See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7165535

Testing a measure of cyberloafing

Article in Journal of allied health · February 2006

Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

35 612

3 authors, including:

Gary Blau
Temple University
138 PUBLICATIONS 4,093 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gary Blau on 31 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Testing a Measure of Cyberloafing
Gary Blau, PhD
Yang Yang
Kory Ward-Cook, PhD [Author: Please list degree[s] for Yang Yang.]
Using a primary sample of medical technologists (MTs) and
a second validation sample, the results of this study showed
initial support for a three-factor measure of cyberloafing.
The three scales were labeled browsing-related, non-work-
related e-mail, and interactive cyberloafing. MTs who per-
ceived unfair treatment in their organization (i.e., lower
organizational justice) were more likely to exhibit all three
types of cyberloafing. MTs who did not care as much about
punctuality and attendance (i.e., higher time abuse) were
more likely to display browsing-related and non-work-
related e-mail cyberloafing. Finally, MTs who perceived an
inability to control their work environment (i.e., power-
lessness) were more likely to display interactive cyberloaf-
ing. Study limitations and suggestions for future research
are discussed. J Allied Health 2006; 35:9–17.
THE INTERNET has been well recognized as playing a crit-
ical role in helping many companies to reduce costs,
shorten product cycle times, and market products and serv-
ices more efficiently.1 It is also recognized, however, that
the Internet serves as a double-edged sword for businesses in
that it opens up new opportunities for employees to “loaf”
on the job,2,3 by providing access to what Anandarajan4
called the “world’s biggest playground.” According to a
survey by Vault.com,5 90% of the employees surveyed
admitted to surfing or browsing recreational sites during
office hours and 84% said they sent personal e-mail from
work. Surfwatch software has estimated that nearly one
third of American workers’ time on the Internet is spent
“cheating the boss out of real work.”5 A literature search
indicated that the term “cyberloafing” or “wasting time on
the Internet while at work” was initially used by Frook.6
Dr. Blau is Chair of the Human Resource Management Department,
Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Dr. Yang is ■■■■■,
University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada; and Dr. Ward-
Cook is Executive Director of the Board of Registry, American Society for
Clinical Pathology, Chicago, Illinois.
Received January 21, 2004; revision accepted August 2, 2004.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Gary Blau, PhD, HRA
Department, 384 Speakman Hall, Temple University, 1810 North 13th
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19122. Tel 215-204-6906; fax xxx-xxx-xxxx; e-
mail gblau@1temple.edu. [Author: Please list your fax #?]
9
Since then, cyberloafing has become an important
employee issue for many companies. In a survey of 224
organizations in the United States, almost all of these
organizations had Internet access policies (IAPs) outlining
appropriate and inappropriate use of the Internet at work.7
By contrast, in Singapore, fewer organizations have such
IAPs.3 Despite the prevalence of these IAPs, more than
60% of these companies had disciplined employees for
inappropriate uses such as accessing pornography, online
chatting, gaming, investing, or shopping at work.7 The pur-
pose of this study is to further explore the construct of
cyberloafing2 by testing an expanded version of an online
survey cyberloafing measure initially used by Lim et al.2,3
Construct Definition
Lim2 has defined cyberloafing as “misuse of the internet,
i.e., any voluntary act of employees’ using their companies’
internet access during office hours to surf non-job related
web sites for personal purposes and to check personal e-
mail.” This definition is similar to but more comprehensive
than definitions offered by others.4,6 The literature on
cyberloafing to date clearly assumes that cyberloafing is a
proscribed employee behavior that must be monitored and
controlled by organizations through IAPs.4,7,8
It can be argued that cyberloafing is embedded in the
larger construct of employee workplace deviant behavior,
which is broadly defined as “voluntary behavior that vio-
lates significant organizational norms.”9 Robinson and Ben-
nett’s typology of deviant workplace behavior (DWB) con-
sists of four quadrants, arranged on two dimensions, from
minor to serious and from interpersonal to organizational.9
There are labels for each quadrant: minor, organizational is
labeled “production deviance”; serious, organizational is
labeled “property deviance”; minor, interpersonal is labeled
“political deviance”; and serious, interpersonal is labeled
“personal aggression.” Lim classified cyberloafing in the
production deviance quadrant9 because cyberloafing behav-
iors take away time from employee productivity.2 Specific
noncyberloafing behaviors within this production deviance
quadrant include employees making personal calls, coming
in late or leaving early, and wasting company resources.9
However, Bennett and Robinson10 did not formally meas-
ure cyberloafing in the measure of DWB that they subse-
quently developed.
 Lim2 found a two-factor measure of cyberloafing in her
study of 188 working adults in Singapore. She labeled factor
1 “browsing activities,” which consisted of eight items, for
example, browsing sports-related Web sites, investment-
related Web sites, general news sites, and adult-oriented
(sexually explicit) Web sites. The second factor was labeled
“e-mailing activities,” which consisted of three items:
checking, sending, and receiving non–work-related e-mail.
Surprisingly, however, Lim2 did not keep these factors sep-
arate in subsequent analyses. Instead, she combined all 11
items together into one general cyberloafing scale, which
had a reliability of 0.88. Lim’s2 cyberloafing scale was the
only previously tested measure found in a literature search.
