IP 4: Attention

On Friday, August 4th, I tracked where my attention was spent from 6 AM to 7 PM, for a total of 13 hours. On a Google Sheet ( linked here and embedded above), I tracked how much time I spent on each attentional object and I wrote down what caused me to give my attention to that object, as well as other relevant information in the notes column on the right. In the following chart (Consolidated tab), I consolidated types of activities into categories. For example, getting my things ready and showering were put into a single category of “getting ready”. Similarly, scrolling on my phone and texting were aggregated into a single category of “phone”. I then created a pie chart based on these consolidated categories (Figure 1). On that day, the top three categories that my attention was spent on were hiking and talking with a friend (32.1%), doing my schoolwork (24.4%) and being on my phone (13.5%). 

In trying to identify any patterns or trends, I reviewed my notes to see what and how something elicited my attention. I thought about what had caused me to give my attention to that object. I identified four different categories: things that I wanted to do because it was joyful for me, things that were an obligation for me, things that I did out of habit, and things that I did because my body gave me a signal for it (such as hunger or fatigue). I had a difficult time deciding if going on a hike and talking with my friend would be categorized as something I did because that was what I wanted to do in the moment, or, if it would be categorized as an obligation because this was something that I had planned ahead of time. Ultimately, I went with categorizing it as an obligation because I did not especially feel like going on a hike that morning but did it because I had committed to it already.

 In the “Patterns” tab of my Google Sheet, I colour coded the attentional objects using those four categories. Then, I collapsed them into those four categories and created a pie chart (Figure 2). Obligation (56.4%) and habit (24.4%) were the top two categories, combining for over three quarters of where my attention went.  

 The landscape of my attention can be viewed through the five levels of Citton’s (2017) attentional individuation. On this day, I spent quite a bit of time scrolling through my phone and laptop looking at Olympics coverage. Due to news coverage and social media, our collective attention was trained onto the Olympics at this time. As well, a couple of my friends enjoyed texting with me back and forth about the various Olympics stories each day. In this way, collective and joint attention interacted to steer my attention towards the Olympics. Usually, when I go for a walk or hike by myself, I like to listen to a podcast, but because I was with a friend, I did not do that. Instead, due to the “presence and proximity” (Citton, 2017, p. 174) of my friend, our joint attention was focused on whatever the topic of conversation it was that we both mutually engaged in. Meanwhile, the internal hunger cues from my body, the alerts on my phone, and whether my cat approaches me to play are all factors that act to direct my attention on an individual level. 

Citton (2017) also talks about a fourth level of attentional inviduation, which is reflexive attention. This attention “forms from an effort of reflection on our attentional habits” (p. 175). It is at this level that we move from attending to things automatically to directing our attention in a reflective and intentional manner. For example, while scrolling through my phone on social media, I often stop myself at some time and remind myself that I should be focusing on my work. 

It is in relation to reflexive attention that I created my final pie chart. In the “intentional versus automatic” tab, I colour-coded and then categorized my attentional objects into either things that I directed my attention to automatically versus intentionally. Anything that I did out of habit or in reaction to a bodily cue (such as hunger) was categorized as automatic. Conversely, anything that I had planned for or that I wanted to do was categorized as intentional. 65.4% of my attention was devoted to intentional activities while 34.6% was spent on activities that I did automatically and without much thought behind it (Figure 3). 

Finally, the fifth level of attentional individuation considers the interfacing between the individual and the environment (Citton, 2017). That is, we have limited control over our environment, but to the extent that we do, I can modify “the environment that will condition my future perceptions” (p. 176). For example, I did not designate much of my attention as multi-tasking because I have difficulty giving attention, partial or otherwise, to more than one object at a time. While I may have a TV show playing in the background while I am writing an email, I am not able to pay attention to both at the same time. Rather, I would be switching my attention back and forth multiple times. I have found that this is not an effective way for me to work, so when I am doing my schoolwork, I attempt to control and modify my environment by turning off the television and putting on some calming ocean sounds. In turn this lessens the extent to which I will be tempted to turn my attention towards the TV instead of my work. It is within this interface between self-reflexiveness and environment that Citton (2017) suggests that “we might reorient our attention towards commonly held and articulated priorities rather than see it diverted to the profit of particular financial interests” (p. 176). 

References

Citton, Y. (2017). Introduction and conclusion: From attention economy to attention ecology. In Y. Citton, The ecology of attention. John Wiley & Sons.