467339

nal of Marketing EducationClayson and Haley

JMDXXX10.1177/0273475312467339Jour

Article
Journal of  Marketing Education

An Introduction to Multitasking and Texting:

35(1) 26­–40
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions:

Prevalence and Impact on Grades and sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0273475312467339
jmed.sagepub.com
GPA in Marketing Classes

Dennis E. Clayson1 and Debra A. Haley2

Abstract
This exploratory study looks at the phenomena of texting in a marketing education context. It outlines the difficulties of
multitasking within two metacognitive models of learning and sets the stage for further research on the effects of texting
within class. Students in marketing classes in two different universities were surveyed. They received an average of 37 texts
per day and initiated about 16. More than 90% of the respondents reported receiving texts while in class and 86% reported
texting someone from class. Even though students believed they could follow a lecture and text at the same time, respondents
who did text within marketing classes received lower grades. Contrary to other research, texting frequency was generally
unrelated to GPA. Implications for both pedagogical issues and research in marketing education are discussed.

Keywords
technology in classroom, learning approaches and issues, marketing education issues, student motivation, academic integrity,
undergraduate education, level/type of education

The motivation for this study began with an incident in class
that has become increasingly common. One of the authors
noted that several students were looking intently down at
their laps and texting while the instructor was engaged in
what was believed to be at least an adequate lecture. The
instructor stopped and made a number of comments about
texting in class, explaining that although it was not against
the rules of the course, most professors considered it to be a
sign of disrespect for the instructor and the other students.
Furthermore, business students should be aware that texting
under these conditions would be considered unprofessional.
The students appeared to accept the information in an amia-
ble fashion, but within minutes several students had begun
texting again. They gave no indication of being defiant or
rebellious. It was as if the discussion had never taken place.
The students’ response to texting appears to be different
from past disruptive behaviors in class. Students generally
observe class rules even if they do not agree with them, but
our experience indicates that texting has become so inti-
mately associated with students that they simply text irre-
spective of circumstances and rules, and they seem to
consider it no more important to others than, after conform-
ing to a certain set of social niceties, scratching where it
itches. Indeed, a Pew Research poll in the spring of 2010
found that 90% of 18 to 29 year olds even sleep with their
cell phone (Rosman, 2010).
A brief survey of the Internet reveals that texting in class
appears to be a concern of many instructors, and a number of
approaches have been attempted to control this behavior.
Some instructors have appealed to logic and good manners
(Goodwin, 2012). Other professors have used the incentive
of grades (Syllabus 2, 2011), whereas others have resorted to
authority (Syllabus 3, 2011). Evidently, these attempts to
control texting in class have been largely ineffective
(Williams et al., 2011).
The purpose of this study is to investigate the texting phe-
nomena in marketing classes. Nothing could be found in the
literature specific to marketing education. We do not know if
texting in marketing classes or by marketing students is more
of less common than from other disciplines, or what student
characteristics are associated with texting and how texting
affects grades. We do not know how to control texting for the
benefit of students or for the advancement of marketing edu-
cation. This exploratory study looks at these issues.
Literature Review
Frequency. Surveys of young people have found that tex-
ting has become so ubiquitous that some are spending 15%
1
University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA, USA
2
Southeastern Oklahoma University, Durant, OK, USA
Corresponding Author:
Dennis E. Clayson, Department of Marketing, University of Northern
Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0126, USA.
Email: dennis.clayson@uni.edu
Clayson and Haley 27
of their total waking time engaged in the activity. Between
2006 and 2008, texting increased in America by 450%
(Drouin, 2011). Surveys have found that women text more
often than men and write longer and more complex mes-
sages. Women are also more likely to maintain normal gram-
mar and express a wider range of content (Ling & Pederson,
2005; Vecchione, 2010). There appears to be social class dif-
ferences. Heavy texters are more likely to be minority
females from lower income and less educated backgrounds
(Jancin, 2011; Lenhart, 2012). High-frequency texting
extends into the classroom. Among high school students, one
study found that despite having cell phones banned in class,
58% of students still sent text messages from these classes
(Vecchione, 2010). This is complicated by the findings that
reading and sending texts are not necessarily motivated by
the same factors (Nemme & White, 2010). A summary of the
literature findings can be found in Table 1.
Anxiety. Some researchers have begun to probe into how
the use of mobile devices affects people emotionally or
socially. Beranuy, Oberst, Carbonell, and Chamarro (2009)
reported a correlation between social media use and mental
distress, as manifested in deterioration of family and social
relationships. Surveys have found that young people like
texting because it offers unparalleled freedom to communi-
cate on their own terms, irrespective of place and time. How-
ever, this is combined with a corresponding feeling of being
trapped by the ability of others to contact them, and the lack
of freedom created by the need to respond. As Baron (2008)
notes, the ease of communication brought about by cell
phone use is a “Janus-faced technology.” A person has instant
communication, but they find themselves constantly on call
from others, and with the perceived social necessity of
always being available to communicate.
Addiction. Our experience seems to indicate that many stu-
dents appear to compulsively text as if it was an addiction.
An addiction is considered to be present when a person
becomes habitually or compulsively occupied or involved in
something. One of its important characteristics is denial. It
has been proposed that interactive media is compatible with
the basic impulse to respond to immediate opportunities and
threats. The stimulation may even create a change in the
dopamine reward system in the brain, which is indicative of
addiction, and similar to this stimulation, people feel bored
when unable to text (Richtel, 2010). It has been estimated
that 20% to 29% of teenagers and young adults feel addicted
to cell phone usage (Jancin, 2011; Konijn, Utz, Tanis, &
Barnes, 2008). In a large study of teenagers, “hypertexters”
were found to have a number of social, adjustment, and psy-
chological issues. A “hyptertexter” was defined as a student
who self-reported an average of 120 texts or more times, per
day, on school days. They comprised 20% of the sample.
Even when controlled for age, gender, race, parental educa-
tion, and household structure, “hypertexters” were more
depressed, twice as likely to have tried alcohol, more likely
to be binge drinkers, and were one third more likely to be cur-
rent users of marijuana. They were more likely to have
skipped classes and got lower grades than other students
(Jancin, 2011). In other studies, compulsive texting was
found to be positively related to aggression, and negatively
related to academic adjustment (Lister, 2010), and to be asso-
ciated with lower GPAs (Ryker, Viosca, Lawrence, & Kleen,
2011). Wang and Tchernev (2012) reported that multitasking
behavior is driven by immediate needs, but the behavior also
changes needs. The behavior can be self-reinforcing, espe-
cially with emotional needs. Ironically, multitasking is driven
primarily by cognitive needs, which “are not gratified by the
behavior” (p. 509).
As an example of the attraction of texting, a study of edu-
cation majors found that although 73% thought it was unpro-
fessional to text in class, 79% responded that they did so
anyway (Williams et al., 2011).
Metacognitive Models of Multitasking
To help understand the problems with multitasking, we
review a metacognitive model similar to one proposed by
Mayer and Moreno (2003). It is based on cognitive theory
combined with three assumptions. First, multitask learning
would require that humans possess separate systems (modali-
ties) for processing different sensory inputs. For reasons that
will be outlined later, these can be seen as pictorial and audi-
tory in nature. Second, each channel is limited in the amount
of material that can be processed at one time (limited-capacity
assumption). Third, meaningful learning involves extensive
cognitive processing, including building connections between
modalities (active-processing assumption).
The problem inherent with multitasking and learning, as
expressed by the model, is starkly rudimentary. Meaningful
learning requires substantial cognitive processing, but the
learner’s capacity for cognitive processing is severely lim-
ited (Mayer & Moreno, 2003).
Sensory modalities. Although neural imaging has suggested
a separate channel for haptic information mediated by the
frontal cortex (D’Esposito, Ballard, Zarahn, & Aguirre,
2000), the human information-processing system can be
thought of as primarily consisting of two separate channels,
an auditory/verbal channel for processing auditory input and
a visual/pictorial channel for processing visual stimuli. This
has become known as the dual-coding theory (Paivio, 1986).
Both channels are used to organize information and learning.
Initially, the two modalities are separate, but information
from each can be integrated at some point to organize mate-
rial for immediate action, or to be stored in memory. The
same process would be used when attempting to recall the
stored information.
Limited capacity. The second assumption is that each channel
has limited capacity and that bottlenecks in the flow and pro-
cessing of information can occur at specific points (Chandler &
28 Journal of  Marketing Education 35(1)

Table 1. A Review of the Literature: Frequency of Usage.

Group Sample Size Findings

Teenagers n = 800 Half of the teenagers sampled were sending 50 or more messages a day, with older teenage
girls sending an average of 100 messages daily. Fifty-eight percent of students reported that
they’ve sent text messages while in class. (Lenhart, Ling, Campbell, & Purcell, 2010)
Teenagers and n = 3,000 Teenagers were sending or receiving approximately 111 per day, or about six per every waking
young adults hour. Teenage females (age 13-17) sent and received approximately 135 per day, while male
teenagers received and sent about 85 per day.
  College-age adults (age 18-24) averaged 54 per day. The same survey found that 43% claimed
that texting was the primary reason for obtaining a cell phone.
  Voice activity had decreased 14% among teenagers even though they still averaged 646 minutes
per month talking on the phone. (Nielsenwire, 2010)
Teenagers n = 799 63% exchanged texts every day, while 6% emailed every day.
  30% texted over a 100 per day. (Lenhart, 2012)
College students n = 200 82% of students texted in their classes. (Price, 2010)
College students n = 75 81% sent or received text in class.
  40% sent or received 20 or more during each class. (Wolf & Gonder, 2007)
College students n = 805 79% admitted texting while in class. (Williams et al., 2011)
College students n = 3,866 Students averaged 97 text messages per day. (Junco & Cotton, 2012)
College students n = 4,491 Instant messaging users spent an average of 120 minutes per day actively chatting.
  93% reported activity chatting and doing homework at the same time.
  57% said it negatively affected their schoolwork. (Junco & Cotton, 2011)
College students n = 269 95% of students bring phones to class every day.
  92% text message during class time.
  10% admit they have texted during an exam on at least one occasion.
  About 3% sent exam info to another student. (Tindell & Bohlander, 2012)
College business n = 84 100% had cell phones.
students  58% used it 4 or more hours/day.
  54% use a phone during class in every class.
  82% used a phone in class at least once per day.
  77% believe that use of a phone during class seldom or never interferes with classroom
learning. (Braguglia, 2008)

Sweller, 1991; Huitt, 2003). Even though each channel is lim-
ited, meaningful learning requires a substantial amount of cog-
nitive processing to take place in both channels.
Cognitive processing and system organization. Attention,
organization, and integration occur not only within a func-
tional sequence but also within and between different neu-
ral pathways (Shinn-Cunningham, 2008). After exposure to
external stimuli, the resulting sensory codes are stored tempo-
rarily in sensory memory (Coltheart, 1980; Sperling, 1960).
Codes that are not further processed are lost (Mayer &
Moreno, 2003). Information, if it passes an attentional filter,
can then be processed in working memory and consolidated
into long-term memory. These systems are not entirely ana-
tomically distinct but represent a continuum whose functions
appear to be mediated by different neural pathways with the
prefrontal cortical lobes acting as the executor. The type of
input (either externally or internally) and the level of cortical
hierarchy that the inputs target determine whether initial pro-
cessing supports purely sensory or semantic short-term mem-
ory or attentional functions (Jääskeläinena et al., 2011).
Evidence suggests that there may be a certain amount of com-
petition between memory systems and a fundamental differ-
ence in their ability to handle distraction (Foerde, Knowlton,
& Poldrack, 2006).
Learners live in a busy world and are bombarded by far
more perceptual information than can be effectively pro-
cessed (Chun, Golomb, & Turk-Browne, 2011). Consequently,
an attentional mechanism, sometimes referred to as percep-
tual defense (a term that appears to be presently out of favor)
or perceptual vigilance, determines if material is processed
further. Defense and vigilance have little to do with Freudian
definitions; instead, their significance lies primarily in the
fact that they provide valuable clues about how the mind is
functionally organized (Mathews, 1997). Both behavioral
studies and cognitive neuroscience conclude that there is not
a unitary model of attention. In fact, while some attentional
processes are mechanical, some are initiated by prior expe-
rience, and higher cortical functions. For example, early
studies showed that anxiety-increasing stimuli increases
perceptual defense, whereas anxiety-reducing information
Clayson and Haley 29
helps create vigilance (Dulany, 1957). Ironically, the very pro-
cess of attention limits the system’s capacity. Vigilance requires
hard mental work and is stressful (Warm, Parasuraman, &
Matthews, 2008). An example can illustrate this point. Visual
spatial attention operates much like a “spotlight,” which inhib-
its attended locations and items. If attention is directed to one
location and then redirected to a new location, processing of
the original location is inhibited (Mayer & Moreno, 2003).
There is also an internal attention that includes cognitive con-
trol, which has independent capacities from external attention
(Corbetta, Patel, & Shulman, 2008).
The primary work engine of cognitive processing is work-
ing or short-term memory. It is a complicated system respon-
sible for performing a number of tasks. Baddeley (1992)
postulated that working memory is composed of three “sub-
components,” a central executive that is an attentional-
controlling system, a “visuospatial sketch pad,” and a
phonological loop. This has implications for three levels or
types of processing proposed by Mayer and Moreno. The first,
essential processing, refers to cognitive processes that are
required for making sense of the presented material. Consider
a YouTube video shown in class. There is a spoken narrative,
pictures, and perhaps music. At the same time, the student
must hold the context of the presentation in mind, not only as
to subject matter but also to external factors that could include
prior knowledge of the subject and the behavior and intentions
of the instructor. All this would require using a great deal of
cognitive capacity in selecting, organizing, and integrating
both auditory and visual information. However, other things
are happening at the same time; the student may be hungry or
another student is trying to get her attention. These require
incidental processing, which refers to cognitive processes that
are not required for making sense of the primary YouTube pre-
sentation. Because cognitive processes take time, all this
material must be held in working memory long enough to be
consolidated, given meaning, and stored, a process called rep-
resentational holding.
This is complicated by the basic fact that the memory sys-
tem’s capacity is severely restricted. Early studies indicated
that working memory is limited to around seven elements,
irrespective of whether the elements were digits, letters,
words, or other pieces of information (Miller, 1956). Later
research has modified this limit, but only slightly (Cowan,
2001). Yet capacity is essential for learning. It is thought that
most information must enter working memory before it can
be stored into long-term memory. Consequently, the larger
the capacity of working memory for certain stimuli, the faster
these materials can be learned (Nikolić & Singer, 2007).
Strong sensory input can “capture” attention. The ability to
override that capture differs between individuals and this dif-
ference is closely related to their working memory capacity. If
the capture is not overridden, then part of the capacity of short-
term memory is then allocated to the storage of captured infor-
mation that cannot then be used in other ways. Although
sensory modalities can operate separately, interference
between modalities appears to occur at the more central stages
of information processing (Chun, Golomb, & Turk-Browne,
2011). Or more simply, low attention equals low working
memory, which can lead to restricted long-term memory
(Fukuda & Vogel, 2009). Attention then not only helps deter-
mine which information is encoded into long-term memory
but also how it is retrieved (Chun & Turk-Browne, 2007).
Even after filtering, multiple perceptual tasks may be
accepted into working memory at the same time. One will
typically be strongly attended and the others will not. Lavie’s
(2005) load theory maintains that the amount of capacity that
is allocated to the attended task is dependent on how difficult
it is to process the task. If the attended target task is easy, then
excess resources will be used to process distractors. If the
attended task is difficult, then more capacity becomes cen-
tered on this stimuli or task, and distractors become less well
processed. Concentration on a task increases the system’s
load and attending distractors will undergo less processing,
which results in less cognitive interference (Lavie, 1995).
Increased working memory load that is not specific, however,
increases interference from distractors (de Fockert, Rees,
Frith, & Lavie, 2001).
Attention, limited channels, and the interactions between
channels can cause what has been referred to as a processing
bottleneck, which can slow the process down somewhat like a
construction project on a busy freeway. This can be seen from
common examples in simple behaviors such as the ability to
change both perceptual and behavioral focus when a stop sig-
nal suddenly appears (Boucher, Palmeri, Logan, & Schall,
2007), or in automated tasks such as Stroop interference, when
naming the color of a word is slowed by the difficulty of sup-
pressing the written word when it is the name of a different
color. When asked to make two simple responses or choices in
succession, the ability to execute the second response is
delayed when it appears within half a second of the first. This
delay is known as the psychological refractory period. The
duration of this delay, as a function of the timing between the
first and second task, reveals a central “bottleneck” (Pashler,
1994). Furthermore, respondents are slower to switch from
one kind of task to a different task, as compared with simply
repeating the same task (Rogers & Monsell, 1995). Different
brain circuits are in operation when observers need to redirect
to a previously unattended location.
Response and task selection require inhibition of compet-
ing options. The source of this inhibition can be traced to the
prefrontal cortex, which controls functions associated with
future planning, reward, attention, short-term memory tasks,
and motivation (Aron, Robbins, & Poldrack, 2004; Junco &
Cotton, 2011). In an interesting study using brain imaging,
both the right and left frontal lobes were shown to have the
capacity of driving tasks separately from each other. In other
words, two functions could be processed simultaneously, but
seemingly, only two and no more (Koechlin, 2010). There is
also a temporal limit in the flexibility of auditory attention
(Koch, Lawo, Fels, & Vorlander, 2011). Their findings
30 Journal of  Marketing Education 35(1)
suggest that auditory switches incur additional interference
that needs extra time to be resolved for performing a task.
In addition, cognitive capacity influences how much can
be drawn out of long-term memory. If there is a competition
for capacity, the process of retrieving one item increases the
likelihood of later forgetting other associated information
(Corbetta et al., 2008).
Effect on Multitasking
As indicated by this review, chronic multitasking should hin-
der mental fluidity (Richtel, 2010), and given that capacity is
mostly innate, practice should not increase the basic ability to
override the negative consequences. This has generally been
found in the literature. Ophir, Nass, and Wagner (2009) com-
pared heavy and light media multitaskers. They found that
heavy media multitaskers were more susceptible to interfer-
ence from irrelevant stimuli and memories, and also per-
formed worse on a test of task-switching ability because of
reduced ability to filter out interference from the irrelevant
tasks. These findings suggest that those engaged the most in
texting while in class should be less mentally flexible than
the nontexters. Another study found that even if distraction
does not decrease the overall level of learning, it can result in
learning that can be less flexible in new situations (Foerde
et al., 2006). In addition, multitaskers scored lower on mem-
ory tasks, the ability to filter out irrelevant information, and
the ability to organize their memories (Gorlick, 2009).
In another experiment using recall memory, a high texting
group scored significantly lower than a group that texted less
often. As an interesting sidelight, the researchers noted that
they were required to modify their study conditions because
students continued to text even when they were in experi-
ment groups that banned texting (Rosen, Lim, Carrier, &
Cheever, 2011). Other experimental findings with students
suggest that cognitive load plays an important role in deter-
mining how much information is retained when students per-
form more than one task at a time (Lee, Lina, & Robertson,
2012). Since much of texting consists of abbreviations and
symbols that are meant to represent more commonly known
symbols (i.e., written language), one group of researchers
(Ryker et al., 2011) hypothesized that heavy texting would
be associated with increased ability to use mnemonics.
Instead, they found the opposite; there was a negative rela-
tionship between texting and the ability to use mnemonics in
a learning task. In an experiment with accounting students,
the texting experimental group had significantly lower scores
on a subsequent exam than did nontexters. This was true irre-
spective of gender or GPA (Ellis, Daniels, & Jauregui, 2110).
Not all findings are negative. It has been found that mul-
titasking did increase the ability of students to look at the
breadth of information under conditions of low load interfer-
ence (Lui & Wong, 2012). Another study found a positive
association between the frequency of texting on spelling and
reading fluency, but a negative association between the use
of “textese” (the abbreviations common in SMS) and reading
accuracy (Drouin, 2011).
Given the cognitive and physiological evidence, multi-
tasking should hinder active or deep learning.
Motivation and Self-Regulation Models
Many of the tenets of those advocating motivational and
self-regulatory models of learning are compatible with the
multitasking learning model and would come to the same
negative expectation of multitasking.
More than 50 years ago, a group led by Benjamin Bloom
(1956) identified three domains of learning, two of which are
cognitive (knowledge) and affective (attitude). These ideas
led to a merging of psychology and educational theories that
are very compatible with modern cognitive and metacogni-
tive theory. Palincsar and Brown (1984) maintained that the
origins or interpretation of motivation are governed by the
basic principles of cognitive psychology, which “should be
conceived in information-processing terms.” Motivation, in
turn, plays a major role in self-regulated learning, in that it
helps the learner stay centered on reaching learning goals
while avoiding distraction.
A self-regulated student, according to Zimmerman (1990),
approaches educational tasks, “with confidence, diligence,
and resourcefulness.” Unlike passive students, self-regulated
students proactively seek out information and take action to
master it. They “view learning as a systematic and control-
lable process, and accept responsibility for their achieve-
ment outcomes” (p. 04). It has been estimated that at least
100 hours of learning and practice is required to acquire any
significant cognitive skill to a reasonable degree of profi-
ciency (Anderson, 1982). That requires effort and vigilance
and self-regulated motivation. It is assumed by most theorists
that students’ efforts to self-regulate their academic learning
often require additional cognitive load, including preparation
time, vigilance, and effort (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001).
The origin of that effort appears to be internal. Young (2005)
showed that with marketing classes, “superficial learning
strategies” were linked to extrinsic motivation, whereas
intrinsic motivation was related to use of cognitive and meta-
cognitive strategies. A recent study (Wei, Wang, & Klausner,
2012) found that self-regulated learners tend to block out dis-
tractors in a learning environment, including texting while
believing that they had learned more, and that college stu-
dents who possess a high level of self-regulation are “less
likely to text during class and are more likely to sustain their
attention to classroom learning” (p. 198).
Research Questions
Some have affirmed that true multitasking is not only diffi-
cult but also may be impossible. Medina (2009) maintains
that people cannot multitask because we are biologically
incapable of it. Psychiatrist Edward M. Hallowell (2007) has
Clayson and Haley 31
described multitasking as a “mythical activity” in which
people believe they can perform two or more tasks simulta-
neously as effectively as one.
Our own observations and the literature have raised a
number of issues and questions, which need a basic under-
standing of texting behavior to be fully resolved. The cogni-
tive model and theoretical base strongly suggests that
extensive texting within a class should inhibit learning,
which may be reflected in grades. We have no foundation in
marketing education to advance a study of the effects of tex-
ting until we know more about its frequency and what stu-
dent characteristics are associated with texting and its
frequency. Consequently, this exploratory survey was
designed as a starting point for further research and peda-
gogical investigation of texting in marketing education by
addressing three basic questions:
1. Research Question 1: What is the frequency of tex-
ting by marketing students, and within marketing
classes?
2. Research Question 2: What student demographics
are related to texting frequency?
3. Research Question 3: Does texting behavior influ-
ence grades given in marketing classes?
Methodology
Data were gathered during the spring and summer terms of
both 2011 and 2012 at two different universities that repre-
sent similar student backgrounds, but with different cultural
origins within the United States. Respondents in Region 1
were students in an AACSB-accredited business program in
the upper Midwest. To look at texting in different types of
marketing classes, students filled out a questionnaire about
texting and their texting habits for minimal class credit in
four semester sections of Consumer Behavior, one summer
session of Consumer Behavior, and two sections of Principles
of Marketing, both a day and a night class. Respondents in
Region 2 were also students in an AACSB-accredited busi-
ness program, but in a smaller university in the Southwest
region that has been characterized as the American Bible
Belt. Students in three sections of Principles, one section of
Marketing Promotion, and a section of Contemporary Issues
in Marketing completed the same questionnaire for minimal
credit. Three sections were taught online and one was con-
ducted during the summer term. The surveys in all cases
were administered at the end of each term.
The total sample size was 307. Nine surveys were
removed before analysis because of illogical and/or con-
tradictory responses, which resulted in a usable data base
from 298 individuals. Since this was an exploratory study, the
survey instrument was designed to cover a wide range of
behaviors and attitudes related to texting. (The questionnaire
is available from the first author on request.)
For each student, the grade received in the class was
recorded as a percentage of total points available for the
course. Students volunteered to be in the study and grades
were matched to other student data either by an instructor who
was authorized to handle grades, or in the case of combining
data sets from the two regions, by a person who could not
identify individual students by their data.
Consistent with the literature on texting and multitasking,
two variables were created: a measure of general attitudes
toward texting and anxiety resulting from texting (Wang &
Tchernev, 2012). Each variable was first identified as factors
with a factor analysis and then selected variables were aver-
aged to create two summary factors. The details can be found
in Table 4.
Validity Implications
A type of convergent validity can be established by looking
at the responses that can be compared with known statistics
or with relationships that should logically exist. Women
comprised a 5-year average of 53% of the graduating class
of marketing students in Region 1 and slightly more than
50% in Region 2. The respondents in this survey were 53%
female. The average GPA of the institutions was approxi-
mately 3.06 compared with the respondents’ self-reported
average of 3.12. Women receive higher grades than men,
and the women’s self-reported GPA in the study was signifi-
cantly higher than the men’s self-report, female = 3.20, male
= 3.02, t(291) = 3.47, p = .001. The students were asked how
motivated they were to get good grades. This measure was
significantly associated with reported GPA, r = 0.45, t(287)
= 8.54, p < .001, with the expected grade in the class, r =
0.34, t(291) = 6.16, p < .001, and with motivation to be suc-
cessful, r = 0.29, t(292) = 5.14, p < .001.
As will be indicated in the subsequent discussion, fre-
quency of texting under different conditions was found to be
similar to those reported in the literature.
Results
Summary of Findings
A summary of the findings can be found in Table 2. Only 2%
of the students had not texted someone during the term of
the class, a group too small to make any meaningful statisti-
cal comparisons between texters and nontexters. The mean
number of texts received per day was 37 and students initi-
ated slightly fewer than 16. Of particular interest in this
study was the finding that 94% of all respondents received
texts while in a class, and 86% texted while in class. Using
the data from Table 1, the weighted average of college tex-
ting in prior studies was found to be 82%, which was very
close to the value found in this study (86% of the students
who do text, and 84% if nontexters are included).
32 Journal of  Marketing Education 35(1)

