CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 238Personal Information Management and User BehaviorTechnostress in Professional SettingsStress and Burnout Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Email overload at work: an analysis of factors associated with email strain

Dabbish, Laura A., Kraut, Robert E.·2006·Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work
DOI 10.1145/1180875.1180941
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Almost every office worker can relate to feelings of email overload and stress, but in reality the concept of email strain is not well understood. In this paper, we describe a large-scale nationwide organizational survey examining the relationship between email use and feelings of email overload and task coordination. We found that higher email volume was associated with increased feelings of email overload, but this relationship was moderated by certain email management strategies. The contribution to the field of CSCW is a better understanding of the concept of email related stress, and initial scale development for the assessment of email-related overload and perceptions of the work-importance of email.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/1180875.1180941

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. DeSanctis G., 1999, C. Cooper & D
  2. Finholt T., 2002, P. Hinds & S
  3. Kaufmann W., 1980, 15th, 2006
  4. Kraut R.E., 1997, Culture of the Internet
  5. March J. G. & Simon H. A. Organizations. New York: Wiley. (1958).]] March J. G. & Simon H. A. Organizations. New York: Wiley. (1958).]]
  6. Mintzberg H., 1973, New Harper & Row
  7. Robbins S., 2006, Retrieved
  8. Sproull L., 1991, USA
  9. Thompson J. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.]] Thompson J. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.]]
  10. Walsh J. P., 2002, P. Hinds & S

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–237 of 237

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Dabbish, L. A., & Kraut, R. E.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work
Publisher
ACM
Published
2006-11-04
Pages
431-440
DOI
10.1145/1180875.1180941
OpenAlex
W2052742498
Cited by
238
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 11
FWCI
4.59
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Technostress in Professional Settings
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
Keywords
email overload, task coordination, occupational stress, scale development, office workers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review