How interruptions influence our thinking and the role of psychological distance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite the growing attention given to the effects of brief interruptions on consumers' judgments and choices, the cognitive processes that underlie for its effects are not yet fully understood. The lack of a unifying mechanism that accounts for previous findings limits the strategic response to interruptions by managers and consumers. This research addresses this gap through a series of studies which reveal that brief interruptions increase the psychological distance that decision makers feel from the task at hand, which impacts the judgments and choices they make. Four experiments investigate the effects of brief interruptions through the use of different interruptions, different participant pools, and different focal tasks. Together, the findings make contributions to the growing literature in interruptions and Construal Level Theory. They also provide managers and decision‐makers with a better understanding of how common, brief interruptions can impact preferences, product choices and consumers' willingness to engage in prosocial behavior.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it