A study published in the journal "Computers in Human Behavior" was conducted between 1992 and 1994 surveying first-year college students across various countries. The overall percentage of the 3,392 students who responded with high-level technophobic fears was 29%. In comparison, Japan had 58% high-level technophobes, India had 82%, and Mexico had 53%.

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

Technophobia (from Greek τέχνη "technē", "art, skill, craft" and φόβος "phobos", "fear") is the fear or dislike of advanced technology or complex devices, especially computers. Although there are numerous interpretations of technophobia, they seem to 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 related to cyberphobia and is the opposite of technophilia. Dr. Larry Rosen, research psychologist, computer educator, and professor at the California State University suggests that there are three dominant subcategories of technophobes- the "uncomfortable users", the "cognitive computerphobes", and "anxious computerphobes". 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 "Metropolis". Many of these works portray the darker side of technology as perceived by the technophobic. As technologies become increasingly complex and difficult to understand, people are more likely to harbor anxieties relating to their use of modern technologies.

Digital phobic is an informal phrase used to describe a reluctance to become fully immersed in the digital age for being fearful of how it might negatively change or alter everyday life.

The fast-paced development of the digital world in the twenty-first century has contributed to the digital divide becoming a very real problem for a segment of the population for whom a lack of education of, interest in, or access to digital devices has left them excluded from the technological world and fearful of its growing omnipresence.

Digital phobic is part of a growing dictionary of digital vocabulary exploring the social impact of the technological age. The phrase considers the fears associated with technological evolution and change, and acknowledges the possibility of exclusion as a result of a rising reliance on technology in day-to-day life.

Research shows that opposition to attitudinal change can gradually give way to acceptance with the passage of time. Attitudinal change towards acceptance may be a slow and even tedious experience for some teachers.

Cyberphobia is a concept introduced in 1980, described as a specific phobia expressed as "an irrational fear of or aversion to computers" or more generally, a fear and/or inability to learn about new technologies.

Some forms of cyberphobia may range from the more passive forms of technophobia of those who are indifferent toward cyberspace to the responses of those who see digital technology as a medium of intrusive surveillance; more extreme responses may involve anti-technological paranoia expressed by social movements that radically oppose ‘technological society’ and ‘the New World Order’.

There are different ways that someone could experience cyberphobia. Teachers may experience a form of cyberphobia if they are forced to change their way of teaching. Another way people may experience cyberphobia is if they feel that they are incompetent, or that the new technology is not needed to advance in life, or that they feel that they lack skills for the new age of technology. Another way people may experience cyberphobia is if they feel like they are going to lose control, or the new technology will affect their status in life.

Digital phobia presents a real and pressing problem in the modern world where technology has become a central and essential resource. Internet culture has developed to become a part of the fabric of everyday life and is now even considered part of the make-up of national identity with a country's internet use and digital footprint an important modern index for international comparison, often associated with development and modernity.

The consequences of non-participation in the digital world are far reaching, and can affect the economic, cultural, social, occupational and educational life of a non-user. For example, in 2009 Price Waterhouse Coopers estimated that UK households offline are missing out on savings of £560 a year which could be saved if shopping or paying for bills online. Furthermore, in the United States older people without internet access or the skills to make the most of it are considered a disadvantaged proportion of the population as, amongst other important resources, vital healthcare information and initiatives conducted online are unavailable to those not a part of the digital world.

Heightened fears of how technology may be affecting the human population stems from a, for some very logical, fear of how technology is adapting the world we live in and at the pace and price with which it is doing so. With such a significance placed on online participation, concerns about the role of the internet in everyday life are not unfounded and not exclusive to those who prefer to stay away from the internet, avoid certain activities online, or use the internet without enthusiasm and only as necessitated.

A survey conducted by security firm Avira identified 84% of people fear social networking sites will steal or misuse their personal information, demonstrating the net majority of internet users share, at least partially, in distrusting the digital world. Whilst many will, despite this fear, adopt cautious optimism and still use social networking as part of their everyday lives this high percentage serves to demonstrate that a fear significant enough for some to avoid readily using online and digital services is a fear shared by a large number of internet users.

Whilst some digital phobics have preferred to remain distanced from technology due to hypothetical concerns others have attempted to join in societal interest but find themselves unable to stay caught up with new technology or would like to see its progression halted as evolution of the digital world has reached new speeds. The 2013 Oxford Internet Survey recognizes this concern among UK users, identifying distinct categories of both non-users and ex-users of internet-based technology who, for a variety of reasons, have discontinued or refuse to access the online world. This is further supported by results from a 2013 survey of internet use in America which found 32% of non-internet users avoiding the online world because of finding the internet difficult or frustrating to use, being physically unable or worried about other issues such as viruses, threat of hacking or spam – a figure considerably higher than in earlier years.

Concern over the presence of a digital divide, whether locally or globally, is only exacerbated by the knowledge that access to many government and council services, job applications, and social and cultural resources are now largely internet based. Internet access has become a hurdle in contemporary society which, for those without the necessary desire to learn or knowledge of internet-based systems, can be difficult to navigate around, often resulting in key services and vital resources being less easily accessible, leaving non-users feeling isolated. Private and government campaigns to tackle this issue further demonstrate the severity and long-lasting impact of having a proportion of the population disinclined or disinterested in going online.

As the online world becomes saturated, device options for connecting to the internet vary and news of technological inventions goes viral the exponential growth of the technological world is only contributing towards a growing number of 'digital phobic' tech-users amongst the global population.

In response to a WHO call for papers at the 5th Paris Appeal Congress of Environmental Idiopathic Intolerance conference that took place in Belgium on the 18th of May, a report that was generally supportive quoted a number of international practitioners. This was provisionally accepted by the Spanish health ministry, and later found proven by a judge in the case of a plumber in the Province of Castellón

MCS is a diagnosis of exclusion, and the first step in diagnosing a potential MCS sufferer is to identify and treat all other conditions which are present and which often explain the reported symptoms. For example, depression, allergy, thyroid disorders, orthostatic syndromes, lupus, hypercalcemia, and anxiety need to be carefully evaluated and, if present, properly treated. The "gold standard" procedure for identifying a person who has MCS is to test response to the random introduction of chemicals the patient has self-identified as relevant. This may be done in a carefully designed challenge booth to eliminate the possibility of contaminants in the room. Chemicals and controls, sometimes called prompts, are introduced in a random method, usually scent-masked. The test subject does not know when a prompt is being given. Objective and subjective responses are measured. Objective measures, such as the galvanic skin response indicate psychological arousal, such as fear, anxiety, or anger. Subjective responses include patient self-reports. A diagnosis of MCS can only be justified when the subject cannot consciously distinguish between chemicals and controls, and when responses are consistently present with exposure to chemicals and consistently absent when prompted by a control.

A 1999 consensus statement recommends that MCS be diagnosed according to six standardized criteria:

1. Symptoms are reproducible with repeated (chemical) exposures

2. The condition has persisted for a significant period of time

3. Low levels of exposure (lower than previously or commonly tolerated) result in manifestations of the syndrome ("i.e." increased sensitivity)

4. The symptoms improve or resolve completely when the triggering chemicals are removed

5. Responses often occur to multiple chemically unrelated substances

6. Symptoms involve multiple-organ symptoms (runny nose, itchy eyes, headache, scratchy throat, ear ache, scalp pain, mental confusion or sleepiness, palpitations of the heart, upset stomach, nausea and/or diarrhea, abdominal cramping, aching joints).

The International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD), maintained by the World Health Organization, does not recognize multiple chemical sensitivity or environmental sensitivity as a valid diagnosis. The Australian Department of Health recognizes that sometimes debilitating symptoms are attributed to MCS but notes that diagnosis, treatment, and any underlying mechanism remain uncertain. The German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information recognizes MCS as a physical disease and is subsequentially recognized in Austria. The American Medical Association does not recognize MCS as an organic disease because of the lack of scientific evidence supporting a cause-and-effect relationship between very low level exposure and the symptoms of MCS. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, the California Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, and the International Society of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology also do not recognize MCS. The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) indicates that MCS is highly controversial and that there is insufficient scientific evidence to explain the relationship between the suggested causes of MCS and its symptoms. OSHA recommends evaluation by a physician knowledgeable of the symptoms presented.