The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1741-0401.htm

The impact of individual Individuals

differences and
differences on multitasking ability multitasking
Derek E. Crews and Molly J. Russ
College of Business, Texas Woman’s University, Denton, Texas, USA
1301
Abstract
Received 25 May 2019
Purpose – The study’s purpose was to explore the impact of multitasking on efficiency and accuracy and the Revised 21 October 2019
relationship between individual differences and multitasking ability. Accepted 1 December 2019
Design/methodology/approach – An experimental study was conducted with individuals that completed
an in-box exercise and a personality assessment. Three groups were established as follows: those that
completed the in-box exercise without interruption (control group), those that were given a portion of the same
initial task but were then interrupted and given an additional task (low multitask group) and those that were
given the same initial tasks, then interrupted three times (high multitask group).
Findings – The results show that there were significant effects of gender and age on multitasking efficiency.
Females made fewer errors than males. Younger and older participants took more time to complete the
experiment, which indicates an inverted U relationship and may mean that people become more effective at
multitasking with experience and practice, but then less effective as they get older. The study also found that
personality had no significant effect on multitasking efficiency.
Research limitations/implications – The study was limited in that the sample was 91 percent female, did
not include anyone over the age of 51 and did not measure intelligence or experience.
Practical implications – The findings may have implications for employee training, evaluation and
formulation of workplace standards and regulations.
Orginality/value – This study provides empirical research extending the understanding of the nature and
impact of multitasking and individual differences based on gender, age and personality.
Keywords Multitasking, Efficiency, Gender, Age, Personality, Productivity
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction and purpose

There is a general perception in the business world that multitasking is a positive and
desirable practice. This trend is so prevalent that the ability to multitask has become a
de rigueur requirement in many job postings. A recent Internet search on the term
“ability to multitask required” yielded 9.85 million hits (search conducted March 2019
via Google). For example, an advertisement in December 2017 for a program specialist
on Indeed.com states that the successful applicant will possess the “ability to multitask
in a busy work environment and to organize and manage multiple priorities.” Despite
this perception of the desirability of multitasking, a study by the Families and Work
Institute found that over half of respondent employees in the US reported feeling
overwhelmed by the amount of work expected of them (25-year trend data facts from a
website, 2008).
The impact of multitasking has previously been studied for a few specific occupations and
tasks. These include “behind the wheel multitasking,” knowledge workers, airline pilots, air
traffic controllers, chefs, information technology workers, fire fighters, surgeons, gaming
dealers, shoppers and a few others, with much of the research focused on technology and
multimedia usage. However, the focus of this paper is specifically on the application of
multitasking in a business environment. The authors have found a significant amount of International Journal of
research on the nature and impact of multitasking in other environments but there is little Productivity and Performance
Management
empirical research that can be widely generalized in the business arena. Vol. 69 No. 6, 2020
pp. 1301-1319
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-0401
This study was funded by a Research Enhancement Grant of Texas Woman’s University. DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-04-2019-0191
IJPPM This article discusses the third phase of a larger research project with three
69,6 components. Phase one was a literature review to summarize the extant neuroscience
and organizational research on human multitasking; Phase two was a descriptive study
based on a survey conducted to identify current beliefs and practices regarding the use
of multitasking in organizational settings. The final phase was an experimental study to
identify the impact of multitasking on performance and other important organizational
outcomes, considering the influence of independent variables such as age, gender and
1302 personality.

2. The nature of multitasking

The phenomena of task switching has become more pronounced by the emergence of
information and communication technologies (ICT). These technologies include email,
texting, pagers, social networking and instant messaging. These technologies have created
an environment of increased interruptions, which creates the need to either switch tasks or
ignore the interruption and then to refocus on the task at hand. The development of
multitasking operating systems and graphical user interfaces that allow the user to have
multiple windows open on a computer desktop has also contributed to the increased use of
multitasking. Multitasking existed before the emergence of modern communication methods,
but ICT certainly has functioned as an enabler and amplifier of task switching.
Multitasking is defined by Lee and Taatgen (2000) as the “ability to handle multiple tasks
simultaneously.” Multitasking is not to be confused with the concept of polychronicity or an
individual’s preference to attend to multiple tasks at a time (Poposki and Oswald, 2010;
Korabik et al., 2017). Polychronicity is an individual difference in personality, whereas
multitasking is an ability. However, the literature does further subdivide multitasking into
two distinct typologies as follows: task switching and dual tasking (Appelbaum et al., 2008).
Task switching refers to working on one task at a time (also referred to in the literature as
monotasking) but switching back and forth among different tasks at short intervals. This
results in work fragmentation from frequent switching between multiple activities (Pashler,
2000). Task switching may be an intentional decision, such as deciding to switch from one
task to another, or it may be the result of an interruption. Thus there are varying degrees of
control over the amount of multitasking required in the work environment. The term dual
tasking is used in the literature to refer to a situation when only two tasks are involved
(Logan, 2002) but are being conducted simultaneously, such as driving a car and talking on
the phone.
A more recently developed concept is continuous partial attention, a condition in which
one pays partial attention to several tasks continuously (Appelbaum et al., 2008). There is a
trade-off in which individuals can either pay partial attention to several simultaneous
activities or a great deal of attention to one activity. When one is engaged in continuous
partial attention, then periodic triggers occur that require diverting full attention to the task
at hand (Wasson, 2007). An example of this would be driving and listening to the radio. The
driver is paying continuous partial attention to both tasks, but if the driver sees the car in
front hitting the brakes hard, then full attention is temporarily diverted to the task of driving
(hopefully). Another example is listening to a presentation and reading email on a
smartphone at the same time. A trigger in this instance could occur when the presenter
mentions a topic that is relevant to the participant. He/she then stops reading email and
focuses exclusively on the presentation. If the presentation then moves on to another topic of
no or little relevance to the participant, then he/she goes back to email, while still partially
listening for a trigger or cue to pay full attention. In fact, research has shown attentional,
cognitive control processes can be manipulated by associating a reward with a task or
stimuli, enhancing behavior for the task associated with the reward. Without rewards,
participants faced with conflicting stimuli are typically slower and commit more errors Individuals
(Krebs et al., 2013; Krebs et al., 2012). differences and
It is also important to understand that when engaging in continuous partial attention,
there is a distinction between the work of the conscious mind and the subconscious mind
multitasking
(Bannister and Remenyi, 2009). This might especially apply in situations where the
participant has had much practice and can engage in routine tasks without giving them
conscious thought. To return to the driving example, everyone has probably had the
experience of driving on a long trip and being lost in thought or perhaps talking on the phone 1303
and realizing that we do not remember driving for the past 30 miles or so. The subconscious
mind was able to take over this routine task while the conscious mind focused on
something else.
Throughout the remainder of this paper, the term “multitasking” will be inclusive of task
switching, dual-tasking and continuous partial attention.

3. Conceptualization of the problem

The extant research discussed below reveals that multitasking impacts productivity,
frequency of error, critical thinking skills and the ability to concentrate. Despite this, we have
seen an increased demand for and usage of multitasking across work environments. A review
of the literature has identified three major causes for the increased usage of multitasking in
the business workplace as follows: the changing nature of work, the enablement of
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and time demands. Business
organizations have experienced a change from the scientific approach of work design of
Taylor to more of a holistic approach (Lindbeck and Snower, 2000). Taylor’s focus on
standard task completion times led to a linear notion of work and resulted in jobs that were
specialized and focused. This concept of finishing a task before moving on to another has
given way to the idea that “today’s top priority is to immediately address whatever fraction of
a vast, malleable range of tasks has become most critical – a just-in-time, networked work
style” (Freedman, 2007). Workers are now required to engage in a wider variety of tasks and
to constantly shift their focus back and forth between tasks, capabilities which were once
only required of managers. In his classic study of the manager’s job, Mintzberg (1970, 1973)
found that managers carry out many tasks each day and that half the activities lasted less
than nine minutes. By comparison, Gonz
alez and Mark (2005) conducted a study of
knowledge workers, stating as follows: “What somewhat surprised us was exactly how
fragmented the work is. In a typical day, we found that people spend an average of three
minutes working on any single event before switching to another event.”
Previous studies on multitasking consistently indicate a significant increase in time
required to complete a task when performing two or more tasks concurrently (or
intermittently) versus staying with one task until completion (Pashler, 2000). Several
studies hypothesize this loss of productivity as due to interruptions and the concomitant time
required to regain focus. Basex Inc. (Spira and Feintuch, 2015), a US technology research
corporation, states that “. . .interruptions take up more than two hours of the working day
amounting to a cost of $588 billion a year to the US economy.” A 2017 study of multitasking
using neuroimaging (Kalgotra, Sharda and McHaney) found that interruptions significantly
increased task completion time and decreased task performance. Other researchers state that
it takes 25 min to resume the primary task after interruption (Gonzalez and Mark, 2004) and
that interruptions also impact work quality (Altmann et al., 2004).
In conjunction with these productivity losses, previous research suggests that the practice
of multitasking leads to a higher frequency of errors. Reincsh et al. (2008) found that
multitasking caused an increased risk of content errors in emailing, such as misunderstanding
a message, misstating one’s own message or sending a message to the wrong recipient. Other
IJPPM research has found that multitasking and continuous partial attention can increase the
69,6 frequency of error, increase stress levels and the ability to concentrate and to make good
decisions (Stone, 2008; McCartney, 1995). While the amount of existing empirical studies is
minimal, research does indicate a problem of significant magnitude in terms of productivity
losses and error rates.
Research also shows multitasking may even contribute to attention deficit trait (ADT).
Hallowell (2005) identified the psychological condition of ADT with symptoms similar to
1304 attention deficit disorder (ADD), characterized by distracted and rushed behavior due to
frequent task switching and resulting in subpar performance and loss of concentration.
Hallowell (2015) further describes the invention and use of labor-saving devices that define
the context in which we now work as creating a “mental traffic jam”. Freedman (2007) cites a
study that found constant stimulus by email and other ICTs temporarily lowers IQ by 10
percentage points, which is the equivalent of losing a night’s sleep. It is plausible that the
decrease in concentration and ability to focus is responsible for the frequency of errors found
in multitaskers.
Research indicates that the productivity losses from multitasking and interruptions are
substantial, yet very few companies provide training on how to multitask effectively (Russ
and Crews, 2011). Russ and Crews found that multitasking behaviors are widely occurring in
the workplace, but employees’ perceptions about multitasking conflict with their reported
behavior. For example, respondents reported an average of 9.28 min needed to refocus on a
task after being interrupted. Three-quarters of respondents indicated working 30 min or less
on a task without interruption; thus interruptions occur at least 16 times in a typical work day
(average of at least two every hour based on an eight-hour workday). This could mean a
productivity loss of 148 min per day (16 interruptions times, 9.28 min to refocus after each),
which may indicate that as much as 30 percent of the average workday is unproductive due to
multitasking behaviors and the associated interruptions. Yet most respondents do little, if
anything to mitigate interruptions. The findings also provided evidence of a possible
generational component in multitasking effectiveness. Multitasking behaviors may also be
impacted by one’s supervisor or the work group. We know little from existing research about
how an individual’s use of time affects other individuals or how the sequencing of activities
affects the individuals or the groups to which the individuals belong (Perlow, 1999).
At least one previous study (Aral et al., 2011) found that the productivity impact of
multitasking followed an inverted U curve. Productivity increased when workers moved from
monotasking to dual tasking. However, as the number of tasks increased, productivity leveled
off and eventually declined precipitously. One hypothesis is that a “central bottleneck” occurs
because cognitive processes do not allow for simultaneous cognitive operations (Oberauer and
Kliegl, 2004). There is some evidence for this hypothesis, but inconsistencies have also been
noted. Lee and Taatgen (2000) state that in cases where individuals are highly skilled at two
tasks, the decrease in productivity is negligible. Studies have not been conducted involving
more than two tasks. Much more study needs to be done to determine if the relationship
between monotasking and multitasking is indeed curvilinear under certain conditions.
In addition to these productivity and accuracy losses, some research has begun to look at
individual differences in personality on multitasking performance and attitudes. The big five
personality factors, described below by Goldberg (1992) and Judge et al. (1999), have been
shown to predict job performance across numerous occupations, job levels and industries
(Barrick et al., 2001). Extraversion refers to one’s level of energy, positive emotions and the
tendency to seek stimulation while in the company of others. This characteristic has
previously been shown to be positively related to polychronicity (Conte and Gintoft, 2005)
and multitasking performance (Kinney, 2007), while another study by Konig et al. (2005)
found extraversion and polychronicity to be unrelated to multitasking performance. More
recently, Rebecca Knight in an article in Harvard Business Review (2015) discussed the
findings of a Harvard Business professor regarding extroverts and introverts, stating Individuals
extroverts are more comfortable with both risk taking and multitasking. Agreeableness is the differences and
tendency to be kind and co-operative with others as well as more accepting, rather than
antagonistic.
multitasking
While research on the agreeableness dimension of personality and multitasking is scant,
Salomon et al. (2015) did find that agreeableness predicted perceived workload (that is,
workload demands). In this study, participants who scored higher in agreeableness viewed
the resource management task as less mentally demanding than those scoring low in this trait. 1305
A perception of the task being less demanding should lead to improved performance on task
efficiency and accuracy in the current study. Persons who are more agreeable may also be
more likely to accept job demands requiring multitasking. Conscientiousness is the tendency
to show self-discipline and planned rather than spontaneous behavior. While some research
has shown those high in conscientiousness performed worse in a multitasking exercise
(Oswald et al., 2007), this research was done simulating emergency situations, whereas the
current study, like the majority of day-to-day business operations, is not requiring work under
stressful or emergency scenarios. Conscientiousness has been repeatedly shown to be
predictive of job performance (Barrick et al., 2001). However, its predictive ability has been
shown to decrease as the cognitive requirements of a task increase (Shaffer and Postlethwaite,
2013). In the present study, the tasks were routine and the participants were not put in an
emergency or stressful scenario, so the researchers predicted a positive relationship between
conscientiousness and task efficiency and accuracy. Openness to experience refers to one’s
level of curiosity, daringness, tolerance and desire to fulfill personal pleasures and lead a
varied life. Mark (2015) described a study finding that time to complete an interrupted task
was faster for those participants higher in both openness and conscientiousness. In addition,
tenuous relationships with openness and job performance have been found (Kinney). As
openness is related to overall cognitive ability, it could be expected to also be positively related
to multitasking abilities and attitudes. Emotional stability is the tendency to experience
pleasant emotions easily such as being relaxed and is in contrast to neuroticism, wherein
persons show high levels of anger, anxiety and depressive tendencies.
Previous research has shown decreased multitasking performance among those high in
neuroticism (thus low in emotional stability) on routine tasks (Oswald et al.), possibly due to
these persons being more anxious and thus more likely to feel stress from the demands of
multitasking. Syzmura and Necka (2005) similarly found neuroticism to be related to lower
performance on selective attention tasks, and Mark et al. (2016) found that participants’
neuroticism was significantly related to shorter online focus duration, and this was
significantly related to lower productivity at the end of the day.
Gender differences in multitasking have received minimal attention in previous
research. Some reports in public media suggest that women are inherently better at
multitasking than men. A (Szameitat et al., 2015) survey of 488 participants from various
countries and ethnic backgrounds showed that overall more than 50 percent of the
participants believed in gender differences in multitasking abilities. Of those who believed
in gender differences, 80 percent believed that women are better at multitasking.
Perceptions that women are better at multitasking may have arisen from hunter–gatherer
hypothesis, a theoretical argument in biological anthropology. For example, Fisher (1999)
claims that the prehistoric division of work built different aptitudes into the male and
female brains through natural selection. Men hunted and focused on one task at a time,
while in contrast, women gathered food and cared for children simultaneously and
developed multitasking abilities as a result.
However, the empirical evidence of actual multitasking performance differences based
upon gender is mixed. M€antyl€a (2013) performed two multitasking experiments, and in both,
males outperformed females in monitoring accuracy. Individual differences in executive
IJPPM functioning and spatial ability were independent predictors of monitoring accuracy but only
69,6 spatial ability mediated gender differences in multitasking. M€antyl€a suggests that
multitasking involves spatiotemporal task coordination and that gender differences in
multiple task performance reflect differences in spatial ability; they argue it is not that there
are gender differences in all real-world versions of multitasking but that men might actually
be better than women in some multitasking conditions. Foehr (2006) found that girls are more
likely to do media multitasking than boys. Kalgotra et al. (2019) found that older males have
1306 multitasking limitations, while older females develop abilities to perform multiple tasks
quicker. However, other researchers (Strayer et al., 2013; Korabik et al., 2017; Hirnstein et al.,
2019; Lin et al., 2016) have conducted studies with findings that indicate no mean gender
differences in multitasking ability or polychronicity. Because previous studies have found
mixed results, the effect of gender on multitasking is still an open area. As stated by Hirnstein
et al. (2019), there is still too little data available to conclude if gender differences arise
according to which multitasking paradigms.
Age differences in multitasking have also received very little focus in previous research.
The studies that have been conducted focused specifically on media multitasking (i.e. using
various forms of media such as web, music, social media, television, etc. in conjunction). The
common perception, based upon media reports, is that younger generations engage in more
media multitasking. However, as with gender differences, the empirical research does not
support this notion. Voorveld and van der Goot (2013) conducted a study to provide insight
into age differences in the amount of media multitasking and in the media that people combine.
The results rejected the popular notion that media multitasking is particularly prevalent
among young people. The youngest (13–16 years) and the oldest (50–65 years) age groups did
distinguish themselves in terms of media combinations. The youngest group particularly
combined music with online activities, whereas the oldest group was unique in combining
radio with e-mail or newspapers. A plausible explanation for these age differences in media
multitasking is related to lifespan and generational differences in media use in general.

4. Statement of need
The authors have found a significant amount of research on the nature and impact of
multitasking in other environments but little empirical research that can be generalized in the
business arena. A review of the extant literature on multitasking reveals some instances in
which multitasking has a positive impact on productivity, but the vast majority of research
indicates that negative effects may outweigh the positive. This study will lead to greater
understanding of the relationship between multitasking and productivity, error rates,
employee differences and organizational outcomes.

5. Research questions
5.1 Hypothesis 1
Multitasking will predict efficiency (total time) such that as multitasking demands increase,
efficiency will decrease.

5.2 Hypothesis 2
Multitasking will predict accuracy (total errors) such that as multitasking demands increase,
accuracy will decrease.

5.3 Hypothesis 2
Personality (extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness to experience,
emotional stability) will correlate positively with multitasking efficiency and accuracy.
6. Method Individuals
6.1 Participants differences and
A total of 103 subjects participated in all parts of the study. Some of these participants did not
complete some of the tasks, leaving complete data on the multitasking items for 88
multitasking
participants, with these used for analyses. These respondents were between the ages of 18
and 51 (M 5 24.28, SD 5 7.45), with participants aged 18 or 19 making up 35.2 percent of the
sample. The sample consisted of eight males (9.1 percent) and 80 females (90.9 percent). Of
these, 40 percent were unemployed or working from home at the time, and those who were 1307
working worked an average of 31.30 h per week, with 22.6 percent working 40 h or more per
week at work and 13.6 percent of the respondents being in a managerial or supervisory
position. Some work in the healthcare or education industries (both 16.3 percent), followed by
the fields of financial services (13.8 percent) and retail (12.5 percent). See Table I for more
sample descriptives.

6.2 Design
A preliminary survey was delivered via emails containing individualized hyperlinks to
approximately 1,000 individuals. The data were analyzed to answer the above research
questions to help guide the development of the experimental study. For the experiment, the
number and order of tasks were manipulated such that in one condition participants
completed an in-box exercise consisting of seven different activities without interruption
(control group). This group was given all activities at once and was able to complete the
activities one at a time without interruption. In the second condition, participants were given
six of the seven activities but were then interrupted during the task at a predetermined time
and given the seventh task to complete (low multitask group). The third condition was

Total of N % of total

Gender
Male 8 9.1%
Female 80 90.9%
Age (M 5 24.28)
18 15 17.0%
19 16 18.2%
20 7 8.0%
21 3 3.4%
22 5 5.7%
23 5 5.7%
24 5 5.7%
25 5 5.7%
26–30 17 19.3%
32–51 10 11.4%
Industry of work
Healthcare 13 16.3%
Education 13 16.3%
Financial services 11 13.8%
Retail 10 12.5%
Hospitality 4 5.0%
Unemployed/homemaker 7 8.8%
Supervisory position Table I.
Yes 12 13.6% Sample descriptives
No 46 52.3% (N 5 88 participants)
IJPPM conducted similarly but with participants initially being given four of the tasks; then there
69,6 was interruption and participants were given a competing task three separate times (high
multitask group). All participants completed the same seven tasks, with only the number of
times they were interrupted to complete some of the tasks being manipulated. When
interrupted, the participants were instructed to complete the newly introduced task prior to
continuing work on the previous tasks, thus requiring a distinct shift in task focus.
1308
6.3 Stimulus materials
Stimulus materials were similar to in-box exercises commonly used in organizations wherein
participants complete a variety of tasks. There were a total of seven tasks, including a weekly
employee schedule, a customer refund request, a potential customer data list, an inventory
task, an applicant scoring exercise, a sales associate evaluation and a schedule change. All
tasks were related to a scenario in which the participant assumed the role of a supervisor at a
call center. The first document in the in-box was a one-page scenario description which
participants read prior to beginning the actual tasks.

6.4 Pilot study

A pilot study of the experiment was conducted prior to beginning the actual study. The pilot
study used eight graduate and undergraduate business students who received the same in-
box exercises and online survey as were to be used in the actual study. Participants completed
the study and provided feedback to the researchers regarding the clarity of instructions,
usability of the online survey, clarity and readability of the in-box exercises, the lab setting
itself and the time it took to complete the study.

6.5 Procedure
The experiment was conducted in a laboratory facility. The laboratory accommodated a
maximum number of nine participants at a time; thus the experiment was conducted multiple
times during a three-month period until a minimum of 100 participants was reached. All
sessions were conducted at the same time of day, to partially control for variations in stress
and hormone levels and mental alertness. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the
three experimental conditions.
Upon arrival at the study site, each participant was assigned to a workstation in the
laboratory and was given a consent form to read and sign. Several steps were taken to control
for extraneous variables. Each workstation included a tabletop divider for privacy to reduce
distractions, electronic calculator, in-box with exercises, pencil, pen and highlighter.
Participants were instructed to only use the materials provided for them (they were not
allowed to use their own calculators, smart phones, tablet computers, etc.). Three lab scripts
were used, one for each condition (control group, high multitask group, low multitask group).
After all participants checked in at the laboratory and read and signed the informed consent,
the instructions were read from a script by an experimenter. The timing of the experiment
began as participants began work on the in-box exercises, and timing stopped as each
participant completed his/her in-box exercises, allowing for variation in end times for each
participant depending on how long it took for them to complete the tasks. Participants were
then directed to a computer to complete the online survey, then were checked out and received
compensation.

6.6 Measures
The dependent measures that were used in this study included two conceptualizations of
multitasking efficacy: that of efficiency (time) and that of accuracy (errors made). Independent
variables included personality, self-report measures of multitasking abilities and preferences Individuals
and demographic variables. differences and
Multitasking behaviors were measured through the use of in-box exercises similar to
those typically done by business professionals. Participants were timed and the amount of
multitasking
time it took for them to complete the in-box exercises was considered multitasking efficiency
(M 5 42.66, SD 5 10.35). The in-box exercises were scored for accuracy, and the total number
of errors across all tasks was used to measure multitasking accuracy (M 5 11.51, SD 5 6.62).
In addition to these measures, the survey taken after the in-box exercises contained 15 items 1309
asking for participants to gauge such things as how many tasks they think they can
effectively do at one time, how they manage their workload and interruptions, their
perceptions of the benefits of multitasking behaviors and their ability to be accurate and
efficient while multitasking. An example item is, “I am able to concentrate better when
working on one task at a time.”
Personality was measured with Saucier’s (1994) shortened version of Goldberg’s (1992) big
five personality measure. The scale contains 40 items with eight adjectives describing each of
five personality traits: extraversion (e.g. “bold”, “energetic”), agreeableness (e.g. “cooperative”,
“warm”), conscientiousness (e.g. “organized”, “efficient”), openness to experience (e.g.
“complex”, “creative”) and emotional stability (e.g. “relaxed”, “temperamental”). Participants
were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed that the adjective described them on a
7-point Likert scale (1 5 strongly disagree to 7 5 strongly agree). Based on descriptions by
Goldberg (1992) and Judge et al. (1999), the five factors are as follows: extraversion, or one’s
level of energy, positive emotions and tendency to seek stimulation while in the company of
others demonstrated an internal consistency reliability estimate of α 5 0.79. Agreeableness is
the tendency to be kind and co-operative with others rather than being antagonistic. This scale
demonstrated an internal reliability of α 5 0.70. Conscientiousness is the tendency to show
self-discipline and planned rather than spontaneous behavior. This scale demonstrated an
internal reliability of α 5 0.83. Openness to experience, or one’s level of curiosity, daringness,
tolerance and desire to fulfill personal pleasures and lead a varied life, demonstrated an
internal reliability of α 5 0.70 with all eight items. One item (complex) was removed, resulting
in an improved internal reliability of 0.74. Finally, emotional stability is the tendency to
experience pleasant emotions easily such as being relaxed rather than being anxious or
depressed. This scale demonstrated an internal reliability of α 5 0.67 with all eight items. One
item (unenvious) was removed, resulting in an improved internal reliability of 0.71.
In addition, demographic and background data such as questions on gender, age, major
subject and year in school, work status, industry working in, number of hours working per
week and level in one’s organization were also collected from the participants.

7. Analyses
It was hypothesized that increasing multitasking requirements or interruptions will decrease
efficiency and accuracy (although curvilinear relationships are possible). The effects of
personality were also measured with positive relationships hypothesized between
multitasking efficacy and extraversion, agreeableness, openness, emotional stability and
conscientiousness. These relationships were tested with bivariate correlations, ANOVA tests
and regression analyses.

8. Results and discussion

To test for direct effects, separate analysis of variance tests and regression analyses were
conducted with each of the outcome variables. Tests were conducted twice, once to detect
significant effects using total time on task (efficiency) and again to test for effects related to
IJPPM total errors made on the tasks (accuracy). Linear regression analyses showed there were no
69,6 significant effects of personality regarding multitasking on either time on task or errors
made. Results of a multiple linear regression between total time on task and the five
personality variables showed there was no collective significant effect between personality
and multitasking efficiency (F(5,95) 5 1.25, p > 0.05, R2 5 0.06). Results of a second multiple
linear regression between total errors and the five personality variables showed there was
also no collective significant effect between personality and multitasking accuracy
1310 (F(5,95) 5 0.84, p > 0.05, R2 5 0.04).
A one-way between-subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of no, low or
high multitasking requirements on multitasking efficiency (measured by time to complete
tasks). There was a significant effect of multitasking requirement on efficiency at the p < 0.01
level for the three conditions (F(2,86) 5 6.28, p 5 0.003). Post hoc comparisons using the
Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for the high multitasking condition (M 5 37.43,
SD 5 6.66) was significantly different than the no multitasking (M 5 44.0, SD 5 11.36) and
low multitasking (M 5 46.32, SD 5 10.34) conditions. However, the no multitasking condition
did not significantly differ from the low multitasking condition. See Tables II and III and
Figure 1.
Taken together, these results show that while there was a significant difference in time
between the three experimental groups, it was not what was hypothesized. Participants who
had to multitask the most (in the high multitasking group) actually finished the tasks faster
than those who did not have to multitask at all and those in the low multitask group. It is
possible that the interruptions were seen as the experimenters observing the participants (i.e.
a Hawthorne effect), keeping the participants focused on the tasks and engaged in the
experiment or provided excitement, alleviating boredom in participants who were not likely
committed to the tasks or the experiment like an employee invested in the outcome might be
interested.
A second one-way between-subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the effect of no,
low or high multitasking requirements on multitasking accuracy (measured by number of
errors on the tasks). There was not a significant effect of multitasking requirement on
accuracy for the three conditions (F(2,86) 5 0.06, p > 0.05). See Table IV and Figure 2.
Analyses were also run looking at both gender and age on multitasking efficiency and
accuracy, producing interesting findings. A one-way between-subjects ANOVA found
multitasking accuracy (total errors) was significantly related to gender (F(1,98) 5 5.86,
p 5 0.017) when including all participants in the analyses with data for these variables
(N 5 100). The results show there is a significant effect of gender such that females (M 5 11.1,

Table II.
One-way analysis of
variance of df SS MS F p
multitasking
requirements by Between groups 2 1200.92 600.46 6.28 0.003
multitasking efficiency Within groups 86 8218.96 95.57
(time on task in min) Total 88 9419.89

Table III. Tukey HSD comparisons

Post hoc comparisons Group n M SD No MT Low MT
of ANOVA of
multitasking No multitasking 33 44.00 11.36
requirements by Low multitasking 28 46.32 10.34 0.627
multitasking efficiency High multitasking 28 37.43 6.66 0.028* 0.003*
SD 5 5.70) made fewer errors than males did (M 5 11.53, SD 5 6.39). While 91 of 100 of the Individuals
study participants in this analysis were female, this does tentatively support the common differences and
belief that women may be better at multitasking. See Table V.
A significant curvilinear effect of age (M 5 23.67) on multitasking efficiency or time on
multitasking
task (M 5 41.91) was found, (F(2,98) 5 4.04, p 5 0.021). This finding shows that younger and
older participants took more time to complete the experiment. This may mean that people
become more effective at multitasking as they gain experience but then become less effective
as they get older. This decrease in multitasking efficiency at older ages could be caused by a 1311
number of factors such as changes in cognitive processes or work style preferences. See Table
VI and Figure 3.
Bivariate correlation analyses and frequency statistics were implemented to test for
significant relationships between multitasking efficiency (time) and accuracy (error rates)

Multasking Efficiency
50

47.5

45

42.5 Figure 1.
Multasking Efficiency
Significant interaction
40 (ANOVA) between
multitasking
37.5 requirements and
multitasking efficiency
35 (time on task in mins)
No MT Low MT High MT

Table IV.
One-way analysis of
df SS MS F p variance of
multitasking
Between groups 2 5.42 2.71 0.06 0.941 requirements by
Within groups 86 3850.83 44.78 multitasking accuracy
Total 88 3856.25 (number of errors)

Multasking Accuracy
11.9

11.8

11.7

11.6
Multasking Accuracy Figure 2.
11.5 ANOVA between
11.4 multitasking
requirements and
11.3 multitasking accuracy
(number of errors; not
11.2 significant)
No MT Low MT High MT
IJPPM and attitudes toward multitasking, behaviors to manage multitasking demands, stress,
69,6 personality and demographic variables. See Table VII for descriptive statistics and results of
correlation analyses. For the multitasking variables measured, there was a significant
positive relationship found between the time it took participants to complete the tasks and the
number of errors that were made (r 5 0.35, p < 0.01), as expected. It is likely that as
participants experience even more interruptions or more difficult tasks and are forced to take
more time to finish all tasks they will also make more errors. One limitation of this is that this
1312 study did not measure intelligence or experience; persons with lower levels of intelligence or
less experience with these types of tasks may have needed more time to complete them and
made more mistakes due to lower ability.
With regard to attitudes toward multitasking, some interesting findings were discovered
when respondents were asked about their attitudes toward multitasking and their efforts to
manage interruptions while working. While 52.2 percent of respondents said that they

Table V.
One-way analysis of df SS MS F p
variance of
multitasking accuracy Between groups 1 228.19 228.19 5.86 0.017
(number of errors) by Within groups 98 3818.73 38.97
gender Total 99 4046.91

Table VI. df SS MS F p
Quadratic analysis of
variance of Regression 2 800.63 400.31 4.04 0.021
multitasking efficiency Residual 98 9715.57 99.14
(time on task) by age Total 100 10,516.20

Total Time
Observed
80
Linear
Quadratic
70

60

50

40

Figure 3. 30
Significant quadratic
relationship between
multitasking efficiency 20
and age (N 5 101) 20 30 40 50
Age
Variable α M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1. Age 24.28 7.45

2. Gender (male 5 1, 1.91 0.29 0.13
female 5 2)
3. Number tasks 2.5 1.01 0.00 0.00
effective at once
4. MT improves 3.17 1.29 0.22* 0.04 0.03
productivity
5. MT improves 3.01 1.34 0.13 0.15 0.01 0.79**
efficiency
6. MT increases errors 3.38 1.15 0.09 0.07 0.00 0.51** 0.60**
7. Better one task 4.15 1.14 0.07 0.13 0.01 0.45** 0.56** 0.65**
8. Manage interruptions 3.15 0.63 0.22* 0.04 0.74 0.21 0.19 0.05 0.00
9. Total time 42.66 10.35 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.12 0.00 0.05
10. Total errors 11.51 6.62 0.08 0.20 0.05 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.35**
11. Extraversion 0.79 35.94 8.15 0.13 0.20 0.05 0.16 0.06 0.17 0.03 0.28** 0.17 0.15
12. Conscientiousness 0.83 44.5 7.09 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.19 0.04 0.00 0.41** 0.14 0.01 0.26*
13. Agreeableness 0.70 45.89 5.83 0.01 0.22 0.06 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.02 0.12 0.01 0.07 -0.05 0.40**
14. Openness 0.74 37.99 5.64 0.13 0.06 0.10 0.17 0.23* 0.12 0.14 0.30** 0.11 0.07 0.25* 0.49** 0.32**
15. Emotional stability 0.71 32.48 6.62 0.06 -0.09 0.15 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.03 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.11 0.32** 0.38** 0.13
Note(s): *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
multitasking
Individuals
differences and

1313

and
multitasking accuracy
Table VII.

personality (N 5 88)
Descriptive statistics

efficiency,
attitudes, multitasking
between multitasking
and correlations
IJPPM strongly or somewhat agree that multitasking leads to improved productivity (M 5 3.17),
69,6 36.4 percent said they strongly or somewhat disagreed with this statement (with the rest
being neutral). When asked if they believed that multitasking leads to improved efficiency,
only 43.2 percent agreed with this statement (M 5 3.01) and 40.9 percent strongly or
somewhat disagreed. Despite more than half of the respondents believing that multitasking
leads to improved productivity and a large portion (43.2 percent) believing that multitasking
leads to improved efficiency, more than half of the respondents (53.4 percent) admitted that
1314 they believe they make more errors when they multitask (M 5 3.38; r 5 0.51, p < 0.01 and
r 5 0.60, p < 0.01).
Most of the respondents also agreed they can concentrate better when working on one
task at a time (M 5 4.15, 73.9 percent), and this belief was positively related to the belief that
participants make more errors when multitasking (r 5 0.65, p < 0.01). Eight percent of
participants stated they can effectively do one only task at a time, with most stating they can
effectively do two tasks (52.3 percent) or three tasks (29.5 percent) at a time (M 5 2.5). There
was a positive relationship between how many tasks participants can effectively do at the
same time and the belief that multitasking leads to improved productivity (r 5 0.23, p < 0.05)
and improved efficiency (r 5 0.28, p < 0.01), and there was a negative relationship between
the above-mentioned variable and the belief of participants that they make more errors when
they multitask (r 5 0.38, p < 0.01) and the belief that they can better concentrate when
working on one task at a time (r 5 0.28, p < 0.01).
There was also a negative relationship between the preference to work on one task at a
time and the beliefs that multitasking leads to improved productivity (r 5 0.45, p < 0.01) or
improved efficiency (r 5 0.56, p < 0.01). Finally, the beliefs that multitasking leads to
improved efficiency and productivity were positively related (r 5 0.79, p < 0.01).
As far as managing their workload, many respondents reported to never or rarely engage
in behaviors to reduce interruptions, thus reducing the time needed to refocus their attentions.
While many use goal-setting techniques and create to-do lists, out of 88 respondents, 56 never
or rarely turn off their mobile devices, 53 never or rarely turn off their emails and 51 never or
rarely use voicemail.
This study also looked at individual differences in personality on multitasking, with
significant relationships found between three of the personality characteristics and
multitasking attitudes. There was a positive relationship found between extraversion
and the use of techniques to manage interruptions (r 5 0.28, p < 0.01), between
conscientiousness and the management of interruptions (r 5 0.41, p < 0.01) and between
openness to experience and the management of interruptions (r 5 0.30, p < 0.01).
Openness to experience was also positively related to the belief that multitasking leads to
improved efficiency (r 5 0.23, p < 0.05).
The final correlations to be discussed involve the demographic variables tested. Findings
include a positive relationship between age and the management of interruptions (r 5 0.22,
p < 0.05). This may be a skill that comes with age or may be due to older individuals in this
study working more hours at work, necessitating or requiring behaviors such as turning off
cell phones and email. There was also a positive relationship between age and the belief that
multitasking leads to improved productivity. Despite this belief, there was no finding in this
study that pointed that as age increased, total errors made on the tasks decreased. The ability
to generalize this finding may be limited because 70 percent of the participants were aged 25
and below, and 30 percent of the participants were between the ages of 26 and 51, with no
participants aged 52 or older.
The research findings of this study may yield potentially transformative insights that are
applicable to individuals and organizations. If productivity gains can be realized through
attentional strategies, i.e. simply by changing the way work is compartmentalized, then the
bottom line impact will be substantial. The findings may also have implications for employee
selection, training, evaluation, retention and formulation of industrial standards and Individuals
regulations. The research may also yield useful insights into the role of technology, social differences and
influences, liability and risk.
multitasking

