Journal of Decision Systems

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tjds20

Workers’ technostress: a review of its causes,

strains, inhibitors, and impacts

Amna Shifia Nisafani, Gaye Kiely & Carolanne Mahony

To cite this article: Amna Shifia Nisafani, Gaye Kiely & Carolanne Mahony (2020) Workers’
technostress: a review of its causes, strains, inhibitors, and impacts, Journal of Decision
Systems, 29:sup1, 243-258, DOI: 10.1080/12460125.2020.1796286

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2020.1796286

Published online: 26 Jul 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6061

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 44 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjds20
JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS
2020, VOL. 29, NO. S1, 243–258
https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2020.1796286

ARTICLE

Workers’ technostress: a review of its causes, strains,

inhibitors, and impacts
Amna Shifia Nisafani , Gaye Kiely and Carolanne Mahony
Business Information Systems, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Workers’ technostress is inevitable with the current omnipresent Received 15 December 2019
digital technologies in organisations. While there are numerous Accepted 19 June 2020
empirical studies of work-related technostress, we need a holistic KEYWORDS
conceptual model that summarises those studies’ findings. Thus, Technostress; literature
this study aims to build a conceptual model to explain workers' review; technostress causes;
technostress. We gather work-related technostress literature from strains; technostress
EBSCO, Web of Science, and Science Direct. Afterwards, we deduc­ inhibitors; technostress
tively examined those articles using provisional coding and pro­ impacts
duced a conceptual model. We use Stressors-Strains-Outcomes
Model to predefine our codebook. In addition to the model, we
also add situational factors that serve as inhibitors that moderating
the causal effects of stressors and strains. The proposed model
could help organisations to understand technostress phenomenon
in their working space. By understanding these, organisations could
formulate strategies to manage technostress and limit the impact
on their employees. This understanding can be useful to manage
unintended risks that technostress introduces to organisations.

1. Introduction
The ubiquitous use of information technology (IT) brings positive and negative conse­
quences for both individuals and organisations (Riedl, 2013). To this point, technostress is
one negative consequence of IT use (Ayyagari et al., 2011; Brod, 1982; Ragu-Nathan et al.,
2008; Riedl, 2013; Tarafdar et al., 2007). Technostress emerges as a result of direct
interaction between IT artefacts and human beings. It encompasses perception, emotion,
and thought in the post-Information System (IS) implementation in organisations and the
prevalent use of IT in society (Riedl, 2013).
Research shows that technostress could introduce devastating effects for human-
beings, examples include anxiety (Hudiburg & Necessary, 1996; Salanova et al., 2013),
exhaustion (Ayyagari et al., 2011), and fatigue (Korunka et al., 1996; Salanova et al., 2013).
Furthermore, technostress has tended to decrease workers’ performance (Korunka et al.,
1996; Tarafdar et al., 2010, 2011) and produce job dissatisfaction (Arnetz & Wiholm, 1997;
Korunka et al., 1996; Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008).
Despite numerous empirical studies on technostress, only very few literature reviews have
been conducted (La Torre et al., 2019). The recent literature review conducted by La Torre et al.

CONTACT Amna Shifia Nisafani amna.shifia@gmail.com

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
244 A. S. NISAFANI ET AL.

(2019) aimed to explain the definition, symptoms and risks of technostress. Further, they
incorporated both work and non-work-related technostress. Other literature reviews focus is
on methodologies employed in technostress research such as Riedl (2013), Fischer and Riedl
(2017), and Riedl (2013) discussed the use of biological measures in technostress, while Fischer
and Riedl (2017) proposed the use of measurement pluralism in technostress research. Along
with these, three literature reviews investigated technostress in specific domains, i.e. library users
(Sami & Pangannaiah, 2006), nurses (Tacy, 2016), and accountants (Saganuwan et al., 2015).
In addition to previous literature reviews, this study aims to understand the constitu­
tion of work-related technostress. Further, this study is not targeting a specific domain, as
previous research has been domain-specific. Thus, this study has the potential of increas­
ing the generalisability of this research. The output of our literature review research is the
development of a conceptual model of technostress. The model comprises of four
components that constitute technostress: causes, strains, inhibitors, and impacts.
We arrange the remainder of the article as follows. Section two provides an overview of
technostress, Section three explains our methodology, and section four provides a discussion of
our findings. Finally, sections five finishes with conclusions and calls for future research.

2. Technostress definition
The term technostress comes from a clinical psychologist, Craig Brood, in 1984 (Gaudioso
et al., 2017). Technostress is as a modern disease which impacts people who have
difficulties coping with IT in a healthy manner (Ayyagari et al., 2011; Tarafdar et al.,
2007). In other words, technostress is any adverse effects on human behaviours, thoughts,
attitudes, and psychology imposed by technology use (Tu et al., 2005). Tarafdar et al.
(2007) perceive technostress as an adaption problem of individuals due to their incap­
ability to cope up with information technology. In an organisational context, technostress
is the stress suffered by end-users due to their engagement with IT in a working environ­
ment (Arnetz & Wiholm, 1997; Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008; Tarafdar et al., 2010).
Ragu-Nathan et al. (2008) characterise technology and workspaces that induce tech­
nostress in three characteristics. First, a high dependency on an evolved IS in the working
environment. Second, there is a knowledge gap between workers and an evolved IS for
performing a task. Third, there is a change in the working environment and culture due to
the use of technology. The notion of evolved IS is evident by the introduction of a new
version and update of IS to a working space (Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008).
Tarafdar et al. (2007) have identified five factors that cause technostress (see Table 1).
These factors are called techno-stressors (Gaudioso et al., 2017).
Karr-Wisniewski and Lu (2010) propose a different definition of technology overload. They
describe that technology overload is a situation where the excessive use of technology imposes
adverse effects (Karr-Wisniewski & Lu, 2010). Further, they also identify three salient dimensions
of technology overload: system feature overload, information overload, and communication
overload (Karr-Wisniewski & Lu, 2010). Table 2 provides definitions of these three dimensions.
With the prevalence of information technology (IT) implementation in organisations, it is of
critical importance that the presence and impact of techno-stressors be examined. The next
section outlines the literature review method employed to identify and examine prior research
on technostress.
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 245

