Table 1.

Tasks, analyses, and effects reported by Ophir et al. (2009)

Task	Conditions included	Findings and effect sizes in Ophir et al. (2009)	P(rep) Exp. 1	P(rep) Exp. 2
Change detection	Memory set of 2, with 0, 2, 4, or 6 distractors	Interaction of group (LMM vs. HMM) and number of distractors for Memory Set Size 2 condition (f = .34; d = .68): HMMs showed a decline in performance with increasing numbers of distractors; LMMs did not	.95	.97
	Memory set of 4, with 0, 2, or 4 distractors
	Memory set of 6, with 0 or 2 distractors	No analyses reported for conditions with 4 and 6 targets
	Memory set of 8, with 0 distractors	No significant difference in memory capacity of HMMs and LMMs in comparison of memory sets of 2, 4, 6, and 8 items, without distractors
AX-CPT	With vs. without distractors	Significant interaction of group (LMM vs. HMM) and distractors (present vs. absent) for response times: HMMs slower to respond to target (d = 1.19) and nontarget (d = 1.19) probes only in the condition with distractors	.86	.76
			.86	.76
N-back task	2-back vs. 3-back	Interaction of Group (LMM vs. HMM) × Condition (2-back vs. 3-back) for false-alarm rate, with HMMs showing a stronger increase in false alarms as memory load increased from 2-back to 3-back (f = .42; d = .84)	.95	.92
Task switching: number-letter	Task-repeat and task-switch trials	HMMs showed significantly slower response times for both switch (d = .97) and repeat (d = .83) trials and a larger switch cost (d = .96)	.72	.80
			.60	.69
			.71	.79
Stop-signal task	Not specified	No analyses reported, but Ophir et al. did mention there was no significant difference between LMMs and HMMs
Stroop task	Not specified	No analyses reported
Task switching	Not specified	No analyses reported

Note. LMM = light media multitaskers; HMM = heavy media multitaskers; d = effect size in Cohen’s d for the effects reported by Ophir et al.; P(rep) = acquired replication power for our replication tests with α = .05