Multitask Case Study

Driving Us to Distraction Summary-Response Paper The essay, ‘Driving us to Distraction’ by Gilbert Cruz is about the dangers of hands-free technology while driving. The author argues that while driving and talking on a cell phone is deadly, using hands-free technology is not that much better of a choice. He supports his argument by citing a 2003 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study that found cellphone use to be a serious hazard on the road and by mentioning a series of simulator tests conducted in 2007 by a psychology professor at the University of Utah named David Strayer.

Multitasking, helpful or harmful? In Alina Tugend’s “Multitasking Can Make You Lose…Um…Focus”, Tugend explores multitasking in several ways. Explaining how we as humans sacrifice focus “shifting focus from task to task gives illusion that we’re simultaneously tasking”. Also, how our brains react to operating and trying to do more than one task at once. Only one or two visual stimulants can activate our neurons at one particular time. Lastly, how we can recreate boundaries and cope with everyday life and multitasking. Tugend reiterates several times the importance of one task at a time so we as humans can effectively complete tasks to the best of our abilities instead of giving partial focus and not efficiently completely a task. Multitasking is very beneficial at times, but more often there are significant downfalls; it is crucial we learn how to manage the downfalls of juggling tasks, events, conversations, and daily events.

These people produce better work then they are able to focus on a single task rather than multiple tasks at one time (Gallup StrengthsFinder, 2012). They are definitely not considered “multitaskers”. Maximizers look for specialists for guidance when seeking answers and acknowledge information they receive from others (Gallup StrengthsFinder, 2012). These people credit themselves with being very aware of other’s moods, emotions, behaviors, and motives (Gallup StrengthsFinder, 2012).

a. I’ve done an extensive amount of research on this topic. Endlessly searching through different websites and new articles to propose why texting and driving should be illegal.

Research Topic 10) Should regulations regarding the use of cell phones while driving be standardized?

3. Using a cell phone while driving, even with a hands-free device, is unsafe and can make

C. Using a cell phone while driving is far more distracting than talking with a passenger in your car because it requires additional cognitive resources.

Many people take pride in the fact that they can multitask. A study “Task Switching” conducted by Monsell concluded that multitasking, or switching

A. The main premise of my argument is that no one for whatever reason should be texting while driving.

Multitasking is a common technique used by most people that is thought to be a way of getting tasks done quicker. With the need for speed in today’s society there is more that has to be done in a minimal time. But what people do not realize is that when they cram their work into a limited amount of time, it can backfire altogether. Within this paper will be an explanation of the negative side effects that may come with multitasking such as stress, physical health problems, and frequently making mistakes.

Alternative: This study has one of four alternatives: multitasking could have no effect on learning in all circumstances, it could only have an

B. Specific Purpose: Persuade my audience that banning the use of cell phones while driving should be mandatory nationwide.

D. Thesis statement: Today I will persuade you into thinking that texting while driving is too dangerous.

tasks” ( 2012, p. 486). This phenomenon has been widely studied for over a century and has

There are many theories to determine how our capacity or mental efforts are divided to different activities however the theory backing this study called the Central Capacity Interference Theory favoured by Norman and Burrow (1975) suggest that the major factor that determines our ability to multitask is that our attentional resources are limited in capacity. (As cited in Eysenck, 1993) Therefore, when we try to attend to more than one event at a time, less efficiency is given to both tasks. Kahneman’s Attentional and Effort Study (as cited in Eysenck, 1993) also argued that concurrent activities are likely to interfere with each other especially when the demands of the two activities exceed available capacity. The aim of the study was to examine dual task effects within and across modalities. Experimental studies by Paul Kolers (as cited in Eysenck, 1993) found that it was easy to attend to whichever visual world he preferred, but it was impossible to attend to or cope with two simultaneous visual inputs. A theoretical position taken by Alan Allport (as cited in Eysenck, 1993) suggested that there are a number of specific processing mechanisms, each with limited capacity. Similar task competing for the same specific processing mechanisms like the within visual modalities produces disruption whereas dissimilar tasks such as the across modalities involving (auditory and visual) tasks make use of