Breaks and productivity: An exploratory analysis

Nastasi et al. (2023) asked 16 college students to do a two-hour data-entry job in a lab. Every 20 minutes the computer told them to take a five-minute break.

The team used an alternating-treatments design. Some work blocks were followed by breaks; others were not. The order switched back and forth so the researchers could see the effect.

Twelve of the sixteen students processed more checks on days when they got the scheduled breaks. Productivity went up for most workers.

The breaks did not hurt anyone's speed. Even the four non-responders kept their usual pace.

Saunders et al. (1988) also used an alternating plan with bank tellers. They added task notes, feedback, and praise. Both studies show simple adult workplace tweaks can lift output.

Marchese et al. (2012) gave preschool staff visual feedback on praise rates. Like Nastasi, they saw quick gains with a low-cost move. Breaks and feedback both work; the tool depends on the job.

Batchelder et al. (2025) paid adults cash for step goals. Their reversal design matches Nastasi's tight control. Cash raised steps; breaks raised data checks. Different currencies, same principle: small, steady boosts beat none.

If you supervise adult staff or run long training sessions, try a five-minute pause every twenty minutes. No extra cost, no extra materials. Set a timer, let people stand up, sip water, return. Track output before and after for a week. If you see the same lift Nastasi did, bake the breaks into the daily schedule.