The Effects of Fragmented and Continuous Interruptions on Online Task Performance

Eilat Chen Levy 1, Yaron Ariel 1 *
More Detail
1 Academic College of Emek Yezreel, Jezreel Valley, ISRAEL
* Corresponding Author
Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, Volume 12, Issue 4, Article No: e202229.
OPEN ACCESS   220 Views   178 Downloads   Published online: 27 Aug 2022
Download Full Text (PDF)


This study examines the effect of online interruptions on task performance. Two hundred and eighty players played a game designed to simulate an online environment decision-making process. The manipulation was achieved through an intervention design. Participants were exposed to messages in six interruption conditions as they played: (i) slow-fragmented text, (ii) fast-fragmented text, (iii) slow-fragmented image, (iv) fast-fragmented image, (v) continuous text, and (vi) continuous image. We compared text-only interruptions and image interruptions within different rates of interruption. The results indicate that participants with continuous text interruptions display the same performance as those without interruptions; participants who experience fast text interruptions perform the best; participants exposed to slow text interruptions performed poorly on tasks. These results imply the conditions in which controlling the rate and richness of online interruptions could improve task performance.


Levy, E. C., & Ariel, Y. (2022). The Effects of Fragmented and Continuous Interruptions on Online Task Performance. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 12(4), e202229.


  • Addas, S., & Pinsonneault, A. (2018). E-mail interruptions and individual performance: Is there a silver lining? MIS Quarterly, 42(2), 381-405.
  • Adler, R. F., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2013). Self-interruptions in discretionary multitasking. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1441-1449.
  • Alkahtani, M., Abidi, M. H., Ahmad, A., Darmoul, S., Samman, S., & Ghaleb, M. (2020). Human interruption management in workplace environments: An overview. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 10(2), 5452-5458.‏
  • Arroyo, E., & Selker, T. (2011). Attention and intention goals can mediate disruption in human-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the 13th IFIP TC 13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 454-470). Springer.
  • Atchley, P., & Chan, M. (2011). Potential benefits and costs of concurrent task engagement to maintain vigilance: A driving simulator investigation. Human Factors, 53(1), 3-12.
  • Baethge, A., Rigotti, T., & Roe, R. A. (2015). Just more of the same, or different? An integrative theoretical framework for the study of cumulative interruptions at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24(2), 308-323.
  • Bailey, B. P., & Konstan, J. A. (2006). On the need for attention-aware systems: Measuring effects of interruption on task performance, error rate, and affective state. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(4), 685-708.
  • Bailey, B. P., Konstan, J. A., & Carlis, J. V. (2001). The effects of interruptions on task performance, annoyance, and anxiety in the user interface. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 593-601). IOS Press.
  • Basoglu, K. A., Fuller, M. A., & Sweeney, J. T. (2009). Investigating the effects of computer mediated interruptions: An analysis of task characteristics and interruption frequency on financial performance. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 10(4), 177-189.
  • Berg, V. (2021). A game-based online tool to measure cognitive functions in students. International Journal of Serious Games, 8(1), 71-87.‏
  • Boehm-Davis, D. A., & Remington, R. (2009). Reducing the disruptive effects of interruption: A cognitive framework for analysing the costs and benefits of intervention strategies. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41(5), 1124-1129.
  • Bowman, L. L., Levine, L. E., Waite, B. M., & Gendron, M. (2010). Can students really multitask? An experimental study of instant messaging while reading. Computers & Education, 54(4), 927-931.
  • Couffe, C., & Michael, G. A. (2017). Failures due to interruptions or distractions: A review and a new framework. American Journal of Psychology, 130(2), 163-181.
  • Cutrell, E. B., Czerwinski, M., & Horvitz, E. (2000). Effects of instant messaging interruptions on computing tasks. In Proceedings of CHI ‘2000, Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 99-100). ACM.
  • Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E., & Wilhite, S. (2004). A diary study of task switching and interruptions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 175-182). ACM.
  • Dabbish, L., Mark, G., & González, V. M. (2011). Why do I keep interrupting myself? Environment, habit and self-Iiterruption. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3127-3130). ACM.
  • Daft, R. (2013). Information richness theory. In E. Kessler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of management theory. SAGE.
  • Edwards, S. M., Li, H., & Lee, J. H. (2002). Forced exposure and psychological reactance: Antecedents and consequences of the perceived intrusiveness of pop-up ads. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 83-95.
  • Feinstein, A. H., & Cannon, H. M. (2003). A hermeneutical approach to external validation of simulation models, Simulation & Gaming, 34(2), 186-197.
  • Feldman, E., & Greenway, D. (2021). It’s a matter of time: The role of temporal perceptions in emotional experiences of work interruptions. Group & Organization Management, 46(1), 70-104.‏
  • Fogarty, J., Hudson, S. E., & Lai, J. (2004). Examining the robustness of sensor-based statistical models of human incorruptibility. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 207-214). ACM.
  • Galizzi, M. M., & Navarro-Martinez, D. (2019). On the external validity of social preference games: A systematic lab-field study. Management Science, 65(3), 976-1002.‏
  • Gonzalez, V. M., & Mark, G. (2004). Constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness: Managing multiple working spheres. In Proceedings of SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 113-120). ACM.
  • Grandhi, S., & Jones, Q. (2010). Technology-mediated interruption management. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 68(5), 288-306.
  • Greitzer, F. L., Kuchar, O. A., & Huston, K. (2007). Cognitive science implications for enhancing training effectiveness in a serious gaming context. ACM Journal of Educational Resources in Computing, 7(3), ‏1-16.
  • Hudson, J. M., Christensen, J., Kellogg, W. A., & Erickson, T. (2002). I’d be overwhelmed, but it’s just one more thing to do: Availability and interruption in research management. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 97-104). ACM.‏
  • Iqbal, S. T., & Bailey, B. P. (2005). Investigating the effectiveness of mental workload as a predictor of opportune moments for interruption. In Proceedings of the CHI’05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1489-1492).
  • Iqbal, S. T., & Bailey, B. P. (2010). Oasis: A framework for linking notification delivery to the perceptual structure of goal-directed tasks. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 17(4), 1-28.
  • Iqbal, S., & Horvitz, E. (2007). Conversations amidst computing: A study of interruptions and recovery of task activity. In Proceedings of 11th International Conference on User Modeling (pp. 350-354). Springer.
  • Ishii, K., Lyons, M. M., & Carr, S. A. (2019). Revisiting media richness theory for today and future. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1(2), 124-131.‏
  • Jackson T. W., Dawson, R., & Wilson, S. (2001). The cost of e-mail interruption. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 5(1), 81-92.
  • Kahai, S. S., & Cooper, R. B. (2003). Exploring the core concepts of media richness theory: The impact of cue multiplicity and feedback immediacy on decision quality. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1), 263-299. ‏
  • Kalgotra, P., Sharda, R., & McHaney, R. (2019). Don’t disturb me! Understanding the impact of interruptions on knowledge work: An exploratory neuroimaging study. Information Systems Frontiers, 21(5), 1019-1030.
  • Katidioti, I., Borst, J. P., van Vugt, M. K., & Taatgen, N. A. (2016). Interrupt me: External interruptions are less disruptive than self-interruptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 63(C), 906-915.
  • Leroy, S., Schmidt, A., & Madjar, N. (2020). Interruptions and task transitions: Understanding their characteristics, processes, and consequences. Academy of Management Annals, 14, 661-694.
  • Lin, L., Robertson, T., & Lee, J. (2009). Reading performances between novices and experts in different media multitasking environments. Computers in the Schools, 26(3), 169-186.
  • Liu, X., Zheng, B., & Liu, H. (2021). Understanding the social media interactivity paradox: The effects of social media interactivity on communication quality, work interruptions and job performance. Information Technology & People.‏
  • Liu, Y., & Gu, X. (2020). Media multitasking, attention, and comprehension: a deep investigation into fragmented reading. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 67-87.‏
  • Mark, G., & Harris, J. (2005). No Task Left Behind? Examining the Nature of Fragmented Work, in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Portland, Oregon: ACM, pp. 321-330.
  • Mark, G., Gudith, D., & Klocke, U. (2008). The cost of interrupted work: More speed and stress. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 107-110). ACM.
  • McFarlane, D. C., & Latorella, K. A. (2002). The scope and importance of human interruption in human-computer interaction design. Human-Computer Interaction, 17(1), 1-61.
  • Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. D. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583-15587.
  • Paul, C. L., Komlodi, A., & Lutters, W. (2015). Interruptive notifications in support of task management. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 79(0), 20-34.
  • Puranik, H., Koopman, J., & Vough, H. C. (2020). Pardon the interruption: An integrative review and future research agenda for research on work interruptions. Journal of Management, 46, 806-842.
  • Rafaeli, S., Raban, D., Ravid, G., & Noy, A. (2003). Online simulations in management education about information and it’s uses. In C. Wankel, & B. Defillippi (Eds.), Educating managers with tomorrow’s technologies (pp. 53-80). Age Publishing.
  • Robert, L. P., & Dennis, A. R. (2005). Paradox of richness: A cognitive model of media choice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(1), 10-21.
  • Russell, E., Jackson, T., & Banks, A. (2021). Classifying computer-mediated communication (CMC) interruptions at work using control as a key delineator. Behaviour & Information Technology, 40(2), 191-205.‏
  • Schmuck, R. (2021). Education and training of manufacturing and supply chain processes using business simulation games. Procedia Manufacturing, 55, 555-562.‏
  • Speier, C., Vessey, I., & Valacich, J. S. (2003). The effects of interruptions, task complexity, and information presentation on computer-supported decision-making performance. Decision Sciences, 34(4), 771-797.
  • Trafton, J. G., Altmann, E. M., Brock, D. P., & Mintz, F. E. (2003). Preparing to resume an interrupted task: Effects of prospective goal encoding and retrospective rehearsal. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(5), 583-603.‏
  • Trevino, L. K., Webster, J., & Stein, E. W. (2000). Making connections: Complementary influences on communication media choices, attitudes, and use. Organization Science, 11(2), 163-182.
  • Vissers, G., Heyne, G., Peters, V., & Guerts, J. (2001). The validity of laboratory research in social and behavioral science. Quality and Quantity, 35(2), 129-145.
  • Walther, J. B. (2007). Selective self-presentation in computer-mediated communication: Hyperpersonal dimensions of technology, language, and cognition. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(5), 2538-2557.
  • Walther, J. B., & Parks, M. R. (2002). Cues filtered out, cues filtered. In M. L. Knapp, & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 529-563). SAGE.
  • Walther, J. B., & Whitty, M. T. (2021). Language, psychology, and new media: The hyperpersonal model of mediated communication at twenty-five years. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(1), 120-135.‏
  • Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Ramirez Jr, A., Burgoon, J. K., & Pena, J. (2015). Interpersonal and hyper personal dimensions of computer-mediated communication. In S. S. Sundar (Ed.), The handbook of the psychology of communication technology (pp. 3-22). Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Zijlstra, F. R., Roe, R. A., Leonora, A. B., & Krediet, I. (1999). Temporal factors in mental work: Effects of interrupted activities. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(2), 163-185.