Behaviour & Information Technology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbit20

Mitigating the harmful effects of technostress:

inducing chaos theory in an experimental setting

Sumiyana Sumiyana & Sriwidharmanely Sriwidharmanely

To cite this article: Sumiyana Sumiyana & Sriwidharmanely Sriwidharmanely (2020) Mitigating
the harmful effects of technostress: inducing chaos theory in an experimental setting, Behaviour &
Information Technology, 39:10, 1079-1093, DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2019.1641229

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1641229

Published online: 12 Jul 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 222

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbit20
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
2020, VOL. 39, NO. 10, 1079–1093
https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1641229

Mitigating the harmful effects of technostress: inducing chaos theory in an

experimental setting*
†
Sumiyana Sumiyana and Sriwidharmanely Sriwidharmanely
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This research investigates the role of users’ proactive personality when they mitigate the adverse Received 13 December 2018
impacts of ICT’s (information and communication technologies’) technostress in an experimental Accepted 3 July 2019
setting. Further, this study examines genuinely two types of individuals’ proactive personality, i.e.
KEYWORDS
confront and transform. Both types can handle ICT’s technostress creators by different attitudes Technostress; chaos theory;
and behaviours. This article contributes to a novelty by inducing chaos theory. This inducement proactive personality;
laid in the experimental setting that the users had been in a chaotic situation. Results of this confront; transform
research show that users’ proactive personality mitigates the negative impact of ICT’s
technostress on their performance and satisfaction. This study found that the user’s proactive
personality, rested in a chaotic situation, does mitigate greatly. This research finds that users’
performance and satisfaction are higher to the proactive personality verging to the transform
than that of confront. It implies that information system managers should consider the ICT user’s
characteristics. Besides, it means that ICT’s developer should make users do their innovativeness.

1. Introduction
The interaction between human/user’s and technology,
i.e. the computer is complex manners. The users often
face ICTs requirement to do some procedural works
that could not accommodate them. Moreover, the
users’ competencies and capabilities are not somehow
compatibility with the requirements of ICTs richness.
In other word, this study shows that the users probably
have not enough creativity in accomplishing the ICTs’
requirements. It, what the research intended, is that the
users are in chaotic cognition. In line with the previous
study which tried to overcome this chaotic condition
(i.e. technostress), this study investigates the role of
users’ proactive personality when they mitigate the
harmful effects of ICTs’ technostress towards their per-
formance and satisfaction.
Furthermore, this study extends the role of users’
proactive personality with two individual types. In
other words, this study lengthens the Hung, Chen, and
Lin (2015) into specific traits of users’ proactive person-
ality. The first individual type is the confront and the
second one is the transform. An individual with the con-
front type challenges ICT’s technostress. Meanwhile,
individual with the transform type transmutes the
ICT’s technostress into his/her opportunities.
This study offers novelties in some critical reasoning
as follows. First, this research employs chaos theory
(Lorenz 1963) as a new lens to explain the technostress.
The chaos theory holistically portraits the phenomena,
such as the technostress chaotic situation. Based on
this theory, the actual users’ attitudes and behaviours
because of technostress explained and described better
than what previous research suggested especially per-
son-environment fit. Then, based on this perspective,
we proposed the conceptual, i.e. creativity, to overcome
the technostress which proxy as proactive personality.
This study posits to what the chaos theory suggests
that an individual could act randomly although the sys-
tems are deterministically. The individual acts randomly
or variously because of his/her creativity or personal
innovativeness (Agarwal and Prasad 1998; Briggs and
Peat 1999; Agarwal and Karahanna 2000). Due to their
creativities or personal innovativeness, individuals do
different acts when they face the adverse effects of
ICT’s technostress. In another perspective, this study
comprehends what Hung, Chen, and Lin (2015) had
concluded.
Second, this study extends the research concepts of
Hung, Chen, and Lin (2015). This research investigates
the ICTs stressors when users utilise them in a

CONTACT Sumiyana Sumiyana sumiyana@ugm.ac.id

†
The first author currently works at the Faculty of Economics and Business, Bengkulu University, Indonesia.
*This article is the second-year paper of the second author.
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
1080 S. SUMIYANA AND S. SRIWIDHARMANELY
mandatory system (Koh et al. 2010; Tams 2011). In the
mandatory order, the users will have more pressure
than voluntary. Sellberg and Susi (2014) conclude that
individuals suffer the impact of ICT’s technostress,
although they still use the ICTs. Venkatesh and Davis
(2000) also advocate that although users accept to use
new information technologies by their perceived ease
of use and usefulness, they usually tolerate the ICT’s
stressor either on mandatory or voluntary systems. So,
this study predicts that proactive personalities-transform
will be more instrumental than the proactive personality-
confront as concluded in the study of Hung, Chen, and
Lin (2015).
Third, this study improves the previous research’s
methods by applying an experimental setting. Most
prior investigation of the ICT’s technostress uses survey
method. This study is stronger than the survey method
because it can measure the actual technostress. It fills
up the survey method’s limitation that is probable cogni-
tive confirmation bias when users interact with ICT
(Ayyagari, Grover, and Purvis 2011; Sellberg and Susi
2014). Furthermore, Ayyagari, Grover, and Purvis
(2011) propose an experimental setting to reduce the
survey’s weaknesses. They also argue that the experimen-
tal research could discover causality association that iso-
lates other effects. It means that this study could explain
the association between users’ proactive personality and
their performance and satisfaction without compound-
ing effect biases.
This study refers inductively to Hung, Chen, and Lin
(2015); Ayyagari, Grover, and Purvis (2011); Tarafdar,
Tu, and Ragu-Nathan (2010), Ragu-Nathan et al.
(2008), and Saganuwan, Ismail, and Ahmad (2015). All
these studies argue that users’ ICT technostress affect
their performance and satisfaction adversely. Further-
more, based on Onyemah (2008) users’ proactive per-
sonality splits into two dimensions that are confronting
and transform. Finally, this study argues that users’
proactive personality dominantly influences their ICT
technostress.
This research uses two assumptions. First, this study
assumes a linear relationship between users’ ICT tech-
nostress and their outcomes. We identified that some
previous studies had shown different relationship
forms between stress and outcome, for example, an
inverted U-relationship between stress and performance
(Sellberg and Susi 2014), or nonlinear relationships
(Yankelevich et al. 2012). Therefore, this study con-
structs this linearity association of the negative impact
of ICTs technostress on their performance and satisfac-
tion. Second, everyone experiences and mitigates stress
through their way (Knoll, Rieckmann, and Schwarzer
2005), which is influenced by his/her character or
personality. Thus, this study investigates the role of
proactive personality to mitigate the adverse effect of
technostress, which isolated the other factors by the
experimental method.
This study denotes to the two theories, namely the
transaction of stress theory (Ragu-Nathan et al. 2008),
and the personal innovativeness theory (Agarwal and
Prasad 1998), and proactive personality (Bateman and
Crant 1993). The transaction of stress theory describes
the user’s technostress phenomenon when he or she
responds either to a specific situation or individual
strain. Meanwhile, personal innovativeness explains the
role of individual traits in technology adoption.
Lastly, based on these two theories, this research des-
ignates the individuals’ proactive personality that plays
an essential role which they work in stressful organis-
ational and environmental situations (Ruiselova and
Prokopcakova 2010; Lau, Wong, and Chow 2013; Kisa-
more et al. 2014; Hung, Chen, and Lin 2015) or IS man-
datory system (Koh et al. 2010; Tams 2011; Hwang et al.
2017). Most researchers suggest that individuals who
have a proactive personality adapt better than those
who do not know when they face ICT’s technostress.
Therefore, it means that individuals who do not have a
proactive personality tend to easily engage ICT’s tech-
nostress (Hung, Chen, and Lin 2015).
This study indicates that ICT’s technostress negatively
affects users’ performance. Furthermore, this research
shows that users’ proactive personality plays a role
when they face the harmful effects of this technostress
on their performance and satisfaction. Users’ innovative-
ness supports their mitigating role. Moreover, this study
could differentiate that the transform type of individual’s
proactive personality could convert the ICT’s technos-
tress into their opportunity in comparison to the con-
form one in the IS mandatory system. It means that
the transform type plays a better role in mitigating the
adverse effects of ICT’s technostress than the confront
type.
This study contributes fully to decision makers and
information system designers and developers. This
research’s results support managers in the policy-making
dealing with staff’s dysfunctional behaviour because of
ICT’s technostress. Managers should consider who get
stress. Then, information officers consider the technos-
tress problems raised probably in the ICT into the next
new one. It means that the future new ICT could accom-
modate the innovativeness of the users’, and whether
they are the transform type or the confront one, when-
ever they face the technostress. In another word, it rec-
ommends that the information officers should present
the ICTs’ media used by organisational staff to the
users’ coping behaviours. Moreover, information system

designers and developers should make software media
with comprehensive knowledge repositories. It implies
that each corporate staff could transfer knowledge
mutually in this repository.
This research further discusses in the following order.
Section 2 deals with the literature review and hypothesis
development. Section 3 presents complete research
methods for participant selection to hypothesis testing.
Section 4 discusses the statistical results, discussion,
and research findings. Lastly, section 5 discusses con-
clusions, limitations, and implications.
2. The literature review
2.1. Technostress and chaos theory
Many organisations use ICT to leverage competitive
advantages that it could increase their productivity,
efficiency, and effectiveness. On the other hand, they
profoundly intend to operate ICT to change their social
and organisational environments (Bartel, Ichniowski,
and Shaw 2007). However, if they cannot manage the
ICT correctly, they get a negative impact in a lousy sha-
dow because of their terrible implementation (Prabha-
karan and Mishr 2012).
ICT implementation can also lead to stress for the
users if they cannot cope with the demand for organis-
ational ICTs usage. Brod (1984), pioneer, introduced
technostress as illness resulting from a person’s inability
to adapt to new computer technology, healthily, embo-
died either in the form of over-identification or compu-
ter anxiety. Then, Ragu-Nathan et al. (2008) describe
technostress as a matter when users could not overcome
difficulties, or become familiar with ICT. Technostress
can affect the individual’s orientation to consumed
time, communication mode, and interpersonal relation-
ship as well as his/her job outcomes, i.e. performance or
satisfaction.
Information system (IS) researchers conduct in var-
ious disciplines including psychology, sociology, philos-
ophy, and organisational studies. These disciplines
explain stress phenomenon as a source of contextual
paradigms. Previous researchers more used the person-
environment fit model to explain technostress (Ragu-
Nathan et al. 2008; Wang, Shu, and Tu 2008; Khan, Reh-
man, and Rehman 2013; Maier et al. 2013; Saganuwan,
Ismail, and Ahmad 2013, 2015; Brooks 2015; Jena
2015; Tarafdar, Pullins, and Ragu-Nathan 2015; Suh,
Kong, and Lee 2017). This theory stated that when the
relationship between people and their environment is
beyond equilibrium conditions, this condition will pro-
duce stress (Caplan 1987), i.e. technostress. This theory
also portraits the technostress in a linear system, while
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 1081
the interaction between human and technology (i.e.
computer) is complex in system information develop-
ment (Kirsch 1996).
To portrait this complex phenomenon, McBride
(2005), pioneer, adopted chaos theory to make the fra-
mework in interpreting IS in the organisation. The
chaos theory is the study of complex, nonlinear, dynamic
systems (Levy 1994). Lorenz (1963) pioneered it by
studying the dynamics of turbulent flow in the fluid.
Chaos theory refers to an underlying interconnectedness
that exists in random events that they concerned with the
initial conditions (Ayers 1997; Briggs and Peat 1999).
Through chaos theory, the phenomena of technos-
tress can be portrayed as more holistically. Accounting
Information System (AIS) is the domain of interaction/
phase space between human and technology, i.e. compu-
ter. Griffith (1999) explained that the introduction and
implementation of new and complex ICTs in organis-
ations could be regarded as one of the destructive events,
resulting in some unexpected and unpredictable conse-
quences in the user’s environment. Users having specific
conditions could interpret and understand environ-
mental conditions through their personality dominance,
which triggers them by various and complexed
responses.
2.2. Transaction of stress theory
Then, the other researchers used the transaction of stress
theory when discussing users’ coping strategy, i.e. situa-
tional factors that can reduce the negative impact of
technostress on the user’s outcome (Ragu-Nathan et al.
2008; Tarafdar et al. 2011; Srivastava, Chandra, and Shir-
ish 2015). Transaction-based approach constructs the
transaction of stress theory (Lazarus 1966, 1993; Folk-
man et al. 1986). This approach describes the stress
phenomenon as combined conditions triggering the
occurrence of stress and individual response to its
situation.
This theory suggests that personal perceptions and
judgments of stress stimuli, as well as coping skills and
prior experience of such individuals, influenced the
impact of stress on his/her attitudes and behaviour
(DeZoort and Lord 1997). Situational factors can affect
the relationship between conditions triggering the occur-
rence of stress (i.e. technostress creator or stressor) and
the individual’s response to the situation (Ragu-Nathan
et al. 2008).
Individuals’ ability adapting to stress varies depending
on their characteristics and conditions that present in
their environment. Both types are responsible for differ-
entiating users’ stress tendencies that occur among indi-
viduals (Wofford, Goodwin, and Daly 1999).
1082 S. SUMIYANA AND S. SRIWIDHARMANELY
Furthermore, this study posits Folkman et al. (1986) and
Lazarus (1993) to explain the relationship between chaos
theory and the transaction of stress one. In another word,
this study argues that the users’ chaotic cognition trig-
gers the relationship of their stressed transaction. Pri-
mary appraisal (i.e. threat or challenge) trigger the
occurrence technostress, while the second one as a cop-
ing strategy toward such stress which is a proactive
personality.
2.3. Personal innovativeness
Agarwal and Prasad (1998) firstly conceptualise and
define personal innovativeness (PI) in the domain of
information technology. They represent personal inno-
vativeness as the willingness of an individual to try out
any new information technology. PI is a trait that serves
as a crucial moderator for the antecedent as well as the
consequences of perception. As a moderator of the
effects of understanding, PI epitomises risk-taking
behaviour.
Individuals’ innovativeness reflects their willingness
to change (Hurt, Joseph, and Cook 1977). Rogers
(1986) explained that personality traits are very related
to the decision to adopt or reject an innovation. Individ-
uals with a higher level of personal innovativeness are
expected to develop more positive beliefs about new
technologies (Agarwal and Prasad 1998). This high inno-
vativeness describes individual creativity. So, about this
PI, we posit that proactive personality makes some
users more open to new information technologies than
others, and who is expected to exhibit more innovative-
ness in IT-intensive jobs.
2.4. Proactive personality
Personality is a character possessed by the individual,
who becomes the determinant of thinking and behav-
iour. Every individual has a unique personality, which
differs from others, for example, proactive one. Bateman
and Crant (1993) define a proactive personality as some-
one who is relatively unrestricted by situational forces
and that influences environmental change. Proactive
personality identifies individual opportunities and
actions; how they demons (Bateman and Crant
1993)rate initiative, take action and persist until they
bring meaningful change. Parker and Sprigg (1999)
explain that individual’s proactive personalities usually
engage them in activities that affect themselves and
their environment.
The proactive personalities also reflect a person’s
determination to influence the environment rather
than be affected by it (Bateman and Crant 1993; Crant
1995). As what Seibert, Crant, and Kraimer (1999) and
Yang and Chau (2016) concluded that individuals who
are less proactive act passivated, and are not reactive to
situational forces. They tend to adapt to circumstances
around rather than create them (Crant 1995). Thus,
people who can change the environment look more
effective in accomplishing individual tasks than those
who do not.
Onyemah (2008) inferred two different dimensions of
proactive personality from Bateman and Crant (1993).
These two personalities describe a tendency to confront
the situations head-on and to transform this condition
into opportunities. Proactive personality-confront will
tend to face trigger situations directly. This personality
overcomes communication overload to increase pro-
ductivity even though they experience technostress. On
the other side, the proactive personality-transform will
tend to treat trigger situation, i.e. techno-overload as
opportunities (Hung, Chen, and Lin 2015).
3. Hypotheses development
3.1. Technostress, user satisfaction, and
performance
Ragu-Nathan et al. (2008) said that when the user felt
uncomfortable with ICT because their implementation
involving change and uncertainty, requiring high phys-
ical, social, and cognitive skills (Ayyagari, Grover, and
Purvis 2011). This condition has the potential chance
to cause stress when using it. So, if users cannot adapt
to the advanced and sophisticated technology, they
would be frustrated and depressed (i.e. technostress).
Saganuwan, Ismail, and Ahmad (2014) suggested that
there was a relationship between the scope and inte-
gration of technostress creator and technostress creator
to decrease the task performance. Further, technostress
creator also gave an adverse effect on performance and
job satisfaction of accountants who use AIS. As what
the other researchers showed that technostress decreased
their satisfaction (Ragu-Nathan et al. 2008; Tarafdar, Tu,
and Ragu-Nathan 2010; Khan, Rehman, and Rehman
2013; Maier et al. 2013; Saganuwan, Ismail, and
Ahmad 2013; Fieseler et al. 2014; Jena 2015), and per-
formance (Saganuwan, Ismail, and Ahmad 2014, 2015).
Technostress also negatively impact users’ quality of
life (Lee, Lee, and Suh 2016) and is a potential threat
to information security compliance (Hwang and Cha
2018).
Instead of the IS mandatory system or as stated by
many previous researchers that technostress has a nega-
tive impact toward the user’s performance and job satis-
faction, Qi (2019) showed that the students’ academic

usage of mobile devices does not lead to technostress,
and their academic performance enhancing. The
phenomenon showed that older adults experience more
technostress (Tams 2011). There is the opportunity
that younger can adapt rapidly than older, but they
tend to use it addictively, freely, and then facing the
stress which negatively influenced their academic per-
formance (Samaha and Hawi 2016).
Moreover, Shu, Tu, and Wang (2011) showed that
workers with different individual situations would per-
ceive different levels of technostress. Fontana (1989)
explained that when an individual faces stress, then psy-
chologically, the individual will meet a set of the conse-
quences. Facing more pressure (high stress),
cognitively, individual will experience decreasing more
in attention and cognitive flow, response speed becomes
unpredictable and increasing in error rate. Meanwhile,
Deffenbacher et al. (2004) also showed that high-stress
levels harmed the memory of eyewitnesses.
This study argues that various factors trigger the
occurrence of technostress. It would hardly affect the
users’ technostress when they had been in a chaotic situ-
ation formerly in comparison when they did not. The
effect of ICT implementation in AIS on the user per-
formance and satisfaction depends on the level of tech-
nostress that they experienced. Users who feel they are
under high pressure over the application of ICT, and
cannot adapt to it’s advanced, will have a more signifi-
cant impact on their performance or satisfaction,
decreasing in comparison to those who face lower one.
This study proposes that the users who had been in a
chaotic situation and faced technostress sequentially
will decrease their performance and satisfaction. There-
fore, this study formulates the following hypotheses.
H1: ICT user performance will be higher for those
experiencing low technostress than the high one
H2: ICT user satisfaction will be higher for those experi-
encing low technostress than the high one
3.2. Technostress, proactive personality, user
satisfaction, and performance
Previous researchers applied the principle of the trans-
action of stress theory to reduce stress and tension
because of the new environment in the organisation
(Tarafdar et al. 2011; Srivastava, Chandra, and Shirish
2015). This theory focuses on two processes which are
the cognitive appraisal (i.e. threat or challenge) and cop-
ing strategy (i.e. coping measure). So, an individual can
reduce the negative impact of technostress based on indi-
vidual states such as proactive personality.
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 1083
Meanwhile in chaos theory perspective, whenever
individuals face the technostress, they are either in the
chaotic situation or not. It means that the users’ perform-
ance and satisfaction would be explained clearly when
both the chaos and technostress theories work concur-
rently. To overcome this chaotic situation, the user has
to be creative (Briggs and Peat 1999; Smith and Paquette
2010; Maimone and Sinclair 2014), because his/her
behaviour will vary based on it.
The personal innovativeness mentions that individual
traits have a role in technology adoption. The innova-
tiveness entails the implementation of creativity or gen-
eration novel and useful ideas into new products and
processes (Sarooghi, Libaers, and Burkemper 2015). So,
the creativity of the user is in the implementation of
advanced ICT which can be attributed to his/her proac-
tive personality. Then, we posit that proactive personal-
ity can play a role in mitigating harmful technostress to
user performance and satisfaction.
Proactive in the workplace is vital for individual and
organisational success (Crant 2000). In today’s rapidly
changing and decentralised environment, managers can-
not anticipate all contingency situations and determine
the behaviour they expect from members of the organis-
ation (Van Dyne et al. 2000). As a result, the employee’s
initiative to identify opportunities (innovation) and
anticipate problems can be invaluable to the organisation
(Crant 2000). Thus, the proactive personality trait (Rui-
selova and Prokopcakova 2010; Lau, Wong, and Chow
2013; Kisamore et al. 2014; Hung, Chen, and Lin 2015;
Zhao et al. 2016) can play an essential role in mitigating
the harmful effects of technostress on performance and
satisfaction ICT users. It means that the destruction is
reasonable either based on transaction theory of stress
and chaos theory.
ICT users will experience greater technostress in the
mandatory than voluntary in the AIS system. In a man-
datory system, users are compelled by the organisation,
through rewards or the threat of punishments or a com-
bination of both, to utilise ICTs by replacing at least one
previous work practice (Rawstorne, Jayasuriya, and
Caputi 1998). As what Sellberg and Susi (2014) con-
cluded that individuals felt more impact of technostress
on routine activities (mandatory). Furthermore, Venka-
tesh and Davis (2000) explained that the direct compli-
ance influence on the intention to use ICT would
occur under conditions of the mandatory system rather
than voluntary. Then, Xue, Liang, and Wu (2011) also
showed that in the mandatory IT setting, the fairness
of perceived penalties strongly influences the compliance
intention, which was negatively affected by the actual
ones.
1084 S. SUMIYANA AND S. SRIWIDHARMANELY
People with proactive personality traits are better able
to adapt when they faced high pressure from their work
environments (Bateman and Crant 1993; Savickas and
Porfeli 2012) than the non-proactive ones. Hung,
Chen, and Lin (2015) suggested that the proactive per-
sonality which tends to confront the situation played a
role to mitigate the adverse effect of technostress. This
study argues that what Hung, Chen, and Lin (2015)
suggested that users would tend hardly and hardly
when they had laid in a chaotic situation. However, in
a mandatory system, they cannot face or change the
ICT’s technostress creators directly into their opportu-
nities, as what the proactive personality which tends to
transform the situation could do. Henceforth, this
study argues when the users had been in a chaotic situ-
ation, and that their proactive personality inclining to
transform will get more benefit and satisfaction than
that to confront. In another word, the courage and crea-
tivity of ICT users laid formerly in the chaotic situation
could change the weaknesses or obstacles faced to obtain
high benefit and satisfaction. Thus, this study formulates
the following hypotheses:
H3: Proactive personality mitigates the harmful effects
of technostress on ICT user’s performance and
satisfaction.
H3a: ICT user’s performance will be higher for those
experiencing technostress with a proactive personality
which tends to transform than confront.
H3b: ICT user’s satisfaction will be higher for those
experiencing technostress with a proactive personality
which tends to transform than confront.
In summary, Figure 1 describes this research model as
follows:
4. Research methods
4.1. Research design
This study conducted a laboratory experiment to test the
proposed hypotheses, using the 2 × 2 between-subject
design. Two of the independent variables are technos-
tress (low and high) and proactive personality (confront
and transform types), while the dependent variables are
user’s satisfaction and performance.
4.2. Experimental tasks
We modified the Riedl et al. (2012)’s experimental
tasks where participants assumed the role of account
officers. These tasks tested the effect of system break-
down in the form of ‘error message’ at a computer
screen. Instead of using 12 unique products (i.e.
clothing and shoes) and put them into shopping
cards, this study adjusted the Riedl et al. (2012)’s
tasks to the AIS context with the additional pressure
triggers that are work overload (Ragu-Nathan et al.
2008) and the time deadline. Notification of deadline
time and error messages will appear on every partici-
pant’s computer screen.
This experiment programme will display that the
organisation recently adopted new web-based AIS. The
first step in its implementing was preparing the chart
of accounts in the Financial Report. The participant
tasks were asked to classify the unstructured accounts
into the primary ones (i.e. assets, liabilities, equities,
expenses and revenues). The respondents’ assignments
concentrated individually on completing their work.
Tams (2011) explained that this method is the most
appropriate for experimental tasks related to technos-
tress compared to the ones in the anagrams or jumpers
forms.
4.3. Experimental procedure
When participants arrived in the laboratory room, the
experimenters gave them a glass of water to drink.
After that, the experimenters took their first blood
pressure and heartbeat to determine the base level.
Then participants entered the laboratory to choose the
computer to work with their assignment. Shortly after
all the participants had sat in front of their personal com-
puter, the experimenter explained the task that should be
finished. The experimenter then asked the participants to
fill out the consent form.
Having completed the consent form, the experimenter
displayed the company’s profile and then asked them to
do warming up phase. After finishing this phase, the par-
ticipants started their primary task following what they
were instructed through a computer programme. The
programme randomised the accounts which will be
accomplished by participants. For a moment, partici-
pants focus on carrying out their tasks, which is about
90 seconds after the first ‘click’ of classification. The pro-
gramme applied system breakdown in the form of ‘error
messages’ that appeared on a participant’s computer
screen.
Having an error message on the participant’s compu-
ter screen, the experimenter then stopped their activity
immediately. The experimenter asked the participants
to stay in their seats. At the moment, experimenters
took the second participants’ blood pressure and heart-
beat. This study also adopted the mechanism (i.e.timing)
of Riedl et al. (2012)’s study to collect blood pressure and
heartbeat data. We conducted the experiment session at
2.00 pm up to 3:00 pm. Dickerson and Kemeny (2004)

