The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why do i keep interrupting myself?: environment, habit and self-interruption
Abstract
Self-interruptions account for a significant portion of task switching in information-centric work contexts. However, most of the research to date has focused on understanding, analyzing and designing for external interruptions. The causes of self-interruptions are not well understood. In this paper we present an analysis of 889 hours of observed task switching behavior from 36 individuals across three high-technology information work organizations. Our analysis suggests that self-interruption is a function of organizational environment and individual differences, but also external interruptions experienced. We find that people in open office environments interrupt themselves at a higher rate. We also find that people are significantly more likely to interrupt themselves to return to solitary work associated with central working spheres, suggesting that self-interruption occurs largely as a function of prospective memory events. The research presented contributes substantially to our understanding of attention and multitasking in context.
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
“Many digital devices and platforms are designed specifically to be highly engaging, using features such as notifications, alerts, personalized content, reminders and gamification to capture, retain and maintain users' attention (Dabbish et al., 2011).”
From The impact of digital technology, social media, and artificial intelligence on cognitive functions: a review (2023) · cites this paper as Dabbish et al., 2011
Citations
Cites
Partridge, B. E., & Mintzberg, H. (1974) · Operational Research Quarterly (1970-1977) · doi:10.2307/3007945 · Cited by 6,242
Cognitive control in media multitaskers
Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0903620106 · Cited by 1,810
The Time Famine: Toward a Sociology of Work Time
Perlow, L. A. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2667031 · Cited by 978
A diary study of task switching and interruptions
Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E., & Wilhite, S. (2004) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/985692.985715 · Cited by 830
Memory for goals: an activation‐based model
Altmann, E. M., & Trafton, J. G. (2002) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2601_2 · Cited by 795
"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
Self-citationThe Scope and Importance of Human Interruption in Human-Computer Interaction Design
McFarlane, D. C., & Latorella, K. A. (2002) · Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1701_1 · Cited by 536
No task left behind?: examining the nature of fragmented work
Mark, G., Gonzalez, V. M., & Harris, J. (2005) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1054972.1055017 · Cited by 503
Self-citationLeroy, S. (2009) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.04.002 · Cited by 438
How many things do you like to do at once? An introduction to monochronic and polychronic time
Bluedorn, A. C., Kaufman‐Scarborough, C., & Lane, P. (1992) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/ame.1992.4274453 · Cited by 338
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Facebook and texting made me do it: Media-induced task-switching while studying
Rosen, L. D., Mark Carrier, L., & Cheever, N. A. (2013) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.001 · Cited by 875
“In a subsequent study, Dabbish, Mark, and Gonzalez (2011) used data from 36 information workers and found that internal and external interruptions occurred equally as often, accounted for 40% of disrupted work (the other 60% were due to task completion ), resulted in a return to the task only 70%…”
BackgroundThe Media and Technology Usage and Attitudes Scale: An empirical investigation
Rosen, L. D., Whaling, K., Carrier, L. M., Cheever, N. A., & Rokkum, J. (2013) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.006 · Cited by 788
“For example, Rosen et al. (2013) replicated studies by Gonzalez and Mark (2004), Dabbish, Mark, and Gonzalez (2011) and Judd and Kennedy (2011) in demonstrating that students and office workers switched tasks often and the impetus was most often technological in nature such as an incoming text…”
ResultShanmugasundaram, M., & Tamilarasu, A. (2023) · Frontiers in Cognition · doi:10.3389/fcogn.2023.1203077 · Cited by 291
Biwer, F., Wiradhany, W., oude Egbrink, M., Hospers, H., Wasenitz, S., Jansen, W., & de Bruin, A. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.642593 · Cited by 226
Software developers' perceptions of productivity
Meyer, A. N., Fritz, T., Murphy, G. C., & Zimmermann, T. (2014) · Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/2635868.2635892 · Cited by 224
“to unblock them (S3 and S4, from company S), and to interrupt themselves (all but two participants), similar to [29] and [12].”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Dabbish, L., Mark, G., & González, V. M.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (MX)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2011-05-07
- Pages
- 3127-3130
- OpenAlex
- W2033910215
- Cited by
- 132
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 14.62
- 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
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Architecture › Facilities and Workplace Management
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Keywords
- self-interruption, task switching, information work, prospective memory, multitasking, attention, organizational context, individual differences
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
