Management Research Review

Do employees' private demands lead to Cyberloafing? The mediating role of job stress
Kian Yeik Koay, Soh Patrick Chin-Hooi, Kok Wai Chew,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Kian Yeik Koay, Soh Patrick Chin-Hooi, Kok Wai Chew, "Do employees' private demands lead to Cyberloafing? The
mediating role of job stress", Management Research Review, https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-11-2016-0252
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-11-2016-0252
Downloaded on: 28 July 2017, At: 18:08 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:200910 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Do Employees’ Private Demands Lead to Cyberloafing?:
The Mediating Role of Job Stress

Purpose: The prevalence of cyberloafing practices amongst employees has been widely
reported, earning its status as hidden epidemic that kills business productivity. Given the
importance of this issue, a research model has been proposed and subsequently tested
empirically to investigate the relationships between private demands, job stress and
cyberloafing. The assessment has been premised upon the border theory, conservation of
resources theory and general strain theory.
Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)

Design/methodology: A total of 301 usable data has been collected from employees who are
working in the ICT sector, utilizing self-reported questionnaires that are subsequently
analyzed using Partial Least Square (PLS) structural equation modeling.

Findings: The results of this study have revealed that both private demands and job stress are
positively related to cyberloafing, whereas private demands are positively related to job
stress. In addition, job stress also partially mediates the relationship between private demands
and cyberloafing. Therefore, the findings are suggestive of employee’s job resources being
depleted when they cross between work and non-work domains as they attempt to satisfy
their private demands. As a result, insufficient job resources channeled towards handling job-
related demands results in job stress, followed by their engagement in cyberloafing behaviour
as a coping mechanism.

Originality/value: The theoretical contribution of this research is primarily upon expanding

existing knowledge on the relationship between private demands and cyberloafing, by
demonstrating the mediating effect of job stress. The findings have revealed that employee’s
non-work-related domain can pose a significant influence on both emotions and behaviours at
work.

Keywords: Cyberloafing, Private Demands, Job Stress, Employees Behaviour, SmartPLS,

Malaysia
 Do Employees’ Private Demands Lead to Cyberloafing?: The Mediating Role of Job
Stress
1. Introduction

The past two decades have marked the emergence of the Internet, which has
revolutionized the traditional landscape of typical business settings. Constructive utilization
of the technology is beneficial as it allows businesses to reduce production costs, improve
internal and external communications, broaden the market reach globally and manage
products and services more efficiently (Anandarajan, 2000). Despite its innumerable perks,
pervasive usage in the workplace has inadvertently rendered a new form of deviant behaviour
termed as cyberloafing. Deemed as a hidden epidemic that kills business productivity, a
Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)

whopping 61% of United States employees engage in non-work related activities during
working hours (MySammy, 2013).

This work has adopted the definition of cyberloafing as per Askew et al. (2014, p.
510), referring to it as “a set of behaviours at work in which an employee engages in
electronically-mediated activities, particularly through the use of the Internet, that his or her
immediate supervisor would not consider job-related”. Robinson’s typology of deviant
workplace behaviour has highlighted it as a form of production deviant behaviour, where
employees intentionally withhold efforts from doing work-related tasks (Lim, 2002). Apart
from cyberloafing, various researchers have also coined other terminologies to indicate
employee’s non-work-related Internet use, such as cyberslacking, cyberslouching, Internet
abuse, non-work-related computing and workplace Internet leisure browsing (Lim, 2002;
Kim & Byrne, 2011; Moody & Siponen, 2013). Some of the commonly performed
cyberloafing activities include checking personal e-mails, browsing non-work-related
websites and playing online games (Lim & Teo, 2005).

Employees who use the Internet for such purposes are usually viewed as “lazy
workers” by superiors due to the associated reduced job productivity (Block, 2001; Young,
2004). To deal with this pervasive epidemic in the workplace, most companies have adopted
various intervention programs, including implementing Internet usage policies, sending
employees for Internet usage training, and imposing strict punishments (Kimberly, 2010).
However, the results are largely less than satisfactory and ineffective as per anticipation.
Furthermore, employers are also concerned regarding other potential negative consequences
of cyberloafing, which includes reduced workplace involvement (Liberman et al., 2011) and
 inefficient use of network resources, resulting in bandwidth degradation and network
congestion (Moody & Siponen, 2013). There are also increased risks of network security and
unnecessary lawsuits due to issues like security fraud, sexual harassment and defamation
(Johnson & Indvik, 2004). In fact, Singapore has even gone to the extent of banning its public
servants from accessing the Internet on work computers (British Broadcasting Corporation,
2016). Additionally, various surveys have approximated that employees spend as much as
20% (Kathryn, 2012) to 24% (Schings, 2012) of their work time cyberloafing, resulting in
monetary loss of roughly $4,500 per employee and productivity loss worth $178 billion
annually (Mysammy, 2013).

Nevertheless, some studies have suggested some benefits of engaging in cyberloafing,

Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)

such as a form of stress relief, reduced emotional exhaustion, creativity stimulation and
increased job-related knowledge (Belanger & Slyke, 2002; Oravec, 2002; Ivarsson &
Larsson, 2011). It is postulated that these positive potentials may help employees to perform
better in subsequent job-related tasks. In fact, evidence positively linking cyberloafing with
job productivity has also been revealed (Coker, 2011; Quoquab et al., 2015). Unfortunately,
most employers do not acknowledge these advantages and are more focused on the negative
implications (Ivarsson & Larsson, 2011).

Interested researchers have attempted to test for different antecedents of cyberloafing

to understand phenomenon, which are broadly categorized into personal and organizational
factors. Personal factors significantly related to behaviour include procrastination (O'Neil et
al., 2014), conscientiousness (Jia et al., 2013), habit (Koay et al., 2017), internet addiction
(Chen et al., 2008), attitude towards it (Askew et al., 2014), sleeping habits (Wagner et al.,
2012) and boredom (Eastin et al., 2007). Meanwhile, associated organizational factors
displaying significant influence consist of internet monitoring systems (Moody & Siponen,
2013), internet usage policies (Jia et al., 2013), perceived justice (Lim, 2002), punishment
(Lara et al., 2006), denial of responsibility (Lee et al., 2007), managerial supervision
(Seymour & Nadasen, 2007), job creativity (Vitak et al., 2011) and empowering leadership
(Andreassen et al., 2014).

Existing studies on the topic have mainly focused on personal or organizational-

related factors when examining cyberloafing behaviours (Lim & Teo, 2005; Konig & Caner
de la Guardia, 2014). Nevertheless, despite various theories and literature outlining the
potential influence of employees’ non-work domain, studies investigating cyberloafing from
 this particular perspective are scarce. Therefore, this research has tested a model premised on
the border theory, conservation of resources theory, and general strain theory so as to
understand the role of employee’s private demands on cyberloafing behaviour. Such attempt
will fill in the gap and contribute to the academic literature, by extending the work of Konig
and Caner de la Guardia (2014). In addition, the findings yielded by this study are expected to
be of use for practitioners by serving as a reference in the process of strategizing for reduced
frequency of employees engaging in such behaviour.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Private Demands and Cyberloafing

Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)

Clark’s Border Theory has posited that people are border-crossers; they constantly
transition between work and non-work domains and proactively try to satisfy their needs
from both domains (Clark, 2000). The domains are distinctive and yet play critical roles in
influencing each other, and those who often cross the borders to satisfy both require active
communication and actions (Konig & Caner de la Guardia, 2014). Therefore, cyberloafing
can be one of the means to achieve the transition from work to non-work in the pursuit of
juggling private demands. For example, an employee may purchase a bouquet of flowers for
his or her partner or organize a weekly badminton session with friends during working hours.
The theory describes a person’s ability to hold multiple roles in the non-work domain, such as
being a father, a president of a charity club, part-time journalist, and others at the same time
(Konig & Caner de la Guardia, 2014). Those who engage in such circumstances tend to have
more private demands and are more likely to assuage those needs by cyberloafing during
office hours (Clark, 2000; Lim & Teo, 2005; Konig & Caner de la Guardia, 2014). Private
demands by definition may be referred to as the employee’s familial or social demands
outside of work (Konig & Caner de la Guardia, 2014).

Furthermore, engaging in personal activities during working hours may be justified by

the now-common practice of employees working after office hours. This may include
checking and replying to work-related e-mails, receiving customer calls and working through
company’s online server, necessitating reciprocation or compensation from the employee’s
side (Lim & Teo, 2005; Page, 2015). In fact, Lim and Teo (2015) have found that employees
who regularly engage in work-related tasks at home are more likely to feel that their
cyberloafing activities are rightly justified. The constant transitions between work and non-
 work domains have blurred the boundary lines between work and home further. Therefore, it
is postulated that a high level of private demands will increase the possibility of employees
engaging in cyberloafing behaviour to satisfy those needs.

H1: Higher intensity of private demands will lead to higher levels of cyberloafing behaviour

2.2 Private Demands and Job Stress

As experiencing job stress at work is a common occurrence, many studies have been
conducted in the attempt to understand the causes and consequences behind the situation.
Among the abundant definitions for the term available in literature, this study has adopted a
generally accepted explanation: an employee’s emotional experience associated with strain,
Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)

anxiety, and tenseness originating from a job or occupation (Cooke & Rousseau, 1984).
Several models have been devised to explain the mechanisms of job stress, including the job
demand-control model (JDC) (Karasek, 1979), effort-reward imbalance model (ERI)
(Siegrist, 1996), and conservation of resources model (COR) (Hobfoll, 1989). It has been
found that excessive job stress may lead to various mental and physical health problems for
employees (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 2004) and also be
financially expensive to organizations. This is because the issue instigates high rates of
employee turnover, diminished productivity, absenteeism, and increased health insurance
costs and other compensation claims for stress related problems and illnesses (Savery &
Luks, 2000; George & Zakkariya, 2015). Furthermore, it has also been associated with
negative workplace behaviour (Yao et al., 2014), poor organizational commitment (Michael
et al., 2009) and reduced job satisfaction (Reilly et al., 2014).

The border theory has postulated that employees regularly transition between work
and non-work domains to cope with private demands when at their workplace by making
personal phone calls, requesting for urgent leaves or planning for weekend personal activities
(Clark, 2000). However, the conservation of resources model (COR) has stated that a person
possesses a limited amount of psychological and physiological resources that can be utilized,
but not replenishable within a short time (Hobfoll, 1989). The loss of resources subsequently
causes stress to build up, but when the depletion is due to coping with private demands, less
physical and cognitive resources (i.e. time, energy, concentration) are required to fulfill job
demands (Lim & Chen, 2009). As handling all demands concurrently drains the same limited
pool of resources, an employee may find it harder to allocate an adequate amount of time and
 energy on work-related tasks when handling over whelming familial roles (Higgins et al.,
1992). For example, employees who take time out from work to respond to private demands
may experience increased levels of stress caused by the lack of time and energy to proceed
with job-related tasks. They may have to resort to spend extra time at work or at home to
complete any unfinished tasks. Any resulting mismatch between job resources and job
demands will inadvertently cause more job stress (Bakker et al., 2003). In line with these
arguments, it is proposed that higher intensity of private demands will lead to higher levels of
job stress.

H2: Higher intensity of private demands will lead to higher levels of job stress
Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)

2.3 Job Stress as a Mediator

The General Strain Theory (GST) has postulated that the probability of a person
experiencing negative emotions like agitation, anxiety or exasperation will be higher upon
faced with high levels of strains or stressors. Subsequently, such emotions serve as a pressure
for corrective actions to be taken, which may even be of criminal nature (Agnew, 1992).
Therefore, the theory is commonly utilized in criminology researches to explain why people
delve into criminal activities. Although cyberloafing is not considered as an unlawful act, it is
still a form of counter-work-productive behaviour that violates the organizational norm.

By applying GST contextually, engaging in non-work-related internet activities at

work may be interpreted as a form of corrective action to alleviate the negative emotions
stemming from job stress. This is primarily due to it being an indicator of the presence of
negative stimuli causing strain in employees, resulting in their engagement with cyberloafing
behaviour as a coping strategy. The argument is supported by several references outlining job
stress as a significant predictor of cyberloafing (Garrett & Danziger, 2008; Henle &
Blanchard, 2008; RuningSawitri, 2012). Furthermore, past studies have also shown that
higher levels of job stress are positively associated with various deviant workplace
behaviours (Netemeyer et al., 2005; Swimberghe et al., 2014). Moreover, Lim and Teo’s
(2005) focus group interviews with 30 working employees have elicited their reasons for
cyberloafing, whereby most have described it as a way to reduce job stress and relieve
associated negative emotions. Therefore, employees experiencing high levels of stress find
that their intention to cyberloaf is triggered. Thus, the following hypothesis has been
suggested:
 H3: Higher levels of job stress will lead to higher levels of cyberloafing behaviour

Premised on various literature and past studies, this study has proposed that job stress
mediates the relationship between private demands and cyberloafing. In line with the border
theory, employees are expected to constantly cross the border between work to non-work
domain to oblige their private demands during working hours. This subsequently results in
escalating job stress due to inadequate job resources to fulfill their job demands, which
triggers cyberloafing behaviour for the purpose of relieving stress.

H4: Job stress plays a mediating role in the relationship between private demands and
cyberloafing
Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)

3. Methodology

3.1 Participants

This research has employed the quantitative approach to meet the outlined objectives,
assuming the positivist stance. ICT employees were selected as the targeted population due to
the nature of their work that involves higher use of information technology equipment.
Furthermore, the method of data collection was deemed as appropriate as they are tech-savvy
and constantly using the Internet to work (Lim & Teo, 2005). As they have the capability and
resources to cyberloaf, they show a higher tendency to do so (Vitak et al., 2011).

Prior to distributing the final survey questionnaire, it was pre-tested on two academic
experts and three working employees for the purpose of collecting feedback for any
improvements. A pre-test is useful to improve the questionnaire’s comprehension, establish
the validity its contents, check for sufficiency and clarity of the instructions and ensure an
orderly flow and coherence of the questions (Bryman & Bell, 2015). The comments received
in the pre-test phase have enabled some improvements to be made, particularly by refining
some of the wordings and sentences for easier comprehension. The data collection process
occurred from October 2015 to February 2016, with approximately 400 MSC status
companies that are located in Klang Valley, Malaysia being approached for permission.
However, only 41 companies responded to the request and allowed distribution of the
questionnaires to their employees. Regardless, all participants were vouched for their
information to be kept confidential and used only for academic purposes. Each participant
was rewarded with a RM 10 shopping voucher upon completion of the questionnaire. Any
 incomplete data with serious missing values were excluded, resulting in a total of 301 usable
data for further analysis. The final data is comprised of 151 (50.2%) males and 150 (49.8%)
females. A majority of the respondents are of the age group of 21 to 30 years (59.1%),
followed by 31 to 40 years (30.9%), 41 to 50 years (7.3%), and 20 years or younger (1.7%).
Overall, there are 166 Malays (55.1%), 75 Chinese (24.9%), 38 Indians (12.6%), and 15 of
others (5.0%) who have participated.

3.2 Measures

Private demands were measured using the scale adopted from Konig and Caner de la
Guardia (2014), which contains five items. The questions were answered using a 7-point
Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)

Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strong agree). The items include: “I have
many private demands”, “My private demands require much of my time”, “I have the
impression I am not paying sufficient attention to my private obligations”, “It would be good
if I had more time for my private obligations”, and ‘‘I have to rush in order to meet all my
private obligations.”

Job stress was measured using the scale adopted from Jamal and Baba (1992),
consisting of nine items with response options varying from strongly disagree to strongly
agree in the 7-point Likert scale format. Some of the included items are: “I have often felt
fidgety or nervous as a result of my job”, “My job gets to me more than it should”, “There are
lots of times when my job drives me right up the wall”, and “Sometimes when I think about
my job I get a tight feeling in my chest”.

Cyberloafing was measured using Lim and Teo’s (2005) scale, which is made up of
13 items measured in a 5-point numerical scale ranging from “1 = Never”, “2 = Rarely”, “3 =
Sometimes”, “4 = Often” and “5 = Very Often”. Examples of the included items are: “visit
adult-oriented (sexually explicit) websites”, “visit general news websites”, “download non-
work-related information” and “check non-work-related e-mail”.

4. Data Analysis

Smart-PLS 3 is the statistical software that has been utilized in this research so as to
conduct Partial Least Squares (PLS) analysis (Ringle et al., 2015). A two-stage analytical
procedure was employed; the first stage requires an evaluation of the measurement model,
followed by an assessment of the structural model (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). The validity
 of the results may be affected by the common method variance, as the variance of dependent
variables may be explained by the measurement method (i.e. common method variance)
rather than its independent variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

Furthermore, there is two fundamentally distinct approaches in controlling for method

bias, which are procedural and statistical remedies. For the procedural remedies, different
scale points were used to measure the independent and dependent variables, with tokens of
appreciation being rewarded to respondents to enhance their motivation to answer the
questionnaire (MacKenzie & Podsakoff, 2012). In contrast, statistical remedies were
achieved by conducting Harman’s single-factor test (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). After
inserting all measurement items into factor analysis using principle component analysis, the
Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)

results showed that the first factor accounts for 24.94% of the variance. This value is less than
the recommended percentage of 50%. In addition, the correlations between constructs were
examined to ensure that they are less than the recommended values of 0.9. This was
demonstrated in the construct correlation matrix as seen in Table 2. Nevertheless, both tests
have indicated results confirming that common method variance is not a serious issue in this
study.

4.1 Measurement Model

The assessment of reflective measurement models includes examining for internal

consistency reliability, convergent validity and discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2017). Items
of the constructs are deemed to have achieved sufficient internal consistency reliability when
the Cronbach’s Alpha and Composite Reliability (CR) values are respectively greater than
0.7 (Nunally & Bernstein, 1994). Moreover, the assessment of convergent validity involves
examining the factor loadings and average variance extracted (AVE). Convergent validity
refers to the degree to which the measures of constructs are related to each other. Table 1
displayed that the loadings for most of the items are above 0.7, with only one item from
private demands (P4) being dropped due to poor factor loading. Furthermore, the AVE values
for each construct are all above 0.5, thereby ascertaining the convergent validity.

Afterwards, the discriminant validity, which refers to the degree to which constructs
are theoretically distinct from each other, was tested using Fornell and Larcker’s (1981)
criterion and Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) criterion (Henseler et al., 2015). Firstly,
the Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion requires a comparison of thesquare root of AVE of a
 particular construct with correlation of other constructs. Table 2 showed that all values on the
diagonals are greater than the values in the corresponding row and column, indicating
distinctiveness of each construct by itself. Next, the HTMT criterion requires the values to be
lower than 0.9 (Gold et al., 2001), while the confidence interval should be lower than 1
(Henseler et al., 2015). Table 3 allowed the conclusion that discriminant validity was
achieved.

Insert Table 1 here

Insert Table 2 here

Insert Table 3 here

Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)

4.2 Structural Model

Assessing the significance of the path analysis was conducted by employing a

nonparametric bootstrapping procedure using Smart PLS with 5000 re-samples. Such criteria
will generate stable parameter estimates and develop strong confidence intervals (Chin,
1998). The structural model presented in Figure 1 revealed that it explains 11.7% of the
variance in the endogenous variable (i.e. cyberloafing). Next, the model’s goodness-of-fit
was assessed by employing the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) criterion. It
should generally yield a value less than 0.08 to suggest adequate approximate model fit for
PLS path models (Henseler et al., 2016). This study obtained an SRMR value of 0.079,
implying an adequate model fit.

Insert Figure 1 Here

The bootstrapping results as shown in Tables 4 and 5 supported all hypothesized

relationships. They indicated a significant positive relationship between private demands and
cyberloafing with a path coefficient β = 0.273 and t-value of 4.431 at p < 0.01, which are in
support of hypothesis 1. Therefore, high intensity of private demands will increase the
likelihood of employees to engage in cyberloafing behaviour. Furthermore, the obtained
results also supported hypothesis 2: higher intensity of private demands will lead to higher
levels of job stress, with the path coefficient β = 0.320 and t-value of 5.818 at p < 0.01. In
addition, hypothesis 3 is also supported with the path coefficient β = 0.137 and t-value of
2.075 at p < 0.01, corroborating that higher levels of job stress will lead to higher levels of
 cyberloafing behaviour. Lastly, hypothesis 4 is also supported; job stress partially mediates
the relationship between private demands and cyberloafing. This is verified by the indirect
effect of 0.044 and t-value of 1.973 at p < 0.05 significance level, whereas the direct effect of
private demands on cyberloafing remains significant (Nitzl et al., 2016). Furthermore, the
bootstrapping confidence interval of indirect effect (lower limit = 0.017, upper limit = 0.091)
does not straddle a 0, suggesting a mediation effect (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).

Insert Table 4 here

Insert Table 5 here

5. Discussion and Implications

Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)

The findings of this research have successfully supported all of the proposed
hypotheses. The significant result of H1 is in concurrence with the border theory and is
consistent with previous studies (Lim & Teo, 2005; Konig & Caner de la Guardia, 2014).
Clark (2000) has previously highlighted the interdependent nature of work and home, which
constantly influence each other. The results of the present study has suggested that an
employee’s responsibilities from the non-work domain are a significant drive towards
cyberloafing and as a means to fulfill private demands. In addition, indulgence in
cyberloafing may be attributed to achieving work-life balance despite the lack of spare time
(Ivarsson & Larsson, 2011). The statistical analysis conducted has also supported H2,
indicating that higher levels of job stress can be caused by high intensity of private demands.
As an individual possess a finite amount of job resources (e.g. time, energy and attention),
lesser amount can be channeled to job demands if more are deployed for non-work-related
demands. Hence, employees will experience job stress in instances of insufficient job
resources to meet their job demands (Bakker et al., 2003).

In addition, the significant result of H3 has revealed that high levels of job stress will
lead to high levels of cyberloafing behaviour, which is consistent with previously conducted
studies (Garrett & Danziger, 2008; Henle & Blanchard, 2008). The negative emotions
generated by job stress will result in an employee to use Internet at work for personal
purposes more so as to cope with the stress and anxiety, as per the general strain theory.
Being human and not machines, these individuals require rest and entertainment while
concomitantly pursuing their professional careers. As long as their work performance is not
compromised, they should be allowed the freedom to do what is right and best for them. The
 study is also in support of H4: job stress partially mediates the relationship between private
demands and cyberloafing. The obtained results have indicated that employees who have
high levels of private demands will experience high levels of job stress. They may
consequently engage in cyberloafing behaviour, with it being a medium to overcome the
negative emotions associated with job stress (Agnew, 1992; Lim & Teo, 2005).

Hence, this research has successfully contributed theoretically by primarily expanding

upon the existing knowledge on the relationship between private demands and cyberloafing
via a demonstration of the mediating effect of job stress. Konig and Caner de la Guardia
(2014) have previously demonstrated significant relationship between private demands with
cyberloafing, but the direct relationship was rather weak and the underlying mechanism is
Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)

inadequately explained. Hence, this paper has extended the work (Konig & Caner de la
Guardia, 2014) and contributed to the border theory further by elucidating that efforts to
satisfy employee’s private needs from non-work domain during working hours often burden
them with the unintended consequences of depleted job resources, resulting in job stress
(Clarke, 2000). Thus, they are driven to cyberloaf, but it must be noted that cyberloafing is
not the only way for them to transition between work and non-work domain. Nevertheless,
their non-work domain may substantially influence employee’s behaviours and emotions at
work, necessitating a proper management for work and non-work demands. This is critical to
ensure that they can handle their needs from both domains effectively without much
interference with respective domain.

Furthermore, this research has also provided several practical implications to the
management sector. Managers may find it possible to stop their employees from crossing
from one domain into another through cyberloafing via implementation of various
countermeasures. This may include enforcing Internet usage policies, imposing punishments,
and investing in Internet monitoring systems (Koay et al., 2017). Companies can also issue a
warning letter to employees who constantly cyberloaf. However, tolerance is crucial and
necessary in certain circumstances requiring them to respond to urgent and important private
demands, such as texting their spouse to pick up their kids from school due to them having to
work overtime.

Additionally, Asian countries including Malaysia tend to have long working hours
(Stephenson, 2012). As a result, the culture may lead to accumulated unfulfilled private
demands from the non-work domain, resulting in employees to cyberloaf so as to satisfy such
 demands during working hours. Therefore, companies need to understand that longer work
hours are not strictly beneficial and result in increased productivity. It may be of advantage to
incorporate the norms of work efficiency instead to ensure their employees are able to leave
work at the appropriate time for them to fulfill their non-work related roles. This will allow
more personal time to be allocated for their private demands, which will possibly minimize
job stress due to less depletion of job resources on non-work-related tasks.

Furthermore, if employees are required to be in working mode at all times, including

after official working hours, they should be allowed the freedom to cyberloaf so as to
compensate personal time sacrificed. Lastly, cyberloafing may pose some benefits in certain
circumstances as it may help employees to relieve job stress, which is supported by recent
Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)

studies that have found its positive relationship with productivity (Quoquab et al., 2015).
Therefore, companies may indulge their employees with certain levels of freedom for
personal online activities purposes as long as their work performance is not compromised.

6. Limitations and Future Recommendations

This study is evidently not without limitations and therefore the interpretation of the
findings should be made with respect of such restrictions. Firstly, this is a pioneering study
examining the mediating effect of job stress on the relationship between private demands and
cyberloafing. Therefore, possibilities for scholarly replication of the same results in using
samples from countries with an individualistic culture are rife, as Malaysia is a largely
collectivistic society that prioritizes the collective needs and goals of a group compared to
individualistic desires (Hofstede et al., 2010). Therefore, it is possible that the influence of
private demands on job stress and cyberloafing maybe stronger in samples from such
collectivistic societies as opposed to individualistic ones. Secondly, the data collected in this
study have been elicited from employees who are knowledgeable in the ICT sector, which
may render the results less or not generalizable to the entire working population. Thirdly,
private demands are a potentially a multi-dimensional concept, inclusive of friends and
family; future researchers may consider exploring the influence of a specific dimension on
cyberloafing. Lastly, the cross-sectional research design adopted in this study is limited by
the drawing of casual inferences between relationships and is subject to common method
bias. This is attributable to the data collection of independent and dependent variables from
the same person at the same time, which may potentially inflate the regression weights
(Siemsen et al., 2010). However, structural equation modeling has been employed to
 compensate for the flaws of the research design. Nevertheless, future research may consider
utilizing longitudinal research design instead and collecting data from multiple sources to
enhance the validity of their findings.

References

Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and Delinquency.
Criminology, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 47-88.
Anandarajan, M., Simmers, C. and Igbaria, M. (2000), “An exploratory investigation of the
antecedents and impact of internet usage: An individual perspective”, Behavioural
Information Technology, vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 69–85.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: A
review and recommended two - step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp.
Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)

411-423.
Andreassen, C.S., Torsheim, T. and Pallesen, S. (2014), “Predictors of use of social network
sites at work - A specific type of cyberloafing,” Journal of Computer Mediated
Communication, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 906-921.
Askew. K., Buckner, J.E., Taing, M.U., Ilie, A., Bauer, J.A. and Coovert, M.D. (2014),
“Explaining cyberloafing: The role of the theory of planned behaviour”, Computers in
Human Behaviour, Vol. 36, pp. 510-519.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., De Boer, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2003), “Job demands and job
resources as predictors of absence duration and frequency”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 62, pp. 341–356.
Belanger, F. and Van Slyke, C. (2002), “Abuse or learning?”, Communications of the ACM,
Vol. 45, pp. 617–638.
Block, W. (2001), “Cyberslacking, business ethics and managerial economics”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 225–231.
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). (2016), “No internet for Singapore Public
Servants”, 8 June Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36476422 (accessed 10
October 2016)
Chen, J. V., Chen, C. C. and Yang, H. H. (2008). An empirical evaluation of key factors
contributing to Internet abuse in the workplace”. Industrial Management and Data Systems,
Vol. 108 No. 1, pp. 87-106.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modelling”, In
Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Business Research Methods. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Clark, S. C. (2000), “Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance,”
Human Relations, Vol 53, pp. 747–770.
Coker, B.L.S. (2011), “Freedom to surf: The positive effects of workplace Internet leisure
browsing, New Technology, Work, and Employment, Vol. 26 No. 3, 238-247.
 Cooke, R.A. and Rousseau, D.M. (1984), “Stress and strain from family roles and work-role
expectations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 252-260.
Eastin, M.S., Glynn, C.J. and Griffiths, R.P. (2007), “Psychology of communication
technology use in the workplace”, Cyberpsychology and Behavior, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 436–
443.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No.
1, pp. 39-50.
Garrett, R.K. and Danziger, J.N. (2008), “Disaffection or expected outcomes: Understanding
personal internet use during work,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 13
No. 4, pp. 937–958.
George, E. and Zakkariya K.A. (2015), “Job related stress and job satisfaction: a comparative
study among bank employees”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp.
Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)

316-329.
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2001), “Knowledge management: An
organizational capabilities perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol.
18 No.1, pp. 185–214.
Hair, J. F. J., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M. and Sarstedt. M. (2017), A Primer on Partial
Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2nd ed, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks.
Henle, C. A. and Blanchard, A. L. (2008), “Correlates of different forms of cyberloafing: The
role of norms and external locus of control,” Computers in Human Behaviour, Vol. 24 No. 3,
pp. 1067–1084.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing
discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Henseler, J., Hubona, G and Ray, P.A. (2016), “Using PLS path modeling in new technology
research: Updated guidelines,” Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 1, pp.
2 – 20.
Higgins, C,A., Duxbury, L. E. and Irving, R. H. (1992), “Work–family conflict in the dual-
career family”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp.
51–75.
Hobfoll, S. (1989), “Conservation of resources: A new Attempt at conceptualizing stress”,
American Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 513-524.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J. and Minkov, M. (2010), “Cultures and Organizations: Software
of the Mind. Revised and Expanded, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Ivarsson, L. and Larsson, P. (2011), “Personal internet usage at work: A source of recovery”,
Journal of Workplace Rights, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 63-81.
 Jamal, M. and Baba, V.V. (1992), “Shiftwork and department-type related to job stress, work
attitudes and behavioral intentions: A study of nurses”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour,
Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 449–464.
Jia, H.H., Jia, R. and Karau, S. (2013), “Cyberloafing and personality: The impact of the big
five traits and workplace situational factors”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 358- 365.
Johnson, P.R., & Indvik, J. (2004), “The organizational benefits of reducing cyberslacking in
the workplace”, Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, Vol. 8
No. 2, pp. 55-62.
Karasek., R.A. (1979), “Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain: implications for
job redesign”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 285-307.
Kathryn. (2012), “Cyberloafing. Intrinsic Health”, 3 December, Available at:
http://myintrinsichealth.com/2012/03/12/cyberloafing/ (accessed 20 November 2015).
Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)

Kim, S.J., and Byrne, S. (2011), “Conceptualizing personal web usage in work contexts: A
preliminary framework”, Computers in Human Behaviour, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 2271–2283.
Kimberly, Y. (2010), “Policies and procedures to manage employee internet abuse”,
Computer in Human Behaviour, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 1467-1471.
Koay, K., Soh, P. and Chew, K. (2017), “Antecedents and consequences of cyberloafing:
Evidence from the Malaysian ICT industry”, First Monday, Vol. 22 No. 3.
Konig, C. J. and Caner de la Guardia, M. E. (2014), “Exploring the positive side of personal
internet use at work: Does it help in managing the border between work and
nonwork?”,Computers in Human Behavior, Vol 30, pp. 355-360.
Lara, P.Z.M.D., Tacoronte, D.V. and Ding, J.M.D. (2006), “Do current anti-cyberloafing
disciplinary practices have a replica in research findings? A study of the effects of coercive
strategies on workplace internet misuse”, Internet Research, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 450-467.
Lee, T. H., Lee, H. and Kim, Y. B. (2007), “Understanding personal web usage in
organizations”, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 17 No.
1, pp. 75-99.
Liberman, B., Seidman, G., McKenna, K. and Buffardi, L. (2011), “Employee job attitudes
and organizational characteristics as predictors of cyberloafing”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 2192–2199.
Lim, V.K.G. (2002), “The IT way of loafing on the job: Cyberloafing, neutralizing and
organizational justice”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 675–694.
Lim, V. K. G., & Chen, D. J. Q. (2009, December). Browsing and emailing: Impact of
cyberloafing on work attitudes, Paper presented at 23rd Australia and New Zealand Academy
of Management, Melbourne, Australia.
Lim, V. and Teo, T. (2005), “Prevalence, perceived seriousness, justification and regulation
of cyberloafing in Singapore: An Exploratory Study”, Information and Management, Vol. 42
No 8, pp. 1081-1093.
 MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2012), “Common method bias in marketing: Causes,
mechanisms, and procedural remedies”, Journal of Retail, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 542–555.
Michael, O., Court, D. and Petal, P. (2009), “Job Stress and Organizational Commitment
among Mentoring Coordinators”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 266-288.
Moody, G.D. and Siponen, M. (2013), “Using the theory of interpersonal behavior to explain
non-work-related personal use of the internet at work”, Information and Management, Vol.
50, pp. 322–335.
MySammy. (2013), “Cyberloafing Infographic | Personal internet use at work infographic”,
Available at: http://www.mysammy.com/cyberloafing-personal-Internet-use-at-work-
infographic (accessed 11 March 2016).
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2004) Worker health chartbook.
NIOSH Publication, Cincinnati, OH.
Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)

Netemeyer, R. G., Maxham, J. G. and Pullig, C. (2005), “Conflicts in the Work-Family

Interface: Links to Job Stress, Customer Service Employee Performance, and Customer
Purchase Intent”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 130, pp. 130-143.
Nunnally, J. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric theory, 3rd ed. McGrawHill, New
York, NY.
O'Neill, T.A., Hambley, L.A. and Chatellier, G.S. (2014), “Cyberslacking, engagement, and
personality in distributed work environments”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 40, pp.
152-160.
Oravec, J.A. (2002), “Constructive approaches to internet recreation in the workplace”,
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 60-63.
Page, D. (2015), “Teachers’ personal web use at work”, Behaviour & Information
Technology, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 443-453.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: Problems
and prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No 4, pp. 531-544.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods,
Vol, 40 No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Quoquab, F., Halimah, S., & Salam, Z. A. (2015), “Does cyberloafing boost employee
productivity?”, in Proceeding of 2015 International Symposium on Technology Management
and Emerging Technologies (ISTMET) in Langkawai Island, IEEE xplore, Malaysia. pp. 119-
122
Reilly, E., Dhingra, K. and Boduszek, D. (2014), “Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, self-
esteem, and job stress as determinants of job satisfaction”, International Journal of
Educational Management, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 365-378.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Becker, J.M. (2015), “SmartPLS 3”, Bönningstedt: SmartPLS.
Available at: http://www.smartpls.com
 RuningSawitri, H.S. (2012), “Role of internet experience in moderating influence of work
stressor on cyberloafing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 57, pp. 320–324.
Savery, L.K. and Luks, J.A. (2000), “Long hours at work: are they dangerous and do people
consent to them?”, Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp.
307-310.
Seymour, L. and Nadasen, K. (2007), “Web access for IT staff: A developing world
perspective on web abuse”, The Electronic Library, Vol. 25, pp. 543–557.
Siegrist, J. (1996), “Adverse health effects of high-effort/low reward conditions”, Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 27-41.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A. and Oliveira, P. (2010), “Common method bias in regression models
with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 13, pp.
456–476.
Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)

Stephenson, W. (2012), “Who works the longest hours?:, Available at:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-18144319 (accessed 28 March 2017).
Swimberghe, K., Jones, R. P. and Darrat, M. (2014), “Deviant behavior in retail, when sales
associates “Go Bad”! Examining the relationship between the work–family interface, job
stress, and salesperson deviance”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 21 No.
4, pp. 424-431.
Vitak, J., Crouse, J. and LaRose, R. (2011), “Personal internet use at work: Understanding
cyberslacking”, Computers in Human Behaviour, Vol. 27 No 5, pp. 1751–1759.
Wagner, D.T., Barnes, C.M., Lim, V.K.G. and Ferris, D.L. (2012), “Lost sleep and
cyberloafing: Evidence from the laboratory and a daylight saving time quasiexperiment”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 5, pp. 1068–1076.
Schings, S. (2012), “SIOP member’s research shows not all web activity at work is
detrimental”, Available at: http://www.siop.org/Media/News/loafing.aspx (accessed 15
December 2015).
Yao, Y.H., Fan, Y.Y., Guo, Y.X. and Li, Y. (2014), “Leadership, work stress and employee
behavior”, Chinese Management Studies, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp.109-126.
Young, K.S. (2004), “Internet addiction: A new clinical phenomenon and its consequences”,
American Behavioural Scientist, Vol. 48 No 8, pp. 402-415.
Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)

Figure 1. Structural Model

 Table 1
Internal Consistency and Convergent Validity

Construct Item Loading AVE CR Cronbach's

Alpha
Private Demands P1 0.734 0.656 0.884 0.824
P2 0.872
P3 0.818
P5 0.809
Job Stress JS1 0.644 0.567 0.921 0.904
JS2 0.782
JS3 0.800
JS4 0.815
Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)

JS5 0.622
JS6 0.821
JS7 0.789
JS8 0.727
JS9 0.75
Cyberloafing C10 0.743 0.515 0.905 0.883
C11 0.738
C12 0.772
C13 0.713
C3 0.616
C4 0.597
C7 0.752
C8 0.762
C9 0.740
 Table 2
Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion
Cyberloafing Job Stress Private Demands
Cyberloafing 0.717
Job Stress 0.224 0.753
Private Demands 0.317 0.32 0.81
Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)
 Table 3
Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) criterion
Cyberloafing Job Stress Private Demands

Cyberloafing

0.229
Job Stress
[0.200, 0.371]
0.358 0.358
Private Demands
[0.250, 0.472] [0.262, 0.463]
Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)
 Table 4
Summary of the Structural Model for IV>DV
Hypothesis Direct 95% Confidence Std t-Value Decision
Effect Intervals Error (bootstrap)

Private Demands -> Cyberloafing 0.273 [0.190, 0.402] 0.062 4.431*** Support
Private Demands -> Job Stress 0.320 [0.259, 0.384] 0.055 5.818*** Support
Job Stress -> Cyberloafing 0.137 [0.055, 0.263] 0.066 2.075* Support

Note: ***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05 (one-tailed test)
Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)
 Table 5
Summary of the Structural Model for IV>MV>DV
Hypothesis Indirect 95% Confidence Std t-Value Decision
Effect Intervals Error (bootstrap)
Private Demands -> Job Stress -> 0.044 [0.017, 0.091] 0.022 1.973* Support
Cyberloafing
Note: **p < .01; *p < .05 (two-tailed test)
Downloaded by Newcastle University At 18:08 28 July 2017 (PT)