See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324175052

Multitasking in the Military: Cognitive Consequences and Potential Solutions

Article  in  Applied Cognitive Psychology · July 2018

DOI: 10.1002/acp.3415

CITATIONS READS

19 3,579

5 authors, including:

Lobna Cherif Valerie Wood

Royal Military College of Canada Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces
7 PUBLICATIONS   30 CITATIONS    19 PUBLICATIONS   90 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Alexandre Marois Katherine Labonté

Thales Research and Technology McGill University
31 PUBLICATIONS   124 CITATIONS    21 PUBLICATIONS   191 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The disruptive effects of irrelevant sound in perception and memory View project

Does tDCS can improve the cognition and the electrophysiological sleep of healthy student and student athletes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alexandre Marois on 09 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Received: 21 June 2017 Revised: 27 March 2018 Accepted: 1 April 2018
DOI: 10.1002/acp.3415

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Multitasking in the military: Cognitive consequences and

potential solutions
Lobna Chérif1 | Valerie Wood1 | Alexandre Marois2 | Katherine Labonté2 |
2,3
François Vachon

1
Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston,
Canada
2
École de psychologie, Université Laval,
Québec, Canada
3
Department of Building, Energy and
Environmental Engineering, University of
Gävle, Gävle, Sweden
Correspondence Lobna Chérif, Department of
Military Psychology and Leadership, Royal
Military College of Canada, 203–3 Hewett
Ave., Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Email: lobna.cherif@rmc.ca
Funding information
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada (NSERC), Grant/Award
Number: 418623‐2013; Technology Invest-
ment Fund
Summary
Multitasking—the performance of several tasks at the same time—is becoming
increasingly prevalent in workplaces. Multitasking is known to disrupt performance,
particularly in complex and dynamic situations, which is exactly what most military
occupations entail. Because military errors can be consequential, the detrimental
impact of multitasking on cognitive functioning in such contexts should be taken seri-
ously. This review pertains to high‐consequence military occupations that require
strong multitasking skills. More specifically, it highlights cognitive challenges arising
from different forms of multitasking and discusses their underlying cognitive pro-
cesses. Because such challenges are not expected to diminish, this review proposes
context‐relevant solutions to decrease occupational workload, either by reducing
the cognitive load ensuing from the to‐be‐performed tasks or by improving soldiers'
multitasking abilities. To ensure effective implementation of these solutions, we stress
the need to design context‐adapted tools and procedures, and to guide human
resource managers in developing particular strategies.

KEY W ORDS

cognition, military personnel, multitasking, performance, workload

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N The consequences of employee errors resulting from multitasking

The continued presence of technologies in our public and private lives
is undoubtedly changing many aspects of our functioning within these
spheres, including the management of daily tasks. Some argue that
one benefit of accessible technologies (smart phones, tablets, and
computers) is our ability to manage multiple tasks simultaneously, or
multitasking (Loukopoulos, Dismukes, & Barshi, 2009). Because the
involved tasks compete for our attention, multitasking typically results
in a decline in each task's performance (Hodgetts & Jones, 2006;
Monsell, 2003). Highly complex and dynamic situations that require
individuals to engage in cognitive processing and decision making
or to keep pace with or anticipate rapid environmental changes are
not limited to our personal lives. Indeed, the multitasking of cogni-
tively‐complex tasks is characteristic of many occupational fields,
leading many to question its effects on employee productivity and
errors (e.g., Kinney, 2007; Rottapel, 2018; Russ & Crews, 2014).
can be critical or even life threatening in certain occupations, like the
military whose main goal is safeguarding state interests and civilian
security. Many military occupations require soldiers to manage several
complex tasks concurrently (see Pew & Mavor, 1998). Major General
Gorden, when he served as the Director of Military Personnel
Management in the U.S. Army, explained that “We expect a much
more complex, dynamic, and uncertain environment in the future.
Selecting those who can handle uncertainty may be the greatest
challenge that we have” (Gorden, 1994, p. x). Military personnel may
be tempted to manage the uncertainty in their work and environment
by multitasking. Yet, experience is not always sufficient to avoid
committing critical errors in these contexts. Indeed, even experts put
in highly demanding situations can make inappropriate and dangerous
decisions (Dehais et al., 2014). However, the ability to multitask can
be improved with training (Dux et al., 2009; Walker et al., 2010).
Moreover, correlates of multitasking ability have been identified

Appl Cognit Psychol. 2018;1–11. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/acp Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1
2 CHÉRIF
including polychronicity (i.e., preferences and attitudes associated with
multitasking; Kantrowitz, Grelle, Beaty, & Wolf, 2012), as well as
attentional control and goal maintenance (Kane & Engle, 2002;
Watson, Lambert, Miller, & Strayer, 2011), suggesting that they could
improve one's multitasking ability. However, the bulk of the literature
suggests that multitasking has its limitations, and that even individuals
who are deemed multitasking efficient encounter difficulties in
contexts in which several tasks must be carried out simultaneously
(Sanbonmatsu, Strayer, Medeiros‐Ward, & Watson, 2013).
The purpose of this article is twofold. First, we review the current
literature on multitasking and military occupations known to require
strong multitasking skills. Specifically, taking a cognitive approach,
we discuss the impacts of military multitasking on attentional
resources and memory functioning, and how these cognitive effects
manifest in soldiers' performance in specific military occupations. We
chose to illustrate these issues through the key domains of piloting,
command and control (C2), and ground combat occupations, but one
must keep in mind that the principles addressed here also apply to
other military and even nonmilitary occupations. Second, in addition
to our discussion of potential limitations from the presence of multi-
tasking in military occupations, we also discuss potential solutions
for the reduction of multitasking‐related cognitive deficits in domain‐
specific contexts. Although the focus of the current review is the mil-
itary domain, the considerations discussed here are of additional rele-
vance for certain nonmilitary safety‐critical work domains
characterized by the need to attend to multiple tasks in complex,
dynamic environments, such as emergency medicine (Croskerry,
2000), urban security surveillance (Hodgetts, Vachon, Chamberland,
& Tremblay, 2017), and emergency response (Gasaway, 2013).
2 G E N E R A L OV E R V I E W O F
| Smallman, 2008). Operators must then regain situational awareness:
MULTITASKING: TYPES, MECHANISMS, AND
OUTCOMES
There are different forms of multitasking, depending on the types of
tasks involved and the manner in which they are performed: dual
tasking, task switching, and task interruption. Dual tasking is the perfor-
mance of more than one task simultaneously (Lee & Taatgen, 2002). For
example, when scanning the environment for targets a tank gunner
must simultaneously identify targets, operate their gun, and all while lis-
tening to the tank commander's instructions. Task switching involves
alternating one's attention from one task to another when executing
two or more tasks (Monsell, 2003). A drone operator, for instance, must
repeatedly command the drone to particular positions and locations,
and coordinate tactical moves with the rest of the infantry group.
Finally, task interruption is characterized by the temporary suspension
of an ongoing task, triggered by the requirement to execute a higher
priority task (Hodgetts & Jones, 2006). For example, a surveillance
operator must suspend a task when asked by a superior for details on
a situation. Research demonstrates that all three forms of multitasking
are related to deficits in cognitive performance; however, the cognitive
mechanisms by which they produce those deficits are different.
In dual tasking, declines in cognitive performance stem from
limitations in attentional resources. When managing two tasks
ET AL.
simultaneously, capacity‐limited attentional resources are shared
between tasks, which results in cognitive overload when cognitive
capacity limits are reached or exceeded by task demands (Jaeggi
et al., 2007). When this occurs, performance is disrupted whether
resources are more general (Strayer & Johnston, 2001), or specific to
the implied modalities (Wickens, 2002). On the other hand, with task
switching, decreases in cognitive performance are mainly caused by
frequent changes in one's cognitive framework. When one switches
attention to a new task, the appropriate procedural schema and con-
figuration of cognitive resources must be established to execute the
new task optimally. Some authors have suggested that switch costs
arise from the need to overcome the previous (automatic) inhibition
of the relevant task set (Allport, Styles, & Hsieh, 1994), while others
have suggested that they result from the reconfiguration of the cogni-
tive system by executive control processes (Rogers & Monsell, 1995).
Regardless of the mechanisms, task switching is particularly detrimen-
tal to performance, even when individuals are in control of when the
switch takes place (Arrington & Logan, 2004). With task interruption,
cognitive deficits arise from the retrieval of goals related to the
interrupted task (Altmann & Trafton, 2002). Once the interruption is
over and the main task needs to be resumed, the main task goals must
be retrieved from memory and reactivated. These task‐resumption
operations require cognitive efforts that tend to temporarily impede
the execution of the primary task. In complex and dynamic situations
typical of military operations, dealing with task interruptions is partic-
ularly challenging, given that situations can continue to evolve during
the interruption. Indeed, an operator attempting to resume an
interrupted dynamic task must not only remember the goals and state
of completion of that task but also identify any real or potential
changes that might have taken place during the interruption and eval-
uate their impact (Hodgetts, Vachon, & Tremblay, 2014; St. John &
perceiving stimuli in one's environment, evaluating their significance,
and predicting how they can evolve (Endsley, 1988), all of which
demand cognitive resources.
Although different forms of multitasking involve different mech-
anisms, they all disrupt the execution of cognitive processes and
impede cognitive performance. According to Thomas and Russo
(2007), 80% to 85% of military accidents are caused by human errors
resulting from failures of cognitive performance. Given that multitask-
ing interferes with cognitive processing, it is important to better
understand how military accidents might be attributed to multitask-
ing, in order to propose appropriate solutions. This issue is particu-
larly relevant because many tasks in military operations tend to be
complex, involving many variables linked to one another in complex
ways (Bonner, 1994), with research indicating that multitasking has
a greater impact on complex tasks relative to simpler ones (Speier,
Vessey, & Valacich, 2003).
3 | M U L TI TA SKI N G I N M I L I T A RY
OCCUPATIONS
Despite advances in technology, the success of military missions is
largely dependent on the human agent. To maximize the effectiveness
CHÉRIF ET AL.
of military personnel in multitasking contexts, it is crucial to under-
stand the challenges affecting occupations requiring the performance
of multiple critical tasks. In this section, we examine the military occu-
pations of piloting, C2, and ground combat where cognitive deficits
similar to those described in the previous section could originate from
multitasking behaviors.
3.1 | Piloting
Air travel is remarkably safe, but accidents do occur in civilian and
military aviation. Between 1987 and 2001, there were 27 major U.S.
airline accidents in which crew error was found to be a causal factor,
with most of them linked to experiences of cognitive overload
(Dismukes, 2007). Pilots are required to schedule and execute multiple
tasks, while at least monitoring their statuses concurrently, even if the
specific tasks are not executed simultaneously. These tasks include
testing the preflight system, configuring the initial flight, landing and
powering down the aircraft, programming the flight management com-
puter, controlling the movement of the aircraft, and navigating toward
a specific destination aided by signals from different sources, while
also ensuring that the flight crew's tasks are completed. Pilots must
switch attention among concurrent tasks, being careful not to neglect
tasks not currently attended to. Indeed, accident reports indicate that
mistakes are more likely to happen when pilots try to manage or
monitor several tasks at the same time (Dismukes, 2007).
According to Loukopoulos et al. (2009), operating an aircraft
requires the use of three main cognitive processes: prospective
memory, automatic processing, and switching attention between
tasks. These are not the only cognitive processes, but the main
processes involved. Pilot errors typically result from (a) interruptions
or distractions; (b) encountering tasks needed to be performed
outside of the normal task sequence; (c) new tasks arising; or (d)
switching between multiple tasks. Naturally, pilots cannot always
suspend one task until another has been completed. Instead, they
often must shift or divide their attention among tasks. Pilots exposed
to multitasking of this type or to new situations tend to commit
more errors, sometimes unknowingly, even when they have extensive
experience (Loukopoulos et al., 2009). Many such errors tend to be
the result of attentional tunneling, an excessive attentional focus on
a specific channel of information irrelevant to the task goal (Wickens
& Alexander, 2009). Attentional tunneling is largely due to a difficulty
in suppressing a task following a temporary reduction in cognitive
resources, typically brought on by an intense emotional response
or stress (Simpson, Drevets, Snyder, Gusnard, & Raichle, 2001).
