Dialogism of Generation Y and Generation Z in Online Communication

Diana I. Daver; Vlada Pishchik

doi:10.23947/2334-8496-2025-13-3-779-791

Authors

Diana I. Daver Higher School of Professional Development “Sigma”, Moscow, Russian Federation https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2143-162X
Vlada Pishchik Don State Technical University, Department of General and Consultative Psychology, Rostov-on-Don, Russian Federation https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3909-3895

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.23947/2334-8496-2025-13-3-779-791

Keywords:

generations Z and Y, personality traits, empathy, tolerance, openness, prosocial behavior, value-meaning orientation

Abstract

The article presents the results of research in comparing ability for dialogical communication of representatives of two generations: Y and Z of two orientations (collectivistic and individualistic). The personality traits which are the basis of dialogism in online communication are specified, the model of dialogism of online communication is presented and measured in order to highlight the difference of ability to build dialogical communication among representatives of generation Y and Z online. Dialogism in online communication is understood as a construct with core and periphery. We used the questionnaire of individualism and collectivism indicators (L.G. Pochebut), “System of Life Meanings” technique (SLM) (V.Y. Kotlyakov), multi-factor empathy questionnaire (V. V. Boyko), “Tolerance Index” questionnaire (G.U. Soldatova and other), “Social norms of prosocial behavior” (I.A. Furmanov), Freiburg Multifactor Questionnaire (Farenberg, Zarg, Gampel). When comparing the results of representatives from generation Y and generation Z the significant difference was stated between most factors. It was concluded that core of dialogism of two generations is different: Z representatives of collectivistic orientation and Y representatives of individualistic orientation have such elements as: aggressiveness, neurotic traits, depressiveness, irritation, emotional instability. The core of dialogism of millennials of collectivistic orientation and Z individualistic orientation is represented by tolerance, some kinds of prosocial behaviour and sociability. Both generations and orientations have altruistic and communicative meanings in the core. The periphery of dialogism of all groups is represented by empathy and some kinds of prosocial behavior.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Baron, N. S. (2021). Know what? How digital technologies undermine learning and remembering. Journal of Pragmatics, 175, 27–37. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.011

Bouffard, L. (2019). Lukianoff, G. & Haidt, J. (2018). The coddling of American mind. How good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure. New York, NY: Penguin Press. Revue Québécoise de Psychologie, 40(2), 301. https://doi.org/10.7202/1065916ar DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/1065916ar

Boyko, V.V. (1994). The energy of emotions in communication. Moscow: Filin Publ. (In Russ).

Campbell, W. K. & Foster, J. (2007). The narcissistic self: Background, an extended agency model, and ongoing controversies.

‌Cherry, K. (2024). What Is Empathy? Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-empathy-2795562

Črešnar, R., & Nedelko, Z. (2020). Understanding Future Leaders: How Are Personal Values of Generations Y and Z Tailored to Leadership in Industry 4.0? Sustainability, 12(11), 4417. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114417 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114417

Decety, J., & Cowell, J. M. (2014). The complex relation between morality and empathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 337-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.008

Deutsch, M. (2011). Cooperation and Competition. Conflict, Interdependence, and Justice, 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9994-8_2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9994-8_2

Dimaggio, G., Montano, A., Popolo, R., & Salvatore, G. (2015). Metacognitive Interpersonal Therapy for Personality Disorders. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315744124

Fahrenberg, J., Hampel, R. & Selg, H. (2001). Das Freiburger Persönlichkeitsinventar FPI. Revidierte Fassung FPI-R und teilweise geänderte Fassung FPI-A1 [The Freiburg Personality Inventory FPI. Revised version FPI-R and partially amended version FPI-A1]. Handanweisung 7 Auflage. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Retrieved from https://romania.testcentral.ro/media/fpir-f-en-BQIULF4D.pdf

Gabrielova, K., & Buchko, A. (2021). Here comes Generation Z: Millennials as managers. Business Horizons, 64(4), 489–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2021.02.013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2021.02.013

Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion Regulation: Current Status and Future Prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781

Hermans, H. J. M. (2001). The dialogical self: Toward a theory of personal and cultural positioning. Culture & Psychology, 7(3), 243–281. Hermans, H. J. M. (2001). The Dialogical Self: Toward a Theory of Personal and Cultural Positioning. Culture & Psychology, 7(3), 243–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067x0173001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X0173001

Hermans, H & Thorsten, G. (2014). Handbook of Dialogical Self Theory. https://archive.org/details/isbn_9781107006515/page/326/mode/2up

Hopwood, C. J., & Wright, A. G. C. (2012). A Comparison of Passive–Aggressive and Negativistic Personality Disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(3), 296–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.655819 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.655819

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. Vintage Books. https://books.google.ru/books/about/Millennials_Rising.html?id=To_Eu9HCNqIC&redir_esc=y

Karakuttikaran, C. & Kolachina, A. (2024). “Me, An Empath?”: Value Priorities and Trait Empathy Among Millennials and Generation Z. International Journal of Indian Psychology. 12(1). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378691459_Me_An_Empath_Value_Priorities_and_Trait_Empathy_Among_Millennials_and_Generation_Z

Kotlyakov, V. Yu. (2019). Methodology “The System of Life Meanings.” SibScript, 1(2 (54)). https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/metodika-sistema-zhiznennyh-smyslov

Kriti, C. (2024). Gen Z and the Quandary of Empathy. Indian Journal of Positive Psychology, 15(2), 267-271. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382241005

Kukhtova, N. V. (2021). Structural components of the prosocial personality of assistance-oriented professionals. Psychology in Education, 3(3), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.33910/2686-9527-2021-3-3-273-287 (In Russ). DOI: https://doi.org/10.33910/2686-9527-2021-3-3-273-287

Kukhtova N.V., & Domoratskaya M. V. (2011). Prosocial behavior of assistance-oriented specialists: theoretical foundations and methods of study. Methodological recommendations. Vitebsk: IPK and PC Educational institution «VSU named after P.M. Masherov». (In Russ) https://rep.vsu.by/handle/123456789/2579

Lamm, C., & Paul. (2023). Neurobiology of Prosociality. Cambridge University Press EBooks, 61–84. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108876681.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108876681.005

Lourenço, P., Basto, I., Cunha, C., & Bento, T. (2013). Dialogism in detail: Per Linell’s Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically and its potentials. Culture & Psychology, 19(3), 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067x12456715 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X12456715

Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2018). The coddling of the American mind: how good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure. Penguin Press.

‌Lysaker, P. H., & Lysaker, J. T. (2010). Schizophrenia and alterations in self-experience: a comparison of 6 perspectives. Schizophrenia bulletin, 36(2), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbn077 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbn077

McBeth, M. K. (2022). Coddled or Engaged? Teaching Political Tolerance to Generation Z Students. Journal of Political Science Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2022.2097915 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2022.2097915

McCrae, R. R., & Sutin, A. R. (2018). A Five-Factor Theory Perspective on Causal Analysis. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2134 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2134

Moisei, A. (2024). The Impact of the Internet on Student Communication Development. Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2), 68–80. https://doi.org/10.52326/jss.utm.2024.7(2).07 DOI: https://doi.org/10.52326/jss.utm.2024.7(2).07

Parker, K., & Igielnik, R. (2020). On the cusp of adulthood and facing an uncertain future: What we know about Gen Z so far. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/05/14/on-the-cusp-of-adulthood-and-facing-an-uncertain-future-what-we-know-about-gen-z-so-far/

Pochebut, L. G. (2012). Cross-cultural and ethnic psychology. St. Petersburg: Peter Publ. (In Russ).

Reeves, T. (2007). Do generational difference matter in instructional design? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253096456_Do_generational_difference_matter_in_instructional_design

Sanchez-Burks, J., Lee, F., Choi, I., Nisbett, R., Zhao, S., & Koo, J. (2003). Conversing across cultures: East-West communication styles in work and nonwork contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 363-372. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.363 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.363

Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2016). Generation Z goes to college. Jossey-Bass. https://archive.org/details/generationzgoest0000seem

Siberian psychology today: A collection of scientific papers. (2003). Issue 2. Kemerovo: Kuzbassvuzizdat. (In Russ). http://hpsy.ru/public/x2633.htm (In Russ).

Singh, A. P., & Dangmei, J. (2016). Understanding the Generation Z: The Future Workforce. South-Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 3, 1-5 https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2634361

Stiles, W. B. (2011). The voices-within-the-voice: A dialogical perspective on case formulation. Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy, 7(3), 1-12. URL: http://pcsp.libraries.rutgers.edu/index.php/pcsp/article/view/1027

Soldatova, G. U., Shaigerova, L. A., Prokofieva, T. Yu., & Kravtsova, O. A. (2008). Психодиагностика толерантности личности[Psychodiagnostics of personality tolerance]. Moscow, Russia: Smysl. https://djvu.online/file/n5ycF1t46fuli?ysclid=mikjeq8uau461831270

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism And Collectivism (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429499845 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429499845

Tulgan, B. (2013). Meet Generation Z: The second generation within the giant “Millennial” cohort. Bruce Tulgan and Rainmaker Thinking, Inc. Rainmaker Thinking, Inc.125. New Haven. https://grupespsichoterapija.lt/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Gen-Z-Whitepaper.pdf

Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Conﬁdent, Assertive, Entitled—and More Miserable Than Ever Before. New York: Free Press. https://archive.org/details/generationmewhyt0000twen

Twenge, J. M., Carter, N, T., & Campbell, W. K. (2017). Age, time period, and birth cohort differences in self-esteem: Reexamining a cohort-sequential longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, e9-e17. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000122 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000122

Twenge, J. M., Martin, G. N., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2019). Trends in U.S. Adolescents’ media use, 1976–2016: The rise of digital media, the decline of TV, and the (near) demise of print. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 8(4), 329–345. https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/94/1/379/1754269?redirectedFrom=fulltext DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000203

‌Workshop on psychodiagnostics and research of personality tolerance (2003). Edited by G.U. Soldatova et al. Moscow: Moscow State University. (In Russ).