Behavioral performance and visual attention in communication multitasking: A comparison between instant messaging and online voice chat

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.12.018Get rights and content

Abstract

Participants carried out a visual pattern-matching task on a computer while communicating with a confederate either via instant messaging (IM) or online voice chat. Communicating with a confederate led to a 50% drop in visual pattern-matching performance in the IM condition and a 30% drop in the voice condition. Visual fixations on pattern-matching were fewer and shorter during the communication task and a greater loss of fixations was found in the IM condition than the voice condition. The results, examined within a threaded cognition framework, suggest that distributing the work between the audio and visual channels reduces performance degradation. Implications for media literacy and distracted-driving are discussed.

Highlights

► Distributing work between audio-visual channels reduces performance degradation. ► Communicating via IM led to a 50% drop in a simultaneous visual task performance. ► Communicating via voice phone led to a smaller (30%) drop in the same task. ► A greater loss of eye fixations was found in IM than voice multitasking.

Introduction

Communication multitasking is becoming a way of life. In a recent national survey, 76% reported using instant messaging (IM) and 80% reported using telephone while working on other computer tasks (Carrier, Cheever, Rosen, Benitez, & Chang, 2009). Defined as using a communication medium or channel to accomplish a goal while simultaneously being engaged in another task with a different goal (Jeong and Fishbein, 2007, Meyer and Kieras, 1997, Ophir et al., 2009), communication multitasking has implications on human cognition (Ophir et al., 2009), work performance (Hembrooke and Gay, 2003, Wang and Tchernev, in press), and media campaigns (Voorveld, 2011).

Multitasking through text and voice communication is common while working on a computer (Carrier et al., 2009) and the effects of multitasking in the workplace has received attention. While some studies have examined the interruptive nature of IM (Cameron and Webster, 2005, Renneker and Godwin, 2003), it has been found that IM is perceived to be less disruptive compared to phone (Garrett & Danziger, 2007). Despite the attention on IM, to our knowledge, IM and voice communication have not been directly compared in multitasking situations. Therefore, in this study we examine performance on a visual task when participants are in synchronous communication via IM or online voice chat on a different task. In addition, our choice of IM and voice chat was motivated by theoretical interests on the allocation and management of cognitive resources when two tasks rely heavily on the visual modality in comparison to tasks that are distributed between the visual and auditory modalities (e.g., Basil, 1994, Grimes, 1991, Lang, 2000). In addition to task performance, real-time eye movement data were examined to explore visual attention while communication multitasking.

Section snippets

Multitasking theories

The success of multitasking depends on the nature of the tasks and the criteria used to assess performance. For example, texting or talking on the phone when driving has been shown to affect driving performance. On the other hand, playing the guitar and singing can enhance overall performance of a talented musician. In general, however, dual or multiple tasks have been found to impair performance on specific cognitive tasks in laboratory settings, under conditions of explicit or implicit time

Experimental design, procedures, and participants

A 2 (Task: Single, Multi) × 2 (Communication mode: IM, Voice) mixed design was used, with task as a within-individual factor and communication mode as a between-individual factor. Thirty-two students from a large Midwestern university participated in the study for course extra-credit and monetary bonus. They were between 20 and 26 years of age (M = 21.72, SD = 1.57) and 62.5% were female. On average, participants took between 30 and 40 min to complete the experiment.

Upon arrival at the lab, informed

Results

We began by analyzing individual differences between experimental conditions. No significant differences were observed for preference for multitasking, extraversion, and experience with communication technologies.

Discussion

Though it is widely perceived that multitasking saves time, some tasks take longer under multitasking situations (e.g., Bowman, Levine, Waite, & Gendron, 2010) and task performance suffers when more than one task has to be accomplished within a limited amount of time. The results from this study support this understanding. A significant drop in performance in visual pattern-matching was found when a communication task was carried out concurrently, with a greater drop among those who

References (31)

  • B.G. Jarvis

    MediaLab research software (version 2008)

    (2008)
  • S.H. Jeong et al.

    Predictors of multitasking with media: Media factors and audience factors

    Media Psychology

    (2007)
  • O.P. John et al.

    Paradigm shift to the integrative Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues

  • D. Kahneman

    Attention and effort

    (1973)
  • R. Karsh et al.

    Looking at looking: The amorphous fixation measure

  • Cited by (71)

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    This work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant No. SES 0818277 to the first author).

    View full text