tag:theconversation.com,2011:/global/topics/attention-span-23989/articlesAttention span – The Conversation2023-11-30T09:06:25Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2187562023-11-30T09:06:25Z2023-11-30T09:06:25ZHow smartphones weaken attention spans in children and adults<p>It’s no secret that smartphones and other digital devices control and consume our attention, both among adults and young people. This can be illustrated with three different, but very common scenarios:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>A group of teenagers are sat beside one another. Each of them is staring down into a screen. </p></li>
<li><p>Commuters on public transport are hunched over their phones, scrolling infinitely through social media or playing an addictive game. Very few people are reading a book, or even looking out of the window.</p></li>
<li><p>You are finishing a presentation for work on the computer. An email notification comes in from a colleague with a link to a short, amusing video. The link takes you to social media site which then offers you another video, followed by another. Before you know it, an hour has gone by and the presentation remains unfinished. </p></li>
</ol>
<h2>Trapped in an app</h2>
<p>The three examples above demonstrate how mobile applications are designed to trap our attention. Most apps work like this because because they are free. Instead of charging the user, they make money by harvesting data and advertising. The more time we spend looking at the screen, the more data and advertising we consume.</p>
<p>According to <a href="https://www.ine.es/prensa/tich_2022.pdf">data from 2022 published by the Spanish National Statistics Institute</a>, 40% of children aged 11 have a phone. This number jumps up to 75% at 12 years old and then to 90% at age 14. The apps that they use on these phones are the same as those used by adults, and they respond to the industrial logic of the internet: they provide things quickly, efficiently, and with minimum effort for the user. </p>
<p>Children today are digital natives, meaning they have never known life without internet access. They have been raised on clicks, jumping from content to content without a second thought. In the words of the philosopher <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byung-Chul_Han">Byung-Chul Han</a> in his 2021 book <a href="https://books.google.es/books/about/Non_things.html?id=q_qxzgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y"><em>Non-things</em></a>, this kind of constant stimulation means that “we quickly come to need new stimuli. We get used to seeing reality as a source of stimuli and surprises.” We struggle to focus our attention on any one thing and this “tsunami of information agitates our cognitive system.”</p>
<h2>Changes in the brain</h2>
<p>In this sense, loss of attention is related to a decline in our ability to concentrate. As <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_G._Carr">Nicholas Carr</a> pointed out in his 2010 book <a href="https://www.google.es/books/edition/The_Shallows/AsZ1R3l96FEC?hl=en&gbpv=0"><em>The Shallows: what the internet is doing to our brains</em></a>, the brain changes according to our experiences. Books, for example, can train the brain to deeply focus its attention on one task, while mobile devices encourage us to peck and hover over the surface of things without fully grasping them.</p>
<p>When we receive information in large quantities, <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-critical-thinking-isnt-enough-to-beat-information-overload-we-need-to-learn-critical-ignoring-198549">it stops being meaningful</a>. When faced with an overwhelming amount of it, our brains react by blocking the information, but the discarded content does not simply evaporate from our minds. Instead it lingers, preventing us from figuring out what we are interested in, and limiting our attention span.</p>
<h2>Impacts on the way we learn</h2>
<p>Mobile phone addiction and the <a href="https://blogs.uoc.edu/elearning-innovation-center/es/los-jovenes-y-los-contenidos-digitales-una-relacion-en-movimiento/">way young people learn</a> are both directly connected to the concept of <em>[mind wandering]</em>(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360131522001877). An excess of information inputs makes us switch off and lose attention, and this can be damaging in the long term.</p>
<p>In order to recover attention, the brain needs to take a break and <a href="https://theconversation.com/hacia-una-ecologia-de-la-atencion-necesitamos-espacios-libres-de-estimulos-161229">find time and space where it can be free from constant noise</a>. Adults – who generally have better willpower, critical thinking skills, perception of time and organisation – can make the effort to find these much needed spaces to focus attention.</p>
<p>Children, on the other hand, have not yet acquired these behaviour strategies, and run the risk of never recovering their attention spans. If we give children and teenagers access to digital devices before they have developed these skills, we give their attention free rein to wander. It will then become harder and harder for them to focus on a task for the necessary amount of time.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/218756/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Las personas firmantes no son asalariadas, ni consultoras, ni poseen acciones, ni reciben financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y han declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado anteriormente.</span></em></p>Children are not equipped to deal with the information overload that comes from using digital devicesIgnacio Blanco-Alfonso, Catedrático de Periodismo de la Universidad CEU San Pablo (Madrid, España), Universidad CEU San PabloMaría Solano Altaba, Profesora de la Facultad de Humanidades y CC. Comunicación Universidad CEU San Pablo, Universidad CEU San PabloLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2168282023-11-16T01:33:57Z2023-11-16T01:33:57ZDoes screen use really impact our thinking skills? Our analysis suggests it could<p>Screens have become seamlessly integrated into our daily lives, serving as indispensable tools for work, education and leisure. But while they enrich our lives in countless ways, we often fail to consider the potential impact of screen time on our cognitive abilities.</p>
<p>In a <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11065-023-09612-4">new meta-analysis</a> of dozens of earlier studies, we’ve found a clear link between disordered screen use and lower cognitive functioning.</p>
<p>The findings suggest we should exercise caution before advocating for more screen time, and before introducing screens into even more aspects of daily life. </p>
<h2>Young people’s screen time is increasing</h2>
<p>In 2020, a UNSW Gonski Institute for Education report <a href="https://www.gie.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/UNSW%20GIE%20GUD%20Phase%201%20Technical%20Report%20MAR20%20v2.pdf">noted a concerning statistic</a>: about 84% of Australian educators believe digital technologies are distracting in a learning environment.</p>
<p>And according to the ABC, a recent Beyond Blue <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-18/mental-health-depression-anxiety-support-coming-for-schools/102831464">survey</a> of Australian teachers identified excessive screen time as the second-most significant challenge for young people, just behind mental health issues. </p>
<p>Despite mounting concerns, more than half of Australian schools have embraced a “<a href="https://www.linewize.io/anz/blog/the-rise-of-byod-in-australian-schools">bring your own device</a>” policy. Students are spending more time online than <a href="https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/students-computers-and-learning_9789264239555-en#page46">ever before</a> and starting at increasingly younger ages. A 2021 report by <a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/report/8-18-census-integrated-report-final-web_0.pdf">Common Sense Media</a> estimated tweens spend an average of 5 hours and 33 minutes using screen-based entertainment each day, while teenagers devote a whopping 8 hours and 39 minutes.</p>
<p>A surge in screen use has led to some individuals, including children, adolescents and adults, developing screen-related addictions. One example is gaming disorder, for which <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0004867420962851">2–3% of people</a> meet the criteria. </p>
<h2>What is ‘disordered screen use’?</h2>
<p>The impact of screens on our cognitive abilities – that is, our thinking skills such as attention, memory, language and problem-solving – has sparked much debate. </p>
<p>On one hand, some researchers and reporters claim screen use can have negative effects, such as <a href="https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-022-12701-3">health problems</a>, shortened attention <a href="https://time.com/3858309/attention-spans-goldfish/">spans</a> and hindered <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312489265_The_relationship_between_television_exposure_and_children's_cognition_and_behaviour_A_systematic_review">development</a>.</p>
<p>On the other, schools are <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/education/tech-takeover-classrooms-crowded-with-digital-devices-20200125-p53ul1.html">increasingly adopting</a> technology to boost student engagement. Tech companies are also marketing their products as tools to help you enhance your problem-solving and memory skills.</p>
<p>Our <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11065-023-09612-4">recent study</a> sought to understand the potential cognitive consequences of “disordered screen-related behaviours”. This is a broad category of problematic behaviours that may include screen dependency, and persisting with screen use even when it’s harmful.</p>
<p>We conducted a meta-analysis of 34 studies that explored various forms of screen use (including gaming, internet browsing, smartphone use and social media use) and compared the cognitive performance of individuals with disordered screen use to those without it. </p>
<p>Our findings paint a concerning picture.</p>
<h2>Differences in cognitive function</h2>
<p>Across these rigorously peer-reviewed studies, individuals with disordered screen use consistently demonstrated significantly poorer cognitive performance compared to others.</p>
<p>The most affected cognitive domain was attention, and specifically sustained attention, which is the ability to maintain focus on an unchanging stimulus for an extended period.</p>
<p>The second-most notable difference was in their “executive functioning” – particularly in impulse control, which is the ability to control one’s automatic responses. </p>
<p>Interestingly, the type of screen activity didn’t make a difference in the results. The trend also wasn’t confined to children, but was observed across all age groups.</p>
<h2>Two ways to interpret the results</h2>
<p>Why do people with disordered screen-related behaviours have poorer cognitive functioning? </p>
<p>The first explanation is that disordered screen use actually leads to poorer cognitive function, including poorer attention skills (but we’ll need more experimental and longitudinal studies to establish causality).</p>
<p>If this is the case, it may be the result of being constantly bombarded by algorithms and features designed to capture our attention. By diverting our focus outward, screen use may weaken one’s intrinsic ability to concentrate over time.</p>
<p>Crucially, impaired attention also <a href="https://akjournals.com/view/journals/2006/10/1/article-p77.xml">makes it harder to disengage</a> from addictive behaviours, and would therefore make it harder to recognise when screen use has become a problem.</p>
<p>The second explanation is that people who already have poorer cognitive functioning (such as less inhibitory control) are more likely to engage in disordered screen use. </p>
<p>This could be a result of the plethora of addictive cues designed to keep us glued to our screens. Being bombarded by these could make it harder to <a href="https://akjournals.com/view/journals/2006/9/4/article-p990.xml">pull the brakes</a> on screen use.</p>
<p>Although the literature doesn’t seem to favour this explanation – and does seem to suggest that cognitive functioning is impaired as a result of disordered screen use – it’s still a possibility we can’t rule out. </p>
<p>Attention is the bedrock of everyday tasks. People with weakened attention may struggle to keep up in less stimulating environments, such as a static workplace or classroom. They may find themselves turning to a screen as a result.</p>
<p>Similarly, people with less inhibitory control would also find it more challenging to moderate their screen use. This could be what drives them towards problematic screen-related behaviours in the first place.</p>
<h2>Who should shoulder the responsibility?</h2>
<p>Research indicates people with impaired cognitive functioning usually aren’t as well equipped to moderate their own screen time. </p>
<p>Many users with disordered screen use are <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563220302326?casa_token=BQv_N_MFffYAAAAA:AsGkAfdwXjCZHJB463G40Mx-ckS2Q1c8jSOn2SWR_9iW64eWaQsru1IJAZBDCgSPXwhZ3Qwl">young</a>, with mainly males engaging in internet gaming and mainly females engaging in social media use. Neurodiverse people are <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/9/5587">also at greater risk</a>. </p>
<p>Tech companies are driven by the goal of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/18/netflix-competitor-sleep-uber-facebook">capturing our attention</a>. For instance, Netflix chief executive Reed Hastings acknowledged the company’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/18/netflix-competitor-sleep-uber-facebook">most formidable competitor was sleep</a>.</p>
<p>At the same time, researchers find themselves struggling to keep up with the pace of technological innovation. A potential path forward is to encourage open-access data policies from tech companies, so researchers can delve deeper into the study of screen use and its effect on individuals. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/tv-can-be-educational-but-social-media-likely-harms-mental-health-what-70-years-of-research-tells-us-about-children-and-screens-216638">TV can be educational but social media likely harms mental health: what 70 years of research tells us about children and screens</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/216828/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michoel Moshel receives funding from an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Batchelor, Joanne Bennett, and Wayne Warburton do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A meta-analysis of 34 studies has explored how disordered screen use may impact the cognitive performance of individuals.Michoel Moshel, PhD/Masters Clinical Neuropsychology Candidate, Macquarie UniversityJennifer Batchelor, Associate Professor, School of Psychological Sciences, Macquarie UniversityJoanne Bennett, Lecturer, Australian Catholic UniversityWayne Warburton, Associate Professor, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1772962022-02-18T14:33:12Z2022-02-18T14:33:12ZThere are challenges but also potential benefits of digital distractions<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/447276/original/file-20220218-44643-6kokyt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=24%2C20%2C2671%2C2025&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/cute-funny-girl-sitting-comfy-armchair-1470755900">GoodStudio/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>We are in the midst of a battle for our attention. Our devices have hijacked our brains and destroyed our collective ability to concentrate – to the extent that we’re even seeing the emergence of a “<a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/curse-goldfish-generation-phones-making-us-forgetful/">goldfish generation</a>”. That, at least, is the story that’s increasingly being told. But should we be paying attention to it?</p>
<p>Journalist Johann Hari’s new book, <a href="https://www.vox.com/vox-conversations-podcast/2022/2/8/22910773/vox-conversations-johann-hari-stolen-focus">Stolen Focus</a>, has just joined a chorus of voices lamenting the attention crisis of the digital age. His and other recent books reflect, and perhaps fuel, a public perception that our focus is under attack.</p>
<p>Indeed, in <a href="https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/how-people-focus-and-live-in-the-modern-information-environment.pdf">new research</a> by the Policy Institute and Centre for <a href="https://attentionstudies.org/">Attention Studies at King’s College London</a>, we found some clear concerns. </p>
<p>Faced with the kinds of findings that arose from our research, it is easy to be nostalgic about a past that existed before the digital revolution. But new technologies have been blamed for causing crises of distraction long before the digital age, so how should we respond to the current challenges?</p>
<h2>An attention crisis?</h2>
<p>We surveyed a nationally representative sample of 2,093 UK adults in September 2021, asking about their perceptions of their attention spans, their beliefs in various claims about our ability to focus, and how they use technology today.</p>
<p>Half of those surveyed felt their attention spans were shorter than they used to be, compared with a quarter who didn’t. And three-quarters of participants agreed we’re living through a time where there’s non-stop competition for our attention from a variety of media channels and information outlets.</p>
<p>The distraction caused by mobile phones in particular appeared to be a real issue. Half of those surveyed admitted they couldn’t stop checking their phones when they should be focusing on other things – and this wasn’t just an issue for the young. Despite the generational stereotypes of teenagers glued to their screens, a majority of middle-aged people said they struggle with this too.</p>
<p>And although many recognised that they spent a lot of time on their phones, they still hugely underestimated just how much. The public’s average guess was that they checked their phones <a href="https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/how-people-focus-and-live-in-the-modern-information-environment.pdf">25 times a day</a> but according to previous research, the reality is more likely somewhere between 49 and 80 times a day.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="People looking at their phones." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/447277/original/file-20220218-17-1p03a7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/447277/original/file-20220218-17-1p03a7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=306&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447277/original/file-20220218-17-1p03a7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=306&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447277/original/file-20220218-17-1p03a7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=306&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447277/original/file-20220218-17-1p03a7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447277/original/file-20220218-17-1p03a7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447277/original/file-20220218-17-1p03a7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People of all ages surveyed worried that they were too easily distracted by their phones.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/happy-people-using-smartphones-men-women-2112903008">GoodStudio/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There has long been a worry about the threat to attention brought by new cultural forms, whether that’s social media or the <a href="https://victorianweb.org/genre/sensation.html">cheap paperback sensation novels</a> of the 19th century. Even as far back as ancient Greece, Socrates lamented that the written word creates “<a href="https://newlearningonline.com/literacies/chapter-1/socrates-on-the-forgetfulness-that-comes-with-writing">forgetfulness in our souls”</a>“. There has always been a tendency to fear the effects new media and technologies will have on our minds.</p>
<p>The reality is we simply don’t have the long-term studies that tell us whether our collective attention span has actually shrunk. What we do know from our study is that people overestimate some of the problems. For example, half of those surveyed wrongly believed the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38896790">thoroughly debunked</a> claim that the average attention span among adults today is just eight seconds, supposedly worse than that of a goldfish. There’s not really any such thing as an average attention span. Our ability to focus varies hugely depending on the individual and the task at hand.</p>
<h2>Attention snacking</h2>
<p>It’s also important to not overlook the many benefits that technology brings to how we live. Much of the public surveyed recognised these, so while half thought big tech and social media were ruining young people’s attention spans, roughly another half felt that being easily distracted was more to do with people’s personalities than any negative influence that technology may or may not have.</p>
<p>That aside, is "dispersed” attention always a bad thing?</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Woman in supermarket looks at her phone as she grabs for a box." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/447280/original/file-20220218-43804-g919i8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/447280/original/file-20220218-43804-g919i8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447280/original/file-20220218-43804-g919i8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447280/original/file-20220218-43804-g919i8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=414&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447280/original/file-20220218-43804-g919i8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=520&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447280/original/file-20220218-43804-g919i8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=520&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447280/original/file-20220218-43804-g919i8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=520&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Does getting distracted by phones stop people from efficiently completing tasks?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/customer-choosing-buying-food-smartphone-grocery-2097481591">GoodStudio/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Two-thirds of the public in our study believed switching focus between different media and devices harms our ability to complete simple tasks – a belief confirmed by <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15583">psychological studies</a>. Intriguingly, half of the public also believed multi-tasking at work, switching frequently between email, phone calls, or other tasks, can create a more efficient and satisfactory work experience.</p>
<p>So what if we explore the benefits of distraction as well as the negative impacts? Might we find a more balanced picture in which distraction is not always in and of itself a bad thing, but a problem in certain contexts and productive in others? In other words, what if those lamenting a crisis in attention are not wrong, but only represent part of the picture?</p>
<p>For all the challenges we experience in having our attention toggle between tasks, in some scenarios, this might help refresh the mind, keep us alert, and stimulate brain connections and creativity. Unified attention may be an ideal, but it may not always be a realistic good for the type of animal that we humans are.</p>
<p>We hear about the benefits for the body of “<a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p09ws5kv">exercise snacking</a>” or circuit training, so perhaps we need to ask how we might harness the potential benefits for the mind of “attention snacking”. The brain is, after all, a physical organ.</p>
<p>There is no question that we need to figure out how to live better with the “attention economy”, and that the monetisation of our attention is challenging us in fundamental ways. However, our electronic gadgets are not going away and we need to learn how to harness them (and the distractions they pose) for individual and social good.</p>
<p>Our attention has always been the only real currency we have, and for that reason, it has always been fought over; this is not a new problem, but in the digital age it is taking new forms. We need a better response to this situation – one that understands the risks but is also bolder in asking questions about the opportunities.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/177296/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marion Thain is Director of the Centre for Attention Studies at King's College London (a university research centre). </span></em></p>‘Attention snacking’ may help keep us alert.Marion Thain, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Humanities, King's College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1669502021-09-07T20:07:48Z2021-09-07T20:07:48ZIf you’re annoyed by other people’s fidgeting or finger-tapping, you’re not alone: Misokinesia affects 1 in 3<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/419857/original/file-20210907-23-1givmyz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=853%2C103%2C4725%2C3681&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Annoyance with others' fidgeting can reduce peoples' ability to enjoy social interactions, impair one's ability to learn in the classroom and create difficulties at work.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Are you bothered by seeing someone else fidget? Do you ever have strong negative feelings, thoughts or physical reactions when viewing other peoples’ repetitive movements such as foot shaking, finger tapping or gum chewing?</p>
<p>Well, if you do, you aren’t alone. </p>
<p>In <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-96430-4">a new study</a> we ran as attentional neuroscientists, we put that question to a sample of over 2,700 undergraduates and found that more than one-third said yes. And it wasn’t just students who had such sensitivities. When we went out and asked people in the general population about how they feel when others around them begin to twiddle, tap or jiggle, they too reported negative reactions at a similar rate. </p>
<p>Many of us humans, it turns out, are challenged by fidgeting.</p>
<h2>‘Hatred of movement’</h2>
<p>Termed misokinesia, or “the hatred of movement” in Greek, these reactions can have <a href="https://drezracowan.com/misokinesia">serious social impacts</a> for those who experience them. As our findings confirmed, it can reduce peoples’ ability to enjoy social interactions, impair one’s ability to learn in the classroom and create difficulties at work. </p>
<p>There was a lot of individual variability in the range of challenges people reported: some had a lot of difficulties, some just a few. We also discovered that these negative social impacts seem to increase with age — the older you get, the more intense and widespread your misokinesia reactions may be.</p>
<p>And perhaps even more surprising? We’re only learning this now.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A man's hands twiddling his thumbs" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/419317/original/file-20210903-13-3a75bd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/419317/original/file-20210903-13-3a75bd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419317/original/file-20210903-13-3a75bd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419317/original/file-20210903-13-3a75bd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419317/original/file-20210903-13-3a75bd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419317/original/file-20210903-13-3a75bd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419317/original/file-20210903-13-3a75bd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A study on misokinesia found one in three people is annoyed or angered when other people twiddle thumbs, tap a foot, or otherwise fidget.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For several decades there has been growing scientific recognition of a similar challenge associated with hearing the sounds other people make. If you are bothered by sounds like slurping, lip-smacking and gum chewing, you may have a disorder called misophonia. It’s defined, in a paper that has not been peer-reviewed, as a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.05.21254951">decreased tolerance to specific sounds, in which such sounds evoke strong negative emotional, physiological and behavioural responses</a>.</p>
<p>Misokinesia, on the other hand, has remained in the scientific shadows. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054706">Originally mentioned</a> in a study of misophonia by the Dutch psychiatrist Arjan Schröder and his colleagues in 2013, it had never been the focus of a peer-reviewed study until our paper was published in August. So for now, we have a lot more questions than answers.</p>
<p>Most prominent among these is, why are so many of us bothered by fidgeting?</p>
<h2>Why we fidget</h2>
<p>We think the answer might tie back to why we fidget in the first place. In addition to evidence suggesting that we often fidget as a way to mindlessly burn <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.283.5399.212">extra calories</a>, another clear reason is that we do it when we are feeling <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2014.919386">nervous or anxious</a>. And that’s where the problem may be for those who have to see it.</p>
<p>The trouble is, our human brains are equipped with an exquisite capacity to mimic the actions we see others perform. This is the function of our so-called “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144230">mirror neuron system</a>,” which helps us understand the actions and intentions of others by “mirroring” their actions in the same brain areas that we would use to make similar actions of our own. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Fingers drumming on a desk" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/419319/original/file-20210903-25-dhzc00.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/419319/original/file-20210903-25-dhzc00.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419319/original/file-20210903-25-dhzc00.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419319/original/file-20210903-25-dhzc00.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419319/original/file-20210903-25-dhzc00.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419319/original/file-20210903-25-dhzc00.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419319/original/file-20210903-25-dhzc00.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Misokenesia can affect social interactions, ability to learn in school or workplace interactions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While this can be critical to normal human <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0184">social interactions</a>, if we start mirroring actions that we associate with anxiety and other negative emotional states — actions like nervous fidgeting — that very well may trigger those negative states as we observe them. While this is speculative for now, we will soon be exploring it as an explanation for misokinesia in a new set of experiments.</p>
<p>But importantly, there is also a lot more to misokinesia’s immediate impacts than just the potential rush of negative emotions whenever fidgeting is encountered, and this raises another pressing question we’ve been pursuing.</p>
<h2>Fidgeting and attention</h2>
<p>In a new experiment we have yet to publish, we recently asked people to watch a pair of short instructional videos that showed a person talking, and then after each video we gave them a memory assessment, to determine how much information they retained from each one. The critical manipulation was that in one video the person talking occasionally fidgeted with their hand, and in the other they did not.</p>
<p>In interviews we’ve had with misokinesics, a common report is that beyond the aversive reactions fidgeting can trigger, it also impedes peoples’ ability to pay attention to whatever else may be happening around them. And so this raised another question for us — does misokinesia distract people from their surroundings?</p>
<p>The answer, our preliminary data suggest, is yes.</p>
<p>For those with higher levels of misokinesia, their memory performance was worse relative to both those not reporting any sensitivities, and those with lower sensitivity levels. And the effect wasn’t just due to overall poorer memory systems in those with higher levels of misokinesia; they performed equally well on basic assessments of memory.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/419860/original/file-20210907-13-q8kc73.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A woman in business clothes clicking a ballpoint pen" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/419860/original/file-20210907-13-q8kc73.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/419860/original/file-20210907-13-q8kc73.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419860/original/file-20210907-13-q8kc73.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419860/original/file-20210907-13-q8kc73.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419860/original/file-20210907-13-q8kc73.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419860/original/file-20210907-13-q8kc73.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/419860/original/file-20210907-13-q8kc73.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Repetitive motions such as clicking a pen or tapping a finger can trigger negative reactions in people with misokinesia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While this second study is still awaiting peer-review, what it helps to confirm is that misokinesia isn’t just an experience of negative emotions. It alters how people can engage with the world around them, impacting what they see, hear, or might otherwise simply enjoy.</p>
<p>This also helps to explain something else we’ve recently found. </p>
<p>In unpublished interviews we’ve had with misokinesics, they have reported adopting a variety of strategies to help them cope with these negative emotions and attentional distractions, including leaving rooms, blocking individuals from view, seeking out cognitive behavioural therapy and even physically mimicking the observed fidgeting behaviour. </p>
<p>Given what we’re now learning about misokinesia, this shouldn’t be surprising — the impacts can be serious, people need support, and we need to be more aware of this widespread social challenge.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/166950/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Todd Handy receives funding from NSERC. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sumeet Jaswal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If fidgety movements like drumming fingers or a swaying foot annoy you, there’s a word for that: Misokinesia.Todd Handy, Professor of Psychology, University of British ColumbiaSumeet Jaswal, PhD Student in Psychology, University of British ColumbiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1540362021-02-01T12:12:41Z2021-02-01T12:12:41ZTouchscreens may make toddlers more distractible – new three-year study<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/381123/original/file-20210128-23-techgb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C15%2C5168%2C3430&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/toddler-staring-tablet-education-gadget-dependency-770994562">riggleton/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Working from home as a parent, a touchscreen device can be a marvellous tool. Pass one to your child, and they’ll be quietly occupied for your Zoom meeting, or for the crunch time as you approach an important deadline. Yet touchscreens can also feel like a tradeoff for parents, who have long feared that screen time may be harmful for their childrens’ development.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81775-7">Our three-year study</a> following children from the age of one to three-and-a-half measured the link between touchscreen use and toddlers’ attention. For the first time, we were able to show that toddlers who used touchscreens were less able to avoid distractions when completing a task on a screen than toddlers with no or low daily touchscreen use. On the other hand, we found that toddlers with high daily touchscreen use were better able to spot flashy, attention-grabbing objects when they first appear on a screen.</p>
<p>These findings are important given the rising levels of screen time observed during COVID-19 national lockdowns. In the UK, for instance, <a href="https://www.psy.ox.ac.uk/news/ep-researchers-find-that-uk-lockdown-linked-to-widening-disadvantage-gap-for-babies-and-toddlers">three in four parents have reported</a> that their children have spent more time watching TV or playing with a tablet during lockdowns. <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/about-ofcom/latest/media/media-releases/2020/uk-internet-use-surges">Individual adult screen time</a> also went up by an hour across the board during the UK’s spring lockdown.</p>
<p>Even before the pandemic, mobile media was already an integral part of family life. Some <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/media-literacy-research/childrens/children-and-parents-media-use-and-attitudes-report-2019">63% of toddlers aged three to four</a> used a tablet at home in 2019 – more than double the percentage identified by similar research in 2013. <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27531985/">In our previous studies</a>, we recorded daily touchscreen-device usage by children as young as six months of age.</p>
<h2>Toddlers on tablets</h2>
<p>Mobile touchscreen media, such as smartphones and tablets, are a common form of entertainment for infants and toddlers. But there has been growing concern that touchscreen use in toddlers may negatively affect the development of their attention. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A young girl uses a touchscreen phone on a kitchen table" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/381185/original/file-20210128-13-3i84r8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/381185/original/file-20210128-13-3i84r8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381185/original/file-20210128-13-3i84r8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381185/original/file-20210128-13-3i84r8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381185/original/file-20210128-13-3i84r8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381185/original/file-20210128-13-3i84r8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/381185/original/file-20210128-13-3i84r8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Young children are using touchscreen technology more than ever during lockdowns.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/girl-play-phone-cafe-during-waiting-299527919">Elena Stepanova/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The first few years of life are critical for children to <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-121318-085114">learn how to control their attention</a>, selecting relevant information from the environment while ignoring distractions. These early attention skills are known to promote later social and academic success – but until recently there was no empirical scientific evidence to suggest a negative impact of touchscreen use on attention control.</p>
<p>In 2015, we started the <a href="https://www.cinelabresearch.com/tablet-project">TABLET Project</a> at Birkbeck’s Centre for Brain and Cognitive Development to see whether any such association might exist. We followed 53 one-year-old infants who had different levels of touchscreen usage. We observed them through toddlerhood (18 months) and up to pre-school age (three-and-a-half years). </p>
<p>At each age, parents reported online how long their child spent using a touchscreen device (tablet, smartphone or touchscreen laptop) each day. Families also visited our <a href="http://www.cbcd.bbk.ac.uk/babylab">Babylab</a> to complete a set of experimental assessments with the research team. This included some computer tasks which used an eye-tracker, enabling researchers to quantify very precisely what babies looked at on a screen. </p>
<p>By measuring how fast and how often toddlers looked at objects that appeared in different screen locations, we could understand how children controlled their attention. We were particularly interested in their “saliency-driven” attention (an automatic form of attention which allows us to react quickly to moving, bright or colourful objects) and their “goal-driven” attention (a voluntary form of attention that helps us focus on task-relevant things).</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380990/original/file-20210127-13-1m2ruyt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380990/original/file-20210127-13-1m2ruyt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380990/original/file-20210127-13-1m2ruyt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380990/original/file-20210127-13-1m2ruyt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380990/original/file-20210127-13-1m2ruyt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380990/original/file-20210127-13-1m2ruyt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380990/original/file-20210127-13-1m2ruyt.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An example of what appears on screen when we measure toddlers’ attention. Illustrated by Ana Maria Portugal, researcher in the TABLET team.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>After three years of data collection, we found that infants and toddlers with high touchscreen use had faster saliency-driven attention. This means they were quicker to spot new stimuli on the screen, like a cartoon lion which suddenly appears. This effect replicated and confirmed our findings in <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2769281">a previous study in 2020</a>.</p>
<p>We then presented tasks that directly required toddlers to suppress their saliency-driven attention and instead use voluntary attention. We found that the children with higher touchscreen use were both slower to deliberately control their attention, and less able to ignore distracting objects when trying to focus their attention on a different target.</p>
<h2>Grabbing attention</h2>
<p>Our research is not conclusive and does not demonstrate a causal role of touchscreens. It could also be that more distractible children happen to be more attracted by and absorbed in the attention-grabbing features of interactive screens. </p>
<p>And, while touchscreens share similarities with TV, and video gaming, our new research finds different associations with attention than previously reported with these other media platforms. This suggests that touchscreens might produce different effects on the developing brain than other screens.</p>
<p>Next, we want to conduct further research which might help us draw conclusions about the positives and negatives of touchscreens for toddlers. For instance, while being faster at spotting a new stimulus on a screen may at first appear to be a negative finding, it’s easy to imagine vocations and situations in which this skill might be incredibly useful – such as air traffic control, or airport security screening. </p>
<p>In our increasingly complex audiovisual media environment, it might actually be useful to prime young children on the digital technologies they’ll use to learn, work, and play. But our findings also present a possible downside: that toddlers with high touchscreen use may find it harder to avoid distraction in busy settings like nursery classrooms.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/154036/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ana Maria Portugal received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span><a href="mailto:rb2246@bath.ac.uk">rb2246@bath.ac.uk</a> receives funding from Wellcome Trust. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Tim Smith receives funding from Leverhulme Trust, Nuffield Foundation, Wellcome, ESRC, and Bial. Professor Smith collaborates with Hopster TV.</span></em></p>Young children may find it harder to control their attention if they use touchscreens regularly.Ana Maria Portugal, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Center of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Karolinska InstitutetRachael Bedford, Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of BathTim J. Smith, Professor, Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/624112016-08-05T01:31:48Z2016-08-05T01:31:48ZThe talking dead: how personality drives smartphone addiction<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/131695/original/image-20160724-26820-z6goya.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Some people are more prone to become glued to their phones than others.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-452331835/stock-photo-abstract-scene-of-young-woman-using-her-smartphone-seriously-while-sitting-outdoor-on-wood-chair-in.html?src=6bfcaTROPU7B6je0YTAGUQ-1-8">'Phone Woman' via www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>How many times a day do you check your smartphone? </p>
<p><a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/cellphone-users-check-phones-150xday-and-other-internet-fun-facts/blogEntry?id=19283674">According to a recent survey</a>, the typical American checks once every six-and-a-half minutes, or approximately 150 times every day. Other research <a href="http://www.tecmark.co.uk/smartphone-usage-data-uk-2014/">has found</a> that number to be as high as 300 times a day. </p>
<p>For young people, the attachment is particularly acute: 53 percent of people between the ages of 15 and 30 <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/cherylsnappconner/2013/09/07/who-wastes-the-most-time-at-work/#4859b1417b3a">reported</a> they would sooner give up their sense of taste than their smartphones.</p>
<p>These data strongly suggest that many may, indeed, be addicted to their smartphones. I’ve studied shopping addiction for 20 years and have a pretty good sense of when normal behaviors veer into unhealthy preoccupations. The fact that <a href="http://jisar.org/2011-4/N1/JISARv4n1p39.html">80 to 90 percent</a> of people use their phones while driving – which, <a href="http://www.donttextdrive.com/statistics/">by one estimate</a>, causes 6,000 deaths and US$9 billion in damages annually – is a clear sign that something is amiss. And as a college professor, I’ve seen, firsthand, the overwhelming distraction caused by smartphones in the classroom. </p>
<p>But I also wondered: Are some people more likely to become addicted to their smartphones than others? There’s a good <a href="http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/features/do-you-have-addictive-personality?page=2">body of research</a> tying certain personality types to being prone to other addictions. Could a similar link exist for smartphone addiction? </p>
<h2>A staggering commitment</h2>
<p>First, I wanted to delve a bit further into the extent of the smartphone’s grip on our attention. So in 2014 <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4291831/">I conducted research</a> with several coauthors on the amount of time young people spent on their phones. We found that college students spend an average of 8 hours and 48 minutes on their smartphones each day (a figure that I still find mind-boggling). </p>
<p>This number joins a host of other findings that speak to an intense attachment: surveys have found that <a href="https://fb-public.box.com/s/3iq5x6uwnqtq7ki4q8wk">79 percent</a> of us reach for our phones within 15 minutes of waking, <a href="http://www.statisticbrain.com/mobile-device-cell-phone-statistics/">68 percent</a> sleep with them, <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/facts-sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet">67 percent</a> check our smartphones even when they’re not ringing or vibrating and <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/facts-sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet">46 percent</a> state that they “can’t live without their smartphones.”</p>
<p>Yet there are still some who are less likely to become enraptured by the smartphone’s many trappings, who rarely use them or eschew them altogether. They’re at the other end of the spectrum from those who have lost control over their use, who exhibit some of the classic signs of addiction – salience, euphoria, tolerance, withdrawal symptoms, conflict and relapse – that I identified when researching my book on smartphone use, “<a href="http://www.smartphoneloveaffair.com">Too Much of a Good Thing</a>.”</p>
<p>To figure out what might make someone susceptible to smartphone addiction, I recently conducted a <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01918869/79">survey</a> with my colleagues Chris Pullig and Chris Manolis to find out if people with certain personality traits were more or less likely to become addicted to their smartphones. Using a sample of 346 average American college students, we investigated which of seven personality traits might predict this disorder. We also measured how impulsive each student was.</p>
<h2>A pacifier and a status symbol?</h2>
<p>Our results allowed us to better understand the role certain traits play in the development of smartphone addiction. First, we discovered that low attention span and high impulsivity were related to smartphone addiction. If you have trouble concentrating on what’s in front of you and staying on task, you’re more likely to impulsively use your smartphone. </p>
<p>These findings come when our attention spans are already shrinking. <a href="http://www.medicaldaily.com/human-attention-span-shortens-8-seconds-due-digital-technology-3-ways-stay-focused-333474">A 2015 study</a> by Microsoft found that the average attention span of the average person is about 8.25 seconds – shorter that the nine-second attention span of the Carassius auratus (the common goldfish), and nearly four seconds shorter than our average attention span 15 years ago (12 seconds).</p>
<p>When it comes to personality traits, three were found to influence your likelihood of being addicted to your cellular device. The first was emotional instability. Moody or temperamental people are more likely to be addicted to their smartphones than their more stable counterparts. It appears that these people may look for a combination of solace and distraction in their smartphones, and as with many substance addictions, compulsively checking notifications or scrolling through news feeds may be an attempt at mood repair – a high-tech pacifier, if you will.</p>
<p>We found extroverted college students – who often seek to be the life of the party and be connected to those around them – were more likely to be addicted to their smartphones than introverted ones. We found that a “sense of being connected” is the most important emotional drive behind smartphone use. So our introverted peers – who do not share this need to connect – might be less inclined to succumb to the smartphone. </p>
<p>Lastly, materialistic students reported being more dependent on their smartphones. This may seem like a bit of an odd connection, but given the major role smartphones now play in the lives of young adults, it’s not surprising. Because young adults are constantly displaying and using their phones in public, the brand and features of their smartphone tells the world a lot about who they are; in essence, their smartphones have become a way to flaunt, the same way an expensive purse or watch might say something about someone’s wealth. </p>
<p>Our obsession with smartphones is a good example of what has been referred to as the “<a href="http://blog.usabilla.com/the-paradox-of-technology-and-5-ways-to-avoid-it/">paradox of technology</a>.” The modern smartphone can free us to do things in places only dreamed of 20 years ago, but they also, in certain ways, enslave us. Has smartphone use reached a tipping point, where it’s crossed the line from beneficial tool to detriment? </p>
<p>It’s your call.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62411/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James A. Roberts does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Are you moody? Prone to distraction? Cellphones may act as a high-tech pacifier.James A. Roberts, Professor of Marketing, Baylor UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/583922016-06-28T09:42:54Z2016-06-28T09:42:54ZWhat’s lost when we photograph life instead of experiencing it?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/128378/original/image-20160627-28379-1k9if1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">With our attention diverted, we're no longer in the moment.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=dZKyVn_djtvsxOkmUeVu9Q&searchterm=phone%20camera%20concerts&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=192756320">'Concert' via www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>At a conference on June 14, Facebook executive Nicola Mendelsohn <a href="http://qz.com/706461/facebook-is-predicting-the-end-of-the-written-word/">predicted</a> that the social networking site would be “all video” within five years.</p>
<p>“We’re seeing a year-on-year decline of text,” she said. “If I was having a bet, I’d say: video, video, video.”</p>
<p>Meanwhile, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/fashion/rat-pack-brat-pack-snapchat.html?_r=0">a recent article</a> in The New York Times chronicled the lives of a group of young socialites – the “Snap Pack” – who plan their nights around snapping photos that can be shared with their followers. The reporter explained: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>For them, taking photos and videos from Instagram and Snapchat is not a way to memorialize a night out. It’s the night’s main event. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>These two stories each arrive at the same conclusion: Images are taking over. </p>
<p>Increasingly, images have become a crucial part of communicating with others, receiving affirmation and documenting new experiences. And though it may seem that a barrage of colors and pixels and faces and scenery could only enrich our imaginations and enhance our engagement with the world, the opposite seems to be taking place.</p>
<p>In her article “Instagram is Ruining Vacation,” journalist Mary Pilon <a href="https://backchannel.com/instagram-is-ruining-vacation-701086a67440#.vxrxqwt7j">described</a> how, when visiting a temple in Cambodia, a sea of tourists became so preoccupied with capturing the perfect, shareable picture that, ironically, “no one was really present.” </p>
<p>Indeed, the compulsive urge to immediately, electronically exhibit one’s self is a phenomenon made uniquely possible by our digital age. Yes, there are benefits to being able to share more images with a greater audience. But the impulse to incessantly document and post has taken precedent over simple focus and direct human connection.</p>
<p>While it can be difficult to neatly measure this shift, researchers across a variety of disciplines are beginning to see and understand its consequences. </p>
<h2>Life in a self-reflective bubble</h2>
<p>As psychologist Sherry Turkle writes in “<a href="http://www.alonetogetherbook.com/">Alone Together</a>,” “Life in a media bubble has come to seem natural” in the 21st century.</p>
<p>With the aid of our phones and computers, no matter where we are or who we may be near, we are constantly connected to and interacting with others. But taking photographs and creating videos have become a central part of this digital exchange.</p>
<p>Psychology professor John R. Suler <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/ae/academic/subjects/psychology/applied-psychology/psychology-digital-age-humans-become-electric?format=PB">interprets</a> constant photographing and photo sharing as a quest for confirmation. He writes: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>When we share photographs, we hope others will validate the facets of our identities that we embedded in those images. Knowing others can see the picture gives it more emotional power. Feedback from others makes it feel more real. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In pursuit of digital affirmation, even ordinary experiences become fodder for photographs.</p>
<p>Instead of staying present – being (and really observing) where we are – our impulse is to capitalize on all lived experiences as an opportunity to represent and express ourselves visually. Part of what’s troubling about this kind of tenacious documentation is the thin line between representation or expression and – as with the “Snap Pack” – the marketing or commodification of everyday life.</p>
<p>Personal photo collections, publicized through applications like Instagram and Facebook, risk primarily becoming a tool for self-promotion. The ability to constantly measure public feedback for each posted photograph enables, and may encourage, users to tweak visual representations of their own lives in an effort to simply maximize a positive response.</p>
<p>“Every narcissist needs a reflecting pool. Just as Narcissus gazed into the pool to admire his beauty, social networking sites, like Facebook, have become our modern-day pool,” <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140703102510.htm">wrote</a> Tracy Alloway, a psychology professor at the University of North Florida. </p>
<p>In a 2014 study, she and her team examined the relationship between Facebook use and empathy. They found that, while there are elements of social media that strengthen social connections, the platform’s image-based features – the ability to share photos and videos – particularly feed our self-absorption. </p>
<h2>Creativity requires concentration</h2>
<p>But repeatedly pulling away from our real time experiences to take out our smart phones – and then frame, photograph, filter and post – has the adverse effect of interrupting focus. By focus I mean the ability not only to closely observe but also to concentrate, to pay extended attention.</p>
<p>In his book “<a href="http://www.nicholascarr.com/?page_id=16">The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains</a>,” technology writer Nicholas Carr reflects on neuroplasticity, which is the capacity for our neural circuits to change in response to stimuli. Specifically, he discusses the ways our minds have evolved in response to relentless engagement with digital technologies. About web browsing, he writes, “Frequent interruptions scatter our thoughts, weaken our memory and make us tense and anxious.” Similarly, repeated breaks to post images and track their reception threaten to fragment attention and increase anxiety. </p>
<p>As a result, we risk having other aspects of our surroundings and experiences slip away. While we may become better at multitasking, our ability to concentrate deeply over longer periods of time is weakened.</p>
<p>Carr continues:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The mental functions that are losing the “survival of the busiest” brain cell battle are those that support calm, linear thought – the ones we use in traversing a lengthy narrative or an involved argument, the ones we draw on when we reflect on our experiences or contemplate an outward or inward phenomenon.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, the kinds of attention that we’re constantly reinforcing through habitual photo-sharing seem to develop at the expense of those that we need to engage with, say, books. Sven Birkerts, author of “Changing the Subject: Art and Attention in the Internet Age,” <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/oct/13/sven-birkerts-struggle-to-concentrate-digital-age">links literature with focus</a>, insisting that “Works of art are feats of concentration.”</p>
<p>“Imagination,” he continues, “is the instrument of concentration.” </p>
<h2>An empathy gap?</h2>
<p>In a <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/novel-finding-reading-literary-fiction-improves-empathy/">2013 study</a> <a href="http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/i-know-how-youre-feeling-i-read-chekhov/">hailed by novelists</a>, researchers from the New School for Social Research reported a correlation between reading novels and increased empathy. </p>
<p>It’s likely that many teachers of literature (myself included) reacted with a shrug, since the study confirms what we’ve been saying all along. Literary works offer us the opportunity to imaginatively linger on (rather than simply glimpse or swiftly scroll through) others’ experiences of the world. But we can only seize on this opportunity if we’re able to pay attention – if we allow ourselves to slow down long enough to absorb what we observe.</p>
<p>While that particular study received <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2013/10/29/empathy_gap_don_t_believe_that_widely_reported_study_in_science_about_literary.html">some pushback</a>, taking the time to engage with prose, poetry and even photography has certainly allowed my students and me to carefully investigate the contours of a range of experiences. It has also compelled us to concentrate with intention on how these experiences matter in relation to current events. </p>
<p>I think, for example, of poet Claudia Rankine’s <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/28/books/review/claudia-rankines-citizen.html">highly acclaimed book</a> “Citizen: An American Lyric,” which uses both images and text to dwell on the realities of contemporary American racism in its myriad forms – pushing readers to take stock of the inequalities that structure our present day. </p>
<p>“More and more,” notes Birkerts, “I believe that art – via imagination – is the necessary counter to our information-glut crisis.” </p>
<p>If we’re too busy snapping and promoting photographs, or if we’re too scattered because we’re perusing the photostreams of others, we’re unlikely to emerge from “life in a media bubble.” </p>
<p>We’ll miss what’s happening around us. And we won’t be able to give the world the empathy and attention it requires and deserves.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/58392/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rebecca Macmillan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Whether it’s through Facebook or Snapchat, images and videos are changing how we communicate. But as words become more trivial, our attention, our creativity, and even our empathy may be at stake.Rebecca Macmillan, Ph.D. Candidate in English, The University of Texas at AustinLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/566772016-04-18T03:41:57Z2016-04-18T03:41:57ZHealth Check: can people actually multitask?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/118671/original/image-20160414-4697-jd3fp8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Despite the obvious limitations, we still keep trying to do many things at the same time.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/sloth_rider/6086793783/in/photolist-agSpJp-p9eRK9-dqbUC-ceBKfJ-EJ1tw1-7LevBv-b6QoAP-4q13fX-ecrtGA-3EcnC-KcCRS-7MRvw5-ubxcd-7zDg33-eqCLpA-38EQiE-7Xmtab-pEXzW-5V5GpC-nXCwFw-d9wit5-q6nmEN-za2yjF-4AtDiB-apyQUT-8FeFwS-Pj3ee-bKzrmn-2T3gwX-7n5obN-7ETaLv-acjBWU-6V3tyW-8DivcT-bWZgjt-9sEJEo-69JBNN-2Wu8vK-84XNBW-6hTwr1-781KFN-dBkXpf-qmYA5-kXzHfn-apgPZP-bpCVSt-ccRj1L-bziMXT-fahSGy-egG1EL">Andrea Allen/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Many of us believe we can do two things at once. We try it every day even though our limitations are obvious.</p>
<p>Yet we persist, so much so that laws need to be passed to deal with our foolishness. For instance, it is <a href="http://www.keepyoureyesontheroad.org.au/pages/Australian-road-rules">illegal in all Australian states</a> and territories to drive a motor vehicle and use a mobile phone at the same time, without some sort of hands-free arrangement.</p>
<p>Such laws stem from the recognition that driving safely requires considerable attention. Operating a mobile phone also requires attention, which takes away from the more important task of driving. </p>
<p>In some states, <a href="http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/pedestrians-distracted-by-their-mobile-phones-face-105-fine/news-story/917dc4f1f10bae51835a7fc47706949b">police have begun fining pedestrians</a> who use mobile phones while crossing the road. </p>
<p>Young people often claim they are experts at multitasking. That they can monitor several electronic devices at once makes it seem to be the case.</p>
<p>But research <a href="http://www.balcells.com/blog/images/articles/entry558_2465_multitasking.pdf">regularly demonstrates</a> when they try to do two things at once, they tend to do both tasks poorly. Either they make more errors or they take longer than they would if they did one thing at a time.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/118666/original/image-20160414-4670-111iv9b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/118666/original/image-20160414-4670-111iv9b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118666/original/image-20160414-4670-111iv9b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118666/original/image-20160414-4670-111iv9b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118666/original/image-20160414-4670-111iv9b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118666/original/image-20160414-4670-111iv9b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118666/original/image-20160414-4670-111iv9b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">We’re limited to how much attention we can devote to any one task.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/the_kegs/1506369491/in/photolist-6wZH5g-uJicK-dtxGPY-5B46LQ-4w1utR-bsDCsr-3Exuam-mo1CFs-8WK629-7S3bEz-fN3FSV-4obkHr-8Jnxk7-4caDkF-61v7m-5oFsqz-acbtCY-3GScQp-c5h31-6aGySa-GU5bS-6NTu9w-7cEqAp-GU5td-GU4NA-9eWCQp-ob9Mce-5LmBh-3i7xaM-3ncqod-hFJjq-6B683L-8yHmeE-cmkAzy-3Nw8F-GTYmB-PxqFW-4mGH6o-7S6r63-c1reaU-4EcFDp-8ts76d-uQV57-5b887W-8CuvML-G4mfo-aUuCAi-5zN7bc-6bGEmX-21ow2">Mike Kegley/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In one study, <a href="http://search.proquest.com/docview/745597375?pq-origsite=gscholar">university students’ laptops were monitored</a> by a spyware program during lectures. It found students attempted to multitask by checking course material and taking lecture notes as well as looking at emails, engaging in social media, surfing the web and playing games. </p>
<p>The study found the more often students engaged with non-course-related material during the lecture, the worse their academic performance was in the course.</p>
<p>Some researchers claim <a href="http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=5364739&tag=1">females do show an advantage in multitasking</a>, but most have <a href="http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/5/809.short">failed to find any significant</a> gender difference.</p>
<p>Three main principles explain well our limitations in performing multiple tasks at the same time.</p>
<h2>1. Some tasks require a lot more attention than others</h2>
<p>Walking, chewing and the physical act of talking seem to require so little attention that we can do them without even thinking. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119021/original/image-20160418-11167-197a1q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/119021/original/image-20160418-11167-197a1q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119021/original/image-20160418-11167-197a1q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119021/original/image-20160418-11167-197a1q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119021/original/image-20160418-11167-197a1q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119021/original/image-20160418-11167-197a1q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/119021/original/image-20160418-11167-197a1q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When people try to do two things at once, they tend to do both tasks poorly.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By contrast, constructing an argument, reading a book and following a movie all require considerable amounts of attention – particularly if we want to do the task well.</p>
<h2>2. We are limited in how much attention we can devote to any task or tasks</h2>
<p>This seems to be a limitation our brain is built with. If doing two tasks together requires less than maximum attention capacity, then we are likely to pull if off. </p>
<p>So, for instance, most people would find it trivial to walk along a path and have a discussion with a friend. </p>
<p>By contrast, if two tasks together exceeded our attention capacity, then something would have to give. </p>
<p>So even though driving and having a conversation might seem fairly easy to most people, <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000145750400096X">if the road conditions suddenly changed</a> and the act of driving became more challenging, then the conversation would likely stop. </p>
<p>Our maximum attention capacity is also affected by our arousal state. If we are tired, for instance, we just don’t seem to have the same attention capacity as when we are fully awake.</p>
<h2>3. We can get better at multitasking</h2>
<p>Our ability to perform some tasks can improve with practice. This often means the particular tasks come to need less attention, even to the point of becoming automatic. </p>
<p>In a <a href="http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01744/full">recent study of mine</a>, participants were presented with pictures of randomly arranged dots and asked to count them. </p>
<p>The time it took them to respond was directly related to the number of dots in a picture: the more dots, the slower the response. But after seeing every picture many times, their responses were no longer related to the number of dots. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/118672/original/image-20160414-4700-c3nst9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/118672/original/image-20160414-4700-c3nst9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=837&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118672/original/image-20160414-4700-c3nst9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=837&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118672/original/image-20160414-4700-c3nst9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=837&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118672/original/image-20160414-4700-c3nst9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1052&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118672/original/image-20160414-4700-c3nst9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1052&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/118672/original/image-20160414-4700-c3nst9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1052&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It is commonly claimed that women can multitask better than men.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/fouquier/5169162733/in/photolist-8SMiZp-F6Aa82-6AvgLm-rQTuQg-e8SYU7-qdGjmH-oz61XP-2woh6-7vkDQi-ehu7gN-8dBff4-FRpZr7-9pnmx8-5EC3Sb-7sNzmW-6iyKgK-9kXyKj-nCZ8js-5RCVaP-nYYFun-6XMBAH-3E3aE3-9U24Vk-81CM74-apLbLp-nQEVbL-fS4nXW-4oX6gv-npQs7K-dCkiCw-9z6PCX-ujgnJ-mYizG-8sPUbP-6UsjAC-eeLJ3B-iUYb5U-e9bKPy-bEtsqs-p6QudU-ayRB7j-gpJtY6-CzmnuR-EMpVU-agSpJp-p9eRK9-dqbUC-ceBKfJ-EJ1tw1-7LevBv">Fouquier ॐ/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In fact, participants were equally fast regardless of whether there were six or 11 dots. They knew the answer automatically rather than having to consciously work it out through a counting process. </p>
<p>A similar process underlies our acquisition of many cognitive skills, such as reading words.</p>
<p>Novice drivers usually struggle to hear basic instructions while they are driving because all their attention is devoted to keeping the car moving smoothly and avoiding other vehicles. </p>
<p>But after a few years of driving experience, this task requires far fewer cognitive resources. Some are then freed up to perform other tasks, such as singing along to the radio or thinking about the best route home. </p>
<p>The important thing to note is that not all tasks can be practised to the point where they require little attention to perform. Such tasks, by their very nature, always require most of our attention. </p>
<p>Holding a serious conversation with someone is not something we can shunt off to automatic pilot and expect a worthwhile outcome.</p>
<p>So, can we do two things at once? It depends on the nature of the tasks we want to perform simultaneously, how aroused we are, the extent of our experience with each of the tasks, and how much we care about the quality of our performance.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56677/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Craig Speelman has received funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>Research regularly shows when people try to do two things at once, they tend to do both tasks more poorly than if they’d only attempted one at a time.Craig Speelman, Professor of Psychology, Edith Cowan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/561572016-03-23T04:04:29Z2016-03-23T04:04:29ZHow games can hook students with short attention spans<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115981/original/image-20160322-32306-zqjvai.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Don't dismiss "playing games" as a waste of time - they can be a powerful tool for learning.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Modern human beings have a shorter attention span <a href="http://advertising.microsoft.com/en/cl/31966/how-does-digital-affect-canadian-attention-spans">than goldfish</a>: ours is, on average, below eight seconds while the little fish can focus for nine seconds.</p>
<p>These decreasing attention levels are driven by people’s constant use of technology. One <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6192/75">study</a> found that people’s dependence on digital stimulation has become so high that 67% of men and 25% of women would prefer to experience an electric shock rather than doing nothing for 15 minutes.</p>
<p>Children are no different. They occupy a hyper stimulating world and find it difficult to sit through a 40 minute lesson or focus on a single task. Many schools and universities are now turning to the very technology that can be such a <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-binge-watching-is-to-blame-for-kids-not-learning-51056">distraction</a>. One of the avenues they are exploring is <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamification">gamification</a> - integrating games and their principles into learning.</p>
<p>Our <a href="http://www.teachernology.com/blog/is-it-time-to-up-your-game">research</a> has shown that gamification has the potential to boost student learning and motivation.</p>
<h2>The game is changing</h2>
<p>Gaming has become a huge industry and is now even <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2009/sep/27/videogames-hollywood">more valuable</a> than the movie industry. A <a href="https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/the-common-sense-census-media-use-by-tweens-and-teens">recent study</a> found that teens spend an average of nine hours each day on their devices, with nearly four of these hours spent playing games. </p>
<p>But schools are starting to realise that merely putting devices in pupils’ hands won’t <a href="https://theconversation.com/outdated-teaching-methods-will-blunt-technologys-power-40503">magically restore</a> their attention during lessons. Children need <a href="http://www.teachernology.com/blog/laptop-or-ipad-or-is-this-the-wrong-question">new teaching methods</a> to accompany these new devices. To this end, some schools are turning to gamification.</p>
<p>Gamification normally involves game-like elements such as leaderboards, levels and badges. These are underpinned by storylines and delivered using creative and appealing aesthetics. Leaderboards rank participants, while levels typically give the player additional benefits. Badges are symbols of achievement. </p>
<p>In a sense this is how education has always worked. Individual examinations are challenges, passed across a number of years - or levels. Pupils then earn a certificate, or badge. But a qualification is not a gamified experience because it doesn’t adequately fulfil the <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenkrogue/2012/09/18/5-gamification-rules-from-the-grandfather-of-gamification/#22bb91906d38">key principles</a> of a well designed game: clearly defined goals, a transparent scoring mechanism, frequent feedback, a personal choice of approach and consistent coaching.</p>
<h2>Gamification of the classroom</h2>
<p>Gamification is slowly proving its classroom mettle. Some research <a href="http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2513469&dl=ACM&coll=DL">suggests</a> that, if it’s properly applied, gamification can improve attendance, enhance understanding of content, encourage engagement and ultimately improve academic performance. </p>
<p>We decided to integrate gamification into an existing fourth year <a href="http://is.ukzn.ac.za/postgraduatecourses/honors/istn731.aspx">course</a> at a South African university. Traditionally, the course is delivered to students through social media platforms. This time around we built in an additional game layer. This created a scenario that saw students pursuing a corporate career and competing for executive positions at a large company. Throughout the course, corporate aesthetics and a corporate style of communication and feedback were adopted.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115611/original/image-20160318-4436-178ht61.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115611/original/image-20160318-4436-178ht61.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=277&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115611/original/image-20160318-4436-178ht61.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=277&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115611/original/image-20160318-4436-178ht61.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=277&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115611/original/image-20160318-4436-178ht61.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=349&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115611/original/image-20160318-4436-178ht61.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=349&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115611/original/image-20160318-4436-178ht61.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=349&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gamified course page with corporate aesthetics.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Students were recognised for meeting learning objectives, displaying academic progress, collaborating around activities and socialising with peers. They were awarded badges and points, which opened up opportunities for real-world benefits: marks, privileges like choosing their own project teams, and even letters of recommendation. They constantly competed to appear in the top 10 leaderboard.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115610/original/image-20160318-4456-pj6zjh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/115610/original/image-20160318-4456-pj6zjh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115610/original/image-20160318-4456-pj6zjh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115610/original/image-20160318-4456-pj6zjh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=381&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115610/original/image-20160318-4456-pj6zjh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115610/original/image-20160318-4456-pj6zjh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/115610/original/image-20160318-4456-pj6zjh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Badges each carrying a point weighting.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our research found that students were highly motivated by gamification. They worked hard to try and master the content, as well as engaging with their peers about it. Since the game was based on rewarding learning outcomes and sharing their knowledge, students found gamification relevant and beneficial to their learning.</p>
<h2>Crashing the game</h2>
<p>There were challenges alongside the benefits. For starters, students had to invest more time in the course than they might ordinarily. To stay ahead of the game, they had to keep up with their peers. Those who simply couldn’t keep up fell out of the game, which made it harder to re-engage them. Some students also gave up because they weren’t receiving rewards frequently enough for their liking.</p>
<p>Teachers, too, must invest a lot of time in running the game - never mind the demands of the traditional course. Gamifying a classroom requires a significant investment in time and sometimes money. </p>
<p>We also found that there was a need to ensure a balance between competition - something gamified courses encourage - and helping develop socially cohesive students. This requires care from the teachers, who must ensure that collaborative tasks and social skills like empathy and mutual respect are rewarded within the game.</p>
<h2>Levelling up</h2>
<p>Despite the challenges, our research suggests that gamification techniques can provide interesting avenues to motivate student learning. </p>
<p>There are several free tools available to help teachers implement gamification in the classroom. <a href="http://getkahoot.com">Kahoot!</a>, for instance allows teachers to run gamified quizzes where students participate with their own devices and are placed on a leaderboard that the whole classroom can see.</p>
<p>Open badge platforms like <a href="http://www.credly.com">Credly</a> allow teachers to issue their students with badges, while platforms like <a href="http://www.classcraft.com">Classcraft</a> allow teachers to use role play scenarios in their lessons. </p>
<p>Gamification could, quite literally, be a game changer in the classroom if implemented correctly. As a teacher who recently tried gamification for the first time told one of the authors:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The students rush to class even though it is Maths. They often tell me it is the highlight of their day.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56157/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Introducing game-like elements into classrooms can boost student motivation and learning.Craig Blewett, Senior Lecturer in Education & Technology, University of KwaZulu-NatalEbrahim Adam, Lecturer in Information Systems & Technology, University of KwaZulu-NatalLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/528972016-02-01T19:05:11Z2016-02-01T19:05:11ZWhat does our attention span mean?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/108129/original/image-20160114-2368-1p4ufg0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Do you struggle to keep your attention on the task at hand?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com.au</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Coming back to work after a holiday break presents many challenges. We need to reset our circadian rhythms to get up early, remember the password on the computer, and try to focus on a task for longer than 30 seconds before another random thought pops into our heads. </p>
<p>Trying to focus on a task involves attention control – the ability to maintain concentration, or focus, on something over a period of time. What exactly is an attention span? Does it relate to intelligence? Can it change?</p>
<p>We can consider attention in two ways – in terms of space: where do you focus, what is the size of the focus, and how many objects can you process at the same time? And in terms of time – for how long can you concentrate on a task before distraction kicks in? </p>
<h2>Sustaining attention</h2>
<p>Sustained attention is the ability to maintain concentration on a task that is repetitive and boring. This time-based attention span can be measured in a number of different ways. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.mhs.com/product.aspx?gr=edu&prod=cpt3&id=overview">Continuous Performance Task</a> and the <a href="http://www.cogtest.com/tests/cognitive_int/sa.html">Sustained Attention to Response Task</a> are often used to measure sustained attention. In the latter task, the participant views a series of single digits that appear on a computer screen, each for a very short period of time. In the most boring version of the task, the digits run in a set sequence of 1 to 9, and this sequence is repeated many times. </p>
<p>The participant is asked to press a key when any digit except “3” shows up on the screen. This task runs for just over five minutes and many children and adults will press a key after seeing the “3” at least a few times. Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) will press after the 3 many more times, on average. <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393208000134">Performance improves</a> with the administration of ADHD medication Ritalin. </p>
<p>You might wonder how long the average person is able to do a task before their attention wanes. This depends on the nature of the task and the nature of the individual. If the task is engaging and arousing to the person, then this will lead to better performance on the task. </p>
<p>Many children with ADHD can play computer games for long periods of time, but struggle with the Sustained Attention to Response Task. Our brains are set up to respond quickly and automatically to stimulation from the environment, such as an alarm going off. It takes mental effort to direct attention from within oneself. </p>
<h2>Can you change your attention span?</h2>
<p>There is an association between being able to maintain attention to a task very well and having a higher estimated intelligence level. But, there’s a problem: in order to measure intelligence, one must maintain attention to the intelligence task.</p>
<p>Your sustained attention performance can change. Your current mental state will have an influence on sustained attention performance. For instance, if you reflect on a time when you failed, you are <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20445911.2014.995104">more likely</a> to perform well and show perseverance on a sustained attention task compared with when you have reflected on a time when you achieved success. </p>
<p>If you are highly anxious, this will have a <a href="http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/3/609.full">negative impact</a> on your sustained attention performance. Your current physical state will also have an influence on your attention control. For instance, better sustained attention performance is associated with <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3390762/">increased aerobic fitness</a>. Taking either caffeine or theanine, which are both found in tea, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22326943">significantly improves</a> sustained attention performance.</p>
<p>Sustained attention ability varies over age. A <a href="http://www.lauragermine.org/articles/fortenbaugh_psychsci2015.pdf">study</a> of 10,430 participants found the ability to consistently respond and correctly detect targets within a task peaks in people aged in their early 40s and is followed by a gradual decline in older adults. Nevertheless, the strategy of responding – how careful one is in detecting the target – improves from 15 years onwards and does not decline with age.</p>
<h2>What attention span tells us</h2>
<p>This ability to concentrate on a task for a period of time is a very important skill for children to develop. In one <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3610761/">study</a> a questionnaire-based measure of attention-span persistence was taken when a large cohort of children was aged four. </p>
<p>Parents answered questions such as: “My child plays with a single toy for long periods of time”, or “My child goes from toy to toy quickly”. The parents responded with a rating of 1 “not at all like my child” up to 5 “a lot like my child”. An estimate of the child’s attention span on a scale of 1 to 5 was then generated from the average of the answers.</p>
<p>Researchers then followed up when the children had become young adults. Attention span-persistence at age four predicted how well each person performed in maths and reading at age 21, and predicted the odds of the person completing college by 25. </p>
<p>So sustained attention underpins control over behaviour and emotions and subsequent academic success.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52897/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Katherine Johnson receives funding from the Collier Charitable Fund. </span></em></p>Trying to focus on a task involves attention control – the ability to maintain focus on something over a period of time. What exactly is an attention span? Does it relate to intelligence? Can it change?Katherine Johnson, Senior Lecturer in the Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.