CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 86Technology Adoption and User BehaviourGender and Technology in EducationTechnostress in Professional Settings

Relating Computer, Communication, and Computer-Mediated Communication Apprehensions to New Communication Technology Use in the Workplace

Scott, Craig R., Timmerman, C. Erik·2005·Communication Research
DOI 10.1177/0093650205281054
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study explores three issues regarding the use of multiple workplace communication technologies: the relationships between distinct forms of apprehension (computer, communication, and writing) and use, the relative contribution of computer-mediated communication (CMC) apprehension for predicting use, and changes in these relationships over time. A trend study, which consisted of the collection of data from two samples (N= 205) separated by a 5-year interval, suggests full or partial support for the hypotheses involving computer and communication apprehension. Although apprehension levels remain stable, usage frequency changed for several of the technologies examined—resulting in stronger relationships between apprehensions and those technologies for which use has changed the most in the past 5 years. Most notably, a new measure of CMC apprehension generally predicts communication technology use—especially text-based and conferencing tools—more strongly than do more traditional apprehension types.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0093650205281054

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • CMCA accounts for unique variance in technology use beyond other apprehension forms and should be treated as a situational barrier to digital communication competence.

    “Scott and Timmerman (2005) provided a more comprehensive model, confirming that CMCA accounts for unique variance in technology use beyond other apprehension forms and should be treated as a situational barrier to digital communication competence.”

    From AI Literacy in the Communication Basic Course: Insights on Embedding, Motivation, and Reducing Uncertainty (2026) · cites this paper as Scott and Timmerman, 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Scott, C. R., & Timmerman, C. E.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (US)
ORCID
Venue
Communication Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2005-12
Volume
32
Issue
6
Pages
683-725
ISSN
  • 0093-6502 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3810
DOI
10.1177/0093650205281054
OpenAlex
W1970411999
Cited by
84
References
90
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
4.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Communication Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Technostress in Professional Settings
Keywords
communication apprehension, writing apprehension, computer-mediated communication, workplace communication technology, technology use, text-based communication, computer conferencing

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