Multitasking and Persuasion: The Role of Structural Interference

Abstract

Although the inhibiting effects of multitasking can be explained by 2 components, capacity interference (CI) and structural interference (SI), studies that have specifically focused on SI are limited. Thus, the present study examined the effects of SI in persuasion using 2 experimental studies. Results of Study 1 showed that SI (not CI) reduced both comprehension and counterarguing. In addition, results of Study 2 showed that SI effects occur not only in single-channel multitasking but also in dual-channel multitasking, and that SI effects occur not only when content interference is high (language-based multitasking) but also when it is low (non–language-based multitasking). The role of SI in multitasking effects has important implications for research on audience behaviors and persuasive communication.

NOTE

Notes

1. Examples of correct counterarguments for smoking ban included the following: “not only do smokers have freedom to smoke, nonsmokers have freedom not to be exposed to second hand smoke,” “restaurants could have more customers because nonsmokers could come more frequently,” “Switzerland may have rejected the law but there are other countries that ban smoking in public places,” and “I hate cigarette smoke because smoking is bad for my health.” Examples of correct counterarguments for fat taxes included the following: “government intervention in the market could be justified for common good, such as preventing obesity,” “fat taxes may hurt low income families financially but it may be good for their health,” “fat taxes may be more effective in Korea because the prevalence of obesity is low,” and “fat tax is acceptable because I do not like to eat fast food.” Finally, examples of correct counterarguments for DRG payment system included the following: “In Korea, the public sector as well as the private sector is involved in medical services, so medical services is not entirely dependent on the market economy,” “the medical industry should not decide the medical system based on their level of profit,” “a choice of a public policy should not depend on other countries' decisions,” and “DRG payment system is irrelevant to me because it is beneficial only for older adults.” On the other hand, incorrect counterarguments included a simple restatement of the argument presented in the message (see Brock, 1967) or a supportive argument rather than a counterargument (Niederdeppe et al., 2011). For example, arguments such as “the tobacco industry could be good for the economy” is a supportive argument of the original argument that smoking ban could have negative effects on the economy; “fast food does not have to be regulated because it would not lead to obesity if you exercise regularly” is consistent with the idea that fast food should not be regulated; and “DRG payment system is not based on a systematic classification of diseases” opposes the introduction of DRG payment system. Thus, these counterarguments were coded as incorrect because they supported the arguments presented in the message rather than refute them.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2011-332-B00722).