Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Omnipresent in everyday multitasking environments task interruptions are usually detrimental to individual performance. Here, we examined whether teaming up renders an individual less vulnerable to interruptions in complex and dynamic situations. We employed a microworld to simulate command and control in a crisis management situation and to examine the relative impact of interruptions on operators working in a functional dyad versus operators working alone. While task interruption was detrimental to efficacy in supervisory control of both single and team interrupted operators, the latter were less vulnerable than the former. However, teaming up did not translate into faster resumption time, a consequence of the overhead attributable to coordination and communication requirements of collaborative work. These findings suggest that in complex and dynamic environments working in a small team confers more resistance to task interruption than working alone and speed of interruption recovery is no guarantee of quality of recovery.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen

N. J.

Hecht

T. D.

(2004). The “romance of teams”: Toward an understanding of its psychological underpinnings and implications. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 439–461.

Altmann

E. M.

Trafton

G. J.

(2002). Memory for goals: An activation-based model. Cognitive Science, 26, 39–83.

Arrow

McGrath

J. E.

(1995). Membership dynamics in groups at work: A theoretical framework. In Staw

B. M.

Cummings

L.L.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 17, pp. 373–411). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Arrow

McGrath

J. E.

Berdahl

J. L.

(2000). Small groups as complex systems: Formation, coordination, development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Brehmer

(2007). Understanding the functions of C2 is key to progress. International Journal of C2, 1, 211–232.

Brehmer

Dörner

(1993). Experiments with computer-simulated microworlds: Escaping both the narrow straits of the laboratory and the deep blue sea of the field study. Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 171–184.

Diedrich

F. J.

Entin

E. E.

Hutchins

S. G.

Hocevar

S. P.

Rubineau

MacMillan

(2003). When do organizations need to change (Part I)? Coping with incongruence. Proceedings of the 2003 Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, Washington, DC.

Granlund

(1998). The C3Fire microworld. In Wærn

(Ed.), Co-operative process management: Cognition and information technology (pp. 91–101). London, UK: Taylor & Francis.

Hart

S. G.

Staveland

L. E.

(1988). Development of the NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of the experimental and theoretical research. In Hancock

P. A.

Meshkati

(Eds.), Human Mental Workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland Press.

10.

Hill

G. W.

(1982). Group versus individual performance: Are N + 1 heads better than one? Psychological Bulletin, 91, 517–539.

11.

Hodgetts

H. M.

Jones

D. M.

(2006). Interruption of the Tower of London task: Support for a goal-activation approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 103–115.

12.

Jones

P. M.

Goyle

(1992). Cooperative support for distributed supervisory control: Issues in modeling cooperative work in complex systems. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 2, 1214–1217.

13.

MacMillan

Entin

E. E.

Serfaty

(2004). Communication overhead: The hidden cost of team cognition. In Salas

Fiore

S.M.

(Eds.), Team cognition: Process and performance at the inter- and intra-individual level (pp. 61–82). Washington, DC: APA Press.

14.

McFarlane

D. C.

Latorella

K. A.

(2002). The scope and importance of human interruption in human-computer interaction design. Human-Computer Interaction, 17, 1–61.

15.

Rousseau

Breton

(2005). Cost/benefit issues in team decision making in relation with team structure. Proceedings of the NATO TG23 Team Effectiveness group, Human in Command Workshop, Amersfoort, Netherlands.

16.

Salas

Dickinson

T. L.

Converse

S. A.

Tannenbaum

S. I.

(1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In Swezey

R. W.

Salas

(Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 3–29). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

17.

Sheridan

T. B.

(1992). Telerobotics, automation, and human supervisory control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

18.

Speier

Vessey

Valacich

J. S.

, (2003). The effects of interruptions, task complexity, and information presentation on computer-supported decision-making performance. Decision Sciences, 34, 771–797.

19.

St. John

Smallman

H. S.

(2008). Staying up to speed: Four design principles for maintaining and recovering situation awareness. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 2, 118–139.

20.

St. John

Smallman

H. S.

Manes

D. I.

(2005). Recovery from interruptions to a dynamic monitoring task: The beguiling utility of instant replay. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting (pp. 473–477). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

21.

Wickens

C. D.

Mavor

A. S.

McGee

J. P.

(Eds.). (1997). Flight to the future: Human factors in air traffic control. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Does Teaming up Make You Less Vulnerable to Task Interruption?

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References