In some way, or the other. Conjunctive tasks make connections, but still you can keep your concentration. More things get involved and the zoom is used then. Although not in its processing, just in its interference. When a task is taken, on the other hand, in a sequential manner there's an attenuation of stimulus-driven processes. This means concentration gets at its full potential and the zoom can't be used. Funny thing is that salience hasn't an effect on simultaneous material. Which means that difference in color or shape is not taken up, while in a sequence it is at least a bit. What happens than is that spatial code is not taken up and disturbed by attraction. We use as a matter of fact a virtual space which is maybe in line with our own space of living and using but from the moment of dynamical difference there's a weakening.
What it means for us to be stimulus-driven is another theme I made in mind. It seems that trying to convince someone of a difference is very difficult. What plays most is the environment could be said, but on the moment this isn't true. Also in the fundamental attribution bias we don't use cues that are operationalized as environmental. I wonder what is regarded as a stimulus. Maybe the equilibrium demands that we have some sort of stability around us by focussing on things that seem to be controllable. Probably we misguide ourselves here in. Funny fact number two is that we seem to pick up things in the environment which is split in parts. In an attenuated way but still. Of which we don't do that when they are presented more clear and salient directly and immediately. I can be wrong but this should mean that persuasion should be done in the act (or subliminally). "In the act" can thus been regarded as the best way to do that. "Mouth to mouth" is another example of this. Beauty could can then be used as a weapon.