Guide
Is multitasking a myth?
Answering a message in the middle of an email, glancing at a feed during a call: it feels like doing two things at once. Research says the mind mostly switches, and every switch has a price.
In short. Two tasks that both need thought are done by switching, and each switch costs time, more for complex tasks. A 2009 Stanford study found that heavy media multitaskers were more easily distracted and, surprisingly, worse at switching. Later research is mixed: a 2017 meta-analysis found the link weak, and a 2018 review says heavier multitaskers often, but not always, do worse. Either way, fewer switches is the cheaper way to work.
What happens when you “multitask”
In four experiments, Joshua Rubinstein, David Meyer and Jeffrey Evans had people alternate between tasks, such as sorting shapes by different rules or solving sums with different operations, or repeat the same task. Alternating cost time, and the cost grew with the complexity of the rules. It shrank when a visual cue said which task came next, and switching into an unfamiliar task took longer than switching back to a familiar one.
Each switch is short. But a working day of messages, tabs and alerts can hold a great many of them.
Are heavy multitaskers worse at it?
| Study | What it found |
|---|---|
| Ophir, Nass and Wagner, 2009 | People who often use several media at once were more distracted by irrelevant things around them and in memory, and did worse on a task-switching test |
| Wiradhany and Nieuwenstein, 2017: two replications and a meta-analysis | Only 5 of 14 tests repeated the effect; across 39 effects the link was weak, and not significant after correcting for small studies |
| Uncapher and Wagner, 2018, a review | Heavier media multitaskers often do worse, mostly on tasks that need sustained attention, but many studies find no difference, and cause and effect are unknown |
So the cost of each switch is well established. Whether a multitasking habit changes how your mind works in the long run is not.
How to switch less
- Batch similar tasks: all replies in one block, all calls in another.
- Read important things in one go, on paper if you can: reading on paper vs screens.
- Give the next task a clear cue. In the experiments, knowing what came next made the switch cheaper: a short list on paper does that.
- Let fewer things interrupt you: notifications from people only, mail at set times. What one buzz costs.
- Park what you cannot finish with a note of when you will return to it, so it stops tugging: why an unwritten idea nags at you.
- Notice the quick checks, which are switches too: the checking habit.
A smaller detour
A quick answer on your finger is a smaller detour than a phone with twenty apps behind its lock screen: one line, then back to what you were doing. Lychnos Ring is designed that way, and to buzz only for what you chose. We do not claim it improves focus; it is in development.
Sources, read 4 November 2026: Rubinstein, Meyer and Evans, executive control of cognitive processes in task switching, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2001; Ophir, Nass and Wagner, cognitive control in media multitaskers, PNAS, 2009; Wiradhany and Nieuwenstein, two replication studies and a meta-analysis, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 2017; Uncapher and Wagner, minds and brains of media multitaskers, PNAS, 2018. Abstracts read at Europe PMC. General information.
Questions
Can people really multitask?
For two tasks that both need thought, mostly not: the mind switches between them, and each switch costs time. In classic experiments, the cost grew with the complexity of the tasks and shrank when a clear cue said which task came next.
Does media multitasking harm your attention?
The evidence is mixed. A 2009 Stanford study found heavy media multitaskers more distractible; later replications and a 2017 meta-analysis found the link weak, and a 2018 review says heavier multitaskers often, but not always, do worse.