Multitasking is one of the great productivity myths of modern life. For decades, the ability to juggle multiple tasks simultaneously was presented as a valued skill — a marker of efficiency and capability. Job listings requested it. Productivity systems encouraged it. People prided themselves on being good at it. The only problem: the research overwhelmingly shows it doesn’t work. You cannot really multitask — and the attempt to do so costs more than it saves. Here’s the truth about multitasking, why you can’t really do it, and what has to give when you try.
What the Brain Actually Does When You “Multitask”
The term multitasking was borrowed from computing — in computing, a processor can genuinely run multiple processes simultaneously. The human brain cannot. What you experience as multitasking is actually rapid task-switching: your attention moves back and forth between tasks at speed, giving the impression of parallel processing while actually doing sequential processing with very small gaps between items.
Research published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology by Joshua Rubinstein, David Meyer, and Jeffrey Evans found that this task-switching carries a consistent “switching cost” — a cognitive penalty paid each time attention shifts from one task to another. The cost includes: the time taken to reorient to the new task, the cognitive residue of the previous task that continues to occupy mental bandwidth, and the elevated error rate that results from divided attention. According to the American Psychological Association, task-switching can reduce productivity by up to 40%.
The Myth of the Good Multitasker
One of the most striking findings in multitasking research comes from Stanford psychologist Clifford Nass and his colleagues, whose 2009 study examined whether “heavy multitaskers” — people who regularly multitask across multiple digital streams — were actually better at it than occasional multitaskers. The counterintuitive result: heavy multitaskers were significantly worse at filtering out irrelevant information, switching between tasks efficiently, and maintaining working memory clarity than people who multitasked less frequently.
Free Download: Narcissistic Red Flags Checklist
Spot the patterns before they escalate — get our free PDF checklist used by thousands of readers.
The researchers expected heavy multitaskers to have developed efficient multitasking skills. Instead, they found that frequent multitasking appeared to train the brain to be more distractible — more likely to be captured by irrelevant stimuli, less able to focus when focus was actually required. The people who multitasked most turned out to be the worst at it. This finding has significant implications for how we organise our attention in daily life.
What Has to Give When You Multitask
The practical consequences of multitasking are well-documented across several domains:
Quality of Work
Divided attention produces more errors, shallower thinking, and reduced creativity. Tasks that require genuine cognitive engagement — writing, analysis, complex problem-solving, creative work — are most severely affected by task-switching. Research from the University of London found that multitasking with digital devices during cognitive tasks produced IQ drops equivalent to losing a night of sleep — temporary, but measurable and significant.
Memory Formation
Memory consolidation requires attention. Information that is processed under conditions of divided attention is less likely to be retained, less likely to be integrated into long-term memory, and more likely to require re-learning. This is why conversations had while distracted are often poorly remembered — the brain was partially occupied with another task and didn’t fully encode what was being said.
Relationships
Perhaps the highest-stakes cost of multitasking is its impact on the quality of human connection. Being partially present in conversation — looking at a phone, mentally processing a work problem while someone speaks — communicates both consciously and unconsciously that the person in front of you is less important than whatever is dividing your attention. Research on relationship satisfaction consistently finds that perceived presence and genuine attentiveness are among the most important factors in relationship quality. Phubbing — snubbing a person in favour of a phone — has been directly linked in research to lower relationship satisfaction for both the person doing it and the person being done to. For more on this dynamic and its relationship consequences, this piece on what it means when someone would rather scroll than talk goes deeper.
Wellbeing
Research on flow states — the psychological state of complete absorption in a meaningful activity — by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi consistently identifies single-tasking as a prerequisite for flow. Flow is associated with high levels of positive emotion, deep satisfaction, and subjective experience of time as well-spent. Chronic multitasking forecloses access to this state, keeping us in a perpetual low-level attentional scattering that is both cognitively and emotionally depleting. For more on what genuine rest and presence do for your mental health, this piece on slowing down explores the psychological and physiological benefits of undivided attention to one thing at a time.
The Exception: Habit-Based Tasks
It’s worth noting the genuine exception to the multitasking rule: tasks that are entirely habitual and automatic — walking, doing simple household tasks, exercising — can be performed alongside other activities (listening to a podcast, having a phone call) with relatively little cost, because they require minimal conscious attention. The problem arises when both activities require conscious cognitive engagement. Walking and listening is genuinely possible. Writing a report and simultaneously conducting a meeting is not — one of them will suffer, and usually both will.
What to Do Instead
The evidence consistently supports single-tasking — giving one task your undivided attention for a defined period before moving to the next — as significantly more effective than multitasking across almost every type of meaningful cognitive work. Practical approaches include:
- Time-blocking: Allocating specific periods in your day to specific types of work, with all notifications off and a single task in focus.
- The Pomodoro Technique: 25 minutes of focused work, 5-minute break, repeat — a structure that makes single-tasking sustainable by building in regular transitions.
- Closing tabs: Literally having only the tabs and applications open that you need for the task currently in front of you.
- Notification management: Treating incoming notifications as deferred rather than requiring immediate attention — checking messages in scheduled batches rather than continuously.
The neuroscience of attention is clear: you have a finite amount of focused attention available, and how you deploy it determines the quality of almost everything you do. Spending it on rapid, shallow task-switching is one of the least efficient uses of one of your most valuable cognitive resources. Single-tasking is not a productivity hack — it’s simply a more honest relationship with how your brain actually works.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can women multitask better than men?
This is a widely held belief that the research largely doesn’t support. While some studies have found small differences in specific types of attention-shifting between sexes, the broader evidence — including a 2019 study from the University of Bergen published in Psychological Research — found no significant difference in multitasking performance between men and women. The perception that women are better multitaskers may reflect the fact that women disproportionately take on roles requiring the management of multiple responsibilities simultaneously (domestic, parenting, and professional) — not that their brains process multiple tasks more efficiently.
How do I explain to colleagues or employers that I shouldn’t multitask?
Frame it in productivity terms rather than personal preference: “I’ve found I produce significantly better work when I focus on one thing at a time — I’d like to structure my time to do that where possible.” Most reasonable managers and employers are more interested in the quality of your output than in the specific method you use to produce it. The research on single-tasking and productivity is substantial enough to cite credibly if a more detailed conversation is needed.
What if my job genuinely requires managing multiple things simultaneously?
Many jobs require managing multiple ongoing responsibilities — which is different from actually processing two demanding cognitive tasks at exactly the same time. What’s possible and effective is having multiple active projects and moving deliberately between them, giving each genuine attention in turn. What isn’t possible or effective is genuinely processing two complex demands simultaneously. Clarifying this distinction for yourself — and for the people who set your workload — is part of managing your work in a way that produces genuinely good results rather than the appearance of busyness.
Further Reading & Sources
Gracie Webb is a writer and researcher with a first-class degree in Psychology and over seven years of experience studying behavioural change, self-development, and the science of decision-making. She worked for four years as a research assistant in a cognitive behavioural therapy clinical setting, where she observed first-hand the gap between what people know they should do and what they actually do — a gap that sits at the centre of nearly all her writing. Gracie’s personal journey through a toxic long-term relationship, the slow process of rebuilding her self-worth, and the year she spent in therapy gave her both the intellectual framework and the personal authority to write about growth with honesty. Her work is rigorous, compassionate, and consistently aimed at the reader who is genuinely trying to change.
