Advertisement

Mobile Users Are More Vigilant Than Situated Users

  • M. Giles Phillips
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8512)

Abstract

With the rapid growth of mobile device usage, daily life offers much empirical evidence that users frequently and persistently interact with mobile devices while doing other things. These users might be highly engaged within a mobile experience or unfulfilled by their real world experience; but significantly, their frequent usage could also be a form of vigilant behavior. This research seeks to understand whether or not mobile usage leads to an increased prevalence of user vigilance, first by establishing criteria that can be used to determine if a specific session of use is vigilant, and then applying these criteria to analyze observed sessions of use for two distinct cohorts: mobile users and situated users. In the analysis, it was found that everyday vigilant usage scenarios are fairly prevalent, and also that mobile users were 3 times more vigilant than situated users. These initial findings need further validation, but may prove significant to interaction design: optimizing a software interface to better support vigilant usage requires an opposing set of considerations when compared to traditional consumer product design. These design considerations are discussed, in addition to the limitations of the study, and guidance for future work.

Keywords

Mobile User Interface Design Vigilance Attention 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Boyd, D.: Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life. In: Buckingham, D. (ed.) MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning - Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume, pp. 119–142. MIT Press, Cambridge (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boyd, D.: Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications. In: Papacharissi, Z. (ed.) Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, pp. 39–58 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Edmunds, M.: Defense In Animals: a Survey of Anti-predator Defenses. Longman, New York (1974)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lima, S.L., Bednekoff, P.A.: Back to the basics of antipredatory vigilance: can nonvigilant animals detect attack? Animal Behaviour 58(3), 537–543 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mackworth, N.H.: The breakdown of vigilance during prolonged visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 1, 6–21 (1948)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Youth Are Moving to Mobile Devices for Their Communication Needs: R You Here? American Press Institute,, http://www.americanpressinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/NIE_youth-moving-to-mobile.pdf
  7. 7.
    Parasuraman, R.: Sustained attention: a multifactorial approach. In: Posner, M., Marin, O. (eds.) Attention and Performance XI, pp. 493–511. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1985)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parasuraman, R. (ed.): The Attentive Brain. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parasuraman, R., Caggiano, G.: Neural and genetic assays of mental workload. In: McBride, D., Schmorrow, D. (eds.) Quantifying Human Information Processing, pp. 123–155. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Phillips, M.G.: Designing for Vigilance during Intermittent Use. In: 3rd Annual ACM Web Science Conference, pp. 243–246. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Quenette, P.-Y.: Functions of vigilance behaviour in mammals: A review. Acta Oecologica 11(6), 801–818 (1990)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Robinette, R.L., Ha, J.C.: Social and Ecological Factors Influencing Vigilance by Northwestern Crows, Corvus Caurinus. Animal Behaviour 62, 447–453 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sch, J., Hecht, B., Matthias, B., Fachhochschule, M.: Falling Asleep with Angry Birds, Facebook and Kindle - A Large Scale Study on Mobile Application Usage. Measurement 11, 47–56 (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schultz, E.E., Proctor, R.W., Lien, M., Salvendy, G.: Usability and Security: An Appraisal of Usability Issues in Information Security Methods. Computers & Security 20(7), 620–634 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Turkle, S.: Alone Together. Basic Books, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Warm, J.S., Parasuraman, R., Matthews, G.: Vigilance Requires Hard Mental Work and Is Stressful. Human Factors 50, 433–441 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weinger, M.B., Slagle, J.: Human Factors Research in Anesthesia Patient Safety. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 9, S58–S63 (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wickens, C.D.: The structure of Attentional Resources. In: Nickerson, R. (ed.) Attention and Performance VIII, pp. 239–257. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1980)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wright, R.D., Ward, L.M.: Orienting of Attention. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Giles Phillips
    • 1
  1. 1.subforum.orgBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations