i An update to this article is included at the end

Computers in Human Behavior 54 (2016) 34e42

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Review

Does multitasking with mobile phones affect learning? A review

Quan Chen*, Zheng Yan
University at Albany, State University of New York, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Mobile phone multitasking is widely considered to be a major source of distraction in academic per-
Received 30 March 2015 formance. This paper attempts to review the emerging literature by focusing on three questions con-
Received in revised form cerning the influence of mobile phone multitasking on academic performance: (a) How does mobile
17 June 2015
phone multitasking impair learning? (b) Why does mobile phone use impair learning? (c) How to
Accepted 23 July 2015
Available online 10 August 2015
prevent from mobile phone distraction? We use multiple strategies to locate the existing research
literature and identified 132 studies published during 1999e2014. The mobile phone multitasking and
distractibility are reviewed in three major aspects: distraction sources (ring of mobile phone, texting, and
Keywords:
Multitasking
social application), distraction targets (reading and attending), and distraction subjects (personality,
Mobile phone gender, and culture). We also compare the results of these studies with the findings on mobile phone
Learning multitasking and driving, the earliest area of mobile phone multitasking research. Both limitations of
Distraction existing research and future research directions are discussed.
Classroom © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2. Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3. How does mobile phone multitasking impair learning? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.1. Distraction sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.1.1. Ring of mobile phone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.1.2. Texting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.1.3. Information communication technology (ICT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2. Distraction target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2.1. Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2.2. Attention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.3. Distraction subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.3.1. Personality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.3.2. Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.3.3. Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.3.4. Information motives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4. Why does mobile phone multitasking impair learning? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.1. Cognitive theory of multimedia learning approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.2. Continuous partial attention approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.3. Unified theory of the multitasking continuum approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.4. Inattention blindness and attentional blink approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5. How to best prevent from mobile phone distractibility? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.1. Raise public awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.2. Practice dual-task skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.3. Develop effective policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

* Corresponding author. Department of Educational Psychology, University at Albany, State University of New York, Education 233, 1400 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY
12222, USA.
E-mail address: [email protected] (Q. Chen).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.047
0747-5632/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Q. Chen, Z. Yan / Computers in Human Behavior 54 (2016) 34e42 35

6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

1. Introduction friendly institutional service and resources, including grade

checking, course websites/syllabus, and course management sys-
Multitasking can be simply defined as doing more than one thing tem (Dahlstrom, 2012). However, often times, when students have
at a time (Wood et al., 2012). Junco and his collaborators (Junco, access to mobile phone while learning, they are more likely to
2012; Junco & Cotton, 2012) further defined multitasking as engage in off-task multitasking behaviors. Tindell and Bohlander
“divided attention and non-sequential task switching for ill-defined (2012) reported 90% of university students in their study said
tasks as they are performed in learning situations” (Junco, 2012, they text messaging during classroom presentation. Murphy and
pp.2237). This definition is closely related to the classical selective Manzanares (2008) found that when instant messaging used as
attention research of Michael Posner, one of the eminent psychol- instructional tool, students engaged in off-task multitasking which
ogists of attention. Posner (1990) distinguished two types of negatively impacted learning (Murphy & Manzanares, 2008).
attentional task that can help to understand multitasking. The first Second, mobile phone multitasking and learning is not a
type is divided attention, which means individuals process more straightforward issue to investigate. For instance, it has been found
than one stimulus at the same time, resulting in imperfect selec- that different multitasking tasks may produce different interfer-
tions of information (Posner, 1990). The second is rapid attention ence (Brooks, 1968; Wood et al., 2012). When we engage in two
switching in which individuals only process one stimulus at a time similar tasks, such as taking lecture notes (verbal) and texting
but rapidly shift back and forth between the stimulus (Posner, 1990). (verbal), our performances are more likely to be impaired. How-
In this situation, it both takes more time to process the information ever, our performance may not be significantly influenced when
(Wood et al., 2012) and results in missing some information during the two tasks involved are unrelated, such as taking lecture notes
the process of switching between the stimuli. (verbal) and viewing a picture your friend texts you (visual). The
Building on these thoughtful definitions, in the present article, first example is called general interference while the second one is
we defined mobile phone multitasking while learning specifically as specific interference. Therefore, in terms of mobile phone multi-
both divided attention and rapid task switching between learning tasking while learning, it is necessary to discuss the interference
and off-task mobile phone use. Based on this definition, if individuals taking into account the specific type of tasks involved in, which add
are reading a research article and checking mobile phones frequently the complexity of the problem.
for coming emails simultaneously or sequentially, then they are Third, in contrary to the prevalence and complexity of mobile
mobile phone multitasking while learning. However, if individuals phone multitasking while learning, few studies have explicitly
are using mobile phones to read a research article for learning, then investigated the relationship between mobile phone multitasking
they are doing mobile learning or m-learning rather than mobile and learning outcome. While most of the current studies were self-
phone multitasking with off-task activities while learning. reported and correlational, researchers started to conduct experi-
Three major reasons motivated us to review the current litera- mental studies to find out the effect of mobile phone multitasking in
ture: the prevalence of mobile phone multitasking while learning, real world classrooms. Two review articles have been published to
the complexity of this issue, and the urgency of understanding this date. In Levine, Waite, and Bowman (2012) review article, they
issue. First, advances in mobile phone, especially smartphone, and reviewed articles on the effects of mobile media multitasking on
the wide coverage of 3G or even 4G fast speed service made mobile academic performance as well as driving, walking, and working.
phone no longer just a tool for making phone call or texting. These They concluded that media use is positively correlated with trait
advances dramatically promoted the number and types of activities impulsivity and distractibility but the direction of effects is not clear.
in which we can engage in with mobile phone: finding information A more recent review was conducted by Carrillo and Subrahmanyam
from website, locating address, connecting to social networks, (2014). They grouped the current literature on mobile phone multi-
reading online news, or taking and sharing pictures. Simply put, by tasking and learning based on the two settings of the studies, in the
using mobile phone, we can access to information at any place and laboratory or in the real-world classroom, and described the differ-
in any time. Firat (2013) defined and compared two groups, digital ences between the findings. Studies conducted in the laboratory
immigrants and digital natives. Digital immigrants (Firat, 2013) settings found that multitasking with mobile phone while learning
refer to people born before the blooming of digital technology who had negative effects on learners' efficiency but not comprehension,
got used to use paper-based communication and are struggling while the studies conducted in classroom showed negative effects on
with catching up with the technology era. Digital immigrants are learning and recall (Carrillo & Subrahmanyam, 2014).
the “net generation” born after 1980 who can access information The present review extended the two existing reviews in three
from anywhere at any time from any sources. Comparing to the aspects. Firstly, we not only reviewed the empirical evidence on the
digital immigrants group, they have some salient characteristics, effect of mobile phone multitasking on learning but also reviewed
including higher access speed, searching for instant pleasure, variety of theories that can be used to explain the effect. Secondly,
impatience in linear thinking, and most importantly, higher we referenced findings from the earliest and most productive area
multitasking ability and continuous partial attention. It is so com- in the science of mobile phone multitasking behavior: phoning
mon for digital natives nowadays to use mobile phone to attend while driving (Yan, Chen, & Yu, 2013). Thirdly, we took into account
multiple streams of information while reading, doing homework, the differences among specific type of tasks (i.e. ring of phone,
or listening to the lecture. Some of multiple streams of information texting, Facebook, etc.) involved in the mobile phone multitasking
are academic related. In the ECAR (Educause Center for Applied while learning. This article attempts to review the existing
Research) study of undergraduate students and information tech- literature to answer the following three questions: How does mo-
nology (Dahlstrom, 2012), Eden reported the percentage of stu- bile phone use impair learning? Why does mobile phone use impair
dents using smartphone for academic purpose was about twice as learning? How to prevent from the negative effects of mobile
many in 2012 (67%) than in 2011 (37%), through a variety of mobile- phone multitasking while learning?
36 Q. Chen, Z. Yan / Computers in Human Behavior 54 (2016) 34e42

2. Method show the distracting effect of ring of mobile phone (Shelton et al.,
2009). They conducted four experiments, two in laboratory set-
Multiple search strategies were used to locate the existing tings and the other two in real classroom settings. Findings
research, including computer search of electronic databases, manual generated by the laboratory experiments indicated the ring of
search of references of identified articles, and consultation with mobile phone had negative impact on participants' performance on
experienced librarian. Multiple major databases, including PsycINFO, cognitive tasks, especially when the ringing was not anticipated
Scopus, ERIC, and Education Research Complete, were searched. (Shelton et al., 2009). This result was then tested in the real-world
Three groups of key words were used in the initial literature search. classroom. Undergraduate participants were listening to lecture on
The first group is related to mobile phone, such as mobile phone use, prenatal development while a standard ringtone was ringing for
mobile phone use, texting, and mobile phone conversation. The 30 s. The instructor kept lecturing when the mobile phone was
second group is related to multitasking, such as distract, multitask, ringing. A surprise quiz was given 5 min after the ring. Shelton's
and media multitask. The third group is related to learning, such as group found that students' accuracy rates on information presented
learning, classroom, lecture, and academic performance. while the mobile phone was ringing were significantly lower than
One hundred and four studies explicitly examined mobile phone that on information presented without ringing interruption
multitasking while learning have been selected under review, (Shelton et al., 2009). Despite of the negative impact on information
including self-report studies, correlational studies, and experi- recall, Smith and his team also identified negative impact on un-
mental studies in both laboratory and real-world classroom set- dergraduate participants' ability to recognize semantically related
tings. Two criteria were used for literature selection. Firstly, the items (Smith, Isaak, Senette, & Abadie, 2011).
studies included in the review must examine multitasking activity Findings from the distracting effects of mobile phone ringing on
that can be achieved by using mobile phone. Secondly, we included academic performance are essentially consistent with those of the
studies that investigated the cell phone use in at least one of the distracting effects on driving performance. For instance, Finland
following ways: cell phone conversation, text messaging, social researchers Haddington and Rauniomaa showed that the ring of
networking (e.g. Facebook or Twitter), physical operations of cell the phone, which they called as “prebeginning” of cell phone
phone (e.g., picking up the phone or dialing the phone), or opera- conversation, also has detrimental consequences on the driving
tions associated with finding online information through cell performance (Haddington & Rauniomaa, 2011). They paid partic-
phone (e.g., locating an address or reading news). ular attention to drivers' actions when preparing for an upcoming
telephone conversation while driving in order to understand how
3. How does mobile phone multitasking impair learning? drivers solve the challenges of managing and coordinating multiple
competing activities (Haddington & Rauniomaa, 2011). Three steps
In general, mobile phone multitasking results in distraction of behavior after the driver hearing ringtone have been identified
through three major ways, distraction sources (e.g, Campbell, 2006; through coding and analyzing the video recordings took from
Shelton, Elliott, Eaves, Lynn, & Exner, 2009; Harman & Sato, 2011; participants' natural driving in their car: (a) turning gaze from the
Junco, 2012), distraction targets (e.g., Bowman, Levine, Waite, & road to looking for the cell phone; (b) taking their hands of the
Gendron, 2010; Fox, Rosen, & Crawford, 2009), and distraction wheel to reach the phone, and (c) handling the ringing phone. All of
subjects (e.g., Foehr, 2006; Zhao, Reimer, Mehler, D'Ambrosio, & these steps require drivers to off-task from driving and increase the
Coughlin, 2013). chance of car accidents.

3.1. Distraction sources

3.1.2. Texting
3.1.1. Ring of mobile phone Harman and Sato (2011) conducted a survey study to reveal the
In Campbell (2006) study, he surveyed 176 participants including relationship between frequency of texting, students' attitude to-
both faculty and students at an American university. Most faculty ward texting in class, and their GPA. One-hundred and eighteen
and students reported ringing of mobile phone is a serious source of undergraduates took the survey in responding to questions such as
distraction and irritation in classroom. Campbell (2006) believed their average number of text messages received and sent per day,
this finding can be explained at two levels: on the surface level, it is their frequency of checking cell phones per day, and their feel of
because of the normative expectations of classroom; on the deeper being comfortable about texting in class (Harman & Sato, 2011). The
level, mobile phone intrusion in the classroom is a serious problem results showed that the more they received and sent text messages,
because mobile phone distraction is believed to have negative the lower their GPAs. Surprisingly, they found a positive correlation
impact on learning outcome. Ro €er's team (Ro
€er, Bell, & Buchner, between GPA and feel of being comfort texting in class and
2014) asked 26 university students to name a list of annoying explained that students with high GPA could be confident about
sound. Ringing of mobile phone was the second most-mentioned their ability to learn outside classroom, which lead them to feel
sound listed by 73% of the participants (the first most-mentioned comfortable to texting in class.
sound was dentist drill). Ro €er's team explained the annoying na- Researchers conducted experimental studied to further inves-
ture of mobile phone ringing from the acoustics perspective. They tigate these relationships (Barks, Searight, & Ratwik, 2011; Ellis,
stated that in order to capture attention, ringtones usually “comprise Daniels, & Jauregui, 2010; Gingerich and Lineweaver, 2013). In
sound waves in the range from 1 to 5 kHz”, similar to horns, fire Barks et al. (2011) study, they randomly assigned 37 college stu-
alerts, and bicycle bells, to which human ear is most sensitive (Ro €er dents to a lecture-only group or a lecture-texting group during a ten
et al., 2014, pp.34). In addition, the ringing mobile phone can change minutes videotaped lecture and compared these two groups' per-
the frequency and amplitude spectrum to grab human attention. formance on information retention questions based on the lecture.
Burns and Lohenry (2010) reported that not only the ringing of The score of the lecture-texting group was significantly lower than
mobile phone but also the vibrating of mobile phone were consid- the lecture-only group, demonstrating the temporary decrement in
ered as distracting by the participants (Burns & Lohenry, 2010). performance when switching between texting and lecture (Barks
Consisted with the self-report findings reported in the above et al., 2011). More interestingly, they found students who were
three studies (Burns & Lohenry, 2010; Campbell, 2006; Ro €er et al., less proficient at texting, as measured by their speed of texting, did
2014), Shelton et al., 2009 provided experimental evidence to a better job on the quiz than those who are fast in texting (Barks
 Q. Chen, Z. Yan / Computers in Human Behavior 54 (2016) 34e42 37

et al., 2011), possibly because students who text faster might spend used students' overall semester GPAs as dependent variable and
more time in shifting different cognitive sets. conduct a hierarchical regression analysis to find out which ICTs
Ellis et al. (2010) conducted a similar experimental study with multitasking variables predicted the semester GPAs, after control-
62 undergraduate business students at a university in Southeastern ling for demographic variables, high schools GPAs, and internet
US. They asked half of participants to turn off the phone while the skills. Based on the result, Junco's team separated different types of
second half of participants to send text to professor three times multitasking with ICTs into three levels: high frequency (texting),
during the lecture and then tested students with 20 multiple choice moderate frequency (Facebook, emailing, searching irrelevant
items. They found that non-texting group outperformed texting content) and low frequency (instant message and talking on
group regardless of gender and GPA. phone). Among these different ICTs, only Facebook and texting
Recently, Gingerich and Lineweaver (2014) did two experiments during class were related to students' overall semester GPAs (Junco,
with sixty-seven and fifty-six undergraduates respectively to 2012; Junco & Cetton, 2012).
investigate whether texting during lecture can impair learning. Why Facebook is such a key contributor to multitasking
After randomly assigned participants in to a lecture-only group and behavior among college students? Ames (2013) conducted a qual-
a lecture-texting group, they not only tested two groups' perfor- itative study to understand how Stanford students managed their
mance on retention of lecture content but also asked them to iPhone multitasking through the technosocial perspective. She
predict on how well they would perform on the quiz. It was found interviewed 57 students, observed on-campus for 30 h, and sur-
the lecture-only group had higher scores on the quiz and felt more veyed 177 students at Stanford University. Through this study, she
confident in predicting their performance. identified three concepts that contributed to college students'
Similar findings due to cognitive overload have been found in the multitasking with iPhone: (a) the social need of constantly con-
texting while driving studies. Reading text message impose more necting with others; (b) the pecking order of who is well connected
cognitive load when the text messages are written in the way of and who is poorly connected; and (c) the deliberated isolation from
“text-speak”, such as we enter “ic” to represent “I see” compared mobile phone multitasking to reduce the negative effect. Judd
with correctly spelled story (Head, Helton, Russell, & Neumann, (2014) looked closely to students' computer-based activity usage
2012). To test their hypothesis, this group of researchers conducted logs at an Australian university during two months. He divided the
a study to compare participants' performance on monitoring for usage logs into 20 min segment and then classified each segment
vibration around their waist in terms of reaction time and correct into focused, sequential, or multitasking based types of activities.
vibration response, when reading a correctly spelled story and a According to Judd, focused segment referred to segment involving
“text-speak” story. More importantly, as Head, Helton, Russell, and no more than two tasks. Sequential segment involved no more than
Neumann predicted, when comparing the speed and accuracy of three non-repeated tasks. Multitasking segment had more than one
vibration location, the “text-speak” story condition generated more repeated tasks (Judd, 2014, pp.196). Three major results were found
errors than the correctly spelled story condition, indicating that from the data analysis on usage logs. First, Facebook was the second
processing the “text-speak” story required more cognitive resources. most common computer-based activity, compared with previewing
PDF files, using word processor, using web searching engine and
3.1.3. Information communication technology (ICT) email. Second, different from non-Facebook sections, Facebook
There is an inconsistent on whether Facebook associated with sections showed significantly more short duration tasks per ses-
lower GPA (Kirschner & Karpinski, 2010; Pasek, More, & Hargittai, sion. Third and most importantly, Facebook use is positively related
2009). Karpinski and his associates reported the preliminary re- to multitasking behavior. Among other computer-based activities,
sults of a survey on 102 undergraduates and 117 graduates. They Facebook sections included significantly more multitasking be-
concluded a negative association between Facebook use and stu- haviors and less focused behaviors. As a result, Judd concluded that
dents' overall GPA (Kirshner & Karpinski, 2010). Karpinski's 2009 Facebook use is the contributing factor for task switching and
report was soon critiqued by Pasek, More and Hargittai in terms of multitasking behaviors.
problems in sampling issue, analysis strategy, and descriptions
findings (Pasek, More, & Hargittai, 2009). Pasek and his associates 3.2. Distraction target
tried to replicate Karpinski's results by including more samples
using national representative dataset and controlling for more 3.2.1. Reading
variables including age, gender, race, and SES. The results of their Concurrent instant messaging use while reading have been
study did not show the negative relationship between Facebook found to have negative effect on reading speed but not reading
and GPA. comprehension (Bowman et al., 2010; Fox et al., 2009). Bowman
The studies mentioned above did not specifically note the effect et al. (2010) investigated the effect of instant messaging while
of Facebook while multitasking with other activities. Some scholars reading an article. Eighty-nine college students were randomly
began to examine the effect of Facebook from the multitasking assigned to three conditions: receiving/responding five instant
perspective (Judd, 2014; Junco, 2012; Junco & Cotten, 2012). They messages before reading, receiving/responding five instant mes-
have shown that multitasking with Facebook were negatively sages while reading, and no instant messages. The reading article
predictive of students' overall semester GPAs, but other mobile on personality disorders was adapted from a psychology textbook.
phone multitasking activities, such as email, talking on a cell phone, Bowman's team recorded and compared the time it took students
or online searching were not. Junco and his associates (Junco, 2012; from three conditions to read the article and their performance on a
Junco & Cotten, 2012) investigated the relationship between reading comprehension and retention test. They also collected
different types of college students' real-world in-class multitasking students' information on frequency of instant message use while
with ICTs and their academic performance. The ICTs included study in daily lives. It was found that participants who instant
texting, Facebook, email, instant message, talking on a cell phone, messaged while reading took 22%e59% greater time to finish their
as well as online searches for contents that is irrelevant to the reading than those who instant messaged before reading or did not
course. They collected the response from 1774 college students on instant messaged at all, even after deducting the time spent on
their demographic information, high school grade point average, instant messaging (Bowman et al., 2010). However, they did not
internet skills, and their frequency of involving in each type of find significant difference on three groups' performance on the
multitasking based on a five-point Likert scale. Junco's team then reading comprehension test. Bowman's team considered that
38 Q. Chen, Z. Yan / Computers in Human Behavior 54 (2016) 34e42

participants may re-read certain part of the article after interrupted sensation that multitasking produce even at the cost of efficiency.
by the instant message. Although re-reading increase reading time, People with poor executive control ability usually find it is difficulty
it can actually make up deficits in participants' comprehension. to block out distractions in order to focus only on one thing. In
In Fox et al. (2009) study, they also found that participants in the Sanbonmatsu's study, participants with high impulsivity level, high
condition of reading while instant messaging took longer time to sensation seeking tendency, and low executive control ability are
read the passage, answer the follow-up questions on reading, and more likely to overstate their multitasking ability and report more
complete the entire test. However, their reading comprehension multitasking behaviors.
performance on recognition memory test and recall memory test Foehr (2006) analyzed survey data on media multitasking
were equivalent to participants in the reading-only condition. In collected from a nationally representative sample of 2032 8e18
addition, they found certain interaction effect due to the difficulty years old students. After correlating participants' self-reported
of reading: participants who read GRE-level passages have signifi- media multitasking behaviors with personality traits, he found
cant lower scores in free-recall questions but not in multiple choice that sensation-seeking personality traits, as measured by risk-
questions than those who read SAT-level passages. taking activities questions, can predict media multitasking, after
controlling for other predictors, such as race, education, media
3.2.2. Attention exposure, gender, and income. Similar to Sanbonmatsu et al. (2013),
Using mobile phone during lecture has been found to have Foehr (2006) believed that “sensation seekers” seek adventures
negative impact on students' note taking and knowledge recalling. and exciting experiences by media multitasking (Foehr, 2006).
Kuznekoff and Titsworth (2013) conducted an experimental study Studies on phoning while driving also revealed despite of the
to investigate the effect of texting and posting using mobile phone dual-tasking condition caused by phoning while driving, behavioral
while listening to lecture on students attending (i.e. lecture characteristics of frequent-cell-phone-using drivers also predict the
listening, note taking, recall of knowledge). They asked under- higher crash risk (Zhao et al., 2013). Zhao's team conducted obser-
graduate participants to watch a video lecture and take notes as vational and self-reported studies to investigate the association be-
they did in normal lectures. One third of the 54 undergraduate tween frequent cell phone users with other measurable risky driving
participants were assigned to control group while the remaining behavior. They found that the frequent cell phone users have higher
participants were assigned to either low-distraction group, acceptance rate of faster and aggressive driving behaviors and higher
receiving 12 messages or posts through mobile phone during lec- scores on the violation subscale, indicating greater willingness to
ture, or high-distraction group, receiving 24 messages or posts. break traffic rules (Zhao et al., 2013). Moreover, after observing
After the video lecture, Kuznekoff and Titsworth tested students' frequent cell phone users' driving performance on the highway of
learning through a free recall test and a multiple choice test. Par- Interstate 93, they found that this group of drivers are more likely to
ticipants' lecture notes were coded based on the number of lecture drive in a higher speed in the left lane, change lanes more frequently,
statements covered in the notes. The results showed that, and use more hard-braking while driving (Zhao et al., 2013).
compared to the low and high distraction group, students in the
control group were able to write done 62% more information in 3.3.2. Gender
their notes and scored significantly higher in the recall test and In Foehr's (2006) study, as described above, he reported that,
multiple choice test (Kuznekoff & Titsworth, 2013). In another compared with boys, girls are more likely to be media multitasking
study (Ophir, Nass, & Wagner, 2009), a group of scholars from in the classroom. Stoet, O'Connor, Conner, and Laws, (2013) con-
Stanford University have also found that chronically heavy and light ducted two experiments to test if women are better than men at
media multitaskers have systematic differences in information multitasking. They found women outperformed men on a
processing styles. Heavy media multitaskers have difficulty to avoid computer-based task-switching paradigm as well as devising stra-
distraction from irrelevant tasks. Therefore, their scores on a task- tegies for finding a lost key (Stoet et., 2013). Contradicted results
switching ability test were surprisingly lower than those of light were found from the study of phoning while driving. The two
media multitaskers. nationwide online surveys conducted by Hallet, Lambert, and
Regan (2011, 2012) revealed that, compared with females, males
3.3. Distraction subject reported higher frequency on sending and reading text messages
while driving in New Zealand.
3.3.1. Personality
It is often believed that people who are best able to multitasking 3.3.3. Culture
are more likely to engage in multitasking behaviors. In fact, a study Kononova (2013) conducted a study to compare the media
conducted by Sanbonmatsu and his associates revealed the oppo- multitasking behaviors of young people in US, Russia, and Kuwait.
site: people who are good at multitasking are also the persons who She found that participants US and Kuwait reported significantly
are good at avoid multitasking. In Sanbonmatsu, Strayer, Medeiros- more media multitasking behaviors than those in Russia
Ward, and Watson (2013) study, they identified three motivations (Kononova, 2013). Bowman, Waite, and Levine (2014) are among
and its corresponded personalities that can predict greater multi- the first to compare mobile phone related multitasking while
tasking behaviors. The three motivations include: (a) multitasking learning among Malaysian and American students. They assessed
is rewarding than doing one thing at a time, (b) multitasking is 238 American college students and 359 Malaysian college students
more interesting and challenging, and (c) multitasking is an inev- in terms of their amount of media (e.g., mobile phone, television,
itable result of failing to block out distraction. The three corre- computer) use, amount of reading activities (both print and online),
sponded personalities are impulsive, high sensation seeking, and study habit, media multitasking patterns while learning, academic
poor executive control. Impulsivity was defined as “a predisposition distractibility, and impulsiveness. They found at least three salient
toward rapid, unplanned reactions to internal or external stimuli differences between Malaysian students and their American peers.
without regard to the negative consequences of these reactions” Firstly, Malaysian students reported more media use and instant
(Barratt & Patton, 1983, as cited by Sanbonmatsu et al., 2013). messaging activities than American students. Secondly, Malaysian
Impulsive people values strong rewards and are less sensitive to students were more likely to multitask with both electronic and
lose. They believe multitasking can potentially bring them more non-electronic activities while learning for non-academic purpose.
gains. High sensation seeking people enjoy the varied and complex Last but not least, entertainment and pursing personal interests
 Q. Chen, Z. Yan / Computers in Human Behavior 54 (2016) 34e42 39

were the major focus for Malaysian students when they multi- simultaneously conducting two or more task in order to be more
tasked whereas social communication were the major focus of effective and successful, while continuous partial attention refers to
American students' multitasking while learning. both the desire of missing nothing and the interaction with
everything, which usually leads to loss of focus and high-level
3.3.4. Information motives stress (Firat, 2013). In essence, this approach distinguishes the
Hwang, Kim, and Jeong (2014) made one of the first attempt to positive or successful consequence from the negative or failed
differentiate the motives for involving in different types of multi- consequence of performing multiple tasks at the same time. For
tasking, including TV-base multitasking, Internet-based multi- example, when a student sitting in the classroom, listening to the
tasking, as well as mobile-based multitasking. They recruited 462 lecture, taking notes using laptop and putting a cell phone asides
Korean adults and conducted an online survey examining their the laptop, he or she is aware of many things at the same time:
motives for multitasking based on general multitasking behaviors teachers' lecture, new email notifications on the screen of a laptop,
(i.e., frequency of multitasking), content-specific multitasking be- as well as possible vibrations of cell phone showing a new short
haviors (i.e., news, entertainment, or advertising), and medium- message is coming. This is an illustration of partial attention: each
specific multitasking behaviors (i.e., TV, internet, print media, or thing takes partial attention of that student, causing problems of
mobile media). The results indicated that the participants are more focusing. Therefore, for digital natives, digital world generates both
likely to involve in mobile phone multitasking if their motives for positive outcome (multitasking ability) and negative outcome
multitasking is information seeking and exchanging (Hwang et al., (continuous partial attention) (Firat, 2013).
2014). In other words, mobile phone multitasking can be predicted Similar to Firat (2013)’s approach to distinguish the positive and
by information motives. Hwang and his associates (2014) believed negative consequence of multitasking, Bell and her associates (Bell,
that besides the traditional function of mobile phones such as Compeau, & Olivera, 2005) developed a conceptual model to un-
texting and making phone call, the use of smartphones promotes derstand the social implications of technological multitasking
constant searching for information while doing other things. through identifying factors that can explain why multitasking is
encouraged in some situations and not others. They found both in-
4. Why does mobile phone multitasking impair learning? dividual factors (in terms of polychronicity) and situational factors
(in terms of task relevance, group interdependence, and time ur-
4.1. Cognitive theory of multimedia learning approach gency) can influence individuals' perceptions of others' multitasking
behavior (Bell et al., 2005). For instance, people who multitask with
Mayer and Moreno (2003) developed the cognitive theory of technology for high time urgency and task-relevant activities will be
multimedia learning approach based on the dual channel perceived by co-workers as “more competent, dedicated, and so-
assumption, the limited capacity assumption, and the active pro- cially attractive” than people who multitask with low time urgency
cessing assumption. This theory is among the earliest and best ef- and non-task relevant activities (Bell et al., 2005, p.3).
forts in understanding how and why multitasking affect learning.
According to this theory, when in the multimedia context, learners
are exposed to both words and pictures, which belong to two 4.3. Unified theory of the multitasking continuum approach
different information processing channels, auditory/verbal channel
and visual/pictorial channel. Meaningful learning requires sub- There are two types of multitasking behaviors in terms of the
stantial cognitive processing in both channels while learners have time spent or multitasking continuum, concurrent multitasking,
limited capacity. Mayer and Moreno (2003) distinguished three which refers to a situation when the time interval between two
types of cognitive demands involved in the multimedia learning difference tasks is very short or even negligible (e.g., driving while
process: essential processing, incidental processing, and repre- talking to passenger or listening to lecture while taking notes), and
sentational holding. Essential processing refers to the selection, sequential multitasking, which refers to a situation when the time
organization, and integration of information in order to make sense interval between two difference tasks is relatively long (e.g., writing
of the learning materials. In contrary, incidental processing are not an article and then reading emails or cooking and then washing
required for understanding of the materials, such as background fruits). Salvucci and Taatgen proposed a unified theory of human
music or decorative cartoon. Representational holding enables multitasking, which aim to account for both concurrent and
learners to hold information in working memory for a while. sequential multitasking (Salvucci & Taatgen, 2008; Salvucci,
Similar to multimedia learning, mobile phone multitasking Taatgen, & Borst, 2009). This unified theory consists of three
while learning also involves different information processing components.
channels with learners' limited capacities. For instance, while stu- The first component, the ACT-R cognitive architecture theory,
dents sitting in the classroom, they need essential processing to contributed to the unified theory by providing assumptions and
make sense of the lecture as well as the representational holding to descriptions on variety of independent yet interactive cognitive
hold lecture content in mind in order to take notes or make asso- modules, including (a) the declarative memory module storing
ciation between prior knowledge and new knowledge. Off-task factual knowledge, episodic knowledge, as well as task instruction,
mobile phone use can be viewed as incidental processing. There- (b) the goal module that sets goal and monitors the process, (c) the
fore, when students are using mobile phone during the lecture, problem representation module that keeps partial information that
their incidental processing may consume much capacity, resulting may be needed later it the process, and (d) the procedural module
in cognitive overload. In order to reduce the cognitive load, the that connects and control the information flow among different
capacity for essential processing and representational holding is modules. Because each module can only work on one single task at
decreased, which obstruct the deeper cognitive processing and a time, these modules can actually act as a source of interference in
learning (Junco, 2012; Junco & Cotten, 2012). multitasking (Salvucci et al, 2009). For instance, a new friend of you
just told you his phone number. You repeat that number in your
4.2. Continuous partial attention approach mind and want to save it to your mobile phone as soon as possible.
However, the first thing you have to do is to unlock your cell phone
Firat (2013) believed that multitasking and continuous partial by entering the pin number. At this very moment, keeping the
attention are two different concepts. Multitasking emphasizes phone number in your mind may interference with retrieving your
40 Q. Chen, Z. Yan / Computers in Human Behavior 54 (2016) 34e42

