03-006 · EVIDENCE B · LOW-RISK READING
When doing tasks that require continuous thinking, keep out even brief interruptions
做需要连续思考的工作时,把哪怕几秒钟的打断也挡在外面
No cost at all. Just close the door, put on headphones, or hang a “Do Not Disturb” sign.
Even a brief interruption lasting 2.8 seconds on average doubles the chance of errors in subsequent steps of a sequential task. An interruption of 4.4 seconds triples that error rate. Field observations also show that it takes an average of 25 minutes to return to the interrupted task, with two other unrelated tasks squeezed in during that time. People who get interrupted do finish tasks faster, but they report higher levels of stress, frustration, effort, and time pressure.
B
Move “When doing tasks that require continuous thinking, keep out even brief interruptions” to Future Me's calendar
The excuse
There is no immediate alarm, so the sensible choice can wait for a less busy week.
What feels good now
Today I keep a few minutes and avoid interrupting my default routine.
What the source says
The source summarizes the return this way: “Even a brief interruption lasting 2.8 seconds on average doubles the chance of errors in subsequent steps of a sequential task. An interruption of 4.4 seconds triples that error rate. Field observations also show that it takes an average of 25 minutes to return to the interrupted task, with two other unrelated tasks squeezed in during that time. People who get interrupted do finish tasks faster, but they report higher levels of stress, frustration, effort, and time pressure.” Evidence grade B. The original states the population, caveats, and sources; this is not a personal forecast.
Open the original entry, check who the evidence applies to, then pick one small step that fits.
THE ENGLISH EDITION
Original recommendation and evidence
6. When doing tasks that require continuous thinking, keep out even brief interruptions
Cost: No cost at all. Just close the door, put on headphones, or hang a “Do Not Disturb” sign.
In plain terms: Even a brief interruption lasting 2.8 seconds on average doubles the chance of errors in subsequent steps of a sequential task. An interruption of 4.4 seconds triples that error rate. Field observations also show that it takes an average of 25 minutes to return to the interrupted task, with two other unrelated tasks squeezed in during that time. People who get interrupted do finish tasks faster, but they report higher levels of stress, frustration, effort, and time pressure.
Benefit: On average, a 2.8-second interruption doubles the error rate for sequential tasks, while a 4.4-second interruption triples it. This finding comes from lab experiments. Another study observed 24 office workers (information professionals) in real-world settings. They switched topics every 11 minutes on average, and 57% of those topic switches were interrupted. It took them 25 minutes and 26 seconds on average to get back to the interrupted task, with 2.26 other tasks added in between. A separate experiment with 48 participants showed similar results: interrupted workers completed tasks faster, but reported significantly higher stress, frustration, effort, and time pressure.
Evidence grade: B
Sources: Altmann, Trafton & Hambrick (2014). Momentary interruptions can derail the train of thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. <https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030986>; Mark, Gonzalez & Harris (2005). No task left behind? Examining the nature of fragmented work. CHI 2005. <https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055017>; Mark, Gudith & Klocke (2008). The cost of interrupted work: More speed and stress. CHI 2008. <https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357072>
Notes: The field study mentioned above categorized interruptions into two types: those caused by others approaching the worker, and those initiated by the worker themselves. Simply closing the door blocks only the first type of interruption. To handle the second type, combine this tip with Tip 1 (turn off non-essential notifications) and Tip 5 (batch-process messages).
Source links
- Altmann, Trafton & Hambrick (2014). Momentary interruptions can derail the train of thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. ↗
- Mark, Gonzalez & Harris (2005). No task left behind? Examining the nature of fragmented work. CHI 2005. ↗
- Mark, Gudith & Klocke (2008). The cost of interrupted work: More speed and stress. CHI 2008. ↗
- Pinned original chapter on GitHub ↗
Read the complete Chinese source and notes
6. 做需要连续思考的工作时,把哪怕几秒钟的打断也挡在外面
成本: 不花钱。关上门,戴上耳机,或者挂一个「勿扰」牌。
说人话: 一次平均 2.8 秒的打断,就让接下来的操作出错概率翻倍。4.4 秒的打断翻三倍。现场跟踪还发现,被打断的那件事平均要 25 分钟才回得来,中间还插进两件别的事。被打断的人干得更快,但压力、挫败感和费劲程度全都更高。
收益: 平均 2.8 秒的打断,会让按顺序一步步做的任务(序列任务)步骤出错率翻倍。4.4 秒的打断让它翻三倍。这是实验室里做的。另一项是对 24 名办公室白领(信息工作者)的现场观察。他们平均每 11 分钟切换一次工作主题。57% 的工作主题被打断。当天回到被打断的那件事上,平均要 25 分 26 秒。中间还插了 2.26 件别的事。还有一项 48 人的实验:被打断的人做得更快,但报告的压力、挫败感、时间压力和费劲程度都更高。
证据等级: B
来源: Altmann, Trafton & Hambrick (2014). Momentary interruptions can derail the train of thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. <https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030986>;Mark, Gonzalez & Harris (2005). No task left behind? Examining the nature of fragmented work. CHI 2005. <https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055017>;Mark, Gudith & Klocke (2008). The cost of interrupted work: More speed and stress. CHI 2008. <https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357072>
备注: 那项现场研究把打断分成两类:一类是别人来找你的,一类是自己点开的。关门只挡得住前一类。后一类要配合第 1 条(关掉非必要通知)和第 5 条(批量处理消息)一起用。
YOUR PRIVATE LIST