We review both the theoretical and applied research on task interruptions. We provide a brief task analysis of interruptions and resumptions, discuss how and why they are disruptive, and show how multiple theories attempt to explain the interruption and resumption process. We also review a great deal of the empirical work and show how it fits into previous theoretical accounts. Finally, we discuss what factors make interruptions more or less disruptive as well as theory-based recommendations for reducing the disruptiveness of interruptions.
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. In Human factors in computing systems: Proceedings of CHI′04 (pp. 271–278). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press.
2.
AltmannE. M. (2004). The preparation effect in task switching: Carryover of SOA. Memory & Cognition, 32, 153–163.
3.
AltmannE. M.TraftonJ. G. (2002). Memory for goals: An activation-based model. Cognitive Science, 26, 39–83.
4.
AltmannE. M.TraftonJ. G. (2004). Task interruption: Disruptive effects and the role of cues. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 43–48). Chicago: Erlbaum.
5.
AndersonJ. R. (1991). Is human cognition adaptive? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 471–485.
6.
AndersonJ. R.BothellD.ByrneM. D.DouglasS.LebiereC.QinY. (2004). An integrated theory of mind. Psychological Review, 111, 1036–1060.
7.
AndersonJ. R.ConradF. G.CorbettA. T. (1989). Skill acquisition and the LISP tutor. Cognitive Science, 13, 467–505.
8.
AndersonJ. R.LebiereC. (1998). Atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9.
AvrahamiD.HudsonS. E. (2006). Responsiveness in instant messaging: Predictive models supporting interpersonal communication. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI′06) (pp. 731–740). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press.
10.
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(3), 314–329.
11.
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.
12.
BaileyB. P.KonstanJ. A.CarlisJ. V. (2000). Measuring the effects of interruptions on task performance in the user interface. IEEE Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (pp. 757–762). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.
13.
CadesD. M.Boehm-DavisD.TraftonJ. G. (in preparation). Exploring interruptions on the real-world.
14.
CadesD. M.TraftonJ. G.Boehm-DavisD. (2006). Mitigating disruptions: Can resuming an interrupted task be trained? In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting (pp. 368–371). Santa Monica, CA: SAGE Publications.
15.
CellierJ.EyrolleH. (1992). Interference between switched tasks. Ergonomics, 35, 25–36.
16.
ChisholmC. D.CollisonE. K.NelsonD. R.CordellW. H. (2000). Emergency department workplace interruptions: Are emergency physicians “interrupt-driven” and “multitasking”? Academic Emergency Medicine, 7, 1239–1243.
17.
ChisholmC. D.DornfeldA. M.NelsonD. R.CordellW. H. (2001). Work interrupted: A comparison of workplace interruptions in emergency departments and primary care offices. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 38, 146–151.
18.
ChungP. H.ByrneM. D. (in press). Cue effectiveness in mitigating postcompletion errors in a routine procedural task. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies.
19.
CutrellE.CzerwinskiM.HorvitzE. (2001). Notification, disruption, and memory: Effects of messaging interruptions on memory and performance. In Interact 2001: IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 263–269). Tokyo: IFIP.
20.
CzerwinskiM.ChrismanS.RudisillM. (1991). Interruptions in multitasking situations: The effects of similarity and warning (Tech. Rep. JSC-24757). Houston, TX: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Johnson Space Center.
21.
CzerwinskiM.CutrellE.HorvitzE. (2000a). Instant messaging and interruption: Influence of task type on performance. In Proceedings of OZCHI 2000 (pp. 356–361). Sydney, Australia: Academic Press.
22.
CzerwinskiM.CutrellE.HorvitzE. (2000b). Instant messaging: Effects of relevance and time. In TurnerS.TurnerP. (Eds.), People and computers XIV: Proceedings of HCI 2000 (Vol. 2, pp. 71–76). British Computer Society.
23.
CzerwinskiM. P.HorvitzE.WilhiteS. (2004). A diary study of task switching and interruptions. In Human factors in computing systems: Proceedings of CHI′04 (pp. 175–182). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press.
24.
DismukesR. K.BermanB.LoukopoulosL. D. (2006). The limits of expertise: Rethinking pilot error and the causes of airline accidents. Presented at the 2006 Crew Resource Management/Human Factors Conference, Denver, Colorado.
25.
DodhiaR.DismukesK. (2003a). A task interrupted becomes a prospective memory task. Poster presented at the 15th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Society, Atlanta, GA.
26.
DodhiaR.DismukesK. (2003b). A task interrupted becomes a prospective memory task: Encoding and retrieval manipulations. Poster presented at the 44th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Vancouver, British Columbia.
27.
EdwardsM. B.GronlundS. D. (1998). Task interruption and its effects on memory. Memory, 6, 665–687.
28.
EinsteinG. O.McDanielM. A.BrandimonteM. (1996). Prospective memory: Theory and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
EricssonK. A.KintschW. (1995). Long-term working memory. Psychological Review, 102, 211–245.
30.
EricssonK. A.KrampeR.Tesch-RoemerC. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.
31.
GillieT.BroadbentD. E. (1989). What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity. Psychological Research, 50, 243–250.
32.
GonzalezV. M.MarkG. (2004). Constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness: Managing multiple working spheres. In Human factors in computing systems: Proceedings of CHI′04 (pp. 113–120). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press.
33.
HodgettsH. M.JonesD. M. (2006a). Contextual cues aid recovery from interruption: The role of associative activation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1120–1132.
34.
HodgettsH. M.JonesD. M. (2006b). Interruption of the Tower of London task: Support for a goal-activation approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 103–115.
35.
IqbalS. T.BaileyB. P. (2005). Investigating the effectiveness of mental workload as a predictor of opportune moments for interruption. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1489–1492). New York: ACM Press.
36.
IqbalS. T.ZhengX. S.BaileyB. P. (2004). Task-evoked pupillary response to mental workload in human-computer interaction. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1477–1480). New York: ACM Press.
37.
IsaacsE.WalendowskiA.WhittakerS.SchianoD. J.KammC. (2002). The character, functions, and styles of instant messaging in the workplace. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW′02) (pp. 11–20). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press.
38.
JohnsonM. K.HashtroudiS.LindsayD. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3–28.
39.
MarkG.GonzalezV. M.HarrisJ. (2005). No task left behind? Examining the nature of fragmented work. In Human factors in computing systems: Proceedings of CHI′05 (pp. 321–330). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press.
40.
McDanielM. A.EinsteinG. O.GrahamT.RallE. (2004). Delaying execution of intentions: Overcoming the costs of interruptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 533–547.
41.
McFarlaneD. C. (2002). Comparison of four primary methods for coordinating the interruption of people in human-computer interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 17, 63–139.
42.
MonkC.Boehm-DavisD.TraftonJ. G. (2004). Recovering from interruptions: Implications for driver distraction research. Human Factors, 46, 650–663.
43.
MonkC.TraftonJ. G.Boehm-DavisD. (under review). The effect of interruption duration on resuming suspended goals. Manuscript submitted for publication.
44.
MonsellS. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140.
45.
National Transportation Safety Board. (1969). Aircraft accident report: Pan American World Airways, Inc., Boeing 707–321C, N799PA, Elmendorf Air Force Base, Anchorage, Alaska, December 26, 1968 (NTSB/AAR-69/08). Washington, DC: Author.
46.
National Transportation Safety Board. (1988). Aircraft accident report: Northwest Airlines, Inc., McDonnell Douglas DC-9–82, N312RC, Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, Romulus, Michigan, August 16, 1987 (NTSB/AAR-88/05). Washington, DC: Author.
47.
OulasvirtaA.SaariluomaP. (2004). Long-term working memory and interrupting messages in human-computer interaction. Behaviour and Information Technology, 23, 53–64.
48.
OulasvirtaA.SaariluomaP. (2006). Surviving task interruptions: Investigating the implications of long-term working memory theory. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64, 941–961.
49.
RatwaniR. M.TraftonJ. G. (2006a). Helpful or harmful? Examining the effects of interruptions on task performance. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting (pp. 372–375). Santa Monica, CA: SAGE Publications.
50.
SmithG.BaudischP.RobertsonG.CzerwinskiM.MeyersB.RobbinsD., et al. (2003). GroupBar: The TaskBar evolved. In Proceedings of OZCHI, 2003.
51.
SpeierC.ValacichJ. S.VesseyI. (1999). The influence of task interruption on individual decision making: An information overload perspective. Decision Sciences, 30, 337–360.
52.
SpeierC.VesseyI.ValacichJ. S. (2003). The effects of interruptions, task complexity, and information presentation on computer-supported decision-making performance. Decision Sciences, 34, 771–797.
53.
SpenceI.KutlesaN.RoseD. L. (1999). Using color to code quantity in spatial displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 393–412.
54.
SpiraJ. B.FeintuchJ. B. (2005). The cost of not paying attention: How interruptions impact knowledge worker productivity (Technical Report). New York: Basex.
55.
ThompsonC. (2005, October 16). Meet the life hackers. New York Times Magazine, pp. 40–45.
56.
TraftonJ. G.AltmannE. M.BrockD. P. (2005). Huh, what was I doing? How people use environmental cues after an interruption. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting (pp. 468–472). Santa Monica, CA: SAGE Publications.
57.
TraftonJ. G.AltmannE. M.BrockD. P.MintzF. E. (2003). Preparing to resume an interrupted task: Effects of prospective goal encoding and retrospective rehearsal. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 583–603.
58.
TraftonJ. G.RatwaniR. M.BreslowL. (under review). A color perceptual-process theory. Manuscript submitted for publication.
59.
TuckerA. L.SpearS. J. (2006). Operational failures and interruptions in hospital nursing. Health Services Research, 41, 643–662.
60.
WallisC.SteptoeS. (2006, January 16). Help! I've lost my focus. Time, 167, pp. 72–79.
61.
ZijlstraF. R. H.RoeR. A.LeonoraA. B.KredietI. (1999). Temporal factors in mental work: Effects of interrupted activities. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 164–185.
