Features of the Attention Span in Adult Internet Users

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The article generally considers the problem of changes in the functioning of cognitive processes in the context of digitalization. Systematization of the current studies on attention reveals that the vast majority of them are devoted to media multitasking, the results of which are rather contradictory and relate mainly to adolescents and young men. The academic community also analyzes the impact of digital technologies on the attention of students of different age groups, the effect of which is assessed rather as negative. The present study tests the hypothesis of possible changes in the implementation of this cognitive function in adult Internet users. Empirical testing was carried out through a comparative analysis of the attention span in adults who prefer different information coding systems: traditional (“paper”) or digital. The study sample included people aged 37-60 who received higher education in the pre-digital era and are currently engaged in intellectual work; they were divided into two groups: adult readers and adult Internet users (n = 50 each). To clarify the differences in the attention span in adult respondents with different practices of accessing information carriers, a group of students, active young Internet users (n = 50), was also involved. The attention span parameters were assessed using Bourdon’s dot cancellation test. The results of the study statistically reliably show that the adult readers ( p ≤ 0.01) have a higher ability to concentrate attention than active Internet users (both young and adults), keeping it within the normative boundaries that were inherent in people of the pre-digital era.

About the authors

Elena I. Medvedskaya

Brest State University named after A.S. Pushkin

Author for correspondence.
Email: EMedvedskaja@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2033-510X

