Computers in Human Behavior 81 (2018) 1e9

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Full length article

Smartphone withdrawal creates stress: A moderated mediation model

of nomophobia, social threat, and phone withdrawal context
Stefan Tams a, *, Renaud Legoux b, Pierre-Majorique Le
ger a
a
Department of Information Technologies, HEC Montr
eal, Canada
b
Department of Marketing, HEC Montr eal, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A growing body of literature demonstrates that smartphone use can become problematic when in-
Received 3 April 2016 dividuals develop a technology dependency such that fear can result. This fear is often referred to as
Received in revised form Nomophobia, denoting the fear of not being able to use one's phone. While the literature (especially on
14 November 2017
technostress and problematic smartphone use) has shed ample light on the question of which factors
Accepted 17 November 2017
Available online 20 November 2017
contribute to the development of Nomophobia, it remains less clear how, why, and under what condi-
tions Nomophobia, in turn, results in negative consequences, especially stress. Drawing on the demand-
control-person model, this study develops a novel research model indicating that Nomophobia impacts
Keywords:
Nomophobia
stress through the perception of a social threat and that this indirect effect depends on the context of a
Technostress phone withdrawal situation. Data collected from 270 smartphone users and analyzed using multi-group
Stress path analysis supported our model. The results showed that the proposed indirect effect is non-
Context significant only when situational certainty and controllability come together, that is, when people
Use know for how long they will not be able to use their phones and when they have control over the sit-
uation. Managers can help their nomophobic employees by instilling in them trust and perceptions of
social presence while also giving them more control over their smartphone use during meetings.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction unavailability of one's smartphone (Yildirim & Correia, 2015).

A growing trend in corporate environments is to require em-
ployees to leave their communication devices, especially smart-
phones, outside the meeting room (Forbes, 2014). This well-
intended policy is often meant to create more productive and
respectful work contexts in which employees are not constantly
distracted by technological interruptions (e.g., checking and
writing e-mails via smartphones). However, we argue in this article
that such a policy may have unintended consequences for em-
ployees and organizations alike because smartphone withdrawal
may create a new social phobia: Nomophobia or the fear of not
being able to use one's smartphone and the services it offers (Kang
& Jung, 2014; King, Valença, & Nardi, 2010a, 2010b; King et al.,
2013; Park, Kim, Shon, & Shim, 2013). Nomophobia is a modern
phobia related to the loss of access to information, the loss of
connectedness, and the loss of communication abilities (King et al.,
2013, 2014; Yildirim & Correia, 2015). Nomophobia is situation-
specific such that it is evoked by situations that engender the
* Corresponding author.
As a situation-specific phobia, Nomophobia has recently been
suggested to lead to strong perceptions of anxiety and distress
(Cheever, Rosen, Carrier, & Chavez, 2014; Choy, Fyer, & Lipsitz,
2007; Yildirim & Correia, 2015). In fact, some suggested that
Nomophobia could be so stressful that it warrants to be considered
a psychopathology (Bragazzi & Del Puente, 2014). Recent empirical
research supported this idea, indicating that nomophobic in-
dividuals suffer from stress when their smartphones are out of
reach (Samaha & Hawi, 2016). Stress, in turn, has various negative
consequences for individuals and organizations, including reduced
well-being, acute and chronic health problems, as well as dimin-
ished organizational productivity (Ayyagari, Grover, & Purvis, 2011;
Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lazarus, 1999; Riedl, Kindermann,
Auinger, & Javor, 2012; Tams, Hill, de Guinea, Thatcher, & Grover,
2014). Hence, stress is an important dependent variable to study
in the context of Nomophobia.
Yet, while recent research offers clear and comprehensive ex-
planations of how Nomophobia develops (Bragazzi & Del Puente,
2014; Hadlington, 2015; King, Valença, & Nardi, 2010a, 2010b;
King et al., 2014; Sharma, Sharma, Sharma, & Wavare, 2015;

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.026
0747-5632/© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
2 S. Tams et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 81 (2018) 1e9
Smetaniuk, 2014; Yildirim & Correia, 2015), it remains unclear how,
why, and when (i.e., under what conditions) Nomophobia, in turn,
leads to stress. Absent understanding of the mechanisms con-
necting Nomophobia to stress, research can offer only limited
practical guidance to individuals as well as to health-care practi-
tioners and managers on how to develop intervention strategies
(MacKinnon & Luecken, 2008). To more fully understand the im-
plications of Nomophobia for stress and to offer enhanced practical
guidance, research must generate more detailed and specific ex-
planations of intervening and contextual factors. First, research
must generate more comprehensive explanations of the causal
pathways involved in the process by which Nomophobia-related
impacts unfold (i.e., mediation).1 Second, it has to shed light on
the contextual factors on which Nomophobia-related impacts
depend (i.e., moderation). In other words, research needs to
generate explanations of factors that carry the influence of Nom-
ophobia on to stress (mediation) and of contextual factors on which
this influence depends (moderation). Consequently, the present
study begins to open the black box of the interdependencies be-
tween Nomophobia and other factors that explain in greater detail
how and why Nomophobia can lead to stress (mediation) and when or
under what conditions the stress-related effects of Nomophobia
crystallize (moderation).
To understand the effect of Nomophobia on stress in greater
detail, we draw on the demand-control-person model developed
by Bakker and Leiter (2008) as well as Rubino, Perry, Milam,
Spitzmueller, and Zapf (2012). This theoretical framework is an
extension of Karasek (1979) demand-control model, one of the
most important theories of stress (Siegrist, 1996). The demand-
control-person model can provide a theoretical explanation for
the negative impacts of Nomophobia on stress in a context where
phobic traits of the individual (Nomophobia) are exacerbated by
stressful demands, particularly uncertainty, and by a lack of man-
agement interventions in terms of providing control. The model
further suggests that stressors, such as a nomophobic personality
facing a phone withdrawal situation, lead to stress by threatening
other valued resources (e.g., social esteem, social acceptance, or
social respect). Using this model, we examine whether the impact
of Nomophobia on stress is mediated by social threat and whether
this indirect effect varies under different conditions of uncertainty
and control, which are important work conditions in contemporary
organizational arrangements (Galluch, Grover, & Thatcher, 2015).
By investigating interdependencies between Nomophobia, so-
cial threat, uncertainty, and control in the prediction of stress, this
study makes important contributions. Perhaps most importantly,
the study helps research on Nomophobia progress toward more
detailed and specific explanations of the process by which Nom-
ophobia results in stress (we find that Nomophobia leads to stress
by generating a perceived social threat). Furthermore, the study
establishes certain work conditions (uncertainty and control) as
contextual factors on which the negative impacts of Nomophobia
depend. Overall, this study yields an enriched explanation and
prediction of how, why, and when Nomophobia leads to stress.
The paper proceeds as follows. The next section provides a
background on the study context as a means to frame an integrative
research model of Nomophobia, stress, as well as relevant medi-
ating and moderating factors. This integrative model hypothesizes
that Nomophobia leads to stress via a perceived social threat and
that this indirect effect is strengthened by uncertainty about the
phone withdrawal situation and weakened by control over the
1
Preacher et al. (2007, p. 188) amongst others, clarify that “Mediation analysis
permits examination of process, allowing the researcher to investigate by what
means X exerts its effect on Y.”
situation. The section thereafter reports on the method employed
to test our integrative model and on the results obtained. Finally,
we discuss implications for research and practice.
2. Background and hypotheses
Our approach focuses on integrating the concepts of Nom-
ophobia, stress, and social threat as well as work conditions (i.e.,
uncertainty and control), which have mostly been studied in
isolation before (see Fig. 1). Only a few studies have looked at the
intersection of two such areas (e.g., Samaha and Hawi (2016)
examined whether Nomophobia can generate stress), and no
research to date has examined empirically the point at which all
three areas intersect. It is precisely this intersection that holds
strong potential to explain the stress-related impacts of Nom-
ophobia in greater detail; according to recently-advanced concep-
tual ideas, social threat could be relevant to both Nomophobia and
stress, and work conditions such as uncertainty and lack of control
could be relevant factors in exacerbating phobic traits such as
Nomophobia (Cooper, Dewe, & O'Driscoll, 2001; Dickerson,
Gruenewald, & Kemeny, 2004; Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004; King
et al., 2014; Rubino et al., 2012; Yildirim & Correia, 2015).
To integrate the concepts of Nomophobia, stress, and social
threat as well as work conditions, we draw on the demand-control-
person model (Bakker & Leiter, 2008; Rubino et al., 2012), an
extension of Karasek (1979) demand-control model. The latter in-
dicates that environmental demands interact with the control
people have over their environment in generating stress, that is, it is
the interaction between demands and control that determines the
amount of stress people experience. As regards demands, these are
generally perceived as stressful; therefore, stress increases with
high demands. An important demand in the context of our study is
uncertainty (Best, Stapleton, & Downey, 2005). Uncertainty is an
ambiguity-type stressor that refers to the lack of information people
perceive in relation to their environment (Beehr, Glaser, Canali, &
Wallwey, 2001; Wright & Cordery, 1999). For example, the lack of
information on the duration of a meeting can be perceived as
stressful. According to the literature on organizational stress, this
lack of information, or uncertainty, can generate different types of
stress, such as dissatisfaction, burnout, and general perceived stress
(Rubino et al., 2012).
As regards the control dimension of Karasek (1979) model, it
refers to decision latitude, that is, control refers to peoples'
freedom, independence, and discretion in terms of determining
how to respond to a stressor. As such, control enables people to
better manage environmental demands. In doing so, control serves
as a buffer against stress, as a shield protecting people from the
adverse consequences of stressors in their lives. In line with this
notion, research has consistently shown that people who control
their environment are less stressed (Van der Doef & Maes, 1999).
The demand-control model (Karasek, 1979) has been very suc-
cessful in the study of stress (Siegrist, 1996). However, the model
has important limitations, especially regarding construct dimen-
sionality; the model has been criticized for not being sufficiently
comprehensive (Van der Doef & Maes, 1999). Therefore, recent
research suggests extending the model by incorporating peoples'
individual differences (Bakker & Leiter, 2008). Individual differ-
ences determine how people perceive their environment and react
to it. In doing so, they determine peoples' predispositions to being
stressed. Based on these ideas, Rubino et al. (2012) developed the
demand-control-person model. This model is an extension of the
demand-control model that includes individual differences. Thus,
the demand-control-person model specifies three factors that
determine the level of stress: environmental demands such as
uncertainty, control over one's environment, and individual
 S. Tams et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 81 (2018) 1e9 3

Nomophobia Stress

Bragazzi & Del Puente 2014 Cooper et al. 2001 (Job stress,
technology, moderators)
(Behavioral dependence, mobile
phone, social phobia, specific phobia)
Galluch et al. 2015 (Technostress,
Cheever et al. 2014 Demand Control Model)
(Anxiety, Smartphones, Samaha & Hawi 2016
Dependence) (Smartphone addiction, Stress,
Satisfaction with life, Folkman & Lazarus 1984
Academic performance) (Stress, coping)
Hadlington 2015
(Cognition, Internet addiction,
Lazarus 1999 (Stress, coping)
Problematic mobile phone use)
Explaining in greater detail
King et al. 2014 how and why Nomophobia Riedl et al. 2012 (Cortisol,
(Anxiety, dependence, leads to stress (mediation) Hormone, Technostress)
nomophobia, panic) and under what conditions
the stress-related effects of
Sharma et al. 2015 Nomophobia crystallize Karasek 1979
(Nomophobia, Anxiety, (moderation) (Job stress, demands,
Mobile phones) control)
Yildirim & Correia 2015
Dickerson & Kemeny 2004
(Nomophobia
(Stress, social threats)
questionnaire, NMP-Q)

Amir et al. 2003 (Social phobia, Attention, Disengagement)

Goldin et al. 2009

(social anxiety, mindfulness, attention, emotion)

Hope et al. 1990 (social phobia; information processing;

cognitive assessment)

Mogg et al 2004
(Selective attention, emotion, threats)

Social threat and Work conditions

Fig. 1. Illustrative Studies in the Contexts of Nomophobia, Stress, and Social threat as well as Work conditions.

differences. While Rubino et al. (2012) examined emotional sta-
bility as an individual difference, these authors concluded that
other individual differences (e.g., social phobias such as Nom-
ophobia) could also influence peoples' experiences of stress as well
as the impacts of environmental demands and control on their
stress levels.
The demand-control-person model is a general and compre-
hensive theoretical framework for examining stress formation in
individuals. Therefore, the model can be applied to various stressful
environments and situations (Bakker & Leiter, 2008; Rubino et al.,
2012). With its emphasis on individual differences, such as social
phobias, the model is germane to our study context. Hence, we
draw on this model to examine the impact of Nomophobia on
stress.
According to the demand-control-person model, and consistent
with Karasek (1979) demand-control model as described earlier,
uncertainty in the context of smartphone use can be stressful (for
example, the lack of information about the duration of a meeting
during which employees cannot use their smartphones can be
experienced as taxing by nomophobic individuals). By contrast,
control can help reduce stress (for example, some decision latitude
as to whether a smartphone can be used during a meeting can
buffer against the otherwise stressful impacts of Nomophobia).
Finally, Nomophobia can cause stress, and this effect of
Nomophobia can be exacerbated by uncertainty and lack of control.
The question remains of how, and why, Nomophobia causes stress.
According to the demand-control-person model, stressors such as
social phobias cause stress by threatening other valued resources
(e.g., social esteem, social acceptance, or social respect; (Rubino
et al., 2012)). This notion implies that social phobias, such as
Nomophobia, lead to stress by generating feelings of being socially-
threatened; that is, according to the demand-control-person
model, Nomophobia and stress are connected through a
perceived social threat. This idea is consistent with research on
attentional biases.
Recent research indicates that clinical anxiety is associated with
attentional biases that favor the processing of threat-related in-
formation specific to particular anxiety syndromes (Amir, Elias,
Klumpp, & Przeworski, 2003; Asmundson & Stein, 1994; Hope,
Rapee, Heimberg, & Dombeck, 1990). For example, people with a
social phobia are more likely than others to perceive a social threat
in their environment (Amir et al., 2003; Asmundson & Stein, 1994).
The mechanism involved is selective attention, which is responsible
for the efficient allocation of mental resources (i.e., information
processing resources). Selective attention refers to the ability to
selectively attend to some information sources while ignoring
others (Strayer & Drews, 2007). In the case of individuals with
anxiety disorders, such as those suffering from a social phobia,
4 S. Tams et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 81 (2018) 1e9
selective attention targets negative stimuli; that is, individuals with
anxiety disorders selectively attend to threatening information that
is specifically related to their particular disorder (Asmundson &
Stein, 1994).
This attentional bias has been demonstrated using several
cognitive psychology paradigms. For example, an early study into
attentional biases associated with social phobia used a dot-probe
paradigm to show that when attention was allocated in the
spatial location of a stimulus cue, individuals with social phobia
responded faster to probes that followed social threat cues than to
probes following either neutral cues or physical threat cues, an
effect that was not observed among control subjects (Asmundson &
Stein, 1994). These findings demonstrated that individuals with
social phobia selectively process threat cues that are social-
evaluative in nature; that is, they seek out information that
makes them feel socially-threatened. Another study into atten-
tional biases associated with social phobia used a paradigm with
valid and invalid cues that were presented at different locations on
the computer screen (Amir et al., 2003). In this study, people with
social phobia demonstrated significantly longer response latencies
when detecting invalidly cued targets than did the controls, but
only when the probe followed a social threat word. These results
further confirmed the notion that people with social phobia have
difficulty disengaging their attention from socially threatening in-
formation, implying that people with social phobia are more likely
to feel socially-threatened than people without social phobia. Social
threat, in turn, has been established as a major stressor. For
example, the Trier Social Stress Test with its focus on social threats
is one of the most prominent stress paradigms (Granger, Kivlighan,
El-Sheikh, Gordis, & Stroud, 2007).
Since Nomophobia is a social phobia to which the demand-
control-person model and the attentional bias literature apply
(Bragazzi & Del Puente, 2014; King et al., 2013), one can argue that
social threat carries the influence of Nomophobia on to stress. We
expect social threat in the context of Nomophobia to manifest in
feelings of not meeting others' expectations regarding constant
availability and immediate responsiveness to such technologies as
emails, instant messages, Voice over IP, tweets, and Facebook posts
(King et al., 2014). Thus, social threat can explain in more detail the
link between Nomophobia and stress. Furthermore, the indirect
effect of Nomophobia on stress via social threat should be exacer-
bated by uncertainty as well as lack of control as argued above
(based on the demand-control-person model). Overall, on the basis
of the demand-control-person model and the literature on atten-
tional biases we advance the following hypotheses (please also see
Fig. 2):
H1. Social threat mediates the positive relationship between
Nomophobia and Stress.
H2. Uncertainty regarding the duration of a phone withdrawal
situation moderates the indirect effect of Nomophobia on Stress
(via Social threat) such that this indirect effect will be stronger for
greater levels of Uncertainty.
H3. Control over a phone withdrawal situation moderates the
indirect effect of Nomophobia on Stress (via Social threat) such that
this indirect effect will be weaker for greater levels of Control.
3. Method and results
An experiment was conducted to test our hypotheses. The
experimental design involved two factors to manipulate uncer-
tainty and control, yielding four experimental groups. 270 young
business professionals were recruited via a university research
panel and, subsequently, divided into these four groups by random
allocation. Participation was voluntary and the study was approved
by the institutional review board. The experiment employed a
questionnaire as a method of data collection. The questionnaire was
developed on the basis of prior research.
3.1. Protocol: details on the questionnaire used as the method of
data collection
The participants were randomly assigned to one of four condi-
tions: 1) low uncertainty, low control, 2) low uncertainty, high control,
3) high uncertainty, low control, and 4) high uncertainty, high control.
Dependent on their respective conditions, the participants were,
then, presented with a scenario. They were given clear instructions
to imagine themselves in a fictitious business meeting during
which they could not use their smartphones. In the low uncertainty
condition, the scenario indicated the duration of the meeting (i.e., a
1-h meeting), whereas in the high uncertainty condition the length
of the meeting was left unspecified. In the high control condition,
the scenario indicated that the participants could exit the meeting
at any time to use their smartphones. By contrast, in the low control
condition it was clearly indicated that stepping out of the meeting
to use one's phone was not possible. The four scenarios are pre-
sented in Table 1:
A French version of the NMP-Q questionnaire developed by
(Yildirim & Correia, 2015) was used to measure nomophobia. A
double translation was performed to ensure the validity of the
French questionnaire (Grisay, 2003). Perception of stress was
measured with a likert scale developed by Tams et al. (2014) on the
basis of Moore (2000, pp. 141e168) measure. Social threat was
measured using a likert scale adapted from (Heatherton & Polivy,
1991). The list of measurement items that were used is presented
in Appendix 1.
3.2. Measurement assessment
The psychometric quality of our measures was assessed by
estimating reliability as well as convergent and discriminant val-
idity. The internal consistency reliability, as evaluated by Cron-
bach's coefficient alpha, was satisfactory for all measures. As shown
in Table 2, all alphas exceeded the 0.70 threshold (Nunnally, 1978).
Convergent validity is increasingly being assessed on the basis of
a construct's average variance extracted (AVE). The AVE represents
the amount of variance a construct measure captures from its
associated items relative to the amount that is due to measurement
error. An AVE of at least 0.50 indicates sufficient convergent val-
idity, demonstrating that the construct accounts for the majority of
the variance in its items (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The discriminant
validity of a construct is commonly regarded as adequate when the
square root of the construct's AVE is higher than the inter-construct
correlations in the model (Chin, 1998). All AVE values were above
0.50 (see Table 2) and the square root of the AVE for each construct
(0.71, 0.82, and 0.80 for Nomophobia, social threat, and stress,
respectively) was higher than the correlations between that
construct and all other constructs in the model (rNomo-Threat ¼ 0.44,
rNomo-Stress ¼ 0.53 and rThreat-Stress ¼ 0.61), indicating sufficient
convergent and discriminant validity.
The measurement of nomophobia through the NMP-Q ques-
tionnaire developed by (Yildirim & Correia, 2015) originally com-
prises four dimensions. In the context of this study, we treated the
construct as unidimensional. First, theoretical development and
our hypotheses were laid out at the overall construct level and not
by individual dimensions. Second, the scree plot from a factor
analysis, through the examination of the point of separation or the
“elbow”, suggests that a unidimensional operationalization is
 S. Tams et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 81 (2018) 1e9 5

