Work, Employment &

Society http://wes.sagepub.com/

Information and communication technology use, work intensification and

employee strain and distress
Noelle Chesley
Work Employment Society 2014 28: 589 originally published online 10 March 2014
DOI: 10.1177/0950017013500112

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://wes.sagepub.com/content/28/4/589

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

British Sociological Association

Additional services and information for Work, Employment & Society can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://wes.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://wes.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: Downloaded
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
from wes.sagepub.com by guest on August 8, 2014
 >> Version of Record - Aug 6, 2014

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Mar 10, 2014

What is This?

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com by guest on August 8, 2014

500112
2014
WES28410.1177/0950017013500112Work, employment and societyChesley

Article

Work, employment and society

Information and 2014, Vol. 28(4) 589­–610

© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
communication technology sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0950017013500112
use, work intensification and wes.sagepub.com

employee strain and distress

Noelle Chesley
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA

Abstract
Recent scholarship on work suggests that information and communication technology (ICT) use
may be significantly altering job conditions in ways that are indicative of work intensification,
which, in turn, contributes to employee strain and distress. This article uses structural equation
modelling and OLS regression techniques to analyse 2002 survey data drawn from a nationally
representative sample of US employees in order to assess the pathways through which ICT use
may influence levels of employee strain and distress. It is found that use is linked to higher levels
of employee strain and distress via a work intensification process that is indicated by faster-paced
work and greater levels of interruptions and multitasking. However, there is also evidence that
both work and personal ICT use may mitigate these influences. While the findings do suggest that
ICT use can have negative implications for contemporary workers, as a whole the results support
a more nuanced view that points to both costs and benefits associated with ICT use.

Keywords
distress, ICT use, interruptions, multitasking, work intensification, work strain

In December 2011, Volkswagen announced that it would restrict after-hours email deliv-
ery to its employees, citing staff complaints that their work and home lives were becom-
ing blurred (BBC News, 2011). Indeed, media reports documenting concerns about how
workplaces, and work, are being altered by the incorporation of information and com-
munication technology (ICT) based practices which are both prevalent and global (e.g.
Davey, 2012; Richtel, 2011; Thompson, 2011). Investigation of links between techno-
logical innovation and more stressful work environments are also global (e.g. Coklar and

Corresponding author:
Noelle Chesley, Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, PO Box 413, Milwaukee, WI,
53201, USA.
Email: chesley@uwm.edu

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com by guest on August 8, 2014

590 Work, employment and society 28(4)

Sahin, 2011; Thomee et al., 2010), and these concerns have been intensified by the recent
recession (Houdmont et al., 2012). However, at the moment, there is limited evidence
linking ICT workplace practices to indicators of worker distress (Barley et al., 2011;
Chesley, 2005; Murray and Rostis, 2007).
We know that job conditions can foster chronic sources of strain (Bellavia and Frone,
2005; Schieman et al., 2006) and that correlations between chronic sources of strain and
distress are substantial and outpace the influence of stressful life events and trauma
(Thoits, 2010). However, we know relatively little about whether and how ICT practices
influence specific conditions at work in ways that contribute to poor employee outcomes.
Some scholars argue that ICT use may intensify the pace of work (Green, 2004a, 2004b;
Maume and Purcell, 2007) or the rate of interruptions or multitasking (González and
Mark, 2004; Mano and Mesch, 2010; Su and Mark, 2008; Wajcman and Rose, 2011),
leading, in some cases, to greater employee stress and burnout (Barley et al., 2011;
Murray and Rostis, 2007; Su and Mark, 2008).
Data from the 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce (NSCW) examines
potential linkages among ICT use, job conditions and indicators of employee distress.
This US-based, nationally representative data is analysed using multivariate regression
techniques to assess two broad but related questions. First, is ICT use promoting faster-
paced work, greater work interruptions and increased multitasking? Second, if ICT use
is promoting these conditions, are they linked to employee perceptions about work strain
and psychological distress?

Prior research on ICT workplace practices and worker

distress
A sociological perspective on workplace ICT use recognizes that tools and artefacts
do not operate outside of social interaction. A large literature grounded in Science and
Technology Studies demonstrates that technological innovation, in tandem with pre-
vailing social conditions, can allow new practices to emerge, can reconfigure existing
practices, or can reinforce pre-existing social divisions (Wajcman, 2006; Wajcman
and Rose, 2011). Phrases such as ‘ICT-based organizational practices’ are used to
emphasize that ICTs are embedded in organizations with pre-existing cultures, norms
and objectives, and the technology, in combination with these features, has the poten-
tial to reconfigure or reinforce workplace practices in ways that influence work out-
comes. This view complements previous work which illustrates that ICTs do not
operate independently of the social organization of work, but are employed by users
who are subject to social opportunities and constraints (e.g. Hughes, 1996). Although
the article sometimes refers to ‘ICT use’ for the sake of brevity, it is always assumed
that this use is grounded in social interaction.

ICT workplace practices, work fragmentation and worker stress

A central goal of contemporary research on ICT workplace practices is focused on
documenting whether or not these practices are contributing to a more fragmented
work experience and, if so, what the implications of this more fragmented work

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com by guest on August 8, 2014

Chesley 591

experience might be for organizations and their employees (Wajcman and Rose, 2011).
Within this investigation, scholars have identified two key processes that appear con-
nected to ICT use and work fragmentation: work extension (Chesley, 2005; Duxbury
et al., 2006) and work intensification (Green, 2004a; Maume and Purcell, 2007). Work
extension happens when ICT use is incorporated into organizational practices that
enable paid work to enter into non-work time and space in ways that may make it dif-
ficult to disengage from work. This ‘always on’ state is theorized as one explanation
why ICT use might promote work conditions that many employees find stressful. Work
intensification, the primary focus of the current study, happens when ICT-based organ-
izational practices promote a more intense work experience, often characterized by the
sense that one must consistently work faster or harder or that workplace demands are
outstripping the resources necessary to meet them. Importantly, work can be experi-
enced as more intense, demanding, and stressful, even if total work hours are
unchanged. Here, scholars have focused on connections between ICT use and three
processes that may promote a more intense work experience: work pacing, the level of
work interruptions, and the amount of work multitasking.

Work pacing.  The focus on the speed or pace with which we accomplish tasks is rooted
in theoretical and empirical accounts that link ICT use to changes in our experiences of
the ‘temporal rhythms’ (Southerton, 2007) of daily life. An evidence base is beginning to
emerge that links ICT workplace practices to more rapid response times that employees
may experience as stressful. Green (2004a) shows that working at high speed is linked to
workplace technological innovation that produced an increase in work intensification in
Britain during the 1990s. Barley and colleagues (2011), in their study of technology use
in a single organization, find that most employees use email in ways that promote rapid
response via a shared ‘norm of responsiveness’. Those who answered emails quickly
were revered and other employees described sanctioning processes that were enforced
when co-workers did not adhere to the organizational norm of responding to emails
quickly. Related regression analyses document a positive association between time spent
doing emails to feelings of overload among these employees. While this latter finding
was understood as stemming from a combination of organizational factors, including the
timing and volume of emails employees received, organizational norms that promote
rapid response via communication technology are arguably part of the story here. Murray
and Rostis (2007) argue that work speedups reduce employee flexibility to enact suc-
cessful coping strategies to deal with a changing work environment, which is part of
what makes increased work speed stressful for workers.

Interruptions.  Another way ICT-based organizational practices may promote work inten-
sification is by generating interruptions in workflows. There is a very limited evidence
base linking ICT use at work to greater levels of interruptions (González and Mark,
2004; Wajcman and Rose, 2011). González and Mark (2004) studied 14 employees in a
US investment management company and found evidence that ICT use promotes inter-
ruptions at work. In a similar vein, Wajcman and Rose (2011) studied 18 Australian
employees in a single firm in depth and found evidence to indicate that ICT use had a
modest capacity to promote greater levels of interruptions in these employees.

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com by guest on August 8, 2014

592 Work, employment and society 28(4)

There are some hints that more interrupted work may be stressful for workers,
although this is not consistently documented. Mark and colleagues (Mark et al., 2008)
used an experimental design and a small sample of university students to simulate ICT-
based work practices under different conditions. They found that subjects compensate
for interruptions by working faster, which is subsequently linked to greater distress.
Similarly, Baily and Konstan (2006) find that interruptions of all kinds generally heighten
anxiety. Coupled with the findings from Mark and colleagues, both studies suggest that
interruptions are linked to greater levels of anxiety and stress. On the other hand,
Wajcman and Rose (2011) document that interruptions are not generally problematic
because the workers they observe ‘are exerting a great deal of control over their techno-
logical work ecologies’ (Wajcman and Rose, 2011: 950). Indeed, control over interrup-
tions appears to be key as to whether these interruptions are perceived as stressful by
workers. In the Barley et al. (2011) study, a central reason workers found emails stressful
was that the 24/7 nature of communication it supported could produce new work demands
at any time. Thus, the question of how much control workers have over interruptions
seems critical. The general interruptions literature documents that many interruptions are
unexpected, and the unpredictability of these interruptions in the face of high demands
can limit a sense of worker control (Jett and George, 2003), in keeping with the findings
of Barley et. al (2011). What appears to be missing in the literature on ICT use and inter-
ruptions is: (1) evidence of a clear, positive association between ICT-based practices and
work interruptions in a large sample of workers employed across a variety of work-
places; and (2) a more systematic understanding of whether ICT-facilitated interruptions,
which may well be a key component of contemporary work, are problematic for
workers.

ICT use and multitasking.  Another dimension of more intense work is increased multitask-
ing. Kenyon (2008), drawing on time use data, defines multitasking as ‘the simultaneous
conduct of two or more activities during a given time period’. She argues that ICT use
may support greater levels of multitasking behaviour because use minimizes spatial and
temporal boundaries. Activities that once were physically or temporally separate are
often not separate anymore (e.g. the ability to talk on the phone and drive), which sup-
ports multitasking behaviour. While Kenyon (2008) reports no differences in the propen-
sity to multitask based on time spent online, she does find evidence to suggest that
multitasking behaviour increases when activities (social, educational, work) are con-
ducted online, rather than offline, suggesting that the context surrounding the activity
changes when it moves to an online environment. Other studies have more directly
linked ICT use and increased levels of multitasking (González and Mark, 2004; Su and
Mark, 2008).
González and Mark (2004) find that multitasking is prevalent among the 14 employ-
ees they studied in-depth, particularly when technology is involved. In a related study, Su
and Mark (2008) employ similar ethnographic techniques to study 19 employees work-
ing in a science and technology firm over 18 months. They document a statistically-
significant positive association between levels of multitasking and job strain in this small
sample. While empirical evidence linking ICT use and multitasking is extremely limited,
both theory and this limited evidence base point to a relationship.

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com by guest on August 8, 2014

Chesley 593

Domains of ICT use

One of the hallmarks of ICT-based practices is that they blur boundaries between what is
public and what is private (Haddon and Silverstone, 2000). Just as ICT use can facilitate
the extension of work into non-work life, similar ICT-based practices can allow non-
work concerns or demands to enter the workplace (Chesley, 2005). As a result, it is pos-
sible that employees can use ICT to meet personal responsibilities in ways that alleviate
some of the demands created by other ICT-based practices that promote work intensifica-
tion. For example, in the face of greater demands that are facilitated via ICT use for
work, employees may use ICT to better coordinate their family lives around these
changes at work. This suggests both that: (1) domain of use – whether ICT is being
employed for one’s job or for personal reasons – is a critical component of use and
should be measured separately in empirical studies, and (2) personal forms of ICT use
have the capacity to influence work-related outcomes. Thus, the article will distinguish
personal from work-related forms of use and incorporate measures of both in this study.
In sum, while the evidence base is limited, there is reason to believe that work-related
ICT use is connected to processes of work intensification via work pacing, and the level
of work interruptions and multitasking in which employees engage. There are also hints
that these job conditions are connected to increased overall work demands, leading to
greater work strain and employee distress. Empirical evidence testing the significance of
these potential relationships in a generalizable sample of workers is missing from the
current literature. This study is expected to fill this knowledge gap.

Method
Data
This study draws on survey data from the 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce
(NSCW: N = 3504), a repeated cross-sectional study of the US civilian labour force
designed to assess the work and family experiences of American employees (Bond et al.,
2002). The survey has been conducted in 1992, 1997, 2002 and 2008. Generalizable
samples are generated using Random Digit Dial (RDD) methods and interviews are con-
ducted by professionally trained interviewers over the telephone. In the 2002 survey,
questions assessing levels of personal and work-related technology use were included
along with a series of questions tapping key working conditions and employee outcomes
like work strain and general distress, making this wave of the study ideal to assess the
research questions of this article. Although a more recent wave of data is available, the
technology questions were altered in the 2008 survey and only ask about personal forms
of ICT use. Given the theoretical importance of distinguishing use domain (e.g. work vs.
personal ICT use), and incorporating both in models that test links between work inten-
sification and stress, it was concluded that the 2008 data are not appropriate.
The overall response rate for the 2002 survey is estimated to be between 52 and 61 per
cent (Bond et al., 2002). In these analyses, the sample was restricted to 2810 wage and
salary workers because some necessary measures were only asked of this subgroup. In
the 2002 NSCW, wage and salary employees are distinguished from workers who oper-
ate their own incorporated business and the self-employed. Excluding business owners

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com by guest on August 8, 2014

594 Work, employment and society 28(4)

and the self employed is also important theoretically, as it seems likely that these groups
have greater discretion over their work than wage and salary workers. Also excluded
were those wage and salary workers without a direct supervisor (n = 250) or missing
information about a direct supervisor (n = 4), as questions assessing the level of supervi-
sor support were not asked of these individuals. Thus, the final analytic sample consists
of 2556 wage and salary workers with a direct supervisor.

Measures
Dependent variables.  Work strain is measured with a single item: ‘Tell me how often you
have felt overwhelmed by how much you had to do at work in the last three months?’
Responses range from never [1] to very often [5]. Following Voydanoff (2005), per-
ceived stress was assessed by averaging responses to seven questions (α = 0.79): ‘In the
last month how often have you … been bothered by minor health problems such as head-
aches, insomnia, or stomach upsets; had trouble sleeping to the point that it affected your
performance on and off the job; felt nervous and stressed; felt that you were unable to
control the important things in your life; felt that difficulties were piling up so high that
you could not overcome them’ (responses ranged from 1 [never] to 5 [fairly often]) and
‘During the past month have you been bothered by feeling down, depressed, hopeless;
have you been bothered by little interest or pleasure in doing things?’ (responses ranged
from 1 [no] to 5 [yes]).
Because the work strain variable is highly and significantly correlated with one of the
items in the distress scale (r = 0.33), a confirmatory factor analysis was run to investigate
whether the worker strain and stress measures were clearly distinguishable as measures
tapping separate constructs. Two different factor models were estimated. In one model,
the worker strain measure was included with the other distress items, in the other it was
not included. This analysis confirmed that the work strain measure is distinguishable
from the distress items.

Key independent variables.  The key independent variables in this study capture levels of
work-related and personal ICT use. Work-related use was assessed with a single item:
‘How often do you use a computer at work for things related to your job?’ Responses
range from rarely or never [1] to daily [6]. Because 70 per cent of employees reported
daily computer use, this variable was dichotomized to assess daily use [1] versus non-
daily use [0]. Similarly, personal use was assessed by asking respondents: ‘How often do
you use a computer at work or somewhere else for personal things?’ This variable was
also dichotomized into daily personal computer use [1] versus non-daily [0] personal use
(45% of respondents reported daily personal use).

Mediating variables.  Work-related ICT use is expected to influence three key working
conditions: work pacing; level of interruptions at work; and multitasking. Work pacing is
assessed with a respondent’s level of agreement to a single question: ‘My job requires
that I work very fast’. Responses range from strongly disagree [1] to strongly agree [4].
Level of interruptions is measured with a single item: ‘During a typical work-week, how
often are you interrupted during the work day, making it difficult to get your work done?’

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com by guest on August 8, 2014

Chesley 595

Similarly, multitasking is assessed with a single item: ‘During a typical work-week, how
often do you have to work on too many tasks at the same time?’ Responses for these
questions range from never [1] to very often [5].

Demographic controls.  A series of demographic characteristics are known to be associated

with both technology use and employment. Age (measured in years) is controlled as ICT
use tends to be less concentrated in older (55+ populations). An age-squared term in
models is also included to check for non-linear age effects. Gender [1 = female; 0 =
male] and marital status (married, cohabiting, single) is also controlled. While recent
trends do not point to gender differences in levels of ICT use (Madden and Jones, 2008),
there are important occupational differences linked to gender and there is also evidence
from earlier census data that these occupational differences may shape how ICT is used
on the job (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999). For this study, those with a college degree or
better were distinguished from those without a college degree because having a college
education is known to shape ICT use as well as key occupational differences (DiMaggio
et al., 2004). Household income is controlled (using a log-transformed variable) for simi-
lar reasons. The household income measure has significant missing cases (8%). How
missing data were generally handled is discussed below.

Job controls.  Particular features of jobs are already known to influence a range of job
conditions that could lead employees to feel overwhelmed and stressed, apart from ICT
use. Different types of jobs (professional/managerial/executive, sales, administrative
support, service and production) vary in their key features and level of demands. Thus,
type of job was controlled for in the analysis. Also controlled for were work hours at all
jobs and multiple job-holding (1 = has more than 1 job; 0 = has 1 job). In addition, the
study controlled for level of job insecurity, since this can be a proxy for individuals
working in a downsized environment in which work demands may be particularly high.
Employees were asked: ‘How likely is it that during the next couple of years you will
lose your present job and have to look for a job with another employer?’ Responses range
from not at all likely [1] to very likely [4].
Further, many jobs differ in the level of discretion workers have over the content or
execution of their work, and low levels of job autonomy are linked to worse outcomes
for employees. An index of job autonomy (α = 0.72) was created by averaging the
responses to three items: ‘I have the freedom to decide what I do on my job’, ‘It is basi-
cally my own responsibility to decide how my job gets done’, and ‘I have a lot of say
about what happens on my job’. Following Maume and Purcell (2007), an index of job
complexity was included (α = 0.63) which is a composite of three items: ‘My job requires
that I keep learning new things’, ‘My job requires that I be creative’ and ‘My job lets me
use my skills and abilities’. Responses for both scales range from strongly disagree [1]
to strongly agree [4].
In addition, there is evidence that social support in the workplace buffers levels of
stress. Thus, controls were incorporated for perceived level of supervisor and co-worker
support. Nine items make up an index of supervisor support (α = 0.90; 1 = low support;
4 = high support). These items tap such things as information sharing, supervisor expec-
tations and supervisor recognition, as well as how understanding or supportive a

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com by guest on August 8, 2014

596 Work, employment and society 28(4)

B = -0.08 (0.04)*

Speed

ICT Work
ICT work
B = 0.12 Work B = 0.18
(0.02)*** (0.02) ***
Interrupt strain Distress

ICT personal

Multask

B = -.0.18 (0.04) ***

Figure 1.  Regression coefficients documenting the influence of ICT use on job conditions,
work strain and employee distress for wage and salary employees with direct supervisors (n =
2242).
Source: 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce.
Notes: Unstandardized coefficients are reported (standard errors in parentheses). Model controls for age,
race, education, marital status, own and spousal work hours, number of children 13 and under in household,
household income, industry, multiple job holding, job insecurity, job autonomy, job complexity and level of
supervisor and co-worker support. Cases with missing data on any of the model variables are eliminated
from the analysis. Non-significant pathways from ICT personal to job conditions are not depicted for clarity.
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; CFI = 0.61, RMSEA = 0.12; Hoteler = 75.

supervisor is of his/her subordinates. Co-worker support is measured with a single item,

‘I have the support from co-workers that I need to do a good job’. The response scale is
identical to that used for supervisor support.

Analytic approach
To test the model depicted in Figure 1, the analytical techniques for testing mediation
outlined in Baron and Kenny (1986) are used, along with Structural Equation Modelling
(SEM) techniques and software (AMOS 5.0), to simultaneously estimate a series of
regression equations. These equations capture the different elements in the conceptual
model. For example, one set of equations models the influence of work-related and per-
sonal ICT use on job pacing, and levels of interruptions and multitasking at work while
controlling for a series of personal and job characteristics:

Pacingi = β0 + β1 (controlsi) + β2 (ITC_worki) + β3 (ITC_peri) + εi [1]

Interruptionsi = β0 + β1 (controlsi) + β2 (ITC_worki) + β3 (ITC_peri) + εi [2]

Multitaskingi = β0 + β1 (controlsi) + β2 (ITC_worki) + β3 (ITC_peri) + εi [3]

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com by guest on August 8, 2014

Chesley 597

The model also estimates an equation that assesses the mediating role of both work-
related and personal technology use on overall levels of work strain:

Work straini = β0 + β1 (controlsi) + β2 (pacei) + β3 (interrupt) + β4 (multitask) +

β5 (ITC_worki) + β6 (ITC_peri) + εi [4]

In addition, the model includes an equation that assesses the direct and indirect influence
of ICT use, job conditions and work strain on overall levels of employee distress:

Distressi = β0 + β1 (controlsi) + β2 (work straini ) + β3 (pacei) + β4 (interrupti) +

β5 (multitaski) + β6 (ITC_worki) + β7 (ITC_peri) + εi [5]

Missing data.  Several variables have missing data. Indeed, of the 2556 cases included in
the analytic sample, only 2242 (88%) are available for analysis if listwise deletion pro-
cedures are used. Most of these missing cases (8%) are generated through missing
income data. AMOS uses Maximum Likelihood (ML) procedures to estimate missing
data, an approach that is preferred over most other methods (Schafer and Graham, 2002).
Thus, it is possible to retain cases with missing data in model estimation. Models that
retain and exclude missing cases were estimated and it was found that results differ very
little when missing cases are retained using ML procedures. As such, only model results
for the model with missing cases (n = 2242) are reported, although results for models
incorporating the full analytic sample (n = 2556) are available on request.

Testing the statistical significance of mediation effects.  Because a central goal of this study
is to test theoretically important pathways through which work-related ICT use may
influence work strain and worker distress, mediation effects implied by the model are
tested. Following recommendations in Mallinckrodt et al. (2006), bootstrap procedures
available in AMOS are employed to explicitly test whether the influence of work-related
ICT use on worker strain and distress is fully explained via a work intensification process
(e.g. the tendency for ICT use to promote faster work pacing and greater levels of inter-
ruptions and multitasking).

Results
Descriptive statistics for the study variables for the full sample, and by domain (work vs.
personal) and level of use (daily vs. not daily), are presented in Table 1. On average,
levels of perceived stress are low, while experiencing work strain is more common.
However, breakouts by domain and level of ICT use indicate that work strain is highest
among workers who report daily work-related ICT use and also fairly high among work-
ers with low levels of personal ICT use. Employees tend to agree that their jobs require
working fast, and most employees report some level of job interruptions and multitask-
ing behaviour. All of these conditions tend to be more prevalent for workers who report
daily work and personal ICT use. Not surprisingly, daily work-related computer use is
common; 72 per cent of wage and salary workers report this level of use while less than
half (46%) report daily personal use. There is also overlap in use domains. Fifty-five

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com by guest on August 8, 2014

 Table 1.  Descriptive statistics for study variables by domain and frequency of technology use (N = 2242).
598

Variables in the analysis Full sample Work ICT use Personal ICT use

  Daily (n = 1619) Not daily (n = 623) Daily (n = 1042) Not daily (n = 1200)

Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Dependent variables
Perceived stress (1 = low; 5 = 2.17 0.90 2.14 0.86 2.23 0.97 2.15 0.87 2.19 0.92
high)
Work strain (1 = low; 5 = high) 3.10 1.23 3.17 1.20 2.90 1.28 3.06 1.21 3.13 1.24
Mediating variables
Job pacing (1 = slower; 5 = faster) 2.82 0.99 2.85 0.95 2.74 1.09 2.85 0.95 2.80 1.03
Level of work interruptions (1 = 3.41 1.27 3.63 1.20 2.84 1.27 3.55 1.24 3.29 1.28
low; 5 = high)
Level of multitasking at work (1 = 3.24 1.33 3.39 1.29 2.85 1.36 3.35 1.30 3.14 1.34
low; 5 = high)
Technology use
% Reporting daily use of 0.72 0.45 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.35 0.61 0.49
computer for work
% Reporting daily use of 0.46 0.50 0.55 0.50 0.25 0.43 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
computer for non-work

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com by guest on August 8, 2014

CONTROLS
Demographics
Age (in years) 41.79 12.28 42.21 11.88 40.69 13.21 40.67 11.85 42.76 12.56
% Female 0.58 0.49 0.60 0.49 0.53 0.50 0.56 0.50 0.60 0.49
% Non-Hispanic White 0.79 0.41 0.82 0.39 0.72 0.45 0.83 0.38 0.75 0.43
% with college degree or better 0.40 0.49 0.49 0.50 0.18 0.39 0.50 0.50 0.32 0.47
Family/household characteristics
% Legally married 0.58 0.49 0.60 0.49 0.54 0.50 0.57 0.49 0.59 0.49
Work, employment and society 28(4)

% Cohabiting 0.06 0.23 0.05 0.23 0.06 0.24 0.06 0.24 0.05 0.22
% Single 0.36 0.48 0.35 0.48 0.40 0.49 0.36 0.48 0.36 0.48
 Table 1. (Continued)
Chesley

Variables in the analysis Full sample Work ICT use Personal ICT use

  Daily (n = 1619) Not daily (n = 623) Daily (n = 1042) Not daily (n = 1200)

Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev. Mean Std. Dev.
Spouse/partner work hours 21.75 24.23 22.57 24.54 19.60 23.29 22.51 24.34 21.08 24.12
# of children under 13 in home 0.56 0.93 0.54 0.91 0.62 0.98 0.54 0.91 0.58 0.95
Median household income $ 54,000 $ 1,688,981 $ 60,000 $ 54,724 $ 39,000 $ 3,203,524 $ 60,000 $ 57,951 $ 50,000 $2,308,160
Job characteristics
% Executive/professional/ 0.48 0.50 0.56 0.50 0.25 0.43 0.58 0.49 0.39 0.49
managerial
% Sales 0.09 0.28 0.09 0.29 0.07 0.26 0.09 0.28 0.08 0.28
% Administrative support 0.15 0.36 0.19 0.40 0.05 0.21 0.15 0.35 0.16 0.37
% Service 0.10 0.30 0.05 0.22 0.21 0.41 0.07 0.25 0.12 0.33
% Production 0.19 0.39 0.10 0.30 0.41 0.49 0.12 0.33 0.24 0.43
Respondent work hours at all 45.21 12.91 46.19 12.05 42.68 14.64 45.95 12.90 44.57 12.89
jobs
% with two or more jobs 0.15 0.35 0.15 0.35 0.15 0.36 0.17 0.38 0.13 0.33

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com by guest on August 8, 2014

Job insecurity (1 = low; 4 = high) 1.97 0.91 1.93 0.89 2.05 0.98 1.94 0.90 1.98 0.92
Job autonomy (1 = low; 4 = high) 3.01 0.75 3.05 0.72 2.88 0.81 3.07 0.71 2.95 0.78
Job complexity (1 = low; 4 = high) 3.40 0.64 3.46 0.58 3.25 0.76 3.47 0.60 3.34 0.67
Supervisor support scale (1 = low; 3.36 0.63 3.36 0.62 3.36 0.64 3.35 0.63 3.37 0.63
4 = high)
Co-worker support (1 = low; 3.56 0.65 3.55 0.64 3.58 0.68 3.54 0.67 3.57 0.64
4 = high)
Source: 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce, wage and salary subsample with a direct supervisor.
599
600 Work, employment and society 28(4)

percent of employees who are daily work-related ICT users also report daily personal
ICT use.
The workers in this sample are on average 42 years old, and the sample is 58 per cent
female, 79 per cent non-Hispanic White, with 40 per cent of workers holding a four-year
college or advanced degree. Most employees are married (58%) or partnered (6%) and
those partners work 22 hours per week, on average. Employees tend to be in managerial,
professional or executive positions; 48 per cent of respondents report working in one of
those job types. Respondents work 45 hours per week, on average and 15 per cent of
employees have more than one job. Respondents tended to report lower levels of job
insecurity and higher levels of job autonomy and complexity. In addition, levels of super-
visor and co-worker support tended to be high.
Daily ICT users (whether work or personal use) have higher median household
incomes, tend to be concentrated in executive, professional or managerial jobs, and tend
to work longer hours than employees who use ICT less frequently. They also tend to
report higher levels of job complexity and autonomy. Employees reporting daily work-
related ICT use also report lower levels of job insecurity than employees reporting less
than daily work-related ICT use. Correlations for all study variables are included in an
Appendix.
Figure 1 reports unstandardized regression coefficients for the key pathways implied
by a theorized work intensification process (missing cases deleted; n = 2,242). The dou-
ble arrows linking work-related and personal ICT use in Figure 1 indicate that both forms
of use are expected to be correlated, in keeping with the pattern in the descriptive statis-
tics, which show that employees who use ICT at work are also more likely to use it out-
side of work. The pathways documented in this figure suggest that daily work-related
ICT use (but not personal ICT use) is positively linked to work strain via three job condi-
tions: job pacing, level of interruptions and level of multitasking. The results indicate
that including information about these job conditions completely accounts for the posi-
tive relationship between work-related ICT use and higher levels of work strain (full
mediation is designated by a dashed line in Figure 1). In other words, the reason that
daily work-related ICT use is associated with higher levels of work strain is because this
use promotes greater speed, interruptions and multitasking on the job (p < 0.001). The
mediation tests also show that work-related ICT use is significantly, and indirectly, con-
nected to general distress via these job conditions and their influence on levels of work
strain (p < 0.05). Thus, one way daily work-related ICT use heightens general stress in
employees is via a process of work intensification that produces greater work strain.
Figure 1 also indicates that personal ICT use is not connected to work strain via these
three job conditions. However, it is directly linked to lower levels of work strain. Not
surprisingly, work strain is positively linked to distress levels in these employees. More
surprising is the negative sign of the coefficient for the direct effect of work-related ICT
use on employee distress. The significance of this direct pathway indicates that, apart
from its influence in promoting greater speed, interruptions and multitasking on the job,
work-related ICT use is also directly linked to lower overall distress levels. These con-
clusions hold when the model is run using the full sample (n = 2556, not shown).
Fit statistics for this model suggest that the SEM model may not fit the data as well as
one might like. The chi-square goodness of fit test is significant, which suggests a poor

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com by guest on August 8, 2014

Chesley 601

fit to the data (Barrett, 2007), although this test is known to be sensitive to sample size in
that one is more likely to obtain a significant result in large samples like this one, regard-
less of the actual fit. However, the Condition Fit Index (CFI) is lower than the 0.90 cut-
off for a ‘good’ fit (Kenny, 2012). We would also like to see an RMSEA statistic of less
than 0.08 (RMSEA = 0.12) and a Hoteler statistic greater than 75 (Kenny, 2012).
Exploring alternative model specifications (e.g. transforming non-normal variables add-
ing/eliminating pathways) did not improve model fit. Further investigation into the data
revealed a problem with non-constant variance of error terms (heteroscedacity) which
may be behind the poor model fit in the SEM context (Barrett, 2007).
To examine how sensitive the results reported in Figure 1 are to problems with non-
constant variance (which can influence significance tests), a series of OLS regression
equations were estimated post-hoc, using a method that allows for a robust calculation of
standard error terms (e.g. regress with robust option in STATA 11.0). This is a generally
accepted practice for dealing with heteroscedacity in models that assume that variance of
error terms is constant (Allison, 1999). These results are reported in Table 2.
The results demonstrate, first, that the significance of the critical coefficients docu-
mented in the path model are unchanged whether one refers to the SEM results (see
Figure 1) or the separate OLS equations incorporating robust standard errors (see shaded
cells of Table 2). Second, estimating the SEM model with and without missing cases, or
making adjustments to account for the heteroscedacity of error terms, does not change
the story the data are telling. In sum, including (or not) missing cases, changing the esti-
mation technique from simultaneous to separate estimation of equations, using more
conservative estimates of standard errors – none of these changes substantively alters the
overall results. Further, the fit statistics (R2) for the OLS equations indicate that we can
account for about 37 per cent of the variance in work strain with this model and 22 per
cent of the variance in distress.
Because the path model shows both significant indirect and direct effects of daily ICT
use (both work and personal) on work strain and distress, it is useful to examine the total
effect of both work-related and personal ICT use on these variables. Total effects com-
bine the influence of direct and indirect effects and can provide a better understanding of
the overall influence of ICT use on these outcomes. Figure 2 illustrates the total effects
of daily ICT use in the two domains (work vs. personal) on work strain and distress. Here
standardized regression coefficients are reported so that they can easily be compared.
Only two total effects are statistically significant. Daily work-related ICT use is posi-
tively linked to work strain overall. However, we also see that daily personal ICT use is
negatively linked to work strain. Further, the size of the standardized coefficients docu-
ments that the offsetting effect of daily personal use (beta = -0.07) more than compen-
sates for the tendency for daily work-related use (beta = 0.05) to increase work strain.
This suggests that daily work-related ICT use is only problematic for those employees
that concentrate their ICT use on work-related tasks and do not exploit the potential for
personal ICT use to offset some of the negative effects of ICT-based work intensification.
Total effects of daily work-related or personal ICT use on general distress levels are not
significant. This is not surprising since the positive and indirect influence of work-related
ICT use on distress is largely offset by a negative direct effect of work-related ICT use
on distress, leading to such a small overall effect that it can no longer be differentiated

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com by guest on August 8, 2014

 602

Table 2.  Regression coefficients and robust standard errors from separate OLS regression equations (n = 2242).

Variables in the equations Job pace Job interruptions Job multitasking Work strain Distress (a) Distress (b)

B Robust B Robust B Robust B Robust B Robust B Robust

SE SE SE SE SE SE
Age 0.01 −0.01 0.02 −0.01 0.03 −0.01* 0.03 −0.01* 0.02 −0.01** 0.02 0.01**
Age squared 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00** 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00*** 0.00 0.00***
Female −0.04 −0.05 0.16 −0.05** 0.29 −0.06*** 0.21 −0.05*** 0.23 −0.04*** 0.23 0.04***
White (vs. non-white) 0.18 −0.05*** 0.27 −0.06*** 0.07 −0.07 −0.01 −0.06 0.14 −0.04*** 0.13 0.04**
College degree or better −0.11 −0.05* −0.03 −0.06 −0.02 −0.06 −0.01 −0.05 −0.03 −0.04 −0.03 0.04
Married a −0.15 −0.06* 0.05 −0.08 0.09 −0.08 −0.03 −0.07 −0.02 −0.05 −0.02 0.05
Cohabitating a −0.05 −0.10 0.12 −0.12 0.05 −0.13 0.13 −0.11 −0.08 −0.09 −0.08 0.09
spouse/partner work hours 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Number of children ≤ 13 years old 0.02 −0.02 −0.01 −0.03 −0.04 −0.03 0.05 −0.03* 0.04 −0.02* 0.05 0.02
Log of HH income 0.03 −0.02 0.09 −0.02*** 0.04 −0.02 −0.01 −0.02 −0.05 −0.02** −0.06 0.02*
Salesb 0.12 −0.08 −0.06 −0.10 0.02 −0.10 −0.12 −0.08 0.05 −0.07 0.04 0.07**
Administrativeb 0.07 −0.06 −0.19 −0.08* −0.20 −0.08* −0.17 −0.07* −0.02 −0.05 −0.02 0.05
Serviceb 0.10 −0.08 −0.20 −0.10* −0.02 −0.11 −0.17 −0.09* 0.11 −0.07 0.11 0.07
Productionb 0.03 −0.07 −0.44 −0.09*** −0.28 −0.09** −0.08 −0.07 −0.01 −0.06 0.01 0.06

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com by guest on August 8, 2014

Resp. work hours 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00*** 0.02 0.00*** 0.01 0.00*** 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Multiple jobs? −0.07 −0.06 −0.07 −0.07 −0.11 −0.08 −0.20 −0.06** 0.07 −0.05 0.07 0.05
Level of job insecurity 0.06 −0.02* 0.04 −0.03 0.10 −0.03** 0.08 −0.03** 0.14 −0.02*** 0.14 0.02***
Level of job autonomy −0.10 −0.03** 0.04 −0.04 −0.05 −0.04 −0.07 −0.03* −0.05 −0.03 −0.05 0.03
Level of job complexity 0.12 −0.04** 0.29 −0.05*** 0.37 −0.05*** 0.09 −0.04* −0.03 −0.03 −0.04 0.03
Level of supervisor support −0.19 −0.04*** −0.38 −0.05*** −0.36 −0.05*** −0.18 −0.04*** −0.16 −0.04*** −0.15 0.04***
Work, employment and society 28(4)
 Chesley

Table 2. (Continued)

Variables in the equations Job pace Job interruptions Job multitasking Work strain Distress (a) Distress (b)