An Expanded Cyberloafing Construct
within the DWB Typology
Additional examples of cyberloafing behavior found in the
literature include moonlighting (using the Internet to gain
additional income), posting messages, downloading
non–work-related information, using chat rooms, and game
playing.8,11,12 These examples fit within Lim’s2 general defi-
nition of cyberloafing (misuse of the Internet) yet were not
incorporated into her initial scale. All types of cyberloafing
behaviors involve the employee sitting in a chair and star-
ing at their computer screen. However, these latter cyber-
loafing items generally require more synchronous virtual or
live interaction, either with other people or the software
technology.13 In order to post messages, download informa-
tion, play games, or use a chat room, the user is typically
required to have greater interaction either with the soft-
ware or other users. Such “interactiveness” typically
requires greater immediate effort and often takes longer to
complete than browsing or a quick e-mail.13 Furthermore,
the user would have probably identified the Web site
required for such interactive cyberloafing based on previous
browsing-related activity.
For example, if when initially browsing a non–work-
related Web site, an employee then decides to download
information from this Web site, additional time and effort
are involved in doing this. Similarly, if an employee comes
across information found while browsing that he or she
then wants to post for others, additional interaction with
the software is required. Online chatting and playing games
require two-way “live” or virtual interaction with others.
Finally, using the Internet to moonlight or gain additional
income requires a higher level of interaction with either
the software or other users than e-mailing or browsing. E-
mailing is asynchronous or not immediately interactive,
because messages typically stay on one’s computer system
and can be responded to at a later time. Browsing generally
means surfing or looking and is generally one way and
therefore not as “interactive.”13
These additional cyberloafing behaviors seem to be
better captured in a different quadrant within Robinson
and Bennett’s9 DWB typology, that is, property deviance, or
10
misuse of company property, specifically the employee’s per-
sonal computer and related resources (e.g., Intranet). This
quadrant is more potentially serious or harmful to the
organization than production deviance.9 Downloading
non–work-related information, posting messages on
non–work-related items, or using the Internet to gain addi-
tional income at work are generally violations of use of
company property.8,14 Integrating the different types of
cyberloafing behavior measured across the previously cited
studies inductively suggests that the two more “passive”
types of cyberloafing (i.e., browsing and e-mailing) both fit
into the production deviance DWB quadrant, and a third
more “interactive” type of cyberloafing (i.e., interactive
cyberloafing) fits into the more organizationally serious
property deviance DWB quadrant.
Relationships of Correlates to
Types of Cyberloafing
ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE
Why would employees cyberloaf? From a theoretical per-
spective, exchange theorists15,16 have suggested looking at
human interactions through the “lens” of social economics,
that is, individuals being concerned about the ratio of
inputs they invest in a relationship relative to the outcomes
or rewards they receive. If employees perceive that they
have been treated unfairly (i.e., a lack of justice), they can
become upset and motivated to reciprocate by cyberloaf-
ing.2,3 Prior research suggests three types of organizational
justice17: distributive justice (perceived fairness in outcome
allocations), procedural justice (perceived fairness of the
procedures used to determine outcome allocations), and
interactional justice (perceived fairness of interpersonal
treatment). Adding all three types of justice together cre-
ates a general organizational justice measure. Lim2 found all
three types of justice to be equally negatively related to her
general cyberloafing scale, which indicates that they can be
combined. The general nature of this relationship is that as
employees believe they are unfairly treated by the organiza-
tion, they are more likely to cyberloaf.
TIME ABUSE AND POWERLESSNESS
It will be useful to examine differential relationships of cor-
relates to types of cyberloafing. Finding evidence for such
differential relationships represents a form of discriminant
validity.18 Such discriminant validity would further support
distinguishing among these three types of cyberloafing. One
differential correlate is time abuse, defined in this study as
“the degree to which an employee is concerned about their
punctuality and attendance.” As noted earlier, punctuality
and attendance behaviors fall in the same production
deviance quadrant9 as general cyberloafing.2 Attitude
toward one’s punctuality and attendance can be considered
a more “passive” type of work withdrawal.19 The general
BLAU ET AL., Testing A Measure of Cyberloafing
logic is that an employee can show high production
deviance (e.g., wasting resources, arriving late, and leaving
early) in a number of different ways.9 This suggests that time
abuse–oriented employees would be more likely to show pas-
sive (i.e., browsing-related and non–work-related e-mail
cyberloafing) rather than interactive cyberloafing behaviors.
The second differential correlate to be tested is power-
lessness, which can be defined as an individual’s perceived
inability to control his or her work environment.20 Per-
ceived powerlessness is generally upsetting to employees
and has been found to be a cause of more extreme employee
DWBs such as theft and violence.21,22 With perceived pow-
erlessness, there is a greater potential violation of the “psy-
chological contract,” leading to a stronger employee
response to restore this contract. Thus, employees with
higher perceived powerlessness should be more likely to
engage in interactive cyberloafing because by being syn-
chronous or involving greater interaction opportunities,
interactive cyberloafing is a more direct, albeit riskier,7 way
to restore employees’ sense of control regarding their work
environment.23 This literature collectively suggests the fol-
lowing study hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1. Browsing-related, non–work-related e-mail, and
interactive cyberloafing are three distinct types of cyberloafing
behaviors.
Methods
PRIMARY SAMPLE AND PROCEDURE
This sample is part of a longitudinal study on the career
paths of recently graduated medical technologists (MTs) by
the Board of Registry of the American Society for Clinical
Pathology. MTs work in a laboratory in a variety of health-
related settings (e.g., hospitals, independent laboratories).
They are responsible for the accurate performance of tests
(e.g., analyzing blood, urine, and tissue samples, growing
cultures) that help to determine the presence or absence of
disease. The requirement for entry into medical technology
is a baccalaureate degree and clinical education in a pro-
gram accredited by the National Accrediting Agency for
Clinical Laboratory Sciences. Differences in job level were
controlled for by using such a homogeneous sample.
Within this longitudinal study, surveys measuring differ-
ent variables were collected from a sample of MTs across dif-
ferent organizations for 2001 and 2002. Surveys were mailed
in the spring following the year in question. In 2001, 501 of
1,156 MTs (43%) returned their surveys containing demo-
graphic, powerlessness, and time abuse data. In 2002, 451 of
1,156 MTs (39%) returned their surveys containing demo-
graphic, organizational justice, and cyberloafing data. MTs
were matched over time using their social security numbers.
Although there were 451 respondents across the two sur-
veys, complete data across both years were available for a
much smaller number of MTs. Starting with the cyberloaf-
Journal of Allied Health, Spring 2006, Volume 35, Number 1
ing data, of the 451 respondents, 36 did not answer the
cyberloafing items, reducing the potential full sample to
415. Of these 415 respondents, 148 answered “no” to the
question, “Is Internet access easily available to you at
work?” This further reduced the sample size to 267 MTs.
Exploratory factor analysis on the cyberloafing items was
performed using these 267 MTs. However, based on the
other variables used in this study, including the control
variable of “no job changes” over this period, complete data
were available for only 227 MTs. Job “constancy” over the
study time frame was necessary to better assess variable rela-
tionships to subsequent cyberloafing behaviors. A general
reduction in sample size over any type of longitudinal time
frame is not uncommon.24
A demographic comparison on gender, age, number of
years in field, marital status, and education level for the 227
complete-data MT sample with the 224 (451 - 227)
[Comp: set as minus.] remaining MTs showed no signifi-
cant demographic differences. A 1999 breakdown of the
sample of 227 MTs showed that their median age was 31 yrs
(range, 27–61 yrs), 83% were female, the median number of
years in the field was 7 (range, 4–27 yrs), 69% were mar-
ried, 94% had a baccalaureate degree, and 6% had an
advanced degree. By 2002, these demographics either
remained stable or increased as expected (e.g., age, years in
the field). Population demographics collected by the Amer-
ican Society for Clinical Pathology in 2000 on 73,471 MTs
showed that 82% were female and that the median age was
43 yrs. Thus, the sample studied here is representative for
gender but is younger.
MEASURES
Powerlessness
Perceived powerlessness was measured for 2001 using the
three-item scale developed by Ashford et al.20 A sample
item is “I have enough power in this organization to control
events that might affect my job.” Unless indicated other-
wise, all multi-item scales used a four-point response scale
(1, strongly disagree; 2, disagree; 3, agree; 4, strongly agree).
Time Abuse
Time abuse attitude toward punctuality and attendance was
measured for 2001 using a five-item measure designed for
this study. Sample items are “it’s no big deal if I’m late for
work” and “over the past year, I have called in sick when I
probably could have worked.”
Organizational Justice
Organizational justice data were collected for 2002 using 12
items, four each for distributive, procedural, and interac-
tional justice. For distributive justice, a four-item measure
based on Price and Mueller25 was used. A sample item is
11
“my organization rewards me fairly considering the stresses
and strains of my job.” For procedural justice, a four-item
measure based on Niehoff and Moorman26 was used. A
sample item is “job decisions are applied consistently by
management across all affected employees.” For interac-
tional justice, a four-item measure also based on a measure
by Niehoff and Moorman26 was used. A sample item is
“when making a decision affecting me, my supervisor treats
me with dignity and respect.”
Cyberloafing
Cyberloafing data were collected for 2002. Sixteen items
were measured and represented an integration of cyberloaf-
ing items measured across a number of previously cited
studies.2,8,11,12 Ten of the 16 items were taken directly from
Lim’s2 11-item scale. The only item not used was “browsing
adult-oriented (sexually explicit) Web sites.” Given the
gender breakdown of the sample, this item was believed to
be offensive to respondents. The other six items were new
and needed to test an expanded view of cyberloafing. All
items, including the perceived offensive item, were pilot
tested among medical technology experts at the 2002
research and development meeting of the American Soci-
ety for Clinical Pathology.27 As noted earlier, MTs were first
asked if they had Internet access easily available to them at
work. If they replied “no,” they were asked to skip the 16
cyberloafing items that immediately followed in the survey.
This lead-in item eliminated 148 of the 415 respondents
(36%), leaving 267 (64%) who answered “yes” and then
filled out these 16 items. The lead-in phrase asked “how
often do you engage in each activity during work hours…”
The following four-point frequency scale was used: 1, hardly
ever (once every few months or less); 2, rarely (about once
a month); 3, sometimes (at least once a week); 4, frequently
(at least once a day).
