Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 180 ( 2015 ) 1137 1144 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com [601473]

Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 180 ( 2015 ) 1137 – 1144 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer
-review under responsibility of The Association “Education for tomorrow” / [Asociatia “Educatie pentru maine”].
doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.229
The 6th International Confere nce Edu World 2014 “Education Facing Contemporary World
Issues”, 7th – 9th November 2014
Psychological implications of modern technologies: "technofobia"
versus "technophilia"

Maria-Elena Osiceanua*
aTechnical University of Civil Engineering of Bucharest, Lacul Tei Bvd., no. 122 –124, Bucharest, Romania

Abstract
The purpose of this article is to present the psychological consequences, favourable or not, of the modern technologies. Modern
technologies, also known as "new technology", caused the app earance of the psychological am bivalence, because, modern
technologies, generate, in the same measure, comfort and disasters. At the psycho -dynamic level, this ambivalence is expressed
by
technophilia (attraction to technology) and technophobia (reject ion of technology). Technophilia and technophobia are the tw o
extremes of the relationship between technology and the hu man being, but especially, between technology and society

© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd .
Peer-review under responsibili ty of The Association “ Education for tomorrow” / [Asociatia “Educatie pentru maine”].
Keywords: Technology, Psychology, Technophilia, Technofobia.

Motto:
The same technology that simplifies life by providing more functions in each device also complicates life by
m
aking the device harder to learn, harder to use. This is the paradox of technology. (Norman, 1990, p.31).

1. Introduction

Technology is everywhere … at work, home or at leisure ti m e. Obviously this is not new, since cars, computers,

* Maria -Elena Osiceanu, Tel. +4 -021-242-7124, fax: +4 -021-242 -7124; E-mail address: [anonimizat]. © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer
-review under responsibility of The Association “Education for tomorrow” / [Asociatia “Educatie pentru maine”].

1138 Maria-Elena Osiceanu / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 180 ( 2015 ) 1137 – 1144
mobile phones (especially, smartphones) and the various gadgets which had occupy our existence for quite a while .
In the twentieth century, the exponential growth in v arious technical fields and the emergence of modern
technologies (consecutive, especially to the progress of computer science) caused the appearance of the
psychological ambivalence, because, modern technologies, generate, in the same measure, comfort and disasters.
Between the two extreme positions formed, represent by tec hnophilia and technopho bia, arose a variety of
issues on the psychological and social impact of modern technology, which has fueled and will further fuel a intense
debate on the advantages and simultaneously carrying dangers involves by the development of techniques (and
technologies!), but also on how its rules. At the psycho -dynamic level, tech nophilia (attraction to technology)
g
enerates its psychological opposite, namely, technophobia (rejection of technology). Technophilia and
techn
ophobia are the two extremes of the relationship between technology and the human being, but especially,
between technology and society.
The reason for which, in this article we intend to "lin g er" on psychological implications, favorable or not, it
had while the emergence of what is known as modern technology and "new technologies", often associated with
personal computers ( personal compute r – PC).

2. Technophilia and technophobia – terminology

The person attracted to technology, the "technophile", takes the most or all technologies in a positive manner,
enthusiastica
lly adopting new forms of technology and view this as a way to improve his living conditions and
co
mbat social problems (Amichai -Hambrurger, 2009) .
However, it was found that, with the continued proliferation of modern technologies in almost every aspect
of
our existence, the number of people who manifest fear of them is increasing. Fear can go from avoiding
technology to organic symptoms such sweating and palpitations, even if they only think about using such technology … The phenomenon would affect about one third of all population.
The avoidance of the new technologies by some people, h
as led to the hypothesis of "technophobia" or
"computerophobia" (these terms are used interchangeab ly). When factors as anxiety and attitude, or more
specifically, the computer anxiety and the attitude toward comp uter are beginning to combine, the first condition is a
requirement for the second, heving as result the appearance of irrational fears and anxieties expressed by avoiding
behavior, paradoxical, sometimes absurd. Basically, the technophobia beginning to take shape.
Mental resistance to new technology, manifested in the form of avoidance of computers was well presented
in
the literature, by the term "technophobe" or "computer ophobe", used to describe people who refuse to use
computers when they has this opport unity or are required to do. Although we can’t speak about a ph obia in the
classic sense of the term (as in agoraphobia, for ex ample), but there are many similarities at etiology and
"treatment", that justify the term of "technophobia".
Technophobia not mean fears about giving up, change the job or concerns about radiation emitted from the
screen
, but rather an emotional response and negative attitudes relative to technology, that the technophobe
recognizes to be irrational. The prejudgement that technophobia is a phenomenon that only affects the elderly
population, has been disproved long time ago. Current research shows that things are far from beeing improved.

2.1. Technophilia

Technophilia (from the Greek τέχνη – technē, " art/ artifact, skill and unde rstanding" and φίλος – philos, "love"),
ref
ers generally to the enthusiasm generated by the us e of technology, particularly new technologies, such as:
personal computers, Internet, mobile phones and even the technologies of "home cinema". The term emerged in the
1960s, is mainly used in sociology, when is examinated the interaction between individuals and society.
Technophilia is defined as attraction, enthusiasm of t he human individual determinated by the activities
which involve the use of advanced technologies. It is ex pressed by easily adaptation to the social changes brought
by technological innovations. The term of technophilia is used to highlight how technology can evoke strong
futuristic positive feelings. However, reverent attitud e towards technology that determines technophilia can
so
metimes prevent a realistic assessment of envir onmental and social impact of technology on society.
The technophiles has no fear about the effects of technological development on society, as is the case for
techn
ophobes. Technophilia refers to "technological determinism", theory e mphasize that human society has not the
power to resist towards the influences of technology. A nu mber of technologies are used as an expression of

1139 Maria-Elena Osiceanu / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 180 ( 2015 ) 1137 – 1144
personal narcissism. The technophiles enjoy using tech nology and focus on its egocentric benefits.
The concept of addiction is often associated negatively with technophilia, while targeting only those
tech
nophiles who become excessive and obsessive bound to the forms of technology they possess.
So far as, in the eighteenth century, industrialized so cietie s (notably the UK and France) have relied on
their development and expansion of the multiplication and improvement techniques in order to obtain effective /
efficient to their producers and co nfort to consumers it can be said that such societies are by their nature
technophiles. Undoubtedly, technophilia tend to be the norm in most contemporary societies. As technophilia is
ass
ociated with the phenomenon of psychological and social "normality", we will not insist on this theoretical
approach. We remember only that in the extreme forms, such as Internet Addiction – that we expose briefly, in the
f
ollowing lines -, technophilia can acquire a pathological aspect.

2.1.1. Internet Addiction
Internet Addiction or I nternet Addiction Disorder (IAD) is now known mainly as the co mpulsive internet use (CIU).
T
he tendency is to avoid the term addiction, reflecting the long -term dependence and is not limited to a single cause.
On
line activities (e.g., shopping on the net) are considered problematic if its has a compulsive nature. Other
activ
ities, such as reading or playing video games become problematic only when excessively interferes with daily
life. In 1949, Otto Fenichel was the one who would speak first of "addiction without drugs", which is the direct
expression of Internet addiction.
The Anglophone term Internet Addiction was first used by the American psychologist Kimberly Young, at
a co
lloquium of the American Psychological Association (APA ), in Toronto (1996) and was subsequently taken
over in specialized terminology. However, the term IAD was originally proposed, also by an American psychologist, named Ivan Goldberg in 1995 (but he use it in the pejorative sense). Currently, IAD is an nosographic
entity present in textbooks of DSM ( Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ), from DSM -IV.
A
lthough in the DSM -IV, Internet Addiction has emerged as independent entity, Amer ican Medical Association
(AMA) and the Amer ican Society of Addiction Medicin e (ASAM) are against to inclusion of Internet Addiction as a
f
ormal diagnosis in DSM and recommends the study of addictions, especially relative to video games. (in Price,
2011
).
In the opinion of I. Goldberg, Internet Addiction is more a symptom and not a disorder itself. To describe
hy
pothetical Internet Addiction, Goldberg draws an analogy with gambling. Goldberg notes that "Internet addiction
can cause the denial or the avoidance of other current issues of life." The addictive behaviour expresses the socio –
emotional immaturity in the individual's inability to build a true and solid psychosocial identity. The
cyberdependence is characterized by " all mental disorders related to the use of computer equipment, harmful to the
human individual". This latest disorder can be diagnosed wi th tests which highlighted the obsessional behavior. The
results of these tests should be interpreted, but with caution.
Associated to the Internet Addiction apppear the Commu nication Addiction Disorder (CAD or co mpulsive
talking ), behavioral disorder linked to the need to constantly communicate with others, even when there is no real
justification for such communication. CAD is a "theoretical" di sorder in which users become to be addicted to social
networks (or "social media elements" of the Internet!), su ch as Facebook or YouTube. Sometimes it happens that
these activities generate intrapsychic conflict and guilt. (Bucy, & Newhagen, 2004).

2.2. Technophobia

Technophobia (from the Greek τέχνη – technē and φόβος – phobos, "fear") is fear, dislike or discomfort by using
m
odern technologies and complex technical devices (especially computers). The term is related to cyberphobia .
Technophobia is defined as an irrational fear or anxiety caused b y side effects of advanced technologies. Definition
involves two components: first the fear for side ef fects of technological development on society and the
environment; and second, the fear of using technological devices such as computers and advanced technology.
A number of authors consider that technophobia always has a pathological character, since it refers to an
exag
gerated and unjustified fear. Although the accent is on pathological, abnormal aspects, some of these fears may
be rightly justified (e.g., radiation exposure). Technical pr ogress can sometimes be detrimental to ecosystem health.
The main reasons for the opposition in terms of technical develo pment are not only ecologica l (it is considered that
technology destroys the environment), and ethics (biometr ics and video surveillance, for example, are regarded as
indicating serious damage of individual freedom, creating a progressively social control likely to degenerate into a

1140 Maria-Elena Osiceanu / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 180 ( 2015 ) 1137 – 1144
new form of totalitarianism).
Some examples of technophobe ideas can be found in various art forms: from literary works such as
Frankenstein , m
ovies like Metropolis or famous Charlie Chaplin’s, Mod ern Times . Many of these works portray the
dark side of technology as perceived by technophobes .
The term "technophobe" is used to designate the opponen ts, to a particular technology, even is a moderate
opposition. Dr. Larry Rosen (1993), professor at the University of California, psychologist, researcher and
computers instructor, identified three dominant types of technophobes: "uncomfortable users", "cognitive
computerphobes" and "anxious computerphobes". "Uncomfor tab le users" are slightly anxious because they do not
have enough information about the effective use of comput ers; "cognitive computerphobes" may appear cool, calm,
controlled externally but are bombarding themselves with negative cognitions internally; "anxious computerphobes"
are persona who exhibiting the classic signs of anxiety when they use a computer (sweaty palms, heart palpitations,
etc.). It is noted that these three types are differentiated by the reactions of computerophobes people while using the
computer, not in its absence. This demonstrates an important point: the technophobes not completely avoid the
source of their anxiety .
It is possible to deduce indirectly that a high level of an xiety can lead to avoid technologies, but can also
lead to poor performance, without total avoidance of them, which makes the specific of technophobia compared to
the other
phobias.
As modern technologies become more complex and difficu l t to understand, increase the probability of their
use to produce anxiety. In the early 90s, in the journal Co mputers in Human Behavior , was published a study on
students from different countries, highlighting that a high level of technophobia is present in 29% percent of
A
merican students, 58% of Japanese students, 82% of the Indians and 53% of the Mexican students. A similar study
published in early 2000 showed that about 85 -90% of the new employees of an organization may experience
disco
mfort in relation to new technolog ies and, in some extent, are technophobes.
It is true that today, the computers are used in sc hools at young ages, but some research shows that many
people over 50 years are less anxious when they use the comp uter, that persons aged under 30 years, suggesting that
away to reduce anxiety, computer experien ce activities can increase anxiety levels.
Commonly related to computers, technophobia is not limited to computers. For example, introducing a
ca
mera in a classroom, had as a result, increasing the an xiety of students and decreasing vocabulary acquisition.
(MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994).
Even there are many interpretations of technophobia, its s eem to become increasingly more complex as
technology continues to advance in an unstoppable rhythm . There are several definitions of tehnofobiei, but most
often cited is the definition proposed by Jay (1981 in Brosnan, p. 47), which describes it as: 1. a form of mental
resis
tance that occurs to people who talk or just think ab out computers; 2. fear or anxiety towards computer; 3.
hostile or aggressive thoughts about computers. Therefor e, the author identifies three components of tehnofobiei:
behavioural, emotional and attitudinal, extending thus its research area. In another research, Rosen and Weil (1990,
p. 276) have defined technophobia as including: 1. anxiety relative to cu rrent or f uture interactions with computers
or computer -related technology; 2. negative global attitudes about to co mputers, their operation or their social
impact; and / or 3. specific negative cognitions or self -critical internal dialogues during actual computer interaction
or w
hen contemplating future interaction. The label computerphobic (or technophobic) describes individuals
suffering from severe reactions on all three dimensions, to mild discomfort on a single dimension.
Following the definition postulated by Jay, in 1981, we re developed several questionnaires on anxiety and
attitudes towards computers, in an attempt to identify po tential technophobe. Overall, there were a series of scales
created independent of each other, ba sed on an underlying theoretical framework in developing anxieties about the
origin and attitude towards computer. The most frequent ly used assessment tool to computer anxiety is Computer
Anxiety Rating Scale (CARS -Heinssen et al., 1987).
A number of recent theories claim that anxiety and attitude toward computer are subsumed under the
g
eneral concept of technophobia: both anxiety† and attitudes‡ (negative attitudes) were identified as fundamental

† As indicators of computer anxiety was identified the following behaviors: 1 avoiding computers and areas in which they are locate d; 2 excessive
caution with computers; 3 negative remarks in relation to computers; 4 attempts to minimize the use of computers. (Maurer & Sim onson, 1984 in
Bronson, 1998).
‡ Attitudes Rating Scale toward computer (Loyd & Gressard, 1984) reveals three main types of attitudes: 1. anxiety or fear of com pu ters; 2.

1141 Maria-Elena Osiceanu / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 180 ( 2015 ) 1137 – 1144
factors that contribute to technophobia ("fundamental components of technophobia").
The researches revealed that anxiety towards computer is higher when it is like a personality trait rather
than a transient mental state. The degree of neuroticism correlate positively with anxiety toward the computer, while
in
troversion -extraversion dimension of person alit y, do not show any relevance.

2.2.1. Psychological models of technophobia
In an attempt to identify the factors which may influence th e performance, Brosnan (1994) assessed a number of
given subjects [upon]: computer anxiety, cognitive style, locus of control and self-efficacy . Su bjects were asked to
perform a computer -based task, which involved searching for information in data tables. The task can be
acco
mplished using two strategies: either by visual scanning data tables using a concrete way of achievement of
"trial and error" or structuring the "query" / "questioning" ab stract content of tables (similar to what happens in the
natural experiment between dependent and independent variable). The second strategy involves structuring and
abstraction, two aspects of beach independent strategies (Witkin et al., 1977, McKenney & Keen, 1974; Fowler et
al., 1985, Vicente & Williges, 1988).
Subjects were permitted to apply both strategies, indi ca ting the number of tables used to structure the
abstract content to try solving task. Multiple regression (used to highlight the relationship between a dependent
variable – explained endogenous outcome – and a lot of independent variables – explanatory factors, exogenous
pred
ictors) revealed that the highest level of stru cturing the abstract content was predicted by the self-efficiency .

Strategy Self-efficacy Anxiety
Cognitive Style

Subjects which proved confident in themselves, were helped by questions to find data in tables, while those who had
less confidence in them, searched data, line by line, to find the required information.
The next stage of the analysis was focused on the experimental factors, mentioned earlier, which can
pred
ict the level of the self-efficiency . It was noted that the self-efficiency was predicted by the degree of anxiety,
alth
ough, in principle, at least theoretically, the relations is reversed. In additio n, the cognitive style was a predictor
of self-efficiency . T hus, the subjects less anxious and more analytical had high scores of self-efficiency . T he
cognitive style assessment was made based on known psychological tests and tasks to be performed by a computer,
has been described as such. An interesting variation to inve stigate the predictive nature of cognitive style, could be
correlation with the degree of empathy for persons working with computers. Such analysis would not involve attitudes, but that component of personality which underlies technology acceptance (cf. Davis, 1986).
Davis (1986/1989) introduced the "Technology Acceptance Model" (TAM) to count the psychological
f
actors that influence the computer acceptance of the human individual. Based on Theory of Reasoned Action – TRA
(Fis
hbein & Ajzen, 1975), TAM was formulated to determine the impact of external factors on personal / internal
beliefs, attitudes and intentions. TRA suggests that behavioral intention (BI) is a measure of a person’s intention to
perform a specific behavior and attitude (A) expresses the fe elings of an individual about performing the behavior
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). TAM combines these two concepts with perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use
(perceived usefulness – U and perceived ease of use – EU).
Perceived usefulness (U) is defined as the subjec tiv e probability of the prospective users which users
improve their performance tasks using a specific applicatio n system. Perceived ease of use (EOU) refers to the
degree to which the potential user expects the tar get system does not involve effort (Davis, 1989). U and EOU are
both
psychologically and statistically, distinct factors, that allo w for a system to be perceived as useful, but not easy
to use, and vice versa . The four components (BI, A, U, EOU) combine to predict computer usage as below:

pleasure or joy of working with computers; 3. confidence in ab ility to use or to inquire about computers. The authors considere d anxiety as "a
kind of attitude". Koohang (1989) defines anxiety as "a form of attitude". Indeed, between computer anxiety and attitudes are often established
s
ignificant correlations. (Popovici et al. 1987). Heinssen et al. (1984) postulates that computer anxiety should be distinguished from negative
attitude toward computers. Anxiety towards computer involves mainly an affective reaction, such as resistance (to) and avoidanc e of modern
technology, while attitude would mainly require a behavioral response. (Bronson, 1998, p. 33).

1142 Maria-Elena Osiceanu / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 180 ( 2015 ) 1137 – 1144

Usage Attitud e
Easy of Use Behavioural
Intention Usefulness

Figure 1 . Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)
Thus, this model predicts that compu ter use is determined by behavioral intention manifested by attitude
and perceiv
ed usefulness. (BI = A + U). In addition, perceived usefulness, jointly with perceived ease of use along
with determines a certain attitude. (A = U + EOU). It is also assumed that ease of use would have a significant effect
on perceived usefulness. Davis et al. (1989) asserts that the relative weights can be obtained by multiple regression.
T
he authors of TAM model, support and self -efficacy influences the ease of use. T hus, if the experience and anxiety
influence the perception of self-efficacy , is obtain ed an extensio n of the TAM as follows:

Usage Attitude
Ease of Use Behavioural
Intention Usefulness
Self-efficacy
Anxiety Experience

Figure 2. The influence of self-efficacy on TAM
A potential improvement of the TAM model refers to the relationship between attitudes, perception of
usefulness and perception of ease of use. Through factor analysis, Todman and Dick (1993) identified three
subscales of attitude assessment, namely: entertainment, utilit y and ease of use. Accordin g to this conceptualization,
between TAM components (derived from model TRA) was established a new interrelationships. Thus, the model
becom
es:

Usage Attitude
Usefulness
Easy of Use
Fun Behavioural
Intention
Self-efficacy
Anxiety Experience

Figure 3. Brosnan’s model of Technology Acceptance
However, the directionality of some of these relatio nships has been qu estioned. For example, self-efficacy
has been argued to be determined by ease of use (Hen ry & Stone, 1995) and perceived usefulness (Hill et al. , 1987).
Therefore, all these factors were placed in a multiple regression by Donald Bros nan (1998, p.120). The actual model
was not as accurate as the theoretical model:

1143 Maria-Elena Osiceanu / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 180 ( 2015 ) 1137 – 1144

Usage
Fun Behavioural
Intention
Self-efficacy Anxiety Experience
Usefulness Easy of Use

Figure 4. The current theoretical model of technophobia
Effective use is predicted by intention to use the computer, confirming the link between behavioral
in
tention and actual behavior (Davis et al ., 1989). The intention to use the computer, was in turn predicted by
perceived usefulness of computer use. Inherently perceived usefulness refers to the focus on the task. If technology
f
acilitates a task, then it should facilitate and focus on the task . In addition, if the technology is not perceived to be
useful in a task, this will result in load shifting focus pe rson in the technological environment. Usefulness itself is
predicted by prior experience, perceived ease of use and computer anxiety. So, those who say they have used the
computer intensively in the past, currently perceive the comp uter to be easy to use and are not anxious during these
activities will consider the computer to be useful.
As suggested in the previous model (Figure 3), Byrd & Koohang (1989) found that the experience use of
the computer has a significant correlation with a better perception of the usefulness of computers. Igbaria (1994)
found that computer anxiety has an indirect effect on technology acceptance through perceived usefulness. It was
concluded that self-efficacy is a good predictor for anxiety, rather than vice versa , e mphasizing that the inconclusive
nature of the bidirectionality between these two variables . Finally, the perception of computers as "fun", allowing
accurate predictions regarding the low level of anxiety. Cognitive style may be also included in this model.
The current model (Figure 4) is not a definitive model of technophobia. Rather it highlights how different
variables can be combined to predict how and when people will (or will not) use computers. Depending upon the
context of computer interaction, we may expect different variables become prominent, and the relationships between
them to vary. This is in contrast with the results re flecting the lack of correlation between attitude and behavior
(Schewe, 1976). Swanson (1982) argued that certain „user -relevant” components of user attitudes are not yet wel l
und
erstood.
The work of Mahmoodand Medewitz (1990) make a distinction between attitudes (structure of
techn
ophobia) and opinions (which refers to "assessment in terms of the va lue of a person or thing"). The authors
found that whilst increasing familiarity with computer did not affect attitudes, in turn, led to an improvement in
views/ opinions about technology. Therefore, a program to reduce the degree of technophobia have focused on improving opinions about computers, not on changing attitudes towards them. Davis et al. (1989) distinguishes
attitu
des from perceptions of usefulness, but this is not eq uivalent to setting a progress suggest that perceptions
about the usefulness may constitute, in fact, an opinion. It seems that negative attitudes discourage interaction with
th
e computer, until positive opinions would "override" the influence of negative attitudes in determining avoidant
behavior, without actually eliminating these negative attitudes. It can be concluded that when computer users are
f
ocused on the task, and not on the means by which th e task is completed (e.g., computer), the psychological
influences on performance are minimized. Effective use is predicted by intention to use the computer, which in turn
is predicted by perceived usefulness of the computer. Perception of computer as useful, facilitates focusing on task, focus, which in turn, minimizes the adverse effects of technophobia.
Undoubtedly, technophobia is a multifaceted phenomenon that can be controlled by identifying the primary
f
actors involved in this appearance. The individual fact ors (person attributes) of technophobia only represent one
aspect of the model. Additional (and r elated) factors include the usefulness (tas k factors), the perceived ease of use
(system factors) as well as the context (organizational factors). It is important to consider the significance of context in relation upon motivations to perfom an behavior in and interrelationships between variables. Psychological
approach itself, which is only one type of analysis of technophobia must always be placed in context.

3. Conclusions
There is an opinion that computers have to be complicated, an d if
not so, then "can not be perceived as computers."

1144 Maria-Elena Osiceanu / Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 180 ( 2015 ) 1137 – 1144
Donald Norman, quoted in the opening words, argues that the computers of the future will be "invisible" and we will
use often against our will. This is already happening: when we use co m puters with modern cars, when using
microwave ovens and various gadgets, CD players, games etc.. They do not always see whereas the performance of
the various activities using various devices, without being aware that they include in their composition mechanisms based on new technologies. (Norman, 1990, p. 185). Transferring all the modern technologies in an "invisible plan",
will prove a turning point. But until the technology becomes "invisible", we find that it produced anxiety to enough
many people, expressed in its extreme form, namely – technophobia.
The technophobia is a legitimate response to technolog y
, being associated with the ubiquity of the latter,
especially, in the personal computer version. Although it is a more recent phenomenon, the determination and the
knowledge of the nature of the factors involved in its appearance, seems to be more important than ever.
By the scientific and systematic approach of technoph obia, th e phenomenon became apparent in all his
extent. Since a number of studies ha ve revealed that technophobia is present in a proportion of about 50% of the
population in differe nt categories, anxious feelings towards computer can’t be margi nalized or ignored. If some
modern technology, especially computers, induce anxiety in about half of the population, then technophobia can be
established as "norm", and the manifesting symptoms, considered to arise from inadequacies in design technologies.
"Digital revolution" known as the "second industrial revolu tion" has shown that information technology
plays a major role in the educational pr ocess, in work activities and in leisure. At the organizational level, is entitled
assessing technology skills when it comes to employme nt. Therefore, for technophobes the potential market is
decreasing. The technology provides a relatively new medium, which evaluates the performance. The aspects of
"
familiarity" related to the use of the computer and the lack of technophobia is currently a "critical filter" or
"
elimination test" in employment in various jobs. (Chmiel, 1998). If the usage of the computer has become as
important as literacy, should the educational system be given the same importance as the skills of writing and
reading skill.
The educational process can amplify the technophobia. It is imperative that those who teach technology and
co
mputers, to be themselves confident in technology. Althou gh it seems natural for things to happen in that way, but
the studies has shown that many teachers suffer of technophobia. In an educational system that use technology
throughout the curriculum, it is essential that all teachers to have confidence in teaching activities performed with
computers. This is more important than the education wi th a specific software packages because is possible that
educational software used to be updated during the teacher's career. Moreover, the selection of appropriate
educational software is essential. In th e educational plan should be noted th at parents can act as role models for
interaction with technology. Researches suggests that, if parents manifest technophobia, has to hide it in the
presence of children.
What should be done about the technophobia and if it has a problematic charac ter or n ot, depends on the
perception of technophobia legitimacy itself. If technophobia is perceived as "a condition that must and can be
ov
ercome", then, the technophobe will be invariably associated with pathological registry. (Gorayska, & Mey,
1996
). That wouldn't happened if the technophobia would be recognized as a legitimate and rational response to an
i
mposed technology. Providing a pr ogram for reduction of technophobia, support, by default, the first point of view.
Mitig
ation programs for technophobia use mental techniques based on situational etiology of technophobia, not on
the individual etiology, which relates to personality traits of the technophobe.
Since technology has become a crucial element in most professions, many companies offer support for
th
ose suffering from anxiety because of the use of computers or those who recommended themselves as
technophobes. Articles containing tips for practicing exer cises or techniques related to tehnophobia, but also in
terms of useful instructions on ho w technophobe person can feel as comf ortable around the object generating the
phobia are offered to the employees.

References
Amichai -Hamburger,Y. (2009). T echnology and Psychological Well -Being, Cambridge, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Brosnan, M. J. (1998). T echnophobia. The psychological impact of Information Technology , London, New York: Routledge.
Bucy, E., and Newhagen, J. (2004). Me dia Access. Social and Psychological Dimensions of New Technology Use , New Jersey, London: LEA.
Chmiel, N. (1998). J obs, Technology and People , London and New York: Routledge.
Norman, D. (1990). The Design of Everyday Things , New York: Doubleday Currency.
Price, H. O. (ed.)(2011). Int ernet Addiction , New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Gorayska, B., and Mey, J. (1996). C ognitive Technology. In Search of a Humane Interface , Amsterdam -Lausanne -New York -Oxford -Shanno –
Tokyo: Elsevier.