The Myth of Multitasking: How Doing More Actually Does Less

Introduction 

A student sits down in their lecture, prepared for the day with a long to-do list. Deciding to get ahead, the student decides to cross off the easy tasks while in class; email a professor about an assignment, text their friends about dinner plans, and begin another assignment in a different class, all while taking notes in the lecture they are currently sitting in. The student toggles between screens, alternating between their notes sheet, their email inbox, and their assignment for another class, all the while their phone is insistently buzzing on their desk. Crossing off each item has the student feeling productive, until they reach the end of class. Their notes are a mess, the partially completed assignment makes no sense, and the email sent to the professor contained the wrong information and needs to be re-sent. In an attempt to multitask and shorten their to-do list, the student made things much harder for themselves. 

While living in an era obsessed with efficiency, multitasking can be considered a superpower. However, decades of scientific research defeats that claim. Though it would be convenient and efficient for people to complete a series of tasks simultaneously, scientific studies indicate the opposite; humans cannot efficiently or effectively multitask. While there have been many different names for multitasking, such as dual-task performance, split attention, and divided attention (Watson & Doolittle, 2012), multitasking can be defined as completing more than one task at a time. This paper seeks to examine the research to explain why we cannot multitask, as well as examine why we believe we are such strong multitaskers. The following sections examine the origins of the multitasking myth, review empirical evidence contradicting it, explain why the belief persists, and outline strategies for correcting this widespread misconception. 

Origin 

The beginning of our understanding of multitasking begins in 1935 with John Ridley Stroop, though the myth of multitasking took a few decades longer to form. When observing participants in a study, Stroop witnessed several errors occurring when participants were asked to identify the color of words when the text does not correlate to the color of the words, for example the word blue written in yellow; (Manhart, 2004). The Stroop effect that was identified following the study showcased how the human mind cannot manage conflicting stimuli simultaneously. The term multitasking did not exist until later, coinciding with the rise of technology such as high-power computers and handheld cellular devices. The term “multitasking” is a reference to a computer processing unit’s ability to complete multiple tasks in tandem with each other. The term was born in the field of computing, first mentioned in an IBM paper explaining their new technology. It was a revolutionary computer system that was designed to handle multiple functions at once, thus creating the term multitasking (Anders, 2025). The term was later adopted by cognitive psychologists to apply to human functions, in which a person is giving attention to multiple tasks simultaneously (Aagaard, 2015). The term integrated into the corporate world as the technology did, expecting human workers to maximize efficiency similar to computers (Anders, 2025). However, the human brain is not capable of such function, pushing an unrealistic expectation upon the population. While there has always been a semblance of multitasking in everyday life, technology has enabled multitasking to a higher degree (Wallis et al., 2006). 

This standard of excellent efficiency was pushed not only to the corporate world, but upon the younger generation as well, having been told that they have an innate ability to multitask effectively. The newer generation raised with technology appears to “have the ability” to perform many tasks at once (Aagaard, 2015). Moving forward with this idea in their minds, students in the early 2000s were led to believe they were excellent at multitasking. This myth is further compounded by social media providing tips and tricks to “optimize time”. While a web search provides tips on multitasking, social media platforms push a narrative that multitasking is an important and desirable skill. Videos on TikTok offer tips and tricks to enhance the “skill”, bringing up “lifehacks” to increase efficiency. Social media does little to describe side effects of multitasking, brushing aside the consequences. With an entire generation of students brought up believing the idea that they are capable of a “complicated yet desirable skill”, the belief in the myth is embedded itself into everyday life.  

Evidence 

Explaining Multitasking 

As mentioned previously, multitasking is not possible for humans due to the structure of the human mind and its computation of stimuli in the environment. To put it plainly, humans are not capable of efficiently multitasking due to a lack of cognitive, behavioral, and neurological structures in the brain (Watson et al., 2012). Research on multitasking is straightforward and consistent. Performing more than one task at once causes a decline in performance of said tasks (Watson, et al., 2012). The brain is a high functioning computer that can comprehend a complicated stimulus. However, with the addition of another task, or another confounding stimulus, the information gets “stuck”. This occurs as the brain becomes “overwhelmed” in deciding which task to perform (Rosen, 2008). This pause in decision-making results in time lost, delaying our efficiency. The brain cannot juggle the necessary information and stimuli assigned to each task to properly execute them in tandem. The mental effort that is required to complete the first task interferes with the mental effort to complete the second task, creating conflicting signals (Watson et al., 2012). With the brain confused by the conflicting signals, performance can be hindered and efficiency decreased. This leads to a slower and poorer execution of the required tasks.  

Though it would be ideal to be able to juggle multiple tasks simultaneously, it is not a feasible accomplishment. Given that multiple tasks can overwhelm the brain, there are side effects of multitasking. In fact, research by Madore and Wagner (2019) suggests that multitasking puts pressure on the brain. When multitasking occurs, the switch cost occurs. This phenomenon identifies the decline in speed and the increases in errors when managing many tasks (Madore & Wagner, 2019). While this might not be a problem as an isolated incident, overtime the brain cannot support this function and the strain becomes evident in the long term. The constant overprocessing of information decreases the automation of our natural mind. This decreases the efficiency we display when focusing on a single task (Madore & Wagner, 2019). Chronic multitasking can inhibit cognitive function of a person and get in the way of future decisions.  

Effects of Multitasking 

Multitasking makes it difficult to focus. No matter what the combination of stimuli, such as visual stimuli and a procedural task, or an auditory stimulus and an arithmetic stimulus, we cannot focus on the conflicting information. Multitasking can affect people positively and negatively. In relation to attitude and persuasion, multitasking can be positive in that it can increase persuasion as the subject is not focused solely on the argument. On the contrary, there is a negative impact on cognitive tasks such as recall or comprehension (Jeong & Hwang, 2016). It is important to note the implications of decreased comprehension or recall due to multitasking. Multitasking makes it harder for people to focus in the long term (Rosen, 2008). Research indicates that multitasking emphasizes distractions and makes it harder to return to a productive task. This gets particularly alarming when examining the research done on young students. A study by Demirbilek and Talan (2018) examining media multitasking in an academic lecture discovered that students’ grade performance was decreased when given the distraction of social media posts rather than the students who were given a pen and paper to take notes. Students who were not limited by distractions, especially by distractions by technology, were able to perform higher in the study. In addition to the cognitive side effects of multitasking, there are biological repercussions to overextending the brain through multitasking. Multitasking can release adrenaline and other hormones in the body. Over time, this can cause long term damage to the body and affect short-term memory (Rosen, 2008). In addition, sleep problems and poorer emotional states can occur from high levels of media multitasking (van der Schuur et al., 2015).  

Media multitasking is the idea of using more than one form of technology at a time, such as using a telephone in tandem while watching a movie on television. This is a subset of multitasking that can be very harmful to people. Media multitasking can be very dangerous because of its prevalence in society, especially within the student population. Using media while performing academic activities can negatively affect tasks such as learning, study behaviors, and academic outcomes (van der Schuur et al., 2015). In the modern age with the prevalence of technology and the casual implementation of technology into everyday life, it is imperative how juggling different pieces of technology can affect people, especially young students. In fact, those in the younger generation who use more than one medium at a time get used to processing several pieces of information at once. This can cause problems filtering out unimportant information, causing distractions to occur and takes a person away from their primary task (van der Schuur et al., 2015). In addition, research indicates that media multitasking has been proven to have a negative relationship with everyday cognitive tasks (van der Schuur et al., 2015). 

There are issues within the research of multitasking, and how the study of it can negatively impact the subjects of study. On example is through the environment in which the research was conducted. For example, one study has researched multitasking pharmaceutical setting and discovered a declining efficiency rate when checking prescriptions alongside other tasks (Enz, Hall, & Williams, 2021). There are consequences involved in miscounting a prescription to a patient, yet the researchers still completed the study. There are ethical concerns in the work of the distracted pharmacists providing real patient care. Additionally, multitasking invokes a cognitive overload. There can be an argument made as to why researchers should not overstimulate the brain of their participants considering it can lead to decreased cognition as well as damage from stress chemicals released. Understanding this myth provides great insight into the mind, but not at the expense of one’s health.  

This is important information to note when considering the side effects of multitasking. Deconstructing the myth is important to preserve cognition and function of society. The findings not only contradict the popular belief that multitasking improves efficiency but also reveal the cognitive vulnerabilities that make the myth so appealing. Understanding these vulnerabilities is essential for explaining why the misconception persists despite decades of contradictory evidence.  

Stickiness of the Myth 

There are many reasons the multitasking myth has persisted despite evidence proving decreased cognitive function. When examining the durability of attitudes and opinions, Rocklage & Luttrell (2021) concluded that long-lasting and durable attitudes can be predicted by emotionality. This is especially emphasized in positive attitudes. People believe they can multitask and are good at it; therefore, they ignore research that indicates otherwise. This is called confirmation bias, an internal bias that allows people to disregard information or analysis to confirm an idea or belief (Born, 2024). When examining attitude formation, the relevance of the information is important. Attitudes that are relevant and consistent have a strong relationship with behavior prediction (Glasman & Albarracín, 2006). Forming an opinion or attitude on multitasking can potentially lead to exhibiting those behaviors in the future. When being told from a young age that a person has an inherent skill that maximizes efficiency, one wants to believe that and will adhere to that belief later in life and ignore opposing claims.  

In addition, the design of the modern school rampant with technology only compounds a student’s perceived ability to multitask. The multitasking myth is perpetuated today through the setup of enhancing learning through multiple forms of media (Watson et al., 2012). The school setting in which we are introduced to multitasking, as well as being told we are excellent multitaskers, cements the myth in young minds. People will rely on their attitudes to guide later behavior when those attitudes are easy to recall, created with the potential outcome of the behavior, built from consistent one-sided information, and held with a strong sense of certainty (Glasman & Albarracín, 2006). When there is motivation to do so, people can be excellent at tricking themselves into holding onto a belief (Born, 2024). In this context, people ignore the evidence citing that humans cannot multitask because they believe they can adequately handle multiple tasks as they have believed it for many years.  

Conclusion 

To reiterate, multitasking occurs when a person attempts to simultaneously execute two different tasks with conflicting stimuli. Though this is not a possible feat for humans to execute due to the structure of our brain, the multitasking myth remains present in day-to-day life. Because the myth is rooted in a technological metaphor and reinforced by our cognitive biases, emphasizing the evidence is important to communicate the truth. A way to combat the spread of this myth can be debunking the information before it can take root in people’s minds. Debunking is the correcting or fact-checking of information, providing evidence to dispute the false claim (Linden et al., 2023). Comparing the evidence to the false belief can easily disprove the myth and stop the perpetuation of false information regarding multitasking. Another strategy to dissuade multitasking is to show the consequences of the myth. This can be done by showing the quality of work of an employee who was focused on an individual task compared to an employee that was juggling several tasks. On a more serious level, a person can show the consequences of multitasking on a higher scale, such as texting and driving. There is ample research that highlights the dangers of using an electronic device while driving to the point where state governments have interfered to reduce the harm caused (Rosen, 2008). Showing the result of a vehicle accident due to multitasking can be effective, as well as showing how it affected legislation. However, there are ethical constraints to consider when showing a vehicle accident as it can be a sensitive topic to the viewer. While it could be considered unethical to display worst-case scenarios, showing the seriousness of this misinformation can be helpful in diminishing the urge to multitask. Though this myth is sticky, it is easily disproved. By displaying the evidence of multitasking as well as the potential consequences, people’s attitudes can change. Overall, this can improve the quality of work people are doing, potentially saving a life.

References

Aagaard, J. (2019). Multitasking as distraction: A conceptual analysis of media multitasking research. Theory & Psychology, 29(1), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354318815766 

Anders. (2025, April 8). The myth of multitasking. The Myth of Multitasking - by Anders. https://hjortberg.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-multitasking  

Born R. T. (2024). Stop Fooling Yourself! (Diagnosing and Treating Confirmation Bias). eNeuro, 11(10), ENEURO.0415-24.2024. https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0415-24.2024 

Demirbilek, M., & Talan, T. (2018). The effect of social media multitasking on classroom performance. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(2), 117-129. 

Enz, S., Hall, A. C. G., & Williams, K. K. (2021). The Myth of Multitasking and What It Means for Future Pharmacists. American journal of pharmaceutical education, 85(10), 8267. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe8267 

Glasman, L. R., & Albarracín, D. (2006). Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: a meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological bulletin, 132(5), 778–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.778 

Jeong, S.‐H., & Hwang, Y. (2016). Media multitasking effects on cognitive vs. attitudinal outcomes: A meta‐analysis. Human Communication Research, 42(4), 599–618. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12089 

Madore, K. P., & Wagner, A. D. (2019). Multicosts of Multitasking. Cerebrum : the Dana forum on brain science, 2019, cer-04-19. MANHART, K. (2004). The Limits of Multitasking. Scientific American Mind, 14(5), 62–67. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24997557 

Offer, S., & Schneider, B. (2011). Revisiting the Gender Gap in Time-Use Patterns: Multitasking and Well-Being among Mothers and Fathers in Dual-Earner Families. American Sociological Review, 76(6), 809–833. http://www.jstor.org.libraryproxy.quinnipiac.edu/stable/23102556 

Rocklage, M. D., & Luttrell, A. (2021). Attitudes Based on Feelings: Fixed or Fleeting?. Psychological science, 32(3), 364–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620965532 

Rosen, C. (2008). The Myth of Multitasking. The New Atlantis, (20), 105–110. http://www.jstor.org.libraryproxy.quinnipiac.edu/stable/43152412 

Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Strayer, D. L., Medeiros-Ward, N., & Watson, J. M. (2013). Who multi-tasks and why? Multi-tasking ability, perceived multi-tasking ability, impulsivity, and sensation seeking. PloS one, 8(1), e54402. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054402 

van der Linden, S., Albarracín, D., Fazio, L. K., Freelon, D., Roozenbeek, J., Swire-Thompson, B., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2023). Using psychological science to understand and fight health misinformation: An APA consensus statement. American Psychological Association.  

van der Schuur, W. A., Baumgartner, S. E., Sumter, S. R., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). The consequences of media multitasking for youth: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.035 

Wallis, C., Cole, W., Steptoe, S., & Dale, S. S. (2006, March 27). The multitasking generation. Time Magazine. https://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1174696,00.html 

Watson, C.E., Terry, K.P. and Doolittle, P.E. (2012), 19: PLEASE READ WHILE TEXTING AND DRIVING. To Improve the Academy, 31: 294-309. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-4822.2012.tb00688.x 

Professional Application

"This project has provided me with information on how to be efficient and productive. After learning about the pitfalls of attempting to multitask, I am able to understand how to maximize my time through proper time management. I understand how I will be doing far more harm than good in attempting to multitask, and I can create productive plans for my career to get things done without compromising the integrity of my work." - Grace Pfalzgraf ’26, MBA ’27

For Further Discussion

This serves as an overview of the project and does not include the complete work. To further discuss this project, please email Grace Pfalzgraf.

Course Overview

PS 401: Integrative Capstone for Psychology and Behavioral Neuroscience Majors is the capstone course for Psychology and Behavioral Neuroscience seniors only. It consists of extensive readings of original research, theory and history on a topic selected by the student under the guidance of the professor. A senior thesis, written according to departmental standards, is a central part of the requirement.

Explore Our Areas of Interest

We've sorted each of our undergraduate, graduate and doctoral programs into unique Areas of Interest. Explore these categories to discover which programs and delivery methods best align with your educational and career goals.

Explore Data and Analytics at Quinnipiac

Explore Social Sciences at Quinnipiac