Master’s Thesis
The relationship between personality traits and media multitasking:
An online survey among young adults
Student name: Tao Lijuan Student ID: 12095001
Supervisor’s name: Isabel Rodriguez de Dios Graduate School of Communication Master’s programma Communication Science
Word account: 6352 Date: 30/01/2020
Abstract
In this era of advanced technology, it has become a common phenomenon for people to use different media at the same time. Previous studies showed that personality differences can affect people's media multitasking. Not only that, many studies now are pointing out that personalization is a necessary part of the development of modern science and technology. Therefore, this paper studied the relationship between media multitasking and five personality traits, and sociodemographic variables. Furthermore, whether personality traits mediate the relationship between sociodemographic variables and media multitasking was analyzed in this study. By issuing online questionnaires to study 241 participants whose age range was from 18 to 30, and analyzing the data, the following results were obtained: extraversion was positively associated with media multitasking, gender was significantly correlated with neuroticism, and Chinese people were more agreeable and open than Dutch people. Even if there was a gender difference in neuroticism, and there were differences in
agreeableness and openness between Chinese and Dutch people, these personality traits did not mediate the relationship between gender or nationality and media multitasking. Besides, personality traits were not the mediators of the relationship between sociodemographic
variables and media multitasking. The suggestion for future research on media multitasking is to investigate more individual differences in the relationship between media multitasking and human behaviors.
The relationship between personality traits and media multitasking: An online survey among young adults
The diversity of media has developed during recent decades and media has almost permeated into people’s daily life. People need to constantly switch their attention to different types of information and deal with several things at the same time. Besides, people also tend to engage with different types of media (two or more) synchronously and this is known as media multitasking (Magen, 2017; Mark, 2015; Murphy, Mclauchlan, & Lee, 2017; Van Der Schuur, Baumgartner, Sumter, & Valkenburg, 2015). For instance, someone is listening to music while using social networking sites or browsing websites while having a video meeting. Furthermore, some researches showed that when people are using media, they will have a 25 to 50 percent change to media multitasking (Voorveld, Segijn, Ketelaar, & Smit, 2014; Shih & Gray, 2013). Besides, the amount of time that young Americans spend in media
multitasking has increased by 119% over the past decade (Becker, Alzahabi, & Hopwood, 2013). According to the above, media multitasking is a common phenomenon and plays a crucial role in the digital era.
With the increasing research in media multitasking, there were two results that
researchers provided. Firstly, some researchers discovered that media multitasking influence people’s behaviors. For instance, Primack et al. (2017), as well as Chen and Yan (2016), found that media multitasking has been associated with negative mental health. Furthermore, Becker et al. (2013) found that the people who are more likely to media multitask have higher levels of depression and anxiety. Moreover, the findings included not only psychological aspects but also physical aspects. For example, Chen and Yan (2016) verified that media
multitasking is a type of physically taxing, which can affect the development of young people. Van Der Schuur, Baumgartner, Sumter, and Valkenburg (2018) also found that media
multitasking has an impact on adolescents’ sleep problems.
Meanwhile, individual differences affect media multitasking was confirmed by some researchers. For instance, Kononova (2013) verified that high sensation seekers are heavier media multitaskers. Besides, people who have a higher level of creativity will have a higher level of media multitasking, which was found by Duff, Yoon, Wang, and Anghelcev (2014). Furthermore, there were few studies studied on how individual differences affect media multitasking. Some researchers have shown that further research of media multitasking should focus more on the individual differences (e.g., Salomon, Ferraro, Petros, Bernhardt, & Rhyner, 2015; Van Der Schuur et al., 2015). Besides, Van der Linden, te Nijenhuis, and Bakker (2010) also confirmed that personality traits are useful in determining how well individuals can perform on requiring media multitasking.
To be specific, previous studies on the big five personality traits (i.e., neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) have shown that extraversion and conscientiousness often associate with media multitasking (Kononova, Zasorina, Diveeva, Kokoeva, & Chelokyan, 2014; Van der Linden et al., 2010). People with high neuroticism used instant messaging more often (Salomon et al., 2015) and the high level of neuroticism was also a significant predictor of performance on media multitasking (Van der Linden et al., 2010). Furthermore, previous studies revealed that big five personality traits, which can reflect the user's preferences, were the crucial factors of internet marketing and advertising
(Azucar, Marengo, & Settanni, 2018). Therefore, personal traits are an expression of individual differences and the main point of this study.
Recently, some studies also examined whether there were differences in media multitasking among different countries. Findings showed that the prevalence of media multitasking varies across countries (Srivastava, Nakazawa, & Chen, 2016; Voorveld et al., 2014). Furthermore, there are differences in the popularity of the media combinations, the types of media multitasking, and the demographics behind media multitasking (Kononova et al., 2014). Therefore, sociodemographic variables will be included in this study.
In short, some studies have examined the relationship between multitasking and personal traits, but they did not include five personality factors at once. Besides, there were few studies to compare the difference of media multitasking between Asian (i.e., Chinese) and European (i.e., the Netherlands). Thus, this study will connect the five-factor model of personality to further explore the relationships among the five personality traits, sociodemographic variables and media multitasking. Specifically, the online survey will be used to figure out two research questions:
1. Is there any relationship between personality traits, sociodemographic variables (i.e., nationality, age, gender) and media multitasking?
2. Is there any relationship between sociodemographic variables (i.e., nationality, age, and gender) and media multitasking, and the relationship will be mediated by personality traits?
Theoretical Background Personality traits and media multitasking
Personality traits, were described by The Five-Factor Model of Personality (McCrae & John, 1992) which is a famous model (Salomon et al., 2015), include openness,
conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (Salomon et al., 2015, van der Linden et al., 2010). These fundamental factors explain and predict individual differences in a variety of environments, including mental health, job satisfaction, and job performance (Van der Linden et al., 2010). Besides, the way a person thinks, feels, and acts is more or less influenced by personality traits.
To be specific, extraversion reflects a person's social orientation and the ability to experience positive emotions. This means that people with high levels of extraversion are more likely to be outgoing, active and adjusting their mindset better (Lee, 2018). For example, Correa, Hinsley, and De Zuniga (2010) showed that extraverted people are better at using instant messages and use social media more frequently (Salomon et al., 2015).
Agreeableness, as the second factor, is an aspect of interpersonal behavior that reflects tendencies toward trust, compassion, and cooperation (Ehrenberg, Juckes, White, & Walsh, 2008). More specifically, people who are agreeableness will enjoy interacting with people more often and are more likely to get along with others. For instance, some researchers found that agreeableness associates with people’s social well-beings (e.g., Lui, Rollock, Chang, Leong, & Zamboanga, 2016). Regarding media, previous research has shown that people with higher levels of agreeableness are more likely to use Facebook and present themselves on Facebook (Seidman, 2013).
Thirdly, neuroticism, which reflects a person's tendency to experience psychological distress, is associated with sensitivity to threats. People with high neuroticism scores are more
likely to be emotionally unstable, moody, insecure and pessimistic (Lee, 2018). Moreover, this factor influences people’s behaviors, such as less use of the Internet, and more use of instant messaging (Correa et al., 2010).
Conscientiousness, as the fourth factor, reflects the degree to how organized, diligent and meticulous a person is (Ehrenberg et al., 2008; Lee, 2018). This means that individuals with high conscientiousness are usually persistent, reliable and diligent. People with this trait are more likely to succeed in their careers and achieve their goals (Lee, 2018). Besides, Whaite, Shensa, Sidani, Colditz, and Primack (2018) found that there is an interaction between conscientiousness and social media use.
The last factor, openness, represents a person's willingness to consider different
approaches, to learn new things and to enjoy artistic pursuits. Individuals with high scores on openness commonly are willing to participate in kinds of artistic and creative activities and have a wide range of hobbies (Lee, 2018). Some researchers found that high openness is reflected in curiosity and novelty. According to Salomon et al. (2015), more extroverted people were using social media more frequently.
During multitasking, individual differences in the ability to maintain performance are often reflected in differences in personality traits. Lots of enterprises used personality tests to select employees (Salomon et al., 2015). To be specific, Bakker, Hopmann, and Persson (2015) have shown that personality traits can influence one’s party identification, which means different personality traits affect people’s behaviors. For instance, as a person's personality, innovation ability can significantly affect people's acceptance and adoption of information technology. Furthermore, creativity tends to be more cognitive in response to the
tendency to form new connections, which may affect people's ability to process multimedia. For example, Duff et al. (2014) surveyed college students and found that higher sensation seeking and greater creativity help increasing the tendency to media multitasking. Besides, Correa et al. (2010) also suggested that further researchers should evaluate personality traits for citizens who tend to engage in social media use and social media multitasking.
There have been previous studies that have studied the relationship between personality traits and media multitasking. Some researchers found significant relationships between some specific personality traits and media multitasking. For instance, extraversion and neuroticism predicted multitasking ability and performance (e.g., Delbridge, 2001; Poposki, Oswald, & Chen, 2009; Szymura & Wodnieka, 2003). More specifically, through a survey with college students, Becker et al. (2013) found that predisposition to poor psychosocial functioning (i.e., neuroticism and extraversion) and overall media use suggest lower levels of media
multitasking. Not only that, Salomon et al. (2015) proved that a higher level of
conscientiousness predicted poorer performance on media multitasking. Lopez, Salinger, Heatherton, and Wagner (2018) also showed that unexpected environmental factors of individual characteristics (e.g., conscientiousness) are more likely to affect media multitasking. Moreover, Lee (2018) discovered that agreeableness and openness are associated with media multitasking.
Nevertheless, several studies have revealed that personality traits had no effect on media multitasking. For instance, some of them found that extraversion did not have a relationship with multitasking performance (e.g., König, Bühner, & Mürling, 2005; Poposki et al., 2009). Besides, Duff et al. (2014) attempted to find out the associations between extraversion,
neuroticism and openness and media multitasking, but they did not find any significant relationships among these variables. It can be seen that some previous studies have found a relationship between personality traits and media multitasking while others did not. Therefore, this study intends to further explore the relationship between them. Furthermore, some
researchers have reflected on their studies and found that they did not include five personality traits at once when they studied the relationship between personality traits and media
multitasking, which may have influenced on the results (e.g., Correa et al., 2010). More individually, Duff et al. (2014) reflected on their own research and proposed that they only included three factors (i.e., extraversion, neuroticism, and openness), and they did not find any significant relationship between personality traits and media multitasking. Not only that, they recommended that further study should include more personal traits to test the
associations between personality traits and media multitasking. Consequently, this study aims to overcome this limitation and all of the five factors into the personality traits will be
included in this study to investigate more possibilities of the relationship between personality traits and media multitasking.
On the other hand, there were lots of studies which just tested the social networking sites as the performance of media multitasking (Correa et al., 2010; Duff et al. 2014; Salomon et al., 2015). Chang (2017) only studied the media multitasking between the TV and the computer, this makes the study very limited and the results could not be generalized to a wider range of media multitasking. Besides, Chang (2017) recommended that further research on media multitasking should investigate more different types of media combinations to make the results more general and diverse. Hence, this study will include different types of media
multitasking at once, such as, watching TV, listening to music, sending messages and using social networking sites (Baumgartner, Lemmens, Weeda, & Huizinga, 2017). As indicated previously, hypothesis 1a is proposed：
H1a: There is a relationship between personality traits (i.e., extraversion, agreeableness,
neuroticism, conscientiousness, and openness) and media multitasking.
Sociodemographic variables and media multitasking
Nationality. Kononova and Chiang (2015) surveyed 1972 participants whose age range
was from 23 to 47 and found that, compared with American respondents, Taiwanese
respondents owned fewer media and were less likely to multitask, and Americans reported a greater degree of media multitasking than their Taiwanese counterparts. Besides, Voorveld et al. (2014) using online survey investigated 5973 participants and compared media
multitasking among six countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and France) and revealed that media multitasking is the most common in the United States and the least common in the Netherlands. In addition, after a questionnaire survey of 532 college students, Kononova et al. (2014) compared the media multitasking among Kuwait, Russia and the USA and found that economic, political and cultural
differences may influence media use. For instance, Russia's low level of per capita income, the ICT (information communication technology) market and, political developments may lead to lower media equipment ownership and the availability of media content, then, leading to lower levels of media multitasking.
The studies mentioned above revealed that the prevalence of media multitasking varies from country to country. Because of the differences in the popular media components, the
types of media multitasking, and the demographics behind media multitasking. Furthermore, Srivastava et al. (2016) revealed that Asians are more likely than other groups to have higher rates of online media multitasking. And factors at the individual level are at the core of media multitasking. For instance, after surveying 1,140 students whose age range was from 11 to 18, Luo, Sun, Yeung, and Li (2018) found that Chinese teenagers score highest in multitasking media and non-media activities. Therefore, it is necessary to find the differences of media multitasking between country to country, which may give us some factors that potentially affect media multitasking.
According to previous studies, ICT market and media equipment ownership affected media multitasking. China has developed into one of the most important ICT production centers in the world and the media equipment ownership has increased speedily (Sun & Grimes, 2016). Furthermore, China has the world's second-largest young population (269 million) (Luo et al., 2018), by June 2019, China had 854.49 million netizens (CNNIC, 2019). Therefore, China has a large population and different types of media ownership, which is suitable for media multitasking research. Researchers also revealed that media systems are different in worldwide, for instance, people in Northern European used the Internet more frequently than Southern European. Therefore, it is meaningful to study whether there are differences in the media types used for multitasking in different countries (Kononova et al., 2014). However, there are few studies to compare the difference of media multitasking
between Asian (i.e., Chinese) and European (i.e., the Netherlands). Thus, this study will focus on the differences of media multitasking between these two countries.
Age. Srivastava et al. (2016) have shown that age has a significant relationship with
online media multitasking. Furthermore, some researchers confirmed that there are some differences of media multitasking among people in different age groups (e.g., Van Der Schuur et al., 2015; Voorveld & van der Goot, 2013). Specifically, Voorveld and van der Goot (2013) used the diary study among 3048 participants whose age range was from 13 to 65 years old, and found that participants from 13 to 16 years old prefer social media multitasking, people aged from 50 to 65 years old are more common on multitasking on television. Carrier,
Cheever, Rosen, Benitez, and Chang (2009) also showed that the younger generation exhibits higher levels of media multitasking behaviors. Moreover, a similar finding was found by Srivastava et al. (2016), which is younger participants are more likely to have higher levels of online and offline combined multitasking than older participants. However, Duff et al. (2014) revealed that found that there is no significant difference in media multitasking among
different age groups. Because some researchers found a difference, but others did not, this study want to further explore whether it matters, and figure out the relationship between age and media multitasking.
Gender. In the early Internet research, previous studies have revealed that gender plays a
role in media multitasking, for instance, girls were more like to media multitasking than boys (Correa et al., 2010). To be specific, after surveying 895 middle-school students, Cotten, Shank, and Anderson (2014) found that girls are more likely to communicate (e.g., chatting and emailing) while listening to music, and boys are more likely to multitask on games. Nonetheless, some researchers discovered that gender has no significant effect on media multitasking tendencies (e.g., Duff et al., 2014; Srivastava et al., 2016). Therefore, gender
could be a crucial factor of media multitasking, and it is necessary to figure out whether gender is associated with media multitasking. And according to the above statements, hypothesis 1b is established:
H1b: There is a relationship between sociodemographic variables (i.e., nationality, age,
gender) and media multitasking.
Personality traits, sociodemographic variables and media multitasking
The Evolutionary Account, which was provided by Buss (1995), described the gender differences in human development due to the different adaptive challenges faced by men and women. For instance, women were more agreeable and nurturing than men because women needed to take care of their children (Vianello, Schnabel, Sriram, & Nosek, 2013). Also, there were some researchers verified that gender influences personality traits. For instance, Iimura and Taku, (2018), as well as Vianello et al. (2013), found that females have higher levels of neuroticism than males. Moreover, women are more neurotic and agreeable, while men are more extroverted and open, which was verified by Vianello et al. (2013). Nevertheless, Vianello et al. (2013) did not find any gender difference in conscientiousness. Therefore, gender may associate with personality traits, and it may influence the relationship between gender and media multitasking. Hence, the hypothesis 2a is established:
H2a: Females will have a higher level of media multitasking than males, and this
relationship will be mediated by personality traits.
The personalities of people from different countries were also different (Eap et al., 2008; Kajonius & Mac Giolla, 2017). To be specific, Zotzmann, van der Linden, and Wyrwa (2019) found that European has higher levels of openness and agreeableness than Asian. Besides,
Kajonius and Mac Giolla (2017) revealed that Chinese are less neurotic, open and
agreeableness than the Dutch, but more extroverted than the Dutch. These findings suggested that nationality may also have a connection with personality traits, and this relationship may affect the relationship between nationality and media multitasking. Therefore, the hypothesis 2b is put forward:
H2b: Chinese will have a higher level of media multitasking than Dutch, and this
relationship will be mediated by personality traits.
The personality relationship was varied by age, which was verified by lots of researchers (e.g., Curtis, Windsor, & Soubelet, 2015; Graham & Lachman, 2014). Furthermore, Salthouse and Ferrer-Caja (2003) surveyed participants aged between 18 and 96 and showed that age has a positive relationship with openness and a negative association with extroversion. A study found that extraversion and openness are positively correlated with most aspects of performance as people aged (Graham & Lachman, 2014). Hence, age may correlate with personality traits, and it may influence the relationship between age and media multitasking. Therefore, hypothesis 2c is provided:
H2c: Age will have a relationship with media multitasking, and this relationship will be
mediated by personality traits.
Method Participants
To test the hypotheses, 252 participants were recruited and conducted an online
questionnaire (66.3%females, 29.8% males, and 4% prefer not to say). Based on the purpose of the study, the age range of the population was from 18 to 30 and the ‘select case’ was used
in this part to drop out which were not in the age range, and 11 cases were dropped out. The final participants (241) were all aged from 18 to 30 (Mage=23.46, SDage=2.00). The samples were mainly in Dutch and Chinese, which accounted for 14.5 % and 81.3% respectively and other countries represented 4.4%.
Procedure
Participants were recruited by snowballing samples through email and an online survey from people who are Chinese or Dutch. After indicating an interest in the study, participants received the survey. The survey is totally anonymous and the total survey took approximately 10 minutes to complete. Participants have recruited about 4 weeks’ timeframe in November 2019.
Measures
The questionnaire was used to gather information about the media multitasking, personal traits and some social demographic variables which included gender, age, and nationality.
Media multitasking. A short version of media multitasking measurement (MMM-S),
which was provided by Baumgartner et al. (2017), was based on the Media Multitasking Index (MMI) by Ophir, Nass, and Wagner (2009). MMM-S included nine items which included watching tv, listening to music, sending messages via phone or computer, using social networking sites and so on. Participants choose how frequently they engage in each of nine multitasking activities ranging from 1(never) to 4 (very often). For instance, participants were asked, “while watching tv, how often do you engage in listening to music?”. The scale was created by averaging the items (MMM= 2.57, SDMM=0.49). The reliability of the scale was also tested, resulting in a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.79.
Personal traits. The personality section utilized 44 Big Five Inventory items (John,
Donahue, & Kentle, 1991; John & Srivastava, 1999) that were framed in a 5-point Likert-type scale (from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). Moreover, Soto and John (2009) based on John et al. (1991) developed Big Five Inventory with 35 items, which also had high level of reliability and validity. Thus, this study adopted the big five inventories by Soto and John (2009) which classified 35 items into 5 scales which are openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. For example, participants were asked “do you agree that you are someone who likes to spend time with others?”. And the reliability was tested for the entire scale (α = 0.87) and for the personality traits: extraversion (α = 0.68), agreeableness (α = 0.57), conscientiousness (α = 0.58); neuroticism (α = 0.70) and openness (α = 0.68). The scale was created by averaging the items.
Sociodemographic variables. Gender was measured by asking the biological sex which
included ‘Female’, ‘Male’ and ‘Prefer not to say’. Nationality was measured by asking the nationality of participants, which included ‘Dutch’, ‘Chinses’ and ‘Other countries’. Age was measured by asking participants to list their current age by number, which was an open question.
Data preparation
This study aimed to figure out the relationships between personality traits,
sociodemographic variables, and media multitasking. Therefore, multiple linear regression was used in this study. Personality traits, age, and media multitasking were numerical
variables, but the nationality and gender were nominal variables which cannot be compared in the regression model. Therefore, in order to compare the differences between different
nationalities and genders, dummy variables needed to be established. Then, the ‘Dutch’ was valued at ‘1’ and the ‘Chinese’ was valued at ‘0’. The ‘Female’ was valued at ‘0’ and ‘Male’ was valued at ‘1’. Besides, ‘Prefer not to say’ and ‘Other countries’ were no means in this study, hence, they were defined as ‘Missing variable’.
Results
RQ1: Is there any relationship between personality traits, sociodemographic variables (i.e., nationality, age, gender) and media multitasking?
H1a: There is a relationship between personality traits (i.e., extraversion,
agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and openness) and media multitasking.
The linear regression model with media multitasking as dependent variable and personality traits (i.e., openness, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion) as independent variables was non-significant, F (5, 235) = 1.68, p =.140. Consequently, the regression model could not be used to predict the media multitasking, and the prediction was weakness: only 4 percent of the variation in media multitasking could be predicted based on extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and openness (R2=.04).
Table 1
Regression model of extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, conscientiousness, and openness with media multitasking.
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
95.0% Confidence Interval for B
B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 (Constant) 2.167 .440 4.922 .000 1.299 3.034 Extraversion .165 .063 .200 2.614 .010 .041 .289 Agreeableness .030 .066 .031 .462 .645 -.099 .160 Neuroticism .008 .057 .010 .136 .892 -.104 .119 Conscientiousness -.047 .075 -.044 -.630 .529 -.195 .101 Openness -.026 .064 -.030 -.407 .685 -.153 .101
Extraversion (β =0.20, t = 2.68, p = .01) which was the only personality traits had a positively significant, weak association with media multitasking(b=0.17). While
agreeableness (β=0.03, t=0.46, p=.645), neuroticism (β=0.01, t=0.14, p=.136),
conscientiousness (β=-0.05, t=-0.63, p=.529) and openness (β=-0.03, t=-0.41, p=.685) had non-significant relationship with media multitasking. Therefore, H1a was partially supported.
H1b: There is a relationship between sociodemographic variables (i.e., nationality, age, gender) and media multitasking. The linear regression model with media multitasking
as dependent variable and age, gender and nationality as independent variables were
non-significant, F (3, 218) = 1.52, p =.209. Therefore, the regression model could not be used to predict the media multitasking, and the prediction was weakness: only 2 percent of the variation in frequency could be predicted based on gender, age, and nationality (R2=0.02).
Table 2
Regression model of gender, age, and nationality with media multitasking
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
t Sig.
95.0% Confidence Interval for B B Std. Error Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 (Constant) 3.027 .414 7.317 .000 2.212 3.843
Age -.021 .017 -.085 -1.249 .213 -.053 .012 Gender -.104 .071 -.098 -1.451 .148 -.244 .037
Nationality .041 .097 .029 .424 .672 -.150 .233 a. Dependent Variable: Total media multitasking
Age (β=-0.09, t=-1.25, p=.213), gender (β=-0.10, t=-1.45, p=.148) and nationality (β=0.03, t=0.42, p=.672) had a nonsignificant relationship with media multitasking. Therefore, H1b was rejected.
RQ2: Is there any relationship between sociodemographic variables (i.e., nationality, age, and gender) and media multitasking, and the relationship will be mediated by
personality traits?
H2a: Females will have a higher level of media multitasking than males, and this relationship will be mediated by personality traits.
After regression with mediation using PROCESS 3.4 (model 4; 5,000 bootstraps), there was a negatively significant effect of gender on the neuroticism (see Figure 1), which
represents a relatively medium effect(b*=-0.39). This means females are more neurotic than males. Furthermore, there was a significant effect of extraversion on media multitasking, which represents a relatively small effect (b*=0.25). That is to say, more extroverted people have higher levels of media multitasking. However, there was a non-significant indirect effect of gender on media multitasking through any personality traits. Thus, H2a was rejected.
H2b: Chinese will have a higher level of media multitasking than Dutch, and this relationship will be mediated by personality traits.
By employing PROCESS 3.4 SPSS macro (Model 4; 5,000 bootstraps), there was a positive significant effect of nationality on the agreeableness and openness (see Figure 2), which represents a relatively medium effect (b*=0.31, b*=0.41). That is to say, the Chinese are more agreeable and open than Dutch. And there was a positive significant effect of extraversion on media multitasking, which represents a relatively small effect(b*=0.25). However, there was a non-significant indirect effect of nationality on media multitasking through any personality traits. Thus, H2b was rejected.
H2c: Age will have a relationship with media multitasking, and the relationship will be mediated by personality traits.
By employing PROCESS 3.4 SPSS macro (Model 4; 5,000 bootstraps), there was a positive significant effect of extraversion on media multitasking, which represents a relatively small effect(b*=0.21) (see Figure 3). Nevertheless, there was a non-significant indirect effect of age on media multitasking through personality traits. Therefore, H2c was rejected.
Discussion
This study contributes to the research of the relationship between individual differences (i.e., personality traits and sociodemographic variables) and media multitasking. In particular, samples from China and Dutch were included. Previous studies on media multitasking mainly focused on western countries, so this study covered a population that was not covered in previous studies. And this study also compared the differences between Chinese and Dutch which is a development based on previous research.
This study found that extraversion was positively related to media multitasking, which means that more extraverted people will have a higher level of media multitasking. This
finding is similar to the findings from Becker et al. (2013) and Salomon et al. (2015), furthermore, the later one found that more extraverted people will use social media more frequently, and this study extends it to media multitasking. Whereas, the present study showed that age was no associated with extraversion. Extraversion refers to people’s social orientation and the ability to experience positive emotions. Graham and Lachman (2014) revealed that older adults are more likely to link with positive emotions than younger adults. However, the present study did not demonstrate that older people are more likely to have positive emotions than younger people. The results may due to the age of this thesis concentrated on 18 to 30 and the mean age is 23.46, which means the sample in this study were young adults, and the age differences were not represented well.
On the other hand, some researchers have found that media multitasking is different in different countries, due to the popularity of media combination, the types of media
multitasking, the economic backgrounds and so on (Kononova et al., 2014; Srivastava et al., 2016; Voorveld et al., 2014). Besides, some studies explored that media multitasking can portray personality traits, such as conscientiousness (e.g., Lee, 2018; Lopez et al., 2018) and neuroticism (e.g., Becker et al., 2013). However, the present study did not figure out that conscientiousness and neuroticism are the mediators of the relationship between nationality and media multitasking. Furthermore, their relationship was not influenced by any personality traits. In this study, the Chinese accounted for a large proportion of the population, which may influence the results.
Not only that, other personal traits had no relationship with media multitasking.
found neuroticism (Lee, 2018) and openness are unrelated to media multitasking. Nonetheless, there were lots of researchers found that neuroticism (e.g., Becker et al., 2013; Chang, 2017; Correa et al., 2010), openness (e.g., Lee, 2018; Salomon et al., 2015), conscientiousness (e.g., Lee, 2018; Lopez et al., 2018; Salomon et al., 2015) and agreeableness (e.g., Lee, 2018) have associations with media multitasking. This was probably because some of them just tested few personality traits, and in this study, the MMM-S was used to measure media multitasking and it just included 9 activities while other researchers included more activities, such as reading and online gaming (Lee, 2018). The factors mentioned above may influence the relationships between media multitasking and personality traits.
Furthermore, this study did not figure out any sociodemographic variables are directly related to media multitasking. Several researchers found similar results to this study (e.g., Duff et al., 2014; Srivastava et al., 2016). Whereas, others researchers discovered that age (e.g., Carrier et al., 2009; Voorveld & van der Goot, 2013; Van Der Schuur et al., 2015), gender (Correa et al., 2010; Cotten et al., 2014) and nationality (Kononova et al., 2014; Luo et al., 2018; Voorveld et al., 2014) connect with media multitasking. This may due to the sample size of this study was not big enough and participants were not evenly distributed by gender, age, and nationality. And participants were almost Chinese and the previous researches were sampled in western countries, which may affect the outcomes.
Meanwhile, an interesting result was shown that there is a difference in neuroticism between males and females. Some researchers had a similar finding that is females had a higher level of neuroticism than males (Iimura & Taku, 2018; Vianello, et al., 2013). Moreover, this study also found that the Chinese have a higher level of agreeableness and
openness than Dutch. However, lots of researchers found that Europeans have a higher level of openness and agreeableness than Asians (e.g., Eap et al., 2008; Zotzmann et al., 2019). Although the results of this study were contrary to previous studies, and these findings also proved that nationality does influence personality. Therefore, personality traits as an
expression of individual differences related to lots of factors. Based on the results obtained in this paper, even when there could be some relationships between gender or nationality and personality traits, there was no relationship between gender or nationality and media multitasking.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
Previous studies implicated that individual differences play a crucial role in media
multitasking. Some researchers investigated some specific personality traits, such as sensation seeking, impulsivity, and fear of missing out (e.g., Luo & Liang, 2018; Sanbonmatsu et al., 2013), but more general personality traits were not included. This study, based on limitations of personality traits in previous studies (e.g., Correa et al., 2014; Duff et al., 2014) further studied into five personality traits at once and combined more media at once (e.g., social media and TV, and social media and message). Moreover, personality traits as potential factors that may influence the relationship between sociodemographic variables and media multitasking, which was not considered in previous studies. In this study, personality traits were used as mediators to further investigate their roles in the relationship between
sociodemographic variables and media multitasking. Besides, this article, which overcame the barrier of previous researches of media multitasking on western countries, compared the differences between Chinese and Dutch, which some extent broadened the research
population and developed the diversity of the research population. Therefore, this study further developed previous studies on media multitasking (e.g., Van Der Schuur et al., 2015), and more fully considered individual differences. At the same time, it also helped future studies to compare differences in personality and media multitasking among different nationalities.
People with different personalities express different emotions and behaviors in daily life, which influence their behaviors of media use. For instance, in order to recommend things a user might like and improve the user experience, many applications test the users’ personality traits before customers start using the applications. Moreover, Azucar et al. (2018) pointed out that the prediction of the big five personality traits can be effectively applied to Internet marketing and advertising. On this basis, this study based on the relationship between different personality traits and media multitasking found that extraverts prefer media
multitasking, and Chinese and Dutch people have different personality traits. These findings provide a good reference for the media market of multitasking in the future. To be specific, everyone has different preferences for using different types of media simultaneously, which may be an important factor should be considered in future Internet marketing. For instance, media products can recommend different functions for users according to their personalities, countries and other differences. Specifically, a music app might recommend music reviews and dynamic publishing features for agreeable and extravert users, but not for neurotic users.
Limitations
Although this study figured out some interesting findings, it had some limitations. Firstly, although the Cronbach’s alpha of reliability of the 35 items of personality traits was 0.87
which had high reliability. When items divided into 5 specific categories, the reliability of agreeableness (0.57) and conscientiousness (0.58) were lower than 0.60 our standard reliable level. This may due to the participants from this study were almost Chinese (81%) and participants from Soto and John (2009) were from western countries, therefore, different nationalities may influence the results. The original scale is in English, and this study included participants in Chinese, so the scale was translated and the bilingual version of the questionnaire was provided. Therefore, there may be some word meaning errors in the translation process. This may also affect the credibility of the scale. Furthermore, some participants reported that the questionnaire was too long, especially for the personality tests, when they turned to the second half of the questionnaire, they were kind of bored. This situation may influence the results. Although Lee, Murphy, and Andrews (2019) used the short version of the Big Five with 10-items, the reliability of Cronbach’s alpha was ranged from 0.31 to 0.61, thus, this study did not adopt this measurement. Hence, future studies could use simpler personality tests with higher Cronbach’s alpha of reliability.
Secondly, this study adopted the MMM-S, which was provided by Baumgartner et al. (2016), and further applied it to the Chinese. The results showed that the scale was also applicable to the Chinese. The MMM-S cannot combine the specific media multitasking well (Baumgartner et al., 2017). Therefore, this study measured total media multitasking as the dependent variable. There may be some interesting findings in different types of media multitasking combinations. With the development of smartphones and the emergence of 5G, there will be some changes in media multitasking. Future researchers could study mobile phone-based multitasking, such as, use different mobile apps at the same time.
Not only that, there were some researches considered media multitasking as an
independent variable to study its influence on human behavior, for instances, Hatchel, Negriff, and Subrahmanyam (2018) used media multitasking as a predictor of and emotional and self-esteem, and social anxiety and narcissism as its moderators to study their relationships. However, this study only simply studied the relationship between individual differences and media multitasking. Thus, future research can use individual differences (not only
sociodemographic variables) as intermediate variables to study relationships between media multitasking and people's behaviors (both psychology and physics), such as, insomnia, anxiety, depression, rather than investigating the factors that influence media multitasking.
Finally, the sample of this article had some problems. The distribution of gender and age was nonuniform. Such as, there were 66.3%females and 29.8% males, and all participants were aged from 18 to 30. Besides, this study included 14.5 % Dutch and 81.3% Chinese which means that the distribution of people in different countries was very uneven. This paper adopted a snowball to conduct an online questionnaire. Therefore, valid samples of Dutch in this paper were not enough. Hence, the results may be influenced by these uneven distribution samples. If future studies want to compare differences between countries, genders, and ages, a matching approach is recommended.
Conclusion
This study aimed to figure out the relationships among personality traits,
sociodemographic variables, and media multitasking. In particular, whether the personality traits were the mediators of relationships between sociodemographic variables and media multitasking has been investigated. The results of this study showed that extraversion was
positively correlated with media multitasking, gender was significantly correlated with
neuroticism, and Chinese people were more agreeable and open than Dutch people. However, other personality traits and sociodemographic variables had no relationship with media multitasking. Besides, none of the personality traits were verified as the mediators of the relationships between sociodemographic variables and media multitasking. This may be caused by the uneven sample, which should be noted in future studies. Furthermore, further studies can focus more on the mediators about individual differences within the relationships between media multitasking and people’s behaviors.
Azucar, D., Marengo, D., & Settanni, M. (2018). Predicting the Big 5 personality traits from digital footprints on social media: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual
Differences, 124, 150–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.12.018
Bakker, B., Hopmann, D., & Persson, M. (2015). Personality traits and party identification over time. European Journal of Political Research, 54(2), 197–215.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12070
Baumgartner, S., Lemmens, J., Weeda, W., & Huizinga, M. (2017). Measuring Media
Multitasking. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications, 29(2), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000167
Becker, M. W., Alzahabi, R., & Hopwood, C. J. (2013). Media multitasking is associated with. symptoms of. depression and social anxiety. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 16(2), 132-135.
Buss, D. M. (1995). Psychological sex differences: Origins through sexual selection.
American Psychologist, 50, 164–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003- 066X.50.3.164.
Carrier, L. M., Cheever, N. A., Rosen, L. D., Benitez, S., & Chang, J. (2009). Multitasking across generations: Multitasking choices and difficulty ratings in three generations of Americans. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 483–489.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1167/10.7.260.
Chang, Y. (2017). Why do young people multitask with multiple media? Explicating the relationships among sensation seeking, needs, and media multitasking behavior. Media
Chen, Q., & Yan, Z. (2016). Does multitasking with mobile phones affect learning? A. review.
Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 34e42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.chb.2015.07.047.
CNNIC (2019). Statistical Report on Internet Development in China (August 2019). Retrieved from
https://cnnic.com.cn/IDR/ReportDownloads/201911/P020191112539794960687.pdf Correa, T., Hinsley, A. W., & De Zuniga, H. G. (2010). Who interacts on the Web? The.
intersection of users’ personality and social media use. Computers in human
behavior, 26(2), 247-253.
Cotten, S., Shank, D., & Anderson, W. (2014). Gender, technology use and ownership, and media-based multitasking among middle school students. Computers in Human
Behavior, 35, 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.041
Curtis, R. G., Windsor, T. D., & Soubelet, A. (2015). The relationship between Big-5
personality traits and cognitive ability in older adults–a review. Aging, Neuropsychology,
and Cognition, 22(1), 42-71.
Delbridge, K. A. (2001). Individual differences in multi-tasking ability: Exploring a
nomological network. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Duff, B., Yoon, G., Wang, Z., & Anghelcev, G. (2014). Doing It All: An Exploratory Study of Predictors of Media Multitasking. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 14(1), 11–23.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2014.884480
Eap, S., Degarmo, D., Kawakami, A., Hara, S., Hall, G., & Teten, A. (2008). Culture and Personality Among European American and Asian American Men. Journal of
Ehrenberg, A., Juckes, S., White, K. M., & Walsh, S. P. (2008). Personality and self-esteem as predictors of young people's technology use. Cyberpsychology & behavior, 11(6), 739-741
Graham, E., & Lachman, M. (2014). Personality traits, facets and cognitive performance: Age differences in their relations. Personality and Individual Differences, 59, 89–95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.011
Hatchel, T., Negriff, S., & Subrahmanyam, K. (2018). The relation between media
multitasking, intensity of use, and well-being in a sample of ethnically diverse emerging adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 115-123.
Iimura, S., & Taku, K. (2018). Gender Differences in Relationship Between Resilience and Big Five Personality Traits in Japanese Adolescents. Psychological Reports, 121(5), 920– 931. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294117741654
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and. theoretical perspectives. Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 2(1999),
102-138.
John, O.P., Donahue, E.M. & Kentle, R.L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory, Versions 4a and
54. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California.
Kajonius, P., & Mac Giolla, E. (2017). Personality traits across countries: Support for similarities rather than differences. PLoS ONE, 12(6), e0179646.
König, C. J., Bühner, M., & Mürling, G. (2005). Working memory, fluid intelligence, and attention are predictors of multitasking performance, but polychronicity and extraversion are not. Human Performance, 18, 243–266.
Kononova, A. (2013). Multitasking across borders: A cross-national study of media multitasking behaviors, its antecedents, and outcomes. International Journal of
Communication, 7, 1688–1710.
Kononova, A., & Chiang, Y. H. (2015). Why do we multitask with media? Predictors of media multitasking among Internet users in the United States and Taiwan. Computers in
Human Behavior, 50, 31-41.
Kononova, A., Zasorina, T., Diveeva, N., Kokoeva, A., & Chelokyan, A. (2014). Multitasking goes global: Multitasking with traditional and new electronic media and attention to media messages among college students in Kuwait, Russia, and the USA. International
Communication Gazette, 76(8), 617-640.
Lee, M. (2018). Psychosocial Outcomes and Emotion Processing in Media
Multitaskers (Doctoral dissertation, School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University).
Lee, M., Murphy, K., & Andrews, G. (2019). Using Media While Interacting Face-to-Face Is Associated with Psychosocial Well-Being and Personality Traits. Psychological
Reports, 122(3), 944–967. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118770357
Lopez, R. B., Salinger, J. M., Heatherton, T. F., & Wagner, D. D. (2018). Media multitasking is associated with altered processing of incidental, irrelevant cues during person
Lui, P. P., Rollock, D., Chang, E. C., Leong, F. T. L., & Zamboanga, B. L. (2016). Big 5 personality and subjective well-being in Asian Americans: Testing optimism and pessimism as mediators. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 7, 274-286. doi: 10.1037/aap0000054.
Luo, J., & Liang, L. (2018). Exploring the Relationships among University Students’ Media Multitasking, Personality and Academic Performance: A Quantitative Study.
In International Scientific Conference: Lodging the Theory in Social and Educational
Practice (pp. 1-10).
Luo, J., Sun, M., Yeung, P., & Li, H. (2018). Development and validation of a scale to
measure media. multitasking among adolescents: Results from China. Children and Youth
Services Review, 95, 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.10.044
Magen, H. (2017). The relations between executive functions, media multitasking and polytonicity. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.011
Mark, G. (2015). Multitasking in the digital age (Vol. 8, pp. 1–113). https://doi.org/10.2200/S00635ED1V01Y201503HCI029
McCrae, R.R., & John, O.P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215.
Murphy, K., Mclauchlan, S., & Lee, M. (2017). Is there a link between media-multitasking and the executive functions of filtering and response inhibition? Computers in Human
Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106,
15581–15587. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0903620106
Poposki, E., Oswald, F., Chen, H., & Navy Personnel Research Studies And Technology Millington Tn. (2009). Neuroticism Negatively Affects Multitasking Performance through
State Anxiety. Retrieved from http://www.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA494159
Primack, B. A., Shensa, A., Escobar-Viera, C. G., Barrett, E. L., Sidani, J. E., Colditz, J. B., &. James, A. E. (2017). Use of multiple social media platforms and symptoms of
depression and anxiety: A nationally-representative study among US young adults. Computers in human behavior, 69, 1-9.
Salomon, K. A., Ferraro, F. R., Petros, T., Bernhardt, K., & Rhyner, K. (2015, September). Individual differences in multitasking performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors
and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 887-891). Sage CA: Los
Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Salthouse, T. A., & Ferrer-Caja, E. (2003). What needs to be explained to account for age-related effects on multiple cognitive variables? Psychology and Aging, 18, 91–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.18.1.91.
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Strayer, D. L., Medeiros-Ward, N., & Watson, J. M. (2013). Who multi-tasks and why? Multi-tasking ability, perceived multi-tasking ability, impulsivity, and sensation seeking. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e54402.
Seidman, G. (2013). Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality influences social media use and motivations. Personality and Individual
Differences, 54(3), 402–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.009
Shih, S., & Gray, M. (2013). A Null Relationship between Media Multitasking and Well-Being. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e64508. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064508 Soto, C., & John, O. (2009). Ten facet scales for the Big Five Inventory: Convergence.with
NEO PI-R facets, self-peer agreement, and discriminant validity. Journal of Research in
Personality, 43(1), 84–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.10.002
Srivastava, J., Nakazawa, M., & Chen, Y. W. (2016). Online, mixed, and offline media multitasking: Role of cultural, socio-demographic, and media factors. Computers in
Human Behavior, 62, 720-729.
Sun, Y., & Grimes, S. (2016). China’s increasing participation in ICT’s global value chain: A firm. level analysis. Telecommunications Policy, 40(2-3), 210-224.
Szymura, B., & Wodniecka, Z. (2003). What really bothers neurotics? In search for factors impairing attentional performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 109–126. Van der Linden, D., te Nijenhuis, J., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). The general factor of.
personality: A. meta-analysis of Big Five intercorrelations and a criterion-related validity study. Journal of research in personality, 44(3), 315-327.
Van Der Schuur, W. A., Baumgartner, S. E., Sumter, S. R., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). The consequences. of media multitasking for youth: A review. Computers in Human
Van der Schuur, W. A., Baumgartner, S. E., Sumter, S. R., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2018). Media multitasking. and sleep problems: a longitudinal study among
adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 316-324.
Vianello, M., Schnabel, K., Sriram, N., & Nosek, B. (2013). Gender differences in implicit and explicit personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(8), 994–999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.08.008
Voorveld, H. A., & van der Goot, M. (2013). Age differences in media multitasking: A diary. study. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(3), 392-408.
Voorveld, H., Segijn, C., Ketelaar, P., & Smit, E. (2014). Investigating the prevalence and predictors of media multitasking across countries. International Journal of
Communication, 8(1), 2755–2777.
Whaite, E., Shensa, A., Sidani, J., Colditz, J., & Primack, B. (2018). Social media use, personality characteristics, and social isolation among young adults in the United States. Personality and Individual Differences, 124, 45–50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.030
Zotzmann, Y., van der Linden, D., & Wyrwa, K. (2019). The relation between country differences, cultural values, personality dimensions, and error orientation: An approach across three continents – Asia, Europe, and North America. Safety Science, 120, 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.06.013
Appendix Questionnaire
Media multitasking. MMM-S will be used to measure the media multitasking.
Participants answer each of the nine items on a scale from 1(never) to 4(very often) 1. While watching tv, how often do you engage in the following activities?
1). Listening to music
2). Sending messages via phone or computer 3). Using social networking sites
2. While using social networking sites, how often do you engage in the following activities?
1). Listening to music
2). Sending messages via phone or computer 3). Watching TV
3. While sending messaged via phone or computer, how often do you engage in the following activities?
1). Listening to music
2). Using social networking sites 3). Watching TV
Personal Traits. Please indicate how strongly you agree with the following statements. From
1 strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree: I see myself as someone who. . . __1. is talkative
__2. tends to find fault with others __3. does a thorough job
__4. is depressed, blue
__5. is original, comes up with new ideas __6. is reserved
__7. is helpful and unselfish with others __8. can be somewhat careless
__9. is relaxed, handles stress well
__10. is curious about many different things __11. is full of energy
__12. starts quarrels with others __13. is a reliable worker __14. can be tense
__15. is ingenious, a deep thinker __16. generates a lot of enthusiasm __17. has a forgiving nature
__18. tends to be disorganized __19. worries a lot
__20. has an active imagination __21. tends to be quiet
__22. is generally trusting __23. tends to be lazy
__24. is emotionally stable, not easily upset __25. is inventive
__26. has an assertive personality __27. can be cold and aloof
__29. can be moody
__30. values artistic, aesthetic experiences __31. is sometimes shy, inhibited
__32. is considerate and kind to almost everyone __33. does things efficiently
__34. remains calm in tense situations __35. prefers work that is routine __36. is outgoing, sociable __37. is sometimes rude to others
__38. makes plans and follows through with them __39. gets nervous easily
__40. likes to reflect, play with ideas __41. has few artistic interests __42. likes to cooperate with others __43. is easily distracted
__44. is sophisticated in art, music, or literature
Sociodemographic variables
Age. What is your gender? Female/ Male/ Prefer not to say Nationality. What is your nationality? Chinese/Dutch/ Others Gender. How old are you? (Please input the number of the year)
