See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233294894

Reconsidering the boundaries of the cyberloafing activity: The case of a

university

Article  in  Behaviour and Information Technology · May 2012

DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2010.549511

CITATIONS READS

28 485

1 author:

Pablo Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara
Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria
72 PUBLICATIONS   826 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Crowding and workplace deviance in open-plan offices View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pablo Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara on 01 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [ULPGC. Biblioteca]
On: 29 January 2013, At: 02:00
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Behaviour & Information Technology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbit20

Reconsidering the boundaries of the cyberloafing

activity: the case of a university
a
Pablo Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara
a
Department of Economics & Management, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria,
Campus Universitario de Tafira, Edificio Empresariales, Module C, 35017 Las Palmas de Gran
Canaria (The Canary Islands), Spain
Version of record first published: 07 Mar 2011.

To cite this article: Pablo Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara (2012): Reconsidering the boundaries of the cyberloafing activity: the
case of a university, Behaviour & Information Technology, 31:5, 469-479

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2010.549511

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Behaviour & Information Technology
Vol. 31, No. 5, May 2012, 469–479

Reconsidering the boundaries of the cyberloafing activity: the case of a university

Pablo Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara*
Department of Economics & Management, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Campus Universitario de Tafira, Edificio
Empresariales, Module C, 35017 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (The Canary Islands), Spain
(Received 7 March 2010; final version received 9 December 2010)

While many scholars generally conceptualise cyberloafing as just one more type of conventional deviant behaviour
at work, others consider this activity to be innocuous or even productive. In either case, cyberloafing is viewed as
merely misusing Internet resources, without contemplating its potential online character. The purpose of this study is
to address these aspects of the cyberloafing ontology. It suggests that under certain conditions cyberloafing (a) could
become a virtual activity, (b) is distinct from conventional forms of deviance and (c) that it may impair the
organisation’s effectiveness. Cyberloafing by instructors in degree courses was examined in a university with a
Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 02:00 29 January 2013

specific culture of teaching and using e-resources. The argument developed here is that cyberloafing among
instructors acts as a contextual activity that obstructs the technological core of this university over the Internet. This
fact would lead cyberloafing to be (a) perceived by students ‘on the other side of the Net’, (b) significantly
differentiated by teachers as a behaviour distinct from conventional deviance and (c) counter-productive since it
would harm the teaching-learning process. Results of confirmatory factor analysis indicated that cyberloafing and
conventional deviance measures are separate. Unlike conventional deviance, individual cyberloafing was found to be
negatively associated with student satisfaction with the teaching service, as rated in each degree course. Since this
negative impact mainly occurred in a virtual environment, the results also suggest that cyberloafing can become
online behaviour that impairs the organisation’s effectiveness over the Internet. Theoretical and practical
implications of the results are finally discussed.
Keywords: cyberloafing; IT behaviour; cyber-deviance; employee online behaviour; organisational effectiveness;
satisfaction with teaching service

employees while online, cyberloafing can be ‘delivered’

1. Introduction
Employees’ cyberloafing activities are a cause for
concern in many organisations. Lim (2002, p. 677)
defines these cyber activities as ‘. . . any voluntary act
of employees using their companies’ Internet access
during office hours to surf non-job-related websites for
personal purposes and to check (including receiving
and sending) personal email’ (e.g. managing a personal
portfolio of auctions on eBay). The link in the
literature between cyberloafing and workplace de-
viance seems clear. Lim (2002) and Lim and Teo
(2005) seminally conceptualised cyberloafing as just
one type of counterproductive or deviant workplace
behaviour (DWB) (deviance) that harms the organisa-
tional production (Robinson and Bennett 1995,
Bennett and Robinson 2000). Since cyberloafing is a
cyber activity, and in some way involved in environ-
ments supported by information and communication
technologies (ICTs), consistently thinking of cyberloaf-
ing as conventional deviance may be an understand-
able but risky assumption. It seems reasonable to
question whether, in addition to being performed by
across the Internet and, hence, perceived by other users
as virtual activity. One of the aims of this study is to
examine this issue.
If cyberloafing is able to take place over the
Internet, then the accepted specificities of these virtual
environments (such as greater perceived anonymity,
fewer social sanctions, and less recognition, among
others) (see e.g. IJsselsteijn et al. 2003) may give it
specific traits. Cyberloafing, in that case, would not
completely share the nature of conventional deviance,
and it is reasonable to expect that employees would
significantly discriminate between the two behaviours.
As a result, since the existing constructs of conven-
tional deviance do not capture online behaviour at
work, measures of the two behaviours should reflect
this distinction; that is, conventional deviance and
cyberloafing measures should differ. The exploration
of the uniqueness of cyberloafing measures compared
to conventional deviance measures constitutes, hence,
the second aim of this paper.
Given that in the literature cyberloafing is con-
sidered just one more type of conventional deviance,

*Email: pzoghbi@dede.ulpgc.es

ISSN 0144-929X print/ISSN 1362-3001 online

Ó 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2010.549511
http://www.tandfonline.com
 470 P. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara
the same literature is very clear in assuming that
cyberloafing is counterproductive (Lim 2002, Lim and
Teo 2005). This interpretation would imply that
cyberloafing not only puts the well-being of the
organisation or its members at risk (Robinson and
Bennett 1995), but it also harms the organisation’s
effectiveness in some way. However, neither the
seminal literature nor subsequent research on cyber-
loafing is conclusive in this regard. The majority of the
empirical work conducted on cyberloafing reports on
its prevalence (Hallett 2002, Amble 2004, DebtCubed
2006, Fox 2007) or simply assumes its counter-
productivity (Zoghbi et al. 2006). Moreover, the basic
arguments offered by the literature in defending
cyberloafing’s counter-productivity are generally con-
ceptual and do not provide enough empirical evidence.
Some prior studies, for example, simply argue that
Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 02:00 29 January 2013
these cyber activities can decrease performance be-
cause they constitute an unproductive use of time and
distract employees from meeting their work demands
(Lim 2002, Lim and Teo 2005, Lim and Chen 2009).
Since cyberloafing has been suggested as a palliative
coping strategy against negative workplace experiences
such as stress (e.g. Oravec 2002, 2004, Stanton 2002,
Anandarajan and Simmers 2005), it is not clear
whether all of the time lost due to cyberloafing is
counterproductive in the end. Other arguments,
although not conclusive either, focus on information
systems’ performance and suggest that cyberloafing
could lead employees to put security at risk by
propagating, for instance, spyware infection (Levoie
and Pychyl 2001).
The picture becomes even more complicated
because recent studies seem to suggest that not all
cyberloafing activities are similarly counterproductive.
For example, by dividing cyberloafing into two types,
namely, serious (e.g. online gambling, surfing adult-
oriented web sites) and minor (e.g. sending and
receiving personal email at work), Blanchard and
Henle (2008) suggest that minor cyberloafing is
innocuous. Lim and Chen’s (2009) recent work,
however, challenges the Blanchard and Henle (2008)
findings by showing that email activities (i.e. minor
cyberloafing) have a negative impact on employees’
work, while browsing activities have a positive impact.
These important inconsistencies in the literature
suggest that dividing cyberloafing into types may not
be a sufficiently useful strategy to explain how and
when it is counterproductive. Better understanding of
any potential ability of cyberloafing to inflict harm on
performance seems to be needed (Weatherbee 2010).
This study aims to explore the above-mentioned
aspects of the cyberloafing activity. We argue that
cyberloafing could become a counterproductive online
behaviour depending on the type of organisation
considered, its aims, and other organisational condi-
tions. This argument led us to focus specifically on one
Spanish public university in this study, in which 270
(17.46%) of the 1547 teachers and 15,367 (68%) of the
22,599 students were investigated. The way the
teaching is organised in this specific university would
make it possible for instructors’ cyberloafing to be
activity delivered online that, unlike conventional
deviance, can impair the effective functioning of the
university.
During the last decade, the university under study
has developed a large cultural background in imple-
menting e-support facilities for learning and online
tutorials, and it has started other important ‘virtual
campus’ services that favour online instructor–student
interaction. As early as 2004, it pioneered (Molist
2006) the implementation of ‘the modular object-
oriented dynamic learning environment’ (Moodle) in
Spain, and it was ranked third in providing Internet
services, according to an annual report on the
development of new technologies (ICTs) in Spanish
universities (Fundacion Auna 2003). Although face-to-
face learning also exists, the vast majority of contacts
between teachers and students currently take place
online. Finally, the university offers several different
types of units (degrees, centres, departments, among
others). In the present study, we chose to examine the
58 degree programs, given that teachers in these units
are especially permanent over time and have a stronger
internal homogeneity compared to other types of units.
The plan for this study is as follows. First, it aims
to use structural equation modelling (SEM) to test (a)
whether, unlike conventional deviance, cyberloafing is
supported in this university as a virtual activity
reaching targets across the Internet. Next, (b) we will
conduct a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) that
significantly supports the distinction between these
behaviours as reported by teachers, and lastly (c) we
will use SEM to test whether cyberloafing impairs
university effectiveness over the Internet, operationa-
lised as student satisfaction with the teaching service
(SSTS). The paper concludes by discussing theoretical
and practical implications.
2. Theoretical background and hypotheses
Robinson and Bennett (1995) labelled misbehaviour at
work as DWBs (hereinafter, deviance), which form
part of the basis of this paper. These authors define
deviance as behaviours that employees exhibit volun-
tarily, significantly violating organisational norms, and
putting at risk the well-being of the organisation, its
members, or both. In a later study, Bennett and
Robinson (2000) divided deviance into two types:
behaviour that is directly harmful to the organisation
 Behaviour & Information Technology
as a whole (organisational deviance), and behaviour
that is more concerned with harming individuals
within the organisation (interpersonal deviance). Ex-
amples of organisational deviance would include
coming in late to work without giving prior notice
and putting little effort into work, whereas gossiping
about and blaming coworkers would be examples of
interpersonal deviance.
Since cyberloafing is a human activity, it stems
from real rather than virtual behaviour. Thus, the
actions of connecting to the Internet or wasting work
time, for instance, are verifiable acts of cyberloafing
from a strictly real perception. Unlike conventional
deviance, these behaviours are carried out by employ-
ees while they are connected online, raising the
probability that cyberloafing also constitutes a virtual
activity. Indeed, employees’ cyberloafing implies ‘log-
Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 02:00 29 January 2013
ging out’ other users and ignoring their emails,
delaying online work, decreasing their presence in
virtual groups, or just being ‘unavailable’. Even
though these behaviours can be the object of a real
perception, it is clear that they may be virtual activities
as well.
It seems clear that the behaviour is an immutable
fact. Since it has already happened – whatever it is – it
cannot be changed. What can be changed is how it is
‘experienced’. Therefore, although the cyberloafing
activity, in this sense, ‘is’ always the same, the fact
that it is ultimately virtual may be closely related to
whether it is ‘experienced’ by other users ‘on the other
side of the Net’. In turn, this perception may depend
on the characteristics of the jobs that cyberloafers
habitually perform. If cyberloafers’ jobs comprise
offline tasks to a greater extent, the content of their
interactions over the Internet will be more amorphous
and exploratory in character, making it unlikely for
cyberloafing to be perceived. In contrast, the more
cyberloafing is involved in operational and institu-
tional activities, the greater the possibility that
cyberloafing will be perceived online and more easily
confirmed.
Since in this specific university setting teachers are
employed primarily to interact with students in a
specific teaching-learning framework and by using e-
resources, the probability that virtual interactions will
be more rigidly defined here, and, hence, that
cyberloafing will be perceived by student-users,
appears to be high. For this reason, we postulate
that, unlike conventional forms of organisational and
interpersonal deviance, the instructors’ cyberloafing
while online in the case of our university does not
merely consist of misusing the Internet resources.
H1: Teachers’ conventional forms of organisational
(1a) and interpersonal (1b) deviance are not virtual
471
activity in that they will not significantly affect targets
over the Internet.
H2: Teachers’ cyberloafing is a virtual activity in that it
will significantly affect targets over the Internet.
Maruping and Agarwal (2004) noted that prior
empirical research is clear in stating that the extant
theory in traditional contexts cannot be directly
applied to virtual settings, thus suggesting that the
fundamental nature of the interactions in face-to-face
and Internet environments could be different.
Although virtual interactions may not be fundamen-
tally a function of the medium itself, and cyberloafing
activity delivered across new technologies (ICTs) ‘is’
always the same, the teachers’ awareness of the
medium they are using could somehow determine the
character of their cyberloafing. Otherwise, can
virtual cyberloafing exist without the new technologies
