Push or Delay? Decomposing Smartphone Notification Response Behaviour

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9277)


Smartphone notifications are often delivered without considering user interruptibility, potentially causing frustration for the recipient. Therefore research in this area has concerned finding contexts where interruptions are better received. The typical convention for monitoring interruption behaviour assumes binary actions, where a response is either completed or not at all. However, in reality a user may partially respond to an interruption, such as reacting to an audible alert or exploring which application caused it. Consequently we present a multi-step model of interruptibility that allows assessment of both partial and complete notification responses. Through a 6-month in-the-wild case study of 11,346 to-do list reminders from 93 users, we find support for reducing false-negative classification of interruptibility. Additionally, we find that different response behaviour is correlated with different contexts and that these behaviours are predictable with similar accuracy to complete responses.


Interruptibility Smartphone notifications Interruptions Context awareness Implicit sampling Mobile 


  1. 1.
    Adamczyk, P., Bailey, B.: If not now, when?: the effects of interruption at different moments within task execution. In: Proceedings of the (CHI 2004), pp. 271–278. ACM (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bailey, B., Iqbal, S.: Understanding changes in mental workload during execution of goal-directed tasks and its application for interruption management. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. (TOCHI) 14(4), 21 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fogarty, J., Hudson, S., Atkeson, C.G., Avrahami, D., Forlizzi, J., Kiesler, S., Lee, J., Yang, J.: Predicting human interruptibility with sensors. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. (TOCHI) 12(1), 119–146 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grandhi, S., Jones, Q.: Technology-mediated interruption management. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 68(5), 288–306 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ho, J., Intille, S.: Using context-aware computing to reduce the perceived burden of interruptions from mobile devices. In: Proceedings of the (CHI 2005), pp. 909–918. ACM (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Horvitz, E., Apacible, J.: Learning and reasoning about interruption. In: Proceedings of the (ICIMI 2003), pp. 20–27. ACM (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Iqbal, S., Bailey, B.: Effects of intelligent notification management on users and their tasks. In: Proceedings of the (CHI 2008), pp. 93–102. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lathia, N., Rachuri, K., Mascolo, C., Rentfrow, P.: Contextual dissonance: design bias in sensor-based experience sampling methods. In: Proceedings of the (UbiComp 2013), pp. 183–192. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu, G., Hossain, K.M.A., Iwai, M., Ito, M., Tobe, Y., Sezaki, K., Matekenya, D.: Beyond horizontal location context: measuring elevation using smartphone’s barometer. In: Adjunct Proceedings of the (UbiComp 2014), pp. 459–468. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mathan, S., Whitlow, S., Dorneich, M., Ververs, P., Davis, G.: Neurophysiological estimation of interruptibility: demonstrating feasibility in a field context. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of the Augmented Cognition Society (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McFarlane, D.: Interruption of people in human-computer interaction: A general unifying definition of human interruption and taxonomy. Technical report DTIC Document (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McFarlane, D., Latorella, K.: The scope and importance of human interruption in human-computer interaction design. Hum. Comput. Interact. 17(1), 1–61 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miller, G.: The smartphone psychology manifesto. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 7(3), 221–237 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Okoshi, T., Ramos, J., Nozaki, H., Nakazawa, J., Dey, A., Tokuda, H.: Attelia: Reducing users cognitive load due to interruptive notifications on smart phones. In: Proceedings of the (PerCom 2015), IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pejovic, V., Musolesi, M.: Interruptme: designing intelligent prompting mechanisms for pervasive applications. In: Proceedings of the (UbiComp 2014), pp. 897–908. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pielot, M., de Oliveira, R., Kwak, H., Oliver, N.: Didn’t you see my message?: predicting attentiveness to mobile instant messages. In: Proceedings of the (CHI 2014), pp. 3319–3328. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pohl, H., Murray-Smith, R.: Focused and casual interactions: allowing users to vary their level of engagement. In: Proceedings of the (CHI 2013), pp. 2223–2232. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Poppinga, B., Heuten, W., Boll, S.: Sensor-based identification of opportune moments for triggering notifications. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 13(1), 22–29 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosenthal, S., Dey, A.K., Veloso, M.: Using decision-theoretic experience sampling to build personalized mobile phone interruption models. In: Lyons, K., Hightower, J., Huang, E.M. (eds.) Pervasive 2011. LNCS, vol. 6696, pp. 170–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sidman, M.: Tactics of Scientific Research: Evaluating Experimental Data in Psychology. Basic Books, New York (1960) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith, J., Lavygina, A., Ma, J., Russo, A., Dulay, N.: Learning to recognise disruptive smartphone notifications. In: Proceedings of the (MobileHCI 2014), pp. 121–124. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ter Hofte, H.: Xensible interruptions from your mobile phone. In: Proceedings of the (MobileHCI 2007), pp. 178–181. ACM (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cardiff School of Computer Science and InformaticsCardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations