No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Individual Differences in Attentional Strategies in Multitasking Situations
Abstract
This study compared attentional strategies in prioritized and unprioritized multitasking situations using individual differences in the Type A behavior pattern (TABP) as predictors. The study expanded previous studies by using a triple task situation that presented two visual tasks and one auditory task simultaneously. One hundred and eighteen undergraduate students were utilized. One group received instructions for all tasks and their relative importance to each other for achieving a full performance score. The other group received instructions for the visual tasks only, and no information about their relative importance was given, creating ambiguity about priorities among the tasks. Global TABP and its subcomponents (i.e., time urgency, achievement strivings, impatience or irritability, polychronicity) were utilized as predictors of task performance. Significant correlations were found between the TABP subcomponents and different performance indexes, but such a relation was not found between global TABP and performance. Applied implications of these findings and directions for the future research are discussed.
... There is no general agreement on the definition of the term multitasking [10]. Some researchers have defined it simply as carrying out two or more tasks at the same time [11], others as a means to accomplish multiple goals within the same time period by frequently switching between the individual tasks [12,13]. Other terms which have been frequently used is task switching [14] or dual-tasking [15]. ...
... Other non-ability traits analyzed by several studies are Type A behavior pattern [11,12,34], need for closure [37,39], extraversion [13,16,26,34,38]. Out of these, neuroticism and extraversion are members of the Big Five or OCEAN personality traits, considered by some of the works listed. ...
... The results of Sanderson et al. [22] showed that polychronicity played an important moderating role in the relationship between multitasking ability and performance in a variety of jobs. However, other researchers failed to find a significant relation between polychronicity and multitasking performance [11][12][13]34]. ...
In this study we investigate the strategies of subjects in a complex divided attention task. We conducted a series of experiments with ten participants and evaluated their performance. After an extensive analysis, we identified four strategic measures that justify the achievement of the participants, by highlighting the individual differences and predicting performance in a regression analysis using generalized estimating equations. Selecting the more urgent task and user action between multiple simultaneous possibilities form two of the strategic decisions, respectively. The third one refers to choosing a response within the same task when the opportunity is present. The fourth and most important measure of strategy involves thinking ahead and executing an action before a situation would become critical. This latter one has the effect of reducing later cognitive load or timing constraints and it is shown to explain almost as much variance in performance as the other three, more straightforward predictors together. In addition to determining these strategic predictors, we also show how manipulating task difficulty induces a shift in strategy, thus impairing human performance in the rehearsed task. The results of this study indicate that considerable differences in the divided attention ability of normal subjects can be identified early and with simple measurements. The importance of describing and analyzing strategies is also emphasized, which can substantially influence performance in complex tasks and may serve training needs.
... A large set of everyday activities involves simultaneous combination of several tasks (Adler & Benbunan-Fich, 2013;Bühner, König, Pick, & Krumm, 2006;Hambrick, Oswald, Darowski, Rench, & Brou, 2010) and researchers argue that in today's fast-paced, electronic world multitasking has become the "new normal" (Courage, Bakhtiar, Fitzpatrick, Kenny, & Brandeau, 2015). Multitasking has been commonly defined as carrying out two or more tasks at the same time (e.g., Bühner et al., 2006;Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte, 2001;Kantrowitz, Grelle, Beaty, & Wolf, 2012;Rubinstein, Meyer, & Evans, 2001) or as a means to accomplish multiple task goals in the same time period by engaging in frequent switches between tasks (Delbridge, 2000). However, some researchers emphasize that one of the aspects of multitasking is handling unscheduled events and treating unplanned interruptions as equal to planned activities (Bluedorn, Kalliath, Strube, & Martin, 1999;Bluedorn, Kaufman, & Lane, 1992;Cotte & Ratneshwar, 1999;Hall & Hall, 1990). ...
... The effect was significant only for difficult, but not easy tasks. The results are thus in line with studies showing that interruptions are more disruptive for complex tasks (Drews & Musters, 2015;Speier et al., 1999Speier et al., , 2003 and with more general findings that motivational differences appear only at a certain difficulty level (Goonetilleke & Luximon, 2010;Ishizaka et al., 2001;Richter, Baeriswyl, & Roets, 2012). ...
... For the future, testing these hypotheses in an experimental plan would be advisable (Spencer, Zanna, & Fong, 2005). Secondly, multitasking is a very broad term and has been defined as pursuing two or more task goals within one time period (e.g., Bühner et al., 2006;Delbridge, 2000;Ishizaka et al., 2001;Kantrowitz et al., 2012;Rubinstein et al., 2001). In that sense, in both our studies participants were multitasking. ...
In two studies we test the role motivational rigidity, i.e., need for cognitive closure (NFC), plays in handling task irrelevant interruptions and multitasking performance. We assumed that, although related to rigid cognitive style, NFC may enhance multitasking performance thanks to better focalization on the main task goal. We thus predicted that NFC would be related to lower engagement in tasks unrelated to the main task goal and thereby to a better performance on multiple tasks. The results supported our hypotheses as it turned out that NFC was negatively related to the number of responses to task irrelevant interruptions and positively to multitasking performance in Study 1. Study 2 additionally showed that there was a positive indirect effect of NFC on multitasking performance mediated by lower engagement in interruption tasks. This effect was significant for difficult but not easy tasks supporting previous findings that interruptions are more disruptive for complex rather than simple tasks. The results suggest that better focalization on the main task goal and lower engagement in interruptions might be the mechanism responsible for enhanced multitasking performance exhibited at times by highly rigid individuals.
... Some applied researchers have also worked to build the nomological network of personality constructs surrounding multitasking performance. Ishizaka, Marshall, and Conte (2001) determined that although the global Type A behavior pattern does not correlate significantly with multitasking performance, the Type A behavior pattern subcomponents of achievement striving and competitiveness do correlate with multitasking performance. König, Bühner, and Mürling (2005) studied the relationships between extraversion and polychronicity with multitasking performance and determined that neither relationship was significant. ...
... The authors of this study admitted to having results counter to previous theories and recommended that replication be performed on the relationship between extraversion and multitasking performance before making any rigid conclusions. With regard to polychronicity, König and colleagues (2005) and Ishizaka et al. (2001) both concluded that the construct does not correlate with multitasking performance. However, Zhang, Goonetilleke, Plocher, and Liang (2005) determined that polychronic individuals made fewer errors on a computerized multitasking situation, on average, than monochronic individuals. ...
... Although one would assume that polychronicity would be a significant predictor of multitasking performance, research on the relationship has thus far been inconclusive. Some studies say there is no relationship (Ishizaka et al., 2001;König et al., 2005), others say there is a significant relationship (Kinney, 2007;Zhang et al., 2005). Though there is only a small volume of empirical evidence on this relationship, the fact that there has not been a consistent finding likely means that the relationship between multitasking performance and polychronicity is not very strong. ...
... Higher polychronicity is positively related to the tendency to engage in multitasking behaviors (König, Oberacher, & Kleinmann, 2010), though findings regarding the relationship between polychronicity and actual mul-titasking performance have been mixed. Some studies support the relationship (Zhang, Goonetilleke, Plocher, & Liang, 2005), whereas others have found no relationship (Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte, 2001;König et al., 2005). In this study, we consider another individual difference -trait self-control -as a potentially important factor influencing the ability of polychronicity to predict multitasking performance. ...
... Research has found a link between polychronicity and job performance among multitasking-oriented jobs, such as re-tail employees, sales people, and managerial positions (Arndt, Arnold, & Landry, 2006;Conte & Gintoft, 2005;Kantrowitz, Grelle, Beaty, & Wolf, 2012). Given the mixed results of research with regard to polychronicity and its influence on multitasking performance (e.g., Ishizaka et al., 2001;Kantrowitz et al., 2012;König et al., 2005), we sought to test the relationship within the unique context of our study. Given the theoretical underpinnings of polychronicity (e.g., Bluedorn et al., 1999;Kaufman, Lane, & Lindquist, 1991), polychronicity should influence performance for individuals who are required to multitask. ...
... Although the theoretical link between multitasking preference (polychronicity) and multitasking performance is intuitive, there are a few multitasking simulation studies that have failed to empirically support this link (Ishizaka et al., 2001;König et al., 2005). One potential explanation for this inconsistency may lie in self-regulatory theory, specifically with respect to differences in self-control. ...
In this age of mobile technology, individuals find themselves constantly bombarded by competing demands, which often leads to multitasking. Although polychronicity (preference for multitasking) has been proposed to be a key predictor of multitasking performance, findings have in fact been mixed. This study proposes that self-control may moderate the effects of polychronicity on multitasking performance (i.e., trait self-control obscures the polychronicity-performance relationship). In 186 participants, compared to sequential task completion multitasking had a negative impact on task performance. Polychronicity was not found to be positively associated with task performance when multitasking, but there was a positive polychronicity-performance association among individuals with low self-control. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved)
... Individuals thus have to complete both responses sequentially 1 3 2015; Jansen, van Egmond, & de Ridder, 2016;Reissland & Manzey, 2016) that leads to an avoidance of other strategies. Further, individuals seem to prefer one task more than the other one, and it can by hypothesized that those preferences could possibly be determined by personality (Sanbonmatsu, Strayer, Medeiros-Ward, & Watson, 2013) or cognitive style (e.g., polychronicity vs. monochronicity; Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte, 2001;Schell & Conte, 2008;Sternberg, Zhang, & Rayner, 2011). ...
... Therefore, while our results seem to support the assumption that the preference for response strategies, or styles, is, or can be, determined by task demands and instructions, we also found evidence that suggests an influence of individual preference on strategy choice in dual-memory retrieval. Further, despite a group of authors that assumed that such strategy preferences are caused by differential functional abilities such as high or low working memory capacity (Süß, Oberauer, Wittmann, Wilhelm, & Schulze, 2002) or by person inherent characteristics such as personality factors (Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte, 2001;Sanbonmatsu, Strayer, Medeiros-Ward, & Watson, 2013), we cannot provide further evidence for these claims. Our cognitive assessments did not display any differences between grouper and nongrouper subjects with regard to processing speed, attention or working memory. ...
The study investigated practice effects, instruction manipulations, and the associated cognitive architecture of dual-memory retrieval from a single cue. In two experiments, we tested predictions about the presence of learned parallelism in dual-memory retrieval within the framework of the set-cue bottleneck model. Both experiments included three experimental laboratory sessions and involved computerized assessments of dual-memory retrieval performance with strategy instruction manipulations. In Experiment 1, subjects were assigned to three distinct dual-task practice instruction groups: (1) A neutral instruction group without a specific direction on how to solve the task (i.e., neutral instruction), (2) an instruction to synchronize the responses (i.e., synchronize instruction), and (3) an instruction to use a sequential response style (i.e., immediate instruction). Results indicate that strategy instructions are able to effectively influence dual-retrieval during practice. Mainly, the instruction to synchronize responses led to the presence of learned retrieval parallelism. Experiment 2 provided an assessment of the cognitive processing architecture of dual memory retrieval. The results provide support for the presence of a structural bottleneck that cannot be eliminated by extensive practice and instruction manipulations. Further results are discussed with respect to the set-cue bottleneck model.
... Individuals thus have to complete both responses sequentially 1 3 2015; Jansen, van Egmond, & de Ridder, 2016;Reissland & Manzey, 2016) that leads to an avoidance of other strategies. Further, individuals seem to prefer one task more than the other one, and it can by hypothesized that those preferences could possibly be determined by personality (Sanbonmatsu, Strayer, Medeiros-Ward, & Watson, 2013) or cognitive style (e.g., polychronicity vs. monochronicity; Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte, 2001;Schell & Conte, 2008;Sternberg, Zhang, & Rayner, 2011). ...
... Therefore, while our results seem to support the assumption that the preference for response strategies, or styles, is, or can be, determined by task demands and instructions, we also found evidence that suggests an influence of individual preference on strategy choice in dual-memory retrieval. Further, despite a group of authors that assumed that such strategy preferences are caused by differential functional abilities such as high or low working memory capacity (Süß, Oberauer, Wittmann, Wilhelm, & Schulze, 2002) or by person inherent characteristics such as personality factors (Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte, 2001;Sanbonmatsu, Strayer, Medeiros-Ward, & Watson, 2013), we cannot provide further evidence for these claims. Our cognitive assessments did not display any differences between grouper and nongrouper subjects with regard to processing speed, attention or working memory. ...
The study investigated practice effects, instruction manipulations, and the associated cognitive architecture of dual-memory retrieval from a single cue. In two experiments, we tested predictions about the presence of learned parallelism in dual-memory retrieval within the framework of the set-cue bottleneck model. Both experiments included three experimental laboratory sessions and involved computerized assessments of dual-memory retrieval performance with strategy instruction manipulations. In Experiment 1, subjects were assigned to three distinct dual-task practice instruction groups: (1) a neutral instruction group without a specific direction on how to solve the task (i.e., neutral instruction), (2) an instruction to synchronize the responses (i.e., synchronize instruction), and (3) an instruction to use a sequential response style (i.e., immediate instruction). Results indicate that strategy instructions are able to effectively influence dual retrieval during practice. Mainly, the instruction to synchronize responses led to the presence of learned retrieval parallelism. Experiment 2 provided an assessment of the cognitive processing architecture of dual-memory retrieval. The results provide support for the presence of a structural bottleneck that cannot be eliminated by extensive practice and instruction manipulations. Further results are discussed with respect to the set-cue bottleneck model.
... We hypothesized that these effects would be stronger in a difficult than easy condition as individual difference variables significantly predict performance only at a certain difficulty level (e.g. Goonetilleke & Luximon, 2010;Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte, 2001;Szymura & Nęcka, 2005). ...
... The hypothesized effects of NFC on attention allocation during dualtasking were stronger in the difficult than easy condition (Study 2), which is in line with studies showing that the role of motivational and individual difference variables is greater when the task difficulty is higher (Szymura & Nęcka, 2005; see Goonetilleke &Luximon, 2010, andIshizaka et al., 2001, for differences in multitasking performance). However, it should be noted that, even though we had two difficulty levels, the task we used was generally easy. ...
In two studies, we examine how need for cognitive closure (NFC), referring to an individual's tendency to reduce uncertainty via rigid processing style, relates to the way attentional resources are distributed while multitasking. Previous studies show that NFC is related to focused, rather than distributed, attention. High NFC individuals should thus process tasks serially rather than in parallel. That is, in order to maintain performance on an additional task, they would need to shift attentional focus to this task more often. Low NFC individuals, on the other hand, should be able to process both tasks in parallel, i.e. they would maintain performance on the additional task with fewer attentional shifts. To test our hypotheses, we asked participants to perform a main and additional task simultaneously. During task performance participants' eyes were tracked. In line with our predictions, the interest area analysis showed that NFC was related to more fixations and longer dwell time on the additional task. It was also associated with more runs to this task (Studies 1 and 2). The effects were stronger in difficult, compared to easy, condition (Study 2). The paper is the first one to directly test attention allocation during multitasking depending on NFC levels.
... Multitasking has been defined as carrying out two or more tasks at the same time (e.g. Bühner et al., 2006;Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte, 2001) or as a means to accomplish many goals within a certain period of time by switching between individual tasks (Delbridge, 2000). Multitasking thus requires divided attention (Judd, 2013) and flexibility, or the ability to efficiently shift from one task to another (Monsell, 2003). ...
... In other words, high shifting ability should play a compensatory role. We expected that this effect would be pronounced when the task demands are high, for it has been shown that motivational factors are important predictors of multitasking performance but only when the task is difficult enough (Goonetilleke & Luximon, 2010;Ishizaka et al., 2001). ...
The aim of the study was to test the role need for closure (NFC) plays in multitasking performance. We predicted that this specific motivation, defined as a tendency to reduce uncertainty and ambiguity via cognitively rigid information processing style, would lead to poorer multitasking performance. However, we expected that NFC is not related to this deficiency when associated with high shifting ability. The results supported these hypotheses as it turned out that NFC was related to poorer accuracy in the main task in the easy condition and poorer accuracy in additional task in the difficult condition. In both cases it was true only for participants low on shifting ability suggesting that high shifting ability might compensate worse performance on multiple tasks related to NFC. Presented study is the first one to test the role of NFC in the multitasking context.
... Multitasking is a common component of many job descriptions and critical job demands (Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte, 2001) and is commonly identified as a key competency in job analyses (Kinney, Kung, Walvoord, & Shoemaker, 2010). Understanding how individuals respond to the conflicting demands of multiple tasks may be an important consideration in predicting job performance in today's work environment. ...
... Intercorrelations among study variables are shown in Table 2. Hierarchical regressions were used to test for the moderating effect of polychronicity on the relationship between multitasking ability and performance. Cognitive ability has been shown to be a predictor of both multitasking (Ishizaka et al., 2001;K€ onig, Buhner, & Murling, 2005;Oswald et al., 2007) and job performance (Hunter & Schmidt, 1996). Further, it was moderately correlated (r = .43, ...
This study explores the correlates of multitasking ability, as measured by a commercially developed test that has been used for high stakes personnel selection contexts with more traditional predictors (i.e., personality and cognitive ability) in an organizational sample. Multitasking ability exhibited differential relationships with the cognitive and non-cognitive variables. That is, multitasking ability was found to be strongly positively related to cognitive ability, and negatively related to conscientiousness. Based on a multiple regression and relative weights analysis, cognitive ability proved to be the only significant unique predictor of multitasking ability. Results and implications for the use of multitasking ability assessments in a selection context are discussed.
... The dynamic and changing nature of today's jobs has created a work environment wherein individuals are called on to effectively and efficiently attend to a variety of tasks – often simultaneously – over a short period of time. Indeed, many job descriptions, interview questions, and realistic job previews emphasize the importance of multitasking (Ishizaka et al., 2001; König, Buhner, & Murling, 2005). Interestingly, one's preference for multitasking is not necessarily indicative of one's ability to do so effectively (Konig et al., 2005). ...
... Most research exploring the personality correlates of multitasking preference has examined it in relation to the Big Five, though results tend to suggest multitasking preference correlates weakly with each of the five factors (e.g., Conte & Jacobs, 2003; Conte et al., 1999; Ishizaka et al., 2001; Kantrowitz et al., 2012; Schell & Conte, 2008). In a recent meta-analysis of 20 studies linking polychronicity with the Big Five, Sanderson (2012) found positive relationships between polychronicity and the Big Five, however she reported the credibility intervals of the true-score correlations for these relationships were very wide (and even included zero for neuroticism, conscientiousness, and agreeableness), suggesting that sometimes the relationships were positive, sometimes they were negative, and sometimes they were near zero. ...
Employee engagement has gained increasing attention by organizational researchers. A steady decline of engagement levels has been well documented. Lack of engagement has been found to negatively impact various organizational outcomes such as customer satisfaction, loyalty, safety, turnover, profitability, and productivity levels. The current study provides statistical evidence in support of the conceptual framework of Chalofsky and Krishna (2009) regarding the relationships between meaningfulness, intrinsic motivation, and employee engagement. This research also provides a deeper understanding of the relationship between employee engagement and age, specifically focusing on the differences between older and younger workers.
... Multitasking is a common component of many job descriptions and critical job demands (Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte, 2001) and is commonly identified as a key competency in job analyses (Kinney, Kung, Walvoord, & Shoemaker, 2010). Understanding how individuals respond to the conflicting demands of multiple tasks may be an important consideration in predicting job performance in today's work environment. ...
... Intercorrelations among study variables are shown in Table 2. Hierarchical regressions were used to test for the moderating effect of polychronicity on the relationship between multitasking ability and performance. Cognitive ability has been shown to be a predictor of both multitasking (Ishizaka et al., 2001;K€ onig, Buhner, & Murling, 2005;Oswald et al., 2007) and job performance (Hunter & Schmidt, 1996). Further, it was moderately correlated (r = .43, ...
... In their desire to finish as many chores as they can, polychronics can lose sense of time. Thus, timeliness ideals and a focus on deadlines and timetables have a negative link with polychronicity and it causes task-related rush but not overall hurry, according to Ishizaka et al. (2001). As result, whereas polychronic people may frequently speed through several official tasks in workplace, they would not certainly feel stressed on daily basis by complex tasks. ...
The multitasking behavior is burgeoning in today’s work environment which reflects capabilities of individual to manage multiple things simultaneously to attain the efficient work performance. Study examines effect of multitasking on human behavior in workplace and its impact upon work performance. A search strategy was formulated to conduct this literature review-based study, and different databases containing scholarly research material were explored to find related literature. Inclusion-exclusion criteria were defined & included studies fulfilled selection criteria. PRISMA-P (2015) guidelines were followed to complete study. After reviewing literature pertaining to subject, finding established the fact, internal and external interruption triggers the individuals’ working behavior towards multitasking at the workplace. Multitask working behavior exerts an impact on overall work performance particularly, on work quality, productivity, and working memory. In this linking, no prior literature-based evidence is available in this domain in particular context. The scope of study is confined to published literature on human multitasking and human performance, literature on system multitasking and media multitasking is not included.
... Also, time urgent decision makers are less likely to prioritize the right issues and allocate resources to the wrong alignment initiatives. Ishizaka et al. (2001) found that in ambiguous situations when time urgent individuals do not know which tasks are high priority, they divide their attention to multiple tasks and perform worse than their non-time urgent counterparts. Under surprising, global, and existential crisis conditions, perceived time pressure is likely to intensify for time urgent decision makers, making them not know what issues to prioritize, and make resource allocation mistakes, ultimately leading to ineffective firm alignment. ...
When COVID‐19 hit, a surprising, intractable, global, existential, and lingering (SIGEL) crisis was unleashed, creating challenges unknown to humankind. To avoid failure, firms’ realignment to fit this SIGEL crisis became necessary. Yet, not all firms realigned. Why? Because of these firms’ decision makers’ temporal mindsets or their interpretative lenses about time. Contrary to the assumption that fast crisis response is essential, we argue and find that decision makers’ time urgency (i.e., innate self‐imposed pressure to act quickly) hinders their firms’ effective alignment. While past focus (i.e., innate tendency to attend to the past) had no effect on effective firm alignment, present focus (i.e., innate tendency to attend to the present) and future focus (i.e., innate tendency to attend to the future) had a positive effect. Interestingly, data show that the co‐existence of 1) high future, low present, and low past and 2) high future, high present, and high past foci in decision makers’ minds drive the most effective firm alignment, but 3) low future, low present, and low past foci drive the least. Using US and UK panel data, we show, conceptually and empirically, the importance of temporal mindsets to firm alignment with SIGEL crises.
... This general preference for multitasking will here be referred to as polychronicity , as defined by Poposki & Oswald (2010) . The association of polychronicity and general multitasking performance is still unclear, since some older studies did not find significant correlations between these two notions ( Ishizaka et al., 2001 ;Konig et al., 2005 ). This suggests that self-reported preference for multitasking and actual multitasking ability are not necessarily linked. ...
Studies on media multitasking behavior and task-switching performance have yielded mixed results. The present
preliminary study ( N = 40) focused on task management, and not performance, by allowing participants to choose
the switching frequency between tasks all along the experiment. This design revealed two different patterns of
organization, with many participants choosing no variation at all and sticking to this organization throughout
the entire experiment. We found no impact of organization type on performance. The participants who switched
more often scored higher on polychronicity (i.e., preference for multitasking) and media multitasking scales. We
did not find any relationship between executive functioning and task organization or media multitasking scores,
but this result should be regarded with caution given the limited sample size. In broad terms, individuals tend
to declare a media multitasking tendency in line with their spontaneous organization on multiple tasks, with
more sequentially organized participants reporting lower media multitasking behavior. These results point to a
seemingly global individual strategy to approach multiple tasks.
... This model describes the tendencies of how people behave in five broad personality dimensions: agreeableness (gentle, cooperative vs irritable, short-tempered), conscientiousness (organized, systematic vs careless, irresponsible), emotional stability (resilient vs excitable), extraversion (sociable vs less sociable), and openness to experience (curious vs indifference). Prior works explored the correlation between personality traits and multitasking behavior (e.g., Ishizaka et al., 2001). For instance, emotional stability (neuroticism) had a significant indirect effect on multitasking performance (partially mediated by anxiety), whereas extraversion showed a non-significant relationship (Poposki et al., 2009). ...
Our ability to multitask—focus on multiple tasks simultaneously—is one of the most critical functions of our cognitive system. This capability has shown to have relations to cognition and personality in empirical studies, which have received much attention recently. This review article integrates the available findings to examine how individual differences in multitasking behavior are linked with different cognitive constructs and personality traits to conceptualize what multitasking behavior represents. In this review, we highlight the methodological differences and theoretical conceptions. Cognitive constructs including executive functions (i.e., shifting, updating, and inhibition), working memory, relational integration, divided attention, reasoning, and prospective memory were investigated. Concerning personality, the traits of polychronicity, impulsivity, and the five-factor model were considered. A total of 43 studies met the inclusion criteria and entered the review. The research synthesis directs us to propose two new conceptual models to explain multitasking behavior as a psychometric construct. The first model demonstrates that individual differences in multitasking behavior can be explained by cognitive abilities. The second model proposes that personality traits constitute a moderating effect on the relation between multitasking behavior and cognition. Finally, we provide possible future directions for the line of research.
... Brüning et al., 2020). The individual's polychronicity reflects the individual's attitude toward multitasking in real-life situations, which is shaped by past experiences with multitasking scenarios (Slocombe and Bluedorn, 1999; see also Ishizaka et al., 2001). It was, thus, assumed to be predictive for the choice of response strategies in FCDT and was assessed in the present study with the Multitasking Preference Inventory (MPI; Poposki and Oswald, 2010). ...
Recently, reliable interindividual differences were found for the way how individuals process multiple tasks (at a cognitive level) and how they organize their responses (at a response level). Previous studies have shown mixed results with respect to the flexibility of these preferences. On the one hand, individuals tend to adjust their preferred task processing mode to varying degrees of risk of crosstalk between tasks. On the other, response strategies were observed to be highly stable under varying between-resource competition. In the present study, we investigated whether the stability of response strategies also persists with increased risk of crosstalk or whether individuals adjust their choice of response strategy, similar to what has been found at the level of task processing modes. Besides, related differences in multitasking efficiency were assessed. For this purpose, 53 participants performed the Free Concurrent Dual-Tasking (FCDT) paradigm, which allows them to control their task scheduling and response organization. The participants completed the FCDT paradigm under two conditions including task pairs characterized by either low or high levels of risk of crosstalk. The free choice of task scheduling resulted in the previously found distinct response patterns, best described as blocking, switching or response grouping. Remarkably, we did not find any notable adjustments of strategies of response organization to the extent of crosstalk. However, we observed suspected performance decrements of a switching strategy in the condition of high risk of crosstalk. The results suggest that individual strategies of response organization are stable habits. Further, they illustrate disadvantages of switching vs. blocking strategies of response organization in case of high task similarity.
... The present definition of multitasking is also in line with previous conceptions in which multitasking was treated as either simultaneous task performance (e.g., Buhner et al., 2006;Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte, 2001;Poposki & Oswald, 2010;Rubinstein, Meyer, & Evans, 2001;Todorov et al., 2015) and/or as switching between tasks in a given time block (e.g., Burgess, 2000;Chen & Yan, 2016;Hambrick et al., 2010;Law et al., 2006;Monsell, 2003;Rogers & Monsell, 1995;Szumowska, Popławska-Boruc, & Kossowska, 2018). The latter has been especially emphasized given the findings that due to sensory and cognitive bottlenecks the human brain is incapable of simultaneous processing, and concurrency-if it occurs-is only apparent. ...
With the constantly increasing popularity of human multitasking, it is crucial to know why people engage in simultaneous task performance or switch between unfinished tasks. In the present article, we propose that multitasking behavior occurs when people have multiple active goals; the greater their number, the greater the degree of multitasking. The number of currently considered goals is reduced where one goal's significance overrides the others, reducing the degree of multitasking. We tested these hypotheses in a series of six studies in which we manipulated either goal activation or goal importance and investigated how this affected the degree of multitasking. The results showed that the more active goals participants actively entertained, the more likely they were to plan to engage in multitasking (Studies 1 and 5), and the more often they switched between tasks (Study 2). They also multitasked more under high interruption condition assumed to activate more goals than low interruption condition (Study 3). Further, we demonstrated that the degree of multitasking was significantly decreased by reducing the number of simultaneously considered goals, either via increasing the relative importance of one of the goals (Study 4) or via inducing greater commitment to one of the goals through a mental contrasting procedure (Study 5). Study 6, carried out in an academic context, additionally showed that the importance of a class-related goal negatively predicted media multitasking in class. The results thus show that goal activation is the underlying mechanism that explains why people multitask. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
... found that these individuals differentially recruit orbitofrontal cortex and parahippocampal gyrus to support their attentional maintenance. Additionally, humans present with different, sometimes flexible, strategies for attentional performance depending on previous experience, task instructions, creative thinking skills, levels of anxiety, and personality traits (Ansburg & Hill, 2003;Boot, Becic, & Kramer, 2009;Derryberry & Reed, 2002;Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte, 2001). Rats with relatively "hot" cognitive-motivational styles (sign-trackers) demonstrate less consistent attentional performance over the course of 40-minutes compared to rats with relatively "cold" cognitive-motivational styles (goal-trackers; . ...