(ICTs), and if not, can we talk about the behaviours
without simultaneously considering the medium
over which they are delivered? Thus, although
‘real’ cyberloafing could consist of conventional
deviance activities, the way instructors believe these
behaviours are ‘experienced’ by their students over the
Internet may also determine the way they carry them
out.
Unlike in many other organisational contexts, in
the studied university cyberloafing is expected to be
perceived online by users who are not ‘sporadic clients’
but instead remain in the university for a number of
years. Instructors in this university, therefore, will be
particularly aware that their cyberloafing is transferred
online to the same students together with the rest of
their daily virtual communications. Mediating tech-
nology frequently constrains the breadth of behaviours
(Lea and Spears 1992), and unlike while performing
conventional deviance, instructors are likely to sense
social distance from students and anonymity to a
greater extent, as well as greater impunity (IJsselsteijn
et al. 2003). To cope with this situation, they may reject
some traditional forms of communication in favour of
more virtual patterns (Ferguson and Ferguson 1988,
Walther 1992). Teachers may even perceive that their
cyberloafing is harmful for reasons (e.g. leading their
students to log out and miss instruction) that are very
different from those existing in face-to-face contexts
(e.g. upsetting them while waiting for tutorials at their
desks). Therefore, we suggest that teachers in this
specific university context cannot self-report their
cyberloafing as being equal to other acts of conven-
tional deviance.
H3: When self-reported, teachers’ cyberloafing is a
distinct behaviour compared to conventional forms of
both organisational and interpersonal deviance.
 472 P. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara
The main aim of the state university under study is
to provide students with a high-quality teaching
service. Therefore, its effectiveness can be measured
by how it rates on students’ satisfaction with the
teaching service (SSTS). Based on Borman and
Motowidlo (1993), higher rates of SSTS could be
achieved depending on the effectiveness with which
instructors perform task and contextual activities.
Task activities would contribute to the university’s
technical core either directly, by implementing a part
of its technological process, or indirectly, by providing
it with needed materials or services (Borman and
Motowidlo 1997). On the other hand, contextual
activities or extra-role performance (to use the Van
Dyne et al. (1995) terminology) would act across the
organisational, social, and psychological context where
the technical core also exists. Although in a negative
Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 02:00 29 January 2013
direction, cyberloafing is somewhat defined (Lim 2002)
in similar ways to contextual activities (Borman and
Motowidlo 1997). Indeed, both contextual activities
and cyberloafing include voluntary behaviours that are
not role-prescribed, and that tend to be similar across
jobs (Phillips and Reddie 2007).
The inconsistency in the discussion on cyberloaf-
ing counter-productivity, however, seems to suggest
that cyberloafing does not always act as a contextual
activity obstructing the technical core of the organi-
sation. Even if cyberloafing is delivered online, an
innocuous (or even productive) virtual cyberloafing
appears to be possible. If an employee, for example,
is cyberloafing to cope with stress, and most of the
tasks in his/her job are essentially offline, cyberloaf-
ing can take place online, but it would be based on
less rigidly defined virtual interactions. Because it
forms part of less structured interactions, cyberloaf-
ing may be innocuous in this case, and even
perceived as fruitful (Lim and Chen 2009), since it
is difficult to say what is being harmed – going back
to the Borman and Motowidlo (1993) concept of
contextual performance. Therefore, if we can say
what the technical core ‘is’, it becomes easier to say
how and when cyberloafing is inflicting social and
psychological harm.
At the studied university, the instructors’ interac-
tions with students are mainly online and ultimately
focus on the teaching-learning process. Because they
are operational and institutional, we know what is
being hindered and supported. On that basis, instruc-
tors play a key role in supporting the technological
core of the university. They perform as a large and very
important front-line workforce that interacts repeat-
edly with a narrow range of students over time.
Regarding this point, Organ (1988) suggests that it is
in the aggregate, across time and across persons, when
extra-role performance is able to impact performance.
Therefore, when instructors, due to cyberloafing,
frequently ignore student emails or postpone re-
sponses, put their computer equipment at risk, or
delay their virtual teaching activities, for example, they
are probably performing contextual activities that, in
this case, obstruct the organisational, social, and
psychological context of the university over the
Internet, ultimately harming SSTS.
Some research in the literature on service quality
also appears to support our argument. Prior work
confirms how the perception of quality of the service
delivered is the result of a significant effect of employ-
ees’ attitudes and behaviours in the ‘critical moments’
of interactions with clients (Bitner et al. 1994, Lee and
Lin 2005). Other studies also report that if information
technology is used to provide ‘personalisation’
(a website presents clients with selected information
on their specific needs), e-service is able to create
individualised attention, personal thank you notes
from online stores, and a message area for clients’
questions or comments (Yang 2001). Cyberloafing
seems to follow the opposite path in the case of our
university, hindering these quality attributes of a good
e-service and harming the students’ satisfaction with
the web-based teaching service and the SSTS in the
end. Twofold dimensionality is expected concerning
SSTS. Grönroos (1982) identifies two service-quality
dimensions – a technical aspect (‘what’ service is
provided) and a functional aspect (‘how’ the service is
provided) (see also, Lehtinen (1983), Berry et al.
(1985), Parasuraman et al. (1985)).
Finally, previous research provides evidence that
clients may state their perceptions at different levels
(Waldman and Gopalakrishnan 1996, Yoon et al.
2001). As a first step, it is likely that students would
positively associate a teacher’s cyberloafing with the
service delivered by this teacher individually. Even-
tually, teachers who exhibit cyberloafing would then
contribute to shaping a negative image of their unit’s
effectiveness among students. In the aggregate, stu-
dents can transfer (associate) their SSTS from indivi-
dual cyberloafing to the service delivered by the unit
responsible for this cyberloafing. As a result, at the
studied university, in degree courses that receive low
ratings on (technical or/and functional) SSTS, there
may be more individual cyberloafing activities among
the teachers.
H4a: Individual cyberloafing by teachers is negatively
associated with the students’ satisfaction with the
technical teaching service (technical SSTS), as rated
in each degree course.
H4b: Individual cyberloafing by teachers is negatively
associated with the students’ satisfaction with the
functional teaching service (functional SSTS), as rated
in each degree course.
 Behaviour & Information Technology
3. Method
3.1. Procedure and sample characteristics
Data were collected from 270 (17.46%) of the 1547
teachers and 15,367 (68%) of the 22,599 students at
a Spanish public university. Intranet email was used
in the former case, while (individually distributed)
questionnaires were used in the latter. The teacher
sample consisted of 64.6% males and 35.4% females.
While 40% were 40 years old or younger, only 4.2%
were older than 60. Some 68% of the sample held
tenured positions, while the remainder did not. No
contextual conditions were found that led us to
presume varying willingness to respond. In order to
avoid reticence and interference in their responses,
the participants were previously informed that the
research project had received official approval and
Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 02:00 29 January 2013
that their IP addresses were unidentifiable. With
regard to the students, 10,836 were males (47.95%)
and 11,763 females (52.05%). Only 2647 were 30
years of age or above (11.71%), while the rest were
between 18 and 29 years old.
The descriptive structures of the teacher sample
are quite similar to the population data. In effect, in
the university as a whole, 932 (60.28%) teachers held
tenured positions, while the remaining 615 had some
other type of contract. With regard to age, 501
(32.5%) were 40 years old or younger, and only 89
(5.7%) were 60 or older. In terms of gender, 68%
were males and 32% females. In our study, there
were eventually 270 valid responses after 12 were
rejected due to incorrect completion or incoherent
information. In addition, a total of 61,298 student
assessments in the annual teacher evaluation pro-
gram were considered. Each assessment evaluates
one teacher in one subject. The number of students
and the number of assessments indicate that each
student evaluated an average of 2.71 subjects, and
each teacher was evaluated by an average of 39.6
students. Considering the average student/subject
and subject/student ratios, at least 68% of the
students participated in the evaluations, and more
than 95% of the teachers were evaluated in at least
one subject.
3.2. Measures
Student satisfaction with teaching service (SSTS)
measures had a 5-point response format (e.g. 1 ¼
strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree). The items used
in the case of cyberloafing and deviance were scored on
a 7-point scale ranging from (1) never to (7) constantly.
All items are presented in the Appendices. The
reliabilities were established by using Cronbach’s
alpha.
473
3.2.1. Cyberloafing
We used a five-item scale adapted from the one
proposed by Lim (2002), which included eight items
referring to browsing activities and three to emailing
activities. We selected four of the former, and one of
the email activities, which combined Lim’s ‘send’ and
‘read’ email. Lim’s third item, ‘check’ email, was
omitted, since we believe it overlaps with ‘read’ email.
The scale is expected to be one-dimensional.
3.2.2. Conventional deviance
The scale used was a reduced version of the one
developed by Bennett and Robinson (2000) for
assessing DWBs. Some deviance referred to in this
scale regarding ethnic, religious or racial differences,
and even working hours, did not apply to the studied
university. Thus, this particular university led us to
select 10 of those items in an attempt to obtain 2
dimensions, 6 items about organisational and 4 about
interpersonal deviance.
3.2.3. Student satisfaction with teaching service
We used the 20-item scale of the office of institutional
evaluation at the university under study to assess
SSTS. The scale includes attributes similar to those
proposed by Casanueva et al. (1997) (see Appendix B).
We averaged the scores on each of the 20 items
reported by the students in each degree. We then
included these averages in the database for each of the
270 responding teachers, according to the degree
program where he/she teaches. When necessary, we
chose the degree in which the teachers had the highest
teaching load. We expect to find the two SSTS
dimensions proposed by the literature, i.e. technical
and functional SSTS.
We examined the factor structures of cyberloafing,
organisational and interpersonal deviance, as well as
the five-factor structure – where the two dimensions of
SSTS were also included – to ensure that each variable
was separate. Initially, we intended to use CFAs for
this purpose. However, given that CFA is used when
strong theory and/or a strong empirical base is
available, and this base is weak when it comes to
differentiating cyberloafing from organisational de-
viance, we first conducted an EFA to examine the focal
independent variables (cyberloafing, organisational
and interpersonal deviance). We then conducted the
two planned CFAs. In this regard, although research-
ers typically use either individual item or scale
(composite) scores as indicators of latent constructs,
in order to examine the five-factor structure we chose
individual items for cyberloafing and conventional
 474 P. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara
deviance, but composite scores for SSTS, for two
reasons. First, SEM is limited in its ability to calculate
model estimates with large numbers of indicators
(Bentler and Chou 1987, Aquino et al. 1999). Second,
it is difficult to find a match in models with large
numbers of manifest indicators (Joreskog and Sorbom
1986, Williams and Hazer 1986). Thus, before SSTS
items were entered into the CFA, they were averaged
according to the two dimensions identified by the EFA
in Appendix B.
4. Results
Table 1 shows the correlations (r) between all the
research variables and reliabilities on the main
diagonal. Cyberloafing is moderately inter-correlated
with organisational (r ¼ 0.453; p 5 0.001) and inter-
Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 02:00 29 January 2013
personal deviance (r ¼ 0.331; p 5 0.001), and the
latter two with each other (r ¼ 0.600; p 5 0.01). In
addition, unlike organisational and interpersonal
deviance, cyberloafing correlates negatively with func-
tional SSTS (r ¼ 70.184; p 5 0.01). Therefore, these
patterns could suggest findings in the expected direc-
tions. However, suspect correlations between technical
and functional SSTS (r ¼ 0.747; p 5 0.001) demand
further tests to discover whether they are separate
dimensions.
The EFA results for the three-factor (cyberloafing,
organisational and interpersonal deviance) structure
are presented in Appendix A. As we can see, the items
loaded supporting cyberloafing as a separate factor
compared to the other conventional deviance dimen-
sions. Next, in the EFA results for SSTS, technical and
functional SSTS dimensions were identified and are
presented in Appendix B. Technical SSTS include, for
example, giving clear explanations and making the
topics easy to understand, while the functional SSTS
include punctuality, attendance and compliance,
among others. We then conducted the CFA of the
cyberloafing, organisational and interpersonal de-
viance foci. Results of this CFA indicate that the
three-factor model (w2 ¼ 226.356, df ¼ 87, p 5 0.001;
CFI ¼ 0.927, NFI ¼ 0.888, RMSEA ¼ 0.077), com-
pared to the one-factor model (w2 ¼ 842.984, df ¼ 90,
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, correlations and reliabilities.
Variables M SD
1. Cyberloafing 2.87 1.57
2. Organisational deviance 2.48 1.34
3. Interpersonal deviance 2.55 1.35
4. SSTS (technical service) 2.78 0.88
5. SSTS (functional service) 3.05 1.43
Note: The numbers in parentheses on the diagonal are coefficient alphas. N ¼ 270. *p 5 0.01, **p 5 0.001.
p 5 0.001; CFI ¼ 0.603, NFI ¼ 0.582, RMSEA ¼
0.176), provided a significantly better fit to the data,
i.e. Dw2(3) ¼ 616.628, p 5 0.01. Thus, CFA also
provides support for the distinctiveness of the cyber-
loafing measure compared to organisational
and interpersonal deviance measures, as H3 postu-
lated. In addition, the results of the five-factor CFA
(which includes the items from the SSTS
dimensions, but averaged) show that this solution is
acceptable (w2 ¼ 249.651, df ¼ 111, p 5 0.001, CFI ¼
0.934, NFI ¼ 0.889, RMSEA ¼ 0.068) especially
based on RMSEA, which is less than 0.8 (see Browne
and Cudeck 1993). These patterns suggest the distinc-
tiveness of all the variables under study.
The remaining hypotheses (H1, H2 and H4) were
then tested by using SEM and predicting the SSTS
as the criterion variable. Regardless of whether the
effects are positive or negative, conventional organi-
sational deviance (H1a), interpersonal deviance
(H1b), and cyberloafing (H2) will be supported as
performing as virtual activity if they show effects on
virtual targets in the form of SSTS. If the
cyberloafing effects on SSTS are, in addition,
significantly negative, support for cyberloafing as
counterproductive (H4) is encountered as well. The
items provided in the two Appendices define the
observed variables of the model in Figure 1. To
seek support for H1a and H1b, in addition to
cyberloafing, we entered in the model the two
conventional deviance dimensions found in the
EFA in Appendix A. In order to gain rigour, unlike
in the previous five-factor CFA conducted, here we
included the items from the SSTS dimensions not
averaged, even though in doing so we were aware
that our model had a large number of manifest
indicators that could be difficult to match (Joreskog
and Sorbom 1986, Williams and Hazer 1986). As
suspected, the various indices used show that the fit
of this model was mediocre (see Figure 1). However,
an inspection of the paths from cyberloafing to SSTS
reveals that they are significant, thus adding support
for cyberloafing as a virtual activity (H2). Since both
paths from cyberloafing to technical (B ¼ –.152;
p ¼ .04) and functional SSTS (B ¼ –.249; p ¼ .009)
1 2 3 4 5
(0.862)
0.453** (0.863)
0.331** 0.600** (0.801)
–0.071 –0.015 –0.058 (0.993)
–0.184* 0.031 –0.018 0.747** (0.976)
 Behaviour & Information Technology
Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 02:00 29 January 2013
Figure 1. Accepted model of cyberloafing and conventional deviance as predictors of SSTS. N ¼ 270; w2 ¼ 1662.488; df ¼ 315;
p 5 0.001; CFI ¼ 0.804; NFI ¼ 0.771; RMSEA ¼ 0.126. Levels of significance: *p 5 0.05; **p 5 0.01.
are, in addition, negative, support for cyberloafing’s
counter-productivity (H4) is also found.
Finally, Figure 1 also shows how interpersonal
deviance does not significantly impact SSTS, thus
adding support for H1b which postulates that it does
not perform as virtual activity in the studied university.
Regarding H1a, nevertheless, organisational deviance
was supported as a virtual activity, since it unexpect-
edly increased levels of both technical (B ¼ 0.196;
p 5 0.05) and functional SSTS (B ¼ 0.167; p 5 0.05).
5. Discussion
This study was an initial attempt to provide a
preliminary exploration of the conditions under which
cyberloafing performs as a distinct type of conven-
tional deviant behaviour at work and becomes a
counterproductive cyber activity with effects via the
Internet. Overall, in light of the results, this idea has
gained strength. Beyond a simple influence based on
the human–computer interaction (HCI), as Lim and
Chen (2009) recently reported, since this impact
occurred across the virtual context of one specific
university, the results suggest that cyberloafing is able
to impact performance, but over the Internet. How-
ever, some inconsistencies in our results should be
discussed, as well as the role that this university
context plays in these results. Below we address some
