University of Derby
School of Computing and Mathematics
A project completed as part of the requirements for the
BSc (Hons) Information Technology
entitled
How Does the Work Environment Influence Technostress Levels?
by
Edidiong Emmanuel Inokotong
[email protected]
in the years 2014-2015
Abstract
The accelerated growth of Information and Computing Technology (ICT) has brought
an era of comfort and efficiency. It’s dynamism in innovation has impacted on the
evolution of society, government and businesses. Technology is a stressor that impacts
on end users (Caro & Sethi, 1985), and the quest for ICT’s to be integrated into the
aforementioned bodies has created an unhealthy level of dependency (Ragu-Nathan, et
al., 2008).
It was recognised that technostress is the inability to cope with technology in a healthy
manner (Tarafdar, et al., 2007). This study conducted a survey involving 104
participants with the aim of measuring the level of technostress. Using various stress
theories and approach, insight was gained to the experience of technostress by workers
and its underlying effects. This study also identified that the misfit between a person and
the environment serves as a catalyst for a stressful encounter, so a Person-Environment
instrument was developed to assess the working environment of technostress victims.
Due to the evolving nature of ICT’s change is imminent in organisations (Markus &
Robey, 1988), causing insecurity and uncertainty among workers. Organisational change
has commonly been associated with occupational stress since the ability to adapt is
lacking in some workers (Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005). Since the adverse effects of stress
among employees are detrimental to organizational goals, this study considered it
necessary to suggest practical solutions with the aim of minimising the impact of stress
on organizations.
2
Acknowledgements
Firstly, I’m thankful to God for giving me the strength to complete this landmark.
There’s no way I could’ve done this without his divine involvement. To my immediate
family members, words can’t express my gratitude for your love, support and belief
even during times when I doubted myself and felt defeated. The faith you all show in me
is immense. To those who have stood with me through my struggles, and contributed to
my general well-being over time, thank you all. Finally I would like to thank my
supervisor Mr Richard J Self for always pointing me in the right direction through the
course of this study, his guidance and support made up for my lack of knowledge in
many areas of this study.
3
Table of Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. 2
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ 3
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... 4
1.
2.
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 9
1.1.
Project Rationale ................................................................................................. 9
1.2.
Project Aims and Objectives ............................................................................... 9
1.2.1.
Project Aim .................................................................................................. 9
1.2.2.
Project Objectives ........................................................................................ 9
Literature Review .................................................................................................... 10
2.1.
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 10
2.2.
Stress ................................................................................................................. 10
2.2.1.
Introduction ................................................................................................ 10
2.2.2.
Definition of Stress .................................................................................... 11
2.2.3.
Stressor....................................................................................................... 11
i.
Physical Stressors .............................................................................................. 11
ii.
Psychological Stressors ................................................................................. 12
2.2.4.
ii
Distress .............................................................................................................. 13
2.2.5.
i
4
Kinds of stress ............................................................................................ 12
Person – Environment (P-E) Fit Model ..................................................... 13
Person (P) and Environment (E) ....................................................................... 13
2.2.6.
Stress Response.......................................................................................... 14
2.2.7.
General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS) ....................................................... 14
ii
Resistance Stage ................................................................................................ 15
iii
Exhaustion Stage ........................................................................................... 15
2.3.
Technostress ...................................................................................................... 16
2.3.1.
Introduction ................................................................................................ 16
2.3.2.
Definition ................................................................................................... 16
2.3.3.
Technostress in Organisations ................................................................... 16
i
Techno-Overload............................................................................................... 17
ii
Techno-Invasion ................................................................................................ 17
iii
Techno-Complexity ....................................................................................... 17
iv
Techno-Insecurity .......................................................................................... 18
v
Techno-uncertainty ........................................................................................... 18
2.4.
Occupational Stress ........................................................................................... 18
2.4.1.
1)
2.
3.
4.
Job Characteristics ......................................................................................... 19
i
Task Demands ................................................................................................... 19
ii
Physical Demands ............................................................................................. 21
Role Characteristics ................................................................................................. 22
2.5.
Summary ........................................................................................................... 23
2.6.
Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 23
Research Methodology ............................................................................................ 26
3.1.
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 26
3.2.
Research Strategy .............................................................................................. 26
3.3.
Data Generation Methods ................................................................................. 26
3.4.
Data Analysis .................................................................................................... 27
3.5.
Sampling ........................................................................................................... 27
3.6.
Ethics ................................................................................................................. 27
3.7.
Limitations ........................................................................................................ 27
3.8.
Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 28
Findings and Analysis .............................................................................................. 29
4.1.
5
Variables that Influence Occupational Stress ............................................ 19
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 29
4.2.
Analysis ............................................................................................................. 29
4.2.1.
Response Rate ............................................................................................ 29
4.2.2.
Gender ........................................................................................................ 29
4.2.3.
Age Groups ................................................................................................ 31
4.2.4.
Regions and Nationality............................................................................. 35
4.2.5.
Educational Level ...................................................................................... 35
4.2.6.
Demographic Summary ............................................................................. 36
4.3.
Critical Analysis of GATCS Response ............................................................. 37
4.3.1.
4.4.
Critical Evaluation of Person-Environment Scale Response ............................ 44
4.4.1.
Person-Environment Scale Correlations .................................................... 44
4.4.2.
Modification of Person-Environment Scale .............................................. 46
4.5.
Comparison between the GATCS and Person-Environment Scale .................. 47
4.6.
Personal-Environment Scale Range .................................................................. 48
4.6.1.
4.7.
5.
6.
6
Summary .................................................................................................... 44
Justification of the P-E Scale ..................................................................... 50
Summary of Analysis ........................................................................................ 50
Discussion ................................................................................................................ 52
5.1.
Introduction ....................................................................................................... 52
5.2.
Current Level of Technostress .......................................................................... 52
5.3.
Technostress by Demographic Groups ............................................................. 53
5.3.1.
Technostress by Gender ............................................................................. 53
5.3.2.
Technostress by Age Groups ..................................................................... 53
5.3.3.
Technostress by Educational Level ........................................................... 54
5.4.
Factors Influencing Technostress Levels .......................................................... 54
5.5.
Conclusion......................................................................................................... 55
Conclusion and Recommendations .......................................................................... 57
6.1.
Conclusion......................................................................................................... 57
6.2.
Recommendations ............................................................................................. 58
6.2.1.
Work-Life Balance .................................................................................... 58
6.2.2.
Use of Stress Inoculation Training (SIT) ................................................... 59
6.2.3.
Focused Coping Strategies......................................................................... 59
6.3.
7.
Future Research ................................................................................................. 60
Personal Reflection .................................................................................................. 60
7.1.
My Reflection on the Study .............................................................................. 60
7.2.
What I Would Do Differently ........................................................................... 60
8.
Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 61
9.
Appendices............................................................................................................... 73
7
9.1.
Demographic Questions .................................................................................... 73
9.2.
Unmodified Person-Environment Fit Instrument.............................................. 74
9.3.
Modified Person-Environment Questionnaire .................................................. 80
Table of Figures
Figure 4.1: Gender Demographic .................................................................................... 29
Figure 4.2: Male Comparison of Hogan’s (2009) and the Present Study ........................ 30
Figure 4.3: Female Comparison between Hogan’s (2009) Study and the Present Study 30
Figure 4.4:
Age Demographics ................................................................................... 31
Figure 4.5: 0-19 Age Group ............................................................................................. 32
Figure 4.6: 20-34 Age Group ........................................................................................... 33
Figure 4.7: 35-49 Age Group ........................................................................................... 33
Figure 4.8: 50 and above Age Group ............................................................................... 34
Figure 4.9: Comparing Technostress Levels Between Various Studies .......................... 38
Figure 4.10: Computers are taking over .......................................................................... 39
Figure 4.11: Computers increase the amount of time we have for other activities ......... 40
Figure 4.12: Use of computers can cause physical health problems ............................... 41
Figure 4.13: Men are better with computers than women ............................................... 41
Figure 4.14: Computers may eventually act independently of humans ........................... 42
Figure 4.15: Computers are taking jobs away from people ............................................. 43
Figure 4.16: Computers can ruin interpersonal relationships .......................................... 44
Figure 4.17: Person-Environment Scale Matrices ........................................................... 45
Figure 4.18: Correlation Values of the Person-Environment Scale................................. 45
Figure 4.19: Modified Person-Environment Fit Matrices ............................................... 46
Figure 4.20: Correlation Values of the Modified P-E Scale ............................................ 46
Figure 4.21: Matrix Scatter Plots of the 3 Fits and GATCS ............................................ 47
Figure 4.22: Correlation Values of the 3 Fits and GATCS Instrument ........................... 47
Figure 4.23: Person-Environment Scale and GATCS Scatter Plot .................................. 48
Figure 5.1: Technostress trends over the years ............................................................... 52
Figure 5.2: Response to technological concern ............................................................... 55
8
1.
Introduction
1.1.
Project Rationale
This research is conducting a study on the current level of technostress among workers.
The current research will replicate certain methods developed by Rosen and Weil (1995)
on the levels of technostress among certain demographics with comparisons made
between both researches to identify relationships. Emphasis will be on the presence and
unstable nature of technology in work environments and its reflection on employee
performance and efficiency. The research contributes to technostress literature by
identifying certain attributes of technology as components to the experience of
technostress among employees. This study attempts to develop a measuring instrument
that can give insight on the impact of the environment to the experience of technostress,
and since some of the instruments used in similar studies in the past identified
exceedingly high levels of technostress and are considered to be outdated. Occupational
stress has been identified to create disillusioned employees (Samartha, et al., 2010), and
harms organizational productivity by reducing performance. Also occupational stress
seems to be a subject of concern for organizations as pointed out by the International
Labour Organisation (ILO) reports that inefficiencies emerging from related issues may
cost 10% of a country’s GDP (Midgley, 1996). So secondarily, the research examines
the role and contribution of technostress to the existence of occupational stress.
Suggestions will be made to address the response to stress within workplaces so to
improve organizational commitment and job satisfaction.
1.2.
1.2.1.
Project Aims and Objectives
Project Aim
To measure the current levels of technostress among workers.
1.2.2.
Project Objectives
To understand the concept of technostress, its effect and causes.
To measure the levels of technostress within a sample group.
To compare the result of this study with that of Rosen and Weil (1995).
To develop a measuring instrument different to the ones used in previous research.
9
2.
Literature Review
2.1.
Introduction
The goal of technology is to make life easier in general, meaning lesser labour for more
productivity, lesser focus for more efficiency, and lesser time for more task executions
in our daily endeavours. There has been more focus on the positive effects of technology
and lesser concern towards the adverse effects that come with it which can be very
detrimental, as it’s imperative that organizations also consider the implications of these
adverse effects (Ayyagari, et al., 2011). Although issues like complexity and lack of
familiarity due to constant change contribute to certain discomforts, it can be said that
the strategical importance of technology is diminishing as the purchase of new
technology acts as more of a fashion statement as opposed to the demand for its
practical application (Bryce, 2007). But despite the purpose, new technology needs a
period of adaptation for users as a lot can go wrong if this phase is bypassed or
underestimated, therefore conceiving stress as demands to be fulfilled outweigh the
adaptive capacity of an individual (Cohen, et al., 2007)
The ability for society to adapt to the various phases of technological evolution is
paramount in order to leverage its presence and reach greater heights with it. With
exponential technological advances and greater consuming power, organizations face
intense competition on a global scale as even small businesses can compete due to the
affordability of existing technologies (Duval, 2013). As technology has become an
essential ingredient in our daily lives and with the steady influx of upgrades, lack of
control will yield repercussions to businesses and also, individual’s emotional, mental
and physical wellbeing. The omnipresence of technology has influenced society to be
entrapped in a modern day technological web where the ability to perform in life has
become fully technologically dependent. The adverse effect as a result of the increase in
technological use and advancement is referred as Technostress.
2.2.
2.2.1.
Stress
Introduction
There are three things we are guaranteed in life; death, taxes and stress (Moyer, 2010).
Stress is an avoidable part of today’s fast paced, competitive world (Haas, 2010);
invoked by the pressure to perform in various situations one might be exposed to.
Dealing with stress and finding ways to cope with pressure can prove to be motivating,
stimulating and healthy. The awareness of stress and its implication has come at a time
when the rate of technological advances is on a rise and its ubiquity has presented a
series of concern and controversy. Stress related disorders especially in the form of
anxiety and depression have become an epidemic within society with its stigma
considerably felt in both personal and professional endeavours. The various effects of
stress should be seriously reflected on from both an individual and organizational
standpoint as negative association between stress in workplaces and productivity exists
(Tarafdar, et al., (2007); Weiss, (1983)). Technostress is a subset of stress, therefore
finding ways to identify and manage stress can influence the approach to technology and
its application.
10
2.2.2.
Definition of Stress
Stress is our body’s response to certain situations (Healthline, 2012). Psychologically,
stress can be defined as the adverse reaction people have to excessive pressures or
stimulus events that challenge their ability to cope (McLeod, 2010). Stress manifests as
a physical, psychological or social dysfunction resulting in individuals feeling incapable
of bridging the gap between their abilities and the requirements or expectations placed
upon them (ISMA, 2014). Since anxiety is a response that differ between humans (NSW
HSC, 2014); it can be established that stress is dependent upon individual perception of
a given situation (Walonick, 1993). It has been established that the role stress plays in
our lives can seriously interfere with health, family and professional life. Stress has been
identified to be a recurring factor in ailments such as stroke, heart attacks and a host of
other medical conditions, as previous study highlighted, 60-80 percent of patients seen
by a doctor on any given day, suffer primarily from a stress related disorder (Hart,
(1990); Rosch, (1991)). The total number of stress related cases in 2011/2012 was
428000 (40%) out of a total of 1073000 for all work related illness (HSE, 2012). That
count is on the rise as not enough emphasis is placed on stress management within
organizations especially. This study yields insight into various aspects of stress on a
psychological and an organizational behavioural platform that can help to further
investigate and understand the implications of technostress.
2.2.3.
Stressor
In the early days, stress usually came in the form of physical threats were survival
depended on quick reactions and decisiveness, which resulted in either fighting or
fleeing. In recent times, stress is more likely to be psychological in origin and prolonged
in nature e.g. work related stress, financial worries, social difficulties, chronic illnesses
etc. (Southern Cross Health Group, 2013). As a consequence of modern day living,
causes of stress which includes various independent and dependent variables, arises
when people feel the need to adapt.
Stressors can be defined as events, situations, individuals or anything considered as
threatening that causes us to experience psychological stress (CSHS, 2014). In whatever
form a stressor might present itself, it is the cause for the release of stress hormones that
elicit strong emotional responses fear, hate, anger etc. (Parker & Ettinger, 2007). As this
study identifies the stimuli related to stress as a stressor and the body’s response to
stress as stress response, stressors can be distinguished into two categories; physical and
psychological.
i.
Physical Stressors
Physical stressors involve the anticipation of or confrontation with a situation that is
characterised by physical harm, danger, pain, or discomfort (Lamb, 1979). This class of
stressors can be induced by two distinct factors:
Environmental Factors
11
Physiological Factors
Family Issues
Dehydration
Noise
Illness
Pollution
Poor Hygiene
Job Dissatisfaction
Malnutrition
Fear of Crime
Lack of relaxation
Table 2.1: Physical Stressors
ii.
Psychological Stressors
Psychological stressors involve the anticipation of or confrontation with situations that
are potential stress to self-esteem and that often involve fear of failure or personal
evaluation (Lamb, 1979). This class of stressors is influenced by two factors:
Cognitive Factors
Emotional Factors
Unpredictability
Grief
Isolation
Interpersonal Feelings
Ambiguity
Desperation
Poor Judgement
Irritability
Constant Worrying
Agitation
Table 2.2: Psychological Stressors
2.2.4.
