Experts demonstrate that not all digital diversions are bad.

• Social media has long been criticised for shortening our attention spans, with studies indicating that it may also harm older generations.
  
• Despite this, the reality is that we currently lack the long-term studies necessary to back up this assertion.
• In a recent study, participants were asked to share their thoughts on why their attention span is dwindling and what they think is causing it.

We are currently engaged in a war for our attention. Our electronics have taken over our brains and damaged our collective ability to concentrate, to the point where a "goldfish generation" is forming. At least, that's the tale that's being told more and more. Should we, however, pay attention to it?

Stolen Focus, a new book by journalist Johann Hari, has just joined a chorus of voices bemoaning the digital age's attention crisis. His and other recent publications reflect, and possibly foster, a public perception that our concentration is being questioned.

Indeed, new research from King's College London's Policy Institute and Centre for Attention Studies uncovered some serious difficulties.

When confronted with the kinds of facts that our research produced, it's natural to pine for a time before the digital revolution. However, new technologies have long been blamed for producing distracting crises, so how should we respond to the current challenges?

Is there a lack of focus?

In September 2021, we polled a nationally representative sample of 2,093 UK individuals about their attention spans, their beliefs in various claims about our ability to focus, and how they use technology now.

Half of those polled believed their attention spans were less than they used to be, while the other quarter did not. And three-quarters of the participants believed that we are living in a period where a multitude of media channels and information providers are always competing for our attention.

Mobile phones, in particular, appeared to be a major source of distraction. Half of those polled said they couldn't stop themselves from checking their phones when they should be doing something else – and this wasn't simply a problem among the young. Despite the preconceptions of glued-to-their-screens teens, the majority of middle-aged respondents stated they suffer with this as well.

And, while many people acknowledged that they spent a lot of time on their phones, they vastly underestimated how much time they spent on them. The public's average prediction was that they checked their phones 25 times each day, while earlier research suggests that the actual number is more likely to be between 49 and 80 times per day.

There has long been concern about the harm that new cultural forms pose to attention, whether it's social media or 19th-century cheap paperback sensation books. Socrates bemoaned that the written word causes "forgetfulness in our hearts" as long back as ancient Greece. There has always been a worry of the psychological effects of new media and technologies.

The truth is that we just lack long-term studies to determine if our collective attention span has diminished. What we do know from our research is that people exaggerate the severity of some issues. For example, half of those polled incorrectly thought the widely refuted assertion that today's typical adult attention span is about eight seconds, or less than that of a goldfish. There isn't such a thing as a standard attention span. Our ability to focus fluctuates a lot based on who we are and what we're doing.

Pay close attention to your munching.

It's also crucial not to overlook the numerous advantages that technology provides in our daily lives. While half of those polled believed that big tech and social media were destroying young people's attention spans, the other half said that being easily distracted had more to do with people's personalities than any bad impact that technology might have.

Is "distributed" attention always a bad thing, though?

Switching focus between different media and devices hurts our capacity to execute simple activities, according to two-thirds of the public in our survey, a belief backed up by psychological studies. Surprisingly, half of the public also agreed that multitasking at work, such as switching often between email, phone conversations, and other tasks, might improve productivity and satisfaction.

So, what if we look at both the positive and negative aspects of distraction? Could we come up with a more balanced view in which distraction isn't necessarily a bad thing, but is problematic in some situations and beneficial in others? To put it another way, what if people bemoaning a lack of attention aren't entirely wrong, but merely represent a portion of the picture?

Despite the difficulties we have while switching our focus between projects, this may, in some cases, help to freshen the mind, keep us awake, and promote brain connections and creativity. While unified attention is desirable, it is not always feasible for the type of animal that we humans are.

We hear about the benefits of "exercise snacking" or circuit training for the body, so perhaps we should consider how we can harness the potential benefits of "attention snacking" for the mind. After all, the brain is a physical organ.

There is no doubt that we must figure out how to live well in the "attention economy," and that the monetisation of our attention poses fundamental challenges to us. Our technological gadgets, on the other hand, aren't going away, and we need to learn how to use them (and the distractions they bring) for personal and social benefit.

Our attention has always been the only true currency we have, so it has always been battled over; this isn't a new problem, but it is taking on new forms in the digital age. We need a better reaction to this scenario, one that recognises the dangers while also asking more questions about the possibilities.