Some Multitasking Is More Taxing

Recent research finds that different forms of multitasking can impact our performance much more than others. Christie Nicholson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Multitasking. Most of us have tried it since digital devices became unavoidable.

Now a study finds that some tasks are tougher to do at the same time than others.

Researchers had two groups of people complete a puzzle on a computer screen. One group also gave directions to another person via instant messaging. The other group gave the directions through an audio chat. 


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.


Subjects who performed the visual and audio task had a 30 percent drop in their puzzle performance. But those who performed two visual tasks—the puzzle and instant messaging—had a 50 percent drop in puzzle performance. The study is in the journal Computers in Human Behavior.

Using the same sensory system for two tasks actually uses up our attention capacity more quickly and completely than if the task requires two separate systems.

Both groups thought they did better than they actually did. But those who did two visual tasks thought they did even better than the other group did, though the opposite was true.

The researchers note that people may wrongly perceive visual tasks as effortless. Which might explain why some people continue to text while driving, sometimes with disastrous results. 

—Christie Nicholson

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

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