Auditory and Textual Conversational Multitasking Theoretical Introduction and Research Hypotheses Eli Dresner Department of Communication, Tel Aviv University, Israel Segev Barak Department of Psychology, Tel Aviv University, Israel Abstract: Conversational multitasking—the participation in several concomitant linguistic interactions—is becoming ever more prevalent, both in purely textual contexts on-line and in hybrid situations, involving both face-to-face and technologically mediated interaction. The present study examines how linguistic modality-- auditory vs. textual--affects cognitive capacity for multitasking. Results show that text supports multitasking better than voice, that both the intermingling and combination of text and voice do not improve on purely textual channels, and that textual visual indications of speakers' identities do not improve auditory multitasking capacities either. In the discussion we consider the implications, applications and limitations of these results. This research is concerned with conversational multitasking: The involvement (either passively or actively) in several synchronous linguistic interactions at the same time. This practice is demonstrated, for example, by users of a variety of textual Internet-based communication channels; among them are chatrooms (such as IRC, or its web-based look-alikes), textual virtual worlds (MUDs and MOOs), and instant-messaging (IM) applications. In each of these technological contexts a stream of text lines goes through a single window or several windows on the user's computer screen, and this stream of text often includes more than one conversation thread at any given time. The competent user can keep track of these simultaneous distinct threads. Multitasking is not limited to on-screen communication, though: An intermingling of auditory and textual conversation threads, for example, can be found in the office, the meeting room, the classroom, and in a variety of social situations. Conversational multitasking (CM) has been subject to very little research to this date. One reason for this state of affairs may have to do with its very novelty: It is less of a continuation of features extant in face-to-face (f2f) communication than other aspects of CMC (Computer