Figure 1. Research model.
explained that at this time, the cortisol (hormone related
to stress) levels in human are stable.
Subsequently, the experimenter asked the participants
to fill out the questionnaires about demographic data
(sex, education and computer-based training), proactive
personality traits, and their satisfaction. Participants
have to complete the research questionnaires. Finally,
the experimenter conducted debriefing and compensated
the participants. The researchers conducted laboratory
experiment around 30 minutes.
4.4. Variable measurement
The research has two independent variables that are the
technostress, and proactive personality’s variable. We
manipulated the technostress (i.e. high and low). The
experimental programme randomised each participant
into one of the two treatment groups. These groups are
a low technostress that participants should accomplish
12 accounts, and a high technostress that they should
complete 18 accounts in each experimental treatment.
The proactive personality measurement adopted from
Onyemah (2008) research instrument which measured
the personality tendencies. Based on this measurement,
this study split the participants into two groups, con-
fronts or transforms, based on their highest mean
value of the answer about the two proactive personalities.
The limitation section discusses more of this proactive
measurement.
These research dependent variables are ICT users’
performance and satisfaction. We measured ICT users’
performance by counting the number of the unstruc-
tured account arrays that participants can classify cor-
rectly, or otherwise. User satisfaction variable was
measured using the research instrument from Tarafdar,
Tu, and Ragu-Nathan (2010).
This study referred to the proactive personality and
user satisfaction questionnaires from the previous
researches that had verified their reliabilities and
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 1085
validities appropriately. In this study, the reliability test
results in proactive personality variables indicate that
the proactive personality-confront variable is reliable
with Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.728 after removing
an item question (CF4) from that of five items.
Likewise, the proactive personality-transform variable
is also reliable with Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.734 after
removing two item questions (CR6 and CR9) from those
seven items. The variable of user satisfaction is also
reliable with Cronbach’s Alpha value of 0.938. Based
on the validity testing results, the variable of proactive
personality statistical significance is less than 5% for
both confront and transform. Moreover, the variable of
user satisfaction statistical significance is less than 10%.
4.5. Participants
A total of thirty-seven master and doctoral students at
the Faculty of Economics and Business, University of
Gadjah Mada participated in these laboratory exper-
iments. This study recruited participants voluntarily.
This experiment employed students as the surrogate.
The use of student as a surrogate is a well-establish prac-
tice in social science disciplines (Chen, Schwartz, and
Jady Yu 2015). For instance, Bean and D’Aquila (2003)
used junior and senior accounting students to participate
in laboratory experiments to perceive the ethical
dilemma faced by professional practitioners. Then, Mor-
tensen, Fisher, and Wines (2012) also suggested that stu-
dents who have had advanced accounting courses could
be as research surrogates practitioners.
From the 37 students, this study has 29 participants
passing the manipulation check. It based on participants’
answers to the manipulated questions as well as blood
pressure and heartbeat tests. Participants’ compositions
are 24 females and five males. Respondents are 21 master
students, and the remains are doctorate students.
We administrated that 10 participants had already
attended information systems training. This study
1086 S. SUMIYANA AND S. SRIWIDHARMANELY

exempted a participant because he smokes a cigarette personality-confront; Group 2 refers to the high technos-
within 60 minutes before starting the experiment. This tress ones with proactive personalities-confront; Group 3
study had inspected that all participants had no asthma refers to the low technostress ICT user with proactive
and heart disease. They also did not exercise within 60 personality-transform, and Group 4 refers to high tech-
minutes before the research was conducted. nostress ICT users with proactive personality-transform.
Tables 1 and 2 showed performance and the satisfaction
data of the experimental subjects per group.
4.6. Manipulation check Table 1 showed that ICT users with low technostress
After participants completed the primary experiment have higher performance than those with high technos-
task, experimenters gave two manipulation checks. The tress. It also presented that ICT users with proactive per-
first asked participants to indicate whether the appear- sonality-transform produce higher performance than
ance of an ‘error message’ on the computer screen dis- those with proactive personality-confront. Furthermore,
rupted participants to complete their task in classifying ICT user satisfaction with proactive personality-trans-
the unstructured account arrays correctly. The second form is even higher in comparison with that of confront.
asked participants to indicate whether the provided In another side, the ICT users’ satisfaction is also higher
time is sufficient to achieve their work successfully in for those experiencing high technostress than those with
categorising the disorganised account arrays. low technostress (see Table 2). Thus, this study infers
This study operated additional manipulation check that the user’s proactive personality genuinely influences
which measured blood pressure and heartbeat as technos- both their performance and satisfaction.
tress indicator (Fischer et al. 2018). We collected blood
pressure and pulse during the baseline condition (first 5.2. Findings and discussion
measurement) and then again at the end of their primary
task (second measurement). We measured it on the upper This study uses MANOVA to examine all hypotheses.
arm using a Microlife, model standard – BP 3AQ1. Table 3 shows the test results. Hypothesis H1 proposed
This study conducted a t-test on differences (gain) that ICT user performance will be higher for those
between the baseline and second blood pressure and experiencing low technostress than the high one and
heartbeat for both treatment groups. The t-test results its p-value of 0.000. The users with high technostress per-
showed that there are statistically significant differences formance are significantly different in comparison to
in their blood pressure and a pulse for the two treatment users with low technostress. The average users’ perform-
groups. There are significant differences in their systolic ance that has experienced high technostress declined
with the p-value <0.01 and in their diastolic with the p- with 6.74 than those with the low one. It means that
value <0.05. The systolic mean (gain) of low technostress this study supports hypothesis H1.
is 1.20, and the high one is 6.71. Then, the diastolic mean This research’s result does not support the hypothesis
(gain) of low technostress is 1.86, and the high one is 5.57. H2 with a p-value of 0.267. There was no significant sat-
Moreover, there are significant differences in the par- isfaction difference between ICT users who experienced
ticipant’s heartbeat which has the p-value of 0.008. The high technostress with a low one. Hypothesis H2 pro-
heartbeat mean (gain) of low technostress is 1.40, and posed that ICT user satisfaction will be higher for
the high one is 6.00. This study requires all participants those experiencing low technostress than the high one,
not to drink alcohol or caffeine, as well as physical exer- while the average ICT user satisfaction with low
cises at least one hour before treatments. It prohibited
alcohol, caffeine, and various physical activities because Table 1. Participant’s performance per group.
it could affect participants’ blood pressure (Kario, Technostress (A)
Schwartz, and Pickering 1999; Jones et al. 2006) as the Factor and Level High (A2) Low (A1)
heart beats. Proactive Confront (B2) Group 2 Group 1 n = 11
Personality (B) (A2B2) (A1B2) x=
n=6 n=5 6.73
x = 2.83 x = 11.40 σ=
5. Results and discussion σ = 0.98 σ = 3.21 4.96
Transform Group 4 Group 3 n = 18
5.1. Descriptive statistics (B1) (A2B1) (A1B1) x=
n=8 n = 10 9.22
The study investigated four groups of ICT users related x = 6.25 x = 11.60 σ=
σ = 2.12 σ = 2.17 3.44
to technostress level (high/low) and proactive personal- n = 14 n = 15
ities (confront/transform). They are Group 1 refers to x = 4.79 x = 11.53
σ = 2.42 σ = 2.45
the low technostress ICT user with proactive
 BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 1087

Table 2. Participant’s satisfaction per group. with the x of 4.86 are lower than proactive personality-
Technostress (A) confronts with the x of 4.92.
Factor and Level High (A2) Low (A1) This research succeeds to investigate that the users
Proactive Confront (B2) Group 2 Group 1 n = 11 who have laid in a chaotic situation and are experiencing
Personality (B) (A2B2) (A1B2) x=
n=6 n=5 4.39 low technostress with the proactive-transform personal-
x = 4.92 x = 3.76 σ= ity have the highest performance or satisfaction among
σ = 0.83 σ = 0.71 0.95
Transform Group 4 Group 3 n = 18 others. It means that the users experiencing the low tech-
(B1) (A2B1) (A1B1) x= nostress with a proactive-transform personality get more
n=8 n = 10 5.04
x = 4.86 x = 5.18 σ=
benefits for their performance in comparison to those
σ = 1.25 σ = 0.87 1.03 with low technostress proactive-confront personality.
They can change the trigger situation into opportunities.
n = 14 n = 15
x = 4.89 x = 4.71 Table 4 shows that there are statistically significant
σ = 1.05 σ = 1.05 differences between the four experimental groups.
These study results show that mean differences in the
four-groups of performance have the p-value of 0.000,
technostress has a lower score by 0.18 in comparison and satisfaction with the p-value of 0.082.
with those with the higher ones. First, this study supported that users’ performance
Hypothesis H3 proposed that proactive personality depends on the level of technostress that they had experi-
mitigate the harmful effects of technostress on ICT enced. When users feel the pressure is getting higher
user’s performance and satisfaction. The proactive per- when they faced work overloads and time deadline,
sonality is having a significant impact both on user’s per- they get a failure to adapt to advance their performance.
formance with the p-value of 0.042, and satisfaction with This study supported the prior researchers who
the p-value of 0.077 (see Table 1 and Table 2). Further- suggested technostress has a negative impact to the
more, proactive personality significantly mitigates the users’ performance (Saganuwan, Ismail, and Ahmad
adverse effects of technostress on performance with the 2014; Saganuwan, Ismail, and Ahmad 2015), or their
p-value of 0.068, and satisfaction with the p-value of technology-activated performance (Tarafdar, Bolman
0.057. Pullins, and Ragu-Nathan 2014; Brooks 2015; Jena
This study results also supported hypotheses 3a. The 2015; Tarafdar, Pullins, and Ragu-Nathan 2015).
average performance of low technostress with proactive High technostress experienced by ICT users will
personality-transform with the x of 11.60 are higher undoubtedly disturb their concentration. In other
than proactive personality-confronts with the x of words, the high technostress increases users’ exhaustion
11.40 (see Table 1). Meanwhile, the average performance to complete their tasks, which will ultimately reduce their
of high technostress with proactive personality-trans- achieved performance produced. Fontana (1989)
form with the x of 6.25 are higher than proactive person- explained that when users face stress or pressure, they
ality-confronts with the x of 2.83. psychologically accept or confront the consequences.
This study results supported hypotheses 3b partially. The consequences would be the users’ cognitive influ-
The average user satisfaction of low technostress with ences that immediately influence their thinking and
proactive personality-transform with the x of 5.18 are understanding. The higher the pressure (high technos-
higher than proactive personality-confronts with the tress), the higher the impacts users will face, that could
x of 3.76 (see Table 2). The average user satisfaction of decrease their attention and concentration, response
high technostress with proactive personality-transform speed, and unpredictably increased errors.

Table 3. Experimental results.

Dependent Variable SS df MS F p-value
Intercept Perform 1739.730 1 1739.730 362.645*** .000
Satisfaction 592.238 1 592.238 640.531*** .000
Technostress Perform 327.336 1 327.336 68.233*** .000
Satisfaction 1.190 1 1.190 1.287 .267
Proactive Perform 22.108 1 22.108 4.608** .042
Satisfaction 3.153 1 3.153 3.410* .077
Technostress* Proactive Perform 17.488 1 17.488 3.645* .068
Satisfaction 3.673 1 3.673 3.972* .057
a
R Squared = .755 (Adjusted R Squared = .726).
b
R Squared = .232 (Adjusted R Squared = .139).
***, **, and * are significantly at the level of 1%, 5%, and 10% consecutively.
1088 S. SUMIYANA AND S. SRIWIDHARMANELY

Table 4. Test results based on the user ICT group.

Source Dependent variable Type III Sum of squares df Mean square F p-value
Corrected Model Perform 369.860a 3 123.287 25.699*** .000a
Satisfaction 6.964b 3 2.321 2.510* .082b
Intercept Perform 1739.730 1 1739.730 362.645*** .000
Satisfaction 592.238 1 592.238 640.531*** .000
TSProGrup Perform 369.860 3 123.287 25.699*** .000
Satisfaction 6.964 3 2.321 2.510* .082
a
R Squared = .755 (Adjusted R Squared = .726).
b
R Squared = .232 (Adjusted R Squared = .139).
***, **, and * are significantly at the level of 1%, 5%, and 10% consecutively.

Furthermore, this study cannot support that the
impact of ICT implementation in AIS on user satisfac-
tion depends on the level of technostress that they
experienced. We found that there is no significant differ-
ence in ICT user satisfaction in high and low technos-
tress. This result suggests that the organisational
pressures do not affect the ICT users’ satisfaction
although they could not adopt it correctly. The users’
failure to adopt the new technology because of the
work overload, system breakdown and time deadlines
to complete their task does not make users frustrated.
It means that the users have a proactive-conform person-
ality. Such personality makes them more creative, rela-
tively more able to influence the environment
(Bateman and Crant 1993), such as the implementation
of ICT in AIS. Although technostress negatively affects
job outcomes, it can create a positive impact on perform-
ance for someone with a specific personality (Srivastava,
Chandra, and Shirish 2015).
Third, this study supported the transaction of stress
theory and personal innovativeness theory. This study
supports a role of the proactive personality to mitigate
the adverse effect of technostress on users’ performance
and satisfaction as what Zhao et al. (2016) and Hung,
Chen, and Lin (2015) concluded. The transaction of
stress and personal innovativeness theory mentioned
proactive personality as a coping strategy and personality
traits that influence the acceptance of technology so that
the user can decrease the adverse effect of technostress.
This study finds that the creative user can overcome
this chaotic condition not to reoccur in the AIS
implementation. Briggs and Peat (1999) suggested that
to overcome the chaotic situation; individuals should
be a creative participator in the system, i.e. through
their proactive personality. When a proactive individual
attempt to control stressors that are under person or sys-
tem’s control, the positive effects of proactive personality
are more likely to emerge (Cunningham and De La Rosa
2008). Thus, the users’ proactive-transform personality
takes over this chaotic situation predominantly in the
mandatory system. This result is different with Hung,
Chen, and Lin (2015). They can change the technostress
stressors to their opportunity because of their high per-
sonal innovativeness (Agarwal and Prasad 1998; Agarwal
and Karahanna 2000; Sarooghi, Libaers, and Burkemper
2015).
The users, laying in a chaotic situation, with a proac-
tive personality can overcome their weaknesses to adopt
the new complexity technology so that they can still
maintain their performance and satisfaction even in
the mandatory AIS environment. They can change
their work overload and hard deadlines into an opportu-
nity not become of threat. They can creatively exploit the
mechanisms provided by the firm which were mentioned
in Ragu-Nathan et al. (2008) and Tarafdar et al. (2011).
Their mitigated arrangements are technical supports
provision, literacy facilitations, technology involvements
facilitation, and innovation support.
Furthermore, the result shows that the proactive-
transform can maintain their performance better than
proactive-conform personalities when the ICTs’ user
experienced high technostress (see Table 5). It showed
that the creativity of users is more active when they
face the high technostress than a low one, especially
more benefit for the proactive-transform because they
can take advantage from the work overload and deadline

Table 5. Comparison between technostress group for user performance.

95% Confidence interval
Technostress group Mean difference Std. Error Sig. Lower bound Upper bound
(3)Low-transform (1)Low-confront −.2000 1.19967 .869 −2.6708 2.2708
(2)High-confront −8.7667*** 1.13106 .000 −11.0961*** −6.4372
(4)High-transform 5.3500*** 1.03894 .000 3.2103*** 7.4897
(2)High-confront (4)High-transform −3.4167** 1.18289 .008 −5.8529** −.9805
(1)Low-confront (2)High-confront 8.5667*** 1.32628 .000 5.8351*** 11.2982
(4)High-transform 5.1500*** 1.24865 .000 2.5784*** 7.7216
***, **, and * are significantly at the level of 1%, 5%, and 10% consecutively.
 BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 1089

time in the mandatory system (AIS), so they can still 5.3. Contributions and implications
maintain their performance. Even for the same proac-
This study contributes theoretically that the users’ proac-
tive-transform personalities, the user faced with high
tive personality relates to their performance and satisfac-
technostress performed better than the user who experi-
tion when they mitigate the harmful effects of
enced the low one.
technostress. This study interprets the ICT users’ mitiga-
In contrast with the user that experience low tech-
tion process by the transaction of stress theory (Ragu-
nostress, there is no significant difference in perform-
Nathan et al. 2008) and personal innovativeness (Agarwal
ance between the users who have proactive confront
and Prasad 1998). These theories suggest that information
and transform. So the high level of technostress acti-
systems should capture individual personality especially
vated more the user’s proactive-transform creativities
their creativity or innovativeness, i.e. proactive personal-
to have better performance as what Zhao et al. (2016)
ities (Bateman and Crant 1993). It means that the
mentioned in their study that work stress can promote
Accounting Information System would be better when
employees’ growth so they can achieve a beneficial
it facilitates and accommodates personal innovativeness
effect.
when the users face harmful effects of technostress. The
User satisfaction tends to differ in the experiment
facilitation and accommodation abilities, therefore, sup-
group. The user satisfaction of proactive-transform is
port toward the accomplishment of organisational goals.
highest among the four-experiment group. However,
This study succeeded in measuring the users’ technos-
this user satisfaction only differs from the proactive-
tress when they are in a chaotic condition. Moreover, this
confront in low technostress and not with high technos-
study was perfectly accomplished by the experimental
tress. As mention above, user satisfaction is not
setting that it acquired the users’ actual stress. It means
influenced by the technostress but controlled by proac-
that this study is better than the survey method acquiring
tive personalities. Interestingly, the users who faced low
only the users’ perceived. On the other hand, this study
technostress with the proactive-confront personalities
used a research method having the ability to show com-
differ from the three other experimental groups. Even
pounding bias freely. It means that this study has high
their satisfaction is lower than the proactive-transform,
internal validity on the causality relationship between
but they are more satisfied with high technostress (see
users’ performance and satisfaction.
Table 6).
This study has managerial implications related to the
Even though this study isolated the compound effect
users’ coping strategy of technostress, especially the role
of the age, and Roskos-Ewoldsen et al. 2008 showed
of proactive personality. The organisation had to employ
that, between the younger and older, there is no signifi-
the IS that could control the users’ dysfunctional behav-
cant difference in creative invention task after adjusting
iour. Notably, users could not cope with how they face
for working memory capacity. The fact that the older
technological stressor. It impacts to the IS characteristics
have more technostress than younger (Tams 2011; Qi
that support effective or dynamic assistance directly. For
2019) cannot be obeyed. The younger can adapt to IT
example, users could get information on how to solve the
more efficiently, and through their creativity can
problem with a menu of ‘help’ that is automatically
improve their performance. But they can be addictive,
immersed.
getting stress and then negatively influence their per-
Moreover, the IS application should have ‘training
formance (Samaha and Hawi 2016). So, this is a chal-
materials’ that proactive users are comfortable to retrieve
lenge to scholars to find an effective learning system
the materials to solve their problems (Tarafdar et al.
that can form the youngers, even the they also become
2011). It means that by the help and training materials,
old, to be able to survive in the development of increas-
the proactive users could mitigate well how they could
ingly advanced and sophisticated technology (Lytras
address their difficulties. This study concludes what
et al. 2015, 2018, 2019).

Table 6. Comparison between technostress group for user satisfaction.

95% Confidence interval
Technostress group Mean difference Std. Error Sig. Lower bound Upper bound
(3)Low-transform (1)Low-confront −1.4200** .52667 .012 −2.5047** −.3353
(2)High-confront −.2633 .49655 .601 −1.2860 .7593
(4)High-transform .3175 .45611 .493 −.6219 1.2569
(2)High-confront (4)High-transform .0542 .51930 .918 −1.0154 1.1237
(1)Low-confront (2)High-confront −1.1567* .58226 .058 −2.3558* .0425
(4)High-transform −1.1025* .54818 .055 −2.2315* .0265
***, **, and * are significantly at the level of 1%, 5%, and 10% consecutively.
1090 S. SUMIYANA AND S. SRIWIDHARMANELY
Tarafdar et al. (2011) suggested, that the presence of
technostress inhibitors is the appropriate solutions.
On the other hand, IS managers could intervene in the
development of accounting information systems by recom-
mending that the designers and developers orientate on
users’ behavioural personality. It means that IS designers
and developers must consider the users’ characteristics or
personalities. For example, IS developers should facilitate
the user’s innovativeness (Agarwal and Karahanna 2000;
Hung and Lai 2016). The facilitation and analysis will
determine the success of the IS project implementation.
Moreover, the IS designers had to re-analyse this
information system that the users could avoid their
risks(Hung, Chen, and Lin 2015) and keep on the inno-
vation (Hung and Lai 2016). The users’ risk means that
they ignore to reuse this ICT. It could be because of
techno-overload, techno-invasion, techno-complexity,
techno-insecurity, and techno-uncertainty.
IS managers could make several policies for the users’
proactive personality to facilitate their creativities (con-
front or transform). Because the users respond randomly
to the events that they faced, the policies could conver-
gence the users’ complexity problem into a parsimonious
one. The system designers should facilitate the more
flexible IS that the users could employ their innovative-
ness whether they created the IS having complexities
tasks and functions. For example, they can use a dynamic
classification system in developing web-based AIS (Iivari,
Hirschheim, and Klein 1999). The dynamic classification
systems allow the users to follow the various changes
without getting the technostress’s harmful effect.
To facilitate and accommodate users’ technostress,
system developers could use an analytical development
matrix (Ramrattan and Patel 2010). It is a tool that
helps the proactive users to understand and develop
their solutions easily when the AIS advancement materi-
alises its contents quickly. This tool is usually connected
with the internet equipped by the aesthetic-based speed
prominent web. On the other hand, ICT managers can
also facilitate users to do personal customisation
(Zhang, Agarwal, and Lucas 2011). It is an IT-based sys-
tem combining between technological capabilities and
users’ knowledge delivering the ICT users’ beneficial
values. IT managers should create opportunities where
users could do their coping strategies. It means that the
IS empower the users who have not only the proactive
personality but also non-proactive character.
6. Conclusions, limitations, and future
research
This study investigates the role of proactive personality
traits to mitigate the harmful effects of technostress on
the user’s performance and satisfaction. It investigates
information and communication technologies (ICT’s)
users with experimental design and the inducement of
chaos theory simultaneously. This study also extends
Hung, Chen, and Lin (2015) examining the role of proac-
tive personality in the mandatory system. Then, this
study posits that proactive personality inclining to trans-
form the situation into opportunities get more benefit
and satisfaction than that to confront the situation
head-on.
This study supports the transaction of stress and per-
sonal innovativeness theories that proactive personality
plays a role in mitigating the negative impact of technos-
tress on performance and satisfaction. This study finds
that proactive-transform personality has higher per-
formance and satisfaction compared to proactive-con-
front one. It implies that individual innovativeness
supports this study’s result that the users’ innovativeness
has roles primarily. Therefore, users could adapt to
advanced and sophisticated information technological
changes. It also triggered the users to utilise the high
work overload and time deadlines required by the organ-
isation, but they could stabilise their performance.
This research recognised that there are several limit-
ations. The first one is that this study uses the linearity
assumption about the association between the technos-
tress (low or high) and performance as well as user sat-
isfaction. This study deducted that the users’
performance as well as satisfaction as a fundamental con-
cept of outcome functioning as the negative impact of
technostress. Meanwhile, Sellberg and Susi (2014) rec-
ommended that the relationship between technostress
(low or high) and performance, as well as satisfaction,
are an inverted-U shape or it is a nonlinear relationship
(Yankelevich et al. 2012). Moreover, further research
could also consider that it is any other users’ personality
who is not proactive. That is what users with a stubborn
personality used in overcoming the harmful effect of
technostress. It means that the stubborn character has
unique characteristics because they ignore their organis-
ational and environmental fit.
The second is that this study used the users’ coping
strategy in a perspective of chaos theory. It implies that
this study provides an opportunity to investigate the cop-
ing strategies of technostress comprehensively. Briggs
and Peat (1999) suggested that the users could overcome
the adverse effect of technostress whether they have
authorisation abilities to control, to be creative (Smith
and Paquette 2010; Maimone and Sinclair 2014), and
can communicate (Sellnow et al. 2012; Horsley 2014).
It means that future research could investigate the
users’ proactive personality connected with their
authorisations.

The third limitation is that this study did not place the
users’ proactive-transform and proactive-confront per-
sonalities in a continuous measurement. This research
only measures mutually and then compares them
directly. Possibly, future research should separately ana-
lyse the users’ proactive-transform and proactive-con-
front personalities in continuous measurement but
with similar effects.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Sumiyana Sumiyana http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1518-9681
References
Agarwal, R., and E. Karahanna. 2000. “Time Flies When
You’re Having Fun: Cognitive Absorption and Beliefs
About Information Technology Usage.” MIS Quarterly 24
(4): 665–694.
Agarwal, R., and J. Prasad. 1998. “A Conceptual and
Operational Definition of Personal Innovativeness in the
Domain of Information Technology.” Information Systems
Research 9 (2): 204–215.
Ayers, S. 1997. “The Application of Chaos Theory to
Psychology.” Theory & Psychology 7 (3): 373–398.
Ayyagari, R., V. Grover, and R. Purvis. 2011. “Technostress:
Technological Antecedents and Implications.” MIS
Quarterly 35 (4): 831–858.
Bartel, A., C. Ichniowski, and K. Shaw. 2007. “How Does
Information Technology Affect Productivity? Plant-Level
Comparisons of Product Innovation, Process
Improvement, and Worker Skills.” The Quarterly Journal
of Economics 122 (4): 1721–1758.
Bateman, T. S., and J. M. Crant. 1993. “The Proactive
Component of Organizational Behavior: A Measure and
Correlates.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 14 (2):
103–118.
Bean, D. F., and J. M. D’Aquila. 2003. “Accounting Students as
Surrogates for Accounting Professionals When Studying
Ethical Dilemmas: A Cautionary Note.” Teaching Business
Ethics 7 (3): 187.
Briggs, J., and F. D. Peat. 1999. Seven Life Lessons of Chaos:
Spiritual Wisdom from the Science of Change. 1st ed. New
York: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.
Brod, C. 1984. Technostress: The Human Cost of the Computer
Revolution. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Brooks, S. 2015. “Does Personal Social Media Usage Affect
Efficiency and Well-Being?” Computers in Human
Behavior 46 (Part B): 26–37.
Caplan, R. D. 1987. “Person-Environment Fit Theory and
Organizations: Commensurate Dimensions, Time
Perspectives, and Mechanisms.” Journal of Vocational
Behavior 31: 248–267.
Chen, C.-C., Z. Schwartz, and X. Jady Yu. 2015. “On the
‘Students as Surrogates’ Research Conundrum: Insights
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 1091
from Statistical Reasoning in Revenue Management.”
Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management 14 (4): 262–
275.
Crant, J. M. 1995. “The Proactive Personality Scale and
Objective Job Performance among Real Estate Agents.”
Journal of Applied Psychology 80 (4): 532–537.
Crant, J. M. 2000. “Proactive Behavior in Organizations.”
Journal of Management 26 (3): 435–462.
Cunningham, C. J., and G. M. De La Rosa. 2008. “The
Interactive Effects of Proactive Personality and Work-
Family Interference on Well-Being.” Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology 13 (3): 271–282.
Deffenbacher, K. A., B. H. Bornstein, S. D. Penrod, and E. K.
McGorty. 2004. “A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effects of
High Stress on Eyewitness Memory.” Law and Human
Behavior 28 (6): 687–706.
DeZoort, F. T., and A. T. Lord. 1997. “A Review and Synthesis
of Pressure Effects Research in Accounting.” Journal of
Accounting Literature 16: 28–85.
Dickerson, S. S., and M. E. Kemeny. 2004. “Acute Stressors and
Cortisol Responses: A Theoretical Integration and Synthesis
of Laboratory Research.” Psychological Bulletin 130 (3):
355–391.
Fieseler, C., S. Grubenmann, M. Meckel, and S. Muller. 2014.
“The Leadership Dimension of Coping with Technostress.”
In 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, 530–539. Waikoloa, HI, USA: IEEE.
Fischer, T., G. Halmerbauer, E. Meyr, and R. Riedl. 2018.
“Blood Pressure Measurement: A Classic of Stress
Measurement and Its Role in Technostress Research.” In
Blood Pressure Measurement: A Classic of Stress
Measurement and Its Role in Technostress Research, edited
by A. B. R. Fred D. Davis, René Riedl, Jan vom Brocke,
and Pierre-Majorique Léger, 25–35. Basel: Springer
International Publishing.
Folkman, S., R. S. Lazarus, C. Dunkel-Schetter, A. DeLongis,
and R. J. Gruen. 1986. “Dynamics of a Stressful
Encounter: Cognitive Appraisal, Coping, and Encounter
Outcomes.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
50 (5): 992–1003.
Fontana, D. 1989. Problem in Practice. Managing Stress.
Oxford, England: British Psychological Society: Taylor &
Frances/Routledge.
Griffith, T. L. 1999. “Technology Features as Triggers for
Sensemaking.” Academy of Management Review 24 (3):
472–488.
Horsley, J. S. 2014. “The Method in their Madness: Chaos,
Communication, and the D.C. Snipers.” Journal of
Communication Management; London 18 (3): 295–318.
Hung, W.-H., K. Chen, and C.-P. Lin. 2015. “Does the
Proactive Personality Mitigate the Adverse Effect of
Technostress on Productivity in the Mobile
Environment?” Telematics and Informatics 32 (1): 143–157.
Hung, S.-C., and J.-Y. Lai. 2016. “When Innovations Meet
Chaos: Analyzing the Technology Development of
Printers in 1976–2012.” Journal of Engineering and
Technology Management 42: 31–45.
Hurt, H. T., K. Joseph, and C. D. Cook. 1977. “Scales for the
Measurement of Innovativeness.” Human Communication
Research 4 (1): 58–65.
Hwang, I., and O. Cha. 2018. “Examining Technostress
Creators and Role Stress as Potential Threats to
1092 S. SUMIYANA AND S. SRIWIDHARMANELY
Employees’ Information Security Compliance.” Computers
in Human Behavior 81: 282–293.
Hwang, Y., J.-Y. Chung, D.-H. Shin, and Y. Lee. 2017. “An
Empirical Study on the Integrative Pre-Implementation
Model of Technology Acceptance in a Mandatory
Environment.” Behaviour & Information Technology 36
(8): 861–874.
Iivari, J., R. Hirschheim, and H. K. Klein. 1999. “Beyond
Methodologies: Keeping Up with Information Systems
Development Approaches Through Dynamic Classification.”
In Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences, 1–10. Hawaii: IEEE.
Jena, R. K. 2015. “Technostress in ICT Enabled Collaborative
Learning Environment: An Empirical Study among Indian
Academician.” Computers in Human Behavior 51 (Part B):
1116–1123.
Jones, H., G. Atkinson, A. Leary, K. George, M. Murphy, and J.
Waterhouse. 2006. “Reactivity of Ambulatory Blood
Pressure to Physical Activity Varies with Time of Day.”
Hypertension 47 (4): 778–784.
Kario, K., J. E. Schwartz, and T. G. Pickering. 1999.
“Ambulatory Physical Activity as a Determinant of
Diurnal Blood Pressure Variation.” Hypertension 34 (4,
Part 1): 685–691.
Khan, A., H. Rehman, and D. S. Rehman. 2013. “An Empirical
Analysis of Correlation Between Technostress and Job
Satisfaction: A Case of KPK, Pakistan.” Pakistan Journal
of Library and Information Science 14: 9–15.
Kirsch, L. J. 1996. “The Management of Complex Tasks in
Organizations: Controlling the Systems Development
Process.” Organization Science 7 (1): 1–21.
Kisamore, J. L., E. W. Liguori, J. Muldoon, and I. M. Jawahar.
2014. “Keeping the Peace: An Investigation of the
Interaction Between Personality, Conflict, and
Competence on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.”
Career Development International 19 (2): 244–259.
Knoll, N., N. Rieckmann, and R. Schwarzer. 2005. “Coping as a
Mediator Between Personality and Stress Outcomes: A
Longitudinal Study with Cataract Surgery Patients.”
European Journal of Personality 19 (3): 229–247.
Koh, C. E., V. R. Prybutok, S. D. Ryan, and Y. “Andy” Wu.
2010. “A Model for Mandatory Use of Software
Technologies: An Integrative Approach by Applying
Multiple Levels of Abstraction of Informing Science.”
Informing Science: The International Journal of an
Emerging Transdiscipline 13: 177–203.
Lau, V. P., Y. Y. Wong, and C. W. C. Chow. 2013. “Turning the
Tables: Mitigating Effects of Proactive Personality on the
Relationships Between Work-to-Family Conflict and
Work- and Nonwork-Related Outcomes.” Career
Development International 18 (5): 503–520.
Lazarus, R. S. 1966. Psychological Stress and the Coping Process.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lazarus, R. S. 1993. “Coping Theory and Research: Past, Present,
and Future.” Psychosomatic Medicine 55 (3): 234–247.
Lee, S. B., S. C. Lee, and Y. H. Suh. 2016. “Technostress from
Mobile Communication and Its Impact on Quality of Life
and Productivity.” Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence 27 (7–8): 1–16.
Levy, D. 1994. “Chaos Theory and Strategy: Theory,
Application, and Managerial Implications.” Strategic
Management Journal 15: 167–178.
Lorenz, E. N. 1963. “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow.” Journal
of The Atmospheric Sciences 20 (2): 130–141.
Lytras, M. D., N. R. Aljohani, A. Visvizi, P. Ordonez De Pablos,
and D. Gasevic. 2018. “Advanced Decision-Making in
Higher Education: Learning Analytics Research and Key
Performance Indicators.” Behaviour and Information
Technology 37 (10–11): 937–940.
Lytras, M. D., H. I. Mathkour, H. Abdalla, W. Al-Halabi, C.
Yanez-Marquez, and S. W. M. Siqueira. 2015. “An
Emerging – Social and Emerging Computing Enabled
Philosophical Paradigm for Collaborative Learning
Systems: Toward High Effective Next Generation Learning
Systems for the Knowledge Society.” Computers in
Human Behavior 51: 557–561.
Lytras, M., A. Visvizi, E. Damiani, and H. Mathkour. 2019.
“The Cognitive Computing Turn in Education: Prospects
and Application.” Computers in Human Behavior 92
(November 2018): 446–449.
Maier, C., S. Laumer, A. Eckhardt, and T. Weitzel. 2013.
“Analyzing the Impact of HRIS Implementations on
HR Personnel’s Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intention.”
The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 22 (3): 193–
207.
Maimone, F., and M. Sinclair. 2014. “Dancing in the Dark:
Creativity, Knowledge Creation and (Emergent)
Organizational Change.” Journal of Organizational
Change Management 27 (2): 344–361.
McBride, N. 2005. “Chaos Theory as a Model for Interpreting
Information Systems in Organizations.” Information
Systems Journal 15: 233–254.
Mortensen, T., R. Fisher, and G. Wines. 2012. “Students as
Surrogates for Practicing Accountants: Further Evidence.”
Accounting Forum 36 (4): 251–265.
Onyemah, V. 2008. “Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict, and
Performance: Empirical Evidence of an Inverted-U
Relationship.” Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management 28 (3): 299–313.
Parker, S. K., and C. A. Sprigg. 1999. “Minimizing Strain and
Maximizing Learning: The Role of Job Demands, Job
Control, and Proactive Personality.” Journal of Applied
Psychology 84 (6): 925–939.
Prabhakaran, A., and H. K. Mishr. 2012. “Technological
Change in Libraries: The Evolution of Technostress.”
Researchers World 3 (1): 131–135.
Qi, C. 2019. “A Double-Edged Sword? Exploring the Impact of
Students’ Academic Usage of Mobile Devices on
Technostress and Academic Performance.” Behaviour &
Information Technology 0 (0): 1–18.
Ragu-Nathan, T. S., M. Tarafdar, B. S. Ragu-Nathan, and Q.
Tu. 2008. “The Consequences of Technostress for End
Users in Organizations: Conceptual Development and
Empirical Validation.” Information Systems Research 19
(4): 417–433.
Ramrattan, M., and N. V. Patel. 2010. “Web-Based
Information Systems Development and Dynamic
Organisational Change.” Journal of Enterprise Information
Management 23 (3): 365–377.
Rawstorne, P., R. Jayasuriya, and P. Caputi. 1998. “An
Integrative Model of Information Systems Use in
Mandatory Environments.” In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Information Systems, 325–
330. Association for Information Systems.

