Information and digital security in the context of awareness of Mongolia's youth about social risks

Context and relevance. In modern society, a fundamentally different structure of information production and consumption is being formed. The role of tools for obtaining, modeling, and transmitting data is continuously increasing. Internet technologies have become the «habitat» of modern generations, transforming or replacing important spheres of life. Along with the obvious advantages, the «new world» has brought a huge amount of vulnerability regarding the security of individuals and labor subjects. In current information risk protection systems, user awareness and intelligibility are one of the key components. Despite the fact that young people are initially immersed (by birth) and fairly competent in the possibilities of the Internet space, their vulnerability to negative and destructive fraudulent influence remains high. The purpose of the study was to identify the awareness of Mongolian youth about information and digital security and to identify the social risks associated with the use of digital technologies. Method and selection. The sociological survey was conducted on a multi-stage stratified sample of 800 young people aged 18—34 representing various regions of Mongolia. The data was processed using descriptive statistics, comparative analysis, k-means, regression, cluster, factor and variance analysis (ANOVA), and index calculations. Hypothesis. The awareness of young people about digital risks may be significantly higher than the real skills of ensuring their safety in the information and digital environment. The results indicate an insufficient level of digital literacy among young people. There is a widespread infantile attitude of underestimating risks («this will not happen to me») and the weakness of a reflexive position. Young people know or have heard about digital risks (they are aware of the inadmissibility of transferring their bank data, passwords from Internet services and access codes to social networks to third parties, they understand the direct link between protecting information and preserving their reputation in the digital world), but practical protection skills remain weak. The fields of education, vocational training, economics and leisure are identified by young people as the most vulnerable in the process of digitalization. Urban youth are somewhat more aware of the positive and negative sides of digitalization, but both have insufficient knowledge of specific methods of self-defense. Young people without an education or with a primary level of education are poorly aware of the social consequences of digitalization, unlike those with a higher level of education. Young people tend to actively participate and speak out in discussions that arise in the "networks" and the digital space, but they do not take security issues into account. The phenomenon of overestimating the objectivity and reliability of information obtained in the digital environment has emerged. Conclusions. An assessment of the level of awareness about the risks of the digital environment and their consequences revealed a critical gap: users are aware of potential threats, but do not have sufficient practical knowledge to apply protective measures. Minimizing the social risks associated with digitalization requires shifting the focus from online time constraints, parental control, or excessive legislative regulation towards the formation of individual consciousness. The key factor is fostering a culture of reasonable and ethical behavior in the digital space, as well as increasing the personal moral responsibility of each user.

1. Веселов, Ю.В., Карапетян, С.Р., Белова, М.В., Скворцов, Н.Г., Чернов, Г.И., Дудина, В.И. (2023). Доверие в цифровом мире: Монография (Ю.В. Веселов, общ. ред.). Москва: Ай Пи Ар Медиа.
   Veselov, Yu.V., Karapetyan, S.R., Belova, M.V., Skvortsov, N.G., Chernov, G.I., Dudina, V.I. (2023). Trust in the digital world: A monograph (Yu.V. Veselov, ed.). Moscow: IPR Media. (In Russ.).
2. Розенова, М.И., Огнев, А.С., Лихачева, Э.В. (2025b). Стратегии профилактики деструктивно-манипулятивного цифрового мошенничества. В: Материалы IV научного форума с международным участием: Экстремальная психология в экстремальном мире (с. 48—54). М.: Спутник+. URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=89202974 (дата обращения: 02.06.2026).
   Rozenova, M.I., Ognev A.S., Likhacheva E.V. (2025b). Strategies for preventing destructive and manipulative digital fraud. In: Proceedings of the IV scientific forum with international participation: Extreme psychology in an extreme world (pp. 48—54). Moscow: Sputnik+. (In Russ.). URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=89202974 (viewed: 02.06.2026).
3. Жиллнер, Э. (2001). Соел ба түүний үүдэл: рациолнализм ба иррационалист хэлбэрийн түүхэн үүрэг, роль (Э.Н. Хян., Х.О. Орч, ред. ). Улаанбаатар: Бемби сан.
   Gillner, E. (2001). Culture and its roots: The historical role of racism and irrationalist forms (Eh.N Xian, Kh.O. Orch, eds). Ulaanbaatar: Bembi San.
4. Розенова, М.И., Огнев, А.С., Лихачева, Э.В. (2025a). Психологические механизмы деструктивного манипулирования и стратегии профилактики цифрового мошенничества. Современная зарубежная психология, 14(2), 26—37. https://doi.org/10.17759/jmfp.2025140203
   Rozenova, M.I., Ognev, A.S., Likhacheva, E.V. (2025a). Psychological mechanisms of destructive manipulation and strategies for preventing digital fraud. Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology, 14(2), 26—37. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/jmfp.2025140203
5. Цэцэнбилэг, Ц., Хатанболд, О. (Ред.). (2024). Цахимжилтын нөхцөл дэх Монгол, Беларусийн: Залуучуудын нийгмийн эрсдэл. Улаанбаатар:  Тод бичиг.
