The Cost of Interruptions (Part 2): how interruptions harm us, our peers, and our colleagues
In part 1 I uncovered the fascinating science of interruptions. Sometimes, interruptions are not always intended to be negative, I explained. The form of interruption known as ‘cooperative overlapping’ can be used deliberately by a listener to support rather than to detract from the speaker’s point.
However, even cooperative interruptions come with a cost. In the second part of our inquiry I examine what the cost of an interruption can be to our own communication, and to that of our peers.
Interruptions and the mind: attention breakdown
When it comes to task-based interruptions, we have copious evidence that multitasking generates what Sophie Leroy calls ‘attention residue’. This is when a set of thoughts about one task persist, even when attention has supposedly been switched to a second task.
“we have copious evidence that multitasking generates what Sophie Leroy calls ‘attention residue’”
The problem with attention residue is that it takes up significant mental resources. This is called the ‘cognitive load’. Rather than allowing someone to pay full attention to both lines of thought, Leroy explains, switching our focus in this way increases an individual’s cognitive load and thereby “leaves the person with less ability to process” either line of thought effectively.
“switching our focus in this way increases an individual’s cognitive load and thereby ‘leaves the person with less ability to process’ either line of thought effectively.”
This perhaps helps to explain why, as I approach middle-age myself, I’m finding it ever harder to retain more than one strand of information at once. Even when interruptions are intended collaboratively, adding to rather than detracting from my argument, I still sometimes find that they can derail my train of thought altogether.
How does this happen?
Interruptions and speech: becoming disfluent
When I delved into the research, I found that even collaborative interruptions produce what the famous sociologist Emanuel Schegloff called ‘perturbations’ in a conversation: moments where “stretches of overlapping talk are characterised by hitches and […] deflections in the production of the talk from the trajectory which it had been projected to follow”.
In the same way as with switching tasks, these perturbations risk producing attention residue. By using up significant mental resources and increasing the cognitive load, interruptions can “cause a normally fluent speaker to experience disfluency”.
“By using up significant mental resources and increasing the cognitive load, interruptions can ‘cause a normally fluent speaker to experience disfluency’ .”
Topic-changing interruptions are especially bad for this. Even when my listener is introducing a new topic in order to support what I’m saying, this can still disrupt my cognitive flow. I often find that it can take so much effort to hold on to the thread of my non-completed utterance that I’m unable to listen as carefully as I’d like to my interlocutor’s turn. This is because, as James Bonaiuto and Kristinn R. Thórisson beautifully put it, “understanding deteriorates when we try to speak at the same time as we try to listen”.
Interruptions in the workplace: power imbalances
‘Intrusive interruptions’ (see part 1) are even worse than collaborative overlaps, of course. Researchers have long studied the relationship between intrusive interruptions and power, suggesting that this can be “a competitive tactic to gain control and dominance” in a conversation.
This phenomenon tends to be gendered. Everywhere from regular offices to the Supreme Court, men are more likely to intrusively interrupt women, with these interruptions also “associated with lower word counts for the interrupted [women] in ways that interruptions by other women are not”. In addition, confident people are also more likely to interrupt, and therefore to hold greater sway over conversations, than those who suffer from low confidence or anxiety.
As well as women, “members of traditionally disadvantaged groups” such as “individuals from ethnic minority groups, gay, lesbian and bisexual employees, foreign nationals, and those from lower social classes” are most likely to have their voices restricted, and thereby to have less power to effect change.
“In the workplace, this often reaffirms existing status hierarchies, making it likelier that higher-ranking voices could drown out subordinates in a way that stifles their ‘authentic voice’ .”
In the workplace, this often reaffirms existing status hierarchies, making it likelier that higher-ranking voices could drown out subordinates in a way that stifles their ‘authentic voice’. Research in occupational psychology demonstrates that “[h]igh levels of authentic voice in an organisation are an indicator of successful diversity management”. Seeking proactive contributions from a diverse range of voices isn’t just good for employees. This is also proven to be highly beneficial for the organisation as a whole: “critical to achieving benefits such as improved problem-solving, innovation and marketplace understanding”.
Interruption reduction meets harm reduction: the ‘cognitive workscape’
Over the past few decades, a growing number of studies have demonstrated the numerous benefits of streamlining the “cognitive workscape”.
When employees are forced to spread their focus across multiple tasks rather than being able to concentrate on just one thing at a time, this kind of ‘distributed attention’ has been found to lead to lower productivity and higher levels of stress. Copious research has identified that when a task is interrupted and then subsequently resumed, this effort “is typically characterized by slow resumption and underperformance as one gets back up to speed”. Reducing employees’ cognitive load should therefore be a top priority within any workplace, providing proven benefits for both productivity and job satisfaction.
Bonaiuto and Thórisson suggest that minimising spoken interruptions can also be a way to streamline the cognitive workscape and help employees reduce cognitive load. They recommend turn-taking as a way to resist the deterioration of understanding that can occur through constant interruptions.
“Bonaiuto and Thórisson suggest that minimising spoken interruptions can also be a way to streamline the cognitive workscape and help employees reduce cognitive load.”
In our next article I’ll explore the research into overlap management techniques: explaining how turn-taking devices can help us avoid costly interruptions in conversation and to listen better — a skill underestimated by many.
👤 Credits
Author: Written by Kirsty Sedgman
Editor: Anastasia Niedinger
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
📕 Kirsty’s book, “On Being Unreasonable” — examining ‘civility’ and how to smartly break rules — is out now in major bookstores!
