PDF Summary:The Distracted Mind, by Adam Gazzaley and Larry Rosen

With a vast ensemble of screens at our fingertips, technology has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. And although this technological boom has delivered exponentially greater access to information, this access ultimately harms our productivity and ability to fulfill our goals, according to neuroscientist Adam Gazzaley and psychologist Larry D. Rosen. In their 2017 book The Distracted Mind, Gazzaley and Rosen argue that technology has made us significantly more prone to distractions and interruptions, creating what they call “the distracted mind.”

In this guide, we’ll examine Gazzaley and Rosen’s arguments about the distracted mind and the ways that technology has exacerbated it. We’ll also discuss their proposed strategies for alleviating this condition by taking steps to improve our brain’s cognitive control and by modifying our environment. Throughout this guide, we’ll also take a deeper dive into the neuroscience that underlies Gazzaley and Rosen’s arguments, and consider actionable ways to implement their advice.

(continued)...

(Shortform note: Gazzaley and Rosen don’t explicitly explain why we’re wired to consume information, though they cite an article with a potential explanation. The article’s author argues that information is predictive of resources that are crucial to survival—like food, water, and shelter. For example, sensory information about high humidity in the air might be suggestive of crops nearby. So, because the evolutionary process selects for traits that help us survive and reproduce, it encourages us to consume information that makes it easier to do so.)

To explain why our drive for information makes us more susceptible to interference, the authors first discuss the marginal value theorem (MVT)—a theory that predicts when animals will shift from one food patch to another to maximize food consumption—and then suggest that its insights can be applied to our information consumption.

The Marginal Value Theorem Applied to Food Foraging

Roughly put, the MVT states that three factors determine when an animal will leave its current food patch and forage elsewhere: the amount of food in its current patch, the ease of access to nearby patches, and the amount of food in those nearby patches. In other words, animals are likely to stay in patches rich with food—especially if nearby patches aren’t easily accessible—but will be quick to leave patches with fewer resources—especially when nearby patches are accessible.

To see how the MVT functions in practice, imagine that you go apple-picking and find a tree full of apples that’s surrounded by barren trees. In this case, you likely won’t leave the tree full of apples until you’ve picked all the apples—the prospects of foraging elsewhere aren’t good enough to justify leaving. On the other hand, imagine that you start picking apples from a rich apple tree in a forest full of similarly rich trees. In this case, you’ll be more likely to quickly leave your current tree once you’ve picked its low-hanging apples because you can easily access more plentiful trees once you’ve picked the accessible apples from your current tree.

A Deeper Dive Into the Marginal Value Theorem

Multiple experimental studies have demonstrated that certain animals’ foraging behaviors conform to the MVT. For instance, one study found that, in a laboratory setting, the foraging behavior of guinea pigs and screaming hairy armadillos matches the predictions made by the MVT. Similarly, a field of study of great and blue tits—two species of birds—found that the birds’ foraging behaviors in their natural environment were roughly in line with the MVT.

Nonetheless, other experts have pointed out that the MVT has several shortcomings. For example, ecologist Peter Nonacs has argued that the MVT is too simplistic in its exclusive focus on foraging because it fails to consider other activities that animals engage in concurrently—such as seeking mates and avoiding predators. In turn, he contends that many animals’ behavior does not square well with the MVT, since these other considerations influence their foraging behavior.

The Marginal Value Theorem Applied to Technological Interference

Crucially, Gazzaley and Rosen argue that the MVT can be adapted to explain our vulnerability to technology-induced interference. Treating different information sources—such as social media, emails, and text messages—as “information patches,” they contend that technology has made us more vulnerable to interference for two reasons:

1) Per the MVT, animals more quickly move to another patch of food when that patch is easily accessible. As we’ve discussed, smartphones, social media, streaming platforms, and work group chats have made new patches more accessible than ever. (Shortform note: Though information is becoming more accessible, another factor complicates the situation—information is also becoming lower quality. For example, experts note that the deluge of information on social media often creates widespread “fake news” because it’s more difficult to verify information when we’re exposed to so much of it.)

2) Per the MVT, animals more quickly move to another patch of food when it becomes too costly to stay in their current patch. In our case, technology has increased the costs of focusing on one source of information by inducing anxiety and boredom when we do.

