This research investigated coping strategies used by computer users who experienced varying degrees of computer-stress. Eighty-three college student computer users completed a research questionnaire with information about: computer use, computer knowledge, self-esteem, level of computer-stress, somatization/anxiety, stressful computer problem, and use of coping strategies. Based on scores derived from the Computer Hassles Scale, the students were classified as either experiencing high or low levels of computer-stress. Statistical analyses of differences revealed that high computer-stress users had lower self-rated computer abilities, lower self-esteem, and reported higher levels of somatization and anxiety. High computer-stress users, in contrast to low computer-stress users, significantly employed at higher levels confrontive, self-controlling, and accepting responsibility coping strategies in dealing with computer problems. The coping strategies employed by high computer-stress users were primarily emotional-focused coping strategies. The low computer-stress group tended to adopt a problem-solving coping strategy in dealing with computer problems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
RosenL. R.MaguireP. D., Myths and Realities of Computerphobia: A Meta-Analysis, Anxiety Research, 3, pp. 175–191, 1990.
2.
HudiburgR. A., Factor Analysis of the Computer Technology Hassles Scale, Psychological Reports, 71, pp. 739–744, 1992.
3.
HudiburgR. A., Psychology of Computer Use: XXXIV. The Computer Hassles Scale: Subscales, Norms, and Reliability, Psychological Reports, 77, pp. 779–782, 1995.
4.
HudiburgR. A.AhrensP. A.JonesT. M., Psychology of Computer Use: XXXI. Relating Computer Users' Stress, Daily Hassles, Somatic Complaints, and Anxiety, Psychological Reports, 75, pp. 1183–1186, 1994.
5.
HudiburgR. A.BrownS. R.JonesT. M., Psychology of Computer Use: XXIX. Measuring Computer Users' Stress: The Computer Hassles Scale, Psychological Reports, 73, pp. 923–929, 1993.
6.
LazarusR. S., From Psychological Stress to the Emotions: A History of Changing Outlooks, Annual Review of Psychology, 44, pp. 1–21, 1993.
7.
LazarusR. S., Psychological Stress and the Coping Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1966.
8.
LazarusR. S.FolkmanS., Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, Springer, New York1984.
9.
CohenF., Measurement of Coping, in Stress and Coping: An Anthology (3rd Edition), MonatA.LazarusR. S. (eds.), Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 228–244, 1991.
10.
FolkmanS.LazarusR. S., An Analysis of Coping in a Middle-Aged Community Sample, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, pp. 219–239, 1980.
11.
AmirkhanJ. H., A Factor Analytically Derived Measure of Coping: The Coping Strategy Indicator, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, pp. 1066–1074, 1990.
12.
BillingsA. G.MoosR. H., The Role of Coping Responses and Social Resources in Attenuating the Stress of Life Events, Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4, pp. 139–157, 1981.
13.
CarverC. S.ScheierM. F.WeintraubJ. K., Assessing Coping Strategies: A Theoretically Based Approach, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, pp. 267–283, 1989.
14.
EndlerN. S.ParkerJ. D. A., Multidimensional Assessment of Coping: A Critical Evaluation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, pp. 884–854, 1990.
15.
EndlerN. S.ParkerJ. D. A.ButcherJ. N., A Factor Analytic Study of Coping Styles and the MMPI-2 Content Scales, Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49, pp. 523–527, 1993.
16.
FolkmanS.LazarusR. S., If it Changes it Must be a Process: A Study of Emotion and Coping During Three Stages of a College Examination, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, pp. 150–170, 1985.
17.
PearlinL. I.SchoolerC., The Structure of Coping, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, pp. 2–21, 1978.
18.
VitalianoP. P.RussoJ.CarrJ. E.MaiuroR. D.BeckerJ., The Ways of Coping Checklist: Revision and Psychometric Properties, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 20, pp. 3–26, 1985.
19.
FolkmanS.LazarusR. S.Dunkel-SchetterC.DeLongisA.GruenR., The Dynamics of a Stressful Encounter: Cognitive Appraisal, Coping, and Encounter Outcomes, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, pp. 992–1003, 1986.
20.
TerryD. J., Determinants of Coping: The Role of Stable and Situational Factors, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, pp. 895–910, 1994.
21.
AronssonG.StrömbergA., Coping with Malfunctions of Computer Aided Equipment from a Stress Perspective, in Advances in Human Factors/Ergonomics, 19A: Human-Computer Interaction: Applications and Case Studies, Vol. 1, SmithM. J.SalvendyG. (eds.), Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 804–808, 1993.
22.
MurphyC. A.CooverD.OwenS. V., Development and Validation of the Computer Self-Efficacy Scale, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49, pp. 893–899, 1989.
23.
HarrisonR.RainerK., The Influence of Individual Differences on Skill in End-User Computing, Journal of Management Information Systems, 9, pp. 93–111, 1992.
24.
TordkzadehG.KoufterosX., Factorial Validity of a Computer Self-Efficacy Scale and the Impact of Computer Training, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, pp. 813–821, 1994.
25.
HudiburgR. A., Computer Hassles Scale, in Evaluating Stress: A Book of Resources, ZalaquettC. P.WoodR. J. (eds.), Scarecrow Press/University Press of America, Lanham, Maryland, 1997.
26.
DerogatisL. R.LipmanR. S.CoviL., SCL-90: An Outpatient Psychiatric Rating Scale-Preliminary Report, Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 9, pp. 13–27, 1973.
27.
RosenbergM., Society and the Adolescent Self-Image, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1965.
28.
WileyR. C., Measures of Self-Concept, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1989.
29.
SiegelS., Nonparametic Statistics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1956.
30.
EmurianH. H., Cardiovascular and Electromyograph Effects of Low and High Density Work on an Interactive Information System, Computers in Human Behavior, 9, pp. 353–370, 1993.
