1

Running head: WORKING HARD AND HARDLY WORKING

Working Hard and Hardly Working:

The Effect of Prior Text Messaging Experience on Multitasking Ability
Andrew P. McDonald
36999134
University of British Columbia

2
INTRODUCTION
The task-switching paradigm of the human cognitive system is a relatively
contemporary and fervently-investigated aspect of executive functioning. In an age
where dial-up has been superseded by wireless and internet chatting has replaced
coffee meet-and-greets, effective multitasking of multimedia is especially
necessary; thus novel studies have attempted to elucidate the mental processes
that generate this complex yet essential aspect of higher-order cognition. Perhaps
the most archetypal example of the proliferation of media multitasking involves the
text message, a method of instant communication that has effectively pervaded the
college classroom (Grinols & Rajesh, 2014). Many lament the frequent usage of this
messaging system, condemning media multitasking as an impediment to both safe
driving and an unfettered engagement in education and learning (Kahneman, 1973;
Straus, 2010). Still others maintain a view in complete antithesis, suggesting that
experience with texting and other current media forms has developed a new
generation of individuals who have become better multitaskers through mental
health benefits (Swartzwelder, 2014; Wallis, 2006). Consequently many advocate
for a paradigm shift adjusting learning strategies to fit the new generation; one
study has found that more youthful and mindful individuals are better at taskswitching between media forms due to a predisposition for being aware of multiple
perspectives, and advocates for task-juggling exercises in order to increase
educational productivity (Ie, Haller, Langer, & Courvoisier, 2012). The present study
investigates whether extensive prior familiarity with texting might favour an
effective increase in multitasking ability over inexperienced texters due to an
increased propensity for usage in a lecture environment.

3
A recent study concerning learned multitasking discusses how attentive skilllearning is task-specific and involves a transition whereby knowledge becomes a
part of procedural memory (Taatgen & Anderson, 2002). This mechanism of socalled "task-specific consolidation" was further demonstrated in a follow-up
experiment in which an air traffic control task was performed with greater rapidity
and greater accuracy for participants. Following practice, participants were able to
retrieve and execute multiple plans from memory in unison, as the declarative
instructions for each task became part of an implicit procedural knowledge base
(Taatgen & Lee, 2003). Concordantly, occupations that require rigorous taskswitching training foster skillful multitasking abilities pertaining to that expertise
(Loukopoulos, Dismukes, & Barshi, 2009). Applied to instant messaging, individuals
with increased proclivity for texting have shown improvements in performing
simultaneous tasks, including rhythm-keeping (Silasi-Mansat, 2011). In the interest
of finding practical applications in this vein, the present study investigates whether
an experienced texter may reap the benefits of these improvements in a learning
environment. Given the widespread usage of phone messaging during lecture
sessions, this study predicts that frequent in-class texters will be better able to
maintain a state of divided attention to both lecture matter and instant messaging
than non-frequent texters due to task-specific consolidation. Should this be the
case, it may be beneficial to foster media multitasking in order to possibly develop
greater cognitive capacity for coordinating multiple component tasks.
METHODS
Participants

4
The study recruited 22 undergraduates, all of whom were enrolled in
psychology curricula at the University of British Columbia. The students were all of
similar ages; while the gender distribution of the subject pool was not an even split,
the present study only concerned itself with the relationship between in-lecture
texting frequency (regardless of sex) and multitasking prowess. A recent study has
demonstrated that accuracy in monitoring multiple tasks tends to correlate with
individual differences in executive functioning rather than sex differences (Mntyl,
2013).
Procedure
Participants were randomly divided into two separate cohorts; each group
was provided with a specific set of mundane free-response questions, which were
selected due to their common usage in mobile phone terminology as mentioned by
a contemporary "textspeak" glossary (Crystal, 2004); however, they were presented
to participants in standard English so as to remain necessarily understandable.
Individuals were paired with a member of the opposite cohort, and instructed to
begin a stream of back-and-forth text messages. Members of "group A" sent the
first question, taking as many liberties as they so wished with the language so as to
accurately represent their technical savviness; a recent article elucidates how
"textspeak" is a language in flux, and the uniqueness with which each individual
uses it is a genuine assessment of their personal texting ability (Bennett, 2001).
Members of "group B" answered the question, inserted a line break, and responded
with the next question on their list. As this process began, participants were also
instructed to watch a short clip from a TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design)
Conference discussing the importance of praise (Dweck, 2014). Upon cessation of
the 5-minute video, participants were asked to stop sending messages and state on

5
average how many texts they read & respond to in class; this was taken as the
independent variable of the study, as participants were intentionally placed into one
of two groups according to this value. Individuals reporting values of four and
above were considered frequent texters while those with three and below were
considered non-frequent texters, based upon a study that listed the median number
of texts by young American teenagers to be around 100 per day (Lenhart, 2012).
This threshold level was appropriate considering the likelihood that most of these
texts are sent or received during non-lecture periods; furthermore the poll of
average texting within lecture indicated a median value between three and four,
which is consistent with this range. Subsequently each individual answered a series
of free recall questions concerning the information presented in the video; these
responses were marked according to their similarity to a pre-recorded prototype
answer key (allowances were made for disparity in wording and sentence structure),
and the number of correct responses were taken as the dependent variable of the
study. Finally, the data was correlated and analyzed via a one-way ANOVA to
determine significance between the two groups. A T-test was also conducted to
determine whether one group sent significantly more texts during the testing period
than the other, which could confound the data; if one group had texted significantly
more (on average), they might have suffered greater deficits in attention to the
video material.
RESULTS
According to the ANOVA, "frequent texter" and "non-frequent texter" brackets
were significantly polarized in terms of mean text score [F(1,16) = 5.892, p =
0.027]. On average, the former cohort performed over 25% better on the task
(Figure 1); in other words, the group with the highest average in-class texting

6
frequency were more adept at attending to both texting and lecture material. Also
of interest, the T-test found no significant difference in texting frequency between
the two groups during the testing period [T(18) = 0.086, p = 0.933] as each group
averaged approximately the same number of texts sent during the task.
DISCUSSION
The significant results of this study provide reasonable evidence to conclude
that for individuals texting while attending lecture, the task-switching paradigm can
be bolstered through task-specific practice. This agrees with the experimental
hypothesis which predicated as such; it furthermore affirms the results of prior
studies, including that which discusses how highly-trained individuals of a given
expertise are skillful multitaskers due to task-specific experience (Loukopoulos et
al., 2009). Furthermore, the fact that each group texted the same amount on
average implicates that the only variable manipulating the data set was each
individual's prior experience with texting in lecture. It follows that in the absence of
minor extraneous confounds, students who send and receive upwards of four text
messages on average during lecture are likely to be better at attending to class
content than students who text less than this number.
Several important limitations should be noted. Firstly, the fact that each
individuals texting time was unrestricted meant that people were distracted by
messages at different points in the video; seeing as several time frames had crucial
visual and auditory information required to answer specific questions, participants
who answered text messages during these intervals likely fared worse on the task
than those who answered text messages during less relevant periods. Additionally,
the fact that there were two different texting question sheets meant that although

7
each person either sent or responded to every question, some individuals may have
had to respond to more or less open-ended questions than others; these people
may have had a greater challenge focussing on the video than others. Follow-up
research could perhaps utilize all dualistic (i.e. yes or no) response questions;
additionally, a study allowing participants to pause the video in order to engage in
messaging would be interesting from a practical standpoint given that it is
indicative of studying at one's own pace.
Due to the absence of a non-texting cohort during the video-watching task,
this study cannot implicate that a frequent texter will be better able to attend to a
lecture than someone who does not text at all; that is, dual-tasking cannot be
compared to a focused, undistracted attentiveness to one stimuli. Kahneman
(1973) presents in his book that any undertaking requiring an effective "division of
labour" of attention will understandably result in a reduced ability to focus on each
facet of the task. However, recent research has found that this reduction due to
attention allocation depends considerably on the temporal overlap between all
aspects of the situation (Straus, 2010); seeing as the time interval in attending to
instant messaging is - as its name would suggest - brief, it is unlikely that any
interference from dual-tasking will have a significant impact on attentive ability in
an educational context. Furthermore one study concludes that if an individual
learns factual material while permitting the occasional interruption when they so
choose, there is no reason to infer they will learn any less (Pashler, Kang, & Ip,
2013); this is in keeping with the current experiment, as participants were
instructed to respond to text messages at their leisure. Thus while one cannot
conclude that texting in the classroom improves attention relative to never texting,
it is doubtful that texting would significantly reduce one's ability to attend to a

8
lecture. Furthermore the benefits of exercising a media-related multitasking mind
seem to outweigh this minor deficit as part of the inherent nature of contemporary
students and their study methods.
The increase in prevalence among contemporary youth to utilize different
forms of media in conjunction should not be taken merely as an exercise in social
relevancy but rather a uniquely 21st-century method of developing attentive
abilities. Prior warnings against task-switching in an educational environment seem
either overblown or inapplicable given that text messages are answered at leisure
and are usually only minor distractions (Straus, 2010); furthermore, new and
exciting research has found that usage of multimedia while studying has
predisposed young minds for being able to attend to multiple different perspectives
at once (Ie et al., 2012). Lectures that incorporate the usage of an interactive
technological interface - for example, submitting lecture questions to be responded
to via polls on each student's cellular device - may be the first of many steps that
effectively engages young intellectuals via developing their ability to multi-task in
the classroom.

Word Count: 1000

REFERENCES
Crystal, D. (2004). A Glossary of Netspeak and Textspeak. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Dweck, C. [TED]. (2014, December 17). The power of believing that you can
improve [Video file].
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=_X0mgOOSpLU
Grinols, A., & Rajesh, R. (2014). Multitasking With Smartphones in the College
Classroom. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly , 46, 1 - 7.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and Effort. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.

10
Lenhart, A. (2012). Teens, Smartphones & Texting. Pew Research Center , Retrieved
from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Teens-and-smartphones.aspx.
Loukopoulos, L., Dismukes, R., & Barshi, I. (2003). Concurrent Task Demands in the
Cockpit: Challenges
and Vulnerabilities in Routine Flight Operations.
Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 737
- 742). Ohio: The Wright State University.
Mntyl, T. (2013). Gender Differences in Multitasking Reflect Spatial Ability.
Psychological Science , 24,
514 - 520.
Silasi-Mansat, C. (2011). Texting and Tapping: A Dynamical Approach to
Multitasking. Oklahoma: UMI
Dissertations Publishing.
Swartzwelder, K. (2014). Examining the effect of texting on students' perceptions of
learning. Nursing Education Perspectives , 35, 405.
Taatgen, N., & Anderson, J. (2002). Why do children learn to say "Broke"? A model of
learning the past tense without feedback. Cognition , 86, 123 - 155.
Taatgen, N., & Lee, F. (2003). Production Compilation: A Simple Mechanism to Model
Complex Skill
Acquisition. Human Factors , 45, 61 - 76.

APPENDIX

Group A Texting Questions

1. What did you have for breakfast?
2. I need some new music. Any suggestions?
3. Are you going out tonight?
4. Do you have class after this?
5. What classes gave you homework?
6. This study is super dull, isn't it?
7. What's the weather like?
8. Are you taking the bus home?
9. Can we meet at 5:00?
10.What are your weekend plans?

11

Group B Texting Questions

1. Can you save me a seat in Chem?
2. Did you take the car this morning?
3. What is your dad's occupation?
4. What is your favourite food?
5. What did you have for lunch?
6. When is your birthday?
7. Are you feeling sick today?
8. Are you going home this weekend?
9. Where's a good place to eat around here?
10.When do your classes finish today?

Question Response Sheet

Pre-test question:
1) How many times (on average) do you read & respond to a text message
during a typical class?

Test questions
1) What was the name of the presenter?

2) What was the main theme of the presentation?

3) Instead of a failing grade, what grade did the students mentioned at the start
of the presentation receive?

12
4) How did students with the "growth mindset" react to a challenge above their
ability?

5) What 3 things did students with a fixed mindset do after failure?

6) What type of praise does the presenter suggest is most beneficial to children?