Accepted Manuscript

Assessing technophobia and technophilia: Development and validation of a

questionnaire

Mario Martínez-Córcoles, Mare Teichmann, Mart Murdvee

PII: S0160-791X(17)30179-3
DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.09.007
Reference: TIS 1017

To appear in: Technology in Society

Received Date: 21 July 2017

Revised Date: 13 September 2017
Accepted Date: 27 September 2017

Please cite this article as: Martínez-Córcoles M, Teichmann M, Murdvee M, Assessing technophobia
and technophilia: Development and validation of a questionnaire, Technology in Society (2017), doi:
10.1016/j.techsoc.2017.09.007.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Assessing Technophobia and Technophilia
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
Assessing Technophobia and Technophilia. Development and Validation of

a Questionnaire.

RI
SC
Mario Martínez-Córcoles*, Mare Teichmann, Mart Murdvee

Department of Software Science, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia

U
AN
M
D
TE
EP

*Correspondence should be addressed to Mario Martínez-Córcoles, Department of Software Science,

Tallinn University of Technology, Akademia tee 3, X-334, 12616, Tallinn, Estonia. E-mail:
C

mario.martinez-corcoles@ttu.ee.
AC

Co-authors address: Department of Software Sciences, Tallinn University of Technology, Akademia tee,

X-333, 12616, Tallinn, Estonia. Emails: mare@pekonsult.ee, mart.murdvee@pekonsult.ee.

 Assessing Technophobia and Technophilia
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Authors Vitae

Mario Martínez-Córcoles is an Associate Professor at Tallinn University of

Technology. He received his PhD from the University of Valencia (Spain). His research

examines the impact of technology in human behavior and society, as well as the role of

social dynamics for safety in critical infraestructures. He consulted the IAEA

PT
(International Atomic Energy Agency) in 2013.

RI
Mare Teichmann holds a PhD in Psychology from the Behterev Institute Leningrad,

now Saint Petersburg. She is Professor and Chair of Psychology at Tallinn University of

SC
Technology, and member of many boards and councils, especially in the academic self-

administration of her special area of Work and Organizational Psychology.

U
AN
Mart Murdvee is an Estonian psychologist and researcher trained in Tartu University

(Estonia). His research explores the impact of technology in human behavior and
M

society.
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
Assessing Technophobia and Technophilia: Development and Validation of

RI
a Questionnaire.

U SC
AN
M
D
TE

Keywords: Technophobia; Technophilia; Cyberpsychology; Cyberphobia;

EP

Technostress; Computer anxiety.

C
AC

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Abstract

Nowadays technology is in every aspect of our lives. The exponential growth of new

information technologies during recent years has increased society’s enthusiasm and

visionary expectations (technophilia), as well as fears and discomfort (technophobia).

However, technophobia and technophilia are two concepts that are hardly studied, with

PT
very few specific measurements developed so far. The present paper aims to develop

RI
and validate the Technophobia and Technophilia Questionnaire (TTQ) in a sample

composed of 534 participants from two different countries (Poland and Estonia).

SC
Practical implications, study limitations and directions for future research are discussed.

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1. INTRODUCTION

The exponential growth of new technologies (also called modern technologies)

is changing the pace of modification in our world and inevitably makes society and

people react. When new technologies emerge and start to spread, they bring new

opportunities and a comfortable vision of the future, reasons by which are welcomed as

PT
visionary and challenging. However, for some people technology is seen as a threat to

RI
our established set of norms and patterns of behaviours, which make us adaptive in our

living setting, and therefore brings negative emotional reactions, anxiety and fears.

SC
Consequently, new technologies generate the same level of enthusiasm and comfort, as

well as fear and discomfort. This ambivalence is expressed by technophobia (rejection

U
and/or avoidance of technology) and technophilia (attraction and enthusiastic adoption
AN
of technology). Despite the fact that technophobia and technophilia are increasing
M

phenomena in today’s society, they have been hardly studied so far due to the fact that

science is increasingly focusing on developing new technologies, rather than evaluating

D

the users’ attitudes, emotions and behaviours toward them. Subsequently, specific
TE

assessment tools of technophobia and technophilia are scarce. The present paper aims to

develop and validate a questionnaire in order to measure both constructs (technophobia

EP

and technophilia) in a sample composed of 534 participants from two different countries

(Poland and Estonia).

C
AC

1.1. Technophobia

Although technophobia is, of course, closely related to computer anxiety, the

two concepts are distinct. Whereas computer anxiety is defined as an unpleasant

emotional state or condition when interacting with computers and the Internet [1,2],

technophobia is a broader concept including aversive behavioral, affective, and

attitudinal responses to modern technologies and/or complex technical devices [3,4,5].

