Media Multitasking: What It Is and How It Affects Attention, Memory, and Performance

1 day ago

19 min read

Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 27, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Media multitasking is the use of more than one stream of media at the same time, or the use of media while another task is underway. Watching a lecture while replying to messages, scrolling a feed during a movie, checking email while writing, or moving between a work document and a group chat can all fall within the construct. In everyday life, what looks like simultaneous multitasking often includes repeated shifts of attention between competing sources rather than perfectly parallel processing.

The strongest conclusion from the research is more precise than the popular claim that “multitasking destroys attention.” Media multitasking can reduce performance when activities compete for the same cognitive resources, especially during learning, reading, memory encoding, or other tasks that require sustained goal maintenance. At the same time, studies of people who habitually media multitask show mixed results, with effects that range from negligible to moderate depending on what is measured, how media multitasking is measured, the population studied, and the cognitive outcome. A 2025 review of media multitasking in the digital attention ecosystem emphasizes that the behavior emerges from an interaction among cognitive constraints, dispositions, metacognition, task value, and environmental cues rather than from a single mechanism.

Media multitasking is a research construct and an ordinary behavior, not a psychiatric or neurological diagnosis. High frequency alone does not establish impairment, addiction, ADHD, or a damaged “attention span.” The scientifically useful questions are which activities are combined, how often attention shifts, what the primary goal is, how demanding the tasks are, and whether the pattern is associated with measurable costs in the situation that matters.

Quick answer: what does the evidence show?

For immediate performance, experimental research gives the clearest signal: adding an unrelated media stream to a demanding learning or comprehension task can make performance less efficient and can reduce what is encoded or understood. A 2016 meta-analysis of 49 media-multitasking studies found negative effects on cognitive outcomes overall, with effects varying by user control, task relevance, and how the tasks were combined. In a randomized classroom experiment, students who multitasked on laptops during a lecture scored lower on a comprehension test than students who did not, and a 2024 experiment with multiple-document reading found poorer integrative processing and understanding when students also received and read social-media messages.

For habitual media multitasking, the picture is less uniform. A 2017 replication and meta-analysis found only a weak association with distractibility that was no longer significant after correction for small-study effects. A broader 2021 meta-analysis of cognitive-control outcomes reported a small overall association and negligible effects for performance-based measures, while a 2023 three-level meta-analysis in adolescents and young adults reported a moderate negative association overall, with poorer inhibitory control and working memory but no significant difference in cognitive flexibility. These results are not interchangeable: the reviews used different inclusion criteria, measurement groupings, populations, and analytic approaches.

A very recent 2026 study assessing several cognitive domains in the same sample found no significant overall association between media multitasking and the combined outcomes of attention control, working memory, convergent associative thinking, and fluid reasoning; one small association appeared for convergent associative thinking. That finding does not erase earlier results, but it reinforces the central point: habitual media multitasking is not a reliable proxy for a global cognitive deficit.

What is media multitasking?

Researchers have used several definitions, but the core idea is concurrent or closely interleaved engagement with multiple activities in which at least one activity is media-based. Earlier work often focused on combinations such as television plus messaging or web use. Contemporary behavior includes many more combinations: a video meeting plus workplace chat, a podcast plus social media, a game plus voice chat, a study document plus notifications, or several streams within one device.

The construct therefore describes an activity pattern, not a device category. A person can media multitask on one screen, across several screens, or while combining a digital medium with an offline activity. A 2026 systematic review of media-multitasking measures found that many studies still rely on instruments descended from the 2009 Media Use Questionnaire even though the media landscape has changed substantially. Social media, modern video formats, messaging ecosystems, and cross-device behavior are not represented consistently across measures.

Media multitasking is broader than “using two devices”

Two devices can make multitasking visible, but device count is not the defining variable. Reading an article and repeatedly opening a messaging panel on the same laptop can involve more attentional switching than listening to familiar music while doing a routine household task on a separate device. What matters for cognition is the structure of the competing tasks: their timing, similarity, difficulty, goals, sensory demands, and the need to keep information active in working memory.

Media multitasking is related to task switching, but they are not identical

Task switching is a cognitive mechanism studied with controlled tasks in which people alternate between different task rules or goals. Media multitasking is a real-world behavior that may contain task switching, divided attention, interruptions, concurrent processing, and voluntary shifts toward another media stream. A person who checks a message while writing may interrupt one goal, shift to a second goal, then reconstruct the first. A person who listens to low-demand background audio while folding laundry may be able to maintain both activities with much less interference.

This distinction matters because a study of habitual media multitasking does not automatically measure the moment-to-moment cost of switching, and a laboratory task-switching effect does not automatically tell us what every media combination will do in daily life. DLA-40 owns the broad media-multitasking evidence; the specific mechanisms and costs of task switching belong to the cluster’s dedicated task-switching node and will be linked when that English canonical is live.

Why do people media multitask?

Media multitasking persists because it can serve real goals. People may be coordinating with others while working, seeking stimulation during a low-demand task, filling a pause, responding to time-sensitive information, regulating boredom, or choosing a second activity that feels more valuable in the moment. Digital environments also make alternative tasks continuously available, so the opportunity cost of staying with one activity is repeatedly made visible.

The 2025 interactive model proposed by Drody, Pereira, and Smilek organizes these influences into cognitive architecture, dispositional factors, metacognition, task valuation, and environmental factors. This is a stronger framework than explaining every check or switch through a single reward chemical. The behavior can arise from the interaction between a person’s goals, the current task, learned habits, social expectations, alerts, available media, and beliefs about whether multitasking will help.

This also connects media multitasking to the broader attention economy: digital services compete to become one of the available objects of attention. That competition can increase opportunities for switching, but it does not make users passive. People still make choices within environments whose cues, defaults, social demands, and interface features shape which choices are easiest or most salient.

How media multitasking affects attention

“Attention” is not one unitary resource that can simply be shortened or depleted. Research separates sustained attention, selective attention, distractor filtering, executive control, working memory, mind wandering, and task switching. Media-multitasking studies do not measure all of these in the same way, which is one reason apparently contradictory findings can coexist.

Selective attention and distractibility

The influential 2009 study by Ophir, Nass, and Wagner reported that heavier media multitaskers were more susceptible to interference from irrelevant information in several laboratory tasks. That study helped launch the modern literature, but subsequent attempts did not produce a simple, uniform replication pattern. The 2017 replication studies and meta-analysis concluded that the association between media multitasking and laboratory distractibility was weak and became nonsignificant after correcting for small-study effects.

A later 2021 meta-analysis spanning multiple cognitive-control functions found a small pooled association overall, with substantial heterogeneity and notably smaller effects for performance-based assessments than for self-report measures. In other words, people who report more media multitasking often also report more everyday attentional difficulty, but the relation is much less consistent when attention is tested with laboratory performance tasks.

Sustained attention and mind wandering

Some studies link heavier media multitasking with more everyday attention lapses or mind wandering. A large-scale 2020 study examined media multitasking, mind wandering, and distractibility and added evidence that the relationships depend on how the constructs are measured. A 2021 mini meta-analysis of everyday-functioning correlates found small associations between heavier media multitasking and self-reported problems in attention regulation, behavior regulation, inhibition or impulsiveness, and memory, while also reporting substantial unexplained variance and heterogeneity.

Those associations do not establish that media multitasking permanently reduces a person’s capacity for sustained attention. People who are more prone to mind wandering or impulsive task shifts may choose to media multitask more; frequent media multitasking could also reinforce patterns of switching in some contexts; shared third variables may influence both. Most habitual-use studies cannot isolate those causal paths.

Executive control and cognitive flexibility

The evidence is especially important to parse here. The 2023 three-level meta-analysis reported worse inhibitory control and working memory among heavier media multitaskers but no significant difference in cognitive flexibility. That pattern argues against treating “executive function” as a single score. It also explains why a person can be comfortable moving among tasks yet still show costs in filtering, maintaining information, or completing a demanding primary task.

How media multitasking affects working memory and long-term memory

Working memory holds goal-relevant information in an active, usable state. When a second activity requires overlapping attentional or working-memory resources, the primary task can lose precision or continuity. That does not mean every background activity overwhelms memory. The cost depends on how much the two activities compete for processing and how often the primary goal must be reconstructed.

In a 2016 study of working memory and long-term memory heavier media multitaskers performed worse on working-memory tasks and on later long-term-memory measures, with the authors emphasizing that the correlational design could not determine whether media multitasking caused the differences or whether preexisting cognitive tendencies contributed to the behavior. This study is useful evidence of an association, not proof of irreversible memory loss.

A 2020 Nature study connected moment-to-moment attention lapses with later forgetting and found that heavier self-reported media multitasking was associated with a greater propensity for attention lapses and poorer memory. Trait-level attention measures partially accounted for the relationship. Again, the media-multitasking measure was observational; the study supports a plausible attention-memory pathway without showing that routine media multitasking by itself causes a lasting memory disorder.

Encoding is especially vulnerable when attention is split

Memory depends on what is encoded in the first place. When the primary task is reading, studying, or listening for information that must later be recalled, a competing media stream can take processing away at critical moments. The 2024 randomized multiple-document study gives a contemporary example: students who received and read social-media messages while working through conflicting documents showed poorer integrative processing and poorer integrated understanding than students in the non-multitasking condition. A brief main-idea summarization procedure mitigated some of the comprehension cost.

This is why “I can still finish the task” is not the same as “the task was unaffected.” Multitasking costs may appear as longer completion time, more missed details, shallower integration, poorer later recall, or a greater need to reread rather than as an obvious failure in the moment.

How media multitasking affects learning and performance

The most consistent applied evidence concerns situations in which media use occurs during an activity that already demands attention, such as a lecture, reading assignment, problem-solving task, or complex work. A 2015 review of 56 studies in adolescents and emerging adults found small-to-moderate negative relationships across cognitive control, academic performance, and socioemotional functioning, while explicitly noting that causal direction was not established for the broader habitual-use findings.

A 2018 review focused on academic performance similarly concluded that media multitasking during academic work was generally associated with poorer educational outcomes, while the magnitude and consistency varied across tasks and measures. More recently, a 2026 scoping review of 66 studies across educational levels found a predominantly negative association between media multitasking and academic achievement, especially among university students, while also highlighting gaps in younger populations and limitations in the evidence base.

Experimental evidence can answer a narrower causal question

When researchers randomly assign participants to multitask or not during a specific learning task, causal claims can be narrower and stronger. In the Sana, Weston, and Cepeda classroom experiment, students assigned to unrelated laptop multitasking during a lecture performed worse on a later test than students who attended without those additional tasks. The experiment also found lower performance among nearby students who could see a multitasking screen, showing that visible competing media can become an environmental distraction for others.

These experiments support a practical conclusion about the immediate situation: introducing unrelated media during demanding learning can impair performance. They do not establish that people who often media multitask acquire a permanent generalized cognitive deficit. Immediate dual-task interference and long-term individual differences are different research questions.

Performance costs are conditional, not universal

The 2016 meta-analysis by Jeong and Hwang found that cognitive effects varied with task relevance, user control, and task contiguity. This is intuitive from cognitive theory: two demanding visual-verbal tasks are more likely to compete than a demanding visual task paired with a low-demand, predictable auditory background. A secondary activity that directly supports the primary goal can also function differently from an unrelated feed or conversation.

That conditionality is why “all multitasking is bad” is too broad. The more useful question is whether the combination creates interference for the outcome you care about. A surgeon, driver, student, programmer, therapist, parent, or warehouse worker may face very different task demands and very different consequences for an attentional lapse.

Does media multitasking shorten your attention span?

The phrase “attention span” is useful in everyday speech but often collapses several distinct functions into one imagined capacity. Media-multitasking research usually tests specific processes such as sustained attention, filtering, working memory, cognitive control, or self-reported distractibility. It does not provide a single biological meter showing that an individual’s “attention span” has been permanently shortened.

Meta-analytic findings are mixed in both magnitude and measurement. The 2017 analysis questioned whether a robust laboratory distractibility effect exists after accounting for small-study effects; the 2021 synthesis found a small overall association; and the 2023 three-level meta-analysis found a larger association in adolescents and young adults for some cognitive-control domains but not cognitive flexibility. That is a pattern of domain-specific, heterogeneous evidence, not evidence that one universal attention resource has been “destroyed.”

The popular term “brain rot” belongs to a different search intent and is not a neurological diagnosis. Media multitasking can be discussed without turning a real performance question into a claim that the brain is fried, rewired, or damaged.

Does media multitasking damage the brain or cause ADHD?

Current evidence does not justify either claim. Some studies report correlations between media-multitasking habits and cognitive or neural measures, but observational differences cannot establish that media multitasking caused structural damage. Neuroimaging findings are especially easy to overinterpret because a difference in brain structure or activity is not synonymous with injury, pathology, or a clinically meaningful deficit.

The same standard applies to ADHD. Repeated switching, distractibility, difficulty staying with a boring task, or frequent phone checking can occur in people with and without ADHD. Media-multitasking measures are not ADHD diagnostic instruments, and the media-multitasking literature does not establish that the behavior causes ADHD. A correlation between media behavior and attentional symptoms cannot substitute for a clinical assessment of a neurodevelopmental disorder.

Why studies disagree: the measurement problem

One major source of disagreement is that “media multitasking” is not measured in one standardized modern way. The original Media Multitasking Index asked people to estimate time spent with categories of media and how often other media were used concurrently. Researchers then grouped people into heavier and lighter media multitaskers or treated the score continuously.

The 2026 systematic review by Brandon, Murphy, and Neumann examined six widely used measurement families across 114 publications and found substantial inconsistency in how media categories were retained, modified, grouped, or updated. The original 2009 measure remained the most frequently used, and many studies continued to retain media items designed for an earlier technological environment. Measurement drift makes it harder to compare a “heavy media multitasker” in one study with a similarly labeled participant in another.

Self-report adds another complication. People estimate their own media combinations imperfectly, and questionnaires capture broad tendencies rather than the exact sequence of moment-to-moment behavior. Laboratory tasks solve some problems by controlling exposure, but they can become less representative of voluntary real-world media use. Naturalistic observation improves ecological realism but makes causal inference harder. Each method answers a different question.

What makes media multitasking more or less disruptive?

The evidence points to several interacting variables. Interference tends to be more plausible when both activities are demanding, when they draw on similar sensory or cognitive resources, when the secondary activity is unrelated to the primary goal, when switches are frequent or unpredictable, and when the primary task requires information to remain active across time. A message arriving during a difficult proof, a dense article, or a live conversation is cognitively different from familiar music during repetitive chores.

Task difficulty and overlap

When two tasks both require language comprehension, visual selection, working memory, or rapid response, they compete more directly. A second task that is easy, automated, or uses less overlapping processing may create a smaller cost. This helps explain why blanket rules about “screens” or “two things at once” are poor substitutes for analyzing the actual task combination.

Relevance to the main goal

A secondary activity can be task-relevant. Looking up a definition while writing, consulting a reference image while designing, or using a calculator while analyzing data may involve shifts of attention without being the same phenomenon as opening an unrelated entertainment feed. The meta-analysis of cognitive versus attitudinal outcomes found task relevance to be an important moderator, which supports keeping purpose in the model rather than counting every switch as equivalent.

Interruptions and environmental cues

Alerts, badges, incoming messages, visible open tabs, and other people’s screens can create opportunities for attention to shift. The dedicated Digital Life & Attention node on notifications owns the specific notification-attention evidence and will be activated as an internal link after its English canonical is live. Here, the relevant point is simply that an externally cued interruption is one pathway into a media-multitasking episode, not a synonym for media multitasking itself.

Individual differences and state

People differ in working-memory capacity, motivation, impulsivity, task expertise, media habits, sleep, stress, and beliefs about their own multitasking ability. Those variables can influence both whether someone chooses to multitask and how much a given task combination costs. The 2025 digital-ecosystem model specifically treats media multitasking as dynamic behavior produced by interacting person, task, and environmental factors.

Media multitasking in work, study, and relationships

Studying and learning

For learning that requires comprehension, integration, and later recall, unrelated media is a defensible target for reduction because experimental evidence shows immediate costs in several paradigms. This is a performance-management strategy, not a medical treatment. The goal is to protect periods in which the primary task needs sustained goal maintenance and deep encoding.

Knowledge work

In writing, coding, analysis, planning, and other knowledge work, the cost may appear as restart time and loss of context rather than a dramatic error. A person may complete all tasks eventually while taking longer, rereading more, or producing shallower work. Monitoring actual outputs—completion time, error rate, retention, and quality—can be more informative than judging productivity by how busy a screen looks.

Relationships

When phone or media use repeatedly enters face-to-face interaction, the primary issue may shift from cognitive performance to relationship interruption. That neighboring topic is covered by Phubbing and Technoference in Relationships: How Phones Interrupt Couple Connection. In DLA-40, relationship examples matter only as contexts in which a second media stream competes with an ongoing interpersonal task.

How to reduce media-multitasking costs without quitting technology

There is no evidence-based requirement to eliminate all simultaneous media use. The practical target is unnecessary competition during tasks where accuracy, comprehension, memory, safety, or interpersonal presence matters. A useful first step is to identify the task whose outcome you care about and ask what other streams are actually necessary during that period.

Protect high-demand tasks

During studying, dense reading, writing, problem solving, or other work that depends on working memory, reduce unrelated media that repeatedly captures the same perceptual or cognitive resources. Close or hide channels you do not need for the current goal, keep reference material available, and reopen optional communication after a defined work interval. The logic comes from immediate performance evidence, not from a claim that every switch harms the brain.

Reduce avoidable switching cues

Nonessential notifications, badges, auto-opening chat panels, and visible feeds can turn a single task into a sequence of choices about whether to switch. Removing some of those cues during focus-critical work can reduce opportunities for interruption. This is an environmental adjustment, not a diagnosis or a universal prescription.

Batch communication when the context allows it

If rapid response is not part of the job, checking email or messages at chosen intervals can protect longer stretches of goal continuity. In roles that require real-time coordination, batching may be impossible or counterproductive; the relevant optimization is then to separate urgent channels from low-priority ones rather than attempting total disconnection.

Use media combinations deliberately

Background media can be tested against the outcome that matters. If music, a podcast, or another stream does not reduce accuracy, comprehension, safety, or completion quality for a low-demand task, there may be little reason to prohibit it. When the work becomes language-heavy or conceptually difficult, the same background stream may become more competitive. Context changes the cost.

Measure your own performance instead of relying on the feeling of productivity

Multitasking can feel efficient because several activities are visibly moving forward. A simple personal test is more informative: compare similar single-task and multitask sessions on time, errors, recall, or output quality. This does not diagnose a cognitive problem; it helps reveal whether a particular media combination is useful, neutral, or costly for you.

A 2019 systematic review of media-multitasking interventions found that no intervention category had been shown to categorically improve cognitive performance. That limits sweeping claims about “digital detoxes,” attention training, or any one productivity method. Short-term environmental changes may improve a specific task because they remove competition, while evidence for durable generalized cognitive improvement remains much less settled.

What media multitasking is not

Media multitasking is not the same as screen time. Two people can spend the same number of hours with digital media while one uses media sequentially and the other combines several streams. Time, frequency, content, context, type of activity, and individual vulnerability are separate exposure variables.

It is also not automatically problematic smartphone use, social-media addiction, compulsive checking, or a behavioral addiction. Those constructs use different criteria and measurement frameworks. A high media-multitasking score says that media streams are often combined; it does not tell you whether the behavior causes distress, loss of control, or functional impairment.

Nor is it proof of poor attention in every setting. Habitual media-multitasking questionnaires and performance-based cognitive tasks show only partial correspondence. The newest evidence continues to support a heterogeneous picture rather than a single cognitive profile.

How media multitasking fits into digital well-being

Digital well-being is broader than minimizing media use. It concerns whether technology supports or interferes with a person’s goals, health, relationships, autonomy, and daily functioning. Media multitasking becomes relevant when competing streams make valued activities harder to perform, remember, enjoy, or complete. For the broader framework, see Digital Well-Being: What It Is, What Shapes It, and What Research Shows.

The design environment also matters. Platforms, communication systems, and devices can increase the number and salience of opportunities to switch. The cluster’s Attention Economy article covers the broader competition for time and focus. DLA-40 stays narrower: it asks what happens when a person actually combines media streams or mixes media with another ongoing task.

Frequently asked questions

Is media multitasking bad for you?

Not categorically. It is more likely to reduce performance when the tasks compete for the same resources or when the primary activity requires sustained attention, working memory, comprehension, or precise responding. Habitual media multitasking is associated with some attentional and memory differences, but meta-analytic results are heterogeneous and do not support treating the behavior as a global cognitive disorder.

Can humans really multitask?

Humans can perform some activities concurrently, especially when one is highly practiced or the tasks draw on different resources. Many everyday cases called multitasking, however, involve alternating attention or goals. When both tasks require central decision making, working memory, language processing, or the same sensory channel, interference becomes more likely.

Does media multitasking make your attention span shorter?

Research does not establish a single, permanently shortened “attention span.” Studies find associations with particular functions such as sustained attention, distractibility, working memory, or self-reported attentional lapses, and the strength of those associations varies substantially across methods. Attention should be analyzed by function rather than treated as one reservoir.

Does media multitasking cause ADHD?

Current evidence does not establish that media multitasking causes ADHD. ADHD is a clinical neurodevelopmental diagnosis; media multitasking is a behavior and research construct. Frequent switching or distractibility can occur for many reasons and cannot be used to diagnose ADHD.

Is heavy media multitasking an addiction?

No diagnostic conclusion follows from media-multitasking frequency alone. “Heavy media multitasker” is a research classification based on a media-use measure. It does not by itself demonstrate craving, loss of control, withdrawal, clinically significant distress, or functional impairment, and media multitasking is not an official standalone DSM or ICD diagnosis.

Is listening to music while studying media multitasking?

Under broad definitions, it can be: two streams are being processed during the same period. Its effect depends on the music, the study task, the learner, and the degree of resource overlap. Familiar or low-demand audio during a routine task is not equivalent to answering messages while trying to integrate a difficult text.

Does reducing media multitasking improve attention?

Reducing unrelated secondary media can improve the conditions for a specific focus-demanding task because it removes a source of competition. Evidence that this produces broad, durable improvements in general cognitive control is much less conclusive. The systematic review of interventions found no intervention category that consistently improved performance across the evidence base.

Are teenagers and young adults more affected?

Much of the literature has been conducted with adolescents, university students, and young adults, so evidence is particularly dense in those populations. That does not mean effects can automatically be generalized to every age group. The 2026 academic-achievement scoping review highlights how uneven the evidence remains across educational levels.

Bottom line

Media multitasking is best understood as a context-dependent pattern of combining media streams or mixing media with another ongoing activity. Immediate experiments show that unrelated secondary media can impair learning, comprehension, memory encoding, and task performance when cognitive demands overlap. Evidence about habitual media multitasking and stable cognitive ability is more mixed: meta-analyses find effects that vary from negligible to moderate, with substantial heterogeneity across measures, populations, and cognitive domains.

The practical implication is specific. Protect tasks that depend on deep comprehension, working memory, accurate responding, or sustained goal maintenance from unnecessary competing media. Keep media that genuinely supports the task. Judge the combination by measurable performance and context rather than by slogans about a destroyed attention span or a rewired brain.

References

Brandon, K., Murphy, K., & Neumann, D. L. (2026). Measures of Media Multitasking: A Systematic Review to Examine How These Measures Evolved Over Time to Keep Pace With Changes in Media. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2026, 3420703. https://doi.org/10.1155/hbe2/3420703

Caprì, T. (2026). Media Multitasking and Cognitive Abilities: A Multi-Domain Assessment of Attention, Working Memory, Convergent Associative Thinking, and Fluid Reasoning. Journal of Intelligence, 14(8), 175. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence14080175

Drody, A. C., Pereira, E. J., & Smilek, D. (2025). Attention in our digital ecosystem: The five interactive components that drive media multitasking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 32, 2454–2471. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-025-02722-5

Haverkamp, Y. E., Bråten, I., Latini, N., & Strømsø, H. I. (2024). Effects of media multitasking on the processing and comprehension of multiple documents: Does main idea summarization make a difference? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 77, 102271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2024.102271

Jeong, S.-H., & Hwang, Y. (2016). Media Multitasking Effects on Cognitive vs. Attitudinal Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Human Communication Research, 42(4), 599–618. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12089

Kong, F., Meng, S., Deng, H., Wang, M., & Sun, X. (2023). Cognitive Control in Adolescents and Young Adults with Media Multitasking Experience: a Three-Level Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 35, 22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09746-0

Lax, M., Mölsä, M. E., Korhonen, J., & Söderberg, P. (2026). Media multitasking and academic achievement among different educational levels: a scoping review. Discover Education, 5, 29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-01028-x

Madore, K. P., Khazenzon, A. M., Backes, C. W., Jiang, J., Uncapher, M. R., Norcia, A. M., & Wagner, A. D. (2020). Memory failure predicted by attention lapsing and media multitasking. Nature, 587, 87–91. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2870-z

May, K. E., & Elder, A. D. (2018). Efficient, helpful, or distracting? A literature review of media multitasking in relation to academic performance. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0096-z

Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583–15587. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903620106

Parry, D. A., & le Roux, D. B. (2019). Media multitasking and cognitive control: A systematic review of interventions. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.031

Parry, D. A., & le Roux, D. B. (2021). “Cognitive control in media multitaskers” ten years on: A meta-analysis. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 15(2), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.5817/cp2021-2-7

Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. J. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.003

Uncapher, M. R., Thieu, M. K., & Wagner, A. D. (2016). Media multitasking and memory: Differences in working memory and long-term memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(2), 483–490. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0907-3

van der Schuur, W. A., Baumgartner, S. E., Sumter, S. R., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). The consequences of media multitasking for youth: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.035

Wiradhany, W., & Koerts, J. (2021). Everyday functioning-related cognitive correlates of media multitasking: a mini meta-analysis. Media Psychology, 24(2), 276–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2019.1685393

Wiradhany, W., & Nieuwenstein, M. R. (2017). Cognitive control in media multitaskers: Two replication studies and a meta-analysis. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79, 2620–2641. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1408-4

Wiradhany, W., van Vugt, M. K., & Nieuwenstein, M. R. (2020). Media multitasking, mind-wandering, and distractibility: A large-scale study. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82, 1112–1124. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01842-0

Psychological Encyclopedia