Technostress, Coping, and Anxious and Depressive Symptomatology in University Students During the COVID-19 Pandemic Research Reports Technostress, Coping, and Anxious and Depressive Symptomatology in University Students During the COVID-19 Pandemic John Galvin 1, Michael Scott Evans 2, Kenisha Nelson 3, Gareth Richards 4, Eirini Mavritsaki 1, Theodoros Giovazolias 5, Katerina Koutra 5, Ben Mellor 4, Maria Clelia Zurlo 6, Andrew Paul Smith 2, Federica Vallone 6 [1] Birmingham City University, Birmingham, United Kingdom. [2] Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom. [3] University of Technology, Kingston, Jamaica. [4] Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom. [5] University of Crete, Rethymno, 74100, Greece. [6] University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 2022, Vol. 18(3), 302–318, https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.4725 Received: 2020-11-22 • Accepted: 2021-05-16 • Published (VoR): 2022-08-31 Handling Editor: Michelle E. Roley-Roberts, Creighton University, Omaha, NE, USA Corresponding Author: John Galvin, Department of Psychology, Curzon Building, Cardigan Street, Birmingham City University, B4 7BD, Birmingham, United Kingdom. E-mail: john.galvin@bcu.ac.uk Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic raised many challenges for university staff and students, including the need to work from home, which resulted in a greater reliance on technology. We collected questionnaire data from university students (N = 894) in three European countries: Greece, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Data were collected between 7th April 2020 and 19th June 2020, representing a period covering the first lockdown and university closures in these countries and across Europe generally. We tested the hypotheses that technology-related stressors (techno-overload, work-home conflict, techno-ease, techno-reliability, techno-sociality, and pace of change) would be associated with anxiety and depressive symptoms, and that coping styles (problem-focused, emotion-focused, and avoidance) would mediate these relationships. Results showed significant positive associations between techno-overload, work-home conflict and anxiety and depressive symptoms, and significant negative associations between techno-reliability, techno-ease and anxiety and depressive symptoms. A significant negative association was found between techno-sociality and depressive symptoms but not anxiety symptoms. No evidence was found for an association between pace of change and anxiety or depressive symptoms. Multiple mediation analyses revealed significant direct effects of techno-overload, work-home conflict and techno-ease on anxiety symptoms, and of work-home conflict and techno-ease on depressive symptoms. Work-home conflict had significant indirect effects on anxiety and depressive symptoms through avoidance coping. Techno-overload and techno-ease both had significant indirect effects on anxiety symptoms through problem- and emotion-focused coping. Techno-ease also had a significant indirect effect on depressive symptoms through problem-focused coping. The findings add to the body of evidence on technostress amongst university students and provide knowledge on how technostress translates through coping strategies into anxious and depressive symptoms during the disruption caused by the outbreak of a pandemic disease. Keywords university students, technostress, coping, anxiety, depression, COVID-19 In response to the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), the World Health Organisation declared a global pandemic on 11th March 2020. As of 15th May 2021, the Coronavirus Resource Centre at Johns Hopkins University and Medicine (2021) reported 161,566,026 confirmed cases and 3,353,630 deaths worldwide. Government officials and public health experts have taken several steps to control the spread of the virus, including imposing special measures on their This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original work is properly cited. https://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.5964/ejop.4725&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2022-08-31 https://www.psychopen.eu/ https://ejop.psychopen.eu/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ populations, such as self-isolation and restriction of movement and assembly, which have led to a high number of individuals having to work from home. The higher education (HE) sector has been severely impacted by the COVID-19 crisis. The pandemic necessitated a rapid transition from a predominantly face-to-face teaching model to an online only or heavily blended learning model for many academic courses (Watermeyer et al., 2021). Although online teaching and learning is not new for many universities, a predominantly online model is new to many staff and students. This transition to a purely digital teaching and learning experience has, by its very nature, an intrinsic expectation that staff and students are able to use technology for all intents and purposes, that the technology is reliable, and that they have workspaces at home which would mirror the workplace environment, i.e., without distractions or conflicting home demands (Sahu, 2020). Technostress was first defined by Brod (1984) as the inability to adapt or cope with information and communication technologies (ICTs) in a healthy manner. This definition is in line with Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) suggestion that stress refers to any demand, event or situation that disturbs the adaptive state and threatens to exceed the individual’s resources and skills. If the individual’s adaptive state is altered by an event, this may provoke a coping response (Lazarus & Folkman, 1991). If people maintain adaptive coping responses, they are less likely to appraise a situation as threatening and have improved mental health outcomes (Freire et al., 2016; Taylor & Stanton, 2007). Previous research has shown that technostress in university students is associated with a range of psychopathologi cal outcomes including higher anxiety, depression, burnout, and suicidality (Kim et al., 2006; Wang et al., 2020). Several factors have been identified as determinants of technostress (hereinafter referred to as techno-stressors) (Ayyagari et al., 2011; DeLone & McLean, 2003; Jiang et al., 2002; Kreiner, 2006; Moore, 2000; Moore & Benbasat, 1991; Netemeyer et al., 1996; Weiss & Heide, 1993). Techno-overload refers to the situation in which individuals feel forced by ICTs to work faster and longer. Work-home conflict is when work and private life merge due to ICT usage. Pace of change refers to an individual’s perception of frequent ICT-related changes and upgrades. Techno-ease refers to whether or not the user feels competent enough to use ICTs and to achieve the desired results. Techno-sociality refers to ICT as a social communication tool by which individuals can contact, or be contacted by other people. Finally, techno-reliability is the perception of the consistency or dependability of ICTs. An ability to cope with techno-stressors will depend on individual resources (e.g., coping competencies) as well as environmental factors (e.g., circumstances). Coping can be defined as acts of adaptation that an individual performs in response to events that occur in his/her environment (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Coping responses are commonly categorised into three broader themes: problem-focused, emotion-focused, and avoidance coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Roth & Cohen, 1986). Problem-focused coping involves handling the stressor by taking action to solve the problem, facing it head-on, and making attempts to resolve the underlying cause. Examples of problem-focused coping include planning and taking active steps to address the problem. Emotion-focused coping involves the regulation of feelings and emotional responses that arise, as opposed to directly addressing the problem. Examples of emotion-focused coping include accessing social support networks and venting about the problem. Finally, avoidance coping is characterised by coping efforts aimed at avoiding the stressor, and examples include disengagement, denial, and substance use. While problem-focused coping is often considered the most effective coping strategy and avoidance coping the least effective, research shows that the most effective strategy can depend on the type of stressor encountered and/or other environmental circumstances (Bonanno & Burton, 2013; Lee-Baggley et al., 2005). Therefore, individuals might not differ only in their choice of coping strategies, but also in the extent and context in which they engage in any single strategy. The digitalisation of society and the labour-market has been on a constant rise over the last decades (Vasilescu et al., 2020), and this shift has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis. Although digitalisation has some advantages, it also results in important challenges, including a rise in the phenomenon of technostress in distance