PhD in Psychology, is Professor of the Department of Social Work

21 Bulvar Kosmonavtov, Brest, 224016, Republic of Belarus

References

  1. Baranovskaya, L.G., Gorbov, A.A., & Gripich, E.D. (2021). The impact of internet technology on the cognitive activities of students. Vestnik Ural'skogo Gosudarstvennogo Meditsinskogo Universiteta, 1(52), 72–78. (In Russ.)
  2. Carrier, L.M., Rosen, L., Cheever, N.A., & Lim, A. (2015). Causes, effects, and practicalities of everyday multitasking. Developmental Review, 35, 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2014.12.005
  3. Demchenko, P.N., & Maltsev, I.V. (2021). Mediatization as a factor in increasing interest in modern popular science media (“Science and Life” and “Popular Mechanics”). Scientific Dialogue, (3), 171–189. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/227-1295-2021-3-171-189
  4. DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J.A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1616–1641. https://doi.org/10.1016.j.chb.2005.08.012
  5. Dubin, B.V., & Zorkaya, N.A. (2008). Reading in Russia – 2008. Trends and problems. Moscow: Mezhregional'nyi Tsentr Bibliotechnogo Cotrudnichestva Publ. (In Russ.)
  6. Falikman, M. (2021). There and back again: A (reversed) Vygotskian perspective on digital socialization. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 501233. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.501233
  7. Firth, J., Torous, J., Stubbs, B., Firth, J.A., Steiner, G.Z., Smith, L., Alvarez-Jimenez, M., Gleeson, J., Vancampfort, D., Armitage, C.J., & Sarris, J. (2019). The “online brain”: how the Internet may be changing our cognition. World Psychiatry, 18, 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20617
  8. Floridi, L. (2014). 4-TH revolution: How the infoshere is reshaping human reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  9. Gaidich, O.P. (2021). Features of eight year old students’ attention and memory in various learning situations. Right. Economy. Psychology, (4), 97–101. (In Russ.)
  10. Kirby, A. (2009). Digimodernism: How new technologies dismantle the postmodern and reconfigure our culture. New York: Continuum Publishing Corporation.
  11. Lee, S., & Koubek, R. (2010). Understanding user preferences based on usability and aesthetics before and after actual use. Interaction with Computers, 22, 530–543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.05.002
  12. Linderholm, T., & Van den Broek, P. (2002). The effects of reading purpose and working memory capacity on the processing of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 4, 778–784. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.94.4.778
  13. Malakhova, E.Yu., Lamminpiya, A.M., & Shelepin, YU.E. (2016). The influence of part of speech text structure on eve movements during natural reading. Experimental Psychology, 9(4), 18–32. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/ 10.17759/exppsy.2016090402
  14. McLuhan, M. (2003). Understanding media: Human external extensions. Moscow, Zhukovsky: CANON-Press-C, Kuchkovo Pole Publ. (In Russ.)
  15. Milgram, P., & Kishino. A.F. (1994). Taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, (E77-D(12)), 1321–1329.
  16. Moisala, M., Salmela, V., Hietajärvi, L., & Salo, E. (2016). Media multitasking is associated with distractibility and increased prefrontal activity in adolescents and young adults. NeuroImage, 134, 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.04.011
  17. Rimsky, R.R., & Rimsky, S.A. (Eds.). (1995). Almanac of psychological tests. Moscow: KSP Publ. (In Russ.)
  18. Rubinshtein, S.Ya. (2004). Eksperimental'nye metodiki patopsikhologii i opyt primeneniya ikh v klinike: Prakticheskoe rukovodstvo. Moscow: Aprel-Press; Institute of Psychotherapy Publ. (In Russ.)
  19. Rubtsova, O.V. (2019). Digital media as a new means of mediation (part one). Cultural-Historical Psychology, 15(3), 117–124. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/17759/chp.2019150312
  20. Rȕckriem, G. (2010). Digital technology and mediation – a challenge to activity theory. Cultural-Historical Psychology, (4), 30–38.
  21. Semenova, N.G., Boldyreva, T.A., & Ignatova, T.N. (2005). The influence of media technologies on cognitive activity and the psycho-physiological state of students. Vestnik Orenburgskogo Universiteta, (4), 34–38. (In Russ.)
  22. Small G.W., Lee J., Kaufman A., Jalil J., Siddarth P., Gaddipati H., Moody T.D., Bookheimer S.Y. (2020). Brain health consequences of digital technology use. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 22(2), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2020.22.2/gsmall
  23. Soldatova, G.U., & Vishneva, A.E. (2019). Features of the development of the cognitive sphere in children with different online activities: Is there a golden mean? Counseling Psychology and Psychotherapy, 27(3), 97–118. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17759/cpp.2019270307
  24. Soldatova, G.U., Chigarkova, S.V., Dreniova, A.A., & Koshevaya, A.G. (2020). Julius Caesar’s effect: Types of media multitasking in children and adolescents. Voprosy Psikhologii, 66(4), 54–69. (In Russ.) Retrieved October 15, 2021, from https://istina.fnkcrr.ru/publications/article/328273815
  25. Soldatova, G.U., Nikolaeva, E.D., Koshevaya, A.G., & Trifonova, A.V. (2020). Media multitasking: From cognitive functions to digital. Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology, 9(4), 8–21. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17759/jmfp.202009401
  26. Stefanovskaja, N.A. (2021). The sociocultural situation of reading in the era of digitalization. Cultural and Civilization, 11(5А). 173–180. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.34670/AR.2021.35.84.020
  27. Tkhostov, A.Sh., Rasskazova, E.I., & Emelin, V.A. (2019). Mental health in the context of information society: To the issue of changes in the pathogenesis and pathomorphism of diseases (by the model of disturbances of the sleep – wake cycle). Counseling Psychology and Psychotherapy, 27(3), 44–60. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10/17759/cpp.2019270304
  28. Uncapher, M.R., & Wagner, A.D. (2018). Minds and brains of media multitaskers: Current findings and future directions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 9889–9896. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1611612115
  29. Van Der Schuur, W.A., Baumgartner, S.E., Sumter, S.R., & Valkenburg, P.M. (2015). The consequences of the media multitasking for youth: a review. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/jcht.2015.06.035
  30. Voiskunsky, A.E., & Solodov, M.Yu. (2020). How features of digital text affect reading efficiency and comprehension. Literature review. Psychology in Education, 2(2), 134–142. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.33910/2686-9527-2020-2-2-134-142
  31. Voiskunsky, A.E., Arestova, O.N., & Solodov, M.Yu. (2019). Psychological issue in digital text reading. Moscow University Psychology Bulletin, (4), 59–79. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.11621/vsp.2019.04.59
  32. Vyatlova, O.A. (2020). Influence of use of smartphons on well-being cognitive functions and morphofunctional state on the central nervous system in children and adolescents (review). Problems of School and University Medicine and Health, (1), 4–14. (In Russ.)
  33. Vygotskii, L.S. (1982). Psychology and the doctrine of the localization of mental functions. Sobranie Sochinenie. Vol. 1. Voprosy Teorii i Istorii Psikhologii (pp. 168–174). Moscow: Pedagogika Publ. (In Russ.)
  34. Wammes, J.D., Mills, C., Ralph, B.C.W., & Bosch, N. (2019). Disengagement during lectures: Media multitasking and mind wandering in university classrooms. Computers & Education, 132, 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.compedu.2018.12.007
  35. Wilmer, H.H., Sherman, L.E., & Chein, J.M. (2017). Smartphones and cognition: A review of research exploring the links between mobile technology habits and cognitive functioning. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 605. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00605

Copyright (c) 2022 Medvedskaya E.I.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies