Skip to main content
Log in

What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity

  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Classic work on interruptions by Zeigarnik showed that tasks that were interrupted were more likely to be recalled after a delay than tasks that were not interrupted. Much of the literature on interruptions has been devoted to examining this effect, although more recently interruptions have been used to choose between competing designs for interfaces to complex devices. However, none of this work looks at what makes some interruptions disruptive and some not. This series of experiments uses a novel computer-based adventure-game methodology to investigate the effects of the length of the interruption, the similarity of the interruption to the main task, and the complexity of processing demanded by the interruption. It is concluded that subjects make use of some form of non-articulatory memory which is not affected by the length of the interruption. It is affected by processing similar material however, and by a complex mentalarithmetic task which makes large demands on working memory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ashcraft, M. H., & Battaglia, J. (1978). Cognitive arithmetic: Evidence for retrieval and decision processes in mental addition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4 (5), 527–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battig, W. F., & Montague, W. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut Category Norms. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs, 80, Number 3.

  • Broadbent, D. E. (1984). The maltese cross: A new simplistic model for memory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 55–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. (1958). Some tests of the decay theory of immediate memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10, 12–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitts, P. M., & Jones, R. E. (1947). Analysis of factors contributing to 460 “pilot-error” experiences in operating aircraft controls (Memorandum Report TSEAA-694-12. Aero Medical Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio).

    Google Scholar 

  • Field, G. E. (1987). Experimentus Interruptus. SIGCHI Bulletin, 19 (2), 42–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillie, T., & Broadbent, D. E. (Submitted). Irrelevant speech, articulatory suppression, and the Stroop effect.

  • Groen, G. J., & Parkman, J. M. (1972). A chronometric analysis of simple addition. Psychological Review, 79, 329–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreifeldt, J. G., & McCarthy, M. E. (1981). Interruption as a test of the user-computer interface. In: Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference on Manual Control (pp. 655–667). JPL Publication 81-95, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology.

  • Leplat, J. (1978). Factors determining work-load. Ergonomics, 21 (3), 143–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, M. W., & Anderson, J. R. (1985). Discrimination of operator schemata in problem solving: Learning from examples. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 26–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, M., Caramazza, A., & Basili, A. (1985). Cognitive mechanisms in number processing and calculation: Evidence from dyscalculia. Brain and Cognition, 4, 171–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGeoch, J. A., & MacDonald, W. T. (1931). Meaningful relation and retroactive inhibition. American Journal of Psychology, 43, 579–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. London: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ovsiankina, M. (1928). Die Wiederaufnahme unterbrochener Handlungen. Psychologische Forschung, 11, 302–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, M. I., & Konick, A. F. (1966). On the role of interference in short-term retention. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72 (2), 221–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tulving, E., & Pearlstone, Z. (1966). Availability versus accessibility of information in memory for words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 381–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Bergen, A. (1968). Task interruption. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkelman, J. H., & Schmidt, J. (1974). Associative confusions in mental arithmetic. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 734–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yntema, D. B., & Mueser, G. E. (1962). Keeping track of variables that have few or many states. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63 (4), 391–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeigarnik, B. (1927) Das Behalten erledigter und unerledigter Handlungen. Psychologische Forschung, 9, 1–85.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gillie, T., Broadbent, D. What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity. Psychol. Res 50, 243–250 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00309260

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00309260

Keywords

Navigation