education. It has thus never been more pertinent to investigate techno-stressors and their relationships with mental health outcomes in the student population. In this study, we explored the relationships between techno-stressors, coping strategies and anxious/depressive symptoms in a sample of students from three European countries: Greece, Italy and UK. It was hypothesised that: Galvin, Evans, Nelson et al. 303 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2022, Vol. 18(3), 302–318 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.4725 https://www.psychopen.eu/ H1: Techno-overload, work-home conflict and pace of change would be positively associated with anxiety and depressive symptoms. H2: Techno-ease, techno-reliability and techno-sociality would be negatively associated with anx ious and depressive symptoms. H3: Coping style would mediate the association between techno-stressors and anxious/depressive symptoms. M e t h o d Procedure and Participants Participants were given an information sheet that provided basic details of the study, and were required to complete a consent form before taking part. An online cross-sectional survey (hosted by Qualtrics) was distributed to university students in Greece, Italy and the UK between 7th April 2020 and 19th June 2020. This period covered a timeframe in which the first lockdown was implemented and included full closures of universities in all three countries. Participants were studying at undergraduate or masters level, and were recruited from the affiliative institutions of the authors through research participation databases and student learning forums. In Greece, a link to the survey was sent by e-mail to faculty members in universities across different cities and regions of the country (Crete, Athens, Thessaloniki, Thessaly, Epirus, Thrace) who then forwarded it to their students using either academic mailing lists or student social media groups. In Italy, a link to the survey was sent via academic mailing lists and social media groups for three univer sities in the southwestern region of Campania (Naples and Benevento). In the UK, the Psychology Department Research Participation Schemes (RPS) at Birmingham City University and Newcastle University were used. The questionnaire link was also sent to student social media groups at Birmingham City University, Newcastle University, Northumbria University, and the University of Liverpool. Students recruited in the UK through RPS were awarded participation credits. All other participants did not receive any reward for completing the study. Materials After demographic questions (sex, age, relationship status, course status, level of study and employment status), a series of questions on technology usage was presented. This included a question asking the participants to provide detail on the technological device(s) they have in their home, as well as a question on the device(s) that they personally own. Participants were also asked how many people (including themselves) live in their household, and whether they have their own personal space to use technological device(s). Technostress Scale Techno-stressors were measured with validated survey items from prior studies. The constructs, items, and internal reliability coefficients for the present study are detailed in Table 1. Participants responded to 17 items on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree). Coping Style The 60-item version of the COPE inventory (Carver et al., 1989) was used to measure coping style. It comprises 15 subscales: positive reinterpretation and growth, mental disengagement, focus on and venting of emotions, use of instrumental social support, active coping, denial, religious coping, suppression of competing activities, humour, behavioural disengagement, restraint, use of emotional social support, substance abuse, acceptance, and planning. Although the original scale has 15 subscales, Carver et al. (1989) suggest three higher order factors (problem-focused, emotion-focused, and avoidance coping) based on factor analysis. Overall internal consistency for the COPE factors in the present study were as follows: problem-focused coping α = .908; emotion-focused coping α = .850; avoidance coping α = .702. In Greece, problem-focused coping α = .878, emotion-focused coping α = .841, and avoidance coping α = .716. Technostress, Coping and Mental Health in Students 304 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2022, Vol. 18(3), 302–318 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.4725 https://www.psychopen.eu/ In Italy, problem-focused coping α = .844, emotion-focused coping α = .821, and avoidance coping α = .669. In the UK, problem-focused coping α = .941, emotion-focused coping α = .861, and avoidance coping α = .711. Table 1 Technostress Constructs, Items, and Cronbach’s Alpha Scores for the Present Study Technostress Factors and Items Reference(s) Overall Sample Greece Italy UK Techno-Overload • ICTs create many more requests and problems than I would otherwise experience • I feel busy or rushed due to ICTs • I feel pressured due to ICTs Moore (2000) α = .82 α = .83 α = .78 α = .84 Work-Home Conflict • Using ICTs blurs boundaries between my work and my home life • Using ICTs for work related responsibilities creates conflicts with my home responsibilities • I do not get everything done at home because I find myself completing work due to ICTs Kreiner (2006) α = .77 α = .74 α = .78 α = .80 Techno-Ease • Learning to use ICTs is easy for me • ICTs are easy to use • It is easy to get results that I desire from ICTs Moore and Benbasat (1991) α = .85 α = .86 α = .82 α = .85 Techno-Reliability • The features provided by ICTs are dependable • The capabilities provided by ICTs are reliable • ICTs behave in a highly consistent way DeLone and McLean (2003) Jiang et al. (2002) α = .85 α = .86 α = .82 α = .85 Techno-Sociality • The use of ICTs enables others to have access to me • The use of ICTs enables me to be in touch with others Ayyagari et al. (2011) α = .74 α = .59 α = .90 α = .86 Pace of Change • I feel that there are frequent changes in the features of ICTs • I feel that the capabilities of ICTs change often • I feel that the way ICTs work changes often Weiss and Heide (1993) α = .84 α = .85 α = .88 α = .83 Anxious and Depressive Symptoms The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (Zigmond & Snaith, 1983) consists of 14 items, with seven measuring anxiety symptoms, and seven measuring depressive symptoms. Participants’ responses are coded on a scale of 0–3 for each item. The questionnaire is designed to assess an individual’s mental state over the previous two weeks. Overall internal consistency was α = .822 for anxiety symptoms and α = .688 for depressive symptoms. In Greece, α = .797 for anxiety symptoms and α = .673 for depressive symptoms. In Italy, α = .818 for anxiety symptoms and α = .653 for depressive symptoms. In the UK, α = .843 for anxiety symptoms and α = .697 for depressive symptoms. Translation of Scales Into Greek and Italian The UK sample completed the questionnaire in English, including the original English versions of the COPE (Carver et al., 1989) and HADS (Zigmond & Snaith, 1983). For distribution in Italy and Greece, the information sheet, consent form, debrief form, demographic and technostress items were translated into Greek by authors TG, KK, and EM, and into Italian by author FV. The scales were then back-translated into English by the same authors. We used the Italian versions of the COPE (Sica et al., 2008) and HADS (Costantini et al., 1999) in Italy, and the Greek versions of the COPE (Roussi, 2001) and HADS (Michopoulos et al., 2008) in Greece. Data Analysis Data were analysed using JASP software version 0.14.1 (JASP Team, 2020) and statistical significance was set at 5% (two-tailed). Differences between countries on demographic and study variables were examined with ANOVA (Bonferroni corrected) and with chi-square test for categorical variables. Because the utilisation and effectiveness of Galvin, Evans, Nelson et al. 305 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2022, Vol. 18(3), 302–318 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.4725 https://www.psychopen.eu/ coping strategies can rely on specific environmental contexts (Bonanno & Burton, 2013; Lee-Baggley et al., 2005), and given the uniqueness of the pandemic situation, we identified coping factors with an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal components extraction and promax oblique rotation. As the technostress scale has not previously been validated in Greek or Italian, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the scale followed by multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) to examine measurement invariance. Measurement invariance comprises configural, metric and scalar invariance. Configural invariance examines wheth er the measurement scale has a similar factor structure across the different countries. It is tested by imposing the same structure across groups and allowing all model estimated parameters to differ. Metric