Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 479–485 | Cite as

Supertaskers: Profiles in extraordinary multitasking ability

  • Jason M. WatsonEmail author
  • David L. StrayerEmail author
Brief Reports


Theory suggests that driving should be impaired for any motorist who is concurrently talking on a cell phone. But is everybody impaired by this dual-task combination? We tested 200 participants in a high-fidelity driving simulator in both single- and dual-task conditions. The dual task involved driving while performing a demanding auditory version of the operation span (OSPAN) task. Whereas the vast majority of participants showed significant performance decrements in dual-task conditions (compared with single-task conditions for either driving or OSPAN tasks), 2.5% of the sample showed absolutely no performance decrements with respect to performing single and dual tasks. In single-task conditions, these “supertaskers” scored in the top quartile on all dependent measures associated with driving and OSPAN tasks, and Monte Carlo simulations indicated that the frequency of supertaskers was significantly greater than chance. These individual differences help to sharpen our theoretical understanding of attention and cognitive control in naturalistic settings.


Cell Phone Work Memory Capacity Dual Task Inattention Blindness Executive Attention 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47–90). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Drews, F. A., Pasupathi, M., & Strayer, D. L. (2008). Passenger and cell-phone conversation during simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 392–400. doi:10.1037/a0013119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Glassbrenner, D. (2005). Traffic safety facts research note: Driver cell phone use in 2005—Overall results (Rep. DOT HS 809 967). Washington, DC: National Center for Statistics and Analysis, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.Google Scholar
  6. Grossberg, S. (1987). Competitive learning: From interactive activation to adaptive resonance. Cognitive Science, 11, 23–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Horswill, M., Waylen, A. E., & Tofield, M. I. (2004). Drivers' ratings of different components of their own driving skill: A greater illusion of superiority for skills that relate to accident involvement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 177–195. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02543.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Etienne, A., Ozdoba, C., Perrig, W. J., & Nirkko, A. C. (2007). On how high performers keep cool brains in situations of cognitive overload. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 75–89. doi:10.3758/CABN.7.2.75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in working memory capacity, executive attention and general fluid intelligence: An individual-differences perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 637–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Medeiros-Ward, N. J., Watson, J. M., Seegmiller, J. K., Pulst, S., & Strayer, D. L. (2010). Supertaskers: An fMRI investigation of extraordinary multitaskers. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
  12. National Safety Council (2010, January 12). NSC estimates 1.6 million crashes caused by cell phone use and texting [Press release]. Retrieved from Scholar
  13. Nationwide Insurance (2009). Customer insights: Driving while distracted—Cell phone ban. Retrieved from Scholar
  14. Navon, D. (1984). Resources—A theoretical soup stone? Psychological Review, 91, 216–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Norman, D. A., & Bobrow, D. G. (1975). On data-limited and resourcelimited processes. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 44–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ophir, E., Nass, C. I., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 15583–15587. doi:10.1073/pnas.0903620106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Parasuraman, R., & Greenwood, P. (2007). Individual differences in attention and working memory: A molecular genetic approach. In A. F. Kramer, D. A. Wiegmann, & A. Kirlik (Eds.), Attention: From theory to practice (pp. 59–72). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Pashler, H. (1992). Attentional limitations in doing two tasks at the same time. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 44–48. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep11509734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Price, J., & Davis, B. (2008). The woman who can't forget: The extraordinary story of living with the most remarkable memory known to science—A memoir. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  20. Roediger, H. L., III (1996). Memory illusions. Journal of Memory & Language, 35, 76–100. doi:10.1006/jmla.1996.0005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Strayer, D. L., & Drews, F. A. (2007). Cell-phone-induced driver distraction. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 128–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Johnston, W. A. (2003). Cell phoneinduced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 23–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Strayer, D. L., & Johnston, W. A. (2001). Driven to distraction: Dualtask studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular telephone. Psychological Science, 12, 462–466.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2004). Virtually no evidence for virtually perfect time-sharing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 30, 795–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory & Language, 28, 127–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498–505.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wallis, C. (2006, March 27). The multitasking generation. Time, 163.Google Scholar
  28. Watson, J. M., Lambert, A. E., Miller, A. E., & Strayer, D. L. (in press). The magical letters P, F, C, and sometimes U: The rise and fall of executive attention with the development of prefrontal cortex. In K. Fingerman, C. Berg, T. Antonucci, & J. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of lifespan psychology. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Wickens, C. D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII (pp. 239–257). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake City

Personalised recommendations