…1965…
…Multitask cofigurations…
… IBM System/360…
… Redefines the relationship between a program and a task…
… Mutiprogramming environment shifts the focus from one program, one task to shared code – many tasks each with own priority…
…Operating System/360 – task management, not program management…

Multitasking, in 1965 was described as a way for tasks, or processes, to be lined up so that the central processing unit ran at peak efficiency. Specifically,

“In all multitask configurations, regardless of the manner in which tasks are created, existing tasks are arranged in a task queue according to priority… Control is always given to the highest priority task in the ready condition”.

Clearly, in 1965, multitasking was understood to mean task prioritization, minimizing wait states for computer central processing units.

Two and a half generations later, multitasking has moved from the realm of the computer to the parlance of human beings.  When applied to the human condition, the popular definition of multitasking has been modified to – doing many things at once, and doing them well.

While a CPU can be built to take advantage of task switching, the human brain cannot. There is a wealth of research demonstrating that even when we try multitasking, we are really task managing – rapidly switching our focus from one thing to another to another. When we try to do more than one thing at a time, problems occur. As an example, Dux and colleagues discuss the bottlenecks in the frontal region of the brain, which affects performance, when an individual tries to do more than one thing at a time. These bottlenecks create momentary wait states.  Monsell describes the response when changing from one task to the next and the subsequent degraded performance as a task switch cost.  Foerde describes two types of memory, declarative (an awareness of what has been learned) and habit (a lack of awareness of what has been learned), and how the two memory types vie to mediate task performance.  The outcome from this multitask competition can be that new learning cannot be used in a flexible, dynamic way, again negatively affecting performance.  We have a hard time with memory management in a multitasking situation.

Other research is showing that people who are high media multitaskers think that they are very good at juggling various tasks, when they really are not. Ophir, Nass, and Wagner found that not only are high media multitaskers not very good at performing tasks, they also found that high media multitaskers were more easily distracted by the environment than those who are low media multitaskers. The “high” group had difficulty determining what was important to pay attention to.

Before multitasking was elevated to something to be emulated, the behavior was defined as: being distracted, not paying attention, or losing concentration. Now people take pride in saying that they are good multitaskers, even in the face of mountains of research that says different. Wang and Tchernev found that one reason people multitask is that it makes them feel good, whether it helps them or not. These researchers go further suggesting, if you multitask today, there is a high probability that you will multitask more tomorrow.

So far I have concentrated on the internal effects of multitasking on an individual.  There are consequences externally to the individual as well. The obvious ones involve physical harm and destruction to others – cell phone use in cars is similar to driving while intoxicated at the legal limit. There also are subtle consequence to our relationships with others. In an interview conducted by Frontline, Clifford Nass discusses the long term effects of multitasking for individuals and posed the following,

“One of the biggest points here I think is, when I grew up, the greatest gift you could give someone was attention, and the best way to insult someone was to ignore them. …The greatest gift was attention. Well, if we’re in a society where the notion of attention as important is breaking apart, what now is the relationship glue between us? Because it’s always been attention.”

As our culture races to do more with less with all its technological advances and gadgets, it appears that we, individually and collectively, are creating a false hope that we can do many things at once, with little consequence. The science does not support this. What science does support is the notion that focusing on one task before moving onto the next task produces better performance. Not only can we keep our attention focused, we can demonstrate to others that we are paying attention. This brings us back to the original IBM definition of multitasking – task management to optimize the CPU, control is always given to the highest priority task in the ready condition.