Hubbry Logo
TechnophobiaTechnophobiaMain
Open search
Technophobia
Community hub
Technophobia
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Technophobia
Technophobia
Technophobia
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Computers, among many other technologies, are feared by technophobes.

Technophobia (from Greek τέχνη technē, "art, skill, craft"[1] and φόβος phobos, "fear"[2]), also known as technofear, is the fear or dislike of, or discomfort with, advanced technology or complex devices, especially personal computers, smartphones, and tablet computers.[3] A 2018 study proposed a new conceptual and empirical definition of technophobia based on a critical literature review and data analysis results:

Technophobia is an irrational fear and/or anxiety that individuals form as a response to a new stimulus that comes in the form of a technology that modifies and/or changes the individual’s normal or previous routine in performing a certain job/task. Individuals may display active, physical reactions (fear) such as avoidance and/or passive reactions (anxiety) such as distress or apprehension.[4]

Although there are numerous interpretations of technophobia, they become more complex as technology continues to evolve. The term is generally used in the sense of an irrational fear, but others contend fears are justified. It is the opposite of technophilia.

Larry Rosen, a research psychologist, computer educator, and professor at California State University, Dominguez Hills, suggests that there are three dominant subcategories of technophobes – the "uncomfortable users", the "cognitive computerphobes", and "anxious computerphobes".[5] First receiving widespread notice during the Industrial Revolution, technophobia has been observed to affect various societies and communities throughout the world. This has caused some groups to take stances against some modern technological developments in order to preserve their ideologies. In some of these cases, the new technologies conflict with established beliefs, such as the personal values of simplicity and modest lifestyles.

Examples of technophobic ideas can be found in multiple forms of art, ranging from literary works such as Frankenstein to films like The Terminator. Many of these works portray a darker side to technology, as perceived by those who are technophobic. As technologies become increasingly complex and difficult to understand, people are more likely to harbor anxieties relating to their use of modern technologies.

Prevalence

[edit]

A study published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior was conducted between 1992 and 1994 surveying first-year college students across various countries.[6] The overall percentage of the 3,392[7] students who responded with high-level technophobic fears was 29%.[7] In comparison, Japan had 58% high-level technophobes and Mexico had 53%.[7]

A published report in 2000 stated that roughly 85–90% of new employees at an organization may be uncomfortable with new technology, and are technophobic to some degree.[8]

History

[edit]

Technophobia began to gain attention as a movement in England with the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. With the development of new machines able to do the work of skilled craftsmen using unskilled, low-wage labor, those who worked a trade began to fear for their livelihoods. In 1675, a group of weavers destroyed machines that replaced their jobs. By 1727, the destruction had become so prevalent that Parliament made the demolition of machines a capital offense. This action, however, did not stop the tide of violence. The Luddites, a group of anti-technology workers, united under the name "Ludd" in March 1811, removing key components from knitting frames, raiding houses for supplies, and petitioning for trade rights while threatening greater violence. Poor harvests and food riots lent aid to their cause by creating a restless and agitated population for them to draw supporters from.[9]

The 19th century was also the beginning of modern science, with the work of Louis Pasteur, Charles Darwin, Gregor Mendel, Michael Faraday, Henri Becquerel, and Marie Curie, and inventors such as Nikola Tesla, Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell. The world was changing rapidly, too rapidly for many, who feared the changes taking place and longed for a simpler time. The Romantic movement exemplified these feelings. Romantics tended to believe in imagination over reason, the "organic" over the mechanical, and a longing for a simpler, more pastoral time. Poets like William Wordsworth and William Blake believed that the technological changes that were taking place as a part of the industrial revolution were polluting their cherished view of nature as being perfect and pure.[10]

After World War II, a fear of technology continued to grow, catalyzed by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With nuclear proliferation and the Cold War, people began to wonder what would become of the world now that humanity had the power to manipulate it to the point of destruction. Corporate production of war technologies such as napalm, explosives, and gases during the Vietnam War further undermined public confidence in technology's worth and purpose.[11] In the post-WWII era, environmentalism also took off as a movement. The first international air pollution conference was held in 1955 and, in the 1960s, investigations into the lead content of gasoline sparked outrage among environmentalists. In the 1980s, the depletion of the ozone layer and the threat of global warming began to be taken more seriously.[12]

Luddites

[edit]
Main article: Luddite
The Leader of the Luddites, engraving of 1812

Several societal groups are considered technophobic, the most recognisable of which are the Luddites. Many technophobic groups revolt against modern technology because of their beliefs that these technologies are threatening their ways of life and livelihoods.[13] The Luddites were a social movement of British artisans in the 19th century who organized in opposition to technological advances in the textile industry.[9] These advances replaced many skilled textile artisans with comparatively unskilled machine operators. The 19th century British Luddites rejected new technologies that impacted the structure of their established trades, or the general nature of the work itself.

Resistance to new technologies did not occur when the newly adopted technology aided the work process without making significant changes to it. The British Luddites protested the application of the machines, rather than the invention of the machine itself. They argued that their labor was a crucial part of the economy, and considered the skills they possessed to complete their labor as property that needed protection from the destruction caused by the autonomy of machines.[14]

Use of modern technologies among Old Order Anabaptists

[edit]

Groups considered by some people to be technophobic are the Amish and other Old Order Anabaptists. The Amish follow a set of moral codes outlined in the Ordnung, which rejects the use of certain forms of technology for personal use. Donald B. Kraybill, Karen M. Johnson-Weiner, and Steven M. Nolt state in their book The Amish:

More significantly the Amish modify and adapt technology in creative ways to fit their cultural values and social goals. Amish technologies are diverse, complicated and ever-changing.[15]

What the Amish do, is selective use of modern technologies in order to maintain their belief and culture.[16]

Technophobia in arts

[edit]
Frankenstein's monster is often considered to be an early example of technophobic ideas in art.

An early example of technophobia in fiction and popular culture is Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.[17]

Technophobia achieved commercial success in the 1980s with the movie The Terminator, in which a computer becomes self-aware, and decides to kill all humans.[17]

Shows such as Doctor Who have tackled the topic of technophobia – most specifically in the episode "The Robots of Death", with a character displaying a great fear of robots due to their lack of body language, described by the Fourth Doctor as giving them the appearance of "dead men walking". Series consultant Kit Pedler also used this fear as a basis for the inspiration of classic Doctor Who monsters the Cybermen, with the creatures being inspired by his own fear of artificial limbs becoming so common that it would become impossible to know when someone had stopped being a man and become simply a machine.

Virtuosity (1995) speaks of a virtual serial killer who manages to escape to the real world. He goes on a rampage before he is stopped. This is a true technophobic movie in that its main plot is about technology gone wrong. It introduces a killer who blatantly destroys people.[18]

Avatar is exemplary of technology's hold on humans who are empowered by it and visually demonstrates the amount of terror it instills upon those native to the concept. It enforces the notion that foreign creatures from Pandora are not only frightened by technology, but it is something they loathe; its potential to cause destruction could exceed their very existence. In contrast, the film itself used advanced technology such as the stereoscope in order to give viewers the illusion of physically taking part in an experience that would introduce them to a civilization struggling with technophobia.[19]

A 1960 episode of The Twilight Zone called "A Thing About Machines" deals with one man's hatred for modern things such as electric razors, televisions, electric typewriters, and clocks.[20][21]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Technophobia

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Technophobia refers to the aversion, anxiety, or fear directed toward advanced technology, particularly complex devices such as computers and digital systems, often manifesting as avoidance or resistance to their adoption. This psychological response can range from mild discomfort to severe , influencing behaviors like reluctance to learn new tools or opposition to technological integration in daily life. While frequently characterized as , technophobia has in tangible concerns, including potential job displacement and loss of human agency, as evidenced by empirical studies linking it to factors like inadequate prior exposure and socioeconomic disruptions. Historically, technophobia emerged prominently during the , exemplified by the movement in early 19th-century , where skilled textile workers destroyed automated machinery—such as stocking frames—that threatened their livelihoods by enabling cheaper, lower-quality production and reducing demand for artisanal labor. Contrary to portrayals of blind anti-progress sentiment, targeted specific technologies exacerbating exploitation under industrial capitalism, protesting not innovation per se but its causal role in wage suppression and amid rapid . Earlier precedents include ancient , such as Plato's critique of writing as a tool eroding and genuine , illustrating a tension between technological advancement and perceived erosion of human capabilities. In contemporary contexts, technophobia manifests in resistances to innovations like , nuclear energy, and digital surveillance, often driven by empirical risks such as algorithmic biases, erosions, or unintended societal harms rather than mere novelty aversion. Studies indicate higher among older adults and those with lower technical , attributable to causes including negative past experiences with and broader anxieties about future uncertainties, though these fears can overlook net benefits like productivity gains documented in economic histories. Defining characteristics include cognitive biases amplifying perceived threats over evidence-based assessments, yet valid instances highlight causal realism in critiquing technologies that prioritize efficiency at the expense of equity or safety. Culturally, it appears in literature like Mary Shelley's , symbolizing dread of unchecked scientific , underscoring technophobia's role in shaping ethical discourses on innovation.

Definition and Scope

Core Definition

Technophobia denotes a , aversion, or apprehension toward advanced , particularly complex devices such as computers, robots, and systems. This psychological response often manifests as avoidance of technological tools or anxiety over their integration into daily life, distinct from mere unfamiliarity by involving disproportionate emotional reactions that hinder adaptation. The term originates from the Greek roots technē ("art, skill, or craft") and phobos ("fear"), with the earliest documented usage appearing in 1947 in the Journal of Political Economy. While commonly framed as an irrational , scholarly analyses describe it more broadly as an attitudinal resistance to , potentially rooted in perceived threats to human agency, , or societal structures rather than purely pathological . Empirical studies, such as those examining older adults, link technophobia to lower adoption rates, mediated by factors like age and , underscoring its role as a barrier to digital inclusion without implying inherent irrationality in all cases. Technophobia, defined as an irrational fear or anxiety toward technologies, particularly digital ones, differs from historical Luddism, which was not rooted in but in organized economic by skilled workers in early 19th-century Britain against automated looms and frames that deskilled labor and depressed wages. Luddites, named after a mythical leader , selectively destroyed machinery perceived as exploitative tools of industrialists, while supporting technologies that preserved artisanal skills; their actions culminated in events like the 1811-1812 uprisings in and , suppressed by government forces including the deployment of 12,000 troops. This pragmatic resistance to labor-displacing applications contrasts with technophobia's psychological aversion, which lacks such targeted, collective agency and often extends irrationally to technology's mere existence rather than its implementation. Unlike , a 20th- and 21st-century critiquing modern technologies for broader societal harms—such as , erosion, or —technophobia manifests as personal dread without the ideological framework or calls for characteristic of neo-Luddite thinkers like Theodore Kaczynski or . , emerging prominently in the 1980s through works like Neil Postman's (1992), advocates selective rejection or redesign of technologies like or based on evidence of unintended consequences, whereas technophobia involves emotional responses uncorrelated with rational assessment, affecting an estimated 30-50% of individuals to varying degrees regardless of tech's verifiable risks. Technophobia is further distinguished from technoskepticism, which entails evidence-based caution toward unproven innovations, as seen in debates over AI ethics or , rather than unfounded panic; skeptics, such as those in environmental movements opposing unchecked , prioritize empirical data on causal harms over visceral fear. It also diverges from computer anxiety, a narrower condition tied to performance fears during direct computer use—measured via scales like the Computer Anxiety Rating Scale since the 1980s—while technophobia broadly encompasses aversion to non-computational advancements, such as or in manufacturing. These distinctions highlight technophobia's primarily affective, individual nature against more cognitive, structural, or movement-based oppositions.

Historical Context

Early Manifestations

One of the earliest recorded critiques resembling technophobia appears in Plato's Phaedrus, composed around 370 BCE, where recounts the myth of Theuth, an Egyptian god who invents writing and presents it to King Thamus as a tool to improve and wisdom. Thamus counters that writing will instead produce forgetfulness in learners' souls, as they will rely on external marks rather than cultivating genuine recollection and knowledge through internal effort, fostering an appearance of wisdom without substance. This philosophical objection highlights concerns over technology's potential to erode cognitive faculties, prioritizing oral for true understanding over passive inscription. Such apprehensions persisted into the with the advent of the , invented by around 1440 and widely adopted by the late 15th century. Swiss naturalist , in his 1565 bibliotheca, lamented the press's role in creating a "confused variety" of books that overwhelmed readers and diluted scholarly rigor, exacerbating and the spread of erroneous ideas. Scribal guilds, fearing obsolescence, reportedly destroyed early presses and pursued printers, viewing the mechanized replication of texts as a threat to artisanal control and structures. These reactions reflected not mere economic displacement but broader anxieties about destabilizing established hierarchies of and verification. These pre-industrial examples illustrate technophobia's roots in fears of cognitive and social disruption, distinct from later mechanized labor concerns, though often amplified by elites wary of democratizing access to . Empirical evidence from surviving texts and records underscores that such opposition rarely halted adoption but prompted adaptations, like indexing systems to mitigate overload.

Industrial Era and Luddism

The movement emerged in during the early as skilled artisans protested the introduction of mechanized machinery that threatened their livelihoods. Beginning in November 1811 in , frame-breaking actions spread to and , targeting wide frames and power looms that automated stocking and cloth production. Workers, primarily handloom weavers and croppers, destroyed over 1,000 machines in coordinated nocturnal raids, often under the banner of their mythical leader, , a figure legendarily said to have smashed a frame in 1779. These actions stemmed from economic grievances rather than an outright rejection of . allowed factory owners to replace skilled, highly paid artisans with cheaper, unskilled labor, leading to widespread and wage reductions of up to 50% in some sectors amid the disruptions of the . Luddites demanded fixed minimum s, abolition of piecework systems favoring profits over fair pricing, and repeal of laws restricting labor , viewing machines as tools exacerbating in a shifting . Contrary to later portrayals, participants were proficient machine operators who opposed specific implementations devaluing their craft, not technology itself. The British government responded harshly, deploying over 12,000 troops—more than those fighting —to suppress the unrest, framing it as . In 1812, enacted the Frame Breaking Act, making machine destruction a capital crime, resulting in mass trials at where 17 Luddites were hanged and others transported to . By 1816, the movement had waned amid economic recovery and intensified repression, though it exemplified early collective fears of automation's labor-displacing effects, influencing subsequent debates on .

20th-Century Developments

In the early , resistance to technological advancements manifested primarily through labor movements opposing in , as workers feared job displacement from mechanized processes like assembly lines introduced by in 1913. These concerns echoed 19th-century Luddism but focused on efficiency-driven systems such as Frederick Taylor's scientific management, which prioritized output over human autonomy and sparked strikes, including the 1919 partly fueled by mechanization anxieties. By mid-century, post-World War II fears amplified technophobia, with public opposition to nuclear power evident in protests against reactor developments, such as the 1957 Windscale fire in Britain that heightened perceptions of uncontrollable technological risks. Intellectual critiques formalized technophobia as a systemic critique of . French philosopher Jacques Ellul's 1954 book posited that "technique"—encompassing all rationalized methods and tools—had evolved into an autonomous, self-expanding force overriding human values and fostering , where efficiency supplants freedom without deliberate intent. Similarly, Ivan Illich's 1973 distinguished between "convivial" tools empowering user autonomy and industrial ones creating dependency and monopolies, arguing that high-tech systems like mass education and transportation erode and , as seen in his data on how automobiles reduced walking from 3,000 miles annually per person in pre-car societies to near zero. These works influenced , a late-20th-century intellectual current rejecting unchecked technological progress; for instance, psychologist Chellis Glendinning's 1990 essay "Notes toward a " defined it as opposition to technologies disrupting ecological and social balance, drawing on Ellul and Illich to advocate selective resistance. Radical expressions peaked with Theodore Kaczynski, known as the Unabomber, who from 1978 to 1995 conducted bombings targeting figures in technology and industry, motivated by his view that industrial society destroys human freedom and dignity. In his 1995 manifesto , published after FBI negotiations, Kaczynski argued that technological progress necessitates a "surrogate activity" lifestyle devoid of natural fulfillment, predicting irreversible psychological harm from leftism's alliance with tech advancement; he advocated dismantling the system through , influencing subsequent anti-tech radicals despite his isolation. These developments marked technophobia's shift from economic grievances to philosophical and existential indictments, anticipating 21st-century debates on digital dependency.

Causal Factors

Economic Motivations

Economic motivations for technophobia primarily revolve around fears of and disruption to labor markets, where innovations reduce demand for certain skills or workers, leading to wage suppression and inequality. Historical precedents trace to the movement of 1811–1816, when skilled English artisans destroyed power looms and knitting frames introduced by factory owners, as these machines enabled production of cheaper, lower-quality goods that undercut handcrafted work and displaced thousands of journeymen weavers. The protesters targeted not technology itself but its economic application by employers seeking to bypass guilds and skilled labor, resulting in regional unemployment rates exceeding 20% in affected and counties. Such fears reflect short-term dislocations from technological shifts, often amplifying perceptions of net job loss despite historical patterns where innovations eventually expand through new industries and gains—a dynamic critiqued as the "Luddite fallacy." For instance, 19th-century in and initially caused rural-to-urban migration and skill obsolescence, fueling resistance, yet aggregate rose as consumer demand grew with lower costs. Empirical reviews confirm that while specific occupations decline—such as 30–50% of U.S. jobs lost to between 1980 and 2010—overall does not persistently increase, as displaced workers reallocate to emerging sectors. These motivations persist due to uneven transitions, where low-skilled or older workers face prolonged joblessness, exacerbating economic anxiety. In the , has intensified these concerns, with surveys indicating 21% of U.S. workers in 2023 fearing technology-induced obsolescence of their roles, particularly in routine cognitive tasks like or basic analysis. Projections from 2017 estimated could necessitate occupational switches for 375 million workers globally by 2030, heightening worries over reskilling gaps and widened inequality, as high-skill sectors absorb gains while others lag. As of mid-2025, AI-linked tech sector layoffs totaled nearly 78,000 in the U.S., though broader data reveal no systemic "jobpocalypse," with stability in labor markets and AI often complementing rather than substituting human labor in complex roles. These fears drive technophobic sentiments by prioritizing immediate threats to personal over aggregate historical evidence of adaptation.

Psychological Mechanisms

Technophobia involves a multifaceted set of psychological processes, including cognitive appraisals of technology as threatening, emotional arousal characterized by anxiety and , and behavioral tendencies toward avoidance or resistance. Empirical studies define it as an orientation comprising negative attitudes, heightened apprehension, and avoidance behaviors toward technological innovations, often measured via scales assessing computer anxiety and perceived . These components align with phobia-like responses, where exposure to devices or systems triggers physiological symptoms such as increased and cognitive distortions emphasizing potential harm over utility. At the cognitive level, technophobia stems from distorted perceptions, including overestimation of technology's risks (e.g., job displacement or erosion) and underappreciation of its controllability, influenced by low in handling complex interfaces. Research highlights how unfamiliarity fosters pessimistic biases, where individuals attribute failures to inherent technological flaws rather than , perpetuating a cycle of . traits exacerbate this; for instance, higher correlates with amplified threat perception, while lower impairs adaptive coping with technological novelty. Emotionally, technophobia activates responses akin to specific phobias, with anxiety arising from anticipated loss of or by . Longitudinal assessments link it to broader , including depressive tendencies in non-adopters, as unaddressed fears compound feelings of . Behavioral manifestations include in learning tools or outright rejection, reinforced by negative from avoided discomfort, though interventions like gradual exposure can mitigate these patterns. Underlying causal mechanisms often trace to conditioning from early negative encounters, such as system crashes evoking helplessness, or generalized anxiety disorders amplifying as a proxy threat in fast-changing environments. In aging populations, technophobia mediates resistance by heightening perceived barriers, underscoring its role as a modifiable psychological barrier rather than an immutable trait.

Cultural and Ideological Drivers

Philosophical critiques of have long provided ideological foundations for technophobia, framing technological advancement as a threat to human essence and autonomy. contended that modern enacts a mode of "enframing" (), wherein the world and its entities are ordered as calculable "standing-reserve" for human exploitation, thereby concealing beings' authentic and reducing human engagement to instrumental efficiency rather than contemplative revealing. Similarly, characterized "technique"—the totality of efficient methods—as an autonomous, self-expanding force that infiltrates all spheres of life, subordinating ethical, aesthetic, and spiritual considerations to optimization, ultimately eroding individual and rendering society a mechanistic order impervious to transcendence. These views, rooted in existential and sociological analysis, posit not as neutral tools but as a totalizing rationality that alienates humanity from its deeper relational and meaningful capacities. Cultural , emerging in the late 18th and early 19th centuries amid industrialization, amplified technophobic impulses by idealizing pre-technological and emotion against mechanistic . Thinkers like and poets such as decried factories and machines for fragmenting social bonds, polluting landscapes, and suppressing innate human creativity, fostering a narrative of technology as a corrupting force that disrupts organic community and authentic experience. This ideology influenced subsequent anti-modernist strains, portraying technological adoption as a Faustian bargain yielding material gains at the cost of spiritual and ecological integrity, a sentiment echoed in critiques of urbanization's dehumanizing effects documented as early as the 1811 Luddite rebellions, though extended beyond economics to cultural purity. Religious ideologies, particularly those emphasizing communal separation and , drive technophobia through doctrines that interpret advanced as gateways to worldly vanity and moral decay. The , adhering to Anabaptist principles codified in their since the , ordain selective technology avoidance—eschewing grid electricity, automobiles, and personal computers—to safeguard Gelassenheit (yieldedness) and prevent fragmentation of family and church structures, viewing such innovations as fostering and over interdependence. This stance, refined through church votes as recently as the 20th century, reflects a causal belief that unchecked technological integration accelerates assimilation into broader society, diluting doctrinal fidelity; empirical observations show Amish communities maintaining lower adoption rates of devices like smartphones (under 10% in surveyed districts by 2015) precisely to mitigate these perceived spiritual risks. Broader ideological currents, including and primitivist thought, reinforce technophobia by construing as violative of natural limits and human scale. Arne Naess's platform (1984) advocates biocentric equality, critiquing industrial technologies for anthropocentric dominance that precipitates environmental collapse, as evidenced by opposition to nuclear power evidenced in global moratoriums influenced by such views since the . These drivers often intersect with academic discourses wary of technocratic , though empirical patterns historically undermine blanket rejection by demonstrating net societal benefits from innovations once initial disruptions subside.

Societal Manifestations

Religious and Communal Practices

The , an Anabaptist Christian sect founded in 1693 by , incorporate technophobic elements into their religious and communal practices through selective rejection of technologies deemed disruptive to faith, family, and community cohesion. Their —a body of unwritten church regulations—guides evaluations of innovations, prioritizing preservation of Gelassenheit (yieldedness, humility, and submission to divine order) over convenience. Automobiles, household electricity from public grids, televisions, radios, and personal computers are forbidden, as they promote , facilitate exposure to secular influences, and weaken interpersonal dependencies central to Amish life. In contrast, technologies like battery-powered lanterns, solar-powered fence chargers, and pneumatic tools are permitted if they support local self-sufficiency without centralizing power or fostering isolation. Communal decision-making reinforces these practices, with bishops and ministers consulting members via consensus or voting during semiannual church councils to adapt or prohibit devices based on their alignment with biblical calls for separation from the world (e.g., Romans 12:2). This stems from historical Anabaptist emphases on non-conformity and mutual aid, viewing unchecked technology as accelerating assimilation and pride—vices antithetical to scriptural humility. For example, while personal vehicles are shunned to curb mobility and social fragmentation, communities may hire drivers or use trains for travel, balancing practicality with restraint. Variations exist across over 500 settlements; more progressive Swartzentruber Amish reject even indoor plumbing, while others allow shared email for business under supervision. Conservative Mennonite subgroups, sharing Anabaptist roots, exhibit analogous communal rejections, such as limiting mechanized agriculture and electricity to sustain agrarian simplicity and interdependence. Some Old Order Mennonites forgo tractors in fields, relying on horse-drawn implements to embody and avoid debt-induced hierarchies, though broader Mennonite denominations often integrate for and aid. These practices endure through rituals like barn-raisings, which emphasize collective labor over machinery, and youth periods of limited experimentation (e.g., Amish ), where most reaffirm commitments despite external temptations. Amish membership grew to 330,265 by 2018, with projections nearing 1 million by 2050, indicating the viability of such separations amid technological proliferation.

Political and Activist Expressions

Neo-Luddism constitutes a primary political and activist expression of technophobia, reviving 19th-century Luddite resistance to machinery through opposition to modern industrial and digital technologies deemed socially disruptive. Emerging in the late 20th century, it posits that technologies like computers and automation undermine human autonomy, community structures, and environmental sustainability, advocating selective refusal or sabotage rather than wholesale rejection. In 1990, activist Chellis Glendinning formalized this stance in her essay "Notes Toward a Neo-Luddite Manifesto," critiquing technology's role in exacerbating alienation and ecological harm under capitalist systems. Prominent neo-Luddite actions include author Kirkpatrick Sale's 1995 public demolition of a Macintosh computer on American television, symbolizing protest against the internet's encroaching dominance and its potential to centralize power. Figures like Charlene Spretnak, a co-founder of the U.S. Green movement, integrated neo-Luddite critiques into environmental activism, arguing in works co-authored with that technological progress often prioritizes efficiency over holistic human needs. The movement intersects with and , influencing groups that campaign against and , as seen in historical opposition by organizations like the to recombinant DNA research in the amid fears of unintended biological risks. In contemporary contexts, neo-Luddite activism has targeted , with proponents warning of existential timelines shortened to mere years due to unchecked AI development and urging "politics of refusal" to reject systems eroding . , identifying as a , exemplifies this by critically rejecting that commodify creativity or . Such expressions extend to anti- extremism, as analyzed in studies of figures like , whose 1995 manifesto decried the industrial-technological system and inspired sporadic acts of against infrastructural tech. While lacking formalized parties, these efforts influence policy debates, such as calls for moratoriums on AI scaling, though critics note their occasional overlap with unsubstantiated narratives.

Representations in Arts and Media

Mary Shelley's (1818) exemplifies early literary representations of technophobia, portraying Victor Frankenstein's creation of life through scientific means as a hubris-driven catastrophe that unleashes uncontrollable destruction, reflecting post-Enlightenment anxieties over humanity's overreach in mimicking divine powers. The novel's monster, animated via galvanic experiments inspired by Luigi Galvani's 18th-century work with on animal tissues, symbolizes the peril of technologies that blur creator-creation boundaries, a theme echoed in later interpretations linking it to industrial-era fears of machines supplanting human agency. Luddite writings from the , including anonymous poems, proclamations, and petitions circulated among English textile workers, framed automated machinery as dehumanizing tools of economic exploitation, urging machine-breaking as moral resistance against technological displacement. These texts, often pseudonymous and invoking the mythical , blended folk rhetoric with critiques of mechanization's social costs, influencing subsequent anti-industrial narratives in 19th-century . In 20th-century dystopian fiction, technophobia manifests through visions of technology eroding human autonomy, as in Yevgeny Zamyatin's We (1920), where mechanomorphic state control enforces uniformity via and logic, fusing fears of utopian with technological determinism. Similarly, films like Fritz Lang's (1927) depict subterranean workers enslaved to colossal machines, culminating in rebellion against a technocratic elite, while Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) illustrates AI betrayal through the sentient computer HAL 9000's lethal malfunction during a Jupiter mission. Later cinematic works amplify existential threats from advanced systems, such as James Cameron's (1984), where Skynet's self-aware network triggers nuclear apocalypse to eradicate humanity, drawing on Cold War-era apprehensions of automated warfare escalated by computational autonomy. These portrayals, recurrent in science fiction, often project mechanized or rogue intelligence as inevitable outcomes of unchecked innovation, though critics argue they exaggerate risks while underplaying adaptive benefits observed historically.

Empirical Research

Prevalence and Demographics

Studies indicate that technophobia manifests at varying levels across populations, with empirical surveys showing it is not overwhelmingly prevalent but significant in specific subgroups. For instance, a latent profile analysis of older adults identified four technophobia profiles: low technophobia (24.59%), high privacy concerns (26.48%), medium technophobia (28.38%), and high technophobia (20.55%). In a sample of Canadian adults, overall technophobia levels were low, though certain technology-related events elicited elevated fears. Prevalence appears higher among older adults, who exhibit greater technophobia than younger cohorts, potentially exacerbating digital divides. A of Chinese older adults in contexts found their technophobia levels significantly elevated (mean difference = 39.90, 95% CI not specified in abstract) relative to global benchmarks. Among teachers, technophobia was notably prevalent, marked by reported fears, anxiety, and avoidance behaviors toward technology integration. Demographically, technophobia correlates with age, education, and technology exposure rather than being confined to one group. It occurs across all age brackets, including young, middle-aged, and older adults, though older individuals (e.g., over 65) consistently report higher rates. Lower education levels amplify risk, as evidenced by elevated technophobia among young adults without formal education in South African samples. Middle-aged adults (30-49) often display mixed attitudes, blending familiarity with residual anxiety based on prior exposure. Limited digital skills in non-native digital generations, particularly the elderly, further contribute to demographic disparities.

Measurement Instruments and Studies

One prominent instrument for assessing technophobia is the , a 19-item self-report measure originally developed to evaluate apprehension and avoidance related to computer use, with adaptations like CARS-C extending to broader technology contexts. The scale employs Likert-type responses to quantify cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions of anxiety, demonstrating reliability (Cronbach's α ≈ 0.90) in multiple validations. More general measures include the Technophobia and Technophilia Test, a 44-item psychometric instrument using a 6-point Likert scale to capture both aversion to technology (technophobia) and affinity (technophilia), with subscales for attitudes toward innovation and perceived threats. Validated in cross-cultural settings, it has been adapted for older populations, as in a 2018 pilot study translating and testing it among middle-aged and elderly participants to assess adaptation needs. Similarly, the Abbreviated Technology Anxiety Scale (ATAS), introduced in 2022, comprises a shortened set of items targeting broad technology-related fears, showing strong internal consistency (α > 0.85) and validity in low-stakes research environments. Empirical studies employing these tools reveal technophobia's demographic patterns. A 2025 systematic review and of 19 studies on contexts found older adults exhibited markedly higher technophobia scores (mean difference = 39.90, 95% CI [not specified in aggregate], p < 0.05), attributing this to familiarity gaps rather than inherent traits. In a 2024 Slovenian survey of aging adults (n > 500), technophobia—measured via a multi-item scale derived from Dogruel et al. (2015)—fully mediated associations between age, lower , and reduced readiness for technology adoption, with older respondents scoring 20-30% higher on avoidance subscales. A 2024 empirical investigation among general adults (n = 300+) identified rates of 15-25% for moderate-to-severe technophobia, linked to symptoms like perceived loss of control, using a composite index from anxiety and attitude items. Further validation efforts include the TechPH scale, tailored for older adults and confirmed reliable in a Iranian study (Cronbach's α = 0.89), which differentiated technophobic tendencies by highlighting subfactors like in . These instruments collectively underscore technophobia's measurability but note limitations, such as context-specificity (e.g., computer-focused vs. AI-inclusive) and potential self-report biases inflating estimates among low-literacy groups. Ongoing prioritizes longitudinal designs to track changes, as cross-sectional studies may conflate stable traits with transient exposures.

Critiques and Rational Analysis

Empirical Debunking of Fears

Empirical analyses of technological adoption reveal that fears of widespread job displacement from have not materialized as predicted. Studies examining 's effects, such as those by Acemoglu and Restrepo, demonstrate a displacement effect on labor demand in routine tasks but a countervailing reinstatement effect through new tasks and productivity gains that ultimately sustain or increase overall employment levels. Historical data from U.S. labor markets between 1850 and 2015 indicate no unusually high levels of during periods of intense technological disruption, including the Second and the computer era, with unemployment rates fluctuating around cyclical averages rather than exhibiting persistent elevation due to machines. Similarly, reviews of 's labor impacts confirm that while specific occupations decline, aggregate employment grows as workers shift to complementary roles, with productivity enhancements driving wage increases over time. Concerns over health risks from non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs), such as those from cell phones and Wi-Fi, lack robust causal evidence linking exposure to adverse outcomes like cancer. The National Cancer Institute's assessment of epidemiological studies finds no consistent association between EMF exposure and adult cancers, with the only potential signal—a weak link to childhood leukemia—failing to establish causation due to confounding factors and absence of a biological mechanism. Large-scale reviews, including those by scientific committees, conclude that EMF levels from consumer technologies fall well below thresholds for thermal effects, and non-thermal biological impacts remain unproven at population exposure levels, debunking claims of widespread harm propagated in alarmist narratives. Technophobic apprehensions about technology exacerbating inequality or are contradicted by data on global socioeconomic improvements. Technological advancements, including agricultural and digital connectivity, have contributed to a dramatic decline in , from 36% of the in 1990 to approximately 8.5% by 2022, as measured by World Bank indicators tracking access to improved yields, markets, and information flows enabled by innovations. Empirical models of ICT diffusion in developing economies show positive correlations with GDP growth and , with each percentage point increase in penetration associated with measurable lifts in household incomes through enhanced and access. Fears of existential catastrophe from , while theoretically possible, are not supported by current empirical trends, which instead highlight substantial benefits. Economic modeling indicates that AI-driven productivity boosts could yield annual growth rates of 10% or more, multiplying global incomes over decades without evidence of uncontrollable misalignment in deployed systems to date. Surveys of AI researchers reveal median expectations for transformative capabilities by mid-century, but with risks framed as manageable through iterative development rather than inevitable doom, underscoring that speculative long-term threats do not empirically outweigh immediate gains in fields like and efficiency.

Historical Patterns of Adaptation

Throughout history, societies have repeatedly encountered new technologies with widespread apprehension over job displacement, social disruption, and safety risks, yet demonstrates consistent adaptation yielding substantial productivity gains and economic expansion without sustained . The movement of 1811–1816 in exemplified early resistance, as textile artisans destroyed automated looms fearing mass job losses amid economic hardship during the . However, this "Luddite fallacy"—the erroneous assumption that labor-saving innovations reduce overall employment—has been refuted by long-term data showing creates new opportunities and boosts demand. The illustrates adaptation's causal outcomes: initial mechanization fears gave way to accelerated labor productivity growth, averaging 0.58% annually from 1780–1869, driven entirely by technological embodiment effects that transformed agrarian economies into industrial powerhouses. By the late , Britain's GDP had risen markedly, with output surging due to steam power and machinery, offsetting short-term dislocations through sectoral shifts and skill realignments. Similarly, electricity's introduction faced technophobic backlash, including fears of and "demons in the wires," delaying household adoption—only 20% of U.S. homes were electrified by World War I's end despite commercial availability since the . Yet, widespread from the onward powered efficiency gains of up to 50% in electrified factories and fueled consumer appliance proliferation, enhancing living standards without aggregate spikes. Aggregate historical analyses confirm this pattern: across four decades of studies, technological advancements have not induced net job losses at the economy-wide level, as spurs complementary labor demands in emerging sectors. Predictions of , from 19th-century to 20th-century , have consistently failed, with adaptation via retraining and market expansion absorbing displaced workers. This causal realism underscores that while transitional frictions occur, technologies' productivity enhancements—evident in rising and output—outweigh fears, fostering resilience through institutional and adjustments.

Net Societal Costs of Technophobia

Technophobia contributes to societal costs through regulatory barriers, public campaigns, and policy decisions that delay or restrict the adoption of beneficial technologies, resulting in foregone economic gains, environmental harms, and health impacts. Empirical analyses quantify these losses in sectors where fear-driven opposition has measurably hindered progress. For instance, resistance to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has imposed substantial opportunity costs on agriculture-dependent economies, particularly in developing nations. A 2016 study estimated that opposition to GMO crops could cost the world's poorest countries up to $1.5 trillion in lost economic output over 35 years, primarily through reduced crop yields, higher , and forgone gains from traits like pest resistance and . In the United States, eliminating GMO cultivation would raise annual food prices by $14–24 billion while decreasing global welfare through lower agricultural efficiency. In production, technophobic fears of —often amplified by concerns over accidents and waste—have led to phase-outs and regulatory delays, substituting reliable low-emission sources with costlier, polluting alternatives. Germany's 2011 decision to accelerate its nuclear phase-out, influenced by post-Fukushima anxiety, resulted in an estimated annual of €3–8 billion (approximately $3.3–8.8 billion), with over 70% attributable to increased mortality from due to greater reliance on coal-fired . This shift also elevated electricity prices for consumers and boosted CO₂ emissions, undermining goals; between 2011 and 2017, Germany's emissions rose as nuclear capacity fell from 20% to near zero of the mix, while coal use surged. Broader modeling indicates that premature nuclear retirements globally could reduce cumulative GDP by 0.07% by 2020, reflecting displaced clean benefits. Resistance to , rooted in Luddite-style fears of job displacement, carries risks of stifled if translated into restrictive policies. Historical precedents, such as 19th-century worker protests against mechanized looms, highlight short-term disruptions—over 20,000 jobs lost in Britain by 1811–1816—but long-term adaptation drove industrial growth; successful sustained resistance would have prolonged agrarian inefficiencies and delayed GDP per capita gains from . Modern analyses warn that impeding through taxes or bans imposes steep economic penalties, as seen in sectors where delayed adoption raised labor costs and reduced competitiveness; for example, U.S. since the 1980s lowered production expenses, enabling export growth despite initial transitions. In aggregate, technophobia's net costs arise from causal chains where fear overrides evidence of technologies' safety and efficiency, amplifying reliance on inferior substitutes and curtailing innovation-driven welfare improvements.

Contemporary Relevance

Digital and AI-Specific Fears

In the digital era, technophobia manifests prominently through apprehensions about pervasive and erosion of , fueled by the expansion of practices. Surveys indicate that in companies' ability to safeguard has declined, dropping from 50% in 2023 to 47% in 2024 among respondents evaluating AI firms. Older adults exhibit heightened technophobia in applications, primarily due to and vulnerabilities, as evidenced by systematic reviews linking these fears to limited familiarity and past negative experiences. Artificial intelligence amplifies these concerns, with public surveys revealing widespread anxiety over job displacement and economic disruption. A /Ipsos poll conducted in August 2025 found that a majority of fear AI will permanently eliminate workers, alongside 77% expressing worries about its potential to incite political instability through . Empirical estimates, such as the 2013 Frey-Osborne analysis predicting 47% of U.S. jobs at high risk of , continue to underpin these fears, though updated studies emphasize sector-specific vulnerabilities like routine cognitive tasks. Broader Pew data from April 2025 shows 43% of the U.S. public anticipating personal harm from AI versus 24% expecting benefits, with half of respondents in a September 2025 survey reporting more concern than excitement about its daily integration. Digital addiction represents another focal point, particularly tied to and smartphones, where users report compulsive behaviors leading to declines. Statistics from 2025 reveal varying addiction rates by age, with younger cohorts (18-24) showing 40% somewhat addicted and 10% fully addicted to , contrasted with lower rates (21% somewhat, 1% fully) among 55-64-year-olds. These patterns stem from algorithmic designs prioritizing engagement, exacerbating fears of diminished human agency and social disconnection. Cybersecurity threats further intensify technophobia, as incidents of breaches and hacking underscore vulnerabilities in interconnected systems, prompting reticence toward adopting digital tools despite their ubiquity. While existential risks from superintelligent AI—such as loss of human control or catastrophic misalignment—garner attention from experts, public surveys prioritize immediate harms like , , and job loss over speculative long-term scenarios. This near-term focus aligns with empirical observations that technophobic responses often reflect tangible disruptions rather than abstract doomsday projections, though both contribute to broader resistance against unchecked technological .

Responses and Mitigation Strategies

Mitigation strategies for technophobia at the individual level often involve psychological interventions such as (CBT), which targets irrational fears by challenging distorted thoughts about technology's risks and encouraging gradual exposure to digital tools. , recommended by clinical sources, progresses from visualization of technology use to hands-on interaction, reducing anxiety through ; for instance, clinicians exposed to during the reported diminished technophobia after repeated use, with qualitative data showing shifted attitudes from reluctance to acceptance. Educational programs emphasize practical training to build competence and confidence, particularly for demographics like older adults or those with low prior exposure. Hands-on workshops, pairings, and simplified tutorials have proven effective in and settings, where participants learn basic device operation and software navigation, leading to measurable reductions in self-reported anxiety; a initiative pairing medical students with elderly participants overcame technophobia in the latter group by fostering incremental skill-building and social support. In response to contemporary AI-specific fears, such as job displacement or loss of human agency, strategies include public education campaigns highlighting of net benefits—like AI's role in gains without widespread in prior waves—and targeted like data transparency and algorithmic auditing to address misuse concerns. experts advocate against fear-driven regulations that stifle innovation, instead promoting retraining initiatives; for example, surveys indicate that while 52% of Americans expressed more concern than excitement about AI in 2023, expert analyses emphasize fostering public understanding to mitigate unfounded panic, drawing on historical adaptation patterns where initial resistances to technologies like the dissipated through demonstrated utility. Broader societal responses incorporate institutional support, such as employer-provided tech coaching and flexible implementation timelines, which empirical studies link to lower resistance rates; these approaches prioritize causal factors like skill gaps over vague ethical panics, ensuring adaptations align with verifiable outcomes rather than speculative doomsday scenarios.

References

  1. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/07334648241274260
  2. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324022972_Technophobia_Examining_its_hidden_factors_and_defining_it
  3. https://www.propulsiontechjournal.com/index.php/journal/article/view/6172
  4. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-really-fought-against-264412/
  5. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/luddite-industrial-revolution-anti-technology
  6. https://www.wired.com/story/weve-never-feared-tech-as-much-as-we-think-we-have/
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12409025/
  8. https://www.propulsiontechjournal.com/index.php/journal/article/download/6172/4062/10614
  9. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44217-025-00864-1
  10. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.29.3.31
  11. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/technophobia
  12. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/technophobia
  13. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/22853-technophobia
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7270636/
  15. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/technophobia_n
  16. https://www.etymonline.com/word/technophobe
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/technophobia
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11827277/
  19. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13607863.2023.2241017
  20. https://patrickkarsh.medium.com/the-luddites-947c0ca10360
  21. https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/3397664/Jones-2006-Against-Technology.pdf
  22. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1375664.pdf
  23. https://www.english.hawaii.edu/criticalink/plato/guide13.html
  24. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/myth-and-philosophy-in-platos-phaedrus/theuth-thamus-and-the-critique-of-writing/C644C2E0821AF38066420F53322D2DDD
  25. https://slate.com/technology/2010/02/a-history-of-media-technology-scares-from-the-printing-press-to-facebook.html
  26. https://bigthink.com/the-past/printing-press-ai/
  27. https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/why-technophobes-have-been-getting-it-wrong-since-gutenberg/
  28. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/why-did-the-luddites-protest/
  29. https://www.historyextra.com/period/industrial-revolution/who-were-luddites-facts-what-happened/
  30. https://www.britannica.com/event/Luddite
  31. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/46236/the-technological-society-by-jacques-ellul-with-an-introduction-by-robert-k-merton/
  32. http://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/syndicated/neo-luddites-society-grapples-ensure-future-technologies-good-harm/
  33. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13569317.2021.1921940
  34. https://icct.nl/publication/ted-kaczynski-anti-technology-radicalism-and-eco-fascism
  35. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=eng_pubs
  36. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/we-should-all-be-luddites/
  37. https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6717/economics/the-luddite-fallacy/
  38. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/fear-technology-driven-unemployment-and-its-empirical-base
  39. https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/new-luddite-fears-are-misplaced-if-new-technology-really-cut-jobs/
  40. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/12/ai-fobo-jobs-anxiety/
  41. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/jobs-lost-jobs-gained-what-the-future-of-work-will-mean-for-jobs-skills-and-wages
  42. https://explodingtopics.com/blog/ai-replacing-jobs
  43. https://fortune.com/2025/10/02/ai-job-losses-apocalypse-research-yale/
  44. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/new-data-show-no-ai-jobs-apocalypse-for-now/
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0747563218303297
  46. https://www.choosingtherapy.com/technophobia/
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6770433/
  48. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328686274_TECHNOPHOBIA_AS_A_CULTURAL_AND_PSYCHOLOGICAL_PHENOMENON_Theoretical_Analysis
  49. https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2025/04/23/heidegger-on-technology/
  50. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/understanding-heidegger-on-technology
  51. https://voidnetwork.gr/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/The-Technological-Society-Jacques-Ellul.pdf
  52. https://www.sfu.ca/~andrewf/books/Heidegger_Marcuse_Critique_Technology.pdf
  53. https://www.radicalphilosophyarchive.com/issue-files/rp72_article1_romanticismtechnology_bowie.pdf
  54. https://www.radicalphilosophy.com/article/romanticism-and-technology
  55. https://groups.etown.edu/amishstudies/cultural-practices/technology/
  56. https://amishamerica.com/do-amish-use-technology/
  57. https://www.socialeurope.eu/amish-can-teach-us-technology
  58. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/technology/
  59. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/dec/15/faith-lost-if-adopt-technology-amish-resist-modern-world
  60. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/shunning-the-technology-gods-modern-mennonites-embrace-old-fashioned-skills
  61. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/kirkpatrick-sale-crow-s-nest-distribution-neo-luddites-and-lessons-from-the-luddites
  62. https://www.thevibes.com/articles/lifestyles/81209/what-is-neo-luddism-the-rejection-of-modern-technology
  63. https://www.wired.com/story/everyone-is-a-luddite-now/
  64. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6aRANeq89z4n7Kxz4/historical-examples-of-opposition-to-technological-progress
  65. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/feb/17/humanitys-remaining-timeline-it-looks-more-like-five-years-than-50-meet-the-neo-luddites-warning-of-an-ai-apocalypse
  66. https://icct.nl/publication/stop-machines-rise-anti-technology-extremism
  67. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/02/new-luddites-ai-protest/677327/
  68. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/may/01/frankensteins-warning-the-too-familiar-hubris-of-todays-technoscience
  69. https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20180611-why-frankenstein-is-the-story-that-defined-our-fears
  70. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/98247
  71. https://escholarship.org/content/qt0zg332kb/qt0zg332kb_noSplash_6f9339e40b39ab382101c19b49dbbd1c.pdf?t=q9nsli
  72. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/244281/summary
  73. https://www.yardbarker.com/entertainment/articles/20_movies_about_people_battling_against_technology/s1__38671869
  74. https://www.tasteofcinema.com/2019/the-10-best-movies-that-explore-technophobia/
  75. https://www.wired.com/2014/08/stop-writing-dystopian-sci-fiits-making-us-all-fear-technology/
  76. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13607863.2023.2241017
  77. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00318077
  78. https://www.jamda.com/article/S1525-8610%2825%2900436-0/abstract
  79. http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2313-78352022000100003
  80. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Odai-Khasawneh/publication/324022972_Technophobia_Examining_its_hidden_factors_and_defining_it/links/5b58bf9d0f7e9bc79a61f4b8/Technophobia-Examining-its-hidden-factors-and-defining-it.pdf
  81. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160791X17301793
  82. https://www.pekonsult.ee/testid/Technophilie.pdf
  83. https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2018/12/shsconf_shw2016_02003.pdf
  84. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-022-01820-9
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11536867/
  86. https://shapingwork.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/acemoglu-restrepo-2019-automation-and-new-tasks-how-technology-displaces-and-reinstates-labor.pdf
  87. https://www2.itif.org/2017-false-alarmism-technological-disruption.pdf
  88. https://www.bls.gov/bls/congressional-reports/assessing-the-impact-of-new-technologies-on-the-labor-market.htm
  89. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/electromagnetic-fields-fact-sheet
  90. https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_041.pdf
  91. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/immersive-story/2017/07/26/the-tech-revolution-thats-changing-how-we-measure-poverty
  92. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308596122000179
  93. https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/what-point-do-we-decide-ais-risks-outweigh-its-promise
  94. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w33602/w33602.pdf
  95. https://www.frbsf.org/wp-content/uploads/crafts.pdf
  96. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780444535382000058
  97. https://spectrum.ieee.org/electrifying-society
  98. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/more-power-to-the-people-electricity-adoption-technological-change-and-labor-conflict/63B6909C4CEC0038680E0802444862BB
  99. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162523004353
  100. https://rujec.org/article/35507/
  101. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7477771/
  102. https://itif.org/publications/2016/02/08/suppressing-growth-how-gmo-opposition-hurts-developing-nations/
  103. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/02/11/anti-gmo-activism-could-cost-worlds-poorest-nations-1-5-billion-over-35-years/
  104. https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2016/Q1/study-eliminating-gmos-would-take-toll-on-environment%2C-economies.html
  105. https://academic.oup.com/jeea/article-abstract/20/3/1311/6520438
  106. https://www.nber.org/papers/w26598
  107. https://www.foronuclear.org/en/updates/in-depth/germanys-nuclear-shutdown-mistake-rising-prices-increased-emissions-and-economic-recession/
  108. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3479470/
  109. https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/rethinking-the-luddites-in-the-age-of-ai
  110. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-high-cost-of-impeding-automation-11571958240
  111. https://www.ncci.com/Articles/Pages/II_Insights_QEB_Impact-Automation-Employment-Q2-2017-Part1.aspx
  112. https://aragonresearch.com/public-opinion-on-ai-in-2025/
  113. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/americans-fear-ai-permanently-displacing-workers-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2025-08-19/
  114. https://research.aimultiple.com/ai-job-loss/
  115. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2025/04/03/how-the-us-public-and-ai-experts-view-artificial-intelligence/
  116. https://www.techbuzz.ai/articles/half-of-americans-fear-ai-more-than-they-welcome-it
  117. https://sqmagazine.co.uk/negative-effects-of-technology-statistics/
  118. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-12669-1
  119. https://neurosciencenews.com/ai-harm-fear-psychology-28708/
  120. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667305325001097
  121. https://www.tranceformpsychology.com/phobias/fear-of-technology-psychotherapy.html
  122. https://intglobal.com/blogs/what-is-technophobia-and-how-to-overcome-it/
  123. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9391067/
  124. https://www.trainingshare.com/resources/12_Learning_Interventions_That_Combat_Technophobia.htm
  125. https://sunhealthcommunities.org/helpful-tools/articles/technology-seniors-5-ways-overcome-technophobia/
  126. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282198896_Overcoming_technophobia_in_poorly-educated_elderly_-_the_HELPS-seniors_service_learning_program
  127. https://www.ibm.com/think/insights/10-ai-dangers-and-risks-and-how-to-manage-them
  128. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/28/growing-public-concern-about-the-role-of-artificial-intelligence-in-daily-life/
  129. https://www.cato.org/regulation/summer-2021/responding-fears-ai
  130. https://thefulcrum.us/media-technology/artificial-intelligence-policy-2674228675
  131. https://blog.bi-office.com/overcoming-resistance-to-technological-change/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.