<\/span><\/h2>\nIs multitasking a myth?<\/strong>
\nPartly. Two demanding decisions made at the same moment queue at a bottleneck, and only 2.5 percent of 200 students combined simulated driving with a hard memory task without a drop. Simple, practised tasks can be combined at almost no cost.<\/p>\nHow much time does task switching cost?<\/strong>
\nIn the classic laboratory study the mean cost was 614 to 1,096 milliseconds per switch. The 40 percent figure is not in that paper. The larger real-world cost is the delay before interrupted work is resumed, which averaged 25 minutes 26 seconds in a field study of 24 workers.<\/p>\nDoes multitasking lower your IQ?<\/strong>
\nThere is no published study showing that. The claim comes from an unpublished 2005 test of eight employees, and the researcher himself has said it was misrepresented.<\/p>\nDoes media multitasking damage attention?<\/strong>
\nThe evidence does not show damage. Across 46 studies the association with cognitive control was small (z = .138) and, on objective tests, no longer significant after bias correction. In one sample of 1,511 people, heavier media multitaskers under 30 performed better on a dual-task test.<\/p>\nIs it true that it takes 23 minutes to refocus?<\/strong>
\nThe number comes from an interview, not a paper, and it describes how long interrupted work waited before being resumed, with other tasks in between. It is not a measurement of how long concentration takes to return.<\/p>\nShould I stop multitasking completely?<\/strong>
\nNo. Single-task whenever someone else sets the pace or an error cannot be undone. Alternate deliberately when you control the pace. Combine freely when one of the activities is automatic.<\/p>\n<\/span>Sources<\/span><\/h2>\n\n- Rubinstein JS, Meyer DE, Evans JE. Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2001;27(4):763-797.<\/li>\n
- American Psychological Association. Multitasking: Switching costs. Research summary page, 20 March 2006.<\/li>\n
- Dux PE, Ivanoff J, Asplund CL, Marois R. Isolation of a central bottleneck of information processing with time-resolved fMRI. Neuron. 2006;52(6):1109-1120.<\/li>\n
- Schumacher EH, Seymour TL, Glass JM, Fencsik DE, Lauber EJ, Kieras DE, Meyer DE. Virtually perfect time sharing in dual-task performance: Uncorking the central cognitive bottleneck. Psychological Science. 2001;12(2):101-108.<\/li>\n
- Watson JM, Strayer DL. Supertaskers: Profiles in extraordinary multitasking ability. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 2010;17(4):479-485.<\/li>\n
- Matthews N, Mattingley JB, Dux PE. Media-multitasking and cognitive control across the lifespan. Scientific Reports. 2022;12:4349.<\/li>\n
- Sana F, Weston T, Cepeda NJ. Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers and Education. 2013;62:24-31.<\/li>\n
- Clinton-Lisell V. Stop multitasking and just read: Meta-analyses of multitasking’s effects on reading performance and reading time. Journal of Research in Reading. 2021;44(4):787-816. Abstract.<\/li>\n
- Strayer DL, Drews FA, Crouch DJ. A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver. Human Factors. 2006;48(2):381-391. Abstract, with study details from the University of Utah release of 29 June 2006.<\/li>\n
- Ophir E, Nass C, Wagner AD. Cognitive control in media multitaskers. PNAS. 2009;106(37):15583-15587.<\/li>\n
- Wiradhany W, Nieuwenstein MR. Cognitive control in media multitaskers: Two replication studies and a meta-analysis. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics. 2017;79(8):2620-2641.<\/li>\n
- Parry DA, le Roux DB. “Cognitive control in media multitaskers” ten years on: A meta-analysis. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace. 2021;15(2), article 7.<\/li>\n
- Chen H, Peng L, Peng J, Liu C, Yin L, Zhang Y, Cheng Y, Shi Z. The relationship between media multitasking and attention: A three-level meta-analysis. Current Psychology. 2025;44(7):6326-6347. Abstract.<\/li>\n
- Mark G, Gudith D, Klocke U. The cost of interrupted work: More speed and stress. Proceedings of CHI 2008:107-110.<\/li>\n
- Adler RF, Benbunan-Fich R. Juggling on a high wire: Multitasking effects on performance. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 2012;70(2):156-168.<\/li>\n
- Mark G, Gonzalez VM, Harris J. No task left behind? Examining the nature of fragmented work. Proceedings of CHI 2005:321-330.<\/li>\n
- Mark G, Iqbal ST, Czerwinski M, Johns P, Sano A. Neurotics can’t focus: An in situ study of online multitasking in the workplace. Proceedings of CHI 2016:1739-1744.<\/li>\n
- Microsoft. Breaking down the infinite workday. Work Trend Index Special Report, 17 June 2025; and Work Trend Index Annual Report, 5 May 2026.<\/li>\n
- Gallup Management Journal. Too many interruptions at work? Interview with Gloria Mark, 8 June 2006.<\/li>\n
- Wilson G. The “Infomania” study. Author’s explanatory note, 16 January 2010.<\/li>\n
- Andrade J. What does doodling do? Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2010;24(1):100-106. Abstract.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
The audit table, the switch arithmetic, the Task-Pairing Matrix and the two-week protocol are CEOtudent analyses built on the sources above. All other figures are reported as printed in those sources.<\/em><\/p>\n
\nThis content was compiled with the support of AI following in-depth research, then written and prepared for publication by the CEOtudent editorial team.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Multitasking is three different behaviours, and the evidence differs for each. Lab switch costs run 0.6 to 1.1 seconds per switch, only 2.5 percent of tested people combine two demanding tasks without a drop, and the link between media multitasking and cognitive control is small (z = .138) and vanishes on objective tests after bias correction. The largest verified losses appear when someone else sets the pace: lecture scores fell 11 and 17 percentage points. This breakdown audits six famous numbers against their primary sources, shows why the 40 percent claim cannot come from switch costs alone, and gives a task-pairing matrix for deciding what may run in parallel.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":326323,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-326322","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-is","category-yasam"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceotudent.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/326322","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceotudent.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceotudent.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceotudent.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceotudent.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=326322"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ceotudent.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/326322\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceotudent.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/326323"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceotudent.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=326322"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceotudent.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=326322"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceotudent.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=326322"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}