Choice in Multitasking: How Delays in the Primary Task Turn a Rational Into an Irrational Multitasker
Abstract
Objective: The objective was to establish the nature of choice in cognitive multitasking. Background: Laboratory studies of multitasking suggest people are rational in their switch choices regarding multitasking, whereas observational studies suggest they are not. Threaded cognition theory predicts that switching is opportunistic and depends on availability of cognitive resources. Method: A total of 21 participants answered e-mails by looking up information (similar to customer service employees) while being interrupted by chat messages. They were free to choose when to switch to the chat message. We analyzed the switching behavior and the time they needed to complete the primary mail task. Results: When participants are faced with a delay in the e-mail task, they switch more often to the chat task at high-workload points. Choosing to switch to the secondary task instead of waiting makes them slower. It also makes them forget the information in the e-mail task half of the time, which slows them down even more. Conclusion: When many cognitive resources are available, the probability of switching from one task to another is high. This does not necessarily lead to optimal switching behavior. Application: Potential applications of this research include the minimization of delays in task design and the inability or discouragement of switching in high-workload moments.
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 [30]
Cites
The Adaptive Character of Thought
Massaro, D. W., Friedman, D., & Anderson, J. R. (1991) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1423253 · Cited by 2,174 · see citing works
"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
Threaded cognition: An integrated theory of concurrent multitasking.
Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. (2008) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.115.1.101 · Cited by 669 · see citing works
Self-citationIf not now, when?: the effects of interruption at different moments within task execution
Adamczyk, P. D., & Bailey, B. P. (2004) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/985692.985727 · Cited by 531 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Gray, W. D., Sims, C. R., Fu, W.-T., & Schoelles, M. J. (2006) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.113.3.461 · Cited by 360 · 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 problem state: A cognitive bottleneck in multitasking.
Borst, J. P., Taatgen, N. A., & van Rijn, H. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0018106 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Self-citationTimecourse of recovery from task interruption: Data and a model
Altmann, E. M., & Trafton, J. G. (2007) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03193094 · Cited by 191 · cited 2× · see citing works
“The costs of interruptions can be explained by memory decay: The mental representation of an interrupted task becomes less available over time, leading to additional time requirements to either recall or reconstruct the interrupted task (Altmann & Trafton, 2007).”
BackgroundSuboptimal tradeoffs in information seeking
Fu, W. T., & Gray, W. D. (2005) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2005.08.002 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2021
(2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-85623-6 · Cited by 118 · 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
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
Self-citation
- Authors
- Katidioti, I., & Taatgen, N. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Groningen (NL)
- Venue
- Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-09-26
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 728-736
- ISSN
- 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-8181
- OpenAlex
- W2172151257
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 9.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
- 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
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- task switching, cognitive resources, workload, interruptions, email, chat messages, task delay, memory retention, switching behavior
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Attention, Choice Behavior, Female, Humans, Male, Reaction Time, Task Performance and Analysis, User-Computer Interface, Workload, Young Adult
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
