Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Gender roles biases
Gender roles biases
Essays on multitasking non oppositional
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Gender roles biases
We multitask every day. We do homework while we watch TV or text while we listen to our friend. If you have done this, you have probably also noticed that you do not get your homework done as quickly or you are missing some detail of the story your friend told. Simply said, we cannot fully pay attention to multiple things at once. Interference is based on the idea that a person only has limited attentional resources. This idea explains why we are only able to concentrate on essentially one thing at a time, and even if we are trying really hard to do one task, we are distracted by other stimuli around us. When this is an automatic distraction, it is considered interference. An example of an automatic distraction is words. We are reading everywhere we go, whether we like to or not, we automatically do it.
The Stroop task examines interference that occurs when a person is given the task to say the color of a word while the word reads a different color (Stroop 1935). For example, if the word ‘red’ was written in blue ink, then the person is supposed to say ‘blue.’ This is an example of the incongruent or experimental condition, where a color word was presented in a different color and participants were told to state the color ink that the word was written in. Participants were told to simply name the color of colored squares for the control condition. Reaction times were slower in the incongruent condition. These results show that interference is present in this task in that participants in the incongruent condition automatically read the word instead of naming the color. This is shown by the fact that it took longer for participants to do the experimental condition rather than the control (Stroop 1935). This study can be slightly cr...
... middle of paper ...
... significantly. I say that interference will still occur because of the original Stroop task that shows the automatic process of reading will take over. I say that the results will not be as significant however because of the Houwer and Hermans experiment that shows pictorial stimuli is more potent than linguistic stimuli. I kept the stimuli neutral to prevent emotion effects as were tested in the Williams, Mathews, and MacLeod study.
Works Cited
Blakemore, J. E. O. (2003). Children's beliefs about violating gender norms: Boys shouldn't look like girls, and girls shouldn't act like boys. Sex Roles, 48(9-10), 411-419.
Herlitz, A., Nilsson, L. G., & Bäckman, L. (1997). Gender differences in episodic memory. Memory & cognition, 25(6), 801-811.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of experimental psychology, 18(6), 643.
Schacter, D. L., Gilbert, D. T., & Wegner, D. M. (2010). Psychology. (2nd ed., p. 600). New York: Worth Pub.
As human beings, it is becoming more of a second nature to us to multi-task. As the world is technologically advancing more and more every day, there are becoming more distractions. Social-media is flourishing, reality TV show ratings are going up, and humans even unintentionally check their phones every two minutes. In this day of age, multi-tasking is proving to promote inefficiency rather than productivity.
Skinner, B.F. A Brief Survey of Operant Behavior. Cambridge, MA: B. F. Skinner Foundation. 1938
When we are doing a certain task we may get a text or we have to check our social media because of our addiction to it. These things cause us to drift off from what we actually are focused on. Sometimes we may be doing something, like reading, and our mind will subconsciously drift off onto another topic, like what our plans are for tomorrow. Some people do believe though that if the two tasks you are doing use different sections of the brain that it is all right to multitask. The example Restak gave of this was “an example of the principle of cerebral geography: The brain works at it’s best with the activation of different, rather than identical, brain areas. That’s why doodling while talking on the telephone isn’t a problem for most people, since speaking and drawing use different brain areas. But writing a thank you note while on the phone results in mental strain because speaking and writing share some of the same brain circuitry” (Restak 422). While this may be true, we still are not dedicating all of our time to just one specific task we are working
British princess. Born August 21, 1930, at Glamis Castle in Scotland, as the second daughter of King George VI of the United Kingdom (who ruled from 1937 to his death in 1952) and sister of Queen Elizabeth II (1952--). In the early 1950s, the romance between Margaret—then third in line to the throne after her sister’s two children, Charles and Anne—and Group Captain Peter Townsend, a highly decorated World War II fighter pilot and recent divorcé, caused quite a scandal both within and outside of the British royal family.
In response to how fast everything around us, our brain has had to adapt. In his essay, Restak says, “we can be at two places at one time.” For example, you can be talking to someone in person but texting someone else at the same time. Technology has made it possible for us to contact someone in the other side of the world without having to be there in person. This makes us immediately available in more than one place at a time. Yet all of this has to do with our ability to what we call multitasking. Multitasking is something everyone does every day whether they realize it or not. As I said before, when you are talking to a friend and texting someone else at the same time you are multitasking. This is just another example of a way the human brain has had to adapt. Yet this also may not be as efficient as many people would think. In his essay, Restak supports this when he writes, “When you are multitasking your attention at any given moment is directed more towards one of the activates that you are doing rather than both at the same time. Your frontal lobes (which are the main control centers toward the front of your brain) must shift goals and activate new rules of operation. You also encourage different sensory experiences, which makes it harder and takes even longer to get one thing done.” Our brains are designed to work more efficiently when it works on a single task. Until very recently our minds have had to
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279-301.
Tugend goes over the impact of interruptions on work. She states that it takes a long time to get refocused after an interruption. Tugend notes that work gets done quicker when a person endures interruptions, but the work quality suffers greatly because of the increase in stress. She states that while other people are interruptions, the biggest interruption is ourselves (Tugend 717). Along with that, human attention spans are decreasing making interruption much more likely to happen. The time people spend on an activity before switching is not enough to really get into it (Tugend 717).
Performing well in at certain tasks and retaining information both require a high level of attention. Multitasking requires that this attention be divided amongst different tasks. As a result, the some of the attention used for a certain task must now be used for other tasks, which affects the factors needed to complete it. Referring to an experiment that was discussed earlier, Wieth and Burns (2014) stated that even with the reward, the promise of incentive could not override the limits of people’s attention. Retaining information requires undivided attention. The key word is ‘undivided.’ According to this experiment, it is nearly impossible to have the same high level of focus while working on multiple tasks that a person would while working on one task. Once someone has reached the end of their attention span, their performance begins to falter. In a final experiment involving media multitasking and attention, Ralph, Thomson, Cheyne, and Smilek (2014) stated that multitasking can lead to mind wandering and lapses in attention, which distracts people from their tasks. These results show that once their attention is divided, it can lead to distractions and difficulty completing different tasks. It is difficult to complete one assignment while focusing on several others at the same time. Multitasking affects the attention needed for a task, which can affect everything
Watson, J. B. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. The American Psychologist, 55(3), 313-317. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/
In 2013, The Journal of Memory and Language published a research-backed cognitive psychology article titled “How many words can we read at once? More intervenor effects in masked priming” by Kenneth I. Forster. Forster, a professor of Psychology at the University of Arizona, assesses that “when a masked word intervenes between the prime (L1 (native language)) and the target (L2 (second language), three words must be processed simultaneously, and that under these conditions, form priming is eliminated altogether and identity priming is reduced, suggesting that the capacity of the lexical processor does not extend to three words”. It is argued that the differential effect of the intervenor on identity and form priming can be explained using the assumption that priming takes place at the level of form as well as the level of meaning. Forster, through this research, generalizes the information collected from all the higher degree seeking individuals as if to say that since this is true for college freshman it must be true for all grade levels. Even though I understand his questions and his motives in not only the questions he asks but also his experiments and the objectives he was trying to achieve by stating that “each time we read a word, we must recover the stored information about the phonology, syntax, and semantics of that word. Moreover, this information must be retrieved extremely rapidly and because so much processing has to be done, it seems obvious that the processing of one word must overlap to some degree with the processing of the next word” (1). Though Forster offers many valid points pertaining to the amount of words we can read at once, he fails to acknowledge those who do not fall into this category by only testing U...
Craik and Tulving did a series of experiments on the depth of processing model. They had participants use a series of processing methods to encode words at different levels; shallow, moderate, and deep. The subjects were shown a series of words and ask questions about the words that would provide a "yes" or "no" response. At the shallow level they were asked questions about whether or not the word was written in capital letters. At the moderate level of processing, the subject was asked questions as to whether or not two words rhymed. Finally, the subjects were asked about words in sentences and whether or not they fit. This was the deep level of processing. After participants had completed the task they were then given a surprise recognition test with the words that they were just asked questions on (target words) and then words that they have never seen before (distraction words). The results of the experiment showed that people remembered the words better that were at deeper level of processing (Craik and Tulving 1975).
This phenomenon of memory has been tested many times using the Wadsworth CogLab false memory experiment. In the Wadsworth experiment, participants are presented with a list of words each of which is shown for one and half seconds. These experiments usually entail six trial lists. After each list is shown, the participants are given a set of response buttons labeled with the words from the list. The buttons also include normal distractor words (a word that is unrelated to the list but was not shown), and special distractor words (a word that is related
Berkowitz, L. & Cotton, J. (1984). Cognitive Dissonance in Selective Exposure. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 357-373.
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. Psychological review, 88(5), 375.