INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025  
From Virtual Connections into Social Disconnections: The Paradox of  
Digital Intimacy  
Njeri Kiaritha1, Hesborn Chonge2, Ruth Okapi3  
United World College, Netherlands  
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.12110072  
Received: 26 November 2025; Accepted: 03 December 2025; Published: 09 December 2025  
ABSTRACT  
The digital era has redefined human interaction, creating unprecedented avenues for connectivity while  
simultaneously amplifying experiences of social disconnection. This paper interrogates the paradox of digital  
intimacy, exploring how virtual connections, while seemingly boundless—can erode the quality of face-to-face  
relationships and deepen loneliness. Drawing from sociological, psychological, and communication theories,  
the study situates digital connectivity within the contexts of youth and urban dwellers, groups often at the  
epicenter of rapid technological adoption. Using a mixed-methods approach, the research highlighted three  
central dimensions; the quality of virtual versus physical connections, the psychological and emotional  
implications of sustained digital engagement, and the emerging cultural shift in defining intimacy. The  
findings revealed that while digital platforms create inclusivity and instant accessibility, they often resulted in  
fragile social bonds, reduced empathy, and a decline in sustained offline relationships. The paper concludes  
with recommendations for cultivating balanced digital-social ecosystems that foster authentic connectedness in  
a hyperconnected world.  
Keyterms: Digital intimacy, Virtual connection, Social disconnection, Social Connectedness, Phone addiction,  
Social media.  
INTRODUCTION  
Human interaction is undergoing a seismic shift in the 21st century, primarily driven by advances in digital  
communication technologies. Social media platforms, instant messaging apps, and virtual communities now  
mediate significant aspects of interpersonal relationships, offering individuals the ability to connect across  
geographical, cultural, and temporal boundaries. This unprecedented access to others creates what many  
perceive as “intimacy without proximity.” Yet, beneath the surface lies a troubling paradox: while people are  
more digitally connected than ever, there is a simultaneous surge in reported loneliness, social fragmentation,  
and alienation (Turkle, 2017; Twenge, 2019).  
This tension forms the core of what this paper terms ‘the paradox of digital intimacy’. The phenomenon  
encapsulates the contradiction of experiencing closeness and distance, connection and isolation, inclusion and  
exclusion—all mediated by digital platforms. Youth and urban populations, who are often immersed in digital  
spaces, become especially vulnerable to this paradox. Their interactions reflect shifting norms in  
communication and intimacy, with online engagement increasingly replacing face-to-face connections,  
sometimes at the expense of relational depth and emotional well-being. Against this backdrop, this study  
examines how virtual connections contribute to social disconnections, unpacking the psychological, cultural,  
and social implications of this paradox. The paper also situates these experiences within a broader scholarly  
conversation about digital culture, intimacy, and the redefinition of human relationships.  
Objectives of the Study  
The study sought to:  
1. Examine the quality and depth of virtual connections compared to face-to-face interactions.  
2. Explore the psychological and emotional implications of sustained digital engagement.  
Page 801  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025  
3. Investigate the cultural and social shifts in how intimacy and connectedness are defined in the digital era.  
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK  
This paper is grounded in three complementary theoretical perspectives that help illuminate the paradox of  
digital intimacy. Taken together, these three perspectives highlight how digital technologies both enable and  
constrain intimacy. They reveal the paradoxical dynamics of contemporary social relationships, where virtual  
tools offer unprecedented opportunities for connection while simultaneously threatening the depth and stability  
of human bonds.  
The first is Media Richness Theory (Daft & Lengel, 1986), which argues that communication media differ in  
their capacity to transmit rich information. Face-to-face interaction is regarded as the richest form of  
communication because it allows for immediate feedback, the use of multiple cues, and the conveyance of  
emotional nuance. By contrast, many digital platforms, while efficient and accessible, lack these features, often  
resulting in misunderstandings, superficial exchanges, or weakened relational bonds.  
The second framework is Social Presence Theory (Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976), which emphasizes the  
extent to which a communication medium enables users to experience others as “real” during interaction.  
Although technologies such as video calls and real-time chats enhance a sense of presence more than text-  
based messaging, they still fall short of replicating the emotional intensity and authenticity of physical  
proximity. This helps explain why individuals may feel simultaneously connected and unsatisfied after digital  
interactions.  
Finally, Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1969; Hazan & Shaver, 1987) provides an important relational lens.  
Initially developed to explain infant-caregiver bonds, the theory has since been extended to adult relationships,  
underscoring the human need for secure, consistent, and emotionally fulfilling connections. In digital  
environments, however, the rapid, transient, and often curated nature of interactions can undermine these  
secure attachments, fostering insecurity, dependence, or even disconnection.  
LITERATURE REVIEW  
The paradox of digital intimacy has become a focal point of interdisciplinary scholarship, drawing attention  
from sociology, psychology, communication studies, and cultural studies. This review synthesizes theoretical  
perspectives and empirical research on digital connectivity, loneliness, and social fragmentation. It highlights  
both the promises and pitfalls of virtual connections, particularly in shaping human intimacy and social  
belonging.  
Scholars have increasingly observed that digital platforms create an illusion of closeness while masking  
underlying social fragmentation. Turkle (2017) describes this as being “alone together”, the state where  
individuals feel surrounded by virtual connections yet deprived of genuine relational fulfillment. Social media  
networks such as Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp facilitate frequent micro-interactions—likes,  
comments, and short messages—that simulate connection but rarely cultivate depth (Hampton, 2016). Boyd  
(2014) adds that digital intimacy often thrives on visibility rather than vulnerability, with online platforms  
encouraging curated self-presentations that hinder authentic emotional exchange. This trend suggests that  
while connectivity expands, intimacy quality diminishes, reinforcing the paradox central to this study.  
A striking body of research points to rising loneliness despite increased connectivity. Holt-Lunstad et al.  
(2015) demonstrate that loneliness poses health risks comparable to smoking and obesity, while Twenge et al.  
(2019) associate heavy social media use with higher rates of depression and loneliness among adolescents.  
Paradoxically, youth—who are most digitally connected—report some of the highest levels of isolation. In  
urban settings, where digital adoption is rapid, individuals often substitute physical companionship with virtual  
interactions, resulting in what Klinenberg (2018) calls “social autarky”—the condition of living alone together,  
even in densely populated areas.  
Digital spaces are also reshaping cultural definitions of intimacy. Baym (2015) notes that digital technologies  
encourage new forms of relational maintenance, such as constant texting or emoji-based expressions of  
Page 802  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025  
affection. While these forms extend connection across distance, they risk diluting traditional markers of  
intimacy, such as physical presence, shared rituals, and embodied affection. Giddens ’(1992) concept of “pure  
relationships”—ties sustained only as long as they provide satisfaction—finds new relevance in online  
contexts, where relationships are easily initiated and terminated with a click. This fluidity reflects cultural  
shifts in the valuation of commitment and permanence in interpersonal ties.  
Beyond sociocultural shifts, psychological implications of digital intimacy are increasingly evident. Przybylski  
and Weinstein (2013) identify the “fear of missing out” (FOMO) as a driver of compulsive digital engagement,  
often linked to anxiety and reduced life satisfaction. Similarly, research by Andreassen et al. (2017) associates  
problematic social media use with addictive behaviors, which disrupt emotional well-being. Digital intimacy  
can also foster dependency. Studies suggest that over-reliance on online validation (through likes, shares, and  
comments) contributes to fragile self-esteem, particularly among adolescents and young adults (Valkenburg et  
al., 2021). These dynamics underscore the fragility of digital-based connections and their limited capacity to  
sustain secure psychological attachment.  
Comparative studies consistently highlight qualitative differences between digital and physical interactions.  
Reis et al. (2018) demonstrate that face-to-face communication fosters stronger empathy, nonverbal resonance,  
and shared emotional regulation—features often absent in digital encounters. Nonverbal cues such as tone, eye  
contact, and physical gestures provide relational richness that digital media cannot fully replicate (Walther,  
2011). Moreover, research on digital learning communities (Hrastinski, 2009) suggests that while online  
forums enable collaboration, they often lack the immediacy and bonding present in physical classrooms. Such  
findings reinforce the view that while digital platforms broaden access, they cannot substitute the embodied  
experience of physical intimacy.  
Despite concerns, some scholars emphasize the empowering aspects of digital connections. Wellman and  
Rainie (2012) argue that online platforms foster “networked individualism,” enabling individuals to maintain  
diverse weak ties across multiple contexts. For marginalized groups, digital connectivity provides inclusive  
spaces that might not be available offline (Graham, 2014). This perspective tempers the narrative of digital  
disconnection by underscoring contexts where virtual intimacy strengthens, rather than undermines, social  
belonging. The paradox, then, lies not in the absence of intimacy, but in its reconfiguration—where inclusivity  
may expand even as depth contracts.  
These studies reveal a paradoxical dynamic: digital platforms simultaneously connect and fragment, empower  
and isolate, expand networks while weakening bonds. The paradox is most visible in contexts where  
individuals rely heavily on digital platforms for emotional support, often at the cost of embodied, enduring,  
and empathic ties. This literature underscores the urgency of interrogating how virtual connections evolve into  
social disconnections, especially among youth and urban populations. By situating these findings within  
broader theories of communication, attachment, and social presence, the current study aims to deepen  
understanding of this paradox and propose pathways toward more balanced and authentic connectedness.  
METHODOLOGY  
This study adopted a mixed-methods design, integrating both qualitative and quantitative approaches in order  
to capture the complexity of the paradox of digital intimacy. A mixed design was particularly appropriate  
because digital connectivity was examined both in measurable terms, such as time spent on platforms or the  
number of online contacts and in experiential terms, including feelings of loneliness and perceptions of  
intimacy. The quantitative strand involved the administration of surveys to assess levels of digital engagement,  
loneliness, empathy, and perceived social support. The qualitative strand included semi-structured interviews,  
focus group discussions, and participant observation to provide deeper insight into lived experiences, personal  
meanings, and coping strategies related to digital intimacy. Findings from both strands were integrated during  
interpretation so as to generate a holistic understanding of how virtual connections relate to social  
disconnections.  
The study focused on urban youth (13–24 years) and young adults (25–40 years) living in Kenya. For the  
quantitative component, a sample of 300 participants were targeted, comprising 150 youth and 150 young  
Page 803  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025  
adults. Stratified random sampling was used to ensure representation across socio-economic backgrounds. For  
the qualitative component, 60 participants (30 youth and 30 adults) were selected through purposive sampling  
to capture diversity in digital habits, gender, and occupation.  
The primary quantitative tool was structured survey questionnaire which assesed patterns of digital  
engagement, including hours spent online, preferred platforms, and types of usage, while incorporating  
standardized scales, namely: the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell, 1996), and the Interpersonal Reactivity  
Index (Davis, 1983) measuring empathy, and the Social Connectedness Scale (Lee & Robbins, 1995). In  
addition, participants will be asked to maintain seven-day usage diaries in which they log the amount of time  
spent online, the purposes of their engagement, and any associated emotional reflections. The qualitative  
strand employed multiple tools. Semi-structured interviews explored participants ’experiences of digital  
intimacy, perceptions of its benefits, and perceived costs of virtual communication. In addition, focus group  
discussions were conducted with six groups of 8–10 participants each. The qualitative strand involved  
participant observation of selected WhatsApp groups and Instagram communities. Field notes documented  
communication patterns, frequency of engagement, and emotional tone within these digital spaces.  
For the quantitative data, descriptive statistics such as means and frequencies were computed to profile digital  
use. Correlation analysis was employed to explore the relationships between digital engagement, loneliness,  
and empathy, while regression analysis will be used to test the predictive value of online behaviors on  
indicators of social disconnection. Qualitative data was analyzed through thematic analysis following Braun  
and Clarke’s (2006) framework. Coding categories included, among others, illusion of intimacy, screen-  
induced isolation, phubbing, and adaptive technology use.  
Ethical Considerations  
The study adhered to strict ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, with  
parental consent sought for minors under the age of 18. Anonymity was ensured through the use of  
pseudonyms, and sensitive handling of emotional disclosures was prioritized, including referrals to  
professional support where necessary.  
RESULTS  
The findings are presented according to the three main objectives of the study. Data from surveys, interviews,  
focus groups, and observations were integrated to provide a comprehensive understanding of the paradox of  
digital intimacy.  
Quality and depth of virtual connections compared to face-to-face interactions  
The survey findings revealed a clear generational difference in patterns of digital engagement. Youth between  
the ages of 13 and 24 reported an average of 6.2 hours of daily screen time, considerably higher than the 4.5  
hours reported by adults aged 25 to 40. For many participants, digital interaction had become the main channel  
for social engagement. Indeed, nearly two-thirds of youth (64%) and almost half of adults (47%)  
acknowledged that online communication served as their primary form of interaction with others.  
Table 1. Daily Screen Time and Online Communication Dependence  
Group  
Average Screen Time (hrs)  
Online as Primary Interaction (%)  
6.2  
4.5  
64  
47  
Youth  
Adults  
Page 804  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025  
Platform use further reflected the centrality of digital spaces in e veryday life. WhatsApp emerged as the  
dominant platform for both groups, with 82% of youth and 90% of adults reporting regular use. Among  
younger participants, however, visual and entertainment-driven platforms played a more prominent role, with  
72% engaging with Instagram and 65% with TikTok on a daily basis.  
Table 2: Top Platforms Used by Youth and Adults  
Platform  
Instagram  
TikTok  
Youth (%)  
Adults (%)  
72  
72  
65  
82  
65  
90  
WhatsApp  
While the quantitative data confirmed the heavy reliance on digital platforms, qualitative accounts shed light  
on the lived experience behind these statistics. Many youth described online connections as “convenient but  
shallow,” expressing that digital spaces often failed to capture the authenticity of in-person relationships. As  
one 19-year-old explained, “Friends online don’t really know the real me,” while another added, “It’s easy to  
chat, but when we meet face-to-face, it feels awkward” (Youth, 22).  
Adults, by contrast, emphasized the tension between professional and personal spheres of communication. A  
32-year-old participant admitted, “By the time I put away my laptop, I have no energy left for real  
conversations,” while another observed, “I talk to clients all day on WhatsApp, but my partner says I hardly  
talk at home” (Adult, 28). These reflections highlight how digital interactions, while indispensable for work  
and efficiency, can inadvertently erode opportunities for deeper personal engagement.  
The results illustrated the paradox of digital connectivity: virtual platforms have become central to social life,  
yet both youth and adults recognize their limitations in fostering depth, authenticity, and emotional fulfillment.  
Psychological and Emotional Implications of Sustained Digital Engagement.  
The findings reveal that sustained engagement with digital platforms has significant psychological and  
emotional consequences. Results from the UCLA Loneliness Scale indicated that more than half of youth  
(58%) and 41% of adults fell within the moderate-to-high loneliness range, pointing to a substantial burden of  
isolation despite constant online connectivity. Measures of empathy, using the Interpersonal Reactivity Index,  
further revealed that heavy digital users consistently recorded lower empathy scores compared to moderate  
users, a difference that was statistically significant (p < .05). Social confidence also appeared compromised,  
with 53% of youth admitting they felt “less confident” initiating face-to-face conversations than starting online  
chats.  
Table 3: Indicators of Loneliness, Empathy, and Social Skills  
Measure  
Youth (%)  
Adults (%)  
Loneliness (moderate-high)  
Lower empathy among high digital users  
Less confident initiating face-to-face (%)  
58  
41  
Yes  
53  
Yes  
—
Page 805  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025  
The quantitative results were reinforced by rich qualitative narratives that illuminated how digital interactions  
create a sense of “illusory connection.” For example, a 20-year-old reflected, “Sometimes I scroll for hours. It  
feels like I’m with people, but then I realize I’m just alone in my room.” Similarly, an 18-year-old explained,  
“Even when I’m with friends, everyone is on their phone—it’s like we’re together but not really.” Such  
accounts highlight how virtual presence often substitutes—but does not fully replace—meaningful social  
contact. Adults, meanwhile, described the toll of digital reliance on their interpersonal competence. One 27-  
year-old observed, “I notice I avoid eye contact in meetings because I’m more used to typing my feelings than  
saying them.” Others emphasized the disruptive nature of phubbing—checking one’s phone during in-person  
interactions. A 34-year-old participant described its emotional sting: “My husband checks his phone even  
when I’m talking. It makes me feel invisible.”  
