Journal of Occupational Health Psychology © 2014 American Psychological Association

2015, Vol. 20, No. 2, 172–189 1076-8998/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038278

Please Respond ASAP: Workplace Telepressure and Employee Recovery

Larissa K. Barber and Alecia M. Santuzzi
Northern Illinois University

Organizations rely heavily on asynchronous message-based technologies (e.g., e-mail) for the purposes
of work-related communications. These technologies are primary means of knowledge transfer and
building social networks. As a by-product, workers might feel varying levels of preoccupations with and
urges for responding quickly to messages from clients, coworkers, or supervisors—an experience we
label as workplace telepressure. This experience can lead to fast response times and thus faster decisions
and other outcomes initially. However, research from the stress and recovery literature suggests that the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

defining features of workplace telepressure interfere with needed work recovery time and stress-related
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

outcomes. The present set of studies defined and validated a new scale to measure telepressure. Study 1
tested an initial pool of items and found some support for a single-factor structure after problematic items
were removed. As expected, public self-consciousness, techno-overload, and response expectations were
moderately associated with telepressure in Study 1. Study 2 demonstrated that workplace telepressure
was distinct from other personal (job involvement, affective commitment) and work environment
(general and ICT work demands) factors and also predicted burnout (physical and cognitive), absentee-
ism, sleep quality, and e-mail responding beyond those factors. Implications for future research and
workplace practices are discussed.

Keywords: workplace telepressure, work recovery, information and communication technology, individ-
ual differences, social norms

Advances in technology have changed how we transfer infor-
mation and maintain relationships with others in our work envi-
ronment. Technology-mediated workplace interactions have sub-
stantial benefits to productivity, including increasing perceptions
of more control over the timing and location of work and reducing
perceived conflict between the work and home domains (Kossek,
Lautsch, & Eaton, 2006; Mazmanian, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2013).
Organizations are adopting more technology-based work arrange-
ments such as telecommuting and virtual teams (Cascio, 2000;
Townsend, DeMarie, & Hendrickson, 1998), resulting in an in-
creasing number of employees completing some or all of their
work using information and communications technologies (ICTs).
Even onsite employees are relying on ICTs to facilitate interac-
tions with coworkers through e-mail communications rather than
real-time, face-to-face interactions (Finn, 2006; Markus, 1994).
However, the anticipated benefits to productivity from using
ICTs might be attenuated by mental and physical health costs to
workers over the long term. The flexibility of ICT-based commu-
nications might blur the boundaries between work and recovery
time. Even when not “working,” individuals might feel the need to
respond to work-related messages. In this paper we introduce the
This article was published Online First November 3, 2014.
Larissa K. Barber and Alecia M. Santuzzi, Department of Psychology,
Northern Illinois University.
We thank Dr. Nicholas Bowman and Dr. Sabine Sonnentag for their
assistance and their feedback on the initial workplace telepressure concep-
tual definition and items.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Larissa
K. Barber, Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University,
DeKalb, IL, 60115. E-mail: lbarber@niu.edu
construct of workplace telepressure to conceptually represent the
combination of preoccupation and urge to immediately respond to
work-related ICT messages.
Employees often feel the need to be continuously connected to
the workplace through ICTs to meet the needs of supervisors,
colleagues, and clients—a phenomenon called the autonomy par-
adox (Mazmanian et al., 2013). The continuous connection to
one’s work is increasing employee stress by not allowing employ-
ees to take a substantial break from work (Day, Scott, & Kelloway,
2010; Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2006). For example, 44% of
Americans report checking their e-mail daily during vacation, and
54% do so even when home sick (American Psychological Asso-
ciation, 2013). Thus, there appears to be a strong need to feel
connected among employees who rely on ICT communications for
work purposes. As noted above, we define workplace telepressure
as the combination of a strong urge to be responsive to people at
work through message-based ICTs with a preoccupation with
quick response times. We believe the experience of telepressure
represents the psychological state that encourages continued con-
nection to work activities.
The purpose of this research is to distinguish workplace tele-
pressure from other “connection-related” reactions to job demands,
explore potential personal and work environment predictors of
telepressure, and examine this construct’s relationships with stress,
recovery, and e-mail responding outcomes. Workplace telepres-
sure is a unique construct that can add to our understanding of why
employees might prioritize ICT communications during work time
and tend to stay connected with coworkers via ICTs even during
their nonwork time (e.g., Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2006; Park
& Jex, 2011). In this article, we highlight the importance of
studying workplace telepressure in organizations from an occupa-
tional health perspective. In Study 1, we present an initial valida-

172
 WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE
tion of a workplace telepressure measure and examine construct
validity with respect to other variables associated with general and
ICT-specific work connection (workaholism, engagement, bound-
ary, and crossing), personality factors (extraversion, self-
consciousness, self-monitoring), and work environment factors
(technological work demands and norms). In Study 2, we link
workplace telepressure to stress, recovery, and e-mail responding
outcomes beyond personal and work environment factors.
Workplace Telepressure
We conceptualize workplace telepressure as a single construct
defined by thinking about ICT messages accompanied and an
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
overwhelming urge to respond. Asynchronous communication,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
such as e-mail, is intended to add to response flexibility and
convenience by allowing workers long spans of uninterrupted time
on task to accomplish work goals or uninterrupted personal time
for recovery. The core problem with workplace telepressure is that
it has the potential to negate the intended advantage of asynchro-
nous communication technologies (e.g., e-mail) that provide work-
ers with flexibility and control over their response times. Work-
place telepressure arises when employees start to view this mode
of ICT use in the workplace as similar to synchronous forms,
which typically require an immediate response. For example, if an
employee is asked in a synchronous, face-to-face conversation to
serve on a project team, the employee is expected to give some
response immediately. However, if the employee received an asyn-
chronous e-mail or voicemail with the request, the employee has
some time to think about a response before actually replying to the
message. If experiencing high levels of telepressure, the employee
will feel pressure to respond immediately to an asynchronous
communication, similar to what is expected in a synchronous,
face-to-face request. This can lead employees to prioritize ICT
communications throughout the work day and fail to take neces-
sary recovery periods between tasks. Beyond designated work
time, this shift in focus can transform asynchronous ICT use away
from a perception of “flexible work access” to “inescapable work.”
In the following paragraphs, we outline its conceptual distinction
from generalized work connectivity constructs (workaholism and
engagement) and ICT-specific connectivity behaviors (work–
home ICT boundary creation and work– home ICT boundary
crossing).
General Work Connectivity
The relevance and value of the workplace telepressure construct
is contingent on it being distinct from other responses to work
demands that result in greater connection to the work environment,
both within and beyond the workplace. These responses are often
studied in terms of workaholism or work engagement— both of
which entail heightened connection to one’s work but differ on
motivational orientation (Van den Broeck et al., 2011). Workaho-
lism is often conceptualized as consisting of two components: the
motivational component, representing a compulsion to think about
and perform work tasks, and the behavioral component of working
excessively (Schaufeli et al., 2009). Job demands are positively
associated workaholism (Kanai & Wakabayashi, 2001), especially
with the behavioral component of working excessively (Schaufeli,
Taris, & Van Rhenen, 2008). Similar to workplace telepressure,
173
the motivational component of workaholism involves a combina-
tion of preoccupation and urge to stay connected to the work
environment. Different from workaholism, workplace telepressure
is broadly focused on maintaining social relationships and impres-
sions at work through computer-mediated communication. As
such, the focus is on responding to work-related messages rather
than actually performing work tasks.
Workplace telepressure is also separate from work engagement
(e.g., Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006), which is conceptual-
ized as high vigor (high energy while working), dedication (en-
thusiasm and perceived significance of one’s work), and absorp-
tion (full engrossment in work tasks) in one’s work. Employee
engagement is also positively associated with job demands, includ-
ing sometimes working long hours (Schaufeli et al., 2009). Unlike
workaholics, the increased psychological connection to one’s work
tends to be positive because engaged workers have more energy
and enthusiasm for their work in the form of high vigor. Like
workaholism, work engagement has more to do with one’s actual
interaction with work tasks (and in this case, enjoying work) rather
than technologically facilitated social interactions in the work-
place. Thus, telepressured employees, if they give in to their
responsive urges, might have the appearance of engagement or
workaholism, despite not necessarily completing actual work tasks
(i.e., they look busy with work-related tasks). Additionally, tele-
pressured employees might overlap more with the work engage-
ment components of dedication and absorption in relation to work
(staying connected and involved), rather than vigor (enthusiasm
for work), given that the latter entails intrinsic enjoyment as
opposed to just responsiveness to work demands.
ICT Connectivity
Workplace telepressure is also different from connectivity be-
haviors specific to ICT use, such as ICT boundary creation and
boundary crossing (Park & Jex, 2011). Boundary creation refers to
self-imposed restrictions around ICT use for work purposes,
whereas boundary crossing refers to using ICTs at home to per-
form work-related tasks (rather than the urge or preoccupation
with responding). Although workplace telepressure should be as-
sociated with these types of work– home boundary-blurring behav-
iors (i.e., less boundary creation and more boundary crossing), it is
a psychological state rather than an ICT behavior. Given that it is
also specific to message-based communication, it should be more
closely associated with behaviors such as e-mail responding fre-
quency rather than using ICTs to conduct work at home more
generally. Employees experiencing higher levels of workplace
telepressure might be more likely to give in to their urges and
engage in frequent e-mail responding behaviors.
Personality/Trait Contributions to
Workplace Telepressure
Workplace telepressure might be related to a number of personal
factors of the employee, especially personality traits—psycholog-
ical characteristics of the individual that are stable over time and
explain individuals’ behavior (i.e., Mount Barrick, Scullen, &
Rounds, 2005). Personality traits that might be positively associ-
ated with sensitivity to workplace telepressure include conscien-
tiousness and extraversion. Conscientious workers tend to be more
 174 BARBER AND SANTUZZI
responsive, reliable, and achievement-oriented. Extraverted work-
ers tend to be more sociable and have a higher tendency to seek
stimulation from others (see McCrae & John, 1992). The descrip-
tions of both personality traits suggest that behavior is responsive
to external cues. For example, a highly conscientious person at
work is likely to respond quickly to an e-mail from a coworker due
to a tendency to be responsive and diligent in pursuit of the
achievement of work goals. A highly extraverted worker will feel
the need to respond quickly because they seek the social connec-
tion. Note that neither of these personality traits are work specific;
thus, individuals who are high in conscientiousness or extraversion
might also be more likely to respond quickly to messages from
others in nonwork situations as well (i.e., responsiveness to family
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
and friends).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Workplace telepressure can also be conceived as a specific type
of impression management in technology-mediated interactions
and thus should be associated with general tendencies to monitor
impressions around others, such as those driven by public self-
consciousness and self-monitoring (Scheier & Carver, 1985; Sny-
der, 1974). The general concern about one’s standing in the work-
place should lead workers to actively monitor the impressions that
coworkers have of them and use self-presentation strategies to
encourage those impressions to be positive. Thus, highly self-
conscious workers should feel more compelled to respond to
messages from coworkers to prevent negative impressions.
Work Environment Contributions to
Workplace Telepressure
Although we expect particular personality variables to make
some workers slightly more predisposed to workplace telepressure
than others, workplace telepressure should have stronger relation-
ships with job demands— especially related to ICT demands—and
social norms around response behavior rather than individual
difference factors.
Job and ICT Demands
According to the job demands-resources model (JD-R) of stress
(Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001; Bakker &
Demerouti, 2007), job demands are externally driven aspects of the
work environment that require sustained mental, physical, or emo-
tional exertion. Traditionally, job demands are conceptualized as
amount of work to be done (i.e., workload; Karasek, 1979), as this
is the most common cost to psychological and physical resources
on the job. However, the JD-R model expands the conceptualiza-
tion of job demands to also include social demands that can lead to
employee stress. This includes factors such as “emotionally de-
manding interactions with clients” or other social relationships
(e.g., coworkers, supervisors; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; p. 312),
which are often facilitated by ICT use at work.
Similar to the appraisal of an environmental stressor (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984), individuals might vary in their psychological
responses to a common demand or even the perception of the
demand itself. As such, workplace telepressure represents a poten-
tially maladaptive response to a particular type of work demand—
messages via ICTs. ICTs pose a unique set of demands in the
workplace that go beyond general work overload due to techno-
logical demands. These can take the form of social demands
(availability, response expectations, miscommunication over
e-mail due to lack of face-to-face cues) and hassles related to
technological malfunctions (Day, Paquet, Scott, & Hambley,
2012). Workplace telepressure is a response to a specific type of
work demand, namely message-based ICT demands. As such,
workplace telepressure should be more associated with perceptions
of technological demands, such as technological overload, com-
pared with work overload more generally. Techno-overload refers
to employee perceptions that the technology they use in their
environment requires them to work faster and create more work
than they can handle (Ragu-Nathan, Tarafdar, & Ragu-Nathan,
2008).
Social Norms
Similar to the power of social norms in other contexts, work-
place telepressure might result from an effort to “fit in” with others
at work by conforming to workgroup norms. Social influence
theories suggest that our social environment motivates us to
change our behavior to match the behavior of others (e.g., Cialdini
& Goldstein, 2004), including attempts to act according to percep-
tions of what is seen as the “correct behavior” in a given situation.
The perceived expectation to respond quickly can increase the urge
to respond quickly to asynchronous work communications whether
perceived norms are descriptive (most people seem to respond
quickly) or prescriptive (the job explicitly requires that they re-
spond quickly; Forsyth, 2009). In other words, workplace telepres-
sure should be high when the perceived norm is to respond
quickly, regardless of whether such norms are explicit in organi-
zational policies.
Despite recent research focusing on telecommunications and
work–life boundary management, little is known about social
norms around technology use that might contribute to psycholog-
ical states like workplace telepressure. One exception is a study
that merely adapted a measure of personal preferences for work–
home segmentation (i.e., keeping work matters out of personal life)
into perceptions about work colleagues’ segmentation preference
(Park, Fritz, & Jex, 2011). Their results showed that the perceived
(descriptive) segmentation norms predicted psychological detach-
ment from work, and the relationship was partially explained by
the use of technology tools outside of work. More recent research
has also incorporated prescriptive norms into measures of ICT
demands (Day et al., 2012). Specifically, expectations regarding
response times, availability outside of work, and learning new
technology are all forms of prescriptive norms around ICT use that
can arise in the workplace. Thus, workplace telepressure should be
associated with perceived workplace norms around response times
derived from descriptive (what most people do) and prescriptive
(what is expected) information in the workplace environment.
Study 1: Initial Scale Development and
Construct Validity
Workplace telepressure was defined as a combination of preoc-
cupation with fast response times and the strong urge to respond to
asynchronous work-related messages. On the basis of this con-
struct definition, the authors generated a pool of eight self-report
items that covered both preoccupation and urge aspects of work-
place telepressure (see Appendix). We conceptualize telepressure
 WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE
as a narrow, cognitively oriented construct and thus avoided word-
ing that contained affective (anxious, worried, etc.) or behavioral
(i.e., responding to messages) information to ensure that items
referred only to thinking about and urges to respond to messages.
The specific focus of the construct definition allowed us to create
items that were high in face validity and accounted for all aspects
of the construct definition. We aimed to further reduce the pool of
eight items to those that were useful and necessary to create a brief
measure that might be useful for both academic research and as a
practical assessment tool in organizations. The measure instruc-
tions were written to be specific to work-related ICT messages but
broad in terms of who sent the communication (see Appendix for
all items and response scale). The item development followed the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
assumptions for Likert scaling such that multiple items were
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
created to represent moderate statements that were accompanied
by a bipolar response scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree),
and the average of the item scores should scale individuals on the
construct (DeVellis, 2012; Hinkin, 1998).
Following standard procedures for self-report scale item devel-
opment (DeVellis, 2012), items were reviewed by subject matter
experts and then evaluated by a group of raters. After items were
developed by the authors, an expert in work recovery research and
an expert in communication research (both also had expertise and
experience with test development) independently reviewed the
item content and comprehension and provided suggestions for
revisions. A group of 17 undergraduate students who worked at
least part-time and used ICTs for work purposes also reviewed the
items for wording clarity and content relevance in relation to the
construct definition. The items were then distributed as part of a
larger Web-based survey that included measures of expected pre-
dictors (personality and norms) and constructs with similar defi-
nitions. The goals of this study were to test the items from the new
workplace telepressure measure with a sample from a relevant
population, identify any needed item revisions, and examine the
relationship between workplace telepressure and existing personal
factors, work environment factors, and work connectivity con-
structs. Specifically, we expected the following relationships:
Hypothesis 1: Workplace telepressure is moderately and pos-
itively associated with personality factors, specifically (a)
conscientiousness, (b) extraversion, and (c) impression
management.
Hypothesis 2: Workplace telepressure is moderately and pos-
itively associated with work environment factors, specifically
(a) ICT demands techno-overload and (b) response norms.
Hypothesis 3: Workplace telepressure is moderately and pos-
itively associated with other general work connectivity con-
structs, specifically (a) increased workaholism and (b) in-
creased work engagement.
Hypothesis 4: Workplace telepressure is moderately associ-
ated with other ICT-specific connectivity behaviors, specifi-
cally (a) less work– home ICT boundary creation, (b) more
work– home ICT boundary crossing, and (c) more email
work– home boundary crossing.
175
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk
(MTurk). Survey data from MTurk users tends to be of comparable
quality as other data sources and is more representative of U.S.
population characteristics than are undergraduate samples (Beh-
rend, Sharek, Meade, & Wiebe, 2011; Buhrmester, Kwang, &
Gosling, 2011). A total of 404 individuals agreed to continue with
the study after reading the recruitment statement approved by the
Institutional Review Board at the authors’ university. Access to the
survey was limited to respondents in the United States, and par-
ticipants received $0.50 for completing the survey. Only 380 met
the eligibility requirements to continue with the survey (measured
through automatic disqualification items), including working
part-time or full-time (15 hours or more per week) and comfort
with reading and understanding English. An additional 15 respon-
dents were dropped for missing more than one of the three quality
control check items, indicating lack of attention to the survey.
Thus, 354 final cases were used for data analysis in this study.
Respondents were primarily full-time workers (69.8%), men
(60.4%), Caucasian (74.6%), and married (56.2%). Also, 28.4% of
the participants were telecommuters. The average tenure in the
organization was 6.5 years, and the average hours worked per
week was 37 (with an average of 5 hours telecommuting). A wide
variety of occupations were reported (e.g., individuals in educa-
tion, food service, health care, and information technology posi-
tions), with the most frequent occupations being engineers and
employees in sales.
Measures
Conscientiousness and extraversion. Extraversion (␣ ⫽ .90)
and conscientiousness (␣ ⫽ .86) were assessed with 10 items each
from the International Personality Item Pool (NEO Domain; Gold-
berg, 1999; Goldberg et al., 2006). Response options ranged from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The measure asks to
what extent each statement describes the respondents’ typical
behavior. An example extraversion item read “make friends eas-
ily,” and an example conscientiousness item read “make plans and
stick to them.”
Public self-consciousness. Public self-consciousness (␣ ⫽
.88) was measured by using the revised Self-Consciousness Scale
(Scheier & Carver, 1985). Response options range from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Example items read “I’m
concerned about the way I present myself” and “I usually worry
about making a good impression.”
Self-monitoring. Self-monitoring (␣ ⫽ .75) was measured by
using the 18-item Self-Monitoring Scale (Gangestad & Snyder,
2000). Respondents are asked to indicate whether each statement
on this measure is true (1) or false (0) for them. Example items
read, “I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain others” and
“I’m not always the person I appear to be.”
Techno-overload. A relevant subscale from the technostress
measure (Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008) was chosen for this study:
techno-overload (five items; ␣ ⫽ .85). An example item is, “I am
forced by this technology to do more work than I can handle.”
Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree).
 176 BARBER AND SANTUZZI
Norms. The descriptive norm item was constructed on the
basis of instructions from Fishbein and Ajzen (2010). The resulting
item read, “Most people in my workgroup respond quickly.” The
prescriptive norm item was adapted from expectancy violation
measure (Afifi & Metts, 1998). The item read, “I’m expected to
respond as soon as possible.” Although developed independently,
this item had similar wording to response expectations items from
the ICT demands measure (Day et al., 2012: “I am expected to
respond to e-mail messages immediately”). Response options for
both descriptive and prescriptive norm items ranged from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Workaholism. Workaholism was measured with the Dutch
Workaholism Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2009), which contains a
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
five-item working excessively subscale (“I seem to be in a hurry
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
and racing against the clock”; ␣ ⫽ .81) and a five-item working
compulsively subscale (“I feel that there’s something inside me
that drives me to work hard”; ␣ ⫽ .73). Response options are on
a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) scale.
Work engagement. Work engagement was measured with the
nine-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Shaufeli & Bakker,
2004), consisting of vigor (three items; “At my work, I feel
bursting with energy”), dedication (three items; “My job inspires
me”), and absorption (three items; “I feel happy when I am
working intensely”) subscales. Response options were provided on
a seven-point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 6 (always). Because
of the high intercorrelation found in this study among variables
(.70 to .81) and recommendation by the authors of the scale
development (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003), the nine items were
combined into an overall measure of work engagement (␣ ⫽ .81)1.
Boundary creation and crossing. Boundary creation around
ICT use was measured with seven items adapted from Olson-
Buchanan and Boswell (2006). Examples of boundaries include
limiting amount of time or when ICTs are used (i.e., only until 7
p.m.) and not using ICTs during weekends (␣ ⫽ .88). Response
options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Boundary crossing with ICTs was measured with two items that
focused on performing work tasks at home (Olson-Buchanan &
Boswell, 2006; Park & Jex, 2011). The original scale consisted of
four items, but two items referred to “thinking about work” (i.e.,
closer to psychological detachment) and were removed. The re-
maining two items showed adequate internal consistency (␣ ⫽
.88). The first question asked about how often one tries to arrange,
schedule, or perform job-related activities outside of normal work
hours using ICTs. The second question asked how often ICTs are
used to perform one’s job when one is at home during nonwork
hours. Response options ranged from 1 (never/almost never) to 5
(very often/almost always). Respondents were asked to report how
often they typically respond to messages from work during work
hours. This item was created for this study, and response options
were on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (almost
constantly).
Results
Exploratory Factor Analysis
For an initial examination of the original item pool, an explor-
atory factor analysis using principal axis factoring was conducted
to identify factor structure and items with poor contributions to the
factor solution. Relying on Kaiser’s rule for factor extraction, the
results supported a two-factor solution (50% variance explained).
However, the second observed factor compromised only two items
and, thus, did not provide sufficient evidence for a substantial
factor (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Moreover, the two items did
not seem to identify an interpretable content area that uniquely
added to the telepressure construct. Thus, omitting the items would
improve the factor solution without negatively affecting the con-
tent validity of the telepressure measure. After omitting the two
items, the remaining six items fit a single-factor solution with 52%
variance explained and all factor loadings ⬎.58.
Although confirming the factor structure required an additional
sample (see Study 2), we used the current data to conduct a
preliminary confirmatory factor analysis to identify alternative
models to test in subsequent validation studies. Using AMOS
(Version 20), we examined the proposed workplace telepressure
construct using the hypothesized one-factor model (Model 1) as
well as two alternative models: a model with two correlated
subdimensions (Model 2) and a model with two uncorrelated
subdimensions (Model 3). For the two alternative models, the three
items that more closely related to preoccupation were used as
indicators of one factor and the other three items related to urge
were indicators of the second factor. In the current data, Model 1
(one-factor model) did not achieve acceptable fit, ␹2(9) ⫽ 67.70,
␹2/df ⫽ 7.53, CFI ⫽ .937, TLI ⫽ .895, SRMR ⫽ .054, RMSEA ⫽
.136 (CI90% ⫽ [.107, .167]. Model 2 (correlated two-factor model)
provided an acceptable fit to the data, ␹2(8) ⫽ 16.90, ␹2/df ⫽ 2.11,
CFI ⫽ .990, TLI ⫽ .982, SRMR ⫽ .024, RMSEA ⫽ .056
(CI90% ⫽ [.016, .094], with the preoccupation and urge latent
subdimensions having a very strong intercorrelation (r ⫽ .81). The
results for Model 3 (uncorrelated two-factor model) yielded unac-
ceptable fit, ␹2(9) ⫽ 225.15, ␹2/df ⫽ 25.02, CFI ⫽ .769, TLI ⫽
.614, RMSEA ⫽ .261 (CI90% ⫽ [.232, .291]. Model 3 also had the
lowest fit among the three (AIC ⫽ 249.15) compared with Model
1 (91.70) and Model 2 (42.90), suggesting that neither subdimen-
sion showed strong measurement properties independent of the
other one. Given that the fit of the two-factor uncorrelated model
(Model 3) was unacceptable, it seems unlikely that workplace
telepressure comprised two distinct subfactors. Although the two-
factor correlated model (Model 2) showed adequate fit, the high
interfactor correlation precludes the two labeled subfactors from
being treated as separate constructs; both subdimensions cannot be
used simultaneously in analyses because of collinearity. Moreover,
the items for workplace telepressure were created and tested to
reflect a unified construct. Using a subset of the items would create
deficiency if used to represent telepressure or as another related
construct (e.g., preoccupation) outside of the context of workplace
telepressure. Taken together, the preliminary set of factor analysis
results supports the use of workplace telepressure as a single-factor
construct. Note, however, that the preliminary analyses were con-
ducted on the six workplace telepressure items that were part of an
original pool of eight items. The preliminary results must be
confirmed with a new sample and when administering only the six
items retained as a result of the revision process.
1
Using the subscales, only dedication (r ⫽ .11) and absorption (r ⫽ .14)
were significantly associated with telepressure; vigor was not (r ⫽ .03, p ⫽
.538).
 WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 177

Construct Validity
Correlations between the revised six-item workplace telepres-
sure measure and all study variables are located in Table 1. In
partial support of Hypothesis 1, workplace telepressure was pos-
itively associated with conscientious and public consciousness,
with only modest correlations (.11 and .19, respectively). Extra-
version and self-monitoring were not significantly associated with
workplace telepressure. Supporting Hypothesis 2, workplace tele-
pressure was positively associated with work environment de-
mands of the work environment, specifically, techno-overload,
descriptive norms for responding, and prescriptive norms for re-
sponding. In support of Hypothesis 3, workplace telepressure was
associated with general work connectivity constructs such as
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
uted 5.2% of variance, F(4, 349) ⫽ 4.82, p ⬍ .001, although only
public self-consciousness was a significant predictor (␤ ⫽ .12, p ⫽
.016). The work environment factors explained an additional
14.7% of the variance in workplace telepressure beyond person-
ality, F(3, 346) ⫽ 21.19, p ⬍ .001. Both techno-overload (␤ ⫽ .25,
p ⬍ .001) and prescriptive norms (␤ ⫽ .27, p ⬍ .001), but not
descriptive norms, were significant predictors. Comparisons be-
tween dependent coefficients (t tests) showed that both prescrip-
tive norms and techno-overload were significantly larger than the
coefficient for public self-consciousness (p’s ⬍ .05, one-tailed).
Discussion

workaholism and work engagement. Finally, in support of Hypoth- The exploratory factor analysis results showed strong support
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

esis 4, workplace telepressure was associated with various opera-
tionalizations of ICT work connectivity: ICT work– home bound-
ary creation, ICT work– home boundary crossing, and e-mail
responding in the evenings. The small to moderate correlations
across all of these constructs (highest correlation ⫽ .34) supports
our expectation that workplace telepressure is distinct from these
constructs and that our operationalization of workplace telepres-
sure is not redundant with measures of constructs with conceptual
overlap.
Personal and Work Environment Predictors of
Workplace Telepressure
We conducted an exploratory hierarchical regression analyses to
determine the contribution of both personal and work environment
factors to workplace telepressure experiences. All personality vari-
ables (conscientiousness, extraversion, public self-consciousness,
self-monitoring) were entered in Step 1, and work environment
factors (techno-overload, descriptive, and prescriptive norms)
were entered in Step 2. The personality factors together contrib-
for the workplace telepressure measure being a one-factor model
after two problematic items were removed. Preliminary confirma-
tory factor analysis results showed some support for the solution
but also showed support for an alternative two-factor correlated
model. Further examination of the results revealed a strong corre-
lation between factors and similar pattern of relationships across
subdimensions. Overall, the results suggest that the distinction
between the factors might be too small to warrant treating work-
place telepressure as a two-factor measure. The comparison be-
tween the hypothesized one-factor model and alternative two-
factor correlated model was revisited in a formal confirmatory
factor analysis with a second sample in Study 2.
Additionally, correlation results with work connectivity mea-
sures (both general and ICT-specific), personal factors, and work
environment factors indicated that workplace telepressure was not
redundant with conceptually similar constructs. Exploratory anal-
yses suggested that public self-consciousness, techno-overload,
and prescriptive norms are the best predictors of workplace tele-
pressure, with the work environment factors (techno-overload and
prescriptive norms) having the strongest associations.

Table 1
Correlations and Means/Standard Deviations for Study 1 Variables

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. Telepressure 3.46 0.79 .86

2. Workaholism (excessive) 3.28 0.72 .22ⴱ .81
3. Workaholism (compulsive) 3.22 0.72 .23ⴱ .59ⴱ .73
4. Work engagement 3.32 1.09 .11ⴱ .31ⴱ .36ⴱ .81
5. ICT work–home boundary
creation 2.63 0.80 ⫺.18ⴱ ⫺.24ⴱ ⫺.30ⴱ ⫺.17ⴱ .81
6. ICT work–home boundary
crossing 2.88 0.99 .20ⴱ .39ⴱ .42ⴱ .34 ⫺.34ⴱ .88
7. E-mail work–home boundary
crossing 2.73 0.99 .25ⴱ .41ⴱ .41ⴱ .32ⴱ ⫺.44ⴱ .56ⴱ —
8. Conscientiousness 3.79 0.62 .11ⴱ .28ⴱ .32ⴱ .47ⴱ ⫺.16ⴱ .12ⴱ .16ⴱ .86
9. Extraversion 3.07 0.78 .02 .13ⴱ .15ⴱ .36ⴱ .08 .14ⴱ .13ⴱ .34ⴱ .90
10. Public self-consciousness 1.64 0.71 .19ⴱ .16ⴱ .17ⴱ .09 ⫺.02 .12ⴱ ⴱ
.11 ⫺.05 ⫺.05 .88
11. Self-monitoring 0.49 0.21 .01 .14ⴱ .09 .16ⴱ ⫺.11ⴱ .15ⴱ .09 ⫺.02 .51ⴱ .14ⴱ .75
12. Technostressors-overload 3.16 0.87 .31ⴱ .47ⴱ .29ⴱ .10 ⫺.09 .31ⴱ .25ⴱ .07 .05 .17ⴱ .04 .85
13. Norm-descriptive
ⴱ ⴱ ⴱ
(workgroup) 3.74 0.87 .15 .01 .03 .20 ⫺.05 ⫺.05 .06 .18 .03 .04 ⫺.04 .07 —
14. Norm-prescriptive
(expectations) 3.78 0.87 .34ⴱ .17ⴱ .23ⴱ .19ⴱ ⫺.15ⴱ .16ⴱ .20ⴱ .31ⴱ .11ⴱ ⫺.03 .14ⴱ .31ⴱ .31 —
Note. N ⫽ 354. Cronbach’s alpha is indicated in bold on the diagonal.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.
 178 BARBER AND SANTUZZI
Study 2: Revised Scale Construct Validation and
Criterion-Related Validity
We conducted a second study to (a) confirm the factor structure
results for the revised six-item measure by using a new sample, (b)
explore additional personal (i.e., job involvement and affective
commitment) and work environment factors (i.e., ICT work de-
mands) associated with workplace telepressure, and (c) examine
the criterion-related validity for workplace telepressure with re-
spect to stress, recovery, and e-mail responding behavior out-
comes.
Additional Personal and Work Environment Factors
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Although the results from Study 1 appear to suggest that per-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
sonal factors were not strong predictors of workplace telepressure
(with the exception of a modest relationship with public self-
consciousness), this could be because we focused more on person-
ality factors rather than psychological identification or attitudes
toward one’s work. Two particularly relevant factors that might be
associated with workplace telepressure are job involvement and
organizational commitment.
Job involvement is described as “a cognitive or belief state of
psychological identification” with one’s work (Kanungo, 1982; p.
342). Individuals with high levels of job involvement are more
likely to be intrinsically motivated to engage in work, which is
why they tend to have higher levels of both work engagement
(Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006) and workaholism (Aziz & Zickar,
2006). Additionally, organizational commitment—particularly af-
fective commitment—might also play a role in how connected one
is to the work environment. Employees with higher levels of
affective commitment tend to have a high emotional attachment to
the organization because of shared values and interests (Allen &
Meyer, 1990; Meyer & Allen, 1991) and thus are more likely to
exert cognitive effort on the job, attend work, and engage in
discretionary behaviors on the job (i.e., organizational citizenship
behaviors; Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002).
Both job involvement and affective commitment have been linked
with ICT use after work hours (Boswell & Olson-Buchanon, 2007)
and thus these might be important factors to distinguish from
workplace telepressure.
Hypothesis 5: Workplace telepressure is positively and mod-
erately associated with (a) job involvement and (b) organiza-
tional commitment.
In Study 1, we also found that workplace telepressure was
predicted by technological work demands (i.e., techno-overload)
and prescriptive norms around responding. However, we did not
examine work overload more broadly or a wider variety of ICT
demands. Thus, it is important to determine that workplace tele-
pressure is linked to ICT work demands, more specifically, rather
than just general perceptions of work demands. Day and col-
leagues (2012) recently developed a measure that assesses eight
distinct ICT demands that can arise from the work environment:
response expectations, availability, poor communication, hassles,
employee monitoring, learning expectations, and workload. The
most relevant ICT demand to workplace telepressure should be
response expectations, which is conceptually similar to prescrip-
tive norms around message-based responding that was assessed in
Study 1 (i.e., expectations guiding what is appropriate response
behavior in the organization). Additionally, the workload subscale
of the ICT demands measure is similar to the techno-overload
measure in Study 1, as it relates to additional work requirements
arising from technology use. However, there are a few additional
subdimensions that might be related to workplace telepressure. For
example, availability (expectations for contact outside of work)
and poor communication (misinterpreting e-mail tone) might be
associated with workplace telepressure and lack of control of
technology use. Technological hassles (e.g., dealing with computer
glitches) and monitoring of technology use (e.g., phone calls,
e-mail, Internet), and learning expectations (expectation to learn
new technology) would seem less relevant to affecting message-
based responding.
Hypothesis 6: Workplace telepressure is positively and mod-
erately associated with general work demands and ICT de-
mands relevant to message-based responding (response expec-
tations, availability, poor communication, and workload).
Employee Stress, Recovery, and E-mail Behavior
Workplace telepressure might have critical occupational health
implications because it has the potential to prolong employee work
stress both during designated work times and during nonwork
hours. Given that workplace telepressure should lead to prolonged
demand exposure via increased ICT use (Day, Scott, & Kelloway,
2010; Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2006), it can contribute to the
health impairment process described by the JD-R model (Demer-
outi et al., 2001; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Thus, continued
exposure to these demands can exhaust these resources to the point
of poor psychological and physical health. This might take the
form of burnout (physical, cognitive, and emotional exhaustion;
Shirom & Melamed, 2006), presenteeism (engaging in work tasks
under less than optimal health conditions; Koopman et al., 2002),
and health-related absenteeism.
Job demands that are specific to ICT use have been linked with
employee stress above and beyond regular work demands (Day et
al., 2012). It is interesting to note that response expectations and
availability aspects of ICT demands were not good predictors of
strain and burnout in past research (Day et al., 2012), which
suggests employees might acknowledge prescriptive norms around
ICT use without necessarily feeling the need to conform to them.
In fact, the transactional model of stress proposes that the percep-
tion of a particular aspect of the work environment as a demand is
needed to affect stress-related outcomes (Day et al., 2010; Lazarus
& Folkman, 1984). Thus, workplace telepressure might have a
distinct relationship with stress outcomes that is not accounted for
by general job or specific ICT demands because it represents an
individual’s internalization of ICT demands (i.e., response expec-
tations and availability). Different from general work and ICT-
specific demands, workplace telepressure might directly lead to
stress because it requires the perception that one needs to adhere to
the ICT demand requirements (or prescriptive norms). As such,
employees who are actually experiencing workplace telepressure
(whether the actual ICT demands are there or not) might suffer
psychological and physical costs due to the health impairment
process. In line with the JD-R model, we expect the following:
 WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE
Hypothesis 7: Workplace telepressure is positively associated
with negative stress-related outcomes, namely (a) burnout, (b)
presenteeism, and (c) absenteeism.
Hypothesis 8: Workplace telepressure is positively associated
with negative stress-related outcomes, namely (a) burnout, (b)
presenteeism, and (c) absenteeism beyond personality and
work environment factors.
Workplace telepressure might also be associated with recovery
processes. The effort-recovery model (Meijman & Mulder, 1998)
suggests that prolonged exertion in response to job demands cause
fatigue, and thus some period of recovery is needed to be able to
avoid allostatic load (negative physiological effects because of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
heightened sympathetic nervous system response; McEwen &
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Stellar, 1993). Work recovery activities are critical for sustaining
employee health and performance, as they provide a reversal of the
stress process brought on by job demands. Given employees need
sufficient work recovery to be engaged and productive workers
(Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007; Sonnentag, 2003), it is imperative that
organizations examine how telepressure might disrupt recovery
processes.
Prolonged demand exposure due to frequent ICT use might lead
to problems with the following work recovery processes: psycho-
logical detachment and restorative sleep. Psychological detach-
ment is considered a critical recovery strategy in the occupational
health literature. It refers to the strategy of not thinking about work
and work-related events (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). Use of ICTs to
conduct work after hours and low work– home boundaries, which
are conceptually related to workplace telepressure, are both asso-
ciated with reduced psychological detachment (Park et al., 2011;
Sonnentag, Binnewies, & Mojza, 2010). A second form of recov-
ery needed to sustain worker health is achieving restorative sleep.
High quality sleep is needed to prevent fatigue and achieve optimal
cognitive functioning due to its role in restoring central nervous
system functions (Åkerstedt, Nilsson, & Kecklund, 2009). Work-
place telepressure is expected to lead to cognitive and behavioral
interference with sleep that might disrupt restorative aspects of
sleep. For example, individuals might sleep less because they are
using that time to respond to work demands instead (e.g., Barnes,
Wagner, & Ghumman, 2012).
Hypothesis 9: Workplace telepressure is negatively associated
with (a) psychological detachment and (b) restorative sleep.
Hypothesis 10: Workplace telepressure is negatively associ-
ated with (a) psychological detachment and (b) restorative
sleep beyond personality and work environment factors.
Finally, as mentioned previously, workplace telepressure is a
unique response to interpersonal work demand due to interpersonal
communication (Day et al., 2010). Employees experiencing higher
levels of workplace telepressure might be more likely to give in to
their urges and engage in frequent e-mail responding behaviors.
Thus, this study also investigated e-mail response latency during
work time (i.e., time to respond to e-mails) and frequency of e-mail
responding behavior in general.
Hypothesis 11: Workplace telepressure is positively associ-
ated with (a) responding frequency and negatively associated
with (b) e-mail response latency.
179
Hypothesis 12: Workplace telepressure is positively associ-
ated with (a) responding frequency and negatively associated
with (b) e-mail response latency beyond personality and work
environment factors.
Method
Participants and Procedures
Study 2 participants were also recruited through Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk approximately 1 year after Study 1. Participants
who responded to the previous studies were excluded from partic-
ipation. A total of 343 individuals agreed to continue with the
study after reading the recruitment statement. Access to the survey
was limited to respondents in the United States who worked
full-time, and participants received $1.00 for completing the sur-
vey. Only 326 met the eligibility requirements to continue with the
survey (measured through automatic disqualification items) and an
additional 23 respondents were dropped for missing more than one
(out of three) quality control check items, resulting in a final
sample of 303 for data analysis. Respondents were primarily
full-time workers (76.6%), men (58.4%), Caucasian (78.5%), mar-
ried (51.0%), and not telecommuters (79.9%).
Measures
The six-item measure from Study 1 was used to assess work-
place telepressure. The same measures for Study 1 assessing
conscientiousness (Goldberg, 1999; Goldberg et al., 2006) and
public self-consciousness (Scheier & Carver, 1985) also were
included. Additional measures are reported in the following para-
graphs.2
Job involvement. Job involvement was assessed using Ka-
nungo’s (1982) 10-item Job Involvement Scale (␣ ⫽ .74). Exam-
ple items read, “I live, eat, and breathe my job” and “I consider my
job to be very central to my existence.” Response options ranged
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Affective commitment. Affective commitment was assessed
using Meyer and Allen’s (1997) revised six-item subscale from the
organizational commitment measure (␣ ⫽ .91). Example items
read, “I feel as if my organization’s problems are my own” and “I
do not feel like ‘part of the family’ at my organization” (reverse-
coded). Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree).
General work demands. General work demands were mea-
sured by the five-item Quantitative Workload Inventory (Spector
& Jex, 1998; ␣ ⫽ .86). Example items include, “How often does
2
Per a reviewer’s suggestion, a longer conscientiousness measure assessing
subfacets was also included (NEO P-R Facets; Goldberg, 1999; Goldberg et
al., 2006), which consisted of the following dimensions: self-efficacy, order-
liness, dutifulness, achievement-striving, self-discipline, and cautiousness.
However, none of these subdimensions were significantly associated with
telepressure. The same measure from Study 1 was retained for analyses for
consistency across studies. A 12-item “Dark Triad” measure (Jonason &
Webster, 2010) was also included in this study, which examines the subclinical
traits of Machiavelliasm (“I tend to manipulate others to get my way”; ␣ ⫽
.86), psychopathy (“I tend to be callous or insensitive”; ␣ ⫽ .86), and
narcissism (“I tend to seek prestige or status”; ␣ ⫽ .88). However, none of
these variables were significantly associated with workplace telepressure.
 180 BARBER AND SANTUZZI
your job require you to work very fast?” and “How often is there
a great deal to be done?” Responses options ranged from 1 (less
than once per month or never) to 5 (several times per day).
ICT demands. ICT demands were measured using a 27-item
measure developed by Day et al., (2012), which consists of eight
different subscales: response expectations (two items; ␣ ⫽ .86;
e.g., “I am expected to respond to e-mail messages immediately”),
availability (four items; ␣ ⫽ .83; e.g., “Technology enables people
I work with to contact me at any time”), poor communication
(three items; ␣ ⫽ .84; e.g., “I have misinterpreted the tone of my
incoming e-mail messages”), lack of control (three items; ␣ ⫽ .77;
e.g., “I am expected to respond to e-mail messages immediately”),
hassles (five items; ␣ ⫽ .83; e.g., “My computer freezes”), mon-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
itoring (four items; ␣ ⫽ .91; e.g., “My organization monitors my
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
e-mails”), learning expectations (three items; ␣ ⫽ .72; e.g., “I am
expected to stay current with technological advances related to my
work”), and workload (three items; ␣ ⫽ .83; e.g., “Technology
creates more work for me”). Response options ranged from 0
(never) to 4 (almost always).
Burnout. Job burnout is characterized by physical, cognitive,
and emotional exhaustion resulting from chronic exposure to work
stress. The Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure (Shirom &
Melamed, 2006) was used to measure burnout experienced at work
over the past month. This measure uses 14 items consisting of
three subdimensions: physical fatigue (e.g., “I feel tired”; ␣ ⫽ .95),
cognitive weariness (e.g., “My thinking process is slow”; ␣ ⫽ .96),
and emotional exhaustion (e.g., “I feel I’m unable to be sensitive
to the needs of coworkers or customers”; ␣ ⫽ .94). Responses
options ranged from 1 (never or almost never) to 7 (always or
almost always).
Absenteeism and presenteeism. Whereas absenteeism de-
scribes an employee not being at work, presenteeism describes the act
of engaging in work tasks under less than optimal health conditions
(Koopman et al., 2002). Absenteeism was measured using an item
from the Health and Work Performance Questionnaire (Kessler et al.,
2003). This question asked the number of full work days missed
because of a physical or mental health issues. Presenteeism was
measured using the Stanford Presenteeism Scale (Koopman et al.,
2002). It contained six items asking to what extent health problems
interfered with productivity over the past month (e.g., “Because of
health problems, I was unable to finish hard tasks in my work”; ␣ ⫽
.97). Response options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree).
Psychological detachment. The Psychological Detachment
subscale from Sonnentag and Fritz’s (2007) Recovery Experience
Questionnaire was used to measure recovery. Respondents were
asked to state their agreement with four statements (e.g., “I don’t think
about work at all”; ␣ ⫽ .78) regarding their free evenings (or nonwork
time), with responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree).
Sleep recovery problems. Sleep recovery problems were mea-
sured in three different ways: sleep quantity, sleep quality, and sleep
inconsistency. Respondents were asked how many hours they typi-
cally slept per night during a work week. Less sleep duration repre-
sents more recovery problems. Sleep quality was measured using a
measure of chronic insomnia (Jenkins, Standton, Niemcryk, & Rose,
1988). This measure asks about four insomnia symptoms experienced
over the last month: trouble falling asleep, trouble staying asleep,
waking up several times during the night, and waking up after one’s
usual amount of sleep feeling tired and worn out (␣ ⫽ .84). Response
options range from 0 (never) to 5 (nearly every night), with higher
scores indicating poorer sleep quality. Sleep consistency was mea-
sured with three items from the Sleep Hygiene Index (Mastin, Bryson,
& Corwyn, 2006, referring to going to bed at different times, getting
out of bed at different times, and staying in bed longer than one should
(i.e., sleeping in) day to day. Response options ranged from 1 (never)
to 5 (always) so that higher scores represented more sleep inconsis-
tency (␣ ⫽ .77)3.
Self-reported e-mail responding frequency and latency.
Respondents were asked to report how often they typically respond to
messages from work in the following five situations: during work
hours, during the evenings, during the weekend, during vacation days,
and during sick days. Response options were on a five-point scale
ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (almost constantly). These items were
created for this study. For ease of data presentation, these items were
combined into one measure, given their moderate to strong intercor-
relations (r ⫽ .23 to .82) acceptable internal consistency (␣ ⫽ .77).
An additional measure of e-mail response behavior during work
hours with more exact e-mail response time reporting was included
for this study. Respondents were asked to open their work e-mail
account and answer questions regarding their last two work e-mails.
This information allowed us to analyze specific data on response time
latency rather than self-reported perceptions of general frequency in
responding. For each e-mail, respondents were asked to report the
e-mail sender classification (e.g., supervisor, coworker, subordinate,
client), day e-mail was sent, time e-mail was sent, their reply day, their
reply time, and whether or not their reply was during regular work
hours (yes/no). One-hundred three individuals indicated they had their
work email account readily accessible and reported their last response
latency information. Of these individuals, only 96 reported enough
data to calculate response latencies (i.e., seven had missing informa-
tion for either the send/reply date or time sections). Given that e-mail
response latencies showed a strong positive skew (2.89), this score
were transformed using a logarithmic (base 10) transformation before
conducting analyses.4
3
Stress and recovery outcomes were tested in a pilot study with 313
MTurk respondents using the revised six-item measure. Telepressure was
associated with less psychological detachment (␣ ⫽ .78; r ⫽ –.25), but not
other recovery activities such as relaxation (␣ ⫽ .89; r ⫽ –.08, p ⫽ .239),
mastery (␣ ⫽ .83; r ⫽ –.05, p ⫽ .362), or control (␣ ⫽ .83; r ⫽ –.01; p ⫽
.948). With respective to restorative sleep, telepressure was associated with
poorer sleep quality (␣ ⫽ .84; r ⫽ .18) and more sleep inconsistency (␣ ⫽
.77; r ⫽ .19) but not sleep quantity (r ⫽ ⫺.07, p ⫽ .242). Telepressure was
also associated with increased physical (␣ ⫽ .95; r ⫽ .24), cognitive (␣ ⫽
.96; r ⫽ .32), and emotional (␣ ⫽ .94; r ⫽ .18) burnout, and increased
presenteeism (␣ ⫽ .97; r ⫽ .22) and absenteeism (r ⫽ .14). Telepressure
was also related to more psychological strain (␣ ⫽ .67; r ⫽ .19) and less
satisfaction with work–life balance (␣ ⫽ .95; r ⫽ ⫺.19; Valcour, 2007).
Because of survey length constraints for Study 2, we focused on burnout
and presenteeism/absenteeism outcomes only.
4
The e-mail responding frequency and latency measures were tested in
a pilot study with 228 MTurk respondents using the revised six-item
measure. Telepressure was significantly associated with responding across
the five different situations (r ⫽ .22 to .36) and the combined response
frequency measure (r ⫽ .35; ␣ ⫽ .84). Telepressure was also significantly
associated with shorter response latency when respondents reported their
last (r ⫽ –.17) and second to last (r ⫽ –.16) e-mail response times for work
purposes. Because of a high amount of positive skew (i.e., only a few
individuals had very long response lags), response latencies were be
transformed with a logarithmic (base 10) transformation for analyses.
 WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE
Results
Confirmatory factor analyses. The hypothesized one-factor
model showed good fit with the exception of the RMSEA, ␹2(9) ⫽
57.14, ␹2/df ⫽ 6.35, TLI ⫽ .932, CFI ⫽ .959, SRMR ⫽ .036,
RMSEA ⫽ .133 (CI90% ⫽ [.101, .167]. The alternative two-factor
model for the six-item measure demonstrated good fit with the
data, also with the exception of RMSEA, ␹2(8) ⫽ 48.08, ␹2/df ⫽
6.01, TLI ⫽ .936, CFI ⫽ .966, SRMR ⫽ .033, RMSEA ⫽ .129
(CI90% ⫽ [.095, .165]). Although the one-factor solution had a
comparatively poorer fit than the two-factor model (one-factor
AIC ⫽ 81.14; two-factor AIC ⫽ 74.08), the usefulness of two
distinct subfactors could not be supported. Similar to the prelim-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
inary results in Study 1, the latent correlation between urge and
preoccupation was very high (standardized estimate ⫽ .94), again
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
suggesting a high degree of overlap between the subdimensions.
Given that the construct was conceptualized with a unified defi-
nition and the alternative two-factor model did not yield distin-
guishable subfactors, we find the hypothesized one-factor solution
to have the strongest support in this study.
Construct validity. Bivariate associations among Study 2
variables are presented in Table 2. In support of Hypothesis 5,
workplace telepressure was significantly associated with increased
job involvement (r ⫽ .22) and affective commitment (r ⫽ .13).
Contrary to Study 1, conscientiousness was not significantly as-
sociated with workplace telepressure in this sample, but its signif-
icant relationship with public self-consciousness remained (r ⫽
.22). In support of Hypothesis 6, workplace telepressure was
associated with increased perceptions of work demands (r ⫽ .24),
and ICT demands that are relevant for message-based responding:
response expectations (r ⫽ .36), availability expectations (r ⫽
.28), poor communication (r ⫽ .11), and technological workload
(r ⫽ .20). Unexpectedly, workplace telepressure was also linked
with learning expectations (r ⫽ .18). Taken together, these modest
to moderate associations with these constructs suggest workplace
telepressure is distinct from personal factors (job involvement,
affective commitment) and work environment factors related to
general and ICT-specific work demands.
Criterion-related validity with stress, recovery, and e-mail
responding outcomes. In partial support of Hypothesis 7, work-
place telepressure was associated with increased physical and
cognitive burnout as well as absenteeism. Workplace telepressure
was not significantly associated with emotional burnout and pre-
senteeism. Hypothesis 9 was also only partially supported. Work-
place telepressure was associated with less psychological detach-
ment (r ⫽ ⫺.20) and sleep quality (r ⫽ .21) but not sleep quantity
or sleep inconsistency. Finally, Hypothesis 11 was fully supported,
as workplace telepressure was associated with more frequent
e-mail responding (r ⫽ .31) and shorter e-mail response times
(r ⫽ ⫺.34).
Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to determine
whether workplace telepressure demonstrated incremental predic-
tive validity for stress (Hypothesis 8), recovery (Hypothesis 10),
and e-mail (Hypothesis 12) outcomes beyond personal and work
environment factors. Results for stress outcomes are presented in
Table 3. Workplace telepressure added incremental validity to the
prediction of physical burnout, ⌬F(1, 288) ⫽ 14.48, p ⬍ .05,
⌬R2 ⫽ .028, and cognitive burnout, ⌬F(1, 288) ⫽ 9.92, p ⬍ .05,
⌬R2 ⫽ .021. Workplace telepressure also predicted absenteeism
181
beyond personal and work environment factors, ⌬F(1, 288) ⫽
9.43, p ⬍ .05, ⌬R2 ⫽ .030. Thus, Hypothesis 8 was supported for
these stress outcomes but not emotional burnout and presenteeism.
Results for recovery outcomes are presented in Table 4. Hy-
pothesis 10 was only partially supported, as workplace telepressure
did not predict additional variance in psychological detachment or
some aspects of restorative sleep (quantity and consistency) be-
yond personal and work environment factors. However, workplace
telepressure did add incremental validity to the prediction of sleep
quality, ⌬F(1, 288) ⫽ 4.27, p ⬍ .05, ⌬R2 ⫽ .012.
Results for e-mail responding outcomes are presented in Table
5. Hypothesis 12 was only partially supported, as workplace tele-
pressure only added incremental validity to the prediction of
frequency of e-mail responding, ⌬F(1, 288) ⫽ 7.19, p ⬍ .05,
⌬R2 ⫽ .013, beyond personal and organizational factors. Work-
place telepressure did not predict additional variance in response
latency with all variables. However, the personal and work envi-
ronment factors also did not contribute in the prior steps, poten-
tially because the sample size was so small for response latency
(N ⫽ 96). Thus, although there is theoretical justification that the
personal and work environment factors in this study have relation-
ships with e-mail response latency, this assumption was only
supported for three work environment factors in the bivariate
correlation results: ICT demands for response expectations, poor
communication, and hassles. Thus, only these variables were used
in a revised regression model in the first step, with the second step
including workplace telepressure (see revised model in Table 5). In
this model, workplace telepressure did explain incremental vari-
ance in response latency beyond ICT demands, ⌬F(1, 91) ⫽ 5.08,
p ⬍ .05, ⌬R2 ⫽ .045, with increased workplace telepressure
predicting shorter response latencies.
Discussion
On the basis of the results from Study 2, workplace telepressure
is distinct from personal factors such as conscientiousness, self-
consciousness, job involvement, and affective commitment, as it
has only modest relationships with these constructs. Workplace
telepressure is also distinct from general perceptions of work
demands and ICT demands. Employees who report more ICT
demands around response expectations, availability, poor commu-
nication, technological workload, and learning expectations were
more likely to experience workplace telepressure, but the moderate
correlations with these constructs suggest workplace telepressure
is not redundant with perceptions of work demands.
In terms of predicting outcomes, employees reporting increased
levels of workplace telepressure also reported less psychological
detachment and poorer sleep quality (although not sleep quantity or
consistency). Also, more workplace telepressure was associated with
higher levels of burnout (physical and cognitive only) and health-
related absenteeism. Finally, employees experiencing more workplace
telepressure were more likely to respond more frequently to e-mails
and have shorter e-mail response times. Moreover, with the exception
of psychological detachment, workplace telepressure predicted phys-
ical/cognitive burnout, health-related absenteeism, sleep quality, and
e-mail responding outcomes beyond personal and work environment
factors. Employees might feel that staying connected longer and
responding quickly will be viewed as a sign of good performance.
However, similar to other sources of work-related strain and burnout,
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

182

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Study 2 Variables

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1. Telepressure 3.36 0.93 .91

2. Conscientiousness 3.94 0.59 .07 .87
3. Self-consciousness 1.62 0.78 .22ⴱ .01 .90
4. Job involvement 2.79 0.61 .19ⴱ .20ⴱ .12ⴱ .74
5. Affective commitment 4.34 1.51 .13ⴱ .42ⴱ .07 .58ⴱ .91
6. General workload 3.34 0.75 .24ⴱ .10 .22ⴱ .19ⴱ ⫺.06 .86
7. ICT-response 3.22 0.96 .36ⴱ .14ⴱ .30ⴱ .20ⴱ .09 .32ⴱ .85
8. ICT-available 3.30 0.87 .28ⴱ .21ⴱ .24ⴱ .34ⴱ .21ⴱ .42ⴱ .62ⴱ .83
9. ICT-Comm 1.85 0.72 .11ⴱ ⫺.32ⴱ .11 .11 ⫺.13ⴱ .11 .18ⴱ .15ⴱ .84
10. ICT-lack of control 2.56 0.92 .02 ⫺.37ⴱ ⫺.01 ⫺.24ⴱ ⫺.38ⴱ .13ⴱ .00 ⫺.14ⴱ .11 .77
11. ICT-hassles 1.96 0.63 .04 ⫺.36ⴱ .05 .01 ⫺.25ⴱ .08 .10 ⫺.01 .42ⴱ .18ⴱ .83
12. ICT-monitor 2.32 1.25 .11 ⫺.03 .06 ⫺.04 ⫺.16ⴱ .29ⴱ .20ⴱ .11 .17ⴱ .23ⴱ .23ⴱ .91
13. ICT-learning 3.13 0.88 .18ⴱ .27ⴱ .10 .25ⴱ .15ⴱ .26ⴱ .31ⴱ .41ⴱ .12ⴱ ⫺.22ⴱ .02 .23ⴱ .72
14. ICT-workload 2.66 0.98 .20ⴱ .05 .20ⴱ .26ⴱ .03 .49ⴱ .38ⴱ .44ⴱ .30ⴱ .05 .20ⴱ .26ⴱ .50ⴱ .83
15. Detachment 3.00 0.99 ⫺.20ⴱ ⫺.11 ⫺.16ⴱ ⫺.43ⴱ ⫺.24ⴱ ⫺.21ⴱ ⫺.27ⴱ ⫺.41ⴱ ⫺.12ⴱ ⫺.02 .01 ⫺.03 ⫺.17ⴱ ⫺.32ⴱ .89
16. Sleep quantity 6.77 1.03 ⫺.04 .04 ⫺.06 ⫺.10 .01 ⫺.05 .14ⴱ ⫺.23ⴱ ⫺.08 ⫺.06 ⫺.05 ⫺.05 .01 ⫺.09 .16ⴱ —
17. Sleep quality (poor) 2.81 1.72 .21ⴱ ⫺.15ⴱ .15ⴱ .07 ⫺.06 .14ⴱ .24ⴱ .25ⴱ .19ⴱ .17ⴱ .22ⴱ .13ⴱ .10 .15ⴱ ⫺.19ⴱ ⫺.44ⴱ .86
BARBER AND SANTUZZI

18. Sleep inconsistency 2.27 0.95 .10 ⫺.28ⴱ .05 .05 ⫺.08 .07 .03 .00 .18ⴱ .12ⴱ .20ⴱ .08 ⫺.07 .08 ⫺.08 ⫺.19ⴱ .37ⴱ .81
19. Burnout- physical 3.53 1.48 .19ⴱ ⫺.46ⴱ .10 ⫺.18ⴱ ⫺.38ⴱ .17ⴱ .11 .04 .23ⴱ .40ⴱ .33ⴱ .20ⴱ ⫺.10 .09 ⫺.03 ⫺.32ⴱ .54ⴱ .44ⴱ .95
20. Burnout-cognitive 2.81 1.32 .14ⴱ ⫺.54ⴱ .13 ⫺.09 ⫺.28ⴱ .04 ⫺.02 ⫺.03 .26ⴱ .33ⴱ .32ⴱ .14ⴱ ⫺.12ⴱ .03 .01 ⫺.25ⴱ .45ⴱ .41ⴱ .78ⴱ .96
21. Burnout-emotional 2.50 1.44 ⫺.01 ⫺.48ⴱ .04 ⫺.03 ⫺.34ⴱ .05 .03 .05 .33ⴱ .31ⴱ .33ⴱ .19ⴱ ⫺.03 .16ⴱ ⫺.01 ⫺.17ⴱ .27ⴱ .21ⴱ .53ⴱ .58ⴱ .96
22. Presenteeism 2.05 1.36 .11 ⫺.35ⴱ .03 .06 ⫺.19ⴱ .05 .14ⴱ .07 .27ⴱ .21ⴱ .23ⴱ .10 .02 .16ⴱ ⫺.15ⴱ ⫺.12ⴱ .31ⴱ .30ⴱ .44ⴱ .41ⴱ .37ⴱ .96
23. Absenteeism-health 0.35 0.89 .14ⴱ ⫺.10 ⫺.06 .04 ⫺.07 ⫺.07 .00 .01 .10 .04 .02 ⫺.06 ⫺.11 .01 ⫺.02 ⫺.05 .05 .14ⴱ .18ⴱ .18ⴱ .20ⴱ .42ⴱ —
24. E-mail response frequency 2.67 0.72 .31ⴱ .17ⴱ .14ⴱ .45ⴱ .31ⴱ .23ⴱ .43ⴱ .58ⴱ .19ⴱ ⫺.18ⴱ .01 ⫺.01 .28ⴱ .41ⴱ ⫺.50ⴱ ⫺.17ⴱ .15ⴱ .08 ⫺.05 ⫺.07 ⫺.07 .10 .03 —
25. E-mail response latency 40.05 66.46 ⫺.34ⴱ .03 ⫺.17 ⫺.03 ⫺.13 ⫺.05 ⫺.30ⴱ ⫺.13 ⫺.20ⴱ ⫺.01 ⫺.21ⴱ ⫺.09 ⫺.07 ⫺.11 ⫺.02 .04 ⫺.13 .09 ⫺.08 .01 .18 .02 .02 ⫺.22

Note. N ⫽ 303, except for e-mail response latency (N ⫽ 92). Raw means and standard deviations for e-mail response latencies in minutes are reported for better interpretation but reported correlations
are based on logarithmic (base 10) transformations. Cronbach’s alpha is indicated in bold on the diagonal.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.
 WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 183

Table 3
Workplace Telepressure Predicting Study 2 Stress-Related Outcomes Beyond Personal and Work Environment Factors

Burnout Burnout Burnout

(Physical) (Cognitive) (Emotional) Presenteeism Absenteeism
␤ t ␤ t ␤ t ␤ t ␤ t

Step 1
Conscientiousness ⫺.31 ⫺5.33ⴱ ⫺.44 ⫺7.48ⴱ ⫺.32 ⫺5.32ⴱ ⫺.28 ⫺4.11ⴱ ⫺.03 ⫺.37
Public self-consciousness .03 .59 ⫺.11 2.15ⴱ .01 .25 ⫺.04 ⫺.67 ⫺.09 ⫺1.45
Job involvement ⫺.07 ⫺1.06 .02 .30 .15 2.40ⴱ .16 2.32 .14 1.81
Affective commitment ⫺.15 ⫺2.28ⴱ ⫺.05 ⫺.78 ⫺.24 ⫺3.49ⴱ ⫺.14 ⫺1.92 ⫺.17 ⫺2.10ⴱ
⌬F(4, 298), ⌬R2 27.90ⴱ .263 35.44ⴱ .322 29.75ⴱ .285 13.99ⴱ .158 1.94 .025
Step 2
General workload .08 1.34 ⫺0.02 ⫺.32 ⫺.11 ⫺1.84 ⫺.08 ⫺1.14 ⫺.15 ⫺2.06ⴱ
⫺0.12 ⫺1.92 ⫺.07 ⫺1.09 ⫺1.41 ⫺.36 ⫺.46
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ICT Demands-response expectations .01 .05 .10

2.38ⴱ
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

ICT Demands-availability .12 1.85 .12 1.78 .16 .16 .20 .08 .95
ICT Demands-poor communication ⫺.01 ⫺.05 .03 .53 .10 1.68 .08 1.33 .08 1.14
ICT Demands-lack of control .17 3.20ⴱ .14 2.47ⴱ .13 2.22ⴱ 1.37 ⫺.01 ⫺.05
ICT Demands-hassles .13 2.36ⴱ .11 2.06ⴱ .07 1.15 .09 .36 ⫺.05 ⫺.76
ICT Demands-monitoring .05 .99 .06 1.24 .10 1.92 .02 .20 ⫺.04 ⫺.64
ICT Demands-learning expectations ⫺.05 ⫺.80 ⫺.01 ⫺.14 ⫺.01 ⫺.13 .01 .25 ⫺.16 ⫺2.25ⴱ
ICT Demands-workload ⫺.03 ⫺.47 ⫺.05 ⫺.84 .09 1.35 .02 1.12 .09 1.17
⌬F(9, 289), ⌬R2 4.73ⴱ .093 2.14ⴱ .042 3.44ⴱ .069 1.91 .047 1.97 .035
Step 3
Telepressure .18 3.67ⴱ .16 3.15ⴱ ⫺.02 ⫺.37 .07 1.21 .19 3.07ⴱ
⌬F(1, 288), ⌬R2 14.48ⴱ .028 9.92ⴱ .021 .13 .000 1.46 .004 9.43ⴱ .030
Full Model
F(14, 288), R2 13.39ⴱ .394 12.92ⴱ .386 11.31ⴱ .355 5.45ⴱ .209 2.04 .015
Note. Global model fit statistics are in italics.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.

the preoccupation and urge to respond quickly to work communica-
tions might backfire and yield negative, rather than positive, outcomes
for the individual.
Overall Discussion
The main objectives of this series of studies were to (a) intro-
duce the construct of workplace telepressure and its important
implications for work and health outcomes and (b) develop and
validate a brief measure of workplace telepressure that can be used
in research and practice. The results from Study 1 supported the
validation of a six-item measure. Study 2 confirmed the single-
factor structure of the six-item measure as the most useful structure
with a new sample and showed support for workplace telepressure
predicting some stress, recovery, and e-mail responding outcomes
beyond personal and work environment factors.
Study 1 also showed that personality factors appear to only have
modest correlations with workplace telepressure, whereas work
environment factors tended to have moderate correlations. Pre-
scriptive (but not descriptive) situational norms and techno-
overload served as the best predictors of workplace telepressure,
followed by public self-consciousness. Thus, workplace telepres-
sure seems less likely to be a manifestation of personality than a
response to work environment demands. The fact that prescriptive
norms emerged as better predictors of workplace telepressure than
descriptive norms suggests that perceptions about what one should
do might be more influential than perceptions of what others
actually do. Past research suggests that this should be true when
prescriptive norms are more salient than descriptive norms (Cial-
dini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991). Many descriptive norms can be
misperceived when workers rely extensively on technology for
communication. For example, workers can carefully craft ICT
messages that convey a strong norm for fast response times by
apologizing for delays in responses. A coworker who receives such
messages might infer that she or he should be responding very
quickly. It is important that the recipient of the message can only
observe the content of an ICT message, conveying a prescriptive
norm. ICT communications limit informative nonverbal cues that
can clarify the actual urgency or importance of replying to the
message. Therefore, prescriptive norms might be relatively more
salient as workers have more access to them through explicit
organizational policies and formal performance feedback.
Prescriptive norms are often learned through organizational culture,
including explicit organization policies and procedures (Cialdini, Ba-
tor, & Guadagna, 1999). If prescriptive norms are the stronger influ-
ence on workplace telepressure, the employing organization might
have more control over those perceptions. Unlike descriptive norms
among employees that arise out of habits, an organization has the
power to dictate changes to prescriptive organizational norms. Orga-
nizations should be able to address problems related to workplace
telepressure by developing workplace policies around ICT use and
expectations or encouraging workgroups to collaboratively discuss
and set response expectation agreements independently. Examples
include specific guidelines regarding response times during the work
day or during weekends (e.g., within 48 hrs), training employees on
how to limit message responding and checking to certain times of day
or outlining “blackout” days or times when employees are not ex-
pected to respond (after 6 PM and before 8 AM). In 2011, the German
company Volkswagen made news headlines when it restricted e-mail
 184 BARBER AND SANTUZZI

Table 4
Workplace Telepressure Predicting Study 2 Recovery Outcomes Beyond Personal and Social/organizational Factors

Psychological
Detachment Sleep Quantity Sleep Quality Sleep Consistency
␤ t ␤ t ␤ t ␤ t

Step 1
Conscientiousness ⫺.04 ⫺.56 .03 .34 ⫺.11 ⫺1.63 ⫺.25 ⫺3.49ⴱ
Public self-consciousness ⫺.03 ⫺.63 ⫺.01 ⫺.24 .05 .90 .01 .17
Job involvement ⫺.32 ⫺4.84ⴱ ⫺.11 ⫺1.39 .01 .20 .08 1.06
Affective commitment ⫺.02 ⫺.29 .08 1.03 .00 .02 .01 .08
⌬F(4, 298), ⌬R2 18.06ⴱ .195 1.52 .020 4.29ⴱ .054 7.78ⴱ .095
Step 2
General workload .04 .61 .10 .10 ⫺.03 ⫺.38 .03 .45
⫺3.75ⴱ ⫺.02 ⫺.25
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ICT Demands-response expectations .03 .40 .01 .04 .58

⫺.29 ⫺4.02ⴱ ⫺.30 ⫺.15 2.99ⴱ
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

ICT Demands-availability .23 .00 .05

ICT Demands-poor communication ⫺.03 ⫺.45 ⫺.01 ⫺.93 .02 .36 .04 .66
ICT Demands-lack of control ⫺.15 ⫺2.51ⴱ ⫺.06 .01 .15 2.37ⴱ ⫺.01 ⫺.10
ICT Demands-hassles .06 .95 .00 ⫺.68 .15 2.32ⴱ .08 1.15
ICT Demands-monitoring .02 .35 ⫺.04 1.64 .02 .28 .04 .70
ICT Demands-learning expectations .08 1.34 .12 ⫺.33 .05 .73 ⫺.09 ⫺1.31
ICT Demands-workload ⫺.17 ⫺2.47ⴱ ⫺.03 .25 ⫺.06 ⫺.84 .05 .67
⌬F(9, 289), ⌬R2 5.11ⴱ .111 2.33ⴱ .066 4.19ⴱ .109 .74 .020
Step 3
Telepressure ⫺.05 ⫺.85 .02 .35 .13 2.07ⴱ .09 1.49
⌬F(1, 288), ⌬R2 .73 .002 .06 .000 4.27ⴱ .012 2.23 .007
Full model
F(14, 288), R2 9.13ⴱ .307 1.95ⴱ .086 4.28ⴱ .176 2.85ⴱ .122
Note. Global model fit statistics are in italics.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.

access for organizational members on company-issued ICT devices
during nonwork hours. Specifically, employees could only access
their work e-mail during work hours up to 30 min after their shift,
with access returning 30 min before their next shift (“VW turns off,”
2011). A survey of over 300 U.S.-based and multinational organiza-
tions found that 21% of companies reported instituting formal policies
regarding ICT use outside of work hours, with 26% reporting infor-
mal policies (Society of Human Resource Management, 2012). Given
that recent research suggests that setting boundaries around ICT use is
helpful for employee recovery and well-being (Barber & Jenkins,
2014; Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2006), more organizations should
consider adopting technology use policies or providing training to
help employees set ICT use boundaries.
Having influence via prescriptive norms over workplace tele-
pressure also positions an organization to demonstrate support for
a healthy workplace and work-life balance. Given that prescriptive
norms seem to be more tied to workplace telepressure, an organi-
zation might directly intervene when high levels of workplace
telepressure and the associated risks to health and well-being
emerge among employees. Communicating cultural values such as
family supportive work environments (i.e., organizational support
for employees’ family lives; Allen, 2001; Thompson, Beauvais, &
Lyness, 1999), might help employees engage in more recovery
time during their off-work hours instead of responding to work-
related messages. Having managerial support for helping employ-
ees set healthy limits on accessibility is a key factor that might help
reduce workplace telepressure.
Also important to both employees and their employing organi-
zation is that higher levels of workplace telepressure are associated
with some aspects of stress, recovery, and e-mail responding
behavior. The results from Study 2 found that higher workplace
telepressure is associated with stress-related outcomes such as
physical and cognitive burnout and health-related absenteeism.
Although workplace telepressure does not seem to be associated
with psychological detachment beyond personal and work envi-
ronment factors or sleep quantity and consistency, telepressured
employees do report poorer sleep quality. Study 2 also indicated
that telepressured employees report that they respond more fre-
quency to e-mails and have shorter e-mail response times.
On the surface, faster response times might be interpreted as
positive work performance such that information is being commu-
nicated faster and progress toward organizational goals is acceler-
ated. However, responsiveness might not map on to actual work
productivity and might actually be linked to poorer work quality in
an effort to maximize speed. Additionally, gains in communication
and information exchange might come at a cost to health and
well-being if workplace telepressure levels are high. Given that
Study 2 suggests workplace telepressure is associated with higher
burnout and absenteeism, as well as poorer sleep quality, employ-
ers should ensure that employee health and well-being is not
compromised as a consequence of their high motivation to per-
form. Organizations might want to emphasize that they value high
quality work that requires extended periods of uninterrupted time
rather than high responsiveness via message-based technologies.
Study 2 also suggests that technological demands of the work
environment— especially related response expectations—seem to be
significantly associated with workplace telepressure rather than over-
all workload. Thus, workplace telepressure appears to be a unique
experience arising from a growing reliance on technological commu-
nication in the work environment. As such, organizations need to pay
 WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE 185

Table 5
Workplace Telepressure Predicting Study 2 E-mail Behavior Outcomes Beyond Personal and Work Environment Factors

E-mail
E-mail E-mail Responding
Responding Responding Latency
Frequency Latency (Modified)
␤ t ␤ t ␤ t

Step 1
Conscientiousness .01 .11 .12 .76
Public self-consciousness ⫺.06 ⫺1.31 ⫺.03 ⫺.23
Job involvement .19 3.36ⴱ ⫺.13 .98
Affective commitment .07 1.08 ⫺.27 ⫺1.95
⌬F(4, 298), ⌬R2 20.32ⴱ .214 ⌬F(4, 91), ⌬R2 1.56 .064
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Step 2
General workload ⫺.08 ⫺1.50 .02 .12
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

ICT Demands-response expectations .08 1.36 ⫺.33 ⫺2.23ⴱ ⫺.19 ⫺1.76

ICT Demands-availability .38 6.15ⴱ .08 .54
ICT Demands-poor communication .07 1.36 ⫺.18 ⫺1.59 ⫺.14 ⫺1.34
ICT Demands-lack of control ⫺.06 ⫺1.19 .09 .71
ICT Demands-hassles ⫺.02 ⫺.40 ⫺.18 ⫺1.38 ⫺.13 ⫺1.20
ICT Demands-monitoring ⫺.07 ⫺1.36 ⫺.04 ⫺.30
ICT Demands-learning expectations ⫺.08 ⫺1.37 ⫺.03 ⫺.19
ICT Demands-workload .23 3.96ⴱ .13 .93
⌬F(9, 289), ⌬R2 14.64ⴱ .246 ⌬F(9, 82), ⌬R2 1.97 .166 ⌬F(3, 92), ⌬R2 5.26ⴱ .146
Step 3
Telepressure .13 2.68ⴱ ⫺.19 ⫺1.54 ⫺.24 ⫺2.25ⴱ
⌬F(1, 288), ⌬R2 7.19ⴱ .013 ⌬F(1, 81), ⌬R2 2.38 .022 ⌬F(1, 91), ⌬R2 5.08ⴱ .045
Full model
F(14, 288), R2 18.50ⴱ .473 F(14, 81), R2 1.95ⴱ .252 F(4, 91), R2 5.39ⴱ .192
Note. Model fit statistics are in italics.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05.

more attention to how ICTs create additional demands beyond em-
ployees’ regular workload. Specifically, employee responses to these
demands (i.e., workplace telepressure) can have an incrementally
negative effect on employee health and well-being.
Limitations and Future Research
Although the set of studies included individual differences and
outcomes that were most clearly implicated in the existing social
influence and occupational health literatures, several additional
variables could be considered to be important to this examination.
For example, the manner in which information about norms is
conveyed might play a large role in how workers respond to those
norms. If an organization has a strong social environment, descrip-
tive norms might be transmitted and more salient than prescriptive
norms conveyed through formal policy and performance feedback.
Thus, our research did not find strong support for the role of
descriptive norms in workplace telepressure, but we were unable to
examine the strength or ambiguity of those norms from the work-
ers’ perspectives.
Future research should build on our findings related to work-
place norms to examine whether specific job characteristics or
organizational features yield more workplace telepressure than
other characteristics among employees. For example, fast response
times are rewarded in client-oriented work such as in consulting
and sales. Workers in those positions likely are susceptible to high
levels of workplace telepressure and the associated negative health
consequences. Other jobs that have a different reward system (e.g.,
independent of ICT or customer responsiveness) might be less
susceptible to workplace telepressure.
As expected, the present set of studies found only minimal
evidence for a relationship between personal factors and work-
place telepressure. However, we only examined those personal
factors (e.g., conscientiousness) as direct predictors of workplace-
specific telepressure and outcomes. Future research should exam-
ine whether those individual differences have similar associations
with nonwork demands and nonwork-related telepressure (i.e.,
messages from family members and friends). Important to our
conclusions, such research should consider whether work-related
and nonwork ICT messages both create additional burden and
stress for some types of workers. For instance, highly conscien-
tious and extraverted workers might experience an additional
burden from attempting to respond quickly to both work and
nonwork communications. Furthermore, how these individual dif-
ferences manifest with telepressure might be moderated by other
factors, such as domain centrality (e.g., Edwards & Rothbard,
1999; Kossek Ruderman, Braddy, & Hannum, 2012). That is, the
relationships among work demands, workplace telepressure, and
stress outcomes might be stronger among individuals who define
their self-concept in relation to the work domain (highly work
centric) as opposed to those who find their home domains more
salient (highly family centric). Those with dual centricity (i.e.,
Lobel & St. Clair, 1992), might suffer the most from telepressure
arising from trying to meet social communication demands in both
work and home domains. Future research could extend our limited
examination of individual differences to examine additional dis-
 186 BARBER AND SANTUZZI
positional tendencies and moderating factors that might make
some employees more susceptible to workplace telepressure than
others. Workers who have a nigh need for cognitive closure
(Webster & Kruglanski, 1994), for example, might experience
stronger urges to complete ICT communications as they have a
lower tolerance for ambiguity and “loose ends.”
Limiting generalizability across time, data from both studies
were based on cross-sectional surveys. The decision was based in
part on the construct definition for workplace telepressure indicat-
ing that the experience was situational. Thus, an employee’s report
of workplace telepressure, antecedent norms, and health recovery
outcomes were collected from the same situation. This design was
limited to only a single, short-term experience reported in these
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
studies. Future research using longitudinal designs should consider
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
the trajectory of workplace telepressure and whether it will have
consequences on both performance and health over a period of
time on a job. Over short or moderate periods of time, workplace
telepressure might not negatively affect health outcomes. How-
ever, long-term exposure to workplace telepressure might have
cumulative effects on health through increased allostastic load
(i.e., negative physiological effects of chronic stress exposure;
McEwen, 1998). This occurs because of the heighted “fight-or-
flight” stress response to workplace demands that employees
might be continually exposed to because of the lack of sustained
disconnection from work. Moreover, research should consider
whether experiences of workplace telepressure shape subse-
quent interpretations of ICT and other job demands, perhaps
contributing further to increased stress responses and negative
health consequences over the long term. For example, employ-
ees experiencing workplace telepressure might misinterpret am-
biguous cues in an e-mail (“please respond ASAP”) as a need to
respond in a shorter time frame than what was intended by the
email sender (i.e., the sender meant within the next work day
rather than immediately or within the hour). As such, workplace
telepressure might skew the perception of the social demands
of the work environment toward escalating quick response
expectations. Subsequent studies might want to examine the
specific time course in which workplace telepressure develops
in relation to perceptions of work demands, including if these
effects are reciprocal. Additionally longitudinal research can
determine the time course in which workplace telepressure has
the most detrimental impact on recovery and health, as well as
how quickly these effects can be reversed.
Also, future research should examine whether changes in work-
place telepressure occur across work situations within the same
organization. Workplace telepressure might change over time be-
cause of various workplace characteristics, such as tenure within
an organization or within a given workgroup. Newer employees
might be more susceptible to workplace telepressure given their
desire to impress new colleagues with quick responsiveness or
model their behavior around the current workgroup. Understand-
ing the long-term trajectories and implications of workplace tele-
pressure can help organizations to determine whether different
interventions are required for telepressure-related problems that
are newly emerging as compared with problems that have persisted
undetected for a period of time.
Finally, we had a few significant limitations regarding our
measure of response latency. We had a high nonresponse rate on
this particular variable; around 68% of the sample indicated that
they did not currently have access to their work email or did not
wish to complete that information. This might have been partly
driven by the longer time taken to complete the survey (with the
response latency questions at the end). In our pilot survey with this
variable, we had an 82% response rate, most likely because this
survey only respondents an average of seven minutes to complete
(compared with the average of 20 min for Study 2). Fortunately,
the workplace telepressure relationships with this outcome for
Study 2 appeared to be consistent with the pilot study, but we
cannot rule out the potential of bias due to the high proportion of
missing data. Second, relying on only the last work e-mail to
assess this measure is a small sample of behavior. This method was
chosen so that it would be less time-intrusive for participants to
complete. Finding a way to average e-mail response times over
more e-mails by using a more comprehensive yet less time-
intensive methodology (i.e., e-mail monitoring software that can
protect content privacy) for future research would help to alleviate
this concern. Also, future studies can move beyond work e-mail
responding behavior to determine what effects workplace telepres-
sure might have on work performance. As mentioned before, email
responsiveness is not necessarily an indicator of better job perfor-
mance—thus, explorations into how workplace telepressure might
affect actual work quality and quantity would be useful to orga-
nizations.
Conclusions
Employee health has become a central concern to organizations
in their efforts to sustain a competitive edge. Research suggests
that a healthy worker is a productive worker, as job stress leads to
increased levels of absenteeism, turnover, and even medical ex-
penditures (Cooper & Cartwright, 1994; Goetzel, Guindon, Tur-
shen, Ozminkowski, 2001; Mills, Kessler, Cooper, & Sullivan,
2007). With the increased concern about employee well-being,
more flexible work arrangements that rely on technology-mediated
communications have become part of many job designs. Despite
the positive health intentions of such flexibility, the increased
experiences of workplace telepressure among employees who use
technology-based communications for work purposes might actu-
ally reduce control over work recovery (i.e., leading to an auton-
omy paradox; Mazmanian et al., 2013). According to the results
from these studies, workplace telepressure involves a heightened
preoccupation and urge to respond quickly to ICT messages. More
workplace telepressure is associated with poor physical and psy-
chological health in employees and is associated with more ICT
demands in the work environment. Researchers and practitioners
must be prepared to manage workplace telepressure issues among
employees to ensure that technology-mediated communications
yield their intended effects of improving employee autonomy,
well-being, and potentially performance. This includes helping
employees set boundaries around their technology use to preserve
recovery time (Barber & Jenkins, 2014; Olson-Buchanan & Bo-
swell, 2006), including setting organizational norms and policies
around technological responsiveness that allows for sufficient re-
covery. Otherwise, employees might become burned out, unfo-
cused, and ineffective at work because of the burden of continuous
accessibility expectations.
 WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE
References
Afifi, W. A., & Metts, S. (1998). Characteristics and consequences of
expectation violations in close relationships. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 15(3), 365–392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0265407598153004
Åkerstedt, T., Nilsson, P. M., & Kecklund, G. (2009). Sleep and recovery.
Research in Occupational Stress and Well-Being, 7, 205–247.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of
affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x
Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of
organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414 –
435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2000.1774
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
American Psychological Association. (2013). Americans stay connected to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
work on weekends, vacation, and even when out sick. American Psy-
chological Association Press Room. Retrieved from http://www.apa
.org/news/press/releases/2013/09/connected-work.aspx
Aziz, S., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). A cluster analysis investigation of
workaholism as a syndrome. Journal of Occupational Health Psychol-
ogy, 11, 52– 62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.11.1.52
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model:
State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309 –328.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
Barber, L. K., & Jenkins, J. S. (2014). Creating technological boundaries to
protect bedtime: Examining work– home boundary management, psy-
chological detachment and sleep. Stress and Health, 30, 259 –264.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smi.2536
Barnes, C. M., Wagner, D. T., & Ghumman, S. (2012). Borrowing from
sleep to pay work and family: Expanding time-based conflict to the
broader nonwork domain. Personnel Psychology, 65, 789 – 819. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/peps.12002
Behrend, T. S., Sharek, D. J., Meade, A. W., & Wiebe, E. N. (2011). The
viability of crowdsourcing for survey research. Behavior Research
Methods, 43, 800 – 813. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0081-0
Boswell, W. R., & Olson-Buchanan, J. B. (2007). The use of communi-
cation technologies after hours: The role of work attitudes and work-life
conflict. Journal of Management, 33, 592– 610. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0149206307302552
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechan-
ical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspec-
tives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1745691610393980
Cascio, W. F. (2000). Managing a virtual workplace. The Academy of
Management Executive, 14, 81–90.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engage-
ment: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and
contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89 –136. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x
Cialdini, R. B., Bator, R. J., & Guadagno, R. E. (1999). Normative
influences in organizations. In L. Thompson, D. Messick, & J. Levine
(Eds.), Shared cognitions in organizations: The management of knowl-
edge. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance
and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591– 621. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of
normative conduct. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24,
201–234.
Cooper, C. L., & Cartwright, S. (1994). Healthy mind, healthy organiza-
tion—A Proactive approach to occupational stress. Human Relations,
47, 455– 471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679404700405
Day, A., Paquet, S., Scott, N., & Hambley, L. (2012). Perceived informa-
tion and communication technology (ICT) demands on employee out-
187
comes: The moderating effect of organizational ICT support. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 17, 473– 491. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0029837
Day, A., Scott, N., & Kelloway, E. K. (2010). Information and communi-
cation technology: Implications for job stress and employee well-being.
Research in Occupational Stress and Well-being, 8, 317–350. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3555(2010)0000008011
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001).
The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 86, 499 –512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (1999). Work and family stress and
well-being: An examination of person-environment fit in the work and
family domains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 77, 85–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2813
Finn, J. (2006). An exploratory study of email use by direct service social
workers. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 24, 1–20. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1300/J017v24n04_01
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The
reasoned action approach. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Forsyth, D. R. (2009). Group dynamics. In H. T. Reis & S. Sprecher (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of human relationships (pp. 145–148). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412958479.n248
Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and
reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 530 –555. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.530
Goetzel, R. Z., Guindon, A. M., Turshen, I. J., & Ozminkowski, R. J.
(2001). Health and productivity management: Establishing key perfor-
mance measures, benchmarks, and best practices. Journal of Occupa-
tional and Environmental Medicine, 43, 10 –17. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1097/00043764-200101000-00003
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality
inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models.
In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality
Psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, the Netherlands:
Tilburg University Press.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C.,
Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality
Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal
of Research in Personality, 40, 84 –96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp
.2005.08.007
Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). “Same same” but different?
Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and
organizational commitment? European Psychologist, 11, 119 –127.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.11.2.119
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for
use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1,
104 –121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106
Jenkins, C. D., Stanton, B.-A., Niemcryk, S. J., & Rose, R. M. (1988). A
scale for the estimation of sleep problems in clinical research. Journal of
Clinical Epidemiology, 41, 313–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0895-
4356(88)90138-2
Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise
measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, 420 – 432.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019265
Kanai, A., & Wakabayashi, M. (2001). Workaholism among Japanese
blue-collar employees. International Journal of Stress Management, 8,
129 –145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009529314121
Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 341–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.67.3.341
 188 BARBER AND SANTUZZI
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental
strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly,
24, 285–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392498
Kelloway, E. K., & Day, A. L. (2005). Building healthy workplaces: What
we know so far. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 37, 223–235.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0087259
Kessler, R. C., Barber, C., Beck, A., Berglund, P., Cleary, P. D., McKenas,
D., . . . Wang, P. (2003). The World Health Organization Health and
Work Performance Questionnaire (HPQ). Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, 45, 156 –174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01
.jom.0000052967.43131.51
Koopman, C., Pelletier, K. R., Murray, J. F., Sharda, C. E., Berger, M. L.,
Turpin, R. S., . . . Bendel, T. (2002). Stanford presenteeism scale: health
status and employee productivity. Journal of Occupational and Envi-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ronmental Medicine/American College of Occupational and Environ-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
mental Medicine, 44(1), 14 –20.
Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2006). Telecommuting,
control, and boundary management: Correlates of policy use and prac-
tice, job control, and work–family effectiveness. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 68, 347–367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.07.002
Kossek, E. E., Ruderman, M. N., Braddy, P. W., & Hannum, K. M. (2012).
Work-nonwork boundary management profiles: A person-centered ap-
proach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, 112–128. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jvb.2012.04.003
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Psychological stress and the coping
process. New York, NY: Springer.
Lobel, S., & St. Clair, L. (1992). Effects of family responsibilities, gender,
and career identitysalience on performance outcomes. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 35, 1057–1069. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256540
Markus, M. L. (1994). Electronic mail as the medium of managerial choice.
Organization Science, 5, 502–527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.4
.502
Mastin, D. F., Bryson, J., & Corwyn, R. (2006). Assessment of sleep
hygiene using the Sleep Hygiene Index. Journal of Behavioral Medicine,
29(3), 223–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10865-006-9047-6
Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2013). The autonomy
paradox: The implications of mobile email devices for knowledge pro-
fessionals. Organization Science, 24, 1337–1357. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1287/orsc.1120.0806
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor
model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x
McEwen, B. S. (1998). Stress, adaptation, and disease. Allostasis and
allostatic load. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 840,
33– 44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1998.tb09546.x
McEwen, B. S., & Stellar, E. (1993). Stress and the individual. Mecha-
nisms leading to disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 153(18), 2093–
2101.
Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload.
In P. J. D. Drenth & H. Thierry (Eds.), Handbook of work and organi-
zational psychology: Work psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 5–33). Hove, Eng-
land: Psychology Press.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization
of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review,
1, 61– 89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002).
Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization:
A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 61, 20 –52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001
.1842
Mills, P. R., Kessler, R. C., Cooper, J., & Sullivan, S. (2007). Impact of a
health promotion program on employee health risks and work produc-
tivity. American Journal of Health Promotion, 22, 45–53. http://dx.doi
.org/10.4278/0890-1171-22.1.45
Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Scullen, S. M., & Rounds, J. (2005).
Higher-order dimensions of the big five personality traits and the big six
vocational interest types. Personnel Psychology, 58, 447– 478. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00468.x
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Boswell, W. R. (2006). Blurring boundaries:
Correlates of integration and segmentation between work and nonwork.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 432– 445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jvb.2005.10.006
Park, Y., Fritz, C., & Jex, S. M. (2011). Relationships between work– home
segmentation and psychological detachment from work: The role of
communication technology use at home. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 16, 457– 467. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023594
Park, Y., & Jex, S. M. (2011). Work– home boundary management using
communication and information technology. International Journal of
Stress Management, 18, 133–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022759
Ragu-Nathan, T. S., Tarafdar, M., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Tu, Q. (2008).
The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations: Con-
ceptual development and empirical validation. Information Systems Re-
search, 19(4), 417– 433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0165
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2003). Test manual for the Utrecht
Work Engagement Scale. Unpublished manuscript, Utrecht University,
the Netherlands. Retrieved from http://www.schaufeli.com
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and
their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/job.248
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement
of work engagement with a short questionnaire A cross-national study.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
Schaufeli, W. B., Shimazu, A., & Taris, T. W. (2009). Being driven to
work excessively hard: The evaluation of a two-factor measure of
workaholism in the Netherlands and Japan. Cross-Cultural Research,
43, 320 –348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1069397109337239
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism,
burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds
of employee well-being? Applied Psychology, 57(2), 173–203. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00285.x
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). The Self-Consciousness Scale: A
revised version for use with general populations. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 15, 687– 699. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816
.1985.tb02268.x
Shirom, A., & Melamed, S. (2006). A comparison of the construct validity
of two burnout measures in two groups of professionals. International
Journal of Stress Management, 13, 176 –200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
1072-5245.13.2.176
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526 –537. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/h0037039
Society of Human Resource Management. (2012). Technology and its
impact on employees during nonwork hours. Survey findings. Retrieved
from http://www.shrm.org/research/surveyfindings/articles/pages/
technologyanditsimpactonemployeesduringnonworkinghours.aspx
Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behav-
ior: a new look at the interface between nonwork and work. The Journal
of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 518 –528.
Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2010). Staying well and
engaged when demands are high: The role of psychological detach-
ment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 965–976. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0020032
 WORKPLACE TELEPRESSURE
Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The Recovery Experience Question-
naire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recu-
peration and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 12, 204 –221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3
.204
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four self-report
measures of job stressors and strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work
Scale, Organizational Constraints Scale, Quantitative Workload In-
ventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 3(4), 356 –367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1076-
8998.3.4.356
Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When
work–family benefits are not enough: The influence of work–family
culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work–
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392–415. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1006/jvbe.1998.1681
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Appendix
Workplace Telepressure Measure
Instructions
For the following questions, think about how you use technol-
ogy to communicate with people in your workplace. Specifically
think about message-based technologies that allow you to control
when you respond (email, text messages, voicemail, etc.). Please
rate how much you agree or disagree with the statements.
When using message-based technology for work purposes . . .
1. I’m concerned about keeping fast response times. (Pre-
occupation)
2. I often think about how I need to respond more quickly.
(Preoccupation)
3. It’s hard for me to focus on other things when I
receive a message from someone. (Preoccupation)
4. I can concentrate better on other tasks once I’ve
responded to my messages. (Preoccupation)
189
Townsend, A. M., DeMarie, S. M., & Hendrickson, A. R. (1998).
Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. The
Academy of Management Executive, 12, 17–29.
Valcour, M. (2007). Work-based resources as moderators of the rela-
tionship between work hours and satisfaction with work-family bal-
ance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1512–1523.
Van den Broeck, A., Schreurs, B., De Witte, H., Vansteenkiste, M.,
Germeys, F., & Schaufeli, W. (2011). Understanding workaholics’
motivations: A self-determination perspective. Applied Psychology:
An International Review, 60, 600 – 621. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
.1464-0597.2011.00449.x
VW turns off out-of-hours email. (2011, December). BBC News. Re-
trieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16314901
Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in
need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 67, 1049 –1062.
5. I can’t stop thinking about a message until I’ve
responded. (Preoccupation)
6. I feel a strong need to respond to others immediately.
(Urge)
7. I have an overwhelming feeling to respond right at
that moment when I receive a request from someone.
(Urge)
8. It’s difficult for me to resist responding to a message
right away. (Urge)
ⴱ
Bold items are included in final revised measure.
Received November 26, 2013
Revision received September 8, 2014
Accepted September 15, 2014 䡲