The present study examined the relationship between personality and individual differences in multi-tasking ability. Participants enrolled at the University of Utah completed measures of multi-tasking activity, perceived multi-tasking ability, impulsivity, and sensation seeking. In addition, they performed the Operation Span in order to assess their executive control and actual multi-tasking ability. The findings indicate that the persons who are most capable of multi-tasking effectively are not the persons who are most likely to engage in multiple tasks simultaneously. To the contrary, multi-tasking activity as measured by the Media Multitasking Inventory and self-reported cell phone usage while driving were negatively correlated with actual multi-tasking ability. Multi-tasking was positively correlated with participants’ perceived ability to multi-task ability which was found to be significantly inflated. Participants with a strong approach orientation and a weak avoidance orientation – high levels of impulsivity and sensation seeking – reported greater multi-tasking behavior. Finally, the findings suggest that people often engage in multi-tasking because they are less able to block out distractions and focus on a singular task. Participants with less executive control - low scorers on the Operation Span task and persons high in impulsivity - tended to report higher levels of multi-tasking activity.

Objective:The objective was to establish a systematic framework for measuring and understanding cognitive distraction in the automobile.Background: Driver distraction from secondary in-vehicle activities is increasingly recognized as a significant source of injuries and fatalities on the roadway.Method: Across three studies, participants completed eight in-vehicle tasks commonly performed by the driver of an automobile. Primary, secondary, subjective, and physiological measures were collected and integrated into a cognitive distraction scale.Results: In-vehicle activities, such as listening to the radio or an audio book, were associated with a low level of cognitive workload; the conversation activities of talking to a passenger in the vehicle or conversing with a friend on a handheld or hands-free cell phone were associated with a moderate level of cognitive workload; and using a speech-to-text interfaced e-mail system involved a high level of cognitive workload.Conclusion: The research established that there are significant impairments to driving that stem from the diversion of attention from the task of operating a motor vehicle and that the impairments to driving are directly related to the cognitive workload of these in-vehicle activities. Moreover, the adoption of voicebased systems in the vehicle may have unintended consequences that adversely affect traffic safety.Application: These findings can be used to help inform scientifically based policies on driver distraction, particularly as they relate to cognitive distraction stemming from the diversion of attention to other concurrent activities in the vehicle.

These findings could potentially be used to identify periods of high cognitive workload during driving.

By considering the dynamic interplay between characteristics of traffic flow and driver behavior, this research may inform both public policy regarding in-vehicle cell phone use and future investigations of driving behavior.

Performing two cognitive tasks at the same time can degrade performance for either domain-general reasons (e.g., both tasks require attention) or domain-specific reasons (e.g., both tasks require visual working memory). We tested predictions of these two accounts of interference on the task of driving while using language, a naturally occurring dual task. Using language and driving a vehicle use different perceptual and motor skills. As a consequence, a domain-general explanation for interference in this dual task appears most plausible. However, recent evidence from the language processing literature suggests that when people use language with motor content (e.g., language about actions) or visual content (e.g., language about visible objects and events), they engage their motor and perceptual systems in ways specifically reflecting the actions and percepts that the language is about. This raises the possibility that language might interfere with driving for domain-specific reasons when the language has visual or motor content. To test this, we had participants drive a simulated vehicle while simultaneously answering true-false statements that had motor, visual, or abstract content. A domain-general explanation for interference would predict greater distraction in each of these three conditions compared with control, while a domain-specific explanation would predict greater interference in the motor and visual conditions. Both of these predictions were borne out but on different measures of distraction, suggesting that language-driven distraction during driving and dual tasks involving language in general may be the result not only of domain-general causes but also specific interference caused by linguistic content.