Multitasking: Efficient or Inefficient?Prepared for: IMC 404

Caroline CallahanMonday, October 7, 2013

Executive Summary

Research objectiveThe objective behind the observational research in plan is for the examiner

to gain insight toward determining just exactly how attentive/observant cell phone users are of their surroundings when zoned into their phone, as well as their ability to pick back up on what’s going on in reality when they come back from spending time in so-called “phone world.” The purpose in observing these cell phone users is to lead the researcher toward answers to the defining question: what is the actual truth about multitasking? Can people be efficient in their work when challenged to face many tasks at the same time? The researcher may forecast a sense of confrontation in the study of multitasking methods when dealing with the imperatives of quality vs. quantity in competition of those cell phone users who may be unknowingly juggling multiple tasks at hand.

How this information could be useful to marketers It is quite interesting to watch someone who is zoned into his or her cell

phone. One could say or do anything while another is completely engulfed in “phone world” and it may be presumed that there is often a high probability that they will not comprehend what the other is saying. If one were to even change what is said, mid-sentence, while another is in a deep texting conversation to something absurd about blue cows with wings, the other is unlikely to hear what you have said, let alone laugh about it. Society has shaped the world into such a pro-multitask environment where people have actually become convinced that they not only have the ability to multitask, but they believe they are efficient in doing so. Observational research can help marketing departments of any company in efforts of getting up close and personal with the consumers of their brand in distinguishing which their consumers prefer: quality or quantity? Do consumers of the brand prefer to have multiples of the product for a low cost, or one product of better quality that will cost a bit more? For example, one can question, do men want a nice razor with six blades whose razor heads may be a little more expensive, but get a closer shave, or are they constantly traveling, possibly even losing their razor, and need disposable, or maybe one a little cheaper than those of high quality to get the job done? Or, in relation to this study, do users want a cell phone with multiple applications that can all be ran at the same time, in turn producing a poor battery life, or do people want a phone with select applications that has a 48-hour battery life with the added addition of a 14 megapixel camera? In determining how consumers of the brand are in real life, research can create products that can better suit its consumers.

HypothesisResearch will find multitasking to be absolutely inefficient for more than (85-

90 percent) of those sampled and the remaining sampled persons (10-15 percent) will prove multitasking somewhat efficient, but still not as efficient as they may have

presumed. Observations will later prove that person A, zoned out into his or her cell phone, will not even recognize that person B put a hat on their head while they were in “Phone World.” It is predictable that person A would not even notice if person B and person C switched T-Shirts if it weren’t such a process to physically take it off, switch it, and put it back on.

SummaryObservational research has found that multitasking is arguably more efficient

than the researcher may believe. In sampling different groups of different numbers of members in different places at different times, research can be varied so that the researcher is able to get an unbiased account of information.

Methodology

Observation A was a group of eight persons, ages 19 through 23 and listed AA through AH, while in a group study for an upcoming accounting exam on Tuesday, October 1, 2013 at 4-5:00 PM. The observation lasted for about 60 minutes and included the recordation of approximately how many times each of the eight persons picked up his or her phone and for how long each pick-up. Upon observation, the researcher had found that surprisingly enough, not a single person of the eight persons refrained from touching his or her phone. The researcher kept tally in a notebook of each time persons AA through AH had touched their phone and the stopwatch application on the iPhone to record the time spent on their phone per pick-up. While six of the eight persons were paying attention to their mobile devices, the researcher had put on a pair of glasses. Prior to the observation, the researcher had asked the observees to honestly answer if they had noticed she had put glasses on. Only three of the eight answered, “yes.”

Observation B was a group of four persons, all 21-years of age and listed BA through BD, while eating lunch at Old Venice Pizza Company on Sunday, October 6, 2013 from noon to 1:00 PM. The observation lasted for about 60 minutes and included the recordation of approximately how many times each of the four persons picked up his or her phone and for how long each pick-up. Upon observation, the researcher had found that just like observation A, not a single person of the four persons in Observation B refrained from touching his or her phone while at the restaurant. The researcher kept tally in the Notes application of the iPhone of each time persons BA through BD had touched their phone and the stopwatch application on the iPhone to record the time spent on their phone per pick-up. The researcher left to change clothes in the restaurant’s restroom and returned to the table. Immediately, all four members of the group had laughed and asked the researcher, “why did you change clothes and where did the clothes come from?”

Observation C was a group of three persons, ages 20-22 and listed CA through CC, while attending Mr. Andrew Almand’s Accy 202 class in Conner Hall room 212 on Monday, October 7, 2013 at 10-10:50 AM. The observation lasted for about 50 minutes and, just as Observations A and B, included the recordation of approximately how many times each of the three persons picked up his or her phone and for how long each pick-up. Upon observation, the researcher had found that unlike Observations A and B, one student had managed to refrain from touching her phone while in class. The researcher kept tally in a notebook of each time persons CA through CC had touched their phone and the stopwatch application on the iPhone to record the time spent on their phone per pick-up. The researcher had changed seats five times within the 50 minutes of class (one seat-change within a three seat radius between each of the three students per each ten minutes of class) and only one of the three persons had claimed that they noticed the researcher’s seat-changes when asked at the end of the observation. Surprisingly, person CC had noticed, who had been the one who spent about 6.5 minutes on their phone during Mr. Almand’s class, not person CB, who had not even once picked up their phone.

Limitations may include the hesitance to be truthful about recognizing any environmental changes while attempting to be successful in multitasking by those questioned at the end of each observation. Another factor may include the extremity of changing an entire ensemble in hopes of observees not recognizing the change.

Results

Observation AThursday, October 1, 20134:00-5:00 PMGlass study room in Weir Hall

Person # of times phone was picked up

Average time spent on phone

per pick-up

Average total time spent on

phone

Notice?

AA 8 ( 2 m + .5 m + 1.5 m + 4 m, 1.5 m + .5 m + .5 m + 2 m ) / 8 pick-ups = 1.6 m/pick-up

1.6 m * 8 pick-ups = 12.8 m of 60 m

No

AB 2 ( 3 m + 1.5 m ) / 2 pick-ups = 2.25 m/pick-up

2.25 * 2 pick-ups = 4.5 m of 60 m

Yes

AC 4 ( 2 m + .5 m + 1 m + 3.5 m ) / 4 pick-ups = 1.75 m/pick-up

1.75 * 4 pick-ups = 7 m of 60 m

Yes

AD 4 ( .5 m + 5 m + 3.5 m + 2 m ) / 4 pick-ups = 2.75 m/pick-up

2.75 m * 4 pick-ups = 11 m of 60 m

No

AE 7 ( .5 m + .5 m + 1 m + 4 m + .5 m + 1 m + .5 m ) / 7 pick-ups = 1.14 m/pick-up

1.14 m * 7 pick-ups = 7.98 m of 60 m

No

AF 5 ( 3 m + 1 m + 1 m + .5 m + 1 m ) / 5 pick-ups = 1.3 m/pick-up

1.3 m * 5 pick-ups = 6.5 m of 60 m

No

AG 12 ( 4 m + 3 m + 3 m + 1 m + .5 m + 3 m + 1 m + .5 m + 2 m + .5 m + .5 m + 2 m ) / 12 pick-ups = 1.75 m/pick-up

1.75 m * 12 pick-ups = 21 m of 60 m

No

AH 9 ( .5 m + 1.5 m + 4 m, 1.5 m + .5 m + 6 m + 2 m + 1.5 m + .5 m ) / 9 pick-ups = 2 m/pick-up

2 m * 9 pick-ups = 18 m of 60 m

Yes

Observation BSunday, October 6, 201312:00 - 1:00 PMOld Venice Pizza Company

Person # of times phone was picked up

Average time spent on phone

per pick-up

Average total time spent on

phone

Notice?

BA 6 ( .5 m + 1 m + 1 m + 1 m + 3 m + 1 m ) / 6 pick-ups = 1.25 m/pick-up

1.25 m * 6 pick-ups = 7.5 m of 60 m

Yes

BB 9 ( 4 m + 2 m + 3.5 m + 1 m +1 m +1 m + 2.5 m + 2 m + 1 m ) / 9 pick-ups = 2 m/pick-up

2 m * 9 pick-ups = 18 m of 60 m

Yes

BC 2 ( .5 m + 3 m ) / 2 pick-ups = 1.75 m/pick-up

1.75 m * 2 pick-ups = 3.5 m of 60 m

Yes

BD 3 (1.5 m + 1 m + 1.5 m * 3 pick- Yes

2 m ) / 3 pick-ups = 1.5 m/pick-up

ups = 4.5 m of 60 m

Observation CMonday, October 7, 201310:00 – 10:50 AMConner 212 Accy 202 class with Andrew Almand

Person # of times phone was picked up

Average time spent on phone

per pick-up

Average total time spent on

phone

Notice?

CA 2 ( 4 m + 2.5 m ) / 2 pick-ups = 5.25 m/pick-up

5.25 m * 2 pick-ups = 10.5 m of 50 m

No

CB 0 0 m/pick-up 0 m of 50 m NoCC 4 ( 3 m + 1 m

+ .5 m + 2 m ) / 4 pick-ups = 1.625 m/pick-up

1.625 * 4 pick-ups = 6.5 m of 50 m

Yes

Conclusion

Observational research upon multitasking in terms of cell phone use has proven to be more effective than the hypothesis had perceived.

In Observation A, about 62 percent of the sampled population was unaware of their surroundings. Although it had been a small change for the researcher to put glasses on, the researcher had still been in all of the eight persons’ peripherals and spoke up several times in hopes of getting attention from those persons so they would give the researcher a glance to see what had changed. It is safe to conclude that in Observation A, 71 percent of those who had spent more than 6.5 minutes did not notice the change, but there are two outliers, persons AC and AH who had, indeed, spent over 6.5 minutes on their cell phones and did notice.

In Observation B, 100 percent of the sampled population had noticed that the researcher had changed get-ups. This may lead the researcher to question: is multitasking in terms of cell phone use truly efficient? Or was the environmental change too extreme?

In Observation C, only one of the three sampled persons had noticed that the researcher had changed seats every ten minutes in the duration of the class. To the researcher’s surprise, it had been not person CB, who refrained from using her cell phone in the duration of Mr. Almand’s class, but rather person CC, who had averaged about 6.5 minutes on their cell phone. Although she had not been using her cell phone, she had been so interested and concerned with the class that she had paid no attention to the researcher’s whereabouts. This can prove, though, that multitasking can be inefficient as well. Observation has given researchers an example of another extreme, other than the use of a cell phone.

Observations made have indefinitely proven the hypothesis wrong, as it had been perceived that 90 percent of the sampled population would go without noticing environmental changes. Instead, the research through Observations A, B, and C have proven the average persons who did not notice environmental change to average at about 42 percent.

Recommendations

Instead of changing the ensemble, next time, the researcher should maybe try putting a hat on, or possibly taking off a red lipstick. The extremity of the outfit change may have limited the observational research to be unrealistic, since Observation B proved that 0% of the sampled population had not noticed the researcher’s get-up. This can indefinitely be considered an error in research, but it is important to include information as such so that researchers are able to see the fine line between what goes unrecognized and what is immediately noticed.

A sample of different age ranges may bring about different outcomes, as well as different tasks. Researchers can, next time, go as far as asking the sampled persons to participate in a trivia quiz possibly while driving in an enclosed course.

Many different resources are available in the pursuit of finding if multitasking is truly as efficient as the human mind perceives it to be.