Table of contentsAnalysis of the study: the impact of multitasking compared to monotasking on performance levelsThe influence of perception on multitasking and its role in Today's SocietyConclusion and Personal ReflectionsIn the past, the need to multitask was not as demanding as today's needs. People use their phones while running and juggling multiple things. The rise of social networks is an important factor. How can we discern if we are multitasking? Do we just think we are juggling multiple tasks? It's more likely that what's happening is switching from one task to another. What people think is multitasking is actually quite fluid. Mono-taskers are not as successful as multi-taskers, multi-tasking is a desirable trait. This is considered essential these days and most Americans believe they can multitask as well as or above their level. Previous research by Borger and Creamer in the sixties suggested that we cannot multitask, but simply switch between these activities and backtrack accordingly. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayStudy Analysis: The Impact of Multitasking Versus Single-Tasking on Performance LevelsPeople Process Things One Piece at a Time both, which insinuates that multitasking is a matter of that individual's perception. Context is key here. The article attempts to answer the impact, depending on perception, of multitasking or monotasking on performance levels. Two key elements that I have been able to identify are these are quite dependent on how difficult a task is and how difficult it should be. The more stringent demands a task requires, the more “attention money” we need to devote to a particular task. As described in the Cognitive Psychology course, attention is where we focus, where we choose to pay attention and ignore other things. I found the hypothesis that the more demanding we are, the more captivated we become interesting. The main intentions of both Study 1A and Study 1B were to present activities as multitasking or single-tasking and to record their impact on performance. 1A participants were asked to watch and commit to writing down an educational video. 1B, participants were asked to provide an overview of an online conference. The first thing (1A) was to analyze the number of words written by the participants (the multitaskers did better). They analyzed the accuracy of words relating to the video using a text matching app and surprised, surprised multitaskers who outperformed unitaskers. As a bonus, a surprise quiz was offered at the end, as expected, those who were presented with the multitasking package did much better than the single-taskers. They didn't leave out the time participants spent and noted that there wasn't a big difference when it came to subjects' persistence. Multitaskers transcribed more words per second in this section. Participants were informed that the tasks they would perform required multitasking. The researchers were trying to see the effect of their manipulation at work. 1B, participants all worked on the same task. They watched a lecture online and were asked to take notes on the topics covered in the lecture. Each participant was randomly selected for the multitasking group or thesingle-task category. The word multitasking was not actually used to describe what the participants were going to do, but it was clear that these were two separate tasks expected of them and that they had to be performed at exactly the same time. People tasked with a single task simply thought that it was essentially a task to be completed. Two individuals (coders) blind to the hypothesis determined the quality of the ratings and an average score was therefore calculated for each participant. Based on the coders' measures, the multitasking conditions had more thorough note-taking overall. They also wrote more words than the single-taskers collected. Regarding Study 2A, the main goal was to calculate perceptions regarding multitasking instead of manipulating and telling them expectations. It was designed to measure perception and helped determine whether the behaviors would have occurred regardless. This time, participants were presented with riddles. The first puzzle was a word puzzle where participants had to find as many words as they could gather. The second was an Anagram in which participants formed as many words as could be formed using a string of 10 letters. After participants completed the puzzles, they were focused on their ideas regarding the task, whether single-task or multi-task. A particular response format was used. They were paired with a partner and had to tell them how they perceived their activity. As expected, there were a pretty good amount of words and correct words among the multitaskers. The more participants felt like they were juggling multiple tasks, the better they performed in all areas. The influence of perception on multitasking and its role in today's society Regarding study 2B, the same puzzles were used in study 2A. For the multitasking category, the puzzles were presented as if they were separate studies. They were separated by lines on the screen and had a different background color. For single speakers, they were the same study and were not separated at all. The proposed manipulations took place as planned. Assigned multitaskers found more words. Multitaskers were also more persistent and lasted longer. I deduced that performance is better when we perceive an activity as multitasking. Study 3 looked at pupil dilation. It was designed to measure effort, attention and how we process incoming information. Using eye-tracking research methods, performance was measured and, as expected, multitaskers performed better on this task (same puzzles used in 2A and 2B). Apparently, people who multi-tasked had larger pupils than those who did a single task. It seemed that multitaskers found more words, but no direct connection was made describing how they were able to find more solutions compared to monotaskers. More words were found among multitasking users, their pupils were larger and showed better focus than contrasting single-unit users. Multitasking users were also more likely to switch between puzzles. Some studies used the word multitasking directly while other studies did not mention it. Some studies had a certain time limit while others could be stopped at any time. When participants were multitasking, it was difficult to determine why they were doing better and when exactly they switched from one task to another..