Psychometric Verification of a Refined Version of the "Unembodiment on the Internet" Questionnaire^*

The alienation of the individual's own physical body, which until recently was associated mainly with the sphere of psychiatry, is strongly associated by modern researchers with the practice of using the Internet. The lack of scientific psychological grounds for studying the technological disembodiment of a user causes a deficiency of tools designed to diagnose the corresponding phenomenology. The article presents a revised version of the questionnaire "Unembodiment on the Internet" (2021), the construct of which goes back to the clinical concept of unembodiment, which belongs to the famous British existential psychologist R. Laing. The item base of the methodology has been changed and expanded in order to be more relevant to the subject of study. The reliability and validity of the questionnaire was tested during a psychodiagnostic examination. It involved 200 Internet users (women and men equally). The mean age of the respondents was 20.72 years (SD=5.99). The scale of the previous version of the "Unembodiment on the Internet" questionnaire, “Unembodiment as Virtualization”, was supplemented by a new one, “Preference for Technological Disembodiment”, which specifies the user's attitude towards their special status in the cyberspace, and replaced the “Preference of the Internet” scale, which reflected a more general motivation. The “Vitality of the Embodied Self” scale in the refined questionnaire is divided into two: the scale of the same name, which implies broad manifestations of the embodied self, and the scale of the “Embodied Whole Self”, which implies the embodiment of the mental self in the physical body itself. The empirical construct in general corresponds to the theoretical one. The internal consistency scores of the questionnaire scales range from 0.82–0.91 for different criteria. External convergent validity was confirmed by the Chen Internet Addiction Scale (CIAS).

1. Bauman Z. Globalizatsiya. Posledstviya dlya cheloveka i obshchestva [Globalization: The Human Consequences]. Moscow: Ves' Mir, 2004. 188 p. [In Russ.]
2. Belinskaya E.P. Psikhologiya Internet-kommunikatsii: ucheb. posobie. Moscow: Publ. of MPSU; Voronezh: MODEK, 2013. 192 p. [In Russ.]
3. Buber M. Dva obraza very. Moscow: Respublika, 1995, pp. 15–92. [In Russ.]
4. Vonnegut K. Lyudi bez tel. Super Triller. No. 8 (131), pp. 1–7. [In Russ.]
5. Vystuplenie Marshalla Maklyuena na seminare professora Forsdeila 17 iyulya 1978 g., Tichers-Kolledzh, Universitet Kolambii, N'yu-Iork [MarshallMcLuhan's speech at professor Forsdale's seminar on 17.07.1978. Teachers College, Columbia University, New York]. URL: http://www.mcluhan.ru/quotations/marshall-maklyuen-na-seminare-professora-forsdejla/ (Accessed: 07.10.2023). [In Russ.]
6. Gerasimova A.A., Kholmogorova A.B. Obshchaya shkala problemnogo ispol'zovaniya interneta: aprobatsiya i validizatsiya v rossiiskoi vyborke tret'ei versii oprosnika [The Generalized Problematic Internet Use Scale 3 Modified Version: Approbation and Validation on the Russian Sample]. Konsul'tativnaya psikhologiya I psikhoterapiya=Counseling Psychology and Psychotherapy, Vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 56–79. DOI: 10.17759/cpp.2018260304 [In Russ., abstr. in Engl.]
7. Zinchenko V.P., Podoroga V.A. O chelovecheskoi dushe i ploti. Ponimanie. Umenie=Knowledge. Understanding. Skill, 2005, no. 1, pp. 34–43. URL: https://nrpsy.ru/teoria_dusha_zinchenko.html (Accessed: 07.10.2023). [In Russ.]
8. Internet-zavisimoe povedenie: kriterii i metody diagnostiki: ucheb. posobie / V.L. Malygin et al (eds.). Moscow: Publ. of MSUMD, 2011. 33 p. [In Russ.]
9. Isaeva A.N. «Bestelesnost'» lichnosti v usloviyakh virtual'noi kul'tury [The “Disembodiment” of the Personality in the Context of Virtual Culture]. Zhurnal Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki= Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2021. Vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 491–505. DOI: 10.17323/1813-8918-2021-3-491-505 [In Russ., abstr. in Engl.]
10. Kopteva N.V., Kalugin A.Yu., Dorfman L.Ya. Nevoploshchennost' v Internete. Soobshchenie 1: teoreticheskie osnovaniya i konstrukt // Klinicheskaya i spetsial'naya psikhologiya. 2021. Tom 1 № 3. S. 31–48. DOI: 10.17759/cpse.2021100303 [In Russ., abstr. in Engl.]
11. Kopteva N.V., Kalugin A.Yu., Dorfman L.Ya. Nevoploshchennost' v Internete. Soobshchenie 2. Psikhometricheskaya proverka instrumentariya [Unembodiment in the Internet. Part 2. Psychometric Verification of the Questionnaire]. Klinicheskaia i spetsial'naia psikhologiia=Clinical Psychology and Special Education, 2021. Vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 205–233. DOI: 10.17759/cpse.2021100410 [In Russ., abstr. in Engl.]
12. Leing R.D. Raskolotoe «Ya». Ekzistentsial'noe issledovanie «normal'nosti» i bezumiya. Fenomenologiya perezhivaniya i Raiskaya ptichka [The divided self: An existential study in sanity and madness]. Moscow: Publ. of IOI, 2017. 350 p. [In Russ.]
13. Rasskazova E.I., Emelin V.A., Tkhostov A.Sh. Diagnostika psikhologicheskikh posledstvii vliyaniya informatsionnykh tekhnologii na cheloveka. Moscow: Akropol', 2015, 115 p. [In Russ.]
14. Everitt B.S. Bol'shoi slovar' po statistike. 3-e ed. Moscow: Prospekt, 2010. 736 p. [In Russ.]
15. Awang Z. Structural Equation Modeling Using Amos Graphic. Malaysia: University Technology MARA Press, 2012, 167 p.
16. Becker B. To be in touch or not? Some remarks on communication in virtual environments. In A.F. Grundy, D. Köhler et al (Eds.), Women, Work and Computerization: Spinning a Web from Past to Future. Proceedings of the 6th International IFIP Conference, Bonn, Germany, May 24–27. Springer, 1997, pp. 211–212.
17. Bell D. An introduction to cybercultures. London, NY: Routledge, 2001, 246 p.
18. Brown T. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. NY, London: The Guilford Press, 2015, 462 p.
19. Chen Y.F., Peng S.S. University students' Internet use and its relationships with academic performance, interpersonal relationships, psychosocial adjustment, and self-evaluation. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 2008. Vol. 11 (4), pp. 467–469. DOI: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0128
20. Ferguson G.A. On the theory of test discrimination. Psychometrika, Vol. 14, pp. 61–68. DOI: 10.1007/BF02290141
21. George D., Mallery P. IBM SPSS statistics 23 step by step: A simple guide and reference. NY: Routledge, 2016, 386 p. DOI: 10.4324/9781315545899
22. Hankins M. Questionnaire discrimination:(re)-introducing coefficient δ. BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol. 7 (1), p. 19. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-19
23. Hu L., Bentler P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 (1), pp. 1–55. DOI: 10.1080/10705519909540118
24. Itten T. Laing in Austria. In D. Burston (ed.), Janus Head. Special Issue: The Legacy of R.D. Laing, Vol. 4, no. 1. URL: http://janushead.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Theodor-Itten.pdf (Accessed: 07.10.2023)
25. Kang S. Disembodiment in online social interaction: Impact of online chat on social support and psychosocial well-being. CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 475–477. DOI: 10.1089/cpb.2006.9929
26. Laconi S., Rodgers F., Chabrol H. The measurement of Internet addiction: A critical review of existing scales and their psychometric properties. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 41, pp. 190–202. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.026
27. Lim C.R., Harris K., Dawson J. et al. Floor and ceiling effects in the OHS: An analysis of the NHS PROMs data set. BMJ Open, Vol. 5 (7), pp. e007765. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007765
28. Sullivan A. I used to be a human being. New York Magazine. 2016. Vol. 19. URL: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/09/andrew-sullivan-my-distraction-sickness-and-yours.html (Accessed: 07.10.2023)
29. Terwee C.B., Bot S.D., de Boer M.R., et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 60 (1), pp. 34–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012
30. Trizano-Hermosilla I., Alvarado J.M. Best alternatives to Cronbach’s Alpha reliability in realistic conditions: Congeneric and asymmetrical measurements. Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 7, pp. 769. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00769