Psychological Reportr, 1990, 67, 311-314.
63 Psychological Reports 1990
RELATING COMPUTER-ASSOCIATED STRESS TO COMPUTERPHOBIA ' RICHARD A. HUDIBURG UniverriQ of North Alabama Summary.-The associations of computer-related stress, somatic complaints, and computerphobia were studied by administering questionnaires covering demographic data, exposure to computer information, computer-related stress, as measured by the Computer Technology Hassles Scale, somatic complaint items of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist, and Rosen, Sears, and Weil's measures of computerphobia: Computer Anxiety Rating Scale, Attitudes Toward Computers Scale, and Computer Thoughts Scale to 109 students. Correlations inhcated scores on the Computer Technology Hassles Scale were significantly correlated .35 with somatic complaints, .27 with years used a computer, and .28 with self-rated computer knowledge. The Computer Technology Hassles Scale was not significantly correlated ( . l a , -.08, and -.05)with the three measures of computerphobia. Computer-related stress appears to be distinct fmm computerphobia.
Hudiburg (1989a) developed a measure of computer-related stress, the Computer Technology Hassles Scale. The scale was shown to be related to a global measure of stress (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983) but relatively independent of attitudes toward computer technology (Nickell & Pinto, 1986). I n a second study, Hudiburg (1989b) revised the Computer Technology Hassles Scale and found that the scale was related to global stress and somatic complaints. The scale was not related to computer attitudes or a measure of computer anxiety (Oetting, 1983). The scale's reliability was moderately low ( r = ,641. These two studies have initially demonstrated that the Computer Technology Hassles Scale is a measure of a specific type of stress and that this computer-related stress is separate from attitudes toward computers and computer anxiety. Computer-related stress results from interactions with computer technology. Interest in human-computer interactions has spawned many "computerisms," by-products of, or constructs about these interactions. These "computerisms" may seem at a glance to be similar or related but are possibly operationally distinct. "Computerphobia" is one of these by-products and has been characterized as fear of or resistance to computer technology. Measures of "computerphobia" were developed by Rosen, Sears, and Weil (1987). Since both computer-related stress and "computerphobia" are by'This research was supported by a faculty research grant from the University of North Alabama. The author thanks Janet Hudiburg and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and Larry Rosen of the Com uterphobia Program for the use of their scales. Requests for reprints ~. Box 5187, University of North Alabama, Florence, AL should be sent to ~ i c h a r i Hudiburg, 35632.
3 12
R. A. HUDIBURG
products of human-computer interactions, it would be of value to learn the relationship between the two "computerisms." The current study was undertaken to estimate what relationship the Computer Technology Hassles Scale, a measure of computer-related stress, has to "computerphobia" as defined and measured by Rosen, et al. (1987).
METHOD A questionnaire was constructed which included demographic questions (sex, age, year in school, major) and questions about exposure to computers, e.g., years used a computer, computer knowledge, etc. Two scales from Hudiburg's (1989b) study were included. One was the Computer Technology Hassles Scale (e.g., 7. Computer system is down, 26. Programming error), whch required a graded four-point severity response, anchored by not at all (value 0) and extremely severe (value 3). The second scale consisted of the somatic complaint items (e.g., 1. Headaches, 18. Feeling tense or keyed up) from the Hopkins Symptoms Checklist (Derogatis, Lipman, Rickels, Uhlenhuth, & Covi, 1974) requiring a four-point level of distress response, anchored by not at all (value 1) and extreme distress (value 4). Three scales were included from the Rosen, et al. (1987) study of computerphobia. The first scale was the 54-question Computer Anxiety Rating Scale (e.g., 1. Using a brand new pocket calculator), and each statement was rated on a scale from 1: not at all, to 5: very much. The second scale was the 26-item Attitudes Toward Computers Scale (e.g., 4. Computer languages are difficult to learn.), and each item was rated on a scale from 1: strongly agree, to 5: strongly disagree. The third scale was the 28-question Computer Thoughts Scale (e.g., 12. Computers are cold and impersonal), and each question was rated on a scale from 1: not at all, to 5: very often. The questionnaire was administered to a sample of 109 undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in psychology and business courses at a southeastern U.S. university. Subjects were debriefed concerning the purpose of the research after completing the questionnaire. The sample was predominantly women (56%, n =61), frequently freshmen (25.7%, n = 28) or seniors (28 4%, n = 311, and most frequently majoring in business (47.7%, n = 52), education (14 i % ,n = 16), or social science (13.8%, n = 15). The mean age was 24.5 yr. (SD 6 3) A major~ryhad taken a computer course (69 7 % , n = 76) and had used a computer (95 490, n = 104). A slight majority currently use a computer 150.5%, n = 55) for an average of 5.31 hr per week. Only 24 subjects owned a computer (22%), although most had access to one (82.6%, n = 90).
-
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION The Computer Technology Hassles Scale was scored by summing the severity level across "hassles," yielding an hassles severity score (potential range O to 207). A level of distress score was calculated by summing across the somatic complaints of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (potential range 19 to 76). Separate scores were computed for the three "computerphobia" measures according to the scoring guides provided by Rosen, et al. (1987), Computer Anxiety Ratings Scale range 53 to 265), Attitudes Toward Computers Scale (potential range 26 to 130), and Computer Thoughts Survey (potential range 28 to 140). Pearson correlations between the scales and numerically scored information questions were computed. Table 1 includes the descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations between the scales and two of the informational questions, years used a computer and self-rated computer knowledge. The self-rated computer knowledge was on a
3 13
COMPARING COMPUTER-RELATED STRESS
graded scale from 1: no knowledge, to 7: knowledgeable. These two questions were the only ones significantly correlated with the scale scores. The Computer Technology Hassles Scale mean severity score of 45.6 (range 1 to 189) indicates that the respondents in this study reported higher mean levels of computer-related stress than were found by Hudiburg (1989b) (M = 21.6, 17.8). The mean somatic complaints distress score of 29.2 (range 19 to 67) was similar to the means of 30.7 and 32.3 reported by Hudiburg (198913). The Hudiburg (1989b) sample was larger (N = 129) than the present sample and differed demographically in terms of a lower age (M = 20.0) and year in school (60% freshmen). The Hudiburg (1989b) sample of subjects had fewer experiences with computers in terms of taken a computer course (51%), access to a computer (77%), and hours per week use of a computer (M =2.78). These differences might explain the higher mean severity score for the current study. TABLE 1 PEARSON CORRELA~ONS* FORFNE SCALESAND COMPUTER-E)(WSURE Q U E S ~ O N(N S = 109) Measure
1
2
3
4
5
6
M
S
D
1. Computer Technology Hassles-Severity 2. Hopkins Symptom Checklist 3. Computer Anxiety Rating Scale 4. Accitudes Toward Compucers Scale 5. Computer Thoughrs Scale 6 . Years Used a Compu~er 7. Self-rated Computer Knowledge 'At pC.05, r = .20. At p
63 Psychological Reports 1990
RELATING COMPUTER-ASSOCIATED STRESS TO COMPUTERPHOBIA ' RICHARD A. HUDIBURG UniverriQ of North Alabama Summary.-The associations of computer-related stress, somatic complaints, and computerphobia were studied by administering questionnaires covering demographic data, exposure to computer information, computer-related stress, as measured by the Computer Technology Hassles Scale, somatic complaint items of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist, and Rosen, Sears, and Weil's measures of computerphobia: Computer Anxiety Rating Scale, Attitudes Toward Computers Scale, and Computer Thoughts Scale to 109 students. Correlations inhcated scores on the Computer Technology Hassles Scale were significantly correlated .35 with somatic complaints, .27 with years used a computer, and .28 with self-rated computer knowledge. The Computer Technology Hassles Scale was not significantly correlated ( . l a , -.08, and -.05)with the three measures of computerphobia. Computer-related stress appears to be distinct fmm computerphobia.
Hudiburg (1989a) developed a measure of computer-related stress, the Computer Technology Hassles Scale. The scale was shown to be related to a global measure of stress (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983) but relatively independent of attitudes toward computer technology (Nickell & Pinto, 1986). I n a second study, Hudiburg (1989b) revised the Computer Technology Hassles Scale and found that the scale was related to global stress and somatic complaints. The scale was not related to computer attitudes or a measure of computer anxiety (Oetting, 1983). The scale's reliability was moderately low ( r = ,641. These two studies have initially demonstrated that the Computer Technology Hassles Scale is a measure of a specific type of stress and that this computer-related stress is separate from attitudes toward computers and computer anxiety. Computer-related stress results from interactions with computer technology. Interest in human-computer interactions has spawned many "computerisms," by-products of, or constructs about these interactions. These "computerisms" may seem at a glance to be similar or related but are possibly operationally distinct. "Computerphobia" is one of these by-products and has been characterized as fear of or resistance to computer technology. Measures of "computerphobia" were developed by Rosen, Sears, and Weil (1987). Since both computer-related stress and "computerphobia" are by'This research was supported by a faculty research grant from the University of North Alabama. The author thanks Janet Hudiburg and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and Larry Rosen of the Com uterphobia Program for the use of their scales. Requests for reprints ~. Box 5187, University of North Alabama, Florence, AL should be sent to ~ i c h a r i Hudiburg, 35632.
3 12
R. A. HUDIBURG
products of human-computer interactions, it would be of value to learn the relationship between the two "computerisms." The current study was undertaken to estimate what relationship the Computer Technology Hassles Scale, a measure of computer-related stress, has to "computerphobia" as defined and measured by Rosen, et al. (1987).
METHOD A questionnaire was constructed which included demographic questions (sex, age, year in school, major) and questions about exposure to computers, e.g., years used a computer, computer knowledge, etc. Two scales from Hudiburg's (1989b) study were included. One was the Computer Technology Hassles Scale (e.g., 7. Computer system is down, 26. Programming error), whch required a graded four-point severity response, anchored by not at all (value 0) and extremely severe (value 3). The second scale consisted of the somatic complaint items (e.g., 1. Headaches, 18. Feeling tense or keyed up) from the Hopkins Symptoms Checklist (Derogatis, Lipman, Rickels, Uhlenhuth, & Covi, 1974) requiring a four-point level of distress response, anchored by not at all (value 1) and extreme distress (value 4). Three scales were included from the Rosen, et al. (1987) study of computerphobia. The first scale was the 54-question Computer Anxiety Rating Scale (e.g., 1. Using a brand new pocket calculator), and each statement was rated on a scale from 1: not at all, to 5: very much. The second scale was the 26-item Attitudes Toward Computers Scale (e.g., 4. Computer languages are difficult to learn.), and each item was rated on a scale from 1: strongly agree, to 5: strongly disagree. The third scale was the 28-question Computer Thoughts Scale (e.g., 12. Computers are cold and impersonal), and each question was rated on a scale from 1: not at all, to 5: very often. The questionnaire was administered to a sample of 109 undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in psychology and business courses at a southeastern U.S. university. Subjects were debriefed concerning the purpose of the research after completing the questionnaire. The sample was predominantly women (56%, n =61), frequently freshmen (25.7%, n = 28) or seniors (28 4%, n = 311, and most frequently majoring in business (47.7%, n = 52), education (14 i % ,n = 16), or social science (13.8%, n = 15). The mean age was 24.5 yr. (SD 6 3) A major~ryhad taken a computer course (69 7 % , n = 76) and had used a computer (95 490, n = 104). A slight majority currently use a computer 150.5%, n = 55) for an average of 5.31 hr per week. Only 24 subjects owned a computer (22%), although most had access to one (82.6%, n = 90).
-
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION The Computer Technology Hassles Scale was scored by summing the severity level across "hassles," yielding an hassles severity score (potential range O to 207). A level of distress score was calculated by summing across the somatic complaints of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (potential range 19 to 76). Separate scores were computed for the three "computerphobia" measures according to the scoring guides provided by Rosen, et al. (1987), Computer Anxiety Ratings Scale range 53 to 265), Attitudes Toward Computers Scale (potential range 26 to 130), and Computer Thoughts Survey (potential range 28 to 140). Pearson correlations between the scales and numerically scored information questions were computed. Table 1 includes the descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations between the scales and two of the informational questions, years used a computer and self-rated computer knowledge. The self-rated computer knowledge was on a
3 13
COMPARING COMPUTER-RELATED STRESS
graded scale from 1: no knowledge, to 7: knowledgeable. These two questions were the only ones significantly correlated with the scale scores. The Computer Technology Hassles Scale mean severity score of 45.6 (range 1 to 189) indicates that the respondents in this study reported higher mean levels of computer-related stress than were found by Hudiburg (1989b) (M = 21.6, 17.8). The mean somatic complaints distress score of 29.2 (range 19 to 67) was similar to the means of 30.7 and 32.3 reported by Hudiburg (198913). The Hudiburg (1989b) sample was larger (N = 129) than the present sample and differed demographically in terms of a lower age (M = 20.0) and year in school (60% freshmen). The Hudiburg (1989b) sample of subjects had fewer experiences with computers in terms of taken a computer course (51%), access to a computer (77%), and hours per week use of a computer (M =2.78). These differences might explain the higher mean severity score for the current study. TABLE 1 PEARSON CORRELA~ONS* FORFNE SCALESAND COMPUTER-E)(WSURE Q U E S ~ O N(N S = 109) Measure
1
2
3
4
5
6
M
S
D
1. Computer Technology Hassles-Severity 2. Hopkins Symptom Checklist 3. Computer Anxiety Rating Scale 4. Accitudes Toward Compucers Scale 5. Computer Thoughrs Scale 6 . Years Used a Compu~er 7. Self-rated Computer Knowledge 'At pC.05, r = .20. At p