VALIDATION SAMPLE AND PROCEDURE
Data were initially collected in early spring 2003 from a
sample of 232 working adults employed across a number of
different organizations. Respondents were attending
evening undergraduate or graduate human resource man-
agement classes part-time at a university in the northeast-
ern United States. Of these 232 adults, 55 (24%) answered
“no” to the question “is Internet access easily available to
you at work?” This reduced the sample size to 177. Occupa-
tionally, these 177 respondents indicated that they were
represented as follows: 15% medical/health (e.g., nursing,
physical therapy), 18% technical (e.g., engineering, infor-
mation technology, financial services), 31% administrative
(management, advertising, government related), 6% edu-
cation (e.g., teaching, religious, library services), 14% serv-
ice (e.g., hospitality, sales, real estate), and 16% “other,” in
which respondents were asked to fill in their current job
title. Job titles reported included caretaker, waitress, parale-
12
gal secretary, landscaper, psychologist, bartender, security
officer, and data entry clerk. Other demographic informa-
tion on the 177 respondents were as follows: 56% were
female; 53% were married; 3% indicated they were younger
than 21 yrs of age, 51% were 21–35 yrs of age, 35% were
36–50 yrs of age, and 11% were 51–65 yrs of age; and 88%
indicated that they worked at least 35 hrs per week. These
demographics indicate that this sample was more heteroge-
neous than the MTs.
At the end of the survey, respondents were asked if they
could be “contacted at a later date to follow up on their ini-
tial responses.” Of the 177 respondents, 80 (45%) provided
e-mail address information for such follow-up. Approxi-
mately 6 mos later, the same 16-item measure was e-mailed
to these respondents. Of the 80 respondents contacted, 63
(79%) provided complete survey responses.
Cyberloafing
To test the generalizability of the cyberloafing measure, the
same 16 cyberloafing items collected for the primary sample
of MTs were collected for this sample. The same four-point
frequency response scale was also used.
Results
FACTOR ANALYSES
Exploratory factor analyses were used on the primary
sample of MTs, because the 16 items collectively repre-
sented a unique set of cyberloafing items.28 The results are
shown in Table 1. Following the recommendations made by
Ford et al.,29 a principal components analysis with orthogo-
nal rotation was performed, with a scree test indicating that
a three-factor solution best represented the data. [Author:
In the sentence starting “Following the…” is “scree test”
correct?] Three criteria were used to retain an item on a
factor: the item must have a factor loading of at least 0.40,
the difference between the two highest loadings across fac-
tors for an item must be greater than 0.10, and a factor must
be represented by at least three items.28 The results in Table
1 indicate that six items (items 1, 2, 4, 6, 11, and 16)
cleanly loaded on factor 1, which was named “browsing-
related cyberloafing,” and this accounted for 29% of the
variance. Regarding item 2, “shop online for personal
goods,” Lim2 also found this item to load strongly on her
“browsing activities” scale. Shopping online is typically a
fairly “passive” type of cyberloafing with a low level of user
interaction required.13 Item 16, “browsing non–job-related
Web sites,” is a “catch all” for other Web sites not specifi-
cally mentioned (e.g., adult entertainment).
Three items (items 3, 5, and 7) cleanly loaded on factor
2, which was named “non-work-related e-mail cyberloaf-
ing,” and this accounted for 13% of the variance. Finally,
seven items (items 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15) cleanly
loaded on factor 3, which was named “interactive cyber-
BLAU ET AL., Testing A Measure of Cyberloafing
 TABLE 1. Exploratory Factor Analysis of Cyberloafing Items
Factor
______________________________________
Items 1 2 3
1. Browse sports-related Web sites 0.70 0.01 0.02
2. Shop online for personal goods 0.54 0.24 0.15
3. Check non-work-related e-mail 0.25 0.85 0.01
4. Browse investment-related Web sites 0.55 0.07 0.19
5. Send non-work-related e-mail 0.22 0.89 0.15
6. Browse entertainment-related Web sites 0.60 0.23 0.22
7. Receive non-work-related e-mail 0.15 0.90 0.07
8. Play online games 0.30 –0.02 0.43
9. Download non-work-related information 0.31 0.30 0.44
10. Download online games 0.20 0.04 0.62
11. Browse general news Web sites 0.73 0.19 0.05
12. Chat with other people in online chat rooms 0.06 –0.01 0.81
13. Chat with other people with instant messenger 0.03 0.10 0.68
14. Post messages on non-work-related items 0.20 0.06 0.45
15. Use the Internet to gain additional income while at work 0.01 0.07 0.62
16. Browse non-work-related Web sites 0.71 0.31 0.08

Eigenvalues (retained scale items, unrotated) 4.71 2.07 1.44

Percentage variance explained 29.41 12.93 8.98
Cumulative variance explained 29.41 42.34 51.32
Note. N = 267. Values in bold indicate primary factor loading.

loafing,” and this accounted for 9% of the variance.
Regarding the loadings across factors for items 8 (“play
online games”) and 9 (“download non–work-related infor-
mation”), it can be argued that a difference of at least 0.10
across loadings, with the secondary loadings being mar-
ginal, can justify item classification on the “dominant”
loading factor.30 Overall, the three-factor solution
explained 51% of the variance, which is consistent with
other studies using exploratory factor analyses.31 These
items were then summed for each factor and used in subse-
quent analyses. Reliabilities for each scale were assessed
using Cronbach’s
.28 Ideally, scale reliabilities should be at
least 0.70.28 The following ? levels were found for each
cyberloafing scale: browsing-related cyberloafing, 0.78;
non-work-related e-mail cyberloafing, 0.91; and interactive
cyberloafing, 0.69.
Confirmatory factor analyses were used on the valida-
tion sample to test how well these 16 items “fit” the pro-
posed three-factor solution compared with other factor-
solution models on a new set of data.32 The results across
different models are shown in Table 2. Significant model
improvement is seen going from one factor (overall cyber-
loafing) to two factors (non-work-related e-mail cyberloaf-
ing and browsing-related cyberloafing) to three factors
(non-work-related e-mail cyberloafing, browsing-related
cyberloafing, and interactive cyberloafing). Adequate fit is
indicated when the fit indices are at least 0.90 and the root
mean square measures are less than 0.08.33,34 Overall, these
statistics indicate an acceptable fit and further support the
distinctiveness of the three cyberloafing scales. The follow-
ing scale reliabilities were found: browsing-related cyber-
loafing, 0.75; non-work-related e-mail cyberloafing, 0.87;
and interactive cyberloafing, 0.68. Test-retest reliabilities
for the follow-up sample of 63 repeat respondents were as
follows: browsing-related cyberloafing, 0.64; non-work-
related e-mail cyberloafing, 0.70; and interactive cyberloaf-
ing, 0.60. These test-retest reliabilities suggest that the self-
reported cyberloafing was fairly stable over the reported
6-mo period. Overall, the results support hypothesis 1, that
is, browsing-related, non-work-related e-mail, and interac-
tive cyberloafing are three distinct types of cyberloafing.
ADDITIONAL RESULTS WITH MT SAMPLE
Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations, reliabilities,
and correlations for study variables for MTs. Study variable
means are given based on the four-point response scale for
easier interpretation. Looking at the scale means for the
three cyberloafing scales, non-work-related e-mail cyber-
loafing has the highest mean of the scales (2.01), but all
three have low means (browsing-related cyberloafing, 1.44;
interactive cyberloafing, 1.22). For the validation sample, a
similar pattern of cyberloafing scale means was found, that
is, non-work-related e-mail cyberloafing had the highest
mean (2.19), followed by browsing-related cyberloafing
(1.64) and then interactive cyberloafing (1.43).
Given that cyberloafing is an example of DWB, which
should have a lower frequency of occurrence,9 lower means
are to be expected. Scale reliabilities for study variables are
generally good (i.e., >0.70), with only the interactive
cyberloafing scale being marginal (0.69). Correlations
among the cyberloafing scales are moderate, with the high-

Journal of Allied Health, Spring 2006, Volume 35, Number 1 13

 TABLE 2. Overall Fit Indices for Cyberloafing Items for the Validation Sample
Model 2
1 factor 588.81*
2 factors 409.73*
3 factors 311.47*
*p < 0.05, significant decrease in 2 value.
CFI, comparative fit index; AGFI, adjusted goodness-of-fit index; RMSR, root square mean residual; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation.
est being 0.50, indicating 25% (0.502) overlap between
browsing-related cyberloafing and non-work-related e-mail
cyberloafing. A similar pattern of correlations among cyber-
loafing scales was found for the validation sample: r = 0.53
(browsing with non-work-related e-mail cyberloafing), r =
0.51 (browsing with interactive cyberloafing), and r = 0.27
(non-work-related e-mail with interactive cyberloafing).
Statistical texts28 generally use 0.80 as the correlation
“cutoff” for indicating variable redundancy. These correla-
tional results support using each cyberloafing scale as a dis-
tinct variable.
Looking at correlational relationships, powerlessness had
a positive correlation to only interactive (0.24) cyberloaf-
ing. Time abuse was positively related to both browsing-
related and non-work-related e-mail cyberloafing but not to
interactive cyberloafing. Organizational justice was nega-
tively related to all three cyberloafing scales, that is, brows-
ing-related cyberloafing (–0.19), non-work-related e-mail
cyberloafing (–0.16), and interactive cyberloafing (–0.13).
[Comp: set as minuses.] Organizational justice was the only
variable significantly related to overall cyberloafing. These
correlation results provide additional support for hypothesis
1, that is, that browsing-related, non-work-related e-mail,
and interactive cyberloafing are three distinct scales.
Discussion
The exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic results of
this study suggest that there are three related but distinct
types of cyberloafing: browsing-related, non-work-related e-
mail, and interactive cyberloafing. Perhaps some might view
distinguishing among these types of cyberloafing as “splitting
hairs,” because they all collectively mean that an employee is
not being work productive. However, we believe that these
distinctions are meaningful. The first two types of cyberloaf-
ing fit within Robinson and Bennett’s9 production deviance
DWB quadrant, while the third type of cyberloafing is better
placed in their property deviance DWB quadrant. To our
knowledge, this is the first study that has found empirical
support for such cyberloafing scale distinctions.
The correlational results also supported distinguishing
between types of cyberloafing. Greater time abuse was
related to more browsing-related and non-work-related e-
mail cyberloafing, while greater powerlessness was related to
more interactive cyberloafing. MTs who were more lax in
their attendance and punctuality were more likely to engage
14
df CFI AGFI RMSR RMSEA
85 0.754 0.668 0.102 0.134
84 0.861 0.807 0.059 0.088
82 0.944 0.902 0.032 0.061
in browsing-related and non-work-related e-mail cyberloaf-
ing, while those who perceived less control at work were
more likely to interactively cyberloaf. Because the time
abuse and powerlessness data were collected 1 yr before the
cyberloafing data, stronger causal inferences about these
relationships can be made.18 However, these correlations
were not strong. Several reasons may account for this.
First, by using only a four-point frequency response scale
for each cyberloafing item, this reduced the score range for
items and subsequently formed scales. Range restriction in
variables can decrease correlations with other variables.28
Future research should consider using a seven-point fre-
quency response scale for measuring cyberloafing items: 1,
never; 2, hardly ever (about once every few months); 3,
rarely (about once a month); 4, occasionally (at least sev-
eral times per month); 5, sometimes (at least once per
week); 6, frequently (at least once per day); 7, very fre-
quently (at least several times per day). Greater measure-
ment precision should also help scale reliability,28 because
the reliability of the interactive cyberloafing scale used here
was marginal. In addition, gathering data on the amount of
time spent on cyberloafing behaviors would be useful.
Cyberloafers who take frequent but short breaks to cyber-
loaf may still stay productive versus cyberloafers who spend
longer periods cyberloafing. This suggests that future
research should also examine the relationship between
cyberloafing and employee performance.
Another factor that may help explain the lower levels of
cyberloafing found and weaker correlational results may be
the nature of the samples used. Both the primary and vali-
dation samples used paper-and-pencil surveys to record
cyberloafing behavior as opposed to using an online survey,
as Lim2 did. Lim2 acknowledged the possibility that using
such an online survey technique may build in a stronger
cyberloafing bias among online respondents. Two limita-
tions associated with the paper-and-pencil survey approach
used here are eliminating respondents who did not have
easy work access to the Internet and respondents underesti-
mating their actual cyberloafing to show higher levels of
social desirability.35 However, results with a smaller subset
of validation sample respondents did indicate that cyber-
loafing behaviors were fairly stable over a 6-mo period.
Given the large number of organizations represented by
the primary and validation sample respondents, IAPs from
such organizations were not gathered.7 [Author: Is the sen-
tence starting “Given the…” okay as edited?] Gathering
BLAU ET AL., Testing A Measure of Cyberloafing
 TABLE 3. Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Correlations of Study Variables
Mean SD
1. Powerlessness, 2001 2.36 0.63
2. Time abuse, 2001 1.53 0.54
3. Organizational justice, 2002 2.51 0.52
4. Browsing-related cyberloafing, 2002 1.44 0.51
5. Non-work-related e-mail cyberloafing,
2002 2.01 0.95
6. Interactive cyberloafing, 2002 1.22 0.20
7. Overall cyberloafing, 2002† 1.57 0.46
Note. N= 227. r > 0.13 significant at p < 0.05; r > 0.17 significant at p < 0.01 (two tailed). Correlations in bold indicate antecedents that are statistically
significant. [Author: Please check that the note in Table 3 is correct as edited.]
*Internal consistency scale reliabilities (in parentheses).
†Overall cyberloafing = (browsing + non-work-related e-mail + interactive cyberloafing)/3.
such policy information in future research may help to
understand different levels of employee cyberloafing behav-
ior, especially by using a large sample within one organiza-
tion. For example, an organization’s culture may be more
permissive about some types of cyberloafing (e.g., non-
work-related e-mail) versus other types (e.g., interactive).36
Additional variance in cyberloafing behavior could have
been accounted for by incorporating more variables in the
research design. For example, Lim2 found that the “metaphor
of the ledger” variable mediated the general relationship of
organizational justice to cyberloafing. The metaphor of the
ledger allows employees to rationalize that they are “entitled”
to cyberloaf because of their past good behaviors, which they
can then “cash in.”37 Such a variable is part of a mental
exchange16 that each employee develops within their own
psychological contract with their organization. Employee
feelings of frustration or anger may have been useful to meas-
ure, because angrier38 and more frustrated39 employees
exhibit greater DWB. Unfortunately, survey length con-
straints prohibited such additional measures; however, these
variables should be measured in future research.
There are other ideas to think about for future research.
While browsing-related and especially non-work-related e-
mail cyberloafing are more “tightly defined and measure-
able,”2 the interactive cyberloafing scale is broader and is not
as easy to measure. There may even be a kind of “pecking
order” to different types of cyberloafing. For example, non-
work-related e-mail tends to focus on specific family and
friends. In some ways it may be the easiest to rationalize
doing, as the higher means found here suggest. Browsing is
less personal and involves an employee deliberately going to
specific non-work-related Web sites if the organization’s IAP
allows them.7 An employee generally would have already
first “browsed” a Web site to then engage in interactive
cyberloafing (e.g., downloading non-work-related informa-
tion, posting messages, and playing online games). Future
research is needed to test such a cyberloafing “pecking order.”
The types of interactive cyberloafing measured here
were sample relevant but also fairly “benign” compared
with hostile interactive behaviors such as hacking, deliber-
Journal of Allied Health, Spring 2006, Volume 35, Number 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(0.80)*
0.16 (0.74)
–0.33 –0.15 (0.90)
0.10 0.17 –0.19 (0.78)
0.04 0.15 –0.16 0.50 (0.91)
0.24 0.03 –0.13 0.48 0.22 (0.69)
0.12 0.10 –0.20 0.75 0.90 0.51 (0.88)
ately spreading computer viruses, or somehow sabotaging a
company’s Intranet.8 Clearly, these hostile cyberloafing
behaviors require higher levels of user information technol-
ogy proficiency. In addition, recent research has found that
certain personality characteristics, including loneliness/
depression and diminished impulse control, are positively
associated with problematic Internet use.40
From a theoretical standpoint, these more hostile cyber-
loafing behaviors would fit into another DWB quadrant
(i.e., personal aggression) within the Robinson and Bennett
typology. Personal aggression involves “behaving in an
aggressive or hostile manner towards other individuals.”9
Deliberately spreading computer viruses or somehow sabo-
taging a company’s Intranet seems clearly intended to hurt
the productivity of other company employees. Specific
noncyberloafing behaviors within this personal aggression
quadrant include employees stealing from other employees,
verbally abusing a customer, and endangering coworkers
with reckless behavior.9 Future research could test for three
different levels of cyberloafing, each level fitting into a dif-
ferent DWB quadrant: browsing-related and non-work-
related e-mail (production deviance), benign interactive
(property deviance), and hostile interactive (personal
aggression). Getting employees to self-report such
extremely hostile cyberloafing behaviors would clearly be
very challenging, if not impossible. It may be left to the
information technology staff vigilantly monitoring an orga-
nization’s IAP during difficult times (e.g., downsizing-
related layoffs or disciplinary action against specific
employees) to “catch” such extreme employee behavior.
Research on organizational aggression41 suggests that
social learning theory, or learning from others,42 can help us
to further understand cyberloafing as a DWB. If employees
choose others who exhibit deviant behaviors, specifically
cyberloafing behaviors, as role models, these employees are
more likely to behave in the same way.41,42 For example,
Bacharach et al.43 found that coworkers’ permissiveness
about drinking, as measured by perceived coworker drink-
ing norms and coworker drinking behavior, was positively
related to employee problem drinking. This suggests meas-
15
uring coworker permissiveness about cyberloafing via per-
ceived peer cyberloafing norms and peer cyberloafing
behaviors. Furthermore, there may be different degrees of
coworker permissiveness depending on the level of cyber-
loafing. For example, it is “okay” to cyberloaf via non-work-
related e-mail or even browsing as long as an employee’s
work gets done, but under no circumstances should an
employee interactively cyberloaf. Coworker cyberloafing
permissiveness would be more easily measured with a
sample in which there is high Internet access across proxi-
mally located employees in an organization.
Finally, future research should investigate the potential
“positive side” to cyberloafing behaviors. For many profes-
sional and technical jobs, employees are becoming increas-
ingly “tied” to their personal computers to accomplish
tasks, even when they are home.44 As such, some “degree”
of cyberloafing may give these employees a much needed
“break” from their work. This suggests future research test-
ing the relationship of cyberloafing to positive outcomes
such as reducing job stress or perceived work overload. By
allowing an employee to accomplish non-work-related
tasks over lunch, so that the employee can better manage
their time, such non-work-related e-mail may be an exam-
ple of constructive deviance behavior.45
Although cyberloafing may be beneficial at times to
employees, most of the discussion and research to date on
cyberloafing has clearly emphasized that it is a DWB to be
monitored and controlled.2,3,7,8 The results here suggest
that if employees perceive they are treated unfairly by the
organization in some way, they are more likely to cyberloaf.
Although the organizational justice and cyberloafing data
were collected at the same time, the reverse explanation,
that is, that increased cyberloafing leads to lower perceived
organizational justice, does not seem as powerful. Consis-
tent with the literature on organizational justice17 and
DWB,9,10 cyberloafing seems to be better cast as an out-
come, not a cause, of perceived organizational justice.2
From a human resource and management perspective,
the results of this study first point to an organization iden-
tifying the “amount” and “type” of cyberloafing among its
employees. Beyond company monitoring of employees’
Internet use while at work, an anonymous survey can allow
for collection of convergent, valid self-report cyberloafing
data. Self-report data have been shown to be valid for other
DWBs such as absenteeism.46 If a company’s typical
employee policy allows for 30 min/day of normal “break
time” and 1 hr for lunch, then policies okaying non-work-
related e-mail and “acceptable” browsing during this
normal “down” time may prevent or significantly reduce
subsequent proscribed cyberloafing behavior. It is more
excessive or harmful cyberloafing behaviors, acknowledged
in an anonymous survey, that may be indicative of deeper
employee concerns about how they are being treated.
To conclude, cyberloafing is and will continue to be an
ongoing concern for employers where their employees have
convenient Internet access.1,5 This study has suggested a
16
measure for distinguishing among several different types of
cyberloafing and beginning to test differential correlates for
understanding these types of cyberloafing using a sample of
MTs. Clearly, additional research as discussed above, using
other “convenient Internet access” samples, is needed.
Such samples could include other allied heath profession-
als, such as physical therapists, dietitians, nutritionists,
occupational therapists, speech language pathologists, and
radiographers. We hope that this study stimulates future
research efforts.
The authors thank the Board of Registry for permission to use the primary
data and Donna Surges Tatum, Lidia Dobria, Johnna Gueorguieva, and
Keith McCoy for their efforts in preparing the primary data set.
REFERENCES
1. Anandarajan M, Simmers C, Igbaria M: An exploratory investiga-
tion of the antedents and impact of internet usage: an individual per-
spective. Behav Inf Technol 2000; 19:69–85.
2. Lim V: The IT way of loafing on the job: cyberloafing, neutralizing
and organizational justice. J Organ Behav 2002; 23:675–694.
3. Lim V, Teo T, Loo G: How do I loaf here? Let me count the ways.
Commun ACM 2002; 45:66–70.
4. Anandarajan M: Internet abuse in the workplace. Commun ACM
2002; 45:53–54.