Table 2. Summary and Highlights of Findings (N = 298).

Respondents came from seven marketing classes
Region 1 n = 188 (63%) Region 2 n = 110
2011 Sample n = 176 (59%) 2012 Sample n = 122
Female n = 159 (53%) Male n = 139
Marketing n = 100 (34%) Nonmarketing n = 198
Age Mean = 23.3 (Sx = 5.5) Median = 22.0
GPA Mean = 3.12 (Sx = 0.4) Median = 3.10
98% Percentage of students who texted someone during the term of class.
  37.3 Average number of texts received per day.
  25.0 Median number
  15.5 Average number of texts initiated by respondent per day.
  5.0 Median number
94% Percentage of students who report receiving texts while in class.
  2.9 Average number of texts received in class.
  2.0 Median number
  0.9 Average number of texts received sent by someone in class.
  0.2 Median number (one in five classes)
86% Percentage of students who texted someone while in class.
  2.6 Average number of texts sent while in class.
  1.0 Median number
  1.0 Average number of texts sent while in class to others in a class.
  0.3 Median number
  Reason for texting while in class (percentage selecting):
  27% It was an emergency.
  33% I was concerned about someone.
  64% I just wanted to communicate.
  48% I was bored . . . helped pass the time, etc.
  20% Other
72% Percentage of those who texted someone while in this class.
  1.2 Average number of texts initiated while in current class.
  1.0 Median number
  Reason for texting while in current class (percentage selecting):
  16% It was an emergency.
  31% I was concerned about someone.
  55% I just wanted to communicate.
  22% I was bored . . . helped pass the time, etc.
  27% Other
56% Percentage of students reporting having a class this term in which an instructor banned texting.
  49% Percentage of students who say they texted anyway.
  53% Respondent’s estimate of percent of students who texted.
6% Percentage who say they personally know someone who used texting to cheat in a class.
16% Respondents’ estimate of the percent of students using texting to cheat.
Beliefs and attitudes toward texting
  I can text and follow a lecture at the same time.
  47% Percentage of students who agree (4 and 5)
  32% Percentage of students who disagree (1 and 2)
  It is unreasonable to ban texting during a class.
  36% Percentage of students who agree
  42% Percentage of students who disagree
  I feel addicted to texting.
  11% Percentage of students who agree
  75% Percentage of students who disagree
  I get uneasy if I receive a text that I don’t answer for at least an hour.
  24% Percentage of students who agree
  60% Percentage of students who disagree
  Texting during classes does not influence my grade on exams and quizzes one way or the other.
  47% Percentage of students who agree
  29% Percentage of students who disagree
  I can text without the instructor ever knowing.
  32% Percentage of students who agree
  32% Percentage of students who disagree
  I feel bad if I don’t receive a text in an entire hour.
  5% Percentage of students who agree
  91% Percentage of students who disagree
  I don’t think I should text during a class.
  61% Percentage of students who agree
  15% Percentage of students who disagree
Clayson and Haley 33

Table 3. Texting Associations.

Testing Variablea Grade GPA Age Genderb Marketing

Texts received/day −.150* .061 −.325** −.064 .107
Texts initiated/day −.096 −.004 −.126* .006 .100
Texts received/class −.058 −.005 −.198** .026 .104
Texts received/class from a class −.033 .080 −.252** .136* .074
Initiated in class/per class −.120 −.033 −.140* −.087 .060
Initiated in class/per class to class −.049 .057 −.263** .088 .023
Initiated in this class/per class −.069 −.056 −.136* −.018 .055
Texting attitude −.137* −.025 −.406** .157** .124*
Texting anxiety −.148* .025 −.202** −.050 .110
a. Because of high variability and outliers, a log10 transformation was used for texting frequency.
b. Gender (0 = female; male = 1) and Marketing Student (0 = other; 1 = marketing); associations are point biserial.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 4. Means of Study Variables by Texting Decisions.

Class factors of texting attitude: Cronbach’s α = .73
I can text and follow a lecture at the same time.
It is unreasonable to ban texting during a class.
Texting during classes does not influence my grade on exams and quizzes.
I can text without the instructor ever knowing.
(−) I don’t think I should text during class.
Texting anxiety: Cronbach’s α = .67
I feel addicted to texting.
I get uneasy if I receive a text that I don’t answer for at least an hour.
I feel bad if I don’t receive a text for an entire hour.
  Answer  

  Yes No  

Question Mean SD n Mean SD n ta p

Have you received text messages while in a class?
  Class Grade 0.80 0.09 271 0.87 0.08 17 2.26 .008
 GPA 3.10 0.44 269 3.34 0.44 17 2.16 .032
  Texting Attitude 2.99 0.83 266 2.14 0.79 17 4.07 .000
  Texting Anxiety 2.45 0.84 266 1.41 0.64 17 3.55 .000
Have you texted someone while you were in a class?
  Class Grade 0.80 0.09 249 0.83 0.10 40 1.90 .059
 GPA 3.10 0.44 247 3.17 0.48 40 0.85 .394
  Texting Attitude 3.08 0.78 243 2.07 0.78 41 7.71 .000
  Texting Anxiety 2.51 0.83 245 1.76 0.68 41 5.44 .000
Have you texted someone from this class this semester?
  Class Grade 0.80 0.09 185 0.83 0.09 71 2.37 .019
 GPA 3.07 0.45 189 3.14 0.43 74 1.12 .264
  Texting Attitude 3.11 0.76 181 2.89 0.88 70 2.03 .043
  Texting Anxiety 2.58 0.82 183 2.26 0.81 70 2.85 .005
a. For n < 20, unequal sample size and “variance assumed” mode utilized for t-value.

Note that 72% of the students reported texting in the mar- of the nonmarketing majors indicated that they had texted. The
keting classes evaluated, and they indicated that they sent a difference was not significant at the .05 level (χ2 = 2.52, df = 1,
mean of 1.2 messages per class. Seventy-seven percent of the p = .133). The top quartile of student texters in these marketing
marketing majors reported texting in this class, whereas 69% classes sent a mean of 4.2 texts per class (see Table 5).
34 Journal of  Marketing Education 35(1)

Table 5. Class Grade by Texting Magnitude (Approximate Quartiles).

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Texting Condition Mean (Sx) n Mean (Sx) n Mean (Sx) n Mean (Sx) n

How many texts do you receive on an average day?

  Received per day 7.6 (2.9) 81 19.1 (3.8) 76 40.2 (9.0) 82 106.0 (40.8) 52
  Class grade 0.84 (0.10) 79 0.80 (0.10) 76 0.80 (0.08) 82 0.78 (0.08) 51
  F(3, 270) = 3.81, p = .011a
How many texts do you initiate on an average day?
  Sent per day 2.4 (0.7) 71 4.8 (0.4) 71 12.9 (4.6) 89 52.6 (32.6) 54
  Class grade 0.82 (0.09) 74 0.80 (0.10) 70 0.81 (0.10) 89 0.79 (0.08) 54
  F(3, 269) = 1.46, p = .227
On average, how many texts do you receive while in class?
  Received in classes 0.4 (0.1) 90 1.5 (0.5) 90 3.0 (0.9) 34 8.6 (5.9) 63
  Class grade 0.81 (0.10) 88 0.80 (0.09) 90 0.81 (0.08) 32 0.80 (0.09) 63
  F(3, 256) = 0.58, p = .628
On average, how many texts do you send while in a class?
  Sent from class 0.2 (0.1) 69 0.7 (0.3) 62 2.4 (0.5) 68 8.7 (6.2) 49
  Class grade 0.81 (0.09) 69 0.81 (0.10) 61 0.80 (0.09) 67 0.79 (0.08) 49
  F(3, 230) = 1.41, p = .241
On average, how many texts have you sent per day from this class this semester?
  Sent from this class 0.0 116 0.2 (0.1) 39 0.6 (0.2) 68 4.2 (2.6) 73
  Class grade 0.82 (0.10) 116 0.82 (0.10) 39 0.80 (0.10) 68 0.79 (0.09) 73
  F(3, 277) = 3.51, p = .010

a. Grade controlled by GPA, Number of missed classes, and Region.

The majority of students denied being compulsive about
texting. Only 32% doubted that they could text and follow a
lecture at the same time, and only 29% thought that texting
would influence their grades, but almost half (42%) thought it
was reasonable to ban texting in class. There were no signifi-
cant differences between marketing students and nonmarket-
ing students except for their perception that they could text
without the instructor’s knowledge. Marketing students were
more likely to agree (marketing majors, 40% agreed; non-
marketing majors, 27% agreed; z = 2.26, p = .012).
First-order associations. The first-order associations and cor-
relations between texting magnitudes are given in Table 3.
The magnitude measures of texting are all negatively associ-
ated with the class grade. Assuming that the associations are
indeed random between frequency of texting and the class
grade, and assuming rounding errors, there are two possible
outcomes of the correlation (+ and −); a conservative sign test
indicates a significant deviation from random (z = 2.67, p =
.004). The general attitude about texting, the anxiety associ-
ated with texting, and the number of texts received per day
were all negatively related to the class grade. Older students
texted less, but GPA, gender, and being a marketing major
had no consistent pattern of associations with the frequency
of texting.
Effects of decisions to text. The magnitude differences of
the study’s variables by the dichotomous choice to text or not
to text are given in Table 4. Although the difference was
small, texting in the marketing class resulted in a significant
difference in every variable, except GPA. Although GPA was
higher for students who did not text in classes, the difference
did not generally reach the level of statistical significance.
The average grade of those who texted was equivalent to a
high C or low B (0.80), whereas the average grade for stu-
dent who did not text was a B (0.83).
Magnitude effects of texting. The last analysis sought to con-
trol for secondary variables and obtain a measure of the effect
of the magnitude of texting on the class grade. Since the vari-
ance of the frequency of texting was large, the magnitude
scale was reduced to an ordinal quartile scale. The nature of
the texting frequency did not always allow for exactly 25% of
all subjects to be in each quartile. In such cases, the quartile
breakdown was done as closely as the data would allow. The
quartiles were then used in a 4 × 2 analysis of covariance with
GPA and the number of missed classes used as covariant
terms, while Region was used as a co-factor. Preliminary
analysis indicated that the regional differences between the
two universities created the largest uncontrolled variance in
the relationship between texting magnitude and class grade.
In this case, controlling for Region also controls for an
instructor effect. The relationship between texting, missing
class, and grades is potentially complex. All could be related
to motivation or to other variables that could influence perfor-
mance including boredom. Furthermore, although the fre-
quency of missed classes might increase due to the same
variables that could influence an increased frequency of tex-
ting, increased frequency of missed classes could decrease
the effect of texting, or at least reduce the opportunity for
texting to influence grades. Consequently, the number of
missed classes was added as a covariant term to control for
these potential effects. Using Type III sum of squares, the
Clayson and Haley 35
resultant probability levels are equivalent to that which would
be found in a linear regression. This method, however, has the
advantage of removing the interaction variance between
magnitude quartiles and Region. The results are shown in
Table 5. Removing differences in GPA, missed classes,
Region, and instructors, the number of texts received per day
significantly affected the class grade as did the number of
texts sent from the marketing class. The more text messages
sent and received, the lower the class grade.
Response to Research Questions
What is the frequency of texting by marketing students, and
within marketing classes?. Almost all the students (94%)
reported receiving text messages while in class during the
term, and 86% said they had texted from a class. In the mar-
keting classes surveyed, 72% of the students indicated that
they had texted while in class and sent an average of 1.2 texts
per class (median = 1). Twenty-five percent of the students
had sent four or more texts per class, and 9% reported send-
ing five or more per class. There were no significant differ-
ences between marketing majors and nonmarketing majors.
Only 32% of the students believed that they could not text
and follow a lecture at the same time, and only 29% thought
that texting during class would influence their grades. Yet
42% believed that texting should be banned in classes com-
pared with 36% who thought that it ought not to be banned.
Over half (56%) of the respondents indicated that they
had a current class in which texting was banned, but 49% of
the students said they continued to text in that class irrespec-
tive of the ban.
What student demographics are related to texting frequency? .
Texting was unrelated to the students’ gender and generally to
GPA. Marketing majors reported higher frequency of texting
in all situations, but none of these differences reached the tra-
ditional level of significance except that marketing majors
had an overall more positive attitude toward texting than
other students, t(288) = 2.12, p = .035. The upper Midwest
students did report receiving more texts in general than did the
students from the Southwest, but there were no other signifi-
cant differences in the frequency of texting between the two
regions. Although the frequency of texting was higher in regu-
lar day classes, there were no significant texting frequency dif-
ferences between class types (day, night, summer, online).
Texting frequency was related to the students’ attitude toward
texting and texting anxiety. The most frequently stated reason
for texting was a desire to communicate followed by concern
about someone, and then boredom with the class. Given the
diversity of region, class types, gender, and major, the consis-
tency of texting frequency is remarkable.
Does texting behavior influence grades given in marketing
classes?. Students who received the most texts in a day did
more poorly in the class monitored. Although the first-order
association between the number of texts sent during the class
measured and the class grade was not significant, r = −0.069,
t(293) = 1.18, p = .119, the quartile ordinal difference in
grade by the number of texts sent was significantly different
even when controlled for GPA, missed classes, and Region
(see Table 5). The choice to text or not to text in the class also
resulted in a significant difference in class grade.
Limitations
The surveys were conducted in only two universities; find-
ings in other settings may find more or less of the effects
reported here. It is possible that the students’ reports may be
unique and not representative of other groups of students in
marketing classes in other regions. However, the frequency
of texting found here is consistent with samples taken from
other sources.
There was no convincing relationship found in this study
between texting and GPA that was reported in a number of
other studies. There are several possibilities related to this
finding for external validity.
1. It could be that the survey is correct. For those in
marketing classes, texting is unrelated to GPA.
2. The sample may be uniquely different on this vari-
able from other populations even though it was
consistent on other variables that could be com-
pared.
3. The students surveyed could have less variability
on aspects related to GPA than normal. Faculty
have commented at both institutions that the stu-
dents are remarkably homogeneous in terms of
student-related performance.
4. The GPA may reflect a lowering of faculty expec-
tations corresponding to the students’ adoption of
social media. For example, misspelling and incor-
rect punctuation may be accepted without modifi-
cation because an assignment was submitted as a
text.
Only further research can resolve the GPA discrepancy
found in this study.
There were extreme differences in frequency found in the
surveys. When asked how many texts they received per day,
the reports ranged from 1 to 300. The frequencies chosen most
often were 10, followed by 50, then 20 and 25. Obviously, the
students were estimating. Attempts were made in the analysis
to alleviate problems this could create. The data were trans-
formed to a logarithmic scale to measure associations and was
reduced to quartiles for further analysis.
Another potential problem was the measurement of the
class grade. The variable was simply the percentage of the
total. Although this did control for differences in letter
grades, it did not look exclusively at material that was pre-
sented only in class, which may have been disrupted by
36 Journal of  Marketing Education 35(1)
texting. In addition, the nature of this exploratory study does
not allow for a causal interpretation of the findings. It only
showed that in this combination of marketing classes (both lec-
ture and online, both night and day, and both traditional and
summer classes), there was a relationship between grades and
texting. It further showed little demographic differences in tex-
ting frequency or consequences.
Implications
This study found several inconsistencies that may have some
bearing on pedagogy. The students empathically deny that
they are addicted to texting or suffer from texting anxiety.
Yet almost all the students texted someone while in class,
and the average number of texts received in a class is statis-
tically identical to the number of texts sent while in that
class. Furthermore, even though the majority of students
agreed that they should not text in class, about half did so
anyway. In addition, only a minority of the students gave a
reason for texting that had to do with emergencies or imme-
diate concerns for others. Some of the given reasons for
texting were remarkably trivial, such as the student who
remarked that he or she texted in class because “something
funny happened,” or statements that seem to suggest that
other events in the students’ lives are more important than
anything that is happening in class. These findings are not
isolated and are very consistent with other surveys (Williams
et al., 2011).
Of particular interest was the finding related to GPA.
Even though texting was negatively associated with the
grade in the respondents’ class, it had no effect on overall
GPA. Perhaps it is true that the students’ perception that