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Technophobia is a significant problem in today’s society, since many people carry

negative feelings toward new technology and avoid using it despite the big infusion of

technological advances in every aspect of life [6]. Many users remain uncomfortable

using new technologies, and instead use traditional methods to accomplish tasks [2] or

limit the use of high performance devices to very basic functions, using only 10 to 25

PT
percent of their capabilities [7]. With the increasing penetration of new technology in

RI
areas such as education, business, and the home, the problem of technophobia has

become crucial [8], since its consequences may imply ineffectiveness or lower

SC
performance at work, increased absenteeism, increased security threats and

vulnerabilities, etc. According to the Chapman University survey on American fears

U
2015, Bader and colleagues [9] found that technology was the second most rated source
AN
of fear in US, right behind natural disasters. These results suggested that people tend to
M

express the highest level of fear for those things they’re dependent on but that they do

not have any control over, and that’s almost a perfect definition of new technology.
D

Despite the relevance of technophobia in today’s society, research is more

TE

focused on developing new technological advances rather than evaluating their

consequences. Indeed, very few assessment tools of technophobia have been developed
EP

so far. Some scales have been created to measure technophobia as a general attitude

toward technology such as the Computer Attitude Scale (CAS) [10]. Others were
C
AC

designed in order to measure the multi-faceted nature of technophobia. A prime

example of it is the well-known Technophobia Measurement Instruments (TMI) [11],

which is based on their definition of the concept [12], and it measures three separate but

rather overlapping dimensions: anxiety, negative cognitions, and negative attitudes

[13,14,11,15,16]. Accordingly, these authors developed three separate scales designed

to measure each of these dimensions: the Computer Anxiety Rating Scale (CARS),

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Computer Thoughts Survey (CTS) and the General Attitudes Toward Computers Scale

(GATCS). Whereas this measure has been widely accepted, it is mainly focused on

computerphobia (specific phobia expressed as an irrational fear or aversion to

computers) rather than technophobia per se (including not only computers but modern

technologies and/or complex technical devices). Furthermore, the third dimension

PT
(GATCS) has been revealed to be consistently unreliable in different studies [17,18].

RI
In this study we propose a new technophobia measuring instrument, which is

based on the etymology of technophobia as well as in previous definitions [12,5].

SC
Therefore, technophobia is understood here as fear, anxiety and discomfort toward new

technologies (including a wide range of new devices, not only computers). Instead of

U
conceiving technophobia as multi-dimensional, we initially proposed a pool of items
AN
covering the entire aforementioned definition. For that reason, a single factor structure
M

was expected.

1.2. Technophilia
D

1.2.1. Enthusiasm
TE

Technophilia (from Greek τέχνη - technē, "art, skill, craft" and φίλος - philos,

"beloved, dear, friend") has been traditionally defined as a strong attraction and
EP

enthusiasm for technology, especially new technologies such as personal computers,

the Internet, smartphones, and/or other devices [5]. However, we have reasons to think
C
AC

that technophilia is not a mere desire or positive attitude to use technology

(enthusiasm), but also includes behaviours and emotions (i.e. dependency and

technoreputation). We explain this point further in the following paragraphs.

1.2.2. Dependency

Society has rapidly generated a huge dependency on technology, and it has

become a means to do almost everything (i.e. communicate with others, express oneself,

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
etc.). This dependency can be explained from Schein’s explanation on how individuals

acquire underlying assumptions driving their behaviours [19]. Schein states that when a

group of individuals (or society) takes a solution to proceed or solve a problem, and that

solution is useful repeatedly over time, it is gradually established and eventually

understood as a reality. Therefore, individuals conceive reality on those terms and could

PT
not imagine thinking or behaving differently (i.e. sending a hand-written letter to a

RI
friend who lives in another city, instead of sending her an email, private Facebook

message, or Whatsapp). As a result, individuals develop dependence on technology,

SC
causing anxiety when it is [momentarily] not available (i.e. there is no connection to

Internet). In its highest degree, dependency could bring addiction and/ or obsession with

U
all their associated problems. Thus, dependency is another category within technophilia,
AN
defined as the repetitive use of technology generated by a dominant need of
M

experiencing its effects.

1.2.3. Technoreputation
D

Last but not least, technophilia includes a need to update, also called
TE

technoreputation. Since technophiles see technologies as natural societal developments,

improvements to daily life, or as forces that will transform reality for the better, they
EP

combine their enthusiasm and dependence with a fear of falling behind and losing out

on the opportunity to join the technological advance. Additionally, to be technologically

C
AC

updated (getting new devices or apps, and their updates) shows willingness for youthful

experimentation, a future orientation, flexibility, and openness to change [20]. High

levels of technoreputation can lead an individual to spend a lot of money on electronic

devices that he/she does not need, just for the pleasure of having the latest products on

the market.

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
To sum up, we consider technophilia as a broader concept which does not only

include positive attitudes toward technology (enthusiasm and desire), but also repetitive

behaviours (dependency), and emotions such as fear of falling behind and joy of having

the latest products/versions (technoreputation). For these reasons, a three-factor

structure was proposed for technophilia.

PT
2. METHOD

RI
2.1. Development of the questionnaire

The development of the TTQ was based on: (a) a literature review of different

SC
conceptualizations of technophobia and technophilia; (b) a critical examination of

technophobia and technophilia questionnaires currently available in the literature; (c)

U
observations and reflections stemming from our consulting experience in
AN
cyberpsychology; and (d) the critical analysis of the multiple facets. Through an
M

experts’ focus group session (including both experts from the information technology

field and organizational behavior researchers), the most significant facets of

D

technophobia and technophilia were selected. This procedure resulted in an initial pool
TE

containing 12 items covering technophobia, and 20 items that covered the three

aforementioned fundamental components of the technophilia, namely: Enthusiasm,

EP

dependence, and technoreputation. Each item was designed to obtain information about

the degree to which humans relate and feel about technology in several ways. Six-point
C
AC

Likert-type scales with responses ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 6 (very

strongly agree) were used to record this information. The text introducing the TTQ

questionnaire to the survey-respondents reads as follows: “We would like to know

several aspects concerning your interaction with new technologies. For this purpose, we

request that you answer the following questionnaire honestly”. This introduction is

important to contextualize respondents. In the case of technophilia, two of the items

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
were dropped in response to methodological concerns, as explained in Section 3.2. The

full list of the remaining 18 items grouped in the three dimensions of technophilia is

presented in Table 3.

2.2. Sample

534 respondents from two different countries completed the questionnaire (318

PT
respondents from Estonia and 216 from Poland). The sample included adults from

RI
different age (15 to 72), of which the mean was 31 years old. 173 respondents were

men, whereas 361 were women. Among these participants, 1% had completed a basic

SC
education, 10% a lower secondary education, 40% a secondary education and 46% had

completed university studies.

2.3 Survey administration

U
AN
The present research was conducted in accordance with international ethical
M

guidelines, which are consistent with the American Psychological Association (APA).

The questionnaire was administered online, providing an email of contact in case of

D

doubts when filling out the questionnaire. Participants were provided with a hyperlink
TE

to fill out the questionnaire and encouraged by a previous email. Participants needed

around 15 min to complete the entire questionnaire. They were provided with
EP

instructions explaining the purpose of the study and the way the questionnaire should be

completed. Participants were encouraged to answer honestly and take as much time as
C
AC

they needed to accurately complete the questionnaire. Voluntary participation,

confidentiality and anonymity were guaranteed. Data collection took place from January

to May 2016.

2.4. Analyses

Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis) of

individual items on the TTQ were obtained. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
conducted on a random split-half sample of the data (N = 274) to examine the factor

structure of technophobia and technophilia. Unweighted least squares was used as the

extraction method and an oblique rotation criterion was applied [21,22]. Internal

consistency (homogeneity) analyses were performed for individual items (corrected

item-scale correlations) and for entire scales (Cronbach’s alpha). Corrected item-scale

PT
correlations should be higher than .30 [23]. Additionally, values of .70 or more indicate

RI
acceptable reliability for Cronbach’s alpha coefficient [24]. The analyses were

performed using SPSS 20.0.

SC
To test the internal structure of the TTQ, six confirmatory factor analyses

(CFAs) were performed in the holdout sample (N = 260) using LISREL 8.80 [25]. In all

U
CFAs the factors were allowed to be correlated. In order to determine the fit of these
AN
models, we took into consideration the RMSEA (root mean square error of
M

approximation), CFI (comparative fit index), and NNFI (non-formed fit index)

goodness of fit statistics. The interpretation of these indexes is as follows: RMSEA <.08
D

= acceptable model [26,27]; CFI >.90 = acceptable model, and >.95 = excellent model
TE

[20]; NNFI > .90 = acceptable model, and >.95 = excellent model [28].

First of all, we carried out an initial Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to

EP

verify the one-factor structure hypothesized in the technophobia scale. Weighted Least

Squares (WLS) was used to assess the model parameters, and both the polychoric
C
AC

correlations matrix and the asymptotic covariance matrix were introduced as input for

the analyses. Secondly, we ran three CFAs to test three alternative models regarding the

technophilia scale using WLS and both the polychoric correlations matrix and the

asymptotic covariance matrix were introduced as input for the analyses: a one-factor

model loading all items into a single dimension; a two-factor model considering

dependency and technoreputation as the first factor (owing to their significant

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
correlation) and enthusiasm as the second factor; and a three-factor model including

enthusiasm, dependency and technoreputation as three independent factors. Thirdly, the

scales were included in the same questionnaire (participants responded to the scales

sequentially and immediately), and the method used was the same for all respondents.

Therefore, we examined the possibility that a single factor could emerge for all four

PT
variables involved, taking into account that common variance could inflate the

RI
associations among the study variables (all of them were obtained by means of self-

reports). To explore this possibility, we conducted two more CFAs. In the first one we

SC
used both scales together: The technophobia scale was introduced as a one-factor

structure whereas the technophilia scale was introduced as a three-factor structure (as

U
aforementioned). In the second one, we introduced all the items in the four variables
AN
loading into a single factor. Thus, a Harman Single Factor test was carried out using the
M

CFA method [29]. Its basic assumption is that if a substantial amount of common

method variance is present, either a single factor will emerge from the factor analysis or
D

one general factor will account for the majority of the covariance among the measures,
TE

with all items loading in this single factor. As the large number of items involved and

the sample size did not allow us to use weighted least square estimation, robust
EP

maximum likelihood (ML) was used to estimate model parameters. Considering the

ordinal nature of the variables, both the polychoric correlations matrix and the
C
AC

asymptotic covariances matrix were used as input for the analyses.

Finally, in spite of the fact that Estonia and Poland are geographically close to

each other, we wanted to disregard any possible differences that may be due to language

or national culture. For that reason, we additionally tested the invariance of respondents

across countries using multi-group analysis with LISREL 8.80. Specifically, we tested

whether the factor loadings for the one-factor model of technophobia and the three-

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
factor model of technophilia were the same for these two countries. To compare the

alternative models’ goodness of fit, the incremental fit indices were estimated.

Differences not larger than .01 between CFI values (∆CFI) are considered an indication

of negligible practical differences [30,31]. Differences lower than .015 in RMSEA are

also proposed as an indicator of negligible practical differences [32]. When differences

PT
between models cannot be proven in any of the goodness of fit statistics, it is preferable

RI
to keep the more constrained (parsimonious) solution.

Internal consistency for both scales was tested by means of Cronbach’s alpha

SC
coefficient (α). Correlations between questionnaire dimensions were also estimated. It is

widely accepted that factor discrimination can be established when inter-factor

correlations are below .85 [33].

U
AN
3. RESULTS
M

3.1. Descriptive analyses

Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis) for

D

individual items on the TTQ are presented in Table 1 (technophobia) and Table 2
TE

(technophilia). The items on the TTQ showed standard deviations between 1.07 and

1.56, which indicates discriminant power of the questionnaire items. The average
EP

skewness and kurtosis values in Technophobia are .64 and -.32, respectively, with 3

items presenting values out of range (items 2, 10, and 12). The average skewness and
C
AC

kurtosis values in technophilia are -.19 and -.39, respectively, and 1 item presenting

values out of range (item 12).

(PLEASE, INSERT TABLE 1 HERE)

(PLEASE, INSERT TABLE 2 HERE)

3.2. Factorial structure: Exploratory Factor Analysis

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Regarding the technophobia scale, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of

sampling adequacy was .94, and the Bartlett test of sphericity was statistically

significant (p < .01), indicating the suitability of these data for factor analytic

procedures. The results obtained showed a one-factor solution that accounted for 62%

of common variance. No items were removed, since all of them had communality scores

PT
equal or higher than .39 and their factor loadings were equal to or higher than .62.

RI
As far as the technophilia scale is concerned, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)

measure of sampling adequacy was .88, and the Bartlett test of sphericity was

SC
statistically significant (p < .01), indicating the suitability of these data for factor

analytic procedures. Two of the items were removed, as they did not load uniquely into

U
any one factor. In addition, both of these items had low communality scores (< .30),
AN
indicating that the extracted factors explained little of these items’ variance. The results
M

presented here are related to the factor analysis conducted with the 18 remaining items.

The three factors identified, comprising 18 of the original 20 items, accounted for 50%
D

of the common variance. All the items’ factor loadings were equal to or higher than .47
TE

(see Table 3).

(PLEASE, INSERT TABLE 3 HERE)

EP

3.3. Validity: Evidence based on internal structure.

C

Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the goodness-of-fit of the proposed

AC

one-factor model for technophobia fit the data adequately (χ2 = 79.12, df = 54, p < .01;

RMSEA = .042; NNFI = .997; CFI = .998). All factor loadings ranged from .76 to .98

and were statistically significant (p < .01) and high enough according to the standards

(>.60). Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Composite Reliability (CR) values were

.90 and .99 respectively, supporting convergent validity.

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Concerning technophilia, the three-factor model presented a satisfactory fit (χ2 =

597.176, df = 132, p < .01; RMSEA = .102; NNFI = .968; CFI = .972). Even though the

RMSEA was slightly over the cut-off value recommended, several reasons made the

three-factor model satisfactory. First, the sample used was small (< 300), especially

considering that the number of items included in the scale was considerably high.

PT
Second, the NNFI and the CFI goodness of fit statistics revealed an excellent fit, the

RI
reason by which we did not completely rule out the model. Third, the four-factor model

explained in the following paragraph supports the three-factor structure of technophilia.

SC
The two-factor and one-factor solutions provided a poorer fit to the data (χ2 = 729.020,

df = 134, p < .01; RMSEA = .131; NNFI = .960; CFI = .965) and (χ2 = 1476.325, df =

U
135, p < .01; RMSEA = .196; NNFI = .910; CFI = .921), respectively. Moreover,
AN
differences between the three factor model and the other two models (two- and one-
M

factor models) in goodness of fit statistics were non-negligible (e.g. ∆RMSEA = .019).

Thus, the three-factor model proposed by the authors was empirically supported. All
D

factor loadings ranged from .76 to .99 and were statistically significant (p < .01) and
TE

high enough according to the standards (>.60). Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and

Composite Reliability (CR) values were.87 and .99 respectively, thus supporting
EP

convergent validity.

Additionally, two CFAs were performed to reject the possibility of a single

C
AC

factor emerging for all the four variables involved. The four-factor model (one factor for

each variable) provided an excellent fit (χ2 = 1450.935, df = 399, p < 0.01; RMSEA =

.052; NNFI = .985; CFI = .986) and all parameters estimated were statistically

significant (p < .01). Results indicated that each item saturated in its corresponding

scale. By contrast, the fit of the single-factor model (associated with all the items on the

four variables) was not as good (χ2 = 2906.946, df = 405, p < 0.01; RMSEA = .140;

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
NNFI = .894; CFI = .902). The incremental fit indices indicated significant differences

between these two models (∆CFI = .084 and ∆RMSEA = .088). All the goodness-of-fit

indexes were satisfactory for the four-factor model, whereas the single-factor model

showed a poor fit to data (cut-off values in RMSEA and NNFI are not reached). In

summary, a single-factor model did not explain our data as well as the predicted model

PT
(four factors), in which the study variables were considered independent.

RI
Last but not least, using multi-group analysis with LISREL, we compared for

each construct a model in which the factor loadings were constrained to be equal in both

SC
countries to a model in which all the parameters were allowed to vary between countries

(unconstrained model). Our results for technophobia showed that the CFI was .990 for

U
the model with constrained factor loadings and .982 for the unconstrained model. The
AN
RMSEA was .091 and .090, respectively. This indicates that the difference between
M

these two models was .08 for CFI and .001 for RMSEA, and therefore negligible

according to the aforementioned criteria for model comparison [30,31,32]. We decided

D

to maintain the more parsimonious model and assume that there were no differences in
TE

factor loadings between countries. Results for technophilia revealed that the CFI was

.961 for the model with constrained factor loadings and .956 for the unconstrained
EP

model, and the RMSEA was .071 and .081, respectively. This indicates that the

difference between these two models was .05 for CFI and .001 for RMSEA, and
C
AC

therefore, negligible according to the aforementioned criteria for model comparison.

The more parsimonious model was chosen, assuming a lack of differences in factor

loadings between countries. In summary, the scales of technophobia and technophilia

were invariant across these two countries.

(PLEASE, INSERT TABLE 4 HERE)

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
3.4. Reliability

The Cronbach alpha values were satisfactory for technophobia (.95), and

technophilia (.82) and its three subscales: .91 for the enthusiasm dimension; .77 for the

dependency dimension; and .78 for the technoreputation dimension. Therefore, the

reliability analyses showed strong internal consistency (homogeneity) for the two scales

PT
of the TTQ and the three technophilia subscales.

RI
Finally, correlation coefficients among the four variables of the questionnaire

were also calculated and are shown in Table 5. All correlations (except one) are

SC
significant, but did not exceed the accepted criterion, thus supporting factor

discrimination. Enthusiasm correlated non-significantly with dependence, revealing

discrimination between both factors.

U
AN
(PLEASE, INSERT TABLE 5 HERE)
M

4. DISCUSSION

This paper presents a new questionnaire to assess both technophobia and

D

technophilia. Empirical evidence was obtained showing the validity of both scales.
TE

Results also support the dimensionality derived from the theory proposed. The

technophobia scale is based on a single-factor model, whereas technophilia covers three

EP

different dimensions: Enthusiasm, dependence, and technoreputation. The 12 items on

C

the scale of technophobia and the 18 items on the scale of technophilia were found to be
AC

good indicators of both constructs.

Three main research contributions can be highlighted. First, the assumption

under which the TTQ has been developed points out that, although technophobia and

technophilia are traditionally interpreted as ambivalent constructs and they are

negatively correlated, both of them are independent. This assumption is empirically

supported by two facts. On the one hand, correlation coefficients between technophobia

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
and each of the factors of technophilia showed that both constructs (technophobia and

technophilia) are two separate factors correlating negatively. On the other hand, the

CFAs demonstrated that the construct technophilia was independent from technophobia.

Secondly, we propose a new tool for measuring technophobia. There are few measures

(mainly evaluating computer anxiety), and the most well-known technophobia

PT
measurement (TMI) proposes three different instruments measuring different computer-

RI
based facets of it [11]. In this paper we propose an alternative to the TMI, in which the

pool of 12 items represents the entire construct of technophobia beyond computer-based

SC
facets. This has clear advantages with respect to the TMI in terms of (1) the scope of

measurement (not reduced to computers alone, but to technology in general) and (2)

U
time spent on filling out the questionnaire, avoiding the biases associated with long
AN
questionnaires (i.e. dropping out, consistent responses, central tendency, etc.). Thirdly, a
M

theoretical model of technophilia with three dimensions is empirically tested by means

of its scale. Confirmatory factor analyses support this dimensionality, so there is

D

empirical support for the fact that technophilia is a construct composed of enthusiasm,
TE

dependence and technoreputation. As far as we know, this is the first time the multi-

dimensionality of technophilia has been proposed and tested. The model of technophilia
EP

proposed here can help to revive research in the field of technology adoption that seems

to have reached a dead-end [34]. Without a shadow of a doubt, the introduction of new
C
AC

technological advances leaves no one unaffected and it implies psychosocial

consequences. This study revives the debate about these consequences back, reviewing

two important phenomena occurring in today’s society.

The development and validation of the TTQ has three important practical

implications. Firstly, the TTQ can be used by governments and public affairs

institutions. In this sense, technophobia could be measured in order to create additional

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
programs for a population’s openness and adoption of new technology when needed.

Likewise, technophilia could be tested to develop programs and policies avoiding high

levels of it that could be detrimental for people’s quality of life. Second, health and

psychological care institutions could evaluate patients’ levels on technophobia or

technophilia as a preliminary assessment to decide if further measurement is needed to

PT
detect disproportionate fears and anxiety, or severe addiction, respectively. Lastly,

RI
designers could benefit from using the measurement of technophobia to evaluate the

population’s aversive responses to technology, with the aim of studying the technical

SC
causes of those reactions and design user friendly interfaces accordingly.

Finally, it is important to note that the validity of the questionnaire has been

U
established basically through its construct and internal validity, not including other
AN
validity measures such as the relationships of technophobia and technophilia with
M

external variables (traditionally called criterion-validity). Future studies will have to

extend and consolidate the validity of the TTQ by paying attention to its predictive
D

validity, focusing on significant correlates.

TE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
EP

We want to thank two anonymous reviewers for their inestimable help and

guidance, as well as Luke Picken for providing language proofreading.

C
AC

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Conflicts of interest: None.

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
References

1. Sievert M, Albritton RL, Roper P, Clayton N. Investigating computer anxiety in an

academic library. Information Technology and Libraries 1988; 7(3): 243-52.

2. Thatcher JB, Loughry ML, Lim J, McKnight DH. Internet anxiety: An empirical

study of the effects of personality, beliefs, and social support. Information &

PT
Management 2007; 44(4): 353-63.

RI
3. Jay TB. Computerphobia: what to do about it. Educational Technology 1981; 21:

47-8.

SC
4. Ray NM, Minch RP. Computer anxiety and alienation: Toward a definitive and

parsimonious measure. Human Factors 1990; 32(4): 477-91.

5.
U
Osiceanu ME. Psychological Implications of Modern Technologies: “Technofobia”
AN
versus “Technophilia”. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2015; 180: 1137-
M

44.

6. Tekinarslan E. Computer anxiety: A cross-cultural comparative study of Dutch and

D

Turkish university students. Computers in Human Behavior 2008; 24(4): 1572-84.

TE

7. Fallad J, Hueso EJ, Ramírez DE. Psychological and cultural foundations towards

technophilia and technofobia. In Tenth LACCEI Latin American and Caribbean

EP

Conference for Engineering and Technology, Panamá City, Panamá. Retrieved

from http://www. laccei.org 2012.

C
AC

8. Beckers JJ, Schmidt HG. The structure of computer anxiety: A six-factor model.

Computers in Human Behavior 2001; 17(1): 35-49.

9. Bader CD, Mencken FC, Baker JO. (2017) Paranormal America: Ghost encounters,

UFO sightings, bigfoot hunts, and other curiosities in religion and culture. New

York: NYU Press.

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
10. Nickell GS, Pinto JN. The computer attitude scale. Computers in human behaviour

1986; 2(4): 301-6.

11. Rosen LD, Sears DC, Weil MM. Measuring Technophobia. A Manual for the

administration and scoring of three instruments: Computer Anxiety Rating Scale

(Form C), General Attitudes Toward Computers Scale (Form C) and Computer

PT
Thoughts Survey (Form C). California State University, Dominguez Hills,

RI
Computerphobia Reduction Program 1992. Available to order from:

http://www.technostress.com/WRmeasorder.htm.

SC
12. Rosen LD, Weil MM. Computers, Classroom Instruction, and the Computerphobic

University Student. Collegiate Microcomputer 1990; 8(4): 275-83.

U
13. Rosen LD, Maguire P. Myths and realities of computerphobia: a meta-analysis.
AN
Anxiety Research 1990; 3: 175-91.
M

14. Rosen LD, Sears DC, Weil MM. Computerphobia. Behavior Research Methods

1987; 19(2): 167-79.

D

15. Weil MM, Rosen LD. The psychological impact of technology from a global
TE

perspective: a study of technological sophistication and technophobia in university

students from twenty three countries. Computers in Human Behavior 1995; 11(1):
EP

95-133.

16. Weil MM, Rosen LD. (1997) Technostress: Coping with technology@ work@
C
AC

home@ play. New York: Wiley.

17. Anthony LM, Clarke, MC, Anderson SJ. Technophobia and personality subtypes in

a sample of South African university students. Computers in Human Behavior

2000; 16(1): 31-44.

18. Hogan M. (2009) Age difference in technophobia: An Irish study. In: Barry C,

Conboy K, Lang M, Wojtkowski G, Wojtkowski W, eds. Information Systems

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Development. Challenges in practice, theory and education. New York, USA:

Springer Science, pp.117-30.

19. Schein EH. (1985) Organizational Culture and Leadership. London: Jossey-Bass.

20. Coulthard D, Keller S. Technophilia, neo-Luddism, eDependency and the

judgement of Thamus. Journal of information, communication and ethics in society

PT
2012; 10(4): 262-72.

RI
21. Lloret-Segura S, Ferreres-Traver A, Hernández-Baeza A, Tomás-Marco I. El

análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: una guía práctica, revisada y

SC
actualizada. Anales de psicología 2014; 30(3): 1151-69.

22. Sass DA, Schmitt TA. A comparative investigation of rotation criteria within

U
exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research 2010; 45(1): 73-103.
AN
23. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. The assessment of reliability. Psychometric theory
M

1994; 3(1): 248-92.

24. Nunnally J. (1978) Psychometric theory. Auflage, NY: Mc Graw-Hill.

D

25. Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D. (2006) LISREL (version 8.80) [computer

TE

software]. Chicago: Scientific software international.

26. Browne MW, Cudeck R. (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen
EP

KA, Long JS, eds. Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage,

pp. 136–62.
C
AC

27. Browne MW, Du Toit SHC. Automated fitting of nonstandard models for mean

vectors and covariance matrix. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1992; 27: 269–

300.

28. Marsh HW, Hau KT, Grayson D. (2005) Goodness of fit in structural equation

models. In: Maydeu-Olivares A, McArdle JJ, eds. Contemporary Psychometrics: A

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Festschrift for Roderick P. McDonald Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

pp. 225–340.

29. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in

behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended

remedies. Journal of applied psychology 2003; 88(5): 879-903.

PT
30. Cheung GW, Rensvold, RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing

RI
measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling 2002; 9(2): 233-55.

31. Widaman K. Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitrait-

SC
multimethod data. Applied Psychological Measurement 1985; 9: 1–26.

32. Chen FF. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance.

U
Structural Equation Modeling 2007; 14: 464–504.
AN
33. Kline RB. (2005) Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. NY:
M

Guilford.

34. Benbasat I, Barki H. Quo vadis TAM?. Journal of the association for information
D

systems 2007; 8(4): 211-18.

TE
C EP
AC

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Technophobia Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis

Item 1 I feel an irrational fear of new 2.42 1.31 .75 -.14

equipment or technology
Item 2 I avoid the use of new 2.09 1.27 1.03 .28
equipment and technology
Item 3 I feel uncomfortable when I use 2.48 1.29 .47 -.70
new equipment or technology
Item 4 … 2.29 1.26 .69 -.35

PT
Item 5 2.26 1.30 .10 .05

RI
Item 6 2.42 1.34 .66 -.49

Item 7 2.57 1.43 .55 -.67

SC
Item 8 2.55 1.36 .50 -.66

Item 9 2.08 1.28 .94 -.13

Item 10
U 2.05 1.23 1.04 .38
AN
Item 11 2.35 1.27 .66 -.40
M

Item 12 2.76 1.41 .25 -1.02

Table 1. Items and dimensions of the Technophobia and their descriptive statistics.
D
TE
C EP
AC

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Technophilia Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis

Item 1 I am excited for new equipment 4.37 1.32 -.59 -.22

or technology
Item 2 I’m afraid of being left behind 3.32 1.42 .02 -.98
if I cannot use the latest
equipment or technology.
Item 3 I enjoy using new equipment or 4.49 1.21 -.64 .05
technology

PT
Item 4 … 3.58 1.31 -.27 -.78

Item 5 4.26 1.15 -.48 .27

RI
Item 6 4.38 1.08 -.64 .66

Item 7 3.48 1.32 -.14 -.82

SC
Item 8 3.40 1.31 -.01 -.81

U
Item 9 4.63 1.10 -.72 .51
AN
Item 10 3.25 1.39 .06 -.91

Item 11 4.67 1.07 -.79 .83

M

Item 12 3.43 1.48 -.09 -1.08

Item 13 3.06 1.49 .54 -.59

D

Item 14 2.99 1.56 .46 -.94

TE

Item 15 3.91 1.29 -.40 -.18

EP

Item 16 3.29 1.40 .05 -.84

Item 17 4.21 1.22 -.60 .17

C

Item 18 3.34 1.29 -.02 -.65

AC

Item 19 2.96 1.47 .41 -.72

Item 20 3.41 1.36 -.03 -.83

Table 2. Items and dimensions of the Technophilia scale and their descriptive
statistics.

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Technophilia Enthusiasm Dependency Technoreputation

Item 1 .84 (.70)

Item 3 .81 (.67)

Item 5 .75 (.60)

Item 6 .74 (.58)

PT
Item 9 .78 (.66)

RI
Item 11 .60 (.40)

Item 15 .77 (.60)

SC
Item 17 .75 (.56)

Item 4 .52 (.47)

Item 7
U
.63 (.46)
AN
Item 12 .56 (.36)
M

Item 13 .47 (.30)

Item 16 .56 (.38)

D

Item 19 .51 (.35)

TE

Item 2 .80 (.38)

Item 8 .64 (.67)

EP

Item 10 .57 (.37)

C

Item 18 .50 (.53)

AC

Table 3. Factor loadings lower than .40 were not reported. Item
communalities are in brackets.

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
χ2 df RMSEA NNFI CFI

Technophobia 79.12 54 .042 .997 .998

(One-factor)

Technophilia 597,176 132 .102 .968 .972

(three-factor)

Technophilia 729.020 134 .131 .960 .965

PT
(two-factor)

Technophilia 1476.325 135 .196 .910 .921

RI
(One-factor)

Four-factor 1450.935 399 .052 .985 .986

SC
model

One-factor 2906.946 405 .140 .894 .902

model

U
Table 4. Fit indices of different tested models with technophobia and
AN
technophilia ítems.
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

M SD Enthusiasm Dependency Technoreputation

Technophobia 2,36 1.07 -.464** -.372** -.491**

Enthusiasm 4,37 .93 .045 .144**

PT
Dependency 3,30 .97 .597**

Technoreputation 3,33 1.03

RI
Table 5. Inter-factor correlations of the TTQ. ** correlations significant at p < .01

SC
(2-tailed).

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

*ITEMS REVEALED ONLY FOR REVIEWING PROCESS.

Technophobia

Item 1 I feel an irrational fear of new equipment or technology

PT
Item 2 I avoid the use of new equipment and technology

Item 3 I feel uncomfortable when I use new equipment or technology

RI
Item 4 I find it difficult to complete computerized tasks

SC
Item 5 I find it very difficult to learn about how to use new technology

Item 6 I feel incompetent because I don’t like to use new equipment or technology

U
Item 7 I’m resistant to back up hard drives or organize files in my computer
AN
Item 8 I feel unskilled for the use of new equipment or technology

Item 9 I feel excessive sweating while working with new equipment or technology
M

Item 10 I feel heart palpitations while working with new equipment or technology
D

Item 11 I feel anxious while working with new equipment or technology

TE

Item 12 I feel forced to change my way of working because of new equipment or technology
C EP
AC

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Technophilia

Item 1 I am excited for new equipment or technology

Item 2 I’m afraid of being left behind if I cannot use the latest equipment or technology.

Item 3 I enjoy using new equipment or technology

PT
Item 4 The use of new equipment or technology influences considerably my personal life

Item 5 I think that new technology has a lot of benefits

RI
Item 6 My experience with all the new technologies is positive

SC
Item 7 The use of new equipment or technology influences considerably my personal
feelings
Item 8 I feel fear of being left behind if I can’t use the latest equipment or technology

U
Item 9 I have recently acquired new technology
AN
Item 10 I feel loss of control if I can’t use the latest equipment or technology

Item 11 I believe that new technology improves life

M

Item 12 The use of new equipment or technology affects my intimacy

D

Item 13 Lastly, I have used new equipment or technology too frequently

TE

*Item 14 I have became dependent on the Internet

Item 15 I feel enthusiasm for new equipment or technology due to its novel value
EP

Item 16 I feel restless and worried if I can’t use my computer or smartphone/mobilephone

Item 17 I feel enthusiasm when a new technology/product is launched

C

Item 18 I’m afraid of failing if I can’t use the latest equipment or technology
AC

Item 19 I have spent more time using new equipment or technology than is reasonable

*Item 20 I have recently thought persistently and frequently about new equipment or
technology

*Items finally removed during the validation

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Highlights

-Very few specific measures to assess technophobia and technophilia have been

developed so far.

-A new questionnaire to assess technophobia and technophilia is developed and

PT
validated.

RI
-Empirical evidence is obtained showing the validity of the questionnaire provided.

U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC