Advertisement

Journal of Happiness Studies

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 899–918 | Cite as

Multitasking and Feeling Good? Autonomy of Additional Activities Predicts Affect

  • Olga BachmannEmail author
  • Carola Grunschel
  • Stefan Fries
Research Paper

Abstract

There is a consensus that multitasking is becoming more frequent in students’ everyday lives. However, few studies investigated the relationship of multitasking and affect, and those that did found contradictory results. The aim of the current study was to disentangle these results by adopting a self-determination theory perspective. In accordance with self-determination theory, we predicted that multitasking is associated with higher positive and lower negative affect than mono-tasking when the additional activity is motivated autonomously, i.e. when the additional activity is done voluntarily. On the other hand, we hypothesised that multitasking is associated with higher negative and lower positive affect than mono-tasking when the additional activity is motivated because of controlled reasons. In an experience sampling study, 51 students completed 1341 questionnaires over the course of 1 week. For each prompt, students specified their current affect, what they were currently doing as a main activity, whether they were engaged in any additional activity (i.e., multitasking), and how autonomously they were motivated to carry out each of their activities. Results showed that students multitasked 41% of the time. In line with self-determination theory, multitasking with an autonomous additional activity in comparison to mono-tasking was associated with higher positive affect, whereas multitasking with a controlled additional activity in comparison to mono-tasking was associated with higher negative affect. To our knowledge, the current study is the first to demonstrate that the relationship of multitasking and affect depends on the level of autonomy of the additional activity.

Keywords

Multitasking Affect Autonomy Self-determination Experience sampling 

Notes

Funding

The study was founded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung), Grant Number: 01PB14003A.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Becker, M. W., Alzahabi, R., & Hopwood, C. J. (2013). Media multitasking is associated with symptoms of depression and social anxiety. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(2), 132–135.  https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Gendron, M. (2010). Can students really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers & Education, 54(4), 927–931.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brunstein, J. C. (1993). Personal goals and subjective well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 1061–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Advanced quantitative techniques in the social sciences (Vol. 1). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Burton, K. D., Lydon, J. E., D’Alessandro, D. U., & Koestner, R. (2006). The differential effects of intrinsic and identified motivation on well-being and performance: Prospective, experimental, and implicit approaches to self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 750–762.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calderwood, C., Ackerman, P. L., & Conklin, E. M. (2014). What else do college students “do” while studying? An investigation of multitasking. Computers & Education, 75, 19–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christensen, C. G., Bickham, D., Ross, C. S., & Rich, M. (2015). Multitasking with television among adolescents. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(1), 130–148.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2014.998228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cote, S., & Moskowitz, D. S. (1998). On the dynamic covariation between interpersonal behavior and affect: Prediction from neuroticism, extraversion, and agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4), 1032–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Larson, R. (1987). Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling method. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175(9), 526–536.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-198709000-00004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. David, J. P., Green, P. J., Martin, R., & Suls, J. (1997). Differential roles of neuroticism, extraversion, and event desirability for mood in daily life: An integrative model of top-down and bottom-up influences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology-Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 182–185.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. (2012). Self-determination theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (1st ed., pp. 416–437). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(5), 1105–1117.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.5.1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duncan, L. R., Hall, C. R., Wilson, P. M., & Jenny, O. (2010). Exercise motivation: a cross-sectional analysis examining its relationships with frequency, intensity, and duration of exercise. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 7, 7.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-7-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ebner-Priemer, U. W., & Trull, T. J. (2009). Ambulatory assessment. European Psychologist, 14(2), 109–119.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.14.2.109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: And sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll (3. ed). Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://www.uk.sagepub.com/field3e/main.htm.
  19. Floro, M. S., & Miles, M. (2003). Time use and overlapping activities: Evidence from Australia (Electronic Resource). SPRC discussion papers, Vol. 112. Sydney, NSW: SPRC. Retrieved from http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/dp/DP113file.pdf.
  20. Galluch, P., Long, C., Bratton, T., Gee, M., & Groeber, M. (2009). Losing the battle: Student and instructor perspectives on attention loss in the classroom. In Proceedings of the southern association for information systems conference, Charleston, SC, March 12th14th, 2009 45, pp. 45–50.Google Scholar
  21. Garhammer, M. (2002). Pace of life and enjoyment of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(3), 217–256.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020676100938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Geiser, C. (2011). Data analysis using MplusA users‘introductio Datenanalyse mit MplusEine anwendungsorientierte Einführung (2., durchges. Aufl). Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. German Psychology Association and the German Professional Association Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie und der Berufsverband Deutscher Psychologinnen und Psychologen e.V. (2004). [Ethical Standards] Ethische Richtlinien. Retrieved from http://www.hw.uni-wuerzburg.de/fileadmin/06020000/download/Ethische_Richtlinien_der_DGPs_und_des_BDP.pdf.
  24. Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Hall, N. C., Nett, U. E., Pekrun, R., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2014). Types of boredom: An experience sampling approach. Motivation and Emotion, 38(3), 401–419.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9385-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Golder, S. A., & Macy, M. W. (2011). Diurnal and seasonal mood vary with work, sleep, and daylength across diverse cultures. Science, 333(6051), 1878–1881.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1202775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Götz, T., Frenzel, A. C., & Pekrun, R. (2007). Regulation of Boredom in the Classroom Regulation von Langeweile im Unterricht. Was Schulerinnen und Schuler bei der „Windstille der Seele“(nicht) tun. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 35(4), 312–333.Google Scholar
  27. Graef, R., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Gianinno, S. M. (1983). Measuring intrinsic motivation in everyday life. Leisure Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02614368300390121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grund, A., Grunschel, C., Bruhn, D., & Fries, S. (2015). Torn between want and should: An experience-sampling study on motivational conflict, well-being, self-control, and mindfulness. Motivation and Emotion, 39(4), 506–520.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-015-9476-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hartmann-Wolff, E. (2014). Not everything at once! Nicht alles gleichzeitig! Focus Magazin. Retrieved from http://www.focus.de/kultur/medien/kultur-nicht-alles-gleichzeitig_id_3709443.html.
  30. Hofmann, W., Baumeister, R. F., Förster, G., & Vohs, K. D. (2012). Everyday temptations: An experience sampling study of desire, conflict, and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1318–1335.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  32. IBM Corp. (2013). IBM SPSS statistics for windows. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.Google Scholar
  33. Ironmonger, D. S. (2003). There are only 24 hurs in a day! Solving the problematic of simultaneous time. In The 25th IATUR conference on time use research, Brüssels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  34. Jacobsen, W. C., & Forste, R. (2011). The wired generation: Academic and social outcomes of electronic media use among university students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(5), 275–280.  https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kanning, M., Ebner-Priemer, U., & Brand, R. (2012). Autonomous regulation mode moderates the effect of actual physical activity on affective states: An ambulant assessment approach to the role of self-determination. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34(2), 260–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Be careful what you wish for: Optimal functioning and the relative attainment of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. In P. Schmuck & M. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Life goals and well-being: Towards a positive psychology of human striving (pp. 116–131). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
  37. Kenyon, S. (2008). Internet use and time use—The importance of multitasking. Time & Society, 17(2–3), 283–318.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X08093426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kirchberg, D. M., Roe, R. A., & van Eerde, W. (2015). Polychronicity and multitasking: A diary study at work. Human Performance, 28(2), 112–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kraushaar, J., & Novak, D. (2010). Examining the effects of student multitasking with laptops during the lecture. Journal of Information Systems Education, 21(2), 241–251.Google Scholar
  40. Kuznekoff, J., & Titsworth, S. (2013). The impact of mobile phone usage on student learning. Communication Education, 62(3), 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Levy, D. M., Wobbrock, J. O., Kaszniak, A. W., & Ostergren, M. (2012). The effects of mindfulness meditation training on multitasking in a high-stress information environment. Graphics Interface.Google Scholar
  42. Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1(3), 86–92.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Marco, C. A., & Suls, J. (1993). Daily stress and the trajectory of mood: spillover, response assimilation, contrast, and chronic negative affectivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miller, E. K., & Buschman, T. J. (2015). Working memory capacity: Limits on the bandwidth of cognition. DAEDALUS, 144(1), 112–122.  https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables; User’s Guide Version 7 (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén.Google Scholar
  46. Nelson, S. K., Della Porta, M. D., Jacobs Bao, K., Lee, H. C., Choi, I., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2014). ‘It’s up to you’: Experimentally manipulated autonomy support for prosocial behavior improves well-being in two cultures over six weeks. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(5), 463–476.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.983959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nett, U. E., Goetz, T., & Hall, N. C. (2011). Coping with boredom in school: An experience sampling perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 49–59.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Offer, S., & Schneider, B. (2011). Revisiting the gender gap in time-use patterns: Multitasking and well-being among mothers and fathers in dual-earner families. American Sociological Review, 76(6), 809–833.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122411425170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Omodei, M. M., & Wearing, A. J. (1990). Need satisfaction and involvement in personal projects: Toward an integrative model of subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(4), 762–769.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.4.762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Patterson, M. C. (2017). A naturalistic investigation of media multitasking while studying and the effects on exam performance. Teaching of Psychology, 44(1), 51–57.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628316677913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pychyl, T. A., Lee, J. M., Thibodeau, R., & Blunt, A. (2001). Five days of emotion: An experience sampling study of undergraduate student procrastination. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15(5), 239–254.Google Scholar
  52. Reinecke, L., Aufenanger, S., Beutel, M. E., Dreier, M., Quiring, O., Stark, B., et al. (2017). Digital stress over the life span: the effects of communication load and internet multitasking on perceived stress and psychological health impairments in a german probability sample. Media Psychology, 20, 90–115.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1121832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), 419–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ren, D., Zhou, H., & Fu, X. (2009). A deeper look at gender difference in multitasking: Gender-specific mechanism of cognitive control. In H. Wang (Ed.), Fifth international conference on natural computation, 2009: ICNC ‘09; Tianjin, China, 1416 Aug 2009; held jointly with the 6th international conference on fuzzy systems and knowledge discovery (FSKD 2009) (pp. 13–17). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICNC.2009.542.
  55. Riediger, M., & Freund, A. M. (2008). Me against myself: Motivational conflicts and emotional development in adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 23(3), 479–494. Retrieved from http://library.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/ft/mr/MR_Me_Against_2008.pdf.
  56. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York, London: Guilford Press. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/subhh/detail.action?docID=4773318.
  58. Ryan, R. M., Rigby, S., & King, K. (1993). Two types of religious internalization and their relations to religious orientations and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(3), 586–596.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.3.586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2008). Threaded cognition: An integrated theory of concurrent multitasking. Psychological Review, 115(1), 101–130.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2011). The multitasking mind. Retrieved from http://gbv.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=590183.
  61. Salvucci, D. D., Taatgen, N. A., & Borst, J. P. (2009). Toward a unified theory of the multitasking continuum: From concurrent performance to task switching, interruption, and resumption. In CHI (Ed.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1819–1828). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  62. Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24–31.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Strayer, D. L., Medeiros-Ward, N., & Watson, J. M. (2013). Who multi-tasks and why? Multi-tasking ability, perceived multi-tasking ability, impulsivity, and sensation seeking. PLoS ONE.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schmuck, P., Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic goals: Their structure and relationship to well-being in German and U.S. college students. Social indicators research : An international and interdisciplinary journal for quality-of-life measurement, 50(2), 225–241. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1007084005278.
  65. Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R., & Reis, H. T. (1996). What makes for a good day? Competence and autonomy in the day and in the person. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(12), 1270–1279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shih, S.-I. (2013). A null relationship between media multitasking and well-being. PLoS ONE.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Snir, R., & Zohar, D. (2008). Workaholism as discretionary time investment at work: An experience-sampling study. Applied Psychology—An International Review-Psychologie Appliquee-Revue Internationale, 57(1), 109–127.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00270.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Van Lange, P. A. M., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of theories of social psychology (1st ed.). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wallis, C. (2006). genM: The multitasking generation. Time Magazine. Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1174696-9,00.html.
  70. Wang, H. (Ed.) 2009. Fifth international conference on natural computation, 2009: ICNC ‘09; Tianjin, China, 1416 Aug. 2009; held jointly with the 6th international conference on fuzzy systems and knowledge discovery (FSKD 2009). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.Google Scholar
  71. Wang, Z., & Tchernev, J. M. (2012). The ‘myth’ of media multitasking: Reciprocal dynamics of media multitasking, personal needs, and gratifications. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 493–513.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01641.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Weinstein, N., & Hodgins, H. S. (2009). The moderating role of autonomy and control on the benefits of written emotion expression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(3), 351–364.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208328165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 222–244.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Xu, S., Wang, Z., & David, P. (2016). Media multitasking and well-being of university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 55(1), 242–250.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations