ArticleScientific reports2023
A desire for distraction: uncovering the rates of media multitasking during online research studies.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Executive Functioning as Mediator in the Longitudinal Relationship Between Media Multitasking and Divergent Thinking in Adolescents.PsyCh journal · 2025Article
- Computational Modeling Reveals Minimal Vigilance Changes in a Cognitive Monitoring Task.Computational brain & behavior · 2025Article
- Investigating the relationship between media multitasking and executive function within a military population.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025Article
- Inattention over time-on-task: the role of motivation in mitigating temporal increases in media multitasking.Frontiers in cognition · 2025Article
- The impact of relevant versus irrelevant media multitasking on academic performance during online learning: a serial of mediating models.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Article
- The Effects of Mind-Wandering, Cognitive Load, and Task Engagement on Working Memory Performance in Remote Online Experiments.Experimental psychology · 2024Article
- Comparing attentional disengagement between Prolific and MTurk samples.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- The importance of accounting for off-task behaviours during data collection.Nature human behaviour · 2023Article
- Self-Control and Digital Media Addiction: The Mediating Role of Media Multitasking and Time Style.Psychology research and behavior management · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interpretations of task performance in many cognitive studies rest on the assumption that participants are fully attentive to the tasks they agree to complete. However, with research studies being increasingly conducted online where monitoring participant engagement is difficult, this assumption may be inaccurate. If participants were found to be engaging in off-task behaviours while participating in these studies, the interpretation of study results might be called into question. To investigate this issue, we conducted a secondary data analysis across nearly 3000 participants in various online studies to examine the prevalence of one form of off-task behaviour: media multitasking. Rates of media multitasking were found to be high, averaging 38% and ranging from 9 to 85% across studies. Our findings broadly raise questions about the interpretability of results from online studies and urge researchers to consider the likelihood that participants are simultaneously engaging in off-task behaviours while completing online research tasks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.