Multitask
This study asks whether multitasking and its efficiency. In order to verify, we used dual-tasks, which requires an individual to perform two tasks simultaneously in order to compare performance with single-task conditions. Our dual-task has primary task; tracking dot on a computer screen and secondary task; tracking dot with clicking the mouse when a target letter (X) appears. Three are two independent variables; dot speed and duration of letter. This procedure combines two levels: easy and difficult in the independent variables. Dependent variables are average tracking error, hit rate, and false alarm rate. With the p-value over 0.05 in general, what we found was statistically insignificant relationship between the variables. We concluded
…show more content…
People want to be productive for what they do in their limited time. So it is quite easy to see people try multitasking. For instance, you might have seen some people who are reading a book while they are walking on a treadmill at a gym. You might have wanted to listen to music when you are driving and also might have also wanted to check your cell phone messages. All these can be examples of multitasking. Gingerich and Lineweaver (2013) conducted two experiments in class by using randomly assigned two groups of participants. The first group was required to send a text message that was a prescribed conversation during a brief lecture while the other group was refrained from texting during the same lecture. Post-lecture quiz was conducted and the scores of texting group were low in the both experiments. This outcome clearly showed the detrimental effects of texting during class, which could discourage multitasking behavior as wider extent. In another research, Strayer and Johnston (2001) conducted dual-task to assess the effects of cellular-phone conversation on performance of a simulated driving task. While listening to radio broadcasts or listening to a book on tape did not disrupt the …show more content…
We used the dual-task paradigm from the web site; http://psych.hanover.edu/JavaTest/CLE/Cognition/Cognition/dualtask_instructions.html
Also, we used a 2X2 (IV1: Speed of dot X IV2: Duration of letter) within-subjects design. Our independent variables are dot speed and duration of letter and each has two levels: easy (slow dot speed; 7, long time between stimuli: 660) and difficult (fast dot speed; 20, short time between stimuli; 123). Dependent variables are average tracking error, hit rate, and false alarm rate.
Results
ANOVA results for 2main effects per DV
ANOVA results for 1 interaction per DV
Discussion (1pg)
What we found is that --
For interaction of our independent variables, all of them showed statistically not significant relationships, which were Tracking Error (p= .949), Tracking error (p=.90), and False Alarm rate (p=.913) with their P-value over .05.
Theory /details from the
People want to be productive for what they do in their limited time. So it is quite easy to see people try multitasking. For instance, you might have seen some people who are reading a book while they are walking on a treadmill at a gym. You might have wanted to listen to music when you are driving and also might have also wanted to check your cell phone messages. All these can be examples of multitasking. Gingerich and Lineweaver (2013) conducted two experiments in class by using randomly assigned two groups of participants. The first group was required to send a text message that was a prescribed conversation during a brief lecture while the other group was refrained from texting during the same lecture. Post-lecture quiz was conducted and the scores of texting group were low in the both experiments. This outcome clearly showed the detrimental effects of texting during class, which could discourage multitasking behavior as wider extent. In another research, Strayer and Johnston (2001) conducted dual-task to assess the effects of cellular-phone conversation on performance of a simulated driving task. While listening to radio broadcasts or listening to a book on tape did not disrupt the …show more content…
We used the dual-task paradigm from the web site; http://psych.hanover.edu/JavaTest/CLE/Cognition/Cognition/dualtask_instructions.html
Also, we used a 2X2 (IV1: Speed of dot X IV2: Duration of letter) within-subjects design. Our independent variables are dot speed and duration of letter and each has two levels: easy (slow dot speed; 7, long time between stimuli: 660) and difficult (fast dot speed; 20, short time between stimuli; 123). Dependent variables are average tracking error, hit rate, and false alarm rate.
Results
ANOVA results for 2main effects per DV
ANOVA results for 1 interaction per DV
Discussion (1pg)
What we found is that --
For interaction of our independent variables, all of them showed statistically not significant relationships, which were Tracking Error (p= .949), Tracking error (p=.90), and False Alarm rate (p=.913) with their P-value over .05.
Theory /details from the