they can text and follow a lecture at the same time is accu-
rate. With grade inflation, opportunities to obtain points
with out-of-class assignments, and the practice of many
instructors to make notes available, being distracted in class
may not be that much of a problem. In the study reviewed
above (Williams et al., 2011), students made comments
such as: “I am not learning anyway” (p. 54) and “most of the
time I text because I’m bored, so I was not learning to begin
with” (p. 55). One student bluntly offered a suggestion, “For
me, I only text when I am bored, so if the teacher sees that
maybe they can change their teaching styles” (p. 55).
Solutions
With transformations in culture and technology, the norms
within modern classrooms have changed as well. It was once
common practice, for example, to have dress codes at many
institutions, and food or drink was emphatically banned. As
culture changed, the classroom became more informal. With
the advent of instant communication, perhaps the classroom
is now becoming more technologically informal. However,
the metacognitive literature offers strong evidence that
texting should hinder learning, which is reinforced by
research and suggested by the finding of this study that the
decision to text in class is negatively related to the class
grade. Yet our results and the literature seem to suggest that
texting in class cannot be successfully banned using tradi-
tional constraints. This leaves a limited number of options
for instructors. They could:
1. Accept texting in class as another manifestation
of modern culture, much the same way that bring-
ing drinks and perhaps food into class has become
widespread.
2. Incorporate texting as part of the learning experi-
ence. According to Tucker (2006), members of the
Millennial cohort share a number of characteristics
that influence their approach to learning and that
makes them distinct from other generations. They
tend to exhibit strong bonds with their parents and
are used to being indulged and consulted on mat-
ters important to them. They are constantly con-
nected to social and information sources and feel
that they are proficient in multitasking. It may be
that this cohort should be approached by incorpo-
rating texting as another venue for student learning.
A number of sources have recommended this (Man-
dernach, 2010; Ruby & Ruby 2011; Vecchione,
2010), including a number of reports from Europe
(i.e., Moustakas, 2011). Some have even recom-
mended software that allows texting to be shared
by an entire class (Staino, 2010). A concern, how-
ever, and a common theme in these articles, is the
lack of reported outcomes. It appears that there has
not been enough research conducted to ascertain the
effects of incorporating texting on student learning
and performance.
3. Appropriately increase the cognitive load in the
classroom. Given the research on multitasking and
brain function, the real question is not whether
texting in class lowers academic performance, but
why does a class not produce enough cognitive
load that texting would disrupt it?
As Bacon and Stewart (2006) suggest, sacrifice breadth
for depth. Part of this is teaching the student how to learn and
what it “feels” like to learn. This requires student–faculty
contact, active rather than passive learning, prompt feed-
back, and the communication of expectations that are con-
stantly reinforced (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). Instead of
simply banning texting, students could be taught about the
professional expectations of texting and advantages of com-
pliance. All theories of self-regulation assume that students
interpret learning outcomes as having tangible or intangi-
ble personal implications (Zimmerman, 1990). The prob-
lems with texting in a professional context would need to
Clayson and Haley 37
be taught and constantly reemphasized and rewarded. The
importance of consistency and persistence is pointed out by
Appleton-Knapp and Krentler (2006), when they reminded
us that “the best learning strategies are often the least liked
by students” (p. 262) and that self-regulation is situation spe-
cific (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001).
Research has shown that marketing students will respond
to appropriate calls for cognitive engagement. They are
capable and willing to choose their level of engagement
based on their underlying educational goals (Taylor, Hunter,
Melton, & Goodwin, 2011). Students who are intrinsically
motivated will use more deep cognitive and metacognitive
strategies while learning than students with extrinsic motiva-
tion. When students feel competent and in control of their
learning performance, they are more likely to select cogni-
tive strategies that engender deep learning and cognitive
load. Young (2005) suggests that
active application-oriented learning experiences deliv-
ered by enthusiastic faculty members who provide
high personal interaction, along with supportive feed-
back, clear goals, and expectations emphasizing learn-
ing over grades will increase intrinsic motivation and
the use of self-regulated learning strategies. (p. 36)
Texting, or other social media, may be here to stay. But
educating a student populace on when it is appropriate to text
and then reinforcing this with an appropriate level of class-
room engagement is likely to lead to better long-term
outcomes.
Future Research
More experimental evidence of the effects of texting and
multitasking on class performance is needed. For example,
does texting, or other multitasking in class, decrease grades
because of limited mental capacity, or simply because
grades and texting are related to other factors such as bore-
dom, personality (Lieberman & Rosenthal, 2001), or other
cognitive differences? This research would be complicated
by the complex relationship between learning and grades.
For those who wish to incorporate texting within their
teaching, research needs to be conducted on the learning out-
comes. A common theme in these articles is the lack of reported
results. It appears that there has not been enough research con-
ducted to ascertain the effects of incorporating texting on stu-
dent learning and performance, or on the instructors’ response
to different learning and behavioral patterns inherent in a new
communication paradigm. There have been some demographic
foundations laid (Baker, Lusk, & Neuhauser, 2012), but details
and implications remain lacking.
The results of this study raise another issue. Cognitive
theory predicts that students will be handicapped if they
attempt to multitask during class. Neural research indicates
that our brains do not process heavy cognitive loads simulta-
neously, but sequentially. Some highway studies have dra-
matically shown that the effects of someone texting while
driving is consistent with driving while drunk (Medina,
2009). It may be some time before academic studies yield
such dramatic results, but in the meantime early indications
are that multitasking does impact grades. This survey found
a decrease in grades in a class in which the students texted,
but no relationship between texting and GPA was found.
Does this mean that the cognitive models are wrong, or does
it imply that marketing classes (or lectures) do not carry
enough cognitive load to be disrupted by multitasking? The
results of such a study could have dramatic implications not
only for the validity of the cognitive model but also for our
profession’s basic approach to marketing education.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychologi-
cal Review, 89, 369-406.
Appleton-Knapp, S. L., & Krentler, K. A. (2006). Measuring stu-
dent expectations and their effects on satisfaction: The impor-
tance of managing student expectations. Journal of Marketing
Education, 28, 254-264.
Aron, A. R., Robbins, T. W., & Poldrack, R. A. (2004). Inhibition
and the right inferior frontal cortex. Trends in Cognitive Sci-
ence, 8, 170-177.
Bacon, D. R., & Stewart, K. A. (2006). How fast do students forget
what they learn in consumer behavior? Journal of Marketing
Education, 28, 181-192.
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556-559.
Baker, W. M., Lusk, E. J., & Neuhauser, K. L. (2012). On the use
of cell phones and other electronic devices in the classroom:
Evidence from a survey of faculty and students. Journal of Edu-
cation for Business, 87, 275-289.
Baron, N. S. (2008). Always on: Language in an online and mobile
world. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Beranuy, M., Oberst, U., Carbonell, X., & Chamarro, A. (2009).
Problematic Internet and mobile phone use and clinical symp-
toms in college students: The role of emotional intelligence.
Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 1182-1187.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, Hand-
book I: The cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay.
Boucher, L., Palmeri, T. J., Logan, G. D., & Schall, J. D. (2007).
Inhibitory control in mind and brain: An interactive race model of
countermanding saccades. Psychological Review, 114, 376-397.
38 Journal of  Marketing Education 35(1)
Braguglia, K. H. (2008). Cellular telephone use: A survey of col-
lege business students. Journal of College Teaching & Learn-
ing, 5(4), 55-61.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the
format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 8, 293-332.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for
good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin,
39(7), 3-7.
Chun, M. M., Golomb, J. D., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2011). A tax-
onomy of external and internal attention. Annual Review of Psy-
chology, 62, 73-101.
Chun, M. M., & Turk-Browne, N. B. (2007). Interactions between
attention and memory. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 17,
177-184.
Coltheart, M. (1980). Iconic memory and visible persistence. Per-
ception & Psychophysics, 27, 183-228.
Corbetta, M., Patel, G., & Shulman, G. L. (2008). The reorient-
ing system of the human brain: From environment to theory of
mind. Neuron, 58, 306-324.
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory:
A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 24, 87-185.
D’Esposito, M., Ballard, D., Zarahn, E., & Aguirre, G. K. (2000).
The role of prefrontal cortex in sensory memory and motor prep-
aration: An event-related fMRI study. NeuroImage, 11, 400-408.
Drouin, M. A. (2011). College students’ text messaging, use of tex-
tese and literacy skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
27(1), 67-75.
Dulany, D. E. (1957). Avoidance learning of perceptual defense
and vigilance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55,
333-338.
Ellis, Y., Daniels, B., & Jauregui, A. (2010, August). The effect of
multitasking on the grade performance of business students.
Research in Higher Education Journal, 8, 1-10.
de Fockert, J. W., Rees, G., Frith, C. D., & Lavie, N. (2001). The
role of working memory in visual selective attention. Science,
291, 1803-1806.
Foerde, K., Knowlton, B. J., & Poldrack, R. A. (2006). Modulation
of competing memory systems by distraction. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 11778-11783.
Fukuda, K., & Vogel, E. K. (2009). Human variation in overriding
attentional capture. Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 8726-8733.
Goodwin, M. (2012, November 12). Manners in the Syllabus. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, Blogs. Retrieved from http://
chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/manners-in-the-syllabus/
36409
Gorlick, A. (2009, August 24). Media multitaskers pay mental
price. Stanford Report. Retrieved from http://news.stanford.edu/
news/2009/august24/multitask-research-study-082409.html
Hallowell, E. M. (2007). Crazy busy: Overstretched, overbooked,
and about to snap! Strategies for handling your fast-paced life.
New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Huitt, W. (2003). The information processing approach to cog-
nition. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA:
Valdosta State University. Retrieved from http://www.edpsy-
cinteractive.org/topics/cognition/infoproc.html
Jääskeläinena, I. P., Ahveninenb, J., Andermannc, M. L.,
Belliveaub, J. W., Raijb, T., & Samsa. M. (2011). Short-term
plasticity as a neural mechanism supporting memory and atten-
tional functions. Brain Research, 1422, 66-81.
Jancin, B. (2011, February 14). Hypertexting by teens linked to
increased health risks. Clinical Psychiatry News. Retrieved
from http://www.clinicalpsychiatrynews.com/specialty-focus/
childadolescent-psychiatry/single-article-page/hypertexting-
by-teens-linked-to-increased-health-risks/e0ceb4aade.html
Junco, R., & Cotton, S. R. (2011). Perceived academic effects of
instant message use. Computers & Education, 56, 370-378.
Junco, R., & Cotton, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: The relationship
between multitasking and academic performance. Computers
& Education, 59, 505-514.
Koch, I., Lawo, V. Fels, J., & Vorlander, M. (2011). Switching in the
cocktail party: Exploring intentional control of auditory selec-
tive attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 37, 1140-1147.
Koechlin, C. S. (2010). Divided representation of concurrent goals
in the human frontal lobes. Science, 16, 360-363.
Konijn, E. A., Utz, S., Tanis, M., & Barnes, S. B. (2008). Mediated
interpersonal communications. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selec-
tive attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 21, 451-468.
Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused? Selective attention
under load. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, 75-82.
Lee, J., Lina, L., & Robertson, T. (2012). The impact of media
multitasking on learning. Learning, Media and Technology,
37, 94-104.
Lenhart, A. (2012, March 19). Teens, smartphones & texting. Pew
Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://pewin-
ternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Teens_Smart-
phones_and_Texting.pdf
Lenhart, A., Ling, R., Campbell, S., & Purcell, K. (2010, April 20).
Teens and mobile phones. Pew Internet & American Life Proj-
ect. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/
Reports/2010/PIP-Teens-and-Mobile-2010.pdf
Lieberman, M. D., & Rosenthal, R. (2001). Why introverts can’t
always tell who likes them: Multitasking and nonverbal decod-
ing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 294-310.
Ling, R., & Pederson, P. (2005). The socio-linguistic of SMS:
An analysis of SMS use by a random sample of Norwegians.
In R. Ling & P. Pedersen (Eds.), Mobile communications:
Renegotiation of the social sphere (pp. 335-349). London,
England: Springer.
Lister, K. M. (2010). Compulsive text messages: Do youth need to
kick the habit? (Doctoral dissertation). Bowling Green State
University, OH. Retrieved from http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.
cgi/Lister%20Kelly%20M.pdf?bgsu1276915835
Lui, K. F. H., & Wong, A. C. (2012). Does media multitasking
always hurt? A positive correlation between multitasking and
Clayson and Haley 39
multisensory integration. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19,
647-653.
Mandernach, B. J. (2010). Embracing texting during class. The
Teaching Professor, 24(10), 1-6.
Mathews, G. (1997). Cognitive science perspectives on personality
and emotion. Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland.
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive
load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1),
43-52.
Medina, J. (2009). Brain rules: 12 principles for surviving and
thriving at work, home, and school. Seattle, WA: Pear Press.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two:
Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psy-
chological Review, 63(2), 81-97.
Moustakas, E. (2011). Using the familiar: How m-learning (SMS
texting) can enhance the student learning experience. Middle-
sex Journal of Educational Technology, 1(1), 52-61.
Nemme, H. E., & White, K. M. (2010). Texting while driving: Psy-
chosocial influences on young people’s texting intentions and
behavior. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42, 1257-1275.
Nielsenwire. (2010, October 14). U.S. teen mobile report: Calling
yesterday, texting today, using apps tomorrow. Retrieved from
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/u-s-teen-
mobile-report-calling-yesterday-texting-today-using-apps-
tomorrow/
Nikolić, D., & Singer, W. (2007). Creation of visual long-term
memory. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 904-912.
Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in
media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 106, 15583-15587.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of
comprehension-fostering and comprehension monitoring activ-
ities. Cognitive and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and
theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220-244.
Price, C. (2010). Incivility, inattention, and multitasking! Oh my!
Creating effective learning environments for millennial learn-
ers. In J. Holmes, S. C. Baker, & J. R. Stowell (Eds.), Essays
from E-xcellence in teaching (Vol. X, chapt. 2, pp. 10-14).
Danbury, CT: Society for the Teaching of Psychology. Retrieved
from http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/eit2010/index.php
Richtel, M. (2010, June 6). Hooked on gadgets, and paying a mental
price. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.teamsters952.
org/Hooked_on_Gadgets_and_Paying_a_Mental_Price.PDF
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch
between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psy-
chology: General, 124, 207-231.
Rosen, L., Lim, A. F., Carrier, L. M., & Cheever, N. A. (2011).
An empirical examination of the educational impact of text
message-induced task switching in the classroom: Education
implications and Strategies to enhance learning. Psicologia
Educativa, 17, 163-177.
Rosman, K. (2010, October 14). Y u luv tests, H8 calls, The Wall
Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052748703673604575550201949192336.html
Ruby, P., & Ruby, R. (2011, April). Texting is a communication
tool. American Institute of Higher Education. The 6th Inter-
national Conference Proceedings, 4(1), 298-305. Retrieved
from http://www.amhighed.com/documents/charleston2011/
aihe2011_proceedings.pdf
Ryker, R., Viosca, C., Lawrence, S., & Kleen, B. (2011). Texting
and the efficacy of mnemonics: Is too much texting detrimen-
tal? Information Systems Education Journal, 9(2), 27-33.
Shinn-Cunningham, B. G. (2008). Object-based auditory and visual
attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 182-186.
Sperling, G. (1960). The information available in brief visual pre-
sentations. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied,
74(11), 1-29.
Staino, R. (2010). Cell phones in the classroom? Wiffiti says yes.
School Library Journal. Retrieved from http://www.school-
libraryjournal.com/article/CA6727431.html
Syllabus 2. (2011). Introduction to social research. Retrieved
from http://sociology.rutgers.edu/undergraduate/courses/F10/
F10.311%28F%29.A.Harewood.pdf
Syllabus 3. (2012). Retrieved from http://courses.wcupa.edu/
mwaite/phy100/syllabus.html
Taylor, S. A., Hunter, G. L., Melton, H., & Goodwin, S. A. (2011).
Student engagement and marketing classes. Journal of Market-
ing Education, 33(1), 73-92.
Tindell, D. R., & Bohlander, R. W. (2012). The use and abuse of
cell phones and text messaging in the classroom: A survey of
college students. College Teaching, 60, 1-9.
Tucker, P. (2006, May/June). Teaching the millennial generation.
The Futurist, p. 7.
Vecchione, A. (2010, May 14). Texting: Leveraging the statistics to
your advantage. The Scoop (Electronic publication of the Idaho
Commission for Libraries). Retrieved from http://works.bepress.
com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=amy_
vecchione&sei-redir=1#search=%22texting%20
class%22
Wang, Z., & Tchernev, J. M. (2012). The “myth” of media mul-
titasking: Reciprocal dynamics of media multitasking, per-
sonal needs, and gratifications. Journal of Communication,
62, 493-513.
Warm, J. S., Parasuraman, R., & Matthews, G. (2008). Vigilance
requires hard mental work and is stressful. Human Factors:
The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,
50, 433-441.
Wei, F. F., Wang, Y. K., & Klausner, M. (2012). Rethinking college
students’ self-regulation and sustained attention: Does text mes-
saging during class influence cognitive learning? Communica-
tion Education, 61, 185-204.
Williams, J. A., Berg, H., Gerber, H., Miller, M., Cox, D., Votteler, N.,
& McGuire, M. (2011). “I get distracted by their being distracted”:
The etiquette of in-class texting. Eastern Educational Journal,
40(1), 48-56.
40 Journal of  Marketing Education 35(1)

Wolf, C., & Gonder, J. (2007). First-year students’ uses of technol-
ogy survey (Unpublished raw data, First-Year Experience Pro-
gram, California State University, Chico). In J. Gonder (2010),
Text messaging in class: Extraversion as a mediating factor in
distraction (Master thesis). California State University Chico.
Retrieved from http://csuchico-dspace.calstate.edu/xmlui/bit-
stream/handle/10211.4/197/Thesis%20-%20justin%20gonder.
pdf?sequence=1
Young, M. R. (2005). The motivational effects of the classroom
environment in facilitating self-regulated learning. Journal of
Marketing Education, 29(1), 25-40.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3-17.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning
and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.