Kinds of stress
There are various types of stress triggered by a range of stressors, duration of exposure,
and intensity. Selye (1983) deduced two varieties of stress that encompasses several
responses that individuals emit:
i
Eustress
Eustress defined as positive stress (Scott, 2014), was formed on the concept that people
needed different levels of simulation to motivate and allow them a perception for
optimism, clarity and growth. Eustress which can stem from meeting deadlines to
indulging in adrenaline pumping events, can build character as it helps develop
resilience or high endurance to unhealthy circumstances. Eustress is induced by the
subjective perception of encountering stressors as challenges which generates the need
to perform harder to achieve an objective. The motivation gotten from eustress drives
individuals’ to achieve more goals, and also influences the perception of stressors as
12
challenges rather than threats (Mikulin, 2013). Eustress can take many forms, and it
becomes applicable in both acute and chronic scenarios (Mikulin, 2013).
ii Distress
Distress is the bad kind of stress, associated with negative feelings and disturbed bodily
states (Lazarus, 1993). Distress arises when tension is built from the inability to cope
with excess eustress, making the current challenge to feel overwhelming. A person’s
response to stress determines whether they will profit from misfortune or be miserable
(Schenck, 2011). While there are certain uncontrollable events that will inevitably lead
to distress (e.g., death of a loved one of personal tragedy), people have far more control
over the way they choose to respond to the natural, everyday stressors of life – e.g.,
misplacing an item, missing a deadline, etc. (Schenck, 2011). Stress tolerance differs
across individuals and is influenced by time and condition in which it’s experienced
(Brock University, 2010).
Thus, if all stress can be broken into either eustress or distress; and distress is
represented by too much or too little demand, then eustress might be considered to be
the amount of stress between too much or too little; an optimal level of stress. This
differentiation leads to the idea that both under and over stimulation leads to distress
while moderate stress results in eustress (Le Fevre, et al., 2003).
2.2.5.
Person – Environment (P-E) Fit Model
Person-Environment Fit Model relates strongly to occupational stress because a misfit
between a person and their work environment will inevitably lead to distress (Ganly,
2010). The P-E Fit approach characterizes distress as a lack of correspondence between
characteristics of the person (e.g. abilities, values) and the environment – e.g. demands,
supplies (Edwards & Cooper, 1990). The P-E Fit model is recognised in stress approach
as it analyses the contribution of both the role of an individual and that of the
environment in the build-up to stress. Stress is experienced when demands of the
environment is greater than the abilities of an individual, while the reverse can lead to a
lack of drive and motivation. The misfit between an individual and the environment can
lead to unmet individual needs and job demands which lead to distress. The core
premise of P-E fit theory is that stress arises not from the person or environment
separately, but rather by their fit or congruence with one another (Edwards, et al., 1998).
The core elements of this model points to three factors that are fundamental to the P-E
Fit model.
i
Person (P) and Environment (E)
Understanding the compatibility between a person and the environment is a prerequisite
for the conceptualization of the P-E Fit model and serves as the foundation for
examining reciprocal causation between the person and environment (Edwards, et al.,
1998). A person’s characteristic could include personality, goals, abilities, values, and
needs while environmental characteristics could include cultural values, demands of a
role, supplies and rewards. The dual emphasis on the person and environment in stress
research is characteristic of the interactive perspective in psychology, which indicates
that behaviour, attitudes, and well-being are determined jointly by the person and
environment (Edwards, et al., 1998).
13
ii Subjective-Objective Fit
Subjective fit refers to an individual’s perception of a Person (P) and Environment (E)
whereas objective fit refers to an individual’s assessments that are in theory, free of
subjective bias and error (Caplan, 1987). The subjective misfit can invoke defence (e.g.
downplaying of demands or exaggeration of abilities) from an employee; or coping
which includes either improving skills to match the demands or downgrading workload
to suit limited skills. If a subjective person’s supplies (e.g. rewards, opportunities and
incentives) are dependent on their ability to match the demands of the environment, it
can be referred as objective fit since the presence of coping has aligned the objectives of
both the individual and the environment (Caplan, 1987).
iii Needs-Supplies Fit and Ability-Demands Fit
Needs-Supplies Fit refers to the magnitude which the needs for achievement of an
employee is matched by matching opportunities presented by the environment; while
Demands-Abilities Fit refers to the magnitude to which the demands of a job are met by
an employee’s skills and abilities (Edwards, et al., 1998). For both needs-supplies fit and
demands-abilities fit, the P-E fit theory requires that person and environment constructs
are commensurate, meaning they refer to the same content dimension (Edwards &
Cooper, 1990).e.g. needs-supplies fit regarding achievement should entail the
comparison of need for achievement with opportunities for achievement in the
environment.
2.2.6.
Stress Response
Change is constant and each stressful event in life, from the little things to the big
things, is an opportunity to practice new ways of responding (Schenck, 2011). Therefore
the presence of change comes with the demand of adaptation. Before furthering on
response to stress, it’s imperative to have an idea of the body’s flight-fight response to
stress and its implications.
The fight-flight response is a sequence of internal processes that prepares the aroused
organism for struggle or escape (Martin, 2006). It is the body’s initial response to
excessive stress from internal or external circumstances. In the process of this reaction
the heart rate is sped due to the release of hormones (e.g. adrenaline), digestion is
slower, and blood flow is diverted to major muscle groups, providing the body with
increased energy and physical strength (Harvard Medical School, 2011). It is the flightfight response that has enabled people to overcome life threatening events by providing
that extra burst of energy to react in an incredible manner. The body returns to its
normal state when the perceived threat has been eliminated.
2.2.7.
General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS)
Originally described by Hans Selye (1936), General Adaptation Syndrome is a theorized
physiological response to stress (Alapati, 2013). Selye elaborated on his selection of
words used to term this response saying; 1) General- because it is produced only by
agents which have a general effect upon large portions of the body; 2) Adaptation –
14
because it stimulates defence; 3) Syndrome- because its individual manifestations are
coordinated and largely dependent upon one another (Selye, 1976). He also identified 3
phases of the GAS:
i
Alarm Stage
At this stage, the body releases adrenaline and a host of other physiological mechanisms
to combat stress and stay in control (i.e. the flight-fight response). The alarm response is
the body’s sudden reaction on encountering stressors to which it isn’t adapted to, and it
includes the shock phase; the direct results of the damage, and the counter-shock phase;
the attempts of the organism to defend itself from the cause of shock (Muthayya, 2002).
During the shock phase, the temperature and blood pressure are reduced along with a
decrease in muscle tone and a series of other metabolical changes. Extended exposure to
this stage can be lethal as the body’s immunity is less effective and the individual is
vulnerable to illness.
ii Resistance Stage
If the stressor persists, the level of resistance and adjustment increases as the body’s
response to long term protection. The adjustment initiated during the counter-shock
phase of the alarm reaction gains supremacy, and the resistance is increased to the
particular noxious level agent causing the stress (Muthayya, 2002). If the adaptation
phase proceeds for lengthy periods without relaxation or rest, victims become prone to
fatigue, irritability and lapses in concentration, leading to perceived defeat by the victim.
iii Exhaustion Stage
After prolonged exposure, the acquired adaptation is lost as the organism enters into a
stage of exhaustion (Muthayya, 2002). The organism is seriously injured, energy and
immunity levels decreases, and resistance is diminished. At this stage, it is important to
indicate that recovery is also an option, depending on the situation involving the
perceived threat.
The principal value of the GAS concept is that by helping to understand the role stress
plays in health decline, it enables adjustment to therapeutic measures accordingly
(Selye, 1950). Therapeutic treatments such as fever therapy and shock therapy have
been useful in the treatment of stress related ailments, as a result of the revelations from
the GAS theory (Gabriel, 2013). It also highlights the extent of periodical adaptation as
individuals possess a finite amount of adaptation energy; hence the reason people are
able to perform under short doses of stress exposure. Over lengthy durations, adaptation
to a certain stressor is slowly lost (Selye, 1937), as its one of the primary roles of
hormones in the human metabolism (Selye, 1947). This can be observed in the
manifestations of the exhaustion stage where individuals experience physiological
senility emanating from the loss of adaptability.
15
2.3.
2.3.1.
Technostress
Introduction
With seemingly easy access to a world of information by just the push of a button,
information and communication technology (ICT) is taking over. Since the introduction
of the internet to the public in the 90’s, the growth of technology has increased at such
devastating pace especially at the peak of the digital age, where information and
communication has taken precedence within society. With every passing decade, there’s
introduction of ground breaking technology, causing overreliance within society. As a
result technological omnipresence, instant updates can be seen half way across the globe
via social networks; individuals located at different geographical locations can hold
conference meetings via instant messaging clients (e.g. skype); mums can cook dinner,
do laundry and grocery shopping simultaneously etc. There’s no doubting the benefits of
living in such an era where convenience has taken precedence, but society pays a price
for trend. Technological dependency illustrated by modern society, makes room for
vulnerability at the absence of technology. As a result, individuals’ have been tasked
into taking on more than their abilities can handle, which builds pressure that affects the
physical, mental and emotional state. Managerial expectations have increased at
workplaces as an absurd level of productivity and performance is demanded due to the
presence of ICT’s; regardless complexity, employees’ lack of skill and constant
technological change.
2.3.2.
Definition
Technostress, a sub-dimension of stress (Weil & Rosen, 1997) was first introduced and
defined by psychologist Craig Brod as “a modern disease of adaptation caused by an
inability to cope with new technology in a healthy manner” (Brod, 1984). Subsequent
definitions of technostress have been deduced in preceding years by a host of
researchers following empirical studies on this subject. “Technostress is any negative
impact on attitudes, thoughts, behaviours, body physiology that is caused either directly
or in directly by technology” (Weil & Rosen, 1997). Researchers have pointed out that
technostress is dependent on demographic factors including: age, gender, education, and
computer confidence (Ragu-Nathan, et al., 2008). Technostress is prevalent in
workplaces as emphasis is laid on leveraging technology for organizational productivity
and growth.
2.3.3.
Technostress in Organisations
The Information age which revolves around the collection and dissemination of
information made possible by the internet, mobile phones, computers, and social media;
is the primary force shaping the evolution of human society (Weil, 2011). This has led
to technological dependency inhibiting the ability to perform in today’s world. The
internet has become something of a life supporting phenomenon in daily engagements
were unavailability causes panic, hysteria and anxiety. The pervasiveness of ICT’s has
further fuelled access and dependency, resulting in the loss of boundary between
personal and professional life (Cafferty, 2011). The collaboration of the internet,
wireless connectivity and mobile devices has submerged society in a pool of information
16
where individuals feel drowned and overwhelmed by the amount of information to be
processed within insufficient time. With the addition of complex technologies, the
distance between an already challenging reality and objectives is further widened.
Anxiety becomes inherent with any technological interaction, individual’s psychology
becomes dismissal towards technological use, sense of adaptability is lost, and the
environment suddenly becomes distressful. This has become a counter-productive trend
within organisations as employees feel incompetent, influenced by the effects of
technostress. (Tarafdar, et al., 2007) described technostress as a problem of adaptation
as a result of a person’s inability to cope with or get used to ICT’s. Research conducted
by (Tarafdar, Tu, Ragu-Nathan, T and Ragu-Nathan, B, 2011) through surveys and
interviews pointed to 5 components that result to technostress; techno-overload, technoinvasion, techno-complexity, techno-insecurity and techno-uncertainty.
i
Techno-Overload
This study defines techno-overload as the harmful overuse of technology that becomes
detrimental to an individual’s health, personal and professional life. Laptops, smart
phones, tablets, emails etc. dominates our society. The presence of this information
transmitting platforms has made for effortless information exchange thus, presenting the
challenge of information overload. The rate of information influx can be an interruption
for professionals as focus is lost due to joggling between several devices. Multitasking
reduces task quality and efficiency as it takes more time for the brain to switch among
tasks than it would to complete one and then turn to the next (Prystanski, 2012). Mobile
computing devices together with social networking and collaborative applications make
it possible to process simultaneous streams of real time information, resulting in
information overload, interruptions and multitasking (Tarafdar, et al., 2011).
ii Techno-Invasion
Techno-invasion describes a situation where professionals can potentially be reached
anywhere, anytime and feel the need to be constantly connected (Tarafdar, et al., 2011).
With borderless organizations, virtual workspaces, and the aid of remote access,
technology has brought profound changes to the way business can be conducted
(Kreiner, et al., 2009). The issue of work-home conflict can be credited to the
emergence of the internet as employees can access work files and resources from remote
locations. With the aid of mobile devices and 24/7 internet access, organizations intrude
into the personal lives of workers causing job dissatisfaction (Mlotshwa, 2013). Workhome conflict is a major facilitator of burnout and other stress related symptoms. Strides
in technology coupled with lack of control and discipline, blurs the line that
distinguishes profession from personal life (Kreiner, et al., 2009).
iii Techno-Complexity
Techno-Complexity can be described as the inability to deal with the complexity of
technology (Shu, et al., 2011). Although complexity can be subjective depending on the
level of skillset, ICT’s are known to generate such impressions. Gadgets are no longer
for geeks, and if technology is to appeal to a broad audience, simplicity trumps fancy
specifications (The Economist, 2010). New applications can take months to learn,
manuals can be unwieldy and impenetrable, and users’ become stressed as they feel
intimidated by the difficulty of various features (Tarafdar, et al., 2011). Complex
systems and software can lead to a frustrating and demoralising atmosphere in
workplaces which can seriously hamper performance.
17
iv Techno-Insecurity
Techno-insecurity is when an employee feels job insecurity as a result of new
technologies or the availability of someone with a better technological knowledge or
skillset (Ragu-Nathan, et al., 2008). With the continuous technological evolution, it is
an anomaly that younger professionals get accustomed easier and faster to newer
technology than their predecessors. Due to the fear of job loss to ICT’s anxiety, lack of
self-confidence and morale among end users are familiar ill feelings associated with the
presence of Techno-insecurity (Heinssen Jnr, et al., 1987).
v
Techno-uncertainty
Techno-uncertainty is when constant change to hardware and software inhibits
professionals from building on the fundamental knowledge gained from the use of a
particular system or application (Tarafdar, et al., 2011). Change triggers frustration,
indecisiveness and anxiety among employees as there’s always demand to acquire new
technological knowledge in order to keep up with the pace of transformation.
The five aforementioned components are the manifestations of technostress within
employees and can seriously interfere with an employee’s well-being, focus and
performance in regards to task execution. Identification, assessment and solutions to
these issues should be a prerogative so businesses avoid dealing with disillusioned
employees lacking satisfaction, motivation and drive towards achieving the collective
objective of any given organisation. Addressing these issues can help change personal
subjectivity by aligning individual and organisational goals, leading to more focused and
confident employees.
2.4.
Occupational Stress
Occupational stress is the interaction of work conditions and characteristics of a worker
where work demands exceed the worker’s ability to cope – e.g. excess demands placed
on an employee with insufficient time for meeting the deadline, and increased criticism
from supervisors (Ross & Altmaier, 1994). Compared to the situation two or three
decades ago, the change in work environment has been parallel to that of society. As
work is the central and defining characteristic of life, a person’s work and occupational
stature may play an important role in the individual’s sense of identity, self-esteem, and
psychological well-being (Quick, et al., 1992). The work role becomes less salient in the
maintenance of self-concept and self-identity as workers engage in processes of
impoverishment, psychological withdrawal, and surrender to unsatisfactory jobs (Quick,
et al., 1992). With the ever increasing demands of organizations, work related pressure
is impacting homes as family members are left to deal with disgruntled employees.
Burnout, absenteeism, uncertainty and lack of job satisfaction are also adverse effects
caused by the pressure employees’ face. Also the change fuelled by technological
advancement has increased workload due to the increase in downsizing within
organisations (Sutherland & Cooper, 2000). Organizations can defend their long term
interests by effectively managing stress as it can lead to increase in absenteeism, early
retirement of experienced employees, increase rate of accidents, and decreased
satisfaction within clients. This study highlights the key factors that cause stress in
workplaces and other areas organizations should focus on in the campaign to reduce the
levels of stress within its employees.
18
2.4.1.
Variables that Influence Occupational Stress
Workplace factors associated with stress and health risk can be categorised as those to
do with the content of the work, and those to do with the social and organizational
context of work (Michie, 2002). Although stressful conditions differ among individuals,
certain potential stressors have been identified as intrinsic in association to work related
stress. These include: job characteristics, role characteristics, organizational structure
and climate, relationships with others, and career development. This study focuses on
job characteristics and role characteristics variables as stress originating from both can
be created due to the constant utilization of technology. These 2 factors will be
elaborated on to gain insight into their various contributions to employee stress,
although it is necessary to realize that stressor categories are not necessarily discrete
entities and that response to stress varies and is an interactive, dynamic process
(Sutherland & Cooper, 1990).
1) Job Characteristics
The physical demands of the workplace coupled with task requirements of a job impacts
on the efficiency of employees. Cooper and Marshall suggest that task and physical
factors that describe a job can sometimes be sources of stress (Cooper & Marshall,
1976). This area is grouped into two categories; the task demands and the physical
demands. This study further sub-grouped the task demands into 4 categories: workload,
shift work, technological challenges, and repetition of work.
i
Task Demands
Workload
Both work overload and underload are acknowledged as potential source of stress in the
work place. Easterbrook (1959) supported a theory deduced by Selye (1956) stating the
effects of arousal under stress were motivational in nature and is needed for optimal
performance. Individuals are very likely to experience motivation, creativity, and
calmness while on the job in such an optimal state (Sutherland & Cooper, 2000).
Motivation might come from the confines of an organization in the form of incentives;
fuelling a self-imposed demand to adapt to the current situation (Cherry, 2014).
If the level of arousal goes beyond the scope of one’s ability to meet the current
demand, then motivation can only play a limited role before exhaustion and burnout are
experienced (Weinberg, et al., 2010). Two variations of workload are established:
Quanlitative overload/underload and Quatitative overload/underload.Qualitative
overload results from when an individual feels incapable of performing the prescribed
task due to lack of skill or knowledge (French & Caplan, 1973). Sutherland and Cooper
(2000) identified qualitative overload as a direct source of stress linked to low levels of
self-esteem among white collar workers. Qualitative underload occurs when an
employee feels the task doesn’t utilise their full ability or potential (French & Caplan,
1973). The employee feels restricted to develop their ability which can be deemed
stressful since there’s a misfit between the individual’s needs and the supplies of the
environment.
19
French and Caplan (1973) stated quantitative overload occurs in a situation where an
employee has too many tasks to accomplish in a limited period of time. Pressure
originating from the demand to meet deadlines is a major contributor to work related
stress. Symptoms including low self-esteem, absenteeism, and poor work motivation are
associated with quantitative overload (Margolis, et al., 1974). A scenario where an
employee has little to do in a given time frame is referred as quantitative underload and
can be termed as ‘rust out’, resulting in boredom, inattentiveness, lack of stimulation
and apathy. Boredom and a lack of challenge were both significant predictors of job
dissatisfaction, anxiety and depression among employees experiencing quantitative
underload (Cooper & Kelly, 1984). It is essential to indicate that the difference in
qualitative and quantitative overload depends on an individual’s perception of their
ability to accomplish a given task.
Shift Work
The prevalence of dividing the day into two or three work shifts has increased since the
First World War as some occupations involve shift work out of social necessity (Ross &
Altmaier, 1994). The need to operate round the clock is essential for some organizations
in order to meet up with demands of clients. Some employees are ambivalent to the
concept of shift work as they might be required to engage in physical work for a 12 hour
stretch, causing exhaustion and mental fatigue. Their performance is affected as keeping
focused for such lengthy periods prove to be mentally challenging. Also sleep
deprivation is prevalent in such working conditions as the body produces many
hormones that influence sleep, temperature, and metabolism reversal following a 24
hour cycle ( referred as “Circadian Rhythm”) of working night shifts (Sutherland &
Cooper, 2000). Older employees tend to suffer the adverse effects of shift work as their
circadian system isn’t versatile enough to cope with the changes that are required. Since
our society is daytime orientated, shift work has a tendency to expose workers to various
domestic and social pressures including; reduced time spent with spouses or partners,
and reduced association with day working friends (Ross & Altmaier, 1994).
Organizations, colleagues, and clients are at risk as individuals engaged in shift work
have reported lower levels of alertness, concentration, vigour and higher levels of
confusion and fatigue making them prone to mistakes and accidents (Sutherland &
Cooper, 2000).
Technological Challenges
Various researches on organizational stress have pointed towards technology as a source
of stress among employees. The ubiquity of the internet, mobile devices and wireless
connectivity prompts employees to feel overwhelmed due to their personal lives being
invaded as a result of their constant accessibility (Tarafdar, et al., 2007). Technological
evolution may render certain skills obsolete, and increases the demand to be constantly
updated with the latest technological innovations. With insufficient time to acquire the
necessary skills and knowledge, stress via technostress is induced. Introduction of new
technology may expose a supervisor to qualitative overload and subordinates might
perceive it as incompetency thus, creating conflict in relationships within the workplace
(Sutherland & Cooper, 1990). Advancement in technology can also increase complexity
within newer systems and applications, which applies more stressful side effects on
employees such as fear and anxiety. Despite complexity, technological products can still
heap more misery on users by failing to perform at critical time’s e.g. excessive time
consumption while rebooting or troubleshooting, applications running slowly, system
freeze and crashes etc.
20
Task Repetition
The increasing automation within industries can lead to job repetition and increased
workload (Sutherland & Cooper, 1990). The more repetitive a particular job, the more
likely the job incumbent experiences stress (Wallace, et al., 1988). Boredom is
associated with repetition, and generates the subjective perception of qualitative
underload where one might feel misuse of their abilities and a lack of opportunities to
broaden their potential, which can lead to job dissatisfaction. This feeling is rampant
among blue collar workers e.g. workers on an assembling line system in a car
manufacturing factory. Work that is dull, tedious and repetitive is usually also very
harmful to an individual’s physiological and psychological well-being (Kornhauser,
1965). General passivity and alienation among factory workers involved in tasks
characterised by low skill demands, lack of variety, repetitiveness and low decision
making latitude showed spill over into leisure time which negatively affects personal
and social life (ILO, 1986).
ii Physical Demands
Sometimes, a workplace creates physical stress through noise, polluted air, vibrations,
poor ventilation, extremes of temperature, lack of space, poor lighting, inadequate
sanitary facilities and hygiene factors; causing stress for workers in the form of
organizational confusion (American Psychological Association, 2014). Undesirable
work conditions, the urgency to work at increased rate, exertion of increased physical
effort, excessive work during inconvenient hours were linked to low mental state
(Kornhauser, 1965). This is commonly associated with blue collar workers in factories
and construction sites as noise caused by heavy machinery, use of artificial lightings,
exposure to temperatures and emission of carbon dioxide caused by various machineries
can prove not only stressful over time but directly detrimental to employees’ health.
Although blue collar workers might be exposed to a lot of physical stressors due to the
nature of their job, white collar workers also encounter physical stressors though not on
the same level. An ideal scenario of employees with management or professional jobs
confronting physical stressors can be witnessed in large stock broking firms where there
are loads of people screaming and shouting, surrounded by large clocks that show the
time in the major cities in the world, telephones ringing in the background, telex
operators yelling quotients and queues of traders shouting market prices (Matteson &
Ivancevich, 1987).
Ergonomics defined as the science of making things comfortable through outstanding
design with the aim of achieving optimum efficiency (Adams, 2014); also plays a major
role in avoiding physical stressors within offices and employees’ workspace. With good
designs performance, comfort and safety can be maximised, limiting occurrence of
physical stressors in blue collar work environments. Sitting postures, positioning of
arms and legs while working, arrangement of stationaries within a workspace,
positioning of computer peripherals etc. all optimise workspace efficiency. Schuler
(1977), introduced the term task-technology-structure fit as the compatibility between
task attributes, technology and the organizational structure; identifying the reduction in
stress levels where technology is constructed to match the way a work group is
organised and the nature of the tasks to be executed (Ross & Altmaier, 1994).
21
2) Role Characteristics
Changes to job role structure are common as companies continually reinvent
themselves, impacting change (Sutherland & Cooper, 2000). Certain demands and
pressure are dependent on the various roles occupied by an individual. Role theory has
been applied by researchers to comprehend the origin of stress in workplaces and how
pressure associated to different roles contributes to occupational stress (Ross &
Altmaier, 1994). Role Stress is attributed to the environment and can be referred to the
conflict and tension precipitated from roles occupied by a person at any given point in
time (Bhattacharya & Basu, 2007). There is usually confusion in clarity of the demands
assigned to different roles in an organization. Role ambiguity and role conflict have
been identified as causes of dysfunctional behaviour among workers (Ram, et al., 2011).
Role Ambiguity
Role ambiguity is associated with the experience of organizational stress. Role
ambiguity can be interpreted as unclear demands, expectations, objectives, or
responsibilities related to an individual’s role at work (Cooper, et al., 2001). Inadequate
information is the primary source of role ambiguity in organizations, resulting in tension
and fatigue being experienced among victims. It has also been noted that stress from
role ambiguity is compounded by an individual’s loss of certainty and predictability in
the work role (Schuler, 1984). It is vital for managements to clearly identify the
objectives of individual roles to avoid uncertainty in responsibilities and task executions
especially in regards to new employees. Supervisory support in the form of induction
training can help alleviate the implications of role ambiguity an ease adjustment for
newly recruited employees.
Role Conflict
Roles can define expected behaviour and set the parameters for actions seen as
acceptable (Mercer, 2014). Role Conflict, which can be complex and personally
challenging, exists when there is confusion due to opposing demands or incompatible
goals surrounding role related tasks (Sutherland & Cooper, 2000). To further understand
role conflict, the four different forms in which it exists need to be described. Intersender role conflict is when the demands and expectations from one person are in
conflict with those from one or more other persons. Personal differences, lack of
information and compatibility can jointly lead to inter-sender role conflict. Intra-sender
role conflict occurs when a superior communicates expectations which are incompatible,
an instance being a lack of supplies to successfully complete a task (Sutherland &
Cooper, 1990). Person role conflict is a situation where there is conflict in the demands
of an individual’s role, and personal values. An example of such can exist in a hospital
where a doctor is asked to perform an abortion which might be contradictory to his
religious beliefs. Inter-role conflict results when an employee faces conflict between the
expectations and demands of the work role and that or people outside work – i.e. family
22
members (Ross & Altmaier, 1994). The case of employees working night shift is an idle
scenario where conflict might arise where workers are simultaneously needed at home
and work. The clear delegations of roles can improve dynamics in a work environment
by minimizing tension within employees.
2.5.
Summary
This study established that stress is inevitable in daily endeavours and emanates from
the misfit between a person and the environment. The inability to adapt is a key reason
why stress is prevalent in modern society. Stressors are stimulus to stress and exists both
physically and psychologically. Eustress and distress, referred as good and bad stress
respectively are the different types of stress that can be experienced. The P-E Fit model
depicts the relationship between a person and the environment with regards to the needs
and abilities of the person being equivalently matched by the environment. Flight or
fight is the short term subconscious response to a dangerous situation. It is also
considered as the alarm phase of the general adaptation syndrome theory – that aids in
understanding the process of stress response by the body; and consists of two other
phases: the resistance phase – the body’s adjustment to the perceived situation; and the
exhaustion phase – the resulting conclusion of the adjustment strategy. The insight on
stress can help to achieve a better understanding on technostress and its effects.
The ubiquity and pervasiveness of technology has conceived the issue of technostress,
which is partly responsible for change that might be perceived as a threat to employees.
Advances in network connectivity and mobile devices have only promoted its
dependency within organizations and society. Insufficient emphasis is placed on this
subject by managements, causing increased financial cost and reduced efficiency to
organizations. Technostress is also a contributing factor to organizational stress as was
discussed in section Error! Reference source not found..
Organizational stress can be encountered in the mould of job and role characteristics in a
workplace. Role ambiguity and role conflict exist due to unclear responsibilities and
objectives delegated by management to new recruits or even experienced staff in some
cases. There’s a suspected increase in workload due to advancements in technological
innovation, causing increased pressure and exhaustion in workplaces.
2.6.
Conclusions
For as long as responsibilities exist, then stress is inevitable. Sense of wellbeing and
vulnerability to ailments is largely dependent on o perception of the environment,
adjustment to change, and management of stress. Stress and anxiety are closely related
as anxiety maybe attributed to long term exposure to stress and long term stress may be
a component of an anxiety disorder (CalmClinic, 2014). Therefore addressing either is
bound to significantly minimize the effects and occurrence of the other. Stress
management should be taken severely within organizations as annual cost of healthcare
and absenteeism caused by stress is estimated at $300 billion, with job pressure
identified as the major cause of stress in the United States (American Psychological
23
Association and American Institute of Stress, 2013). Many addictions such as drug
abuse, smoking, drinking and overeating have been linked to stress and are used as
means of ignoring the underlying problem by stress victims (Slowik, 2013). Although
impossible, complete eradication of stress is deemed unnecessary as recent studies have
discovered that exposure to moderate levels of stress over a short period of time could
prove stimulating and motivating to individuals. .
The integration of technology in businesses has only fuelled the already burning issue of
organizational stress. With obvious technological contributions to organizational
objectives, businesses are seemingly less concerned with its negative implications. The
processing power of ICT’s has proven efficient, forcing the excess use of machines
which has led to the under-utilization of the human brain (Oak, 2012). This excessive
use of ICT’s has conceived the paranoia of incompetency and job insecurity by
employees as indirect comparisons are made between man and machine when
unrealistic expectations regarding workload, performance and efficiency are placed on
worker’s. Since the attributes of one’s job can change from directly executing a task to
controlling what executes a task, there is bound to be excess repetition causing
employees to become resigned to job monotony and dissatisfaction. The evolutionary
nature of ICT’s not only further aggravates the level of stress among workers by
complicating functionality in machines, it also ushers change within businesses. As the
rate of information exchange grows, the world seems smaller and this influences the
way business is conducted (McGrath, 2012).
Technology is the catalyst for the global competition between businesses. Organizations
are desperate to gain competitive edge over rivals as being technologically updated can
aid to achieve that. Our emotions and behaviors are controlled by discernment which is
based on beliefs, values and assumptions (Mitcheson, et al., 2010). So a worker’s
impression of ICT’s can promote resentment thus, reflecting on their performance of
tasks that require technological interaction. The perceived discomfort with technology
by employees is transcended into beliefs that affect their judgments and influences
negative responses and reactions in work places. It is clear to understand that
occupational stress stems from various decisions made within organizations and the idea
of stress management can be initiated by addressing potential stressors which include
structural change; technological challenges and concerns; role conflict and role
ambiguity. Since stress is a result of the conflict between an individual and the
environment, solutions to the aforementioned issues are achievable through the
alignment of objectives of both workers and organizations (Caplan, 1987). There are so
many potential stressors within organizations that can delay productivity and growth,
and technology was introduced to businesses so with the direction of the human
intellect, the aforementioned goals could be achieved. It will be a waste of resources if
technostress, aided by the ignorance and naivety of managements, impacts negatively on
the growth organizations.
i. Refined Research Questions
Has technostress increased over the years?
Can the P-E Fit model provide insight to the levels of technostress?
How can organizations help reduce technostress among employees?
24
25
3.
Research Methodology
3.1.
Introduction
The current research aims to measure the technostress levels among employees and to
develop a Person-Environment (P-E) instrument that can give insight to the influence of
the work environment on technostress levels. This research considers the environment as
the confines of an organization where technology is moderately relied upon with the
primary goal of reducing labour and increasing productivity. Since stress can also be
understood as the response to a subjective perception of a stressor as seen in section
2.2.2, this research uses the subjectivity of participants to deduce logic to why
technological devices might be deemed a stressor. Every method of data retrieval will be
disclosed to certify the authenticity of this research, which was conducted with the
necessary consent and voluntary involvement of all participants.
3.2.
Research Strategy
This research is based on the incompatibility between a person and the environment that
can potentially raise vulnerability to stress. A strategy for conducting this research will
be needed as it will serve as an overall approach to answering the research question
(Oates, 2006). A survey will be used to obtain quantitative data from participants in a
standardized and systemic way. Surveys measure satisfaction or dissatisfaction based on
responses (Rogers, 2012), building objectivity around participants and increasing
chances of spotting patterns. Similar data will be gathered from a sample of individual’s
to aid comparison with the study conducted by Rosen and Weil (1995).
3.3.
Data Generation Methods
Online questionnaires will be used as the primary data collection tool to obtain data for
this study and achieve empirical evidence that can be converted into figures for
measurement. Quantitative data also referred as numeric data which is the primary data
generated by experiments and surveys (Oates, 2006); is the desired format of the survey
responses since it’s flexible enough to aid analysis and comparison.
Responses to some questions will be collected using the five point Likert scale that
ranges from strongly agree scored as 5 to strongly disagree scored as 1. The numerical
aggregation deduced from a set of 20 questions used to identify various misfits between
an individual and the environment will be compared with the results of the GATCS to
discover similarities.
A set of 20 questions, General attitudes towards computer scaling (GATC) developed by
Rosen and Weil (1995) will be used to know a person’s attitude towards computers in
other to compare and develop correlations between both researches. Five questions will
be used to determine participant’s demographics, and 1 concluding question that gathers
participants concern regarding the use of technology.
26
In the P-E Fit instrument, 16 questions will be scored positively, and 4 questions scored
negatively meaning the scores will be inverted. In the GATCS, half of the questions are
scored positively and the other half scored negatively. So a more positive attitude
towards computers and less technostress will be reflected by a higher score in both
instruments.
3.4.
Data Analysis
This is the part of the study that converts the retrieved data into information, knowledge,
and explores the relationship between variables (Bala, 2005). As stated previously, data
provided by participants will be numerated to enable measurement, comparison, and
will eventually be tabulated to illustrate the significance of the result. Graphs and charts
will also be used if necessary to further depict the content of the analysis.
3.5.
Sampling
Sampling can be viewed as a collection of the whole population of people that could be
included in a survey (Oates, 2006). Snowball sampling is a nonprobability research
developing method where participants recruit future participants from within their
contacts (Katz, 2006).This study will aim for 200 working participants from various
demographics. Participants are gotten from social networks and are also encouraged to
invite more contacts to take part with the intention of randomizing responses in the
survey.
3.6.
Ethics
This section covers participants, making sure they are treated fairly as consideration is
made on how they should act or be treated during the research (Oates, 2006). This
research follows the University of Derby Policy and Code Practice on Research Ethics
to endeavor everyone involved is treated fairly and with honesty.
3.7.
Limitations
Due to the lack of contacts by the researcher, there was relatively low number of
participants resulting in a lesser range of responses to analyse and draw conclusions.
The sample size meant the research lacked participants from certain demographics
which might influence any conclusion from the survey. Rosen and Weil’s GATCS form
C questionnaire was developed in 1990 and although popular and validated over the
years, could be updated to provide a more recent assessment of 21st century technostress
levels. Another subject of concern was respondents being biased due to various reasons
i.e. completing the questionnaire under certain emotions can yield different responses
among participants.
27
3.8.
Conclusions
With the undertaken research strategy, enough data can be collected in order to achieve
the aforementioned aim and objectives of this research. All data was collected using the
suitable approach as the ethics section points out, and participants fully understood their
involvement in this research.
28
4.
Findings and Analysis
4.1.
Introduction
This section of the study examines the responses from the questionnaire, attempting to
identify correlations with that of previous studies. The research framework was designed
to achieve the following objectives; identify the fit between a sample group and their
respective working environment regarding technological use, to measure the level of
technostress within the same sample group, and identify any correlations that might
exist. Also comparisons will be made between the findings of this study with that of
previous studies Rosen and Weil (1995) and Hogan (2009).
4.2.
4.2.1.
Analysis
Response Rate
Participants were made up of workers and were contacted through emails and social
media. The researcher reached out to 250 people and a total of 139 responses were
achieved. 61declined to take part and a further 35 took part but didn’t complete the
questionnaires while there were 104 completed responses at a 41.6 percent response
rate.
4.2.2.
Gender
Figure 4.1: Gender Demographic
Figure 4.1 depicts the ratio between both genders. The sample size was slightly
populated with male (60) participants and a lower number of female (44) participants.
29
i
GATCS Gender Comparison
Figure 4.2: Male Comparison of Hogan’s (2009) and the Present Study
The chart above compares the level of technostress between the findings in the study
conducted by Hogan (2009) and the present study. It shows there’s a significant increase
in technostress levels in this study within male participants (58 percent) compared to
Hogan’s (2009) study where 43 percent of the male sample size showed levels of
technostress, a difference of 12 percent. Within the male sample size of the present
study, 43 percent showed medium/high levels of technostress while 15 percent showed
low levels of technostress and 42 percent showed no signs of technostress, a decrease of
15 percent when compared to the 57 percent that showed no signs of technostress in
Hogan’s (2009) study.
Figure 4.3: Female Comparison between Hogan’s (2009) Study and the Present Study
30
For females, there’s an equal percentage (34 percent) of participants that showed
medium/high levels of technostress in both studies. Overall, there is a 12 percent
increase in technostress levels within females as the present study identified that 68
percent of participants experience technostress compared to the 56 percent that was
identified in Hogan’s (2009) study.
From the preceding charts, this study affirms that gender plays role in experiencing
technostress. There was a 13 percent increase in technostress levels between male (43
percent) and female (56 percent) in Hogan’s (2009) study, and a 10 percent increase
between male (58 percent) and females (68 percent) in the present study. Overall, there
is clear indication from the concluding analysis that more females experience
technostress than males, although the levels of technostress has also increased in males
(15 percent) over the as shown in this study compared to females (12 percent).
4.2.3.
Figure 4.4:
31
Age Groups
Age Demographics
This research focused more on having participants who were 20 years or more as most
individuals younger don’t encounter work related tasks that need technological
interaction to execute. The range went from “under 20” age group to “over 50” as figure
4.4 shows with majority of respondents falling into the 20-34 age groups and the
minority in the under “20 category”.
Age Comparison: Hogan’s (2009) and the Present Study
i
This study found it necessary to investigate the effect age has on technostress victims by
segregating participants into various age groups of: “0-19”, “20-34”, “34-49” and “50
and above”. The researcher made sure every participant from the various age groups are
workers in order to maintain the standard of this survey.
Figure 4.5: 0-19 Age Group
Figure 4.5 depicts the level of technostress within the “0-19” age group. A minimal
number of 5 persons constituting 5 percent of the sample size (104 persons) fell into this
category. This group had the lowest number of technostress victims (2 people) although
the relatively small size of participants in this group made it less conclusive.
32
Figure 4.6: 20-34 Age Group
This group accounts for 55 percent of the overall sample size, the most from any of the
specified categories. A total number of 57 participants fell into this category with
majority (56 percent) showing no experience of technostress and 44 percent
experiencing technostress; while this group also contains the most amount of
participants (32 persons, 56 percent) with no level of technostress.
Figure 4.7: 35-49 Age Group
The “34-49” category had 67 percent of its sample size showing medium/high level of
technostress amounting to 16 persons, making it the category with the highest number of
33
victims experiencing medium/high levels of technostress. However, 17 percent of
participants (4) experienced levels of no and low technostress each.
Figure 4.8: 50 and above Age Group
The final age category “50 and above” displayed more concerning results than any of
the previous categories. All participants in this group showed levels of technostress,
with 83 percent of participants (15) belonging in this group showing medium/high levels
of technostress and 17 percent of participants (3) showing low level of technostress.
This study will take an in-depth look into this category to further investigate the reason
behind such high numbers of technostress victims.
The charts above displayed the various levels of technostress within specified age
groups. The data indicated that there’s an increase in technostress victims as the age
categories increases, meaning older people are more prone to experiencing technostress
than younger people. This study also points to the high number of technostress victims
within the “50 and above” category with an alarming 100 percent of participants within
this category experiencing a certain level of technostress and a category high 83 percent
experiencing medium/high level of technostress. From the figures collected by the
conducted survey, this study can concede that age has a major influence in the
experience of technostress.
34
4.2.4.
Regions and Nationality
Nationality
Count Percentage (%)
None (%)
Low (%) Medium/High (%)
American
11
11
72.73
2.04
4.08
Australian
1
1
0
0
100
British
13
13
23.08
38.46
38.46
Canadian
1
1
0
100
0
Chinese
1
1
0
100
0
Czech
1
1
0
100
0
Dutch
1
1
0
100
0
French
1
1
0
0
100
Ghanaian
7
7
0
14.29
85.71
German
3
3
0
66.67
33.33
Nigerian
49
47
51.02
16.33
32.65
Other
15
14
20
26.7
53.3
Table 4.1: Regions and Nationality
Based on findings, 47 percent of participants either live or are from Nigeria while the
British and Americans made up the top 3 representing nationalities. Some countries
showed 100% experience of technostress due to the small inconclusive sample size from
those regions. Interestingly, Britain had 76.92 percent of participants experiencing some
level of technostress. Although previous studies like Hogan’s (2009) suggested that
participants’ country might have an effect on the levels of technostress experienced, this
study finds it inconclusive as the sample size for this survey from most of the
represented nationalities was largely disproportionate. But focusing on the country with
the most representatives – Nigeria, it was identified that 51.02 percent experienced no
level of technostress with 32.65 percent experiencing medium/high level of technostress
and 16.33 percent experience low level of technostress.
4.2.5.
Educational
Level
35
Educational Level
Count(104) Percentage (%)
None
(%)
Low (%)
Medium/High
(%)
Elementary
0
0
0
0
0
High School
16
15
12.5
12.5
75
Diploma
7
7
14.29
14.29
71.43
College
47
45
38.30
17.02
44.68
Postgraduate
30
29
56.67
33.33
10
Other
4
4
25
75
0
Table 4.2: Educational Level
The educational level ranges from elementary to postgraduate, with an additional option
(Other) if a participant doesn’t fall into any of the listed categories that will not be used
in this analysis. Based on the results, 45 percent are university graduates, representing
majority of the sample size while the minority (of a known category) with 6.73percent
are diploma holders as every participant has at least a high school degree. The result
shows interesting stats as there is significant decrease in levels of technostress as this
study goes across the known educational levels in a sequential pattern. The Postgraduate
category shows the lowest percentage of technostress victims with 43.33 percent of
participants experiencing some level of technostress while the high school category
shows the highest percentage of technostress victims with 87.50 percent of participants
in that category experiencing some degree of technostress and 75 percent experience
medium/high level of technostress. From the figures above, it is sufficient to conclude
that one’s educational level plays a major effect on the experience of technostress within
the workplace.
4.2.6.
Demographic Summary
After analysing the various demographics, this study showed an increase in technostress
levels across both genders as a 12 percent rise was identified within females and 15
percent within males when compared to Hogan’s (2009) study. But overall, females (68
percent) seemed to experience more technostress than males (58 percent) in this study.
There was a consistent increase in the percentage of technostress victims as this study
progressed across the various age groups. With majority of the overall survey
participants, the “20-34” category showed the highest percentage of participants with no
experience of technostress. But the most interesting stats belonged to the “50 and above”
category where 100 percent of the population in the group experienced some level of
technostress and 83 percent experiencing high levels of technostress. This study deduced
that the older one gets, the more vulnerable they are to technostress, meaning age is also
influential with regards to experiencing technostress.
When participants of the survey were grouped by countries, Nigeria emerged with the
majority of representatives with 47% of the overall participant count (104). The turnout
from other regions except Britain and the US was in low figures, hence an even and
conclusive comparison could not be achieved. Within the Nigerian population, 51
36
percent were technostress free, while 16 percent fell into the low technostress level and
33 percent into the medium/high technostress level.
Grouping participants on the basis of educational qualification, the result proved to be
the most consistent amongst all demographics. Analysis showed that there was a
decrease in technostress levels and technostress victims as this study went higher up the
various educational qualification levels, with 75 percent of participants with a high
school degree as their highest educational qualification experiencing medium/high
levels of technostress and 57% of postgraduate participants showing no experiencing of
technostress.
4.3.
Critical Analysis of GATCS Response
The GATCS Form C was used to measure the technostress levels, and comparisons
were made between the various demographics as seen in the previous section. Table 4.3
shows the overall GATCS scores of participants along with the percentage of those that
fall into the various ranges of the technostress measurement.
Number Of Participants Percentage (%)
(104)
Approximated to 2 decimal
places
Technostress Level
39
37.50
None
24
23.08
Low
41
39.42
Medium/High
Table 4.3: Overall GATCS Scores of Participants
The result shows 39 percent of participants suffer from moderate/high levels of
technostress while 38 percent suffer no levels of technostress while a minority of 23
percent of participants experience low level of technostress. Figure 12 compares the
result from the concluding survey and those from previous studies to discover if there is
a correlation with the levels of technostress over time.
37
Figure 4.9: Comparing Technostress Levels Between Various Studies
A = Rosen and Weil’s (1995) Study;
(2000) Study;
B = Anthony, Clarke and Anderson’s
C = Hogan’s (2009) Study;
D = Present Study (GATCS).
The data in the preceding chart suggests there’s an increase in technostress levels as the
previous studies used to compare show relatively lower numbers of individuals
experiencing technostress. This study will take an in-depth look into the GATCS form to
further understand the rationale behind those numbers.
After further investigating into the GATCS form, the researcher identified certain
questions that influenced the increase of both the level of technostress within
participants and the number of participants experiencing technostress.
38
Figure 4.10: Computers are taking over
To further understand the chart above, it is ideal to know that the question was inversely
scored following the 5 point Likert scale meaning strongly disagree scores 5 points and
strongly agree scores 1 point. Figure shows approximately 70 percent of participants
agree with the statement above. With the growing number of businesses seeking to gain
a grip of their respective markets by implementing ICT’s to maximise productivity and
efficiency, it is not exactly a surprise that a good number of individuals feel threatened
by the strides made in technological advancement as the combination of massive
computing power, comprehensive networking, digital mapping and the internet have
totally revolutionised society similar to the introduction of steam power and electricity
(Nauhton, 2014). Workers, especially those that fall into the blue collar category are
bound to feel threatened by the introduction of new technology and continuous
automation, an example being the increasing automation of steel production leaving
thousands of blue workers jobless with some suggesting that by the mid-decades of this
century, blue collar workers will be extinct as a result of the surge towards greater
technological efficiency (Rifkin, No Date). In conclusion, the question is only a
reflection of the reality of the western world of today.
39
Figure 4.11: Computers increase the amount of time we have for other activities
The question in Figure 4.11 was scored positively meaning strongly agree scores 5
points and strongly disagree scores 1 point based on the 5 point Likert scale used in this
study. Figure shows approximately 55 percent of participants disagreeing that computers
increase the time we have for other activities. The use of computers can be viewed from
different perspectives, inadvertently affecting the advantages of their utilisation.
Computers help workers accomplish their work related tasks faster and more efficiently
(Writing, 2014). In a work environment, computers are set up to assist individuals
accomplish their work goals. As much as it can have some positive effects in a social
environment, it can equally have negative effects in the sense that it gravely hinders
human interactions and the ability to engage in physical activities as some adults cite
technology as a common reason why they don’t engage in physical activities such as
exercises (Sallis & Hovell, 1990). While it can also be seen as a distraction in
workplaces through the existence of social networking as study showed that 77 percent
of workers who have a Facebook account use it in the workplace while 64 percent say
they visit non-work related websites every day during working hours (Dougherty, 2013).
In conclusion, the utilization of computers in the right way can create more time for
individuals’ to focus on other activities
40
Figure 4.12: Use of computers can cause physical health problems
The question under study is scored inversely in the GATCS form. Research has
suggested that sitting in front of the computer for up to 5 hours a day can increase the
risk of depression and insomnia while also causing physical health problems such as
headaches, backaches and eye strain (Koster, 2014). Focus on computer ergonomics
should be vital in this digital age within work places in order to spread awareness of the
adverse effects of computers on physical health among employees, while reducing time
loss and financial cost of work related injuries as it is estimated that the British
government spent 13.8 billion pounds in 2011 (Health and Safety Executive, 2013) on
this pressing issue.
Figure 4.13: Men are better with computers than women
41
This question was scored inversely and as observed in Figure 4.13, approximately 60
percent of participants agreed that men are better with computers than women. There is
a growing consensus that men are better with computers as women account for 25
percent of the population in computing occupations (Khanna, 2013). A research in 2010
showed that although 57 percent of university undergraduates were females, only 14
percent held computer science degrees in major research universities. This shows a drop
of 23 percent when compared to 37 percent of female graduates in 1985 that held
computer science degrees (Khanna, 2013). Considering the aforementioned facts
coupled with the results from section Error! Reference source not found., it can be
understood why the general public believes that men are better with computers than
women.
Figure 4.14: Computers may eventually act independently of humans
The question was inversely scored and as seen in Figure 4.14, approximately 61 percent
of participants believe that computers will possess the ability to act independently of
people. This question draws attention towards the advances in “Artificial Intelligence”
(AI) also known as “Synthetic Intelligence”, a branch of science/engineering which
studies and designs machines or computer programs capable of demonstrating
intelligence (Cohen, 2012). A subdivision of AI is centred upon simulating human
intelligence, so it can be argued that perfecting this branch will lead to a revolution
where computers can indeed make decisions without the guidance and direction of
humans. But replicating human-level intelligence is as complicated and difficult as it
sounds. Most AI researchers are under the belief that computer systems will lack the
basic ideas and instincts that humans possess, making it difficult to anticipate if human
intelligence can actually be replicated in machines (Cohen, 2012). Based on the
responses, the researcher believes that machines can never gain the complete trust of
people regardless of the benefits it offers in both personal and professional lives of
people.
42
Figure 4.15: Computers are taking jobs away from people
This question was scored inversely in the GATCS form. Approximately 68% of
participants believe that computers are generally taking away jobs from people. The
question is on a similar scale with that exhibited in Figure 4.10 where computers are
integrated into society to reduce time and effort while increasing productivity. The
threat posed by computers to workers is real as a study conducted by the University of
Oxford researchers revealed that 47 percent of the US labour market is at risk of losing
out on computers, and approximately 702 job positions held by humans are being
threatened by computers (Belfiore, 2014). With the increasing rate of job loss to
machines and computers, most workers can only feel more threatened about their source
of livelihood while others are increasingly unsatisfied with their jobs as a result of
monotony.
43
Figure 4.16: Computers can ruin interpersonal relationships
The question under study was scored inversely in the GATCS form. Approximately 63
percent of participants believe that computers have a negative effect on interpersonal
relationships. “As Albert Einstein said, I fear the day that technology will surpass
human interaction, the world will have a generation of idiots” (Sridykhan, 2013). With
the assistance of social networks, cloud services and the internet serving as a facilitator,
society seems to be losing its social abilities (Simons, 2010), while reliability on
technology has increased with the growing decline of physical contact. People turn to
technology at the closest sniff of boredom without giving the brain ample time to relax
during active and inactive hours of the day. Being bored enhances creative thinking as
psychologists discovered that boredom, coupled with daydreaming while passively
bored proved to be a great productivity boost (Stillman, 2014).
4.3.1.
Summary
It was observed that certain questions in the GATCS form increased the level of
technostress within participants. The preceding questions were then investigated to gain
further insight on the low average scores achieved by the overall sample size (50% or
below). After further examining, it was clear that these set of questions represented the
growing concern of society in regards to the utilization of technology and highlighted
the adverse impact within individuals.
4.4.
Critical Evaluation of Person-Environment Scale
Response
The Person-Environment (P-E) scale was used to evaluate the compatibility between a
person and the environment to discover if a misfit between the two primary factors
could impact on the experience of technostress in accordance to the responses from the
GATCS form. The P-E scale concept used in this study was developed on the basis of 4
44
deciding categories: Needs-Supplies Fit, Abilities-Demands Fit, Subjective-Objective
Fit and Person-Environment Fit. Each respondent’s scores from all four fits were
totalled to generate scores for the P-E scale. The data generated from these 4 categories
will be analysed in the following sections.
4.4.1.
Person-Environment Scale Correlations
Figure 4.17: Person-Environment Scale Matrices
Figure 4.17 shows the various matrix scatter plots between the various Fits and the
Person-Environment scale. Each spot on the graph represents one respondent from the
survey. This study used the matrix of scatter plots for every possible combination as it’s
a good way of visualizing the nature and strength of the relationship between 2 variables
(General Statistics, No, Date). The diagonal trend line on each graph shows the level of
correlation between the two categories used to make up the x and y axis.
Figure 4.18: Correlation Values of the Person-Environment Scale
Figure 4.18 displays the Pearson correlation coefficients (r) generated from various
combinations of the four Fits and the P-E scale. The closer the correlation coefficient is
to 1, the stronger the relationship between the variables (Laerd Statistics, 2013).
Therefore, [r = 0.869] signifies a very strong relationship between the abilities-demands
45
fit and the P-E scale. It also represents the strongest relationship between any
combinations of the four Fits and the P-E scale. The needs-supplies fit and the P-E scale
also produced a strong correlation [r = 0.827], the second highest of any combinations.
With a correlation of [r = -0.029], the person-environment fit and P-E scale represents
the weakest correlation of any of the possible combinations. Person-environment fit also
shows low levels of correlation across the various fits, proving that it has little
association with the other fits and the overall model. Therefore, this study will modify
the P-E scale by excluding the person-environment fit and its data from any future
assessment in this study.
4.4.2.
Modification of Person-Environment Scale
The modified version of the P-E scale will be based on the needs-supplies fit, the
abilities-demands fit and the subjective-objective fit. The 3 aforementioned fits will be
analysed again with the anticipation of improving the P-E scale.
Figure 4.19: Modified Person-Environment Fit Matrices
With the model comprising of the 3 fits with the strongest correlations from section
Error! Reference source not found., it can be seen that the matrix scatter plots in
Figure 4.19 show significant improvement from the previous model.
46
Figure 4.20: Correlation Values of the Modified P-E Scale
After modifications, the correlation levels between the needs-supplies fit and abilitiesdemands fit increased against the P-E scale by 0.036 and 0.043 respectively although
there was slight decrease in correlation between the subjective-objective fit and the P-E
scale. In general, the modification increased the overall correlation level of the 3 fits
when stacked against the P-E scale. After the various analyses, the researcher decided to
stick to this modified version of the P-E scale throughout this study.
4.5.
Comparison between the GATCS and PersonEnvironment Scale
To further investigate the validity of the currently developed scale, a comparison will be
made between the GATCS and the P-E scale. This will enable the researcher to identify
the correlation between the 3 fits and the GATCS, as well as overall correlation between
the GATCS and P-E scale.
i
Needs-Supplies Fit, Abilities-Demands Fit, Subjective-Objective Fit and
GATCS Correlation
Figure 4.21: Matrix Scatter Plots of the 3 Fits and GATCS
47
Figure 4.22: Correlation Values of the 3 Fits and GATCS Instrument
Figure 4.22 show that all 3 fits have good correlations against the GATCS measuring
instrument. The strongest correlation is from the abilities-demands fit with a value of [r
= 0.736], while the weakest is the subjective-objective fit with a value of [r = 0.407]
although still considered as moderate correlation.
ii Correlation between the GATCS and P-E Scale
r = 0.76293
Figure 4.23: Person-Environment Scale and GATCS Scatter Plot
Figure 4.23 shows a strong correlation [r = 0.76293] between the P-E scale and the
GATCS. With strong levels of correlation as seen between the 3 fits, the P-E scale, and
the GATCS, it is looking increasingly probable that the P-E model can be influential in
detecting the presence of technostress within individuals.
4.6.
Personal-Environment Scale Range
The GATCS instrument developed by Rosen and Weil (1995) was categorised into 3
ranges to identify the level of technostress within individuals. Based on the 5 point
Likert scale with “Strongly Agree” earning a score of 5 and “Strongly Disagree” scoring
1 for a positive question, the minimum score that could be achieved by a participant was
20 after completing the GATCS questionnaire applied to the scoring of the P-E
instrument but with a modification in the ranges of the various levels. The range for
“Medium/High” level of technostress is between “20-55”; “Low” level is in the range of
48
“56-63”; while “None” is “64-100”. The positive questions are scored similarly to that
of the GATCS while the score for negative questions were inversed, with the minimum
score a participant can achieve is 20. The “Medium/High” level in the P-E instrument is
in the range of “20-60”; “Low” level is in the range of “61-66”; while “None” is in “67100”.
Technostress Levels
GATCS
Person-Environment
None
64-100
67-100
Low
56-63
61-66
Medium/High
20-55
20-60
Table 4.4: Technostress Levels and Ranges of GATCS and P-E Scale
The GATCS ranges were initially used for the P-E scale and it showed inconsistent
levels of technostress when compared to the already validated GATCS measuring
instrument.
Technostress
Levels
GATCS (no. of GATCS
participants)
(% 2 d.p)
PersonEnvironment (no.
of participants)
PersonEnvironment
(% 2 d.p)
None
39
37.50
52
50.00
Low
24
23.08
31
29.81
Medium/High
41
39.42
21
20.19
Table 4.5: Overall Figures of Both Scales Using GATCS Ranges
Observing Table 4.5, it is worth noting that P-E percentages were derived before
modification of the P-E scale in section Error! Reference source not found.. Exactly
50% of participants showed no signs of technostress and the other half of sample size
showed some levels of technostress. The researcher felt the P-E scale figures were quite
uneven when compared to the GATCS, and decided to strike a balance with the range of
the P-E scale in order to reduce the numerical disparity between both scales.
GATCS
49
Person-Environment
Level
Range
No. of
% (2
Participants d.p)
Range
No. of
% (2 d.p)
Participants
None
64-100
39
67-100
35
37.50
33.65
Low
56-63
24
23.08
61-66
28
26.92
Medium/High 20-55
41
39.42
20-60
41
39.42
Table 4.6: Modified Range for P-E Scale
Similar to Table 4.5, it should be noted that the ranges were developed before modifying
the P-E scale in section Error! Reference source not found. . After modifying the P-E
range, the figures looked more proportionate to that of the GATCS. An equal percentage
of participants (approximately 39 percent) experienced medium/high level of
technostress while the difference in the other two levels weren’t so high. Overall,
approximately 66% of participants experience technostress while approximately 34
percent of participants were technostress free when the P-E scale was initially analysed.
4.6.1.
Justification of the P-E Scale
The General Attitude Toward Computers Scale (GATCS) focuses more on an
individual’s attitude towards interaction with computers and technology. The scale
doesn’t consider 3rd party variables that might influence an individual’s attitude towards
technology e.g. a worker might feel reluctant using certain technological devices within
the workplace, knowing there’s lack of technical support. That signifies a negative
attitude towards technology, and vulnerability to technostress. The experience of
technostress can be influenced by emotions originated from the environment which one
might be in, as it’s been acknowledged that the negative perception of the environment
can interfere with optimal human functioning (Cohen, et al., 1986). Therefore it is
necessary to consider an individual’s general perception towards the environment since
satisfaction reduces the possibility of agitation and poor mental state (Ramirez, et al.,
1996), which can boost a positive attitude towards technological interaction. The P-E
scale aims to obtain an individual’s opinion of their environment by combining the
satisfaction derived from benefits provided by the work environment, their perceived
relevance within their work environment and their general thoughts and impressions of
their workplace. By considering these 3 factors, this study can identify the level of
influence a person’s work environment has on their attitude towards computers and
technology.
4.7.
Summary of Analysis
This study conducted a survey were a number of responses were obtained. A total
number of 104 participants actively took part in the survey and were grouped by
different demographics such as gender, age groups, nationality and educational
qualifications. Within the gender demographic, the study identified that females (68
percent) were more prone to experiencing technostress than males (58 percent).
Across the age groups, victims of technostress increased with 100 percent of participants
in the “50 years and above” category experiencing technostress. Nigeria had the highest
50
number of participants (47 percent) and from that sample group, 51 percent showed no
experience of technostress. Participants (75 percent) with a high school degree as their
highest educational qualification experienced medium/high levels of technostress. The
number of technostress victims reduced as higher educational qualifications were
achieved with 57 percent of postgraduates showing no signs of technostress.
The GATCS was examined, and it was identified that participants scored low in certain
questions that influenced their technostress levels. Evaluation of the P-E scale presented
an observation that the p-e fit had weak correlations [r = -0.029] with the P-E scale. The
P-E scale was modified to exclude the p-e fit, resulting in improved correlation strength
across the P-E scale. The P-E scale and GATCS were compared, along with the 3 fits
and the GATCS. A correlation coefficient of [r = 0.762923] existed between the P-E
scale and the GATCS, sighting a strong relationship between both scales.
51
5.
Discussion
5.1.
Introduction
This section discusses the overall result of the concluding analysis to discover the
current level of technostress. A critical evaluation of the impact of technostress within
the various demographics and the various technological concerns that influence the
experience of technostress will be discussed.
5.2.
Current Level of Technostress
Based on findings from previous researches, technostress is becoming more prevalent.
Technostress studies conducted in 2013 showed a really high percentage of the average
levels, proving that technostress was becoming more prevalent. This study had a
relatively medium percentage when compared to other studies with 63 percent of
participants experiencing technostress. Although higher than Rosen and Weil’s (1992)
study, it was significantly lower than Tarafdar et al. (2007) study where 80 percent of
participants were technostress victims. But Figure 5.1 shows why technostress should
not be disregarded with its increasing levels.
Figure 5.1: Technostress trends over the years
52
The study revealed that to a large extent organization perception of technostress is high.
The study discovered that the major causes of technostress in organization include;
inexperience with computers, performance anxiety, information overload, fast pace of
change, policies, increasing demand, and overwork/insufficient staffing. Subsequent
sections of this chapter will attempt to link these causes with the various demographics
of this study.
5.3.
Technostress by Demographic Groups
The studies assessed manifestations of technostress among 139 responses randomly.
Demographic characteristics of the participants were: 58% (males); 42% (females); 15%
(high school); 7% (diploma); 45% (college); 29% (post graduate); 5% (0-19 years);
55% (20 to 34 years); 23% (35 to 49years); 17% (50 and above). The independent
variables for the study were gender, age and educational level while the dependent
variables were participant’s responses on the technostress scale. These variables guided
the research objectives and discussions.
5.3.1.
Technostress by Gender
Result in Figures 4.2 and 4.3 in section Error! Reference source not found. showed
that the females obtained higher percentages on technostress than the males; however it
also showed an increase in percentage of male population. Women may suffer greater
stress regarding technostress levels caused by ICT use. Differing findings present
themselves on this subject. Some studies portray no difference between genders (Aida
et. al., 2007; Anthony, 2000; Sonya, 2003), while others portray findings indicating
higher levels of technostress in the female gender (Wijk and Kolk, 1997; Skues and
Kirby, 1995). It can be said that the variation in findings among different studies stems
from research conducted in different cultures. As in the case with Nigeria, males stand
out as a majority in the working population of some countries. Females face constraints
and limited opportunities regarding employment and economic independence. On the
issue of general attitudes towards computers (GATCS) there was very little difference
between genders in the present study.
5.3.2.
Technostress by Age Groups
This study also discovered that older participants manifested higher levels of
technostress than the younger participants. Specifically, it was observed that those aged
50 years and above presented the highest percentage of technostress than others, while
those aged 20-34 presented the lowest percentage of technostress. The result indicates a
statistically significant difference on the observed result. Observations indicate that
younger people are more open to the new computer technology than older people. This
is well captured in Marc Prensky digital migrant and digital native dichotomy (Prensky,
2001). He identified a digital native as a person who understands the value of digital
technology and uses this to seek out opportunities for implementing it. A digital migrant
on the other hand was described as an individual who was born before the existence of
digital technology and adopted it to some extent later in life. Alternatively, this term can
53
describe people born in the latter 1970s or later, as the Digital Age began at that time;
but in most cases the term focuses on people who grew up with 21st century modern
technology (Prensky, 2001). It is however not surprising that older participants
manifested more technostress than the younger ones probably because of the pressure or
need to adjust to the new technology and because many adult learners grew up in the
pre-computer age, as such they are more likely be unfamiliar with computers and
computer information systems, and are thus more likely to exhibit technostress.
5.3.3.
Technostress by Educational Level
From the analysis it can be stated that there will be statistically significant differences in
educational level on technostress, result in Table 4.2 from section 4.2.5 indicates that
there is significant decrease in technostress levels as the educational hierarchy increases.
Specifically, post-graduate level obtained the lowest mean scores of 33.33 percent
experiencing low technostress and 10 percent experiencing medium/high technostress,
while the high school level obtained mean scores of 12.50 percent experiencing low
technostress and 75 percent experiencing medium/high technostress. “There are many
faculties who are comfortable learning and using new technologies. These are the
people driving the instructional technology industry today” (Baron & Salzer, 2002).
Also professionals who are more qualified experience less technostress (Weil & Rosen,
1997). This finding appeared to be in line with Kupersmith (1992) observation that
technostress is only one form of stress which interacts with other forms of stress. He
further asserted that other related but distinct components of technostress were
information overload (in section 2.3.3-i) which is tension as a result of too much
information which exceeds a person’s apprehension capability and also the case of role
conflict (in section 2.4.1-2) which is described as the friction between different
functions and self-definitions. Thus participants in the high school level seem vulnerable
because of competing roles that must be played well. This group of people, are
associated with rigorous mental and physical exertion, he or she is expected to be up to
date with current data on a particular area. In addition to this, participants in this level
are expected to be conversant with different ICT software’s obtainable in their
institutions simply because as young people they are expected to be in the know which
could be very stressful indeed. “A huge myth in higher education today is that students
entering academia already know about computers because they learned it in high school
or at their last institution” (Baron & Salzer, 2002).
5.4.
Factors Influencing Technostress Levels
The study results found that changes in technology that was made too quickly and
without properly preparing employees could cause Technostress. Factors such as
excessive workload (work overload in section 2.4.1-i) due to the changes in technology
that causes occupational stress was found to be significantly and positively correlated to
the technostress. Furthermore, the study results found a significant correlation between
Technology Competence Level and Technostress. Less training was one of the obstacles
in the effort to increase automation technology competence in each individual.
The findings in this study supported some previous Techstress studies (Poole & Denny,
2001; Kupersmith, 2003; Carlson, 2003; Skeem, 2005; Quinn, 2000) that the
54
introduction of a new technology did not always have a positive impact, but could cause
technostress on employees if it was not prepared properly. Subsequent impact of
technostress on the employees could give a negative effect on the organization because
excessive technostress might degrade the performance of employees.
Using The General Attitude Toward Computers Scale (GATCS) and P-E scale, the
results of this research study indicated a negative and statistically significant correlation
between technostress and major concerns with technology
Figure 5.2: Response to technological concern
The figure above shows that techno-uncertainty as regards to constant change (31.73%)
is the strongest contributor while techno-invasion as regards to intrusion (6.73%) is the
weakest contributor in the overall model. The findings of this study confirmed that stress
caused by technological innovations have a significant effect on the general perception
of technology. It is derived that technology overload is a predictor of technostress i.e.
technology load increases the possibility of technostress. Similarly, the results of this
research study explained that participants are aware of the incessant culture of keeping
themselves informed about technology innovations. The uncertain diffusion and infusion
of technological innovations have led to the fact that techno-uncertainty is a predictor of
job dissatisfaction and thus technostress. The possible reasons may be their attitude
towards the adoption of technological innovations (Ramazan, 2004, Mahmood, 2003).
According to the respondents, 36.69% agree that the proper technical support is
provided for their use. Because of this, there is a high expectation for their work output.
Based on the response for sufficient time allocation to familiarize with new technology
of which 35.97% disagreed, technical support can affect technostress. If the users have
the sufficient time to familiarize with the technical support to resolve their issues, the
amount of technostress would be reduced. Technology applications at workplace always
cause stress among the employees (Cooper, et al., 2001). Stress related with technology,
or called as technostress exists when the users faced problems using the systems or
applications and unable to find solutions and get used to the technologies in a healthy
manner (Ragu-Nathan, et al., 2008).
5.5.
Conclusion
One reason for implementing technology in organisations is to reduce operational costs.
With 52.52% of respondents agreeing that computers are taking over; 46.76% agreeing
55
that computers may eventually act independently of people; and 51.08% agreeing that
computers are taking jobs away from people, it is clear to say that the consequence of
technology implementation might be a reduction in work force. The implementation of
technology in the workplace has also created techno insecurity, a feeling of job
insecurity which has led to an increase in anxiety and stress (Melchionda, 2007; Vieitez,
Carcia, & Rodriguez, 2001). In addition, the rapid change in technology besides creating
techno-uncertainty also means that technology end-users always need to learn new
things and upgrade their skills, which resulted in techno-complexity (Harper, 2000).
According to Ragu-Nathan et al. (2008) techno-overload, techno-invasion, technoinsecurity, techno-complexity, and techno-uncertainty are among the sources of technostressors, known as technostress creators.
56
6.
Conclusion and Recommendations
6.1.
Conclusion
Monat and Lazarus (1991) identified strategies for minimizing effects of technostress
and classified them into two major categories. Emotion focused strategies and problemfocused strategies. “Problem-focused coping refers to the effort to improve the troubled
person–environment relationship by changing things for example, by seeking
information about what to do, by holding back from impulsive and premature actions,
and by confronting the person or persons responsible for one’s difficulty. Emotion
focused (or palliative) coping refers to thoughts or actions whose goal is to relieve the
emotional impact of stress. These are apt to be mainly palliative in the sense that such
strategies of coping do not actually alter the threatening or damaging condition but make
the person feel better. Example are avoiding thinking about the trouble, denying that
anything is wrong, distancing oneself as in joking about what makes one feel distressed
or taking a tranquilizer or attempting to relax” (Monat & Lazarus, 1991). It is not
surprising; given the result of Clute (1998) study that the majority of advice on coping
with technostress is directed at management in organizations. We need to learn new
ways to cope with the constant demand to learn or acquire new skills, meet faster
turnaround times, and be accessible 24 hours a day. The pace of technological
innovation and intrusion into our lives is revolutionary, and there needs to be an
extensive re-thinking of how we relate to technology. Yet managed appropriately,
technology can enhance both the quality and efficiency of everyday life.
The first step in managing technostress is to meet the challenge of technology directly,
and not deny that computers are a part of the library profession (Champion, 1988).
Effective management skills reduce techno stress, and one of the most important things
managers can do in reducing techno stress is to present a positive example. Coping with
stress is a highly individual matter; different people react to stress in different ways, and
therefore the techniques to reduce stress will be individualized. Champion (1988) found
that there are three fundamentals stages to successful techno stress management which
must be considered in adapting to change: “1) how one perceives techno change and
how one interprets it; 2) how one feels about techno change; and 3) how one copes with
techno change”. Failure to recognize that every change imposed by technology
generates varying degrees of techno stress automatically results in the failure to
effectively manage change. The actions of management typically have a great effect on
how technostress impacts an organization. Good practices include setting clear and
reasonable priorities, fostering a culture that values cooperation and is positive about
technology. Key issues include planning, staffing and training. When the introduction of
new technology is in the planning stage, it is very important to involve all staff members
who will be affected by the changes. By involving staff in the planning stage, they can
develop a more positive attitude toward change without feeling threatened (Barlett,
1995). A great deal of technostress can be eliminated by informing staff of planned
changes, as employees deal more effectively with known or expected change. Also,
Brod (1984) suggested technostress reduction by involving the employees during the
programming period, in other words, if the technical support department is working on
developing a new system or program, employees should participate in this phase to
know exactly what the new mechanisms and programs are about and the reason for their
development.
57
Thus, in promoting an understanding of new applications and implementations of
technology there is a reduction of the probabilities of technostress. Also an important
and effective technique in reducing technostress is to provide a technical support
department in the organization that helps employees to solve any problem that they may
face while using technology (Nelson, 1990). In recent times, technology has been
experiencing rapid growth; therefore, hiring technological specialists would encourage
the employees’ to do their job more efficiently knowing that problems could be solved
and that this technical department will also explain some of the complex applications to
the employees and teach them how to utilise the applications in a simple and more
effective way (Clark & Kalin, 1996). Another effective technique is Literacy Facilitation
which is the sharing of knowledge among employees. In this case, a manager can ask his
or her team, even an employee in a lower level/ranking about certain problems in the use
of technology. Thus, encouraging the whole team to share their knowledge eliminates a
sense of embarrassment which may have resulted from the lack of knowledge (RaguNathan, et al., 2011). If technostress is so pervasive or pernicious there might very well
be a mandate to revive that age old cure-all for any forms of human distress; spiritual
practice (or spirituality for short). This means that the most effective antidote for
technostress might be a revival of and a heightened sense of “Techno-Spirituality”. A
number of authors have suggested that this approach might be the best option for
survival in the next Millenium. “According to Bauwens, one of the fundamental aims of
spiritual practise has been to extend human identities, to overcome feelings of
separateness with the rest of mankind, nature, and the Cosmos. Some of the techniques
of spiritual practises could be used to arrive at a more holistic view of technology. In
that sense the act of merging man with technology could be seen as part of a larger
mystical task within the context of the universe” (Bauwens (1995) cited in Shoemaker &
Drommi, 2012).
6.2.
6.2.1.
Recommendations
Work-Life Balance
This concept is about employees achieving a satisfactory equilibrium between work and
non-work activities (flexible working). Work-life balance employment practices are
concerned with providing scope for employees to balance what they do at work with the
responsibilities and interests they have outside work and so reconcile the competing
claims of work and home by meeting their own needs as well as those of their
employers. The term work-life balance has largely replaced ‘family friendly policy’. As
Kodz et al (2002) explained the principle of work-life balance is that: ‘there should be a
balance between an individual’s work and their life outside work, and that this balance
should be healthy’. The IRS (2002) considers that, ‘Flexible working is considered the
most practical solution to establishing an effective work-life balance.’ The term ‘flexible
working’ covers flexi-time, home working, part-time working, compressed working
weeks, annualized hours, job sharing and term-time only working. It also refers to
special leave schemes, which provide employees with the freedom to respond to a
domestic crisis or to take a career break without jeopardizing their employment status.
58
6.2.2.
Use of Stress Inoculation Training (SIT)
Use of stress inoculation training (SIT); Stress Inoculation Training (SIT) emerged out
of an attempt to integrate the research on the role of cognitive and affective factors in
coping processes with the emerging technology of cognitive behavior modification
(Meichenbaum, 1977). People are encouraged to view perceived threats and
provocations as problems-to-be-solved and to identify those aspects of their situations
and reactions that are potentially changeable and those aspects that are not changeable.
They are taught how to "fit" either problem-focus or emotion-focus to the perceived
demands of the stressful situation; e.g., see Folkman et al., 1991. Stress inoculation is a
three stage process; education, rehearsal and application. During the first stage
(education) the person is given a framework for understanding her or his response to
stressful events. During this phase data is collected by the individual; these data could
be collected in the form of a diary as suggested by Greenberg (1990). During second
stage (rehearsal), the person learns how to make cognitive self-statements as a form of
coping and problem solving skills. Examples of coping self-statements can be placed
into the following categories with sample self-statements (from Greenberg, 1990):

Preparing for a stressor--You can develop a plan to deal with it;

Confronting and handling a stressor--One step at a time: You can handle the
situation;

Coping with the feeling of being overwhelmed--Keep the focus on the present;
what is it you have to do?

Reinforcing self-statements--It worked; you did it!
The third stage (application) has the individual use the information and skills learned
during the first two stages (education and rehearsal) in actual stressful situations. Stress
inoculation training has been shown to be an effective stress management technique in a
variety of circumstances (e.g., control of anger, test anxiety, phobias, pain, etc.) and
could be effective in treating technostress.
6.2.3.
Focused Coping Strategies
Organizations should adopt emotion-focused strategies and problem-focused strategies
to minimize technostress. Problem-focused coping strategies have sometimes been
referred to as direct approaches, while emotion-focused coping strategies are indirect
approaches. Emotion-focused coping involves becoming less emotional to stressors and
change in the way an individual perceives a stressor so to influence the resulting
response (Scott, 2014 b). Emotion-focused strategies are used in situations that are
viewed as unchangeable by a person (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985) e.g. structural change
or downsizing, this strategy can aid employees find ways of coping with the stressor.
Problem-focused coping aims at resolving a stressful situation or devising a way of
altering or eradicating the stressor (Carroll, 2013). Adopting these coping strategies in
workplaces can alleviate the impact of stress on employees and businesses.
59
6.3.
Future Research
After concluding analysis, the P-E scale showed very strong correlations with the
GATCS as there was little disparity in technostress victims between both measuring
scales. This study encourages more research to be carried out using the P-E scale to
further compare technostress levels with the GATCS among a different sample group as
it will provide a platform for more conclusive analysis and findings, while also
determining the validity of the P-E scale.
7.
Personal Reflection
7.1.
My Reflection on the Study
I’m very pleased with the findings of this research and its conclusion. The aim and
objectives of this study were achieved. Although there were mental obstacles and
challenges; determination, dedication and perseverance were vital to the completion of
this study. Much knowledge of stress and technostress in workplaces was gained
through the course of this research and a lot of it can be applied in different situations I
might encounter. My intention at the start of this study was to gain academic knowledge
through completing my final year dissertation but I have gained much more in the form
of resilience and tenacity which only helps prepare me for post university life. Overall, I
can say the various challenges encountered on course to completing this study has been
rewarding.Although completing this study was very positive on a personal level, I feel I
struggled in certain areas. The subject of this study and its comprising elements proved
to be very broad, so sorting between sources and the data for my literature review
proved to be one of my toughest challenges. I would’ve liked to get a larger response
group and also participants from more countries so to have more diverse responses.
Engaging some organizations to take part in the survey would have further strengthened
any correlations discovered. Finally, I feel interacting with my fellow students who were
working on the same subject could’ve given me more ideas for this study.
7.2.
What I Would Do Differently
Devise a plan on how to sort through the vast information sources available.
Spend even more time researching and gathering sources,
Find a way to get organizations involved in the survey
Find a way to get participants from more nationalities involved in the survey
Interact more with my fellow students working on the same research topic.
60
8.
Bibliography
Adams, C., 2014. Ergo 101 - What is Ergonomics. [Online]
Available at: http://ergonomics.about.com/od/ergonomicbasics/a/ergo101.htm
[Accessed 5 June 2014].
Aida, R., Azlina, A. & N.S., B., 2007. Techno Stress: A Study Among Academic and
Non-Academic Staff. Ergonomics and Health Aspects, pp. 118-124.
Alapati, A., 2013. General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS) – Stages, Phases, Treatment.
[Online]
Available at: http://syndromespedia.com/general-adaptation-syndrome-gas-stagesphases.html
[Accessed 22 May 2014].
American Psychological Association and American Institute of Stress, 2013. Stress
Statistics. [Online]
Available at: http://www.statisticbrain.com/stress-statistics/
[Accessed 9 June 2014].
American Psychological Association, 2014. Stress in the Workplace. [Online]
Available at: https://www.apa.org/helpcenter/workplace-stress.aspx
[Accessed 13 May 2014].
Anthony, L., Clarke, M. & Anderson, S., 2000. Technophobia and Personality Subtypes
in a Sample of South African University Students. Computers in Human Behavior,
16(1), pp. 31-44.
Anthony, L., Clarke, M. & Anderson, S., 2000. Technophobia and Personality Subtypes
in a Sample of South African University's Students. Journal of Natal University, 16(1),
pp. 31-44.
Ayyagari, R., Grover, V. & Purvis, R., 2011. TECHNOSTRESS: TECHNOLOGICAL
ANTECEDENTS. MIS Quarterly, 35(4).
Bala, M., 2005. Online Rsearch Methods Resource for Teachers and Trainers. [Online]
Available at: http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/researchmethods/Modules/Data_analysis/
[Accessed 19 June 2014].
Barlett, V., 1995. Technostress and Libarians. Library Administration and Management,
Volume 9.
Baron, R. C. & Salzer, M. S., 2002. Disability, Public Policy, and Employment.
Behavioral Sciences and the Law Special Issue, 20(6), p. 133.
Belfiore, M., 2014. When robots take our jobs, humans will be the new 1%. Here's how
to fight back. [Online]
Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/22/robot-jobshumans-used-to-do-fight-back
[Accessed 27 July 2014].
61
Bhattacharya, S. & Basu, J., 2007. Distress, Wellness and Organizational Role Stress
among IT. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 33(2), pp. 169-178.
Bhattacharya, S. & Basu, J., 2007. Distress, Wellness and Organizational Role Stress
among IT Professionals: Role of Life Events and Coping Resources. Journal of the
Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 33(2), pp. 169-178.
Brock University, 2010. Eustress vs Distress. [Online]
Available at: http://www.brocku.ca/health-services/health-education/stress/eustressdistress
[Accessed 1 June 2014].
Brod, C., 1984. TECHNOSTRESS: The Human Cost of the Computer Revolution.
Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Bryce, T., 2007. The Adverse Effects of Technology. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/117648/technology/the_adverse_effects_of
_technology.html
[Accessed 15 May 2014].
Cafferty, J., 2011. Technology Replacing Personal Interactions at What Cost?. [Online]
Available at: http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/03/technology-replacingpersonal-interactions-at-what-cost/
[Accessed 6 May 2014].
CalmClinic, 2014. Stress and Anxiety. [Online]
Available at: http://www.calmclinic.com/stress-anxiety
[Accessed 9 June 2014].
Caplan, R. D., 1987. Person-Environment Fit Theory and Organizations: Commensurate
Dimensions, Time Perspectives, and Mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Volume 31, pp. 248-267.
Carlson, C., 2003. Information Overload, Retrieval Strategies and Internet User
Empowerment, Gottingen: s.n.
Caro, D. H. J. & Sethi, A. S., 1985. Strategic Management of Technostress. Journal of
Medical Systems, 9(5-6), pp. 291-304.
Carroll, L., 2013. Problem-Focused Coping. Encylopedia of Behavioral Medicine, pp.
1540-1541.
Champion, S., 1988. Technology's Toll. School Library Journal, 48(51).
Cherry, K., 2014. The Incentive Theory of Motivation: Are Actions Motivated by a
Desire for Rewards?. [Online]
Available at: http://psychology.about.com/od/motivation/a/incentive-theory-ofmotivation.htm
[Accessed 3 June 2014].
Clark, K. & Kalin, S., 1996. Technostressed Out? How to Cope in the Digital Age.
University of Toledo Library Journal, 21(8), pp. 30-32.
62
Clute, A., 1998. Technostress: A Content Analysis. Kent: Kent State University.
Cohen, H.-Y., 2012. What is Artificial Intelligence?. [Online]
Available at: http://www.aboutintelligence.co.uk/what-artificial-intelligence.html
[Accessed 27 July 2014].
Cohen, S., Deverts, D. & Miller, G. E., 2007. Psychological Stress and Disease. JAMA,
298(14), pp. 1685-1687.
Cohen, S., Evans, G. W., Stokols, D. & Krantz, D. S., 1986. Behavior, Health and
Environmental Stress. 1986 Edition ed. s.l.:Springer.
Cooper, C. & Kelly, M., 1984. Stress among crane operators. Journal of Occupational
Medicine, 26(8), pp. 575-578.
Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. S. & O'Driscoll, M. P., 2001. Organizational stress: A review
and critique of theory, research, and applications.. California: Sage.
Cooper, C. L. & Marshall, J., 1976. Sources of Managerial and White Collar Stress,
New York: John Wiler & Sons.
Cooper, C. L. M. J., 1977. Understanding Executive Stress. s.l.:PBI.
Cooper, C. & Roden, J., 1985. Mental health and satisfaction among tax officers. Social
Science and Medicine, 21(7), pp. 747-751.
CSHS, 2014. What is Stress. [Online]
Available at: http://www.humanstress.ca/stress/what-is-stress/stressors.html
[Accessed 15 May 2014].
Dougherty, J., 2013. Is Social Media the Biggest WorkPlace Distraction?. [Online]
Available at: http://www.socialmediatoday.com/content/social-media-biggestworkplace-distraction-infographic
[Accessed 27 July 2014].
Duval, J., 2013. How Technology Gives Small Businesses a Fighting Chance Against
Retail Giants. [Online]
Available at:
http://customerthink.com/how_technology_gives_small_businesses_a_fighting_chance_
against_retail_giants/
[Accessed 14 May 2014].
Easterbrook, J. A., 1959. The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of
behavior. s.l.:Psychological review.
Easterbrook, J. A., 1959. The Effect of Emotion on Cue Utilization and the Organization
of Behavior. Psychological Review, Volume 66, pp. 187-201.
Edwards, J. R., Caplan, R. D. & Harrison, R. V., 1998. Person-Environment Fit Theory:
Conceptual Foundations, Empirical Evidence, and Directions for Future Research. In:
Theories of Organizational Stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 28-67.
63
Edwards, J. R. & Cooper, C. L., 1990. The Person-Environment Fit Approach to Stress:
Recurring Problems and Some Suggested Solutions. Journal Of Organizational
Behaviour, Volume 11, pp. 293-307.
Folkman, S. et al., 1991. Translating Coping Theory into an Intervention. In: The Social
Context of Coping. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 239-261.
Folkman, S. & Lazarus, R. S., 1985. If It Changes, It Must Be a Process: Study of
Emotion and Coping During Three Stages of a College Exam. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 48(1), pp. 150-170.
Foster, C., 2013. Organisational Psychology - Person-Environment Fit in
Organizational Settings. [Online]
Available at: http://organisationdevelopment.org/organisational-psychology-personenvironment-fit-in-organizational-settings/
[Accessed 14 May 2014].
French, J. & Caplan, R., 1973. 'Organisational stress and individual strain' in, 'The
failure of success'. New York: Amacon.
Gabriel, G., 2013. Hans Selye: The Discovery of Stress. [Online]
Available at: http://brainconnection.brainhq.com/2013/04/05/hans-selye-the-discoveryof-stress/
[Accessed 28 May 2014].
Ganly, S., 2010. Person-Environment Fit Theory in Organizational Psychology.
[Online]
Available at: http://voices.yahoo.com/person-environment-fit-theory-organizationalpsychology-7013372.html?cat=3
[Accessed 5 June 2014].
General Statistics, No, Date. Regression and Correlation. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.pindling.org/Math/Statistics/Textbook/Chapter3_Regression_Correlation/Ch
apter3_Regres_Corr_Overview.htm
[Accessed 31 July 2014].
Greenberg, J. S., 1990. Comprehensive Stress Management. 3rd ed. Iowa: W.C. Brown
Publishers.
Haas, E., 2010. 7 Kinds of Stress. [Online]
Available at: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/7-kinds-of-stress.html
[Accessed 8 May 2014].
Hans, S., 1956. The Stress of Life. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Harper, S., 2000. Managing technostress in UK Libraries: A realistic guide.. [Online]
Available at: http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue25/technostress
[Accessed 4 August 2014].
Hart, K. E., 1990. Introducing Stress and Stress Management to Managers. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 5(2), pp. 9-16.
64
Harvard Medical School, 2011. Understanding the Stress Response. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2011/March/
understanding-the-stress-response
[Accessed 21 May 2014].
Health and Safety Executive, 2013. Costs to Britain of Workplace fatalities and SelfReported Injuries and Ill Health, 2010/2011, s.l.: s.n.
Healthline, 2012. The Basics of Stress. [Online]
Available at: http://www.healthline.com/health/stress
[Accessed 12 May 2014].
Heinssen Jnr, R. K., Glass, C. R. & Knight, L. A., 1987. Assessing computer anxiety:
Development and validation of the Computer Anxiety Rating Scale. Computers in
Human Behavior. vol3 edition1 ed. s.l.:Elsevier.
Hogan, M., 2009. Age Differences in Technophobia: An Irish Study. Information
Systems Development, Volume 1, pp. 117-130.
HSE, 2012. Stress-related and psychological disorders in Great Britain. [Online]
Available at: http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/stress/index.htm
[Accessed 13 May 2014].
ILO, 1986. Psycosocial Factors at Work: Recognition and Control. Report of the joint
ILO/WHO Committee on Occupational Health , Geneva: International Labour
Organization.
ISMA, 2014. Facts About Stress. [Online]
Available at: http://www.isma.org.uk/about-stress/facts-about-stress/#.U6HZrvldWSp
[Accessed 12 May 2014].
Jamieson, J. P., Mendes, W. B. & Nock, M. K., 2012. Improving Acute Stress
Responses:. Association for Psychological Science.
Karasek, R. & Theorell, T., 1990. Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity and the
Reconstruction of Working Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kasl, S. V., 1978. Epidemiological contributions to the study of work stress. New York:
Wiley.
Katz, H., 2006. Global surveys or multi-national surveys? On sampling for global
surveys. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.global.ucsb.edu/orfaleacenter/conferences/ngoconference/Katz_for-UCSBdata-workshop.pdf
[Accessed 25 June 2014].
Khanna, D., 2013. We Need More Women In Tech: The Data That Proves It. [Online]
Available at: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/we-need-morewomen-in-tech-the-data-prove-it/280964/
[Accessed 28 July 2014].
65
Kodz, J., Hraper, H. & Dench, S., 2002. Work-Life Balance: Beyond the Rhetoric,
Brighton: The Institue of Employment Studies.
Kornhauser, A., 1965. Mental Health of the Industrial Worker. New York: Wiley.
Koster, O., 2014. Why Using a Computer Can Cause Depression. [Online]
Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-153281/Why-using-causedepression.html
[Accessed 27 July 2014].
Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C. & Sheep, M. L., 2009. Balancing Borders and Bridges:
Negotiating the Work-Home Interface via Boundary Work Tactics. Academy of
Management Journal, 52(4), p. 704.
Kupersmith, J., 1992. Technostress and the Reference Libarian. Reference Services,
Volume 20, pp. 7-14.
Laerd Statistics, 2013. Pearson Product-Moment Correlation. [Online]
Available at: https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/pearson-correlationcoefficient-statistical-guide.php
[Accessed 30 July 2014].
Lamb, D. H., 1979. 13. On the distinction between physical and psychological stressors
– a review of the Evidence. Motivation and Emotion, 3(1).
Lazarus, R. S., 1993. FROM PSYCHOLOGICAL STRESS TO THE EMOTIONS: A
History of Changing Outlooks. Annual Reviews, Volume 44, pp. 1-21.
Le Fevre, M., Matheny, J. & Kolt, G. S., 2003. Eustress, Distress and Interpretation in
Occupational Stress. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(7), pp. 726-744.
Mahmood, K., 2003. A comparison between needed competencies of academic
librarians and LIS Curricula in Pakistan. The Electronic Library, 21(2), pp. 99-102.
Margolis, B., Kroes, W. & Quinn, R., 1974. Job stress,an unlisted occupational hazard.
Journal of Occupational Medicine, 1(16), pp. 659-661.
Markus, L. M. & Robey, D., 1988. Information Technology and Organizational Change:
Casual Structure in Theory and Research. Management Science, 34(5), pp. 583-598.
Martin, B., 2006. Fight-Flight. [Online]
Available at: http://psychcentral.com/lib/fight-or-flight/00030
[Accessed 28 May 2014].
Matteson, M. T. & Ivancevich, J. M., 1987. Controlling Work Stress: Effective Resource
and Management Strategies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McGrath, J., 2012. How has Technology Changed the Way We Conduct Business?.
[Online]
Available at: http://money.howstuffworks.com/technology-changed-business.htm
[Accessed 10 June 2014].
66
McLeod, S., 2010. What is the Stress Response. [Online]
Available at: http://www.simplypsychology.org/stress-biology.html
[Accessed 10 May 2014].
Meichenbaum, D., 1977. Cognitive behavioral modification: An integrative approach..
New York: Plenum Press.
Melchionda, M. G., 2007. Librarians in the Age of the Internet: Their Attitudes and
Roles.. New Library World, 108(4), pp. 123-140.
Mercer, C., 2014. What Is "Role Conflict" in Organizations?. [Online]
Available at: http://www.ehow.com/about_6304551__role-conflict_organizations_.html
[Accessed 4 June 2014].
Michie, S., 2002. Causes and Management of Stress at Work. [Online]
Available at: http://oem.bmj.com/content/59/1/67.long
[Accessed 30 May 2014].
Midgley, S., 1996. Pressure Points: Managing Job Stress. Journal Of People
Management, 3(14), p. 36.
Mikulin, R., 2013. Eustress Facts. [Online]
Available at: http://www.life123.com/health/stress-management/stress-managementtechniques/eustress-facts.shtml
[Accessed 13 May 2014].
Miles, R. H. & Perreault, W. D., 1976. Organizational Role Conflicts: Its Atecedants
andConsequences. Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 17(1), pp. 1944.
Mitcheson, L. et al., 2010. Applied Cognitive and Behavioral Approaches to the
Treatment of Addiction. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Mlotshwa, N., 2013. In what Ways Do People Respond To Technology?. [Online]
Available at: http://computing.derby.ac.uk/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2014/01/Mlotswa-Technology-Induced-Stress.pdf
[Accessed 30 May 2014].
Monat, A. & Lazarus, R. S., 1991. Stress and Coping: Some Current Issues and
Controversies. 3rd ed. New York: Columbia University Press.
Moyer, M. W., 2010. The Good Side of Stress. [Online]
Available at: http://www.oprah.com/health/Benefits-of-Stress-Dealing-with-Stress
[Accessed 10 May 2014].
Murphy, L. R. & Schoeborn, T. F., 1987. Stress Management in Work Setting. National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
Muthayya, N., 2002. Human Physiology. 3rd ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical
Publishers.
67
Nauhton, J., 2014. It's No Joke-The Robots Will Really Take Over This Time. [Online]
Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/27/no-joke-robotstaking-over-replace-middle-classes-automatons
[Accessed 27 July 2014].
Nelson, D. L., 1990. Individual adjustment to information-driven technologies: A
critical review. MIS Quart, 14(1), pp. 79-98.
NSW HSC, 2014. Factors Affecting Performance. [Online]
Available at: http://www.hsc.csu.edu.au/pdhpe/core2/focus2/focus2/4021/fac2_2_2.htm
[Accessed 10 May 2014].
Oak, M., 2012. What is the Impact of Technology on Our Society?. [Online]
Available at: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-is-the-impact-of-technology-on-oursociety.html
[Accessed 9 June 2014].
Oates, B. J., 2006. Researching Information Systems and Computing. London: Sage
Publications.
Parker, M. M. & Ettinger, R., 2007. Emotion and Stress. In: Understanding Psychology.
California: Horizon TextBook Publishing, pp. 325-361.
Poole, C. E. & Denny, E., 2001. Technological Change in the Workplace: A Statewide
Survey of Community College Library and Learning Resources Personnel.. College and
Research Libraries.
Prensky, M., 2001. Digital Migrants. Digital Game Based Learning. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Prystanski, K., 2012. Tehcnostress and Multitasking. [Online]
Available at: http://www.sjcg.net/documents/newsletters/for-yourinformation/FYI_2012-spring.pdf
[Accessed 30 May 2014].
PsychCentral, 2014. Acute Stress Disorders. [Online]
Available at: http://psychcentral.com/disorders/acute-stress-disorder-symptoms/
[Accessed 1 June 2014].
Quick, J. C., Murphy, L. R. & Hurrell, J. J. J., 1992. Stress & Well-Being at Work:
Assessments and Interventions for Occupational Mental Health. Washignton DC:
American Psychological Association.
Quinn, B. A., 2000. Overcoming Technostress in Reference Services to Adult Learners.
The Reference Libarian, 33(69-70), pp. 49-62.
Ragu-Nathan, S., Tarafdar.M, Ragu-Nathan, B. & Tu.Q, 2011. Crossing to the Dark
Side: Examining Creators, Outcomes, and Inhibitors of Technostress. Communications
of the ACM, 54(9), pp. 113-120.
Ragu-Nathan, T., Moindeepa, T. & Ragu-Nathan, B. S., 2008. The consequences of
technostress for end users in organizations: Conceptual development and empirical
validation, Infromation Systems Research. [Online]
68
Available at: http://inn.colorado.edu/Details/Variable/25749?databaseId=20261c28fa1e-4448-a1ab-9fd301759859
[Accessed 1 June 2014].
Ramazan, M., 2004. Effects of IT utilization and knowledge on librarians’ IT attitude.
The Electronic Library, 22(5), pp. 440-447.
Ramirez, A., Graham, J. & Richards, M. C. A. G. W., 1996. Mental health of hospital
consultants: the effects of stress and satisfaction at work.. Medline, 347(9003), pp. 724850.
Ram, N. et al., 2011. Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity as Factors in Work Stress
among Managers: A Case Study of Manufacturing Sector in Pakistan. Asian Social
Science, 7(2).
Rifkin, J., No Date. New Technology And The End Of Jobs. [Online]
Available at: http://www.converge.org.nz/pirm/nutech.htm
[Accessed 27 July 2014].
Rogers, J. L., 2012. Customer Surveys: 5 Things You Need To Know. [Online]
Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/customer-surveys-5-thingsyou-need-to-know_n_1263811.html
[Accessed 24 June 2014].
Rosch, P. J., 1991. Job Stress: America's Leading Adult Health Problem. USA
Magazine.
Rosen, L. & Weil, M., 1992. Measuring Technophobia. A manual for the administration
and scoring of three instruments: Computer Anxiety Rating Scale (Form C), General
Attitudes Toward Computers Scale (Form C) and Computer Thoughts Survey (Form C),
Volume California State Universiy.
Rosen, L. & Weil, M., 1995. Computer Availability, Computer Experience and
Technophobia Among Public School Teachers. Computer on Human Behavior, 11(1),
pp. 9-31.
Ross, R. R. & Altmaier, E. M., 1994. Intervention in Occupational Stress. 1st ed.
California: Sage Publications.
Sallis, J. & Hovell, M., 1990. Determinants of Exercise Behaviour. Exercise and Sports
Sciences Reviews, Volume 18, pp. 307-330.
Samartha, V., Lokesh & Karkera, A., 2010. Impact of Occupational Stress on Employee
Performance in Banks - An Emperical Story. Academic Journal, 14(1), p. 65.
Schenck, L., 2011. Eustress v Distress. [Online]
Available at: http://www.mindfulnessmuse.com/stress-reduction/eustress-vs-distress
[Accessed 2 June 2014].
Schuler, R. S., 1977. Role conflict and ambiguity as a function of the task—structure—
technology interaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20(1), pp.
66-74.
69
Schuler, R. S., 1977. 'Role Conflict and Ambiguity as a Function of the Task-StructureTechnology Interaction'. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20(1), pp.
60-74.
Schuler, R. S., 1984. Organizational Stress and Coping: A Model and Overview.
Cambridge: Ballinger.
Scott, E., 2014 b. Emotion-Focused Coping Techniques for Stress Relief. [Online]
Available at: http://stress.about.com/od/stressmanagementglossary/g/Emotion-FocusedCoping-Techniques-For-Stress-Relief.htm
[Accessed 6 August 2014].
Scott, E., 2014. Eustress. [Online]
Available at: http://stress.about.com/od/stressmanagementglossary/g/Eustress.htm
[Accessed 13 May 2014].
Selye, H., 1937. Studies on Adaptation. Endocrinology, 21(2), pp. 169-188.
Selye, H., 1947. TextBook of Endocrinology. 2nd ed. Montreal: Acta Endocrinologica.
Selye, H., 1950. Stress and the General Adaptation Syndrome. British Medical Journal,
pp. 1383-1392.
Selye, H., 1956. The Stress of Life. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Selye, H., 1976. The Stress of Life. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shoemaker, D. W. M. & Drommi, T., 2012. TechnoSpirit, the Future Cure of
Technostress. [Online]
Available at: http://www.ru.org/spirituality/technospirit-the-future-cure-fortechnostress.html
[Accessed 6 August 2014].
Shu, Q., Tu, Q. & Wang, K., 2011. The Impact of Computer Self-Efficacy and
Technology Dependence on Computer-Related Stress: A Social Cognitive Theory
Perspective. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 27(10), pp. 923939.
Simons, S., 2010. Technology Destroys Interpersonal Relationship. [Online]
Available at: http://www.collegiatetimes.com/opinion/columnists/article_9af9d508244c-5cdf-9bbf-312152f682f4.html
[Accessed 28 July 2014].
Singer, J., No Date. Stress. [Online]
Available at: http://www.evancarmichael.com/Productivity/5853/Distress-and-EustressDo-You-Know-the-Difference.html
[Accessed 13 May 2014].
Skeem, D., 2007. Managing Technostress. [Online]
Available at: http//ww2.hawaii.edu/-dainan/papers/technostress.pdf
[Accessed 5 August 2014].
70
Skues, J. & Kirby, R., 1995. Women in the Workforce: Gender Differences in
Occupational Sress and Coping. Psychological Health in the Workplace, pp. 217-232.
Slowik, G., 2013. What is Stress. [Online]
Available at: http://ehealthmd.com/content/what-stress#axzz34iHzdsHU
[Accessed 9 June 2014].
Sonya, G. S., 2003. The Relationship between Computer Skills and the Level of
Technostress Faculty and Academic Libarians from Selected Institutions within the
University System of Georgia. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Georgia Southern
University.
Southern Cross Health Group, 2013. Stress - Causes, Symptoms, Diagnosis. [Online]
Available at:
https://www.southerncross.co.nz/AboutTheGroup/HealthResources/MedicalLibrary/tabi
d/178/vw/1/ItemID/115/Stress-causes-symptoms-diagnosis.aspx
[Accessed 9 May 2014].
Sridykhan, M., 2013. Technology Can Damage Our Social Skills. [Online]
Available at: http://www.hawknews.org/25/post/2013/03/technology-can-damage-oursocial-skills.html
[Accessed 28 July 2014].
Stillman, J., 2014. Bored At Work? Good. [Online]
Available at: http://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman/bored-at-work-good.html
[Accessed 28 July 2014].
Sutherland, V. J. & Cooper, C. L., 1990. Understanding Stress: A psychological
perspective for health professionals. 1st ed. London: Chapman and Hall.
Sutherland, V. J. & Cooper, C. L., 2000. Strategic Stress Management: An
Organizational Approach. New York: Palgrave Publishers Limited.
Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, B. S. & Ragu-Nathan, T., 2007. The Impact of
Technostress on Role Stress and Productivity, s.l.: s.n.
The Economist, 2010. In Praise of Techno-Austerity. [Online]
Available at: http://www.economist.com/node/16321516
[Accessed 31 May 2014].
Tseng, T., 2011. Stress Types. [Online]
Available at: http://www.symptomfind.com/diseases-conditions/stress-types/
[Accessed 24 May 2014].
Vakola, M. & Nikolaou, I., 2005. Attitudes Towards Organizational Change: What is
the Role of Employees’ Stress and Commitment?. Employee Relations, 27(2), pp. 160174.
Vieitez, J. C., Carcia, A. D. L. T. & Rodriguez, M. T. V., 2001. Perception of Job
Security in a Process of Technological Change: Its Influence on Psychological WellBeing. Behavior and Information Technology, 20(3), pp. 213-223.
Wallace, M., Levens, M. & Singer, G., 1988. Blue Collar Stress. New York: Wiley.
71
Walonick, D. S., 1993. Causes and Cures of Stress in Organizations. [Online]
Available at: http://www.statpac.org/walonick/organizational-stress.htm
[Accessed 9 May 2014].
Weil, A., 2011. Spontaneous Happiness: Step by Step to Peak Emotional Wellbeing.
London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Weil, M. & Rosen, L., 1997. TechnoStress: Coping With
Technology@Work@Home@Play. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Weinberg, A., Sutherland, V. J. & Cooper, C., 2010. Organizational Stress
Management: A Strategic Approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Weiss, M., 1983. Effects of Work Stress and Social Support on Information Systems
Managers. MIS Quarterly, 7(1), pp. 29-43.
Wijk, C. & Kolk, A., 1997. “Sex Differences in Physical Symptoms: The Contribution
of Symptom Perception Theory. Social Science and Medicine, 45(2), pp. 231-246.
Writing, A., 2014. What are The Advantages Of Computers In Business. [Online]
Available at: http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-computers-business-473.html
[Accessed 27 July 2014].
72
9.
Appendices
9.1.
Demographic Questions
1) What is your gender?
a) Male
b) Female
c) No answer
2) What is your age?
a) 0-19
b) 20-34
c) 35-49
d) 50 and above
e) Do not wish to specify
3) What’s your ethnic background?
a) Arab
b) Asian
c) Black
d) Caucasian
e) Hispanic
f) Other
4) Where do you live?
a) Africa
b) Asia
c) Europe
73
d) North America
e) South America
f) Other
5) What is your educational level?
a) Elementary
b) High School
c) Diploma
d) College
e) Postgraduate
f) Other
9.2.
Unmodified Person-Environment Fit Instrument
(Questions scored negatively=> Needs-Supplies Fit: Question 2; Subject-Objective Fit:
Question 3; Person-Environment Fit: Questions 1 and 4).
Needs-Supplies Fit Questions
1) My work encourages me to upgrade my specialized skills?
a. Strongly Agree
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
2) My specialization requires the use of technology?
a. Strongly Agree
74
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
3) The use of computers makes my job more exciting?
a. Strongly Agree
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
4) I am provided with the required technology for my role/work?
a. Strongly Agree
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
5) I enjoy the need for me to constantly upgrade my computer skills and
knowledge?
a. Strongly Agree
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
Abilities-Demands Fit Questions
1) I possess the technological skills to meet with work demands?
a. Strongly Agree
b.
75
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
2) I can get the computer to do what I want?
a. Strongly Agree
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
3) Sufficient time is provided to get familiar with new technologies at work?
a. Strongly Agree
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
4) I can keep up with new technologies introduced at my workplace?
a. Strongly Agree
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
5) I do not feel overwhelmed by the various technologies available?
a. Strongly Agree
b.
76
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
Subjective-Objective Fit Questions
1) I find it necessary to acquire technological skills?
a. Strongly Agree
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
2) The objective of my role at work is clear enough?
a. Strongly Agree
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
3) My efficiency at work is increased by the aid of technology?
a. Strongly Agree
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
4) My work provides adequate technological support?
a. Strongly Agree
77
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
5) The presence of technology hasn’t increased my workload?
a. Strongly Agree
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
Person-Environment Fit Questions
1) My work environment compels me to interact with technology?
a. Strongly Agree
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
2) I feel at ease when surrounded with technology?
a. Strongly Agree
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
3) Technology is not a major source of my discomfort at work?
78
a. Strongly Agree
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
4) I welcome the regular technological changes at work?
a. Strongly Agree
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
5) How confident are you with computers/technology?
a. Strongly Agree
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
Issue with Technology
1) What is your major concern with technology?
a.
Complexity
b.
Intrusion
c.
Constant change
d.
Overdependence
e.
Fear of computers taking over
79
9.3.
Modified Person-Environment Questionnaire
(Questions scored negatively=> Needs-Supplies Fit: Question 2; Subject-Objective Fit:
Question 3).
Needs-Supplies Fit Questions
1)
My work encourages me to upgrade my specialized skills?
a. Strongly Agree
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
2) My specialization requires the use of technology?
a. Strongly Agree
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
3) The use of computers makes my job more exciting?
a. Strongly Agree
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
4) I am provided with the required technology for my role/work?
a. Strongly Agree
80
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
5) I enjoy the need for me to constantly upgrade my computer skills and
knowledge?
a. Strongly Agree
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
Abilities-Demands Fit Questions
1)
I possess the technological skills to meet with work demands?
a. Strongly Agree
2)
81
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
I can get the computer to do what I want?
a.
Strongly Agree
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
3)
Sufficient time is provided to get familiar with new technologies at work?
Strongly Agree
4)
a.
Agree
b.
Neutral
c.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
I can keep up with new technologies introduced at my workplace?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
5).
I do not feel overwhelmed by the various technologies available?
a.
Strongly Agree
b.
Agree
c.
Neutral
d.
Disagree
e.
Strongly Disagree
Subjective-Objective Fit Questions
1)
I find it necessary to acquire technological skills?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
82
e. Strongly Disagree
2)
The objective of my role at work is clear enough?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
3)
My efficiency at work is increased by the aid of technology?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
4)
My work provides adequate technological support?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
5)
The presence of technology hasn’t increased my workload?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Disagree
83
Issue with Technology
1) What is your major concern with technology?
a. Complexity
b. Intrusion
c. Constant change
d. Overdependence
e. Fear of computers taking over
84
GATCS – Form C
1. Computers can save people a lot of work?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Agree
2. It takes a good maths background to learn to use a computer?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Agree
3
You need to know how to use a computer to get a good job?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Agree
4
Computers can help solve society’s problems?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Agree
5
85
Computers are taking over?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Agree
6
Computers can increase control over your life?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Agree
7
Computers increase the amount of time we have for other activities?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Agree
8
Men are better with computers than women?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Agree
9
Computers may eventually act independently of people?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
86
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Agree
10 In the future, there will still be jobs which do not require computer skills?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Agree
11 Computers are good teaching tools?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Agree
12 Use of computers can cause physical health problems?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Agree
13 Computers prepare students for the future?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Agree
14 Computers are taking jobs away from people?
a. Strongly Agree
87
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Agree
15 Some ethnic groups are better with computers than others?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Agree
16 There is an overemphasis on computer education in this society?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Agree
17 Computers can ruin interpersonal relationships?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Agree
18 In five years, everyone will need to know how to operate a computer?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Agree
88
19 Computers create new jobs for people?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Agree
20 Computers will never be smarter than people?
a. Strongly Agree
b. Agree
c. Neutral
d. Disagree
e. Strongly Agree
89