Riedl, R., H. Kindermann, A. Auinger, and A. Javor. 2012.
“Technostress from a Neurobiological Perspective.”
Business & Information Systems Engineering 4 (2): 61–69.
Rogers, E. M. 1986. Communication Technology: The New Media
in Society. New York: Free Press; London: Collier Macmillan.
Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., S. R. Black, and S. M. McCown 2008.
“Age-Related Changes in Creative Thinking.” The Journal
of Creative Behavior 42 (1): 33–59. doi:10.1002/j.2162-
6057.2008.tb01079.x.
Ruiselova, Z., and A. Prokopcakova. 2010. “Counterfactual
Thinking and Proactive Coping.” Studia Psychologica 52
(4): 291–299.
Saganuwan, M. U., W. K. W. Ismail, and U. N. U. Ahmad.
2013. “Technostress: Mediating Accounting Information
System Performance.” Information Management and
Business Review 5 (6): 270–277.
Saganuwan, M., W. K. Ismail, and U. N. Ahmad. 2014.
“Technostress of Accounting Information System and Its
Effect on Task Performance.” Australian Journal of Basic
and Applied Sciences 8 (16): 30–37.
Saganuwan, M. U., W. K. W. Ismail, and U. N. U. Ahmad.
2015. “Conceptual Framework: AIS Technostress and Its
Effect on Professionals’ Job Outcomes.” Asian Social
Science 11 (5): 97–107.
Samaha, M., and N. S. Hawi. 2016. “Relationships among
Smartphone Addiction, Stress, Academic Performance,
and Satisfaction with Life.” Computers in Human
Behavior 57: 321–325.
Sarooghi, H., D. Libaers, and A. Burkemper. 2015. “Examining
the Relationship Between Creativity and Innovation: A
Meta-Analysis of Organizational, Cultural, and
Environmental Factors.” Journal of Business Venturing 30
(5): 714–731.
Savickas, M. L., and E. J. Porfeli. 2012. “Career Adapt-Abilities
Scale: Construction, Reliability, and Measurement
Equivalence across 13 Countries.” Journal of Vocational
Behavior 80 (3): 661–673.
Seibert, S. E., J. M. Crant, and M. L. Kraimer. 1999. “Research
Reports: Proactive Personality and Career Success.” Journal
of Applied Psychology 84 (3): 416–427.
Sellberg, C., and T. Susi. 2014. “Technostress in the Office: A
Distributed Cognition Perspective on Human-Technology
Interaction.” Cognitive Technology Work 16: 187–201.
Sellnow, T. L., D. D. Sellnow, D. R. Lane, and R. S. Littlefield.
2012. “The Value of Instructional Communication in Crisis
Situations: Restoring Order to Chaos.” Risk Analysis 32 (4):
633–643.
Shu, Q., Q. Tu, and K. Wang. 2011. “The Impact of Computer
Self-Efficacy and Technology Dependence on Computer-
Related Technostress: A Social Cognitive Theory
Perspective.” International Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction 27 (10): 923–939.
Smith, S., and S. Paquette. 2010. “Creativity, Chaos and
Knowledge Management.” Business Information Review 27
(2): 118–123.
Srivastava, S. C., S. Chandra, and A. Shirish. 2015.
“Technostress Creators and Job Outcomes: Theorising the
BEHAVIOUR & INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 1093
Moderating Influence of Personality Traits.” Information
Systems Journal 25 (4): 355–401.
Suh, A., H. Kong, and J. Lee. 2017. “Understanding
Teleworkers’ Technostress and Its Influence on Job
Satisfaction.” Internet Research 27 (1): 140–159.
Tams, S. 2011. The Role of Age in Technology-Induced
Workplace Stress. Clemson: Clemson University.
Tarafdar, M., E. Bolman Pullins, and T. S. Ragu-Nathan. 2014.
“Examining Impacts of Technostress on the Professional
Salesperson’s Behavioural Performance.” Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management 34 (1): 51–69.
Tarafdar, M., E. B. Pullins, and T. S. Ragu-Nathan. 2015.
“Technostress: Negative Effect on Performance and
Possible Mitigations.” Information Systems Journal 25 (2):
103–132.
Tarafdar, M., Q. Tu, and T. S. Ragu-Nathan. 2010. “Impact of
Technostress on End-User Satisfaction and Performance.”
Journal of Management Information Systems 27 (3): 303–
334.
Tarafdar, M., Q. Tu, T. S. Ragu-Nathan, and B. S. Ragu-
Nathan. 2011. “Crossing to the Dark Side: Creators,
Outcomes, Examining and Inhibitors of Technostress.”
Communications of the ACM 54 (9): 113–120.
Van Dyne, L., D. Vandewalle, T. Kostova, M. E. Latham, and L.
L. Cummings. 2000. “Collectivism, Propensity to Trust and
Self-Esteem as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship in a
Non-Work Setting.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 21
(1): 3–23.
Venkatesh, V., and F. D. Davis. 2000. “A Theoretical Extension
of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal
Field Studies.” Management Science 46 (2): 186–204.
Wang, K., Q. Shu, and Q. Tu. 2008. “Technostress Under
Different Organizational Environments: An Empirical
Investigation.” Computers in Human Behavior 24 (6):
3002–3013.
Wofford, J. C., V. L. Goodwin, and P. S. Daly. 1999.
“Cognitive-Affective Stress Propensity: A Field Study.”
Journal of Organizational Behavior 20: 687–707.
Xue, Y., H. Liang, and L. Wu. 2011. “Punishment, Justice, and
Compliance in Mandatory IT Settings.” Information
Systems Research 22 (2): 400–414.
Yang, F., and R. Chau. 2016. “Proactive Personality and
Career Success.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 31 (2):
467–482.
Yankelevich, M., A. Broadfoot, J. Z. Gillespie, M. A. Gillespie,
and A. Guidroz. 2012. “General Job Stress: A
Unidimensional Measure and Its Non-Linear Relations
with Outcome Variables.” Stress and Health 28 (2): 137–
148.
Zhang, T. (Catherine), R. Agarwal, and H. C. Lucas Jr. 2011.
“The Value of It-Enabled Retailer Learning: Personalized
Product Recommendations and Customer Store Loyalty in
Electronic Markets.” MIS Quarterly 35 (4): 859–881.
Zhao, X., M. Zhou, Q. Liu, Q. Liu, and H. Kang. 2016.
“Proactive Personality as a Moderator Between Work
Stress and Employees Internal Growth.” Social Behavior
and Personality: an International Journal 44 (4): 603–617.