On the stress potential of videoconferencing: definition and root causes of Zoom fatigue.

René Riedl
Author Information
  1. René Riedl: School of Business and Management, Digital Business, University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, Wehrgrabengasse 1-3, 4400 Steyr, Austria. ORCID

Abstract

As a consequence of lockdowns due to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the resulting restricted social mobility, several billion people worldwide have recently had to replace physical face-to-face communication with computer-mediated interaction. Notably, the adoption rates of videoconferencing increased significantly in 2020, predominantly because videoconferencing resembles face-to-face interaction. Tools such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Cisco Webex are used by hundreds of millions of people today. Videoconferencing may bring benefits (e.g., saving of travel costs, preservation of environment). However, prolonged and inappropriate use of videoconferencing may also have an enormous stress potential. A new phenomenon and term emerged, , a synonym for videoconference fatigue. This paper develops a definition for Zoom fatigue and presents a conceptual framework that explores the major root causes of videoconferencing fatigue and stress. The development of the framework draws upon media naturalness theory and its underlying theorizing is based on research published across various scientific fields, including the disciplines of both behavioral science and neuroscience. Based on this theoretical foundation, hypotheses are outlined. Moreover, implications for research and practice are discussed.

Keywords

References

  1. Cogn Emot. 2016 Aug;30(5):939-52 [PMID: 25964985]
  2. Behav Brain Sci. 2000 Oct;23(5):645-65; discussion 665-726 [PMID: 11301544]
  3. Nature. 2020 Nov;587(7832):87-91 [PMID: 33116309]
  4. PLoS One. 2021 Apr 15;16(4):e0250041 [PMID: 33857219]
  5. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e59312 [PMID: 23516627]
  6. Psychol Sci. 2006 Jul;17(7):592-8 [PMID: 16866745]
  7. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Sep 15;106(37):15583-7 [PMID: 19706386]
  8. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2011 Jun;35(7):1603-10 [PMID: 21396399]
  9. Br Foreign Med Chir Rev. 1860 Apr;25(50):367-404 [PMID: 30164232]
  10. Telemed J E Health. 2011 Dec;17(10):789-93 [PMID: 22023458]
  11. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2020 Jul;23(7):437-438 [PMID: 32551981]
  12. J Hum Evol. 2007 Mar;52(3):314-20 [PMID: 17140637]
  13. Hum Factors. 2022 Dec;64(8):1429-1440 [PMID: 33611964]
  14. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Aug 10;107(32):14425-30 [PMID: 20660768]
  15. Psychol Sci. 2007 May;18(5):407-13 [PMID: 17576280]
  16. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 1998 Jan;23(1):1-17 [PMID: 9618748]
  17. Biol Psychol. 1997 Mar 21;45(1-3):73-93 [PMID: 9083645]
  18. Front Hum Neurosci. 2019 Oct 23;13:375 [PMID: 31708760]
  19. J Cogn Neurosci. 2010 Dec;22(12):2702-15 [PMID: 19929761]
  20. BMJ. 2000 Jun 3;320(7248):1517-20 [PMID: 10834899]
  21. Am J Cult Sociol. 2020;8(3):477-497 [PMID: 33101676]
  22. PLoS One. 2016 Jan 08;11(1):e0146250 [PMID: 26745874]
  23. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Aug 17;107(33):14817-22 [PMID: 20679216]
  24. Pediatrics. 1975 Oct;56(4):544-9 [PMID: 1165958]
  25. Anxiety Stress Coping. 2015;28(6):663-86 [PMID: 25626729]
  26. Front Integr Neurosci. 2010 Nov 05;4:127 [PMID: 21119770]
  27. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2005 Jun;6(6):463-75 [PMID: 15891777]
  28. Nature. 2021 Feb;590(7844):172 [PMID: 33473188]
  29. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2019 Jan;92(1):13-35 [PMID: 30196317]
  30. Brain Res. 2006 Mar 24;1079(1):86-97 [PMID: 16490183]
  31. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2001 Mar;74(2):153-7 [PMID: 11317710]
  32. Cogn Behav Ther. 2009;38(1):42-53 [PMID: 19235601]
  33. PLoS One. 2008 Aug 20;3(8):e3022 [PMID: 18714387]
  34. Neuron. 2006 May 18;50(4):531-4 [PMID: 16701204]
  35. J Psychosom Res. 1999 Jun;46(6):591-8 [PMID: 10454175]
  36. Int J Psychophysiol. 2019 Dec;146:139-147 [PMID: 31639382]
  37. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2004 Jun;92(1-2):84-9 [PMID: 14991326]
  38. Cognition. 2011 May;119(2):307-11 [PMID: 21316650]
  39. Nature. 2020 Jun;582(7811):299-300 [PMID: 32514019]
  40. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008;32(4):811-30 [PMID: 18316124]
  41. Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Mar;13(3):127-34 [PMID: 19217822]
  42. Sci Rep. 2020 Apr 24;10(1):6971 [PMID: 32332803]
  43. Biol Psychol. 2016 Dec;121(Pt A):62-73 [PMID: 27725244]
  44. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2020 Sep;25(3):180-181 [PMID: 32654411]
  45. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2009 Jul;5(7):374-81 [PMID: 19488073]
  46. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Nov 8;102(45):16518-23 [PMID: 16260734]
  47. Negot J. 2020 Fall;36(4):535-560 [PMID: 38607806]
  48. Australas Psychiatry. 2020 Dec;28(6):669 [PMID: 33016773]
  49. Stress Health. 2014 Apr;30(2):103-9 [PMID: 23723144]
  50. Annu Rev Psychol. 2007;58:259-89 [PMID: 17002553]
  51. Neuroimage. 2010 May 1;50(4):1639-47 [PMID: 20096792]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0fatiguevideoconferencingZoomstresspeopleface-to-faceinteractionmaypotentialdefinitionframeworkrootcausesnaturalnesstheoryresearchVideoconferenceconsequencelockdownsduecoronavirusdiseaseCOVID-19resultingrestrictedsocialmobilityseveralbillionworldwiderecentlyreplacephysicalcommunicationcomputer-mediatedNotablyadoptionratesincreasedsignificantly2020predominantlyresemblesToolsMicrosoftTeamsCiscoWebexusedhundredsmillionstodayVideoconferencingbringbenefitsegsavingtravelcostspreservationenvironmentHoweverprolongedinappropriateusealsoenormousnewphenomenontermemergedsynonymvideoconferencepaperdevelopspresentsconceptualexploresmajordevelopmentdrawsuponmediaunderlyingtheorizingbasedpublishedacrossvariousscientificfieldsincludingdisciplinesbehavioralscienceneuroscienceBasedtheoreticalfoundationhypothesesoutlinedMoreoverimplicationspracticediscussedvideoconferencing:HomeofficeMediaNeuroISTechnostress

Similar Articles

Cited By