Multitasking May Diminish, Not Boost, Productivity

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

If you think you're being efficient when you perform three tasks at once, think again. According to a report published in the August issue of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, multitasking may actually reduce productivity.

When people juggle several tasks simultaneously, they use so-called executive control processes, which prioritize different tasks and assign cognitive resources to them. To study executive control, Joshua Rubinstein of the Federal Aviation Administration and University of Michigan researchers David Meyer and Jeffrey Evans decided to investigate how task-switching influenced performance in people who were assigned several tasks of varying familiarity and complexity.

Four experiments conducted using groups made up of between 12 and 36 participants revealed that switching between tasks¿in this case, solving math problems and classifying geometric objects¿takes time, thus lowering performance. The team also found that switching between complex tasks took significantly longer than switching between simple ones. In explanation, the researchers note that task switching seems to take place in two stages: goal shifting and rule activation. Rule activation alone can take several tenths of a second, which can add up when a person switches back and forth between tasks frequently.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The new findings may have implications that reach beyond employee productivity: if it takes a driver half a second to switch his or her attention from a cell phone conversation to the road, the time lost to task switching can mean the difference between life and death.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe