Chapter 14: Quiz
1. When people "multitask," they are actually:
- A) Processing multiple streams of information simultaneously
- B) Rapidly switching between tasks, with a measurable cost in time and accuracy
- C) Using unused brain capacity
- D) Entering a flow state
Answer: B. Multitasking is actually task-switching, and each switch costs time (latency) and accuracy.
2. Rubinstein, Meyer, and Evans (2001) estimated that task-switching can reduce productive time by:
- A) 5%
- B) 15%
- C) Up to 40%
- D) 75%
Answer: C. For complex tasks, up to 40% of time can be lost to switching overhead.
3. Gloria Mark's research on interruptions found that workers took an average of approximately how long to return to the original task?
- A) 5 minutes
- B) 23 minutes
- C) 45 minutes
- D) 2 hours
Answer: B. Approximately 23 minutes and 15 seconds, though this includes time spent on intervening tasks, not 23 minutes of blank staring.
4. Csikszentmihalyi's flow state includes all of the following EXCEPT:
- A) Complete absorption in the activity
- B) The challenge-skill balance
- C) Guaranteed 5x productivity increase
- D) Loss of self-consciousness
Answer: C. The "5x productivity" claim is a marketing assertion from flow-hacking programs, not a finding from Csikszentmihalyi's research.
5. The "8-second human attention span" statistic:
- A) Comes from a rigorous neuroscience study
- B) Has no reliable primary source and is likely fabricated
- C) Was measured in a controlled laboratory setting
- D) Has been replicated multiple times
Answer: B. The statistic was attributed to a Microsoft report whose baseline figure cannot be traced to a primary source. The goldfish comparison similarly has no scientific basis.
6. Ward et al. (2017) found that smartphone proximity:
- A) Has no effect on cognitive performance
- B) Reduces cognitive capacity even when the phone is turned off and face down
- C) Only affects people who are addicted to their phones
- D) Improves performance by providing a sense of security
Answer: B. The mere presence of a phone within sight taxes cognitive resources — even when it's powered off. Participants performed better when the phone was in another room.
7. The "flow hacking" industry overpromises because:
- A) Flow isn't real
- B) Flow is real but probabilistic — you can create conditions that make it more likely, but cannot trigger it reliably at will
- C) Flow only happens to athletes
- D) Flow has been debunked by replication studies
Answer: B. Flow is a real, documented state. The overpromise is about controllability — the pop version suggests you can "hack" your way into flow, when the research shows it's probabilistic.
8. Orben and Przybylski (2019) found that screen time's association with adolescent wellbeing was:
- A) Extremely large and negative
- B) Small and negative — comparable to the associations between wellbeing and wearing glasses or eating potatoes
- C) Large and positive
- D) Non-existent
Answer: B. The effect was real but tiny — smaller than many factors that receive no public alarm. This suggests the technology-attention narrative is substantially overstated.
9. The most evidence-based strategy for improving focus during work is:
- A) A dopamine detox
- B) A flow-hacking course
- C) Putting your phone in another room and reducing environmental distractions
- D) Brain training games
Answer: C. Simple environmental design (removing the phone from proximity, reducing interruptions) has direct evidence from the Ward et al. study and is more effective than neurochemical narratives or commercialized programs.
10. The chapter's overall assessment of technology's effect on attention is:
- A) Technology has no effect on attention
- B) Technology has destroyed our ability to focus
- C) There are specific, documented effects (proximity cost, media consumption changes) but the grand narrative of "shrinking attention spans" and "brain rewiring" outpaces the evidence
- D) Only children are affected
Answer: C. The evidence supports specific, modest effects — not the dramatic narrative that dominates headlines. The honest answer is "some documented effects, much uncertainty, and smaller than you've been told."