9. Summary and directions for future research

The study found that multitasking does not decrease efficiency; it actually increased
efficiency in the high multitasking group, with no significant impact on error rate. This 1315
finding is consistent with the inverted U relationship between multitasking and performance,
found in the study of Aral et al. (2011). It may be that adding tasks improved performance in
the short term in this study, but if more tasks need to be juggled, or the tasks were more
difficult or less familiar or there were specific and challenging time or performance goals for
the participants, performance may have then dropped. More research in business settings
needs to be conducted to determine how many and what type of tasks in this environment can
be successfully managed before performance begins to decline from the demands of
multitasking.
The study also found that personality has no significant effect on multitasking ability
but is related to the management of interruptions for those who are extraverted,
conscientious and open to experience, and those open to experience are also more likely
to believe that multitasking leads to improved efficiency. More research should be done
with business scenarios or in organizations to determine the effects of personality on
multitasking, multitasking behaviors and organizational outcomes such as overall
performance. It may be that personality acts as a mediator between multitasking
behaviors and job performance.
The results show that there is a significant effect of gender, such that females made fewer
errors than males. The study was limited in that the sample had 91 percent females and no
participants were over the age of 51. A significant effect was found for multitasking efficiency
(or time on task) and age. Younger and older participants took more time to complete the
experiment (the inverted U relationship), which may mean that people become more effective
at multitasking with experience and practice but then less effective as they get older. Another
significant finding is that for a group that on average is 25 or younger, and predominantly
female, multitasking is an ability that they have acquired, with no apparent negative impact
on error rate or stress levels. These findings indicate that multitasking abilities may be
mediated by a combination of age, gender and work context experience. Our results do not
conclusively indicate these relationships but do call for further examination, especially in
regard to the inverted U relationship.
The study was also limited in that it did not take into account how an individual’s use of
time affects other individuals in a work group or how the sequencing of activities affects the
individuals or the groups to which the individuals belong. The study should be expanded to
include a larger demographic in terms of gender and age. The decrease in multitasking
efficiency at older ages also should be further explored to determine causal factors such as
changes in cognitive processes or work style preferences.
Research is also beginning to look at individual differences in attentional strategies and
response to multitasking demands. Psychologist Robert Wicks (2010) states that each person
has a range of resilience or “the ability to meet, learn from and not be crushed by the
challenges and stresses of life” (p. 3). “Family demands, financial pressures, multitasking and
a psychologically toxic work environment are but a few of the pressures we must face that
collectively cause chronic stress” (Wicks, 2010, p. 25). While everyone experiences at least
some similar stresses in varying degrees, this underlines the presence of individual
differences in workers’ ability and motivation to meet daily challenges and how these
challenges and stressors affect people and thus, organizations.
IJPPM Future research should include a field study that will measure the implications of
69,6 multitasking in an actual workplace setting. A field study would provide an opportunity to
also include intelligence level and educational level as additional variables and the
opportunity to test different approaches to multitasking, which include task switching, dual
tasking and continuous partial attention.

1316 References
Altmann, E.M., Trafton, J.G. and Hambrick, D.Z. (2014), “Momentary interruptions can derail the train
of thought”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 143 No. 1, pp. 215-226.
Appelbaum, S.H., Marchionni, A. and Fernandez, A. (2008), “The multi-tasking paradox: perceptions,
problems, and strategies”, Management Decision, Vol. 46 No. 9, pp. 1313-1325.
Aral, S., Brynjolfsson, E. and Van Alstyne, M. (2011), “Information, technology, and information
worker productivity: task level evidence”, MIT Working Paper, available at: http://
ebusiness.mit.edu/research/papers/2011.09_Aral_Brynjolfsson_Van%20Alstyne_Information
%20Technology%20and%20Information%20Worker%20Productivity_277.pdf (accessed 26
March 2019).
Bannister, F. and Remenyi, D. (2009), “Multitasking: the uncertain impact of technology on knowledge
workers and managers”, The Electronic Journal Information Systems Evaluation, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K. and Judge, T.A. (2001), “Personality and performance at the beginning of
the new millennium: what do we know and where do we go next?”, International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, Vol. 9 No. 1-2, pp. 9-29.
Conte, J.M. and Gintoft, J.N. (2005), “Polychronicity, big five personality dimensions, and sales
performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 427-444.
Fisher, H. (1999), The First Sex: The Natural Talents of Women and How They Are Changing the
World, Random House, New York, NY.
Foehr, U.G. (2006), Media Multitasking Among American Youth: Prevalence, Predictors, and Pairings,
The Henry J. Kasier Family Foundation, Washington, DC.
Freedman, D.H. (2007), What’s Next? Taskus Interrupts, Mansueto Ventures LLC, New York, NY.
Goldberg, L.R. (1992), “The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure”, Psychological
Assessment, Vol. 4, pp. 26-42.
Hallowell, E.M. (2005), “Overloaded circuits: why smart people underperform”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 55.
Hallowell, E.M. (2015), Driven to Distraction at Work: How to Focus and Be More Productive, Harvard
Business Review Press, Boston, MA.
Hirnstein, M., Larøi, F. and Laloyaux, J. (2019), “No sex difference in an everyday multitasking
paradigm”, Psychological Research, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 286-296.
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Pucik, V. and Welbourne, T.M. (1999), “Managerial coping with
organizational change: a dispositional perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84,
pp. 107-122.
Kalgotra, P., Sharda, R. and McHaney, R. (2019), “Don’t disturb me! Understanding the impact of
interruptions on knowledge work: an exploratory neuroimaging study”, Information Systems
Frontiers, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 1019-1030.
Kinney, T.B. (2007), “Task and individual characteristics as predictors of performance in a job-
relevant multitasking environment”, Unpublished Dissertation, The Pennyslvania State
University, available at: https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/7591 (accessed 26 March 2019).
Knight, R. (2015), “How to be good at managing both introverts and extroverts”, Harvard Business
Review, available at: https://hbr.org/2015/11/how-to-be-good-at-managing-both-introverts-and-
extroverts (accessed 26 March 2019).
Konig, C.J., Buhner, M. and Murling, G. (2005), “Working memory, fluid intelligence, and attention are Individuals
predictors of multitasking performance, but polychronicity and extraversion are not”, Human
Performance, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 243-266. differences and
Korabik, K., Rhijn, T.V., Ayman, R., Lero, D.S. and Hammer, L.B. (2017), “Gender, polychronicity, and
multitasking
the work–family interface: is a preference for multitasking beneficial?”, Community, Work and
Family, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 307-326.
Krebs, R.M., Boehler, C.N., Appelbaum, L.G. and Woldorff, M.G. (2013), “Reward associations
reduce behavioral interference by changing the temporal dynamics of conflict 1317
processing”, PLoS One, Vol. 8 No. 1, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053894 (accessed 26
March 2019).
Krebs, R.M., Boehler, C.N., Roberts, K.C., Song, A.W. and Woldorff, M.G. (2012), “The
involvement of the dopaminergic midbrain and cortico-striatalthalamic circuits in the
integration of reward prospect and attentional task demands”, Cereb Cortex, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 607-615.
Lee, F.J. and Taatgen, N.A. (2000), “Multitasking as skill acquisition, Proceedings of the 24th Annual
Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Erlbaum, NJ, pp. 572-577.
Lin, L., Cockerham, D., Chang, Z. and Natividad, G. (2016), “Task speed and accuracy decrease when
multitasking”, Technology, Knowledge and Learning, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 307-323.
Lindbeck, A. and Snower, D.J. (2000), “Multitask learning and the reorganization of work: from
Tayloristic to holistic organization”, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 353-376.
Logan, G.D. (2002), “An instance theory of attention and memory”, Psychological Review, Vol. 109
No. 2, pp. 376-400.
M€antyl€a, T. (2013), “Gender differences in multitasking reflect spatial ability”, Psychological Science,
Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 514-520.
Mark, G. (2015), “Multitasking in the digital age”, Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered
Informatics, in Carroll, John M. (Ed.), Morgan and Claypool, San Rafael, CA, available at:
https://www.morganclaypool.com/doi/10.2200/S00635ED1V01Y201503HCI029 (accessed 26
March 2019).
Mark, G., Iqbal, S.T., Czerwinski, M., Johns, P. and Sano, A. (2016), “Neurotics can’t focus: an in situ study
of online multitasking in the workplace”, Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, May 7 – 12, 2016, San Jose, CA, available at: https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/301931493_Neurotics_Can’t_Focus_An_in_situ_Study_of_Online_
Multitasking_in_the_Workplace (accessed 26 March 2019).
McCartney, S. (1995), “Workplace: the multitasking man: type A meets technology”, Wall Street
Journal, Vol. 19 April, p. B1.
Mintzberg, H. (1970), “Structured observation as a method to study managerial work”, The Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 87-104.
Mintzberg, H. (1973), The Nature of Managerial Work, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Oberauer, K. and Kliegl, R. (2004), “Simultaneous cognitive operations in working memory after dual-
task practice, Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 689-707.
Oswald, F.L., Hambrick, D.Z. and Jones, L.A. (2007), “Keeping all the plates spinning: understanding
and predicting multitasking performance”, in Jonassen, D.H. (Ed.), Learning to Solve Complex
Scientific Problems, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 77-96.
Pashler, H. (2000), “Task switching and multitask performance”, in Monsell, S. and Driver, J.
(Eds), Attention and Performance XVIII: Control of Mental Processes, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Perlow, L.A. (1999), “The time famine: toward a sociology of work”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 57-81.
IJPPM Poposki, E.M. and Oswald, F.L. (2010), “The Multitasking Preference Inventory: toward an
improved measure of individual differences in polychronicity”, Human Performance, Vol. 23,
69,6 pp. 247-264.
Reinsch, N.L. Jr, Turner, J.W. and Tinsley, C.H. (2008), “Multicommunicating: a practice whose time
has come?”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 391-403.
Russ, M. and Crews, D. (2014), “A survey of multitasking behaviors in organizations”, Journal of
Human Resource Studies, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 137-153.
1318
Saucier, G. (1994), “Mini-Markers: a brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five markers”, Journal of
Personality Assessment, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 506-516.
Shaffer, J.A. and Postlethwaite, B.E. (2013), “The validity of conscientiousness for predicting job
performance: a meta-analytic test of two hypotheses”, International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 183-199.
Salomon, K.A., Ferraro, F.R., Petros, T., Bernhardt, K. and Rhyner, K. (2015), “Individual differences in
multitasking performance”, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 59
No. 1, pp. 887-891.
Spira, J. and Feintuch, J. (2015), The Cost of Not Paying Attention: How Interruptions Impact
Knowledge Worker Productivity, Information Overload Resource Group, available at:
https://iorgforum.org/research-paper/the-cost-of-not-paying-attention-how-interruptions-impact-
knowledge-worker-productivity/ (accessed 26 March 2019).
Strayer, D.L., Medeiros-Ward, N. and Watson, J.M. (2013), “Gender invariance in multitasking: a
comment on m€antyl€a”, Psychological Science, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 809-810.
Szameitat, A.J., Hamaida, Y., Tulley, R.S., Saylik, R. and Otermans, P.C.J. (2015), “Women are better
than men’-public beliefs on gender differences and other aspects in multitasking”, PLoS One,
Vol. 10 No. 10, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140371 (accessed 26 March 2019).
Stone, L. (2008), “Continuous partial attention-not the same as multitasking”, Bloomberg, available
at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2008-07-23/continuous-partial-attention-not-the-
same-as-multi-tasking (accessed 26 March 2019).
Voorveld, H.M. and van der Goot, M. (2013), “Age differences in media multitasking: a diary study”,
Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 392-408.
Wasson, C. (2007), “Multitasking during virtual meetings”, Human Resources Planning, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 47-60.
Wicks, R.J. (2010), Bounce, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Further reading
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T. and Mermelstein, R. (1983), “A global measure of perceived stress”, Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 385-396.
Crews, D. and Russ, M. (2012), “The impact of multitasking on human and organizational efficiency”,
Leadership and Organizational Management, Vol. 2012 No. 3, pp. 54-68.
Gonzales, V. and Mark, G. (2004), “Constant, constant, multitasking craziness: managing multiple
work spheres”, Proceedings of CHI, 24-29 April 2004, Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, Vienna, pp. 113-120.
Gonz
alez, V.M. and Mark, G. (2005), “Managing currents of work: multi-tasking among multiple
collaborations”, in Gellersen, H., Schmidt, K., Beaudouin-Lafon, M. and Mackay, W. (Eds),
ECSCW, Springer, Dordrecht.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J.K., McGuire, L., Robles, T.F. and Glaser, R. (2002), “Psychoneuroimmunology
and psychosomatic medicine: back to the future”, Psychosomatic Medicine, Vol. 64 No. 1,
pp. 15-28.
Mestecky, J. (1993), “Saliva as a manifestation of the common mucosal immune system”, Annals of NY Individuals
Academy of Sciences, Vol. 694, pp. 184-194.
differences and
Szymura, B. and Ne˛ cka, E. (2005), “Three superfactors of personality and three aspects of attention”,
in Eliasa, A., Hampson, S.E. and de Raad, B. (Eds), Advances in Personality Psychology, Taylor
multitasking
& Francis Group, Abingdon, England.
Wetherell, M.A., Hyland, M.E. and Harris, J.E. (2004), “Secretory immunoglobulin A reactivity to acute
and cumulative acute multi-tasking stress: relationships between reactivity and perceived
workload”, Biological Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 257-270. 1319

Corresponding author
Derek E. Crews can be contacted at: dcrews@twu.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com