Cited by 146Work-Family Balance ChallengesPersonal Information Management and User BehaviorTechnostress in Professional Settings

Working from home during COVID-19: A study of the interruption landscape.

Leroy, Sophie, Schmidt, Aaron M., Madjar, Nora·2021·Journal of Applied Psychology

Abstract

We examine how the shift toward intensive work-from-home during the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted the experience of interruptions during work time. We conducted a two-wave survey of 249 employees working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic. Building on a conceptual framework and typology (Leroy et al., 2020), we examine changes in the prevalence of interruptions since-COVID-19 as a function of interruption type (intrusions, distractions, breaks, multitasking, and surprises), source (work-based vs. nonwork), and timing (pre- vs. since-COVID-19). We find a large increase in interruptions since-COVID, with the largest increases observed for nonwork intrusions, distractions, and multitasking. Women reported a greater increase in interruptions, particularly with regard to nonwork interruptions of all types, in addition to work-based intrusions, multitasking, and surprises, uncovering an important source of gender inequity. A dedicated unshared workspace at home was associated with fewer nonwork interruptions, while more nonwork responsibilities predicted more nonwork interruptions. Further differentiation of interruption types and sources was observed with regard to outcomes of interruptions. Nonwork interruptions predicted higher family-to-work interference, emotional exhaustion, and lower performance. Notably, these relationships varied meaningfully across specific interruption-type/outcome combinations, highlighting the value of differentiating interruptions by type. Work-based interruptions-especially intrusions and multitasking-were associated with higher work-family interference and emotional exhaustion, as well as lower performance. The results of this study provide valuable insights to help understand and, ultimately, improve work experiences in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic while also contributing to the broader literatures on interruptions and remote work. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/apl0000972

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Boundary violations increased exponentially in the context of mandatory telework during COVID-19 and had a negative impact on well-being.

    “These violations can occur from work-to-family (e.g., answer a phone call from the boss after shift work) or family-to-work (e.g., help a child perform schoolwork during shift work) and they increased exponentially in the context of mandatory telework during COVID-19 with a negative impact on the well-being [12, 20–23].”
  • The fact that women mostly assumed the family role increased the number of work-to-family violations, which adversely affected their recovery.

    “Thus, the fact that women mostly assumed the family role increased the number of violations from work-to-family, which adversely affected their recovery [20, 22].”
  • Boundary violations impair psychological detachment.

    “Thus, boundary violations can be considered to impair psychological detachment, which is most likely because they keep work mentally present or because they reduce the time allocated to leisure and rest activities that allow recovery from the expenditure of resources [22, 32, 33].”
  • Boundary violations impair psychological detachment because they keep work mentally present.

    “Thus, boundary violations can be considered to impair psychological detachment, which is most likely because they keep work mentally present or because they reduce the time allocated to leisure and rest activities that allow recovery from the expenditure of resources [22, 32, 33].”
  • The difference in mediation by direction may have occurred because data collection occurred during confinement, when the whole family was forced to stay at home, increasing stress and boundary violations, especially involving the family at work.

    “This difference may have occurred because the data collection occurred during confinement, a period in which the whole family was forced to stay at home, making this the stage for school, work and play activities, increasing stress, namely boundaries violations, especially involving the family at work [7, 22, 48].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leroy, S., Schmidt, A. M., & Madjar, N.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington Bothell (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • University of Connecticut (US)
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Published
2021-10
Volume
106
Issue
10
Pages
1448-1465
ISSN
  • 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1854
OpenAlex
W3215445158
Cited by
146
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 16
FWCI
29.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Work-Family Balance Challenges
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Technostress in Professional Settings
Keywords
work interruptions, working from home, COVID-19 pandemic, remote work, distraction, multitasking, surprise, gender differences, emotional exhaustion, employee performance, home workspace, work-family interference
MeSH terms
COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Female, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Pandemics

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