theoretical and practical implications derived from this
study.
475
Figure 1 clearly shows how organisational deviance
unexpectedly has an (positive) impact on SSTS. In that
organisational deviance is also able to reach targets via
the Internet (SSTS), the results appear to support the
idea that the virtual nature is not exclusive to
cyberloafing. One explanation for this unexpected
result could be found in the mixed nature of the study
context where both behaviours were performed.
Although online interactions dominate the teaching
activity, instructor and student face-to-face interac-
tions also exist; therefore, organisational deviance
could positively affect SSTS as an ‘offline’ behaviour.
Related to this positive impact, there is a body of
literature addressing the potential positive conse-
quences of organisational deviance, such as decreased
levels of employees’ work alienation due to a sense of
regaining control over work processes, less role
conflict, and reduced employee resistance (Ackroyd
and Thompson 1999). Although these face-to-face
effects ultimately exist, they are much more unlikely in
the case of cyberloafing, since it is performed privately
by teachers in their offices, which means that students
are not able to observe their behaviours in this area.
As a further explanation, the cyberloafing variable
may be acting here as a suppressor (MacKinnon et al.
2000). As we know, a suppressor is a mediating
variable that can reverse the direction of the relation-
ship that it potentially mediates when the suppressor,
predictor and criterion variables are entered in the
same model. Given the non-significant main effects of
 476 P. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara
organisational deviance on SSTS suggested by correla-
tions in Table 1, the fact that this relationship becomes
positive in Figure 1 may indeed point to cyberloafing
as a suppressor. This explanation would imply that
cyberloafing can explain the relationship between
organisational deviance and SSTS and play a mediat-
ing role in this link. Raising the possibility of this
mediation does not seem unreasonable. When students
are faced with cyberloafing, they appear to express
dissatisfaction with the teachers’ punctuality, atten-
dance, and compliance as SSTS attributes (see
Appendix B). However, these SSTS attributes may
also be affected by organisational deviance (see e.g.
item ‘spend too much time fantasising or daydreaming
instead of working’ in Appendix A) if cyberloafing (see
e.g. ‘surfing the Net and thereby escape a little’ in
Appendix A) mediates this link. In other words, as a
Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 02:00 29 January 2013
mediator, cyberloafing seems to be ‘hacking a path’
(fantasising or daydreaming instead of working þ by
surfing the Net) from organisational deviance to SSTS
by carrying its effects out across a virtual environment.
Without doubt, this suggestion is an interesting one
that should be developed in future research.
How and when cyberloafing becomes counter-
productive are imperative questions, so that its
potential effects can be controlled. Since the results
support teachers’ cyberloafing as a virtual activity in
our university context, in that it significantly reached
targets across the Internet, real and virtual facets may
potentially coexist in the nature of cyberloafing.
Therefore, cyberloafing should be reconsidered as a
potential harm ‘on both sides of the Net’. Although
corporations already strongly support strict regulation
of Internet usage (Mirchandani 2004, Flynn 2005),
these monitoring practices against cyberloafing may
not be enough, given that the scope of its harm may be
broader than previously assumed. Control mechanisms
for cyberloafing ‘on the other side of the Net’ may be
necessary as well. In this regard, the feedback of
students, customers and clients in general, for example,
could be very useful.
The educational context specifically used for this
study may suggest some of the conditions under which
cyberloafing becomes counterproductive over the
Internet. First, instructors are employees with jobs
that per se generate a large number of virtual contacts
on a daily basis. We believe this prevalence should be
considered, since it may aggregate its virtual impacts
across time and persons (Organ 1988), making
cyberloafing more able to impact performance. Sec-
ond, the results show how cyberloafing performs in a
counterproductive way when it specifically targets
student satisfaction (SSTS). This finding should lead
us to consider this measure (SSTS) and the specific
characteristics of students as targets, when
cyberloafing’s counter-productivity is supported in
this study context. Students are not ‘sporadic users’,
which may suggest that, generally, satisfaction with
service of permanent clients or customers over time
could be ‘an easier target’ to harm. In other words,
some types of client-users and harm may be more
prone to producing effects of cyberloafing via the
Internet than others. Third, the design of this study
suggests that, among other reasons, the virtual side of
cyberloafing was perceived because students were
chosen who belonged to internally homogenous units,
degree courses, which means that these students are
ultimately linked to a narrow range of teachers.
Consequently, it is likely that the more clients are
linked to the same service providers over time and
interact with homogenous units of an organisation, the
more these clients are likely to be impacted by virtual
cyberloafing. Lastly, teachers in this university are
mainly performing task activities online. Thus, their
virtual interactions are probably operational and
institutional to a greater extent, causing their cyber-
loafing to act as a contextual activity that obstructs the
technical core over the Internet. If this is the case,
cyberloafers’ positions may generally be playing a role
in the final counter-productivity of cyberloafing.
This research relating organisational online beha-
viour to the misuse of technology bridges the
organisational research literature and approaches to
similar issues found in the diverse HCI literature.
Computer Supported Collaborative Work is frequently
conducted in organisational settings by virtual teams.
Despite their benefits, virtual teams encounter numer-
ous challenges due to the negative impact of virtuality
on their effective performance (Hinds and Kiesler
2002, IJsselsteijn 2003). Given its supported online
character and negative influence on teaching’s rela-
tional and instrumental processes, the presence of
cyberloafing might exacerbate these deficits in virtual
activity. For instance, cyberloafing among members of
virtual groups may suffocate interactions among
members, which subsequently hinders trusting, deeper
and more ‘spontaneous’ communication. Proper tech-
nology design and management able to discourage
cyberloafing may definitively contribute to virtual
groups’ effectiveness.
This study also opens up avenues for future
research into new ideas about cyberloafing as a virtual
activity. For example, given that new technologies
(ICTs) seem to be capable of ‘creating’ online
behaviour, ‘cyberloafing’ not fundamentally derived
from the action of a real person would be plausible.
Thus, new technologies (ICTs) can provide instructors
with programs with algorithms that detect when
students are logged on and allow them to interact
online with ‘virtual instructors’. Through this system,
 Behaviour & Information Technology
instructors could send students standard notes, auto-
matic messages with some guidance, and even gestural
icons, even when they are not personally involved in
the action itself. Since this way of interacting with
students does not seem to mitigate the salience of these
‘behaviours’, and teachers (although offline) can still
remain ‘involved’ with (or responsible for) said
behaviours, it seems clear that this cyber activity
does not stem from a ‘real teacher’. In this case, the
‘real’ side of cyberloafing should just comprise the
instructor’s neglect of (or loafing in) the proper
supervision and maintenance of this program.
Finally, we believe our study has strengths and
several important weaknesses. Concerning the former,
in spite of the use of self-reported measurements, the
assessments of cyberloafing and SSTS were obtained
from different sources, thus avoiding mono-method/
Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 02:00 29 January 2013
source biases. However, this study only focuses on one
area of service, namely SSTS. Future research should
focus on a broader concept of service and other
scientific indicators like performance or work produc-
tivity. Second, the peculiarities of the context studied
impede the generalisability of our findings. For the
same reason, the performance of the constructs used in
the present research could also vary. Third, there are
other possible antecedents to SSTS that have not been
controlled and could have an impact on SSTS (e.g.
instructors’ experience and educational background).
Finally, the fieldwork was conducted in such a way
that individual SSTS was not compared to the
cyberloafing shown by each teacher individually. This
condition keeps our study from pursuing a complete
analysis at the individual level.
In conclusion, the Internet channel increasingly
plays a key role in employees’ contact with clients, and
the findings of this study have important implications
for the role cyberloafing can play as a virtual activity in
achieving high-quality service in organisations. With-
out a doubt, under similar organisational conditions to
those in the present study, managers need to reconsider
strategies and policies designed to decrease the harm of
cyberloafing, since it may occur ‘on both sides of the
Net’.
References
Ackroyd, S. and Thompson, P., 1999. Organizational
misbehavior. London, UK: Sage.
Amble, B., 2004. Does cyberloafing undermine productivity?
[online]. Available from: http://www.management-issues.
com/2006/8/24/research/does-cyberloafing-undermining
productivity.asp [Accessed 16 October 2008].
Anandarajan, M. and Simmers, C.A., 2005. Developing
human capital through personal web use in the
workplace: mapping employee perceptions. Communica-
tions of the Association for Information System, 15, 776–
791.
477
Aquino, K., Lewis, M.U., and Bradfield, M., 1999. Justice
constructs, negative affectivity, and employee deviance: a
proposed model and empirical test. Journal of Organiza-
tion Behavior, 20 (7), 1073–1091.
Bennett, R.J. and Robinson, S.L., 2000. Development of a
measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85 (3), 349–360.
Bentler, P.M. and Chou, C.P., 1987. Practical issues in
structural modeling. Sociological Methods and Research,
16 (1), 78–117.
Berry, L.L., Zeithaml, V.A., and Parasuraman, A., 1985.
Quality comes in services, too. Business Horizon, 28 (3),
44–52.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B.H., and Mohr, L.A., 1994. Critical
service encounters: the employee’s viewpoint. Journal of
Marketing, 58 (4), 95–106.
Blanchard, A.L. and Henle, C.A., 2008. Correlates of
different forms of cyberloafing: the role of norms and
external locus of control. Computers in Human Behavior,
24, 1067–1084.
Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J., 1993. Expanding the
criterion domain to include elements of contextual
performance. In: N. Schmitt and W.C. Borman, eds.
Personnel selection in organizations. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey Bass, 71–98.
Borman, W.C. and Motowidlo, S.J., 1997. Task
performance and contextual performance: the meaning
for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10
(2), 99–109.
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R., 1993. Alternative ways of
assessing model fit. In: K.A. Bollen and J.S. Long, eds.
Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage, 136–162.
Casanueva, C., Periáñez, R.Y., and Rufino, J.E., 1997.
Calidad percibida por el alumno en el servicio docente
universitario: desarrollo de una escala de medida. In: M.
Ruiz, ed. XI Congreso Nacional Aedem Lleida, 2, 27–34.
Debt Cubed., 2006. Are your internet costs going through the
roof? Debt Cubed, 21 (1), 10.
Ferguson, S.D. and Ferguson, S., 1988. Organizational
communication. 2nd ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers (Rutgers University).
Flynn, N., 2005. 2005 electronic monitoring and surveillance
survey. New York: American Management Association.
Fox, A., 2007. Caught in the web. HR Magazine, Society for
Human Resource Management, December 2007, 35–39.
Fundación, Auna., 2003. Informe sobre el desarrollo de la
Sociedad de la Información en España, eEspaña 2003.
Publicaciones: eEspaña.
Grönroos, C., 1982. Strategic management and marketing in
service sector. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science
Institute.
Hallett, T., 2002. Christmas cyberloafing cost UK businesses
£154 million [online]. Available from: http://hardware.
silicon.com/servers/0,39024647,11036829,00.htm [Acces-
sed 16 October 2008].
Hinds, P.J. and Kiesler, S., 2002. Distributed work: new
research on working across distance using technology.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
IJsselsteijn, W., van Baren, J., and van Lanen, F., 2003.
Staying in touch: social presence and connectedness
through synchronous and asynchronous communication
media. In: C. Stephanidis and J. Jacko, eds. Human-
computer interaction: theory and practice (Part II),
Volume 2 of the proceedings of HCI international 2003.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 924–928.
 478 P. Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara
Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D., 1986. Lisrel IV: analysis of
linear structural relationship by maximum likelihood,
instrumental variables, and least squares methods. 4th
ed. Moorseville, IN: Scientific Software.
Lea, M. and Spears, R., 1992. Paralanguage and social
perception in computer-mediated communication. Jour-
nal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Com-
merce, 2 (3), 321–341.
Lee, G.-G. and Lin, H.-F., 2005. Customer perceptions of e-
service quality in online shopping. International Journal
of Retail and Distribution Management, 33 (2), 161–176.
Lehtinen, J., 1983. Customer oriented service system. Work-
ing paper, Service Management Institute, Helsinki.
Levoie, J.A.A. and Pychyl, T.A., 2001. Cyberslacking and
the procrastination superhighway: a web-based survey of
online procrastination, attitudes, and emotion. Social
Science Computer Review, 19 (4), 431–444.
Lim, V.K.G., 2002. The IT way of loafing on the job:
cyberloafing, neutralizing and organizational justice.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23 (5), 675–694.
Lim, V.K.G. and Chen, D.J.Q., 2009. Cyberloafing at
Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 02:00 29 January 2013
the workplace: gain or drain on work? Behaviour &
Information Technology, iFirst, doi: 10.1080/
01449290903353054.
Lim, V.K.G. and Teo, T.S.H., 2005. Prevalence, perceived
seriousness, justification and regulation of cyberloafing in
Singapore – an exploratory study. Information and
Management, 42, 1081–1093.
MacKinnon, D.P., Krull, J.L., and Lockwood, C.M., 2000.
Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppres-
sion effect. Prevention Science, 1 (4), 173–181.
Maruping, L.M. and Agarwal, R., 2004. Managing team
interpersonal processes through technology: a task-
technology fit perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology,
89 (6), 975–990.
Mirchandani, D.A., 2004. A deterrence theory perspective on
personal web usage. In: C.A. Simmers, ed. Personal web
usage in workplace: a guide to effective human resources
management. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publish-
ing, 111–124.
Molist, M., 2006. Institutos y universidades apuestan por la
plataforma libre de ‘e-learning’ Moodle, CiberP@is, 13
April, Education. Available from: http://www.elpais.es/
articulo/portada/Institutos/universidades/apuestan/plata
forma/libre/elearning/Moodle/elpcibpor/200060413elpcib
por_1/Tes/
Oravec, J.A., 2002. Constructive approaches to Internet
recreation to workplace. Communications of the ACM, 45
(1), 60–63.
Oravec, J.A., 2004. When work morphs into play: using
constructive recreation to support the flexible workplace.
In: M. Anandarajan, ed. Personal web usage in the
workplace: a guide to effective human resource manage-
ment. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Organ, D.W., 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: the
good soldier syndrome. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., and Berry, L.L., 1985. A
conceptual model of service quality and its implications
for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49 (4), 41–50.
Phillips, J.G. and Reddie, L., 2007. Decisional style and self-
reported Email use in the workplace. Computers in
Human Behavior, 23 (5), 2414–2428.
Robinson, S.L. and Bennett, R.J., 1995. A typology of
deviant workplace behaviors: a multidimensional scaling
study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572.
Stanton, J.M., 2002. Company profile of the frequent
Internet user. Communications of the ACM, 45 (1), 55–59.
Straub, D.W. and Welke, R.J., 1998. Coping with systems
risk: security planning models for management decision-
making. MIS Quarterly, 22 (4), 441–469.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L.L., and Parks, J.M., 1995.
Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and defini-
tional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). In: L.L.
Cummings and B.M. Staw, eds. Research in organiza-
tional behavior. Vol. 17. Greenwich, CT: JAI, 215–285.
Waldman, D.A. and Gopalakrishnan, M., 1996. Opera-
tional, organizational and human resource factors
predictive of customers’ perceptions of service quality.
Journal of Quality Management, 1 (1), 23–35.
Walther, J.B., 1992. Interpersonal effects in computer
mediated interaction: a relational perspective. Commu-
nication Research, 19 (1), 52–90.
Weatherbee, T.G., 2010. Counterproductive use of technol-
ogy at work: information and communications technol-
ogies and cyberdeviancy: new perspectives in the study of
counterproductive behavior in organizations. Human
Resource Management Review, 20 (1), 35–44.
Williams, L.J. and Hazer, J.T., 1986. Antecedents and
consequences of satisfaction and commitment in turn-
over models: a reanalysis using latent variable structural
equation methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (2),
219–231.
Yang, Z., 2001. Customer perceptions of service quality in
internet-based electronic commerce. Proceedings of the
30th EMAC Conference, Bergen, 8–11.
Yoon, M.H., Beatty, S.E., and Suh, J., 2001. The effect of
work climate on critical employee and customer out-
comes: an employee-level analysis. International Journal
of Service Industry Management, 12 (5), 500–521.
Zoghbi, P., Verano-Tacoronte, D., and Ting-Ding, J.M.,
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, 16 (4), 450–467.
 Behaviour & Information Technology 479

