Psychodiagnostics of Technophobia and Technophilia: Development and Testing a Questionnaire of Attitudes towards Technology for Adolescents and Parents

Background. The technological progress of the last two centuries of human history makes it relevant to study human attitudes to digital technologies, in particular the study of such socio-psychological phenomena as technophobia and technophilia, not only for marketing purposes, but also to understand the socio-psychological mechanisms of social change. Objective. To develop and validate the Technology Attitude Scale that takes into account cognitive and emotional aspects in adolescents and parents of adolescents 14—17 years old. Study design. The study was carried out in a correlation design and included full-time filling of the methods by all respondents. Participants. 448 parents of adolescents 14—17 years old and 360 adolescents 14—17 years old from six cities of the Russian Federation. Methods. Participants filled out Technology Attitude Scale and appraised their user activity, Internet addiction tendencies, parental mediation strategies, and the frequency of using gadgets during performing various daily activities. For data processing, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, Cronbach coefficient alpha in the IBM SPSS Statistics v. 22.0, the EQS software package and statistical packages as part of the R programming language. Results. The structure of the scale was refined based on the results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and included four subscales: technophilia, technophobia, technorationalism, and technopessimism (Cronbach’s alpha 0.66—0.88). Technophilia and technorationalism dominate in the profile of attitudes towards technology. For parents, the emotional aspects of attitudes towards technology are associated with user activity and use of gadgets in everyday activities. In adolescents, technophilia is associated only with the use of gadgets in everyday activities. In adolescents, the experience of parental restrictions and technical control of their online activity is associated with a negative attitude towards technologies and the difficulties of a rational attitude towards them, while active parental mediation is associated with a higher level of technorationalism. Conclusion. The Technology Attitude Scale is a reliable scale that can be used in psychological research.

1. Zhuravlev A.L., Nestik T.A. Sotsial’no-psikhologicheskaya determinatsiya gotovnosti lichnosti k ispol’zovaniyu novykh tekhnologii [Socio-psychological determination of a person’s readiness to use new technologies]. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal = Psychological journal, 2018. Vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 5—14. DOI:10.31857/S020595920000829-7
2. Rasskazova E.I., Emelin V.A., Tkhostov A.Sh. Diagnostika psikhologicheskikh posledstvii vliyaniya informatsionnykh tekhnologii na cheloveka. Uchebno-metodicheskoe posobie dlya studentov psikhologicheskikh spetsial’nostei [Diagnostics of the psychological consequences of the influence of information technologies on a person. Educational and methodological guide for students of psychological specialties]. Moscow: Akropol’, 2015. 116 p.
3. Soldatova G.U. Tsifrovaya sotsializatsiya v kul’turno-istoricheskoi paradigme: izmenyayushchiisya rebenok v izmenyayushchemsya mire [Digital socialization in the cultural and historical paradigm: a changing child in a changing world]. Sotsial’naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo = Social psychology and society, 2018. Vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 71—80. DOI:10.17759/sps.2018090308
4. Soldatova G.U., Nestik T.A. Otnoshenie k internetu sredi internet-pol’zovatelei: tekhnofoby i tekhnofily [Attitude to the Internet among Internet users: technophobes and technophiles]. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta. Seriya «Psikhologicheskie nauki» = Bulletin of the Moscow State Regional University. The series “Psychological Sciences”, 2016, no. 1, pp. 54—61.
5. Soldatova G.U., Rasskazova E.I. Itogi tsifrovoi transformatsii: ot onlain-real’nosti k smeshannoi real’nosti [The results of digital transformation: from online reality to mixed reality]. Kul’turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural and historical psychology, 2020. Vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 87—97. DOI:10.17759/chp.2020160409
6. Soldatova G.U., Rasskazova E.I., Nestik T.A. Tsifrovoe pokolenie Rossii: kompetentnost’ i bezopasnost’ [The Digital generation of Russia: competence and security]. Moscow: Smysl, 2017. 375 p.
7. Chumakov A.N. Tekhnooptimizm. Tekhnopessimizm [Techno-optimism. Technopessimism]. In Bestuzhev-Lada I.V. (ed.) Malaya rossiiskaya entsiklopediya prognostiki [Small Russian Encyclopedia of Prognostics]. Moscow: Institut ekonomicheskikh strategii, 2007. 326 p.
8. Amichai-Hamburger Y. Technology and well-being: designing the future. In Amichai- Hamburger Y. (ed.). Technology and Psychological Well-being. Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 260—278.
9. Brosnan M.J. Technophobia: The psychological impact of information technology. London: Routledge, 1998. 233 p.
10. Cox D.N., Evans G. Construction and validation of a psychometric scale to measure consumer’s fears on novel food technologies: the food technology neophobia scale. Food quality and preference, 2008. Vol. 19, pp. 704—710.
11. Damsbo-Svendsen M., Bom Frøst M., Olsena A. A review of instruments developed to measure food neophobia. Appetite, 2017. Vol. 113, pp. 358—367.
12. Davis F.D. User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. International journal of man-machine studies, 1993. Vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 475— 487.
13. Donat E., Brandtweiner R., Kerschbaum J. Attitudes and the Digital Divide: Attitude Measurement as Instrument to Predict Internet Usage. Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 2009. Vol. 12, pp. 38—56.
14. Eden G. Special Eurobarometer 401: survey summary on responsible research and innovation, science and technology. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2014. Vol. 1, no.1, pp. 129—132. DOI:10 .1080/23299460.2014.882553
15. Gilbert J.K., Lin H.S. How might adults learn about new science and technology? The case of nanoscience 10. Validation and exploration of instruments for assessing public knowledge of and attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2013. Vol. 22, pp. 548—559.
16. Livingstone S., Haddon L. EU Kids Online. Findings, methods, recommendations [Elektronnyi resurs]. 2014. URL: http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/EUKidsOnline/Home.aspx (Accessed 02.07.2021).
17. Livingstone S., Helsper E.J. Parental mediation of children’s internet use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 2008. Vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 581—599.
18. Martínez-Córcoles M., Teichmann M., Murdvee M. Assessing technophobia and technophilia: Development and validation of a questionnaire. Technology in Society, 2017, no. 51, pp. 183—188.
19. Osiceanu M.-E. Psychological Implications of Modern Technologies: “Technofobia” versus “Technophilia”. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2015. Vol. 180, pp. 1137—1144.
20. Sinkovics R., Stottingen B., Schlegelmilch B.B., Ram S. Reluctance to Use Technology-Related Products: Development of a Technophobia Scale. Thunderbird International Business Review, 2002. Vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 477—494.
21. Venkatesh V., Thong J.Y.L., Xu X. Sonsumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 2012. Vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 157—178.