5. Naughton K, Raymond J, Shulman K, et al: Cyberslacking.
Newsweek November 29, 1999; 134(22):62–65.
6. Frook J: Web-filtering products for businesses. Communications Week
March 18, 1996; 601:1–3.
7. Greenfield D, Davis R: Lost in cyberspace: the web at work.
Cyberpsychol Behav 2002; 5:347–353.
8. Siau K, Nah F, Teng L: Acceptable internet use policy. Commun
ACM 2002; 45:75–79.
9. Robinson S, Bennett R: A typology of deviant workplace behaviors:
a multi-dimensional scaling study. Acad Manage J 1995; 38:555–572.
10. Bennett R, Robinson S: Development of a measure of workplace
deviance. J Appl Psychol 2000; 85:349–360.
11. Case C, Young K: Employee internet management: current business
practices and outcomes. Cyberpsychol Behav 2002; 5:355–361.
12. Stuller J: Games workers play. Across the Board 1997; 7:16–22.
13. Xia L, Sudharsham D: Effects of interruptions on consumer online
decision processes. J Consumer Psychol 2002; 12:265–280.
14. Greengard S: The high cost of cyberslacking. Workforce 2000;
79(12):22–23.
15. Blau P: Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York, NY: Wiley; 1964.
16. Homans G: Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York, NY:
Harcourt, Brace and World; 1961.
17. Colquitt J, Conlon D, Wesson M, et al: Justice at the millennium: a
meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. J
Appl Psychol 2001; 86:425–445.
18. Campbell D, Fiske D: Convergent and discriminant validity by the
multitrait-multi-method matrix. Psychol Bull 1959; 56:81–105.
19. Herzberg F, Mausner B, Snyderman B: The Motivation to Work. New
York, NY: Wiley; 1959.
20. Ashford S, Lee C, Bobko P: Content, causes and consequences of job
insecurity: a theory-based measure and substantive test. Acad Manage
J 1989; 32:803–829.
21. Bennett R: Perceived powerlessness as a cause of employee deviance.
In: Griffin R, O’Leary Kelly A, Collins J, (eds). Dysfunctional Work-
place Behavior. Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press; 1998:pp 221–239.
22. Giacalone R, Greenberg J: Antisocial Behavior in Organizations. Thou-
sand Oaks, Calif: Sage; 1997.
23. Sunoo B: This employee may be loafing: can you tell? Should you
care? Personnel J 1996; 75:54–62.
BLAU ET AL., Testing A Measure of Cyberloafing
24. Winefield A, Tiggerman M: Employment status and psychological
well-being: longitudinal study. J Appl Psychol 1990; 75:455–459.
25. Price J, Mueller C: Absenteeism and Turnover of Hospital Employees.
Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press; 1986.
26. Niehoff B, Moorman R: Justice as a mediator of the relationship
between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship
behavior. Acad Manage J 1993; 36:527–556.
27. American Society of Clinical Pathologists: Research and develop-
ment committee meeting, October 2002, Washington, DC.
28. Nunnally J: Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw Hill; 1978.
29. Ford J, MacCallum R, Tait M: The application of exploratory factor
analysis in applied psychology: a critical review and analysis. Person-
nel Psychol 1986; 39:291–314.
30. Child D: The Essentials of Factor Analysis. London, England: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston; 1970.
31. Hinkin T: A review of scale development practices in the study of
organizations. J Manage 1995; 21:967–988.
32. Arbuckle J, Wothke W: Amos 4.0 User’s Guide. Chicago, Ill: Small-
Waters Corp; 1999.
33. Bentler P: Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull
1990; 107:238–246.
34. Browne M, Cudek R: Alternate ways of assessing model fit. In:
Bollen K, Long J (eds). Testing Structural Equations Models. Newbury
Park, Calif: Sage; 1993.
35. Cheyne C, Ritter F: Targeting audiences on the internet. Commun
ACM 2001; 44:94–98.
Journal of Allied Health, Spring 2006, Volume 35, Number 1
View publication stats
36. Keng S, Nah F, Teng L: Acceptable internet use policy. Commun
ACM 2002; 45:75–79.
37. Hollinger R: Neutralizing in the workplace: an empirical analysis of
property theft and production deviance. Deviant Behav 1991; 12:
169–202.
38. Lee K, Allen N: Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace
deviance: the role of affect and cognitions. J Appl Psychol 2002;
87:131–142.
39. Fox S, Spector P: A model of work frustration-aggression. J Organ
Behav 1999; 20:915–931.
40. Davis R, Flett G, Besser A: Validation of a new scale for measuring
problematic internet use: implications for pre-employment screen-
ing. Cyberpsychology Behav 2002; 5:331–345.
41. O’Leary-Kelly A, Griffin R, Glew D: Organizationally-motivated
aggression: a research framework. Acad Manage Rev 1996; 21:225–253.
42. Bandura A: Aggression: Social Learning Analysis. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall; 1973.
43. Bacharach S, Bamberger P, Sonnenstuhl W: Driven to drink: mana-
gerial control, work-related risk factors and employee problem drink-
ing. Acad Manage J 2002; 45:637–658.
44. Jones S: Cybersociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Com-
munity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1995.
45. Warren D: Constructive and destructive deviance in organizations.
Acad Manage Rev 2003; 28:622–632.
46. Johns G: How often were you absent? A review of the use of self-
reported absence data. J Appl Psychol 1994; 79:574–591.
17