New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

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.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe