New study suggests “Zoom fatigue” is largely gone in the post-pandemic workplace

A new study published in the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology has found that the phenomenon popularly known as “Zoom fatigue” may have largely dissipated in the post-pandemic work environment. The findings suggest that video meetings are no longer significantly more exhausting than other types of meetings for most employees. This research challenges the narrative that virtual communication is inherently draining and indicates that workers may have adapted to the demands of remote collaboration.

The rapid shift to remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a heavy reliance on video conferencing tools to maintain organizational operations. During this period, many employees reported feeling an unusual sense of exhaustion following these virtual interactions. This collective experience was quickly labeled “Zoom fatigue.” Previous empirical studies conducted during the height of the pandemic supported these anecdotal claims. They found a correlation between the frequency of video meetings and higher levels of daily fatigue among workers.

Various theories arose to explain why video calls might be uniquely taxing. Some researchers proposed that the cognitive load of video meetings was to blame. This theory posits that users must expend extra mental energy to monitor their own appearance on camera and to interpret non-verbal cues that are harder to read through a screen. Others suggested a theory of “passive fatigue.” This perspective argues that the lack of physical movement and the under-stimulation of sitting in front of a computer monitor lead to drowsiness and low energy.

However, the context of work has evolved since the early days of the pandemic. For many, video meetings are no longer a forced substitute for all human contact but rather a standard tool for business communication. The researchers behind the current study sought to determine if the exhaustion associated with video calls was a permanent feature of the technology or a temporary symptom of the pandemic era. They aimed to update the scientific understanding of virtual work by replicating a 2022 study in the current year, 2024.

“We conducted this study from both pure research curiosity, and a practical lens. As our first paper from the pandemic times (Nesher Shoshan & Werht, 2022) in which we identified that ‘Zoom fatigue’ exist got a lot of attention, we were interested to know if the results can be replicated in a different, post-pandemic setting, and with a stronger empirical approach (larger sample, another measurement point, a more sophisticated analysis),” said Hadar Nesher Shoshan, a junior professor at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz.

Free daily newsletter

“Practically, we found out that our first study is being used to make organizational decisions. This is a large responsibility, that we wanted to make sure is updated and evidence based.”

To investigate this, the researchers utilized an experience sampling method. This approach allows researchers to capture data from participants in real-time as they go about their daily lives, rather than relying on retrospective surveys that can be subject to memory errors. The study was conducted in Germany in April 2024.

The research team recruited 125 participants who worked at least 20 hours per week and regularly attended video meetings. The participants represented various industries, including communication, service, and health sectors. Over a period of ten working days, these individuals completed short surveys at four specific times each day. This rigorous schedule resulted in a dataset covering 590 workdays and 945 distinct meetings.

In each survey, participants reported details about the last work meeting they had attended. They specified the medium of the meeting, such as whether it was held via video, telephone, face-to-face, or through written chat. They also rated their current levels of emotional exhaustion and “passive fatigue,” which was defined as feelings of sleepiness or lack of alertness.

The researchers also collected data on several potential moderating factors. They asked participants to rate their own level of active participation in the meeting, as well as the participation level of the group. They inquired about multitasking behaviors during the call. Additionally, they recorded objective characteristics of the meetings, such as the duration in minutes and the number of attendees.

The analysis of this extensive dataset revealed that video meetings were not related to higher levels of exhaustion compared to non-video meetings. Participants did not report feeling more drained or more drowsy after a video call than they did after a face-to-face meeting or a phone call. This finding held true even when the researchers statistically controlled for the level of exhaustion participants felt before the meeting began.

The researchers also examined whether working from home influenced these results. The analysis showed that the location of the worker did not moderate the relationship between video meetings and fatigue. This suggests that the environment of the home office is not a primary driver of the exhaustion previously associated with video calls.

“Our initial hypothesis was that zoom fatigue still existed. After all, all previous studies had come to this conclusion, so there was no reason to doubt that this result was correct,” said Nesher Shoshan. “However, we found no evidence of the phenomenon! According to our findings, online meetings are not more fatiguing than in-person meetings.”

Regarding the specific behaviors within meetings, the researchers found that active participation and multitasking did not significantly alter the fatigue levels associated with video meetings. Whether an individual spoke frequently or remained quiet did not change the likelihood of experiencing exhaustion. Similarly, checking emails or performing other tasks during the meeting did not appear to increase the mental load enough to cause significant fatigue.

The study did identify one specific factor that made a difference: the duration of the meeting. The results indicated that video meetings lasting less than 44 minutes were actually less exhausting than meetings held through other media. This suggests there is a “sweet spot” for virtual collaboration where the efficiency of the format outweighs its cognitive costs. However, once a video meeting exceeded this time frame, the advantage disappeared, and fatigue levels became comparable to other meeting types.

Another finding involved the role of boredom. The researchers observed that when participants rated a video meeting as boring, it was associated with slightly higher levels of exhaustion compared to boring meetings held in other formats. This lends some support to the idea that under-stimulation can be a negative factor in virtual environments, even if it does not lead to general “Zoom fatigue.”

The researchers propose several explanations for why their results differ from pandemic-era studies. They suggest that the “Zoom fatigue” observed in 2020 and 2021 may have been largely driven by the historical context. During the lockdowns, video meetings carried a symbolic meaning. They represented isolation, the loss of office camaraderie, and the stress of a global health crisis. In 2024, this symbolic weight has likely faded. Video calls have become a normalized part of the workday.

Additionally, it is plausible that workers have simply habituated to the format. Over the last few years, employees may have developed unconscious strategies to manage the cognitive demands of being on camera. They may be more comfortable with the technology and less self-conscious about their appearance on screen.

These findings have practical implications for organizational policy. As many companies push for return-to-office mandates, they often cite the limitations of virtual work as a justification. This study suggests that employee exhaustion is not a valid reason to discourage remote work or video meetings. Instead, the data indicates that virtual meetings can be an efficient and non-taxing way to collaborate, provided they are managed well. The results specifically point to the benefit of keeping video meetings relatively short to maximize employee well-being.

The study has some limitations that should be considered. The data relied on self-reports, which capture the participant’s subjective experience but do not provide objective physiological measurements of stress. The study also focused on the German workforce, and cultural attitudes toward work and technology could vary in other regions. Furthermore, the study design allows for the observation of correlations but cannot definitively prove that the change in time period caused the disappearance of Zoom fatigue.

Future research could benefit from incorporating objective measures of fatigue, such as heart rate variability or cortisol levels. It would also be useful to investigate the content and quality of interactions within meetings. It is possible that negative interactions, such as conflicts or misunderstandings, drive exhaustion regardless of the communication medium. Finally, researchers might explore the positive potential of video meetings, investigating how they can be designed to promote engagement and flow rather than just avoiding fatigue.

“We hope that the average person takes from our study the importance of critical thinking, not take older results as truth and always ask questions,” Nesher Shoshan told PsyPost. “For researchers, we want to emphasize the importance of transparency and replication. Finally, for organizations, we stand for flexible work arrangements and hybrid work that are shown to be effective in many other studies, and according to our study, do not come with a fatiguing price.”

The study, ““Zoom Fatigue” Revisited: Are Video Meetings Still Exhausting Post-COVID-19?,” was authored by Hadar Nesher Shoshan and Wilken Wehrt.