These findings underscore the paradoxical role of digital platforms: while they create avenues for constant  
connection, they also intensify loneliness, diminish empathy, and weaken social confidence. The result is a  
cycle where individuals feel superficially connected but remain emotionally unfulfilled, with interpersonal  
skills increasingly compromised by reliance on mediated communication.  
Cultural and Social Shifts in Defining Intimacy and Connectedness in the Digital Era  
The study revealed significant cultural and social shifts in how intimacy and connectedness are being redefined  
in the digital age. Patterns of disconnection were widespread, with 71% of participants reporting weekly  
experiences of Zoom fatigue. Family spaces, traditionally sites of bonding, were also disrupted—62% of  
respondents admitted to checking their phones during meals. The impact of such behaviors was evident, as  
phubbing demonstrated a negative correlation with relationship satisfaction (r = –.42). Among youth, 45%  
confessed that exposure to curated posts on social media often triggered feelings of envy and comparison,  
underscoring the emotional costs of digital comparison culture.  
Table 4: Patterns of Digital Disconnection  
Measure  
Youth (%)  
Adults (%)  
71  
71  
Zoom fatigue (weekly)  
Checking phones during meals  
Envy/comparison from social media  
62  
45  
62  
45  
Participants ’accounts vividly illustrated these patterns. One adult observed, “Even in church, people are on  
their phones—it’s like phones come before people” (Adult, 29), while a 21-year-old reflected, “Scrolling  
Instagram makes me feel like everyone’s life is better than mine.” These testimonies underscore the shifting  
norms, where devices frequently intrude upon spaces once reserved for undistracted presence and connection.  
At the same time, the study also highlighted emerging adaptive practices aimed at restoring balance. Several  
participants described efforts to reclaim offline intimacy by setting boundaries around device use. An adult  
participant explained, “We started a rule: no phones at dinner. Now we actually talk as a family” (Adult, 35).  
Similarly, a young adult reported, “On Sundays I switch off my phone—it feels refreshing, like I can breathe  
again” (Youth, 24). Hybrid practices were also observed, particularly among youth who combine online and  
offline interactions: “Gaming with my friends online is fun, but we combine it with meeting up. That’s when it  
feels real” (Youth, 17).  
These findings illustrate the dual reality of cultural and social redefinition in the digital era. On the one hand,  
constant connectivity has blurred the boundaries between togetherness and distraction, fostering fatigue,  
comparison, and relational strain. On the other hand, intentional practices such as digital detoxes, phone-free  
Page 806  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025  
zones, and hybrid engagements are reshaping intimacy by creating spaces where authentic, meaningful  
connection can thrive alongside technology.  
DISCUSSION  
The findings of this study highlight the paradoxical nature of digital intimacy: individuals are increasingly  
engaged in virtual connections yet simultaneously experience heightened loneliness, reduced empathy, and  
weakened social skills. This aligns with earlier scholarship that cautions against the over-romanticization of  
digital connectivity (Turkle, 2017; Twenge, 2019). Participants ’accounts of digital communication as  
“convenient but shallow” support Turkle’s (2017) thesis of being “alone together.” Quantitative data showing  
that more than half of youth rely primarily on online communication resonates with Boyd’s (2014) observation  
that digital culture prioritizes curated visibility over authentic vulnerability. Thus, digital connections may  
provide breadth but not depth, confirming that virtual intimacy often substitutes rather than complements face-  
to-face relationships.  
The strong correlation between heavy digital engagement and loneliness reinforces Twenge et al.’s (2019)  
claim that adolescents and young adults are particularly vulnerable to digital disconnection. The higher  
loneliness scores in youth echo Klinenberg’s (2018) idea of “social autarky,” where individuals paradoxically  
feel isolated despite being hyper-connected. This suggests that digital engagement does not resolve the human  
need for deep emotional bonds. Lower empathy scores among heavy users support the Social Identity Model  
of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE), which posits that anonymity and depersonalization in online spaces reduce  
authentic emotional engagement (Postmes et al., 2001). Reports of difficulties in maintaining eye contact and  
handling conflict also validate research by Uhls et al. (2014), who found that adolescents immersed in screens  
exhibit weaker nonverbal and conflict-resolution skills. These results underscore how digital intimacy  
reconfigures emotional and social competencies.  
Phubbing emerged as a recurrent theme, eroding family and peer relationships. This finding corroborates  
Roberts and David (2016), who linked partner phubbing to lower relationship satisfaction. In the current study,  
phubbing correlated negatively with relationship quality (r = –.42), showing how device prioritization  
interrupts emotional presence. This supports Ecological Techno-Subsystem Theory, which explains how  
technologies infiltrate family systems and weaken emotional bonds (Livingstone & Blum-Ross, 2020).  
The high prevalence of “Zoom fatigue” echoes Bailenson’s (2021) theory of nonverbal overload, where  
constant video-mediated communication strains cognitive and emotional resources. Participants ’reports of  
exhaustion from video calls confirm that digital communication cannot replicate the subtle richness of in-  
person interaction (Reis et al., 2018).  
Despite risks, adaptive uses of technology emerged, such as digital detox practices, phone-free zones, and  
hybrid platforms (e.g., AR gaming). These strategies resonate with Baym’s (2015) argument that digital tools  
can enhance relational life when consciously managed. They also align with Wellman and Rainie’s (2012)  
concept of networked individualism, which highlights the empowering role of digital networks when  
integrated with offline connection.  
CONCLUSION  
This study reveals the paradox of digital intimacy: while technology expands opportunities for connection, it  
simultaneously erodes the depth, quality, and authenticity of relationships. The findings showed that heavy  
reliance on digital communication is associated with increased loneliness, lower empathy, reduced social  
competence, and strained relationships—particularly through phenomena such as phubbing and Zoom fatigue.  
Yet, adaptive strategies like digital detox and hybrid engagements suggest that technology is not inherently  
alienating; rather, its impact depends on patterns of use, cultural contexts, and intentionality. Digital  
connections provide breadth but often lack the depth that sustains meaningful human bonds. The paradox lies  
in the fact that the very platforms designed to bring people closer may, when uncritically consumed, push them  
further apart.  
Page 807  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025  
RECOMMENDATIONS  
The findings of this study underscore the need for more intentional approaches to digital engagement in order  
to preserve depth, empathy, and authenticity in human connections. For young people, educational institutions  
should integrate programs that enhance social skills, particularly in face-to-face communication, conflict  
resolution, and empathy building. This could take the form of workshops, mentorship programs, or curriculum  
enhancements that promote active listening and interpersonal confidence beyond the screen. Families, too, play  
a crucial role in moderating digital habits. Establishing device-free times—such as during meals or  
weekends—can restore opportunities for meaningful conversation and shared experiences. Parents and  
guardians are encouraged to model balanced technology use by practicing the very habits they wish their  
children to adopt.  
Employers and organizations should acknowledge the toll of excessive digital engagement, especially in  
professional environments where virtual communication dominates. Introducing flexible communication  
policies, encouraging screen breaks, and offering hybrid opportunities for team interaction can help employees  
balance efficiency with psychological well-being. At the societal level, community initiatives that blend online  
and offline engagement can provide healthier models of connection. For example, digital platforms might be  
leveraged to organize in-person meetups, creative collaborations, or service activities that extend beyond the  
virtual space. Public campaigns can also raise awareness of the psychological implications of excessive digital  
dependence while promoting mindful and purposeful use of technology. Finally, individuals themselves must  
take ownership of their digital habits by cultivating self-regulation strategies such as digital detox periods,  
mindfulness practices, and conscious prioritization of in-person interaction. When embraced collectively—at  
the personal, familial, institutional, and societal levels—these practices have the potential to transform virtual  
connectivity from a source of disconnection into a tool for balanced, authentic, and enduring relationships.  
REFERENCES  
1. Andreassen, C. S., Pallesen, S., & Griffiths, M. D. (2017). The relationship between addictive use of  
social media, narcissism, and self-esteem: Findings from a large national survey. Addictive Behaviors,  
64, 287–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.03.006  
2. Bailenson, J. N. (2021). Nonverbal overload: A theoretical argument for the causes of Zoom fatigue.  
Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000030  
3. Baym, N. K. (2015). Personal connections in the digital age (2nd ed.). Polity Press.  
4. Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press.  
5. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.  
6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in  
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa  
7. Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and  
structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554  
8. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional  
approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-  
3514.44.1.113  
9. Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love, and eroticism in modern societies.  
Stanford University Press.  
10. Graham, M. (2014). Internet geographies: Data shadows and digital divisions of labour. In M. Graham &  
W. H. Dutton (Eds.), Society and the internet: How networks of information and communication are  
changing our lives (pp. 99–116). Oxford University Press.  
11. Hampton, K. N. (2016). Persistent and pervasive community: New communication technologies and the  
future of community. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(1), 101–124.  
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764215601714  
12. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of  
Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511  
Page 808  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025  
13. Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social  
isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science,  
10(2), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352  
14. Hrastinski, S. (2009). A theory of online learning as online participation. Computers & Education, 52(1),  
78–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.009  
15. Klinenberg, E. (2018). Palaces for the people: How social infrastructure can help fight inequality,  
polarization, and the decline of civic life. Crown.  
16. Lee, R. M., & Robbins, S. B. (1995). Measuring belongingness: The Social Connectedness and the  
Social Assurance Scales. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(2), 232–241.  
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.42.2.232  
17. Livingstone, S., & Blum-Ross, A. (2020). Parenting for a digital future: How hopes and fears about  
technology shape children’s lives. Oxford University Press.  
18. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2001). Social identity, normative content, and “deindividuation” in  
computer-mediated groups. In R. Spears & P. J. Kalbfleisch (Eds.), Communication and group life (pp.  
141–163). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  
19. Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2013). Can you connect with me now? How the presence of mobile  
communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality. Journal of Social and Personal  
Relationships, 30(3), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407512453827  
20. Reis, H. T., O’Keefe, S. D., & Lane, R. D. (2018). Fun is more fun when others are involved. Journal of  
Positive Psychology, 13(3), 258–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2017.1291853  
21. Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2016). My life has become a major distraction from my cell phone:  
Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners. Computers in Human Behavior,  
54, 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.058  
22. Russell, D. W. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure.  
Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(1), 20–40. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2  
23. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. Wiley.  
24. Turkle, S. (2017). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic  
Books.  
25. Twenge, J. M. (2019). iGen: Why today’s super-connected kids are growing up less rebellious, more  
tolerant, less happy—and completely unprepared for adulthood. Atria Books.  
26. Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E., Rogers, M. L., & Martin, G. N. (2019). Increases in depressive symptoms,  
suicide-related outcomes, and suicide rates among U.S. adolescents after 2010 and links to increased  
new media screen time. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(2), 119–133.  
https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000410  
27. Uhls, Y. T., Michikyan, M., Morris, J., Garcia, D., Small, G. W., Zgourou, E., & Greenfield, P. M.  
(2014). Five days at outdoor education camp without screens improves preteen skills with nonverbal  
emotion cues. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 387–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.036  
28. Valkenburg, P. M., Beyens, I., Pouwels, J. L., van Driel, I. I., & Keijsers, L. (2021). Social media use and  
adolescents’ self-esteem: Heading for a person-specific media effects paradigm. Journal of  
Communication, 71(1), 56–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaa039  
29. Walther, J. B. (2011). Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations. In M.  
L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), The handbook of interpersonal communication (4th ed., pp. 443–479).  
Sage.  
30. Wellman, B., & Rainie, L. (2012). Networked: The new social operating system. MIT Press.  
Page 809  
www.rsisinternational.org