skip to main content
10.1145/3229434.3229445acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmobilehciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Dismissed!: a detailed exploration of how mobile phone users handle push notifications

Published:03 September 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

We analyzed 794,525 notifications from 278 mobile phone users and how they were handled. Our study advances prior analyses in two ways: first, we systematically split notifications into five categories, including a novel separation of messages into individual- and group messages. Second, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of the behaviors involved in attending the notifications. Our participants received a median number of 56 notifications per day, which does not indicate that the number of notifications has increased over the past years. We further show that messaging apps create most of the notifications, and that other types of notifications rarely lead to a conversion (rates between ca. 15 and 25%). A surprisingly large fraction of notifications is received while the phone is unlocked or the corresponding app is in foreground, hinting at possibility to optimize for this scenario. Finally, we show that the main difference in handling notifications is how long users leave them unattended if they will ultimately not consume them.

References

  1. Piotr D. Adamczyk and Brian P. Bailey. 2004. If Not Now, when?: The Effects of Interruption at Different Moments Within Task Execution. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 271--278. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Agathe Battestini, Vidya Setlur, and Timothy Sohn. 2010. A Large Scale Study of Text-messaging Use. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 229--238. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Jeremy Birnholtz, Jeff Hancock, Madeline Smith, and Lindsay Reynolds. 2012. Understanding unavailability in a world of constant connection. interactions 19, 5 (2012), 32--35. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Jelmer P. Borst, Niels A. Taatgen, and Hedderik van Rijn. 2015. What Makes Interruptions Disruptive?: A Process-Model Account of the Effects of the Problem State Bottleneck on Task Interruption and Resumption. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2971--2980. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Lewis Chuang, Sven Gehring, Judy Kay, and Albrecht Schmidt (Eds.). 2017. Ambient Notification Environments.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Herbert H. Clark. 1999. Using Language. Journal of Linguistics 35, 01 (March 1999).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Mary Czerwinski, Eric Horvitz, and Susan Wilhite. 2004. A Diary Study of Task Switching and Interruptions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 175--182. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Tilman Dingler and Martin Pielot. 2015. I'll Be There for You: Quantifying Attentiveness Towards Mobile Messaging. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1--5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Joel E. Fischer, Chris Greenhalgh, and Steve Benford. 2011. Investigating Episodes of Mobile Phone Activity As Indicators of Opportune Moments to Deliver Notifications. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 181--190. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Joel E. Fischer, Nick Yee, Victoria Bellotti, Nathan Good, Steve Benford, and Chris Greenhalgh. 2010. Effects of Content and Time of Delivery on Receptivity to Mobile Interruptions. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 103--112. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. James Fogarty, Scott E. Hudson, Christopher G. Atkeson, Daniel Avrahami, Jodi Forlizzi, Sara Kiesler, Johnny C. Lee, and Jie Yang. 2005. Predicting human interruptibility with sensors. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 12, 1 (Mar 2005), 119--146. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Jose A. Gallud and Ricardo Tesoriero. 2015. Smartphone Notifications: A Study on the Sound to Soundless Tendency. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct (MobileHCI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 819--824. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Eric Horvitz and Johnson Apacible. 2003. Learning and Reasoning about Interruption. In Proc. ICMI '03. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Eric Horvitz, Johnson Apacible, and Muru Subramani. 2005. Balancing awareness and interruption: investigation of notification deferral policies. In Proc. UM '05. Springer-Verlag, 5. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Shamsi T. Iqbal and Brian P. Bailey. 2008. Effects of Intelligent Notification Management on Users and Their Tasks. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 93--102. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Shamsi T. Iqbal and Brian P. Bailey. 2010. Oasis: A framework for linking notification delivery to the perceptual structure of goal-directed tasks. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 17, 4, Article 15 (Dec 2010), 28 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Shamsi T. Iqbal and Eric Horvitz. 2010. Notifications and Awareness: A Field Study of Alert Usage and Preferences. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 27--30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kostadin Kushlev, Jason Proulx, and Elizabeth W. Dunn. 2016. "Silence Your Phones": Smartphone Notifications Increase Inattention and Hyperactivity Symptoms. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1011--1020. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Uichin Lee, Joonwon Lee, Minsam Ko, Changhun Lee, Yuhwan Kim, Subin Yang, Koji Yatani, Gahgene Gweon, Kyong-Mee Chung, and Junehwa Song. 2014. Hooked on Smartphones: An Exploratory Study on Smartphone Overuse Among College Students. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2327--2336. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Gloria Mark, Stephen Voida, and Armand Cardello. 2012. "A Pace Not Dictated by Electrons": An Empirical Study of Work Without Email. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 555--564. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Abhinav Mehrotra, Mirco Musolesi, Robert Hendley, and Veljko Pejovic. 2015. Designing Content-driven Intelligent Notification Mechanisms for Mobile Applications. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 813--824. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Abhinav Mehrotra, Veljko Pejovic, Jo Vermeulen, Robert Hendley, and Mirco Musolesi. 2016. My Phone and Me: Understanding People's Receptivity to Mobile Notifications. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1021--1032. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Tadashi Okoshi, Kota Tsubouchi, Masaya Taji, Takanori Ichikawa, and Hideyuki Tokuda. 2017. Attention and Engagement-Awareness in the Wild: A Large-Scale Study with Adaptive Notifications. In IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Veljko Pejovic and Mirco Musolesi. 2014. InterruptMe: Designing Intelligent Prompting Mechanisms for Pervasive Applications. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 897--908. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Martin Pielot, Karen Church, and Rodrigo de Oliveira. 2014a. An In-situ Study of Mobile Phone Notifications. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Human-computer Interaction with Mobile Devices & Services (MobileHCI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 233--242. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Martin Pielot, Rodrigo de Oliveira, Haewoon Kwak, and Nuria Oliver. 2014b. Didn't You See My Message?: Predicting Attentiveness to Mobile Instant Messages. In Proceedings of the 32Nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3319--3328. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Martin Pielot and Luz Rello. 2017. Productive, Anxious, Lonely: 24 Hours Without Push Notifications. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 11, 11 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Julie Rennecker and Lindsey Godwin. 2005. Delays and Interruptions: A Self-perpetuating Paradox of Communication Technology Use. Inf. Organ. 15, 3 (July 2005), 247--266. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Alireza Sahami Shirazi, Niels Henze, Tilman Dingler, Martin Pielot, Dominik Weber, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2014. Large-scale Assessment of Mobile Notifications. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3055--3064. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Cary Stothart, Ainsley Mitchum, and Courtney Yehnert. 2015. The attentional cost of receiving a cell phone notification. Journal of experimental psychology: human perception and performance 41, 4 (2015), 893.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Liam D. Turner, Stuart M. Allen, and Roger M. Whitaker. 2017. Reachable but not Receptive: Enhancing Smartphone Interruptibility Prediction by Modelling the Extent of User Engagement with Notifications. Pervasive and Mobile Computing (2017). accepted Jan 31, 2017. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    MobileHCI '18: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services
    September 2018
    552 pages
    ISBN:9781450358989
    DOI:10.1145/3229434

    Copyright © 2018 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 3 September 2018

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate202of906submissions,22%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader