Multitasking as a choice: a perspective
- 900 Downloads
Performance decrements in multitasking have been explained by limitations in cognitive capacity, either modelled as static structural bottlenecks or as the scarcity of overall cognitive resources that prevent humans, or at least restrict them, from processing two tasks at the same time. However, recent research has shown that individual differences, flexible resource allocation, and prioritization of tasks cannot be fully explained by these accounts. We argue that understanding human multitasking as a choice and examining multitasking performance from the perspective of judgment and decision-making (JDM), may complement current dual-task theories. We outline two prominent theories from the area of JDM, namely Simple Heuristics and the Decision Field Theory, and adapt these theories to multitasking research. Here, we explain how computational modelling techniques and decision-making parameters used in JDM may provide a benefit to understanding multitasking costs and argue that these techniques and parameters have the potential to predict multitasking behavior in general, and also individual differences in behavior. Finally, we present the one-reason choice metaphor to explain a flexible use of limited capacity as well as changes in serial and parallel task processing. Based on this newly combined approach, we outline a concrete interdisciplinary future research program that we think will help to further develop multitasking research.
We would like to thank the Department of Performance Psychology of the German Sport University Cologne for their helpful comments.
Compliance with ethical standards
This research was funded by a Grant within the Priority Program, SPP 1772 from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG), Laura Broeker and Markus Raab were funded by Grant no.: RA 940/17-1, Roman Liepelt was funded by and LI 2115/2-1 Stefan Künzell and Harald Ewolds were funded by Grant no.: KU 1557/3-1, and Edita Poljac was supported by the Grant no.: KI 1388-/7-1.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Conscious and nonconscious information processing: Attention and performance XV (pp. 421–452). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Arrington, C. M., & Weaver, S. M. (2015). Rethinking volitional control over task choice in multitask environments: Use of a stimulus set selection strategy in voluntary task switching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(4), 664–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.961935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Baron, J. (2000). Thinking and deciding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Blumer, A., Ehrenfeucht, A., Haussler, D., & Warmuth, M. (1987, April 6). Occam’s Razor. Information Processing Letters, 24, 377–380. Retrieved from http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~hungngo/classes/2008/694/papers/occam.pdf. Accessed 16 Aug 2017
- Farmer, G. D., Janssen, C. P., Nguyen, A. T., & Brumby, D. P. (2017). Dividing attention between tasks: Testing whether explicit payoff functions elicit optimal dual- task performance. Cognitive Science. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12513.
- Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 451–482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hendrich, E. (2014). Determinants of task order in dual-task situations. Retrieved from http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/dissertationen/hendrich-elisabeth-2014-12-02/PDF/hendrich.pdf.
- Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
- Lague-Beauvais, M., Fraser, S. A., Desjardins-Crepeau, L., Castonguay, N., Desjardins, M., Lesage, F., & Bherer, L. (2015). Shedding light on the effect of priority instructions during dual-task performance in younger and older adults: A fNIRS study. Brain and Cognition, 98, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2015.05.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Leonhard, T., Fernandez, S. R., Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (2011). Dual-task processing when task 1 is hard and task 2 is easy: reversed central processing order? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 37(1), 115–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019238.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Meyer, D. E., Kieras, D. E., Allard, T., Chipman, S., Hawkins, H., Vaughan, W., & Jones, C. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms of the ONR for their encouragement and support. Helpful com- ments, suggestions, and constructive criticisms were provided. Psychological Review Gopher and Donchin, 104(1), 3–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.104.1.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Neth, H., Khemlani, S. S., Oppermann, B., & Gray, W. D. (2006). Juggling multiple tasks: A rational analysis of multitasking in a synthetic task environment. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50(11), 1142–1146. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120605001106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pashler, H. E. (2000). Task switching and multitask performance. Control of Cognitive Processes: Attention and Performance, XVIII, 277–307.Google Scholar
- Plessow, F., Schade, S., Kirschbaum, C., & Fischer, R. (2012). Better not to deal with two tasks at the same time when stressed? Acute psychosocial stress reduces task shielding in dual-task performance. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 12(3), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-012-0098-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Szameitat, A. J., Lepsien, J., Von Cramon, D. Y., Sterr, A., & Schubert, T. (2006). Task-order coordination in dual-task performance and the lateral prefrontal cortex: An event-related fMRI study. Psychological Research, 70(6), 541–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0015-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- World Health Organization (2015). Global status report on road safety 2015. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.Google Scholar