be honest with ourselves, for our own good and for the future of the human mind, even if it isn’t easy.
References
Frontline. (2010, February 2). Digital Nation [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/digitalnation/
Irish Examiner. (2017, August 18). Digital distraction: Are smartphones dumbing down students? Retrieved from https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/healthandlife/digital-distraction-are-smartphones-dumbing-down-students-457223.html
Sanbonmatsu, D., Strayer, D., Medeiros-Ward, N., & Watson, J. (n.d.). Who multi-tasks and why? Multi-tasking ability, perceived multi-tasking ability, impulsivity, and sensation seeking. PLOS ONE, Vol 8, Iss. 1, p E54402 (2013), (1), e54402. https://doi-org.ezproxy.umuc.edu/10.1371/journal.pone.0054402
Waterston, M. L. (2011). The Techno-Brain. Generations, 35(2), 77–82. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.umuc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umuc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pbh&AN=66815082&site=eds-live&scope=site
