Abstract
In two experiments, we explored the relation between participants’ (a) levels of motivation to complete a task and (b) task-unrelated media multitasking. In Experiment 1, we examined the extent to which participants’ levels of motivation to complete a task influenced their tendency to engage in task-unrelated media multitasking. Participants completed a 1-back task, while having the opportunity to turn on and off an unrelated, optional video. Results showed that participants who were told they would finish the experiment early if they achieved a sufficient level of performance (the motivated group) were significantly less likely to play the optional video during the 1-back task than those who were not given the opportunity to finish early (control condition). In Experiment 2, we examined the extent to which engaging in task-unrelated media multitasking affected task-related motivation. Three groups of participants completed a 1-back task, while (a) no video was presented, (b) a video was continuously played, or (c) participants could turn on and off a video at their leisure (as in Experiment 1). At both the beginning and the end of Experiment 2, participants were asked to indicate their level of motivation to complete the task. Interestingly, results revealed that continuously having the video playing helped sustain task-related motivation. Thus, although greater motivation to perform a task reduces the likelihood of engaging in task-unrelated media multitasking, such media multitasking also appears to increase levels of motivation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and materials
All materials and programs used in the presented experiments, together with anonymized data and analysis scripts, can be found at: https://osf.io/m4sr7.
Notes
Here, we use the term ‘task-related motivation’ to refer to a person’s level of motivation to perform well on her primary/focal task.
This instruction has been effectively used to increase participant motivation in a study examining the effects of motivational manipulations on mind wandering: Seli, Schacter, Risko, and Smilek (2017).
Due to a programming error, targets occurred slightly higher than the intended target frequency of 16.67%.
A Chi-square test indicated that endorsements of ‘Yes’ (5 Control, 6 Motivated), ‘No’ (48 Control, 41 Motivated), and ‘N/A’ (25 Control, 32 Motivated), did not vary by group, χ2(2) = 1.50, p = 0.474.
We computed a Bayes Factor for the Motivation Probe by Group interaction using the R package “BayesFactor.” We interpreted our Bayes Factors based on the recommendations of Jeffreys (1961). The Bayes Factor for the model with main effects was 1795.84, whereas the Bayes Factor for the model with the full interaction was 576.68. Therefore, the data are 3.11 times more likely under the main effects model than the full interaction model. This is moderate evidence against the inclusion of the interaction.
Given the slightly skewed distribution of proportion hits in the Motivated Group, a non-parametric Wilcox ranked-sum test might also be used to compare hits between the two groups. This test indicates that participants in the Motivated Group had a higher proportion of hits than participants in the Control Group, W = 2253, p = 0.003.
Due to a programming error, targets occurred slightly more frequently than the intended target frequency of 16.67%.
We computed a Bayes Factor for the Motivation Probe by Group interaction using the R package “BayesFactor.” The Bayes Factor for the model with main effects was 1.54 × 1012, whereas the Bayes Factor for the model with the full interaction model was 8.94 × 1011. Therefore, the data are 1.72 times more likely under the main effects model than the full interaction model. This is weak evidence against the inclusion of the interaction.
Motivation ratings across the three groups did not differ at the beginning of the experiment, F(2, 233) = 0.21, p = 0.814, η2 < 0.01, but bordered on significance at the end of the experiment, F(2, 233) = 3.03, p = 0.05, η2 = 0.03. At the end of the experiment, motivation was higher in the Video On group than the Control, t(153.25) = 2.18, p = 0.031, d = 0.35, and Video-Toggle group, t(153.39) = 2,08, p = 0.039, d = 0.33. Motivation did not vary across the Control and Video-Toggle groups, t(152.52) = 0.28, p = 0.779, d = 0.04.
We also computed a Bayes Factor for the change in motivation between groups, addressed in each of the Welch t tests, using the R package “Bayes Factor.” The Bayes Factor for the t test comparing the decline in motivation from Pre- to Post-Experiment in the Video On Group compared to the Control Group was 1.78. This indicates that there is anecdotal evidence for a greater decline of motivation, Pre- to Post-Experiment, in the Video On Group compared to the Control Group. The Bayes Factor for the t test comparing the decline in motivation from Pre- to Post-Experiment in the Video-Toggle Group compared to the Control Group was 0.213 indicating moderate evidence for the null hypothesis. Lastly, the Bayes Factor for the t test comparing the decline in motivation from Pre- to Post-Experiment in the Video On Group compared to the Video-Toggle Group was 0.73, indicating anecdotal evidence for the null hypothesis.
