IndexStudy Analysis: The Impact of Multitasking Vs. monotasking on performance levelsThe influence of perception on multitasking and its role in today's societyConclusions and personal reflectionsIn the past, the need to carry out numerous tasks at the same time was not as demanding as today's needs. People use their phones while performing and juggling multiple things. The rise of social media is a major factor. How can we discern whether we are performing numerous tasks at the same time? Do we just think we're juggling multiple tasks? Switching back and forth between multiple tasks is more likely to happen. What people think is multitasking is actually pretty seamless. Mono-taskers don't perform as well as multi-taskers, multitasking is a sought after feature. It is considered very essential nowadays and most people in the US think that they can perform multitasking as well as others or above their level. Previous research by Borger and Creamer in the 1960s suggested that we cannot multitask, rather we must simply switch from one activity to another and back accordingly. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Study Analysis: The Impact of Multitasking and Monotasking on Performance Levels People process things one piece at a time, which insinuates that multitasking is a matter of that individual's perception. Context is key here. The article aims to answer how, depending on perception, obviously, multitasking or monotasking affects performance levels. Two key components that I have been able to identify are that they are quite dependent on how difficult a task is and how difficult it is expected to be. The more difficult the requirements of a task, the more “attention” we must devote to a particular task. As described in the cognitive psychology course, attention dollars are where our attention is focused, where we choose to pay attention while ignoring other things. I found interesting the hypothesis that the more demanding you are, the more passionate you become. The main intention of Study 1A and 1B was to present tasks as multitasking or monotasking and record their impact on performance. Participants in class 1A were asked to watch and write down an educational video. 1B, participants had to provide a report of an online conference. The first thing (1A) we tried to establish was to analyze the number of words written by the participants (the multitaskers did better). They analyzed the accuracy of words related to the video using a text matching application and, surprise, surprise, the multitaskers outperformed the unitiskers. As an added bonus a surprise quiz was given at the end, as expected, those who were presented with the multi-tasking set did much better than the mono-tasking ones. They did not leave out the amount of time spent by the participants and recorded that there was not a big difference regarding the persistence of the subjects. Multitasking users transcribed more words per second in this section. Participants were told that the tasks they would perform required multitasking. The researchers were trying to see the effect of their manipulation on work. 1B, participants all worked on the same task. They watched an online conference and had to take notes on what was discussed in the conference. Each participant was randomly selected tothe multitasking group or for the single task category. The word multitasking was not actually used to describe what the participants would do, but it was clear that two separate tasks were expected of them and that they had to be done at exactly the same time. Individual taskers simply thought it was basically a task at hand. Two individuals (coders), blind to the hypothesis, determined the quality of the notes, and then an average score was calculated for each participant. Based on the coders' measurements, the multitasking conditions had more thorough note-taking quality overall. They also wrote more words than monotaskers collected. As for Study 2A, the main goal was to calculate perceptions related to multitasking instead of manipulating and telling them about expectations. It was designed to measure perception and discuss whether behaviors would have occurred regardless. This time the participants were presented with puzzles. The first puzzle was a word puzzle where participants were asked to find as many words as they could gather. The second was an anagram in which participants made up how many words could be formed using a string of 10 letters. After the participants finished with the puzzles, we focused on their ideas regarding the task as monotasking or multitasking. A particular response format was used. They were paired with a partner and had to tell the partner how they perceived their business. As expected, there was a fair amount of speech and correct speech among the multitasking participants. The more participants felt like they were juggling multiple tasks, the better they were able to do so at all levels. The Influence of Perception on Multitasking and Its Role in Today's Society As for Study 2B, the same puzzles as Study 2A were used. For the multitasking category the puzzles were presented as if they were separate studies. They were separated by lines on the screen and had a different background color. For individual taskers, it was presented as the same study and were not separated in any way. The planned manipulations went according to plan. Assigned multitaskers found more words. Additionally, those who did multiple things at once were more persistent and for a longer period of time. I deduced that performance is better when we perceive an activity as multitasking. Study 3 was about pupil dilation. It was designed to measure effort, attention and how we process incoming information. Using eye-tracking search methods performance was measured and, as expected, multitaskers performed better on that task (same puzzles used in 2A and 2B). Apparently, people who were multitasking had larger pupils than those who were single-tasking. Multitaskers appeared to find more words, but no direct link was made describing how they were able to find more solutions than monotaskers. More words were found among the multitaskers, their pupils were larger and showed better concentration than the contrasting unitiskers. Multitaskers were also more likely to switch back and forth between puzzles. Some studies directly used the word multitasking while other studies did not mention the word. Some studies had a certain time limit while others could be stopped at any time. When participants were multitasking, it was difficult to ascertain why they did better and when exactly they switched tasks.