   Tsetsenbileg, Ts., Hatbold, Oh. (Eds). (2024). Social risks of youth in Mongolia and Belarus  in the context of digitization. Ulaanbaatar: Tod Bichig.
6. Чулуунбаатар, Г., Хатанболд, О. (2014). Төлөөллийн ардчилал: Oнол, үзэл баримтлалын зарим асуудал). Философи, эрхийн судлал, 29(1-32), 142—163.
   Chulunbaatar, G., Hatbold, O. (2014). Tilly democracy: On, some issues of Izzul doctrine. Philosophy and Legal Studies , 29(1-32), 142—163.
7. Шкурова, Е.В., Новицкий, Е.Н., Цэцэнбилэг, Ц. (2024). Особенности цифровых практик молодежи в Беларуси и Монголии. Журнал Белорусского государственного университета. Социология, 2, 58—67. URL: https://journals.bsu.by/index.php/sociology/ru/article/view/6313 (дата обращения: 02.06.2026).
   Shkurova, A.V., Navitsky, Ya.N., Tsetsenbileg, Ts. (2024). Features of digital practices of youth in Belarus and Mongolia. Journal of the Belarusian State University. Sociology, 2, 58—67. (In Russ.). URL: https://journals.bsu.by/index.php/sociology/ru/article/view/6313 (viewed: 02.06.2026).
8. Beckers, K. (2015). Pattern and Security Requirements: Engineering-Based Establishment of Security Standards. Springer.
9. Boritz, J.E. (2005). IS practitioners' views on core concepts of information integrity. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 6(4), 260—279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2005.07.001
10. Carroll, M., Chan, A., Ashton, H., Krueger, D. (2023). Characterizing manipulation from AI systems. In: EAAMO '23: Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (аrticle 6). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3617694.3623226 
11. Cross, C., Lee, M. (2022). Exploring fear of crime for those targeted by romance fraud. Victims & Offenders, 17(5), 735—755. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2021.2018080
12. Joshi, C., Singh, U.K. (2017). Information security risks management framework — A step towards mitigating security risks in university network. Journal of Information Security and Applications, 35, 128—137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisa.2017.06.006
13. Kanahaiya, L.A., Pramod, K. (2023). Online Fraud. In: C.M. Gupta (Ed.), Financial Crimes: A Guide to Financial Exploitation in a Digital Age (pp. 97—108). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29090-9_7
14. Kelley, N.J., Hurley-Wallace, A.L., Warner, K.L., Hanoch, Y. (2023). Analytical reasoning reduces internet fraud susceptibility. Computers in Human Behavior, 142, Article 107648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107648
15. Marshall, C., Byron, M., Crossler, R.E., Correia, J. (2018). InfoSec process action model (IPAM): Systematically addressing individual security behavior. Database for Advances in Information Systems, 49(SI), 49—66. https://doi.org/10.1145/3210530.32105
16. Park, P.S., Goldstein, S., O’Gara, A., Chen, M., Hendrycks, D. (2024). AI deception: A survey of examples, risks, and potential solutions. Patterns, 10(5), Article 100988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2024.100988
17. Zhuravlov, L.P., Pomytkina, L.V., Lytvynchuk, A.I., Mozharovska, T.V., Zhuravlov, V.F. (2020). Psychological security in the conditions of using information and communication technologies. In: Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Advances in Educational Technology (AET 2020) (pp. 216—223). https://doi.org/10.5220/0010930200003364
18. Sarkar, G., Shukla, S.K. (2023). Behavioral analysis of cybercrime: Paving the way for effective policing strategies. Journal of Economic Criminology, 2, Article 100034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconc.2023.100034
19. Stoneburner, G., Hayden, C., Feringa, A. (2004). Engineering Principles for Information Technology Security (A Baseline for Achieving Security), Revision A. Gaithersburg: National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-27rA
20. Verma, A. (2024). The impact of call spoofing on trust and communication: A user perception study. International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering, 14(2), 487—498. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsse.140216
21. Vize, C.E., Byrd, A.L., Stepp, S.D. (2023). The relative importance of psychopathy features as predictors of externalizing behaviors in youth: A multimethod examination. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 45(1), 1—17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-022-10017-5
22. Wiederhold, B.K. (2024). Digital desires, real losses: the complex world of online romance fraud. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 27(5), 300—302. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2024.29311.editorial