Moderators

Control

Uncertainty

Social threat

Nomophobia Stress

Fig. 2. Research Model.

Table 1
Scenarios.

Low Uncertainty, High Control Low Uncertainty, Low Control

The meeting will last 1 h. The meeting will last 1 h.

Even if you cannot use your smartphone during the meeting, you may leave the
meeting to use it for incoming calls or messages, or to obtain important
information from the internet.
Note: You have no possibility of accessing a laptop computer.
High Uncertainty, High Control
You do NOT know the length of the meeting.
Even if you cannot use your smartphone during the meeting, you may leave the
meeting to use it for incoming calls or messages, or to obtain important
information from the internet.
Note: You have no possibility of accessing a laptop computer.
During the meeting, you CANNOT exit the room, which means you CANNOT leave
the meeting to use your smart phone for incoming calls or messages, NOR to obtain
important information from the internet.
Note: You have no possibility of accessing a laptop computer.
High Uncertainty, Low Control
You do NOT know the length of the meeting.
During the meeting, you CANNOT exit the room, which means you CANNOT leave
the meeting to use your smart phone for incoming calls or messages, NOR to obtain
important information from the internet.
Note: You have no possibility of accessing a laptop computer.

Table 2 four groups. Adjusting the correlation matrices to fit the path an-
Quality criteria and descriptives of construct measures. alyses yielded analogous results to the ones from the main analyses
Construct N. of items AVE Alpha Mean SD Range (presented below). Thus, common method bias did not appear to be
Nomophobia 20 0.51 0.95 2.95 1.26 6
an issue in this research (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Social threat 6 0.67 0.90 2.13 1.19 6
Stress 8 0.64 0.92 3.11 1.32 6 3.3. Model specification
AVE ¼ Average Variance Extracted.
A multi-group path analysis approach was used to test our
conditional indirect effect hypotheses. This approach allowed for a
adequate. The eigenvalue associated with the first dimension was straightforward and simultaneous way of assessing the effects of
10.12. It dropped to 1.89, 1.22, and 0.98 for the subsequent di- two potential moderators (i.e., uncertainty and control). Multi-
mensions. The first extracted factor explained 50.6% of the total group path analysis was particularly appropriate in that we could
variance. The absolute factor loadings were all greater than 0.40, consider each experimental condition as a different group in which
suggesting a good indicator-factor correspondence (Thompson, we, then, conducted a path analysis. The regression weights, the
2004). Third, when assessing construct validity of the NMP-Q, covariances, and residuals could be estimated separately and
Yildirim and Correia (2015) also used a unidimensional approach compared in such a multi-group setting. This approach was, thus,
to the measurement of the concept. more flexible in estimating moderated mediation effects than
Following Podsakoff et al. (2003), procedural as well as statis- prepackaged macros, such as (Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007)
tical remedies were used to control for common method bias. In macro. The AMOS statistical software was used to estimate the
terms of procedure, we guaranteed response anonymity and model (Arbuckle, 2006). The Maximum likelihood method was
separated the measurement of the predictor and criterion variables. used.
Statistically, the single factor test revealed that a single factor ex- In order to assess invariance between experimental conditions,
plains only 40.32% of the variance. Additionally, the marker- four successive parametrizations were fitted. Model 1 constrained
variable technique was applied to the analyses (Malhotra, Kim, & residuals, covariances and regression weights to be equal between
Patil, 2006). Gender was chosen as the marker variable since experimental conditions; Model 2 allowed for unconstrained re-
there is no theoretical link between this variable and nomophobia, siduals but constrained covariances and regression weights; Model
a necessary condition for the marker-variable technique. The 3 for constrained regression weights; and Model 4 for a fully un-
average correlation with other constructs was less than 0.10 in the constrained specification.
6 S. Tams et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 81 (2018) 1e9
As shown in Table 3, unconstraining covariances and residuals
does not add significantly to the fit of the model; p > 0.10. Yet,
regression weights appear to vary between experimental condi-
tions; D c2 ¼ 26.38, Ddf ¼ 9, p < 0.01. Thus, the remainder of this
analysis will report model specifications where residuals and co-
variances are invariant between experimental conditions.
4. Results
Table 4 presents the unconstrained regression weights for the
model with constrained covariances and residuals. Fit indices show
a good fit to the data; GFI ¼ 0.961 and NFI ¼ 0.931. The chi-square
statistic is close to its expected value; CMIN ¼ 14.394, df ¼ 16. In
other words CMIN/df is close to 1. This measure of fit, on which
other indices are derived, causes the RMSEA to be exceptionally low
(<0.001) and the CFI to be high (>0.999). The relationship between
Social Threat and Stress (Path B in Table 4) was significant and
positive for all groups; all Betas >. 45 with all p-values < 0.001. Path
A e Nomophobia to Social Threat e and C e Nomophobia to Stress
e was not significant for the high control, low uncertainty condi-
tion; bA ¼ 0.091, Critical Ratio (C.R.) ¼ 0.82, p > 0.10 and bB ¼ 0.118,
C.R. ¼ 1.15, p > 0.10. These two paths were significant for all the
other experimental conditions; all Betas > 0.25 with all p-
values < 0.05.
To test further this pattern of results, we did a chi-square dif-
ference test between an unconstrained regression weight model
with a model where the A and C paths were allowed to vary only for
the high control, low uncertainty condition; D c2 ¼ 6.805, DDF ¼ 8,
p > 0.10. Thus, constraining the low control, low uncertainty, the
low control, high uncertainty, and the high control, high uncer-
tainty conditions to have the same regression weights for path A
