The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effects of external and internal interruptions on boredom at work: two studies
Abstract
It is proposed that attentional difficulties are central to the experience of boredom. Events which disrupt attention during task performance may contribute to feelings of boredom with the task. Two sources of disruption are explored: external interruptions from the physical environment, and internal interruptions in the form of non-task-related thoughts about current concerns. Study 1 found that external interruptions reduced boredom on a simple task which required little attention, but contrary to expectations, had no impact on reactions to a simple task that did require attention or on reactions to a complex task. Study 2 manipulated internal interruptions via a role-playing methodology, and found that observers attributed greater boredom and less satisfaction to performers who were more frequently interrupted by non-task-related thoughts while at work, especially when these thoughts were about non-urgent concerns. The concepts of internal and external interruptions may be quite useful in understanding variations in the day-to-day experience of work, and in the relationship of non-work to work spheres of life. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Interruptions can be very disruptive for the work flow (Fisher 1998).”
From Energy Management of People in Organizations: A Review and Research Agenda (2011) · cites this paper as Fisher 1998
In the citing paper
“Sometimes, they even forget what they were doing and get sidetracked altogether (Fisher 1998; Mark et al. 2005; O’Conaill and Frohlich 1995).”
From Energy Management of People in Organizations: A Review and Research Agenda (2011) · cites this paper as Fisher 1998
Citations
Cites
Bem, D. J. (1972) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60024-6 · Cited by 5,241
A Review of Scale Development Practices in the Study of Organizations
Hinkin, T. R. (1995) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/014920639502100509 · Cited by 3,193
Antrobus, J. S., Singer, J. L., & Greenberg, S. (1966) · Perceptual and Motor Skills · doi:10.1177/003151256602300212 · Cited by 259
Cited by
Do Psychosocial and Study Skill Factors Predict College Outcomes? A Meta-Analysis.
Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261 · Cited by 2,479
No security: A meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences.
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Näswall, K. (2002) · Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/1076-8998.7.3.242 · Cited by 1,498
Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.20786077 · Cited by 1,245
Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: an integrative analytical framework
Edwards, J. R. (2001) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/109442810142004 · Cited by 1,128
The Unengaged Mind: Defining Boredom in Terms of Attention
Eastwood, J. D., Frischen, A., Fenske, M. J., & Smilek, D. (2012) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691612456044 · Cited by 909
Metadata
- Authors
- Fisher, C. D.
- Venue
- Journal of Organizational Behavior
- Published
- 1998
- References
- 3
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effects of external and internal interruptions on boredom at work: two studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/(sici)1099-1379(199809)19:5
- The paper
- Fisher, C. D. (1998). Effects of external and internal interruptions on boredom at work: two studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1379(199809)19%3A5
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.