Does framing an assignment as involving one or multiple components influence subjective experiences of attentional engagement?

Across two studies, we explored whether framing an assignment as involving either multitasking or single-tasking (Srna et al. Psychol Sci 29(12):1942-1955, 2018) leads to differences in both subjective ratings of attentional engagement (i.e., depth of concentration and attentional control) and performance during the assignment. In Experiment 1, we manipulated task framing in the context of an assignment in which participants (Ncollected = 238) simultaneously completed a word-search and an anagram task (Srna et al. Psychol Sci 29(12):1942-1955, 2018). While we replicated prior findings that participants who receive multitasking instructions perform better than those who receive single-tasking instructions, we did not find any influence of task framing on participants' subjective evaluations of their attentional engagement. Exploratory analyses, however, revealed that regardless of group assignment, those who believed they were multitasking reported greater levels of attentional engagement than those who believed they were single-tasking. In Experiment 2 (Ncollected = 238), task framing was varied in the context of the 2-back task (Kirchner J Exp Psychol 55(4): 352, 1958). Unexpectedly, we found that, relative to participants who received single-tasking instructions, those who received multitasking instructions reported exerting less attentional control over their thoughts and showed a greater number of incorrect responses to non-target trials on the 2-back. Taken together, the results do not support a straightforward conclusion regarding the influence of task framing on either subjective reports of attentional engagement or task performance. Nevertheless, they provide insight into our understanding of the role of task framing in contexts ranging from commonly performed real-world tasks to typical laboratory tasks.

The impact of a global pandemic on undergraduate learning experiences: One year later.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We examined students perceived changes in their attention, motivation, affect, and time perception following the implementation of the pandemic-related restrictions. METHODS: One year after the restrictions were implemented, we surveyed students' (N = 153) perceived changes in their experiences relative to their remembered pre- and early-pandemic ones, as well as their predicted future changes. RESULTS: Consistent with prior work, when students compared their current experiences (March/April 2021) to their remembered pre-pandemic ones, they perceived increases in mind-wandering, technology use, external distraction, and negative affect, as well as decreases in focus, flow, motivation, and time perception. Although somewhat attenuated, students also noted changes in these behaviours when comparing the memory of their early pandemic experiences to their current experiences. Finally, they further anticipated negative changes in their future experiences, possibly due to continued pandemic-related isolation. IMPLICATIONS: Reducing students' sense of isolation might improve their cognitive and affective experiences.

The Influence of Posture on Attention.

Smith et al. (2019) found standing resulted in better performance than sitting in three different cognitive control paradigms: a Stroop task, a task-switching, and a visual search paradigm. Here, we conducted close replications of the authors' three experiments using larger sample sizes than the original work. Our sample sizes had essentially perfect power to detect the key postural effects reported by Smith et al. The results from our experiments revealed that, in contrast to Smith et al., the postural interactions were quite limited in magnitude in addition to being only a fraction of the size of the original effects. Moreover, our results from Experiment 1 are consistent with two recent replications (Caron et al., 2020; Straub et al., 2022), which reported no meaningful influences of posture on the Stroop effect. In all, the current research provides further converging evidence that postural influences on cognition do not appear to be as robust, as was initially reported in prior work.

Does Posture Influence the Stroop Effect?

Rosenbaum, Mama, and Algom (2017) reported that participants who completed the Stroop task (i.e., name the hue of a color word when the hue and word meaning are congruent or incongruent) showed a smaller Stroop effect (i.e., the difference in response times between congruent and incongruent trials) when they performed the task standing than when sitting. We report five attempted replications (analyzed sample sizes: N = 108, N = 108, N = 98, N = 78, and N = 51, respectively) of Rosenbaum et al.'s findings, which were conducted in two institutions. All experiments yielded the standard Stroop effect, but we failed to detect any consistent effect of posture (sitting vs. standing) on the magnitude of the Stroop effect. Taken together, the results suggest that posture does not influence the magnitude of the Stroop effect to the extent that was previously suggested.