Levene’s test indicated unequal variance between groups, F = 5.42, p = 0.022.
References
Armstrong, G. B., & Chung, L. (2000). Background television and reading memory in context assessing TV interference and facilitative context effects on encoding versus retrieval processes. Communication Research, 27, 327–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365000027003003.
Armstrong, G. B., & Greenberg, B. S. (1990). Background television as an inhibitor of cognitive processing. Human Communication Research, 16, 355–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1990.tb00215.x.
Becker, M. W., Alzahabi, R., & Hopwood, C. J. (2013). Media multitasking is associated with symptoms of depression and social anxiety. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 132–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/cyber.2012.0291.
Calderwood, C., Ackerman, P. L., & Conklin, E. M. (2014). What else do college students “do” while studying? An investigation of multitasking. Computers & Education, 75, 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.004.
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, 483–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.10.012.
Carrier, L. M., Rosen, L. D., Cheever, N. A., & Lim, A. F. (2015). Causes, effects, and practicalities of everyday multitasking. Developmental Review, 35, 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2014.12.005.
Chang, Y. (2016). Why do young people multitask with multiple media? Explicating the relationships among sensation seeking, needs, and media multitasking behavior. Media Psychology, 4, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2016.1247717.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Drews, F. A., Pasupathi, M., & Strayer, D. L. (2008). Passenger and cell phone conversations in simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 392–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013119.
Eastwood, J. D., Frischen, A., Fenske, M. J., & Smilek, D. (2012). The unengaged mind: Defining boredom in terms of attention. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 482–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612456044.
Feng, S., D’Mello, S., & Graesser, A. C. (2013). Mind wandering while reading easy and difficult texts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 586–592. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0367-y.
Fenske, M. J., & Raymond, J. E. (2006). Affective influences of selective attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 312–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00459.x.
Fisher, C. D. (1998). Effects of external and internal interruptions on boredom at work: Two studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 503–522. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199809)19:5%3c503:AID-JOB854%3e3.0.CO;2-9.
Fox, J. G., & Embrey, E. D. (1972). Music—an aid to productivity. Applied ergonomics, 3, 202–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-6870(72)90101-9.
Furedi. (2015). https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/age-of-distraction-why-the-idea-digital-devices-are-destroying-our-concentration-and-memory-is-a-a6689776.html. Accessed 20 Apr 2019.
Hancock, P. A., Lesch, M., & Simmons, L. (2003). The distraction effects of phone use during a crucial driving maneuver. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, 501–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00028-3.
Hwang, Y., Kim, H., & Jeong, S. (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.
Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of Probability. Oxford: Clarendon.
Junco, R. (2012). In-class multitasking and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 2236–2243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.031.
Junco, R., & Cotton, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic performance. Computers & Education, 59, 505–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.023.
Keller, J., Ringelhan, S., & Blomann, F. (2011). Does skills-demands compatibility result in intrinsic motivation? Experimental test of a basic notion proposed in the theory of flow-experiences. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6, 408–417. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2011.604041.
Kennedy, P., Miele, D. B., & Metcalfe, J. (2014). The cognitive antecedents and motivational consequences of the feeling of being in the zone. Consciousness and Cognition, 30, 48–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.07.007.
Kononova, A., & Chiang, Y. H. (2015). Why do we multitask with media? Predictors of media multitasking among Internet users in the United States and Taiwan. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 31–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.052.
Lin, L., Robertson, T., & Lee, J. (2009). Reading performance between novices and experts in different media multitasking environments. Computers in the Schools, 26, 169–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380560903095162.
May, K. E., & Elder, A. D. (2018). Efficient, helpful, or distracting? A literature review of media multitasking in relation to academic performance. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0096-z.
Pool, M. M., van der Voort, T. H. A., Beentjes, J. W. J., & Koolstra, C. M. (2000). Background television as an inhibitor of performance on easy and difficult homework assignments. Communication Research, 27, 293–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365000027003002.
Ralph, B. C. W., Seli, P., Wilson, K. E., & Smilek, D. (2018). Volitional media multitasking: awareness of performance costs and modulation of media multitasking as a function of task demand. Psychological Research., 1, 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1056-x. (Epub ahead of print).
Ralph, B. C. W., Smith, A. C., Seli, P., & Smilek, D. (2019). Yearning for distraction: Evidence for a trade-off between media multitasking and mind wandering. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000186. (Epub ahead of print).
Ralph, B. C. W., Thomson, D. R., Cheyne, J. A., & Smilek, D. (2014). Media multitasking and failures of attention in everyday life. Psychological Research, 78, 661–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-013-0523-7.
Raymond, J. E., Fenske, M. T., & Tavassoli, N. D. (2003). Selective attention determines emotional responses to novel visual stimuli. Psychological Science, 14, 537–542. https://doi.org/10.1047/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1462.x.
Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generations M [superscript 2]: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds. San Francisco: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
Scerbo, M. W. (1998). What’s so boring about vigilance? In R. R. Hoffman, M. F. Sherrick, & J. S. Warm (Eds), Viewing Psychology as a Whole: The Integrative Science of William N. Dember (pp. 145–166). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10290-006.
Scerbo, M. W., Greenwald, C. Q., & Sawin, D. A. (1992). Vigilance: It’s boring, it’s difficult, and I can’t do anything about it. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 36, 1508–1512. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193129203601831.
Seli, P., Cheyne, J. A., Xu, M., Purdon, C., & Smilek, D. (2015). Motivation, intentionality, and mind wandering: Implications for assessments of task-unrelated thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 1417–1425. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000116.
Seli, P., Kane, M. J., Smallwood, J., Schacter, D. L., Maillet, D., Schooler, J. W., & Smilek, D. (2018). Mind-wandering as a natural kind: A family-resemblances view. Trends in Cognitive Science, 22, 479–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.03.010.
Seli, P., Schacter, D. L., Risko, E. F., & Smilek, D. (2017). Increasing participant motivation reduces rates of intentional and unintentional mind wandering. Psychological Research, 1, 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0914-2. (Epub ahead of print).
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2012). A 21 word solution. Dialogue, 26, 4–7. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2160588.
Smallwood, J. M., Baracaia, S. F., Lowe, M., & Obonsawin, M. (2003). Task unrelated thought whilst encoding information. Consciousness and Cognition, 12, 452–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8100(03)00018-7.
Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2006). The restless mind. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 946–958. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.946.
Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Crouch, D. J. (2006). A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver. Human Factors, 48, 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872006777724471.
Thomson, D. R., Besner, D., & Smilek, D. (2013). In pursuit of off-task thought: Mind wandering-performance and trade-offs while reading aloud and color naming. Frontiers in Psychology., 4, 360. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00360.
Thomson, D. R., Besner, D., & Smilek, D. (2016). A critical examining of the evidence for the sensitivity loss in modern vigilance tasks. Psychological Review, 123, 70–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000021.
Unsworth, N., & McMillan, B. D. (2013). Mind wandering and reading comprehension: Examining the roles of working memory capacity, interest, motivation, and topic experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 832–842. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029669.
Wammes, J. D., & Smilek, D. (2017). Examining the influence of lecture format on degree of mind wandering. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.01.015.
Wang, Z., Irwin, M., Cooper, C., & Srivastava, J. (2015). Multidimensions of media multitasking and adaptive media selection. Human Communication Research, 41, 102–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12042.
Wang, Z., & Tchernev, J. M. (2012). The “myth” of media multitasking: Reciprocal dynamics of media multitasking, personal needs, and gratifications. Journal of Communication, 62, 493–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01641.x.
Xu, J., & Metcalfe, J. (2016). Studying in the region of proximal learning reduces mind wandering. Memory & Cognition, 44, 681–695. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0589-8.
Zhang, W., & Zhang, L. (2012). Explicating multitasking with computers: Gratifications and situations. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1883–1891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.006.
Funding
This research was supported by a Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) Discovery Grant to Daniel Smilek (RGPIN-2019-04071).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Brandon Ralph declares that he has no conflict of interests. Alyssa Smith declares that she has no conflict of interests. Paul Seli declares that he has no conflict of interests. Daniel Smilek declares that he has no conflict of interests.
Ethics approval
This research received full ethics clearance from a University of Waterloo Research Ethics Committee and adhered to the appropriate ethical guidelines (ORE#21005). All procedures were performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ralph, B.C.W., Smith, A.C., Seli, P. et al. The relation between task-unrelated media multitasking and task-related motivation. Psychological Research 85, 408–422 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01246-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01246-7