A Reliable Measure of Multitasking Costs - Research Paper Example

Will be written after getting results Introduction Studies in psychology have made it possible to measure behaviour of individuals in chores that simulate daily life especially when dealing with several demands that require attention at the same time. These studies rhyme with the increasing demands for efficiency because the modern society considers time as money. Therefore, the more efficient a task is done with accuracy within a short time, the more the turnover in terms of cost reduction. Many studies examine the effects of two tasks that overlap, that is, when there is a temporal delay between the second and the first task. Task switching is the sequential representation of one task after another, a concept that is commonly referred to as psychological refractory period abbreviated as PRP. The time taken in measuring the response to stimulus of task in classical psychology is known as refractory period measured using dual task paradigms. When describing PRP paradigm, one should first present a stimulus (S1) for the first task (T1) before presenting the stimulus (S2) for the second task (T2). Stimulus onset asynchrony is the duration between the onset of the two stimuli. When there is smaller distance between the two stimulus, the S2 will have a longer reaction time (RT). The reaction time is measured for both the T2 and T1. Jersild (1927) argued that the reaction time for S2 has to be shorter the first task than it is for the second task. The main challenge for most current studies is the absence of task repetition, which was part of the study applied by Jersild (1927) who used PRP and pure task condition. There are other concepts ascribing that the concept of multitasking leads to multitasking madness because it waste time. Multitasking madness was described as the capability of human brains appearing as though performing several tasks at the same time yet it uses its filtering mechanism to make it possible to switch from one task to another (). In fact, the multitasking myth is a common phenomenon when assessed from the daily activities and events. For instance, it is possible to find people walking while talking or driving cars while answering mobile phones. Avoiding multitasking madness requires that the individuals estimate the time required to perform a task precisely to avoid underestimation of the required time, which may create bias expectations that would turn unrealistic expectations in the performance (). Besides, the concept of letting off the external memory is important because it reduces the cognitive load that helps the individual to have intensive focus on concurrent tasks. When such individuals embrace the task perseverance that increases their focus on a particular task by decreasing their thoughts on other tasks increase the accuracy of handling such tasks while decreasing required time to attain the required objectives (). The last concept is down time, which ascribes to the need of refreshing before undertaking any task to improve the efficiency. An individual may relax after performing a task while preparing to undertake another tasking by either reading a novel watching a television, or playing with kids. When assessing the effects of multitasking and costs, the efficiency of such a process must be put into consideration to determine the benefit of the process (). Scientists argue that workaholism and perfectionism relate to procrastination, which is defined as a behavioural trait of deferring tasks for a future time (). Individuals who seek perfection when undertaking a task would often do one task at a time and reschedule other tasks that would have required them to multitask (). However, psychologists argue that deferment of tasks helps individuals to deal with anxieties that associate with completing or beginning the work. The non-perfectionists are likely to postpone tasks as opposed to perfectionist (). Employers put attention on the concept of efficiency because it reflects the attainment of goals for a particular job; however, more often they prefer employees that can maintain the concept of efficiency with the multitasking because of the preference to undertaking more than one duty at similar intervals (). However, psychologist argues that multitasking is a counterproductive process that leads to inefficiency. When individuals switch faster from one task to another is attributed as the leading cause of low performance for the specific tasks in question. Besides, it also takes a process as early reported (Rogers and Monsell, 1995). Most psychology studies that assessed the concept of multitasking scenarios, dual tasking, and task switching found that such studies did not use applied studies, which makes it difficult to connect the finding with real life situations (). Other studies are limited in their approach to use repeated tasks and the appropriate systematic analysis that helps in the presentation of concurrent tasks. Examples of multitasking were reported in the study by Saluvicci (2005), which used driving situation as the main task while dialling a cell phone in representing the secondary task. The study simulated a real perspective on multitasking. Although this study captured the aspects of multitasking the secondary task did not capture the essential aspect required in the secondary task that includes attributes like interruptible, context independent, controllable, and the ability to observe the duty unravels (). Many previous studies experienced challenges in finding a balance to avoid compromising one side of the work. The fact is that multitasking happens more often in the current world. Most people would switch between tasks without noticing because the process happens simultaneously especially in the current world that require use of technology more often. Previous study by Rogers and Monsell (1995) found that individuals are slower in task switching as opposed to repeating tasks. These concepts are common in tasks that are familiar to people and therefore they can anticipate such duties. When such individuals were given additional time between the two tasks, the study found that it did not help in the elimination of switching cost (). These researchers used the carry-over effect of the initial trials and the requirement for mental control as the description of the cost switching (). The study concluded that preparing properly did not have any significant effect in achieving the set target for improvement. On the other hand the study by Meuter and Allport (1999), which studied the response time for the naming the digits using two languages in the order of their preference depending on the background colouration. The study found that the response time in naming the digits using the first language was faster as opposed to the second language (Meuter and Allport, 1999). This study simulates a setting for the repetitive task. The researchers also found that when the languages were changed to simulate the concept of task switching, they became slower in responding to the digits. These concepts show that the efficiency of handling one task at a time leads to cost reduction as opposed to multitasking. Besides, the act of switching the tasks increases the cost because participants took a longer duration in responding to the digits (Meuter and Allport, 1999). One particular study documents interesting observation on a variety of tasks. Rubinstein et al. (2001) documented the concept of task switching using tasks like geometry and mathematics to prove its impact in losing time. However, the study by Rubinstein et al. (2001) introduces another concept of complexity in tasks as a recipe that affect performance. When there are several tasks that require depth and concentration owing to their complexity, multitasking is likely to reduce the efficiency of the individual tasks under consideration. A study by Yeung and Monsell (2003) presented a paradigm shift named prospective memory, which was a model that experimented the interaction between task switching and task dominance. The study found that when individuals remember the point of continuing with a task helped in task switching. What this study found is that individuals that had an idea of remembering the position of continuing with a duty were more successful in task switching as opposed to those who could not remember the exact point of continuation. Read More