Regarding the second point, Gazzaley and Rosen point to studies showing that, when students concentrate on work-related screens, their cognitive engagement quickly decreases; by contrast, cognitive engagement spikes when they switch to entertainment-related screens. For example, students writing an essay might quickly become disengaged, causing them to switch to Twitter, where their brains are more stimulated. As Gazzaley and Rosen hypothesize, this quick onset of boredom is likely due to the faster reward cycles associated with media multitasking—for instance, teenagers are rewarded with new information whenever they switch social media apps, which can create boredom when remaining on one app.

(Shortform note: Some experts contend that the concept of boredom is a recent phenomenon. In Boredom, literary scholar Patricia Meyer Spacks argues that the concept of boredom arose in the 18th century as leisure time became more common; she observes that, at the time, boredom was even considered sinful because it allegedly indicated a lack of faith in God. Moreover, she argues that the emphasis on personal experience that accompanies individualism made boredom all the more salient. So, it stands to reason that although technology may have exacerbated boredom, there are multiple causes at work.)

Finally, to illustrate the increased anxiety caused by technology, the authors cite their study of individuals born in the 1990s. They note that of these individuals, approximately half report feeling anxious if they can’t check their text messages every 15 minutes, with similar numbers for other forms of technology, such as social media and email. Moreover, they note that other studies have shown similar results, confirming a link between increased smartphone usage and increased anxiety. In turn, humans are more likely to frequently check their phones—often interrupting other tasks—to mitigate this anxiety.

(Shortform note: Smartphones aren’t the only anxiety-inducing form of technology: Researchers have also found a strong correlation between social media usage and increased anxiety among adolescents. However, the causes behind social media-induced anxiety might differ from those behind smartphone-induced anxiety. Indeed, some experts hypothesize that social media fuels social anxiety in particular because it causes fear of being judged and makes us more self-conscious.)

The Harmful Effects of Increased Technological Interference

Now that we’ve seen how and why technology aggravates our distracted minds, it’s time to discuss the impact of this increased technological interference. According to Gazzaley and Rosen, technological interference does widespread harm in various domains of life, including school, the workplace, and our relationships.

Impact #1: Interference in Education

First, Gazzaley and Rosen write that technology has led to widespread interference both in and out of the classroom. According to studies cited by Gazzaley and Rosen, about 90% of college students report using their phones to text while in class—a clear case of interruption (intentional decisions to pursue secondary goals). Moreover, the authors point out that the results are similar outside the classroom: In one study, researchers examined students’ behavior during three-hour study sessions, finding that students checked their phones an average of nine times during these sessions, spending about 30 minutes off task.

(Shortform note: For further context, it bears mentioning that this widespread smartphone use is occurring even though in-class cellphone use is widely banned—the National Center for Education Statistics reports that, in 2020, 77% of public schools had banned nonacademic cellphone use in the classroom. In college classrooms, the picture is further complicated by the fact that many students use their laptops in class, even though researchers have found that increased in-class laptop use is predictive of poorer academic performance.)

According to Gazzaley and Rosen, this technological interference decreases students’ productivity and efficiency. They point out that researchers have found that nearly all forms of in-class technology usage are predictive of poorer classroom performance. Moreover, the authors note that researchers have made similar findings for out-of-class technology usage; for instance, one study found that students who paused to send instant messages while completing an assignment took consistently more time than peers who didn’t (even when accounting for the extra time spent messaging).

(Shortform note: Technology-induced interference also became more common in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, which compelled students across the country to learn remotely via computers. One study found that students in remote classes demonstrated more frequent mind-wandering (shifting their attention from their primary task to unrelated internal thoughts)—a clear form of internal interference.)

Impact #2: Interference in the Workplace

In a similar vein, Gazzaley and Rosen argue that technological interference has also infiltrated the workplace. They cite a study wherein researchers observed office workers for two weeks and found that these workers were interrupted over four times per hour by email and three times per hour by instant messaging. Crucially, 40% of these workers immediately dropped their tasks to respond to emails, while 70% did so to reply to instant messages.

(Shortform note: Though technology is ubiquitous in the modern workplace, some experts note that certain forms of technology benefit workers. For example, they point out that noise-canceling headphones actually decrease external distractions, leading to improved worker concentration and performance. Additionally, video conferencing technology enables face-to-face communication with workers from around the world, which can foster a sense of connection in an increasingly remote workplace.)

Gazzaley and Rosen argue that workplace interference increases workers’ stress and decreases their efficiency. To show as much, they cite a study of over 200 employees that measured the most significant predictors of employees’ stress levels—behind workload, external interruptions were the greatest predictor of stress levels. Further, as for worker efficiency, Gazzaley and Rosen point to studies showing that workers often take around a half-hour to reorient themselves to their initial task following an interruption or distraction.

