Research Article

The Effects of Fragmented and Continuous Interruptions on Online Task Performance

Eilat Chen Levy 1 , Yaron Ariel 1 *
More Detail
1 Academic College of Emek Yezreel, Jezreel Valley, ISRAEL* Corresponding Author
Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 12(4), October 2022, e202229, https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/12404
Published: 27 August 2022
OPEN ACCESS   1766 Views   1288 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This study examines the effect of online interruptions on task performance. Two hundred and eighty players played a game designed to simulate an online environment decision-making process. The manipulation was achieved through an intervention design. Participants were exposed to messages in six interruption conditions as they played: (i) slow-fragmented text, (ii) fast-fragmented text, (iii) slow-fragmented image, (iv) fast-fragmented image, (v) continuous text, and (vi) continuous image. We compared text-only interruptions and image interruptions within different rates of interruption. The results indicate that participants with continuous text interruptions display the same performance as those without interruptions; participants who experience fast text interruptions perform the best; participants exposed to slow text interruptions performed poorly on tasks. These results imply the conditions in which controlling the rate and richness of online interruptions could improve task performance.
Keywords: task performance, online interruption, information richness theory, experiment

CITATION (APA)

Levy, E. C., & Ariel, Y. (2022). The Effects of Fragmented and Continuous Interruptions on Online Task Performance. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 12(4), e202229. https://doi.org/10.30935/ojcmt/12404

REFERENCES

  1. Addas, S., & Pinsonneault, A. (2018). E-mail interruptions and individual performance: Is there a silver lining? MIS Quarterly, 42(2), 381-405. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2018/13157
  2. Adler, R. F., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2013). Self-interruptions in discretionary multitasking. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1441-1449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.040
  3. Alkahtani, M., Abidi, M. H., Ahmad, A., Darmoul, S., Samman, S., & Ghaleb, M. (2020). Human interruption management in workplace environments: An overview. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 10(2), 5452-5458.‏ https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.3404
  4. Arroyo, E., & Selker, T. (2011). Attention and intention goals can mediate disruption in human-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the 13th IFIP TC 13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 454-470). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23771-3_34
  5. Atchley, P., & Chan, M. (2011). Potential benefits and costs of concurrent task engagement to maintain vigilance: A driving simulator investigation. Human Factors, 53(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720810391215
  6. Baethge, A., Rigotti, T., & Roe, R. A. (2015). Just more of the same, or different? An integrative theoretical framework for the study of cumulative interruptions at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(2), 308-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.897943
  7. Bailey, B. P., & Konstan, J. 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(4), 685-708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.12.009
  8. Bailey, B. P., Konstan, J. A., & Carlis, J. V. (2001). The effects of interruptions on task performance, annoyance, and anxiety in the user interface. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 593-601). IOS Press.
  9. Basoglu, K. A., Fuller, M. A., & Sweeney, J. 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(4), 177-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2009.10.003
  10. Berg, V. (2021). A game-based online tool to measure cognitive functions in students. International Journal of Serious Games, 8(1), 71-87.‏ https://doi.org/10.17083/ijsg.v8i1.410
  11. Boehm-Davis, D. A., & Remington, R. (2009). Reducing the disruptive effects of interruption: A cognitive framework for analysing the costs and benefits of intervention strategies. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41(5), 1124-1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.06.029
  12. Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Gendron, M. (2010). Can students really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers & Education, 54(4), 927-931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.024
  13. Couffe, C., & Michael, G. A. (2017). Failures due to interruptions or distractions: A review and a new framework. American Journal of Psychology, 130(2), 163-181. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.130.2.0163
  14. Cutrell, E. B., Czerwinski, M., & Horvitz, E. (2000). Effects of instant messaging interruptions on computing tasks. In Proceedings of CHI ‘2000, Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 99-100). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/633292.633351
  15. Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E., & Wilhite, S. (2004). A diary study of task switching and interruptions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 175-182). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/985692.985715
  16. Dabbish, L., Mark, G., & González, V. M. (2011). Why do I keep interrupting myself? Environment, habit and self-Iiterruption. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3127-3130). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979405
  17. Daft, R. (2013). Information richness theory. In E. Kessler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of management theory. SAGE.
  18. Edwards, S. M., Li, H., & Lee, J. H. (2002). Forced exposure and psychological reactance: Antecedents and consequences of the perceived intrusiveness of pop-up ads. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 83-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2002.10673678
  19. Feinstein, A. H., & Cannon, H. M. (2003). A hermeneutical approach to external validation of simulation models, Simulation & Gaming, 34(2), 186-197. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878103034002002
  20. Feldman, E., & Greenway, D. (2021). It’s a matter of time: The role of temporal perceptions in emotional experiences of work interruptions. Group & Organization Management, 46(1), 70-104.‏ https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601120959288
  21. Fogarty, J., Hudson, S. E., & Lai, J. (2004). Examining the robustness of sensor-based statistical models of human incorruptibility. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 207-214). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/985692.985719
  22. Galizzi, M. M., & Navarro-Martinez, D. (2019). On the external validity of social preference games: A systematic lab-field study. Management Science, 65(3), 976-1002.‏ https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2908
  23. Gonzalez, V. M., & Mark, G. (2004). Constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness: Managing multiple working spheres. In Proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 113-120). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/985692.985707
  24. Grandhi, S., & Jones, Q. (2010). Technology-mediated interruption management. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(5), 288-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.12.005
  25. Greitzer, F. L., Kuchar, O. A., & Huston, K. (2007). Cognitive science implications for enhancing training effectiveness in a serious gaming context. ACM Journal of Educational Resources in Computing, 7(3), ‏1-16. https://doi.org/10.1145/1281320.1281322
  26. Hudson, J. M., Christensen, J., Kellogg, W. A., & Erickson, T. (2002). I’d be overwhelmed, but it’s just one more thing to do: Availability and interruption in research management. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 97-104). ACM.‏ https://doi.org/10.1145/503376.503394
  27. Iqbal, S. T., & Bailey, B. P. (2005). Investigating the effectiveness of mental workload as a predictor of opportune moments for interruption. In Proceedings of the CHI’05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1489-1492). https://doi.org/10.1145/1056808.1056948
  28. Iqbal, S. T., & Bailey, B. P. (2010). Oasis: A framework for linking notification delivery to the perceptual structure of goal-directed tasks. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 17(4), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1145/1879831.1879833
  29. Iqbal, S., & Horvitz, E. (2007). Conversations amidst computing: A study of interruptions and recovery of task activity. In Proceedings of 11th International Conference on User Modeling (pp. 350-354). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73078-1_43