and C as well as having all B paths to be equal among all conditions
did not reduce significantly the fit. The aggregated paths for the
three conditions were all positive and significant: bA ¼ 0.521,
C.R. ¼ 8.45, p < 0.001, bB ¼ 0.480, C.R. ¼ 7.92, p < 0.001, and
bC ¼ 0.431, C.R. ¼ 6.58, p < 0.001. Paths A and C remained non-
significant for the high control, low uncertainty condition:
bA ¼ 0.091, C.R. ¼ 0.82, p > 0.10, and bC ¼ 0.128, C.R. ¼ 1.22, p > 0.10.
The indirect effect of Nomophobia on Stress for the high control,
low uncertainty condition was 0.053. The bootstrapping procedure
developed by Preacher and Hayes (2008) showed that this media-
tion effect was non-significant (LL ¼ 0.048, UL ¼ 0.156, p > 0.05).
For the three other conditions, the indirect effects of Nomophobia
on Stress were 0.224, 0.226, and 0.226. The bootstrapping pro-
cedure showed that these three indirect effects were all significant,
with 0 outside of the 95% confidence intervals (LL ¼ 0.097,
UL ¼ 0.397; LL ¼ 0.113, UL ¼ 0.457; and LL ¼ 0.096, UL ¼ 0.481,
respectively). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was partially supported in that
the mediated relationship between nomophobia and stress
through social threat was present only when uncertainty was high
or control low.
These results suggest that a high level of control and a low level
of uncertainty are necessary for the nomophobia - > social threat
- > stress link to be avoided. Nomophobic people show less incli-
nation for experiencing feelings of social threat (Path A) that lead to
stress in situations of high control and low uncertainty. This pattern
Table 3
Model comparison.
Model Model comparison
Model 1: Constrained residuals þ C þ R 2 vs. 1
Model 2: Constrained covariances (C) þ R 3 vs. 2
Model 3: Constrained regression weights (R) 4 vs. 3
**
p < 0.01.
of results confirms Hypotheses 2 and 3 in that uncertainty and
control moderate the indirect effect of nomophobia on stress. Also,
the direct relationship between nomophobia and stress is damp-
ened only for situations of high control and low uncertainty (Path
C). In other words, if control is low or uncertainty high, nom-
ophobia will lead to stress but also to social threat that will, in turn,
lead to stress.
5. Discussion
Past research focusing on whether Nomophobia has down-
stream negative consequences showed that stress is an important
problem associated with Nomophobia (direct effect), but it has not
offered theoretical explanations for how and why Nomophobia
leads to stress (indirect effect). To advance knowledge in this area
and offer more specific guidance to individuals, healthcare practi-
tioners, and managers, this study examined the process by which
Nomophobia's effect on stress unfolds. In doing so, the study helps
research on Nomophobia progress from offering general explana-
tions of the relationship between Nomophobia and stress toward
more detailed and specific explanations of the causal pathway
involved. This research has shown that Nomophobia leads to stress
by generating feelings of being socially-threatened; in other words,
Nomophobia exerts its influence on stress through social threat.
Additionally, this study extends past work by yielding a more
nuanced understanding of the moderating factors that bound the
applicability of Nomophobia's effects. We found that Nomophobia
leads to stress via social threat when uncertainty or lack of control
are present. Only under the condition of low uncertainty and high
control does Nomophobia not lead to stress. Thus, as a second
contribution, our results help research on Nomophobia progress
from investigating the general association between Nomophobia
and its negative consequences, such as stress, toward more detailed
and specific explanations of when, or under what conditions,
Nomophobia leads to stress. In other words, the results shed light
on the boundary conditions, or contextual factors, on which the
stress-related effects of Nomophobia depend, a critical contribution
to theory development and testing (Bacharach, 1989; Cohen,
Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2013). The stress-related consequences of
Nomophobia are reduced only when two positive conditions come
together. This finding can help healthcare professionals and man-
agers design interventions aimed at relieving stress in nomophobic
individuals. Besides, the finding suggests that Nomophobia leads to
stress in most situations and is, thus, a quite powerful stressor.
Overall, this study makes three important contributions to our
understanding of the Nomophobia phenomenon. First, this
research reveals that social threat is a causal pathway through
which Nomophobia leads to negative consequences, especially
stress. Before this study, Nomophobia was shown to correlate with
stress; that is, prior research has advanced our understanding of
whether Nomophobia has negative consequences such as stress.
However, there was a lack of understanding of the causal pathways
involved in the relationship between Nomophobia and stress. In
other words, the direct effect of Nomophobia on stress was estab-
lished, but it remained unclear what factors are responsible for
carrying the influence of Nomophobia on to stress. This study
Ddf D c2
6 3,65
3 2,88
**
9 26,38
 S. Tams et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 81 (2018) 1e9
Table 4
Regression weights for the path analysis.
Control Uncertainty Regression weights
Nomophobia - > Social threat (Path A)
***
Low Low 0.490 (0.108)
Low High 0.483 (0.104)***
High Low 0.091 (0.112)
High High 0.577 (0.109)***
*** **
p < 0.001, p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.
shows how and why Nomophobia impacts stress (by generating the
perception of a social threat). In doing so, this study yields an
enriched theoretical understanding of the relationship between
Nomophobia and stress, revealing social threat as a pertinent
mediating mechanism. From a practical standpoint, managers must
be aware that Nomophobia can generate feelings of being socially-
threatened, ultimately leading to stress (Bragazzi & Del Puente,
2014; Samaha & Hawi, 2016; Yildirim & Correia, 2015).
Second, this study established work conditions (uncertainty and
control) as pertinent moderators in the Nomophobia phenomenon.
Prior research has focused on drivers and consequences of Nom-
ophobia to the exclusion of contextual factors on which
Nomophobia-related impacts depend. Hence, there was a lack of
understanding of the prominent role that work conditions can play
in the Nomophobia phenomenon, by helping people cope with
Nomophobia (i.e., moderators of the Nomophobia-stress link).
From a practice point of view, managers must be aware of the
central role of worker control and certainty in nomophobic in-
dividuals and of their potential to offset the damaging effects of
Nomophobia (Bakker & Leiter, 2008; Bragazzi & Del Puente, 2014;
Karasek, 1979; Riedl, 2013; Rubino et al., 2012; Samaha & Hawi,
2016).
Third, our use of the demand-control-person model increases
the diversity of theoretical perspectives that are being brought to
bear in the study of Nomophobia. This greater diversity enriches
our theoretical understanding of Nomophobia along with our un-
derstanding of the phenomenon's nomological network. Before this
study, the literature on Nomophobia and Technostress were largely
the only ones applied to understanding the stress-related conse-
quences of Nomophobia. Although Technostress research and prior
research on Nomophobia are very useful to understanding these
stress-related consequences, they are not longstanding, precise
stress theories. Hence, adding an extension of the Demand-Control
model to the mix improves the prediction of Nomophobia's con-
sequences. In a word, our approach adds theoretical diversity to the
study of Nomophobia, enriching how we study the Nomophobia
phenomenon and what we can predict (Bakker & Leiter, 2008;
Bragazzi & Del Puente, 2014; Rubino et al., 2012; Samaha & Hawi,
2016; Yildirim & Correia, 2015). For managers, they can gain a
more refined understanding of the Nomophobia-stress process and
of how to combat Nomophobia; they are no longer limited solely to
the ideas put forth by research on technostress.
Additionally, this study demonstrates that Nomophobia is a
strong stressor; Nomophobia leads to stress under all conditions
studied here, except under the combination of (a) low uncertainty
about the duration of a phone withdrawal situation and (b) high
control over the situation.
To combat the stress arising from withdrawal situations, man-
agers can, first and foremost, instill trust in their employees, mak-
ing them believe that the withdrawal situation will not take any
longer than absolutely necessary (i.e., trust that the duration of the
withdrawal situation is strictly limited). Trust is a classic mecha-
nism to reduce feelings of uncertainty (e.g., Carter, Tams, & Grover,
7
Social threat - > Stress (Path B) Nomophobia - > Stress(Path C)
***
0.457 (0.120) 0.512 (0.115)***
0.468 (0.115)*** 0.597 (0.110)***
0.582 (0.124)*** 0.118 (0.103)
0.461 (0.121)*** 0.263 (0.122)*
2017; McKnight, Carter, Thatcher, & Clay, 2011; Pavlou, Liang, &
Xue, 2007; Riedl, Mohr, Kenning, Davis, & Heekeren, 2014; Tams,
2012). It builds perceptions of security and safety that are directly
opposed to uncertainty (Kelly & Noonan, 2008). In doing so, trust
can extinguish the negative emotions associated with uncertainty
and other job demands (McKnight et al., 2011; Tams, Thatcher, &
Craig, 2017). Future research can empirically examine this initial
idea.
Another mechanism to help nomophobic employees deal better
with uncertainty could be social presence. Social presence reduces
problems related to uncertainty by creating the perception that
important social encounters occur during the meeting. Managers
could communicate to their employees the message that a given
meeting is important and that it warrants everyone's attention. To
this end, the manager might also employ attention-grabbing for-
mats of information presentation during the meeting. The resulting
perception of social presence might reduce employees' needs to use
the phone (Pavlou et al., 2007). This idea could also be empirically
verified in future research.
As with any research, there are certain limitations to our study
that should be considered when interpreting our results. This study
was conducted with young business professional. While this choice
may limit the study's external validity, it was appropriate for the
study given the respondents' familiarity with the focal technology
and its relevance to their lives. Further, this approach was associ-
ated with high internal validity due to the homogeneity inherent in
this sample population. Moreover, given that our target technology
was the smartphone, which is widely used in all aspects of peoples'
lives (Samaha & Hawi, 2016), our findings may generalize to a va-
riety of settings, including organizations. Additionally, our research
is based on a psychometric monomethod approach that captures
the perception of stress in a hypothetical situation. Future research
should aim at replicating these results in an ecologically more valid
situation, potentially using objective measures of stress, such as
cortisol.
Furthermore, future research could examine other pathways
through which nomophobia elicits stress responses in individuals.
We focused on social threat as a mediator due to its particular
relevance for nomophobic individuals. However, other variables
might constitute additional, relevant mediators. For example, social
overload could be of additional relevance in the context of our
study. Research in the area of social network addiction, which is
related to our study context, has found that social overload medi-
ates the relationship between personality characteristics and
addiction (Maier, Laumer, Eckhardt, & Weitzel, 2015). A study was
conducted in the context of Facebook usage, showing that social
support mediates the link between, for instance, number of friends
on Facebook and exhaustion due to the extended use of Facebook
(Maier et al., 2015). Social overload was defined as the negative
perception of social network usage when users receive too many
social support requests and feel they are giving too much social
support to other people embedded in their social network. Given
that the context of nomophobia also includes elements of
8 S. Tams et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 81 (2018) 1e9

addiction, social overload might well be an additional, relevant not yet saturated but that clearer guidance can, and should, be
mediator in the context of our study, connecting nomophobia to provided to individuals, healthcare practitioners, and managers in
stress. our increasingly smartphone-driven world.
Consistent with MacKinnon and Luecken (2008; p. S99), our
findings, taken together, yield a “more sophisticated” understand-
ing of how, why, and when (or under what conditions) Nom-
Appendix 1. List of measurement items

Mean scores Standard deviation

Nomophobia
1. I would feel uncomfortable without constant access to information through my smartphone 2.52 1.81
2. I would be annoyed if I could not look information up on my smartphone when I wanted to do so 3.53 1.74
3. Being unable to get the news (e.g., happenings, weather, etc.) on my smartphone would make me nervous 1.89 1.65
4. I would be annoyed if I could not use my smartphone and/or its capabilities when I wanted to do so 3.45 1.87
5. Running out of battery in my smartphone would scare me 2.91 1.91
6. If I were to run out of credits or hit my monthly data limit, I would panic 2.45 1.91
7. If I did not have a data signal or could not connect to Wi-Fi, then I would constantly check to see if I had a 2.37 1.95
signal or could find a Wi-Fi network
8. If I could not use my smartphone, I would be afraid of getting stranded somewhere 2.15 1.85
9. If I could not check my smartphone for a while, I would feel a desire to check it If I did not have my smartphone with me 2.81 1.95
10. I would feel anxious because I could not instantly communicate with my family and/or friends 3.67 1.75
11. I would be worried because my family and/or friends could not reach me 4.01 1.77
12. I would feel nervous because I would not be able to receive text messages and calls 3.92 1.77
13. I would be anxious because I could not keep in touch with my family and/or friends 3.45 1.71
14. I would be nervous because I could not know if someone had tried to get a hold of me 3.90 1.82
15. I would feel anxious because my constant connection to my family and friends would be broken 3.08 1.64
16. I would be nervous because I would be disconnected from my online identity 2.49 1.58
17. I would be uncomfortable because I could not stay up-to-date with social media and online networks 2.21 1.50
18. I would feel awkward because I could not check my notifications for updates from my connections and online networks 2.31 1.59
19. I would feel anxious because I could not check my email messages 3.43 1.94
20. I would feel weird because I would not know what to do 2.65 1.83
Stress
1. You would feel frustrated. 3.26 1.73
2. You would feel anxious. 3.31 1.66
3. You would feel strain. 3.52 1.70
4. You would feel stressed. 3.60 1.78
5. You would feel emotionally drained. 2.72 1.56
6. You would feel used up. 2.67 1.57
7. You would feel fatigue. 3.04 1.62
8. You would feel burned out. 2.82 1.56
Social threat
1. I would be worried about whether I am regarded as a success or failure. 1.89 1.28
2. I would feel self-conscious. 2.44 1.71
3. I would feel displeased with myself. 2.38 1.36
4. I would feel inferior to others at this moment. 1.69 1.16
5. I would feel concerned about the impression I am making. 2.43 1.73
6. I would be worried about looking foolish. 1.98 1.47

ophobia has downstream negative consequences. This improved

understanding facilitates the development of intervention strate-
gies aimed at reducing the stress-related consequences of
Nomophobia. References

6. Conclusion
Past research has established stress as an important conse-
quence of Nomophobia but has not examined the causal pathways
or contextual factors involved in this important relationship,
resulting in the need to further knowledge in this area. Based on the
Demand-Control-Person model and its predictions about phobic
traits, uncertainty, control, and social threat, this paper has pro-
duced a more refined understanding of the process by which
Nomophobia leads to stress, as well as pertinent contextual factors
on which this process depends. Accordingly, this study helps
research on Nomophobia progress toward more detailed and spe-
cific explanations of how, why, and when Nomophobia results in
stress. These explanations imply that research on Nomophobia is
Amir, N., Elias, J., Klumpp, H., & Przeworski, A. (2003). Attentional bias to threat in
social phobia: Facilitated processing of threat or difficulty disengaging attention
from threat? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(11), 1325e1335.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos (version 7.0)[computer program]. Chicago: SPSS.
Asmundson, G. J., & Stein, M. B. (1994). Selective processing of social threat in pa-
tients with generalized social phobia: Evaluation using a dot-probe paradigm.
Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 8(2), 107e117.
Ayyagari, R., Grover, V., & Purvis, R. (2011). Technostress: Technological antecedents
and implications. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 831e858.
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation.
Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496e515.
Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Work engagement. In Keynote presented at the
eighth annual conference of the European academy of occupational health psy-
chology (pp. 12e14).
Beehr, T. A., Glaser, K. M., Canali, K. G., & Wallwey, D. A. (2001). Back to basics: Re-
examination of demand-control theory of occupational stress. Work & Stress,
15(2), 115e130.
Best, R. G., Stapleton, L. M., & Downey, R. G. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job
burnout: The test of alternative models. Journal of Occupational Health Psy-
chology, 10(4), 441.
 S. Tams et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 81 (2018) 1e9
Bragazzi, N. L., & Del Puente, G. (2014). A proposal for including nomophobia in the
new DsM-V. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 7, 155.
Carter, M., Tams, S., & Grover, V. (2017). When do I profit? Uncovering boundary
conditions on reputation effects in online auctions. Information & Management,
54(2), 256e267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.06.007. ISSN 0378e7206.
Cheever, N. A., Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. M., & Chavez, A. (2014). Out of sight is not out
of mind: The impact of restricting wireless mobile device use on anxiety levels
among low, moderate and high users. Computers in Human Behavior, 37,
290e297.
Chin, W. W. (1998). Commentary: Issues and opinion on structural equation
modeling. In JSTOR.
Choy, Y., Fyer, A. J., & Lipsitz, J. D. (2007). Treatment of specific phobia in adults.
Clinical Psychology Review, 27(3), 266e286.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/
correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
Cooper, C. L., Dewe, P. J., & O'Driscoll, M. P. (2001). Organizational stress: A review and
critique of theory, research, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage.
Dickerson, S. S., Gruenewald, T. L., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). When the social self is
threatened: Shame, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality, 72(6),
1191e1216.
Dickerson, S. S., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). Acute stressors and cortisol responses: A
theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological
Bulletin, 130(3), 355.
Forbes. (2014). How to get people off their phones in meetings without being a jerk.
Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2014/06/05/
how-to-get-people-off-their-phones-in-meetings-without-being-a-jerk/
#4eaa2e3413ee. March 30th, 2017.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-
observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
39e50.
Galluch, P. S., Grover, V., & Thatcher, J. B. (2015). Interrupting the Workplace:
Examining stressors in an information technology context. Journal of the Asso-
ciation for Information Systems, 16(1), 1.
Granger, D. A., Kivlighan, K. T., El-Sheikh, M., Gordis, E. B., & Stroud, L. R. (2007).
Salivary a-amylase in biobehavioral research. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences, 1098(1), 122e144.
Grisay, A. (2003). Translation procedures in OECD/PISA 2000 international assess-
ment. Language Testing, 20(2), 225e240.
Hadlington, L. (2015). Cognitive failures in daily life: Exploring the link with
Internet addiction and problematic mobile phone use. Computers in Human
Behavior, 51, 75e81.
Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for
measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(6),
895.
Hope, D. A., Rapee, R. M., Heimberg, R. G., & Dombeck, M. J. (1990). Representations
of the self in social phobia: Vulnerability to social threat. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 14(2), 177e189.
Kang, S., & Jung, J. (2014). Mobile communication for human needs: A comparison
of smartphone use between the US and Korea. Computers in Human Behavior,
35, 376e387.
Karasek, R. A., Jr. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain:
Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 285e308.
Kelly, S., & Noonan, C. (2008). Anxiety and psychological security in offshoring re-
lationships: The role and development of trust as emotional commitment.
Journal of Information Technology, 23(4), 232e248.
King, A. L. S., Valença, A. M., & Nardi, A. E. (2010a). Nomophobia: The mobile phone
in panic disorder with agoraphobia: Reducing phobias or worsening of
dependence? Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, 23(1), 52e54.
King, A. L. S., Valença, A. M., & Nardi, A. E. (2010b). Nomophobia: The mobile phone
in panic disorder with Agoraphobia: Reducing phobias or worsening of
dependence? Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, 23(1), 52e54, 10.1097/
WNN.1090b1013e3181b1097eabc.
King, A. L. S., Valença, A. M., Silva, A. C. O., Baczynski, T., Carvalho, M. R., &
Nardi, A. E. (2013). Nomophobia: Dependency on virtual environments or social
phobia? Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 140e144.
King, A. L. S., Valença, A. M., Silva, A. C., Sancassiani, F., Machado, S., & Nardi, A. E.
(2014). “Nomophobia”: Impact of cell phone use interfering with symptoms and
emotions of individuals with panic disorder compared with a control group.
Clinical Practice & Epidemiology in Mental Health, 10, 28e35.
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Stress and emotion: A new synthesis. Springer Publishing
Company.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer publishing
company.
MacKinnon, D. P., & Luecken, L. J. (2008). How and for whom? Mediation and
9
moderation in health psychology. Health Psychology, 27(2S), S99.
Maier, C., Laumer, S., Eckhardt, A., & Weitzel, T. (2015). Giving too much social
support: Social overload on social networking sites. European Journal of Infor-
mation Systems, 24(5), 447e464.
Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in is
research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past
research. Management Science, 52(12), 1865e1883.
McKnight, D. H., Carter, M., Thatcher, J., & Clay, P. (2011). Trust in a specific tech-
nology, 2:2 pp. 1e25). ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems
(TMIS).
Moore, J. E. (2000). One road to turnover: An examination of work exhaustion in
technology professionals. Mis Quarterly.
Nunnally, J. (1978). In Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Park, N., Kim, Y.-C., Shon, H. Y., & Shim, H. (2013). Factors influencing smartphone
use and dependency in South Korea. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4),
1763e1770.
Pavlou, P. A., Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2007). Understanding and mitigating uncertainty
in online environments: A principal-agent perspective. MIS Quarterly, 31(1),
105e136.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recom-
mended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol., 88(5), 879e903.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for
assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. article
Behavioral Research Methods, 40(3), 879e891.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation
hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 42(1), 185e227.
Riedl, R. (2013). On the biology of Technostress: Literature review and research agenda,
44:1 pp. 18e55). ACM SIGMIS DATA BASE.
Riedl, R., Kindermann, H., Auinger, A., & Javor, A. (2012). Technostress from a
neurobiological perspectivedsystem breakdown increases the stress hormone
cortisol in computer users. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 4(2),
61e69.
Riedl, R., Mohr, P. N., Kenning, P. H., Davis, F. D., & Heekeren, H. R. (2014). Trusting
humans and avatars: A brain imaging study based on evolution theory. Journal
of Management Information Systems, 30(4), 83e114.
Rubino, C., Perry, S. J., Milam, A. C., Spitzmueller, C., & Zapf, D. (2012).
Demandecontroleperson: Integrating the demandecontrol and conservation
of resources models to test an expanded stressorestrain model. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 17(4), 456.
Samaha, M., & Hawi, N. S. (2016). Relationships among smartphone addiction,
stress, academic performance, and satisfaction with life. Computers in Human
Behavior, 57, 321e325.
Sharma, N., Sharma, P., Sharma, N., & Wavare, R. (2015). Rising concern of nom-
ophobia amongst Indian medical students. International Journal of Research in
Medical Sciences, 3(3), 705e707.
Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions.
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(1), 27.
Smetaniuk, P. (2014). A preliminary investigation into the prevalence and prediction
of problematic cell phone use. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3(1), 41e53.
Strayer, D. L., & Drews, F. A. (2007). Attention. In T. J. Perfect (Ed.), Handbook of
applied cognition (pp. 29e54). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Tams, S. (2012). Toward holistic insights into trust in electronic markets: Examining
the structure of the relationship between vendor trust and its antecedents.
Information Systems and e-Business Management, 10(1), 149e160.
Tams, S., Hill, K., de Guinea, A. O., Thatcher, J., & Grover, V. (2014). Neuro-
ISdalternative or complement to existing Methods? Illustrating the holistic
effects of neuroscience and self-reported data in the context of technostress
research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 15(10), 723e752.
Tams, S., Thatcher, J., & Craig, K. (2017). How and why trust matters in post-adoptive
usage: The mediating roles of internal and external self-efficacy. The Journal of
Strategic Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2017.07.004.
Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Van der Doef, M., & Maes, S. (1999). The job demand-control (-support) model and
psychological well-being: A review of 20 years of empirical research. Work
Stress, 13(2), 87e114.
Wright, B. M., & Cordery, J. L. (1999). Production uncertainty as a contextual
moderator of employee reactions to job design. Journal of Applied Psychology,
84(3), 456.
Yildirim, C., & Correia, A.-P. (2015). Exploring the dimensions of nomophobia:
Development and validation of a self-reported questionnaire. Computers in
Human Behavior, 49, 130e137.