Multitasking as Skill Acquisition

Multitasking is a critical ability that allows people to cope with and flourish in the complex world that we live in. However, as much as cognitive scientists have learned about the inner workings of human cognition, our ability to multitask remains a mystery. In this paper, we argue that we can best understand multitasking as a product of production composition (Taatgen & Lee, submitted), a computational theory of procedural skill acquisition that has been implemented within in the ACT-R framework (Anderson & Lebiere, 1998). Production composition has been used successfully to account for skill acquisition in a wide variety of domains including language learning (Taatgen & Anderson, submitted) and individual differences in complex skill acquisition (Taatgen, 2001). We believe that it can also be used to account for the acquisition of multitasking skill.

Multitasking is the ability to handle the demands of multiple tasks simultaneously. At the most basic level, this may involve executing multiple perceptual-motor actions at the same time, such as moving your attention to the next lane and turning the steering wheel. At a more complex level, this may involve interleaving the steps of many complex tasks, such as shifting down to a lower gear while navigating a curve and carrying on a conversation.

Important insights into people’s ability to multitask come from the dual-task performance literature. One such insight is that while there is some interference between the two tasks that are being performed (with a caveat regarding the modality of stimuli and responses), people can consciously trade off performing one task for the other (Wickens & Gopher, 1977). Another is that people’s performances in both tasks depend highly on their skill in the individual tasks (Allport, Antonis, & Reynolds, 1972). That is, being skilled in one task allows a person to perform it and other tasks with negligible impact on the overall performance of both tasks. For example, a skill driver might have little difficulty talking with a friend while driving, whereas a novice driver might find it difficult. 

Author: Anderson (1995)

Source:

*Agre, P. E., & Chapman, D. (1987). Pengi: An implementation of a theory of activity. In Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 268 - 272. 

Allport, D.A., Antonis, B., & Reynolds, P. (1972). On the division of attention: A disproof of the single channel hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 24, 255-265. 

*Anderson, J.R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369–406.

*Anderson, J.R. (1995). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. NY: Freeman. 

*Anderson, J.R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The Atomic Components of Thought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 

*Byrne, M. D., & Anderson, J. R. (1998). Perception and Action. In J. R. Anderson & C. Lebiere (Eds.), The atomic components of thought (pp. 167-200). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Fitts, P.M. (1964). Perceptual-motor skill learning. In A.W. Melton (Ed.), Categories of human learning. New York, NY: Academic Press.

The Effects of Multitasking

For decades, academic research on multitasking has demonstrated that human beings work much more effectively when concentrating on a single task at any given time, and that switching between multiple tasks leads to a host of negative effects. Mobile phone usage while driving, for example, has been one of the most extensively studied instances of multitasking, and multiple studies show that drivers are seriously impaired while using cell phones. Initially, researchers thought that the physical device manipulation was responsible for the impairment, but later studies demonstrated that even hands-free devices can cause driving impairment equal to or worse than a .08 percent blood-alcohol level – the legal threshold for impairment in most states in the U.S.4 Simply trying to do two different tasks simultaneously is enough to reduce one’s effectiveness severely. Studies that look beyond the specific use case of mobile devices and driving generally show that multitasking causes serious productivity declines. Switching between tasks can cause a loss of productivity as high as 40 percent when compared to single-tasking5 and workers who multitask are much less likely to engage in creative thinking than those whose work is not fragmented6 . Long-term, habitual multitasking appears to have long-term negative effects as well. Habitual, heavy multitaskers are more susceptible to distraction by irrelevant stimuli at work than are habitual single-taskers , and multitasking makes individuals less capable of appropriately regulating their work habits8 . In sum, multitasking makes people less productive, less creative and more likely to get thrown off task by distractions.

While the negative effects of multitasking on individuals are well documented, little research has been conducted to examine the impact of multitasking on organizations as a whole. This study from Realization aims to provide original and vital research-based information and insight about the large scale impact of multitasking on organizations.

Source:

 Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., and Crouch, D. J. Fatal distraction? A comparison of the cell-phone driver and the drunk driver. In 

D. V. McGehee, J. D. Lee, & M. Rizzo (Eds.) Driving Assessment 2003: International Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design. Published by the Public Policy 

Center, University of Iowa (pp. 25- 30). 2003. 5 Rubinstein, Joshua S., Meyer, David E., and Evans, Jeffrey E. Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 27(4), 2001, 763-797. 6 

Amabile, Teresa M., Mueller, Jennifer S., Simpson, William B., Hadley, Constance N., Krame

Multitasking and the brain

There continues to be a significant amount of research identifying which parts of the brain are involved in specific information processing activities. It is known that the hippocampus is activated when declarative memory is used for processing context, such as information obtained from textbooks during reading or study. In contrast, a different part of the brain, the striatum, is used in the processing of procedural memory which is used for habitual tasks and activities such as bike riding or dialing a familiar number on the telephone. The types of processing that occur in these two regions are significantly different and impact storage and retrieval. The hippocampus will sort, process, and recall information involving declarative memory. Memories in the hippocampus are easier to recall in situations different from where they were learned, whereas those stored in the striatum are closely tied to the specific situation in which they were learned. It has been found that learning with the striatum while performing habitual or repetitive tasks leads to knowledge that cannot be generalized as well in new situations. (Poldrack as cited in Aratani, 2007) Having difficulty transferring knowledge from one situation to another is not consistent with the type of learning that we hope takes place in a college classroom and can be applied elsewhere and in the future. The research of Rubinstein, J., Meyer, D., and Evans, J. (2001) is consistent with earlier studies finding that multitasking takes more time and involves more errors than focus on a single task. When learning with distractions associated with multitasking, students’ brains are trying to “wing it” by using a region, the striatum, that is not best suited for long term memory and understanding. This is consistent with the findings of Delbridge (2001) who also noted that focusing on one task or a single goal results in fewer errors and less time than trying to focus on multiple tasks and goals.

Although the term multitasking is relatively new, many people might remember their first Psychology course and learning about D. E. Broadbent’s (1958) dichotic listening experiment and the theory of “selective attention”. That study involved research subjects attending to an auditory message directed to one ear while a second message was transmitted to the other ear. He found that there was little if any content from the nonattended ear that was remembered. Based on his findings, Broadbent proposed the theory of a limited processing channel (LPC) which explained that our neural circuitry has a restricted or limited capacity to deal with sensory input. This limits the amount of information that can be sent on to short term memory at any given moment in time. If information cannot be sent to short term memory, or if it is lost from short term memory, it cannot be forwarded to long term memory for storage.  

Source:

Aratani L. (February 26, 2007). Teens Can Multitask, But What are the Costs? The Washington Post. 

Ben-Shakhar, G., Sheffer, L. (2001). The relationship between the ability to divide attention and standard measures of general cognitive abilities. Intelligence 29, pp.293- 306. 

Delbridge, K. A. (2000). Individual Differences In Multi-Tasking Ability: Exploring A Nomological Network; Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan, 

Hembrooke, H., Gay, G. (Fall 2003). The Laptop and the Lecture: The Effects of Multitasking in Learning Environments”, Journal of Computing in Higher Education. Vol. 15(1). 

Kieras, D.E., Meyer, D.E. (1994). The EPIC architecture for modeling human information processing and performance: A brief introduction. University of Michigan technical report-94/ONR-EPIC-1. 

Konig, C. J., Buhner, M., Murling, F. (2005). Working Memory, Fluid Intelligence, and Attention Are Predictors of Multitasking Performance, but Polychronicity and Extraversion Are Not. Human Performance 18(3), pp. 243-266. 

Multitasking

Human multitasking is an apparent human ability to perform more than one task, or activity, over a short period of time. An example of multitasking is taking phone calls while typing an email and reading a book. Multitasking can result in time wasted due to human context switching and apparently causing more errors due to insufficient attention. Studies have shown that it is impossible to multitask. However, if one is a professional at the task at hand, then it is possible to do these tasks.

Although the idea that women are better multitaskers than men has been popular in the media as well in conventional thought, there is very little data available to support claims of a real sex difference. Most studies that do show any sex differences tend to find that the differences are small and inconsistent. A study by psychologist Keith Laws was widely reported in the press to have provided the first evidence of female multitasking superiority.

Because the brain cannot fully focus when multitasking, people take longer to complete tasks and are predisposed to error. When people attempt to complete many tasks at one time, “or [alternate] rapidly between them, errors go way up and it takes far longer—often double the time or more—to get the jobs done than if they were done sequentially,” said Meyer.

Author: Rubinstein (2001)

Source:

* Rubinstein, Joshua S.; Meyer, David E.; Evans, Jeffrey E. (2001). Executive Control of Cognitive Processes in Task Switching. Human Perception and Performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology. "Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 16 April 2014.

* Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., Evans, J. E. (August, 2001). Executive Control of Cognitive Processes in Task Switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 763-797. 

How common is divorce and what are the reasons?

In the United States, researchers estimate that 40%–50% of all first marriages, and 60% of second marriages, will end in divorce. There are some well known factors that put people at higher risk for divorce: marrying at a very early age, less education and income, living together before marriage, a premarital pregnancy, no religious affiliation, coming from a divorced family, and feelings of insecurity. The most common reasons people give for their divorce are lack of commitment, too much arguing, infidelity, marrying too young, unrealistic expectations, lack of equality in the relationship, lack of preparation for marriage, and abuse. Some of these problems can be fixed and divorce prevented. Commitment is having a long-term view of the marriage that helps us not get overwhelmed by the problems and challenges day to day. When there is high commitment in a relationship, we feel safer and are willing to give more for the relationship to succeed. Commitment is clearly a factor in why some couples stay together and others divorce. Divorce is necessary at times, and it may even help to preserve the moral boundaries of marriage. But parents have a responsibility to do all that they reasonably can to preserve and repair a marriage, especially when the reasons for divorce are not the most serious ones. Barriers to leaving a marriage, such as financial worries, can keep marriages together in the short run. However, unless there is improvement in the relationship, eventually the barriers are usually not enough to keep a marriage together in the long run.

Source:

- Suzanne M. Bianchi et al., “Housework: Who Did, Does, or Will Do It, and How Much Does It Matter?” Social Forces 91 (2012): 55–63, doi: 10.1093/sf/sos120.

- Abbie E. Goldberg. “‘Doing’ and ‘Undoing’ Gender: The Meaning and Division of Housework in SameSex Couples,” Journal of Family Theory & Review 5 (2013): 85–104, doi: 10.1111/jftr.12009.

- Human Rights Campaign, “Judge Overturns Order to Disclose Documents Detailing Publication of Regnerus’ Junk Science,” news release, April 17, 2014, http://www.hrc.org/press-releases/entry/ judge-overturns-order-to-disclose-documents-detailing-publication-of-regner. 

Marriage and Family: LGBT Individuals and Same-Sex Couples

Though estimates vary, as many as 2 million to 3.7 million U.S. children under age 18 may have a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender parent, and about 200,000 are being raised by same-sex couples. Much of the past decade’s legal and political debate over allowing same-sex couples to marry has centered on these couples’ suitability as parents, and social scientists have been asked to weigh in. After carefully reviewing the evidence presented by scholars on both sides of the issue, Gary Gates concludes that same-sex couples are as good at parenting as their different-sex counterparts. Any differences in the wellbeing of children raised in same-sex and different-sex families can be explained not by their parents’ gender composition but by the fact that children being by raised by same-sex couples have, on average, experienced more family instability, because most children being raised by same-sex couples were born to different-sex parents, one of whom is now in the same-sex relationship. That pattern is changing, however. Despite growing support for same-sex parenting, proportionally fewer same-sex couples report raising children today than in 2000. Why? Reduced social stigma means that more LGBT people are coming out earlier in life. They’re less likely than their LGBT counterparts from the past to have different-sex relationships and the children such relationships produce. At the same time, more same-sex couples are adopting children or using reproductive technologies like artificial insemination and surrogacy. Compared to a decade ago, same-sex couples today may be less likely to have children, but those who do are more likely to have children who were born with same-sex parents who are in stable relationships. In the past, most same-sex couples raising children were in a cohabiting relationship. With same-sex couples’ right to marry now secured throughout the country, the situation is changing rapidly. As more and more same-sex couples marry, Gates writes, we have the opportunity to consider new research questions that can contribute to our understanding of how marriage and parental relationships affect child wellbeing.

Source:

- Justin McCarthy, “Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage,” Gallup, May 20, 2015, http://www.gallup.com/poll/183272/record-high-americans-support-sex-marriage. aspx?utm_source=Social%20Issues&utm_medium=newsfeed&utm_campaign=tiles.

- Art Swift, “Most Americans Say Same-Sex Couples Entitled to Adopt,” Gallup, accessed May 20, 2015, http://www.gallup.com/poll/170801/americans-say-sex-couples-entitled-adopt.aspx.

- Freedom to Marry, “History and Timeline of the Freedom to Marry in the United States,” accessed October 10, 2014, http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/history-and-timeline-of-marriage.

- Ilan H. Meyer, “Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evidence,” Psychological Bulletin 129 (2003): 674–97, doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674.

What is the most recent estimate of same-sex couple households?

The most recent estimate, from 2011 ACS data, shows 605,472 same-sex couple households. Of these, 168,092 reported being married couples. The figure below shows estimates of same-sex couples by relationship type (unmarried partner or spouse) and sex of the couple.

 Author: U.S. Census Bureau (2011)

Two basic kinds of change occurred between 2007 and 2008: (1) processing and editing changes and (2) formatting changes to the questionnaire. The first reflects technological improvements in data collection by interviewers and efforts to make the processing and editing more consistent between data in the ACS and the 2010 Census. The second changes the layout of the gender question to make it more difficult to accidently mark both male and female. The drop in the reported number of same-sex couples between 2007 and 2008 can be attributed to these changes, which have resulted in a more reliable estimate of same-sex couple households.

                                               

Author: U.S. Census Bureau (2011)

Source:

- Census Bureau (2013). Frequently Asked Questions About Same-Sex Couple Households. Fertility and Family Statistics Branch. https://www.census.gov/hhes/samesex/files/SScplfactsheet_final.pdf