Attention is critical for interacting with our dynamic cue-rich environments and consequently attentional deficits can escalate to yield incapacitating disorders. In order to develop rational treatments for the attentional instabilities that typify a wide range of brain disorders, it is crucial that we determine the validity of behavioral tasks used to reveal neurobehavioral and neurocognitive mechanisms of attention in both rodent models and healthy and impaired humans. Measures of behavioral performance from tasks with little or uncertain validity yield misleading neuro-behavioral mappings that offer little translational utility. Here, we assessed the construct validity of a common rodent attentional task, the Sustained Attention Task (SAT), examined competing models for the psychological mechanisms which mediate effects of performance challenges thought to tax attentional resources or effort, and determined individual differences in the neurobiological and cognitive mechanisms for SAT performance. Dominant conceptualizations about the psychological nature of the SAT have assumed that it necessitates “top-down”, or goal-directed, attentional control for the successful detection of relatively rare stimuli. The work presented in this dissertation challenges the assumption that in all individuals, SAT engages “top-down” attentional mechanisms. Specifically, animals with relatively “hot” cognitive-motivational styles (sign-trackers), prone to attributing incentive motivational properties to reward predictive cues, engage perceptual, but not cholinergic-attentional mechanisms to respond to salient cues in SAT. Next, we examined the cognitive mechanisms underlying task decline or maintenance in SAT, particularly in the face of challenges. To this aim we tested two competing models of effortful performance: the resource depletion model and the opportunity cost model. The former proposes that performance on tasks, such as the SAT, declines over time as a function of consumed biological and psychological resources. However, this model fails to explain a number of critical features of effortful performance and can be methodologically irrefutable. Alternatively, the opportunity cost model is computationally accessible, proposing that task performance declines as a result of subjective feelings of effort arising from cost/benefit calculations for the value of staying on task versus switching to an alternate action. We employed SAT manipulations proposed to alter the demands on task-related processing resources versus opportunity costs associated with task maintenance in opposing directions. Male and female rats trained to SAT criterion performed four versions of SAT: with a flashing house light distractor (dSAT), dSAT with a rest period from task performance, with blocks where the intertrial interval (ITI) is shortened, and with blocks where the ITI is lengthened. Importantly, the two competing theoretical perspectives predict opposed outcomes of these task manipulations: long ITIs should not tax attentional resources, but they should be neutral to or elevate opportunity costs. Conversely, shorter ITIs are thought to tax processing resources but may be neutral with respect to, or even decrease, opportunity costs. The rest period during dSAT is proposed to offer relief and restoration for consumed resources while remaining neutral to opportunity costs. The results from these manipulations were not consistent with a resource depletion account of task maintenance nor did they conform to predictions set by the opportunity cost model. Collectively, the data presented in this dissertation have established a research program designed to determine the construct validity of SAT, to test competing psychological theories about the mechanisms involved in the response to task manipulations, and further examined individual differences in attentional strategies.
... Upon completion of the experimental task, a questionnaire was administrated to measure participants' perceptions of the overall workload and about interruptions. In addition, multitasking tendency and personality traits were measured as control variables, because they have been found to significantly influence individuals' performance and subjective experience in multitasking behaviors (Conte & Gintoft, 2005;Ishizaka et al., 2001;Kantrowitz et al., 2012;Schell & Conte, 2008). ...
Objective
The study aims to examine the effects of interruptions in major phases (i.e., problem-identification, alternative-development, and evaluation-and-selection) of complex decision-making tasks.
Background
The ability to make complex decisions is of increasing importance in workplaces. Complex decision-making involves a multistage process and is likely to be interrupted, given the ubiquitous prevalence of interruptions in workplaces today.
Method
Sixty participants were recruited for the experiment to complete a procurement task, which required them to define goals, search for alternatives, and consider multiple attributes of alternatives to make decisions. Participants in the three experimental conditions were interrupted to respond to messages during one of these three phases, whereas participants in the control condition were not interrupted. The impacts of interruptions on performance, mental workload, and emotional states were measured through a combination of behavioral, physiological, and subjective evaluations.
Results
Only participants who were interrupted in the evaluation-and-selection phase exhibited poorer task performance, despite their positive feelings toward interruptions and confidence. Participants who were interrupted in the problem-identification phase reported higher mental workload and more negative perceptions toward interruptions. Interruptions in the alternative-development phase led to more temporal changes in arousal and valence than interruptions in other phases.
Conclusion
Interruptions during the evaluation-and-selection phase undermine overall performance, and there is a discrepancy between behavioral outcomes and subjective perceptions of interruption effects.
Application
Interruptions should be avoided in the evaluation-and-selection phase in complex decision-making. This phase information can be either provided by users or inferred from coarse-grained interaction activities with decision-making information systems.
... The present definition of multitasking is also in line with previous conceptions in which multitasking was treated as either simultaneous task performance (e.g., Buhner et al., 2006;Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte, 2001;Poposki & Oswald, 2010;Rubinstein, Meyer, & Evans, 2001;Todorov et al., 2015) and/or as switching between tasks in a given time block (e.g., Burgess, 2000;Chen & Yan, 2016;Hambrick, Oswald, Darowski, Rench, & Brou, 2010;Law, Logie, & Pearson, 2006;Monsell, 2003;Rogers & Monsell, 1995;Szumowska, 1 We assume that the designation of means and goals is relative within a motivational hierarchy at which top resides a basic need (e.g., competence). In other words, whereas a task (say studying) is a means to a goal of getting a good grade, the latter, in turn, is a means of getting to a good college which is a means to affirming one's competence. ...
With the constantly increasing popularity of human multitasking, it is crucial to know why do people engage in simultaneous task performance or switch between unfinished tasks. In the present paper, we propose that multitasking behavior occurs when people have multiple active goals, the greater their number, the greater the degree of multitasking. The number of currently considered goals is reduced where one goal’s significance overrides the others, reducing the degree of multitasking. We tested these hypotheses in a series of six studies in which we manipulated either goal activation or goal importance and investigated how this affected the degree of multitasking. The results showed that the more active goals participants actively entertained, the more likely they were to plan to engage in multitasking (Study 1 & 5), and the more often they switched between tasks (Study 2). They also multitasked more under high interruption condition assumed to activate more goals than low interruption condition (Study 3). Further, we demonstrated that the degree of multitasking was significantly decreased by reducing the number of simultaneously considered goals, either via increasing the relative importance of one of the goals (Study 4) or via inducing greater commitment to one of the goals through a mental contrasting procedure (Study 5). Study 6, carried out in an academic context, additionally showed that the importance of a class-related goal negatively predicted media multitasking in class. The results thus show that goal activation is the underlying mechanism that explains why people multitask.
... Individual differences exist in attentional strategies in multitasking situations due to different types of behavior patterns (Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte, 2001). In driving scenarios specifically, Donmez, Boyle, and Lee (2009) found individual differences in young drivers with respect to their glance patternsthe duration and number of off-road glances on the in-vehicle display. ...
This paper investigated individual differences in attentional strategies during the non-driving-related tasks in Level 2 automated driving. Ward’s method was used to cluster participants into different groups according to the characteristics of their sequential off-road glances in the email-sorting task: duration, frequency, variance, and intensity. The clustering results showed two types of sequential off-road glance patterns in distracted Level 2 driving: infrequent long glances vs. frequent short glances. However, participants in the two groups showed similar workload, driving engagement, and email-sorting accuracy. They also reported similar feelings of safety and feedback about the Level 2 vehicle automation. The glance differences demonstrated the complexity of attentional strategies among individual drivers, which is a necessary aspect of driver state to be monitored in automated driving.
... We anticipated that nursing students with a balanced time perspective would multitask more effectively. Existing literature from psychology and organizational behavior indicates substantial influence of temporal individual differences on work behaviors, ranging from differences in individuals' preferred work speeds [55], to planning for the future [56], and suggests polychronicity [57] and time urgency [58] are correlated with multitasking behavior. Although past time perspective is hypothesized to be associated with a monochronic preference [18], and both present and future time perspectives are theorized to influence reactions to working under deadlines [17], we are aware of no empirical work examining the relationship between time perspective and actual multitasking behavior in a nursing context. ...
Background
The majority of tasks nurses complete in acute care settings are time-sensitive. Due to complex patient needs, nurses’ multitasking behavior is of growing importance. Situations involving multitasking behavior typically require nurses to switch their attention among multiple tasks and patients in a rapid fashion. Research suggests temporal individual differences such as time urgency, polychronicity, and time perspective influence decision-making. The factors suggest that balanced time perspective may facilitate multitasking. Given novice nurses commit errors related to multitasking, we evaluated the relationship between temporal individual differences, cognitive workload, and multitasking behaviors in a simulation setting.
Methods
A one-group repeated measures design was used to evaluate the relationship between multitasking, demographic factors, cognitive workload, and temporal individual differences. One hundred sixty fourth-year, prelicensure nursing students independently completed two 45-min multiple patients simulations involving care of three interactive patient simulators. Participants completed the Multitasking Preference Inventory, Time Perspective Inventory, Experiences of Time survey, and Time Urgency Scale before simulation. A summary Creighton Simulation Evaluation Instrument score was used to represent multitasking. Participants completed the Task Load Index to represent cognitive workload. We calculated deviation from balanced time perspective and measured its correlation with multitasking. Regression models calculated how much variance deviation from balanced time perspective, demographic factors, and cognitive workload contributed to multitasking.
Results
Standardized test scores were more predictive of multitasking than deviation from balanced time perspective (β = 0.19, t = 2.48, p = 0.0142). As deviation from balanced time perspective increased, multitasking behaviors decreased ( r = − 0.17), participants reported a higher sense of urgency ( r = 0.39), and they had more frustration after simulation ( r = 0.22). Deviation from balanced time perspective did not influence cognitive workload.
Conclusions
Nursing students who demonstrate multitasking behaviors tend to have a more balanced time perspective. Knowing students’ deviation from balanced time perspective may help educators anticipate who will need more assistance with multitasking in simulation. Nursing students frequently wait until just before graduation to provide care for multiple patients; including mention of deviation from balanced time perspective in simulation preparation may help senior nursing students become more self-aware and ultimately improve behavioral performance.
... Anthropologists, sociologists, and social psychologists claim that perspicacity of time is diverse in many cultures, in which perception of time is socially constructed, and employed individuals are frequently interjected at work that involve managing numerous strains. The ability to shift attention amid several responsibilities is an important job element and mandatory in job description (Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte, 2001) especially for polychronic organizations. The behavioral exhibition of this ability denoted as multitasking (Kinney, Kung, Walvoord, & Shoemaker, 2010). ...
The current research was designed to culturally adapt the Multitasking Preference Inventory (MPI) and to establish reliability and validity on the sample selected from Pakistani papulation. This research was conducted through the cultural adaptation process (forward and back translation) content validity and construct validity through (EFA & CFA) and reliability (internal consistency). Study I was conducted by selecting a sample of 230 married adults on the translated version of MPI and results demonstrated the factor structure of MPI as two dimensional through EFA instead unidimensional. CFA on the larger data of 850 married adults in study II adequately confirmed translated version of MPI as the two dimensional structure explored in study I. Factor structure of the translated version of MPI was also found to be significantly fit on the data of married working men and women, separately. Further reliability analyses showed stability for the internal consistency of scores on the instrument and intra scale correlation has also established the construct validity. Statistically significant differences were also found on the scores from two groups of sample housewives and married males. While concluding translated version of MPI was found valid and reliable as dimensional measure on the Pakistani sample.
... Thus, polychronicity has a negative correlation with punctuality values and an emphasis on schedules and deadlines (Conte et al., 1999). Ishizaka et al. (2001) found that polychronicity predicts task-related hurry, but not general hurry. Therefore, polychronic individuals may frequently rush to complete tasks at work, but may not necessarily feel rushed in their daily lives. ...
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to examine whether polychronicity, an individual difference variable that involves a preference for multitasking, moderates the relationships between work-family conflict (WFC) and two work criteria, job satisfaction and work engagement; second, to examine two measures of polychronicity (the multitasking preference inventory (MPI) and the inventory of polychronic values (IPV)) and investigate whether polychronicity moderates the relationships between WFC and work criteria differently when measured by the MPI or the IPV.
Design/methodology/approach
The study’s sample included 257 respondents from the Amazon Mechanical Turk service who completed an online survey. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to test whether polychronicity moderated the relationships between WFC and two work criteria, job satisfaction and work engagement.
Findings
Polychronicity was found to significantly moderate the relationship between the work engagement and WFC. Follow-up analyses indicated that those who were lower in polychronicity had a significant decrease in work engagement as WFC increased, whereas those who were higher in polychronicity had relatively the same work engagement level regardless of changes in WFC. The results suggest that individuals higher in polychronicity have more personal resources and may be more resilient than those lower in polychronicity when it comes to not letting conflicts between their work and family lives affect how engaged they feel in their work.
Originality/value
This study extends the application of polychronicity to new domains of WFC and work engagement. The current study also contributed to the literature by investigating two measures of polychronicity (MPI and IPV) and finding that the MPI significantly moderated the relationship between WFC and work engagement, but the IPV did not. These findings indicate that there are important differences between the MPI and the IPV, and additional research is needed in comparing these two polychronicity measures.
... Particular emphasis has fallen on differences between Type A vs Type B behavioural patterns (Matthews & Brunson, 1979). Findings suggest that Type A individuals tend to focus more intensely on primary tasks than Type B individuals (De la Casa, Gordillo, Mejías, Rengel, & Romero, 1998;Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte, 2001;Moch, 1984). In addition, De la Casa et al. (1998) found that Type A individuals tend to pay attention to stimuli even when not instructed to do so in an attempt to obtain as much information as possible for future use. ...
The rapid advancement of mobile computing devices and the ever-growing range of infotainment services they enable have cultivated high levels of media multitasking. Studies have considered the effects of this form of behaviour for cognitive control ability, with findings suggesting that chronic media multitasking is associated with reduced inhibitory control. In this study we advance knowledge in this domain by investigating differences in the attention distribution strategies of high and low media multitaskers (HMMs and LMMs) through a simple, two-dimensional game. 1 063 university students completed a web-based survey concerning their media multitasking behaviour and played the 2D game. Contributing to the ecological validity of the study the game was played within the respondent's web-browser, as part of the survey, at a time and place (and on a computer) of their choosing. During gameplay one of two different banners, both irrelevant to the game, were displayed adjacent to the game. No instructions were provided in relation to the banners. Our analysis considered respondents' performance in the game in relation to both their media multitasking and the content of the banner displayed. Our findings suggest that while HMMs attend to distracting stimuli independent of their content or salience, LMMs are more selective. This selectivity enables improved primary task performance when distracting stimuli are deemed unimportant. Additionally, we found that LMMs generally recalled banner information more accurately after the game was played.
... Multitasking has commonly been defined as carrying out two or more tasks at the same time (e.g., Bühner et al., 2006;Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte, 2001;Rubinstein, Meyer, & Evans, 2001) or as a means to accomplish multiple task goals in the same time period by engaging in frequent switches between tasks (Delbridge, 2000). Some researchers differentiate between concurrent and sequential multitasking: situations wherein two or more tasks are carried out at the same time, and situations wherein one must choose to do one task or the other and switch between the unfinished tasks at hand (e.g., Adler & Benbunan-Fich, 2012;Wickens, Gutzwiller, & Santamaria, 2015). ...
The prevalence of multitasking has reached new heights. The newest technological advances have made switching between ongoing tasks and attending to several media sources at the same time not only possible but also seemingly easy. However, not everyone likes multitasking to the same extent, and individuals differ in their willingness to engage in multitasking behavior. Some prefer to perform multiple tasks at the same time, whereas others would rather finish one task before moving on to another. We argued that such a preference is related to a more general tendency to reduce ambiguity and uncertainty in one’s life or the need for cognitive closure.
... In the presence of multiple tasks the sharing of resources i.e., cognitive, motor, perceptual, and time constraint in multitasking is explained by Taatgen (2008, 2011) through a theory of threaded cognition which means that multitasking behaviour is a result of multiple threads of cognition happening simultaneously where each thought signifies a different goal of task accomplishment (Sanderson et.al., 2013). However, studies from organizational psychology have established the link between multitasking preferences and ability while predicting performance and suggested that preference influence behaviour and multitasking preferences are related with multitasking behavioral ability (Edwards, 1991;Goonetilleke & Luximon, 2009;Hecht & Allen, 2005;Hambrick et al., 2011;Ishizaka et al., 2001;Kantrowitz & Kinney, 2009;Keonig, Oberarcher, & Kleinmann, 2010;Keonig & Waller, 2010;König et al., 2005). Moreover studies from cognitive psychology also provide evidences of the link between cognitive ability and multitasking ability and Carroll has explained the role of intelligence with multitasking ability and found fluid intelligence, general memory, broad auditory perception are related with multitasking performance and Ben-Shakhar and Sheffer, (2001) found the same link with attentional resources. ...
This paper examines the relationship between significant, memorable events and learning behavior. Five events are introduced and analyzed, and their theoretical relationship to drives, beliefs, and motivation explored. Significant events are shown to play two important functions in regulating learning behavior. The first is to cause an immediate change in learning-related beliefs and behavior; the second is to underlie beliefs and behavior ‘from a distance’ as a key constituent of learning-related memories and narratives. It is argued that significant events are a fundamental cause of behavioral change, while drives and beliefs provide a convincing explanation of more routine behavior. Motivation is understood as a force that makes sporadic appearances on the stage of consciousness, either in response to significant events, or to protect habitual behavior from disruption. The findings suggest that a successful learner will likely have experienced a number of memorable episodes whose effects may be profound in the long-term, but unknowable in the short term. The theoretical and practical implications of a wider recognition of the importance of the concept of the significant event are considered.
... Multitasking has commonly been defined as carrying out two or more tasks at the same time (e.g., Bühner et al., 2006;Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte, 2001;Rubinstein, Meyer, & Evans, 2001) or as a means to accomplish multiple task goals in the same time period by engaging in frequent switches between tasks (Delbridge, 2000). Some researchers differentiate between concurrent and sequential multitasking: situations wherein two or more tasks are carried out at the same time, and situations wherein one must choose to do one task or the other and switch between the unfinished tasks at hand (e.g., Adler & Benbunan-Fich, 2012;Wickens, Gutzwiller, & Santamaria, 2015). ...
Nowadays, multitasking has become an integral part of everyday life. However, not everyone enjoys multitasking and there are some who prefer working on tasks sequentially. In this paper, we argue that need for cognitive closure (NFC), a motivational tendency to avoid ambiguity and uncertainty via a rigid processing style, is a variable related to lower willingness to engage in multitasking. Across three samples, we found that NFC was negatively related to multitasking preference (Study 1). In Study 2, we found that NFC negatively predicted self-reported multitasking behavior. Study 3 additionally showed that NFC negatively predicted multitasking behavior operationalized as the number of switches between tasks in a multiple media task. Implications for peoples' well-being and performance are discussed.
... Being disrupted from a task means that a surgeon is asked to multi-task -i.e., to shift attentional focus from the primary task to one or more secondary tasks. Psychological research suggests that such shifts come at a cost, as performance at the primary task deteriorates (e.g., Altmann and Trafton 2007, Monsell 2003, Trafton and Monk 2008 and that different people are affected to different degrees by such demands to multi-task (e.g., Ishizaka et al. 2001). This means that some surgeons will fare better than others in coping with distracting events in the Or -an individual difference that should be assessed systematically. ...
... Strayer et al. (2013) argue to the contrary, claiming that multitasking ability is based on executive functioning skills, and does not vary by gender. In addition, achievement-Task Speed and Accuracy Decrease When Multitasking 309 oriented individuals (Type A personality types) were reported to be the most hurried in attempting multiple tasks to accomplish their goals (Ishizaka et al. 2001), but no significant link has been seen between Type A behavior patterns and task performance. The Big Five or OCEAN has been one of the most frequently used instruments for assessing individual personality traits. ...
As new technologies increase the opportunities for multitasking, the need to understand human capacities for multitasking continues to grow stronger. Is multitasking helping us to be more efficient? This study investigated the multitasking abilities of 168 participants, ages 6–72, by measuring their task accuracy and completion time when they completed a visual or auditory task alone (single-tasking) as compared to when they attempted the two tasks simultaneously (multitasking). Age, gender, and personality factors were assessed. Observations and post-study interviews provided additional insights into the participants’ multitasking strategies. Results showed significantly lower accuracy and longer completion time in participants when they attempted the combined tasks, suggesting that even concurrent tasks that depend upon different modalities may hinder efficiency. In addition, a significant correlation was seen between age groupings, with teenagers (ages 13–19) and young adults (ages 20–40) showing the strongest multitasking abilities.
... as mentioned previously, recent research on multi-tasking indicates that it can result in superficial learning. however, other findings suggest that individuals respond differently when faced with more than one task competing for their attention (De la Casa, Gordillo, Mejias, Rangel, & Romero, 1998;ishizaka, Marshall, Conte, 2001). type a individuals are not only able to ignore information that interferes with their performance and focus as much as they need to succeed on a task, but also remember details from other information not necessarily involved in the task. ...
... But to the extent it is not made explicit to a respondent, diverging interpretations could result. This issue was offered as one possible explanation for the surprising finding that polychronicity (measured by the IPV) had no significant impact on multitasking performance in at least two studies (König et al., 2005;Ishizaka et al., 2001). ...
Since the 1960s women in most countries have increased the time they spend in the labour market, while little change has been seen in their time spent on unpaid household work. Men, however, have decreased their labour market participation and increased their time used on unpaid household work. This trend also holds true for Denmark, albeit reduced by standardization for the demographic distribution. The most robust result is a continued convergence in women and men's time use. When making a linear projection of the trends in women and men's time use, we have to go to the year 2033 before Danish women and men spend an equal amount of time in paid employment. However, for household work, gender equality will arrive as early as 2023.
... Empirically, correlation between Type A behaviour pattern (and/or its sub-dimensions) and polychronicity have been identified (Conte et. al, 1999;Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte, 2001). Polychronicity is likely to be related to both achievement striving and impatience or irritability which are classic Type A behaviour. ...
Researchers are increasing their attention to the multitasking demands of current organizational settings and focusing on the Time-use related values and strengths of individuals. Several researches have been carried out to explore and examine the dimension of polychronicity in this perspective. Polychronicity is the attitude and preferences associated with time use and it has been identified as a critical competency in organizing various life domains. However, there has been substantial ambiguity existing in the literature and empirical researches regarding psychological predictors of polychronicity. The incongruent conceptualization of the construct might have revealed contradictory results in several studies across the globe. The present study conceptualized polychronicity as an individual difference construct and explored the personality predictors of polychronicity among 902 young adults. By using a cross sectional, descriptive design the participants were administered HEXACO-Personality Inventory, Sensory Sensitivity scale (FCB-TI) and Multitasking Preference Inventory (MPI). Correlational analysis and Hierarchical regression was used to analyze the data. Results revealed that Polychronicity was significantly related to Personality and Sensory Sensitivity. The results of hierarchical regression showed that Sensory Sensitivity, Conscientiousness and Extraversion as significant predictors of polychronicity among young adults. Abstract-Researchers are increasing their attention to the multitasking demands of current organizational settings and focusing on the Time-use related values and strengths of individuals. Several researches have been carried out to explore and examine the dimension of polychronicity in this perspective. Polychronicity is the attitude and preferences associated with time use and it has been identified as a critical competency in organizing various life domains. However, there has been substantial ambiguity existing in the literature and empirical researches regarding psychological predictors of polychronicity. The incongruent conceptualization of the construct might have revealed contradictory results in several studies across the globe. The present study conceptualized polychronicity as an individual difference construct and explored the personality predictors of polychronicity among 902 young adults. By using a cross sectional, descriptive design the participants were administered HEXACO-Personality Inventory, Sensory Sensitivity scale (FCB-TI) and Multitasking Preference Inventory (MPI). Correlational analysis and Hierarchical regression was used to analyze the data. Results revealed that Polychronicity was significantly related to Personality and Sensory Sensitivity. The results of hierarchical regression showed that Sensory Sensitivity, Conscientiousness and Extraversion as significant predictors of polychronicity among young adults. The results of the study highlighted the role of individual personality and temperament in predicting multitasking preference among young adults. Future research directions and limitations of the study are discussed.
... The authors concluded that overconfidence and impulsiveness rather than skill appeared to drive their extensive real world multitasking choices. Although individual differences are clearly an important consideration in predicting successful multitasking, much more research is needed to identify, explain, and integrate these complex person, task, and contextual variables (Buchweitz et al., 2012;Engle, 2002;Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte, 2001;Watson & Strayer, 2010). ...
Current work, play, and learning environments require multitasking activities from children, adolescents and adults. Advances in web-enabled and multi-function devices have created a perceived need to stay “wired” to multiple media sources. The increased demand that these activities place on information processing resources has raised concerns about the quality of learning and performance under multitasking conditions. Young children, whose attention systems and executive functions are immature, are seen to be especially at risk. To evaluate these concerns the costs and benefits of “everyday” multitasking (e.g., driving, studying, multimedia learning) are examined in relation to the classic experimental literatures on divided attention in task-switching and dual-task performance. These literatures indicate that multitasking is almost always less efficient (time, accuracy) and can result in a more superficial learning than single-task performance. Alternatively, when the cognitive, perceptual, and response requirements of the tasks are controlled by the individual, when learning platforms are developmentally appropriate, and when practice is permitted, multitasking strategies can not only be successful but can result in enhanced visual and perceptual skills and knowledge acquisition. Future progress will come from advances in cognitive and computational modelling, from training attention and brain networks, and from the neuroergonomic evaluation of performance that will enable the design of work and learning environments that are optimized for multitasking.
... At present this stream of research is quite small, in contrast to the large body of literature on multitasking published in the psychological and cognitive sciences (e.g., Pashler, 1994;Burgess, Veitch, Costello, and Shallice, 2000). That research that does exist suggests that multitasking in organizations is endemic to teams and team performance (Marks et al., 2001), that multitask performance can be influenced by individual differences (Ishizaka, Marshall, and Conte, 2001), and that high performance under conditions of multitasking requires teams to react to negative performance feedback by redirecting effort among the tasks being performed (Waller, 1996). ...
... But to the extent it is not made explicit to a respondent, diverging interpretations could result. This issue was offered as one possible explanation for the surprising finding that polychronicity (measured by the IPV) had no significant impact on multitasking performance in at least two studies (König et al., 2005;Ishizaka et al., 2001). ...
This paper introduces a conceptual framework for the systematic analysis of multitasking behavior, and the corresponding degree of preference for doing multiple activities simultaneously (polychronicity). A typology of
multitasking is developed along the two dimensions “share of time” and “share of resources” allocated to each
task. We discuss the heterogeneous nature of resources and the importance of the time scale and time granularity
used for measuring multitasking, among other considerations. An illustrative library of examples of multitasking
situations is provided. Finally, we discuss the measurement of polychronicity as a time- and context-dependent
vector, rather than as a single score.
Polychronicity, an under-researched dimension of diversity, refers to the degree to which a person likes to engage in several tasks at once. Common sense, scientific theory and initial evidence suggest that individuals will perform better when faced with a job whose demands on multi-tasking match their individual time styles. This paper reports on an experiment among students to test the performance effect of the person-job-fit with respect to polychronicity. Unlike prior research, our experimental conditions focus on the mode of allocating scarce time among multiple tasks. The preliminary results confirm a performance premium in case of a match between time styles and task types.
Civil servants in many developing countries are increasingly faced with multitask situations at work to improve the efficiency of public sectors. Although multitasking might boost employee productivity, its potentially negative impact on other areas of employees’ lives has been ignored. Drawing upon the conservation of resources theory, our research aims to investigate whether, how, and when multitasking at work decreases the subjective well‐being of employees in the public sector. Using a two‐wave survey of 164 civil servants in Malawi, our findings showed that multitasking at work was positively related to employees’ negative affect and negatively related to their satisfaction with life and positive affect through emotional exhaustion. Moreover, the study found that polychronicity, which refers to one's preference to handle more than one task at the same time, moderated the relationship between multitasking and emotional exhaustion, such that the association described above was weaker when an employee's polychronicity was higher. Finally, the indirect impact of multitasking on positive affect through emotional exhaustion was also moderated by polychronicity. These findings provide some theoretical and managerial implications for public sector in developing countouies on how to focus on employee well‐being while using multitasking work design. . Summary at a glance Our research aims to investigate whether, how, and when multitasking at work decrease the subjective well‐being of employees in the public sector.
Motivated by behavioural and psychological phenomena that occur in human operators, we study single-machine multitasking scheduling with job efficiency promotion. In traditional multitasking scheduling, the primary task is assumed to be interrupted by every waiting task. In this paper we take into account job efficiency promotion that helps reduce the actual interruption time. We propose two functions to model job efficiency promotion based on the job positions in a given schedule. The objective is to minimize the makespan, total completion time, and total absolute difference in completion times. We show that the problem is polynomially solvable for each objective. We also provide efficient solutions for some special cases.
Research on multitasking, that is, conducting two or more tasks simultaneously or switching quickly between two or more tasks, has focused mostly on a human's capacity to do so inside their brain. However, our daily life experience indicates that our ability to multitask is not only dependent on our brain capacity, but is also related to other factors such as our environments and available resources. Different individuals may have different abilities to multitask due to their expertise, situational awareness, or ability to plan ahead. This chapter discusses the environmental and technological factors of multitasking based on a prior study. The goal is to expand interdisciplinary dialogues and research methodologies to better understand this prevalent phenomenon in our society.
The increasing frequency of student multitasking during study has raised concerns about its impact on their learning outcomes. To address this, performance on an academic task was examined. Students were instructed either to attend to two simultaneous sources of information (text article, documentary video) for later test or to attend to the text but ignore the video. To assess individual differences potentially related to multitasking success, students’ working memory capacity, polychronicity, and self-perception of multitasking effectiveness were included in regression analyses. Finally, the generality of successful multitasking on the study task to performance on a simulated making breakfast task was examined. The results showed: (1) students who attended to two sources during study showed poorer retention of material from both; (2) students who ignored one source performed as well as controls who studied without distraction; (3) successful multitaskers had large working memory capacity, preferred multitasking, and were confident in their multitasking effectiveness; 4) successful multitaskers on the study task were not necessarily successful on the breakfast task; and (5) only working memory capacity was common to both tasks. Results are discussed in terms of task and individual characteristics that underlie effective multitasking.
Research on multitasking, that is, conducting two or more tasks simultaneously or switching quickly between two or more tasks, has focused mostly on a human's capacity to do so inside their brain. However, our daily life experience indicates that our ability to multitask is not only dependent on our brain capacity, but is also related to other factors such as our environments and available resources. Different individuals may have different abilities to multitask due to their expertise, situational awareness, or ability to plan ahead. This chapter discusses the environmental and technological factors of multitasking based on a prior study. The goal is to expand interdisciplinary dialogues and research methodologies to better understand this prevalent phenomenon in our society.
People, and in particularly students, are immersed in a technology-enabled world that encourages human multitasking. Yet referent research indicates multitasking behaviors usually result in non-desirable outcomes such as reduced productivity and increased errors. The current survey research was conducted to determine perceptions of college students regarding the impact of multitasking. Do they frequently multitask, do they think multitasking improves their performance, and are there gender differences in their perceptions? The overall results are 'yes' to all of the above. Unfortunately, referent research suggests this is an undesirable perspective that will lead to lower performance behaviors. Females tend to believe more strongly that women are better than men at multitasking, although no known empirical research supports this belief. Students view multitasking as relatively more acceptable in a classroom environment than in a business meeting setting, which has potential implications for course administration.
In face-to-face work, discussion and negotiation relies strongly on non-verbal feedback, which provides important clues to negotiation states such as agreement/disagreement and understanding/confusion, as well as indicating the emotional states and reactions of those around us. With the continued rise of virtual teams, collaboration increasingly requires tools to manage the reality of distributed e-research and remote work, which is often hampered by a lack of social cohesion and such phenomena as participant multitasking. This chapter discusses important concepts and current issues related to remote research teams and discusses current research in the use of Automatic Facial Expression Recognition Systems (AFERS) in solving some of the inherent problems of the existing online collaboration tools used to support collaborative and distributed research and work. The later half of this chapter describes a proof-of-concept artificial intelligence based software agent (Emotion Tracking Agent, or ETA) developed by the authors for the monitoring of presence and the emotional states of co-workers in virtual research meetings. The agent is intended as an innovative solution to the impaired awareness and attention resulting from continuous task switching or multitasking behaviours of collaborating remote team members. The ETA was developed and integrated into a CVE (Collaborative Virtual Environment), where an initial study was conducted to analyse its benefits and impact on the communicating participants. This chapter describes the results of this study and their implications for the future of distributed e-research and remote work.
This series of studies examined the construct and criterion-related validity of polychronicity (i.e., preferences and attitudes associated with multitasking) in managerial and nonmanagerial jobs. A person–situation approach was taken to understand the individual differences and job demand characteristics that help explain the relationship between polychronicity and job performance. Hypotheses were tested with two samples of employees in different organizations (N = 222 and 168, respectively). Results provide support for polychronicity as a predictor of job performance and a correlate of other individual differences measures (e.g., personality, job-relevant skills). In addition, polychronicity accounted for variance in job performance beyond personality, biodata, and ability. Results are discussed in the context of future research and applications for identifying contexts in which polychronicity is a salient predictor.
Psychometric analyses of college students' responses to the Jenkins Activity Survey, a self-report measure of the Type A behavior pattern, revealed the presence of two relatively independent factors. On the basis of these analyses, two scales, labeled Achievement Strivings (AS) and Impatience-Irritability (II), were developed. In two samples of male and female college students, scores on AS but not on II were found to be significantly correlated with grade point average. Responses to a health survey, on the other hand, indicated that frequency of physical complaints was significantly correlated with II but not with AS. These results suggest that there are two relatively independent factors in the Type A pattern that have differential effects on performance and health. Future research on the personality factors related to coronary heart disease and other disorders might more profitably focus on the syndrome reflected in the II scale than on the Type A pattern.
The main goal of the present study was to analyze the differential strategy Type A and B individuals use in the allocation of their available attentional resources, when they perform a stressful or involving task. In this context, we tested the hypothesis that Type A subjects focus their attention on task-relevant stimuli, ignoring, at the same time, task-irrelevant and environmental stimuli, which could interfere with their performance. To test this hypothesis, we have analyzed the performance (level of interference and error rate) of Type A and Type B subjects on a Stroop-type task, using a mixed 2×2×3 design—with the following factors and levels: Personality (Type A/Type B), Treatment (Control/Stress) and Attentional Condition (Global/Local/Divided). In summary, our present results, globally considered, showed that Type A subjects performed better (suffered less interference and made fewer errors) than Type Bs, although this effect was mainly due to the significant differences between Type A and Type B subjects in the Divided attention condition and under Control Instructions. Thus, our results only partially support the above mentioned hypothesis. These results are further discussed in relation to the difficulty level of the attentional tasks and the level of stress in the situation.
Recent research suggested that two dimensions of Type A behavior, namely, Achievement Strivings (AS) and Impatience-Irritability (II), differentially predict physical health and performance outcomes. The present study extends this research and examines whether AS and II differentially predict work performance (number of insurance policies sold), work attitudes (job satisfaction), and depression in a sample of 117 life insurance salespersons. As hypothesized, after statistically controlling for relevant biographical variables and II, AS predicted the number of policies sold and job satisfaction but was not related to depression. After partialing out the effect of relevant biographical variables and AS, II was associated with depression but not with the number of policies sold. In addition, controlling for the same variables, II was negatively associated with job satisfaction. Implications for the prediction of sales performance, job satisfaction, and depression, and interventions designed to decrease the negative consequences of Type A by reducing II but not AS, are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Although time urgency is seen as unidimensional in traditional measures of the Type A behavior pattern, F. J. Landy, H. Rastegary, J. Thayer, and C. Colvin (see record
1992-03955-001) concluded that it is a multidimensional construct. They developed behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS) that correspond to 7 dimensions of time urgency. This multitrait-multimethod study used 4 raters' evaluations of 183 students at 2 times to examine the construct validity of the BARS measures. This study also investigated environmental and individual difference variables that were linked to time urgency. Confirmatory factor analyses failed to support a hypothesized 7-dimension, 4-method solution but did show good fit indices for a 5-dimension, 4-method model. Potential directions for future research on time urgency are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
The present study developed a nomological network that theoretically linked time urgency to related variables. To test the proposed relationships, time urgency, achievement strivings (AS), and impatience/irritability (II) were utilized as predictors of health and performance 18 months later. Multivariate canonical correlation analyses provided support for a complex nomological network among the predictors and the outcome measures. Redundancy coefficients and a rotated structure matrix were employed to identify two significant dimensions, labeled crammers and organizers, that linked the predictors with the outcome measures. The results also indicated that the time urgency subcomponents were differentially related to several health outcomes. These findings provide further validity evidence for the time urgency construct, and they suggest that time urgency variables should be considered as important predictors of both health and performance outcomes. Directions for future research on time urgency are discussed. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Three studies were conducted to assess the attentional style of individuals with the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern. Experiment 1, which made use of a dual-task paradigm, revealed that Type A's focus their attention on central tasks; thus, they attend less to peripheral tasks than do Type B's. Experiments 2 and 3, which used a single task performed in the presence of a distracting stimulus, indicated that Type A's actively inhibit or suppress their attention to task-irrelevant peripheral events that might distract them from task performance. These findings validated anecdotal observations that Type A's appear hyperalert (focused in their attention) but neglect task-irrelevant cues. Previous research has demonstrated that Type A's fail to report fatigue as well as a variety of other physical symptoms of illness during task performance. To the extent that symptoms are analogous to peripheral events that distract from task performance, the data suggest that Type A's suppress their attention to symptoms. Implications of the attentional style of Type A's for the pathogenesis of coronary artery and heart disease are discussed.
Investigated some behavioral consequences of a coronary-prone behavior pattern called Type A, which is characterized by excessive achievement striving and a sense of time urgency. Ss were 62 undergraduates who were classified by the Jenkins Activity Survey for Health Prediction. The impatient tendencies of Type A Ss led them to judge the lapse of 1 min sooner than non-coronary-prone Type B Ss. Results also indicate that Type As worked on a task at near maximum capacity, irrespective of the presence or absence of a time deadline. Type Bs, by contrast, exerted more effort only when the task had an explicit deadline. Both time-estimation and performance findings are discussed in terms of Pattern A as a coping strategy for maintaining control over the physical and social environment.
Time urgency may be an important construct in industrial and organizational psychology. Preliminary analyses have indicated that time urgency may be multidimensional, and available self-report measures have been criticized on psychometric grounds. The present research addressed the dimensionality of time urgency. Behaviorally anchored rating scales (BARS), in which behavioral statements are substituted for qualitative anchors, were used to construct time urgency measures. The BARS technique produced multidimensional measures of time urgency that possessed adequate reliability and construct validity. The scales were tested on a wide variety of subjects. It is concluded that time urgency is a multidimensional construct. Relationships between the time urgency measures, job satisfaction, and work stress are discussed in light of previous research findings.
The most widely used self-report measures of the Type A behavior pattern (TABP) are the Bortner scale, the Framingham scale, and the Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS). Though high scores on each of these measures have been linked to the development of coronary heart disease, their intercorrelations are rather low, suggesting that they may reflect different aspects of TABP. This study indicates that the low correlations among the Bortner scale, the Framingham scale, and the JAS are due not only to differences in underlying constructs but also to measurement error and multidimensionality. These results also identify several psychometric problems, which raise serious questions regarding the use of these measures in TABP research. Suggestions for the development of new measures of TABP are offered.
Two or more dimensions unintentionally varied simultaneously are said to be confounded, but several theories in personality intentionally combine 3 or more distinct qualities. Researchers using these theories sum the qualities before testing predictions. How wise is this practice? The practice appears to derive from 2 distinct lines of reasoning. One of them assumes that the component dimensions converge on a single underlying quality (latent variable) that each reflects imperfectly. The other assumes a synergy among dimensions. Issues arising from each line of reasoning are illustrated by examining self-monitoring, attributional style, and hardiness. Conclusions are that (a) information is lost whenever a latent variable theory is tested solely by a composite and (b) a synergistic theory can be tested only through a statistical interaction.
The relation of behavior (Type A or Type B) to the morbidity and mortality of coronary heart disease (CHD) is still debated. We studied the survival of 257 male patients with CHD from the initial, 8.5-year phase of the Western Collaborative Group Study to see whether behavior type--as assessed by a structured interview before the CHD event--was related to subsequent CHD mortality. Behavior type was not related to mortality in 26 patients who died within 24 hours of the coronary event. However, of the 231 patients who survived for 24 hours, the mortality rate associated with CHD among 160 Type A patients studied during an average 12.7 years was 19.1 per 1000 person-years. This was unexpectedly lower than the corresponding rate of 31.7 among 71 Type B patients who were followed for an average of 11.5 years (P = 0.04). In a proportional-hazards survival analysis, which controlled for variable follow-up time, the type of initial coronary event, and traditional risk variables, the relative CHD-associated mortality rate among Type A as compared with Type B patients was 0.58 (P = 0.03; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.35 to 0.96). The lower mortality among Type A subjects occurred in both younger and older subgroups but was more pronounced in patients whose initial diagnosis was symptomatic myocardial infarction rather than silent myocardial infarction or angina pectoris. This apparent advantage associated with Type A behavior is surprising and needs confirmation, but the results do indicate that patients with CHD and a Type A behavior pattern are not at increased risk for subsequent CHD mortality.
Psychometric analyses of college students' responses to the Jenkins Activity Survey, a self-report measure of the Type A behavior pattern, revealed the presence of two relatively independent factors. On the basis of these analyses, two scales, labeled Achievement Strivings (AS) and Impatience-Irritability (II), were developed. In two samples of male and female college students, scores on AS but not on II were found to be significantly correlated with grade average. Responses to a health survey, on the other hand, indicated that frequency of physical complaints was significantly correlated with II but not with AS. These results suggest that there are two relatively independent factors in the Type A pattern that have differential effects on performance and health. Future research on the personality factors related to coronary heart disease and other disorders might more profitably focus on the syndrome reflected in the II scale than on the Type A pattern. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Subjects (N = 98) were randomly assigned to high- and low-responsibility conditions in a commitment-escalation experiment. Global Type A behavior pattern and the underlying dimension of achievement strivings were positively related to the desire to continue the same course of action in the high prior-responsibility condition but not in the low prior-responsibility condition. These findings are discussed in terms of future research into the judgment processes of people with Type A personality and the possible role of escalating commitment in disorders experienced by people with Type A personality.
The interaction between psychological and physiological variables indicates that attempts by Type A individuals to master uncontrollable stressful events may be associated with coronary heart disease.
Coronary heart disease is a clinical disorder that results from damage to the coronary arteries, the latter being called coronary artery disease or atherosclerosis (Friedberg, 1966); a nontechnical term for it is hardening of the arteries. Myocardial infarction is one of the most common forms of clinical coronary disease.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the tempo of life has continually accelerated (McGrath & Kelly, 1986). At the close of the twentieth century, life revolves ever more around the clock, especially in Western cultures Rifkil, in his book Time Wars (1987), proposes that computers are contributing to an exponentially accelerating time orientation. Computer hardware operations can be carried out as fast as billionths of a second, and this capability has set new temporal standards of organizational effectiveness and efficiency. This accelerated time orientation affects every aspect of a work organization. Perhaps the most substantial challenge facing employees as a result of this time orientation is trying to choose between alternative courses of action while under this time pressure. It is likely that time pressure does not affect everyone in the same way. It may prove challenging to one individual and debilitating to another. In fact, temporal orientation has been recognized as one of the fundamental parameters of individual differences (Bluedorn & Denhardt, 1988).
Although previous studies have revealed relationships between Type A behavior pattern (TABP) measures and behavioral indexes of time urgency, such studies utilized global TABP measures that have been criticized for their lack of construct validity. The present study linked recently developed measures of time urgency and other TABP subcomponents (e. g., impatience-irritability) to observable temporal behaviors and health outcomes. In a sample of 194 undergraduate students, the results indicated that the TABP subcomponents provided incremental validity above the contribution of the global TABP measure in predicting behavioral and health criteria. Applied implications and future directions for research on time urgency and other TABP subcomponents are discussed.
The present paper aims to analyse the performance of Type-A/Type-B individuals in a computerized Stroop-type task (Numeric and Symbolic series). An external interference condition (presence or absence of loud noise), following the design used by Matthews and Brunson (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2081–2090, 1979), was added. The results show that Type As perform the same at both levels of external interference, whereas Type Bs become worse with noise, and worse than Type As when in the noise condition. At the same time. Type As registered higher levels of reactivity (SBP) than Type Bs in the more interfering situation, but not in self-report data, and a defensive attributional style for failure or poor performance. Moreover, regression analyses with the main Type-A Behaviour Pattern (TABP) components (Competitiveness and Hostility-Impatience) as predictors revealed that the differences in performance and SBP are explained by Competitiveness. The results are discussed in terms of the characteristic Type-A need of control over the situations, the differential contribution of TABP components, and the attentional strategy (to focus on relevant task cues ignoring irrelevant noise-stimulation).
This paper provided construct validity evidence for polychronicity in two related studies. Study 1 assessed the relationship between individuals’ stated polychronicity preferences and peer ratings of polychronicity in a multitrait-multimethod design, which indicated that different raters were able to agree about an individual’s polychronicity. Additional construct validity evidence was provided by linking polychronicity to several potentially related constructs such as achievement striving, impatience/irritability, stress, and performance. In study 2, hypothesized relationships between polychronicity and both time urgency and time management behavior dimensions were supported. In addition, similar relationships between polychronicity and time urgency dimensions were identified across French and US samples. Together, these two studies provide a clearer understanding of the correlates and potential outcomes of polychronicity. Directions for future research are also discussed.
The ten-item Inventory of Polychronic Values (IPV), a psychometric measure of polychronicity (the extent to which people in a culture prefer to be engaged in two or more tasks or events simultaneously and believe their preference is the best way to do things), was developed using data from 11 samples (N = 2,190) collected from bank employees, undergraduate students, hospital personnel, dentists and their staffs, and state agency managers. Principal components, alpha, correlation, and confirmatory factor analyses supported the IPV in its internal consistency, test-retest reliability, content adequacy, construct validity (both discriminant and convergent), and nomological validity.
This study examined psychological entrapment and time investment by Type As and Bs as a function of objective time cue availability. Subjects were given an initial stake of 2.00. However, time spent on the task resulted in a loss of money from the initial stake at a constant rate. One-third of the subjects had free access to a counter that indicated their current investment. Another third of the subjects could view the counter only at certain times during the task. A final third of the subjects could not view the counter and had to rely on subjective estimates of time investment. Results indicated that when no objective time cues were available, Type As invested more time and money than did Type Bs, with investments for Type As exceeding the worth of the jackpot. By contrast, where objective cues were available, Type As and Bs did not differ in their investments. These results indicate that Type As are more susceptible than Type Bs to psychological entrapment in a time investment situation, but only if they must rely on their own estimates of time expenditure.
The present study describes two experiments designed to evaluate the attentional strategies that Type-A subjects use depending on the kind of task they have to solve. The results indicate they embarked on two different strategies depending on the way in which the task was displayed: when two tasks were presented, one as important and the other as trivial, Type-A subjects focused their attention on the stimuli of the important task. However, if a single task is presented and it appears simultaneously with some other stimuli for which there are no instructions, thus generating an ambiguous situation, the attentional strategy that appears in Type-A subjects could be called hypervigilance (defined as sustained attention directed at all stimuli involved in a task). Anyway, both strategies are in consonance with the general aim of Type-A subjects to employ as much effort as possible in all the tasks they must solve.
The present study examined the ability of Type A and Type B subjects to sustain attention during a 40-min visual vigilance task. It was predicted that Type A subjects would perform better than Type B subjects and that the performance of both groups would be related to the frequency of daydreams during the vigil. Type A subjects outperformed Type B subjects with regard to perceptual sensitivity (A') and number of signal detections. Although both groups reported an increase in the number of their daydreams as the vigil progressed, Type A subjects reported fewer daydreams during each period of watch than did Type B subjects. In addition, an inverse relationship was found between the number of signal detections and the frequency of daydreams.
Relations between time perception and Type A behaviour were investigated. Extreme Type A (n = 26) and B (n = 28) male college undergraduates rated the appropriateness of 158 adjectives as descriptors of time. Adjectives were independently rated using seven-point Likert 'speed' and 'energy' scales. Analyses showed that Type As rate adjectives low in speed and energy as less descriptive of time than Type Bs and vice versa.
Two studies assessed two types of reliability of the student Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS; a questionnaire measure of Type A behavior). In Study 1, 810 undergraduates completed the JAS. Analyses revealed that estimates of the internal consistency (Chronbach's alpha) of the JAS and its subscales (hard-driving/competitive and speed impatience) ranged from moderately low to moderately high. In Study 2, independent samples of undergraduates completed the JAS at two testings, separated by 2 weeks (N = 137) or 3 months (N = 124). Analyses revealed that estimates of the temporal stability (test-retest reliability) of the JAS total score ranged from moderately to extremely high. The results of these studies suggest that the student JAS has satisfactory internal consistency and excellent test-retest reliability and support its continued use in research on these psychometric grounds. Additional potential difficulties with the JAS are discussed in the context of recommendations for future research.
: A self-administered, machine-scored test questionnaire to discriminate between men with the Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern and those without that pattern (Type B) was taken twice by over 2800 men in the Western Collaborative Group Study in 1965 and 1966. Optimal weighting, discriminant function, and factor analytic procedures were applied to these test items to produce scales measuring Behavior Type A, Speed and Impatience, Job Involvement, and Hard-Driving traits, respectively. In a retrospective study, 83 men who had sustained a first attack of CHD before taking the test in 1965 were compared with 468 random control subjects. The mean Type A score was significantly higher for cases than for controls (P=0.01). The mean Factor H score showed cases to be more hard-driving, competitive and responsible than controls (P=0.01). Contingency tables also supported these discriminations. The other two factor scales did not discriminate significantly. Copyright (C) 1971 by American Psychosomatic Society
Synopsis
The present study examined sensitivity to noise in subjects with Type A and Type B behaviour patterns as a function of the type of task being performed. Twenty Type A and 20 Type B subjects, selected by means of Bortner's scale (French version), were exposed to steadily increasing noise levels (68–110 dBA) while performing two tasks. The first was simple (crossing out) and the second was more complex (memorizing nonsense syllables). There was no difference between the groups on the simple task, but on the more complex task Type A and Type B subjects reacted differently, the former maintaining their level of tolerance while the latter lowered theirs. High investment and the desire to succeed may lead Type A subjects to ignore the acoustic environment and/or to deny the aversive aspects of noise as cognitive strategies for coping with stress.
Type A behavior pattern: A model for research and practice
- V A Price
Price, V. A. (1982). Type A behavior pattern: A model for research and practice. New York: Academic.
The advanced theory of statistics Time urgency: The construct and its mea-surement
- M G Kendall
- A Stuart
- Hafner
- F J Attentional Strategies Landy
- H Rastegary
- J Thayer
- C Colvin
Kendall, M. G., & Stuart, A. (1958). The advanced theory of statistics. New York: Hafner. ATTENTIONAL STRATEGIES Landy, F. J., Rastegary, H., Thayer, J., & Colvin, C. (1991). Time urgency: The construct and its mea-surement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 644–657.
Type A behavior and your heart
- M Friedman
- R H Rosenman