Artificial Intelligence Addiction, Technostress, and Work-Life Balance Among Academics: An Employee Health Perspective

Abstract

Aim: This study aims to examine the relationships between artificial intelligence addiction tendencies, technostress levels, and work-life balance among academics within the framework employee health.

Method: This study was designed using a correlational survey model within the framework of quantitative research methods. The population of the study consisted of academics working at universities in Türkiye. Data were collected using a sociodemographic information form, the Artificial Intelligence Addiction Scale, the Technostress Scale, and the Work-Life Balance Scale. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS for Windows 25.0 software.

Results: The findings indicated that the levels of artificial intelligence addiction (11.12±4.17) and technostress (56.13±12.85) among the participating academics (n=450) were moderate, with techno-overload identified as the most prominent subdimension of technostress. The analyses revealed positive and statistically significant correlations among the variables (p<0.01). Regression analysis demonstrated that both artificial intelligence addiction and technostress significantly and positively predicted work-life balance (R²=0.315). From a sociodemographic perspective, younger academics (research assistants) exhibited higher levels of artificial intelligence addiction and work-life balance compared to professors. Additionally, a heavy teaching load of 16 hours or more per week was found to significantly increase the technostress level.

Conclusion: Artificial intelligence addiction and technostress are thought to be viewed not as destabilizing risk factors for academics but rather as a “functional adaptation tool” used to manage academic workload. While this resulting “good stress state” positively supports work-life balance, implementing human-centered digital policies at the corporate level is necessary to prevent long-term cognitive fatigue.

Keywords

• Academics
• artificial intelligence addiction
• technostress
• work-life balance

Ethical Statement

This study was conducted following approval No. 199 dated 04/03/2026 from the Ethics Committee of Istanbul Okan University. Informed consent forms were obtained from all participants in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Akademisyenlerde Yapay Zeka Bağımlılığı, Teknostres ve İş Yaşam Dengesi: Çalışan Sağlığı Perspektifi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı akademisyenlerde yapay zekâ kullanımına bağlı bağımlılık eğilimlerinin, teknostres düzeyi ve iş-yaşam dengesi arasındaki ilişkilerini çalışan sağlığı perspektifinden incelemektir.

Yöntem: Araştırma, nicel araştırma yöntemlerinden ilişkisel tarama modelinde tasarlanmıştır. Evrenini Türkiye’deki üniversitelerde görev yapan akademisyenlerin oluşturduğu çalışmada veriler; sosyodemografik bilgi formu, Yapay Zekâ Bağımlılığı Ölçeği, Teknostres Ölçeği ve İş-Yaşam Dengesi Ölçeği kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Veriler, SPSS for Windows 25.0 yazılımı kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir.

Bulgular: Araştırmaya katılan akademisyenlerin (n=450) yapay zekâ bağımlılığı (11,12±4,17) ve teknostres (56,13±12,85) düzeyleri orta seviyede bulunmuş olup, en baskın teknostres alt boyutu "tekno-aşırı yüklenme"dir. Analizler sonucunda, değişkenler arasında pozitif yönlü ve anlamlı ilişkiler saptanmıştır (p<0,01). Regresyon analizi sonuçları, yapay zekâ bağımlılığı ve teknostresin iş-yaşam dengesini pozitif yönde anlamlı bir biçimde yordadığını göstermiştir (R²=,315). Sosyodemografik açıdan, genç akademisyenlerin (araştırma görevlileri) yapay zekâ bağımlılığı ve iş-yaşam dengesi puanları profesörlere göre daha yüksek çıkarken, 16 saat ve üzeri yoğun ders yükünün teknostresi anlamlı düzeyde artırdığı saptanmıştır.

Sonuç: Çalışma, yapay zekâ bağımlılığı ve teknostresin akademisyenlerde dengeyi bozan risk faktörlerinden ziyade, iş yükünü yönetmek için kullanılan "fonksiyonel bir adaptasyon" aracı olduğunu göstermiştir. Elde edilen bu "iyi stres" durumu iş-yaşam dengesini pozitif yönde desteklese de uzun vadeli bilişsel yorgunlukları önlemek adına kurumsal düzeyde insan odaklı dijital politikaların hayata geçirilmesi gerekmektedir.

Keywords

• Akademisyen
• yapay zeka bağımlılığı
• teknostres
• iş yaşam dengesi

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma, İstanbul Okan Üniversitesi Etik Kurulu’nun 04.03.2026 tarihli ve 199 sayılı onayı doğrultusunda gerçekleştirilmiştir. Tüm katılımcılardan Helsinki Bildirgesi’ne uygun olarak bilgilendirilmiş onam formları alınmıştır.

References

1. 1. Avci O. Yapay zekâ bağımlılığı. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Turkic World Congress on Social, Humanities, Administrative, and Educational Sciences; 2025:1291-1297.
2. 2. Pantic IV. Introducing the AI addiction scale (AIAS-21): A screening tool for problematic AI use. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2026;35(1):297. doi: 10.1007/s00787-025-02874-8.
3. 3. El-Sayed AAI, Alsenany SA, Asal MGR, Alasqah I. Development and validation of Artificial Intelligence Addiction Scale for researchers: A methodological study. J Nurs Manag. 2025;2025:8458533. doi: 10.1155/jonm/8458533.
4. 4. Griffiths MD. A “components” model of addiction within a biopsychosocial framework. J Subst Use. 2005;10(4):191-197. doi: 10.1080/14659890500114359.
5. 5. Klimova B, Pikhart M. Exploring the effects of artificial intelligence on student and academic well-being in higher education: A mini-review. Front Psychol. 2025;16:1498132.
6. 6. Kooli C, Kooli Y, Kooli E. Generative artificial intelligence addiction syndrome: A new behavioral disorder? Asian J Psychiatr. 2025;107:104476. doi: 10.1016/j.ajp.2025.104476.
7. 7. Zhang S, Zhao X, Zhou T, Kim JH. Do you have AI dependency? The roles of academic self-efficacy, academic stress, and performance expectations on problematic AI usage behavior. Int J Educ Technol High Educ. 2024;21:34. doi: 10.1186/s41239-024-00467-0.
8. 8. Malik AS, Acharya S, Humane S. Exploring the impact of security technologies on mental health: A comprehensive review. Cureus. 2024;16(2):e53664. doi: 10.7759/cureus.53664.

9. 9. Chaudhry MA, Kazim E. Artificial intelligence in education (AIEd): A high-level academic and industry note. AI Ethics. 2022;2(2):157-165. doi: 10.1007/s43681-021-00074-z.
10. 10. Akbar MA, Varias V, Risa TD, Bhirawa MA, Nugraha R. Workplace stress in the era of digital transformation: A psychological approach to employee well-being. RIGGS J Artif Intell Digit Bus. 2025;4(3):2493. doi: 10.31004/riggs.v4i3.2493.
11. 11. Tarafdar M, Tu Q, Ragu-Nathan BS, Ragu-Nathan TS. The impact of technostress on role stress and productivity. J Manag Inf Syst. 2007;24(1):301-328. doi: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222240109.
12. 12. Tarafdar M, Cooper CL, Stich JF. The technostress trifecta—techno eustress, techno distress and design: Theoretical directions and an agenda for research. Inf Syst J. 2019;29(1):6-42. doi: 10.1111/isj.12169.
13. 13. Trenerry B, Chng S, Wang Y, et al. Preparing workplaces for digital transformation: An integrative review and framework of multi-level factors affecting employee wellbeing. Int J Hum Resour Manag. 2021;32(1):1-28. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2020.1817058.
14. 14. Ayyagari R, Grover V, Purvis R. Technostress: Technological antecedents and implications. MIS Q. 2011;35(4):831-858.
15. 15. Patra K, Bansal S. Yükseköğretimde akademik personelin refahı üzerinde teknostresin etkisinin değerlendirilmesi. Bilisim Egitimi ve Arastirma Dergisi. 2025;5(1):2305.
16. 16. Truța C, Maican CI, Cazan AM, Lixăndroiu RC, Dovleac L, Maican MA. Always connected @ work: Technostress and well-being with academics. Comput Human Behav. 2023;143:107675. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107675.
17. 17. Bencsik A, Juhasz T. Impact of technostress on work-life balance. Hum Technol. 2023;19(1):4-21. doi: 10.14254/1795-6889.2023.19-1.4
18. 18. Bottaro R, De Giovanni K, Faraci P. The extent to which technostress is related to employees' work-life fit: A multilevel meta-analysis. Workplace Health Saf. 2024;72(10):421-430. doi: 10.1177/21650799241264317
19. 19. Wang Q, Yao N. Understanding the impact of technology usage at work on academics’ psychological well-being: A perspective of technostress. BMC Psychol. 2025;13(1):246.
20. 20. Wang Q, Yao N. The impact of technostress creators on novice teachers’ job satisfaction. J Educ Teach. 2023;49(1):104-119. doi:1 0.1080/02607476.2021.2013712.
21. 21. Gökbulut B. The relationship between teachers’ technostress and their techno-pedagogical competence. Ahi Evran Univ Kirsehir Educ Fac J. 2021;22(1):472-496.
22. 22. Morales-García WC, Sairitupa-Sanchez LZ, Morales-García SB, Morales-García M. Development and validation of a scale for dependence on artificial intelligence in university students. Front Educ. 2024;9:1323898. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1323898
23. 23. Savas BC. Yapay Zekâya Bağımlılık Blçeğinin Türkçe'ye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Herkes Icin Spor ve Rekreasyon Dergisi. 2024;6(3):306-315.
24. 24. Tarafdar M, Tu Q, Ragu-Nathan TS. Impact of technostress on end-user satisfaction and performance. J Manage Inf Syst. 2010;27(3):303-334. doi: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222270311
25. 25. Bulut A, Sengul H, Akbal S. Sağlık profesyonelleri için teknostres yaratıcıları ölçeği Türkçe formunun psikometrik özellikleri. J Acad Res Nurs. 2023;9(3):223-233.
26. 26. Fisher GG, Bulger CA, Smith CS. Beyond work and family: A measure of work/nonwork interference and enhancement. J Occup Health Psychol. 2009;14(4):441-456.
27. 27. Ekinci H, Sabanci A. İş-yaşam Dengesi Ölçeği'nin Türkçeye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Trakya Egitim Dergisi. 2021;11(1):151-163.
28. 28. Khalid MA, Sohail M, Baig MMB, Yusaf S, Iqbal A, Syed MI. The human-centric paradox of AI in HRM: How technostress and digital literacy co-determine employee productivity in smart work environments. Inverge J Soc Sci. 2025;4(4):214-227.
29. 29. Alhur A, Khlaif ZN, Hamamra A, Hussein M. The paradox of AI in higher education: A qualitative inquiry into AI dependency among educators in Palestine. Educ Inf Technol. Epub ahead of print 2025. doi: 10.1007/s10639-025-13596-y.
30. 30. Kumar PS. Technostress: A comprehensive literature review on dimensions, impacts, and management strategies. Comput Hum Behav Rep. 2024;16:100475.
31. 31. Taylor H, Smith M, Jones A, et al. Work-life balance among health administration faculty before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Health Adm Educ. 2022;39(1):127-142.
32. 32. Boyer-Davis S, Berry K. Technostress creators in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comparison of faculty perceptions and experiences. J Higher Educ Theory Pract. 2022;22(10):1-16. doi: 10.33423/jhetp.v22i10.5383
33. 33. Khlaif ZN, Khalili F, Affouneh S, Tlili A. How remote learning during crisis affect technostress levels experienced by academicians. Educ Inf Technol (Dordr). 2023;28(9):11075-11100. doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-11651-6.
34. 34. Khan AA, Jamil A, Bakhsh K. Role of organizational environment in reducing the effect of techno-stress on work behavior of the university teachers. Glob Soc Sci Rev. 2020;5(1):313-321. doi: 10.31703/gssr.2020(V-I).32.
35. 35. Luo Y, Day MJ. Determinants of lecturer readiness to adopt generative AI in higher education: Survey evidence from UTAUT and self-determination theory. Educ Inf Technol. Epub ahead of print 2026.
36. 36. Cazan A, David LT, Truta C, Maican C, Henter R, Nastasa LE. Technostress and time spent online: A cross-cultural comparison for teachers and students. Front Psychol. 2024;15:1377200. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1377200.
37. 37. Kumar R, Khedwal A, Goud S, Mahulkar A, Sharma S. The impact of technologies on work-life balance. ShodhKosh J Visual Perform Arts. 2024;5(1):2242-2252.
38. 38. Malik A, Islam SU, Aleem M, Tariq N. An empirical investigation of technostress due to technological factors and its impact on employee engagement. J Posit Sch Psychol. 2022;6(2):6562-6582.
39. 39. Tlili A, Shehata B, Adarkwah MA, et al. What if the devil is my guardian angel: ChatGPT as a case study of using chatbots in education. Smart Learn Environ. 2023;10(1):15.