invariance examines whether the rating scales are used similarly in the different countries. It is tested by examining whether the different countries have the same factor loadings for the same item. Finally, scalar invariance examines whether the different countries have the same item intercepts. It is achieved by constraining intercepts to be equal across groups. Establishing scalar invariance would enable meaningful comparison of the means across the countries (Little, 1997). The goodness of fit indices for CFA and MGCFA models include the chi-square (χ2) statistic, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lews index (TLI), and Standardised Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR). The common guidelines for an acceptable model fit are: χ2, p > .05, RMSEA < .08; CFI > .90; TLI > .90; SRMR < .09. As the chi-square test is strongly influenced by sample size (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002), we relied on the RMSEA, CFI, TLI and SRMR to assess model fit. The assessment of measurement invariance involved testing the deterioration of the model fit between the configural, metric and scalar model. Changes in CFI, TLI, and RMSEA of < .01 are considered acceptable (Rutkowski & Svetina, 2014). We examined the associations between all variables using Pearson’s correlation. This was followed by four multiple linear regression analyses (enter method). The first two regressions included the technostress factors as predictors and HADS anxiety and depression subscale scores as outcomes. The remaining two regressions included COPE factors as predictors and anxiety/depression as outcomes. The independent errors assumption was checked with the Durbin-Watson statistic, and the multicollinearity assumption was tested with Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). Mediation analysis was then performed (bootstrap 5000 iterations and bias-corrected). The predictor variables included in the analysis were each of the significant techno-stressors from the multiple regression step. Mediators were each of the significant COPE factors from the multiple regression step. Outcome variables were the HADS anxiety and depression subscale scores. The maximum likelihood estimation was used to estimate the direct and indirect effects. Background confounders included age, sex (female), relationship status (single), level of study (masters), international student (yes) and employment status (employed). The full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation was used to deal with the missing values (< 10%) in the final sample. R e s u l t s Demographics The questionnaire was accessed by N = 963 participants. Forty were removed from the analysis as they did not respond to any of the study variables. A further 17 were removed because they reported that they were not students and 12 were removed as they were doctoral level students. This resulted in a total sample size of N = 894 (Greece, n = 343; Italy, n = 120; UK, n = 431). Participants were studying a range of subjects, including psychology (n = 262), core sciences (biology, chemistry or physics) (n = 142), engineering (n = 88), medicine (n = 83), social studies (n = 45), business (n = 66), languages (n = 42), education (n = 36), history (n = 36), art or media studies (n = 15), geography (n = 15), maths (n = 15), nursing (n = 13), law (n = 11), philosophy (n = 10), architecture (n = 6), and archaeology (n = 6). Participants differed significantly across countries on all demographic variables except for sex, ownership of a mobile phone, and having a desktop or mobile phone at home (Table 2). Technostress, Coping and Mental Health in Students 306 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2022, Vol. 18(3), 302–318 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.4725 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Table 2 Demographic Information For the Overall Sample and Stratified By Nation Sample Characteristic Total Sample Greece Italy United Kingdom Statistic Sex n (%) Females 686(77) 267(78) 96(80) 323(75) Males 206(23) 74(21) 24(20) 108(25) χ2 = 5.178 Other 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) p = .270 Prefer not to say 2(0) 2(1) 0(0) 0(0) Age in years M, SD 21.58, 4.29 22.99, 5. 58 22.47, 4.10 20.20, 2.21 F = 46.371 (Range) (18–56) (18–56) (19–38) (18–44) p < .001 Relationship n (%) Single 747(84) 58(17) 47(39) 42(10) χ2 = 59.229 Relationship 147(16) 285(83) 73(61) 389(90) p < .001 Course n (%) Full-time 824(96) 318(98) 92(80) 414(99) χ2 = 100.917 Part-time 33(4) 6(2) 23(20) 4(1) p < .001 Study level n (%) Bachelors 727(89) 264(93) 101(87) 362(87) χ2 = 7.353 Masters 91(11) 20(7) 15(13) 56(13) p = .025 Employment n (%) Full-time 68(7) 34(11) 8(7) 21(5) Part-time 228(27) 27(9) 27(23) 174(40) χ2 = 99.036 Not employed 538(63) 229(77) 83(68) 226(53) p < .001 Prefer not to say 22(3) 10(3) 2(2) 10(2) Technology devices at home n (%) Laptop Yes 840(94) 302(88) 110(92) 428(99) χ2 = 43.932 No 54(6) 41(12) 10(8) 3(1) p < .001 Desktop Yes 340(38) 118(34) 53(44) 169(39) χ2 = 4.088 No 554(62) 225(66) >67(56) 262(61) p = .130 Tablet Yes 472(53) 142(41) 56(47) 274(64) χ2 = 39.771 No 422(47) 201(59) 64(53) 157(36) p < .001 Mobile Yes 841(99) 295(99) 117(98) 429(99) χ2 = 43.932 No 8(1) 3(1) 3(2) 2(1) p = .123 Othera 37(4) 8(2) 7(5) 22(5) — Technology devices personally owned n (%) Laptop Yes 722(86) 268(78) 95(80) 409(95) χ2 = 51.611 No 122(14) 75(22) 25(20) 22(5) p < .001 Desktop Yes 106(12) 50(15) 18(15) 38(9) χ2 = 7.375/ No 788(88) 293(85) 102(85) 393(91) p = .003 Tablet Yes 278(31) 97(28) 25(20) 156(36) χ2 = 12.398 No 616(69) 246(72) 95(80) 275(64) p = .002 Mobile Yes 842(99) 295(99) 119(99) 428(99) χ2 = 0.208 No 7(1) 3(1) 1(1) 3(1) p = .901 Othera 20(2) 4(1) 3(2) 13(3) — Galvin, Evans, Nelson et al. 307 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2022, Vol. 18(3), 302–318 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.4725 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Sample Characteristic Total Sample Greece Italy United Kingdom Statistic Personal space? n (%) Yes 698(79) 254(75) 100(85) 344(80) χ2 = 6.929 No 187(21) 87(25) 19(15) 81(20) p = .031 Number of people living in household M 3.58(1.51) 2.87(1.58) 3.69(1.11) 3.85(1.58) F = 40.364 (SD) p < .001 a Responses to “other” included: Game Consoles (n = 18), Smart TVs (n = 10), Home Hubs (n =7), and Smartwatch (n = 2). EFA on the COPE Scale Principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted on the COPE scale. The PCA confirmed three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, which together explained 62% of the variance (Table 3). The factors were aligned closely with the findings of Carver et al. (1989) and represented problem-focused, emotion-focused, and avoidance coping. The first factor represented problem-focused coping, with high loadings from the following COPE subscales: positive reinterpretation and growth, active coping, restraint, acceptance, humour, suppression of competing activities, and planning. The second factor represented emotion-focused coping, with high loadings from the subscales: focusing on and venting of emotions, instrumental social support, and use of social support. The third factor represented avoidance coping, with high loadings from the subscales: denial, substance use, behavioural disengagement, and mental disengagement. Religious coping did not load highly on any of the three factors. As religion is not a specific focus of our study, the decision was made to exclude this subscale from further analysis. Table 3 Exploratory Factor Analysis of the COPE Subscales EFA COPE subscales Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Planning .924 Positive reinterpretation and growth .859 Active coping .849 Acceptance .733 Suppression of competing activities .720 Restraint .626 Humour .430 Use of emotional support .943 Instrumental social support .780 Focus on and venting of emotions .749 Behavioural disengagement .856 Denial .677 Substance use .550 Mental disengagement .352 Religious coping Note. Factor loadings below 0.3 are excluded. CFA and MGCFA on Technostress Scale Next, we conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses on the technostress scale (Table 4). RMSEA, CFI and SRMR values indicate acceptable model fit for the Greek and the UK samples. TLI indicated acceptable fit for the UK sample and was very close to the acceptable threshold for the Greek sample (.893). RMSEA, CFI, TLI and SRMR indicated an insufficient fit for the Italian sample. To see if the model-data fit could be improved we inspected the modification indices for each country separately. We based a selected model on the UK data, since English is the source language of the scales. Further estimations indicated that deleting the third item on the techno-ease scale ‘it is easy to get results that I desire from ICTs’ increased the fit in Technostress, Coping and Mental Health in Students 308 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2022, Vol. 18(3), 302–318 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.4725 https://www.psychopen.eu/ all countries. The item was not distinctive enough and cross-loaded with items on the techno-reliability scale. RMSEA, CFI, TLI and SRMR values indicated acceptable fit for the overall sample as well as for each country in the revised model (Table 5). These results provided a good starting point for the subsequent multi-group confirmatory factor analyses. Table 4 Fit Indices For Technostress Sample RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR Overall .071 [.065-.077] .935 .915 .058 Greece .081 [.070-.091] .918 .893 .062 Italy .124 [.107-.142] .835 .785 .097 UK .071 [.061-.081] .940 .921 .062 Note. Sub-scales from the confirmatory factor analyses. Table 5 Revised CFA Sample RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR Overall .047 [.040-.055] .972 .963 .038 Greece .067 [.055-.079] .944 .925 .053 Italy .074 [.051-.096] .941 .921 .064 UK .045 [.032-.058] .977 .968 .041 Note. With the removal of Item 3 from the Techno-Ease Scale. The MGCFA consisted of three steps. The configural equivalent model was estimated first, in which we imposed the same factor structure on the scores in each country. A sufficiently good fit was found (Table 6), suggesting the measurement scale has a similar factor structure across the three countries. Next, we imposed the factor loadings to be the same across countries (Table 6). We expected a slight decrease in fit, which was confirmed, with a RMSEA of .062 and SRMR of .057. However, these are both still above the acceptable thresholds. Finally, we tested the full scalar invariant model and found this was acceptable with ΔRMSEA, ΔCFI, and ΔTLI < .01 (Rutkowski & Svetina, 2014). The comparison of latent means for the techno-stress factors can therefore be justified (Table 6). Table 6 Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis For the Techno-Stress Scale MGCFA RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR Model comparison ΔRMSEA ΔCFI ΔTLI ΔSRMR M1: Configural invariance .061 [.051-.070] .961 .947 .049 M2: Metric invariance .062 [.053-.070] .956 .945 .057 M1 .001 .005 .002 .008 M3: Scalar invariance .069 [.060-.077] .947 .937 .057 M2 .007 .009 .008 .000 Differences Between Countries on the Study Variables Table 7 details the means, standard deviations, and results of the ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc tests. Significantly higher levels of anxiety and depression were found in the UK sample compared to the other countries. Work-home Galvin, Evans, Nelson et al. 309 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2022, Vol. 18(3), 302–318 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.4725 https://www.psychopen.eu/ conflict was significantly higher in the UK compared to Italy. Techno-ease was lower in the Italian sample compared to the other countries, and pace of change was higher in Greece in comparison with Italy. Significantly higher levels of avoidance-focused coping and lower levels of problem-focused coping were found in the UK sample compared to the other countries. The Italian sample reported higher emotion-focused coping compared to the UK sample. Table 7 Group Means and ANOVA Tests Means and differences Total Sample Greece (1) Italy (2) UK (3) F Statistic Post Hoc Technostress Factors Techno-overload 10.74 (4.56) 10.89 (4.65) 10.29 (4.41) 10.75 (4.53) 0.718 — Work-home conflict 11.97 (4.94) 11.73 (5.05) 10.92 (4.72) 12.55 (4.85) 5.267* 3 > 2 Techno-ease 16.22 (3.76) 16.30 (3.76) 15.18 (3.67) 16.50 (3.79) 5.383* 1 > 2 3 > 2 Techno-reliability 14.01 (3.70) 13.78 (3.75) 13.52 (3.32) 14.37 (3.76) 3.148* — Techno-sociality 12.07 (2.46) 11.82 (2.86) 12.06 (2.10) 12.29 (2.14) 2.909 — Pace of change 14.14 (4.30) 14.62 (4.77) 13.19 (3.64) 14.04 (3.97) 4.922* 1 > 2 COPE Inventory Problem-focused coping 56.61 (18.27) 58.32 (17.27) 59.31 (13.53) 54.41 (20.00) 5.726* 1 > 3 2 > 3 Avoidance-focused coping 35.93 (11.13) 35.97 (9.54) 32.49 (8.37) 37.77 (12.67) 12.727** 3 > 1 3 > 2 Emotion-focused coping 27.64 (10.77) 28.23 (11.49) 29.59 (9.15) 26.57 (10.52) 4.455* 2 > 3 HADS Anxious symptoms 8.81 (6.96) 7.61 (4.37) 8.73 (4.76) 9.92 (4.69) 21.429** 3 > 1 3 > 2 Depressive symptoms 6.99 (3.94) 6.31 (3.69) 6.08 (3.56) 7.76 (4.10) 14.555** 3 > 1 3 > 2 Note. From left to right, Mean(SD), F statistic and Bonferroni Post Hoc. 1 = Greece, 2 = Italy, 3 = UK. *p < .05. **p < .001. Pearson’s Correlations and Regression Analyses Table 8 shows the Pearson correlation coefficient matrix for the study variables. In regard to hypotheses 1 and 2, significant associations were found between techno-overload (r = .241, p < .001), work-home conflict (r = .350, p < .001), techno-ease (r = -.214, p < .001), techno-reliability (r = -.196, p < .001), techno-sociality (r = -.123, p = .001) and depressive symptoms, but no significant correlation was found between pace of change (r = -.010, p = .795) and depressive symptoms. Significant correlations were found between techno-overload (r = .307, p < .001), work-home conflict (r = .285, p < .001), techno-ease (r = -.199, p < .001), techno-reliability (r = -.160, p < .001) and anxiety symptoms, but not between techno-sociality (r = -.064, p = .087), pace of change (r = .057, p = .122) and anxiety symptoms. Four multiple regression analyses (enter method) were then performed. Two of these included the six technostress factors and demographic variables as predictors and the HADS anxiety and depression subscale as outcomes. The other two included coping factors and demographics as predictors and the HADS subscales as outcomes (Table 9). Model 1 explained 16.9% of the total variance (p < .001) in anxiety symptoms. Techno-overload (β = .187, p < .001), work-home conflict (β = .201, p < .001), techno-ease (β = -.116, p = .011) and age (β = -.100, p < .001) were significant predictors of anxiety symptoms. Model 2 explained 16.6% of the total variance (p < .001) in depressive symptoms. Work-home conflict (β = .290, p < .001), techno-ease (β = -.122, p = .008) and age (β = -.118, p = .004) were significant predictors of depressive symptoms. Model 3 explained 17.1% of the total variance in anxiety symptoms (p < .001), and problem-focused coping (β = -.290, p < .001), emotion-focused coping (β = .221, p < .001), avoidance-focused coping (β = .327, p < .001) and sex Technostress, Coping and Mental Health in Students 310 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2022, Vol. 18(3), 302–318 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.4725 https://www.psychopen.eu/ (female) (β = .089, p = .017) were significant predictors of anxiety symptoms. Model 4 explained 14.5% of the variance (p < .001) in depressive symptoms. Problem-focused coping (β = -.312, p < .001) and avoidance-focused coping (β = .317, p < .001) were significant predictors of depressive symptoms. All regression models met multicollinearity and error independence assumptions (Table 9). Table 8 Pearson’s Correlations Between Study Variables Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1. Age — 2. Sex (Female) -.078* — 3. International Student (Yes) .060 .029 — 4. Level of study (Masters) .230** -.090* -.035 — 5. Employment status (Employed) .225** -.055 -.058 .099* — 6. Relationship status (Single) -.327** -.028 -.050 -.121** -.062 — 7. Techno-overload .013 .101* .016 -.062 .047 .048 — 8. Work home conflict .004 .078* .012 .019 .128** .027 .545** — 9. Techno-ease .037 -.138** -.008 .106* .026 .001 -.278** -.189** — 10. Techno-reliability .085* -.133** -.040 .078* -.004 -.071 -.340** -.273** .554** — 11. Techno-sociality .021 .011 -.040 .092* .156** -.026 -.114* -.014 .238** .237** — 12. Pace of change -.042 .043 .014 -.029 .155** .038 .138** .092* -.032 -.054 .235** — 13. Problem-focused coping .064 .106** .020 .037 -.118** -.036 .014 -.090* .100* .201** -.080* -.005 — 14. Avoidance-focused coping -.093* .054 .025 -.009 -.044 .120** .095* .095* -.001 .030 -.070 .027 .494** — 15. Emotion-focused coping .011 .247** .026 .013 -.180** -.072* .089* -.086* .023 .121* -.101* -.044 .656** .373** — 16. Anxiety symptoms -.132** .146** -.005 -.068 -.019 .037 .307** .285** -.199** -.160** -.064 .057 -.014 .280** .189** — 17. Depressive symptoms -.128** .058 -.036 -.060 .022 .080* .241** .350** -.214** -.196** -.123* -.010 -.179** .231** -.045 .620** — *p < .05. **p < .001. Coping as a Mediator Between Technostress Factors and Anxiety Symptomatology Multiple mediation analysis was used to test hypothesis 3. The first mediation analysis investigated coping as a mediator between techno-stress factors and anxiety symptoms (Table 10). The total effect of techno-overload on anxiety symptoms was significant, β = .179, 95% CI [.080, .272]. Techno-overload had a significant indirect effect through prob lem-focused coping, β = -.034, 95% CI [-.077, -.002], which accounted for 18.99% of the total effect of techno-overload on anxiety symptoms. In addition, techno-overload had a significant indirect effect through emotion-focused coping, β = .031, 95% CI [.011, .060], which accounted for 17.32% of the total effect of techno-overload on anxiety symptoms. No evidence for an indirect effect was found between techno-overload and anxiety symptoms through avoidance coping. The total effect of work-home conflict on anxiety symptoms was significant, β = .207, 95% CI [.116, .307]. Work- home conflict had a significant indirect effect through avoidance coping, β = .027, 95% CI [.001, .066] that accounted for 13.04% of the total effect of work-home conflict on anxiety symptoms. No evidence for an indirect effect was found between work-home conflict and anxiety symptoms through problem- or emotion-focused coping. The total effect of techno-ease on anxiety symptoms was also significant, β = -.087, 95% CI [-.159, -.010], with indirect effects through problem-, β = -.043, 95% CI [-.079, -.016] and emotion-focused coping, β = .018, 95% CI [.003, .040] accounting for 49.43% and 20.69% of the total effect, respectively. No evidence for an indirect effect was found between techno-ease and anxiety symptoms through avoidance coping. The residual direct effects for techno-overload, β = .163, 95% CI [.069, .254], work-home conflict, β = .179, 95% CI [.089, .268] and techno-ease, β = -.078, 95% CI [-.150, -.007] on anxiety symptoms indicated partial mediation (Table 10). Galvin, Evans, Nelson et al. 311 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2022, Vol. 18(3), 302–318 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.4725 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Table 9 Regression Analyses For the HADS Anxiety and Depression Subscales Anxiety Symptoms Depressive Symptoms Predictor Statistic p value Statistic p value Regression model Model 1 Model 2 R 2 = .169 < .001 R 2 = .166 < .001 D-W = 1.809 D-W = 1.987 VIF = 1.1 VIF = 1.1 Age β = -.100 < .001 β = -.118 .004 Sex (Female) β = .058 .124 β = -.019 .621 International student (Yes) β = .012 .726 β = .000 .001 Level of study (Masters) β = -.028 .464 β = -.034 .381 Employed (Yes) β = .030 .427 β =.049 .196 Relationship status (Single) β = -.028 .460 β =.008 .840 Techno-overload β = .187 < .001 β = .030 .517 Work-home conflict β = .201 < .001 β = .290 < .001 Techno-ease β = -.116 .011 β = -.122 .008 Techno-reliability β = .017 .714 β = -.025 .604 Techno-sociality β = .038 .346 β = -.043 .287 Pace of change β = -.006 .873 β = -.056 .143 Regression model Model 3 Model 4 R 2 = .171 < .001 R 2 = .145 < .001 D-W = 1.829 D-W = 1.956 VIF = 1.2 VIF = 1.3 Age β = -.047 .227 β = -.045 .265 Sex (Female) β = .089 .017 β = .059 .118 International student (Yes) β = .017 .640 β = -.007 .856 Level of study (Masters) β = -.052 .161 β = -.043 .250 Employed (Yes) β = .051 .160 β = .037 .324 Relationship status (Single) β = -.047 .211 β = -.015 .687 Problem focused coping β = -.290 < .001 β = -.312 < .001 Emotion-focused coping β = .221 < .001 β = .049 .279 Avoidance coping β = .327 < .001 β = .317 < .001 Note. β: standardised beta. D-W: Durbin-Watson value. VIF: Variance Inflation Factor value. Coping as a Mediator Between Technostress Factors and Depressive Symptomatology Multiple mediation analysis was performed to investigate coping style as a mediator between technostress factors and depressive symptoms (Table 10). The total effect of work-home conflict on depressive symptoms was significant, β = .317, 95% CI [.243, .390]. Work-home conflict had a significant indirect effect through avoidance coping, β = .034, 95% CI [.007, .066], which accounted for 10.73% of the total effect of work-home conflict on depressive symptoms. No evidence for an indirect effect was found between work-home conflict and depressive symptoms through problem-focused coping. The total effect of techno-ease on depressive symptoms was significant, β = -.156, 95% CI [-.233, -.081], with an indirect effect through problem-focused coping, β = -.038, 95% CI [-.073, -.011] accounting for 24.36% of the total effect. No evidence for an indirect effect was found between techno-ease and depressive symptoms through avoidance coping. The residual direct effects for work-home conflict, β = .284, 95% CI [.211, .354] and techno-ease, β = -.131, 95% CI [-.204, -.055] on depressive symptoms indicated partial mediation (Table 10). Technostress, Coping and Mental Health in Students 312 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2022, Vol. 18(3), 302–318 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.4725 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Table 10 Outcomes of Multiple Mediation Analyses (Bootstrapped 5000 Samples) Total Effect Direct Effect Effect of IV on M Effect of M on DV Indirect Effect Outcome Predictor Mediator β SE CI β SE CI β SE CI Anxiety Techno- overload .179** .044 .080, .272 .163** .041 .069, .254 Problem-focused .111* -.252** -.034* .018 -.077, -.002 Avoidance coping .066 .264** .018 .017 -.015, .058 Emotion-focused .202** .232** .031* .012 .011, .060 Work-home conflict .207** .043 .116, .307 .179** .041 .089, .268 Problem-focused -.131* -.244** .015 .017 -.024, .055 Avoidance coping .064 .251** .027* .017 .001, .066 Emotion-focused -.188** .277** -.014 .001 -.041, .007 Techno-ease -.087* .037 -.159, -.010 -.078* .035 -.150, -.007 Problem-focused .103* -.246** -.043* .016 -.079, -.016 Avoidance coping .026 .280** .016 .014 -.011, .049 Emotion-focused .041 .252** .018* .009 .003, .040 Depression Work-home conflict .317** .036 .243, .390 .284** .035 .211, .354 Problem-focused -.074* -.244** -.001 .014 -.032, .028 Avoidance coping .097* .266** .034* .014 .007, .066 Techno-ease -.156** .037 -.233, -.081 -.131** .035 -.204, -.055 Problem-focused .084* -.244** -.038* .015 -.073, -.011 Avoidance coping .015 .298** .013 .014 -.013, .043 Note. β: standardised beta. SE: standard error. CI: bias corrected accelerated 95% confidence intervals. D i s c u s s i o n This study investigated the associations between techno-stressors, coping, and anxious and depressive symptoms in university students during an intensive period of technology usage. Universities across the globe had to adapt quickly to deliver their courses during the COVID-19 pandemic and it is anticipated that reliance on technology in HE will last for the foreseeable future (Bloomfield, 2020). Understanding how technostress translates into psychopathological outcomes in the student population is therefore important to support students in facing the heightened ICT challenges introduced by the pandemic. The study found that work-home conflict was associated with greater anxiety and depressive symptoms. This has been found in previous research, which showed that greater work-home conflict exists when university work and personal life are integrated rather than separated (Adebayo, 2006; McCutcheon & Morrison, 2018). Stricter boundaries between technology, work, and personal life may allow students to mentally detach from their work and protect them against anxiety and depression. A substantial body of research has investigated how workers cope with managing the boundaries between their work and home life, and how this relates to psychopathology (e.g., Bergs et al., 2018; McTernan et al., 2016). The results of the current study show a direct effect of work-home conflict on anxiety and depressive symptoms as well as an indirect effect through avoidance coping. Considering the specific context of the pandemic and lockdown, the use of avoidance coping to manage conflict between work/home life may have resulted in students closing themselves off and/or hiding into their ICT activities, which, in turn, increased their anxiety and depressive symptoms. Previous research shows that dealing with the complexity of technology and/or the uncertainty that comes with constant changes, developments, and upgrades in ICT can lead to stress, anxiety, and depression (Dragano & Lunau, 2020; Thomée, 2012). It is now more essential than ever that students renew their technical skills while dealing with the pressure of more complex systems and virtual learning environments. The findings of the present study Galvin, Evans, Nelson et al. 313 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2022, Vol. 18(3), 302–318 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.4725 https://www.psychopen.eu/ reveal a negative association between techno-ease and anxiety and depressive symptoms. Techno-ease had a protective direct effect on anxiety and depressive symptoms in addition to an indirect effect through problem-focused coping. Techno-ease and problem-focused resolution can be supported by institutions providing their students with accessible ICT services, training, and workshops, as well as clear online ICT instructions and resources. Techno-overload was positively associated with anxiety and depressive symptoms, which is in line with previous research on general population samples (Gaudioso et al., 2017). The mediation analysis suggested that when techno- overload is high, the indirect effect of problem-focused coping protected against anxiety, whereas the indirect effect of emotion-focused coping increased anxiety symptoms. This latter finding contradicts previous research, which suggests that emotion-focused resolution through social support, including chatting with friends/family online, translates into positive outcomes for wellbeing (Liu et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2013). One explanation for our finding could be situational factors since access to support networks during the data collection period would likely have been through ICTs due to social restriction measures. Engaging in emotion-focused coping during this period could therefore have contributed to increased techno-overload, necessitated intensive screen time, and resulted in a bi-directional relationship between these variables that resulted in heightened student anxiety. This is supported by research on Facebook Addiction Disorder (FAD), which showed that individuals who received high levels of social support online were at risk for tendencies toward FAD and that this negatively influenced mental health (Brailovskaia et al., 2019). Furthermore, another aspect of ICT is that communication can occur via several channels simultaneously (e.g., webchats, mobiles, video calls, etc.), which can be mentally exhausting and potentially stressful since distractions and dual tasking are demanding on working memory (Nijboer et al., 2016). With this in mind, access to social support through ICT during a period in which reliance on ICT was already high may have contributed toward heightened anxiety symptoms in this sample. However, this is somewhat speculative given the cross-sectional nature of the current research, and longitudinal studies will be needed to confirm this hypothesis. An interesting finding in the present study was that significantly higher levels of anxiety and depression were found in the UK sample compared to Italy and Greece. Higher levels of avoidance coping and lower levels of problem-focused coping were also found in the UK sample compared to the other countries, and work-home conflict was significantly higher in the UK compared to Italy. Techno-ease was significantly lower in the Italian sample compared to the other countries, and pace of change was significantly higher in Greece in comparison to Italy. Students in Italy reported significantly higher emotion-focused coping compared to the UK. These observed differences could be due to a wide va riety of factors, including individual differences in socio-cultural factors, pandemic specific responses within countries, or differences in the academic environment/demands among the participating countries. Although these differences between the countries are interesting, they should be interpreted with caution. We did not confirm measurement invariance on the COPE and HADS, limiting the conclusions that can be made regarding statistical differences on these variables. However, the instruments have previously been validated in the respective countries, which supports their use in a range of populations (Anastasiou et al., 2017; Coriale et al., 2012; Ferrandina et al., 2012) including students (Fradelos et al., 2019; Sagone & De Caroli, 2014). Further, more research is needed in order to specify the exact factors and underlying mechanisms that may account for these differences at a country-level. The overall sample for the current study was relatively young (M = 21.58, SD = 4.29). Although this is reflective of the broader student population, it is difficult to generalise our findings to mature learners. Hauk et al. (2019) found that even though older people are more prone to techno-stressors, ageing is connected to development of coping skills that in turn help reduce negative outcomes of technostress. However, increased home/work conflict is more common for mature learners (Markle, 2015; van Rhijn et al., 2016), as these students often experience greater social and family responsibilities. Future research could therefore extend our paradigm to establish whether these relationships are also present in mature student samples. Another limitation is that the primary language of the study participants was not assessed. We worked on the assumption that students had sufficient proficiency in the language of the country in which they were studying. Although we did measure the status of international students in our design, which may have accounted for non-native speakers to some extent, this working assumption could have affected the results. Finally, it should also be noted that technostress can act as an “enhancer” to one’s productivity (Hung et al., 2015), therefore possibly giving some users the perception that while they are working faster and longer with their ICTs, they are also working more efficiently. It is possible that while technostress may have increased anxiety and Technostress, Coping and Mental Health in Students 314 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2022, Vol. 18(3), 302–318 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.4725 https://www.psychopen.eu/ depressive symptoms in the students, perceived productivity could also have resulted in the experience of positive feelings, such as accomplishment, which may serve as a protective factor. Although we did include some positive effects of technology in our design (techno-sociality, techno-ease, techno-reliability), we did not account for other possible benefits of technology and acknowledge this as a further limitation of the study. C o n c l u s i o n s The current study investigated associations between technostress, coping, and anxiety/depressive symptoms in Europe an university students during disruption to the higher education sector caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Further data and psychological interventions are needed to promote psychological health among students in the immediate future and also after the pandemic. The psychological consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak will unfortunately last. An understanding of how technostress translates through coping strategies into mental health outcomes can help student counselling centres target maladaptive coping strategies, thus providing appropriate support to students. Funding: The authors have no funding to report. Acknowledgments: Ethical approval was granted by the School of Psychology Research Ethics Committee at Newcastle University, UK (reference number: 3393/2020). Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. R e f e r e n c e s Adebayo, D. O. (2006). Workload, social support, and work-school conflict among Nigerian nontraditional students. Journal of Career Development, 33(2), 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845306289674 Anastasiou, C. A., Yannakoulia, M., Kosmidis, M. H., Dardiotis, E., Hadjigeorgiou, G. M., Sakka, P., Arampatzi, X., Bougea, A., Labropoulos, I., & Scarmeas, N. (2017). Mediterranean diet and cognitive health: Initial results from the Hellenic Longitudinal Investigation of Ageing and Diet. PLoS One, 12(8), Article e0182048. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182048 Ayyagari, R., Grover, V., & Purvis, R. (2011). Technostress: Technological antecedents and implications. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 35(4), 831–858. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409963 Bergs, Y., Hoofs, H., Kant, I., Slangen, J. J. M., & Jansen, N. W. H. (2018). Work–family conflict and depressive complaints among Dutch employees: Examining reciprocal associations in a longitudinal study. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 44(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3658 Bloomfield, L. S. P. (2020). Global mapping of landscape fragmentation, human-animal interactions, and livelihood behaviors to prevent the next pandemic. Agriculture and Human Values, 37, 603–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10104-x Bonanno, G. A., & Burton, C. L. (2013). Regulatory flexibility: An individual differences perspective on coping and emotion regulation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(6), 591–612. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613504116 Brailovskaia, J., Rohmann, E., Bierhoff, H. W., Schillack, H., & Margraf, J. (2019). The relationship between daily stress, social support and Facebook Addiction Disorder. Psychiatry Research, 276, 167–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.05.014 Brod, C. (1984). Technostress: The human cost of the computer revolution. Addison-Wesley. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267 Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5 Coriale, G., Bilotta, E., Leone, L., Cosimi, F., Porrari, R., De Rosa, F., & Ceccanti, M. (2012). Avoidance coping strategies, alexithymia and alcohol abuse: A mediation analysis. Addictive Behaviors, 37(11), 1224–1229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.05.018 Galvin, Evans, Nelson et al. 315 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2022, Vol. 18(3), 302–318 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.4725 https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845306289674 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182048 https://doi.org/10.2307/41409963 https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3658 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-020-10104-x https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613504116 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.05.014 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267 https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.05.018 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Costantini, M., Musso, M., Viterbori, P., Bonci, F., Del Mastro, L., Garrone, O., Venturini, M., & Morasso, G. (1999). Detecting psychological distress in cancer patients: Validity of the Italian version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Supportive Care in Cancer, 7, 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s005200050241 DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748 Dragano, N., & Lunau, T. (2020). Technostress at work and mental health: Concepts and research results. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 33(4), 407–413. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000613 Ferrandina, G., Mantegna, G., Petrillo, M., Fuoco, G., Venditti, L., Terzano, S., Moruzzi, C., Lorusso, D., Marcellusi, A., & Scambia, G. (2012). Quality of life and emotional distress in early stage and locally advanced cervical cancer patients: A prospective, longitudinal study. Gynecologic Oncology, 124(3), 389–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.09.041 Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Coping as a mediator of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(3), 466–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.3.466 Fradelos, E. C., Kapsiocha, E., Tzavella, F., Kastanidou, S., Tsaras, K., Papagiannis, D., & Papathanasiou, I. V. (2019). Factors associated with psychological distress in university students and the relation to emotional intelligent and spirituality: A cross-sectional study. Materia Socio-Medica, 31(4), 262–267. https://doi.org/10.5455/msm.2019.31.262-267 Freire, C., Ferradás, M. D. M., Valle, A., Núñez, J. C., & Vallejo, G. (2016). Profiles of psychological well-being and coping strategies among university students. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article e1554. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01554 Gaudioso, F., Turel, O., & Galimberti, C. (2017). The mediating roles of strain facets and coping strategies in translating techno- stressors into adverse job outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.041 Hauk, N., Göritz, A. S., & Krumm, S. (2019). The mediating role of coping behavior on the age-technostress relationship: A longitudinal multilevel mediation model. PLoS One, 14(3), Article e0213349. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213349 Hung, W. H., Chen, K., & Lin, C. P. (2015). Does the proactive personality mitigate the adverse effect of technostress on productivity in the mobile environment? Telematics and Informatics, 32(1), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2014.06.002 JASP Team. (2020). JASP (Version 0.14.1) [Computer software]. https://jasp-stats.org/ Jiang, P. J. J., Klein, G., & Carr, C. L. (2002). Measuring information system service quality: SERVQUAL from the other side. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 26(2), 145–166. https://doi.org/10.2307/4132324 Johns Hopkins University & Medicine. (2021). Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Centre. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html Kim, K., Ryu, E., Chon, M. Y., Yeun, E. J., Choi, S. Y., Seo, J. S., & Nam, B. W. (2006). Internet addiction in Korean adolescents and its relation to depression and suicidal ideation: A questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 43(2), 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2005.02.005 Kreiner, G. E. (2006). Consequences of work-home segmentation or integration: A person-environment fit perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 485–507. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.386 Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1991). The concept of coping. In A. Monat & R. S. Lazarus (Eds.), Stress and coping: An anthology (3rd ed., pp. 189–206). Columbia University Press. Lee-Baggley, D., Preece, M., & DeLongis, A. (2005). Coping with interpersonal stress: Role of Big Five traits. Journal of Personality, 73(5), 1141–1180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00345.x Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32(1), 53–76. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3201_3 Liu, D., Wright, K. B., & Hu, B. (2018). A meta-analysis of social network site use and social support. Computers & Education, 127, 201– 213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.024 Markle, G. (2015). Factors influencing persistence among nontraditional university students. Adult Education Quarterly, 65(3), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713615583085 McCutcheon, J. M., & Morrison, M. A. (2018). It’s “like walking on broken glass”: Pan-Canadian reflections on work–family conflict from psychology women faculty and graduate students. Feminism & Psychology, 28(2), 231–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353517739641 McTernan, W. P., Dollard, M. F., Tuckey, M. R., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2016). Enhanced co-worker social support in isolated work groups and its mitigating role on thework-family conflict-depression loss spiral. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(4), Article e382. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13040382 Technostress, Coping and Mental Health in Students 316 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2022, Vol. 18(3), 302–318 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.4725 https://doi.org/10.1007/s005200050241 https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748 https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000613 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.09.041 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.3.466 https://doi.org/10.5455/msm.2019.31.262-267 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01554 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.041 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213349 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2014.06.002 https://jasp-stats.org/ https://doi.org/10.2307/4132324 https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2005.02.005 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.386 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00345.x https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3201_3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.024 https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713615583085 https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353517739641 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13040382 https://www.psychopen.eu/ Michopoulos, I., Douzenis, A., Kalkavoura, C., Christodoulou, C., Michalopoulou, P., Kalemi, G., Fineti, K., Patapis, P., Protopapas, K., & Lykouras, L. (2008). Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): Validation in a Greek general hospital sample. Annals of General Psychiatry, 7, Article e4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-859X-7-4 Moore, J. E. (2000). One road to turnover: An examination of work exhaustion in technology professionals. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 24(1), 141–168. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250982 Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.192 Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400 Nijboer, M., Borst, J., van Rijn, H., & Taatgen, N. (2016). Contrasting single and multi-component working-memory systems in dual tasking. Cognitive Psychology, 86, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2016.01.003 Roth, S., & Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. American Psychologist, 41(7), 813–819. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.7.813 Roussi, P. (2001). The adaptation of COPE scale. In E. Vassilaki, S. Triliva, & E. Bezevengis (Eds.), Coping with stress and anxiety. Ellinika Grammata. Rutkowski, L., & Svetina, D. (2014). Assessing the hypothesis of measurement invariance in the context of large-scale international surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74(1), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413498257 Sagone, E., & De Caroli, M. E. (2014). A correlational study on dispositional resilience, psychological well-being, and coping strategies in university students. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(7), 463–471. https://doi.org/10.12691/education-2-7-5 Sahu, P. (2020). Closure of universities due to Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): Impact on education and mental health of students and academic staff. Cureus, 12(4), Article e7541. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7541 Sica, C., Magni, C., Ghisi, M., Altoè, G., Sighinolfi, C., Chiri, L. R., & Franceschini, S. (2008). Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced-Nuova Versione Italiana (COPE-NVI): Uno strumento per la misura degli stili di coping [Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced-New Italian Version (COPE-NVI): A tool for measuring coping styles]. Psicoterapia Cognitiva e Comportamentale, 14(1), 27–53. Taylor, S. E., & Stanton, A. L. (2007). Coping resources, coping processes, and mental health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 377–401. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091520 Thomée, S. (2012). ICT use and mental health in young adults. Effects of computer and mobile phone use on stress, sleep disturbances, and symptoms of depression [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg. van Rhijn, T. M., Lero, D., Bridge, K., & Fritz, V. (2016). Unmet needs: Challenges to success from the perspectives of mature university students. Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education, 28(1), 29–47. Vasilescu, M. D., Serban, A. C., Dimian, G. C., Aceleanu, M. I., & Picatoste, X. (2020). Digital divide, skills and perceptions on digitalisation in the European Union—Towards a smart labour market. PLoS One, 15(4), Article e0232032. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232032 Wang, X., Tan, S. C., & Li, L. (2020). Technostress in university students’ technology-enhanced learning: An investigation from multidimensional person-environment misfit. Computers in Human Behavior, 105, Article e106208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106208 Watermeyer, R., Crick, T., Knight, C., & Goodall, J. (2021). COVID-19 and digital disruption in UK universities: Afflictions and affordances of emergency online migration. Higher Education, 81, 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00561-y Weiss, A. M., & Heide, J. B. (1993). The nature of organizational search in high technology markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379303000207 Zhu, X., Woo, S. E., Porter, C., & Brzezinski, M. (2013). Pathways to happiness: From personality to social networks and perceived support. Social Networks, 35(3), 382–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.04.005 Zigmond, A. S., & Snaith, R. P. (1983). The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67(6), 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x Galvin, Evans, Nelson et al. 317 Europe's Journal of Psychology 2022, Vol. 18(3), 302–318 https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.4725 https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-859X-7-4 https://doi.org/10.2307/3250982 https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2.3.192 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2016.01.003 https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.7.813 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164413498257 https://doi.org/10.12691/education-2-7-5 https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7541 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091520 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232032 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106208 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-00561-y https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379303000207 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.04.005 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x https://www.psychopen.eu/ A b o u t t h e A u t h o r s John Galvin, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Psychology, Birmingham City University, UK. His research interests include stress and wellbeing, autism and autistic traits, and general population mental health. Michael Scott Evans, PhD, C.Psychol, AFBPsS, FRSA, FIIRSM, FInstLM works within the Contracts Management team at Transport for Wales leading the infrastructure contractual delivery of a £5 billion contract on behalf of the Welsh Government. Dr Michael Scott Evans is a Chartered Psychologist and Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society. He is also a Fellow of the Institute of Leadership & Management (FInstLM), Fellow of the International Institute of Risk & Safety Management (FIIRSM), and Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts (FRSA). Kenisha Nelson, PhD, is a full-time lecturer in the Faculty of Education and Liberal Studies (FELS) at the University of Technology, Jamaica and a research assistant with the None-in-Three Research Centre, Jamaica. Her research interests include topics on occupa tional health, stress and well-being, gender-based violence, and help seeking behaviours for mental health related problems. Gareth Richards, PhD, is a Lecturer in the School of Psychology, Newcastle University. His research interests include evolutionary approaches to mind and behaviour, autism and autistic traits, testosterone, sex differences, and cerebral lateralisation and handedness. Eirini Mavritsaki, PhD, is a Professor and Director of Research for the School of Social Sciences at Birmingham City University. Eirini has been working for 16 years in psychology and published extensively in reputable journals and books in the topics of cogni tion, neuropsychology and disorders, and cross-cultural differences. She has contributed to the International research community as Associate Editor in Frontiers in Psychology and Special issue editor in Frontiers in Psychology and Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience and a member of the Board of Directors of the Organisation for Computational Neuroscience (OCNS). Eirini was awarded by the British Psychological Society the Cognitive Section Award in 2012. Theodoros Giovazolias, PsychD, is Professor of Counselling Psychology at the Department of Psychology, University of Crete, Greece. His research interests focus on parental and intimate acceptance-rejection and its correlates on the psychological adjustment of children and young adults. He also conducts research on students’ mental health. He is Honorary Editor-in-Chief of European Journal of Counselling Psychology and serves as Editorial member and ad-hoc reviewer in more than 30 international peer-reviewed journals. Katerina Koutra, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology at the Department of Psychology, University of Crete, Greece. Her research interests focus on intrafamilial relationships in severe mental disorders, psychosocial determinants of child neuropsychological and behavioural/emotional development from childhood to adolescence, and students’ mental health. Ben Mellor, BSc, MSc, is a Higher Research Assistant within Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust. He is a Researcher affiliated with the School of Psychology at Newcastle University with interests in the efficacy of mental health formulations, participatory research methodologies, assortative mating, autism and autistic traits. Maria Clelia Zurlo, PhD, Full Professor and Head of the Dynamic Psychology Laboratory at University of Naples Federico II, Italy. Her research covers the areas of Health Psychology and focuses on the development and applications of models and tools for the evaluation of stress dimensions and psychological and physical health conditions with reference to a wide range of target populations i.e., students, teachers, immigrant workers, nurses, partners of infertile couples, clinical patients. She is the author of more than 70 scientific publications in these areas of expertise, with several international co-authors. Andrew Paul Smith, BSc, PhD, FBPsS, C.Psychol, FRSM is Professor of Psychology and Director, Centre for Occupational and Health Psychology, Cardiff University. He has been at Cardiff since 1999 and has conducted research on: occupational stress and fatigue; seafarers’ fatigue; driver fatigue; nutrition and behaviour; caffeine; chewing gum; well-being at work; and factors influencing children’s well-being and performance. He has published over 500 papers and given over 200 invited talks and conference papers. Federica Vallone, PhD, Researcher at the University of Naples Federico II. She received her Doctorate in Human Mind and Gender Studies at University of Naples Federico II in collaboration with the Centre for Occupational and Health Psychology, Cardiff University. Her research covers the areas of Occupational and Health Psychology in students, teachers, nurses, and partners of infertile couples. Technostress, Coping and Mental Health in Students 318 PsychOpen GOLD is a publishing service by Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID), Germany. www.leibniz-psychology.org https://www.leibniz-psychology.org/ https://www.psychopen.eu/ Technostress, Coping and Mental Health in Students (Introduction) Method Procedure and Participants Materials Data Analysis Results Demographics EFA on the COPE Scale CFA and MGCFA on Technostress Scale Differences Between Countries on the Study Variables Pearson’s Correlations and Regression Analyses Coping as a Mediator Between Technostress Factors and Anxiety Symptomatology Coping as a Mediator Between Technostress Factors and Depressive Symptomatology Discussion Conclusions (Additional Information) Funding Acknowledgments Competing Interests References About the Authors