Digital risks and digital security through the eyes of different generations: qualitative investigation experience


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The paper analyzes the issue of digital risks and digital security in the perception of generation Z and the reform generation, which is relevant in terms of different speeds of adaptation to digitalization processes among representatives of different cohorts. The authors identify, classify and describe these risks both from a theoretical position and in the context of perception by respondents. The paper describes the results of the study conducted by the technique of semi-structured interviews involving six focus groups with the participation of 37 respondents – representatives of the so-called reform generation and generation Z (digital generation). The purpose of the study is to identify the characteristics of the perception of digital risks and strategies for adapting to them among representatives of generation Z and the reform generation. As a common for all generations result, the authors propose a risk perception rating, which mainly emphasizes economic risks, risks related to the confidential information security, personal risks, and issues of surveillance on the Internet. The risk of losing control over personal and financial information on the Internet is considered the most dangerous one. Both generations refer technocratic strategies to the strategies for adapting to these risks. At the same time, the main conclusion concerns the degree of freedom in the implementation of communication on the Internet: generation Z is not afraid to communicate freely and implement its activities on the Internet and the reform generation representatives often prefer to limit their activity.

About the authors

Aleksandr Markovich Rikel

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow

Author for correspondence.
Email: a.m.rikel@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6940-4244

PhD (Psychology), assistant professor of the Department of Social Psychology of the Faculty of Psychology

Russian Federation

Yuliya Andreevna Starostina

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow

Email: star-red@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0911-5800

PhD (Psychology), 2nd category psychologist of the Department of Developmental Psychology of the Faculty of Psychology

Russian Federation

References

  1. Pishchik V.I. Value measurements of generations through actualized fears. Sotsialnaya psikhologiya i obshchestvo, 2019, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 67–81. doi: 10.17759/sps.2019100206.
  2. Radaev V.V. The divide among the millennial generation: historical and empirical justifications (part one). Sotsiologicheskiy zhurnal, 2020, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 30–63. doi: 10.19181/socjour.2020.26.3.7395.
  3. Joshi A., Dencker J.C., Franz G., Martocchio J.J. Unpacking Generational Identities in Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 2010, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 392–414. doi: 10.5465/amr.35.3.zok392.
  4. Lyons S.T., Schweitzer L., Urick M.J., Kuron L. A dynamic social-ecological model of generational identity in the workplace. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 2019, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 1–24. doi: 10.1080/15350770.2018.1500332.
  5. Tikhomandritskaya O.A., Rikel A.M. (Non)adult generation: a model for studying the generational relativity of maturity assessment. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Psikhologiya i pedagogika, 2022, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 209–232. doi: 10.22363/2313-1683-2022-19-2-209-232.
  6. Rikel A.M. Generation as a social-psychological research object: playing at home or an away match? Sotsialnaya psikhologiya i obshchestvo, 2019, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 9–18. doi: 10.17759/sps.2019100202.
  7. Levada Yu.A. Generations of the XXth century: opportunities for research. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskie i sotsialnye peremeny, 2001, no. 5, pp. 7–14. EDN: HTMNIP.
  8. Prensky M. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants: a new way to look at ourselves and our kids. On the Horizon, 2001, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1–6.
  9. Micheli M. What is New in the Digital Divide? Understanding Internet Use by Teenagers from Different Social Backgrounds. Communication and Information Technologies Annual, 2015, vol. 10, pp. 55–87. doi: 10.1108/S2050-206020150000010003.
  10. Salajan F.D., Schonwetter D.J., Cleghorn B.M. Student and faculty inter-generational digital divide: Fact or fiction? Computers and Education, 2010, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 1393–1403. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.06.017.
  11. Van Volkom M., Stapley J., Malter J. Use and Perception of Technology: Sex and Generational Differences in a Community Sample. Educational Gerontology, 2013, vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 729–740. doi: 10.1080/03601277.2012.756322.
  12. Soldatova G.U., Rasskazova E.U. “Digital gap” and intergenerational relations of parents and children. Psikhologicheskiy zhurnal, 2016, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 83–93. EDN: XDNHZX.
  13. Semenova V.V. Modern conceptual and empirical approaches to the concept of “generation”. Rossiya reformiruyushchayasya, 2003, no. 3, pp. 213–237. EDN: PEOBWX.
  14. Vanderven K. The Road to Intergenerational Theory is Under Construction: A Continuing Story. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 2011, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 22–36. doi: 10.1080/15350770.2011.544206.
  15. Patrakov E.V., Sabo Ch.M., Baturina L.I., Panov V.I., Pereyra de Moraes R.M. Ecopsychological interpretation of risk as a criterion of an individual’s psychological readiness for interactions with the digital environment: a cross-cultural study among educators. Psikhologiya cheloveka v obrazovanii, 2023, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 124–137. doi: 10.33910/2686-9527-2023-5-1-124-137.
  16. Belinskaya E.P. Coping in times of uncertainty and global risks: the main research trends. Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2022, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 760–771. doi: 10.21603/2078-8975-2022-24-6-760-771.
  17. Martsinkovskaya T.D. Information space of a transitive society: challenges and prospects. Konsultativnaya psikhologiya i psikhoterapiya, 2019, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 77–96. doi: 10.17759/cpp.2019270306.
  18. Tebekin A.V. Outlooks and risks in digitalization of further training. Professionalnoe obrazovanie v sovremennom mire, 2019, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 2558–2566. doi: 10.15372/PEMW20190119.
  19. Strekalova N.B. Risks of digital technologies implementation into education. Vestnik Samarskogo universiteta. Istoriya, pedagogika, filologiya, 2019, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 84–88. doi: 10.18287/2542-0445-2019-25-2-84-88.
  20. Karabanova O.A., Molchanov S.V. Risks of negative impact of information products on mental development and behavior of children and adolescents. Natsionalnyy psikhologicheskiy zhurnal, 2018, no. 3, pp. 37–46. doi: 10.11621/npj.2018.0304.
  21. Bengina E.A., Grishaeva S.A. Cyberbullying as a new form of danger of the psychological health of a teenager’s personality. Vestnik universiteta, 2018, no. 2, pp. 153–157. EDN: YUPICD.
  22. Beregovskaya T.A., Grishaeva S.A. Generation Z: consumer behavior in digital ecosystem. Vestnik universiteta, 2020, no. 1, pp. 92–99. doi: 10.26425/1816-4277-2020-1-92-99.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c)



This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies