A Multisite Study of the Effect of Fidget Spinners on Academic Performance


Fidget spinners have become popular worldwide, due not only to their popularity with children but also to the mental health claims made by those who advertise them. While a small number of previous research studies indicate that fidget spinners reduce on-task behavior, no research to date has evaluated their effect on student performance. The current study evaluated 3rd grade students to determine whether their performance on 5-min math curriculum–based measures (CBM) changed depending on whether they had access to a fidget spinner. Results indicated that student performance was lower when they were allowed to use fidget spinners than when the fidget spinner was removed. The current study suggests that fidget spinners may cause a deficit in student performance. However, the effect of fidget spinners may actually lessen as the students habituate to the objects.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1


  1. Anderson, D., Rowley, Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2010). easyCBM Mathematics Criterion Related Validity Evidence: Oregon State Test (Technical Report No. 1011). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, D., Alonzo, J., Tindal, G., Farley, D., Irving, P. S., Lai, C., & Wrat, K. A. (2013). Technical manual: easyCBM. (Technical Report No. 1408). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ayres, A. J. (1972). Improving academic scores through sensory integration. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5(6), 338–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Baumgartner, S. E., & Sumter, S. R. (2017). Dealing with media distractions: An observational study of computer-based multitasking among children and adults in the Netherlands. Journal of Children and Media, 11(3), 295–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Biel, L. (2017). Fidget toys or focus tools? The Autism File 74, 12–13. https://www.sensorysmarts.com/AADJun17.pdf.. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  6. Briesch, A. M., & Chafouleas, S. M. (2009a). Children’s Usage Rating Profile (Actual). Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Briesch, A. M., & Chafouleas, S. M. (2009b). Exploring student buy-in: Initial development of an instrument to measure likelihood of children's intervention usage. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 19(4), 321–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Carson, S., Shih, M., & Langer, E. (2001). Sit still and pay attention? Journal of Adult Development, 8(3), 183–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chen, P., Saleh, W., & Pai, C. (2017). Texting and walking: A controlled field study of crossing behaviours and inattentional blindness in Taiwan. Behaviour & Information Technology, 36(4), 432–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Economist.com (2017). The lessons of fidget spinners. Retrieved from Economist.com on September 28, 2017.

  11. Finley, J. R., Benjamin, A. S., & McCarley, J. S. (2014). Metacognition of multitasking: How well do we predict the costs of divided attention? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(2), 158–165.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fox, A. B., Rosen, J., & Crawford, M. (2009). Distractions, distractions: Does instant messaging affect college students’ performance on a concurrent reading comprehension task? Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 12(1), 51–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Graziano, P. A., Garcia, A. M., & Landis, T. D. (2018). To fidget or not to fidget, that is the question: A systematic classroom evaluation of fidget spinners among young children with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 24, 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054718770009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Greene, C. M., Murphy, G., & Januszewski, J. (2017). Under perceptual load, observers look but do not see. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 31(4), 431–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Grodner, K. (2015). To fidget or not to fidget: The effect of movement on cognition (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1728335820

  16. Harman, B. A., & Sato, T. (2011). Cell phone use and grade point average among undergraduate university students. College Student Journal, 45(3), 544–550.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hattie, J. (2015). Hattie ranking: 195 influences and effect sizes related to student achievement. Hentet, 19, 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Junco, R. (2012). In-class multitasking and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2236–2243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship between multitasking and academic performance. Computers & Education, 59(2), 505–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lepp, A., Barkley, J. E., & Karpinski, A. C. (2015). The relationship between cell phone use and academic performance in a sample of US college students. SAGE Open, 5(1), 215824401557316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Levine, J. A., Schleusner, S. J., & Jensen, M. D. (2000). Energy expenditure of nonexercise activity. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 72(6), 1451–1454. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/72.6.1451

  22. Memmert, D. (2014). Inattentional blindness to unexpected events in 8–15-year-olds. Cognitive Development, 32, 103–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nyqvist, R. (2016). Fidgeting for creativity. Unpublished master’s thesis. Lund: Lund University Retrieved from http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8888395. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  24. Pappas, S. (2017). Fidget spinners: What they are, how they work and why the controversy. Livestock Science Downloaded from Livescience.com on September 28, 2017.

  25. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Reschly, A. L., & Christenson, S. L. (2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3–19). Boston, MA: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Saven, J. L., Irvin, P. S., Park, B. J., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2013). The Development and Scaling of the easyCBM CCSS Elementary Mathematics Measures: Grade 3 (Technical Report No. 1317). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Schaaf, R. C., & Miller, L. J. (2005). Occupational therapy using a sensory integrative approach for children with developmental disabilities. Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 11(2), 143–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Schecter, R. A., Shah, J., Fruitman, K., & Milanaik, R. L. (2017). Fidgets spinners: Purported benefits, adverse effects, and accepted alternatives. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 29(5), 616–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception, 28(9), 1059–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Slater, D., & French, J. (2010). Fidget toys in the classroom: Refocusing attention. SoTL Commons Conference Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/sotlcommons/SoTL/2010/4. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  33. Stalvey, S., & Brasell, H. (2006). Using stress balls to focus the attention of sixth-grade learners. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 12(2), 7–16.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Strayer, D. L., Watson, J. M., & Drews, F. A. (2011). Cognitive distraction while multitasking in the automobile. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 54, 29–58 Academic Press.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Tornio, S. (2017). 15 fidget toys & devices to will make any classroom calmer & happier. We Are Teachers Retrieved from https://www.weareteachers.com/fidget-toys/. Accessed 17 May 2017.

  36. Woolner, P., Hall, E., Higgins, S., McCaughey, C., & Wall, K. (2007). A sound foundation? What we know about the impact of environments on learning and the implications for building schools for the future. Oxford Review of Education, 33(1), 47–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Wray, K. A., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2014). Internal Consistency of the easyCBM CCSS Math Measures Grades K-8 (Technical Report No. 1405). Eugene: Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Yang, T., Xie, W., Chen, C., Altgassen, M., Wang, Y., Cheung, E. F. C., & Chan, R. C. K. (2017). The development of multitasking in children aged 7-12 years: Evidence from cross-sectional and longitudinal data. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 161, 63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to David M. Hulac.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval and Informed Consent

All ethical procedures including the collection of informed consent performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Research Boards of the two institutions.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hulac, D.M., Aspiranti, K., Kriescher, S. et al. A Multisite Study of the Effect of Fidget Spinners on Academic Performance. Contemp School Psychol (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-020-00292-y

Download citation


  • Fidgets
  • Academic Performance
  • Curriculum based measures
  • Classwide interventions