B Robust B Robust B Robust B Robust B Robust B Robust

SE SE SE SE SE SE
Level of co-worker support −0.04 −0.04 −0.11 −0.04** −0.04 −0.05 −0.07 −0.04 −0.13 −0.03*** −0.13 0.03***
Daily computer use for work 0.14 −0.06* 0.48 −0.07*** 0.31 −0.07*** −0.05 −0.06 −0.08 −0.05 −0.10 0.05*
Daily computer use for non-work −0.02 −0.04 −0.02 −0.05 0.02 −0.05 −0.18 −0.04*** 0.00 −0.04 0.00 0.04
Level of job speed 0.13 −0.02*** 0.02 0.02
Level of job interruptions 0.12 −0.02*** 0.03 0.02
Level of multitasking 0.35 −0.02*** 0.02 0.02
Level of work strain 0.18 −0.02*** 0.15 0.02***
Constant 2.97 −0.31*** 1.83 −0.34*** 1.34 −0.40*** 0.93 −0.32** 2.72 −0.26 2.62 0.26
R2 0.07 0.19 0.15 0.37 0.22 0.22  

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com by guest on August 8, 2014

Source: 2002 National Study for the Changing Workforce; wage and salary subsample with direct supervisor.
Notes: Cases with missing data dropped from analysis. a Comparison category is single; b Comparison category is executive/professional/managerial. * p < 0.05; ** p <
0.01; *** p < 0.001.
603
604 Work, employment and society 28(4)

0.06
B = 0.05*
0.04
M
o 0.02
r Not significant
e 0.00
(

B
e t Daily work ICT
-0.02
t o
a Daily personal ICT
-0.04
)

L
e
s -0.06
s
-0.08
B = -0.07**
-0.10
Work strain Distress

Figure 2.  Standardized regression coefficients documenting total effects of work-related and
personal daily ICT use on worker strain and distress.
Source: 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce, wage and salary subsample with a direct supervisor
(n = 2242).
Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

from zero. Similarly, while daily personal use influences work strain directly (and sig-
nificantly), there is no significant influence on distress, either directly, or through an
influence on other variables in this process.

Discussion
Amid persistent concerns about stressful workplaces and ‘technologically tethered’
workers (Murray and Rostis, 2007), the goal of this study was to assess the potential for
both work and personal ICT use to influence job conditions in ways that may foster pro-
cesses of work intensification and detract from employee well-being. While patterns
were found that are consistent with the idea of a faster-paced, more fragmented work-
place that is more stressful for employees, overall the results are more nuanced than a
pure work intensification hypothesis suggests. The model is clear in depicting relation-
ships between daily work-related ICT use and worker experiences of a faster-paced job
with greater levels of interruptions and multitasking. These job conditions, in turn, are
linked to higher work strain and distress reports in this nationally representative sample
of employees, even after controlling for varying levels of job autonomy (Wajcman and
Rose, 2011). Both scholars and public commentators have argued that technology use is
fragmenting daily experiences in ways that are potentially stressful. These results indi-
cate that such processes are in place among US workers.
Evidence of a pathway linking work-related ICT use to specific job conditions and
worker strain suggests comparisons to previous research on technological innovation in
the home and concomitant shifts in social norms. This body of research demonstrates
that while technological improvements have supported changes in how household labour

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com by guest on August 8, 2014

Chesley 605

gets done, they have not greatly reduced household workloads (e.g. Bose et al., 1984;
Cowan, 1983; Vanek, 1974). Rather, norms of cleanliness increased and time was shifted
into other related tasks, like shopping for and servicing these new devices. The take-
away point is that technology use can shift expectations and social norms in ways that
increase, rather than decrease, demands, even as innovation makes some tasks easier.
It is possible that the instantaneous nature of technologically facilitated communication
and information tasks may be changing social expectations about acceptable response
times at work and elsewhere in ways that outstrip the new efficiencies of these innovations.
Indeed, this is a key point made by Perlow (2012) in her study of consultants at a single
firm, a point that is also consistent with findings in Barley and colleagues (2011) that docu-
ment the stress associated with working in environments in which ICT facilitates a ‘norm
of responsiveness’. This may be one reason why those employees who use ICT daily are
also those that are reporting that their work requires working ‘fast’ and who find their work
more overwhelming than employees who do not use these technologies frequently.
The fact that greater levels of interruptions and multitasking are associated with work
strain is not particularly surprising. It is already known that interruptions can be detrimen-
tal to work processes (Jett and George, 2003; Mark et al., 2008), and other research has
suggested a link between both interruptions and multitasking and reduced employee well-
being (Mark et al., 2008). This study adds to our knowledge by providing generalizable
evidence documenting that daily work-related ICT use is connected to these experiences
among US employees in ways that are consistent with a work intensification process.
However, the findings also illustrate that ICT use can undercut influences on levels of
work strain and distress in ways that are not adequately captured by work intensification.
In particular, the results illustrate the importance of assessing the influence of ICT use
within different social domains (like work and personal life). While personal forms of ICT
use are not connected to work strain via the specific job conditions studied here, there is a
direct and negative relationship between personal forms of ICT use and work strain. It
may be that workers are able to utilize technology in ways that mitigate the negative
effects of work uses. Perhaps they use ICT to reach out to others for support, seek out
information that allows them to better handle their work, or use ICT to coordinate with
family in response to workplace demands. In addition, while work-related use appears to
contribute to work strain by supporting work intensification, these results show that, apart
from this positive influence on work strain, work-related ICT use is also directly linked to
lower general distress in these employees. Perhaps there are productivity gains experi-
enced by employees, or the promotion of other positive job influences, that reduce overall
distress apart from the promotion of work fragmentation which employees generally find
stressful. Overall, these results suggest both that personal ICT use, and forms of work-
related ICT use not connected to work intensification processes, have the potential to
offset the negative consequences associated with a more fragmented work experience.
It is also critical to emphasize the small effect sizes that are suggested by the analysis.
While it does appear that work-related ICT use is influencing job pace, levels of interrup-
tions and multitasking in ways that employers and employees may want to pay attention
to, the size of total effects that account for both the problematic and helpful aspects of
technology use suggest overall positive and negative effects that are very small. To the
extent that technology use is contributing to a more stressful work environment and sub-
sequent employee distress, its influence appears minimal. Similarly, to the extent that

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com by guest on August 8, 2014

606 Work, employment and society 28(4)

ICT use is helpful in allowing us to better manage our lives in ways that limit work strain
and reduce distress, this effect is also small.
These findings must be interpreted with several limitations in mind. First among these
is the use of cross-sectional data to test the model outlined in Figure 1. With observational
data collected at one point in time, the direction of the key relationships cannot be deter-
mined. However, there are good reasons to believe that the direction of the effects theo-
rized here capture what is really going on in modern workplaces. Other research suggests
that technologically supported workplace practices are at least a part of the explanation for
an increase in work intensification observed over the last two decades (Chesley, 2010;
Green, 2004a, 2004b). Given that these data were collected in 2002, it is difficult to imag-
ine that particular technologically based practices (i.e. use of email or instant messaging
for business communication; use of the internet for information seeking, etc.) were not
firmly established in many jobs. Indeed, trend data indicate that daily use across a range
of activities, particularly general internet and email use, was fairly common in population
samples in 2002 and continues to increase over time (PEW Internet and American Life
Project, 2012). These trends suggest that the speed with which information and commu-
nication flows into workplaces very likely increased in real terms. The work by Green
(2004a; 2004b) indicates that this sort of process is at least in part why work intensified in
the UK. While the results from this study provide important information about the pro-
cesses linking work-related technology use and employee outcomes, future research uti-
lizing longitudinal or experimental designs could further test the causal ordering.
A second limitation is rooted in measurement concerns. First, measures of ICT use are
blunt and do not capture the range of use frequency that likely exists among daily users.
Employees that log in to a computer once a day and those that engage with technology
frequently throughout the day are both in this group. The measures also do not distin-
guish the range of variation in forms of ICT use, ranging from working online, sending
emails, or using a spreadsheet or other specialized computer application. It would be
ideal to have data that include a range of measures that attempt to capture some of these
differences. However, it should be emphasized that even these blunt measures are able to
detect statistically significant relationships in the data in ways that inform our under-
standing of the costs and benefits of ICT use. Additional measurement concerns involve
the wording of interruptions and multitasking measures. Both of these items are worded
in ways that clearly tap elements of work strain. Future data collections that incorporate
more neutral measures of interruptions and multitasking would provide a better test of
the relationship of these processes to worker strain and distress.
In addition, given the very broad occupational categories that are used here, some
may worry that ICT use is simply a proxy for key differences in job autonomy or com-
plexity across occupations. However, the analysis presented does include controls for job
characteristics, like levels of autonomy, job complexity and work hours that are known
to be connected to both ICT use and employee distress levels. Indeed, ANOVA analyses
with multiple comparisons (not shown) indicate differences in mean levels of both job
autonomy and complexity across many of the occupational categories. While there is
always the possibility that unmeasured characteristics associated with different jobs are
driving these results, the inclusion of a number of important job characteristics as con-
trols in the analysis can lend some confidence to the notion that ICT use may, indeed,
have independent effects on worker outcomes.

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com by guest on August 8, 2014

Chesley 607

A third limitation is the age of these data, the collection of which predates the wide-
spread adoption of mobile devices. Many of the patterns that I highlight using the 2002
NSCW data are evident in more recent data collections. For example, the PEW 2008
Networked workers data, which draws on a more recent probability sample of US work-
ers, indicates that 62 per cent of the American workforce uses the internet or email at
their workplace and 60 per cent use it every day. In addition, just under half of workers
in this sample report that ICTs: (1) increase demands that they work more hours; (2)
make it more difficult to disconnect from work outside of work; and (3) increase their
levels of stress on the job (Madden and Jones, 2008). Indeed, multivariate analyses of
these data document that a range of ICT-based work practices predict increases in
employee distress using more nuanced measures of work-related ICT use that incorpo-
rate mobile devices (Chesley and Johnson, 2012). Thus, the link between work-related
ICT use and worker distress is evident using more recent data and more nuanced meas-
ures of work-related ICT use.
Even with these limitations, this study adds to our knowledge about the social forces
shaping contemporary work. The findings point to technological innovation as a poten-
tially important factor influencing work intensification processes and connect this to
employees’ levels of work strain and distress. However, the analysis also suggests that
the image of the ‘technologically-tethered’ worker or the fragmented, stressful work-
place is too limited. ICT use clearly has the potential to influence work processes that are
both problematic and helpful for employee well-being. One of the contributions of this
study is providing a more nuanced understanding of how different domains of use –
work-related vs. personal – influence employee outcomes. The challenge for future
research is to identify specific ICT-based work practices that can enhance the benefits of
ICT use while reducing the potential for worker strain and distress and to better under-
stand how these practices work within particular organizational settings.

Funding
This research was partially supported by a Faculty Research Grant from the Graduate School at the
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

References
Allison PD (1999) Multiple Regression: A Primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Baily B and Konstan J (2006) On the need for attention-aware systems: measuring efffects of
interruption on task peformance, error rate, and affective state. Computers in Human Behavior
22(4): 685–708.
Barley SR, Meyerson DE and Grodal S (2011) Email as a source and symbol of stress. Organiza-
tion Science 22(4): 887–906.
Baron RM and Kenny DA (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psycho-
logical research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 51(6): 1173–82.
Barrett P (2007) Structural equation modelling: adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual
Differences 42(5): 815–24.
BBC News (2011) Volkswagen turns off Blackberry email after work hours. BBC News, 23
December, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16314901
Bellavia GM and Frone MR (2005) Work–family conflict. In: Barling J, Kelloway EK and Frone
MR (eds) Handbook of Work Stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp.113–48.

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com by guest on August 8, 2014

608 Work, employment and society 28(4)

Bond JT, Thompson C, Galinsky E and Prottas D (2002) Highlights of the National Study of the
Changing Workforce. New York: Families & Work Institute.
Bose CE, Bereano PL and Malloy M (1984) Household technology and the social construction of
housework. Technology and Culture 25(1): 53–82.
Chesley N (2005) Blurring boundaries? Linking technology use, spillover, individual distress, and
family satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family 67(December): 1237–48.
Chesley N (2010) Technology use and employee assessments of productivity, workload, and pace
of life. Information, Communication & Society 13(4): 485–514.
Chesley N and Johnson B (2012) Does work-related use influence employee perceptions of pro-
ductivity and distress? Paper presented at the Work-Family Research Network Inaugural Con-
ference, June 14–16, New York.
Coklar AN and Sahin YL (2011) Technostress levels of social network users based on ICTs in
Turkey. European Journal of Social Sciences 23(2): 171–82.
Cowan RS (1983) More Work for Mother: The Ironies of Household Technology from the Open
Hearth to the Microwave. New York: Basic Books.
Davey M (2012) Top of worry list: work, work work. The Sydney Morning Herald, 5 May,
http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/management/top-of-worry-list-work-work-work-
20120504-1y47u.html
DiMaggio P, Hargittai E, Celeste C and Shafer S (2004) Digital inequality: from unequal access to dif-
ferentiated use. In: Neckerman K (ed.) Social Inequality. New York: Russell Sage, pp. 355–400.
Duxbury L, Towers I, Higgins C and Thomas A (2006) From 9 to 5 to 24/7: how technology rede-
fined the work day. In: Law W (ed.) Information Resources Management: Global Challenges.
Hershey: Ideas Group Publishing, pp. 305–32.
Glavin P, Schieman S and Reid S (2011) Boundary-spanning work demands and their consequences
for guilt and psychological distress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 52(1): 43–57.
González VM and Mark G (2004) ‘Constant, constant multi-tasking craziness’: managing multiple
working spheres. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’04), Vienna, Austria, pp. 113–20.
Green F (2004a) Why has work effort become more intense? Industrial Relations 43(4): 709–41.
Green F (2004b) Work intensification, discretion and the decline in well-being at work. Eastern
Economic Journal 30(4): 615–24.
Haddon L and Silverstone R (2000) Information and communication technologies and everyday
life: individual and social dimensions. In: Ducatel K, Webster J and Herrmann W (eds) The
Information Society in Europe: Work and Life in an Age of Globalization. Lanham: Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, Inc, pp. 233–57.
Houdmont J, Kerr R and Addley K (2012) Psychosocial factors and economic recession: the Stor-
mont Study. Occupational Medicine 62(2): 98–104.
Hughes KD (1996) Transformed by technology? The changing nature of women’s ‘traditional’
and ‘non-traditional’ white collar work. Work, Employment, and Society 10(2): 227–50.
Jett QR and George JM (2003) Work interrupted: a closer look at the role of interruptions in orga-
nizational life. Academy of Management Review 29(3): 494–507.
Kenny D (2012) Structural Equation Modeling website: http://davidakenny.net/cm/causalm.htm
Kenyon S (2008) Internet use and time use: the importance of multitasking. Time & Society
17(2–3): 283–318.
Madden M and Jones S (2008) Networked Workers. Internet and American Life Project: Pew
Research Center. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/ (accessed May 2009).
Mallinckrodt B, Abraham WT, Wei M and Russell DW (2006) Advances in testing the statistical
significance of mediation effects. Journal of Counseling Psychology 53(3): 372–78.
Mano RS and Mesch GS (2010) E-mail characteristics, work performance and distress. Computers
in Human Behavior 26(1): 61–9.

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com by guest on August 8, 2014

Chesley 609

Mark G, Gudith D and Klocke U (2008) The cost of interrupted work: more speed and stress. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the Twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on Human Fac-
tors in Computing Systems (CHI ’08), Florence, Italy, pp. 107–10.
Maume DJ and Purcell DA (2007) The ‘over-paced’ American: recent trends in the intensification
of work. Research in the Sociology of Work 17: 251–83.
Murray WC and Rostis A (2007) ‘Who’s running the machine?’ A theoretical exploration of work-
stress and burnout of technologically thethered workers. Journal of Individual Employment
Rights 12(3): 249–63.
Perlow L (2012) Sleeping with your Smartphone: How to Break the 24/7 Habit and Change the
Way You Work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
PEW Internet and American Life Project (Producer) (2012) Daily Internet Activities, 2000–2009.
Richtel M (2011) As doctors use more devices, potential for distraction grows. The New York
Times, 14 December, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/health/as-doctors-use-more-
devices-potential-for-distraction-grows.html?pagewanted=all
Schafer JL and Graham JW (2002) Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychological
Methods 7(2): 147–77.
Schieman S, Whitestone YK and Van Gundy K (2006) The nature of work and the stress of higher
status. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 47(3): 242–57.
Southerton D (2007) Time pressure, technology and gender: the conditioning of temporal experi-
ences in the UK. Equal Opportunities International 26(2): 113–28.
Su NM and Mark G (2008) Communication chains and multitasking. Paper presented at the Pro-
ceedings of the Twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (CHI ’08), Florence, Italy, pp. 83–92.
Thoits PA (2010) Stress and health: major findings and policy implications. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior 51(S): S41–S53.
Thomee S, Dellve L, Harenstam A and Hagberg M (2010) Perceived connections between infor-
mation and communication technology use and mental symptoms among young adults – a
qualitative study. BMC Public Health 10: 66, doi: 10.1186/1471–2458–10–66.
Thompson D (2011) The case for banning email at work. The Atlantic, 1 December, http://www.
theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/the-case-for-banning-email-at-work/249252/#
U.S. Census Bureau (1999) Computer use in the United States. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Economics and Statistics Administration.
Vanek J (1974) Time spent in housework. Scientific American 231(2): 116–20.
Voydanoff P (2005) Consequences of boundary-spanning demands and resources for work-to-
family conflict and perceived stress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 10(4):
491–503.
Wajcman J (2006) New connections: social studies of science and technology and studies of work.
Work, Employment and Society 20(4): 773–86.
Wajcman J and Rose E (2011) Constant connectivity: rethinking interruptions at work. Organiza-
tion Studies 32(7): 941–61.

Noelle Chesley is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

in the United States. Her research is focused on the social implications of technological innovation
for work and family life. She has published in journals such as Journal of Marriage and Family,
Gender & Society, Information, Communication & Society and has a forthcoming chapter on ICT
use and the work–family interface in Handbook of Work–Life Integration Among Professionals.

Date submitted August 2011

Date accepted May 2013

Downloaded from wes.sagepub.com by guest on August 8, 2014

Appendix
Table A1.  Correlations for study variables.
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 Distress 1.00  
2 Work strain 0.30 1.00  
3 Age −0.15 −0.05 1.00  
4 Age squared −0.15 −0.07 0.98 1.00  
5 Female 0.14 0.09 −0.01 −0.01 1.00  
6 White −0.01 −0.01 0.13 0.12 −0.02 1.00  
7 College degree −0.07 0.06 0.10 0.08 −0.02 0.10 1.00  
8 Married −0.10 −0.01 0.20 0.15 −0.10 0.15 0.09 1.00  
9 Cohabiting 0.04 0.02 −0.16 −0.15 0.03 −0.04 −0.07 −0.30 1.00  
10 Spouse work −0.03 0.03 0.02 −0.02 0.15 0.11 0.06 0.59 0.16 1.00  
hours
11 # of children 0.05 0.02 −0.27 −0.29 −0.01 −0.07 −0.04 0.20 −0.01 0.10 1.00  
< 13
12 Log of HH −0.12 0.06 0.26 0.21 −0.08 0.14 0.25 0.37 0.01 0.34 0.05 1.00  
income
13 Sales −0.01 −0.04 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 −0.03 −0.04 −0.01 −0.03 0.00 −0.02 1.00  
14 Administrative −0.01 −0.03 0.00 0.00 0.18 −0.03 −0.13 −0.03 0.03 0.05 −0.03 −0.07 −0.13 1.00  
15 Service 0.07 −0.05 −0.09 −0.07 0.11 −0.06 −0.19 −0.07 0.04 −0.02 0.04 −0.16 −0.12 −0.15 1.00  
16 Production −0.01 −0.06 −0.04 −0.04 −0.32 −0.04 −0.34 −0.02 0.05 −0.09 0.00 −0.08 −0.17 −0.20 −0.18 1.00  
17 Resp. work 0.00 0.21 0.00 −0.04 −0.21 −0.02 0.09 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.19 −0.04 −0.09 −0.11 0.08 1.00  
hours
18 Multiple jobs? 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 −0.04 −0.01 0.06 −0.02 0.05 0.02 −0.01 0.04 −0.03 −0.03 0.01 −0.04 0.30 1.00  
19 Job insecurity 0.24 0.12 −0.09 −0.09 −0.03 −0.09 −0.08 −0.10 0.03 −0.07 −0.02 −0.12 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.05 −0.02 0.00 1.00  
20 Job autonomy −0.17 −0.09 0.14 0.13 −0.10 0.09 0.14 0.09 −0.05 0.02 0.01 0.17 0.02 −0.12 −0.04 −0.08 0.07 0.05 −0.17 1.00  
21 Job complexity −0.09 0.08 0.10 0.08 −0.03 0.03 0.19 0.10 −0.05 0.04 0.03 0.16 −0.01 −0.15 −0.09 −0.11 0.17 0.06 −0.12 0.42 1.00  
22 Co-worker −0.20 −0.12 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.03 −0.01 0.07 −0.06 0.02 −0.01 0.02 −0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 −0.04 −0.02 −0.17 0.23 0.25 1.00  
support
23 Sup. support −0.25 −0.22 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.03 −0.04 0.01 0.00 −0.01 0.04 0.02 0.00 −0.07 −0.08 −0.01 −0.24 0.32 0.22 0.44 1.00  
24 Job pace 0.16 0.27 −0.17 −0.18 −0.02 0.03 −0.05 −0.04 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.09 −0.11 0.00 −0.08 −0.15 1.00  
25 Job interruptions 0.16 0.42 −0.01 −0.04 0.05 0.10 0.14 0.08 0.02 0.10 0.03 0.19 0.01 0.00 −0.12 −0.18 0.22 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.16 −0.08 −0.18 0.22 1.00  
26 Job multitasking 0.20 0.53 −0.06 −0.08 0.04 0.02 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.12 0.00 −0.03 −0.04 −0.12 0.25 0.04 0.07 0.01 0.17 −0.08 –0.16 0.27 0.56 1.00  
27 ICT work −0.06 0.11 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.13 0.29 0.09 −0.04 0.08 −0.01 0.21 0.05 0.19 −0.26 −0.36 0.13 0.02 −0.07 0.07 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.28 0.19 1.00  
28 ICT personal −0.04 −0.02 −0.08 −0.09 −0.04 0.11 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.04 −0.01 0.09 0.02 0.00 −0.10 −0.18 0.02 0.06 −0.03 0.09 0.10 −0.02 −0.01 0.01 0.11 0.06 0.32 1.00