Advertisement

Cognition, Technology & Work

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 187–201 | Cite as

Technostress in the office: a distributed cognition perspective on human–technology interaction

  • Charlott SellbergEmail author
  • Tarja Susi
Original Article

Abstract

Technology is a mobile and integral part of many work places, and computers and other information and communication technology have made many users’ work life easier, but technology can also contribute to problems in the cognitive work environment and, over time, create technostress. Much previous research on technostress has focused on the use of digital technology and its effects, measured by questionnaires, but in order to further examine how technostress arises in the modern workplace, a wider perspective on interactions between people and technology is needed. This paper applies a distributed cognition perspective to human–technology interaction, investigated through an observational field study. Distributed cognition focuses on the organisation of cognitive systems, and technostress in this perspective becomes an emergent phenomenon within a complex and dynamic socio-technical system. A well-established questionnaire was also used (for a limited sample), to gain a frame of reference for the results from the qualitative part of the study. The implications are that common questionnaire-based approaches very well can and should be complemented with a broader perspective to study causes of technostress. Based on the present study, a redefinition of technostress is also proposed.

Keywords

Technostress Distributed cognition Cognitive work environment Information and communication technology (ICT) Human–computer interaction 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the employees at the Office of Education, for participating in the study. The authors would also like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

References

  1. Åborg C (2002) How does IT feel @ work? - And how to make IT better. Dissertation, University of UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackerman MS (2000) The intellectual challenge of CSCW: the gap between social requirements and technical feasibility. Human Comput Interact 15:179–203. doi: 10.1207/S15327051HCI1523_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Appelbaum S, Marchionni A, Fernandez A (2008) The multi-tasking paradox: perceptions, problems and strategies. Manage Dec 46(9):1313–1325. doi: 10.1108/00251740810911966 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnetz B, Wiholm C (1997) Technological stress: psychophysiological symptoms in modern offices. J Psychosom Res 43(1):3542. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3999(97)00083-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Artman H, Wærn Y (1999) Distributed cognition in an emergency co-ordination center. Cogn Tech Work 1(4):237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benyon D (2010) Designing interactive systems: a comprehensive guide to HCI and interaction design, 2nd edn. Addison Wesley, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  7. Boardman R, Sasse MA (2004) “Stuff goes into the computer and doesn’t come out” A cross-tool study of personal information management. Proc SIGCHI Conf Human Factor Comput Syst 2004:583–590. doi: 1-58113-702-8/04/0004 Google Scholar
  8. Botta D, Muldner K, Hawkey K, Beznosov K (2010) Toward understanding distributed cognition in IT security management: the role of cues and norms. Cogn Tech Work 13(2):121–134. doi: 10.1007/s10111-010-0159-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brillhart P (2004) Technostress in the workplace: managing stress in the electronic workplace. J Am Acad Bus Camb 5:302–307Google Scholar
  10. Brod C (1984) Technostress: the human cost of the computer revolution. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  11. Galliers J, Wilson S, Fone J (2007) A method for determining information flow breakdown in clinical systems. Int J Med Inform 76(1):113–121. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.05.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gärdenfors P (2003) Fängslande information, 2nd edn. Bokförlaget Natur och Kultur, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  13. Hollan J, Hutchins E, Kirsh D (2000) Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Trans Comput Human Interact 7(2):174–196. doi: 10.1145/353485.353487 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the wild. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Johansson G, Aronsson G (1984) Stress reactions in computerized administrative work. J Occup Behav 5(3):159–181. doi: 10.1002/job.4030050302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kirsh D (1995) The intelligent use of space. Artif Intell 73:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kirsh D (2001) The context of work. Hum Comput Interact 16:305–322. doi: 10.1207/S15327051HCI16234_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Korac-Kakabadse N, Kouzmin A, Korac-Kakabadse A (2001) Emerging impacts of on-line connectivity. The 9th European conference on information systems. Bled, SlovenienGoogle Scholar
  19. Levi L (2001) Stress och hälsa. Stockholm, Skandia. http://www.lennartlevi.se/dokument/stress_o_halsa.pdf. Accessed 11 Jan 2013
  20. Lincoln YS, Guba EG (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  21. Lind M, Nygren E, Sandblad B (1991) Kognitiva arbetsmiljöproblem och gränssnittsdesign. Rapport nr. 20. Uppsala Universitets Centrum för Studium av Människan och Datorn: http://www.it.uu.se/research/hci/publications/papers/20/20.pdf. Accessed 11 Jan 2013
  22. Maruna S, Mann RE (2006) A fundamental attribution error? Rethinking cognitive distortions. Legal Criminol Psychol 11:155–177. doi: 10.1348/135532506X114608 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moore JL, Rocklin TR (1998) The distribution of distributed cognition: multiple interpretations and uses. Educ Psychol Rev 10(1):97–113. doi: 10.1007/s10648-012-9215-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nielsen J (1994) Heuristic evaluation. In: Nielsen J, Mack RL (eds) Usability evaluation methods. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Norman D (1999) The invisible computer. MIT Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Norman D (2002) The design of everyday things. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Orlikowski W (1992) Learning from Notes: Organizational issues in groupware implementation. In: Proceedings of the conference on computer-supported cooperative work. TorontoGoogle Scholar
  28. Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research & evaluation methods, 3rd edn. Sage publications Inc., LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Perry M (2003) Distributed cognition. In: Carroll JM (ed) HCI models, theories, and frameworks: toward a multidisciplinary science. Morgan Kaufman Publishers, Amsterdam, pp 193–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Şahin YL, Çoklar AN (2009) Social networking users’ views on technology and the determination of technostress levels. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1, 1, 1437–1442. World conference on educational sciences—New trends and issues in educational sciences, Nicosia, North Cyprus, 4–7 February 2009Google Scholar
  31. Salanova M., Llorens S, Cifre E (2012) The dark side of technologies: Technostress among users of information and communication technologies. Int J Psychol 1–15. doi:  10.1080/00207594.2012.680460
  32. Sellen A, Harper R (2002) The myth of the paperless office. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Shepherd S (2004) Relationship between computer skills and technostress: How does this affect me? In: Proceedings of the 2004 ASCUE Conference, Myrtle BeachGoogle Scholar
  34. Soraji Y, Furuta K, Kanno T, Aoyama H, Inoue S (2012) Cognitive model of team cooperation in en-route air traffic control. Cogn Tech Work 14(2):93–105. doi: 10.1007/s10111-010-0168-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Suchman LA (2006) Human-machine reconfigurations: plans and situated actions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Susi T (2006) The puzzle of social activity—the significance of tools in cognition and cooperation. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Linköping, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  37. Tarafdar M, Ragu-Nathan B, Ragu-Nathan T, Tu Q (2005) Exploring the impact of technostress on productivity. In: Proceedings of the 36th annual meeting of the decision sciences institute, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  38. Tarafdar M, Tu Q, Ragu-Nathan B, Ragu-Nathan T (2007) The impact of technostress on role stress and productivity. J Manag Inf Syst 24(1):301–328. doi: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222240109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thomée S, Eklöf M, Gustafsson E, Nilsson R, Hagberg M (2007) 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 Hum Behav 23(3):1300–1321. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2004.12.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tu Q, Tarafdar M, Ragu-Nathan B, Ragu-Nathan T (2007) How end-user characteristics affect technostress: An exploratory investigation. In: Proceedings of the 38th annual meeting of the decision sciences institute. Phoenix, ArizonaGoogle Scholar
  41. Vyas D, van der Veer G, and Nijholt A (2012) Creative practices in the design studio culture: collaboration and communication. Cogn Tech Work. Online First™, 23 June 2012. doi: 10.1007/s10111-012-0232-9
  42. Wang K, Shu Q, Tu Q (2008) Technostress under different organizational environments: an empirical investigation. Comput Hum Behav 24:3002–3013. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.05.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wästlund E, Reinikka H, Norlander T, Archer T (2005) Effects of VDT and paper presentation on consumption and production of information: psychological and physiological factors. Comput Hum Behav 21(2):377–394. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weil M, Rosen L (1997) Technostress: coping with technology @work @home @play. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Interaction LabUniversity of SkövdeSkövdeSweden

Personalised recommendations