4.2 Article

Cognitive control in media multitaskers: Two replication studies and a meta-Analysis

期刊

ATTENTION PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS
卷 79, 期 8, 页码 2620-2641

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.3758/s13414-017-1408-4

关键词

Media multitasking; Distractibility; Selective attention; Working memory; Task switching

资金

  1. Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Gadjah Mada
  2. Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP), Ministry of Finance, Republic of Indonesia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ophir, Nass, and Wagner (2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(37), 15583-15587) found that people with high scores on the media-use questionnaire-a questionnaire that measures the proportion of media-usage time during which one uses more than one medium at the same time-show impaired performance on various tests of distractor filtering. Subsequent studies, however, did not all show this association between media multitasking and distractibility, thus casting doubt on the reliability of the initial findings. Here, we report the results of two replication studies and a meta-analysis that included the results from all published studies into the relationship between distractor filtering and media multitasking. Our replication studies included a total of 14 tests that had an average replication power of 0.81. Of these 14 tests, only five yielded a statistically significant effect in the direction of increased distractibility for people with higher scores on the media-use questionnaire, and only two of these effects held in a more conservative Bayesian analysis. Supplementing these outcomes, our meta-analysis on a total of 39 effect sizes yielded a weak but significant association between media multitasking and distractibility that turned nonsignificant after correction for small-study effects. Taken together, these findings lead us to question the existence of an association between media multitasking and distractibility in laboratory tasks of information processing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据