This form of tunneling can lead to inattentional deafness, which can
result in the failure of pilots to detect an alert that they would notice
under typical conditions of decreased cognitive load (Dalton &
Fraenkel, 2012; Dehais et al., 2014).
The automatic execution of certain tasks may also increase the
likelihood of pilot error. When experienced pilots perform a routine
procedure, they usually do it with less effort and fewer errors.
However, pilots must approach certain tasks with more deliberate or
conscious processing such as when learning new tasks, engaging in
critical or hazardous tasks, encountering unusual situations, or having
to choose among competing tasks or objectives. These more
3
deliberate tasks tend to be carried out slower, requiring greater effort,
and must be performed in sequence (Barshi & Healy, 1993). The
different cognitive skills required to pilot an aircraft are sensitive to
the number of tasks performed, which explains the increase in errors
committed when pilots are required to undertake new tasks or engage
in multitasking. In other words, the likelihood of committing critical
errors likely increases when pilots are confronted with multiple
concurrent tasks, where even experience may not buffer against the
detrimental cognitive effects of multitasking.
3.2 | Command and control
C2 occupations include emergency management, police or firefighting
operations, and radar surveillance, and all entail providing information,
orders, and directions to be used by others. In addition, C2 operators
engage in critical decision making, and the completion of multiple
goals in complex, dynamic, uncertain, and stressful environments
(Grier, 2015). The strategic and tactical decisions required in these
fields tend to be made rapidly and using several sources of information
(Rovira, McGarry, & Parasuraman, 2007). They may require the execu-
tion of concurrent or alternating tasks and expose C2 operators to
information overload (Loft, 2014). Soldiers in these domains are
responsible for the outcomes of military operations by providing
orders and instructions, coordinating activities, and ensuring that the
right resources are properly deployed (Brehmer, 2007). Air traffic con-
trol (ATC), for example, involves monitoring large numbers of aircraft,
arriving from different directions, at differing speeds and altitudes, and
departing in different directions (Gronlund, Ohrt, Dougherty, Perry, &
Manning, 1998). Some of the skills researchers have identified as
critical for ATC include strong multitasking skills, an extraordinary
level of sustained attention, and an excellent response speed (Eißfeldt
& Heintz, 2002).
The contexts within which C2 operators perform are character-
ized by many factors that interact simultaneously (e.g., time pressure
and information overload) and that are conducive to cognitive
overload and potential detrimental cognitive effects (Hodgetts
et al., 2014; Tremblay, Vachon, Lafond, & Kramer, 2012). Frequent
management of complex and dynamic information by C2 operators,
in addition to the concurrent management of these tasks, may lead
to change blindness, the failure to detect even obvious changes in
a visual scene (Durlach, 2004). Change blindness is known to occur
when task demands reach or exceed one's attentional limits, thus
explaining how certain changes in the environment can be ignored.
Many situations, including those involving multitasking, can lead to
attention overload and, ultimately, change blindness. In research
demonstrating change blindness experienced by C2 controllers,
Vachon, Vallières, Jones, and Tremblay (2012) assessed the eye
gaze‐displacement patterns and pupil size (indicators of changes in
attentional effort: Hoeks & Levelt, 1993) of participants performing
a radar‐based risk assessment task in a simulated air warfare context
involving a ship, and where they were required to perform three
subtasks concurrently. The results indicated that changes in visual
scenes were missed, either because they were not attended to or
because of attentional failures resulting from cognitive overload
4 CHÉRIF
experienced by participants as they attempted to attend to multiple
sources of information simultaneously.
Interruptions are also characteristic of demanding C2 operator
work environments, which are dynamic and often involve situations
that require frequent updates to colleagues or superiors (Hodgetts,
Tremblay, Vallières, & Vachon, 2015). Because the main tasks of C2
operators are frequently changing, situational awareness tends to be
limited, especially if changes occur when the operator's attention is
directed toward another task and is therefore less likely to be noticed
(Smallman & St. John, 2003; St. John & Smallman, 2008). As the
operators return to their main task, a resumption lag may be experi-
enced, and efforts must be made to (a) identify any information that
was potentially missed by updating situational awareness, (b)
reactivate the goal of the main task, and (c) execute actions required
to address the updated situation (Monsell, 2003). In summary, C2
operators may experience high cognitive load in completing not only
their main tasks but by facing interruptions or task switching, which
ultimately can lead to change blindness.
3.3 | Infantry and ground combat occupations
In combat operations, soldiers find themselves under persistent
threats of attack and experience considerable anxiety (Nibbeling,
Oudejans, Ubink, & Daanen, 2014). Situational awareness is crucial
for infantry soldiers, especially those leading a team (Matthews,
Strater, & Endsley, 2004). When a threat is detected, infantry soldiers
must orient their attention to the new situation and may forget previ-
ously attended to information. Engaging in multiple tasks is often
required such as detecting or recognizing signals in the environment,
gathering field data, recalling mission‐related information, and plan-
ning and deciding to engage with a target (Cooke, Salas, Kiekel, & Bell,
2004). Because soldiers can be frequently interrupted by unforeseen
events, understanding the cognitive limitations associated with their
numerous tasks is critical. In particular, these limitations can lead to
outcomes such as soldiers providing erroneous information to com-
rades, engaging in inappropriate actions, or incurring unnecessary risk.
According to Nibbeling et al. (2014), several basic cognitive skills
are necessary to execute the duties of an infantry soldier including
memory, vigilance, and making accurate decisions. By manipulating
levels of stress, these authors showed that soldiers experienced
increased anxiety and fatigue, which decreased their performance on
many tasks, including those that required memory and vigilance.
Although it is important for soldiers to combat fatigue and stress in
order to be efficient at their job, they are frequently exposed to
multitasking environments, which have been shown to increase
fatigue (Chisholm, Collison, Nelson, & Cordell, 2000), heighten anxiety
(Bailey & Konstan, 2006), and disrupt performance on vigilance tasks
(Warm, Parasuraman, & Matthews, 2008).
According to Mitchell and Henthorn (2005), soldiers in surveil-
lance operations are increasingly required to operate robots while also
managing other tasks. In evaluating the effectiveness of new‐genera-
tion tanks, these authors found that tank gunners had fewer instances
of cognitive overload than other tank occupants and were therefore
the most viable candidates for performing robotics control tasks.
However, they also discovered that gunners frequently dropped their
ET AL.
primary task of target detection to execute more complex robotics
tasks, which could be catastrophic if enemies were encountered.
Controlling a robot can be difficult as it requires the operator to
perform several simultaneous tasks (e.g., establishing the robot's
position and issuing commands), which increases workload as the
resources to execute the tasks exceed those actually available to com-
plete them (Wickens & Tsang, 2015). Chen and Joyner (2006) showed
that the ability of tank gunners to detect targets in their immediate
environment is significantly affected if they are also required to
monitor, manage, and remotely operate one or more robotic vehicles
at the same time. Remote operation tasks induce cognitive overload,
resulting in compromised performance on other tasks.
In summary, piloting, C2, and ground combat occupations often
require soldiers to work on multiple tasks simultaneously. Indeed,
these occupations involve the management of a large number of
complex, sometimes simultaneous, tasks. For pilots, the challenge
especially lies in switching from one demanding task to another and
dividing attention between concurrent tasks. For C2 operators, the
issue rather arises from the numerous task interruptions that can
occur following strategic communication with colleagues, or because
of the plethora of information they must attend to while performing
their monitoring tasks. Finally, difficulties encountered by ground
combat soldiers originate from the many tasks they must perform
simultaneously or in alternation, while maintaining a high level of vig-
ilance toward the environment to detect potential threats or targets.
Despite their different origins, all these challenging contexts can
ultimately lead to states of cognitive overload, compromising memory,
and attention faculties, because tasks demands may exceed atten-
tional resources available to manage them.
4 | SOLUTIONS FOR MORE EFFECTIVE
MULTITASKI NG
In the previous section, we discussed how the main sources of errors
stem from cognitive overload and memory deficits resulting from task
interruptions, dual tasking, or task switching. Many studies propose
effective solutions to prevent such errors arising from multitasking,
either in military or civilian work environments. Given that these
errors originate from limits in cognitive capacity, the following
solutions aim to overcome those limits.
4.1 | Reducing cognitive overload
One way to overcome limits in cognitive capacity is to enable the user
to decrease the task requirements or the structural limitations related
to the task. These solutions aim to prevent the users from reaching or
exceeding their available cognitive resources. For example, simple
tools such as checklists and protocols can be used in the initial stages
of a task to ensure that all procedures have been accomplished. This
tends to lighten soldiers' workloads because their memory systems
are not taxed by having to explicitly recall components of every task
(Loukopoulos et al., 2009). Part‐task automation, that is, the usage of
systems designed to carry out part of a task independently from the
operator, can also be used to assist workers. These systems can
CHÉRIF ET AL.
support operators by completing some tasks automatically, which can
reduce the users' workload and, in turn, increase their performance
(Wickens, Hollands, Banbury, & Parasuraman, 2013). Many studies
have shown that automation is a valuable asset for managing cognitive
challenges and, when designed properly, may enhance human‐system
performance in multitasking contexts (e.g., Harris, Hancock, Arthur, &
Caird, 1995; Parasuraman, Sheridan, & Wickens, 2008, for reviews).
Automated alerts can also be used to support operators' decisions.
Alarms can be used to direct attention away from a highly‐demanding
task to one that is more important, or to help operators recall forgot-
ten information. Reminder cues can also be utilized to recall forgotten
behavioral intentions after an interruption (Santangelo, 2015).
In some cases, the addition of alarms or automated tools can
ironically add to cognitive load in an already overloaded perceptual
environment (Vallières, Hodgetts, Vachon, & Tremblay, 2016). In order
to decrease the cognitive load of individuals without using tools that
may compromise performance, teamwork can be promoted, as the
workload is shared between team members, and groups tend to have
a greater processing capacity than single individuals for complex
problem‐solving tasks (Kirschner, Paas, & Kirschner, 2008). Therefore,
the use of teamwork could represent a simple solution that could help
soldiers to perform simultaneous tasks more efficiently as it reduces
the cognitive load for each individual.
Finally, certain tools are currently available to determine the most
effective balance of soldier manpower and automation including
CogTool (John, Prevas, Salvucci, & Koedinger, 2004) and the U.S.
Army‐developed Improved Performance Research Integration Tool.
Improved Performance Research Integration Tool, for example, is a
dynamic simulation modeling tool that allows its users to evaluate
interactions between human and automated performers, which can
inform decisions for reallocation of tasks, where necessary (see
Buck‐Gengler, Raymond, Healy, & Bourne Jr., 2012; Colombi, Miller,
Schneidr, & McGrogan, 2012; Goodman, Miller, & Rusnock, 2015).
4.2 | Improving multitasking abilities
Even if studies identify solutions that can help to decrease cognitive
load, these solutions may not be effective in every context. For
instance, when the level of automation—that is, the extent to which
the system is autonomic relative to the operator—is too high such as
in a task switching context, switch cost times may be lengthened
(Squire & Parasuraman, 2010). Performance in a multitasking context
may also suffer if the system's reliability is suboptimal (Chen & Barnes,
2012). Moreover, even if teamwork helps reduce workload, many skills
are still necessary for teams to be efficient, and numerous challenges
may still be encountered particularly in complex and dynamic environ-
ments (NASA, 2014). Also, sometimes the nature of teamwork entails
additional workload that would have been avoided by working individ-
ually (Nonose, Yoda, Kanno, & Furuta, 2015). Consequently, efforts
must be made to improve soldiers' abilities to work in multitasking
contexts where the tools' or group's efficiency or teamwork's reliabil-
ity may decrease.
Soldiers' abilities to multitask can first be enhanced through train-
ing. Training in some occupations (e.g., aviation and C2) can help
trainees develop their multitasking skills in the context of
5
occupation‐specific tasks (Shadrick & Lussier, 2002). Walker et al.
(2010) showed that, in a C2 context, military personnel with expertise
demonstrated greater task accuracy and a deeper understanding in
their decision‐making processes, compared with novices. According
to Dux et al. (2009), training can improve multitasking performance
through increasing processing speed of incoming information, allowing
multiple tasks to be executed within the same time period. More par-
ticularly, training should emphasize such increase in processing speed,
especially in contexts when operators must defer one task to shift
their attention to another given that information about the deferred
task can only be maintained in working memory for so long before
being forgotten. In this case, retrieving the task set of the deferred
task from memory would be more challenging, which might require
unanticipated time and cognitive resources. Indeed, as Loukopoulos
et al. (2009) point out, typically there are no alerts to prompt an oper-
ator to recall the deferred intention, and they must somehow “remem-
ber to remember.” Training can help to improve operator's recall
accuracy and reaction time by providing specific strategies for
encoding deferred behavioral intentions and creating effective
retrieval cues. Another effective way to train multitasking abilities is
through high‐fidelity simulations (e.g., microworlds) or using gaming
platforms. Indeed, such platforms can capture the characteristics of
multitasking environments (Hodgetts et al., 2015) and allow the user
to learn appropriate behaviors transferrable to future training or
real‐world situations (e.g., Kylesten & Nählinder, 2011).
Another method to ensure soldiers' enhanced multitasking abili-
ties is to increase the selection of individuals with better multitasking
abilities. Many studies show that individuals can differ greatly on their
ability to perform while multitasking. Watson and Strayer (2010) have
shown that some individuals—identified as “supertaskers”—can
perform multiple tasks at the same time without compromising their
performance on any particular task. The military should, therefore,
implement selection tests aimed at trying to identify such individuals,
as their performance would be less affected by the multitasking con-
texts in which they work, even if those environments involve more
complex tasks. Attention to such individual differences in personnel
selection tests should predict better on‐the‐job performance in multi-
tasking‐related occupations, as such tests can match candidates to
particular occupational profiles (Rimland & Larson, 1986). Morris,
Daisley, Wheeler, and Boyer (2015) found that the cognitive skills
assessed in personnel selection tests are valid predictors of job perfor-
mance. Thus, military personnel selection tests should incorporate
assessments of the candidates' multitasking abilities, by testing such
abilities in realistic contexts that simulate their potential work environ-
ment. In fact, this type of assessment is already being used to select air
traffic controllers and pilots, where candidates must complete selec-
tion tests that evaluate multitasking abilities (Pecena et al., 2013).
Although there are a number of existing multitasking assessments,
research evaluating their usefulness in personnel screening and
predictive validity to future job performance is limited (see Barron &
Rose, 2017). The Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery is one
such example of a personnel selection test currently used in the U.S.
Military that has successfully predicted military training and job
success (see Maier, 1993). Evidence shows that it can also predict mul-
titasking performance (Hambrick et al., 2011), although many authors
6 CHÉRIF
believe that the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery lacks
specificity and is in fact capturing general cognitive abilities (Jones &
Ree, 1998). Indeed, many existing multitasking assessments capture
multitasking ability more broadly (e.g., SynWin: Elsemore, 1994;
dichotic listening test: Gopher & Kahneman, 1971). Therefore, more
specific personnel selection tests should be created to assess particu-
lar forms of multitasking as they relate to specific military contexts,
allowing for greater specificity on the relevant cognitive processes
required to perform particular military tasks. Unfortunately, very few
militaries incorporate even general multitasking assessments in their
personnel selection process. Indeed, Mitchell and Driskell (1996) have
suggested that studies using job analyses could permit to identify
specific task requirements and the cognitive skills needed to perform
them. Job analyses that identify critical multitasking skills could then
guide human resource managers to improve the evaluation, selection,
and appointment of military personnel to all occupations involving
frequent multitasking work, including pilots, C2 operators, and infantry
soldiers. This could improve performance in multitasking environ-
ments where accidents and hostilities are ever‐present risks, and
mistakes can have major ramifications.
5 | OCCU PATIO N‐ S P E C I F I C S OL U T I O N S
FOR MORE EFFECTIVE MULTITASKING
As just mentioned, several solutions exist to ensure better perfor-
mance in multitasking contexts by either reducing the cognitive load
experienced by performing multiple tasks or by enhancing the
multitasking abilities of the individuals who work in multitasking
environments. In this section, we provide solutions that could be used
in the specific military occupations previously discussed, according to
the challenges and limitations unique in these contexts.
5.1 | Piloting
The overloaded work environments of pilots may lead them to occa-
sionally forget to perform critical tasks, particularly when experiencing
frequent task switching or interruption (Dismukes, 2007). Automated
systems can help in this regard, such as the use of autopilot systems
that can control some aspects of flight to decrease the pilot's work-
load (Sebok et al., 2012). When tasks cannot be automated, auditory
alarms are a potential solution. Studies on alarm efficiency show that
auditory alerts are useful even in complex and dynamic environments
(Nardo, Santangelo, & Macaluso, 2011), with some auditory alerts
currently being used in cockpits. Their usefulness comes from their
ability to provide information on several urgent situations without
requiring any change in head or eye movements (Edworthy, Loxley,
& Dennis, 1991). However, alarms do have their limitations. Some
aeronautic accidents have been associated with a lack of reaction to
auditory alerts (Bliss, 2003). Alarms may be unintentionally ignored,
especially when pilots exert excessive attentional focus induced by
high‐workload situations such as the implementation of several tasks
simultaneously (Dehais et al., 2014).
Another method that could help reorient pilots' attention in the
cockpit toward relevant information is to use technological systems
ET AL.
that remove, rather than add, stimuli that the worker is inappropri-
ately focused on, and replace those stimuli with others designed to
shift attentional focus toward more critical information. Such is the
case with cognitive countermeasures, which are designed to prevent
attentional tunneling, an inappropriate sustained focus of attention
on noncrucial information and stressors. Dehais, Tessier, Christophe,
and Reuzeau (2010) verified the impact of such systems in cases
where pilots are focused on a task that requires considerable engage-
ment and mental resources, to the point that they are unaware of
their unstable runway approach. Because attentional tunneling makes
attention shifting more difficult, the experimenters adjusted the
pilots' interface to remove less relevant content and reveal more
critical information. The results showed that this method lead pilots
to overcome their task perseveration, detect the alert, and ultimately
engage in operations required to stabilize the airplane. Cognitive
countermeasures represent an effective alternative to alarms in
reorienting attention toward a critical task when pilots are
overwhelmed by the situation.
Another way to ensure that pilots can more efficiently manage
simultaneous tasks is by recruiting individuals with enhanced multi-
tasking abilities. For example, the procedure for selecting pilots at
the German Aerospace Center (DLR) indirectly assesses multitasking
abilities by testing cognitive skills such as memory and reasoning,
and other academic and technical skills. According to Zierke (2014),
this selection process test is efficient in selecting pilots who actually
perform better. Thus, without including direct multitasking assess-
ment, it seems that effective multitasking pilots can be recruited by
using personnel selection tests that measure cognitive capacities
associated with better multitasking abilities.
5.2 | Command and control
C2 soldiers often face stressful, complex, and dynamic situations in
which they must perform several tasks in a short period of time. A fre-
quent solution used by C2 operators to cope with these challenges is
teamwork (Cooke et al., 2004). C2 operators face many interruptions,
requiring both individuals and teams to coordinate and adapt quickly
in order to maintain efficiency (LePine, 2005). In the context of a sim-
ulated firefighting situation, Tremblay et al. (2012) compared the
effects of interrupting one or two members of a small team, relative
to an individual operator, and found that interruptions were detrimen-
tal to operators' capacity to monitor resources, but that the harmful
effects of interruption were reduced for those working in a team. This
benefit of collaborative work seems to be explained or mediated by
increased coordination and communication, with fewer post‐interrup-
tion communications and shorter interruption recoveries.
However, teamwork is not always an optimal solution because it
requires supplementary actions that may induce cognitive overload
(Nonose et al., 2015). Hence, automation and alarms are also used in
C2 work environments such as the traffic alert and collision avoidance
system, which triggers an alert when a potential aircraft collision is
detected. This system is not always reliable and false alarms can occur,
which can affect the performance of ATC operators (Dixon, Wickens,
& McCarley, 2007). Even if alarms are perfectly reliable, certain fea-
tures such as their saliency or their intensity may impact performance.
CHÉRIF ET AL.
For example, Imbert et al. (2014) evaluated the impact of different
types of visual alerts on their ability to capture attention by reporting
participants' accuracy and speed in detecting critical events in a
simulated ATC microworld setting. Results showed that more salient
visual alarms captured attention more quickly, but alerts that are too
intrusive can hinder performance on the primary task. This suggests
that alert system designers should consider both an alert's capacity
to reduce errors of omission (sufficient attentional power to reorient
attention) and its attentional cost (low intrusiveness to prevent
primary task disruption).
Change detection tools have been created for C2 operators to
minimize the costs of alarms and help shield against change blindness
caused by interruptions. These tools, accessed by the user's discretion,
help to highlight changes in a situation that must be monitored by C2
operators (Durlach, 2004). For example, Smallman and St. John (2003)
evaluated the efficiency of the Change History Explicit, a tool
that promotes change awareness by logging significant changes to a
situation in a radar‐based change‐detection task. Operators who used
the tool were better at detecting aircraft changes and recovering
situational awareness after an interruption, relative to those who did
not use the tool. However, the efficiency of such change‐detection
tools in multitasking contexts has recently been questioned. Vallières,
Hodgetts, Vachon, and Tremblay (2012) showed that the Change
History Explicit failed to improve change detection when embedded in
a more realistic multitasking context involving threat evaluation and
weapon assignment. Thus, the addition of tools such as alarms or logging
tables is not always helpful, as they may exacerbate cognitive load.
Similar to pilots, C2 occupations can benefit from personnel
selection tests that identify soldiers that will perform more effectively
in multitasking contexts, such as the procedure for selecting ATC
operators at the DLR. According to Pecena et al. (2013), the DLR
procedure for selecting controllers includes measures of memory,
processing speed, and attention, which have been found to be signif-
icantly correlated with several performance criteria of ATC training,
a high multitasking‐based program.
5.3 | Infantry and ground combat occupations
The threats that infantry and ground combat occupation soldiers
encounter, in addition to the main tasks they must perform for their
mission, require multiple cognitive resources. Automation, like the
use of unmanned vehicles and robots, can be used to execute tasks
that would put the soldier at risk or tasks that would be difficult for
soldiers to perform without placing them in a state of cognitive
overload. Parasuraman, Cosenzo, and De Visser (2009) observed a
supervision task of uninhabited vehicles and found that automation
led to better change detection than manual control of the vehicles.
Nevertheless, systems must be designed according to the context in
which they are used. In particular, workload was reduced when the
automation system was adaptive (on the basis of the individual
operator's performance in real time) instead of model based (based
on the prediction of general operator performance). When character-
istics of the automated systems may lead to cognitive overload,
cognitive countermeasures can be used. For example, using a real
unmanned vehicle control task, Dehais, Causse, and Tremblay (2011)
7
induced an authority conflict between the operator and the robot
known to promote attentional tunneling. During the conflict, half of
the participants experienced a cognitive countermeasure wherein
the part of the visual interface where excessive focus was recorded
was temporarily removed and replaced by information related to
new priorities, which led to more appropriate decision making and
reductions in stress.
As stated earlier, technological systems must be sufficiently reli-
able in order to effectively support infantry soldiers. Chen and Barnes
(2012) studied the impact of individual differences on the efficacy of a
human‐automation system interaction in a multitasking situation using
RoboLeader, a robot—in substitute of the human operator—that
coordinates a team of lower capacity robots. This allows the human
operator to deal with only the single entity (the robot) and focus their
attention on other relevant tasks. Analyses showed that when the
RoboLeader automation system was perfectly reliable, targets were
detected faster than when the human operator directly managed and
coordinated the robot team to locate targets in a remote simulated
environment. However, when RoboLeader's reliability was less than
optimal, that is, when the system provided inappropriate revisions of
the robots' routes to locate the targets, participants' performance
suffered. Still, individual differences such as attentional control capac-
ity, video game experience, and spatial skills, moderated these effects
and improved performance.
Infantry soldiers' multitasking abilities can also be trained.
Although many studies address the effectiveness of training on indi-
vidual task performance, fewer have evaluated the impact of training
in multitasking contexts. This is particularly true in the case of ground
combat occupations where most studies deal primarily with soldiers'
technical skills, with less of a focus on cognitive skills, except general
intelligence (Jones & Ree, 1998). Some studies have assessed the
impacts of training on tasks that are indirectly related to multitasking
such as evaluating the efficacy of vehicle crew trainings and driving
capacities. Goode, Salmon, and Lenné (2013) conducted a review of
vehicle simulations used to train civilian or military drivers and vehicle
crew, and whether simulations are effective at enhancing driving‐
related procedural and higher order cognitive skills, as well as
team‐related procedural and nontechnical skills. According to their
review, trainees can learn procedural and higher order cognitive skills
that can be transferred to real‐world driving behaviors, although some
studies on procedural skills suffer from validity issues. However, spe-
cific high‐order cognitive skills such as visual processing, attentional
deployment, and reaction time seem to be effectively improved by
these simulations, which are generalizable to real‐life driving
situations. Because driving is an activity that entails the management
of multiple simultaneous subtasks (Courage, Bakhtiar, Fitzpatrick,
Kenny, & Brandeau, 2015), it seems that militaries can in fact
become more proficient on such multitasking activity by training using
realistic simulations.
In this section, we have outlined strategies that can be used by
pilots, C2 operators, and infantry soldiers working in multitasking
contexts that can mitigate or prevent potential negative effects of
multitasking on performance. Many solutions have already been
implemented in these military domains. However, the tools and proce-
dures used to multitask more efficiently should be implemented in
8 CHÉRIF
consideration of the nature of the applied context. Moreover,
methods to reduce cognitive overload and improve soldiers'
multitasking abilities can complement one another. For instance, if a
tool's reliability was jeopardized, a highly‐trained soldier would
likely react more effectively than a soldier with minimal training in
multitasking contexts.
6 | C O N CL U S I O N S
Multitasking is cognitively challenging for operators placed in complex
and dynamic work situations such as the military. Regarding military
occupations in particular, compromises in military personnel's cogni-
tive capacities could have critical and lethal consequences, potentially
jeopardizing the security of civilians, military personnel, critical
equipment, and infrastructure. Knowledge of the cognitive limitations
arising from multitasking contexts is crucial and must be integrated
into military programs to ensure that people in uniform have the
resources to be effective in their missions. This knowledge would also
benefit military commanders who could apply the solutions described
here to reduce the workload in occupations characterized by the
management of several tasks or to improve the cognitive capacities
of the soldiers to help them better manage their current tasks.
One of the main solutions that can mitigate the harmful impacts
of multitasking is the use of technological devices that remind one
of forgotten tasks or decrease soldiers' cognitive loads. Indeed, the
existing literature indicates that certain technologies can be beneficial
for workers in multitasking contexts, helping them manage the high
workload associated with the performance of many complex dynamic
tasks. However, as discussed in this review, even if such systems can
reduce workload by helping one manage multiple tasks or by directing
one's focus to a more critical task, they can sometimes compromise
performance, particularly when the level of automaticity is too high
(Squire & Parasuraman, 2010), when the tools' reliability is suboptimal
(Chen & Barnes, 2012), when their intrusiveness is too high (Imbert
et al., 2014), or when they are simply not appropriate for a multitask-
ing context (Vallières et al., 2012). Cautious design of support tools is
key, with features adapted to the multitasking context. As reiterated
by Lafond, Vachon, Rousseau, and Tremblay (2010), the effectiveness
of systems should be assessed, taking into account global effects on
cognitive functioning and performance, not simply targeted cognitive
functioning. Specifically, one needs to consider whether the benefits
of addressing one aspect of the situation do not happen at the
expense of other important aspects (see also Vachon, Lafond,
Vallières, Rousseau, & Tremblay, 2011). The adoption of a holistic
approach in the designing and evaluation of aid systems should help
maximize the cognitive benefits such systems provide in multitasking
situations, while minimizing their potential drawbacks.
Hiring individuals with better multitasking abilities and training
soldiers appropriately can ensure that they will be more efficient at
managing tasks simultaneously. Unfortunately, few military domains
currently incorporate multitasking assessment in their personnel selec-
tion process. Further, although multitasking training is not common in
all military domains, some platforms currently exist that allow training
to be adapted to the relevant context (Hodgetts et al., 2015; Kylesten
ET AL.
& Nählinder, 2011). Mitchell and Driskell (1996) have suggested that
studies using job analyses could identify specific task requirements
and cognitive skills needed to perform them. Job analyses that identify
crucial multitasking skills could then guide human resource managers
in evaluating, selecting, and appointing personnel to positions. In
addition, such knowledge could help human resource managers to
develop and/or adapt military performance tests for positions where
multitasking is a central component of the job, and design training
procedures appropriate for the multitasking context within which
soldiers must operate.
In conclusion, multitasking is highly prevalent in several military
occupations and tends to lead to performance deficits and disruptions
of cognitive functioning that should not be overlooked. Solutions have
been identified to address these issues, but their effectiveness may be
limited by the demands inherent in such multitasking contexts. This
means that such solutions could apply to other military or nonmilitary
occupations where individuals must juggle multiple tasks or defer an
intended action (e.g., first responders, air traffic controllers, and
closed‐circuit television operators), as long as the characteristics of
the working context are taken into account. Multitasking should be a
chief concern for both operational planning and training development,
as the amount and complexity of information to be processed by sol-
diers will not decrease in years to come. In implementing relevant
solutions discussed here, soldiers would be better equipped to manage
multiple tasks simultaneously, helping to prevent critical errors that
could compromise the security of military personnel and civilians.
CONFLIC T OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the Technology Investment Fund
awarded to Lobna Chérif and François Vachon. This research received
financial support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada (NSERC) in the form of a grant awarded to François
Vachon (418623‐2013) and in the form of a doctoral scholarship
awarded to Katherine Labonté.
ORCID
Lobna Chérif http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1803-3938
Alexandre Marois http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4127-4134
RE FE RE NC ES
Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set:
Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umilta, & M. Moscovitch
(Eds.), Attention and performance 15: Conscious and nonconscious infor-
mation processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Altmann, E. M., & Trafton, J. G. (2002). Memory for goals: An activation‐
based model. Cognitive Science, 26, 39–83.
Arrington, C. M., & Logan, G. D. (2004). The cost of voluntary task switch.
Psychological Science, 15, 610–615.
Bailey, B. P., & Konstan, J. P. (2006). On the need for attention‐aware sys-
tems: Measuring effects of interruption on task performance, error
rate, and affective state. Human Behavior, 22, 685–708.
CHÉRIF ET AL.
Barron, L. G., & Rose, M. R. (2017). Multitasking as a predictor of pilot per-
formance: Validity beyond serial single‐task assessments. Military
Psychology, 29, 316–326.
Barshi, I., & Healy, A. F. (1993). Checklist procedures and the cost of
automaticity. Memory and Cognition, 21, 496–505.
Bliss, J. (2003). An investigation of alarm related accidents and incidents in
aviation. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 13, 249–268.
Bonner, S. E. (1994). A model of the effects of audit task complexity.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19, 213–234.
Brehmer, B. (2007). Understanding the functions of C2 is key to progress.
International Journal of C2, 1, 211–232.
Buck‐Gengler, C. J., Raymond, W. D., Healy, A. F., & Bourne, L. E. Jr.
(2012). Modeling cognitive tasks in IMPRINT. In A. F. Healy, & L. E.
Bourne, Jr. (Eds.), Training cognition: Optimizing efficiency, durability,
and generalizability (pp. 201–224). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Chen, J. Y. C., & Barnes, M. J. (2012). Supervisory control of multiple
robots: Effects of imperfect automation and individual differences.
Human Factors, 54, 157–174.
Chen, J. Y. C., & Joyner, C. T. (2006). Individual differences in concurrent
performance of gunner's and robotic operator's tasks. Proceedings of
the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50,
1759–1763.
Chisholm, C. D., Collison, E. K., Nelson, D. R., & Cordell, W. H. (2000).
Emergency department workplace interruptions: Are emergency physi-
cians “interrupt‐driven” and “multitasking”? Academic Emergency
Medicine, 7, 1239–1243.
Colombi, J. M., Miller, M. E., Schneidr, M., & McGrogan, J. (2012). Predic-
tive mental workload modeling for semiautonomous system design:
Implications for systems of systems. Systems Engineering, 15, 448–460.
Cooke, N. J., Salas, E., Kiekel, P. A., & Bell, B. (2004). Advances in measuring
team cognition. In E. Salas, & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Under-
standing the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 83–106).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Courage, M. L., Bakhtiar, A., Fitzpatrick, C., Kenny, S., & Brandeau, K.
(2015). Growing up multitasking: The costs and benefits for cognitive
development. Developmental Review, 35, 5–41.
Croskerry, P. (2000). The cognitive imperative: Thinking about how we
think. Academic Emergency Medicine, 7, 1223–1231.
Dalton, P., & Fraenkel, N. (2012). Gorillas we have missed: Sustained
inattentional deafness for dynamic events. Cognition, 124, 367–372.
Dehais, F., Causse, M., & Tremblay, S. (2011). Mitigation of conflicts with
automation: Use of cognitive countermeasures. Human Factors, 53,
448–460.
Dehais, F., Causse, M., Vachon, F., Régis, N., Menant, E., & Tremblay, S.
(2014). Failure to detect critical auditory alerts in the cockpit: Evidence
for inattentional deafness. Human Factors, 56, 631–644.
Dehais, F., Tessier, C., Christophe, L., & Reuzeau, F. (2010). The perseveration
syndrome in the pilot's activity: Guidelines and cognitive countermeasures.
In P. Palanque, J. Vanderdonckt, & M. Winckler (Eds.), Human error, safety
and systems development: Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 68–80).
Brussels, Belgium: Springer.
Dismukes, R. K. (2007). Prospective memory in aviation and everyday set-
tings. In M. Kliegel, M. A. McDaniel, & G. O. Einstein (Eds.), Prospective
memory: Cognitive, neuroscience, developmental, and applied perspectives
(pp. 415–435). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dixon, S., Wickens, C. D., & McCarley, J. M. (2007). On the independence
of reliance and compliance: Are false alarms worse than misses? Human
Factors, 49, 564–572.
Durlach, P. J. (2004). Change blindness and its implications for complex
monitoring and control systems design and operator training. Human
Computer Interaction, 19, 423–451.
Dux, P., Tombu, M., Harrison, S., Rogers, B., Tong, F., & Marois, R. (2009).
Training improves multitasking performance by increasing the speed
of information processing in human prefrontal cortex. Neuron, 63,
127–138.
9
Edworthy, J., Loxley, S., & Dennis, I. (1991). Improving auditory warning
design: Relationship between warning sound parameters and perceived
urgency. Human Factors, 33, 205–231.
Eißfeldt, H., & Heintz, A. (2002). Ability requirements for DFS controllers
—Current and future. In H. Eißfeldt, M. C. Heil, & D. Broach (Eds.),
Staffing the ATM system: The selection of air traffic controllers (pp.
13–24). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Elsemore, T. F. (1994). SYNWORKl: A PC‐based tool for assessment of
performance in a simulated work environment. Behavior Research
Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 26, 421–426.
Endsley, M. R. (1988). Design and evaluation for situation awareness
enhancement. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society,
32, 97–101.
Gasaway, R. B. (2013). Situation awareness for emergency response. Tulsa,
OK: PennWell Corporation.
Goode, N., Salmon, P. M., & Lenné, M. G. (2013). Simulation‐based driver
and vehicle crew training: Applications, efficacy and future directions.
Applied Ergonomics, 44, 435–444.
Goodman, T. J., Miller, M. E., & Rusnock, C. F. (2015). Incorporating auto-
mation: Using modeling and simulation to enable task re‐allocation. In
L. Ynmaz, W. K. V. Chan, I. Moon, T. M. K. Roeder, C. Macal, & M. D.
Rosse (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2015 Winter Simulation Conference
(pp. 2388–2399).
Gopher, D., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Individual differences in attention
and the prediction of flight criteria. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 33,
1335–1342.
Gorden, F. (1994). Foreword: Selection and classification for the army
of the future. In M. G. Rumsey, C. B. Walker, & J. H. Harris (Eds.),
Personnel selection and classification (pp. ix–x). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grier, R. A. (2015). Situation awareness in command and control. In R. R.
Hoffman, P. A. Hancock, M. W. Scerbo, R. Parasuraman, & J. L. Szalma
(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of applied perception research (pp. 891–
911). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gronlund, S. D., Ohrt, D. D., Dougherty, M. R. P., Perry, J. L., & Manning, C.
A. (1998). Role of memory in air traffic control. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied, 4, 263–280.
Hambrick, D. Z., Rench, T. A., Poposki, E. M., Darowski, E. S., Roland, D.,
Bearden, R. M., & Brou, R. (2011). The relationship between the
ASVAB and multitasking in Navy sailors: A process‐specific approach.
Military Psychology, 23, 365–380.
Harris, W. C., Hancock, P. A., Arthur, E. J., & Caird, J. K. (1995). Perfor-
mance, workload, and fatigue changes associated with automation.
The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 5, 169–185.
Hodgetts, H. M., & Jones, D. M. (2006). Interruption of the Tower of Lon-
don task: Support for a goal‐activation approach. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 103–115.
Hodgetts, H. M., Tremblay, S., Vallières, B. R., & Vachon, F. (2015). Deci-
sion support and vulnerability to interruption in a dynamic
multitasking environment. International Journal of Human‐Computer
Studies, 79, 106–117.
Hodgetts, H. M., Vachon, F., Chamberland, C., & Tremblay, S. (2017). See
no evil: Cognitive challenges of security surveillance and monitoring.
Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 230–243.
Hodgetts, H. M., Vachon, F., & Tremblay, S. (2014). Background sound
impairs interruption recovery in dynamic tasks: Procedural conflict?
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 10–21.
Hoeks, B., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1993). Pupillary dilation as a measure of
attention: A quantitative system analysis. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments, & Computers, 25, 16–26.
Imbert, J.‐P., Hodgetts, H. M., Parise, R., Vachon, F., Dehais, F., & Tremblay,
S. (2014). Attentional costs and failures in air traffic control notifica-
tions. Ergonomics, 57, 1817–1832.
Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Etienne, A., Ozdoba, C., Perrig, W. J., &
Nirkko, A. C. (2007). On how high performers keep cool brains in
10
situations of cognitive overload. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neu-
roscience, 7, 75–89.
John, B. E., Prevas, K., Salvucci, D. D., & Koedinger, K. (2004). Predictive
human performance modeling made easy. Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2004, 455–462.
Jones, G. E., & Ree, M. J. (1998). Aptitude test score validity: No moderat-
ing effect due to job ability requirement differences. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 58, 284–294.
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in working
memory capacity, executive attention and general fluid intelligence: An
individual‐differences perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9,
637–671.
Kantrowitz, T. M., Grelle, D. M., Beaty, J., & Wolf, M. B. (2012). Time is
money: Polychronicity as a predictor of performance across job levels.
Human Performance, 25, 114–137.
Kinney, T. B. (2007). Task and individual characteristics as predictors of
performance in a job relevant multi‐tasking environment. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 68(10‐B), 7011–7179.
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P. A. (2008). Learning from complex
cognitive tasks: Comparing groups to individuals. ICLS'08 Proceedings
of the 8th International Conference on International Conference for the
Learning Sciences, 1, 446–452.
Kylesten, B., & Nählinder, S. (2011). The effect of decision‐making training:
Results from a command‐and‐control training facility. Cognition,
Technology & Work, 13, 93–101.
Lafond, D., Vachon, F., Rousseau, R., & Tremblay, S. (2010). A cognitive and
holistic approach to developing metrics for decision support in
command and control. In D. B. Kaber, & G. Boy (Eds.), Advances in
cognitive ergonomics (pp. 65–73). Danvers, MA: CRC Press.
Lee, F. J., & Taatgen, N. A. (2002). Multitasking as skill acquisition.
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Cognitive
Modeling, 225–230.
LePine, J. A. (2005). Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen
change: Effects of goal difficulty and team composition in terms of
cognitive ability and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90, 1153–1167.
Loft, S. (2014). Applying psychological science to examine prospective
memory in simulated air traffic control. Current Directions in Psycholog-
ical Science, 23, 326–331.
Loukopoulos, L. D., Dismukes, R. K., & Barshi, I. (2009). The multitasking
myth: Handling complexity in real‐world operations. Farnham, UK:
Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Maier, M. H. (1993). Military aptitude testing: The past fifty years (tech. rep.
no. 93–007). Monterey, CA: Personnel Testing Division, Defense
Manpower Data Center.
Matthews, M. D., Strater, L. D., & Endsley, M. R. (2004). Situation aware-
ness requirements for infantry platoon leaders. Military Psychology,
16, 149–161.
Mitchell, D. K., & Henthorn, T. (2005). Soldier workload analysis of the
mounted combat system (MCS) platoon's use of unmanned assets (tech.
rep. no. ARL‐TR‐3476). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army
Research Laboratory.
Mitchell, J. L., & Driskell, W. E. (1996). Military job analysis: A historical
perspective. Military Psychology, 8, 119–142.
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140.
Morris, S. B., Daisley, R. L., Wheeler, M., & Boyer, P. (2015). A meta‐analy-
sis of the relationship between individual assessments and job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 5–20.
Nardo, D., Santangelo, V., & Macaluso, E. (2011). Stimulus‐driven orienting
of visuo‐spatial attention in complex dynamic environments. Neuron,
69(5), 1015–1028.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2014). Human integration
design handbook. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
CHÉRIF ET AL.
Nibbeling, N., Oudejans, R. R., Ubink, E. M., & Daanen, H. A. (2014).
The effects of anxiety and exercise‐induced fatigue on shooting
accuracy and cognitive performance in infantry soldiers. Ergonomics,
57, 1366–1379.
Nonose, K., Yoda, Y., Kanno, T., & Furuta, K. (2015). An exploratory study:
A measure of workload associated with teamwork. Cognition, Technol-
ogy & Work, 1–10.
Parasuraman, R., Cosenzo, K. A., & De Visser, E. (2009). Adaptive automa-
tion for human supervision of multiple uninhabited vehicles: Effects on
change detection, situation awareness, and mental workload. Military
Psychology, 21, 270–297.
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. (2008). Situation aware-
ness, mental workload, and trust in automation: Viable, empirically
supported cognitive engineering constructs. Journal of Cognitive
Engineering and Decision Making, 2, 141–161.
Pecena, Y., Keye, D., Conzelmann, K., Grasshoff, D., Maschke, P., Heintz, A.,
& Eißfeldt, H. (2013). Predictive validity of a selection procedure for air
traffic controller trainees. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human
Factors, 3, 19–27.
Pew, R. W., & Mavor, A. S. (1998). Modeling human and organizational
behavior: Application to military simulations. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Rimland, B., & Larson, G. E. (1986). Individual differences: An underdevel-
oped opportunity for military psychology. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 16, 565–575.
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictible switch between
simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
124, 207–231.
Rottapel, M. (2018). Pardon the interruption: An examination of the
antecedents and outcomes of multitasking in the workplace. Disserta-
tion Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences,
79(1‐A(E)).
Rovira, E., McGarry, K., & Parasuraman, R. (2007). Effects of imperfect
automation on decision making in a simulated command and control
task. Human Factors, 49, 76–87.
Russ, M., & Crews, D. E. (2014). A survey of multitasking behaviors in orga-
nizations. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 4, 137–153.
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.
Santangelo, V. (2015). Forced to remember: When memory is biased by
salient information. Behavioural Brain Research, 283, 1–10.
Sebok, A., Wickens, C., Sarter, N., Quesada, S., Socash, C., & Anthony, B.
(2012). The automation design advisor tool (ADAT): Development
and validation of a model‐based tool to support flight deck automation
design for nextgen operations. Human Factors and Ergonomics in
Manufacturing & Service Industries, 22, 378–394.
Shadrick, S. B., & Lussier, J. W. (2002). The application of Think Like a
Commander in the Armor Captains Career Course. Presented at the
Interservice/Industry Simulation, & Education Conference, Orlando, FL.
Simpson, J., Drevets, W., Snyder, Z., Gusnard, D., & Raichle, M. (2001).
Emotion‐induced changes in human medial prefrontal cortex: I. During
cognitive task performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Science, 98, 683–687.
Smallman, H., & St. John, M. (2003). CHEX (Change History Explicit): New
HCI concepts for change awareness. Proceedings of the Human Factors
and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting (pp. 528–532). Santa
Monica, CA: SAGE Publications.
Speier, C., Vessey, I., & Valacich, J. S. (2003). The effects of interruptions,
task complexity, and information presentation on computer‐supported
decision‐making performance. Decision Sciences, 34, 771–797.
Squire, P. N., & Parasuraman, R. (2010). Effects of automation and task load
on task switching during human supervision of multiple semi‐autono-
mous robots in a dynamic environment. Ergonomics, 53, 951–961.
CHÉRIF ET AL.
St. John, M., & Smallman, H. S. (2008). Staying up to speed: Four design
principles for maintaining and recovering situation awareness. Journal
of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 2, 118–139.
Strayer, D. L., & Johnston, W. A. (2001). Driven to distraction: Dual‐task
studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular telephone.
Psychological Science, 12, 462–466.
Thomas, M. L., & Russo, M. B. (2007). Neurocognitive monitors: Towards
the prevention of cognitive performance decrements and catastrophic
failures in the operational environment. Aviation, Space and Environ-
mental Medicine, 78(5 Suppl), B144–B152.
Tremblay, S., Vachon, F., Lafond, D., & Kramer, C. (2012). Dealing with task
interruptions in complex dynamic environments: Are two heads better
than one? Human Factors, 54, 70–83.
Vachon, F., Lafond, D., Vallières, B. R., Rousseau, R., & Tremblay, S. (2011).
Supporting situation awareness: A tradeoff between benefits and over-
head. Proceedings of the 1st IEEE International Multi‐Disciplinary
Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision
Support (pp. 282–289). Miami Beach, FL: IEEE.
Vachon, F., Vallières, B. R., Jones, D. M., & Tremblay, S. (2012). Nonexplicit
change detection in complex dynamic settings: What eye movements
reveal. Human Factors, 54, 996–1007.
Vallières, B. R., Hodgetts, H. M., Vachon, F., & Tremblay, S. (2012).
Supporting change detection in complex dynamic situations: Does the
CHEX serve its purpose? Proceedings of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society 56th Annual Meeting (pp. 1708–1712). Santa Monica,
CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Vallières, B. R., Hodgetts, H. M., Vachon, F., & Tremblay, S. (2016).
Supporting dynamic change detection: Using the right tool for the task.
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 1, 32.
Walker, G. H., Stanton, N. A., Salmon, P. M., Jenkins, D. P., Rafferty, L., &
Ladva, D. (2010). Same or different? Generalising from novices to
View publication stats
11
experts in military command and control studies. International Journal
of Industrial Ergonomics, 40, 473–483.
Warm, J. S., Parasuraman, R., & Matthews, G. (2008). Vigilance requires
hard mental work and is stressful. Human Factors, 50, 433–441.
Watson, J. M., & Strayer, D. L. (2010). Supertaskers: Profiles in extraordinary
multitasking ability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 479–485.
Watson, J. M., Lambert, A. E., Miller, A. E., & Strayer, D. L. (2011). The mag-
ical letters P, F, C, and sometimes U: The rise and fall of executive
attention with the development of prefrontal cortex. In K. Fingerman,
C. Berg, T. Antonucci, & J. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of lifespan psychology
(pp. 407–436). New York: Springer.
Wickens, C. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction.
Theoretical Issued in Ergonomics Science, 3, 159–177.
Wickens, C. D., & Alexander, A. L. (2009). Attentional tunneling and task
management in synthetic vision displays. The International Journal of
Aviation Psychology, 19, 182–199.
Wickens, C. D., Hollands, J. G., Banbury, S., & Parasuraman, R. (2013).
Engineering psychology and human performance (4th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Wickens, C. D., & Tsang, P. S. (2015). Workload. In D. A. Boehm‐Davis, F.
T. Durso, & J. D. Lee (Eds.), APA handbook of human systems integration
(pp. 277–292). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Zierke, O. (2014). Predictive validity of knowledge tests for pilot training
outcome. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors, 4, 98–105.
How to cite this article: Chérif L, Wood V, Marois A, Labonté
K, Vachon F. Multitasking in the military: Cognitive
consequences and potential solutions. Appl Cognit Psychol.
2018;1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3415