The structure of computer anxiety: a six-factor model

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(00)00036-4Get rights and content

Abstract

A six-factor model of computer anxiety was tested in two samples of university students. The dimensions involved were: computer literacy, self-efficacy, physical arousal caused by computers, affective feelings about them, beliefs about the beneficial effects of computers, and beliefs about their dehumanizing aspects. Confirmatory factor analyses showed that, compared to a number of alternative models proposed in the literature, the data fitted this six-factor model relatively well. In addition, it was demonstrated that computer literacy has a strong directional influence on both physical arousal and affects. Beliefs about computers, in turn, were shown to be dependent on affects and physical arousal. Self-efficacy mainly contributed to increased computer literacy. These findings suggest that training programs that enhance self-efficacy and computer literacy may in principle reduce computer anxiety.

Introduction

Computer anxiety as a psychological phenomenon has been well-researched over the past three decades. Gradually, a better insight has been acquired into its nature. The construct is still defined in various ways, but terms recurring in most of these definitions are aversion, fear or apprehension towards interacting with computers or thinking about computers, intimidation by, resistance to, hostility, or aggression towards computers (Jay, 1981, Meier, 1985, Glass and Knight, 1988). Sometimes, computer anxiety is manifested by physiological reactions such as sweaty palms, dizziness, and shortness of breath, and often these behaviors are accompanied by self-critical internal dialogue (Hemby, 1998, Weil et al., 1990, Lalomia and Sidowski, 1993).

Rosen and Weil, 1995, Rosen and Weil, 1996 found computer anxiety to be endemic among groups such as public school teachers, students, and psychologists. They estimated that as many as 40% of the population in the United States experience computer anxiety to a degree. In a large sample of first year university students from 23 countries, Rosen and Weil (1995) found the occurrence of computer anxiety to vary widely, e.g. Israeli students had a low of 12% and Indonesian students a high of 100% computer-related anxiety. Bozionelos (1996) showed that more than 20% of a sample of British managers and professionals had scores above the midpoint on a computer anxiety scale. With the increasing penetration of personal computers in business, education, and the home, the problem of computer anxiety has become more pertinent. It is an unsolved issue whether blooming Internet use and the emergence of technologies such as digital telephony will decrease the occurrence of computer anxiety or will enhance it.

Computer anxiety has been studied in a number of different ways. Of relevance to the present article is a subset of studies that has employed factor analysis to explore dimensions underlying this phenomenon. These studies have demonstrated that computer anxiety may not be a one-dimensional construct. The computer-anxiety model of Loyd and Gressard (1984) for instance, identifies three separate factors: self-confidence in dealing with computers, fear of, and liking of computers. Other researchers have concentrated on various aspects of interacting with computers, e.g. whether anxiety was generalized or just related to specific aspects of computer use such as manipulating the keyboard or dealing with errors and crashes (Marcoulides and Wang, 1990, Brosnan and Lee, 1998). Other studies focused on the circumstances under which computer anxiety emerges, i.e. does anxiety only appear when actually dealing with a computer, or does it already emerge while thinking about using it or seeing others use it? (Simenson et al., 1987, Rosen and Weil, 1995, Dyck et al., 1998). Table 1 reviews the major findings of these factor-analytic studies. For each study the relevant factors are reported and where needed further explained. In addition, an attempt is made to establish common themes.

The table suggests that computer anxiety is comprised of at least the following elements: (1) low confidence in one's own ability to use computers; (2) negative affective responses to them; (3) becoming aroused while using a computer or thinking about it; and (4) negative beliefs about the role of the computer in our lives. It is presently unclear, however, how these factors interact. For instance, is low confidence a precursor of negative affect, or is it the other way around? Do beliefs about the role of computers cause people to become aroused in the presence of these machines, or are beliefs by-products of these aversive responses? In addition, the studies reviewed are not very clear about the role of actual experience with computers in the emergence of anxiety. One can, however, hardly imagine people suffering from computer anxiety without ever having tried to use one. Various studies have found the relationship between computer experience and computer anxiety to be negative, but it remains unclear if there is a causal relationship and if so: what causes what (Lee, 1986; Rosen et al., 1990; Maurer, 1994, Todman and Monaghan, 1994, Anderson, 1996, Chua and Wong, 1999, Smith et al., 1999). The present studies were carried out to clarify these issues.

Before turning to the main findings, two issues need further discussion. Following Murphy, Cover and Owen (1989) we will distinguish between the (lack of) confidence that one may have in one's ability to learn to use a computer — or computer self-efficacy — and actual experience with computers — or computer literacy (Watt, 1980). Computer literacy manifests itself in such diverse things as the number of hours that one spends at a computer, the range of applications that one is able to use successfully, one's knowledge of computer jargon, or one's subscription to computer magazines. In short, it comprises the perception that one has of one's level of mastery of relevant computer knowledge and skills. Computer self-efficacy, on the other hand, describes the expectation of mastery. Based on previous successes or failures in learning situations in general, or with technology in particular, people develop expectations of future success or failure (Igbaria and IIvari, 195, Torkzadeh and Koufteros, 1994, Rosen & Garner, 1999; Rosen & Garner, 1999). The assumption is that computer self-efficacy will help a person to persevere in his endeavors as he expects a positive outcome. High self-efficacy may be effective in reducing feelings of anxiety or even keep these feelings from developing.

The second issue to be clarified concerns the relationship between beliefs about computers and affects toward them. Affects are evaluative responses towards computers (“I dislike computers”, “Computers make me crazy”), whereas beliefs are cognitive constructions of experience that a person holds to be true and that guide his or her behavior. These experiences are often condensed and integrated into schemata (Levine & Donitsa-Schmidt, 1998). These beliefs may pertain to what a computer may do for me as an individual, or what they may do for society (Igbaria and Parasuraman, 1989, Weil & Rosen, 1995, Levine and Donitsa-Schmidt, 1998). They can be positive or negative (Turnipseed & Burns, 1995).

Based on these deliberations, we propose here a six-factor model of computer anxiety. These six factors are: computer literacy, self-efficacy, physical arousal in response to computers, affective feelings about them, beliefs about the beneficial effects of computers, and beliefs about their purported dehumanizing aspects. In addition, we propose a set of directional influences among these factors. Fig. 1 summarizes our position. It can be read as follows: computer literacy or lack of it and computer self-efficacy are independent contributors to the level of physical arousal that people experience while confronted with computers, and their affects towards the machine. These factors in turn influence beliefs about computers, both negative and positive.

This model was tested in a sample of Dutch university students. First, six sets of items measuring the different dimensions were taken from the literature or written for that purpose. These sets were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis in an attempt to validate these dimensions as distinct from each other. Second, the model and some of its competitors were tested against the data. Subsequently, the results were cross-validated in a new sample.

Section snippets

Participants

Participants were 184 first-year psychology students of Maastricht University, the Netherlands, 138 females and 46 males. Mean age was 20.34 years with a standard deviation of 2.79. The range was 19–39 years. 179 of these participants indicated use of a computer once in a while; 112 owned one. In response to a question inquiring about their level of expertise with computers, 25% described themselves as “highly unskilled” or “unskilled;” another 38% considered themselves “neither skilled nor

Confirmatory factor analyses

Table 2 contains the summary data of the confirmatory factor analyses. Model 1 assumed that the six dimensions discussed in the introduction section were independent latent measures of the hypothesized aspects of computer anxiety. In addition, it assumed that items each would only load on one of these factors. The Chi-square for this model indicates that the observed covariances significantly differed from the covariances predicted by the model. Removal of items showing relatively high

General discussion

The present study suggests that computer anxiety is a multidimensional construct rather than a unitary one. The six-factor model outlined seems to describe the data reasonably well, although it proved not always possible to find dimensionally “pure” items. The six-factor model fared better than simpler solutions, in some cases based on published models (e.g. Loyd & Gressard, 1984). In addition, most of the hypothesized directional influences among factors were confirmed in the path analyses

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge KPN Research, the Netherlands, for providing a research grant to support this study.

References (39)

  • L.D. Rosen et al.

    Treating technophobiaa longitudinal evaluation of the computerphobia reduction program

    Computers in Human Behavior

    (1993)
  • L.D. Rosen et al.

    Computer anxiety: a cross-cultural comparison of university students in ten countries

    Computers in Human Behavior

    (1995)
  • B. Smith et al.

    A review of the construct of computer experience

    Computers in Human Behavior

    (1999)
  • J. Todman et al.

    Qualitative differences in computer experience, computer anxiety, and students' use of computersa path model

    Computers in Human Behavior

    (1994)
  • M.L. Weil et al.

    The etiology of computerphobia

    Computers in Human Behavior

    (1990)
  • P.M. Bentler

    EQS: structural equations program manual

    (1989)
  • N. Bozionelos

    Psychology of computer use: XXXIX. Prevalence of computer anxiety in British managers and professionals

    Psychological Reports

    (1996)
  • M. Brosnan

    Technophobia: the psychological impact of information technology

    (1998)
  • M.E. Gist et al.

    Effects of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and performance in computer software training

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (1989)
  • Cited by (123)

    • Assessing technophobia and technophilia: Development and validation of a questionnaire

      2017, Technology in Society
      Citation Excerpt :

      Many users remain uncomfortable using new technologies, and instead use traditional methods to accomplish tasks [2] or limit the use of high performance devices to very basic functions, using only 10 to 25% of their capabilities [7]. With the increasing penetration of new technology in areas such as education, business, and the home, the problem of technophobia has become crucial [8], since its consequences may imply ineffectiveness or lower performance at work, increased absenteeism, increased security threats and vulnerabilities, etc. According to the Chapman University survey on American fears 2015, Bader and colleagues [9] found that technology was the second most rated source of fear in US, right behind natural disasters.

    • Alarm pendants and the technological shaping of older people's care. Between (intentional) help and (irrational) nuisance

      2015, Technological Forecasting and Social Change
      Citation Excerpt :

      Computers are sometimes understood to dehumanize by reducing social relatedness and increasing standardization, at the expense of individuality (Nissenbaum & Walker, 1998). They also lack ‘the essence of human nature’ understood as emotion, intuition, spontaneity, and soul or spirit (Turkle, 1984) and these features have been shown to create great anxieties among users (Beckers & Schmidt, 2001). It is true that recent developments in computer studies illustrate that to some extent internet-based technology, through online tools like Facebook, changes the ways we interact and even increases social interaction (Golder et al., 2007).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text