Effects of Individual Differences in Blocking Workplace Distractions

1. Effects of Individual Differences in
Blocking Workplace Distractions
Gloria Mark, Mary Czerwinski, Shamsi T. Iqbal
Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

2. Motivation
• Growing interest of controlling distraction in work environment
• Blocking as a favorable approach
• Unclear effect of distraction
1
Examine the effect of blocking online distraction
Understand how we achieve better work practices

3. Background
Workplace Distraction
• Interruption residue [1]
 Mental load remaining even after resuming task
• Positive effect of non-work-related distraction
 Being more creative at work [2]
 Providing mental break
• Switching tasks with higher stress and cognitive load
2
[1] Leroy, Sophie. "Why is it so hard to do my work? The challenge of attention residue when switching between work tasks." Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 109.2 (2009): 168-181.
[2] Abdullah, Saeed, et al. "Shining (blue) light on creative ability." Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. 2016.
No study on how cognitive load is affected when distraction is removed

4. Background
Blocking Online Distractions
• Indirect approach
 Increasing user awareness by presenting how much time spent on sites
• Filtering or blocking approach
 Setting time and preferences for sites to block
 Providing mental break
3
RescueTime [3]
[3] https://www.rescuetime.com/
[4] http://www.stayfocusd.com/
Stayfocusd [4]

5. Research Questions
• What are the costs and benefits of blocking distractions in the workplace?
• Are there individual differences in experiencing such costs and benefits?
4
Measures
• Focus and engagement in work
• Productivity
• Workload
• Individual differences in tolerance to distraction
• Personality

6. Measurement
5
Focus and engagement in work
• Cognitive absorption scale [5]
 Focused immersion
 Enjoyment in work
 Temporal dissociation
 Control
 Curiosity
Productivity Workload
• Self-assessment of productivity [6]
 Accomplishment
 Efficiency
 Satisfaction
 Effectiveness
 Quality
 Overall assessment of work
• NASA TLX scale [7]
 Mental demand
 Physical demand
 Temporal demand
 Performance
 Effort
 Frustration
Individual differences in tolerance to distraction
• Rating the extent to which users felt distracted
Personality
• Big 5 personality survey [8]
 Conscientiousness
• UPPS Impulsivity scale [9]
 Urgency
 Lack of Perseverance
 Lack of Premeditation

7. Methodology
• Interview after workplace experience with distraction blocked
• 31 participants
• Two workweeks (10 days)
 Week 1 : Baseline
 Week 2 : Blocking non-work-related sites
• Installing Freedom software that blocks websites
• Default 22 sites of social media and shopping mall
• More sites added by users
• Recommending physical detachment of mobile devices
6

8. Methodology
• Filling out daily and weekly surveys and being interviewed
 Focus and engagement measured at the end of each week
 Productivity and workload measured at the end of each day
 Susceptibility to distraction and personality survey as the general survey
 Post-study interviews at the end of the study
7

9. Results
• Cost vs. Benefit
 17 more benefits
 10 more costs
 4 neutral
• Compliance not to check smartphone
 5.8 of mean response (1 [not comply at all ] to 7 [fully complied])
• Gaining awareness of how distracted they were
8

10. Results
• Focus and Engagement
 Paired t-test results
9
 Focus immersion
• Reduced interruption residue
• Preventing chains of distraction
 Control
• Differed by individual ability
• Significantly different between the
groups of low (mean=8.5) and high
in control (mean=11.76)
• Positively correlated with
Conscientiousness
• Negatively correlated with Lack of
Perseverance

11. Results
• Perceived Productivity
 Additive index over all dimensions
 Mixed ANOVA analysis in SPSS with
• Productivity as within-subjects factor
• Low/High Self-Control as between subject factor
10
• Productivity significantly increased
• High Self-Control group significantly higher
• Less fragmented work
• Less task-switching

12. Results
• Workload
 Additive index of six items
 Mixed ANOVA analysis in SPSS with
• TLX as within-subjects factor
• Low/High Self-Control as between subject factor
11
• No significant effect of TLX and Self-Control
• When distractions reduced
• Low Self-Control group: not perceiving a change in workload
 Getting physical break
• High Self-Control group: perceiving a significantly higher workload
 More focused and working longer

13. Results
• Tolerance for online distractions
 Different effect of different types of distractions
 Great increase in focus to those susceptible to social media
12

14. Discussion
• Reconceptualizing workplace distractions
 Blocking distractions lead deeper focus and higher productivity
 Distractions can offer mental break
• Design recommendations: Users’ perspectives
 Learning to gain control
• Analytics of time spent
• Setting goals to work uninterrupted
 Rhythms of attention focus
 Recommendation on when to take break
 Setting time limits
13

15. Limitation
• Not completely blocking phone
• Lack of comparison between different devices
• Limited to online distractions
• Simple design recommendation
14

16. Take-home message
• Those who benefited the most from blocking distractions
 Lower in Self-Control
 Most susceptible to social media
 Lower in personality traits of Conscientiousness and Perseverance
• Correlation between Self-Control and personality traits
• Necessity of checking those traits before evaluating the effect of the system
15