multitasking essay topics

25 Multitasking Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

multitasking examples and definition, explained below

Multitasking refers to the art of doing two tasks simultaneously. It is believed to be a desirable skill in a fast-paced world, but has also been critiqued for causing high cognitive load and decreasing task performance (Calderwood et al., 2014; Rosen, 2008; Salvucci & Taatgen, 2010).

The term originates from computer processing, referring to the ability of a machine to execute more than one task at the same time.

Today, however, this concept tends to describe human behavior, where an individual engages in multiple tasks simultaneously or alternates rapidly between tasks.

Rresearch has shown that humans don’t actually conduct multiple cognitive tasks at the same time, despite the perception (Rosen, 2008). Instead, we switch our attention from one task to another very rapidly, giving the illusion of simultaneous multitasking. This act of rapidly shifting attention tends to cause high cognitive load and lead to exhaustion and errors.

Types of Multitasking

Multitasking encompasses several different methods of task management, falling into four general categories: concurrent, serial, background, and cognitive multitasking.

Concurrent multitasking refers to carrying out multiple tasks simultaneously. You might see a chef preparing multiple dishes at a time, carefully monitoring each process (Calderwood et al., 2014).
Serial multitasking involves switching between tasks quickly. An example is a driver changing the radio station while keeping an eye on the road and handling the steering wheel (Carrier et al., 2015).
Background multitasking allows one task to run in the “background” while a person focuses on another task. An instance is listening to music while writing a report, where the music serves as background stimulus but does not require active attention.
Cognitive multitasking is different as it involves handling or thinking about multiple cognitive tasks simultaneously, which is usually discouraged (Carrier et al., 2015). An example might be a student trying to work on a math problem while writing an English essay (which would likely result in errors in one or both tasks).

Each of these forms of multitasking presents its own challenges and benefits, but they all require substantial cognitive effort. They also all carry the potential for divided attention and mistakes, especially when the tasks require high levels of cognitive engagement.

Multitasking Examples

1. Cooking a Full Meal (Type – Concurrent): Preparing multiple dishes simultaneously is a common example of concurrent multitasking. This could involve chopping vegetables, monitoring pots on the stove, and checking the oven, all at the same time. This method maximizes kitchen productivity, but the downside is the high potential for mistakes due to divided attention. One can forget a key ingredient or overcook a dish while attending to another.

2. Online Meeting and Email Response (Type – Serial): Switching between listening to an online work meeting and responding to professional emails is a form of serial multitasking. It may seem efficient as you appear to get two tasks done at once, but the quality of work may suffer. Attention to both tasks is split, making it difficult to contribute effectively to the meeting or respond comprehensively to emails.

3. Driving and Listening to an Audiobook (Type – Background): While driving, some people listen to audiobooks. Here, the primary task is operating the vehicle safely, while the audiobook runs in the background. It has the advantage of enhancing the driving experience or making it more enjoyable without subtracting from the primary focus (driving). However, in intense traffic or complex driving conditions, the audiobook can become a distraction.

4. Studying while Watching Television (Type – Cognitive): It’s not uncommon for students to engage in cognitive multitasking like studying for an exam while watching TV. This is typically not advisable as both tasks demand high cognitive engagement. The act of studying necessitates attention to detail and comprehension, which TV-watching undermines with constant stimulus and calls for processing new information. The result could be poor understanding and retention of studied materials (Calderwood et al., 2014).

5. Conference Call and Sketch Noting (Type – Concurrent): Business professionals often engage in concurrent multitasking during conference calls by making sketch notes. The visual act of sketching information can support cognitive processing and assist in memory retention. However, the risk is that complex information could be missed or misinterpreted if the attention is significantly divided between the call and the sketching process.

6. Social Media Scrolling and Online Shopping (Type – Serial): Serial multitasking is common online, such as when one alternates between scrolling through a social media feed and browsing in an online store. While it might offer a sort of entertainment variety, constantly switching between the two tasks could lead to an oversight like missing an essential post or wrongly ordering an item.

7. Listening to Background Music while Writing an Essay (Type – Background): It’s quite typical for students to listen to music while writing essays, thinking it aids concentration. As a form of background multitasking, it can indeed provide a pleasant background that doesn’t require active engagement. However, if the music is too loud, contains lyrics, or differs significantly from the individual’s usual taste, it can become a distraction and reduce the quality of the writing.

8. Planning a Vacation while Working on a Budget (Type – Cognitive): Attempting to plan a vacation while concurrently working on a home budget falls under cognitive multitasking. This is generally not recommended as both tasks require significant mental focus and calculating abilities. Mistakes are likely to happen in either or both activities, such as overlooking a cost item in the budget, or making wrong travel bookings.

9. Juggling Multiple Patients (Type – Concurrent): Healthcare professionals often engage in concurrent multitasking, such as when a nurse monitors multiple patients at once. This practice can enhance efficiency , allowing the nurse to attend to more patients in a shorter time frame. However, the risk is high, as divided attention could lead to mistakes or oversights with serious health consequences.

10. Writing a Report and Checking Stock Market (Type – Serial): An investment professional may switch between writing a financial report and checking the stock market. This serial multitasking may seem efficient, enabling the individual to stay updated while also producing work. However, rapidly switching focus can lead to reduced accuracy in both the report and the interpretation of market trends.

11. Running on a Treadmill and Watching the News (Type – Background): People often watch television while doing physical exercises like walking or running on a treadmill. As an example of background multitasking, this act provides entertainment without detracting from the primary task. The only risk is that intensive news topics can stimulate emotional reactions, which might impact the workout rhythm.

12. Math Homework and Composing a Poem (Type – Cognitive): A student who tries to solve math problems while composing a poem is engaged in cognitive multitasking, which requires splitting one’s cognitive attention between two complex, unrelated tasks. Such multitasking typically hinders productivity and quality of work, potentially leading to both incorrect calculations and a fragmented poem.

13. Gardening and Supervising Kids (Type – Concurrent): An adult could be pulling weeds or planting while keeping an eye on children playing nearby. As a form of concurrent multitasking, it allows for efficiency in completing household chores while ensuring the safety of the kids. The downside is that serious accidents can happen in a split second if the supervising adult is too absorbed in the task at hand and gets momentarily distracted.

14. Program Coding and Software Debugging (Type – Serial): A software developer may switch between writing new program codes and debugging existing programs. This kind of serial multitasking can lead to productivity in a time-pressured environment. However, it can also result in overlooked coding errors and insufficient debugging due to the rapidly alternating focus.

15. Listening to Podcasts while Doing Laundry (Type – Background): Many people listen to informational podcasts as they perform routine tasks like doing laundry. As a form of background multitasking, it can make the chore more enjoyable and educational. However, if the podcast contains complex discussions, it might distract from properly sorting, washing, or folding the clothes, or vice versa.

16. Revising An Article while Brainstorming for Another (Type – Cognitive): An author might try to revise one article while brainstorming ideas for a new one. This type of cognitive multitasking usually hinders both the revision process and the generation of quality ideas. Insufficient attention to detail in the revision could lead to overlooked errors, while distraction from brainstorming could result in limited or superficial ideas for the new article.

17. Sales Event and Customer Interaction (Type – Concurrent): A retail salesperson often manages multiple customer interactions while ensuring the smooth operation of a promotional event. This type of multitasking can be challenging, especially during peak shopping hours when customer demands intensify, but can also stimulate a dynamic sales environment and potentially drive up revenue.

18. Online Discussion and Document Review (Type – Serial): Switching between an online discussion and reviewing a related document is a common practice in digital workspaces. While this type of serial multitasking enables quick information sharing and feedback, constant attention shift can reduce comprehension and feedback quality.

19. Reading a Book and Listening to Instrumental Music (Type – Background): Many people love to supplement reading with ambient or instrumental music. As a form of background multitasking, this combination often enriches the reading experience and supports concentration, unless the music becomes too intrusive or the book too demanding, which could mean only one can be effectively engaged with.

20. Studying Two Different Subjects simultaneously (Type – Cognitive): Trying to study for a history exam while solving chemistry equations is an instance of cognitive multitasking. The task switches between unrelated contexts and cognitive demands, likely resulting in both poor historical understanding and incorrect chemical calculations.

21. Tutoring and Lesson Planning (Type – Concurrent): A private tutor might be teaching one student while planning the next session for another. A concurrent form of multitasking, it can utilize time effectively allowing for immediate implementation of planned lessons. However, divided attention could result in overlooking a student’s difficulty in learning or a poorly-constructed plan for the next session.

22. Navigating Traffic and Changing the Radio Station (Type – Serial): It’s common for drivers to adjust music or other devices while focusing on traffic, a form of serial multitasking. It keeps the driving experience enjoyable but can be dangerous if the secondary task draws too much attention away from the primary task of safe driving.

23. Working Out and Monitoring Heart Rate (Type – Background): Many fitness enthusiasts monitor their heart rate while engaging in workouts. It’s a form of background multitasking allowing them to optimize their exercise intensity. But if the exercise is particularly demanding, they may neglect proper monitoring, leading to potential health risks.

24. Preparing a Speech while Checking Emails (Type – Cognitive): This example of cognitive multitasking might seem efficient on the surface but usually results in reduced quality in both tasks. Important nuances for the speech can be missed or poorly constructed, and emails might be misunderstood or improperly responded to due to divided attention.

25. Managing Employee Performance and Organizing Company Events (Type – Concurrent): An HR manager might oversee employee productivity while planning corporate events. This concurrent multitasking can ensure efficient operations but could risk neglecting details in performance reports or event planning, meaning both aspects might suffer.

Pros and Cons of Multitasking

The benefits and drawbacks of multitasking vary. On the positive side, multitasking can increase stimulation and reduce boredom, particularly when performing routine tasks. However, the downsides may include reduced concentration, higher levels of stress and mistakes due to divided attention.

Multitasking skills are often required in today’s fast-paced environment. However, it’s important to recognize when multitasking is beneficial and when it’s actually detrimental to the task at hand. For instance, while it’s possible to listen to a podcast whilst doing house chores, trying to respond to emails while attending a meeting could lead to mistakes and misunderstanding.


	– Can handle multiple tasks at once when they don’t require full focus.	– Often leads to reduced efficiency for complex tasks (Rosen, 2008).
	– Can save time when tasks are simple and routine (Schuch et al., 2019).	– Can waste time due to the constant task-switching.
	– Can train the brain to process information more rapidly.	– Can decrease focus, leading to decreased comprehension (Schuch et al., 2019).
	– Some jobs require simultaneous handling of tasks (Watson & Strayer, 2010).	– Quality might be compromised in jobs requiring deep concentration.
	– Encourages adaptability and flexibility (Mark, 2022).	– Might reduce deep work skills or focused attention span.
	– Some people feel productive when juggling tasks.	– Can lead to increased stress and decreased job satisfaction.
	– May improve handling of distractions for some people (Watson & Strayer, 2010).	– Divides attention, leading to potential mistakes (Carrier et al., 2015).
	– In some scenarios, can enhance skill diversification.	– Reduces the depth of learning and understanding.
	– Quick identification of mistakes in parallel processes.	– Increases the likelihood of errors due to divided attention.
	– Some individuals thrive under the pressure of handling multiple tasks.	– Can increase mental fatigue and stress (Rosen, 2008).

Criticisms of Multitasking Theory

The efficacy of multitasking is a topic of debate. While it can sometimes increase productivity, studies indicate that switching rapidly between tasks can decrease accuracy and efficiency (Rosen, 2008).

This can be understood through the example of a student attempting to study for an exam while continually checking their social media feed (Calderwood et al., 2014). The cognitive shift from deep learning to the superficial engagement of social media can result in inadequate comprehension and retention of study materials.

Multitasking is a common practice that has both positive and negative aspects. It’s crucial to assess individual capabilities and the specific demands of each task to determine the best approach, whether it be targeted focus or a multitasking method.

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.

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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2014.12.005

Mark, G. (2022). Multitasking in the digital age . New York: Springer Nature.

Rosen, C. (2008). The myth of multitasking. The New Atlantis , (20), 105-110. Doi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43152412

Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2010). The multitasking mind . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schuch, S., Dignath, D., Steinhauser, M., & Janczyk, M. (2019). Monitoring and control in multitasking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review , 26 , 222-240. doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1512-z

Watson, J. M., & Strayer, D. L. (2010). Supertaskers: Profiles in extraordinary multitasking ability. Psychonomic bulletin & review , 17 , 479-485. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.4.479

Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 10 Reasons you’re Perpetually Single
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 20 Montessori Toddler Bedrooms (Design Inspiration)
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 21 Montessori Homeschool Setups
Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 101 Hidden Talents Examples

The 7 Laws of Multitasking

The two main hazards (and two main benefits) of multitasking..

Posted December 16, 2014

Understanding Attention
Take our ADHD Test
Find counselling to help with ADHD

The benefits and hazards of multitasking.

You’ve been told that multitasking is a bad idea. Articles and essays appear every day telling you why multitasking is dangerous, makes things take longer, tires out your brain, reduces the quality of your work, and lowers your IQ . And, for the most part, these warnings are all based on good research. 1, 2

But have you ever noticed that you still multitask in many ways, and it usually works out just fine?

The truth is that sometimes multitasking is a very bad idea, sometimes it doesn’t help, but also doesn’t hurt much, and sometimes it brings great benefits. The point of this essay is to help us tell the difference.

And, with that, I present the seven laws of multitasking.

Law One: Some tasks mix well.

In the simplest case, when you multitask, you have a primary task (task A), and a secondary task (task B). The primary task is your priority. The secondary task is tacked on as something else you can enjoy or accomplish at the same time.

Sometimes the two tasks will mix well. Here are some examples:

listening to music while practicing a sports skill
talking with strangers while waiting in line
listening to a talk radio program while driving (sometimes)
listening to music while working.
talking on the phone while cooking
cleaning a room while doing a weight workout
doing dishes while waiting for a video game to load
watching television while folding laundry
listening to an audiobook while exercising
drinking coffee while talking with a friend
eating popcorn while watching a movie

And, contrary to idiom, even chewing gum while walking works out just fine most of the time.

On the other hand, . . .

Law Two: Some tasks mix poorly.

Sometimes tasks don’t mix well. Here are some examples:

texting while driving
monitoring social media while doing high-focus creative work
watching television while doing homework
listening to a podcast while writing
listening to music with lyrics while reading
talking with friends while watching a movie
emailing one person while talking with another
playing angry birds while landing a commercial passenger jet.

These examples, good and bad, come from my own experience, from common experience, and from the research literature. One or two of the examples might fail to resonate for you, but the point remains: multitasking is a mixed bag.

Now let’s see if we can figure out what makes multitasking good in some cases and bad in others.

Law Three: It’s partly about switching costs.

Imagine you have a small kitchen, and you plan to make two omelets and two batches of cookies. In what order should you do your cooking?

When you make an omelet, you must get out the eggs, the cheese, a cutting board, a knife, some spices, some vegetables, a skillet, and a mixing bowl. Then you make the omelet. And, if you’re like me, when you’re finished, you still have a dirty mixing bowl, cutting board and skillet sitting there, with the eggs, cheese, and maybe some extra veggies still sitting on the counter. At some point you will need to clean up and put things away.

So we can break the task of making a single omelet into three parts: 1) setup, 2) make the omelet, 3) cleanup.

And the same goes for baking cookies. You’ll have the same three components to that task: setup, make the cookies, and cleanup.

Now consider two plans for making the two omelets and two batches of cookies:

Plan 1 : omelet, cookies, omelet, cookies

Plan 2 : omelet, omelet, cookies, cookies.

And consider how much time and effort is required for each plan.

With plan 1 you will need to:

setup for omelet
make omelet
setup for cookies
make cookies

With plan 2 you will need to:

When you alternate tasks, you have to clean up task A before you can setup for task B (remember, this is a small kitchen). And it turns out that you can save a lot of work by focusing on one kind of food at a time instead of switching between them. You save two setups and two cleanups by following plan 2 instead of plan 1. This is the benefit of batch processing. It saves on overhead.

The same thing happens in your brain when you multitask. For example, when you sit down to do some homework your mind has to do some setup tasks. It must load certain information into short term memory , build appropriate mental models, erect filters to keep irrelevant information out, and so forth.

Now, if you switch your attention to watching television for a few seconds, you must free up some of the resources being used for homework, and prepare some new mental resources that are needed to track the show you’re watching.

So your mind has to perform some cleanup and setup work every time you switch from homework to television, and every time you switch back as well. These are known as “switching costs”, and they cost you in terms of both time and energy.

The costs might be small for an individual switch, but after an hour of homework/television they add up, and you might find you got only half of the homework done you could have, and you might be more mentally weary as well. 2

And the switching costs will be even greater if your primary task is a complicated creative endeavor, such as constructing a mathematical proof, developing a theory in physics, writing about a complicated topic, or coding a complex algorithm.

Richard Feynman had the following to say about allowing creative work to be interrupted (whether by accident or through multitasking):

“To do high, real good physics work you do need absolutely solid lengths of time, so that when you’re putting ideas together which are vague and hard to remember, it’s very much like building a house of cards and each of the cards is shaky, and if you forget one of them the whole thing collapses again. You don’t know how you got there and you have to build them up again, . . .” 3

The problem is that, when you’re doing complicated work, you often have to build up intricate mental models, and you’re pushing yourself to the edge of your capacity to concentrate. And when you take your attention away from your creative task and attend to an interruption, the mental models dissolve. And you probably won’t be able to build them back up the way they were.

It’s like having your computer crash while writing a paper, and realizing you hadn’t saved your document for half an hour. It will cost you time and energy trying to get everything built back up, and you might not actually get it back the way it was.

The real tragedy here is not that sometimes geniuses lose track of where they were. Geniuses typically value deep concentration and take measures to protect against interruption. The real tragedy is that many chronic multitaskers never bother with deep concentration, and might never discover the genius within them.

Law Four: It’s partly about resource conflict.

Another problem with mutitasking is that task A and task B might need the same mental resource, and they can’t both use it at the same time.

If a person listens to light instrumental music while sending an email message, there is typically little problem. Task B (listening to music) makes use of mental resources not needed for task A (writing the email message). If our email writer sub-vocalizes as she writes, there might be some auditory involvement, but the music won’t require verbal processing, so the degree of conflict is minimal.

If, on the other hand, she talks with a colleague while writing her email, then there is much more conflict over mental resources. Task B requires the person to construct and communicate meaning in sentences, just like task A does. Both require empathy and social strategizing as well. Trying to do both tasks at the same time will cause high switching costs and a greater chance of error.

Texting while driving is an iconic case of resource conflict. Both tasks compete over visual attention. When you switch your gaze from driving to texting, you will no longer be able to see new driving hazards as long as you are looking at your phone. Plus it takes some time to get situation awareness when you look back to the road. That’s why texting and driving is now the number one cause of death for teen drivers. 4

In general, when it’s important to do task A well, we should not also take on a secondary task that competes with the primary task for key resources.

Law Five: It’s partly about sweetening the pot.

But there are benefits to multitasking. Sometimes we are staring down a relatively simple task that we just don’t want to do (such as folding clothes). But we know that we would be much happier doing that task if we could do something else pleasant or useful at the same time (such as watching television or listening to an audio book). So we multitask in order to “sweeten the pot”, so we will have the motivation needed to perform the primary task.

We might not fold the clothes in record time. There will be some switching costs. But the alternative, if we’re being frank, is that we won’t fold the clothes at all. And, since the task is relatively simple, the switching costs will be manageable.

Or sometimes the primary task will contain periods of activity interspersed with periods of inactivity, while another task can be broken into small chunks that can fit those gaps. When I workout with weights, I perform sets of exercise with periods of rest in between. When I clean my office I do a series of discrete tasks with natural break points between subtasks (clear the clutter from my desk, empty a trash can, etc.).

That makes these two activities a natural fit. If I arrange to do cleaning tasks during the rest intervals in my workout, that “sweetens the pot” for both tasks. I normally don’t like cleaning my office, and will put it off repeatedly. But, if I can make use of the dead times in my workout, it seems worthwhile, because there’s little else of value I would be able to do during those two-minute rest periods.

Multitasking can help us start a task we don’t want to do, and it can also keep us doing a task when we’ve grown impatient. When the car trip gets boring , we can play twenty-questions. When we get impatient waiting in line, we can strike up a conversation with a stranger.

And pot-sweetening is just one of the two main possible benefits of multitasking.

Law Six: It’s partly about setting picks.

In basketball, it’s easier to score when you’re not being harassed by an opponent. That’s why teammates will sometimes position themselves at a spot on the floor and just stand still. The player with the ball can then dribble close enough to the teammate that the shadowing defender must either run into the teammate, go around the teammate, or switch assignments with the teammate’s defender. Sometimes this allows the player with the ball to get off a clean shot. The teammate in this case is “setting a pick”.

Likewise, a well-chosen secondary task can “set a pick” for the primary task by blocking out potential distractors.

When we work on a task, our minds do many things. Parts of our mind are concerned with executing our primary task. They help us keep the goal in mind, make plans, execute those plans, work around obstacles, keep the right things in memory for easy access, and so on. These are “foreground” processes.

At the same time other parts of our mind are looking out for signs of danger, looping through other problems we are dealing with, monitoring our internal states, or looking for opportunities to switch to more rewarding tasks. These are “background processes”. And background processes have a way of getting us off track at times.

So here’s the thing. This is where we can use multitasking to our advantage. If we choose our secondary task wisely, it can compete for resources with background processes that might otherwise interrupt us. And that means the right task B can actually help us stay focused on task A. Here’s how we might formalize that strategy:

Background Process Interference Strategy: when background processes are likely to interrupt a primary task, try to find a secondary task that will compete for resources with the background processes, but not with the foreground processes.

In other words, use task B to “set a pick” for task A.

If you don’t like doing yard work, and you know that parts of your brain will be looking for more rewarding things to do, and will be sending a constant stream of rationalizations to your mind to try to get you to quit, then you can run interference by listening to a podcast. Listening to the podcast will compete with the background processes for a key resource (strategic thinking), but will not compete substantially for the resources being used by the primary task.

On the other hand, if you’re writing an essay, and you fear your background processes will be trying to get you to quit, setting a pick with a podcast won’t work as well. In that case, task B will interfere not only with the background processes but also with the foreground processes -- like a clumsy teammate who tries to set a pick and knocks over the ball-handler in the process.

Law Seven: It’s all about making trade-offs.

It should be clear by now that we can’t say full stop whether multitasking is good or bad. It all depends on features of task A, features of task B, how A and B interact, and what a person’s goals are.

When it’s important to do the primary task well (driving), we must be extra careful about switching costs and resource conflict (that’s why texting while driving is a terrible idea). When it’s not that important, we can be more relaxed about those costs, and be more open to some of the benefits of multitasking (watching television while folding clothes is probably fine).

Sometimes it will be important to do task A quickly (studying for a test the night before an exam) and sometimes it won’t matter too much how long it takes (folding laundry on an otherwise empty evening). When it’s important to do a task quickly, we must be extra concerned about switching costs (and we might opt for some mid-tempo instrumental music to help us focus and block out distractions while we study -- instead of watching a television program).

Sometimes we are motivated to do task A (playing a new video game), and sometimes we lack motivation (working out). When we lack motivation, a well-chosen task B might just sweeten the pot.

Sometimes we are so familiar with task A, we do much of it on “auto-pilot”. And sometimes task A takes our full attention. That’s why listening to a talk program on radio can be a good idea for an experienced driver, but a bad idea for a student just learning to drive.

Sometimes task A is complicated (writing an essay), and other times it’s simple (folding clothes). Switching costs are usually higher for complicated tasks.

And so, in order to tell whether a given case of multitasking is good or bad, we will have to weigh the costs against the benefits on a case by case basis.

Conclusion: some specific and useful strategies.

We’ve covered a lot of ground. Here are the key lessons in a nutshell:

We’ve seen that multitasking can be a bad idea when:

there are high switching costs
there is resource conflict between task A and task B

And we’ve seen that it can be a good idea when:

task B “sweetens the pot” for task A
task B can “set a pick” for task A

And we’ve seen that the wisdom of multitasking can also depend on other features of task A and task B:

how important it is to do them well
how familiar they are
how important it is to do them quickly
how motivated we are to do them
how complicated they are

Let’s finish with a few specific and useful ways to apply these lessons:

Multitasking can be dangerous. When it’s important to do task A well, we should be very careful about choosing a task B, and err on the side of caution. We should never text and drive, or talk on the phone while driving. And we should take steps to make sure our passengers will not distract us with rowdiness or emotionally challenging conversations (this is of special relevance for those of us with children).
Multitasking can hinder creative productivity . When working on a creative project that pushes us to the limits of our concentration, we should not multitask in ways that will expose us to interruptions of the primary activity (for example, while writing an essay, we should close our facebook, twitter, and email clients, and check them only after we’ve done a good chunk of creative work).
Multitasking can assist creative productivity. Well-chosen secondary tasks can set picks for our creative projects, and can help us maintain focus against background processes that might otherwise interrupt us (for instance while writing an essay in a coffee shop, we might listen to invigorating instrumental music to block out ambient noises, conversations, and internal signals of discomfort).
Multitasking can help us be more patient. We tend to grow impatient when we have a goal and we have just learned that it’s going to cost us more to reach our goal than we originally thought. And our tendency when we are impatient is to either try to find shortcuts or to abandon our goal for another goal. But sometimes the right course of action is to simply stay the course and absorb the extra costs. The right task B can both sweeten the pot, and set picks on those voices in our heads trying to get us to change course. For instance, we might talk with a stranger while waiting in line, so we don’t bolt, or listen to an audiobook while stuck in heavy traffic, so we don’t plot out risky and minimally productive lane-changing maneuvers (For more on impatience, see “The 7 Laws of Impatience” ).
Well-chosen music mixes with almost everything. Well-chosen music has a magical ability to both sweeten the pot and set picks for almost any activity -- while avoiding resource conflict and switching costs almost entirely. The music must be chosen carefully, so it does not provide resource conflict (for instance songs with lyrics might not be optimal for reading, and death metal might be a poor choice for meditation ). But there is usually a good choice for almost any activity. Some tasks might not mix well with any kind of music, but these will probably be rare for most people.

1 Ophir, Nass, Wagner, “Cognitive Control in Media Multitaskers”

2 Armstrong and Chung, “Background Television and Reading Memory in Context”

3 Richard P. Feynman “The pleasure of finding things out.” p. 19

4 Delthia Ricks, "Study: Texting while driving now leading cause of death for teen drivers"

Multitasking: Switching costs

What the research shows.

Doing more than one task at a time, especially more than one complex task, takes a toll on productivity. Although that shouldn't surprise anyone who has talked on the phone while checking E-mail or talked on a cell phone while driving, the extent of the problem might come as a shock. Psychologists who study what happens to cognition (mental processes) when people try to perform more than one task at a time have found that the mind and brain were not designed for heavy-duty multitasking. Psychologists tend to liken the job to choreography or air-traffic control, noting that in these operations, as in others, mental overload can result in catastrophe.

Multitasking can take place when someone tries to perform two tasks simultaneously, switch . from one task to another, or perform two or more tasks in rapid succession. To determine the costs of this kind of mental "juggling," psychologists conduct task-switching experiments. By comparing how long it takes for people to get everything done, the psychologists can measure the cost in time for switching tasks. They also assess how different aspects of the tasks, such as complexity or familiarity, affect any extra time cost of switching.

In the mid-1990s, Robert Rogers, PhD, and Stephen Monsell, D.Phil, found that even when people had to switch completely predictably between two tasks every two or four trials, they were still slower on task-switch than on task-repeat trials. Moreover, increasing the time available between trials for preparation reduced but did not eliminate the cost of switching. There thus appear to be two parts to the switch cost -- one attributable to the time taken to adjust the mental control settings (which can be done in advance it there is time), and another part due to competition due to carry-over of the control settings from the previous trial (apparently immune to preparation).

Surprisingly, it can be harder to switch to the more habitual of two tasks afforded by a stimulus. For example, Renata Meuter, PhD, and Alan Allport, PhD, reported in 1999 that if people had to name digits in their first or second language, depending on the color of the background, as one might expect they named digits in their second language slower than in their first when the language repeated. But they were slower in their first language when the language changed.

In experiments published in 2001, Joshua Rubinstein, PhD, Jeffrey Evans, PhD, and David Meyer, PhD, conducted four experiments in which young adults switched between different tasks, such as solving math problems or classifying geometric objects. For all tasks, the participants lost time when they had to switch from one task to another. As tasks got more complex, participants lost more time. As a result, people took significantly longer to switch between more complex tasks. Time costs were also greater when the participants switched to tasks that were relatively unfamiliar. They got up to speed faster when they switched to tasks they knew better.

In a 2003 paper, Nick Yeung, Ph.D, and Monsell quantitatively modeled the complex and sometimes surprising experimental interactions between relative task dominance and task switching. The results revealed just some of the complexities involved in understanding the cognitive load imposed by real-life multi-tasking, when in addition to reconfiguring control settings for a new task, there is often the need to remember where you got to in the task to which you are returning and to decide which task to change to, when.

What the research means

According to Meyer, Evans and Rubinstein, converging evidence suggests that the human "executive control" processes have two distinct, complementary stages. They call one stage "goal shifting" ("I want to do this now instead of that") and the other stage "rule activation" ("I'm turning off the rules for that and turning on the rules for this"). Both of these stages help people to, without awareness, switch between tasks. That's helpful. Problems arise only when switching costs conflict with environmental demands for productivity and safety.

Although switch costs may be relatively small, sometimes just a few tenths of a second per switch, they can add up to large amounts when people switch repeatedly back and forth between tasks. Thus, multitasking may seem efficient on the surface but may actually take more time in the end and involve more error. Meyer has said that even brief mental blocks created by shifting between tasks can cost as much as 40 percent of someone's productive time.

How we use the research

Understanding the hidden costs of multitasking may help people to choose strategies that boost their efficiency - above all, by avoiding multitasking, especially with complex tasks. (Throwing in a load of laundry while talking to a friend will probably work out all right.) For example, losing just a half second of time to task switching can make a life-or-death difference for a driver on a cell phone traveling at 30 MPH. During the time the driver is not totally focused on driving the car, it can travel far enough to crash into an obstacle that might otherwise have been avoided.

Meyer and his colleagues hope that understanding switching costs and the light they shed on "executive control" may help to improve the design and engineering of equipment and human-computer interfaces for vehicle and aircraft operation, air traffic control, and many other activities using sophisticated technologies. Insights into how the brain "multitasks" lend themselves to a range of settings from the clinic, helping to diagnose and help brain-injured patients, to the halls of Congress, informing government and industrial regulations and standards.

This research is also taken into account by states and localities considering legislation to restrict drivers' use of cell phones.

Sources & further reading

Gopher, D., Armony, L. & Greenspan, Y. (2000). Switching tasks and attention policies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129 , 308-229.

Mayr, U. & Kliegl, R. (2000). Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26 , 1124-1140.

Meuter, R. F. I. & Allport, A. (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(1) , 25-40.

Meyer, D. E. & Kieras, D. E. (1997a). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104 , 3-65.

Meyer, D. E. & Kieras, D. E. (1997b). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena. Psychological Review, 104 , 749-791.

Monsell, S., Azuma, R., Eimer, M., Le Pelley, M., & Strafford, S. (1998, July). Does a prepared task switch require an extra (control) process between stimulus onset and response selection? Poster presented at the 18th International Symposium on Attention and Performance, Windsor Great Park, United Kingdom.

Monsell, S., Yeung, N., & Azuma, R. (2000). Reconfiguration of task-set: Is it easier to switch to the weaker task? Psychological Research, 63 , 250-264.

Monsell, S. & Driver, J., Eds. (2000). Control of cognitive processes: Attention and Performance XVIII. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Rogers, R. & Monsell, S. (1995). The costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207-231.

Rubinstein, J., Evans, J. & Meyer, D. E. (1994). Task switching in patients with prefrontal cortex damage. Poster presented at the meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society, San Francisco, CA, March, 1994. Abstract published in Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience , 1994, Vol. 6.

Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E. & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive Control of Cognitive Processes in Task Switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27 , 763-797.

Yeung, N. & Monsell, S. (2003). Switching between tasks of unequal familiarity: The role of stimulus-attribute and response-set selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 29(2) : 455-469.

Home / Essay Samples / Life / Work / Multitasking

Multitasking Essay Examples

The role of media in multitasking.

This is one of the multitasking essays where an author will reviewed an article,in which the main research question was to see if media multitasking while doing school assignments would impact academic performance and executive (cognitive control) function. This research question is important because it...

The Role of Multitasking in the Learning of Young Students

In this modern time in history, multitasking as many tasks as possible within a set time frame has become a necessary trait to be more efficient. Through the influence of technology, many believe multitasking is enhancing valuable skills that help with effective learning. However, in...

The Damaging Effects of Doing Multitasking on Students

We are all guilty of it. Multitasking is something that has become an everyday occurrence in our lives. Most cannot even imagine a lifestyle without it. Many people are unaware of the harmful effects multitasking can have on the body and brain, especially on young...

Efficiency of Multitasking as a Way to Accomplish Priorities in a Limited Time

Multitasking is when a person is doing more than task at a time. The question is, is multitasking effective or is one task being left halfway done. An article states that ‘’Multitasking seems like a great way to get a lot done at once. While...

Trying to find an excellent essay sample but no results?

Don’t waste your time and get a professional writer to help!