Raquel Benbunan-Fich
Abstract
Multitasking is the result of time allocation decisions made by individuals faced with multiple tasks. Multitasking research is important in order to improve the design of systems and applications. Since people typically use computers to perform multiple tasks at the same time, insights into this type of behavior can help develop better systems and ideal types of computer environments for modern multitasking users. In this paper, we define multitasking based on the principles of task independence and performance concurrency and develop a set of metrics for computer-based multitasking. The theoretical foundation of this metric development effort stems from an application of key principles of Activity Theory and a systematic analysis of computer usage from the perspective of the user, the task and the technology. The proposed metrics, which range from a lean dichotomous variable to a richer measure based on switches, were validated with data from a sample of users who self-reported their activities during a computer usage session. This set of metrics can be used to establish a conceptual and methodological foundation for future multitasking studies.
- Bailey, B. P. and Iqbal, S. T. 2008. Understanding changes in mental workload during execution of goal-directed tasks and its application for interruption management. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 14, 4, 21--56. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Bell, C. S., Compeau, D. R., and Olivera, F. 2005. Understanding the social implications of technological multitasking: A conceptual model. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Worskshop on HCI Research in MIS. 80--84.Google Scholar
- Bedny, G. Z., Chebykin, O., and Karwowski, W. 2005. The task as a basic object of study in an HCI system. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCI'05). M. J. Smith and G. Salvendy Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
- Bedny, G. Z. and Harris, S. R. 2005. The systemic-structural theory of activity: Applications to the study of human work. Mind, Cult. Activ. 12, 2, 128--147.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bedny, G. Z. and Harris, S. R. 2008. “Working sphere/engagement” and the concept of task in activity theory. Interact. Comput. 20, 251--255. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bedny, G. Z. and Karwowski, W. 2007. A Systemic-Structural Theory of Activity: Applications to Human Performance and Work Design. CRC/Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
- Bedny, G. Z. and Karwowski, W. 2003. A systemic-structural activity approach to the design of human-computer interaction tasks. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 16, 2, 235--260.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bedny, G. Z., Seglin, M. H., and Meister, D. 2000. Activity theory: History, research and application. Theor. Iss. Ergon. Sci. 1, 2, 168--206.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Benbunan-Fich, R., and Truman, G. E. 2009. Multitasking with laptops during meetings. Comm. ACM, 52, 2, 139--141. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bluedorn, A. C., Kaufman, C. F., and Lane, P. M. 1992. How many things do you like to do at once? An introduction to monochronic and polychronic time. Acad. Manage. Exec. 6, 4, 17--26.Google Scholar
- Bødker, S. 1989. A human activity approach to user interfaces. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, 3, 171--195. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bødker, S. 1996. Applying Activity Theory to Video Analysis: How to make sense of video data in Human-Computer Interaction. In Context and Consciousness, Nardi, B. A. Ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 147--174. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Burton-Jones, A. and Straub, D. W. 2006. Reconceptualizing system usage: An approach and empirical test. Inform. Syst. Resear. 17, 3, 228--246. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Crook, C. and Barrowcliff, D. 2001. Ubiquitous computing on campus: Patterns of engagement by university students. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 13, 2, 245--256.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cutrell, E. B., Czerwinski, M., and Horvitz, E. 2000. Effects of instant messaging interruptions on computing tasks. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 99--100. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E., and Wilhite, S. 2004. A diary study of task switching and interruptions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 175--182. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Deane, F. P., Podd, J., and Henderson, R. D. 1998. Relationship between self-report and log data estimates of information system usage. Comput. Hum. Behav. 14, 4, 621--636.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gillie, T. and Broadbent, D. 1989. What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity. Psych. Resear. 50, 4, 243--250.Google ScholarCross Ref
- González, V. M. and Mark, G. 2004. “Constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness”: Managing multiple working spheres. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 113--120. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hackman, J. R. 1969. Toward understanding the role of tasks in behavioral research. Acta Psychologica, 31, 97--128.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hall, E. T. 1983. The Dance of Life: The Other Dimension of Time. Anchor Books/Doubleday, Garden City, NY.Google Scholar
- Hembrooke, H. and Gay, G. 2003. The laptop and the lecture: The effects of multitasking in learning environments. J. Comput. Higher Ed. 15, 1, 46--64.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hodgetts, H. M. and Jones, D. M. 2006. Interruption of the Tower of London task: Support for a goal activation approach. J. Exper. Psych. Gen. 135, 1, 103--115.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kaptelinin, V. 1996. Activity theory: Implications for human-computer interaction. In Context and Consciousness, Nardi, B. A. Ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 53--59.Google Scholar
- Kaptelinin, V. and Nardi, B. A. 2006. Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kuutti, K. 1991. Activity theory and its applications to information systems research and development. In Information Systems Research, H.-E. Nissen Ed., Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 529--549.Google Scholar
- Kuutti, K. 1996. Activity Theory as a potential framework for Human-Computer Interaction. In Context and Consciousness, Nardi, B. A. Ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 17--44. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lee, H. 1999. Time and information technology: Monochronicity, polychronicity and temporal symmetry. Eur. J. Inform. Syst. 8, 1, 16--26. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mark, G., González, V. M., and 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. 321--330. Google ScholarDigital Library
- McCrickard, D. S., Chewar, C. M., Somervell, J. P., and Ndiwalana, A. 2003. A model for notification systems evaluation—Assessing user goals for multitasking activity. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., 10, 4, 312--338. Google ScholarDigital Library
- McFarlane, D. C. 2002. Comparison of four primary methods for coordinating the interruption of people in human-computer interaction. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 17, 1, 63--139. Google ScholarDigital Library
- McFarlane, D. C. and Latorella, K.A. 2002. The scope and importance of human interruption in human-computer interaction design. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 17, 1, 1--61. Google ScholarDigital Library
- McGrath, J. E. 1991. Time, interaction and performance (TIP): A theory of groups. Small Group Resear. 22, 2, 147--174.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nardi, B. A. 1996. Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models and distributed cognition. In Context and Consciousness, Nardi, B. A. Ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 69--102. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ophir, E., Nass, C., and Wagner, A. D. 2009. Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 1--5.Google Scholar
- Payne, S. J., Duggan, G. B., and Neth, H. 2007. Discretionary task interleaving: Heuristics for time allocation in cognitive foraging. J. Exper. Psych. Gen. 136, 3, 370--388.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Reinsch, N.L., Turner, J. W., and Tinsley, C. H. 2008. Multicommunicating: A practice whose time has come? Acad. Manage. Rev. 33, 2, 391--403.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Renaud, K., Ramsay, J., and Hair. M. 2006. “You've got e-mail!”… Shall I deal with it now? Electronic mail from the recipient's perspective. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact., 21, 3, 313--332.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., and Evans, J. E. 2001. Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. J. Exper. Psych. Hum. Percept. Perform. 27, 4, 763--797.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Salvucci, D. D. 2009. Rapid prototyping and evaluation of in-vehicle interfaces. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 16, 2, 1--33. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Speier, C., Vessey, I., and Valacich, J. S. 2003. The effects of interruptions, task complexity, and information presentation on computer-supported decision-making performance. Decis. Sci. 34, 4, 771--797.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Speier, C., Vessey, I., and Valacich, J. S. 1999. The influence of task interruption on individual decision making: An information overload perspective. Decis. Sci. 30, 2, 337--361.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wasson, C. 2004. Multitasking during virtual meetings. Hum. Resource Plan. 27, 4, 47--61.Google Scholar
- Whittaker, S. 2005. Supporting collaborative task management in e-mail. Human-Comput. Interact. 20, 1--2, 49--88. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wild, P. J., Johnson, P., and Johnson, H. 2004. Towards a composite modeling approach for multitasking. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference on Task Models and Diagrams. 17--24. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wood, R. E. 1986. Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organiz. Behav. Hum. Decis. Proc. 37, 1, 60--82.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Measuring multitasking behavior with activity-based metrics
Recommendations
Towards new metrics for multitasking behavior
CHI EA '09: CHI '09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing SystemsIn this paper we propose new metrics to investigate computer-based multitasking behavior. These metrics range from a very lean dichotomous variable to a very rich measure based on switches that combines user, task and technology considerations. We ...
Patterns of multitasking behaviours of adolescents in digital environments
AbstractThe centrality of multitasking in teenagers’ lives has triggered vast interest in popular and academic discussion. Due to a large inconsistency in the study and multitasking reporting, we endeavoured to better understand and characterize ...
Uncovering Task Based Behavioral Heterogeneities in Online Search Behavior
SIGIR '16: Proceedings of the 39th International ACM SIGIR conference on Research and Development in Information RetrievalWhile a major share of prior work have considered search sessions as the focal unit of analysis for seeking behavioral insights, search tasks are emerging as a competing perspective in this space. In the current work, we quantify user search task ...
Reviews
Claudia Roda
Understanding and adapting digital devices to human multitasking is essential to their design and development. The authors aim to provide a set of objective metrics for multitasking behavior based on a comprehensive definition of multitasking that encompasses both endogenous and exogenous triggers for task switching. Their investigation concentrates on multitasking activities on personal computers. Rigorous definitions for multitasking dimensions and metrics are definitely a contribution to the field, and the paper is interesting in that it clearly identifies a possible set of such dimensions and metrics (for example, identify what a task is and what time spans are considered). However, the definitions offered will need further work to be useful for the development of systems capable of appropriately responding to multitasking users. For example, from a theoretical point of view, the authors' definition of tasks as "self-contained units that incorporate all the components necessary for their performance" leaves the question of task granularity open to many possible interpretations, which would obviously have an impact on multitasking metrics. From a systemic point of view, the definition of between-task switches on a computer as "window changes that indicate a change in the tasks being performed" appears circular: how can a system recognize between-task switches based on this definition__?__ The paper will interest researchers and practitioners who study issues related to time allocation in a multitasking situation and interruption management. It will also interest those working on models of computer-based human activity. Online Computing Reviews Service
Access critical reviews of Computing literature here
Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.
Comments