How blocking distractions affects workplace focus and productivity
Abstract
Information workers are faced with ever-increasing online distractions in the workplace. Website blockers are one solution toward preventing unwanted distractions. We conducted an in situ field study with 32 information workers in their workplace to test if the use of blocking software can increase focus and productivity by preventing non-work-related distractions. Participants worked for five days in a baseline condition and then worked five days where online distractions were blocked with software. We discovered that with blocking software, participants assessed their productivity significantly higher and could focus significantly longer. People who benefited the most from the software were those who were most distracted by social media. Interviews revealed individual differences in self-control in managing distractions. Resultant changes in work behaviors included switching from online distractions to physical breaks of leaving the office. An unexpected consequence of cutting off distractions for people with less self-control was that they were more focused and worked longer without taking breaks and therefore, experienced higher stress. We present design recommendations to promote focus for the variety of coping behaviors we observed.
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?
Participants interrupted by a text message while performing a decision-making task showed a decrease in the quality of their decisions.
“Participants who were interrupted by a text message while performing a decision-making task showed a decrease in the quality of their decisions, highlighting the impact of digital distractions on decision-making skills (Mark et al., 2017).”
From The impact of digital technology, social media, and artificial intelligence on cognitive functions: a review (2023) · cites this paper as Mark et al., 2017
Reducing task switching at times of high focus could greatly reduce multi-tasking, a major source of stress and quality issues.
“Reducing task switching at times of high focus could greatly reduce multi-tasking, a major source of stress and quality issues [2], [67], [68], [69].”
From Detecting Developers' Task Switches and Types (2022) · cites this paper as [68]
Cites
A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure
(1979) · Scandinavian Journal of Statistics · doi:10.2307/4615733 · Cited by 21,526 · see citing works
Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research
(1988) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62386-9 · Cited by 15,003 · see citing works
Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3250951 · Cited by 4,726 · see citing works
Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00064-7 · Cited by 4,123 · see citing works
Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching
Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037//0096-1523.27.4.763 · Cited by 1,207 · see citing works
Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching.
Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.4.763 · Cited by 873 · see citing works
The structure of attentional resources.
Wickens, C. (1980) · Attention and performance · Cited by 762 · see citing works
The cost of interrupted work: more speed and stress
Mark, G., Gudith, D., & Klocke, U. (2008) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1357054.1357072 · Cited by 728 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
McFarlane, D. C. (2002) · Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1701_2 · Cited by 378 · see citing works
"A pace not dictated by electrons"
Mark, G., Voida, S., & Cardello, A. (2012) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2207676.2207754 · Cited by 221 · cited 1× · see citing works
“We chose a period of one work week based on [11] who found effects after five days of cutting off email.”
MethodSelf-citationPielot, M., & Rello, L. (2017) · International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI) · doi:10.1145/3098279.3098526 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Whittaker, S., Kalnikaitė, V., Hollis, V., & Guydish, A. J. (2016) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858193 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Löchtefeld, M., Böhmer, M., & Ganev, L. (2013) · International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (MUM) · doi:10.1145/2541831.2541870 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Mark, G. J., Iqbal, S. T., Czerwinski, M. P., & Johns, P. (2014) · ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/2531602.2531673 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Self-citationEpstein, D. A., Avrahami, D., & Biehl, J. T. (2016) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858066 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
The Role of ICT in Office Work Breaks
Skatova, A., Bedwell, B., Shipp, V. E., Huang, Y., Young, A., Rodden, T. A., & Bertenshaw, E. J. (2016) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858443 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Shanmugasundaram, M., & Tamilarasu, A. (2023) · Frontiers in Cognition · doi:10.3389/fcogn.2023.1203077 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
Detecting Developers' Task Switches and Types
Meyer, A. N., Satterfield, C., Zuger, M., Kevic, K., Murphy, G. C., Zimmermann, T., & Fritz, T. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2020.2984086 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
“Reducing task switching at times of high focus could greatly reduce multi-tasking, a major source of stress and quality issues [2], [67], [68], [69].”
Background
- Authors
- Mark, G., Iqbal, S., & Czerwinski, M.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Microsoft (United States) (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2017-09-11
- Pages
- 928-934
- OpenAlex
- W2752322170
- Cited by
- 68
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 10.49
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
- Social Sciences › Demography › Cyberloafing and Workplace Behavior
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Keywords
- productivity, information professionals, social media distraction, self-control, rest breaks, occupational stress, individual differences, distraction management
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
