ARE WOMEN BETTER THAN MEN AT MULTI-TASKING

ARE WOMEN BETTER THAN MEN AT MULTI-TASKING

Abstract

Multiple tasking is an intensely studied that is supposed to be understood and who perform better during multi-tasking. This lab report is aimed to show between women and men who perform better when multi-tasking, especially in processing time and accuracy rate. The report uses PsyToolkit software installed in a Linux PC, with 10 participants involved in the report.  The study results point to an existing belief that women are better than men in multi-tasking in terms of processing time and accuracy. Through this study proved that idea is right.

Are Women Better than Men at Multi-tasking?

We will address the question of whether women are better multitasking than men. In most instances, people use the idea that women are better at multitasking than men. The empirical evidence of women performing better than men in multitasking is scant, researchers have proved that women are involved in more multitasking than men; for instance, in households work. In this report, we will address this issue if women perform better than men during multitasking.

In psychology, multitasking is a broad concept that has developed over several decades through research; this research has played a significant role in understanding the risks of multitasking in reality situations like driving when using a mobile phone. Additionally, there are two types of multitasking capabilities. The first kind is the skill of being capable of dealing with multiple tasks requires without the need to carry out the involved tasks at the same time (Broadbent, 1952). For instance, when carrying out an administrative assistant role and have the ability to answer phone calls, sorting incoming faxes, mailing, and filling in the paperwork, and typically, the individual is not carrying out either of these tasks at the same time.

The second type of multitasking capability is required when two variety of information is supposed to carried out or processed at the same time. For instance, drawing a circle with one hand and the other hand is drawing a straight line. Beings do not have a problem of performing each of these tasks personally, sketching a circle with one hand while the other hand is drawing a straight line is almost impossible ( the ring is likely to look like more of an ellipse, and the line will be nearly a circle). The second example is that one must process sensory information simultaneously, like different auditory streams on different ears (Mäntylä, 2013). In a psychological laboratory, humans are frequently asked to perform these types of tasks. They always avoid these scenarios in real life unless they have been highly trained (e.g., having a conversation when driving).  Possibly, no one is good at doing multiple tasks at the same time (unless they have been trained well), and this explains why types of multitasking are not common than the only kind we know of serially alternating between two tasks. This is the reason we will focus on the first type of multitasking in this report. The two types of multitasking we have discussed are two extreme instances on a continuum of multiple task scenarios.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited through fliers in West Yorkshire (UK) as well as online advertising. Participants who had health issues and disorders were not included in the recruitment procedure since their performance could have been affected; these performances include color-vision deficits, which were tested using the Ishihara color test before the experimental session. The total number of participants selected were 10.

Designs

Task-switching abilities were measure using the task-switching paradigm. The paradigms of task-switching are designed to measure the difficulty of rapidly switching attentiveness between more than one task (Buser, & Peter, 2012). In most case, when conducting these types of studies performance of task involves simple response (e.g., using right or left hand to press a button) to a pure stimulant (e.g., digits) that is regulated by simple rules (e.g., even figures require a response of right hand, odd numbers need a reaction of left side).

When dealing with task-switching paradigms, it always involves two different tasks (e.g., task A to decide whether the numbers are higher or lower than five and task B decide whether tasks are odd or even). A simple way to think about task-switching paradigms is to refer to one task as task A and the other one as task B. when we write “AAAAAAAAAA” we are referring to a block of task A with ten trails, and for the task, B will be “BBBBBBBBBB.” In most cases, adults find it easy to carry out sequences with one task type. Conversely, interleaving trials such as “AABBAABBAABB) is difficult, Jersild first experimented this type in 1927. It is currently referred to as “mixing cost,” whereby one slowly associates the carrying out of a block of mixed trials compared to an intersection of pure trails (Salvucci,& Taatgen, 2010). Further, in the mixed blocks, people slow down, especially on tests that immediately follow a task switch (in AABBAA, there are two such sessions, here shows in bold font); the latter impact is referred to as “switch cost.”

Most of the researchers’ attention has been turned in switch costs than mixing costs, particularly in the middle of the 1990s. In this experiment, we have measured the two types of expenses.

Materials

Linux operates PC was used to control the experiment with PsyToolkit software installed on the PC. Response registration and stimulus presentation used a Cedrus USB keyboard (model RB-834) and a 17” color monitor. Two buttons of the Cedrus keyboard were used. The two buttons are closest to the respondents (3.2 × 2.2 cm each with 4.3 cm space between each switch), further on, they will be referred to as the left and right buttons, respectively.

(7× 8 cm) rectangular frame with lower and upper sections was displayed with a more economical and upper part. Below and above the structure, the word “filing” and “Shape” were presented. Further on, four salient stimuli were used for different trails. The four involved combinations of two shapes (rectangle and diamond) as well as the filling of three or two circles. The critical stimuli and frame were yellow but with a black background. Following trails that were not performed correctly (“That was the wrong key” or “Time is up”), then feedback reports were presented.

Procedure

Participants sat in a quiet as well dim-lit room; they were given verbal and written instruction from the instructor. They were told to respond to stimulants on the screen of a computer. Two different tasks were shape as well as a filling job. In the task of way, participants were required to answer to the form of essential stimuli (rectangles and diamonds requesting left as well as right answers, respectively). In the task of filling, respondents were required to answer to the number of circles within the shape (three and two circles needed to be left as well as right answers, respectively). The vital feature of this method was that the two task dimensions (filling and shape) were present as well as both of the dimensions were aspects were supposed to receive opposite responses on half the trails (absurd stimuli). This means that the respondents were supposed to think which of both tasks was needed to be carried out and give a relevant dimension of stimuli. Respondents were given instructions on the job to be carried out based on the importance stimulus location; when the stimulus appears in the upper half of the frame, with the label of “shape” then you are supposed to carry out the task of shape and if it looks at the bottom half of the frame, with the name of “filling” then you are supposed to carry out the mission of filling.

The exercise had a total of 6 practice trails, and then the feedbacks were used to analyze the data. The first significant stimulus, then the participant had only 4 seconds to answer. After the response, the imperative stimulant disappeared or, even when there was no response after the elapse of 4 seconds, the necessary stimulus went. Incorrect answers (or failures to respond) were followed by 5 seconds lasting reminder of the stimulus-response mapping, followed by a 500 ms pause. The inter-trial interval lasted 800 ms.  The percentage correct and average time per puzzle were recorded in the availed table in the worksheet.

From the instructions given, the trails were supposed to be repeated twice, and all the results were recorded. When the two paths were completed and the percentage correct, as well as the average time per puzzle registered, the results of the experiments were sent to the experimenters. After doing a t-test using ANOVA, the results were recorded in Microsoft excel. To compare the results, a second trial was done to the first trial, and it was done to see whether there was an improvement in both hypotheses. Since the second trial was a repetition, hence there was a sense of practice.

Results

Accuracy Rate

The mean accuracy rate of the first trail was 78%, and the second trial was 80%, as shown in figure 1 below. The standard deviation in the accuracy rate of the first (SD=11.94%) and the second session (SD=8.57) are shown in Table 1 below.

The mean processing speed of the first (m=869.33) and the second (m=1066.53) speed are shown in Table 2 below. T-test statistics show the standard deviation of the first (SD=414.17) processing speed and the second (SD=608.29) sessions.

There was a significant difference, with the women being better multitasking than men on the accuracy rate (t=0.0013, p< 0.05). The influence on the processing speed was (t=0.002, p=0.05) as shown in Table 1

Discussion

The results from the experiment strongly show that women are better at multitasking than men and have better processing time.  The results were arrived at when the second trial was done, and it indicated an improvement. This means that the repetition was similar, and it was aimed at assessing men and women who are better in multitasking. The participants were able to know what was expected, went through the trails, and did the expected tasks. The practice was done using initial training, and during the first record, they were already familiar with the trails. Performing the task for the second time, the respondent had already done the training and had experience with different sets of functions, but the change acted as evidence. The accuracy rate of the second session is higher than the first from all the respondents, as shown in Table 1. Also, in table 2, the processing time is lower than in the second session compared to the first, which suggests an increment in performing tasks in the second trail. The two tables, respectively, are supported by the information from the graph. Improvement was noticed in the processing speed and accuracy, as depicted by the results.

Past years studies have proven that practice can be used in training multiple tasking. However, when we narrow down to the effects of multiple tasking on mental rotation, it is supposed to be ventured. The processing time is substantially decreased over the practice, and the accuracy rate improved as well but entirely depended on the mechanisms. From the study, it shows that skill of training may not or may generalize to other domains. Also, there has been encouragement showed by the reviews that are against practicing; maybe it might be lacking transfer effects when variety stimuli used from the practice face are presented.

The recommendations for future study are narrowing down to understand why practice fails in numerous instances. For example, negative change, little change, or change are experienced by individual participants always despite the practice. Situations like this are still overlooked as well as conclusive statements were made dependent on the average and not unique experiences. Data gathered should be used to measure the effects of practice on multitasking and personal experience when performing tasks. Therefore other methods should be combined with traditional methods.

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to test if women are better than men in multitasking, especially processing time and accuracy rates. The results conclude that women are better than men in doing the two types of multitasking because the accuracy rate and processing data were higher than that of men. The study supports the longtime belief that women are better than men in doing multiple tasks. Due to the possibility of training multiple tasking, cognitive growth is possible. However, it is notable that particular participants did not influence practice during the session. This issue is supposed to be handled to understand the probability that positive affect may fail to control who is better than the other in multitasking. A clear understanding of the result and purpose of the report provides a better understanding of multiple tasking and cognitive growth. Multiple tasking is significant to other skills like reasoning.

Tables and Figures

Table 1. The processing speed for the second and first session.

Figure 1. Bar graph of the first session

Figure 2. Bar graph for the Second session

References

Broadbent, D. E. (1952). Failures of attention in selective listening. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44(6), 428.

Buser, T., & Peter, N. (2012). Multitasking. Experimental Economics, 15(4), 641-655.

Mäntylä, T (2013). Gender differences in multitasking reflect spatial ability. Psychological Science, 24, 514–520

Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2010). The multitasking mind. Oxford University Press.