Table 1. Techno-stressors (adapted from: (Tarafdar et al., 2007)).

Techno-stressor Definition
Techno-overload “Situations where ICTs force users to work faster and longer” (p. 315)

Techno-invasion “The invasive effect of ICTs in terms of creating situations where users can potentially be reached
anytime, employees feel the need to be constantly “connected,” and there is a blurring between
work-related and personal context.” (p. 315)

Techno-complexity “Situations where the complexity associated with ICTs makes users feel inadequate as far as their
skills are concerned and forces them to spend time and effort in learning and understanding
various aspects of ICTs.” (p. 315)

Techno-insecurity “Situations where users feel threatened about losing their jobs because of a new ICT replacing
them, or to other people who have a better understanding of the ICT.” (p. 315)

Techno-uncertainty “Contexts where continuing changes and upgrades in an ICT unsettle users and create uncertainty
for them, in that they have to constantly learn and educate themselves about the new ICT.” (p. 315)

Table 2. Definitions of technology overload dimensions (adapted from: (Karr-Wisniewski & Lu, 2010)).
Dimension Definition
System feature overloadA condition when the technology is too sophisticated for processing a simple task
Information overload A condition where the information provided is greater than the ability of one to process
the information
Communication overload A condition when a third party uses technology to communicate with a worker excessively
to the point it interrupts his/her job.

3. Methodology
This section describes the approach for literature gathering by adopting an approach
proposed by (Wolfswinkel et al., 2013). The approach consists of four steps: define, search,
select and analyse (see Figure 1).

3.1. Define
This step focuses on developing a search strategy by 1) outlining inclusion/exclusion
criteria, 2) determining database sources, 3) defining search parameters. Figure 1 lists the
inclusion rules used in this study. For the database sources, this study uses EBSCO, Science
Direct, and Web of Science following a systematic review process as outlined by (Han
et al., 2018). In terms of search parameter, we used ‘technostress’ as the keyword for our
search; technostress has been used as a keyword in previous literature reviews i.e. (Fischer
& Riedl, 2015, 2017; Riedl, 2013; La Torre et al., 2019).

3.2. Search
In this step we conducted the search. The results were filtered using the inclusion rules
available in the selected database. Further, the results were examined in the next step to
select the relevant literature for this study. From the actual search, we obtained 64, 296, and
118 results from EBSCO, Science Direct and Web of Science respectively. In total, we got 478
search results.
246 A. S. NISAFANI ET AL.

Figure 1. Literature review approach.

3.3. Select
In this step, we show how we select our literature. There were two steps. The first was the
duplication checking. This was necessary because the literature came from different
database sources. Figure 1 (Step Select) presents the result of the duplication-checking
procedure. Figure 1 shows that the number of duplicated titles was 134. The second step
was relevancy checking. Here, to ensure manageability, we examined the literature in
a stepwise procedure. Procedures were 1) title reading, 2) abstract reading, and 3) full-text
reading. Figure 1 also provides the result of relevancy checking.
For title reading, the relevancy was assessed based on the title of the paper. Here, since
this study focus on workers’ technostress, the title should represent these topics. From
title checking, we excluded 101 papers. For abstract reading, this study focuses on worker
stress related to IT used. Therefore, we only included any relevant papers for a full reading.
From the abstract reading, there were 42 papers related to the stress imposed by IT on
workers. The distribution of papers in technostress is available in Figure 2.

3.4. Analyse
In this section, we analyse the literature that we have obtained previously. For this
purpose, we used provisional coding (Miles et al., 2014). Provisional coding requires us
to provide a ‘start-list’ of researcher-generated codes (Miles et al., 2014, p. 10). Afterwards,
we use these predefined codes to analyse our literature. Provisional coding itself is helpful
to confirm previous research and investigations (Miles et al., 2014). For doing so, the
coding scheme that we used for our provisional coding is available in Table 3. The
predefined codes are an extension of the Stressor-Strain-Outcome Model (Koeske &
Koeske, 1993). The model comprises three variables: stress, strain, and outcome. In
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 247

Figure 2. Paper distribution by year.

Table 3. Code scheme for technostress.

Scheme Definition
Techno-stressors Technology related factors inducing technostress
Strain The manifestation of technostress
Impact The impact of technostress
Inhibitors Factors that reduce technostress

general, the model exhibits a causal diagram among variables. More specifically, stressors
directly cause strain, which subsequently contributes to a specific outcome. Reviewing
the literature allowed us to update our codes and adapted the model; for example, we
also add a situational variable. Situational factors are any conditions that either weaken or
strengthen the effects of potential stressors (Brown et al., 2014; Turel & Gaudioso, 2018).
Here, the situational factors act as inhibitors between stressors, strain and outcome. Our
final model is available in section 4.5.
The sample of our coding scheme is available in Table 4. We have eight coding
examples from literature. Each example represents each coding scheme such as techno-
stressor, strain, impact, and inhibitor.

4. Findings
In this section, we explain what we have found from the literature. That is, techno-
stressors, strains, inhibitors, and impacts. At the end of this section, we draw
a conceptual model of technostress.

4.1. Techno-stressors: the causes of technostress

Table 5 lists factors introducing technostress in organisations, which we identify as techno-
stressors. We can classify the causes of technostress in to two categories. The first category
is the causes that related to system performance such as system breakdown, usability
issues, and security issues. System breakdown refers to any IT malfunctions experienced by
users; one form of system breakdown is an error message (Riedl et al., 2012). Usability
issues refers to how well users can use the functionality provided by the system (Nielsen,
248 A. S. NISAFANI ET AL.

Table 4. Example of text from literature.

Sub-coding
No Coding scheme scheme Sample text Reference
1 Techno-stressor Dependency on The results indicate that dependence on (Shu et al., 2011)
technology technology may increase technostress.
2 Techno-stressor Role ambiguity, The strongest contributors to strain were role (Ayyagari et al., 2011)
work overload ambiguity and work overload
3 Strain Emotional In support of the TMS framework, the email (Brown et al., 2014)
exhaustion stressors contributed to emotional
exhaustion
4 Strain Work exhaustion It was found that only mobile enterprise- (Kim et al., 2015)
invasion had a significantly positive impact
on work exhaustion.
5 Impact Productivity This indicates that the higher the (Hung et al., 2015)
communication overload experienced by
mobile phone users, the lower their
productivity will be.
6 Impact Task performance Individual stress is negatively related to task (Tams et al., 2018)
performance.
7 Inhibitor User experience The similarity of user experience across mobile (Hung et al., 2015)
OS vendors has greatly reduced
technological complexity.
8 Inhibitor User experience usefulness negatively affects adverse emotions, (Lee, 2016)
although its influence on anxiety was
marginal.

Table 5. Techno-stressors.
Classification Techno-stressors Papers
System Security issues (Kwanya et al., 2012)
Performance Usability issues (Sellberg & Susi, 2014)
System breakdown (Riedl et al., 2012)
Non-System Techno-uncertainty (Alam, 2016; Ayyagari et al., 2011; Bucher et al., 2013; Fuglseth & Sørebø,
Performance 2014; Kwanya et al., 2012; Zhou et al., 2013)
Techno-complexity (Alam, 2016; Fuglseth & Sørebø, 2014; Liu et al., 2019)
Work-home conflict (Ayyagari et al., 2011)
Flexibility (Kim et al., 2015; Yun et al., 2012)
Information overload (Karr-Wisniewski & Lu, 2010; Lee, 2016)
Communication (Hung et al., 2015; Karr-Wisniewski & Lu, 2010; Sellberg & Susi, 2014)
Overload
Techno-overload (Alam, 2016; Bucher et al., 2013; Fuglseth & Sørebø, 2014; Hung et al.,
2015; Kwanya et al., 2012; Norulkamar et al., 2012; Ragu-Nathan et al.,
2008; Yun et al., 2012)
Techno-insecurity (Ayyagari et al., 2011; Fuglseth & Sørebø, 2014; Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008)
Role ambiguity (Ayyagari et al., 2011)
Techno-invasion (Bucher et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2015; Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008)
System overload (Karr-Wisniewski & Lu, 2010)
Dependency on (Liu et al., 2019; Shu et al., 2011)
technology
Lack of fit between (Al-Fudail & Mellar, 2008; Kwanya et al., 2012)
demand and ability
Lack of fit between (Al-Fudail & Mellar, 2008; Kwanya et al., 2012)
supply and need

1993). Some examples of usability issues are related to system efficiency, effectiveness and
learnability (Benyon, 2010; Sellberg & Susi, 2014). Security issues refers to any threats or
attacks that allow destruction, unauthorised access, disruption, disclosure or modification
of information and information systems (Maimbo, 2014). To ensure information security,
organisations implement policies on how to use information systems (Feruza & Kim, 2007),
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 249

One type of IT security policies would be password policies (Cavusoglu et al., 2004; Siponen
& Oinas-Kukkonen, 2007). Here, working with multiple systems, users need to remember
different usernames and passwords, which can lead to technostress (Kwanya et al., 2012).
The second category of causes is not related to system performance. These causes
mostly relate to how workers use IT in their working space. Some of these techno-
stressors are accessibility (Hung et al., 2015), dependency on technology (Liu et al.,
2019; Shu et al., 2011), and techno-uncertainty (Ayyagari et al., 2011). Hung et al. (2015)
define accessibility as the ease of access to communication technologies. By getting
access to communication technologies, workers could be quickly interrupted by external
sources (communication overload) (Hung et al., 2015). Also, these technologies force
workers to work faster and extend their work (techno-overload) (Ragu-Nathan et al.,
2008; Tarafdar et al., 2010, 2007). Similar to accessibility, flexibility allows one to reach
any workers anywhere and anytime (techno-invasion) (Kim et al., 2015; Yun et al., 2012).
Techno-invasion blurs the distinction between work and personal life due to constant
connectivity via technology (Tarafdar et al., 2010). This definition of techno-invasion is
expressed differently by Ayyagari et al. (2011) who describe it as work-home conflict.
Dependency on technology also contributes to technostress (Liu et al., 2019; Shu
et al., 2011). It defines the level of worker dependency on technology to operationalise
their works (Liu et al., 2019; Shu et al., 2011). High level of dependency increases the
possibility of workers facing some problems related to the technology (i.e., errors,
complexity), which introduces technostress (Shu et al., 2011). Another techno-stressor
is techno-uncertainty (Ayyagari et al., 2011). The study by Ayyagari et al. (2011) aligns
with prior research studies (Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008; Tarafdar et al., 2010, 2007) which
identify techno-uncertainty as one of the techno-stressors. Techno-uncertainty is a
condition where the constant changing of technology imposes workers’ anxiety on
their IT capabilities (Ayyagari et al., 2011).
Al-Fudail and Mellar (2008) also found that the lack of fit between technology demand
and workers’ ability, and between organisational supply and worker’s need will induce
worker technostress. The example of lack of fit between demand and ability is as follows.
Suppose an innovative technology requires an essential level of worker IT capabilities.
However, since a worker has a low level of IT capabilities, the lack of fit between demand
and ability occurs. This lack of fit introduces technostress on the worker. The illustration of
the lack of fit between supply and need is as follows. Since the worker possesses a low
level of IT capabilities, the worker needs some supports such as training from the
organisation. However, the organisation does not provide adequate training for the
worker. Thereby, this will hinder worker improvement, which leads to technostress.

4.2. Strain: the manifestation of technostress

In terms of technostress, some studies have identified strains that represent an individual
response to techno stressors (Ayyagari et al., 2011). There are several strains expressed
clearly in some studies (see Table 6). We classify the strains into two categories: emotional
strain and physical strain.
Emotional strain represents the psychological state of workers. An example of emo­
tional strain is emotional exhaustion (Brown et al., 2014). Emotional exhaustion is
a condition when a worker feels emotionally overextended, irritable and fatigued
250 A. S. NISAFANI ET AL.

Table 6. Strains due to IT use.

Classification Strains Papers
Emotional Strain Emotional exhaustion (Brown et al., 2014)
Negative emotion anger (Lee, 2016)
Negative emotion anxiety (Lee, 2016)
Work exhaustion (Kim et al., 2015; Turel & Gaudioso, 2018)
Work anxiety (Kummer et al., 2017)
Relational anxiety (Kummer et al., 2017)
Techno-exhaustion (Yang et al., 2017)
Techno-anxiety (Carlotto et al., 2017)
Physical Strain Eyestrain (Kwanya et al., 2012)
High level of cortisol (Riedl et al., 2012)

(Brown et al., 2014). The other strains are harmful emotion, anger and anxiety respectively
(Lee, 2016). Another strain is work exhaustion (Kim et al., 2015). Kim et al. (2015) define
work exhaustion as ‘the depletion of emotional and mental energy that is necessary to meet
the needs of duties in the workplace’ (p. 256).
Physical strain captures the physical state of workers such as eyestrain and high level of
cortisol. Previous research shows that the level of cortisol increased dramatically when
humans experienced technostress (Riedl et al., 2012).
Despite the aim to investigate technostress in working space, our finding shows that
the vast majority (76%) of previous research incorporates technostress in general terms.
They do not specify what kind of strains manifested. For example, (Ayyagari et al., 2011)
incorporate variable ‘strain’ in their study. Different examples are exhibited by (Ragu-
Nathan et al., 2008; Shu et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2008) which include ‘technostress’ as
a variable in their study.

4.3. Inhibitors of technostress

The section discusses the inhibitors of technostress. The current literature has
found that why workers experience technostress different from each other may
be explained by variables on some conditions. One could classify these conditions
as either individual condition or organisational setting. Individual condition refers
to conditions which attach to personal such as educational level (Ragu-Nathan
et al., 2008), self-efficacy (Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008; Shu et al., 2011), and technol­
ogy dependency (Shu et al., 2011). Technology self-efficacy indicates workers’
confidence level using technology to perform a particular task (Shu et al., 2011).
While technology dependency represents workers’ dependency on technology to
complete a task. (Liu et al., 2019). There are conditions where workers experience
lower technostress level. First is when the worker has a higher educational level
(Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008). Second is when the worker has higher technology self-
efficacy (Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008; Shu et al., 2011). The third is when the worker
has a lower level of technology dependency (Shu et al., 2011). Organisational
setting denotes how an organisation achieves its goal (Wang et al., 2008).
Further, (Wang et al., 2008) classified two internal organisational environments
based on 1) power centralisation and 2) innovation in the organisation. Their
study exhibits that organisations with high power centralisation and high innova­
tion impose the highest level of overall technostress (Wang et al., 2008).
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 251

Table 7. Technostress inhibitors.

Classification Inhibitors
Technology Related Reliability
Inhibitors User Experience
Usefulness
Usability
Technical Support Provision
Controlling the pace of
system development
Non-Technology- Effective change
Related Inhibitors management
Involvement Facilitation
Proactive Personality
Dimension
Segmentation Culture
Work Quality
Literacy Facilitation
Technology self-efficacy
Papers
(Ayyagari et al., 2011)
(Hung et al., 2015)
(Lee, 2016)
(Ayyagari et al., 2011)
(Fuglseth & Sørebø, 2014; Kwanya et al., 2012; Norulkamar
et al., 2012; Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008)
(Kwanya et al., 2012)
(Kwanya et al., 2012)
(Fuglseth & Sørebø, 2014; Kim et al., 2015; Kwanya et al., 2012;
Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008)
(Hung et al., 2015)
(Kim et al., 2015; Yun et al., 2012)
(Yun et al., 2012)
(Fuglseth & Sørebø, 2014; Kwanya et al., 2012; Norulkamar
et al., 2012; Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008)
(Liu et al., 2019; Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008; Shu et al., 2011)

Technostress literature has investigated some factors that inhibit technostress (see
Table 7). From Table 7, we can classify technostress inhibitors into two categories:
technology-related inhibitors and non-technology-related inhibitors. Technology-related
inhibitors are any factors that reduce technostress on workers based on technical char­
acteristics. Some technology-related inhibitors are reliability (Ayyagari et al., 2011), user
experience (Hung et al., 2015), and usefulness (Lee, 2016). The reliability of technology
helps to reduce the level of work overload (Ayyagari et al., 2011). User experience
familiarity with other technologies contributes to lowering technology complexity faced
by workers (Hung et al., 2015). Also, when workers find that the technology is useful, it
helps them to be less angry (Lee, 2016).
Non-technology-related inhibitors are any factors that help in minimise technos­
tress on workers based on non-technology characteristics. One of the inhibitors that
have received attention in previous studies is technology self-efficacy (c.f. Liu et al.,
2019; Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008; Shu et al., 2011). Technology self-efficacy helps
individuals in responding to stress when stressors occur (Tams et al., 2018).
Further, Shu et al. (2011) have found that employees with higher self-efficacy have
a willingness to overcome problems caused by IT as well as to embrace positive
coping behaviour. Organisations also play an essential role to help workers overcome
technostress. For example, organisations which encourage end-users to participate in
the introduction and development of new technology (involvement facilitation) help
to lessen technostress (Kim et al., 2015). Another example is strengthening segmen­
tation culture in an organisation aids workers to achieve work-life conflict balance
(Kim et al., 2015; Yun et al., 2012).

4.4. The impact of technostress

Previous studies have found that technostress has an impact on personal and organisa­
tional related issues. Table 8 highlights some impacts of technostress.
252 A. S. NISAFANI ET AL.

Table 8. Impact of technostress.

Impacts Papers
Productivity (Alam, 2016; Hung et al., 2015; Karr-Wisniewski & Lu, 2010; Tarafdar et al., 2010; Yang et al.,
2017)
Job Satisfaction (Boonjing & Chanvarasuth, 2017; Jena, 2015; Kim et al., 2015; Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008; Tak
& Park, 2016; Yin et al., 2018)
End-User Satisfaction (Fuglseth & Sørebø, 2014; Tarafdar et al., 2010)
Employee Engagement (Okolo et al., 2018)
User Resistance (Yun et al., 2012)
Intention to use ICT (Fuglseth & Sørebø, 2014; Kummer et al., 2017)
Organisational (Jena, 2015)
Commitment
Negative Affectivity (Jena, 2015)
Technology enabled (Jena, 2015)
performance
Task Performance (Boonjing & Chanvarasuth, 2017; Tams et al., 2018; Tarafdar et al., 2010)

The most widely discussed technostress impacts are productivity (c.f. Hung et al., 2015;
Karr-Wisniewski & Lu, 2010; Tarafdar et al., 2010) and job satisfaction (c.f. Kim et al., 2015;
Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008; Tak & Park, 2016; Yin et al., 2018). In terms of productivity, Hung
et al. (2015) use the law of diminishing theory. That is, describe that while the use of
technology could boost productivity to some extent, the extreme utilisation of technol­
ogy could produce an adverse effect. Job satisfaction is defined as an emotional reaction
to the job (An et al., 2016), resulting from the appraisal of job experience (Locke, 1976).
With the high level of technostress, workers felt less satisfied on their job (Kim et al., 2015;
Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008; Tak & Park, 2016; Yin et al., 2018). Further, technostress also
hinders employee engagement in an organisation (Okolo et al., 2018), and it increases
user resistance in using the new technology (Yun et al., 2012).

4.5. Work-related technostress: a conceptual model

Based on the discussion above, we proposed a conceptual model of technostress. The
model constitutes four components: stressors, strains, inhibitors and impacts. The model
is available in Figure 3. The model represents a causal effect diagram between its
components. Techno-stressors exemplify the causes of technostress in working spaces.
The use of technology for work purposes introduces technostress. One example is when
workers face with some usability issues (Sellberg & Susi, 2014). The software may contain
hidden functionalities that mandate a user to memorise how to operate them (Sellberg &
Susi, 2014). Another example happens in Lotus Notes. In this software, a user can book an
appointment schedule. However, to reschedule the previously entered schedule is not
easy. A user needs to deal with a sophisticated graphical user interface, which shows how
usability issues can produce technostress (Sellberg & Susi, 2014).
The strain is the second construct of our model. A strain is individual responses to
technostress (Ayyagari et al., 2011). Strain can manifest as an output of constant techno-
stress exposure. For example, consider the Lotus Notes case. A user continuously receives
error messages because he/she enters wrong inputs in the weak graphical user interface
system. As he/she cannot figure out how to fix these errors, this user experience technos­
tress which strain is emotionally exhausting.
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 253

Figure 3. Work-related technostress: causes, strains, inhibitors, and impacts.

‘The others who were present discussed the problem, which apparently is common, and they
described it as “annoying.” The same problem occurred again later that day when the staff
secretary tried to reschedule an appointment, and thus needed to edit an already existing
booking’. (Sellberg & Susi, 2014, p. 195)

The third construct is inhibitors which act as situational factors that either reduce or
increase the causal effect between stressors and strains (Brown et al., 2014; Turel &
Gaudioso, 2018). In the case of Lotus Notes, technical support provision plays a crucial
role in reducing stress. Here, the technical support helps the user to alleviate the problem
he/she experiences (Sellberg & Susi, 2014). Hence, we could see this as an effort to reduce
‘technostress’ strain.
The fourth construct is impact. The impact is the outcome of technostress. Having
a negative experience using technology in working space may affect the individual (Farler
& Broady-Preston, 2012). In the case of Lotus Notes, as a user experience unsolved error
regularly, he/she loses the intention to use IS. Hence, the user prefers to use the telephone
instead of using Lotus Notes (Sellberg & Susi, 2014).
Overall, this conceptual model is useful for organisations to raise awareness of tech­
nostress – especially, techno-stressors, strains, inhibitors, and impacts. An organisation
can anticipate a potential techno-stressor introduced by technology. Next, the organisa­
tion can develop a relevant strategy to minimise unintended impacts of the technology.
The strategy itself can stem from the inhibitors, which research suggests can help avoid
the strains manifesting. If an organisation could avoid strains manifesting, then it could
eliminate the ‘technostress’ impact.
254 A. S. NISAFANI ET AL.

5. Conclusion
This study presents a conceptual model of technostress (see Figure 3). Technostress itself
is a complex phenomenon that has substantial impacts on Information Systems (IS) users.
Despite its complexity and impact, technostress has been underserved in the IS research.
Hence, technostress is a spacious research area that needs unpacking in order to better
understand its impact on IS users. To fill this gap in knowledge, our conceptual model
explains that techno-uncertainty, techno-complexity, and technology dependency are
some causes of technostress. With these causes, workers experience strains such as
emotional exhaustion and some negative emotions (anger and anxiety). Further, different
individual workers exhibit varying levels of technostress which is moderated by some
inhibitors such as technology self-efficacy and user experience. Consequently, some
impacts reduce workers’ productivity and job satisfaction. Further studies could explore
more on these type of strains and determine an inhibitor ranking to help organisations
minimise technostress impact effectively.
This research contributes to both theory and practice. This study contributes to the
technostress body of knowledge in three main ways. First, we provide an alternate view
by integrating techno-stressors, strains, inhibitors, and impacts in a conceptual model.
Second, this study focuses on technostress in a working environment. Third, unlike
previous literature review, which targets a domain, this study targets non-specific domain.
In terms of practical contributions, this study presents a conceptual model that could
be used by organisations to understand the technostress phenomenon in their work­
place. By understanding these constructs, their attributes, and inter-construct relation­
ships, organisations can develop measures to manage technostress and limit the impact
on their employees.
This study has two limitations. First, the number of papers is limited. Further research
should incorporate more papers from various database sources. Second, this study only
covered the causal effects of technostress and did not incorporate coping mechanisms.
Further studies should encompass several coping mechanisms used to minimise
technostress.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Amna Shifia Nisafani http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0402-1322
Gaye Kiely http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6407-8868
Carolanne Mahony http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8865-011X

References
Alam, M.A. (2016). Techno-stress and productivity: Survey evidence from the aviation industry.
Journal of Air Transport Management, 50, 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2015.10.003
Al-Fudail, M., & Mellar, H. (2008). Investigating teacher stress when using technology. Computers &
Education, 51(3), 1103–1110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.11.004
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 255

An, M., Colarelli, S.M., O’Brien, K., & Boyajian, M.E. (2016). Why we need more nature at work: Effects
of natural elements and sunlight on employee mental health and work attitudes. Plos One, 11(5),
e0155614. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155614
Arnetz, B.B., & Wiholm, C. (1997). Technological stress: Psychophysiological symptomps in modern
offices. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 43(1), 35–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(97)
00083-4
Ayyagari, R., Grover, V., & Purvis, R. (2011). Technostress: Technological antecedents and
implications. MIS Quarterly, 35 (4), 831–858. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409963
Benyon, D. (2010). Designing interactive systems: A comprehensive guide to HCI and interactive design
(2nd ed.). Pearson.
Boonjing, V., & Chanvarasuth, P. (2017). Risk of overusing mobile phones: Technostress effect.
Procedia Computer Science, 111, 196–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.06.053
Brod, C. (1982). Managing technostress: Optimizing the use of computer technology. The Personnel
Journal, 61(10), 753–757. https://search.proquest.com/docview/78091146/
D8186C5AFCC474FPQ/1?accountid=201395
Brown, R., Duck, J., & Jimmieson, N. (2014). E-mail in the workplace: The role of stress appraisals and
normative response pressure in the relationship between E-mail stressors and employee strain.
International Journal of Stress Management, 21(4), 325–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037464
Bucher, E., Fieseler, C., & Suphan, A. (2013). The stress potential of social media in the workplace.
Information, Communication & Society, 16(10), 1639–1667. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.
2012.710245
Carlotto, M.S., Wendt, G.W., & Jones, A.P. (2017). Technostress, career commitment, satisfaction with
life, and work-family interaction among workers in information and communication
technologies. Actualidades En Psicología, 31(122), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.15517/ap.v31i122.
22729
Cavusoglu, H., Mishra, B., & Raghunathan, S. (2004). A model for evaluating IT security investments.
Communications of the ACM, 47(7), 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1145/1005817.1005828
Farler, L., & Broady-Preston, J. (2012). Workplace stress in libraries: A case study. Aslib Proceedings, 64
(3), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1108/00012531211244509
Feruza, S., & Kim, T.-H. (2007). IT security review: Privacy, protection, access control, assurance and
system security. International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering, 2(2), 17-32.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/IT-Security-Review%3A-Privacy%2C-Protection%2C-
Access-and-Feruza-Kim/e44fb481ebf5e3886cb3556d2354a1f42cac80ce
Fischer, T., & Riedl, R. (2015). The status quo of neurophysiology in organizational technostress
research: A review of studies published from 1978 to 2015. In F. D. Davis, R. Riedl, J. vom
Brocke, P. Léger, A. B. Randolph (Eds.), Lecture notes in information systems and neuroscience
(Vol. 10) (pp. 9-17). Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation (IS and Neu). https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18702-0_2
Fischer, T., & Riedl, R. (2017). Technostress Research: A Nurturing Ground for Measurement
Pluralism? Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 40, 17. https://doi.org/10.
17705/1CAIS.04017
Fuglseth, A.M., & Sørebø, Ø. (2014). The effects of technostress within the context of employee use
of ICT. Computers in Human Behavior, 40, 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.040
Gaudioso, F., Turel, O., & Galimberti, C. (2017). The mediating roles of strain facets and coping
strategies in translating techno-stressors into adverse job outcomes. Computers in Human
Behavior, 69, 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.041
Han, H., Xu, H., & Chen, H. (2018). Social commerce: A systematic review and data synthesis.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 30, 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2018.
05.005
Hudiburg, R.A., & Necessary, J.R. (1996). Coping with computer-stress. Journal of Educational
Computing Research, 15(2), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.2190/HB85-U4FF-34N3-H6EK
Hung, W.-H., Chen, K., & Lin, C.-P. (2015). Does the proactive personality mitigate the adverse effect
of technostress on productivity in the mobile environment? Telematics and Informatics, 32(1),
143–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2014.06.002
256 A. S. NISAFANI ET AL.

Jena, R.K. (2015). Technostress in ICT enabled collaborative learning environment: An empirical
study among Indian academician. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 1116–1123. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.020
Karr-Wisniewski, P., & Lu, Y. (2010). When more is too much: Operationalizing technology overload
and exploring its impact on knowledge worker productivity. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5),
1061–1072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.008
Kim, H.J., Lee, C.C., Yun, H., & Shin, I.K. (2015). An examination of work exhaustion in the mobile
enterprise environment. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 100, 255–266. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.009
Koeske, G.F., & Koeske, R.D. (1993). A preliminary test of a stress-strain-outcome model for recon­
ceptualizing the burnout phenomenon. Journal of Social Service Research, 17(3–4), 107–135.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J079v17n03_06
Korunka, C., Huemer, K.H., Litschauer, B., Karetta, B., & Kafka-Lützow, A. (1996). Working with new
technologies: Hormone excretion as an indicator for sustained arousal. A pilot study. Biological
Psychology, 42(3), 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-0511(95)05172-4
Kummer, T.-F., Recker, J., & Bick, M. (2017). Technology-induced anxiety: Manifestations, cultural
influences, and its effect on the adoption of sensor-based technology in German and Australian
hospitals. Information & Management, 54(1), 73-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.04.002
Kwanya, T., Stilwell, C., & Underwood, P. (2012). Technostress and technolust: Coping mechanisms
among academic librarians in Eastern and Southern Africa. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Ict Management for Global Competitiveness and Economic Growth in Emerging
Economies (Ictm 2012), Wroclaw, Poland (pp. 302–313). https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.
edu.documents/41787322/Techno-stress_and_techno-lust_coping_mec20160130-11859-
m103wv.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1551106300&Signature=
EzzGyGGrfgwE%2BQsslXov7c8Dqp0%3D&response-content-disposition=inlin
La Torre, G., Esposito, A., Sciarra, I., & Chiappetta, M. (2019). Definition, symptoms and risk of
techno-stress: A systematic review. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental
Health, 92(1), 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-018-1352-1
Lee, J. (2016). Does stress from cell phone use increase negative emotions at work? Social Behavior
and Personality, 44(5), 705–715. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.5.705
Liu, C.-F., Cheng, T.-J., & Chen, C.-T. (2019). Exploring the factors that influence physician technos­
tress from using mobile electronic medical records. Informatics for Health and Social Care, 44(1),
92–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538157.2017.1364250
Locke, E.A. (1976). Nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Hand-book of
industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 513–553). Rand-McNally.
Maimbo, C. (2014). Exploring the applicability of SIEM technology in IT security. Auckland University of
Technology.
Miles, M., Huberman, A.M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis a methods sourcebook (3rd
ed.). SAGE. http://www.ghbook.ir/index.php?name=‫&فرهنگ و رسانه های نوین‬option=com_
dbook&task=readonline&book_id=13650&page=73&chkhashk=ED9C9491B4&Itemid=
218&lang=fa&tmpl=component
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Academic Press.
Norulkamar, U., Ahmad, U., & Amin, S.M. (2012). The dimensions of technostress among academic
librarians. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 65, 266–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.
2012.11.121
Okolo, D., Kamarudin, S., Norulkamar, U., & Ahmad, U. (2018). An exploration of the relationship
between technostress, employee engagement and job design from the Nigerian banking
employee’s perspective. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 6(4), 511–530.
https://doi.org/10.25019/MDKE/6.4.01
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. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0165
Riedl, R. (2013). On the biology of technostress: Literature review and research Agenda. The DATA
BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 44(1), 18–55. https://doi.org/10.1145/2436239.2436242
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 257

Riedl, R., Kindermann, H., Auinger, A., & Javor, A. (2012). Technostress from a neurobiological
perspective system breakdown increases the stress hormone cortisol in computer users the
authors. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 4(2), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12599-012-0207-7
Saganuwan, M.U., Norulkamar, U., Ahmad, U., Khairuzzaman, W., & Ismail, W. (2015). Conceptual
framework: AIS technostress and its effect on professionals’ job outcomes. Asian Social Science, 11
(5), 97-107. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n5p97
Salanova, M., Llorens, S., & Cifre, E. (2013). The dark side of technologies: Technostress among users
of information and communication technologies. International Journal of Psychology, 48(3),
422–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.680460
Sami, L.K., & Pangannaiah, N.B. (2006). A literature survey on the effect of information technology on
library users. Library Review, 55(7), 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1108/00242530610682146
Sellberg, C., & Susi, T. (2014). Technostress in the office: A distributed cognition perspective on
human-technology interaction. Cognition, Technology and Work, 6(2), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10111-013-0256-9
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2011.555313
Siponen, M.T., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2007). A review of information security issues and respective
research contributions. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 38(1), 60–80. https://
doi.org/10.1145/1216218.1216224
Tacy, J.W. (2016). Technostress: A concept analysis. On - Line Journal of Nursing Informatics,
20(2), 1–9. https://search.proquest.com/openview/954610a584f785a9ee6f02f151f7e893/1?
pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2034896
Tak, S., & Park, S. (2016). A study of the connected smart worker’s techno-stress. In Procedia
Computer Science, 91, 725–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.07.065
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. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00511
Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, B.S., & Ragu-Nathan, T.S. (2007). The impact of technostress on role
stress and productivity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(1), 301–328. https://doi.
org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240109
Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., & Ragu-Nathan, T.S. (2010). Impact of technostress on end-user satisfaction and
performance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(3), 303–334. https://doi.org/10.
2753/MIS0742-1222270311
Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, T.S., & Ragu-Nathan, B.S. (2011). Crossing to the dark side:
Examining creators, outcomes, and inhibitors of technostress. Communications of the ACM, 54
(9), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1145/1995376.1995403
Tu, Q., Wang, K., & Shu, Q. (2005). Computer-related technostress in China. Communication of the
ACM, 48 (4), 77–81. https://doi.org/10.1145/1053291.1053323
Turel, O., & Gaudioso, F. (2018). Techno-stressors, distress and strain: The roles of leadership and
competitive climates. Cognition, Technology & Work, 20(2), 309–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10111-018-0461-7
Wang, K., Shu, Q., & Tu, Q. (2008). Technostress under different organizational environments: An
empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (6), 3002–3013. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.chb.2008.05.007
Wolfswinkel, J.F., Furtmueller, E., & Wilderom, C.P.M. (2013). Using grounded theory as a method for
rigorously reviewing literature. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(1), 45–55. https://doi.
org/10.1057/ejis.2011.51
Yang, R.-J., Yang, J.-Y., Yuan, H.-R., & Li, J.-T. (2017). Techno-stress of teachers: An empirical
investigation from China. In The 3rd International Conference on Education and Social
Development (ICESD 2017), Xi'an, China. http://www.dpi-proceedings.com/index.php/dtssehs/arti
cle/viewFile/11619/11161
258 A. S. NISAFANI ET AL.

Yin, P., Ou, C.X., Davison, R.M., & Wu, J. (2018). Coping with mobile technology overload in the
workplace. Internet Research, 28(5), 1189–1212. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-01-2017-0016
Yun, H., Kettinger, W.J., & Lee, C.C. (2012). A new open door: The smartphone’s impact on work-to-
life conflict, stress, and resistance. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16(4), 121–152.
https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415160405
Zhou, G., Xu, K., & Liao, S.S.Y. (2013). Do starting and ending effects in fixed-price group-buying
differ? Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12(2), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
elerap.2012.11.006