More Harm Than Good? How Messages That Interrupt Can Make Us Vulnerable

References

• Adamczyk PD, Bailey BP (2004) If not now, when? The effects of interruption at different moments within task execution. Dykstra-Erickson E, Tscheligi M, eds. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors Comput. Systems (ACM, New York), 271–278.Google Scholar
• Agarwal R, Karahanna E (2000) Time flies when you’re having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quart. 24(4):665–694.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson BB, Vance A, Kirwan CB, Eargle D, Jenkins JL (2016a) How users perceive and respond to security messages: A NeuroIS research agenda and empirical study. Eur. J. Inform. Systems 25(4):364–390.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson B, Vance A, Kirwan B, Jenkins J, Eargle D (2016b) From warning to wallpaper: Why the brain habituates to security warnings and what can be done about it. J. Management Inform. Systems. Forthcoming.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson BB, Kirwan CB, Jenkins JL, Eargle D, Howard S, Vance A (2015) How polymorphic warnings reduce habituation in the brain: Insights from an fMRI study. Kim J, Begole B, eds. Proc. 33rd ACM Conf. Human Factors Comput. Systems (ACM, New York), 2883–2892.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Atkinson RC, Shiffrin RM (1971) The control processes of short-term memory. Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
• Baddeley AD (2012) Working memory: Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Rev. Psych. 63:1–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borst JP, Taatgen NA, van Rijn H (2015) What makes interruptions disruptive? A process-model account of the effects of the problem state bottleneck on task interruption and resumption. Kim J, Begole B, eds. Proc. 33rd ACM Conf. Human Factors Comput. Systems (ACM, New York), 2971–2980.Google Scholar
• Bravo-Lillo C, Cranor LF, Downs J, Komanduri S, Sleeper M (2011) Improving computer security dialogs. Campos P, Graham N, Jorge J, Nunes N, Palanque P, Winckler M, eds. Human-Comput. Interaction–INTERACT 2011, Lecture Notes Comput. Sci., Vol. 6949 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg), 18–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD (2011) Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect. Psych. Sci. 6(1):3–5.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cameron A-F, Webster J (2013) Multicommunicating: Juggling multiple conversations in the workplace. Inform. Systems Res. 24(2): 352–371.Link, Google Scholar
• Dimoka A (2012) How to conduct a functional magnetic resonance (fMRI) study in social science research. MIS Quart. 36(3): 811–840.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dimoka A, Pavlou PA, Davis FD (2011) Research commentary–neuroIS: The potential of cognitive neuroscience for information systems research. Inform Systems Res. 22(4):687–702.Link, Google Scholar
• Dimoka A, Banker RD, Benbasat I, Davis FD, Dennis AR, Gefen D, Gupta A et al. (2012) On the use of neurophysiological tools in IS research: Developing a research agenda for neuroIS. MIS Quart. 36(3):679–702.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dux PE, Ivanoff J, Asplund CL, Marois R (2006) Isolation of a central bottleneck of information processing with time-resolved fMRI. Neuron 52(6):1109–1120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Forman SD, Cohen JD, Fitzgerald M, Eddy WF, Mintun MA, Noll DC (1995) Improved assessment of significant activation in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI): Use of a cluster-size threshold. Magnetic Resonance Medicine 33(5):636–647.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Friedman H, Goldman-Rakic P (1988) Activation of the hippocampus and dentate gyrus by working-memory: A 2-deoxyglucose study of behaving rhesus monkeys. J. Neuroscience 8(12): 4693–4706.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Google (2015) Year one: Progress in the fight against unwanted software. (December 9), https://googleonlinesecurity.blogspot.com/2015/12/year-one-progress-in-fight-against.html.Google Scholar
• Heninger WG, Dennis AR, Hilmer KM (2006) Research note–Individual cognition and dual-task interference in group support systems. Inform. Systems Res. 17(4):415–424.Link, Google Scholar
• Hibbeln M, Jenkins JL, Schneider C, Valacich JS, Weinmann M (2016) How is your user feeling? Inferring emotion through human-computer interaction devices. MIS Quart. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• Iqbal ST, Bailey BP (2010) OASIS: A framework for linking notification delivery to the perceptual structure of goal-directed tasks. ACM Trans. Comput.-Human Interaction 17(4):1–28.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iqbal ST, Horvitz E (2007) Disruption and recovery of computing tasks: Field study, analysis, and directions. Rosson MB, Gillmore D, eds. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors Comput. Systems (ACM, New York), 677–686.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jeneson A, Squire LR (2012) Working memory, long-term memory, and medial temporal lobe function. Learn. Memory 19(1):15–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jenkins JL, Durcikova A (2013) What, I shouldn’t have done that? The influence of training and just-in-time reminders on secure behavior. Baskerville R, Chau M, eds. Proc. ICIS 2013, Milan.Google Scholar
• Kahneman D (1973) Attention and Effort (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
• Logan GD (1978) Attention in character-classification tasks: Evidence for the automaticity of component stages. J. Experiment Psychol. 107(1):32–63.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mark G, Gudith D, Klocke U (2008) The cost of interrupted work: More speed and stress. Czerwinski M, Lund A, eds. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors Comput. Systems (ACM, New York), 107–110.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mark G, Voida S, Cardello A (2012) A pace not dictated by electrons: An empirical study of work without email. Chi E, Höök K, eds. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors Comput. Systems (ACM, New York), 555–564.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marois R, Ivanoff J (2005) Capacity limits of information processing in the brain. Trends Cognitive Sci. 9(6):296–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McFarlane D (2002) Comparison of four primary methods for coordinating the interruption of people in human-computer interaction. Human-Comput. Interaction 17(1):63–139.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McFarlane DC, Latorella KA (2002) The scope and importance of human interruption in human-computer interaction design. Human-Comput. Interaction 17(1):1–61.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Monsell S (2003) Task switching. Trends Cognitive Sci. 7(3):134–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Navon D, Miller J (1987) Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. J. Experiment Psych.-Human Perceptions Performance 13(3):435–448.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Navon D, Miller J (2002) Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psych. 44(3):193–251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pashler H (1994) Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psych. Bull. 116(2):220–244.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Patil S, Hoyle R, Schlegel R, Kapadia A, Lee AJ (2015) Interrupt now or inform later?: Comparing immediate and delayed privacy feedback. Kim J, Begole B, eds. Proc. 33rd ACM Conf. Human Factors Comput. Systems (ACM, New York), 1415–1418.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Phansalkar S, van der Sijs H, Tucker AD, Desai AA, Bell DS, Teich JM, Middleton B, Bates DW (2013) Drug–drug interactions that should be non-interruptive in order to reduce alert fatigue in electronic health records. J. Amer. Medical Inform. Assoc. 20(3):489–493.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Plummer P, Apple S, Dowd C, Keith E (2015) Texting and walking: Effect of environmental setting and task prioritization on dual-task interference in healthy young adults. Gait Posture 41(1): 46–51.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schon K, Newmark RE, Ross RS, Stern CE (2016) A working memory buffer in parahippocampal regions: Evidence from a load effect during the delay period. Cerebral Cortex 26(5):1965–1974.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shaft TM, Vessey I (2006) The role of cognitive fit in the relationship between software comprehension and modification. MIS Quart. 30(1):29–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sigman M, Dehaene S (2006) Dynamics of the central bottleneck: Dual-task and task uncertainty. PLoS Biol. 4(7):1227–1238.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sigman M, Dehaene S (2008) Brain mechanisms of serial and parallel processing during dual-task performance. J. Neuroscience 28(30):7585–7598.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Squire L, Clark R, Bayley P (2004) Medial temporal lobe function and memory. Gazzaniga M, ed. The Cognitive Neurosciences (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), 691–708.Google Scholar
• StatCounter (2015) Statcounter global stats. http://gs.statcounter.com/-desktop-browser-ww-monthly-201408-201508.Google Scholar
• Steelman ZR, Hammer BI, Limayem M (2014) Data collection in the digital age: Innovative alternatives to student samples. MIS Quart. 38(2):355–378.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Strayer DL, Johnston WA (2001) Driven to distraction: Dual-task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular telephone. Psych. Sci. 12(6):462–466.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Szameitat AJ, Schubert T, Muller HJ (2011) How to test for dual-task-specific effects in brain imaging studies: An evaluation of potential analysis methods. NeuroImage 54(3):1765–1773.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tombu M, Jolicœur P (2003) A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. J. Experiment Psych.-Human Perceptions Performance 29(1):3–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vance A, Anderson BB, Kirwan CB, Eargle D (2014) Using measures of risk perception to predict information security behavior: Insights from electroencephalography (EEG). J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 15(10):679–722.Google Scholar
• Yee K-P (2004) Aligning security and usability. Security Privacy, IEEE 2(5):48–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• YouTube (2015) Statistics. https://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html.Google Scholar