The effects of time constraints on user behavior for deferrable interruptions
Abstract
Previous studies of multitasking have highlighted the importance of cognitive load in interruptibility by showing that forced interruptions are least disruptive when cognitive load is low, and also that users prefer to address interruptions at low-load points when given a choice. We present an empirical study that uses a ringing-phone scenario to examine how users manage deferrable interruptions in the presence of varying time constraints. We found that while cognitive load did influence multitasking as expected, the time constraints placed on the user also had a significant impact. In particular, we observed three distinct strategies for addressing interruption: the expected strategy of switching at low-load points, but also two other strategies of continuing on after a low-load point or giving up at a high-load point. The presence of the latter two strategies strongly suggests that users can adapt their multitasking behavior with respect to the time constraints of the interrupting task.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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 94% of cases users switched at low-workload moments (low working-memory load).
“The results showed that in 94% of the cases users switched at low-workload moments (low working-memory load), showing that users interrupt themselves at the 'correct' moments (see also [7,30]).”
From What Makes Interruptions Disruptive?: A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption (2015) · cites this paper as [7]
Cites
"Constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness": managing multiple working spheres
González, V. M., & Mark, G. (2004) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/985692.985707 · Cited by 715 · see citing works
Bailey, B. P., & Konstan, J. A. (2006) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2005.12.009 · Cited by 600 · see citing works
(2001) · Cited by 341 · see citing works
Bailey, B. P., & Iqbal, S. T. (2008) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/1314683.1314689 · Cited by 325 · see citing works
Disruption and recovery of computing tasks: field study, analysis, and directions
Iqbal, S. T., & Horvitz, E. (2007) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1240624.1240730 · Cited by 300 · see citing works
The effect of interruption duration and demand on resuming suspended goals.
Monk, C. A., Trafton, J. G., & Boehm-Davis, D. A. (2008) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/a0014402 · Cited by 296 · see citing works
Instant Messaging and Interruption: Influence of Task Type on Performance
Czerwinski, M. P., Cutrell, E., & Horvitz, E. (2000) · Cited by 227 · see citing works
Iqbal, S. T., & Bailey, B. P. (2005) · CHI '05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1056808.1056948 · Cited by 203 · see citing works
(2000) · Cited by 192 · see citing works
(2010) · Cited by 186 · see citing works
Multitasking and monotasking: the effects of mental workload on deferred task interruptions
Salvucci, D. D., & Bogunovich, P. (2010) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1753326.1753340 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Self-citationInvestigating Interruptions: An Example from the Flightdeck
Latorella, K. A. (1996) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/154193129604000423 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Borst, J. P., Taatgen, N. A., & van Rijn, H. (2015) · Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2702123.2702156 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Brumby, D. P., Cox, A. L., Back, J., & Gould, S. J. J. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/a0032696 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bogunovich, P., & Salvucci, D.
- Affiliations
- Drexel University (US)
- ORCID
- Salvucci, Dario
- Venue
- Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2011-05-07
- Pages
- 3123-3126
- OpenAlex
- W2101337095
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4
- FWCI
- 7.32
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- time constraints, multitasking, cognitive load, interruptibility, task switching, user behavior
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
