Why are some people better at multitasking?

Our capacity to juggle several tasks at once is among the most important capabilities of the human cognitive system.

Just consider a typical day in the life of a modern human: you glance at your phone while waiting for coffee to brew, skim headlines while half-listening to a podcast, mentally rehearse a client pitch while walking your child to school, reply “noted” on Slack during a meeting while updating a slide deck, check your bank balance while standing in line, and, in a moment of entirely optional productivity theatre, scroll through a friend’s Facebook feed to see what their cat had for breakfast (admittedly, not the most important addition to our already heavy repertoire of multi-tasks).

If these familiar episodes of multitasking barely register as effort, it is because they have been absorbed into habit, woven into the fabric of daily life, quietly showing how often we coordinate competing goals, priorities, and impulses at once. For all the noise about AI agents, it is worth remembering that human agents remain remarkably capable.

That said, generative AI and AI agents add yet another layer of temptation to multitask, and a respectable excuse for doing so. Now we can draft an email while an agent prepares slides, ask a chatbot to summarize a report while we skim LinkedIn, generate code while answering Slack, or prompt three models at once while half-editing a memo. This feels like augmented productivity, but often becomes cognitive diffusion or an increase in work intensity. As I illustrated in I, Human, when machines take over fragments of thinking, we become supervisors of many shallow streams rather than authors of one coherent argument. The result is not just intellectual sloppiness, but a steady erosion of focus, as attention shifts from solving a problem to managing tools that promise to solve it for us.

A bad rap

To be sure, multitasking tends to get a bad rap, especially among cognitive psychologists and behavioral scientists. This skepticism is well grounded. In a widely cited meta-analysis, researchers showed that alternating between tasks produces measurable “switch costs” in both speed and accuracy, even when tasks are simple. Subsequent research also found that heavy media multitaskers performed worse on tests of attention control and working memory, suggesting that frequent task-switching may erode the very cognitive filters that make focus possible. A more recent synthesis including examination of social media effects linked media multitasking during studying to significantly poorer academic outcomes. More recent neuroscientific evidence also shows that habitual multitasking is associated with reduced grey-matter density in regions linked to cognitive control, and some scholars have pointed out that multitasking deducts the equivalent of 10 IQ points from our performance and is therefore more debilitating than smoking weed (presumably minus the benefits or self-perceived creativity!)

Taken together, the evidence is rather compelling: multitasking is not a sign of superior efficiency but a tax on attention, trading depth for the comforting illusion of productivity. It makes us feel busy, sometimes even clever, yet especially for complex, analytical, or creative work it is usually worse than doing one thing well at a time, or learning to focus.

‘Supertaskers’

And yet, that is not to say that we are all equally bad at multitasking. In fact, as in most areas of cognition, there are meaningful individual differences. A small but influential line of research has even identified a group sometimes labelled “supertaskers.”

In a dual-task experiment involving simulated driving and mental arithmetic, researchers identified a minority of participants who showed virtually no performance drop when handling two demanding tasks at once. These individuals tended to score higher on measures of working memory capacity and executive control (proxies for higher IQ), suggesting that cognitive resources, more than motivation or confidence, set the ceiling on multitasking ability.

Working memory is analogous to a computer’s RAM, in that it determines how many pieces of information can be actively held and processed at once. Individuals with greater working-memory capacity possess more cognitive bandwidth to manage competing demands, though the limits remain real for everyone. In line, studies consistently show that people with higher working memory capacity, stronger attentional control, and better fluid intelligence incur smaller task-switching costs. Working memory capacity predicts resistance to distraction, while Nash Unsworth and Randall Engle linked it to superior performance in complex attention tasks, and executive attention explains substantial variance in multitasking performance.

The role of personality

Unsurprisingly, personality also plays a role: most notably, traits linked to self-regulation and planning, such as conscientiousness, tend to buffer against the negative effects of multitasking, while impulsivity and related tendencies are associated with poorer performance. Broader Big Five traits such as extraversion, neuroticism, and openness show mixed effects, often influencing how people approach multitasking rather than how well they actually perform it. Even training and domain expertise matter. Air traffic controllers, surgeons, and experienced gamers show reduced switching costs in their domains because practice automates sub-tasks, freeing cognitive bandwidth.

This does not mean that people know how good they actually are at multitasking. As in most domains of competence, the share of people who claim to excel far exceeds the share who truly do. In a classic experiment, researchers found that heavy media multitaskers rated themselves as effective jugglers of attention yet performed worse on tests of working memory and attentional control. The pattern echoes a broader principle from behavioral science, familiar from the Dunning–Kruger literature: when a skill is poorly understood and rarely measured, confidence tends to rise as competence falls. Multi-tasking, like leadership or emotional intelligence, is easy to overestimate because busyness looks like effectiveness, and we remember the rare occasions when juggling worked, not the many when it quietly degraded our thinking.

Taken together, the evidence paints a nuanced picture. The average human is indeed a poor multi-tasker, especially when tasks are novel or cognitively demanding. But some individuals, by virtue of higher executive capacity (raw mental horsepower), disciplined habits, specialized training, and the right personality, are less bad at it. That distinction matters for leadership and talent assessment, because it reminds us that multitasking ability is not a universal virtue or vice. It is a measurable cognitive skill, unevenly distributed across people, and often confused with confidence, busyness, or the social theatre of productivity.