Stop multitasking and just read: meta‐analyses of multitasking's effects on reading performance and reading time

Abstract

Background Multitasking while reading is a commonplace activity. Many studies have been conducted examining the effect of multitasking on reading comprehension and times. The purpose of this meta‐analysis is to consolidate the empirical findings on reading comprehension and times in order to understand the overall effect of multitasking on reading. Characteristics of the reading situation, comprehension assessment and the secondary task were examined to determine if they varied the effect of multitasking. Methods A systematic search of studies on multitasking and reading was conducted. Only studies that used random assignment and had participants reading independently were included. This screening yielded 22 independent studies (20 reports) that met inclusion criteria, with 20 studies on reading comprehension and 9 studies on reading times. Most of the studies involved adults reading expository texts. Results Based on robust variance estimation analyses, multitasking had a negative effect on reading comprehension (g = −0.28, p = .002). The effect was similar after outliers were removed (g = −0.26, p = .001). Based on moderator analyses, this negative effect may only occur when time was limited because the reading pace was controlled by the experimenter (g = −0.54, p < .001) as there was not a reliable effect when reading was self‐paced (g = −0.14, p = .10). Multitasking during reading lead to longer reading times (g = 0.52, p < .001). Conclusions Multitasking during reading is detrimental to reading comprehension when time is limited. When readers control their own pace of reading, multitasking lengthens the time for the reading task. Therefore, multitasking while reading is less efficient than focusing attention on the primary task of reading. Highlights What is already known about this topic Multitasking during reading is commonplace. Human cognitive resources are limited. Many studies exist on reading while multitasking. What this paper adds Overall effect for multitasking on reading comprehension is negative. Multitasking when reading time is limited is detrimental to comprehension. Multitasking has a greater negative effect when reading from paper than screens. Self‐paced reading times are longer when multitasking. Implications for theory, policy or practice Multitasking while reading is an inefficient practice. Students should be encouraged to focus on reading a text.

What breaks the flow of reading? A study on characteristics of attentional disruption during digital reading

“…This situation did not allow participants to reread the text after the interruption, especially when the pace was too fast for them. Such an experimental design could explain the decrease in performance ( Oulasvirta and Saariluoma, 2006 ; Bowman et al, 2010 ; Cane et al, 2012 ; Chevet et al, 2021 ; Clinton-Lisell, 2021 ).…”

Webcams and Social Interaction During Online Classes: Identity Work, Presentation of Self, and Well-Being

“…It is also notable what is absent from Students’ accounts. For example, there is no awareness of an increased fragmentation of attention caused by multitasking in the digital space, documented in studies of online learning ( Ettinger and Cohen, 2020 ; Bruineberg and Fabry, 2021 ; Clinton-Lisell, 2021 ). Students do not register the abundance of digital stimuli as a loss of an opportunity for focus.…”

Can you judge a book by its modality? An experimental comparison of reading and test performance across a print, electronic, or interactive introduction to psychology textbook assignment.

“…There is some previous evidence of significantly greater self-reported multitasking among users of e-texts versus print books (Daniel & Woody, 2013), though interestingly a recent meta-analysis indicates that multitasking actually has a greater negative effect on student comprehension when reading print sources versus on a screen (Clinton-Lisell, 2021). In our study, we found that self-reported multitasking did not significantly differ between the three modality conditions.…”