International Journal of Occupational Safety and

Ergonomics

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tose20

When and why telepressure and technostress

creators impair employee well-being

Katharina F. Pfaffinger , Julia A. M. Reif & Erika Spieß

To cite this article: Katharina F. Pfaffinger , Julia A. M. Reif & Erika Spieß (2020): When and
why telepressure and technostress creators impair employee well-being, International Journal of
Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, DOI: 10.1080/10803548.2020.1846376

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2020.1846376

Accepted author version posted online: 09

Nov 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tose20
Publisher: Taylor & Francis & Central Institute for Labour Protection – National Research
Institute (CIOP-PIB)
Journal: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics
DOI: 10.1080/10803548.2020.1846376

Running head: EFFECTS OF TECHNOLOGY-SPECIFIC DEMANDS

When and why telepressure and technostress creators impair employee well-being

Katharina F. Pfaffinger

Julia A. M. Reif

Erika Spieß

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet Muenchen, Munich, Germany

Author Note

Katharina F. Pfaffinger, Julia A. M. Reif, and Erika Spieß, Economic and

Organizational Psychology, Ludwig Maximilians-Universitaet Muenchen, Munich.

Some ideas described in this paper were presented at the 51th Congress of the German

Psychological Society (DGPs) in Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

This research was part of the Erasmus + Knowledge Alliances Project “IMPRESS-

Improving management competences on Excellence based Stress avoidance and working

towards Sustainable organisational development in Europe” (Project Reference: 588315-EPP-

1-2017-1-ES-EPPKA2-KA). Disclaimer: The European Commission's support for the

production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents, which

reflect the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any

use which may be made of the information contained therein.

The manuscript was written while the second author received a grant from the

Bayerische Gleichstellungsfoerderung.
 We thank Martina Gress and Catherine Gronover for their contribution to conducting

the studies, and Keri Hartman for proofreading our manuscript.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Katharina F. Pfaffinger,

Economic and Organisational Psychology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet Muenchen,

Leopoldstraße 13, 80802 Muenchen. E-mail: katharina.pfaffinger@psy.lmu.de

 When and why telepressure and technostress creators impair employee well-being

Abstract

Purpose: This paper describes the effects of two specific Information and Communication

Technology (ICT) demands (telepressure, technostress creators) on employee well-being and

investigates a mediating effect of detachment (Study 1) and moderating effects of technostress

inhibitors on the effects of ICT demands on well-being (Study 2) and detachment (Study 3).

Methodology: Three quantitative studies with employees (Study 1: N = 296, Study 2:

N = 142, Study 3: N = 316) were conducted.

Findings: The results support the negative effect of ICT demands on several well-being

indicators. They also show how detachment mediates the effect of telepressure on well-being

(Study 1) and how technostress inhibitors moderate the effect of technostress creators on

well-being (Study 2). Technostress inhibitors further buffer negative effects of technostress

creators on detachment (Study 3).

Implications: Interventions to reduce negative consequences of ICTs by increasing the level of

technostress inhibitors (e.g., technical support) or facilitating employee detachment (e.g.

through communication-policies) are derived. The findings confirm that general models

explaining stress and well-being are applicable to new forms of job demands and extend

existing empirical support for the effect of ICT demands on well-being. Future research

should investigate the interplay between the studied variables within a moderated mediation

model.

Key words: ICT demands, technostress creators, telepressure, well-being, detachment

 When and why telepressure and technostress creators impair employee well-being

1. Information and communication technologies at work

The continuing spread of information and communication technologies (ICTs) at work

[1] has increased managers’ expectations concerning productivity [2] and employee

accessibility [3], with consequences for employee well-being. ICTs lead to new requirements

for communication, cooperation, and leadership as well as to new forms of qualifications,

tasks, and ways of organizing work [4-6].

On the one hand, the current pervasiveness of ICTs makes it possible to receive work-

related messages whenever and wherever one wants, providing increased control and

flexibility regarding the place and time of work [7], which can positively influence well-being

[8]. However, ICTs also have a “dark side” [9,p.270] as they can lead to greater complexity

and hassle, frequent changes of hard- or software, the potential for technical problems and

errors, increased response expectations, permanent availability for work requests, and work

intensification [10-12]. ICTs can blur the boundaries between work and home, which makes

employees feel continuously connected to their work and impedes mental detachment and

recovery from work. As a consequence, new ICT-specific demands such as telepressure [13]

or technostress creators [12] have emerged.

Technostress inhibitors such as organizational inhibitors (e.g. technical support [12]),

behavioral strategies (e.g. checking e-mails less frequently [14]), or personality characteristics

(e.g. conscientiousness [15]) can help individuals cope with ICT demands and have a positive

effect on well-being [12].

In summary, while organizations introduce new ICTs to enhance work and increase

productivity and efficiency [9], they might not fully take into account the negative effects of

those technologies on their employees’ well-being (e.g. stress or burnout [10]). Therefore, the

relationships between ICT-specific demands (i.e., technostress creators and telepressure), and

employee well-being were investigated, as well as the way how this relationship is mediated
by detachment (Study 1) and moderated by technostress inhibitors (Study 2). We further

investigated the moderating role of technostress inhibitors on the relationship between ICT-

specific demands and detachment (Study 3). Thereby, we replicate previous findings

concerning negative well-being consequences of ICT-specific demands, and extend existing

research, which focused more narrowly on specific aspects of well-being such as commitment

and job satisfaction [12], work exhaustion, sleep problems, engagement [16], burnout,

absenteeism, sleep quality, and e-mail responding [13] by conceptualizing well-being in a

more holistic way.

2. Theoretical background and hypotheses

ICTs are associated with demands such as technostress creators [12] and telepressure

[13]. Technostress creators are defined as “factors that create stress from the use of ICTs”

[12,p.417]. Technostress creators include, e.g., techno-overload, techno-invasion, techno-

complexity, techno-insecurity, and techno-uncertainty. Telepressure represents a

“combination of preoccupation and urge to immediately respond to work-related information

and communications technologies (ICT) messages” [17,p.4] and thus represents a more

detailed type of ICT specific demand.

2.1 ICT-specific demands and well-being

To analyze the effects of ICT-specific demands on well-being, we specifically focus on

technostress creators and telepressure. According to Ragu-Nathan and colleagues’ [12]

conceptual model for understanding technostress, technostress creators negatively influence

job satisfaction and commitment. Technostress creators can be considered as stressors

according to traditional stress and recovery models (job demands-resources model [18], job

demands-control model [19,20] or effort-recovery theory [21],) thereby constitute job

demands which require effort, or reduce an employee’s perceived level of control and

consequently entail feelings of strain and stress and thereby reduce employees’ well-being.

Ragu-Nathan and colleagues’ [12] assumption regarding negative consequences of

technostress creators were already tested empirically and had negative effects on job

satisfaction [22,23], life satisfaction [24], organisational commitment [23], and ICT-enabled

employee innovation [25]. They further increased burnout and other psychological and

behavioral disorders [24,26], as well as exhaustion associated with specific technologies such

as social networking services [27].

Techno-overload and techno-complexity as subscales of technostress creators were

significantly related to technostress (ICT strain) [28], which was related to work exhaustion in

a study by Fieseler, Grubenmann, Meckel, and Müller [29]. They concluded that technostress

creators lead to a specific form of technostrain, which is positively correlated with one’s

general strain level.

Telepressure is related to work exhaustion, sleep problems, and when it interferes with

recovery, to lower work engagement [16]. Just like technostress creators, telepressure can also

be seen as stressor according to traditional stress and recovery models and thereby lead to

feelings of strain and stress and reduce well-being. Telepressure also negatively impacts

employees’ physical and psychological health [17].

Building on existing stress models (e.g. the job demands-resources model by Bakker

and Demerouti [18]) and empirical findings, this paper therefore assumes that also in the

context of ICTs, demands will be negatively related to well-being:

H1: ICT-specific demands are negatively related to well-being.

Investigating effects of ICT-related demands on well-being outcomes, previous research

has often focused on single, specific well-being aspects [30,31]. However, well-being is

generally considered a multi-dimensional construct (e.g. [30]). In favor of a more holistic and

multidimensional view of well-being, aspects such as psychological, physical, and social

well-being [30,p.52], elementary (e.g. escaping morbidity) as well as more complex

functioning (e.g. being happy) [32,p.36f.] should be incorporated into the well-being

construct.
 In this paper, we seek to replicate Ragu-Nathan and colleagues’ [12] as well as Santuzzi

and Barber’s [16] assumptions and findings regarding the effects of ICT-specific demands on

job satisfaction, burnout, and sleep problems and further extend them by taking such a more

holistic perspective on well-being: We combine positive and negative well-being aspects

(stress and strain, engagement and satisfaction, sleep quality, commitment) as outcome

variables.

2.2 Mediating effect of detachment

In order to determine why ICT demands influence well-being, we also investigated

mediating mechanisms (Study 1). An understanding of the underlying mechanisms which

explain the relationship between ICT-specific demands and well-being can inform the

development of possible interventions.

At home, using work-related ICTs which can result from experiencing telepressure has

negative effects on recovery, specifically on detachment and sleep [33]. Etzion, Eden, and

Lapidot defined detachment as “individual's sense of being away from the work situation”

[34,p.579]. Detachment does not only include actually not working (e.g., not being occupied

by work-related obligations and not actively working on work-related activities) but also

mental disengagement, which means to not think about work-related issues [35].

Psychological detachment is important for workers’ positive well-being [35,36], as it is

associated with less burnout, fewer psychosomatic complaints, better sleep, and more life

satisfaction [35]. Detachment mediates the relationship between job stressors and exhaustion,

such that lower detachment, which is negatively related to job stressors, predicts more

exhaustion [37]. A mediating effect of detachment was also found for the relationship

between job stressors/demands and strain reactions or perceived stress [37,38], fatigue at

work [39], and life satisfaction [38].

Following Sonnentag and Fritz’s [36] stressor-detachment model and the respective

empirical findings, this paper aims at replicating the mediating role of detachment in the
relationship between job stressors and exhaustion and assumes that this relationship also holds

true for the specific context of ICT-specific demands and for holistic well-being as outcome.

Thus, it is hypothesized:

H2: Detachment mediates the relationship between ICT-specific demands and well-

being.

2.3 Moderating effect of technostress inhibitors

Technostress inhibitors (facilitating literacy, provision of technical support, and facilitating

involvement) are supposed to moderate the negative effects of technostress creators on job

satisfaction [12]. Technostress inhibitors can be considered a resource as described e.g. in the

job demands-resources model by Bakker and Demerouti [18], and help employees to cope

with stressors and reduce the negative impact of stressors on well-being. Ahmad, Amin, and

Ismail [40] found empirical evidence for the moderating role of technical support in the

relationship between techno-overload and organisational commitment but this effect was

neither found for literacy facilitation nor for involvement facilitation. Other previous studies

also failed to empirically support the moderating effect of technostress inhibitors which might

be due to the fact that many stressor measures were not adequately specified and

operationalized and often contained an evaluative component instead of focusing on a clear

description [e.g., 41,42]. Nevertheless, there is still a necessity to further investigate

technostress inhibitors in general and specifically their possible moderating effect as they

were found to be good predictors for positive outcomes such as higher end-user satisfaction

levels, lower levels of distress, and higher levels of eustress [43,44]. Because of the

theoretical foundation of this assumed effect, which is based on the moderating effect of

resources in the job demands-resources model by Bakker and Demerouti [18], this article

wants to further investigate the moderating effect of technostress inhibitors (Study 2). We

hypothesize that technostress inhibitors moderate the relationship between ICT-specific

demands and general well-being.

 H3: Technostress inhibitors moderate the relationship between ICT-specific demands

and well-being. A high degree of inhibitors can reduce the negative effect of ICT-specific

demands on well-being.

Schulz, Schöllgen, and Fay [45] extended Sonnentag and Fritz’s [36] stressor

detachment model by postulating a moderating role of resources in the relationship between

job stressors and detachment. They also found empirical evidence supporting this moderating

role for social support as job resource and thereby describe social support as protective factor

for employees. Mindfulness as further resource has also been found to buffer the effect of

demands on detachment [46]. Building on this extended stressor detachment model and

applying it to the context of ICT specific demands, we hypothesize that technostress inhibitors

as technical resource moderate the relationship between ICT-specific demands and

detachment.

H4: Technostress inhibitors moderate the relationship between ICT-specific demands

and detachment. A high degree of inhibitors can reduce the negative effect of ICT-specific

demands on detachment.

The hypotheses are summarized in the following research model (Figure 1):

-Insert Figure 1-

3. Studies

3.1 Overview of studies

Three studies were conducted to test the hypotheses. In Study 1, the proposed mediation

effect of ICT-specific demands (telepressure) via detachment on well-being (H1 and H2) was

tested. In Study 2, the proposed moderation effect of technostress inhibitors on the

relationship between ICT-specific demands (technostress) and well-being (H1 and H3) was

investigated. In Study 3, the moderation effect of technostress inhibitors on the relationship

between technostress creators and detachment was tested (H4).

3.2 Study 1
 Study 1, an online survey conducted with 296 employees (female: n = 151, male:

n = 143, other: n = 1, gender not indicated: n = 1, Age: M = 39.29, Min = 19, Max = 65, age

not indicated: n = 3), focused on telepressure as an ICT-specific demand and examined the

relationship between telepressure and employee well-being. Prerequisite for participation was

being employed for at least 10 hours per week. Well-being was operationalized with stress

and strain (reverse) as well as sleep quality. Moreover, it was investigated whether

detachment mediated the relationship between telepressure and well-being. H1 and H2

therefore can be specified as follows:

H1a: Telepressure, as an ICT-specific demand, is negatively related to well-being

(stress and strain, sleep quality).

H2: Detachment mediates the relationship between telepressure, as an ICT-specific

demand, and well-being (stress and strain, sleep quality).

3.2.1 Measurement

ICT-specific demand: Telepressure. A scale with six items by Barber and Santuzzi [13]

was used to measure telepressure (Cronbach’s 𝛼 = 0.86, e.g., “It’s hard for me to focus on

other things when I receive a message from someone”). Items were answered on a 5-point

Likert scale (from 1 = do not agree at all to 5 = fully agree).

Well-being: Stress and strain and sleep quality. Stress and strain as well as sleep quality

were analysed as outcome variables covering several aspects of well-being. Stress and strain

were measured with 8 items covering stress, exhaustion, physical strain, general health, and

turnover intention (Cronbach’s 𝛼 = 0.85, e.g. “I feel exhausted” [47]; items were answered on

a 5-point Likert scale indicating the level of agreement (from 1 = not at all to 5 = to a very

great degree)), and sleep quality with four items (Cronbach’s 𝛼 = 0.75, e.g. “How often in the

past month did you have trouble falling asleep?”, [48], items were answered on a 6-point

Likert scale indicating the frequency of sleep problems (1 = never, 2 = 1-3 days, 3 = 4-7 days,
4 = 8-14 days, 5 = 15-21 days, 6 = 22-31 days)). Items were re-coded such that higher values

indicated a higher quality of sleep.

Detachment. A 4-item scale by Sonnentag and Fritz [35] was used to measure

detachment (Cronbach’s 𝛼 = 0.89, e.g., “I forget about work”, items were answered on a 5-

point Likert scale (from 1 = do not agree at all to 5 = fully agree)).

Control variables. As ICT use, gender, and age have been found to affect well-being

and sleep quality (e.g., [49-51]), they were included as control variables. ICT use was

measured with the item “How frequently do you use ICTs for work-related purposes outside

of your regular working hours?“, which was answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = less than

1 time per month or never, 2 = 1-2 times per month, 3 = 1-2 times per week, 4 = 1-2 times per

day, 5 = several times per day).

Since our subjects were German speaking, the scales were translated into German.

3.2.2 Results

A structural equation model (SEM) was calculated to examine the relationships between

telepressure as independent variable, detachment as mediator, and sleep quality and stress and

strain as two separate dependent variables; we also included three control variables in the

model (age, gender, and ICT use). The software RStudio (Version 1.1.453) was used in all

analyses. The results can be found in Figure 2. An overview of descriptive statistics and

correlations between the variables is depicted in Table 1.

-Insert Table 1-

For the SEM model the following fit indices were found: χ²(263) = 815.66, p < 0.001,

Ratio χ² to degrees of freedom: 815.66/263= 3.10, RMSEA = 0.087, CFI = 0.823,

TLI = 0.801, SRMR = 0.088. When following the thresholds mentioned by Fuglseth and

Sørebø [22] (insignificant χ² statistic with a p > 0.05, ratio of χ2 to degrees of freedom < 3:1,

RMSEA < 0.06, CFI > .090, TLI > 0.90, SRMR < 0.08), model fit is not very good but three
of the six thresholds are quite close (Ratio χ² to degrees of freedom, CFI, SRMR). Please note

that we did not allow error correlations which may also contribute to the poor fit. Regarding

Hypothesis H1a (Telepressure is negatively related to well-being), results showed that

telepressure was positively related to stress and strain (total effect: β = 0.28, p = 0.001, direct

effect: β = 0.15, p = 0.030) and negatively related to sleep quality (total effect: β = –0.30,

p = 0.003, direct effect: β = –0.23, p = 0.014) even after controlling for the effects of age and

gender, providing support for H1a. The control variable ICT use did not have a significant

effect on any of the outcome variables.

Concerning H2 (Detachment mediates the relationship between telepressure and well-

being), the results showed that the significant total effects of telepressure on sleep quality as

well as on stress and strain were partly explained by detachment: Telepressure was negatively

related to detachment (β = –0.31, p < 0.001). Detachment was negatively related to stress and

strain (β = –0.42, p < 0.001) and positively related to sleep quality (β = 0.25, p = 0.007). The

indirect effect of telepressure on stress and strain via detachment (β = 0.13, p = 0.001, 95%

CI [0.058, 0.225]) was significant. The same held true for the effect of telepressure on sleep

quality via detachment (indirect effect: β = –0.08, p = 0.029, 95% CI [–0 .130, –0.007]).
0

Therefore, detachment seems to partially mediate the relationship between telepressure and

both well-being outcomes (sleep quality and stress and strain), providing support for H2.

-Insert Figure 2-

3.3 Study 2

For Study 2, an online survey was conducted with 142 participants (female: n = 92,

male: n = 50, Age: M = 37.46, Min = 21, Max = 64), employment was again the only

prerequisite for participation. Study 2 focused on technostress creators as ICT-specific

demands and examined their relationship with well-being, specifically stress and strain,
engagement and satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Moreover, it was investigated

how technostress inhibitors moderated these relationships in order to test H1b and H3:

H1b: Technostress creators, as ICT-specific demands, are negatively related to well-

being (stress and strain, engagement and satisfaction, commitment).

H3: Technostress inhibitors moderate the relationship between technostress creators, as

ICT-specific demands, and well-being (stress and strain, engagement and satisfaction,

commitment).

3.3.1 Measurement

ICT-specific demands: Technostress creators. Technostress creators were measured

with 29 items covering the six aspects techno-overload, techno-invasion, techno-complexity,

techno-insecurity, techno-uncertainty, and techno-induced role ambiguity (Cronbach’s

𝛼 = 0.90, e.g., “I am forced by this technology to work much faster”, [12,28]; items were

answered on a 5-point Likert scale indicating the level of agreement (from 1 = not at all to

5 = to a very great degree)).

Well-being: Stress and strain, engagement and satisfaction, and commitment. As in

Study 1, stress and strain as an aspect of well-being was analyzed; and engagement and

satisfaction were further included as well as organizational commitment as additional

components of well-being. Stress and strain were measured using the same 8 items as in

Study 1 (Cronbach’s 𝛼 = 0.89, items were answered on a 5-point Likert scale indicating the

level of agreement (from 1 = not at all to 5 = to a very great degree)). Engagement and

satisfaction were assessed using 6 items addressing work engagement, performance, and job

satisfaction (Cronbach’s 𝛼 = 0.79, e.g. “So far I have achieved all my goals at work” [52];

items were answered on a 5-point Likert scale indicating the level of agreement (from 1 = not

at all to 5 = to a very great degree)). Organizational commitment was measured with a 4-item

scale by Felfe and colleagues [53] (Cronbach’s 𝛼 = 0.92, e.g. “I am very proud to belong to
this organization”, answered on a 5-point Likert scale indicating the level of agreement (from

1 = not at all to 5 = to a very great degree)).

Technostress inhibitors. 12 items by Ragu-Nathan and colleagues [12] covering the

areas of facilitating literacy, provision of technical support, and facilitating involvement were

used to assess technostress inhibitors as a moderator (Cronbach’s 𝛼 = 0.84, e.g. “Our

organization provides end-user training before the introduction of new technology”). All

items were answered on a 5-point Likert scale indicating the level of agreement (from 1 = not

at all to 5 = to a very great degree).

Control variables. Age and gender were included as control variables. ICT use was not

incorporated as this control variable did not have a significant effect on any well-being

outcome in Study 1.

Like in Study 1, the scales were translated into German as our subjects were German

speaking.

A regression analysis was calculated for each dependent variable. All variables were

mean-centered before creating interaction terms for the moderation, following Aiken and

West’s [54] recommendation, in order to reduce multicollinearity [26].

3.3.2 Results

An overview of the descriptive statistics and the correlations between the variables can

be found in Table 2.

-Insert Table 2-

According to our results (Figure 3), technostress creators were positively related to

stress and strain (β = 0.79, p < 0.001) and negatively related to engagement and satisfaction

(β = –0.29, p = 0.002) as well as commitment (β = –0.51, p < 0.001), which provides evidence

for H1b (Technostress creators are negatively related to well-being). Technostress inhibitors

were positively related to both engagement and satisfaction (β = 0.20, p = 0.009) and

organizational commitment (β = 0.54, p < 0.001). The negative relationship between

technostress inhibitors and stress and strain was only significant on an alpha level of 10%

(β = –0.19, p = 0.058). The interaction effect between technostress creators and inhibitors was

significant for both of the positive outcomes, engagement and satisfaction (β = 0.33,

p = 0.034, conditional effects of technostress creators (calculated with the R function

sim_slopes): low level of moderator variable (M – 1 SD): β = –0.48, medium level of

moderator variable (M): β = –0.29, high level of moderator variable (M + 1 SD): β = –0.10) as

well as commitment (β = 0.61, p = 0.014, conditional effects of technostress creators: low

level of moderator variable (M – 1 SD): β = –0.87, medium level of moderator variable (M):

β = –0.51, high level of moderator variable (M + 1 SD): β = –0.14), and also for stress and

strain (β = –0.42, p = 0.039, conditional effects of technostress creators: low level of

moderator variable (M – 1 SD): β = 1.05, medium level of moderator variable (M): β = 0.79,

high level of moderator variable (M + 1 SD): β = 0.54), providing support for H3

(Technostress inhibitors moderate the relationship between technostress creators and well-

being.). This result indicates that the higher the level of technostress inhibitors, the smaller the

negative impact of technostress creators on both of the positive well-being outcomes

(engagement and satisfaction as well as commitment) and the negative well-being outcome

(stress and strain).

-Insert Figure 3-

3.4 Study 3

For study 3, an online survey was conducted with 316 participants (female: n = 174,

male: n = 132, Age: M = 33.03, Min = 18, Max = 68, Language: German: n = 223, English:

n = 93), employment was again the only prerequisite for participation. Study 3 focused on

technostress creators as well as telepressure as ICT-specific demands and examined their

relationship with detachment. Moreover, it was investigated how technostress inhibitors

moderated these relationships in order to test H4, which was specified as follows:
 H4: Technostress inhibitors moderate the relationship between technostress creators as

ICT-specific demands and detachment. A high degree of inhibitors can reduce the negative

effect of technostress creators as ICT-specific demands on detachment.

3.4.1 Measurement

ICT-specific demands: Technostress creators.

Technostress creators were measured with 29 items as in Study 2 (Cronbach’s 𝛼 = 0.93;

German version: Cronbach’s 𝛼 = 0.93; English version: Cronbach’s 𝛼 = 0.91; items were

answered on a 5-point Likert scale indicating the level of agreement (from 1 = not at all to

5 = to a very great degree)).

Detachment. The 4-item scale by Sonnentag and Fritz [35] from Study 1 was used to

measure detachment (Cronbach’s 𝛼 = 0.82; German version: Cronbach’s 𝛼 = 0.88; English

version: Cronbach’s 𝛼 = 0.66; items were answered on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = do not

agree at all to 5 = fully agree)).

Technostress inhibitors. 12 items by Ragu-Nathan and colleagues [12] covering the

areas of facilitating literacy, provision of technical support, and facilitating involvement were

used to assess technostress inhibitors as a moderator (Cronbach’s 𝛼 = 0.87; German version:

Cronbach’s 𝛼 = 0.89; English version: Cronbach’s 𝛼 = 0.81). All items were answered on a 5-

point Likert scale indicating the level of agreement (from 1 = not at all to 5 = to a very great

degree).

Control variables. Age, and gender were included as control variables. The study was

conducted in German as well as in English and therefore language was included as further

control variable.

To test H4, a regression analysis was calculated and all variables were mean-centered

before creating interaction terms for the moderation, following Aiken and West’s [54]

recommendation, in order to reduce multicollinearity [26].

3.4.2 Results
 The descriptive statistics and correlations of the variables used in Study 3 can be found

in Table 3. According to our results (Figure 4), technostress creators were negatively related

to detachment (β = –0.37, p < 0.001) and technostress inhibitors were positively related to

detachment (β = 0.15, p = 0.036). The interaction effect between technostress creators and

technostress inhibitors was significant (β = 0.24, p = 0.018, conditional effects of technostress

creators on detachment (calculated with the R function sim_slopes): low level of moderator

variable (M – 1 SD): β = –0.54, medium level of moderator variable (M): β = –0.37, high

level of moderator variable (M + 1 SD): β = –0.19) providing support for H4 (Technostress

inhibitors moderate the relationship between technostress creators as ICT-specific demands

and detachment.) This result indicates that the higher the level of technostress inhibitors, the

smaller the negative impact of technostress creators on detachment.

-Insert Figure 4-

-Insert Table 3-

4. Discussion

This paper investigated the effects of technostress creators and telepressure, as forms of

ICT-specific demands, on well-being in three studies, along with the mechanisms that might

explain these relationships. As proposed, ICT-specific demands increased stress and strain

and decreased engagement, satisfaction, commitment, and sleep quality. Detachment partly

explained the relationship between ICT-specific demands (telepressure) and well-being

outcomes (sleep quality, stress and strain). Specifically, high levels of perceived telepressure

were associated with lower levels of detachment, which increased stress and impaired

recovery. With regard to the moderating effect of technostress inhibitors the results revealed

that the negative consequences of ICT-specific demands (technostress creators) on well-being

(stress and strain, engagement and satisfaction, commitment) and detachment cannot be

eliminated completely, but that they can at least be reduced significantly.

4.1 Theoretical implications

 The results have several theoretical implications:

First, the results confirm the applicability of general models explaining stress and well-

being to new forms of job demands. Although many of these theories have already existed for

several decades, they also seem to apply to new, modern forms of stressors and demands.

Second, the findings provide further empirical support for the effect of ICT-specific

demands on well-being: In Study 1, previous findings on the effects of telepressure on

engagement and sleep quality and the mediating effect of detachment [13,16] were replicated.

In Study 2, the effect of technostress creators on satisfaction, which was found by Ragu-

Nathan and colleagues [12], was replicated and the results empirically support the moderating

effect of technostress inhibitors, which was postulated but not empirically found by Ragu-

Nathan and colleagues [12]. This might be due to the fact that not only job satisfaction was

analyzed as in the study by Ragu-Nathan et al. [12] but well-being was investigated in a more

holistic way which might emphasize the buffering effect of technostress inhibitors as

resources. However, empirical support for the moderating effect was previously found for

specific sub-facets, e.g. for the moderating role of technical support as technostress inhibitor

on the relationship between techno-overload as technostress creator and organisational

commitment by Ahmad, Amin, and Ismail [40], a finding, which could be extended to more

facets of technostress inhibitors and more well-being indicators in this study. Study 3

replicates the moderating effect of resources on the relationship between job demands and

detachment [45] and extends previous findings by specifically analyzing job demands and

resources which are ICT-specific.

Third, existing findings regarding the negative effects of ICT-specific demands on well-

being were extended by including and combining several distinct aspects of well-being. Grant

and colleagues’ [30] recommendation was followed to consider well-being as a multi-

dimensional construct and therefore several well-being indicators (sleep quality, stress and

strain, engagement and satisfaction, commitment) were included in our studies. The fact that a
negative effect of ICT-specific demands on all of the well-being indicators studied was found

extends existing findings, which focused on specific well-being indicators.

Fourth, although studied in two independent studies in this paper, the proposed

mediation and moderation effects could be combined in a moderated mediation model which

should be tested in future research.

4.2 Practical implications

The results regarding the mediating effect of detachment and the moderating effect of

technostress inhibitors suggest ideas for interventions which might help employees deal with

ICT-specific demands in order to reduce their negative consequences. These interventions

should target both the individual and the organizational level in order to help employees cope

with new kinds of ICT-specific job demands [55]:

Firstly, interventions on an organizational level to increase technostress inhibitors could

be implemented: Hurtienne and colleagues [56] suggest various organizational strategies to

enhance technostress inhibitors, such as providing suitable support resources, reducing

administrative tasks, fostering self-education and training, decreasing the density and speed of

communication via ICT systems, and recognizing employees and their efforts.

Secondly, measures on the either individual or organizational level could be taken to

facilitate detachment. On an individual level, it has been suggested that setting limits to work-

related ICTs is beneficial for disengagement from work and recovery processes [57]. This

boundary-setting can be achieved by consciously switching off notifications for work-related

messages when leaving work. Establishing after-work routines like working out also could

help employees distract themselves from work-related thoughts. Hülsheger and colleagues

[58] demonstrated that a short daily planning intervention helping employees identify

unfulfilled tasks and goals at work and plan how, when, and where they will be completed

[59] can positively affect detachment. Interventions on the organizational level might include

measures to reduce role stress, e.g. communication policies defining the use of “CC” in e-
mails, which could help employees determine whether they are supposed to respond to a

given e-mail or not [3,28]. Furthermore, supervisors should clearly communicate expectations

concerning employees’ availability and responsiveness outside of official working hours,

which can help avoid the occurrence of telepressure [28]. This can also help employees deal

with the insecurity of not knowing what is expected and how to behave.

As mindfulness at work is positively related to psychological detachment, mindfulness

trainings could also be part of organizational or individual interventions [58].

The results of Study 1 showed that ICT use (as control variable) itself was unrelated to

the outcome variables, which means that employers should support their employees in better

managing ICT use rather than decreasing the use of these technologies.

4.3 Limitations and future research

This paper tested the proposed moderation and mediation effects in three separate

studies. Future research should test the complete moderated-mediation model in a single

study.

The studies did not take an experimental or longitudinal approach, so it was not possible

to test causal effects. However, the hypotheses were based on a theoretical rationale, which

justifies the assumptions regarding the order of effects. Future research should examine how

telepressure and technostress creators evolve over time and determine whether they represent

a short-term adaptive response, which decreases as soon as an individual gets used to this

pressure, or whether they are stable over time. Personal characteristics might also influence

well-being at work as well as the effects of telepressure and technostress creators on well-

being. Specific personality traits (agreeableness, neuroticism and openness to experience)

were identified as predictors of technostress creators [60] and some personality traits

moderate the relationship between technostress creators and outcomes in a positive way (e.g.

technostress creators influence job burnout less strongly for people with higher extraversion

levels, [26]).
 According to Maxwell et al. [61] as well as Maxwell and Cole [62] the possibility exists

that although cross-sectional data implies a significant indirect effect, the true longitudinal

effect is zero which also entails biased hypotheses testing. This holds true for full as well as

partial mediation. It therefore is necessary to interpret the findings with regard to this issue

and to avoid conclusions on causal effects. Causal effects need to be tested in future

longitudinal studies, especially with regard to the development of interventions aiming at

increasing detachment in order to influence the effect ICT-specific job demands on well-

being. So far, the mediating effect of detachment has been found in cross-sectional as well as

in longitudinal designs [36]. Ten Brummelhuis and Bakker [63] found detachment as

mediator for the negative relationship between work related and household tasks as well as

the positive relationship between social, low-effort, and physical activities and the vigor on

the following day. Von Thiele Schwarz [64] examined the inability to withdraw from work

which can be seen as negative form of detachment. He found a partial mediating effect of

inability to withdraw from work on the relationship between job demands and fatigue as well

as next-day recovery with a time lag of six months. Those results show that the mediating

effect of detachment was found for different time lags (cross-sectional design without time

lag, one day as well as six months). These findings provide evidence for the existence of the

mediating effect of detachment. Apart from the mediation effect of detachment future

research should also focus on investigating other possible third variables explaining the

relationship between ICT-specific demands and well-being.

The mediating effect of detachment was tested by using telepressure as predictor (Study

1) whereas the moderating effect of technostress inhibitors was tested by using technostress

creators as predictor (Study 2) as both variables were considered as indicators for ICT-

specific demands. However, future research should also investigate those effect for other

possible ICT-specific demands indicators.

 In our studies we have conceptualized stress and well-being as unidimensional construct

and therefore have taken a holistic view on it. As other scholars have investigated stress and

well-being as distinct concepts (e.g., [65,66]) or specified well-being in a more nuanced way

[67], future research should also take this into consideration and analyze stress and well-being

separately.

Future research should furthermore also take into account possible consequences of

proposed interventions, e.g. trainings aiming at facilitating detachment as mediating factor.

Psychological detachment from work has been found to be associated with positive mood and

low fatigue [68], reduced work-family conflict and burnout [69] and even more affectionate

interactions in romantic relationships [70]. Therefore, such interventions might have even

more beneficial consequences apart from the mediating effect.

With regard to control variables, only age, gender, and ICT use were investigated, and

ICT use was only included as control variable in Study 1 but not in Studies 2 and 3, as there

was no effect found in the first study. Future research should also include further control

variables besides age, gender and ICT use such as ICT competence that might influence the

consequences of ICT use, e.g., satisfaction with or efficiency of ICT use. Additionally,

positive or functional thinking about work during periods of recovery can be beneficial for

employees (e.g., [71]); hence, the content of work-related thoughts should also be examined

as a potential moderator with effects on well-being. Organizational culture is another aspect

that could be targeted in future research as this also has been described as beneficial or

disadvantageous for well-being and the consequences of ICT specific demands [2,72,73].

Apart from organizational culture, general cultural values also have been found to affect ICT

specific demands [60] and their effect on the relationship between ICT specific demands and

well-being could also be further investigated in future studies.

5. Conclusion
 Technostress creators and telepressure have become increasingly relevant due to

digitalization and need to be taken into account in research and practice because they

negatively affect employee well-being. The three studies in this paper show how technostress

inhibitors can reduce the negative effects of ICT-specific job demands on detachment and

well-being (engagement and satisfaction, commitment) and how detachment can partly

explain the relationship between those demands and well-being (stress and strain, sleep

quality). Consequently, impulses for developing interventions which aim at increasing

technostress inhibitors among employees and fostering detachment from work are offered.
 Figures

Figure 1. Proposed research model showing the assumed relationships between ICT-specific

demands, detachment, technostress inhibitors, and well-being. Note: ICT = Information and

Communication Technology.

Figure 2. Study 1: Test of H1 and H2. Structural equation model (SEM) with relationships

between telepressure as independent variable, detachment as mediator and sleep quality and

stress and strain as two separate dependent variables. Note: β = standardized coefficient;

C’ = direct effect of telepressure on stress and strain/sleep quality controlling for the effect of

detachment; C = total effect of telepressure on stress and strain/sleep quality;

ICT = Information and Communication Technology.

Figure 3. Study 2: Test of H1 and H3. Results of regression analyses on technostress creators

as independent variable, technostress inhibitors as moderator and stress and strain,

engagement and satisfaction, and commitment as three separate dependent variables. Note:

β = standardized coefficient; ICT = Information and Communication Technology.

Figure 4. Study 3: Test of H4: Results of regression analyses on technostress creators as

independent variable, technostress inhibitors as moderator and detachment as dependent

variable.
 References

[1] Korunka C, Hoonakker P, editors. The impact of ICT on quality of working life.

Dordrecht (Netherlands): Springer; 2014.

[2] Wang K, Shu Q, Tu Q. Technostress under different organizational environments: an

empirical investigation. Comput in Hum Behav. 2008;24(6):3002–3013.

[3] Tarafdar M, Tu Q, Ragu-Nathan BS, et al. The impact of technostress on role stress and

productivity. J of Manag Inf Syst. 2007;24(1):301–328.

[4] Apt W, Bovenschulte M, Hartmann EA, et al. Foresight-Studie ‘Digitale Arbeitswelt’

[Foresight study: digital world of work] [Internet]. Institut für Innovation und Technik

[Institute for innovation and technology]. 2016 [cited 2020 Feb 04]. German. Available from:

https://www.bmas.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/PDF-

Publikationen/Forschungsberichte/f463-digitale-arbeitswelt.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2

(accessed 14 December 2019)

[5] Hirsch-Kreinsen H., Weyer J, editors. Wandel von Produktionsarbeit - "Industrie 4.0"

[Developments of production work – “Industry 4.0“], Soziologisches Arbeitspapier

[Sociological working paper], 38/2014, Dortmund (Germany): Technische Universität

Dortmund (TU Dortmund); 2014. German. Available from: http://www.wiwi.tu-

dortmund.de/wiwi/ts/de/forschung/veroeff/soz_arbeitspapiere/AP-SOZ-38.pdf (accessed 14

December 2019).

[6] Spath D, Ganschar O, Gerlach S, et al. Produktionsarbeit der Zukunft – Industrie 4.0

[Production work of the future – industry 4.0], Fraunhofer-Institut für Arbeitswirtschaft und

Organisation IAO, Stuttgart (Germany); 2013. German. Available from:

https://microsites.schott.com/d/studentchallenge/c7d319bc-3fd9-40d2-85c2-

636906b2c2f0/1.0/produktionsarbeit_der_zukunft_-_industrie_4_0__fraunhofer_studie.pdf

(accessed 14 December 2019).

[7] Mazmanian M, Orlikowski WJ, Yates J. The autonomy paradox: the implications of

mobile email devices for knowledge professionals. Organ Sci. 2013;24(5):1337–1357.

[8] Kossek EE, Lautsch BA, Eaton SC. Telecommuting, control, and boundary management:

correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work–family effectiveness. J of Vocat

Behav. 2006;68(2):347–367.

[9] O’Driscoll MP, Brough P, Timms C, et al. Engagement with information and

communication technology and psychological well-being. In: Perrewe PL, Ganster DC,

editors. Research in occupational stress and well-being (Vol. 8): new developments in

theoretical and conceptual approaches to stress. Bingley (United Kingdom): Emerald; 2010.

pp. 269–316.

[10] Day A, Paquet S, Scott N, et al. Perceived information and communication technology

(ICT) demands on employee outcomes: the moderating effect of organizational ICT support. J

of Occup Heal Psychol. 2012;17(4):473–491.

[11] Kubicek B, Tement S. Work intensification and the work-home interface: the moderating

effect of individual work-home segmentation strategies and organizational segmentation

supplies. J of Pers Psychol. 2016;15(2):76–89.

[12] Ragu-Nathan TS, Tarafdar M, Ragu-Nathan BS, et al. The consequences of technostress

for end users in organizations: conceptual development and empirical validation. Inf Syst Res.

2008;19(4):417–433.

[13] Barber LK, Santuzzi AM. Please respond ASAP: workplace telepressure and employee

recovery. J of Occup Heal Psychol. 2015:20(2):172–189.

[14] Kushlev K, Dunn EW. Checking email less frequently reduces stress. Comput in Hum

Behav. 2015;43:220–228.

[15] Russell E, Woods SA, Banks AP. Examining conscientiousness as a key resource in

resisting email interruptions: implications for volatile resources and goal achievement. J of

Occup and Organ Psychol. 2017;90(3):407–435.

[16] Santuzzi AM, Barber LK. Workplace telepressure and worker well-being: the

intervening role of psychological detachment. Occup Heal Sci. 2018;2(4):337–363.

[17] Richardson KM. Managing employee stress and wellness in the new millennium. J of

Occup Heal Psychol. 2017;22(3)423–428.

[18] Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The job demands-resources model: state of the art. J of Manag

Psychol. 2007;22(3):309–328.

19] Karasek RA. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job

redesign. Adm Sci Q. 1979;24(2)285–308.

[20] Karasek RA. Demand/control model: a social, emotional, and physiological approach to

stress risk and active behavior development. In: ILO encyclopedia of occupational health and

safety, Geneva(Switzerland): International Labor Organization; 2011. Available from:

http://www.iloencyclopaedia.org/part-v-77965/psychosocial-and-organizational-factors

(accessed 14 December 2019).

[21] Meijman TF, Mulder G. Psychological aspects of workload. In: Drenth PJD, Thierry H,

editors. Handbook of work and organizational psychology, work psychology (Vol. 2). Hove

(United Kingdom): Psychology Press; 1998. p. 5–33.

[22] Fuglseth AM, Sørebø Ø. The effects of technostress within the context of employee use

of ICT. Comput in Hum Behav. 2014;40:161–170.

[23] Jena RK. Technostress in ICT enabled collaborative learning environment: An empirical

study among Indian academician. Comput in Hum Behav. 2015;51:1116–1123.

[24] La Torre G, Esposito A, Sciarra, I, Chiappetta M. Definition, symptoms and risk of

techno-stress: a systematic review. Int Arch of Occup and Environ Health. 2019;92(1):13–35.

[25] Chandra S, Shirish A, Srivastava SC. Does technostress inhibit employee innovation?

Examining the linear and curvilinear influence of technostress creators. Commun of the Assoc

for Inf Sys, 2019;44(19):229–331.

[26] Srivastava SC, Chandra S, Shirish A. Technostress creators and job outcomes: theorising

the moderating influence of personality traits. Inf Sys J. 2015;25(4):355–401.

[27] Maier C, Laumer S, Weinert C, Weitzel T. The effects of technostress and switching

stress on discontinued use of social networking services: A study of Facebook use. Inf Sys J,

2015;25(3):275–308.

[28] Ayyagari R, Grover V, Purvis R. Technostress: technological antecedents and

implications. MIS Q. 2011;35(4):831–858.

[29] Fieseler C, Grubenmann S, Meckel M, Müller. S. The leadership dimension of coping

with technostress. 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; 2014 Jan 6-9;

Waikoloa, HI: IIEE; 2014. p. 530–539.

[30] Grant AM, Christianson MK, Price RH. Happiness, health, or relationships? Managerial

practices and employee well-being tradeoffs. Acad of Manag Perspect. 2007;21(3):51–63.

[31] Kern ML, Waters LE, Adler A, White, MA. A multidimensional approach to measuring

well-being in students: application of the PERMA framework. The J of Pos Psych.

2015;10(3):262-271.

[32] Sen A. Capability and well-being. In: Nussbaum MC, Sen S, editors. The quality of life.

Oxford (UK): Clarendon Press; 1993. p. 30–53.

[33] Sonnentag S. The recovery paradox: portraying the complex interplay between job

stressors, lack of recovery, and poor well-being. Res in Organ Behav. 2018;38:169–185.

[34] Etzion D, Eden D, Lapidot Y. Relief from job stressors and burnout: reserve service as a

respite. J of Appl Psychol. 1998;83(4):577–585.

[35] Sonnentag S, Fritz C. The recovery experience questionnaire: development and

validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. J of Occup Heal

Psychol. 2007;12(3):204–221.

[36] Sonnentag S, Fritz C. Recovery from job stress: the stressor-detachment model as an

integrative framework. J of Organ Behav. 2015;36(S1):72–103.

[37] Sonnentag S, Kuttler I, Fritz C. Job stressors, emotional exhaustion, and need for

recovery: a multi-source study on the benefits of psychological detachment. J of Vocat Behav.

2010;76(3):355–365.

[38] Safstrom M, Hartig T. Psychological detachment in the relationship between job

stressors and strain. Behav Sci. 2013;3(3):418–433.

[39] Kinnunen U, Feldt T, Siltaloppi M, et al. Job demands–resources model in the context of

recovery: testing recovery experiences as mediators. Europ J of Work and Organ Psych.

2011;20(6):805–832.

[40] Ahmad UNU, Amin SM, Ismail WKW. Moderating effect of technostress inhibitors on

the relationship between technostress creators and organisational commitment. Jurnal

Teknologi (Soc Sci). 2014;67(1):51–62.

[41] Sarabadani J, Carter M, Compeau D. 10 years of research on technostress creators and

inhibitors: synthesis and critique. Twenty-fourth Americas Conference on Information

Systems, New Orleans, LA; 2018.

[42] Wall TD, Jackson RR, Mullarkey S, Parker SK. The demands-control model of job

strain: a more specific test. J of Occup and Organ Psych, 1996;69(2):153–166.

[43] Califf CB, Sarker S, Sarker S, Fitzgerald C. The bright and dark side of technostress: an

empirical study of healthcare workers. 36th International Conference on Information Systems;

2015 Dec 13–16; Fort Worth, TX. p. 1–13. Retrieved from

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/106c/8d7e0f5b8494e95d2dd16b54fc3539a3b5b2.pdf

[44] Tu Q, Tarafdar M, Ragu-Nathan TS, Ragu-Nathan BS. Improving end-user satisfaction

through techno-stress prevention: some empirical evidences. In: Proceedings of the 14th

Americas Conference on Information Systems; 2008 Aug 14–17; Toronto, ON, Canada. 236,

p. 1–8.

[45] Schulz AD, Schöllgen I, Fay D. The role of resources in the stressor–detachment model.

Int J of Stress Manag. 2019;26(3):306–314.

[46] Haun VC, Nübold A, Bauer AG. Being mindful at work and at home: buffering effects in

the stressor–detachment model. J of Occup and Organ Psych. 2018;91(2):385–410.

[47] Haslam SA, Reicher S. Stressing the group: social identity and the unfolding dynamics of

responses to stress. J of Appl Psychol. 2006;91(5):1037–1052.

[48] Jenkins CD, Stanton BA, Niemcryk SJ, et al. A scale for the estimation of sleep problems

in clinical research. J of Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41(4):313–321.

[49] Martin M, Grünendahl M, Martin P. Age differences in stress, social resources, and well-

being in middle and older age. The J of Gerontol Ser B: Psychol Sci and Soc Sci.

2001;56(4):214–222.

[50] Reyner A, Horne JA. Gender-and age-related differences in sleep determined by home-

recorded sleep logs and actimetry from 400 adults. Sleep. 1995;18(2):127–134.

[51] Thomée S, Eklöf M, Gustafsson E, et al. Prevalence of perceived stress, symptoms of

depression and sleep disturbances in relation to information and communication technology

(ICT) use among young adults: an explorative prospective study. Comput in Hum Behav.

2007;23(3):1300–1321.

[52] Hoegl M, Weinkauf K, Gemuenden HG. Interteam coordination, project commitment,

and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: a longitudinal study. Organ Sci. 2004;15(1):38–

55.

[53] Felfe J, Six B; Schmook R. Fragebogen zur Erfassung von affektivem, kalkulatorischem

und normativem Commitment gegenüber der Organisation, dem Beruf/ der Tätigkeit und der

Beschäftigungsform (COBB) [Questionnaire to assess affective, continuance, and normative

commitment towards the organisation, the job/task and the form of employment (COBB)]. In:

Glöckner-Rist A, editor. ZUMA-Informationssystem. Elektronisches Handbuch

sozialwissenschaftlicher Erhebungsinstrumente. Version 5.00 [ZUMA Informationsystem.

Electronic manual for socioscientific assessment tools. Version 5.00]. Mannheim (Germany):
Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen [Center for surveys, methods, and analyses];

2002. German.

[54] Aiken LS, West SG. Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury

Park (CA): Sage Publications; 1991.

[55] Pfaffinger K, Reif J, Spieß E, et al. Stress und Stressprävention in der Arbeitswelt unter

besonderer Berücksichtigung der Perspektive von Berufseinsteigern [Stress and stress

prevention at work with a specific focus on the perspective of young professionals]. Poster

presented at: 51st convention of the DGPS (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie); 2018 Sep

15-20; Frankfurt, Germany. German.

[56] Hurtienne J, Stilijanow U, Junghanns G. Time and work pressure in today’s working

world. In: Korunka C, Hoonakker P, editors. The impact of ICT on quality of working life.

Dordrecht (Netherlands): Springer; 2014. p. 63–86.

[57] Barber LK, Jenkins JS. Creating technological boundaries to protect bedtime: examining

work–home boundary management, psychological detachment and sleep. Stress and Health.

2014;30(3):259–264.

[58] Hülsheger UR, Lang JW, Depenbrock F, et al. The power of presence: the role of

mindfulness at work for daily levels and change trajectories of psychological detachment and

sleep quality. J of Appl Psychol. 2014;99(6):1113–1128.

[59] Masicampo EJ, Baumeister RF. Consider it done! Plan making can eliminate the

cognitive effects of unfulfilled goals. J of Pers and Soc Psychol. 2011;101(4):667–683

[60] Krishnan S. Personality and espoused cultural differences in technostress creators.

Comput in Hum Behav. 2017;66:154-167.

[61] Maxwell SE, Cole DA, Mitchel MA. Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal

mediation: partial and complete mediation under autoregressive model. Multivar Behav Res.

2011;46(5):816–841.
[62] Maxwell SE, Cole DA. Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation.

Psychol Methods. 2007;12(1):23–44.

[63] ten Brummelhuis LL, Bakker AB. Staying engaged during the week: the effect of off-job

activities on next day work engagement. J of Occup Health Psychol. 2012;17(4):445–455.

[64] von Thiele Schwarz U. Inability to withdraw from work as related to poor next-day

recovery and fatigue among women. Appl Psychol: An Int Rev. 2011;60(3):377–396.

[65] Chang EC. Perfectionism and dimensions of psychological well–being in a college

student sample: a test of a stress–mediation model. J of Soc and Clin Psychol.

2006;25(9):1001–1022.

[66] Wersebe H, Lieb R, Meyer AH, Hofer P, Gloster AT. The link between stress, well-

being, and psychological flexibility during an acceptance and commitment therapy self-help

intervention. Int J of Clin and Health Psychol. 2018;18(1):60–68.

[67] Ryff CD. Psychological well-being revisited: advances in the science and practice of

eudaimonia. Psychother and Psychosom. 2014;83(1):10–28.

[68] Sonnentag S, Bayer UV. Switching off mentally: predictors and consequences of

psychological detachment from work during off-job time. J of Occup Health Psychol.

2005;10(4):393–414.

[69] Medrano LA, Trógolo MA. Employee well-being and life satisfaction in Argentina: the

contribution of psychological detachment from work. J of Work and Organ Psych.

2018;34(2):69–81.

[70] Debrot A, Siegler S, Klumb PL, Schoebi D. Daily work stress and relationship

satisfaction: detachment affects romantic couples’ interactions quality. J of Happiness Stud.

2018;19(8):2283–2301.

[71] Binnewies C, Sonnentag S, Mojza EJ. Feeling recovered and thinking about the good

sides of one’s work. J of Occup Health Psychol. 2009;14(3):243–256.

[72] Berg-Beckhoff G, Nielsen G, Ladekjær Larsen E. Use of information communication

technology and stress, burnout, and mental health in older, middle-aged, and younger

workers–results from a systematic review. Int J of Occup and Environ Health.

2017;23(2):160-171.

[73] Spruell G. Work fever. Train and Dev J. 1987;41(1):41-45.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations for variables used in Study 1.
Sleep
Variable M SD Telepressure Detachment Stress
Quality
Telepressure 2.79 0.92 0.86
Detachment 3.16 0.96 –0.24** 0.89
Sleep quality 4.22 1.12 –0.25** 0.30** 0.75
Stress 2.22 0.75 0.27** –0.35** –0.50** 0.85
Age 39.29 12.75 –0.10 0.01 –0.04 –0.25**
** p < .01.
Note: Ntotal = 293, Numbers in diagonal indicate Cronbach’s 𝛼 of the scales.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlations for variables used in Study 2.

Techno- Techno-
Commit-
Variable M SD Stress Engagement stress stress
ment
Creator Inhibitor
Stress 2.07 0.81 0.89
Engagement 3.78 0.56 –0.36** 0.79
Technostress
2.34 0.49 0.43** –0.23** 0.90 –.06
Creators
Technostress
3.04 0.60 –0.22** 0.27** -0.06 0.84 0.39**
Inhibitors
Commitment 3.60 0.99 –0.55** 0.49** –0.20* 0.39** 0.92
Age 37.46 11.23 –0.15 0.12 0.18* 0.06 0.31**
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Note: Ntotal = 140, Numbers in diagonal indicate Cronbach’s 𝛼 of the scales.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations for variables used in Study 3.

Technostress Technostress
Variable M SD Detachment
creator inhibitor
Technostress
2.28 0.64 0.93
creators
Technostress
2.99 0.73 –0.12* 0.87
inhibitors
Detachment 3.08 0.94 –0.30** 0.10 0.82
Age 33.03 10.93 0.03 –0.05 0.12*
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Note: Ntotal = 306, Numbers in diagonal indicate Cronbach’s 𝛼 of the scales.
Annex:

Stress and strain items - Study 1

Table A1. Items used to measure stress and strain in Study 1.

Stress means a situation in which a person feels
tense, restless, nervous or anxious or is unable to
Stress Elo et al. (2003)
sleep at night because his/her mind is troubled all
the time. Do you feel this kind of stress these days?
I feel exhausted. Exhaustion Haslam & Reicher (2006)
I feel frustrated. Exhaustion Haslam & Reicher (2006)
My body hurts after work. Physical strain Frese (1985)
Goldberg (1972) as cited in
I lose much sleep over worry. General health
Banks et al. (1980)
Goldberg (1972) as cited in
I feel I cannot overcome my difficulties. General health
Banks et al. (1980)
Schaubroeck, Cotton, &
I often think about quitting. Turnover intentions
Jennings (1989)
Schaubroeck, Cotton, &
I will probably look for a new job in the next year. Turnover intentions
Jennings (1989)

Stress and strain items - Study 2

Table A2. Items used to measure stress and strain in Study 2.

Stress means a situation in which a person feels
tense, restless, nervous or anxious or is unable to
Stress Elo et al. (2003)
sleep at night because his/her mind is troubled all
the time. Do you feel this kind of stress these days?
I feel exhausted. Exhaustion Haslam & Reicher (2006)
I feel frustrated. Exhaustion Haslam & Reicher (2006)
My body hurts after work. Physical strain Frese (1985)
Goldberg (1972) as cited in
I lose much sleep over worry. General health
Banks et al. (1980)
Goldberg (1972) as cited in
I feel I cannot overcome my difficulties. General health
Banks et al. (1980)
Schaubroeck, Cotton, &
I often think about quitting. Turnover Intention
Jennings (1989)
Schaubroeck, Cotton, &
I will probably look for a new job in the next year. Turnover intention
Jennings (1989)
Engagement and satisfaction items - Study 2

Table A3. Items measuring engagement and satisfaction in Study 2.

At my job, I feel strong and vigorous. Engagement Schaufeli & Bakker (2003)
I am proud of the work that I do. Engagement Schaufeli & Bakker (2003)
Time flies when I am working. Engagement Schaufeli & Bakker (2003)
So far I have achieved all my goals at work. Performance Hoegl et al. (2004)
I am satisfied with my work performance to this
Performance Hoegl et al. (2004)
point.
Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins,
All in all, I am satisfied with my work. Satisfaction & Klesh (1979) as cited in
Bowling & Hammond (2008)
Additional analyses: Effects of technology-specific demands on sub-facets of individual well-

being

Study 1

When examining the consequences of telepressure on the individual well-being aspects,

significant consequences were found on health (β = 0.21, p = 0.016) and stress (β = 0.17,

p = 0.027) but not on exhaustion (β = 0.07, p = 0.315) and turnover intention (β = 0.04,

p = 0.596).

Table A4. Additional analysis – effect of telepressure on individual aspects of stress and strain
in Study 1 (SEM).
Stress Exhaustion Health Turnover
Variable
β p β p β p β p
Telepressure 0.17 0.027 0.07 0.315 0.21 0.016 0.04 0.596
Detachment –0.30 0.000 –0.39 <0.001 –0.48 0.001 –0.21 0.008
Age –0.15 0.005 –0.25 <0.001 –0.13 0.040 –0.22 0.001
Gender –0.07 0.243 –0.20 0.003 –0.13 0.044 –0.12 0.056
ICT use 0.02 0.762 –0.16 0.017 –0.01 0.846 –0.07 0.277
2
𝜒 3349.393
p <0.001
CFI 0.88
RMSEA 0.075
SRMR 0.078
Note: CFI = Comparative fit index; RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation;
SEM = Structural equation model; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.

Study 2

When examining the consequences of technostress creators on the individual well-being

aspects, significant consequences were found (regarding stress and strain) on health (β = .47,

p = 0.009) and stress (β = 0.45, p = 0.001), exhaustion (β = 0.56, p = 0.003) and turnover

intention (β = 0.27, p = 0.011) and (regarding engagement and satisfaction) on engagement

(β = –0.35, p = 0.014) and satisfaction (β = –0.26, p = 0.003) but not on performance (β = –

0.15, p = 0.200) .
Table A5. Additional analysis – effect of technostress creators on individual aspects of
stress and strain in Study 2.
Stress Exhaustion Health Turnover
Variable
β p β p β p β p
Technostress 0.45 0.001 0.56 0.003 0.47 0.009 0.27 0.011
Creators
Technostress 0.08 0.521 –0.12 0.486 –0.01 0.947 –0.08 0.516
Inhibitors
Age –0.21 0.002 –0.25 0.001 –0.07 0.447 –0.34 0.001
Gender –0.08 0.254 –0.08 0.305 –0.07 0.404 –0.13 0.077
2
𝜒 3472.70
p <0.001
CFI 0.62
RMSEA 0.09
SRMR 0.10
Note: CFI = Comparative fit index; RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation;
SEM = Structural equation model; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.

Table A6. Additional analysis – effect of technostress creators on individual

aspects of engagement and satisfaction in Study 2.
Engagement Performance Satisfaction
Variable
β p β p β p
Technostress –0.35 0.014 –0.15 0.200 –0.26 0.003
Creators
Technostress 0.23 0.434 0.21 0.478 0.01 0.888
Inhibitors
Age 0.20 0.035 0.06 0.654 0.19 0.006
Gender 0.06 0.520 0.19 0.148 0.19 0.011
𝜒2 3472.70
p <0.001
CFI 0.62
RMSEA 0.09
SRMR 0.10
Note: CFI = Comparative fit index; RMSEA = Root mean square error of
approximation; SEM = Structural equation model; SRMR = Standardized
Root Mean Square Residual.