Why Multitasking Creates False Busyness—and How Priorities Help

Why several goals can keep you switching

A task can be mentally active even when you are not doing it. Finishing the report, keeping up with the meeting, responding to a friend and arranging lunch can all remain on your mind. Each offers a reason to leave whatever you are doing now.

Ewa Szumowska and Arie W. Kruglanski investigated this account in their paper, The psychology of getting busy: Multitasking as a consequence of goal activation, published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General in 2022. Their approach draws on Goal Systems Theory: behavior depends partly on which goals are active and how strongly those goals drive action.

Two distinctions matter. First, how many goals are you actively considering? A long list of things you might eventually do is different from several things that each feel as though they require attention now. Second, how important is each goal relative to the others? When no goal clearly outranks its competitors, switching can remain tempting.

That makes multitasking more than a simple reaction to having too little time. The desire to keep several goals moving can itself produce the repeated alternation that feels like efficiency. The research asks why people multitask; it does not establish that every instance is wasteful or that every divided task has the same cost.

What the six studies examined

Across six studies, the researchers examined goal activation, goal importance and multitasking. The authors' preprint abstract distinguishes intentions to multitask, actual switching and classroom media multitasking. Those outcomes should not be treated as interchangeable measures of productivity.

Bringing several goals to mind

Study 1 examined plans to multitask, while Study 2 examined switching between tasks. The results supported the proposed connection: considering more active goals was associated with greater willingness to multitask or more frequent switching, depending on the study.

The everyday parallel is familiar. You remember an unanswered message while working, then remember another job while replying. You do not need a new instruction from someone else to switch tasks repeatedly. Your own reminders can keep alternative activities available.

This does not mean that writing a comprehensive task list is harmful. The relevant issue is whether the listed goals are all competing for immediate action. Remembering a task for later and repeatedly reopening it now are different ways of managing it.

When interruptions introduce a competing goal

Study 3 compared high- and low-interruption conditions. Participants multitasked more under higher interruption, which the researchers interpreted as activating more goals.

Repeated interruptions in daily life can work in a similar way. The sound of a phone notification may introduce a new reason to act: find out who wrote, decide whether the message is urgent, and perhaps reply. Once you engage, that goal can compete with the work you were already doing.

The practical question is whether an interruption introduces another demand on attention. A cue can be brief and still leave you with a new task to consider after the sound has stopped.

Giving one goal greater weight

Study 4 increased the relative importance of one goal and found reduced multitasking. Study 5 used a mental contrasting procedure to strengthen commitment to a goal; it also examined multitasking plans. These were different ways of making one goal stand out from its competitors.

Both fit the central argument: the number of tasks in your life need not shrink for one task to become more dominant in your attention. A goal that matters more can reduce the pull of competing goals for a period.

That is different from declaring everything urgent. If every task has the same top priority, the hierarchy offers little guidance about which one deserves your attention now.

What classroom importance can tell us

Study 6 took the question into an academic setting. Greater importance of a class-related goal negatively predicted media multitasking during class. Students who placed more importance on that goal tended to report less competing media activity.

That is a predictive relationship, not proof that making a course feel important will cause a particular student to put away their phone. It supports the broader relevance of goals while leaving room for other influences. Nor does the finding mean that any student who checks a phone must consider the course unimportant.

Turning the findings into useful choices

The practical implication is to manage competition for attention. Before an important task, decide what should take precedence during the period you have available. A priority helps only if it gives you a way to choose when another activity becomes appealing.

Then consider which interruptions you can reduce. A notification that requires no immediate response may still activate the goal of checking it. Limiting that cue can make it easier to stay with your chosen work. Necessary interruptions remain necessary; the aim is to reduce avoidable competition, not to make yourself unreachable in every situation.

It also helps to distinguish a later obligation from a current one. You may genuinely need to answer messages, order food and finish a report. That does not mean they all need to remain active at once. The question is which deserves action now, and which can wait until the current piece of work has a natural stopping point.

These are reasonable applications of the research, rather than guaranteed methods for reducing stress or increasing output. The cited study does not justify a promise that priority setting will make every working day easier. Deadlines, workload and other people's demands still matter.

When you next feel busy but stalled, look beyond how many actions you have taken. Ask what you meant to accomplish and how often another goal pulled you away. A clearer priority may help you spend less of the day choosing again and more of it carrying one piece of work forward.