See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/221181328

Using Distraction-Conflict Theory to Measure the Effects of Distractions on

Individual Task Performance in a Wireless Mobile Environment

Conference Paper · January 2005

DOI: 10.1109/HICSS.2005.657 · Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS

18 8,232

4 authors:

Darren B. Nicholson D. Veena Parboteeah

Rowan University Eastern New Mexico University
25 PUBLICATIONS   233 CITATIONS    11 PUBLICATIONS   845 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jennifer A. Nicholson Joseph S. Valacich

Rowan University The University of Arizona
20 PUBLICATIONS   127 CITATIONS    220 PUBLICATIONS   18,262 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

New Communications for remote locations View project

Early paper on online education in Information Systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Darren B. Nicholson on 20 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
Using Distraction-Conflict Theory to Measure the Effects of Distractions on
Individual Task Performance in a Wireless Mobile Environment
Darren B. Nicholson 1
College of Business and Economics
Washington State University, Pullman WA 99164
dbnicholson@wsu.edu
D. Veena Parboteeah
College of Business and Economics
Washington State University, Pullman WA 99164
veena@cbe.wsu.edu
Abstract
Mobile wireless computing is changing the way in
which people work. It is believed that mobile
environments contain various distractions that can
affect the performance of knowledge workers. This
paper draws on distraction-conflict theory to propose a
model that explains the effects of distraction on
individual performance in a wireless mobile
environment. Initial findings indicated that even a low-
level distraction can lead to a reduction in
performance. Our findings have important implications
1
for organizations proposing wireless initiatives.
1. Introduction
Mobile wireless computing is quickly growing in
scope and popularity, and holds the promise of being
the next major paradigm in personal computing [5].
Mobile wireless systems offer two major advantages –
being mobile and wireless [23]. Wireless computing
means that there are no longer any strangling telephone
1
All authors contributed equally in this work; the
names have been listed alphabetically.
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
Jennifer A. Nicholson
College of Business and Economics
Washington State University, Pullman WA 99164
jnicholson@wsu.edu
Joseph S. Valacich
College of Business and Economics
Washington State University, Pullman WA 99164
jsv@wsu.edu
cords or computer wires that limit personal movement
while mobile computing means that no one is ‘out of
touch’ because of his/her location [28]. The ability to
communicate any time/any place offers new levels of
flexibility and convenience [20]. The mobile world
opens up numerous possibilities within the realm of
work. Tasks that have been traditionally undertaken in
a fixed setting, such as an office, can now be
performed virtually anywhere [14]. Similarly, many
types of field work can now benefit from any time/any
place information accessibility and communications
capabilities [14, 28]. It is believed that mobile wireless
computing will ‘foster increased on-the-job
productivity and promote the freedom to travel while
working or playing’ [28, p.68]. However, a review of
current literature on mobile wireless computing reveals
that little is known about how mobile wireless
technologies can be systematically integrated into
organizational activities and how this will impact day-
to-day processes and overall performance.
Research on mobile wireless computing can be
classified into three categories. First, the acceptance of
these new technologies has been the focus of several
studies [1, 21, 27, 31]. For example, Okoli et al. [27]
describe the challenges that are associated with
deploying mobile wireless computing technologies
1
 Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
within the realm of professional conferences. Second,
the technical design aspects of the technology have
been examined [8, 33, 40]. For example, Boncella [8]
provided an overview of how a secure channel can be
established in a wireless environment. Third, the
implications of mobile commerce or m-commerce have
been studied extensively [4, 16, 34, 39].
In addition to these relatively more established
areas, a new stream of research is emerging which
focuses on the examination of mobile wireless
computing within organizational settings. However,
only a few studies were found to investigate such
phenomenon [7, 32]. Beulen and Streng [7] reported a
field experiment that tested the hypothesis that mobile
workers benefit from a specific kind of wireless
application protocol (WAP) technology. The results of
this study showed a clear increase in the perceived
usefulness and also the effectiveness of the technology.
They found that workers had a positive attitude
towards WAP if, when mobile, their working
environment was available. Additionally, Shen and
Jones [32] described a field study of knowledge
sharing in mobile work settings and examined how rich
data capture ‘in situ’ can be utilized to improve
knowledge management practices. This study enhances
the understanding of how future mobile multimedia
messaging technology can be used in the design of
organizational knowledge management systems. To
date, however, research on mobility, specifically the
influence of mobile wireless work environments on
individual performance, has not been extensively
examined.
In his editorial comment in 1999, Lee stressed that
information systems researchers should focus on the
rich phenomena that emerge whenever the
technological and social factors come into contact with
each other, react to and transform each other. One
important area of research, which matches the
emergent perspective, is to understand the effects of
wireless mobility on the individual’s work practices. In
addition to the potential positive impacts of mobile
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
technologies, there is also the possibility that such
environments have unforeseen negative consequences.
For example, these new, unstable, mobile wireless
work environments harbor a host of potential
distractions that, under the right conditions, may
influence individual performance. Thus, the goal of this
research is to gain an understanding of the effects of
various levels of distraction and task complexity on an
individual’s performance in a mobile wireless work
environment. Based on the distraction conflict theory, a
research model is proposed to explain how different
levels of distraction and task complexity affect the
performance of individuals in a mobile wireless work
setting. An experimental study has been designed to
empirically validate the model. The empirical findings
will provide more insight for understanding the
performance of individuals in mobile wireless
computing environments.
The paper is organized in the following manner.
First, the theoretical framework and the research model
are proposed. Next, a study is described to empirically
validate the research model. Lastly, this paper
concludes by outlining the contributions, limitations
and implications of this study.
2. Theoretical Framework and Research
Model
A distraction is any stimuli which is irrelevant to a
subject’s primary task [30]; the primary task being that
activity on which the subject focuses all his/her
attention. The distraction and the primary task may
require different sensory channels, and as a result, the
distraction may be ignored or processed concurrently
with the primary task [15]. The distraction can differ in
its nature. It can be social or nonsocial; an external
stimulus or an internal thought; imposed by a second
party or created by the individual himself [30].
The distraction-conflict theory has been used to
explain how the presence of others, which is a
distraction, can affect the performance of the primary
2
 Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
task. It postulates that the presence of others distracts
an individual, causing an attentional conflict [30].
Attentional conflict refers to the situation where the
individual feels the tendency, desire or obligation to
allocate attention to these two (or more) exclusive
inputs [6, 30]. This type of conflict leads to a cognitive
overload, which in turn can elevate stress, arousal and
drive in the individual [6]. The increased drive has a
beneficial effect on simple task performance, but a
disruptive effect on a more complex task, which is
known as the social facilitation effect [41]. In order to
better understand the distraction-conflict theory, it is
important to examine the concepts of social facilitation,
working memory and cognitive load, as well as task
complexity.
2.1. Social Facilitation
Norman Triplett [38] conducted the first study that
documented the enhancement of an individual’s
performance when others are present. This
phenomenon was later coined Social Facilitation by
Floyd Allport [2]. Subsequent studies in the area of
social facilitation resulted in mixed findings. While
some researchers found an increase in performance
when others were present, performance decreases were
also reported. It was hence apparent that there was
more to this effect than could be explained by the mere
presence of others. In an effort to integrate these
divergent results, Zajonc [41] theorized that an
individual’s performance was linked to a physiological
arousal state, not simply the presence of others.
In order to gain a better understanding of Zajonc’s
explanation, it is important to distinguish between
dominant and non-dominant responses. Zajonc [41]
noted that some behaviors are easier to learn and
perform than others. These dominant responses are
located at the top of the organism's response hierarchy,
so they dominate all other potential responses.
Behaviors that are part of the organism's behavioral
repertoire, but are less likely to be performed, are non-
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
dominant responses. Zajonc [41] found that the
presence of others creates a physiological arousal,
which increases our tendency to perform dominant
responses and decreases our tendency to perform non-
dominant responses. However, the quality of the
individual’s performance will vary depending on the
task, which may also increase an individual’s
physiological arousal, or cognitive load. In other
words, if others are present, and we are asked to
perform an easy task (either simple or well-learned),
then social facilitation occurs and the dominant
response would be to perform well. On the other hand,
if the task were difficult (either complex or unfamiliar
to the individual), then the individual would need to
call on non-dominant responses, and the presence of
others would interfere with performance. Thus, it is the
increased arousal state, or cognitive load, that is
created by both the presence of others and the
complexity of the task that is really affecting the
individual’s performance. High arousal, or cognitive
load, affects performance by reducing an individual’s
attentional control, accuracy, short-term memory
(working memory), and retrieval efficiency [12].
2.2. Working Memory and Cognitive Load
Working memory, as defined by cognitive
psychologists, refers to ‘a system for the temporary
holding and manipulation of information during the
performance of a range of cognitive tasks such as
comprehension, learning and reasoning’ [3]. Working
memory, commonly referred to as short-term memory,
cognitive capacity, blackboard of the mind, and mental
scratch pad, is characterized by its limited storage
capacity and quick turnover and is set apart from the
larger capacity and archival memory system
traditionally referred to as long-term memory [3, 13,
29]. Working memory is intimately related to where
and how we direct our attention to think about things,
or to process information.
The biggest limitation of working memory is its
3
 Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
capacity to deal with no more than about seven
elements (plus or minus two) of
simultaneously [24]. With this limitation in mind,
Baddeley [3] discusses the
displacement/interference in working
Displacement/interference refers to the repercussions
involved when additional new items enter an
individual’s working memory – existing items tend to
become harder to access, can become displaced by new
information, and can result in decreased cognitive
efficiency. The displacement or interference of
additional new items can be conceptualized as placing
an additional cognitive load on working memory.
Cognitive load refers to the total amount of mental
activity imposed on working memory at an instance in
time [35, 36]. The major factor that contributes to
cognitive load is the number of elements or chunks [24]
that needs to be attended to. Complex tasks, which
require more mental activity, are one of many culprits
that can lead to cognitive overload.
2.3. Task Complexity
According to Campbell [10], task complexity can be
objectively defined and determined independently of
the particular individual performing the task. Utilizing
information processing literature, Campbell proposed a
framework in which ‘any objective task characteristic
that implies an increase in information
information diversity, or rate of information change can
be considered a contributor to complexity’. Simpler
tasks are associated with lower cognitive load while
tasks that are highly complex result in excessive
cognitive load, which produces negative effects on
performance, learning, and motivation [37]. Kahneman
[17] found that harder or more difficult tasks, as
opposed to easier tasks, place greater demands on an
individual’s mental or cognitive capacity. Moreno and
Bodenhausen [25] found that the effortfulness of
information processing tasks clearly
whether or not the imposition of a cognitive load is
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
likely to create disruptions in cognitive capacity.
information Easterbrook [11] found that reduced performance
occurred when individuals performed complex tasks in
concept of combination with high arousal states such as high
memory. emotionality or anxiety. The findings above suggest
that the presence of others, or a distraction, acts as a
cognitive load, or adds to the existing cognitive load,
on working memory, resulting in reduced performance
on tasks requiring more of a person’s cognitive
capacity [12, 17].
2.4. Proposed Model
Our research model (Figure 1) extends Distraction-
Conflict Theory in that we are proposing that any type
of prolonged distraction, not just a distraction created
by the presence of others, will increase an individual’s
arousal. The effect that this arousal will have on an
individual’s performance will be moderated by the type
of task the individual is trying to accomplish [41].
Distraction Arousal Decision Making
Outcomes
Task complexity
load, Figure 1 – Research Model
If the task is complex, then we propose that the
arousal generated by both the task and the distraction
will have a negative impact on an individual’s
performance due to the increase in cognitive load.
Hypothesis 1a: When given a complex task, subjects in
the no distraction condition will perform significantly
better than those in the low-level distraction condition.
determines Hypothesis 1b: When given a complex task, subjects in
the low-level distraction condition will perform
4
 Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
significantly better than those in the high-level
distraction condition.
However, if the task is simple, the arousal generated
by the distraction alone will not create enough of a
cognitive load to negatively impact performance.
Hypothesis 2a: When given a simple task, there will be
no significant difference between the performance of
subjects in the no distraction condition and those in the
low-level distraction condition.
Hypothesis 2b: When given a simple task, there will be
no significant difference between the performance of
subjects in the low-level distraction condition and
those in the high-level distraction condition.
3. Methodology
3.1. Research Design
A lab experiment methodology with a 3 X 2 full
factorial design was employed. Subjects were
presented with two different computer-based tasks –
simple (ST) and complex (CT) – under three different
conditions – no distraction (ND), low distraction (LD)
and high distraction (HD). Subjects were randomly
assigned to one of six treatment treatments –ST/ND,
ST/LD, ST/HD, CT/ND, CT/LD and CT/HD.
3.2. Subjects
A post hoc power analysis performed on pilot data
[26] indicated a strong effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.97)
suggesting a sample size of 48. Subjects were
randomly selected from a sophomore-level business
course with a research study participation requirement.
The experiment was conducted in a controlled
laboratory environment, and subjects received credit
for this scheduled research only if they completed the
study in a conscientious and responsible manner. No
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
additional incentives were provided. Past research
using similar populations indicate an average age of
20.6, with slightly more males than females. Pilot tests
confirmed these demographics. All subjects received
course-based training on necessary office automation
software prior to participating in the experiment.
3.3. Stimuli
The high-level distraction used in this study was a
gender-balanced social distraction. A conversation
between four college-aged students discussing their
weekend was video taped and played in the presence of
the HD/CT and HD/ST groups. For the low-level
distraction groups (LD/CT and LD/ST), a taping of the
world news was played. The no-distraction groups
(ND/CT and ND/ST) did not have any purposeful
distractions.
For the high-level distraction, the actors and subject
matter were chosen based on Similarity-Attraction
Theory [9]. The theory posits that individuals will be
more attracted to others who exhibit similar
characteristics (personality traits, interests, etc.). Based
on this theory, we posited that a level of attraction to
the distraction object would provide a realistic and
conscious shift in cognitive resources, as opposed to a
purposeful shift in work location. Given the nomadic
nature of wireless mobile computing, one would not
expect an individual to remain in the presence of an
annoying high-level distraction – they would remove
themselves from the nuisance – whereas, an interesting
or enjoyable high-level distraction may not result in the
same behavior. We expect that a low-level distraction
will simply be ignored. However, as identified in the
pilot tests, as well as being supported by the extant
working memory and social cognition literature,
ignoring a stimulus will unknowingly cause a cognitive
load and therefore lead to impaired performance as
well (e.g., [18]).
5
 Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
3.4. Task
Individuals were randomly assigned to one of two
tasks – simple or complex. To simulate a typical
business-related event, subjects were told that their
boss had just emailed them with a request and that they
were expected to evaluate and respond to the request in
a timely manner. The web-based email messages
differed only with respect to the corresponding
treatments (the complex condition contained more
difficult requests); all other features were identical. The
web-based email application was specifically
developed for this study. The body of the email
contained a brief message, including a detailed list of
the desired data analysis, and an attached MS Excel
file. The complex task and simple task asked users to
perform the same type of calculations (e.g., sum and
difference), however, the complex task asked users to
work with more data. The difference in treatments
forced subjects in the complex condition to expend
additional cognitive resources in that they were
required to keep track of more data, develop more
complicated formulas, and account for a larger number
of sub-tasks.
3.5. Procedure
Subjects entered a wireless computing lab and were
evenly dispersed throughout the room. The lab was
equipped with two large RGB projectors, equally
positioned across one wall. Researchers introduced
themselves, and gave specific instructions to subjects.
Subjects were then given a brief tutorial on how to use
simple formulas in Excel (e.g., sum and difference).
Following this, each subject, using their student
identification number, logged into the research
application on a wireless laptop computer running
802.11g. All phases of the study were automated from
this application. The research application was located
on a local server, so latency and bandwidth issues were
equivalent. The first screen was a home location from
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
which they were able to invoke questionnaires and
launch their web-based email. The homepage contained
a text-based message informing subjects that their boss
had just emailed them with a request and that they
could retrieve it by clicking the “open email” button
below. Once selected, a web-based email application
was launched with a text-only request corresponding to
their treatment group. Upon task completion, subjects
submitted their solutions in an email response.
Following the submission, subjects’ home pages were
reconfigured with a new message and link requesting
that they complete a final questionnaire (this was the
questionnaire with the manipulation check for
complexity and distraction). Subjects’ home pages
were then reconfigured with a message asking them to
sit quietly and wait for further instructions. During
debriefing, subjects were asked not to share their
experiences or the purpose of the study with any of
their fellow classmates.
4. Results
4.1. Pilot Test
A pilot test was conducted early on to validate our
measures, to test our manipulations, and to elicit
higher-level distractions specific to the tested
population. Results identified a strong effect size
(Cohen’s d = 0.97) between groups (CT/LD and
CT/ND) on performance. Performance for individuals
(e.g., answer quality) in the CT/ND group was
significantly higher than the CT/LD group, F(1, 19) =
4.361 , p = .05. Demographics and individual
characteristics were not significantly different across
groups, indicating a true random assignment. Computer
self-efficacy and Excel experience were not
significantly correlated with performance. Only the
complex task was tested. Post hoc, informal interviews
with subjects indicated that our low-level distraction (a
taping of the world news – both audio and video) was,
as we expected, not particularly interesting to them;
6
 Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
that is, they were aware of it, but did not purposefully
attend to it. Our manipulation check on distraction
indicated that subjects in the CT/LD group were
slightly more distracted than subjects in the CT/ND
group. Subjects indicated that they would have been
distracted to a greater extent by something more
interesting or personally salient. For instance, subjects
suggested that other students having a conversation in
their presence would have created a greater distraction
for them. For this reason, we developed a higher-level
distraction for the full data collection (as described
above).
4.2. Status and Initial Results
We are currently in the process of collecting data for
the three levels of distraction (no, low-level, and high-
level) across two levels of task complexity (low and
high). At this time, initial data strongly supports the
posited hypotheses. Full hypothesis testing and results
will be presented at the conference.
5. Discussion
We expected that subjects would redirect their
cognitive resources only when in the presence of an
interesting distraction and would either move away
from an uninteresting distraction or choose not to
attend to it. Pilot tests indicated the latter was the case
– subjects ignored the distraction and remained in the
wireless footprint to complete their task. Whether
attending to or ignoring a stimulus distraction, an
individual’s cognitive capacity is still being loaded by
a set of non-task related cognitions [18].
The pilot results suggested that the load placed on
working memory by the distraction was either from an
individual purposefully attending to the distraction, or
purposefully remaining in the presence of the
distraction and trying to ignore it. Empirical evidence
indicates that the mental process of ignoring something
requires cognitive effort, that is, individuals must
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
constantly remind themselves of what it is that they are
trying to ignore in order to expend the effort to ignore
it [18]. Basically, choosing to attend to or ignore a
stimulus, whether internal or external, results in a load
on working memory, thereby leaving an individual
with less cognitive resources for completing the task at
hand.
6. Limitations and Future Research
Inherent with any study are limitations that can
potentially affect the findings. Using homogenous
student subjects can lead to issues regarding the
generalizability of the results. When conducting
experiments, there is a tradeoff between
generalizability and precision [22]. In early studies of
an emerging phenomenon, it is important to focus on
precision to isolate the effects of the treatment. Future
research will then focus on improving generalizability
by replicating the study across different populations
and in more natural settings.
Despite using homogenous subjects, we believe that
the tasks used in this study would certainly be relevant
to those working in a business environment.
Furthermore, the distraction, while being highly salient
for college-aged students, may not be salient for other
populations. However, we would argue that regardless
of the type of distraction, the outcomes for no, low, and
high levels would be very similar to those observed in
this study.
Future research should focus on examining how
individual differences, such as culture, gender, and
personality traits, affect how people respond to
different types of distractions. The effects of distraction
should also be investigated with respect to
collaborative tasks. Specifically, researchers may want
to investigate the affect of distractions on performance
for wireless mobile collaboration tasks at the individual
and group levels. Moreover, our study was cross
sectional and can in no way predict the influence of
distractions on individual performance over time.
7
 Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005

Hence, future research may want to explore how, why, [4] S. Balasubramanian, R.A. Peterson, and S.L. Jarvenpaa,
and under what conditions distracting work “Exploring the Implications of M-Commerce for Markets and
environments influence individual performance Marketing”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
longitudinally. 30:4, 2002, pp. 348 – 361.
[5] S.J. Barnes, “Big in Japan – iMode and the Mobile
7. Conclusion Internet”, Journal of Information Technology: Theory and
Application, 3:4, 2001, pp. 27 – 32.
The results of the pilot test supported our [6] R.S. Baron, “Distraction-Conflict Theory: Progress and
hypotheses, specifically, that an individual’s Problems”, In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental
performance on complex tasks, those requiring higher- Social Psychology, New York: Academic Press, 19, 1986, pp.
levels of cognitive effort, would be significantly worse 1 – 40.
when in the presence of a distraction. We found a [7] E. Beulen, and R. Streng, “The Impact of Online Mobile
significant effect on performance in the presence of a Office Applications on the Effectiveness and Efficiency of
lower-level distraction, one in which subjects felt Mobile Workers’ Behavior: A Field Experiment in the IT
minimally distracted. We expect performance to decay Services Sector”, Proceedings of ICIS, 2002, pp. 629 –640.
even further in the high-distraction condition. It is to be [8] R.J. Boncella, “Wireless Security: An Overview”,
seen if performance on simple tasks will prove to be Proceedings of AMCIS, 2002, pp. 2381 – 2386.
immune from distraction as hypothesized. [9] D. Byrne, and W. Griffitt, “Similarity and Awareness of
We believe our findings will have serious Similarity of Personality Characteristics as Determinants of
implications for organizations which may be Attraction”, Journal of Experimental Research in
considering a mobile wireless initiative for their Personality, 3, 1969, pp. 179 – 186.
employees. The results indicate that for tasks requiring [10] D.J. Campbell, “Task Complexity: A Review and
a greater amount of cognitive effort, being in an Analysis”, Academy of Management Review, 13:1, 1988, pp.
environment where there are moderate to high levels of 40-52.
distractions may impair the performance of an [11] J.A. Easterbrook, “The Effect of Emotion on Cue
individual. We suggest that a mobile wireless work Utilization and the Organization of Behavior”, Psychological
environment is more suitable for simple or well-learned Bulletin, 66, 1959, pp. 183-201.
tasks, while more complex tasks should be performed [12] Eysenck, M. W., A Handbook of Cognition Psychology,
in a more controlled setting, such as an office. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Ltd., Publishers,
1984.
8. References [13] P.S. Goldman-Rakic, “Circuitry of the prefrontal cortex
and the regulation of behavior by representational
[1] D.L. Abraham, “Mobile Enterprise Computing and the knowledge”, In F. Plum and V. Mountcastle (Eds.),
Diffusion of Mobile Enterprise Business Applications in Handbook of Physiology. Bethesda, MD: American
Organizations”, Proceedings of AMCIS, 2001, pp. 461 – 464. Physiological Society, 1987, pp. 373-417.
[2] F.H. Allport, “The Influence of the Group Upon [14] L. Gorlenko, and R. Merrick, “No Wires Attached:
Association and Thought”, Journal of Experimental Usability Challenges in the Connected Mobile World”, IBM
Psychology, 3, 1920, pp. 159-182. Systems Journal, 42:4, 2003, pp. 639 – 651.
[3] Baddeley, A., Working Memory, London: Oxford [15] B.D. Groff, R.S. Baron, and D.L. Moore, “Distraction,
University Press, 1986. Attentional Conflict, and Drivelike Behavior”, Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 19:4, 1983, pp. 359-380.

0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE 8

 Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
[16] S.L. Jarvenpaa, K.R. Lang, Y. Takeda, and V.K.
Tuunainen, “Mobile Commerce at Crossroads”,
Communications of the ACM, 46:12, 2003, pp. 41 – 44.
[17] Kahneman, D., Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall, 1973.
[18] Kunda, Z., Social Cognition: Making Sense of People,
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001.
[19] A. Lee, Editorial Comments, MIS Quarterly, 23:1, 2001.
[20] C.A. Looney, L.M. Jessup, and J.S. Valacich,
“Emerging Business Models for Mobile Brokerage Services”,
Communications of the ACM, 47:6, 2004, pp. 71 – 77.
[21] J. Lu, C. Liu, C. Yu, and J.E. Yao, “Acceptance of
Wireless Internet via Mobile Technology in China”,
Proceedings of AMCIS, 2003, pp. 1165 – 1173.
[22] McGrath, J.E., Martin, J., and Kulka, R., Judgment Calls
in Research, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1984.
[23] R. Malladi, and D.P. Agrawal, “Current and Future
Applications of Mobile and Wireless Networks”,
Communications of the ACM, 45:10, 2002, pp. 144 – 146.
[24] G.A. Miller, “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or
Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing
Information”, Psychological Review, 63, 1956, pp. 81-97.
[25] K.N. Moreno, and G.V. Bodenhausen, “Resisting
Stereotype Change: The Role of Motivation and Attentional
Capacity in Defending Social Beliefs”, Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 2:1, 1999, pp. 5-16.
[26] Nunally, J. C. and Bernstein, I. H., Psychometric
Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
[27] C. Okoli, B. Ives, L.M. Jessup, and J.S. Valacich, “The
Mobile Conference Information System: Unwiring Academic
Conferences with Wireless Mobile Computing”,
Communications of the Association for Information Systems,
9, 2002, pp. 180 – 206.
[28] J.T. Philips, “Welcome to the New Wireless Culture”,
Information Management Journal, 36:1, 2002, pp. 64 – 68.
[29] E.R. Reddy, “Machine Models of Speech Perception”, In
R. A. Cole (Ed.), Perception and Production of Human
Speech, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1980, pp. 215-242.
[30] G.S. Sanders, R.S. Baron, and D.L. Moore, “Distraction
and Social Comparison as Mediators of Social Facilitation
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
View publication stats
Effects”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14:3,
1978, pp. 291-303.
[31] S. Sarker, and J.D. Wells, “Understanding Mobile
Handheld Device Use and Adoption”, Communications of the
ACM, 4612, 2003, pp. 35 – 40.
[32] J. Shen and Q. Jones, “In Situ Data Capture and Mobile
Knowledge Management: Helping Technicians Share Case
Stories”, Proceedings of AMCIS, 2003, pp. 2231 - 2236.
[33] J.P. Shim, U. Varshney, S.M. Dekleva, and G. Knoerzer,
“Mobile Wireless Technology and Services: Evolution and
Outlook”, Proceedings of AMCIS, 2002, pp. 1998 - 1999.
[34] T.F. Stafford, and M.L. Gillenson, “Mobile Commerce:
What It Is and What It Could Be”, Communications of the
ACM, 46:12, 2003, pp. 33 – 34.
[35] J. Sweller, “Cognitive Load during Problem Solving:
Effects on Learning”, Cognitive Science, 12, 1988, pp. 257-
285.
[36] J. Sweller, “Cognitive Load Theory, Learning Difficulty
and Instructional Design”, Learning and Instruction, 4, 1994,
pp. 295-312.
[37] J. Sweller, J.J.G. vanMerrienboer, and F.G.W.C. Paas,
“Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design”,
Educational Psychology Review, 10, 1998, pp. 251-296.
[38] N. Triplett, American Journal of Psychology, 9, 1897,
pp. 507.
[39] A. Urbaczewski, J.S. Valacich, and L.M. Jessup,
“Mobile Commerce: Opportunities and Challenges”,
Communications of the ACM, 46:12, 2003, pp. 31 – 32.
[40] D. Viehland, and J. Hughes, “The Future of Wireless
Application Protocol”, Proceedings of AMCIS, 2002, pp.
1883 - 1891.
[41] R.B. Zajonc, “Social Facilitation”, Science, 149, 1965,
pp. 269-274.
9