Labor/leisure decisions in their natural context: The case of the smartphone.
Distraction
Ecological validity
Labor/leisure decision
Notification
Smartphone
Journal
Psychonomic bulletin & review
ISSN: 1531-5320
Titre abrégé: Psychon Bull Rev
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9502924
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2021
Apr 2021
Historique:
accepted:
01
11
2020
pubmed:
22
11
2020
medline:
13
7
2021
entrez:
21
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In this research, we attempt to understand a common real-life labor/leisure decision, i.e., to perform cognitive work or to interact with one's smartphone. In an ecologically valid experiment, participants (N = 112) could freely switch back and forth between doing a 2-back task and interacting with their own smartphone. We manipulated the value of the 2-back task (by varying the value of monetary rewards; within-subjects) and of the smartphone (by switching on and off airplane mode; within-subjects) while we recorded incoming notifications, such as text messages. Our study produced three main findings: (1) the current value of the smartphone did not increase our statistical model's ability to predict switches from labor to leisure when the current task value was also taken into account; (2) however, participants reacted strongly to naturally incoming notifications, which were the strongest predictor of labor-to-leisure switches; (3) there was no evidence that taking into account individual differences (in the value assigned to labor and leisure) improved the model's ability to predict labor-leisure switches. In sum, using a situated approach to studying labor/leisure decisions, our findings highlight the importance of high task motivation, as well as the temporary distractive potential of smartphone notifications, when people face the challenge of staying focused on their productive tasks.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33219457
doi: 10.3758/s13423-020-01844-2
pii: 10.3758/s13423-020-01844-2
pmc: PMC8062367
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
676-685Références
J Environ Psychol. 2009 Dec;29(4):513-521
pubmed: 21234286
Annu Rev Neurosci. 2017 Jul 25;40:99-124
pubmed: 28375769
Trends Cogn Sci. 2014 Mar;18(3):127-33
pubmed: 24439530
Behav Brain Sci. 2013 Dec;36(6):661-79
pubmed: 24304775
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012 Jun;102(6):1318-35
pubmed: 22149456
Psychol Bull. 2020 Oct;146(10):872-899
pubmed: 32686948
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2015 Aug;41(4):893-897
pubmed: 26121498
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014 Feb;143(1):131-41
pubmed: 23230991
Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2019 Oct;19(5):1113-1128
pubmed: 31209733
Comput Human Behav. 2013 Nov 1;29(6):2501-2511
pubmed: 25722534
Front Psychol. 2015 Aug 07;6:1171
pubmed: 26300841
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Jun 21;108(25):10367-71
pubmed: 21646524
Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2012;5:105-14
pubmed: 22969308
J Mem Lang. 2013 Apr;68(3):
pubmed: 24403724
J Neurosci Methods. 2007 May 15;162(1-2):8-13
pubmed: 17254636
Trends Cogn Sci. 2000 Dec 1;4(12):470-475
pubmed: 11115761
PLoS One. 2013 Jul 22;8(7):e68210
pubmed: 23894295
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 4;13(10):e0205091
pubmed: 30286146
J Pers Assess. 1984 Jun;48(3):306-7
pubmed: 16367530