(Shortform note: Not only does workplace interference increase workers’ stress, but in high-stakes work environments, it can also be deadly. One study found that almost half of all aviation accidents occur because of external interruptions that distract pilots. Similarly, researchers have found that emergency room doctors are regularly subject to external interruptions, which can compromise the quality of patient care.)

Impact #3: Interference in Relationships

Finally, Gazzaley and Rosen write that technological interference has a corrosive effect on human relationships because it inhibits connection. For instance, it’s common to complain that friends are on their phones at dinner rather than conversing with each other. Moreover, the authors note that empirical studies have verified the adverse effects that technology has on relationships. One study found that when two strangers conversed for the first time, they reported feeling significantly less empathy and connection toward each other when a smartphone was lying on a table nearby; this has been referred to as “the iPhone Effect.”

Smartphone Use in Romantic Relationships: Effects and Remedies

In a similar vein, research has confirmed that smartphone use often has a detrimental impact on romantic relationships in particular. One study of 145 married adults found that “phubbing”—using your phone as a means of ignoring your partner—was predictive of decreased marital satisfaction, even though it occurs in around 70% of romantic relationships.

Nonetheless, other experts contend that we can take steps to mitigate the harmful effects of smartphones in our romantic relationships. For example, they recommend setting aside “device-free” time with one another, in which you both turn off your devices to focus entirely on each other. Moreover, they recommend embracing the advice laid out by John Gottman and Nan Silver in The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work—namely, responding positively to your partner’s bids for connection, rather than using your phone to retreat from the conversation.

How to Become More Resistant to Interference

Having shown the detrimental effects of interference, Gazzaley and Rosen next turn to potential remedies. Although there are no foolproof cures, Gazzaley and Rosen contend that we can minimize our susceptibility to interference by taking steps to improve our cognitive control and minimize potential sources of interference.

Strategy #1: Improve the Brain’s Cognitive Control

In light of their earlier claim that we’re susceptible to interference because of cognitive control limitations, Gazzaley and Rosen reason that one way to improve this condition is to improve our cognitive control. Although they consider various activities to strengthen our cognitive control, we’ll focus on the four that they contend have the strongest empirical support: physical exercise, meditation, cognitive exercise, and certain video games. Of these four, they note that only physical exercise rises to the level of a prescriptive recommendation, while the other three have comparatively less empirical support.

Activity #1: Physical Exercise

To begin, Gazzaley and Rosen argue that a wide body of research clearly supports the beneficial impact of physical exercise on cognitive control. For instance, one study found that, after consistently undergoing aerobic exercise, children experienced significant boosts in cognitive control. But these results aren’t just limited to children; Gazzaley and Rosen observe that, according to multiple meta-analyses of published studies, physical exercise is predictive of increased cognitive control in adult populations as well.

(Shortform note: Some experts point out that beyond increasing cognitive control, exercise can improve your mental health in other key areas. For example, regular physical exercise has been causally linked to decreased anxiety and depression; although the details are unclear, experts hypothesize that the endorphins released by physical activity play a key role in combating both depression and anxiety.)

Activity #2: Meditation

Although exercise has the best-established benefits for cognitive control, Gazzaley and Rosen contend that consistent meditation might also be beneficial, especially for our selective attention. In support of their claim, Gazzaley and Rosen cite a seminal study that examined young adults with no previous experience meditating as they went through a five-week long meditation course. This study found that, compared to a control group, participants in the meditation course performed significantly better at tests measuring their selective attention.

(Shortform note: One particularly common form of meditation is mindfulness, which specifically targets attention skills by asking practitioners to shift their attention exclusively to the present moment. Though research into the efficacy of mindfulness is ongoing, one review of mindfulness studies noted a link between mindfulness and increased self-reported well-being.)

Activity #3: Cognitive Exercise

In addition to meditation, Gazzaley and Rosen suggest that cognitive exercise can improve our cognitive control. Cognitive exercise refers to adaptive “brain games” that become more difficult over time to match players’ skill levels. For example, in Gazzaley’s laboratory, participants took part in a game called Beepseeker—they heard three tones and had to determine whether a target tone was present among the tones, thus testing their ability to filter out extraneous information. Gazzaley and Rosen observed that, over time, older adults who participated in Beepseeker became less vulnerable to distractions in the game, demonstrating improved cognitive control.

(Shortform note: Adaptive brain games like Beepseeker work because they use a practice similar to progressive overload—a physical exercise technique that involves steadily ramping up the difficulty of workouts over time. Just as progressive overload ensures that you’re consistently challenged to yield results, so too do adaptive brain games ensure that your brain is consistently at its threshold to maximize results.)

Activity #4: Video Games

In a similar vein, Gazzaley and Rosen argue that playing certain video games can also lead to improved cognitive control. Specifically, they cite a study showing that video game players showed superior capacity for attention, both in terms of how fast they processed information and how much information they could attend to simultaneously. This finding was strongest among those who play action games because those games require juggling more tasks simultaneously than non-action games. Moreover, the authors point out that after this initial study, other studies have shown a link between playing video games and increased aspects of cognitive control, such as better working memory and goal management.

(Shortform note: In addition to improved attention, working memory, and goal management, another influential review of studies concludes that video games also noticeably improve our visuospatial cognition—that is, our ability to perceive and imagine objects’ spatial relations with one another. Moreover, because spatial cognition skills strongly predict which students will enter STEM fields, it stands to reason that improving these skills could tangibly impact students’ later career paths.)

Strategy #2: Change Your Environment

Although Gazzaley and Rosen are optimistic that we can become more resistant to interference

by improving our cognitive control, they argue that we can also combat interference by addressing the root causes according to the MVT—increased accessibility of information as well as increased anxiety and boredom when focusing on one information source.

Change #1: Take Steps to Reduce Accessibility

First, Gazzaley and Rosen argue that we should take concrete steps to reduce our access to external sources of information—especially our smartphones. Of course, they point out that limiting accessibility will look different depending on the task at hand; when driving a car, for example, you can simply put your phone in the backseat, but this isn’t an option when you’re at work.

Nonetheless, they point out that limiting access is possible in most circumstances. For instance, they recommend closing unnecessary tabs when working on your laptop and creating “tech-free” zones when socializing with friends or family. In doing so, you can artificially restrict access to information that leads to increased interference.

(Shortform note: In a separate discussion of The Distracted Mind, Rosen offers another simple but effective tip for reducing our smartphone usage: Turn off your push notifications if at all possible. Although, strictly speaking, this strategy doesn’t reduce your access to your phone, it does reduce the number of external interruptions that you’re subjected to each day.)

Change #2: Take Steps to Reduce Boredom

Next, Gazzaley and Rosen contend that taking active steps to reduce boredom in situations prone to interference can help us minimize interruptions and distractions. Once again, they point out that the exact process of reducing boredom will look different depending on the task at hand. However, one frequent activity that they endorse to reduce boredom is simply listening to music—whether while working or studying. In both cases, studies have shown that listening to music can increase cognitive performance without being especially distracting.

(Shortform note: Boredom is especially endemic within the workplace, with one survey of 382 US office workers reporting being bored for above 10 hours per week. To that end, experts recommend a variety of additional steps specifically geared toward combating workplace boredom. For example, you can try altering your workplace environment so that it feels stimulating rather than dull. Alternatively, set daily goals that you can work toward to improve your motivation. And if you do try listening to music, experts recommend instrumental music when you need to focus and music with lyrics when you’re tackling more mindless tasks.)

Change #3: Take Steps to Reduce Anxiety

Finally, Gazzaley and Rosen argue that finding ways to decrease the anxiety we feel when apart from technology helps us combat interference. In particular, they have one clear recommendation for alleviating technology-induced anxiety in all domains: Set boundaries with your contacts about when you will and won’t be available.

In defense of this approach, they argue that the root cause of most anxiety that we feel when apart from our devices is our concern about missing a text, an email, or an instant message. After all, technology has led us to expect 24/7 availability and instant responses, leading to anxiety when we aren’t available 24/7 and responding instantly. So, by setting boundaries and letting contacts know that we won’t be available during—say—work, school, or mealtimes, we won’t worry about not meeting others’ expectations, making us less anxious.

(Shortform note: Though setting boundaries can be effective in reducing the pressure to be constantly available, some countries’ legislatures have decided this burden shouldn’t fall on workers alone. Countries like Belgium and Portugal have introduced laws prohibiting work-related emails, phone calls, or texts after work hours, recognizing the stress and strain that workers are under when they can’t disconnect. So, institutional changes might also play a role in changing the societal expectations to be always available.)