Reframing Technology Anxiety During Blended Learning Implementation: The Relationships among Perceived Safety, Social Influence, Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intention

Authors

  • Harmonvikler Dumoharis Lumban Raja Universitas Advent Surya Nusantara, Indonesia
  • Noryusliza Bin Abdullah Tun Hussein Onn University of Malaysia, Malaysia
  • Deden Witarsyah Tun Hussein Onn University of Malaysia, Malaysia
  • Rexon Nainggolan Universitas Advent Surya Nusantara, Indonesia
Pages Icon

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63158/journalisi.v8i4.1690

Keywords:

Technology Anxiety, Perceived Safety, Social Influence, User Satisfaction, Behavioral Intention, Blended Learning, PLS-SEM

Abstract

This study examines the relationships among perceived safety, social influence, technology anxiety, user satisfaction, and behavioral intention in blended learning implementation, investigating whether technology anxiety can be interpreted as productive vigilance rather than merely a barrier to technology adoption. Based on the Transactional Theory of Stress and Coping, this research explores how institutional safeguards and social expectations influence technology anxiety among teachers in high-stakes educational settings. A quantitative cross-sectional approach was applied using purposive sampling involving 205 high school teachers in North Sumatra, Indonesia. Data were analyzed using PLS-SEM to assess the structural model and mediation effects. The results indicate that Perceived Safety (β=0.526, t=8.17, p<0.001) and Social Influence (β=0.232, t=3.60, p<0.001) positively influence Technology Anxiety, explaining 48.0% of its variance. Technology Anxiety positively affects User Satisfaction (β=0.774, t=17.40, p<0.001), which subsequently influences Behavioral Intention (β=0.503, t=4.92, p<0.001). The direct effect of Technology Anxiety on Behavioral Intention is insignificant (β=-0.167, t=1.63, p=0.104), while the indirect effect through User Satisfaction is significant (βindirect=0.389, p<0.001). These findings highlight that technology anxiety may represent heightened attentiveness associated with satisfaction rather than resistance, requiring further validation through longitudinal and experimental studies.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] M. Tomalin, “Rethinking online friction in the information society,” J. Inf. Technol., vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 2–15, 2023.

[2] J. Hielscher, M. Schöps, U. Menges, M. Gutfleisch, M. Helbling, and M. A. Sasse, “Lacking the tools and support to fix friction: Results from an interview study with security managers,” in Proc. 19th Symp. Usable Privacy Security (SOUPS), 2023, pp. 131–150.

[3] M. Kim, J. Kim, T. L. Knotts, and N. D. Albers, “AI for academic success: Investigating the role of usability, enjoyment, and responsiveness in ChatGPT adoption,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 30, no. 10, pp. 14393–14414, 2025.

[4] J. Hair, C. L. Hollingsworth, A. B. Randolph, and A. Y. L. Chong, “An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research,” Ind. Manag. Data Syst., vol. 117, no. 3, pp. 442–458, 2017.

[5] V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view,” MIS Q., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 425–478, 2003.

[6] A. Bayaga and A. du Plessis, “Ramifications of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) among developing countries’ higher education staffs,” Educ. Inf. Technol., vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 9689–9714, 2024.

[7] M. Schittko, P. Planing, and P. Müller, “Stability through human perception: Technology acceptance models’ robustness across various interaction perspectives and comparable technologies,” Comput. Hum. Behav. Rep., p. 100930, 2026.

[8] Y. Li and W. Xie, “It makes me feel incompetent and anxious: An exploratory study of how techno-stressors affect older adult satisfaction toward e-government service,” J. Technol. Hum. Serv., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 207–233, 2025.

[9] C. Wang, D. Tang, H. Lin, F. Yu, and Y. Sun, “High-dimensional memristive neural network and its application in commercial data encryption communication,” Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 242, p. 122513, 2024.

[10] A. Biryukov and C. De Cannière, “Data encryption standard (DES),” in Encyclopedia of Cryptography, Security and Privacy. Springer, 2025, pp. 555–562.

[11] Q. Wang and D. Wang, “Understanding failures in security proofs of multi-factor authentication for mobile devices,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Security, vol. 18, pp. 597–612, 2022.

[12] M. Z. Islam and A. Dhanekula, “Measuring the security impact of zero trust access controls: A mixed-methods study of identity-based policies (Cisco ISE+AD) and incident reduction,” Am. J. Data Sci. Anal., vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 1–42, 2023.

[13] V. S. Narajala and I. Habler, “Enterprise-grade security for the model context protocol (MCP): Frameworks and mitigation strategies,” in Proc. 2026 IEEE 5th Int. Conf. AI Cybersecurity (ICAIC), IEEE, 2026, pp. 1–8.

[14] E. Peruzzotti, “Social accountability,” in Understanding Accountability: New Perspectives on a Fractured World. Routledge, 2025, pp. 193–210.

[15] H. S. H. Elawadly and S. Elnakeeb, “Beyond the buzz: Uncovering the true impact of digital technologies on environmental and social accountability,” J. Financ. Rep. Account., pp. 1–33, 2026.

[16] M. L. Wilson, A. C. Huggins-Manley, A. D. Ritzhaupt, and K. Ruggles, “Development of the abbreviated technology anxiety scale (ATAS),” Behav. Res. Methods, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 185–199, 2023.

[17] D. K. Maduku, M. Mpinganjira, N. P. Rana, P. Thusi, A. Ledikwe, and N. H.-b. Mkhize, “Assessing customer passion, commitment, and word-of-mouth intentions in digital assistant usage: The moderating role of technology anxiety,” J. Retail. Consum. Serv., vol. 71, p. 103208, 2023.

[18] Y. Qi, S. M. Sajadi, S. Baghaei, R. Rezaei, and W. Li, “Digital technologies in sports: Opportunities, challenges, and strategies for safeguarding athlete wellbeing and competitive integrity in the digital era,” Technol. Soc., vol. 77, p. 102496, 2024.

[19] T. O. Oladoyinbo, S. O. Olabanji, O. O. Olaniyi, O. O. Adebiyi, O. J. Okunleye, and A. Ismaila Alao, “Exploring the challenges of artificial intelligence in data integrity and its influence on social dynamics,” Asian J. Adv. Res. Rep., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1–23, 2024.

[20] J. Faraji and G. A. Metz, “Toward reframing brain-social dynamics: Current assumptions and future challenges,” Front. Psychiatry, vol. 14, p. 1211442, 2023.

[21] J. R. Wu, F. Chan, K. Iwanaga, O. M. Myers, H. Ermis-Demirtas, and Z. D. Bloom, “The transactional theory of stress and coping as a stress management model for students in Hispanic-serving universities,” J. Am. Coll. Health, vol. 73, no. 10, pp. 3941–3948, 2025.

[22] Y. Huang and D. Gursoy, “How does AI technology integration affect employees’ proactive service behaviors? A transactional theory of stress perspective,” J. Retail. Consum. Serv., vol. 77, p. 103700, 2024.

[23] R. C. IJntema, W. B. Schaufeli, and Y. D. Burger, “Resilience mechanisms at work: The psychological immunity–psychological elasticity (PI-PE) model of psychological resilience,” Curr. Psychol., vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 4719–4731, 2023.

[24] H.-N. Kim, P. P. Freddolino, and C. Greenhow, “Older adults’ technology anxiety as a barrier to digital inclusion: A scoping review,” Educ. Gerontol., vol. 49, no. 12, pp. 1021–1038, 2023.

[25] M. Sarstedt, C. M. Ringle, and J. F. Hair, “Partial least squares structural equation modeling,” in Handbook of Market Research. Springer, 2021, pp. 587–632.

[26] J. F. Hair, G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, N. P. Danks, and S. Ray, Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A Workbook. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2021.

[27] M. M. Rahman, M. F. Lesch, W. J. Horrey, and L. Strawderman, “Assessing the utility of TAM, TPB, and UTAUT for advanced driver assistance systems,” Accid. Anal. Prev., vol. 108, pp. 361–373, 2017.

[28] V. Venkatesh, “Adoption and use of AI tools: A research agenda grounded in UTAUT,” Ann. Oper. Res., vol. 308, no. 1, pp. 641–652, 2022.

[29] S. B. Green, “How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis,” Multivariate Behav. Res., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 499–510, 1991.

[30] P. Kline, A Handbook of Test Construction (Psychology Revivals): Introduction to Psychometric Design. London, U.K.: Routledge, 2015.

[31] J. F. Hair, M. Sarstedt, T. M. Pieper, and C. M. Ringle, “The use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in strategic management research: A review of past practices and recommendations for future applications,” Long Range Plann., vol. 45, no. 5–6, pp. 320–340, 2012.

[32] E. T. Higgins, “Value from regulatory fit,” Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 209–213, 2005.

[33] R. S. Lazarus and S. Folkman, Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York, NY, USA: Springer Publishing Company, 1984.

[34] J. F. Hair, J. J. Risher, M. Sarstedt, and C. M. Ringle, “When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM,” Eur. Bus. Rev., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 2–24, 2019.

[35] T. Bellet and A. Banet, “UTAUT4-AV: An extension of the UTAUT model to study intention to use automated shuttles and the societal acceptance of different types of automated vehicles,” Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav., vol. 99, pp. 239–261, 2023.

Downloads

Published

2026-09-04

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 4 (2026): August

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Information Systems and Informatics

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors Declaration

  1. The Authors certify that they have read, understood, and agreed to the Journal of Information Systems and Informatics (JournalISI) submission guidelines, policies, and submission declaration. The submission has been prepared using the provided template.
  2. The Authors certify that all authors have approved the publication of this manuscript and that there is no conflict of interest.
  3. The Authors confirm that the manuscript is their original work, has not received prior publication, is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, and has not been previously published.
  4. The Authors confirm that all authors listed on the title page have contributed significantly to the work, have read the manuscript, attest to the validity and legitimacy of the data and its interpretation, and agree to its submission.
  5. The Authors confirm that the manuscript is not copied from or plagiarized from any other published work.
  6. The Authors declare that the manuscript will not be submitted for publication in any other journal or magazine until a decision is made by the journal editors.
  7. If the manuscript is finally accepted for publication, the Authors confirm that they will either proceed with publication immediately or withdraw the manuscript in accordance with the journal’s withdrawal policies.
  8. The Authors agree that, upon publication of the manuscript in this journal, they transfer copyright or assign exclusive rights to the publisher, including commercial rights