Effects of task interruptions caused by notifications from communication applications on strain and performance

The study investigates how automatic notifications from communication applications affect performance and strain (irritation) via task interruptions. While notifications facilitate collaboration and connectedness, frequent external interruptions are theorized to impair performance and increase strain through cognitive, self-regulatory, and affective pathways. The research examines whether disabling notifications reduces interruptions and improves outcomes, and why effects vary between individuals. Guided by action regulation theory, the authors propose that individual differences in fear of missing out (FoMO) and social norms of responsiveness (telepressure) moderate the impact of interruptions. Hypotheses: H1—fewer notification-caused interruptions increase performance; H2—fewer notification-caused interruptions reduce irritation; H3—FoMO moderates effects of interruptions on performance, irritation, and internal interruptions; H4—telepressure moderates effects of interruptions on performance, irritation, and internal interruptions.

Prior work shows interruptions generally harm performance and increase strain, especially when external and unanticipated. Mechanisms include cognitive demands of task switching and resumption lags, self-regulatory goal interference, and negative affect (frustration, anxiety). ICT notifications are a major source of frequent interruptions. Studies disabling notifications or batching delivery show improved productivity and reduced stress but with heterogeneous effects: some individuals increase self-interruptions or feel anxious when notifications are off. FoMO, reflecting a desire for constant connectedness (related to the basic need for relatedness), may reduce benefits of disabling notifications by increasing anxiety and checking behavior. Telepressure captures internalized social norms to respond quickly, potentially leading to synchronous-like use of asynchronous tools and increased checking in the absence of notifications. Evidence suggests boundary conditions (FoMO, telepressure, task interdependence) may explain variability in outcomes when notifications are reduced.

Design: Between-subject field experiment over one workday with two surveys (t1 baseline, t2 end-of-day). Participants: 288 completed both surveys (84.21%); after cleaning, N=247 (experimental group=124; control=123). Demographics: 65.6% female; 44.5% employees; mean age=28.15 (SD=7.38; range 18–62); 71.5% bachelor’s degree or higher; 73.3% working mostly from home; 18.2% living alone; mean task interdependence=2.48. Recruitment via social networks; incentives included voucher lottery and charity donation. Procedure: At t1, informed consent and baseline measures (natural checking behavior, FoMO, telepressure, performance, irritation, demographics). Participants preselected a suitable day and set a daily performance target. Random assignment occurred the day before: experimental group disabled notifications across ICT devices (mobile, notebook, wearables) and apps (email, instant messaging, social media) with detailed instructions; control group retained baseline settings. At t2, participants completed the end-of-day survey. Measures: - Frequency of interruptions: single item “How often are you getting interrupted by notifications?” (1=never to 5=very often). Also a numeric estimate (0–200) recorded in an endnote; highly correlated with frequency. - Internal interruptions: “How often do you interrupt yourself to check messages or missed notifications” (1=never to 5=very often). - Self-checking behavior (manipulation check): “I check emails, instant messages and social media news...” (1=always through external notifications to 5=always initiated by myself). - Performance: perceived productivity scale (6 items; 1–7). Sample item: “Compared to what you had planned, how much did you achieve?” Cronbach’s alpha: t1=.907; t2=.932. - Irritation: 8-item scale (1–7). Sample item: “I get irritated easily although I do not want this to happen.” Cronbach’s alpha: t1=.872; t2=.881. - FoMO: 10-item scale (1–5); alpha=.775. - Telepressure: 6 items (1–7); alpha=.884. - Task interdependence (control): multi-item scale (1–5); alpha=.839. Analyses: SPSS and Hayes PROCESS models—Model 4 (mediation: X=intervention; M=interruptions; Y=performance or irritation), controlling t1 outcomes and t1 interruptions; Model 14 (moderated mediation): moderator=FoMO or telepressure on M→Y path. Repeated measures mixed ANOVA assessed manipulation effects for frequency of interruptions, internal interruptions, and self-checking (group×time), controlling t1 levels. Robustness checks included task interdependence and student status covariates.

Manipulation checks: - Frequency of interruptions decreased more in the experimental group; group×time interaction significant. At t2, experimental < control (F=37.92, P<.001); groups did not differ at t1 (P=.55). - Self-checking increased in the experimental group: group×time interaction significant; at t2, experimental > control (F=24.59, P<.001); at t1, control > experimental (F=4.98, P<.05). - Internal interruptions: group×time interaction not significant; blocking notifications did not increase internal interruptions. Mediation (H1, H2): - Intervention reduced interruptions at t2; interruptions at t2 negatively related to performance change and positively related to irritation change. - Performance: indirect effect of intervention via interruptions significant (Coeff=0.14, SE=.06, 95% CI [0.04, 0.27]). - Irritation: indirect effect significant (Coeff=-0.09, SE=.05, 95% CI [-0.19, -0.002]). Moderation (H3, H4): - FoMO×Interruptions → Performance: interaction significant (Coeff=0.21, SE=.11, t=1.99, P=.05). Conditional effects of interruptions: Low FoMO (M−1SD=1.77): Effect=-0.37 (SE=.10, t=-3.51, P=.00); Medium FoMO (M=2.39): Effect=-0.23 (SE=.08, t=-2.95, P=.00); High FoMO (M+1SD=3.02): Effect=-0.10 (SE=.10, t=-1.00, P=.32). FoMO×Interruptions for irritation: not significant. FoMO×Interruptions for internal interruptions: not significant (Coeff=-.03, SE=.08, t=-.41, P=.68). - Telepressure×Interruptions → Performance: interaction significant (Coeff=-0.17, SE=.07, t=-2.60, P=.01). Conditional effects: Low telepressure (M−1SD=2.26): Effect=-0.10 (SE=.11, t=-0.94, P=.35); Medium (M=3.43): Effect=-0.30 (SE=.08, t=-3.83, P=.00); High (M=4.61): Effect=-0.50 (SE=.12, t=-4.34, P=.00). Telepressure×Interruptions for irritation: not significant. Telepressure×Interruptions for internal interruptions: not significant (Coeff=.00, SE=.05, t=-.07, P=.95). Robustness: Including task interdependence or student status did not materially change results; task interdependence did not moderate effects on performance or internal interruptions.

Disabling notifications effectively reduced interruption frequency and, via this reduction, improved performance and reduced strain, aligning with action regulation theory and prior notification intervention studies. However, benefits vary by individual differences: performance improvements were attenuated for individuals high in FoMO (who may prioritize connectedness) and were most pronounced when telepressure was medium to high (social norms emphasizing speedy responses make interruptions more detrimental). Contrary to a predicted self-regulatory mechanism, internal interruptions did not increase when notifications were blocked, nor did they mediate or moderate outcomes. The authors propose an alternative cognitive-affective pathway: in high-FoMO individuals, anxiety about missing out may elevate cognitive load and interference, offsetting performance gains from fewer external interruptions. Demand effects likely contributed to some reductions in interruptions even in the control group, but the larger reduction in the experimental group and significant indirect effects support the main conclusions. Managing social norms and expectations for responsiveness is crucial, especially for those high in telepressure, to realize performance benefits.

The study demonstrates that reducing notification-caused interruptions improves performance and reduces irritation, but effectiveness depends on individual differences. Individuals low in FoMO or experiencing low telepressure gain more from disabling notifications, while those high in FoMO may not benefit to the same extent, and those with medium to high telepressure show stronger performance detriments from interruptions. Practical implications include tailoring notification settings and organizational policies to social norms and individual needs, such as clarifying response time expectations and fostering asynchronous communication norms. Future research should implement longer interventions and stricter notification bans, incorporate objective logging of notifications and performance, and test cognitive-affective mechanisms (e.g., state anxiety, cognitive interference) alongside self-regulatory pathways.

• Partial notification ban: participants could leave important notifications enabled, potentially attenuating effects, especially for moderation analyses. - Short intervention (1 day): behavior adaptation and affective responses may require longer durations; high stability of irritation may mask short-term changes. - Self-report measures: frequency of interruptions and performance may be affected by recall bias and self-presentation; lack of objective logs and performance metrics. - Possible demand effects: control group also reduced interruptions; however, larger reductions in the experimental group suggest manipulation success. - Sample composition: inclusion of many students may limit generalizability to older or less-educated workers; differences between students and employees necessitate cautious interpretation. - Statistical power constraints for interaction detection; moderators tested separately due to practical limitations.