Yearning for distraction: Evidence for a trade-off between media multitasking and mind wandering.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined whether providing participants with the opportunity to media multitask influenced their tendency to be 'off-task.' More specifically, we were interested in whether providing participants with the opportunity to engage with an external media stream during a required (researcher-imposed) cognitive task might lead to a trade-off between mind wandering and engagement with external distractions (such as the media). We also examined the extent to which intentionality plays a role in these associations. Participants completed 2 phases of a cognitive task (1-back). During 1 phase, participants were provided the opportunity to concurrently watch a video while they performed the cognitive task; during the other, no such opportunity was provided. Throughout both phases, thought probes asked participants if they were (a) focused on the task, (b) attending to external distractions, or (c) mind wandering. If options 2 or 3 were selected, participants were further asked to report whether these forms of distraction were engaged intentionally or unintentionally. Our findings indicated that, although the opportunity to media multitask increased overall reports of being off-task, the tendency to mind-wander was significantly reduced in favour of attending to external distractions (such as the video). Of interest to the authors, overall reports of being unintentionally off-task were equivalent, irrespective of whether participants had the opportunity to media multitask or not, which suggests that the increased tendency to have an off-task locus of attention was because of intentionally shifting attention away from the primary task. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".