Appendix A. Exploratory factor analysis with the cyberloafing and conventional deviance variables

F1 F2 F3
(F1) Organisational deviance (eigenvalue ¼ 5.9; explained variance % ¼ 39.4)
X01: Spend too much time fantasising or daydreaming instead of working 0.710 0.268 0.083
X02: Come to work late without giving prior notice 0.658 0.102 0.112
X03: Intentionally worked slower than I could have worked 0.847 0.179 0.189
X04: Neglected to follow my boss’s instructions 0.529 0.060 0.398
X05: Put little effort into my work 0.807 0.166 0.279
X06: Taken an additional or longer break than is acceptable at my workplace 0.772 0.211 0.247
(F2) Cyberloafing (eigenvalue ¼ 2.3; explained variance % ¼ 15.0)
I use the Internet at work to . . .
X07 . . . visit websites and digital newspapers to seek personal information 0.183 0.810 0.018
X08 . . . download software or files for personal or family use 0.143 0.798 0.091
X09 . . . read or send personal (non-work) emails 0.076 0.790 0.162
X10 . . . visit the website of my bank to look at my account 0.194 0.783 0.054
X11 . . . surf the Net and thereby escape a little 0.190 0.689 0.124
(F3) Interpersonal deviance (eigenvalue ¼ 1.5; explained variance % ¼ 9.7)
X12: Said something hurtful to some colleague at work 0.225 0.050 0.815
X13: Publicly embarrassed colleagues at work 0.313 0.043 0.718
X14: Made fun of colleagues at work 0.220 0.279 0.772
Downloaded by [ULPGC. Biblioteca] at 02:00 29 January 2013

X15: Acted rudely towards colleagues at work 0.091 0.084 0.795

Note: Total explained variance % ¼ 64.13; Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin ¼ 0.896; Varimax Rotation; Bartlett’s sphere test (chi-squared approximately
1895.934; df ¼ 105; Sig. ¼ 0.000).

Appendix B. Exploratory factor analysis of student satisfaction with teaching service (SSTS)

F1 F2
(F1) Technical quality (eigenvalue ¼ 17.4; explained variance % ¼ 51.1)
Y01: My teacher gives clear explanations 0.799 0.526
Y02: My teacher uses appropriate resources to explain the subject 0.841 0.450
Y03: My teacher makes it easy to understand the subject 0.831 0.508
Y04: My teacher has got me interested in the subject 0.922 0.268
Y05: I would like to study another subject with this teacher 0.886 0.158
Y06: My teacher has teaching skills (*) 0.751 0.611
Y07: Taking into account the conditions in which 0.717 0.644
this subject is taught (number of students, timetable,
means, etc.), I am satisfied with this teacher’s work (*)
Y08: My teacher is a good teacher (*) 0.708 0.669
(F2) Functional quality (eigenvalue ¼ 1.4; explained variance % ¼ 43.1)
Y09: The assessments coincide with what my teacher explains in class (*) 0.660 0.610
Y10: My teacher has a good command of the subject content (*) 0.517 0.640
Y11: My teacher answers our questions with precision (*) 0.609 0.691
Y12: My teacher is receptive to our questions and suggestions (*) 0.604 0.700
Y13: My teacher applies the assessment criteria shown in the subject program (*) 0.575 0.754
Y14: From the start of the course, students know the assessment criteria for the subject 0.396 0.816
Y15: My teacher respects us 0.286 0.858
Y16: The students are notified when the teacher cannot give a class 0.450 0.749
Y17: My teacher is punctual 0.381 0.798
Y18: My teacher presented the subject program at the start of the course 0.428 0.761
Y19: My teacher regularly complies with office hours 0.561 0.775
Y20: My teacher regularly attends classes 0.136 0.905

Note: (*) Items removed because they did not clearly load in any factor (difference of load below 0.2). Total explained variance % ¼ 94.23;
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin ¼ 0.897; Varimax rotation; Bartlett’s sphere test (chi-squared approximately ¼ 11140.219; df ¼ 190; Sig. ¼ 0.000).

View publication stats