User Performance in the Face of IT Interruptions: The Role of Executive Functions

  • Seyedmohammadmahdi MirhoseiniEmail author
  • Khaled Hassanein
  • Milena Head
  • Scott Watter
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation book series (LNISO, volume 32)


Information systems (IS) research has studied the consequences of IT interruption on user performance. However, our knowledge thus far of the cognitive mechanisms involved in processing different interruption types is limited. In response to this research gap, the present research-in-progress paper proposes that IT intrusions (unnecessary interruptions) and IT interventions (relevant interruptions) impose different types of load on users’ cognitive resources. The study employs a self-regulation framework and borrows from the literature on executive functions (EFs), which are a set of general-purpose cognitive processes that control thought and actions. The moderating role of individuals’ differences in terms of three EF capabilities as well as the effect of EF loads on task performance are hypothesized. A three-factor (Interruption Frequency × Interruption Type × Executive Function Capability) mixed-design experiment using electroencephalography is proposed to test the generated hypotheses.


IT interruptions Executive functions Self-regulation User performance Electroencephalography 


  1. 1.
    Baethge, A., & Rigotti, T. (2013). Interruptions to workflow: Their relationship with irritation and satisfaction with performance, and the mediating roles of time pressure and mental demands. Work & Stress, 27(1), 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murphy, M. (2016). Interruptions at work are killing your productivity.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rissler, R., Nadj, M., Adam, M., & Maedche, A. (2017). Towards an integrative theoretical framework of IT-mediated interruptions.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jett, Q. R., & George, J. M. (2003). Work interrupted: A closer look at the role of interruptions in organizational life. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 494–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Galluch, P. S., Grover, V., & Thatcher, J. B. (2015). Interrupting the workplace: Examining stressors in an information technology context. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Riedl, R., Kindermann, H., Auinger, A., & Javor, A. (2012). Technostress from a neurobiological perspective. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 4(2), 61–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Spira, J. B., & Feintuch, J. B. (2005). The cost of not paying attention: How interruptions impact knowledge worker productivity. Report from Basex.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Addas, S., & Pinsonneault, A. (2015). The many faces of information technology interruptions: A taxonomy and preliminary investigation of their performance effects. Information Systems Journal, 25(3), 231–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Addas, S., & Pinsonneault, A. (2018). E-mail interruptions and individual performance: Is there a silver lining? Management Information Systems Quarterly, 42(2), 381–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lu, S. A., Wickens, C. D., Prinet, J. C., Hutchins, S. D., Sarter, N., & Sebok, A. (2013). Supporting interruption management and multimodal interface design: Three meta-analyses of task performance as a function of interrupting task modality. Human Factors, 55(4), 697–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gupta, A., Li, H., & Sharda, R. (2013). Should I send this message? Understanding the impact of interruptions, social hierarchy and perceived task complexity on user performance and perceived workload. Decision Support Systems, 55(1), 135–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jenkins, J. L., Anderson, B. B., Vance, A., Kirwan, C. B., & Eargle, D. (2016). More harm than good? How messages that interrupt can make us vulnerable. Information Systems Research, 27(4), 880–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barley, S. R., Meyerson, D. E., & Grodal, S. (2011). E-mail as a source and symbol of stress. Organization Science, 22(4), 887–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Del Missier, F., Mäntylä, T., & Bruine de Bruin, W. (2010). Executive functions in decision making: An individual differences approach. Thinking & Reasoning, 16(2), 69–97.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hofmann, W., Schmeichel, B. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Executive functions and self-regulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(3), 174–180.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Practitioner review: Do performance-based measures and ratings of executive function assess the same construct? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(2), 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: Four general conclusions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(1), 8–14.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2004). Self-regulation of action and affect. In Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 13–39).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith, E. E., & Jonides, J. (1997). Working memory: A view from neuroimaging. Cognitive Psychology, 33(1), 5–42.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tams, S., Thatcher, J. B., & Grover, V. (2018). Concentration, competence, confidence, and capture: An experimental study of age, interruption-based technostress, and task performance. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19, 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Foroughi, C. K., Malihi, P., & Boehm-Davis, D. A. (2016). Working memory capacity and errors following interruptions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(4), 410–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jann, K., Koenig, T., Dierks, T., Boesch, C., & Federspiel, A. (2010). Association of individual resting state EEG alpha frequency and cerebral blood flow. Neuroimage, 51(1), 365–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Neuper, C., Grabner, R. H., Fink, A., & Neubauer, A. C. (2005). Long-term stability and consistency of EEG event-related (de-) synchronization across different cognitive tasks. Clinical Neurophysiology, 116(7), 1681–1694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jaušovec, N. (1996). Differences in EEG alpha activity related to giftedness. Intelligence, 23(3), 159–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Klimesch, W. (1999). EEG alpha and theta oscillations reflect cognitive and memory performance: A review and analysis. Brain Research Reviews, 29(2–3), 169–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jaušovec, N., & Jaušovec, K. (2001). Differences in EEG current density related to intelligence. Cognitive Brain Research, 12(1), 55–60.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R., & Engle, R. W. (2001). A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(2), 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dreisbach, G., & Haider, H. (2009). How task representations guide attention: Further evidence for the shielding function of task sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(2), 477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Washburn, D. A., Gulledge, J. P., James, F., & Rumbaugh, D. M. (2007). A species difference in visuospatial working memory: Does language link “what” with “where”? International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 20, 1.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zook, N. A., Davalos, D. B., DeLosh, E. L., & Davis, H. P.(2004). Working memory, inhibition, and fluid intelligence as predictors of performance on Tower of Hanoi and London tasks. Brain and Cognition, 56(3), 286–292.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Baddeley, A. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action (Vol. 45). Oxford: OUP Oxford.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Roux, F., & Uhlhaas, P. J. (2014). Working memory and neural oscillations: Alpha–gamma versus theta–gamma codes for distinct WM information? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(1), 16–25.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lange, F., Lange, C., Joop, M., Seer, C., Dengler, R., Kopp, B., & Petri, S. (2016). Neural correlates of cognitive set shifting in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Clinical Neurophysiology, 127(12), 3537–3545.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Elchlepp, H., Best, M., Lavric, A., & Monsell, S. (2017). Shifting attention between visual dimensions as a source of switch costs. Psychological Science, 28(4), 470–481.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Klimesch, W., Sauseng, P., & Hanslmayr, S. (2007). EEG alpha oscillations: The inhibition–timing hypothesis. Brain Research Reviews, 53(1), 63–88.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hummel, F., Andres, F., Altenmüller, E., Dichgans, J., & Gerloff, C. (2002). Inhibitory control of acquired motor programmes in the human brain. Brain, 125(2), 404–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Klimesch, W., Doppelmayr, M., Schwaiger, J., Auinger, P., & Winkler, T. (1999). Paradoxical’alpha synchronization in a memory task. Cognitive Brain Research, 7(4), 493–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Klimesch, W., Schimke, H., & Schwaiger, J. (1994). Episodic and semantic memory: An analysis in the EEG theta and alpha band. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 91(6), 428–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Müller-Putz, G. R., Riedl, R., & Wriessnegger, S. C. (2015). Electroencephalography (EEG) as a research tool in the information systems discipline: Foundations, measurement, and applications. CAIS, 37, 46.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mehrotra, A., Pejovic, V., Vermeulen, J., Hendley, R., & Musolesi, M. (2016). My phone and me: Understanding people’s receptivity to mobile notifications. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fischer, J. E., Greenhalgh, C., & Benford, S. (2011). Investigating episodes of mobile phone activity as indicators of opportune moments to deliver notifications. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. ACM.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Shrot, T., Rosenfeld, A., Golbeck, J., & Kraus, S. (2014). Crisp: An interruption management algorithm based on collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seyedmohammadmahdi Mirhoseini
    • 1
    Email author
  • Khaled Hassanein
    • 1
  • Milena Head
    • 1
  • Scott Watter
    • 2
  1. 1.DeGroote School of Business, McMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Psychology, Neuroscience & BehaviourMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations