Comment by didibus

Comment by didibus a day ago

11 replies

I think the original source is a 2006 Gallup interview with the researcher Gloria Mark you can read here: https://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/23146/too-many-inter...

> GMJ: How long does it take to get back to work after an interruption?

> Mark: There's good news and bad news. To have a uniform comparison, we looked at all work that was interrupted and resumed on the same day. The good news is that most interrupted work was resumed on the same day -- 81.9 percent -- and it was resumed, on average, in 23 minutes and 15 seconds, which I guess is not so long.

kaffekaka 19 hours ago

I interpret this and the article as saying that those 23 minutes are not spent trying to resume the original task, but on the interruption itself and the other intervening tasks that are worked on before returning to the original task.

If that interpretation is correct, those 23 mins are not wasted in confusion but simply spent on other things.

Do i read it correctly?

  • didibus 9 hours ago

    Yes you read it correctly. It's the time of the "interruption" itself. From when you stopped working on your task to when you resumed working on it.

    In that time away from your task you might have answered questions, worked another small task, relaxed, chit chatted, etc.

    The time to refocus on the task once resumed wasn't measured, but participants said it was "very detrimental".

    > Thus, people’s attention was directed to multiple other topics before resuming work. This was reported by informants as being very detrimental

    So we don't exactly know how much time it took participants to get back to a focused state on their task, we just know the time they were away from it.

  • glenstein 17 hours ago

    That's a great question and after rereading the quote I honestly couldn't tell.

    After mentioning the time, they do talk about how it also takes time to return to work from an interruption. But on my read it seemed a bit ambiguous whether the time was from the interruption itself or from the combination of the interruption and the time after the interruption before you return to productive work.

glenstein 17 hours ago

Unfortunately that's not the source. The author of this piece, Jaro Fietz aka oberien, is already familiar with that article, noting it in their diagram and linking to it toward the bottom of the page. They're looking for the underlying research itself rather than a quote about it.

>So in the end, where do the 23 minutes and 15 seconds come from? They are mentioned in interviews multiple times by Gloria Mark. But I wasn’t able to find a primary printed source. There are many more publications by Gloria Mark, but none of them turned up while searching for the 23 minutes 15 seconds figure. If someone knows a paper or study where that figure originally appears in, please tell me.

  • didibus 10 hours ago

    The mystery seems pretty much "solved" to me.

    We know where that number originated from, it's from this Gallup interview with Gloria Mark.

    We also know the Gloria Mark paper corroborates the number:

    > When people did resume work on the same day, it took an average length of time of 25 min. 26 sec (sd=54 min. 48 sec.).

    From the Gloria Mark paper: https://ics.uci.edu/~gmark/CHI2005.pdf

    Now we're only left guessing the discrepancy between her paper saying 25 minutes and 26 seconds and her quoting 23 minutes and 15 seconds when interviewed about it.

    My guess is she didn't recall exactly and gave a ballpark as she remembered it.

    • glenstein 8 hours ago

      That seems basically right. I wouldn't have called the Gallup interview the source but I think you're probably right about the paper and the explanation of the difference between what she said and the paper.

      • didibus 6 hours ago

        > I wouldn't have called the Gallup interview the source

        We're probably arguing semantics, but why not?

        • glenstein 4 hours ago

          You can object to data and methodology of a study in a way you can't to a quotation. And oberien was clear about what they were asking for from the beginning.

6LLvveMx2koXfwn a day ago

What was the bad news?

  • didibus a day ago

    The full interview is all in the link. But specifically the bad news was:

    > But the bad news is, when you're interrupted, you don't immediately go back to the task you were doing before you were interrupted. There are about two intervening tasks before you go back to your original task, so it takes more effort to reorient back to the original task. Also, interruptions change the physical environment. For example, someone has asked you for information and you have opened new windows on your desktop, or people have given you papers that are now arranged on your desk. So often the physical layout of your environment has changed, and it's harder to reconstruct where you were. So there's a cognitive cost to an interruption.