cell phone pin number, because both behaviors require your their perceived multitasking ability. That means people usually
declarative module. tend to overestimate their multitasking ability. Furthermore, stu-
This leads to the crux of the second component of unified theory dents who multitask during the lecture often are not aware the
of human multitasking, the threaded cognition theory, which ex- negative impact of this behavior on their learning (Hammer et al.,
plains how multiple tasks compete, interfere, and share the mod- 2010). Hammer and his associates (2010) asked 127 technological
ules. Salvucci and his associates hypothesized that if two tasks or college students on their opinions on using mobile phones during
treads need the same module, one tread must wait until the other lecture for non-academic purpose. Although 90% of students admit
tread finishes (Salvucci & Taatgen, 2008; Salvucci et al, 2009). For mobile phone use may distract students' attention in the class, 75%
example, keeping the phone number in mind must wait its turn to of students believed non-academic usage of mobile phone is
use declarative module when retrieving the cell phone pin number, legitimate and no harm to their learning. Ophir and his associates
which would slow processing. If they are sharing the declarative (2009) found that people frequently engage in media multitasking
module at the same time, the interference between these two be- were more likely to have lower scores on a variety of cognitive
haviors may make your either entering the wrong pin number or laboratory tasks. Cain and Mitroff (2011) identified that heavy
saving the wrong phone number. media multitaskers have a wider attentional scope to ignore task-
The third component, the memory-for-goals theory, concerns irrelevant information than low media multitaskers (Cain &
with the recovery/resume time of the initial task after interrupted Mitroff, 2011). Firat (2013) believed that it is important to
by another task (Altmann & Trafton, 2002). Based on this theory, develop the ability to turn off the computer or put down the mobile
the original task will take much time to recover and complete if phone and enhancing self-regulation skills because digital natives
interruptive tasks occurs. For instance, a friend of you calls in when should develop their multitasking ability but not their continuous
you are writing an essay. Then, you pause your writing and have a partial attention experience.
nice conversation with friend. However, after you hang up the
phone and resume your writing, you will find that it takes times for 5.2. Practice dual-task skills
you to go back to your train of thoughts.
Several researchers documented for the first time the potential
4.4. Inattention blindness and attentional blink approach benefits of mobile phone multitasking. For example, Atchley and
Chan (2011) reported that engaging in cell phone conversations
Theories that have guided the study of phoning while driving when driving may prevent drivers from decreasing attention
could also be used to explain mobile phone multitasking and caused by the monotony of driving. By using a driving simulator,
learning. Strayer, Watson, and Drews (2011) generated a framework they assigned 45 undergraduate students into three multitasking
for conceptualizing the sources of driver distraction. In their conditions and measured their changes in vigilance in terms of lane
framework, they attributed three factors that cause the driver keeping, vehicle control, and reaction time. The three conditions
distraction, namely, visual factor, manual factor, and cognitive included: (a) driving without cell phone conversations, (b) driving
factor. They further differentiated different level of multitasking with continuous cell phone conversations, and (c) driving with cell
situations in terms of their demands on the visual, manual, and phone conversations only at the end of the task, when the vigilance
cognitive resources. For example, Strayer et al. (2011) considered was the lowest. The results indicated that, with the decline in
listening to a radio program while driving as a low-level multi- vigilance, participants' lane keeping performances were declined
tasking situation because it demands little visual, manual, and over time. However, having a cell phone conversation, when vigi-
cognitive resources. Driving while manipulating a touchscreen lance was the lowest, could improve participants' stability in lane
devise, such as smartphone, on the other hand, was regarded as a keeping. They also found that, toward the end of the driving task,
high-level multitasking situation that required substantial visual, having a cell phone conversation was associated with both fewer
manual, and cognitive processing simultaneously. Their framework roadway infractions and better steering variability, compared with
hypothesized that high level multitasking situation are more likely drivers without cell phone conversations or with continuous cell
to generate car accidents compared with the low level multitasking phone conversations. Nevertheless, despite of these benefits of
situation, which only place little demand on visual, manual, and strategically using cell phone conversations on driving perfor-
cognitive resources (Strayer et al., 2011). Based on this framework, mance, the authors were cautious when drawing conclusions.
Strayer et al. (2011) raised and tested the hypothesis of inattention Similarly, Becic and his team (Becic, 2009) found that, for a
blindness, which refers high level multitasking situation, such as routinized task, the second task improved the performance, but for
having mobile phone conversation while driving, distracts driver's a task that requires a great amount of attention, the secondary task
attention to process information necessary to drive safely. If we imposed costs.
apply this hypothesis to learning setting, we could assume that In regard to this potential benefit of mobile phone multitasking,
using mobile phone to text or manipulate Facebook while learning as well as to decrease the negative impact of mobile multitasking
has negative impact on the learning effectiveness. on learning, some scholars believed that the negative impact of
multitasking can be overcome by practicing dual-task skills (Meyer,
5. How to best prevent from mobile phone distractibility? & Kieras, 1997). They proposed that, when declarative knowledge is
converted to procedural knowledge through practice, the two tasks
5.1. Raise public awareness can be performed at the same time (Meyer, & Kieras, 1997;
Schumacher & Lauber, 1999). Nevertheless, Broadbent, Cooper,
It is important to make students correctly understand their FitzGerald, and Parkes (1982) claimed that, although dual-task
actual multitasking ability and to recognize that the habit of can be improved with practice, interferences still occur when task
constantly engaging in multitasking activities may have profound were difficult. Wood's team (Wood et al., 2012) reported that
impacts on basic cognitive abilities (Ophir et al., 2009; repeated practice with technologies did not improve performance
Sanbonmatsu et al., 2013). This could be the first preventive strat- over time. Empirical evidence from the studies of mobile phone use
egy to decrease the negative impact of mobile multitasking on while driving may further shed lights on this issue. Cooper, Strayer,
learning. Schlehofer's team (Schlehofer et al., 2010) revealed that and City (2008) asked two groups of drivers, one group reported
people's actual multitasking ability is adversely correlated with high frequency of cell phone use while the other group reported
 Q. Chen, Z. Yan / Computers in Human Behavior 54 (2016) 34e42 41

low cell phone use in their daily driving, to participate in nighty- Facebook use and instant message use. Second, the existing litera-
minutes simulated dual tasking practices in four successive days. ture we have reviewed offers several theoretical explanations why
Their performance on crashes, following distance, break reaction mobile phone multitasking impairs learning. According to the
time, and speed compliance in the dual task conditions were then cognitive theory of multimedia learning approach (Mayer &
measured to test if there were any improvements resulted from the Moreno, 2003), mobile phone multitasking may impair learning
previous practices sessions. However, they were not able to find because mobile phone use takes up the limited capacity of learners'
significant improvements among these two groups, indicating that information processing channels and leaves insufficient space for
dual task practice may not eliminate the detrimental effects of meaningful learning. According to the continuous partial attention
phoning on driving. approach (Firat, 2013), it is not multitasking but continuous partial
attention that leads to loss of focus and high-level stress. From the
5.3. Develop effective policy unified theory of multitasking continuum perspective (Salvucci &
Taatgen, 2001; Salvucci & Taatgen, 2008; Salvucci et al, 2009), mo-
The third preventive strategy to decrease the negative impact of bile phone multitasking impairs learning for three possible reasons:
mobile multitasking on learning is to develop effective policy to (a) Both mobile phone using and learning require the same cognitive
regular distracting behavior at school in general and at classroom in module but this cognitive module can only process one task at a
particular. As an emerging fielded of research (Gao, Yan, Zhao, Pan, time; (b) to process mobile phone using and learning in one cogni-
& Mo, 2014), studies on mobile phone policies started to find out tive module, one task must wait for the other, leading to the compete
the perception of faculty and students on mobile phone policy and interfere of the two tasks; and (c) the recovery and resume time
(Campbell, 2006) and the effectiveness of mobile phone policy (Gao of the initial task after interrupted by another task makes learning
et al., 2014; Hopke & Marsh, 2011; Wei & Wang, 2010). Campbell takes longer time when interrupted with mobile phone use. Third,
(2006) conducted a survey with ninety-six students and eighty the existing literature suggests a few strategies to prevent from
faculty members from different disciplines to understand their mobile phone distractibility, including (a) raising public awareness
perception of mobile phones use in classroom. He designed and of the negative impact of mobile phone multitasking on learning, (b)
included items in the survey that specifically addressed the issue of practicing dual-task skills while the effectiveness of this strategy is
mobile phone policy both at the school level and a classroom level, not clear, and (c) developing effective policy.
such as “I would agree with a university policy against mobile Does multitasking with mobile phones affect learning? As pre-
phone use (i.e. talking, text messaging, etc.) during class time”, “I sented at the beginning of this review, we were motivated to seek
would agree with an instructor's policy against mobile phone use answer for this question because (a) the prevalence of mobile phone
(i.e. talking, text messaging, etc.) during class time”, and “I would multitasking while learning; (b) the complexity of this issue; and (c)
agree with a university policy against mobile phones ringing during the urgency of understanding this issue. These three motivations are
class time” (Campbell, 2006,pp.23). In general students and faculty satisfied through reviewing the existing literature. Firstly, we found
members supported the policies of mobile phone restriction in mobile phone multitasking is prevalent among learners, for both
classroom. Among other age groups, younger participants aged genders and in different cultures, nowadays through ringing of
18e23 provided significantly less support for mobile phone mobile phone, texting, and social networking while they are reading
policies. and attending to lectures, especially for those who are impulsive,
Several studies addressed the effectiveness of mobile phone high sensation seeking, poor executive control as well as those who
policy (Gao et al., 2014; Hopke & Marsh, 2011; Wei & Wang, 2010). values information seeking and exchanging. Secondly, the present
For instance, in Hopke and Marsh (2011) study, they surveyed one review indicates that this question deserves a sophisticated rather
hundred and eighty nigh university students on their knowledge of than straightforward answer. As indicated by our review, multi-
mobile phone policy in a particular course and their corresponding tasking with mobile phones do distract learning via different ways
mobile phone use in that course. Hopke and Marsh (2011) found and different mechanisms and the distraction can be prevented and
clearly-stated mobile phone policy on syllabus decrease students' intervened with different strategies. On the other hand, however,
mobile phone use in the classroom. Gao and his associates (2014) one will arrive at different assessments when taking into account
reported elementary, middle and high schools teachers partici- characteristics of various mobile phone use, characteristics of
pated in their study did not consider mobile phone school policy various learning tasks, and characteristics of various learners. For
has effectively reduced students' mobile phone use and prevented instance, Facebook use is negatively predictive of students' overall
students from distraction. In a study conducted by Wei and Wang semester GPAs (Judd, 2014; Junco, 2012), whereas mobile phone
(2010), they closely examined if teachers' verbal and nonverbal multitasking with email, with phone talking, or with online
intervene with students' mobile phone use during lecture can searching were not (Junco, 2012; Junco & Cotten, 2012). Thirdly, the
moderate students' mobile phone use. However, they did not find study of mobile phone multitasking in learning generally is still in
the relationship between high level of teacher immediacy behavior the early stage. Self-reported data and correlational design are a
and students' reduced mobile phone use. They believed that college norm rather than an exception, which make it difficult to determine
students' use of text messaging is mostly explained by their mobile directions and mechanisms of the causal relations between mobile
phone use habit (Wei & Wang, 2010). phone multitasking and academic performance. Further systematic
research programs are needed to fully understand the mobile phone
6. Conclusion multitasking phenomenon and help learners to avoid potential
multitasking distractions and develop effective multitasking skills
This paper attempts to review the emerging literature by in the modern society.
focusing on three specific questions concerning the influence of
mobile phone multitasking on academic performance. First, References
regarding how mobile phone multitasking impairs learning, the
existing literature indicates that mobile phone multitasking results Altmann, E. M., & Trafton, J. G. (2002). Memory for goals: an activation-based
in distraction through three major ways: distraction sources, model. Cognitive Science, 26, 39e83.
Ames, M. G. (2013, February). Managing mobile multitasking: the culture of iPhones
distraction targets, and distraction subjects. Distraction sources on stanford campus. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on computer supported
include ring of mobile phone, texting, and social networking such as cooperative work (pp. 1487e1498). ACM.
42 Q. Chen, Z. Yan / Computers in Human Behavior 54 (2016) 34e42

Atchley, P., & Chan, M. (2011). Potential benefits and costs of concurrent task Kirschner, P. a, & Karpinski, A. C. A. (2010). Facebook® and academic performance.
engagement to maintain vigilance a driving simulator investigation. Human Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1237e1245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 53(1), 3e12. j.chb.2010.03.024.
Barks, A., Searight, H., & Ratwik, S. (2011). Effects of text messaging on academic Kononova, A. (2013). Multitasking across borders: a cross-national study of media
performance. Journal of Pedagogy and Psychology “Signum Temporis”, 4(1), 10e15. multitasking behaviors, its antecedents, and outcomes. (Report). International
Barratt, E. S., & Patton, J. H. (1983). Impulsivity: cognitive, behavioral, and psy- Journal of Communication (Online), 1688. Retrieved from http://libproxy.albany.
chophysiological correlates. In M. Zuckerman (Ed.), Biological basis of sensation- edu/login?url¼http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
seeking, impulsivity, and anxiety (pp. 77e116). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence direct¼true&db¼edsgao&AN¼edsgcl.346926476&site¼eds-live&scope¼site.
Erlbaum Associates. Kuznekoff, J. H., & Titsworth, S. (2013). The impact of mobile phone usage on stu-
Becic, E. (2009). Aging and the effects of conversation with a passenger of a caller on dent learning. Communication Education, 62(3), 233e252. http://dx.doi.org/
simulated driving performance. ProQuest. 10.1080/03634523.2013.767917.
Bell, C. S., Compeau, D. R., & Olivera, F. (2005). Understanding the social implications of Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Bowman, L. L. (2012). Mobile media use, multitasking
technological multitasking: a conceptual model. In SIGHCI 2005 proceedings (p. 2). and distractibility. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and
Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Gendron, M. (2010). Can students really Learning., 2(3), 15e29.
multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Com- Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia
puters & Education, 54(4), 927e931. learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43e52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
Bowman, L. L., Waite, B. M., & Levine, L. E. (2014). A cross-cultural comparison of S15326985EP3801_6.
media multitasking in American and Malaysian college students. Cyber Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive
Behavior, Psychology, and Learning, 4(3). processes and multiple-task performance: part I. Basic mechanisms. Psycho-
Broadbent, D. E., Cooper, P. F., FitzGerald, P., & Parkes, K. R. (1982). The Cognitive logical Review, 104(1), 3.
Failures Questionnaire (CFQ) and its correlates. British Journal of Clinical Psy- Murphy, E., & Manzanares, M. (2008). Instant messaging in a context of virtual
chology, 21, 1e16. schooling: balancing the affordance and challenges. Educational Media Inter-
Brooks, L. R. (1968). Spatial and verbal components of the act of recall. Canadian national, 45(1), 47e58.
Journal of Psychology, 22(5), 349e368. Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers.
Burns, S. M., & Lohenry, K. (2010). Cellular phone use in class: Implications for PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
teaching and learning a pilot study. College Student Journal US: Project Innovation America, 106(37), 15583e15587.
of Mobile, 44(3), 805. Pasek, J., More, E., & Hargittai, E. (2009). Some clarifications on the Facebook-GPA
Cain, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2011). Distractor filtering in media multitaskers. study and Karpinski's response. First Monday, 14(5).
Perception, 40(10), 1183e1192. Posner, M. I. (1990). Hierarchical distributed networks in the neuropsychology of
Campbell, S. W. (2006). Perceptions of mobile phones in college classrooms: ring- selective attention. In A. Cramazza (Ed.), Cognitive neuropsychology and neuro-
ing, cheating, and classroom policies. Communication Edu, 55(3), 280e294. linguistics (pp. 187e210). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Carrillo, R., & Subrahmanyam, K. (2014). Mobile phone multitasking and learning €er, J. P., Bell, R., & Buchner, A. (2014). Please silence your cell phone: your ringtone
Ro
(Unpublished manuscript). captures other people's attention. Noise Health, 16(68), 34e39.
Cooper, J. M., Strayer, D. L., & City, S. L. (2008). Effects of simulator practice and real-world Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2001). The multitasking mind. New York: Oxford
experience on cell-phone-related driver distraction. Human Factors, 50(6), 893e902. Univrsity Press.
Dahlstrom, E. (2012). ECAR study of undergraduate students and information Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. a (2008). Threaded cognition: an integrated theory of
technology. In EDUCAUSE center for applied research. Louisville: EDUCAUSE. concurrent multitasking. Psychological Review, 115(1), 101e130. http://
Ellis, Y., Daniels, B., & Jauregui, A. (2010). The effect of multitasking on the grade dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.1.10.
performance of business students. Research in Higher Education Journal, 1e10. Salvucci, D., Taatgen, N., & Borst, J. (2009). Toward a unified theory of the multi-
Firat, M. (2013). Multitasking or continuous partial attention: a critical bottleneck for tasking continuum: from concurrent performance to task switching, interrup-
digital natives. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 1302e6488. tion, and resumption. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in
Foehr, U. G. (2006). Media multitasking among American youth: Prevalence, predictors computing systems (pp. 1819e1828). Retrieved from http://dl.acm.org/citation.
and pairings. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. cfm?id¼1518981.
Fox, A. B., Rosen, J., & Crawford, M. (2009). Distractions, distractions: does instant Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Strayer, D. L., Medeiros-Ward, N., & Watson, J. M. (2013). Who
messaging affect college students' performance on a concurrent reading multi-tasks and why? Multi-tasking ability, perceived multi-tasking ability,
comprehension task? Cyberpsychology & Behavior: The Impact of the Internet, impulsivity, and sensation seeking. PLoS One, 8(1), 1e8. http://dx.doi.org/
Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society, 12(1), 51e53. 10.1371/journal.pone.0054402.
Gao, Q., Yan, Z., Zhao, C., Pan, Y., & Mo, L. (2014). To ban or not to ban: differences in Schlehofer, M. M., Thompson, S. C., Ting, S., Ostermann, S., Nierman, A., &
mobile phone policies at elementary, middle, and high schools. Computer in Skenderian, J. (2010). Psychological predictors of college students' cell phone
Human Behavior, 38, 25e32. use while driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42, 1107e1112.
Gingerich, a. C., & Lineweaver, T. T. (2013). OMG! Texting in class ¼ U Fail: (empirical Schumacher, E., & Lauber, E. (1999). Concurrent response-selection processes in
evidence that text messaging during class disrupts comprehension. Teaching of dual-task performance: evidence for adaptive executive control of task sched-
Psychology, 41(1), 44e51. uling. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
Haddington, P., & Rauniomaa, M. (2011). Technologies, multitasking, and driving: 25(3), 191e814. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xhp/25/3/791/.
attending to and preparing for a mobile phone conversation in a car. Human Shelton, J. T., Elliott, E. M., Lynn, S. D., Exner, A. L., & Eaves, S. D. (2009). The dis-
Communication Research, 37(2), 223e254. tracting effects of a ringing cell phone: an investigation of the laboratory and
Hallett, C., Lambert, A., & Regan, M. A. (2011). Cell phone conversing while driving in the classroom setting. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(4), 513e521.
New Zealand: prevalence, risk perception, and legislation. Accident Analysis and http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.03.001.
Prevention, 43, 862e869. Smith, T. S., Isaak, M. I., Senette, C. G., & Abadie, B. G. (2011). Effects of cell-phone
Hallett, C., Lambert, A., & Regan, M. A. (2012). Text messaging amongst New Zealand and text-message distractions on true and false recognition. Cyberpsychology,
drivers: prevalence and risk perception. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(6), 351e358.
Psychology and Behaviour, 15(3), 261e271. Stoet, G., O'Connor, D. B., Conner, M., & Laws, K. R. (2013). Are women better than men at
Hammer, R., Ronen, M., Sharon, A., Lankry, T., Huberman, Y., & Zamtsov, V. (2010). multi-tasking? BMC Psychology,1(1),18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2050-7283-1-18.
Mobile culture in college lectures: instructors' and students' perspectives. Strayer, D. L., Watson, J. M., & Drews, F. A. (2011). Cognitive distraction while
Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning & Learning Objects, 6, 293e304. multitasking in the automobile. In The psychology of learning and motivation:
Harman, B., & Sato, T. (2011). Cell phone use and grade point average among un- Advances in research and theory (vol. 54, pp. 29e58). San Diego, CA, US: Elsevier
dergraduate university students. College Student Journal, 544e550. Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385527-5.00002-4.
Head, J., Helton, W., Russell, P., & Neumann, E. (2012). Text-speak processing impairs Tindell, D. R., & Bohlander, R. W. (2012). The use and abuse of cell phones and text
tactile location. Acta Psychologica, 141(1), 48e53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ messaging in the classroom: a survey of college students. College Teaching.,
j.actpsy.2012.07.006. 60(1), 1e9.
Hopke, K. D., & Marsh, P. A. (2011). Student cell phone use in college classrooms. Wei, F.-Y. F., & Wang, Y. K. (2010). Students' silent messages: can teacher verbal and
Psychology and Education Journal., 48, 1e2. nonverbal immediacy moderate student use of text messaging in class?
Hwang, Y., Kim, H., & Jeong, S.-H. (2014). Why do media users multitask?: motives Communication Education., 59(4), 475e496.
for general, medium-specific, and content-specific types of multitasking. Wood, E., Zivcakova, L., Gentile, P., Archer, K., De Pasquale, D., & Nosko, A. (2012).
Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 542e548. Examining the impact of off-task multi-tasking with technology on real-time
Judd, T. (2014). Making sense of multitasking: the role of Facebook. Computers & classroom learning. Computers & Education, 58(1), 365e374.
Education, 70, 194e202. Yan, Z., Chen, Q., & Yu, C. F. (2013). The science of cell phone use: its past, present,
Junco, R. (2012). Too much face and not enough books: the relationship between and future. International Journal of Cyber Behavior,. Psychology and Learning
multiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance. Computers in (IJCBPL), 3(1), 7e18.
Human Behavior, 28(1), 187e198. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.026. Zhao, N., Reimer, B., Mehler, B., D'Ambrosio, L. a, & Coughlin, J. F. (2013). Self-re-
Junco, R., & Cotten, S. R. (2012). No A 4 U: the relationship between multitasking ported and observed risky driving behaviors among frequent and infrequent
and academic performance. Computers and Education, 59(2), 505e514. http:// cell phone users. Accident; Analysis and Prevention, 61(12), 71e77.
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.023.
 Update
Computers in Human Behavior
Volume 64, Issue , November 2016, Page 938

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.023
 Computers in Human Behavior 64 (2016) 938

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Corrigendum

Corrigendum to “Does multitasking with mobile phones affect

learning? A review” [Comput. Hum. Behav. 54 (2016) 34e42]
Quan Chen*, Zheng Yan
University at Albany, State University of New York, USA

The authors apologize for an error on Page 34 that stated “Digital immigrants are the ‘net generation’ born after 1980 who can access
information from anywhere at any time from any sources”. The corrected sentence appears below:
“Digital natives are the ‘net generation’ born after 1980 who can access information from anywhere at any time from any sources”.

DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.047.

* Corresponding author. Department of Educational Psychology, University at
Albany, State University of New York, Education 233, 1400 Washington Avenue,
Albany, NY 12222, USA.
E-mail address: [email protected] (Q. Chen).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.023
0747-5632/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.