Resources of Postnonclassical Psychology for the Study of Digital Communication

Introduction

In the Russian academic field, discussions of the new theoretical and methodological foundations for modern psychology have not subsided for more than a quarter of a century, focusing on analyzing the postmodernist version of psychological research development [Gusel'tseva, 2002]. Russian psychologists used the justifications of philosopher V.S. Stepin on post-non-classical rationality [Stepin, 2013], linking post-non-classical rationality with psychological concepts of the postmodernist type (mainly with social constructivism and constructionism, which determine the development of narrative, discursive, cultural psychology, etc.) [Ulanovsky, 2009] and further — with the ideas of the classics of Russian psychology L.S. Vygotsky, A.N. Leontiev, A.R. Luria, and others [9, 21]. As a result, a tradition of correlating problematic fields studied abroad mainly based on postmodernist perspectives, with the concept of post-non-classical psychology began to develop in Russian psychology.

V.S. Stepin, characterizing the development of science, names three types of rationality or three ways of scientific understanding: classical, non-classical, and post-non-classical rationality. As criteria for division, he uses 1) the characteristics of the system of objects under study, 2) research norms and ideals, and 3) the specifics of philosophical and methodological reflection [Stepin, 2013]. According to this classification, at the stage of classical science, the main objects of research are simple systems, in non-classical science — complex self-regulating systems, in modern (post-non-classical) science — complex self-developing systems. According to the opinion of Yu.P. Zinchenko and E.I. Pervichko, which is based on the position of historians and methodologists of Russian psychology, non-classical psychology in Russia reached its culmination in the 60s—80s of the twentieth century, and modern psychological problems and theories relevant to them correspond to the status of post-non-classical science [Zinchenko, 2012].

Thus, a new research-relevant space of scientific reflection of social relations in the digital environment belongs to such a complex self-developing system. Digitalization of the social implies the mediation of social experience using info communication technologies [Soldatova, 2021] and the need for researchers to seek new theoretical and methodological tools for studying this digital reality. According to G.U. Soldatova and A.E. Voiskunskii, in digital communication, a “digital personality” (which is part of the “real personality”) is created for a subject of digital social relations. The key form of existence of this “digital personality” is text, since in the process of digital communication its subjects are deprived of their usual biological form and are “supplemented” with digital modes of existence — interactions (reposts, likes, etc.) and texts (verbal or non-verbal, for example, photos, as well as creolized or multimodal, built through the integration of several formats/channels for receiving information, for example, video).

Transformations of the subject of digital communication define a professional challenge for research psychologists: some of the usual psychodiagnostic tools and theoretical ideas for studying digital psychological phenomena turn out to be inoperative. Researchers have to update their research baggage without ceasing the constant search for new theoretical ideas. We believe that those areas of psychology that reveal post-non-classical rationality in the psychological dimension, namely discursive and narrative psychology, serve as a valid basis for interpreting digital relations and digital personality and can produce new research (diagnostic) tools.

The purpose of this article is to characterize the potential of research that reveals the problems of discursive and narrative psychology in the context of studying digital communication — the field of post-non-classical psychology, and to describe the opportunities that open up for researchers who use the tools of discursive and narrative psychology in studying digital social relations.

Methods and Materials

This study is a theoretical review aimed at identifying and describing the resources of discursive and narrative psychology for studying the digital social space. The materials for analysis were collected using the keywords ‘discursive psychology’ and “narrative psychology” from the open digital libraries CyberLeninka, eLIBRARY. RU, and the search platform Google Academy.

In this article, discursive psychology is understood as a research area within a broad multidisciplinary movement that emerged at the turn of the 80s and 90s of the 20th century in Great Britain, the focus of which is the understanding of the social functions of everyday speech, communication, and conversation using philosophy, linguistics, sociology, and psychology [Yakimova, 1998]. Currently, researchers consider not only verbal material as discourse but also representations of non-verbal material, such as emotions [Kutkovaya, 2014].

Narrative psychology is a social-constructivist direction in psychology, according to which a person understands the surrounding world, experience, and biography through stories and narratives; by rebuilding narratives, it is possible to change the picture of the world and the narrative identity of the individual [Sarbin T.R, 1986].

The identified materials were classified according to the construct “discursive approaches and narrative approaches”; theoretical and theoretical-empirical studies were identified. Particular attention was focused on studies of digital communication (digital social networks, social media, etc.).

As a theoretical hypothesis, we suggest that psychologists using the methodological coordinates of social constructivism, namely those relying on discursive or narrative approaches, follow two main strategies when studying digital social relations and choosing diagnostic tools: they partially use traditional psychodiagnostic methods focused on studying text (for example, psycholinguistic) and are also actively searching for and adapting new tools from related scientific fields (for example, linguistics, literary studies, etc.).

Discursive Psychology and Digital Communication

From the point of view of the theoretical and methodological areas of “control” of post-non-classical psychology, discursive psychology was the first to begin an active movement in the description and explanation of mental reality. In addition, the “discursive turn” captured various areas of socio-humanitarian studies (sociology, political science, etc.), and traditional psychological problems from “discursive perspectives” began to be discussed by non-psychologists. For example, the phenomenon of “discursive personality” firmly entered the field of analysis of linguists, and the phenomenon of “discursive identity” — the studies of philosophers, political scientists, etc. [10, 13 и др.].

An explanation for the phenomenon of the “discursive turn” follows from the traditions of the cultural-his torical psychology of L.S. Vygotsky, according to which the intrapsychic is derived from the interpsychic and all human mental functions are essentially interiorized social relations [VygotskyS. Istoriya razvitiya, 1983]. Interiorization, the idea of the sign symbolic mediation of L.S. Vygotsky and the metaphor of the psyche as a sieve, which lets through and changes the world in the direction of a positive distortion for the subject of perception, according to A.M. Ulanovsky, allow us to consider the cultural-historical theory as socially constructivist, therefore laying the foundations for the development of discursive psychology [Ulanovsky, 2009].

While some Russian psychologists searched for support in the legacy of Russian psychology for the development of discursive psychology, others rejected postmodernism and the social constructivism associated with it as a potential methodological basis, effectively denying the possibility of developing a Russian version of discursive psychology. Critics of “discursive tools” in studying the psyche were those researchers who adhered to the position of the “primacy of the mental” as a fact (text/discourse reflects reality) and did not share the opinion that reality can be constructed (in discourse — in fantasy, in consciousness, etc.) and not reflected by the subject (in discourse) [Busygina, 2010]. Thus, currently, Russian discursive psychology is represented by two development directions. The first direction is a space for ongoing methodological discussions [5, 23 и др.]. In line with the second direction, there is a progressive development of empirical psychological studies of discourse [4; 15; 16 и др.].

The logic of empirical psychological studies of discourse has been largely shaped by the works of psychologists who, in studying mental phenomena, focused on language. For example, A.M. Ulanovsky, drawing on J. Austin's theory of speech acts and the discursive psychology of K. Gergen and R. Harré, highlighted the importance of studying communication (“conversations”) [UlanovskyM. Teoriya rechevykh, 2004]. He also presented tools for collecting empirical data, emphasizing key methods in discursive psychology — specifically qualitative methods derived from hermeneutic, phenomenological, or ethnomethodological traditions [Martínez-Guzmán, 2016]. However, when studying social interaction, researchers may rely not only on verbal discourse but also on the multi-code complexity of human behavior (for instance, through observation) [Wiggins, 2024]. Thus, discursive psychology effectively integrates traditional methods of empirical data collection, with a particular focus on qualitative methodologies and techniques.

Although qualitative methodology offers a wide range of methods (such as focus groups, interviews, and conversation analysis), discourse analysis has gained particular popularity in empirical research, especially in fields related to psychology, sociology, political science, and others. It is commonly used in two main forms: as an analysis of discourse and as a specialized tool within the framework of critical social theory.

M.N. Krasina, drawing on the research of R. Keller, identifies four features characteristic of all discourse studies, including those in psychology and interdisciplinary fields [Krasina, 2018]. These features are:

1. A focus on the sign system of mediation in social practices (encompassing all sign systems, not just oral or written language);
2. Acknowledgment that the sign system used in communication constructs the social phenomenon being communicated through interpretation;
3. The recognition that interpretations (of symbolic orders), reconstructed through sign systems, can be stabilized within specific contexts;
4. The ability of discourse analysis to identify and interpret the rules governing the creation of discourse.

In Russian psychology, discourse analysis has been actively developed within the context of psycholinguistic research [4, 15]. Like any other form of communication, digital communication is mediated by sign systems — such as written verbal text combined with emojis (emoticons) in chats — and serves as valuable material for psychological discursive analysis [Pavlova, 2018]. Researchers at the Laboratory of Speech and Psycholinguistics at the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, to emphasize the focus on discursivity in the study of digital communication, use the term “discursive reality of the Internet”, highlighting the multimodality of internet discourse (the integration of different codes in online communication) [Grebenshchikova, 2020].

Each research group focused on studying digital communication forms a range of topics and tools that contribute to the advancement of discursive psychology. For example, at the Laboratory of Speech and Psycholinguistics at the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, when studying post-event Internet discourse (such as discussions in chats, comments, etc.), researchers prefer to use established and tested methods of quantitative intent analysis to reconstruct the intentional structure of online discourse [Pavlova, 2018]. A similar approach, using quantitative intent analysis, is applied in other studies of online communications. For instance, it is used to examine the creation of rules for online discussions by analyzing interactions and online activity indicators, such as “likes” [Radina, 2019]. These methods of discourse analysis (variants of quantitative intent analysis) essentially represent “mixed methods” — combining both qualitative and quantitative approaches. This is because the research process involves interpreting discourse elements (the hermeneutic basis of qualitative analysis) and subsequently coding these elements using descriptive statistics to calculate the resulting codes (quantitative approach).

Intent analysis is a popular tool for analyzing digital communication discourse, used in both qualitative and mixed (qualitative-quantitative) formats. Critical discourse analysis, which is based on the theoretical framework of critical social theory, can also be applied in a mixed format when using computational linguistics methods. However, in contemporary studies, this approach is more often employed in its qualitative form, particularly the critical discourse analysis of T. van Dijk, N. Fairclough, and R. Wodak [Danilova, 2021]. Digital political discussions, including instances of online hatred, and digital media discourse [29, и др.] are frequently analyzed using discourse intent analysis or critical discourse analysis.

Since all communication, whether conventional “real” or digital, is based on sign systems, the study of digital communication and digital discourse can employ the same methods, such as interviews. For example, in the work by S.P. Hammond, J. D’Arcy, M. Minott, and E. Krasniqi, online interviews were used to explore the inclusion of children with disabilities in online communication [Hammond, 2024]. Following the tradition of the qualitative approach, the study used interview topics to identify key issues, risks of online communication, and opportunities for teachers to train children in new information and communication fields. Mediating the interview process with software simplifies preparation for analysis (such as automating interview transcription) but does not fundamentally alter the researcher’s role. There is also a process of “adapting” traditional discourse analysis to digital communications (for example: [Meredith]). Thus, both traditional and digital texts share a similar set of research tools for discourse analysis, with the added advantage of digital texts, namely the ability to analyze large datasets using computational linguistics methods.

Narrative Psychology and Digital Communication

The narrative approach and narrative psychology are based on the idea that human consciousness, identity, culture, and other aspects are shaped by semantic complexes — stories. Therefore, studying the human experience and providing assistance to individuals are most effective when grounded in stories (narratives). The narrative approach is most commonly recognized in Russian psychology in the context of psychotherapeutic practice [Turusheva, 2014]. However, like any other branch of psychological knowledge, narrative psychology offers resources for both research and therapeutic purposes [Sarbin T.R, 1986].

The space of narratives studied by psychologists is even more ephemeral than discourse, as the structure of discourse (verbal, non-verbal, multimodal) includes specific elements that can be described, measured, or “objectified”. Subjectivity in discursive studies is largely concentrated in the interpretation of discourse. In contrast, narratives are defined by their meanings and plots, and in research, they are both subjective and complex at the levels of interpretation and identification of structural elements, which aligns with the methodology of post-non-classical psychology.

Since both narrative psychology and discursive psychology use texts as materials for study (understood broadly as related semantic complexes of signs — verbal, non-verbal, and multimodal texts), the narrative approach in psychological research is distinguished from the discursive approach in several ways. In the comparative analysis of the two approaches in the study of identity, E.S. Kutkovaya outlines the following criteria that highlight both their commonalities and differences [Kutkovaya, 2016]:

1. Common characteristics include a conceptual foundation (postmodernism in the form of social constructivism) and the role of language, communication, and dialogue in the construction of psychological phenomena.
2. Distinguishing criteria include the focus of analysis: linguistic and communicative strategies in discursive analysis, and semantic strategies in narrative analysis. Additionally, the discursive approach tends to focus on the individual level, while the narrative approach emphasizes the social level in understanding psychological phenomena.

Consequently, the discursive approach focuses on answering the question “how?” — that is, how psychological phenomena and reality are reproduced in communication discourse using specific linguistic means. The narrative approach, on the other hand, addresses the questions “why?” and “for what reason?” (a narrative, a story from a semantic perspective).

The space of identity, expressed through narrative (typically in biographies and autobiographies), is one of the most popular areas of focus among researchers using the narrative approach [8, 20, 37 и др.]. In these studies, self-understanding is conceptualized as a “cognitive illusion” created by the protagonist — the biographer — who constructs a life story from a multitude of experiences stored in memory.

Research on narrative identity is also connected to the hermeneutics of Paul Ricoeur, particularly his work Narrative Identity. According to Ricoeur, personal identity is formed through the stories individuals tell about themselves. The narrator's orientation toward the other (the listener) when creating a narrative can raise several ethical issues, including questions related to the truth of autobiographical stories [Rodrigues, 2023].

Conventional strategies for studying personality and identity (such as tests, questionnaires, etc.) in narrative psychology are effectively supplemented by new techniques that work with self-descriptions [Dunlop, 2021]. These techniques help establish connections between narrative identity and self-esteem, as well as between narrative identity and reflections on interpersonal relationships [Janowicz, 2022]. Scientific projects are developing approaches that justify the use of “narrative variables”. For example, it has been proposed to identify motivational themes, affective themes, themes of integrative meaning, and structural elements in order to reconstruct narrative identity and examine its connection to personal well-being [Adler].

In narrative studies, “digital sociality” is not a separate structural element, but rather a continuation of “ordinary sociality”. In “ordinary communication”, a person presents their body/voice as an ego-text. In digital communication, however, one must “formulate” oneself, choose a name (nickname), select an image (avatar), and so on. Narrative identity in the digital social space becomes evident because the very nature of digital communication challenges the traditional narrative form.

In the narrative approach, meaning becomes the central focus of analysis and a key research tool. As such, the narrative method is used to study how reality is understood [Borzova, 2015] and how interpersonal relationships are perceived through the lens of humor [Elfimova, 2019]. For example, digital video stories about anxiety, created by teenagers and studied by psychologists, help deepen the understanding of children's experiences with anxiety, enriching our comprehension of mental health issues in children and adolescents with new insights [Macdonald, 2024].

The narrative approach in research has a practical, psychotherapeutic orientation. For example, by comparing autobiographical narratives from two age groups, psychologists identified a positive impact of narrated events on self-perception during middle adulthood, a phenomenon known as “narrative redemption” [Eriksson, 2024]. In another study, researchers used “digital storytelling” and collaborative comic drawing with peers to increase students’ awareness of school bullying and its consequences, while also enriching adolescents’ social experiences by providing productive ways to handle critical social situations [Brailas, 2021].

The value of “helping knowledge” has always been a key element of academic research, but it is research that utilizes a narrative approach that demonstrates direct implications for psychotherapy and psychological care. For example, it has been found that multimodal stories in digital formats (e.g., videos) viewed before a trip can help prevent emotional stress in tourists [Li, 2024]. This allows for the refinement of preparatory programs for travelers seeking positive experiences and impressions.

It is noteworthy that the narrative approach in psychological analysis uncovers both ego-narratives, which represent various aspects of a person’s life (such as autobiography, biographical interviews, diaries, life stories, photo album selections, or personal pages on social networks), and “affective texts”, which are often referred to as “storytelling” in modern academic discourse. The digital environment serves as a rich space for communication, making digital storytelling a valuable practice in pedagogy, education, journalism, and psychotherapy [14; 26 и др.].

Conclusion

Digital social life, including the “digital personalities” of individuals involved in digital relationships, creates a complex, self-developing “space-system” within digital social networks and social media. Traditional methodological and psychodiagnostic tools in this field are insufficient — psychologists must adapt and expand their approaches to understand these new spaces. Post-non-classical psychology, by integrating discursive and narrative psychology, offers resources to address these emerging challenges, providing both theoretical frameworks and new instrumental solutions for working with empirical data.

At the same time, digital communication has unique features that can be reflected in a psychologist’s research materials. Therefore, when using tools to study digital communication, it is essential to critically reflect on the method of generating empirical material. The empirical data extracted from “digital communication” can include both ordinary texts created for general purposes (such as letters, diaries, and multimodal ego-documents — any digitized texts posted on specialized digital platforms) and texts specifically created within the “digital communication” format (such as chats and comments). These texts possess distinct characteristics due to digital virtuality, such as the integration of ‘emoji’ icons into ordinary verbal text.

Discursive or narrative approach? The choice between these approaches depends on the objectives of the scientific project. A discursive approach may be more effective when the study focuses on the specifics of digital interactions, communication, and reactions. On the other hand, a narrative approach is more suitable when the analysis centers on psychological phenomena related to meanings and/or representations (e.g., identity). As noted in the analysis presented, various methods and techniques have been tested in contemporary psychological research on digital discourse, such as intent analysis [15, 16], interviews [Hammond, 2024], and conversation analysis [Meredith]. The large volumes of digital text available allow psychologists to apply linguistic methods (e.g., computational linguistics) to reconstruct psychological phenomena, such as media social representations [Radina], which were previously studied on smaller datasets and did not aim for universality.

The study results confirm the hypothesis that was put forward. Theoretical and methodological tools from discursive psychology in digital communication include both previously tested psychodiagnostic tools and new methods for studying digital empirical data. Theoretical and methodological tools from narrative psychology are especially valuable in the study of digital identity, such as in the analysis of self-presentation on digital social networks. This is particularly true for tools designed to analyze complex multimodal texts, like videos.

The importance of computational linguistics methods in psychology must be emphasized to understand the potential of mastering new techniques for studying digitalized texts. By combining these methods with, for example, machine learning techniques (which form the basis of artificial intelligence), psychologists can analyze large volumes of text and identify cultural scenarios in stories, biographies, ego-documents, and more [Radina, a]. This approach allows them to demonstrate, using real data, what was once only discussed in classical psychological texts, which were often influenced by philosophy and cultural studies — namely, to reveal how psychological patterns manifest through the verbalization of human experience.

Understanding the resources of discursive and narrative psychology within the context of post-non-classical psychology bridges traditional concepts with modern phenomena and enables Russian psychologists to navigate the new digital social space, grounded in the theoretical foundations of Russian psychology. It also addresses pressing issues related to psychological support in digital communication, psychological assistance, and social forecasting.

1. Borzova T.V. Narrativnyi sposob ponimaniya deistvitel'nosti v kontekste psikhologii ponimaniya (po materialam zarubezhnykh istochnikov) [Narrative way of understanding reality in the context of psychology of understanding (based on materials from foreign sources)]. Vestnik Yaroslavskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. P. G. Demidova. Seriya gumanitarnye nauki [Bulletin of the Yaroslavl State University named after P. G. Demidov. Series Humanities], 2015, no. 4 (34), pp. 106— (In Russ.).
2. Busygina N.P. “Diskursivnyi povorot” v psikhologicheskikh issledovaniyakh soznaniya [The “discursive turn” in psychological studies of consciousness]. Konsul’tativnaya psikhologiya i psikhoterapiya = Counseling Psychology and Psychotherapy, 2010, no. 1, pp. 55— (In Russ.).
3. VygotskyS. Istoriya razvitiya vysshikh psikhicheskikh funktsii [History of the development of higher mental functions]. Sobranie sochinenii: v 6 tomakh [Collected Works: in 6 volumes], Moscow: Pedagogika, 1983. Vol. 3, pp. 5—329. (In Russ.).
4. Grebenshchikova T. A., Kubrak T. A., Pavlova N. D. Diskursivnaya real'nost' interneta [Discursive reality of the Internet]. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta. Seriya: Psikhologicheskie nauki [Bulletin of the Moscow Region State University. Series: Psychology], 2020, no. 1, pp. 92— DOI:10.18384/2310-7235-2020-1-92-100 (In Russ.).
5. Gusel'tseva M.S. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya i “vyzovy” postmodernizma [Cultural-historical psychology and the “challenges” of postmodernism]. Voprosy Psychologii [Questions of Psychology], 2002, no. 3, pp. 119— (In Russ.).
6. Danilova A.G., Mitina O.A. Komp'yuterizirovannyi kachestvennyi analiz teksta [Computerized qualitative text analysis]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 14. Psikhologiya = Moscow University Psychology Bulletin, 2021, no. 1, pp. 220–240. DOI:10.11621/vsp.2021.01.09 (In Russ.).
7. Elfimova M.M. Shutka kak psikhotekhnicheskoe sredstvo narrativnogo ponimaniya mezhlichnostnykh otnoshenii [Joke as psychotechnical tool of narrative understanding of the interpersonal relations]. Natsional'nyi psikhologicheskii zhurnal [National Psychological Journal], 2019, no. 1 (33), pp. 59–67. DOI:10.11621/npj.2019.0106. (In Russ.).
8. Zaitseva Yu.E. Model' narrativnogo analiza stilya identichnosti [Model of Narrative Analysis of Personal Identity Style]. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Psikhologiya [Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Psychology], Is. 16, no. 4, pp. 6— DOI:10.21638/11701/spbu16.2016.401. (In Russ.).
9. Zinchenko Yu.P., Pervichko E.I. Postneklassicheskaya metodologiya v klinicheskoi psikhologii: nauchnaya shkola L.S. Vygotskogo – A.R. Luriya [Post-nonclassical methodology in clinical psychology: the scientific school of L.S. Vygotsky - A.R. Luria]. Natsional'nyi psikhologicheskii zhurnal [National Psychological Journal], 2012, no. 2, pp.32— (In Russ.).
10. Krasina M.N. Diskurs, diskurs-analiz i metody ikh primeneniya v mezhdistsiplinarnykh proektakh [Discourse, discourse analysis and methods of their application in interdisciplinary projects]. Vestnik Tverskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Filologiya [Bulletin of Tver State University. Series: Philology], 2018, no. 2, pp. 159— (In Russ.).
11. Kutkovaya E.S. Diskurs-analiz emotsii i teoriya pozitsionirovaniya v issledovanii sotsial'nogo sobytiya [Elektronnyi resurs] [Discourse analysis of emotions and positioning theory in social event research]. Psikhologicheskie issledovaniya [Psychological studies], 2014. Vol. 7, no. 34, pp. 6. URL: file:///C:/Users/NK/Downloads/%D0%9A%D1%83%D1%82%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F+%D0%95.%D0%A1.-2.pdf (Accessed: 10.2024). (In Russ.).
12. Kutkovaya E.S. Sravnitel'nyi analiz diskursivnogo i narrativnogo podkhodov k issledovaniyu identichnosti. kand. psikhol. nauk: 19.00.05 [Comparative Analysis of Discursive and Narrative Approaches to Identity Research. PhD. Sci. (Psychology)]. Moscow, 2016. 272 p.(In Russ.).
13. Mikhailova O.A., Mikhailova Yu.N. Diskursivnaya lichnost': opyt lingvoaksiologicheskogo analiza [Discursive Personality: An Experience of Linguo-Axiological Analysis]. Politicheskaya lingvistika [Political Linguistics], 2021, no. 6 (90), pp. 23— DOI:10.26170/1999-2629_2021_06_02. (In Russ.).
14. Nazarova O.S. Tsifrovoi storitelling kak sovremennaya obrazovatel'naya praktika [Digital Storytelling as Educational Practice]. Gumanitarnaya informatika [Humanitarian Informatics], 2018, no. 15, pp. 15–28. DOI:10.17223/23046082/15/2.
15. Pavlova N.D. Diskurs: aktual'nye napravleniya i perspektivy psikholingvisticheskikh issledovanii [Discourse: Current Directions and Prospects of Psycholinguistic Research]. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal [Psychological Journal], 2018. Vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 16— (In Russ.).
16. Radina N.K. Konstruirovanie pravil onlain-diskussii: rol' “laikov” [Designing the rules of the online discussion: the role of “likes”]. Sotsial’naia psikhologiia i obshchestvo = Social Psychology and Society, 2019. Vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 58— DOI:10.17759/sps.2019100405 (In Russ.).
17. Radina N.K. Rekonstruktsiya mediinykh sotsial'nykh predstavlenii s ispol'zovaniem pokazatelei statistiki teksta (na materiale mediadiskursa o pandemii) [Reconstruction of Media Social Representations Using Indicators of Text Statistics (Based on Media Discourse on the Pandemic)]. Sotsial’naia psikhologiia i obshchestvo = Social Psychology and Society, Vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 76–91. DOI:10.17759/sps.2024150105 (In Russ.).
18. Soldatova G.U., Voiskunskii A.E. Sotsial'no-kognitivnaya kontseptsiya tsifrovoi sotsializatsii: novaya ekosistema i sotsial'naya evolyutsiya psikhiki [Socio-Cognitive Concept of Digital Socialization: А New Ecosystem and Social Evolution of the Mind]. Zhurnal Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki [Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics], 2021. Vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 431—450. DOI:10.17323/1813-8918-2021-3-431-450. (In Russ.).
19. Stepin V.S. Tipy nauchnoi ratsional'nosti i sinergicheskaya paradigma [Types of scientific rationality and the synergetic paradigm]. Slozhnost'. Razum. Postneklassika [ Reason. Post-non-classical], 2013, no. 4, pp. 45—59. (In Russ.).
20. Turusheva Yu.B. Osobennosti narrativnogo podkhoda kak metoda izucheniya identichnosti [Elektronnyi resurs] [Features of the narrative approach as a method for studying identity]. Psikhologicheskie issledovaniya [Psychological studies], 2014. Vol. 7, no. 33. DOI:10.54359/ps.v7i33.652. (In Russ.).
21. Ulanovsky A.M. Konstruktivizm, radikal'nyi konstruktivizm, sotsial'nyi konstruktsionizm: mir kak interpretatsiya [Constructivism, radical constructivism, social constructionism: the world as interpretation]. Voprosy Psychologii [Questions of Psychology], 2009, no. 2, pp. 35— (In Russ.).
22. UlanovskyM. Teoriya rechevykh aktov i sotsial'nyi konstruktsionizm [Speech Act Theory and Social Constructionism]. Postneklassicheskaya psikhologiya. Zhurnal konstruktsionistskoi psikhologii i narrativnogo podkhoda = Post-nonclassical psychology. Journal of constructionist psychology and narrative approaches, 2004, no. 1, pp. 88—98. (In Russ.).
23. Fedorov A.A. Intellektual'nye ulovki postneklassicheskoi psikhologii [Intellectual tricks of post-non-classical psychology]. Reflexio, 2018. Vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 114–133. (In Russ.).
24. Yakimova E.V. R. Kharre i diskursivnaya psikhologiya [R. Harre and discursive psychology]. Social and Humanitarian Sciences. Domestic and Foreign Literature. Series 11: Sociology = Sotsial'nye i gumanitarnye nauki. Otechestvennaya i zarubezhnaya literatura. Seriya 11: Sotsiologiya, 1998, no. 4, pp. 150— (In Russ.).
25. Adler J.M., Lodi-Smith J., Philippe F.L., Houle I. The Incremental Validity of Narrative Identity in Predicting Well-Being: A Review of the Field and Recommendations for the Future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 20 (2), pp. 142—175. DOI:10.1177/1088868315585068
26. Brailas A. Digital storytelling and the narrative turn in psychology: Creating spaces for collective empowerment. Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, 2021. Vol. 12, Is. 4, pp. 1— URL: https://www.gjcpp.org/pdfs/Brailas-Final.pdf (Accessed: 10.10.2024).
27. Dunlop W. Narrative Identity’s Nomological Network: Expanding and Organizing Assessment of the Storied Self. Personality Science, 2021. Vol. 2, Article e6469. DOI:10.5964/ps.6469.
28. Eriksson P.L., Frisén A. Facing Challenging Experiences in Life – Narrative Identity Development Processes and Associations with Wellbeing During the Transition to Midlife. Identity, 2024. Vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 16— DOI:10.1080/15283488.2023.2258152.
29. Goodman S. Locke A Supporting and challenging hate in an online discussion of a controversial refugee policy. Discourse Studies, 2024. Vol. 26, Is. 4, pp. 465— DOI:10.1177/14614456231225448.
30. Hammond SP., D'Arcy J., Minott M., Krasniqi E. A discursive psychological examination of educators’ experiences of children with disabilities accessing the Internet: a role for digital resilience. Information, Communication & Society, 2024. Vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 161— DOI:10.1080/1369118X.2023.2185103.
31. Janowicz K., Soroko E., Hallford D.J. Awareness of Narrative Identity and Selected Aspects of Narrative Activity and Meaning-Making. Preliminary results. Annals of Psychology/Roczniki Psychologiczne, 2022. Vol. XXV, pp. 171—192 DOI:10.18290/rpsych2022 .0010.
32. Li N., Li L., Chen X., Wong I. A. Digital destination storytelling: Narrative persuasion effects induced by story satisfaction in a VR context. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 2024. Vol. 58, pp. 184— DOI:10.1016/j.jhtm.2023.12.007
33. Macdonald D., Watfern Ch, Boydell K.M. How not to talk about it: Using digital storytelling with children with anxiety [Elektronnyi resurs]. Methods in Psychology, 2024. Vol. 11, Article 100159. DOI:10.1016/j.metip.2024.100159. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382668013_How_not_to_talk_about_it_Using_digital_storytelling_with_children_with_anxiety (Accessed: 10.2024).
34. Martínez-Guzmán A., Stecher A., Iniguez-Rueda L. Discursive psychology contributions to qualitative research in social psychology: An analysis of its ethnomethodological heritage. Psicologia USP, 2016. Vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 510—520 DOI:10.1590/0103-656420150046.
35. Meredith J. Conversation analysis, cyberpsychology and online interaction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, Vol. 14, Is. 5, pp. 285—294. DOI:10.1111/spc3.12529.
36. Radina N. Men’s socialization and the history of man’s life: the reproduction of male culture in the individual narrative. Social and Education History, Vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 119—144. DOI:10.17583/MCS.2019.3705.
37. Rodrigues I.P. “Who do you say that I am?” Truth in Narrative Identity Studes Ricœuriennes. Ricœur Studies, 2023. Vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 132—150 DOI:10.5195/errs.2023.605.
38. Sarbin T.R.(ed) Narrative psychology: the storied nature of human conduct. London: Praeger Press, 1986. 303 p.
39. Wiggins S., Cromdal J., Willemsen A. Daring to taste: The organisation of children’s tasting practices during preschool lunches [Elektronnyi resurs]. Appetite, 2024. Vol. 198, Article 107378. DOI:1016/j.appet.2024.107378. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019566632400179X (Accessed: 10.10.2024).