CHAPTER 3

Multitasking Behavior
Amanda Spink
Queensland University of Technology
Charles Cole
McGill University
Mary Waller
Maastricht University

Introduction
This chapter does not attempt to furnish an overview of multitasking
research in every scientific discipline. Rather, we highlight the impor-
tance of multitasking in the cognitive and information sciences and the
need for further research on multitasking, particularly within the con-
text of information behavior.
Why are we interested in multitasking? Why is multitasking an
important theoretical and practical phenomenon for the cognitive and
information sciences, and particularly for theories and models of
information behavior? Multitasking has no doubt always been an
essential human behavior. However, unlike earlier research on micro-
analyses of brain and memory structure/capacity (Miller, 1956), mul-
titasking pushes brain and memory research into a more global
consideration of human existence. Reasons for our increased interest
in the phenomenon are society’s heightened interest in security con-
cerns, the evolution of a workplace with workers now required to per-
form tasks formerly performed by others, and above all the
pervasiveness of communication devices in both work and leisure
activities.
Citations to multitasking research in the cognitive sciences have
recently appeared in the popular press. The ubiquity of digital devices
such as mobile phones, messaging devices, video games, and desktop
and laptop computers has helped create the impression that today’s
young people behave differently from previous generations in their
simultaneous use of multiple devices, with the result that attention is
diverted from the task at hand (Scott, 2006). In response to the numer-
ous published studies indicating the negative effects of telephone use on
automobile driver performance (Strayer & Johnston, 2001), many local

93
94 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

and state governments have adopted laws to curtail this kind of multi-
tasking behavior. Employers and organizational behaviorists are also
concerned about multitasking in work environments, in part because of
the proliferation of information devices (Holstein, 2006). They ask ques-
tions such as: How can we keep employees focused? (Hafner, 2005).
Citing former Microsoft Vice President Linda Stone’s (2006) phrase “con-
tinuous partial attention,” New York Times columnist Thomas L.
Friedman (2006) labels our multitasking age “The Age of Interruption.”
However, we start by considering multitasking as a human ability;
the ability to handle the competing demands of multiple tasks. A task is
defined as “a distinct work activity carried out for a distinct purpose”
(Cascio, 1978, p. 133). Multitasking can be defined narrowly or broadly.
For example, is multitasking the human ability to deal with more than
one task at the same time, or is multitasking actually the ability to
switch quickly from one task to the next in a rapid sequence of tasks? We
here define multitasking broadly. Waller (1997, p. 225) states that “indi-
vidual-level multitasking processes involve a person’s allocation of his or
her own scarce cognitive resources among several tasks and the moder-
ating impact of task elements, task processes, and task resources on
individual multiple-task performance.”
Multitasking occurs at different levels of human behavior, including
the individual and group levels (Waller, 1997). When humans multitask,
they work on two or more tasks and switch between those tasks, either
as individuals or within groups (Waller, 1997). Multitasking and task
switching are mechanisms that help humans deal with the complex
environment in which they live. People often switch among different
types of tasks such as talking on the telephone, computing, reading, and
information seeking. There is a growing and crucial need to extend our
understanding of multitasking behavior, particularly within the context
of cognitive and information behavior.
In spite of the importance of multitasking in the cognitive sciences,
until recently the field of information science devoted limited attention
to understanding multitasking within the context of the field’s research
issues and problems. Previous ARIST chapters on information behavior
touched only parenthetically on multitasking (e.g., multitasking will
increase as a result of increased collaboration in the work environment
[Foster, 2006]; see also, Courtright’s [2007] chapter on information use
environments; Davenport [2002] on distributed cognition; Finholt
[2002] on the organization of work; Garcia, Dawes, Kohne, Miller, and
Groschwitz [2006] on the workplace and technological change; Jones
[2007] on management of tasks; Rogers [2004] on human–computer
interaction [HCI]; and Vakkari [2003] on task-based information
searching).
However, recently, multitasking research has grown in theoretical and
practical significance for information scientists. Multitasking is emerging
as a fundamental process that underpins information behavior. As with
other information science concepts, such as relevance, uncertainty, or
 Multitasking Behavior 95

feedback, multitasking is now an important and complex concept that is

crucial if we are to understand information behavior fully.
The purpose of this chapter is to develop a framework for clarifying
the relationship between information behavior and multitasking.
Because cognitive science research affects information behavior studies,
we first outline multitasking concepts and models within the cognitive
sciences, broadly defined.

Cognitive Sciences
Various cognitively oriented fields regard multitasking as an impor-
tant element of their theories and models to explain cognitive behav-
iors. In this section we explore the nature of multitasking from the
perspectives of cognitive science, communication studies, human fac-
tors, human–computer interaction, and organizational behavior. We
examine the contribution each field has made to our understanding of
multitasking.

Cognitive Science
Cognitive scientists have for decades studied many aspects of multi-
tasking or task switching (Carlson & Sohn, 2000; Miyata & Norman,
1986). The growing complexity of the global information environment
means that people are increasingly engaged in multitasking and task-
switching behaviors. But only now is this research being applied. Many
interactive technologies still do not provide effective support for manag-
ing multitasking behaviors (Wickens, 1992).
Cognitive psychologists have an extensive research literature on mul-
titasking, concurrent information processing, task switching (Burgess,
2000; Pashler, 2000), and sequential actions (Carlson & Sohn, 2000) at
the microsecond level. Complex task switching can include three phases:
desire to task switch, task switch, and switching back to a previous task.
The finding that multitasking over different types of tasks can reduce
productivity (Rubinstein, Meyer, & Evans, 2001) is further supported by
the single channel theory, which suggests that the ability of humans to
perform concurrent mental operations is limited by the capacity of a cen-
tral mechanism (Schweickert & Boggs, 1984). A major understanding
from cognitive science research has to do with both the positive and neg-
ative aspects of multitasking. Rubinstein et al. (2001) found that multi-
tasking between different types of tasks can reduce productivity.
Wickens (1992), on the other hand, suggests that time sharing allows the
simultaneous performance of multiple tasks and time swapping allows
the sequential performance of tasks.
Psychologists have also identified differences between prioritized and
unprioritized multitasking situations (Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte,
2001) and a model of group multitasking behavior (Waller, 1997).
Aasman (1995) and Just, Carpenter, Keller, Emery, Zajac, and Thulborn
96 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

(2001) analyzed multitasking and dual tasking during driving. Hunt

and Joslyn (2000) identified characteristics of individuals who do well in
situations characterized by multitasking and decision making under
considerable time pressure. Bainbridge (2002) described processes
underlying human multitasking behaviors in complex task situations.
Lee and Taatgen (2002) argued that multitasking behaviors can be best
understood as a product of skill acquisition.
Grady, Springer, Hongwanishkul, McIntosh, and Winocur (2006)
noted a “seesaw imbalance” in multitasking and aging; when we are
younger there is a seesaw balance between two regions in the brain’s
frontal lobes. Tasks that require concentration evoke high activity in the
dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, while tasks not related to the central task
(such as monitoring one’s surroundings) evoke low-level activity in the
medial frontal and parietal regions of the brain. Seesaw imbalance
occurs in older adults who find it difficult to inhibit distracting informa-
tion, including interference from other tasks; thus for older people activ-
ity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex decreases while the medial
frontal and parietal regions show less activity for focusing on the task.
For aging effects on attentional control in multitasking, see Bherer,
Kramer, Peterson, Colcombe, Erickson, and Becic (2005), and for aging
effects on multitasking in employment, see Taylor, O’Hara,
Mumenthaler, Rosen, and Yesavage (2005).
The Stroop effect in psychology denotes interference in a time-task
experiment due to an incongruence between the semantic meaning of a
test word and some other factor—for example, the word “blue” printed
in a different color—slowing reaction times and increasing errors. In
multitasking time-reaction experiments, the Stroop-like interference
from the other task(s) in spite of preparation is perplexing (Meiran,
2000), requiring new research methods (neuroimaging, electrophysiol-
ogy, etc.) in the important areas of study of the effects of aging (Mayr,
2001), brain damage (Keele & Rafal, 2000), and individual differences in
function (Miyake, Friedman, Emerson, Witzki, Howerter, & Wagner,
2000). On the other hand, Meyer, Glass, Mueller, Seymour, and Kieras
(2001) and Glass, Schumacher, Lauber, Zurbriggen, Gmeindl, Kieras, et
al. (2000) did not find that degradation in performance during multi-
tasking for people less than 70 years of age was due to decreased “hard-
ware” functionality.

Task Switching
Task switching has been recognized as an important element of mul-
titasking. Monsell (2003) reviews the notion of task switching in cogni-
tive science research, which began with Jerslid (1927) but developed into
a full paradigm only in the mid-1990s (Rogers & Monsell, 1995). Because
it sees multitasking as switching from one task to another in rapid suc-
cession rather than the concurrent performance of two or more tasks,
cognitive science research focuses on the costs to the individual of
switching tasks compared to non-switch or task-repetition trials.
 Multitasking Behavior 97

In experiments for deriving switching costs, subjects are asked to per-

form alternating different tasks so that their response times can be mea-
sured. When compared to non-switch or task-repetition trials, subjects
performing switching trials take longer and make more errors. These
switching costs can be reduced if the subjects are allowed to prepare for
the task (Allport, Styles, & Hsieh, 1994; Meiran, 1996; Rogers &
Monsell, 1995), but the costs cannot be reduced to zero—residual costs
remain (De Jong, 2000; Kimberg, Aguirre, & D’Espisito, 2000; Sohn,
Ursu, Anderson, Stenger, & Carter, 2000). Furthermore, even when the
task switching occurs only once at the beginning of the trial and is sub-
sequently eliminated, the single task switch at the beginning creates
long-term mixing costs (mixing costs may capture executive control
functioning processes in the experiment) (Rubin & Meiran, 2005).
Meyer and colleagues describe the executive control processes and
cognitive architecture involved in rapid task sequencing/switching dur-
ing multitasking in Rubinstein et al. (2001). Executive control provides
a supervisory function controlling other perceptual/motor and cognitive
processes when switching from one task to another. The three theories
of executive control processes are:
1. The attention-to-action (ATA) model (Norman & Shallice, 1986),
which envisages three subcomponents: action schemas, con-
tention scheduling, and a supervisory attentional system.
2. The frontal-lobe executive (FLE) model (Duncan, 1986), which
also envisages three subcomponents: goal lists, means–ends
analysis procedures, and action structures.
3. The strategic response-deferment (SRD) model (Meyer & Kieras,
1997a, 1997b), which envisages three sets of production rules gov-
erning: Task 1 responses to stimulus, Task 2 responses to second
stimulus, and executive process rules that obey task priorities
allowing Task 2 responses to be stored temporarily in working
memory until Task 1 priority is completed.
The three models “incorporate separable subcomponents that enable
task switching” (Rubinstein et al., 2001, p. 765).
Logan (2004) describes the role of working memory in executive con-
trol during task switching. Theories of working memory are summarized
by Miyake and Shah (1999) and Baddeley, Chincotta, and Adlam (2001).
Working memory has capacity limitations (Anderson, Reder, & Lebiere,
1996); and in task switching, information is lost from working memory
due to either decay (Anderson, Reder, & Lebiere, 1996) or interference
(Waugh & Norman, 1965). Evidence for these two theories is mixed
(Nairne, 2002). Two proposals describe how long-term memory and
working memory combine together during task switching: They may be
joined together, with working memory the active part (Anderson, Reder,
& Lebiere, 1996), or they may be separate but interactive (Baddeley &
Logie, 1999; Kieras, Meyer, Mueller, & Seymour, 1999). Does cognitive
98 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

reconfiguration during task switching emphasize working memory (i.e.,

changing goals and stimulus-response mapping rules) (Rubinstein et al.,
2001) or does it emphasize working memory plus cognition system out-
side working memory (Logan & Gordon, 2001; Meiran, 2000)? (See also
the two opposing theoretical proposals for explaining time costs
[Monsell, 1996], emphasizing either the task processing level or the
executive control level.)
Multitasking continues to be an important concept for cognitive sci-
entists. The next section examines how multitasking is represented in
communication studies’ models and theories.

Communication Studies
Communication studies observe multitasking from a multi-channel or
multi-media perspective. In multitasking, the user of one medium or
channel may also be engaging with other media at the same time. This
phenomenon attracts particular interest because of the prevalence of
multitasking behavior among today’s media-savvy young people, who
engage with television, music listening devices, instant messaging, and
the telephone while surfing the Internet (Waxman, 2006). Using the
term Concurrent Media Exposure (CME) to identify multitasking,
Holmes, Papper, Popovich, and Bloxham (2005) state that CME behav-
ior was indicated by 96 percent of their studies’ participants, constitut-
ing 30.7 percent of the participants’ total media exposure per day.
Communication scholars are interested in the user’s “engagement”
vis-à-vis the following four elements: (1) medium (channel), (2) content
(genre), (3) audience (incidence of media exposure, time spent with
media, audience demographics), and (4) context (location, hour of day,
day of the week, mode of exposure, life activity, episodic structure, pri-
mary and secondary attention). These four elements constitute two
study perspectives: either a media/content and/or an audience/context-
centered viewpoint (Holmes, Papper, Popovich, & Bloxham, 2006). The
media/content viewpoint can, in turn, have either a media channel or
media content emphasis. The channel emphasis is an attribute of the
particular medium: Different media channels have different potentials
to engage their audience; a content emphasis focuses on the content
delivered by the medium. Different media are associated with different
formats, such as passive versus interactive or short episodic duration
versus long episodic duration (Holmes et al., 2006).
Although CME is controlled primarily by the audience/context dimen-
sion, it is also influenced by the medium/content. For example, the com-
bination of TV and the Internet is the dominant CME pairing, with CME
occurring during 80 percent of Internet exposure (Internet as primary
task) but only 28.5 percent during TV exposure (TV as primary task).
For CME, Holmes et al. (2006) distinguish between active and passive
engagement on the part of the user. This is illustrated on the passive
side by the user shopping in a mall with radio in the background, where
 Multitasking Behavior 99

engagement/attention is shared; on the active side is the restless attention-

shifting behavior that takes place in multitasking activities that occur in
parent–child interactions.
The next section of the chapter examines multitasking research
within the field of human factors.

Human Factors
Multitasking in human factors research is of pivotal concern in creat-
ing cognitive models that allow a human operator to supervise, control,
and act appropriately in multidimensional environments. In human fac-
tors, multitasking is “the ability to integrate, interleave, and perform
multiple tasks and/or component subtasks of a larger complex task”
(Salvucci, Kushleyeva, & Lee, 2004, p. 267). There are examples of cog-
nitive architecture/modeling and multitasking for driving (Aasman,
1995; Salvucci, Boer, & Liu, 2001), piloting combat aircraft (Jones,
Laird, Nielsen, Coulter, Kenny, & Koss, 1999), and air traffic control
(Lee & Anderson, 2001). Chou and Funk (1990) have proposed a Cockpit
Task Management (CTM) system. Cognitive modeling for multitasking
has increasingly involved studying complex domains, with unified cog-
nitive architectures such as ACT-R (Adaptive Control of Thought-
Rational) (Anderson, Bothell, Bryne, Douglass, Lebiere, & Qin, 2004),
EPIC (Executive Process/Interactive Control) (Meyer & Kieras, 1997a,
1997b), and Soar (Newell, 1990).
Human factors researchers are beginning to develop supervisory and
control interfaces based on cognitive modeling or cognitive architecture.
Anderson and his associates (Anderson & Lebiere, 1998; Anderson,
Taatgen, & Byrne, 2005; Gerjets, Scheiter, & Schoor, 2003; Schoor,
Gerjets, & Scheiter, 2003; Taatgen, 2005) propose a general executive
control model based on the ACT-R cognitive architecture. They have
explored this cognitive architecture model for both discrete (Byrne &
Anderson, 2001; Meyer & Kieras, 1997a, 1997b; Sohn & Anderson, 2001)
and continuous tasks (Kieras, Meyer, Ballas, & Lauber, 2000). But they
have used customized executives for multitasking that are appropriate
only for the particular human activity being considered, ranging from
list memory to mathematical problem solving, to air traffic control
(Salvucci, Boer, & Liu, 2001).
Salvucci, Kushleyeva, and Lee (2004) provide a dedicated buffer
supervising and controlling an automobile driver’s goal set for multi-
tasking, attached to the general executive. Driving a car is extremely
complex and unpredictable; the higher level cognitive components main-
tain situation awareness, determine strategies for navigation, decide
when to initiate and terminate maneuvers, and manage lower level cog-
nitive components such as changing radio stations, conversations, and
eating and drinking. Integrated driver cognitive models thus require
“task prioritization and attention management to handle the multitask-
ing nature of the driving task” (Salvucci, Boer, & Liu, 2001, p. 10).
100 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

Handheld devices provide unique challenges to user multitasking

behavior. For a description of the special constraints of handheld devices
(small screen size, slow processors, noisy physical environment, etc.), see
Vaananen-Vainio-Mattila and Ruuska (2000). Nagata (2003) reports
findings from a study that looks at multitasking while using a pocket PC
(iPAQh3800). Following Preece, Rogers, and Benyon’s (1994) definition
of multitasking as alternating between tasks, Nagata (2003) looks at
multitasking in terms of an interruption task resulting in a degradation
of main task performance.
The next section outlines the role of multitasking in human–computer
interaction studies.

Human–Computer Interaction Studies

The fundamentals of multitasking in human–computer interaction
(HCI) studies are given by Tsukada, Okada, and Matsushita (1994),
Card, Moran, and Newell (1983), and Preece et al. (1994). The issue of
multitasking in HCI is approached via the concept of interruption.
Interruptions are “unanticipated requests for switching between differ-
ent tasks during multitasking” (McFarlane, 1997, p. 9). However, HCI
differs slightly from cognitive science, which equates multitasking with
task switching in repetitive tasks (see the cognitive science section of
this chapter). In HCI, concurrent multitasking is acknowledged in the
notion of the self being divided between internal (cognition) and exter-
nal (observable behaviors) (Tsukada et al., 1994).
The information processing tasks that are internal to the person
(cognition and perception) and external to the person (motor or actions)
are different, creating a common situation in which a person can in fact
be engaging concurrently in multiple tasks (Tsukada et al., 1994). A bot-
tleneck may occur because people’s external actions are undertaken in
sequence (i.e., not concurrently) but tasks undergoing internal process-
ing leading up to the action can in fact be performed concurrently or in
parallel (McFarlane, 1997). Card et al. (1983) depict a model of two
kinds of internal processing (perception and cognition) with only one
motor processor for controlling external actions. Even in sequential
actions, there can be an appearance of concurrent multitasking because
external actions are defined as a series of 70 millisecond discrete
actions that comprise all tasks, big or small. Thus, although motor
actions are performed sequentially in chains of actions, the smallness
of an action’s discrete units means a task can be interrupted anywhere,
at odd places, then returned to suddenly, giving the appearance of con-
current multitasking.
Relying on the idea that human actions are “discretizable,” GOMS
(Goals, Operators, Methods, and Selection rules) models have been
developed (Card et al., 1983). A modification of the GOMS Model, called
CPM-GOMS (Cognitive Perceptual Motor/Critical Path Method-GOMS),
was created by John and Gray (1995) to model performance on subtasks
 Multitasking Behavior 101

and tasks. Chains of subtasks are scheduled on the three separate

human processors (perception, cognition, and motor), each on a separate
time track. The central idea is that people can do some things on one of
the other processors while they are waiting to finish other things
(McFarlane, 1997). The problem with multitasking on these parallel
tracks is that people are interrupted and must return to the first task,
often forgetting where they are in the subtask, which leads to wasted
time and energy.
HCI research has focused on multitasking, task switching, interrup-
tions and their effects on task performance, and on the ameliorative
effects of interruptions on efficiency and safety. For example, research
indicates a decrease in performance speed (Gillie & Broadbent, 1989;
Kreifeldt & McCarthy, 1981) and observed differences in how people per-
form on interrupted tasks (Cabon, Coblentz, & Mollard, 1990) (for a
review of the interruption and multitasking literature in HCI, see
McFarlane, 2002). However, interruption of simple tasks has been found
actually to increase performance efficiency (Brumistrov & Leonova,
2003; Speier, Valacich, & Vessey, 1997).
Information workers who engage in multitasking often suffer what is
termed prospective memory failure when they return to a task.
Prospective memory failure is the inability to remember the task that
they must perform (Ellise & Kvavilashvili, 2000). Prospective memory
failure has been shown to be a significant fact of life (Czerwinski &
Horvitz, 2002; Dey & Abowd, 2000; Sellen, Louie, Harris, & Wilkins,
1996; Terry, 1988). Task interruptions at work are one of the most cited
reasons for prospective memory failure (O’Connail & Frohlich, 1995).
Accordingly, Card and Henderson (1987) propose a computer interface
design to manage interruptions in multitasking and help people avoid
prospective memory failure. McCrickard, Chewar, Somervell, and
Ndiwalana (2003) propose a notification system, which they define as an
interface used “in a divided-attention, multitasking situation,” that
delivers on time information to the user that is “parallel … extraneous
or supplemental to a user’s attention priority” (McCrickard et al., 2003,
pp. 312, 315).
The next section explores the nature of multitasking within organi-
zational behavior research.

Organizational Behavior
Current interest concerning multitasking behavior is reflected in
three general areas of the organizational behavior literature: individual
differences or preferences that motivate multitasking behavior, the rela-
tionships between multitasking behavior and a variety of individuals’
work-related outcomes, and multiple-task performance at the group
level of analysis. Although some work on multitasking behavior across a
wide range of organizations can be found in other organization-focused
literatures such as management science (e.g., Eppen, Gould, Schmidt,
102 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

Moore, & Weatherford, 1998), labor economics, economic history, and

occupational health (e.g., multitasking in French automobile firms
[Gorgeu & Mathieu, 2005], among Dutch farm women [Bock, 2004], and
in nineteenth-century Australian banks [Seltzer, 2000]), this section
focuses on work published in core organizational behavior and applied
psychology outlets.
It has been suggested that task environments have become more com-
plex and workers’ preferences have also changed in favor of greater task
variety and more challenging work environments (Lindbeck & Snower,
2000). It thus seems reasonable to conclude that, in general, individuals
are creating, encountering, and accepting more multitasking situations
at work. Some workers succeed and even thrive in such environments
but others do not cope well with task-juggling, experiencing instead
increased levels of stress and stress-related injury and illness (Robinson
& Smallman, 2006). As performance differences linked to multitasking
behavior become more consequential to individuals and organizations,
researchers have begun exploring the antecedents of multitasking
behavior. This research eschews cognitive psychology’s focus on the cog-
nitive mechanisms of multitasking or the cognitive capability to multi-
task in favor of an emphasis on personality and preference.
Research on time urgency and multitasking is one such area of
inquiry. Time urgency is a relatively stable individual difference vari-
able and a subcomponent of the Type A behavior pattern (Conte, Landy,
& Mathieu, 1995; Conte, Mathieu, & Landy, 1998; Landy, Rastegary,
Thayer, & Colvin, 1991; Rastegary & Landy, 1993). Time urgency, like
the Type A behavior pattern, has been associated with several health
problems (Conte, Mathieu, & Landy, 1998). Time-urgent individuals
carefully attend to the passage of time; they perceive time as their
enemy and set themselves in opposition to it (Price, 1982; Waller, Conte,
Gibson, & Carpenter, 2001). Time urgency is associated with time-
related task strategies such as multitasking; time-urgent individuals
are chronically hurried due to their tendency to schedule more activities
than fit into the time available (Friedman & Roseman, 1974).
The issue of polychronicity has received slightly more attention in
organizational behavior literature than time urgency, although the two
concepts are closely related. Originally construed—along with mono-
chronicity—as a characteristic of cultures (Hall, 1983), polychronicity in
the organizational behavior literature refers chiefly to “the extent to
which people (1) prefer to be engaged in two or more tasks or events
simultaneously and are actually so engaged (the preference strongly
implying the behavior and vice versa), and (2) believe their preference is
the best way to do things” Bluedorn (2002, p. 51). Bluedorn cites signif-
icant positive relationships between polychronicity and extraversion
(Lieberman & Rosenthal, 2001), favorable inclination toward change,
tolerance for ambiguity, formal education, striving for achievement,
impatience and irritability, and frequency of lateness and absenteeism
(Bluedorn, 2002).
 Multitasking Behavior 103

