Media multitasking and failures of attention in everyday life
Abstract
Using a series of online self-report measures, we examine media multitasking, a particularly pervasive form of multitasking, and its relations to three aspects of everyday attention: (1) failures of attention and cognitive errors (2) mind wandering, and (3) attentional control with an emphasis on attentional switching and distractibility. We observed a positive correlation between levels of media multitasking and self-reports of attentional failures, as well as with reports of both spontaneous and deliberate mind wandering. No correlation was observed between media multitasking and self-reported memory failures, lending credence to the hypothesis that media multitasking may be specifically related to problems of inattention, rather than cognitive errors in general. Furthermore, media multitasking was not related with self-reports of difficulties in attention switching or distractibility. We offer a plausible causal structural model assessing both direct and indirect effects among media multitasking, attentional failures, mind wandering, and cognitive errors, with the heuristic goal of constraining and motivating theories of the effects of media multitasking on inattention.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Media multitasking was positively related to self-reported attentional failures and mind wandering.
“Similarly, Ralph et al. (2014) found that media multitasking was positively related to self-reports of attentional failures and mind wandering.”
From The consequences of media multitasking for youth: A review (2015) · cites this paper as Ralph et al., 2014
Media multitasking was unrelated to attentional control.
“However, media multitasking was unrelated to attentional control (Ralph et al., 2014).”
From The consequences of media multitasking for youth: A review (2015) · cites this paper as Ralph et al., 2014
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 25 · Cited by 194
- Authors
- Ralph, B. C. W., Thomson, D. R., Cheyne, J. A., & Smilek, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Waterloo (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Ralph, Brandon C. W.
- Venue
- Psychological Research
- Published
- 2013-11-01
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 661-669
- ISSN
- 0033-3026 (ISSN-L)
- 0340-0727
- 1430-2772
- OpenAlex
- W2011405471
- Cited by
- 194
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4
- FWCI
- 13.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Psychological Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Digital Media and Philosophy
- Keywords
- media multitasking, attentional failures, mind wandering, cognitive errors, attentional control, attentional shift, distractibility, inattention, memory failure
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attention, Communications Media, Female, Humans, Male, Psychomotor Performance, Young Adult, Executive Function
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
