The present study re-examined how the timing and frequency of interruptions impact performance on a planning and decision-making task. Undergraduates performed a trip planning task and were interrupted at coarse breakpoints, fine breakpoints, or not at all. Additionally, interruptions occurred at either a low or high frequency. Based on the memory for goals and event segmentation theories, it was predicted that a higher number of interruptions would be more disruptive than fewer interruptions, and that this effect would be more pronounced at the fine breakpoints. The results supported these predictions. Participants took longer to resume the primary task and experienced higher mental workload and frustration when interruptions occurred at fine breakpoints and at a higher frequency. Overall, these results demonstrate that the disruptiveness of interruptions is tied to their frequency and the point within the task hierarchy at which they occur.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamczykP. D.BaileyB. P. (2004). If not now, when?: The effects of interruption at different moments within task execution. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 271-278. ACM.
2.
AguinisH.GottfredsonR. K.JooH. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for defining, identifying, and handling outliers. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 270-301.
3.
AltmannE. M.TraftonJ. G. (2002). Memory for goals: An activation-based model. Cognitive Science, 26(1), 39-83.
4.
AltmannE. M.TraftonJ. G. (2004). Task interruption: Resumption lag and the role of cues. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 42-47). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.
AltmannE. M.TraftonJ. G. (2007). Timecourse of recovery from task interruption: Data and a model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(6), 1079-1084.
6.
BaileyB. P.BusbeyC. W.IqbalS. T. (2007). TAPRAV: An interactive analysis tool for exploring workload aligned to models of task execution. Interacting with Computers, 19, 314-329.
7.
BaileyB. P.IqbalS. T. (2008). Understanding changes in mental workload during execution of goal-directed tasks and its application for interruption management. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 14, 1-28.
8.
BaileyB. P.KonstanJ. A. (2006). On the need for attention-aware systems: Measuring effects of interruption on task performance, error rate, and affective state. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 685-708.
9.
BasogluK. A.FullerM. A.SweeneyJ. T. (2009). Investigating the effects of computer mediated interruptions: An analysis of task characteristics and interruption frequency on financial performance. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 10, 177-189. doi: 10.1016/j.accinf.2009.10.003
10.
DorneichM. C.VerversP. M.MathanS.WhitlowS.HayesC. C. (2012). Considering etiquette in the design of an adaptive system. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 6, 243-265.
11.
GillieT.BroadbentD. (1989). What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity. Psychological Research, 50, 243-250.
12.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In HancockP. A.MeshkatiN. (Eds.), Human Mental Workload, (pp. 139-183). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
13.
HayesC.PandeA.MillerC. (2002). Etiquette in human computer interactions: What does it mean for a computer to be polite? Or who needs polite computers anyway? (Technical Report No. FS-02-02). California: AAAI Press.
14.
IqbalS. T.BaileyB. P. (2005). Investigating the effectiveness of mental workload as a predictor of opportune moments for interruption. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI’05 Extended Abstracts on Human factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1489-1492). Portland, Oregon: ACM.
15.
LeeB. C.DuffyV. G. (2015). The effects of task interruption on human performance: A study of the systematic classification of human behavior and interruption frequency. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 25, 137-152.
16.
MonkC. A. (2004). The effect of frequent versus infrequent interruptions on primary task resumption. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 48, 295-299.
17.
PowersS. A.ScerboM. W. (2021). Examining the effect of interruptions at different breakpoints and frequencies within a task. Human Factors, 00187208211009010.
18.
RubioS.DíazE.MartínJ.PuenteJ. M. (2004). Evaluation of subjective mental workload: A comparison of SWAT, NASA-TLX, and workload profile methods. Applied Psychology, 53, 61-86.
19.
SalvucciD. D. (2010). On reconstruction of task context after interruption. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI 2010, (pp. 89-92). New York: ACM.
20.
SalvucciD. D.TaatgenN. A.BorstJ. P. (2009). Toward a unified theory of the multitasking continuum: From concurrent performance to task switching, interruption, and resumption. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI 2009, (pp. 1819-1828). New York: ACM.
21.
TraftonJ. G.HiattL. M.HarrisonA. M.TamborelloF. P.IIKhemlaniS. S.SchultzA. C. (2013). Act-r/e: An embodied cognitive architecture for human-robot interaction. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 2, 30-55.
22.
ZacksJ. M.SpeerN. K.SwallowK. M.BraverT. S.ReynoldsJ. R. (2007). Event perception: A mind-brain perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 273-293.
23.
ZacksJ. M.TverskyB. (2001). Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 3-21.
24.
ZacksJ. M.TverskyB.IyerG. (2001). Perceiving, remembering, and communicating structure in events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 29-58.
