Psychological adaptation in the info-communication society: the revised version of the technology-related psychological consequences Questionnaire

The traditional focus of psychological studies of adaptation in the info-communication society is on problematic use or misuse (e.g., Bianchi, Phillips, 2005) and technology addiction (Griffiths, 2000, 2005). However even in the addiction studies, it remains clear that there are a plenty of technology-related psychological and social changes (e.g., in beliefs, expectations, personality, communication) that should be taken into account (How technology., 2009, Larkin et al., 2006, Byun et al., 2009, Tian et al., 2009). The behavioral consequences are sometimes too ambiguous to allow one to distinguish between adaptation disorder and benign or beneficial adaptation, which raises questions with respect to the qualitative analysis of the psychological experience (Griffiths, 2010, Madell, Muncher, 2004). Population studies of Internet use in the EU (Livingstone, Haddon, 2009, Livingstone, Helsper, 2008) and in Russia (Soldatova et al., 2013, Soldatova, Zotova, 2012) have demonstrated a clear need for a shift in attention from the likelihood of risks connected with Internet use to the psychological (e.g., emotions, coping etc.) and social (e.g., parental mediation) factors underlying reactions, feelings and behavior.The aim of this paper is to consider technology-related changes in psychological needs and boundaries that could affect personal adaptation to the info-communication society beyond and in interaction with problematic or "addictive" use. Based on the psychological model of the consequences of technology use (Emelin et al., 2012a), we have developed a revised version of the Technology-Related Psychological Consequences Questionnaire (Emelin et al., 2012b) and suggest some ways in which it may be applied to the psychological aspects of difficulty adapting to new technology.Psychological model of consequences of technology use: a framework for empirical studiesAccording to the model (Emelin et al., 2012a) there are technology-related psychological transformations that are typical for a population which can mediate subjective well-being, technology use and technology-related emotional and behavioral problems. One possible transformation is the perception that gadgets or a new technology are necessary or even "too necessary" for a person. This hypothesis is in concordance with the data (Walsh, White, 2007) that technology use is closely related to subjective appraisals of its controllability and the development of a technology-related identity (self-identity, similarity with the prototype, emotional appraisal of the prototype). A similar idea was suggested by L. Srivastava (2005) in the concept of personalization. One criteria of excessive use is when people al- low themselves to develop a mindset where personal gadgets (e.g., mobile phones) are indispensable and perceived as "always necessary". Another technology-related change involves one's perceived sphere of needs (e.g., Srivastava, 2005). Both technology and gadgets obtain some additional meaning for a person (e.g., "to have an expensive mobile phone" means "to look decent"), and the transformation of existing or creation of new needs (e.g., the need to own an impressive mobile phone). The third transformation was described by Marshall McLuhan (McLuhan, 1964) as a subjective extension of human boundaries. In the previous study, we suggested that a distinction be made between two aspects of this component. Due to a new technology, a person may reach and control many more objects and people thanearlier (boundaries extension) but has far more potential to be reachable by others(boundaries violation). Measurement of technology-related changes in needs and psychological boundariesIn accordance with the theoretical paradigm, methodological studies either focus on the measurement of the epidemiology of technology use, technology-related risks and factors that decrease them (Livingstone, Haddon, 2009) or on problematic use or technology addiction (Griffiths, 2000, Bianchi, Phillips, 2005, Rutland et al. …