Inattention over time-on-task: the role of motivation in mitigating temporal increases in media multitasking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Numerous studies have demonstrated that attention and performance decline with time-on-task. In modern contexts, this gradual fading of attention can manifest as increases in media multitasking over time. Across two studies, we investigated whether increasing individuals' motivation to perform well on a task mitigates temporal increases in media multitasking. Method: Study 1 re-analyzed data from a previously published study which provided participants with standard or motivating instructions before having them complete a sustained attention task with the option to media multitask. Study 2 extended this work by critically assessing in-the-moment motivation through thought probes throughout the task. Results: In both studies, media multitasking and corresponding decreases in task performance over time were attenuated as a function of increased motivation. Moreover, results from Study 2 revealed that motivation decreased with time-on-task for both groups; however, this decline was more gradual in the motivated group. Discussion: Our findings suggest that increasing the value individuals assign to attending to their current task may aid in prolonging sustained attention. These findings align with recent theories of vigilance that attribute temporal decrements in attention and performance to varying cost-benefit analyses rather than a depletion of resources over time.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".