Working Memory Capacity and Errors Following Interruptions

Errors following interruptions are problematic in many environments. Previous interruption research has focused on mitigation methods (e.g., alerts, cues) to reduce the deleterious effects of interruptions. However, little research has examined whether any individual difference measures can be used...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of applied research in memory and cognition 2016-12, Vol.5 (4), p.410-414
Main Authors: Foroughi, Cyrus K., Malihi, Parasteh, Boehm-Davis, Deborah A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Errors
Female
Human
Individual Differences
Interference management
Interruptions
Male
Short Term Memory
Working memory capacity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Errors following interruptions are problematic in many environments. Previous interruption research has focused on mitigation methods (e.g., alerts, cues) to reduce the deleterious effects of interruptions. However, little research has examined whether any individual difference measures can be used to predict how many errors individuals are likely to make following interruptions. The goal for the present research was to determine whether individual differences in working memory capacity, a measure of interference management (e.g., Kane & Engle, 2002), relate to errors following interruptions. Participants completed a procedural interruption task and multiple measures of working memory capacity. We found a moderate negative relationship (r = −.35) between a composite variable of working memory capacity and the number of errors made following interruptions. In safety-critical environments, it may be best to assign individuals with higher working memory capacity to tasks where errors may have dire outcomes.
ISSN:2211-3681
2211-369X
DOI:10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.05.002