14

| Mitigating the Adverse Effects

of Technostress
monideepa tarafdar, henri
pirkkalainen, and markus salo

The current pandemic-shaped times poignantly demonstrate the

immutable and entangled role of information technology (IT) in our
lives. The necessity of remote work has forced organizations to imple-
ment fast-paced roll-outs of remote working IT infrastructures without
carefully considering the well-being–related implications of what, for
both companies and individuals, is a vast digital leap (Waizenegger
et al., 2020). Our work lives are now mediated by the sustained and
relentless use of both asynchronous (e.g., email, ERP/CRM, One
Drive) and synchronous (e.g., Teams, Zoom, and Slack) IT devices
and applications. Moreover, once we are done with work, a key (and,
for many, perhaps the defining) feature of our nonwork lives involves
consuming digital content, using ever-present social media applications
(e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok) and engaging in virtual
meet-ups, games, cocktails, and quizzes with friends and family (e.g.,
Zoom, WhatsApp, Google Meet, Kahoot) for keeping abreast on what
is going in the world and lives of others. Not only that, our children are
‘going’ to school through virtual classrooms (e.g., Zoom), virtual
projects (e.g., Google Meet, Google Docs, Google Slides), and virtual
libraries (e.g., Epic). It is not expected that once the Covid-19 pan-
demic is over, we will drop these new practices altogether, because,
among other things, they bring convenience and fun.
However, what is sobering and should give pause for thought is the
extensive literature that suggests that use of IT can form a source of
stress for users – technostress. The phenomenon of technostress has
emerged as a prominent ‘dark side’ of the use of IT, both in the
workplace and outside it. Although stress can also have a positive side
(e.g., by challenging individuals to achieve difficult goals), technostress
creates many adverse effects for individuals, spanning the worlds of
work and nonwork. Our stance is that technostress is inevitable, even
more so now and in the new normal that will emerge. IT is inextricable
from our lives. Therefore, it is critical to alleviate and inhibit the

441

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009268332.020 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 442 Monideepa Tarafdar et al.

adverse effects of technostress. The objective of this chapter is to

examine the mitigation of technostress.

Technostress: Work and Nonwork Domains

In the workplace, IT users experience technostress because they perceive
the demands created by IT use – such as constant connectivity, interrup-
tions, and availability, as well as dealing with continual newness of
features and functionalities (Ayyagari et al., 2011; Galluch et al.,
2015) – as threatening to their well-being at work. A number of condi-
tions, referred to as technostress creators or technostressors, can lead to
technostress (Tarafdar et al., 2019). Techno-invasion embodies the
invasive effect of IT in situations where employees can be reached
anytime and anywhere by office colleagues. The constantly accessibility
of work through IT can mean that employees are tethered to work and
the workday gets longer and may ‘never’ end (Eurofound and the
International Labour Office, 2017). Techno-overload refers to facing
too much technology, multitasking, and/or information, creating poten-
tially additional effort for employees just to keep up with the use of IT.
Research shows that IT can increase the pace of work interactions
because digital and asynchronous work communication through emails
and text messages can take place rapidly (Barley et al., 2011). Further,
even if synchronous applications are used (e.g., video-conferencing),
demands from asynchronous applications (e.g., email) do not reduce
(Stich et al., 2017). Techno-complexity emerges when employees feel
pressured because they have to understand and learn how to use various
devices and applications that are difficult for them. Such work is usually
not part of their direct work, and yet they have to do it in order to get
their work done. For example, studies on professional sales persons
show that requirements for learning how to use various customer rela-
tionship management (CRM) applications adversely affects their ability
to achieve sales quota (Tarafdar et al., 2015). Even worse, such applica-
tions tend to change with every successive upgrade so that employees
have to install and update applications or new additions, such as
security-related patches and upgrades. As a result, they come up against
what is known as techno-uncertainty, a stressor experienced when
feeling unsettled because of constant changes.
Individuals experiencing technostress in the workplace face a pleth-
ora of strains and negative work-related outcomes, such as reduced job

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009268332.020 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 The Adverse Effects of Technostress 443

satisfaction, task performance, innovation, and organizational com-

mitment, as well as increased exhaustion, job-related anxiety, turnover
intentions, and even burnout (Tarafdar et al., 2019). Furthermore,
security-related stress increases workers’ reluctance to comply with
organizational IT requirements such as appropriate IT security behav-
iors (D’Arcy et al., 2014).
Technostress in nonwork activities can emerge from the constant
availability of digital content, perhaps most prominently from the use
of social networking services (SNS). In addition to stressors similar to
techno-complexity, techno-invasion, and techno-uncertainty, there are
several stress-creating conditions distinct to SNS. SNS overdependence
refers to the users’ excessive reliance on SNS in one’s daily activities
(Salo et al., 2019). Social overload describes the demand of responding
to excessive SNS-mediated requests for social actions and support (e.g.,
helping one’s contacts look for a house or giving travel related advice)
(Maier et al., 2015b). Disclosure refers to the condition of individuals
feeling that they are exposed to too much information on SNS, which
prevents them from effectively processing it (Maier et al., 2015a). Life
comparison discrepancy refers to the users’ unpleasant feelings when
contrasting one’s life to the lives of others via SNS (Salo et al., 2019).
Other SNS stressors include online discussion conflicts, conformity to
one’s friends’ use practices, and privacy/security concerns (Fox &
Moreland, 2015; Maier et al., 2015a; Salo et al., 2019).
What distinguishes IT use in personal and nonwork activities from
that of the work context is that it is undertaken voluntarily, ostensibly
for hedonic and social purposes. Indeed, we use SNS for entertainment,
leisure, and staying in touch with friends. SNS use does bring conveni-
ence and fun when individuals actualize the action possibilities (i.e.,
SNS affordances) of these applications. For example, it can be pleasur-
able to keep up with friends on Facebook, by actualizing the affor-
dance provided by the ‘post’ feature. However, each interaction with
the features of Facebook also creates small, almost hidden ‘actualiza-
tion costs’. That is, the user has to expend resources such as effort,
attention, and time during the interaction (Salo et al., 2021) while
using the feature. For example, ‘liking’ a message notification is done
at the cost of shifting attention away from other ongoing activities.
Over multiple interactions, these costs accumulate and exceed the
individual’s resources for dealing with them. Such incremental actual-
ization, building up gradually, can cause technostress (Salo et al.,

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009268332.020 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 444 Monideepa Tarafdar et al.

2021). In this way, initially enjoyable interactions with IT can turn

gradually to technostress experiences (e.g., being incapable of handling
constant bombardment from SNS notifications). Despite the hedonic
aspects of SNS use, it can also generate negative feelings such as envy,
worry, and depression (Krasnova et al., 2015) and fear of missing out
on what friends do (Fox & Moreland, 2015), as borne out by a glut of
observations by both researchers and commentators. This has caught
the attention of policy makers as well. For example, in 2020, the UK
government released an ‘Online Harms White Paper’,1 which lays out
different types of harmful effects from the use of the Internet and SNS
and identifies those that need regulatory attention by way
of mitigation.
Negative outcomes from SNS-related technostress include exhaus-
tion, dissatisfaction, and discontinuance of use (Maier et al., 2015a;
2015b) as well as problems related to concentration, sleep, identity,
and social relationships (Salo et al., 2019). Ironically, SNS stressors
can also make individuals use SNS even more, leading to addiction to
the same SNS (Tarafdar et al., 2020b). The relationships between
technostress, excessive use, and technology addiction are multifaceted
and complex. They deserve more attention from researchers in the
future. Finally, work and nonwork contexts can converge, creating
technostress that spills over from work to home or vice versa
(Benlian, 2020).

Technostress Mitigation
So, how can we mitigate the adverse effects of technostress? We look at
studies that have addressed technostress mitigation, at both the organ-
izational and individual levels. Most mitigation studies have focused
on technostress at work, but there are also some studies on technos-
tress mitigation in the nonwork context.

Organizational Mechanisms and Individual Factors That Inhibit

the Effects of Technostress
Organizations can help mitigate technostress at least in three ways.
First, remote and prompt technical helpdesk support can address many
concerns and technical problems that individuals encounter when
working with IT (Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008). Second, it is important

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009268332.020 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 The Adverse Effects of Technostress 445

that organizations frame explicit guidelines for technology use. Such

technology manuals for employees to access can help employees avoid
technostress (Tarafdar et al., 2015). Third, they can involve employees
in IT implementation decisions by encouraging them to shape their
own work patterns with IT (Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008). This can help
employees avoid technostress-creating conditions (Tarafdar et al.,
2015) and increase their job satisfaction and job commitment (Ragu-
Nathan et al., 2008). However, organizations can also do things to
make it worse. For example, there are examples of companies mandat-
ing email bans after 6 p.m.2 Such policies do not work for everyone
and indeed can backfire because they curtail employee flexibility and
choice. The tendency has been for organizations to assume that ‘less’ is
better. Research shows that this is not always the case. For example,
employees can appraise their use of email as being stressful when
they perceive that they get too much email as well as too little email
(Stich et al., 2019). Thus, measures such as banning email outside
certain hours can lead to stressful work relationships and low
work satisfaction.
Factors relating to the individual can inhibit the effects of technos-
tress. When managing technostress at work, being ‘good at using IT’
helps; employees with high IT self-efficacy experience lower technos-
tress in the first place and perform better at work even when they do
(Shu et al., 2011; Tams et al., 2018; Tarafdar et al., 2015). Similarly,
users who are mindful about what IT features they use experience
lower levels of technostress-creating conditions (Maier et al., 2019).
Further, while organizations have certain policies for IT use, employees
still have possibilities to shape their own IT use practices. For example,
employees can develop their own email management strategies and
take temporary breaks from IT (Soucek & Moser, 2010) in response
to technostress. In nonwork contexts, studies show that users have
various options, such as modifying the features and applications in
their smartphones or changing their IT use routines and the features of
an IT to reduce their exposure to technostressors. Success or failure in
such actions depends on the extent to which users can monitor and
regulate their use. However, monitoring one’s use realistically is par-
ticularly difficult because use occasions are frequent and of short
duration in such nonwork contexts. Further, the user tends to be
absorbed in their IT use (Salo et al., 2021). In addition to monitoring,
other important self-regulatory components in technostress mitigation

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009268332.020 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 446 Monideepa Tarafdar et al.

include the awareness of the norms to which people are held while
using IT, motivation for use, and the capacity to change. Each of these
components also reflect potential pitfalls. For example, bias toward
particular norms leads to a tendency for a socially promoted and over-
positive perception of IT use and, hence, neglect of its potential nega-
tive sides (Salo et al., 2021).

Coping with Technostress

Ultimately, however, IT users will need to take charge of their relation-
ship with technology, their IT use practices, and, hence, technostress.
Our lives are irreversibly intertwined with IT, and we cannot rely solely
on others to make us feel better about it. An individual’s ability to
tackle stress depends considerably on how well they can cope with it.
Coping refers to individuals’ cognitive and behavioral efforts to
manage demands that are appraised as taxing (cf., Lazarus, 1993;
Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). This means that an individual’s evaluation
of a certain demanding situation (i.e., appraisal) triggers and shapes
their coping actions (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004). Literature has
identified key appraisals that influence coping. Commonly discussed
appraisals include the perceived importance of the situation and its
consequences as a primary appraisal and one’s control over the situ-
ation as a secondary appraisal (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004).
Appraisal in the context of stress from email applications suggests that
employees appraise email use as stressful when it is in both excess and
deficit of what they feel comfortable with (Stich et al., 2019).
The focus of coping is on alleviating the intensity and effects of
stressors perceived by the individual. Seminal studies on stress note
that individuals cope with stress by exercising many kinds of cognitive
and behavioral efforts to respond to the demands they appraise as
threatening to their well-being (cf., Lazarus, 1993; Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984). One extensively used approach is to differentiate
between problem-focused and emotion-focused coping. Problem-
focused ways of coping are aimed at handling the source of stress
(Carver et al., 1989). Individuals adopt this approach when they want
to do something concrete about the situations that create stress for
them (Carver et al., 1989). Emotion-focused ways of coping include
behaviors aimed at handling and regulating emotions associated with a
stressful situation and feeling better about it (Carver et al., 1989). Both

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009268332.020 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 The Adverse Effects of Technostress 447

problem-focused and emotion-focused coping have been studied in the

IT context. This brings us to the subject of the individual’s coping
responses to IT in general and technostress in particular.

Coping with the Demands of IT Use

Before we get to coping with technostress, we note that both work-
related requirements and nonwork-related personal circumstances for
using IT applications place demands on individuals that can hinder
their use of these applications.
Individuals cope with these demands in a number of ways.
Researchers have investigated coping for various IT applications,
such as bank systems (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005), enterprise
resource planning systems (Elie-Dit-Cosaque & Straub, 2011),
administrative software packages (Stein et al., 2015), and mobile
applications (Salo et al., 2020). Studies have found that employees
who have high IT self-efficacy or control over how they use IT tend
to respond with problem-focused coping strategies, while those with
low IT self-efficacy or control tend to engage in emotion-focused
strategies (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005; Elie-Dit-Cosaque &
Straub, 2011; Liang & Xue, 2009; Stein et al., 2015). Despite these
broad patterns, it is important to note that coping is influenced by
many factors and, hence, IT self-efficacy or control do not fully
determine the employed coping strategies (Salo et al., 2020). On a
general level, those who appraise the requirements for using new IT
applications as an opportunity for improving their work and have
high levels of latitude in their IT use can maximize benefits to
themselves by exploring different features and incorporating them
in their work processes. They tend to experience emotions such as
satisfaction and excitement. On the other hand, employees who
appraise such requirements as a threat to their established ways of
working, and do not have leeway in how they use IT, are more likely
to find that they can preserve their emotional stability by using the
applications minimally or not at all. They can experience emotions
such as anger and anxiety (Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2005, 2010). In
general, employees may have emotions that are similar/uniform (e.g.,
loss or achievement) or mixed (e.g., both loss and achievement)
toward IT use situations (Stein et al., 2015). The former are associ-
ated with focused and converging coping strategies and the latter
with combinations of different coping strategies.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009268332.020 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 448 Monideepa Tarafdar et al.

In nonwork settings, particularly in the use of mobile applications,

users are found to engage in more than one type of coping behavior
(i.e., both problem- and emotion-focused), often engaging in complex
sequences of different behaviors involving reappraisals. For example,
users may respond to outstandingly negative mobile application
experiences by first trying to soothe their emotions by venting, then
attempting several IT-related workarounds to solve the problem, and
finally switching to an alternative application. In such coping efforts,
experiencing intense momentary emotions such as frustration or anger
(i.e., a high momentary emotional load) can steer users toward
emotion-focused strategies (Salo et al., 2020).

Coping Behaviors and Approaches for Technostress

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, individuals exert a number of dis-
tinctive coping behaviors and approaches for addressing technostress,
as we describe in Table 14.1.
The first group includes those that help individuals proactively
prepare themselves for apparent and upcoming technostress situations
that they cannot fully avoid (Schwarzer & Taubert, 2002). They do
this in order to build resilience against ongoing stressful events relating
to the use of IT. IT control (Pirkkalainen et al., 2019) is one such
coping approach. IT control is about developing autonomy and com-
petence in the use of IT which gives the individual the confidence to
tackle ongoing technostress situations such that, when faced with a
problem in the use of IT, they can find alternative ways or tools to
work through it. Another coping approach is positive reinterpretation,
which is about equipping oneself with an optimistic mindset about
technostress situations and infusing them with a positive meaning
(Pirkkalainen et al., 2019).
A second set of coping behaviors includes strategies to act on tech-
nostress situations after they have actualized. These ways of coping
include timing control, work and nonwork IT use separation, instru-
mental support, and distraction. Timing control refers to setting aside
certain times for particular types of IT use, such as deciding when to
read work-related emails and when to search for information related to
ongoing work tasks. Work and nonwork IT use separation is about
setting boundaries regarding when to use IT for work or nonwork
purposes (Tarafdar et al., 2020a). Instrumental support refers to seek-
ing help from others to accomplish IT-related tasks at work (Weinert