  30. Ishii, K., Lyons, M. M., & Carr, S. A. (2019). Revisiting media richness theory for today and future. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1(2), 124-131.‏ https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.138
  31. Jackson T. W., Dawson, R., & Wilson, S. (2001). The cost of e-mail interruption. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 5(1), 81-92. https://doi.org/10.1108/13287260180000760
  32. Kahai, S. S., & Cooper, R. B. (2003). Exploring the core concepts of media richness theory: The impact of cue multiplicity and feedback immediacy on decision quality. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1), 263-299. ‏ https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045754
  33. Kalgotra, P., Sharda, R., & McHaney, R. (2019). Don’t disturb me! Understanding the impact of interruptions on knowledge work: An exploratory neuroimaging study. Information Systems Frontiers, 21(5), 1019-1030. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9812-9
  34. Katidioti, I., Borst, J. P., van Vugt, M. K., & Taatgen, N. A. (2016). Interrupt me: External interruptions are less disruptive than self-interruptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 63(C), 906-915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.037
  35. Leroy, S., Schmidt, A., & Madjar, N. (2020). Interruptions and task transitions: Understanding their characteristics, processes, and consequences. Academy of Management Annals, 14, 661-694. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0146
  36. Lin, L., Robertson, T., & Lee, J. (2009). Reading performances between novices and experts in different media multitasking environments. Computers in the Schools, 26(3), 169-186. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380560903095162
  37. Liu, X., Zheng, B., & Liu, H. (2021). Understanding the social media interactivity paradox: The effects of social media interactivity on communication quality, work interruptions and job performance. Information Technology & People.‏ https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-12-2020-0845
  38. Liu, Y., & Gu, X. (2020). Media multitasking, attention, and comprehension: a deep investigation into fragmented reading. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 67-87.‏ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09667-2
  39. Mark, G., & Harris, J. (2005). No Task Left Behind? Examining the Nature of Fragmented Work, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Portland, Oregon: ACM, pp. 321-330. https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055017
  40. Mark, G., Gudith, D., & Klocke, U. (2008). The cost of interrupted work: More speed and stress. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 107-110). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357072
  41. McFarlane, D. C., & Latorella, K. A. (2002). The scope and importance of human interruption in human-computer interaction design. Human-Computer Interaction, 17(1), 1-61. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327051HCI1701_1
  42. Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583-15587. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903620106
  43. Paul, C. L., Komlodi, A., & Lutters, W. (2015). Interruptive notifications in support of task management. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 79(0), 20-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.02.001
  44. Puranik, H., Koopman, J., & Vough, H. C. (2020). Pardon the interruption: An integrative review and future research agenda for research on work interruptions. Journal of Management, 46, 806-842. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206319887428
  45. Rafaeli, S., Raban, D., Ravid, G., & Noy, A. (2003). Online simulations in management education about information and it’s uses. In C. Wankel, & B. Defillippi (Eds.), Educating managers with tomorrow’s technologies (pp. 53-80). Age Publishing.
  46. Robert, L. P., & Dennis, A. R. (2005). Paradox of richness: A cognitive model of media choice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(1), 10-21. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2004.843292
  47. Russell, E., Jackson, T., & Banks, A. (2021). Classifying computer-mediated communication (CMC) interruptions at work using control as a key delineator. Behaviour & Information Technology, 40(2), 191-205.‏ https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1683606
  48. Schmuck, R. (2021). Education and training of manufacturing and supply chain processes using business simulation games. Procedia Manufacturing, 55, 555-562.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2021.10.076
  49. Speier, C., Vessey, I., & Valacich, J. S. (2003). The effects of interruptions, task complexity, and information presentation on computer-supported decision-making performance. Decision Sciences, 34(4), 771-797. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5414.2003.02292.x
  50. Trafton, J. G., Altmann, E. M., Brock, D. P., & Mintz, F. E. (2003). Preparing to resume an interrupted task: Effects of prospective goal encoding and retrospective rehearsal. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(5), 583-603.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00023-5
  51. Trevino, L. K., Webster, J., & Stein, E. W. (2000). Making connections: Complementary influences on communication media choices, attitudes, and use. Organization Science, 11(2), 163-182. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.2.163.12510
  52. Vissers, G., Heyne, G., Peters, V., & Guerts, J. (2001). The validity of laboratory research in social and behavioral science. Quality and Quantity, 35(2), 129-145. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010319117701
  53. Walther, J. B. (2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2538-2557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.05.002
  54. Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered. In M. L. Knapp, & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 529-563). SAGE.
  55. Walther, J. B., & Whitty, M. T. (2021). Language, psychology, and new media: The hyperpersonal model of mediated communication at twenty-five years. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(1), 120-135.‏ https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X20967703
  56. Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Ramirez Jr, A., Burgoon, J. K., & Pena, J. (2015). Interpersonal and hyper personal dimensions of computer-mediated communication. In S. S. Sundar (Ed.), The handbook of the psychology of communication technology (pp. 3-22). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118426456.ch1
  57. Zijlstra, F. R., Roe, R. A., Leonora, A. B., & Krediet, I. (1999). Temporal factors in mental work: Effects of interrupted activities. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(2), 163-185. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317999166581