Other research focuses on the role of polychronicity in workers’ out-

comes in specific contexts. Slocumbe and Bluedorn (1999) found that the
congruence between individuals’ levels of polychronicity and amount of
polychronicity they perceived in their workplaces to be positively related
to (1) the individuals’ organizational commitment, (2) their perceived per-
formance, and (3) their perceptions of performance evaluation fairness.
Similarly, Hecht and Allen’s (2005) field study found that the fit between
an individual’s preference to engage in polychronic behavior and the
opportunities to do so afforded by his or her work context significantly
predicted worker well being (i.e., satisfaction, affect, self-efficacy, and
psychological strain); however, these findings did not appear in data
from their laboratory study of students. And, although Bluedorn (2002)
found a negative relationship between the level of polychronicity and
stress among dentists, he found no relationship between polychronicity
and outcomes for other dental office workers. Additionally, in a study of
delivery drivers, Francis-Smythe and Robertson (2003) found a signifi-
cant positive influence of polychronicity on job-related well being. It
would seem that at least for some types of work contexts, multitasking
(polychronic) workers are “happy” workers. In sum, this area of research
provides evidence of both positive and negative effects of multitasking
behavior on workers’ outcomes.
An additional and specific area of the organizational behavior litera-
ture addresses tensions between work and family roles, again providing
evidence of both positive and negative influences of multitasking on
workers. Research in this area generally conceptualizes multitasking as
the switching by an individual between work-related and family-related
roles. Ruderman, Ohlott, Panzer, and King (2002) found that manager-
ial women with multiple life roles (job and non-job roles) successfully
transferred their non-job multitasking skills to their work environ-
ments, ultimately enhancing their leadership qualities at work. This
research provides support for the more general theory of work–family
enrichment, which suggests “experiences in one role (can) improve the
quality of life in the other role” (Greenhouse & Powell, 2006, p. 72).
However, in a study based on data collected from 2,109 respondents,
Voydanoff (2005) found that work–family multitasking (i.e., bringing
work home and job contacts at home) were positively related to
work–family conflict and perceived stress.
Most work is accomplished in groups of people in organizations; some
organizational behavior scholars have therefore investigated multitask-
ing behaviors specifically in group settings. Waller (1996, 1997) sug-
gested that groups, like individuals, can choose different task
performance strategies such as time swapping (performing one task at a
time, en masse), or time sharing (performing multiple tasks simultane-
ously by distributing tasks across different group members). Marks,
Mathieu, and Zaccaro (2001, p. 356) have likewise conceptualized teams
as “multitasking units that perform multiple processes simultaneously
and sequentially to orchestrate goal-directed task work.”
104 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

In subsequent empirical work, Wagner, Meyer, Humphrey, and

Hollenbeck (2005) argue that the choice between simultaneous (time
sharing) or sequential (time swapping) task performance strategies in
teams produces equivocal results. They suggest that different combina-
tions of individualistic and collectivistic action influence how much mul-
titasking behavior occurs in teams, reflecting team members’ ability to
recognize the different tasks needing to be performed and allocating
them across team members. A limited amount of work in organizational
behavior has also investigated individual influence on team multitask-
ing behaviors.
Waller, Giambatista, and Zellmer-Bruhn (1998) studied the influence
of highly time-urgent individuals (as compared to other group members)
on group-level multitasking in small groups working toward a strict
deadline. They found that the presence of a highly time-urgent member
depressed group multitasking behavior, ostensibly because these indi-
viduals were able to keep their groups focused on one primary task at a
time and thus monitor progress toward the deadline. Other work in the
area suggests that groups comprised of individuals who are time urgent
and hold a goal-oriented future- (rather than past- or present-) time ori-
entation are more likely than other groups to “cram” more work into an
allotted amount of time and that they cope by engaging in multitasking
behavior (Waller et al., 2001).
The organizational behavior literature on multitasking paints a
rather equivocal picture of multitasking’s outcomes for workers. On the
one hand, being able to switch among various tasks is regarded as a way
for workers to enjoy enriched jobs and avoid monotonous, repetitive
tasks that lead to boredom and dissatisfaction. Creating multitasking
work environments is seen by many organizations as an arrangement
that allows workers to be more flexible and responsive to unpredictable
external organizational environments (Whitfield, 2000).
On the other hand, research in this area also suggests that for some
workers, multitasking leads to increased levels of stress and health-
related problems. Several studies have found indications that individu-
als are differentially motivated to and/or capable of engaging in
multitasking behavior. Future research in organizational behavior
should improve our understanding by more deeply investigating at least
three issues.
First and as previously mentioned, the issue of volition in multitask-
ing contexts should be carefully addressed. What different behaviors
occur when workers choose to multitask and regulate their own pace of
work as compared with being placed in a job context that requires near-
constant multitasking? Additionally, previous research indicates that
information regarding deadlines and time pressure can significantly
affect individuals’ task-pacing efforts (Waller, Zellmer-Bruhn, &
Giambatista, 2002). Does the interaction of pacing volition and deadline
imposition influence individuals’ multitasking behaviors? How does
 Multitasking Behavior 105

information regarding task priorities (Ishizaka et al., 2001) affect pacing

and multitasking under such conditions?
Second, existing work on multitasking in terms of person-job fit
should be augmented. What types of multitasking requirements seem to
be better suited to which individuals? Finally, issues of training multi-
tasking behavior at both individual and group levels should be
addressed in the organizational behavior literature, drawing upon per-
tinent research in human performance, cognitive psychology, and other
disciplines. If the choice of task performance strategies is equivocal
(Wagner et al., 2005), then what cues trigger multitasking behavior in
high-performing individuals and groups in complex, time-pressured,
task-performance contexts? Notwithstanding existing predilection and
ability, it is conceivable that the timing of multitasking behavior, in
addition to simultaneous task performance itself, could be improved for
some individuals and groups.

Summary
Overall, in the cognitive sciences we see the development of two major
themes. The first is that multitasking is, more often than not, studied
within cognitive science and its associate disciplines in terms of inter-
ruption; thus, it is defined as a behavior that decreases efficiency and
wastes time. Secondly, research acknowledges that with the prolifera-
tion of communication and information devices, multitasking while
using these devices is facilitated and probably increasing. Is multitask-
ing a negative or positive side effect of the advance of communication
technology? Is it a behavior that is more important to us than we know?
In the next section we examine how multitasking is understood
within information science.

Information Science
Until recently, information science devoted little attention to under-
standing multitasking within the context of the research issues and
problems of the field. Multitasking research is now growing in theoreti-
cal and practical importance in information behavior research. We next
examine how multitasking informs research on the Web and information
retrieval.

Web and Information Retrieval Studies

Recent studies suggest that users’ searches may have multiple goals
or topics and that they occur within the broader context of information-
seeking behaviors (Spink, 2004; Spink, Ozmutlu, & Ozmutlu, 2002).
People may pool their topics and interact with an information retrieval
(IR) system on multiple related or unrelated topics. Overall, a user’s sin-
gle session with an IR system consists of seeking information on single
or multiple topics and also switching among topics (Spink et al., 2002).
106 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

Spink, Bateman, and Greisdorf (1999) found respondents in a Web-

based survey reporting multitasking searches.
Spink et al. (2002) show that IR searches often include multiple top-
ics during a single search session. They found that multitasking infor-
mation seeking and searching are common human behaviors. Many IR
system users conduct information seeking and searching on both related
and unrelated topics. In addition, Web or IR multitasking search ses-
sions are longer than single topic sessions, with mean topics per Web
search ranging from 1 to more than 10 topics and a mean of 2.1 topic
changes per search session.
Recent studies have examined multitasking searching on the Excite
and AlltheWeb.com Web search engines (Ozmutlu, Ozmutlu, & Spink,
2003, 2004). Ozmutlu et al. (2003) provided a detailed analysis of multi-
tasking sessions on AlltheWeb.com. They found that almost one third of
AlltheWeb.com users performed multitasking Web searching.
Multitasking Web search sessions often included more than three topics
per session; were longer in duration than regular searching sessions;
and most of the topics in multitasking searches involved switching
among general information, computers, and entertainment. Ozmutlu et
al. (2004) found that one tenth of Excite users and one third of
AlltheWeb.com users conducted multitasking searches. Multitasking
Web search sessions were longer than regular search sessions in terms
of queries per session and duration, with both Excite and AlltheWeb.com
users searching for about three topics per multitasking session and sub-
mitting about four to five queries per topic.
Typical Web search sessions are two queries; some comprise three or
more (Spink & Jansen, 2004). Spink, Park, Jansen, and Pedersen (2006)
conducted two studies of multitasking during Web searching; a study of
two-query search sessions on the AltaVista Web search engine and a
study of three-or-more-query search sessions on the AltaVista Web
search engine. They examined the degree of multitasking search and
information task switching during the two sets of AltaVista Web search
sessions. A sample of two-query and three-or-more-query sessions were
filtered from AltaVista transaction logs from 2002 and qualitatively ana-
lyzed. Sessions ranged in duration from less than a minute to a few
hours. Findings included: (1) 81 percent of two-query sessions included
multiple topics, (2) 91 percent of three-or-more-query sessions included
multiple topics, (3) there was a broad variety of topics in multitasking
search sessions, and (4) three-or-more-query sessions sometimes con-
tained frequent topic changes.
The next section explores how multitasking is viewed within infor-
mation behavior studies.

Information Behavior Studies

Spink and Park (2005) studied both multitasking information and
non-information behaviors by business consultants. Key findings
 Multitasking Behavior 107

included: (1) seeking information formed 10.5 percent of business con-

sultant daily tasks, (2) information-seeking tasks occurred within mul-
titasking and task switching sequences with computing and
communication tasks, and (3) information-seeking tasks were often
conducted to support or respond to communication or computing tasks.
Spink and Park (2005) provided a model of multitasking and task
switching during information behavior that included cognitive, cogni-
tive style, and individual differences variables. Spink, Alvarado-
Albertorio, Naragan, Brumfield, and Park (2007) investigated the
multitasking information behaviors of public library users at the
Brentwood and Wilkinsburg Public Libraries in Pittsburgh through
diary questionnaires. Some 63.5 percent of the 96 library users engaged
in multitasking information behaviors, with a mean of 2.5 topic changes
and 2.8 topics per library visit. A major finding was that many people
in libraries seek information on multiple topics and engage in multi-
tasking behaviors.
Spink and Cole (2005, 2006a, 2006b) have argued that, when infor-
mation is added into the mix, the concept and process of multitasking
takes on an added layer of complexity. Information behavior may involve
a combination of cognitive and physical actions, on dual or multiple
tasks concurrently or sequentially, including switching between differ-
ent information tasks. Cognitively, humans sequence their information
tasks and information task switching at different levels of complexity
and speed. They argue that people’s information behaviors are embed-
ded within multitasking information behaviors that occur when users
juggle multiple topics during the same search session.
Spink and Cole (2005, 2006a, 2006b) highlight how humans cogni-
tively coordinate their information-seeking behaviors with their interac-
tive searching (human–system interaction) behaviors; this includes
recognizing and making sense of and cognitively articulating an infor-
mation problem or a gap in their knowledge. In other words, information
seekers have to coordinate a number of factors, including their cognitive
state, level of knowledge, and understanding of their information prob-
lem, into a coherent series of sustained activities that include seeking,
searching, retrieving, and using information. We know that hand-eye
coordination is a physiological process that humans develop from child-
hood. But how do humans learn the process of coordinating their infor-
mation needs into coherent processes of human information seeking,
searching, retrieving, and use behaviors?
Rather than seeing this as a negative, like driving while engaging in
another task, within information behavior research (Just et al., 2001;
Rubinstein et al., 2001) we see multitasking as an essential element of
the information-behavior process that must be carefully examined,
allowed for, and facilitated in the design of IR systems (Spink, Park, &
Cole, 2006).
108 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

Conclusion and Further Research

What have we learned from our examination of the cognitive and
information sciences view of multitasking? The cognitive sciences are
moving forward with research on interruption behavior that decreases
efficiency and wastes time and on the positive and negative effects of
multitasking while using information and communication technology.
Multitasking has been found to be beneficial in only a few cases
(Brumistrov & Leonova, 2003; Speier, Valacich, & Vessey, 1997).
Research in cognitive science and human factors sees multitasking as
having negative consequences (i.e., producing a slow-down in perfor-
mance of a principal task and increased errors). Cognitive science
research views multitasking in terms of task switching, which causes
inefficiencies in performance because of the residual costs when one
returns to the primary task after having performed a secondary task.
Because it sees multitasking as switching from one task to another in
rapid succession rather than the concurrent performance of two or more
tasks, cognitive science’s research focus is on the costs to the individual
of switching tasks compared to non-switch or task-repetition trials.
Although some cognitive science research indicates that there may
be positive aspects to multitasking, the overall feeling is that further
system design modifications are needed to protect against the negative
effects of multitasking. A more nuanced view is possible if tasks are
considered primary or secondary and requiring active or passive atten-
tion on the part of the user. An example of a primary-active task is a
pilot engaged in active flying (e.g., steering) while monitoring safety-
related alarm systems; an example of a secondary-passive task is lis-
tening to music while doing housework or studying for an exam.
Although primary-active tasks are considered a positive form of multi-
tasking that system design can augment, secondary-passive tasks and
even secondary-active tasks (such as using a cell phone while driving)
are considered impediments to the primary-active task of the user.
This four-cell division of multitasking in cognitive science research
between primary and secondary tasks and active and passive attention
is revealingly expressed in a study of the differing placement of child-
caring and housework by men and women (Michelson, 2005). The four-
cell way of looking at multitasking also highlights the issue of imposed
tasks versus voluntary multitasking, such as checking e-mail (sec-
ondary) while writing a business report (primary) for such beneficial
reasons as resting the mind, collecting one’s thoughts, or alleviating
tedium—all of which serve to focus the mind when the user returns to
the primary task.
Research on multitasking in organizational behavior focuses chiefly on
developing a deeper understanding of the antecedents of multitasking
behavior. Polychronicity seems to be the central variable of interest, for
both individual and group-level multitasking behavior. Researchers are
divided as to the positive and negative effects of workplace multitasking.
 Multitasking Behavior 109

Many workers profess a preference for work environments that offer

multitasking opportunities; however, many others report detrimental
effects such as stress after working in demanding, multitasking-oriented
settings. Finally, researchers report fairly consistent findings regarding
the stress associated with multitasking connected to concurrent
work–family demands.
Information behavior research, however, is developing the view that
multitasking is an essential information behavior that enables us to
adapt to our surroundings and survive. In other words, when we are
engaged in performing a main task, communication devices facilitate a
multitasking behavior that has always been present but becomes more
obvious when we use these devices; that is, we constantly engage in a
low-level scanning or monitoring of the environment. This low-level
monitoring alerts us to danger and may set in motion other important
information behavior phenomena that relate to human sensitivity and
adaptation to both the social and physical environment in which we live
(Spink & Cole, 2006a). This analysis provides hints of the importance of
multitasking to human survival (Brumistrov & Leonova, 2003; Monsell,
2003; Speier, Valacich, & Vessey, 1997).
In addition, this chapter proposes that, both theoretically and practi-
cally, multitasking is an important concept for information behavior
research. However, in the context of information behavior, multitasking
is still largely under-researched. Task analysis in cognitive IR is a new
arena of research. In spite of the new focus on tasks (Vakkari, Pennanen,
& Serola, 2003), few information behavior models and theories take
account of multitasking behaviors. Humans knowingly construct the
information behavior-related processes that constitute our information
behavior as a series of tasks. In the stop-and-go of everyday life, how-
ever, we are not in total control of how multiple tasks interact with each
other; nor are we in control of how stages of an uncompleted task inter-
act with or somehow become embedded in a task that is in focus at a
given moment. Understanding and modeling multitasking information
behaviors requires a greater understanding of the coordination and
interplay among information seeking/foraging/sense-making, organiz-
ing, and use tasks.
We need to reconceptualize information behavior as the interplay of
multitasking processes that require information coordinating behavior
to work effectively (Spink, Park, Jansen, & Pedersen, 2006). Current
information behavior models are also based on a single information task
paradigm. But, information behaviors are often accomplished in complex
fashion. Conceptualizing multitasking and coordination behaviors as
suggested offers a relatively new, heuristic direction for information
behavior research. The authors are currently conducting further studies
to extend our understanding of the nature, patterns, and impacts of
information behavior within a multitasking and coordinating frame-
work. These include implications of multitasking in Web searching
(Spink, Park, Jansen, & Pedersen, 2006) and also the development of
110 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

new searching tools for more efficient IR system design (Spink & Cole,
2005).
Further research is being conducted to investigate the interplay
between information and non-information tasks (Spink & Park, 2005).
In particular, the concept of information coordinating behavior (ICB) is
an important area of study for information science because it investi-
gates how we intertwine tasks while sustaining momentum for complet-
ing individual tasks. The development of information behavior
necessitates a theoretical and empirical explication of the important
nature and role of information behaviors, including ICB. In information
behavior, humans coordinate a number of elements, including their cog-
nitive state, level of domain knowledge, and understanding of their
information problem, into a coherent series of activities that may
include seeking, searching, interactive browsing, retrieving, and con-
structing information.
Information seekers perform interdependent activities to achieve
goals or solve problems. These activities may also require or create
resources of various types. In this view, information seekers coordinate
information tasks arising from dependencies that constrain how tasks
can be performed. These dependencies may be inherent in the structure
of the problem (e.g., components of a system may interact with each
other, constraining the kinds of changes that can be made to a single
component), or they may result from decomposition of the goal into
activities or the assignment of activities to other actors and resources.

References
Aasman, J. (1995). Modelling driver behaviour in Soar. Leidschendam, The
Netherlands: KPN Research.
Allport, A., Styles, E., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the
dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umita & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and
performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp.
421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Quin, Y.
(2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4),
1036–1060.
Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (1998). The atomic components of thought.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Lebiere, C. (1996). Working memory: Activation
limitations on retrieval. Cognitive Psychology, 30(3), 221–256.
Anderson, J. R., Taatgen, N. A., & Byrne, M. D. (2005). Learning to achieve per-
fect time sharing: Architectural implications of Hazeltine, Teague, & Ivry
(2002). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 31, 749–761.
Baddeley, A., Chincotta, D., & Adlam, A. (2001). Working memory and the control
of action: Evidence from task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 130(4), 641–657.
Baddeley, A., & Logie, R. H. (1999). Working memory: The multiple-component
model. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory:
 Multitasking Behavior 111

Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 28–61).

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bainbridge, L. (2002). Processes underlying human performance. In D. J.
Garland & J. A. Wise (Eds.), Handbook of aviation human factors: Human fac-
tors in transportation (pp. 107–171). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bherer, L., Kramer, A. F., Peterson, M. S., Colcombe, S., Erickson, K., & Becic, E.
(2005). Training effects on dual-task performance: Are there age-related dif-
ferences in plasticity of attentional control? Psychology and Aging, 20(4),
695–709.
Bluedorn, A. C. (2002). The human organization of time. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Bock, B. B. (2004). Fitting in and multi-tasking: Dutch farm women’s strategies
in rural entrepreneurship. Sociologia Ruralis, 44(3), 245–260.
Brumistrov, I., & Leonova, A. (2003). Do interrupted users work faster or slower?
The micro-analysis of computerized text editing task. In J. Jacko & C.
Stephanidis (Eds.), Human–computer interaction: Theory and practice (Part I)
(Proceedings of HCI International 2003) (pp. 621–625). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Burgess, P. W. (2000). Real-world multitasking from a cognitive neuroscience
perspective. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes:
Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 465–472). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Byrne, M. D., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Serial modules in parallel: The psycho-
logical refractory period and perfect time-sharing. Psychological Review, 108,
847–869.
Cabon, P., Coblentz, A., & Mollard, R. (1990). Interruption of a monotonous activ-
ity with complex tasks: Effects of individual differences. Proceedings of the
Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting, 912–916.
Card, S. K., & Henderson, A., Jr. (1987). A multiple, virtual-workspace interface
to support user task switching. In J. M. Carroll & P. P. Tanner (Eds.),
Proceedings of the SIGCHI/GI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems and Graphics Interface (pp. 53–59). New York: ACM Press.
Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human–computer
interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carlson, R. A., & Sohn, M.-Y. (2000). Cognitive control of multistep routines:
Information processing and conscious intentions. In S. Monsell & J. Driver
(Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp.
443–464). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cascio, W. (1978). Applied psychology in personnel management. Reston, VA:
Reston Publishing.
Chou, C., & Funk, K. (1990). Management of multiple tasks: Cockpit task man-
agement errors. Proceedings of the 1990 IEEE International Conference on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 470–474.
Conte, J. M., Landy, F. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (1995). Time urgency: Conceptual and
construct development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 178–185.
Conte, J. M., Mathieu, J. E., & Landy, F. J. (1998). The nomological and predic-
tive validity of time urgency. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19(1), 1–13.
Courtright, C. (2007). Context in information behavior research. Annual Review
of Information Science and Technology, 41, 273–306.
Czerwinski, M., & Horvitz, E. (2002). An investigation of memory for daily com-
puting events. In X. Faulkner, J. Findlay, & F. Détienne, (Eds.), People and
computers XVI: Memorable yet invisible: Proceedings of HCI 2002 (pp.
229–245). London: Springer-Verlag.
112 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

Davenport, E. (2002). Organizational knowledge and communities of practice.

Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36, 171–227.
De Jong, R. (2000). An intention-activation account of residual switch costs. In S.
Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and per-
formance XVIII (pp. 357–376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dey, A. K., & Abowd, G. D. (2000). CyberMinder: A context aware system for sup-
porting reminds. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on
Handheld and Ubiquitous Computing, 172–186.
Duncan, J. (1986). Disorganization of behaviour after frontal-lobe damage.
Cognitive Neuropsychology, 3, 271–290.
Ellise, J., & Kvavilashvili, L. (2000). Prospective memory in 2000: Past, present
and future directions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14(7), 1–9.
Eppen, G. D., Gould, F. J., Schmidt, C. P., Moore, J. H., & Weatherford, L. R.
(1998). Introductory management science: Decision modeling with spread-
sheets. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Finholt, T. A. (2002). Collaboratories. Annual Review of Information Science and
Technology, 36, 73–107.
Foster, J. (2006). Collaborative information seeking and retrieval. Annual
Review of Information Science and Technology, 40, 329–356.
Francis-Smythe, J. A., & Robertson, I. T. (2003). The importance of time con-
gruity in the organization. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
52(2), 298–321.
Friedman, M., & Roseman, R. (1974). Type A behavior and your heart. New York:
Knopf.
Friedman, T. L. (2006, July 5). The age of interruption. New York Times, p. A19.
Garcia, A. C., Dawes, M. E., Kohne, M. L., Miller, F. M., & Groschwitz, S. F.
(2006). Workplace studies and technological change. Annual Review of
Information Science and Technology, 40, 393–437.
Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Schoor, T. (2003). Modeling processes of volitional
action control in multiple-task performance: How to explain effects of goal
competition and task difficulty on processing strategies and performance
within ACT-R. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 3, 355–400.
Gillie, T., & Broadbent, D. (1989). What makes interruptions disruptive? A study
of length, similarity, and complexity. Psychological Research, 50, 243–250.
Glass, J. M., Schumacher, E. H., Lauber, E. J., Zurbriggen, E. L., Gmeindl, L.,
Kieras, et al. (2000). Aging and the psychological refractory period: Task-
coordination strategies in young and old adults. Psychology and Aging, 15(4),
571–595.
Gorgeu, A., & Mathieu, R. (2005). Teamwork in factories within the French auto-
mobile industry. New Technology, Work and Employment, 20, 88–101.
Grady, C. L., Springer, M. V., Hongwanishkul, D., McIntosh, R., & Winocur, G.
(2006). Age-related changes in brain activity across the adult lifespan.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(2), 227–241.
Greenhouse, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A
theory of work–family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1),
72–92.
Hafner, K. (2005, February 10). You there, at the computer: Pay attention. The
New York Times, p. E1.
Hall, E. T. (1983). The dance of life: The other dimension of time. Garden City, NY:
Anchor Press.
Hecht, T. D., & Allen, N. J. (2005). Exploring links between polychronicity and
well-being from the perspective of person–job fit: Does it matter if you prefer
 Multitasking Behavior 113

to do only one thing at a time? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 98, 155–178.
Holmes, M. E., Papper, R. A., Popovich, M. N., & Bloxham, M. (2005).
Middletown media studies II: Concurrent media exposure. Muncie, IN: Ball
State University Center for Media Design.
Holmes, M. E., Papper, R. A., Popovich, M. N., & Bloxham, M. (2006). Engaging
the ad-supported media: Middletown Media Studies: Observing consumers
and their interactions with media (Middletown Media Studies Whitepaper).
Muncie, IN: Ball State University Center for Media Design.
Holstein, W. J. (2006, June 7). The workplace. International Herald Tribune, p.
22.
Hunt, E., & Joslyn, S. (2000). A functional task analysis of time-pressured deci-
sion making. In J. M. Schraagen, S. F. Chipman, & V. L. Shalin (Eds.),
Cognitive task analysis (pp. 119–134). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ishizaka, K., Marshall, S. P., & Conte, J. M. (2001). Individual differences in
attentional strategies in multitasking situations. Human Performance, 14(4),
339–358.
Jerslid, A. (1927). Mental set and shift [Special issue]. Archives of Psychology, 89.
John, B. E., & Gray, W. D. (1995). GOMS analysis for parallel activities. In J.
Miller, I. Katz, R. Mack, & L. Marks (Eds.), ACM Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems: Conference companion on human factors in
computing systems, 395–396.
Jones, R. M., Laird, J. E., Nielsen, P. E., Coulter, K., Kenny, P., & Koss, F. (1999).
Automated intelligent pilots for combat flight simulation. AI Magazine, 20,
27–42.
Jones, W. (2007). Personal information management. Annual Review of
Information Science and Technology, 41, 453–504.
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., Keller, T. A., Emery, L., Zajac, H., & Thulborn, K. R.
(2001). Interdependence of non-overlapping cortical systems in dual cognitive
tasks. Neuroimage, 14, 417–426.
Keele, S. W., & Rafal, R. D. (2000). Deficits of attentional set in patients with left
prefrontal cortex lesions. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and per-
formance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 627–651). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Kieras, D. E., Meyer, D. E., Ballas, J. A., & Lauber, E. J. (2000). Modern compu-
tational perspectives on executive mental processes and cognitive control:
Where to from here? In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive
processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 681–712). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Kieras, D. E., Meyer, D. E., Mueller, S., & Seymour, T. (1999). Insights into work-
ing memory from the perspective of the EPIC architecture for modeling
skilled perceptual-motor and cognitive human performance. In A. Miyake &
P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance
and executive control (pp. 183–223). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Kimberg, D. Y., Aguirre, G. K., & D’Espisito, M. (2000). Modulation of task-
related neural activity in task switching: An fMRI study. Cognitive Brain
Research, 10(1–2), 189–196.
Kreifeldt, J. G., & McCarthy, M. E. (1981); Interruption as a test of the user-
computer interface. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference on Manual
Control, 655–667.
114 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

Landy, F. J., Rastegary, H., Thayer, J., & Colvin, C. (1991). Time urgency: The
construct and its measurement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 644–657.
Lee, F. J., & Anderson, J. (2001). Does learning of a complex task have to be com-
plex? A study in learning decomposition. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 267–316.
Lee, F. J., & Taatgen, N. A. (2002). Multitasking as skill acquisition. Proceedings
of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 572–577.
Lieberman, M. D., & Rosenthal, R. (2001). Why introverts can’t always tell who
likes them: Multitasking and nonverbal decoding. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 80(2), 294–310.
Lindbeck, A., & Snower, D. J. (2000). Multitask learning and the reorganization
of work: From Tayloristic to holistic organization. Journal of Labor
Economics, 18(3), 353–376.
Logan, G. D. (2004). Working memory, task switching, and executive control in
the task span procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
133(2), 218–236.
Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in
dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393–434.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based frame-
work and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review,
26(3), 356–376.
Mayr, U. (2001). Age differences in the selection of mental sets: The role of inhi-
bition, stimulus ambiguity, and response-set overlap. Psychology and Aging,
16, 96–109.
McCrickard, D. S., Chewar, C. M., Somervell, J. P., & Ndiwalana, A. (2003). A
model for notification systems evaluation: Assessing user goals for multitask-
ing activity. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction, 10(4),
312–338.
McFarlane, D. C. (1997). Interruption of people in human–computer interaction:
A general unifying definition of human interruption and taxonomy.
Washington, DC: Naval Research Laboratory, The United States Navy.
Retrieved July 28, 2006, from interruptions.net/literature/McFarlane-NRL-
97.pdf
McFarlane, D. C. (2002). Comparison of four primary methods for coordinating
the interruption of people in human–computer interaction, Human–Computer
Interaction, 17(1), 63–139.
Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22,
1423–1442.
Meiran, N. (2000). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching. Psychological
Review, 63(3–4), 234–239.
Meyer, D. E., Glass, J. M., Mueller, S. T., Seymour, T. L., & Kieras, D. E. (2001).
Executive-process interactive control: A unified computational theory for
answering twenty questions (and more) about cognitive aging. European
Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 13, 123–164.
Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997a). EPIC: Computational theory of executive
cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mecha-
nisms. Psychological Review, 104, 3–65.
Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997b). EPIC: A computational theory of executive
cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psy-
chological refractory period phenomena. Psychological Review, 104, 749–791.
Michelson, W. (2005). Time use: Expanding explanation in the social sciences.
Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
 Multitasking Behavior 115

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits
on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., &
Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their
contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis.
Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49–100.
Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (Eds.). (1999). Models of working memory: Mechanisms of
active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Miyata, Y., & Norman, D. A. (1986). Psychological issues in support of multiple
activities. In D. A. Norman & S. W. Draper (Eds.), User centered design (pp.
265–284). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Monsell, S. (1996). Control of mental processes. In V. Bruce (Ed.), Unsolved mys-
teries of the mind: Tutorial essays in cognition (pp. 93–148). Hove, England:
Erlbaum, Taylor & Francis.
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(3),
134–140.
Nagata, S. F. (2003). Multitasking and interruptions during mobile Web tasks.
Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47th Annual
Meeting, 1341–1345.
Nairne, J. S. (2002). Remembering over the short term: The case against the
standard model. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 53–81.
Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic
control of behavior. In R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.),
Consciousness and self-regulation (Vol. 4, pp. 1–18). New York: Plenum.
O’Connail, B., & Frohlich, D. (1995). Time space in the workplace: Dealing with
interruptions. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 262–263.
Ozmutlu, S., Ozmutlu, H. C., & Spink, A. (2003). Multitasking Web search:
Implications for design. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American
Society for Information Science and Technology, 416–421.
Ozmutlu, S., Ozmutlu, H. C., & Spink, A. (2004). Are people asking questions on
general Web search engines? Online Information Review, 6, 396–406.
Pashler, H. (2000). Task switching and multitask performance (tutorial). In S.
Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and per-
formance XVIII (pp. 277–309). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Benyon, D. (1994). Human–computer interaction.
Workingham, England: Addison-Wesley.
Price, V. A. (1982). Type A behavior pattern: A model for research and practice.
New York: Academic Press.
Rastegary, H., & Landy, F. J. (1993). The interactions among time urgency, uncer-
tainty and time pressure. In O. Svenson & A. J. Maule (Eds.), Time pressure
and stress in human judgment and decision making (pp. 217–239). New York:
Plenum.
Robinson, A. M., & Smallman, C. (2006). The contemporary British workplace: A
safer and healthier place? Work, Employment, and Society, 20(1), 87–107.
Rogers, R., & Monsell, S. (1995). The costs of a predictable switch between sim-
ple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124,
207–231.
Rogers, Y. (2004). New theoretical approaches for human–computer interaction.
Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 38, 87–143.
116 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

Rubin, O., & Meiran, N. (2005). On the origins of task mixing cost in the cuing
task-switching paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory and Cognition, 31(6), 1477–1491.
Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cogni-
tive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 27(4), 763–797.
Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., Panzer, K., & King, S. N. (2002). Benefits of mul-
tiple roles for managerial women. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2),
369–386.
Salvucci, D. D., Boer, E. R., & Liu, A. (2001). Toward an integrated model of dri-
ver behavior in a cognitive architecture. Transportation Research Record,
1779, 9–16.
Salvucci, D. D., Kushleyeva, Y., & Lee, F. J. (2004). Toward an ACT-R general
executive for human multitasking. Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference on Cognitive Modeling, 267–272.
Schoor, T., Gerjets, P., & Scheiter, K. (2003). Volitional action control in multiple-
task performance: Modeling effects of goal competition and task difficulty in
ACT-R. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Cognitive
Modeling, 183–188.
Schweickert, R., & Boggs, G. J. (1984). Models of central capacity and concur-
rency. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 28(3), 223–281.
Scott, M. (2006, June 17). Tuned out. The Gazette [Montreal], pp. H1, H4.
Sellen, A. J., Louie, G., Harris, J. E., & Wilkins, A. J. (1996). What brings inten-
tions to mind? An in situ study of prospective memory. Memory, 5(4), 483–507.
Seltzer, A. J. (2000). Controlling and motivating the workforce: Evidence from
the banking industry in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Australian Economic History Review, 40(3), 219–238.
Slocumbe, T. E., & Bluedorn, A. C. (1999). Organizational behavior implications
of the congruence between preferred polychronicity and experienced work-
unit polychronicity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 75–99.
Sohn, M.-H., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Task preparation and task repetition:
Two-component model of task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 130, 764–778.
Sohn, M.-H., Ursu, S., Anderson, J. R., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2000). The
role of prefrontal cortex and posterior parietal cortex in task switching.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 97(24), 13448–13453.
Speier, C., Valacich, J. S., & Vessey, I. (1997). The effects of task interruption and
information presentation on individual decision making. In Proceedings of the
XVIII International Conference on Information Systems, 21–36.
Spink, A. (2004). Everyday life multitasking information behavior: An
exploratory study. Journal of Documentation, 60(4), 336–345.
Spink, A., Alvarado-Albertorio, F., Naragan, B., Brumfield, J., & Park, M. (2007).
Multitasking information behavior: An exploratory study. Manuscript submit-
ted for publication.
Spink, A., Bateman, J., & Greisdorf, H. (1999). Successive searching behavior
during mediated information seeking: An exploratory study. Journal of
Information Science, 25(6), 439–449.
Spink, A., & Cole, C. (2005). Multitasking framework for interactive information
retrieval. In A. Spink & C. Cole (Eds.), New directions in cognitive informa-
tion retrieval (pp. 99–112). Berlin: Springer.
Spink, A., & Cole, C. (2006a). New directions in human information behavior.
Berlin: Springer.
 Multitasking Behavior 117

Spink, A., & Cole, C. (2006b). Human information behavior: Integrating diverse
approaches and information use. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 57(1), 25–35.
Spink, A., & Jansen, B. J. (2004). Web search: Public searching of the Web. Berlin:
Springer.
Spink, A., Ozmutlu, H. C., & Ozmutlu, S. (2002). Multitasking information seek-
ing and searching processes. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 53(8), 639–652.
Spink, A., & Park, M. (2005). Information and non-information task interplay.
Journal of Documentation, 61(4), 548–554.
Spink, A., Park, M., & Cole, C. (2006). Multitasking and coordinating framework
for information behavior. In A. Spink & C. B. Cole (Eds.), New directions in
human information behavior (pp. 137–154). Berlin: Springer.
Spink, A., Park, M., Jansen, B. J., & Pedersen, J. (2006). Multitasking during
Web search sessions. Information Processing & Management, 42(1), 264–275.
Stone, L. (2006, March). Attention: The real aphrodisiac. Conference Keynote
Address. O’Reilly Emerging Technology Conference, San Diego, CA. Retrieved
on July 8, 2006, from conferences.oreillynet.com/cs/et2006/view/e_sess/8290
Strayer, D. L., & Johnston, W. A. (2001). Driven to distraction: Dual-task studies
of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular telephone. Psychological
Science, 12(6), 462–466.
Taatgen, N. A. (2005). Modeling parallelization and speed improvement in skill
acquisition: From dual tasks to complex dynamic skills. Cognitive Science, 29,
421–455.
Taylor, J. L., O’Hara, R., Mumenthaler, M. S., Rosen, A. C., & Yesavage, J. A.
(2005). Cognitive ability, expertise, and age differences in following air-traffic
control instructions. Psychology and Aging, 20(1), 117–133.
Terry, W. S. (1988). Everyday forgetting: Data from a diary study. Psychological
Reports, 62, 299–303.
Tsukada, K., Okada, K. I., & Matsushita, Y. (1994). The multi-project support
system based on multiplicity of task. Eighteenth Annual International
Computer Software and Applications Conference, 358–363.
Vaananen-Vainio-Mattila, K., & Ruuska, S. (2000). Designing mobile phones and
communicators of consumers’ needs at Nokia. In E. Bergman (Ed.),
Information appliances and beyond: Interaction design for consumer products
(pp. 169–204). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman.
Vakkari, P. (2003). Task-based information searching. Annual Review of
Information Science and Technology, 37, 413–464.
Vakkari, P., Pennanen, M., & Serola, S. (2003). Changes of search terms and tac-
tics while writing a research proposal: A longitudinal case study. Information
Processing & Management, 39(3), 445–463.
Voydanoff, P. (2005). Consequences of boundary-spanning demands and
resources for work-to-family conflict and perceived stress. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 10(4), 491–503.
Wagner, J. A., Meyer, C. J., Humphrey, S. E., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2005). The
effects of utilitarian and ontological individualism-collectivism on multitask
performance in teams. Academy of Management Best Conference Paper
Proceedings, OB:B1–OB:B6.
Waller, M. J. (1996). Multiple-task performance in groups. Academy of
Management Best Papers Proceedings, 303–306.
118 Annual Review of Information Science and Technology

Waller, M. J. (1997). Keeping the pins in the air: How work groups juggle multi-
ple tasks. In M. M. Beyerlein & D. A. Johnson (Eds.), Advances in interdisci-
plinary studies of work teams (Vol. 4, pp. 217–247). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Waller, M. J., Conte, J. M., Gibson, C. B., & Carpenter, M. A. (2001). The effect
of individual perceptions of deadlines on team performance. Academy of
Management Review, 26(4), 586–600.
Waller, M. J., Giambatista, R. C., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. (1998). The effects of
individual time urgency on group polychronicity. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 14(3/4), 244–256.
Waller, M. J., Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E., & Giambatista, R. C. (2002). Watching the
clock: Group pacing behavior under dynamic deadlines. Academy of
Management Journal, 45, 1046–1055.
Waugh, N. C., & Norman, D. A. (1965). Primary memory. Psychological Review,
72, 89–104.
Waxman, S. (2006, May 15). At an industry media lab, close views of multitask-
ing. New York Times, pp. C1, C5.
Whitfield, K. (2000). High-performance workplaces, training, and the distribu-
tion of skills. Industrial Relations, 39(1), 1–25.
Wickens, C. D. (1992). Engineering psychology and human performance. New
York: HarperCollins.