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009268332.020 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009268332.020 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Table 14.1 Coping behaviors for technostress

Coping type Coping behavior/approach Description References

Preparing for apparent IT control Developing confidence in own IT use Pirkkalainen et al. (2019);
technostress situations capabilities by focusing on certain IT Tarafdar et al. (2020a)
use skills and autonomy that help
master IT
Positive reinterpretation Developing a positive mindset about Pirkkalainen et al. (2019);
stressful situations with IT by infusing Tarafdar et al. (2020a)
them with a positive meaning
Acting in actualized Timing control Deciding when to use IT for a certain Tarafdar et al. (2020a)
technostress situations purpose, such as accessing and reading
emails
Work and nonwork IT use Demarcating times regarding when to Tarafdar et al. (2020a)
separation use IT for work or nonwork purposes
Instrumental support Seeking help from others for IT use- Weinert et al. (2020)
related tasks and problems
Distraction Diverting attention from the Tarafdar et al. (2020b)
technostress-creating situation
Relying on emotions in Seeking emotional support Seeking sympathy, understanding, and Weinert et al. (2020)
technostress situations encouragement from others in the case
of IT use-related concerns
Venting Venting negative emotions related to Pirkkalainen et al. (2019);
stressful IT use situations Tarafdar et al. (2020a)
449

Distancing Avoiding thinking about the stressful Pirkkalainen et al. (2019);

situation with IT and switching to Tarafdar et al. (2020a)
other tasks
 450 Monideepa Tarafdar et al.

et al., 2020). Distraction consists of diverting attention away from the

technostress creating situation and focusing on something different
(Tarafdar et al., 2020b).
The third set of coping behaviors relies primarily on emotions. These
behaviors are activated when the individual perceives that the technos-
tress situation cannot be avoided or that they have limited ways to deal
with the threats (Carver et al., 1989). Such strategies include emotional
support, venting, and Distancing. The first of these emotional supports
refers to seeking sympathy, understanding, and encouragement (e.g.,
from coworkers) to restore emotional stability in technostress situ-
ations (Weinert et al., 2020). Venting is about expressing negative
emotions in the technostress situation, such as letting out frustration
regarding IT, in interactions with colleagues or friends (Tarafdar et al.,
2020a). Distancing is about diverting from the stressful situation
and switching to other work or nonwork-related activities to
create a temporary break from the stressful situation with IT
(Tarafdar et al., 2020a).

Coping Outcomes for Technostress

Coping with technostress is a nuanced and complex matter and one of
individual choice and action; one size does not fit all individuals
(Tarafdar et al., 2020a). Different coping strategies can be activated
singly or in combination. Further, different coping behaviors may
lead to different outcomes. Some outcomes are positive and favorable
for the individual. Others are mixed and may not be healthy for
the individual.
Positive Outcomes of Coping. Building up resilience against ongoing
stressful events has been shown to be an effective way to combat
technostress (Pirkkalainen et al., 2019). For instance, IT control and
positive reinterpretation can help individuals avert the negative out-
comes that are commonly witnessed for technostress, such as reduced
work-related performance with IT (Pirkkalainen et al., 2019).
Similarly, timing control as well as work and nonwork IT use separ-
ation, and instrumental support has been found helpful in retaining
individuals’ IT-enabled productivity at work (Tarafdar et al., 2020a;
Weinert et al., 2020). Further, timing control may even prevent certain
technostressors from emerging in the first place. For instance, it can
reduce the number of IT-related interruptions and help individuals
avoid feelings of overload from IT use (Galluch et al., 2015). Relying

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009268332.020 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 The Adverse Effects of Technostress 451

on emotions for coping can also lead to positive results. For example,
emotional support can help individuals avoid exhaustion from the use
of IT when facing computer bugs and freezes (Weinert et al., 2020).
Mixed Outcomes of Coping. Some coping behaviors that rely on
emotion, such as venting and distancing, may lead to mixed results. On
the one hand, they can be constructive and have positive results,
because handling one’s emotions effectively can help individuals main-
tain their work performance with IT (Pirkkalainen et al., 2019).
However, they may also be maladaptive because they can increase
emotional strain (Pirkkalainen et al., 2017). In particular, feelings of
anger, often associated with venting, draw from negative emotions that
are toxic for the individual’s mental well-being. Denial, often associ-
ated with distancing, can prevent the individual from confronting the
issues that create technostress. Such feelings can be particularly harm-
ful in long-term if the individual continuously faces technostress but
does not seek to address the root causes.
In the context of SNS, coping through distraction can be linked with
maladaptive behaviors such as addiction to SNS (Tarafdar et al.,
2020b). Those habituated in the use of Facebook, for example, when
faced with technostress while using the application, gravitate toward
using it even more as a means to cope with the stress. What they do is
switch to a different activity from the one that causes them stress, all
the time staying on Facebook and not leaving it. Thus, they fall into a
vicious cycle of feeling stressed from and yet being unable to leave
Facebook.3 Such people, ironically, see SNS use as both a stressor and
a means to cope with the stress, engaging in maladaptive coping that
can actually strengthen addiction to the social networking site. On the
other hand, those whose use habits for SNS are not as strong manage
to get away from Facebook altogether and do something different as a
means of coping.
Combinations of Coping Behaviors Leading to Positive Outcomes.
Interestingly, recent findings show that combinations of multiple
coping strategies can foster positive outcomes and lessen the potential
maladaptive aspects of coping. For example, coping behaviors/
approaches that help individuals proactively prepare for apparent
and upcoming technostress situations (i.e., IT control, positive reinter-
pretation) can be effectively combined with emotion-based strategies
(i.e., venting, distancing). The potential negative effects of venting can
be countered by high levels of IT control and strong positive

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009268332.020 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 452 Monideepa Tarafdar et al.

reinterpretation. While the former can create emotion strain due to

anger, for example, the latter can act as a balancing factor by equip-
ping the individual with confidence in their own IT use capabilities and
optimism regarding IT use (Pirkkalainen et al., 2019). Similarly, coping
behavior that seeks high levels of emotional support can be more
effective for those with high IT self-efficacy, and that which seeks high
levels of instrumental and technical support is more effective for those
with low IT self-efficacy in lowering the levels of technostress creating
conditions experienced by individuals (Weinert et al., 2020) .

Conclusion
Technostress, having become a pervasive and global phenomenon due
to wide-ranging digitalization of work over the past decade and in the
pre-Covid era can only increase its import for the way we work and
live in the even more digitally infused world that is expected to emerge
post-Covid. While we know a lot about conditions that create technos-
tress and the outcomes they engender, the time has come for scholars to
pay attention to the mitigation of technostress. Our stance is that
mitigation of technostress needs to occur at both the organizational
and individual levels. While organizations can and do provide tech-
nical support, IT involvement, and technical training and education,
individuals are eventually responsible for managing and mitigating the
effects of their own technostress because IT is infused in almost every
work and nonwork activity.
In presenting this review of technostress mitigation and coping, it
occurs to us that certain areas stand out in terms of their importance
for further research. One is the intertwining of work and nonwork
settings for example, via remote work at home or using personal
devices and applications at work. Research needs to examine how
technostress can be alleviated in the context of the combination and
convergence of work and nonwork, such as spillovers from work to
home or vice versa (cf. Benlian, 2020). Addressing this area is import-
ant because such spillovers influence work and nonwork domains.
Another area to focus on is the individual’s IT use practices and
modifications of IT features for technostress mitigation and changes
in these practices over time (cf. Salo et al., 2021). Understanding such
details can help to tailor interventions to help technostressed users and

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009268332.020 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 The Adverse Effects of Technostress 453

find suitable mitigation options. Third, given the plethora of existing

and emerging technostress coping behaviors and mitigation mechan-
isms, we suggest scholars continue investigating the combined effects
of different mitigation mechanisms and/or coping approaches in dif-
ferent contexts of work (Tarafdar et al., 2020a).

Notes
1 See www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper/out
come/online-harms-white-paper-full-government-response
2 www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50073107
3 See for example, M. Tarafdar (2018, May), Social media: Six ways to take
back control, The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/social-
media-six-steps-to-take-back-control-95814

References
Ayyagari, R., Grover, V., & Purvis, R. (2011). Technostress: Technological
antecedents and implications. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 831–858.
Barley, S. R., Meyerson, D. E., & Grodal, S. (2011). E-mail as a source and
symbol of stress. Organization Science, 22(4), 887–906.
Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2005). Understanding user responses to
information technology: A coping model of user adaption. MIS
Quarterly, 29(3), 493–524.
(2010). The other side of acceptance: Studying the direct and indirect
effects of emotions on information technology use. MIS Quarterly, 34
(4), 689–710.
Benlian, A. (2020). A daily field investigation of technology-driven stress
spillovers from work to home. MIS Quarterly, 44(3), 1259–1300.
Carver, C., Scheier, M., & Weintraub, J. (1989). Assessing coping strategies:
A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56, 267–283.
D’Arcy, J., Herath, T., & Shoss, M. (2014). Understanding employee
responses to stressful information security requirements: A coping per-
spective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 31(2), 285–318.
Elie-Dit-Cosaque, C. M., & Straub, D. W. (2011). Opening the black box of
system usage: User adaptation to disruptive IT. European Journal of
Information Systems, 20(5), 589–607.
Eurofound and the International Labour Office. (2017). Working anytime,
anywhere: The effects on the world of work. Publications Office of the

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009268332.020 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 454 Monideepa Tarafdar et al.

European Union, Luxembourg, and the International Labour Office,

Geneva. Fairweather.
Folkman, S., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: Pitfalls and promise.
Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 745–774.
Fox, J., & Moreland, J. J. (2015). The dark side of social networking sites:
An exploration of the relational and psychological stressors associated
with Facebook use and affordances. Computers in Human behavior, 45,
168–176.
Galluch, P., Grover, V., & Thatcher, J. (2015). Interrupting the workplace:
Examining stressors in an information technology context. Journal of
the Association for Information Systems, 16(1), 1–47.
Krasnova. K., Widjaja. T., Buxmann, P., Wenninger, H., & Benbasat, I.
(2015). Research note – why following friends can hurt you: An explora-
tory investigation of the effects of envy on social networking sites among
college-age users. Information Systems Research, 26(3), 585–605.
Maier, C., Laumer, S., Eckhardt, A., & Weitzel, T. (2015b). Giving too
much social support: Social overload on social networking sites.
European Journal of Information Systems, 24(5), 447–464.
Maier, C., Laumer, S., Weinert, C., & Weitzel, T. (2015a). The effects of
technostress and switching stress on discontinued use of social network-
ing services: A study of Facebook use. Information Systems Journal, 25
(3), 275–308.
Maier, C., Laumer, S., Wirth, J., & Weitzel, T. (2019). Technostress and the
hierarchical levels of personality: A two-wave study with multiple data
samples. European Journal of Information Systems, 28(5), 496–522.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2019.1614739
Lazarus, R. S. (1993). From psychological stress to the emotions: A history
of changing outlooks. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 1–21.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. Springer.
Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2009). Avoidance of information technology threats:
A theoretical perspective. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 71–90.
Pirkkalainen, H., Salo, M., & Makkonen, M. (2020). IT engagement as a
blessing and a curse? Examining its antecedents and outcomes in organiza-
tions. International Journal of Information Management, 53(April), 102130.
Pirkkalainen, H., Salo, M., Makkonen, M., & Tarafdar, M. (2017). Coping
with technostress: When emotional responses fail. Proceedings of the
38th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS).
Pirkkalainen, H., Salo, M., Tarafdar, M., & Makkonen, M. (2019).
Deliberate or instinctive? Proactive and reactive coping for technostress.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 36(4), 1179–1212.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009268332.020 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 The Adverse Effects of Technostress 455

Ragu-Nathan, T. S., Tarafdar, M., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Tu, Q. (2008).

The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations:
Conceptual development and validation. Information Systems Research,
19(4), 417–433.
Salo, M., Makkonen, M., & Hekkala, R. (2020). The interplay of IT users’
coping strategies: Uncovering momentary emotional load, routes, and
sequences. MIS Quarterly, 44(3), 1143–1175.
Salo, M., Pirkkalainen, H., Chua, C., & Koskelainen, T. (2021).
Formation and mitigation of technostress in the personal use of IT.
MIS Quarterly, 46(2), 1073–1108.
Salo, M., Pirkkalainen, H., & Koskelainen, T. (2019). Technostress and
social networking services: Explaining users’ concentration, sleep, iden-
tity, and social relation problems. Information Systems Journal, 29(2),
408–435.
Schwarzer, R., & Taubert, S. (2002). Tenacious goal pursuits and striving
toward personal growth: Proactive coping. In E. Frydenberg (Ed.),
Beyond coping: Meeting goals, visions and challenges (pp. 19–35).
Oxford University Press.
Shu, Q., Tu, Q., & Wang, K. (2011). The impact of computer self-efficacy
and technology dependence on computer-related technostress: A social
cognitive theory perspective. International Journal of Human–
Computer Interaction, 27(10), 923–939.
Stein, M., Newell, S. M., Wagner, E. L., & Galliers, R. D. (2015). Coping
with information technology: Mixed emotions, vacillation, and non-
conforming use patterns. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 367–392.
Stich, J.-F., Tarafdar, M., Cooper, C. L., & Stacey, P. (2017). Workplace
stress from actual and desired computer-mediated communication use:
A multimethod study. New Technology, Work and Employment, 32(1),
84–100.
Stich, J.-F., Tarafdar, M., Stacey, P., & Cooper, C. L. (2019). Appraisal of
email use as a source of workplace stress: A person–environment fit
approach. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(2),
article 2.
Tams, S., Thatcher, J. B., & Grover, V. (2018). Concentration, competence,
confidence, and capture: An experimental study of age, interruption-
based technostress, and task performance. Journal of the Association
for Information Systems, 19(9), 857–908.
Tarafdar, M., Bolman Pullins, E., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2015).
Technostress: Negative effect on performance and possible mitigations.
Information Systems Journal, 25(2), 103–132.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009268332.020 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 456 Monideepa Tarafdar et al.

Tarafdar, M., Cooper, C. L., & Stich, J. F. (2019). The technostress trifecta –
techno eustress, techno distress and design: Theoretical directions and
an agenda for research. Information Systems Journal, 29(1), 6–42.
Tarafdar, M., Maier, C., Laumer, S., & Weitzel, T. (2020b). Explaining the
link between technostress and technology addiction for social network-
ing sites: A study of distraction as a coping behavior. Information
Systems Journal, 30(1), 96–124.
Tarafdar, M., Pirkkalainen, H., Salo, M., & Makkonen, M. (2020a). Taking
on the ‘dark side’ – coping with technostress. IEEE IT Professional, 22
(6), 82–89.
Waizenegger, L., McKenna, B., Cai, W., & Bendz, T. (2020). An affordance
perspective of team collaboration and enforced working from home
during COVID-19. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(4),
429–442.
Weinert, C., Maier, C., Laumer, S., & Weitzel, T. (2020). Technostress
mitigation: An experimental study of social support during a computer
freeze. Journal of Business Economics, 90(8), 1199–1249.

https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009268332.020 Published online by Cambridge University Press