what is media multitasking
multiple media
media during other activities
multiple screens on same media
→ leads to media saturation
why do we multitask
because we can
- media is everywhere
- computer-based gadgets let us (affordances of media technology)
because we feel like it
- students report they think it helps them
in situations under time pressure
- no concrete goal what to do
a desire to communicate / feeling bored
maybe also FOMO?
in which situation can multitasking be succesful
can be successful if ‘lags in activities are distributed and managed
- example: cooking fish, pasta and cake simultaneously, but a lot of waiting time
definiton attention
the allocation of limited cognitive processing resource
3 theories about attention
- bottleneck theory of attention
- scattered attention hypothesis
- trained attention hypothesis
what is the bottleneck theory of attention
attention can be allocated to only one task at a time (inattentional blindness: less than 1% of visual input can pass the bottleneck)
what is the scattered attention hypothesis
cognitive control includes several processes:
- focusing attention on goal-relevant info
- filtering relevant info
- switching efficiently between tasks
engaging in multiple tasks highly demands attentional capacity, resulting in deficits in cognitive control
thus: multitasking reduces performance by causing interference, distraction and ultimate errors
what is the trained attention hypothesis
frequent media multitasking positively affects cognitive control via training and improvement of control processes
multitasking promotes mental flexibility that enables high-level efficiency and productivity, skills essential for success in modern work and learning environment
3 examples of studies with in-class phone usage
example 1: inc-class phone usage → test performance
- students responded to message sent by researches at even intervals throughout a 30-minute videotaped lecture
- results: the high text messaging group performed worse by one letter grade (A→B) than the low text messaging group
example 2: distraction white watching an in-class video
- participants in 2 groups )nmon, low and high distraction) watched a video lecture while taking notes and complete 2 post-lecture assignments
- results: student in non: wrote 62% more info, took notes with more details, were able to recall more info and score a 1.5 grade higher than studying in the low and high distraction group
example 3: sending related texts vs unrelated
- participants were asked to send texts to the experiment leader during class that were either related to the lecture or unrelated to the lecture
- results: student with related texts scored 10-17% higher, had 70% more info recall
what are the effects of heavy media usage
- receiving C’s or lower in school
- getting in trouble often
- frequently feeling sad or unhappy
- frequent boredom
what about laptops in class?
consequences for themselves
- significant lower recall and recognition test score
related to multiple learning outcomes (course grade, focus on lectures, reported clarity of lectures and comprehension)
- low satisfaction with their education
consequences for others:
- can hinder class learning both users AND nearby peers
- participants in direct view of multitasking peer score 17% lower
- may cause involuntary shifts of attention among students in close proximity to laptop users
definiton cyber-balkanization
- there is a fragmentation of the media landscape, especially online
- rise of niche media
- return of opinion-driven news
balkanization= process of a region breaking up into small, mutually hostile units
what are echo-chambers
so called “chambers” where we hear our pre-existing beliefs repeated back to us
- reinforcement attitudes
- little to no knowledge acquisition
- little to no contact with disagreement
what is selective exposure
- partly caused by filter bubbles, echo-chambers
- algorithms give us what we agree
- hide what we disagree
- surround us with like-minded people and sources
- it is something we choose
- individuals tendency to favor info which reinforces their pre-existing views while avoiding contradictory info
what is the meaning of attitude
a summary judgment of a target
- a collection of beliefs about a person, group, issue or object
- plus the negative/positive evaluation of those beliefs
effect of selective exposure on attitudes
choosing to consume info we agree with can maintain existing attitudes
but also make existing attitudes
- more detailed (by adding new beliefs)
- more secure (more stable, interconnected beliefs)
- more accessible (available in memory)
- more extreme (stronger evaluation)
but as important, avoiding disagreeable info can
- protect us from inconsistent beliefs so less confusion
- protect us from cognitive dissonance
definiton credibility
the believability of info and it rests largely on the trustworthiness and expertise of the info source message, as interpreted by the info receiver (believability, trustworthiness and expertise)
how do we make decision about credibility judgements
- site or source cues (professional design, easy navigation, no errors, features, advertising)
- message cues (date stamp, citations, relevance, clear writing, accuracy, lack of bias, depth and breadth of info)
- author cues (author identification, qualifications and credentials, contact info, commercial motive, reputation, name recognition)
- receiver characteristics (past experience with source, internet experience, age, educ, sex, income, prior knowledge and attitudes, personality traits)
3 theories about credibility judgements & explanation
- Limited capacity model
people have a limited capacity for cognitive processing of info
they use this for
- decoding: understanding and interpret the message
- storage: in working memory, the cognitive system with a limited capacity
- retrieval: using it for further actions
people make conscious or automatic choices how much resources can be allocated to processing of info - Prominence-interpretation theory
- noticing a cue (prominence), affected by user characteristics, contextual factors, the artefact
- making a judgment about a cue (interpretation), affected by previous assumptions, background, prior experience/knowledge etc. - Heuristic-systematic model
- systematic: discern credibility by considering more deeply a wider range of author, message or medium cues
- heuristic: relying on a faster examination of credibility
(credibility) heuristic meaning
involving or serving as an aid to learning, discovering, or problem-solving by experimental and especially trial-and-error methods
- using strategies that minimize their cognitive effort and time
- make decisions more quickly and with less effort than more complex methods
Challenges for credibility evaluations since we have networked technologies (why it is more difficult to evaluate someone online)
- amount of info is infinite
- online info may be less filtered or selected
- online info may lack authority indicators
- there are no or only a few standards for quality control
- conflation of content types
- context deficit leading to source confusion
- often many targets for credibility evaluation
when eveluating credibilitt, what should people check websites for?
accuracy: the degree to which a website is free of errors
authority: who is the author and is he credible
objectivity: why is the text written
currency: how up to date is the text
6 types of credibility heurstics
- reputation: when having to believe between sources, people are more likely to believe the familiar source over an unfamiliar one, regardless of the actual content
- recognition heuristic - endorsement: when having to believe sources, people are more likely to believe a source that’s also trusted by others
- bandwagon heuristic - consistency: when choosing what to trust, check to what extent info is consistent over various sources
- self-confirmation: people receive info as credible when it’s in line with pre-existing beliefs, and not credible if it counters previous beliefs
- expectancy violation: failing to meet expectations: people are more likely to judge a website as not credible when
- website asks for info you din’t expect
- website has a sloppy layout - persuasive intent: info that seems biased isn’t believed to be credible
definiton warrating theory
= info that can’t easily be manipulated is seen as more credible
- about self-presentation: self-descriptions are less reliable then description by others → high-warranting value
- aggregated, user-provided info can signal info credibility (more honest, wisdom of the crowd and less easy to manipulate)
- no single contributor has control over the collective opinion
