Does AI-Driven Technostress Promote or Hinder Employees’ Artificial Intelligence Adoption Intention? A Moderated Mediation Model of Affective Reactions and Technical Self-Efficacy

Figures & data

Figure 1 Proposed moderated mediation model.

Table 1 Characteristics of Participants

Characteristics	Categories	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	154	51.2
	Female	147	48.8
AGE	Below the age of 26	68	22.6
	26–30	72	23.9
	31–35	62	20.6
	36–40	51	16.9
	Above the age of 40	48	16.0
Occupational roles	Ordinary employees	114	37.9
	Frontline workers	135	44.9
	Middle or senior managers	52	17.2
Education	College’s degrees or lower	59	19.6
	Bachelor’s degrees	113	37.5
	Master’s degrees or beyond	129	42.9

Table 2 The Results of Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Measurement Model	χ^2	df	χ^2/df	CFI	TLI	SRMR	RMSEA
Six-factor model	2229.81	1259	1.77	0.95	0.94	0.04	0.05
Five-factor model	2702.63	1264	2.14	0.92	0.92	0.12	0.06
Four-factor model	4488.30	1268	3.54	0.82	0.82	0.14	0.09
Three-factor model	7358.06	1271	5.78	0.67	0.65	0.18	0.13
Two-factor model	9072.86	1273	7.13	0.57	0.55	0.18	0.14
One-factor model	9397.50	1274	7.38	0.55	0.54	0.14	0.15

Note: N=301.

Abbreviations: CFI, Comparative Fit Index (cutoff value, 0.90); TLI, Tucker-Lewis Index (cutoff value, 0.90); SRMR, Standardized Root Mean square (cutoff value, 0.05); RMSEA, Root Mean Square of Approximation (cutoff value, 0.06).

Table 3 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Gender	0.51	0.50
2. Age	2.80	1.38	0.06
3. Position	1.79	0.72	0.23***	0.58***
4. Education	2.23	0.76	0.13*	0.51***	0.60***
5. CTS	3.26	1.09	0.23***	0.09	0.20***	0.30***
6. HTS	3.11	1.02	−0.17**	−0.12*	−0.23***	−0.28***	−0.53***
7. Positive affect	3.33	1.17	0.14*	0.09	0.20***	0.35***	0.59***	−0.55***
8. AI anxiety	3.01	1.11	−0.20**	−0.04	−0.22***	−0.34***	−0.55***	0.55***	−0.58***
9. Technical self-efficacy	2.88	0.80	0.05	−0.05	0.01	0.03	0.47***	−0.02	0.40***	−0.04
10. AI adoption intention	3.31	1.10	0.21***	0.13*	0.24***	0.28***	0.53***	−0.53***	0.56***	−0.53***	0.10

Notes: N = 301; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Abbreviations: CTS, challenge technology stressors; HTS, hindrance technology stressors.

Table 4 Regression Results for Mediation Model

Variables	M1-1	M1-2	M1-3	M1-4	M2-1	M2-2	M2-3	M2-4
	X1→Y	X1→M1	M1→Y	X→M1→Y	X2→Y	X2→M2	M2→Y	X2→M2→Y
Constant	1.21***	0.89***	1.23***	0.90***	4.31***	2.06***	4.25***	4.97***
Gender	0.16	−0.01	0.25*	0.16	0.23*	−0.18	0.21	0.17
Age	−0.00	−0.06	0.01	0.02	−0.02	0.14**	0.04	0.03
Position	0.13	0.01	0.13	0.12	0.08	−0.06	0.08	0.06
Education	0.11	0.35***	0.03	−0.01	0.16	−0.38***	0.06	0.04
CTS	0.48***	0.56***		0.29***
HTS					−0.51***	0.52***		−0.34***
Positive affect			0.49***	0.34***
AI anxiety							−0.48***	−0.32***
Effect	Bootstrap results for indirect effect				Bootstrap results for indirect effect
	M	SE	LLCI	ULCI	M	SE	LLCI	ULCI
	0.20	0.06	0.10	0.31	−0.17	0.05	−0.29	−0.08

Notes: N=301. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size=5000. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01;***p < 0.001.

Abbreviations: CTS, challenge technology stressors; HTS, hindrance technology stressors; LL, lower limit; UL, upper limit; CI, confidence interval.

Table 5 Regression Results for Moderation and Moderated Mediation Model

Predictor	Positive Affect				AI Anxiety
	B	SE	t	p	B	SE	t	p
Moderation model
Constant	2.77	0.15	18.20	<0.001	3.43	0.16	20.91	<0.001
Gender	−0.09	0.09	−0.96	>0.05	−0.16	0.10	−1.68	>0.05
Age	−0.03	0.04	−0.69	>0.05	0.11	0.04	2.62	<0.01
Position	−0.00	0.08	−0.04	>0.05	0.05	0.09	0.51	>0.05
Education	0.22	0.08	2.80	<0.01	−0.33	0.08	−4.08	<0.001
CTS	0.74	0.05	13.71	<0.001
HTS					0.46	0.05	9.50	<0.001
Technical self-efficacy	0.10	0.06	1.66	>0.05	−0.19	0.06	−3.06	<0.01
CTS × Technical self-efficacy	0.51	0.04	11.87	<0.001
HTS × Technical self-efficacy					−0.37	0.05	−7.82	<0.001
Moderated mediation model
Technical self-efficacy	indirect effect	Boot SE	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI	indirect effect	Boot SE	Boot LLCI	Boot ULCI
Index of moderated mediation	0.18	0.05	0.08	0.29	0.12	0.05	0.04	0.22
Conditional indirect effect at Technical self-efficacy = M ± 1 SD
M-1SD	0.11	0.05	0.04	0.23	−0.24	0.08	−0.41	−0.12
M+1SD	0.40	0.12	0.20	0.65	−0.05	0.04	−0.14	0.02

Note: N=301. Bootstrap sample size=5000.

Abbreviations: CTS, challenge technology stressors; HTS, hindrance technology stressors; LL, lower limit; UL, upper limit; CI, confidence interval.

Figure 2 Moderating effect of technical self-efficacy on the relationship between challenge technology stressors and positive affect.

Figure 3 Moderating effect of technical self-efficacy on the relationship between hindrance technology stressors and AI anxiety.