The individuality of a person in the context of digitalization: an overview of modern research and approaches

Introduction

The modern world is changing rapidly in technological, social and spiritual terms. The system of values that is significant to individuals is transforming, and lifestyles and living conditions are becoming standardized. It also affects a person's personality: they gradually lose the unique character traits and individuality that make them who they are. The problem of developing individuality in conditions that contribute to its disintegration (deindividualization) has been identified by a number of renowned domestic and foreign psychologists, such as G. Le Bon, E. Fromm, R. Ziller, F. Zimbardo, A.V. Petrovsky, G.M. Andreeva, V.I. Slobodchikov, E.I. Isaev, V.V. Zenkovsky, S. Frank, etc., and is becoming more and more relevant. Different researchers point to various factors as determinants of the disintegration of individuality. These include the power of the crowd, which begins to act as an independent subject, subordinating the personality; the refusal to take responsibility for actions, especially in virtual communication; underdeveloped self-awareness and reflection, including a lack of need for them; and the need to belong to a group and receive its approval. The processes of deindividualization are caused by the global socio-anthropological crisis, which manifests at an individual level as infantilism, aggressiveness, limitations, a need for stimulation and an inability to concentrate (Frolova, 2013; The Age of Digital Interdependence, 2019, etc.). Researchers studying personality and individuality have noted that deindividualization is currently more intense. This raises the question of what causes the loss of individuality in modern socio-cultural conditions, and how and to what extent individuality can develop and exist in these conditions (Bolshunova, Ustinova, 2024; Frolova, 2013; Rezvitsky, 2019).

Individuality in the context of digitalization: an exploration of the issues

The problem of individuality and its development has traditionally been of interest to Russian psychologists. Works by B.G. Ananyev, E.A. Golubeva, V.S. Merlin and other differential psychologists present research on individuality, which contains personal, psychological and subjective content (Ananyev, 1968; Merlin, 1986; Golubeva, 2005; Kabardov, 2020; Bolshunova, Ustinova, 2024). In domestic psychology, the understanding of individuality, where personality acts as one of its substructures, is historically conditioned.1. Due to historical circumstances, Christian (Orthodox) psychology largely dominated Russian psychology in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. At the same time, Christian psychology is characterized by an appeal to the individual soul. This is because the soul is immortal, in communion with God, and able to take responsibility for what happens in one’s life and in the world. It is also worth noting the views of the Russian philosopher, theologian, psychologist, and educator V. V. Zenkov, who defines individuality as the “spiritual core of a person or personality” and “a living, creative force that determines psychological development” (Zenkov, 1996, p. 195). Similar positions are presented in the works of N. O. Lossky, P. Florensky, and S. Frank. (Lossky, 2000; Florensky, 2001; Frank, 2007). In religious and philosophical anthropology, deindividualization is caused by alienation from God (Frank, 2007; Hoblick, 2014). This entails detaching from one’s own personality, resulting in a loss of subjectivity and the ability to distinguish between the self and others. It also manifests as susceptibility to manipulation, an undeveloped sense of self and a lack of reflection. Historically, interest in individuality and its origins has also been a characteristic of the natural-scientific approach to Russian psychology. (Lazursky, 1997; Pavlov, 1954; Ukhtomsky, 2002)2.

The tradition of researching holistic individuality — integrating individual, personal, subjective and spiritual principles — continues to thrive in the schools of B. G. Ananyev, B. M. Teplov, and V. S. Merlin. It is important to note that, in most Russian schools of differential psychology, individuality is not reduced to a set of qualities (biological, social, psychological, personal, etc.) that distinguish one person from another. Rather, it is understood as the unique combination of these qualities that make up a person’s identity and individuality. Despite the significant contributions of W. Stern, F. Galton, A. Anastasi and others to the emergence of foreign differential psychology, personality psychology (or personology, as represented by G. Murray, S. Maddy, etc.) is more widely recognized. In this field, individuality is considered to be one of the aspects of personality. Moreover, foreign differential psychology focuses more on peculiarities and variability, and on listing differences, than on integrity and uniqueness.

Thus, in Russian differential psychology, individuality is regarded as the “core of a person” (Zenkovsky, 1996), integrating individual, personality and subject parameters (Ananyev, 1968; Merlin, 1986; Golubeva, 2005).

We understand individuality as the integrity and uniqueness of a person, implemented through the choice, design, and implementation of their life path. This development involves ascending to subjectivity (to oneself, one’s authenticity) at each stage of age development, as well as an ascent to socio-cultural samples, in which the spiritual component is represented (Bolshunova, Ustinova, 2024). In B. M. Teplov’s (1961) opinion, research into individuality was the most important area of scientific psychology. In these changed socio-cultural conditions, the question of individuality and the understanding of how it develops becomes particularly important.

One such crucial change is globalization, characterized by multi-vector civilizational processes such as the unification of human development and the accentuation of ethno-cultural and national specialness. These processes also entail the degradation of subjectivity, the loss of meaning and the loss of meaning-making (Astafieva, Flier, 2013; Bolshunov, Tyurikov, Bolshunova, 2020; Korytyna, 2016; Sloterdijk, 2010). The unification processes, when accompanied by appropriate conditions such as regulation in the spheres of language, culture, life norms and values, can lead to depersonalization, the loss of cultural and individual uniqueness and specialness. This is because they are accompanied by the same phenomena within the framework of a limited 'we'.

Cultural scientists believe that spiritual life is the aspect of culture that is most resistant to aggressive globalization. Self-identity is based on cultural uniqueness, which is enshrined in language, mentality, experience and behavior. However, it is this sphere that is subject to aggressive influence, making use of all the possibilities offered by internet communications and spreading the trendy concepts of the modern person’s image.

The effects of globalization are being exacerbated by two factors: digitalization and the pressure of information. The digital transformation of all aspects of society, including education, is inevitable. The technological paradigm shift affecting all areas of life, including the economy, industry, medicine, entertainment, and art, requires corresponding changes in education. However, the total digitalization of all activities, especially those involving children, is already having an adverse psychological and sociocultural impact, as it tends to be carried out carelessly and ignorantly.3. The risks associated with digitalization, in the broader context of this phenomenon (including informatization, virtualization, digital transformation, etc.), are not limited to legal issues such as security, privacy, information overload, etc. The emergence of a new digital environment poses more serious challenges to human life (Auzan, 20194; Krupennikova, Kurbatov, 2014; The Age of Digital Interdependence, 2019; Mattern, 2021; Squires & Johnson, 2020, etc.). According to Internet World Stats, the number of internet users has increased rapidly, from 2.8 billion in 2014 to an estimated 5.6 billion in 2024. At the same time, however, humanity is not ready to face this new reality. New phenomena are emerging that need to be conceptualized in terms of their significance and impact on culture and human development. For example, there is Linguistics 2.0 (communication from keyboard to screen) and Special Communication (communication 2.0), which is characterized by the language of hostility, liberation and irresponsibility, and a lack of sensitivity to the distinction between public and intimate matters (Goroshko, 2016). Existence in the virtual world is such that self-determination and concern about authenticity are unnecessary. In fact, it is preferable to have multiple selves “scattered” across different blogs, avatars, nicknames, etc. In the digital realm, there's no requirement to be your authentic self, take responsibility, or explore the limits of your identity. Several researchers believe that the behavioral model implemented in digital realm can easily be transferred to communication and interaction with others in real life (Fortunatov, Bokova, Egorov, 2014). This results in the same type of facilitated, superficial and irresponsible communication being actualised.

Those studying the “new digital reality”, including philosophers, culturologists, political scientists, linguists, educators and psychologists, have mixed attitudes towards the consequences of digitalization. These range from negative (Fortunatov et al., 2014; Yalda et al., 2014) to mostly positive (Prensky, 2012; Berulava, 2012), and optimistic ones. The optimistic position is based on the idea that, under certain conditions, an “extended personality” emerges. This personality positively adapts to the digital environment due to digital competence, technorationalism, openness to change, and self-transcendence. It then acquires digital sociality (Soldatova, Chigarkova, Ilyukhina, 2024; Karabanova, Tikhomandritskaya, Molchanov, 2024; Soldatova, Voyskunsky, 2021; Karabanova, Tikhomandritskaya, Molchanov, 2024). However, having positive experiences of and successfully adapting to the digital environment are not sufficient conditions for developing individuality. If digital devices are introduced in a way that is inadequate from psychological and sociocultural perspectives, there is a high likelihood of irreversible changes to culture, communication, and personality. The deontologization of human life in the virtual world (Polyankina, 2020; Fortunatov, 2014), the anonymity of communication provoking aggressive verbal behavior, trolling, and bulling, as well as the desacralization of the system of “traditional” values (Aleynikov et al., 2022, p. 292) are all possible negative consequences that have been identified. Other possible negative consequences include superconnectivity and subjectivity in the absence of the possibility to verify information, problems determining authorship and so on. (Krupennikova, Kurbatov, 2014).

Let us elaborate on the possible negative psychological consequences of digitalization if it is carried out spontaneously, without considering the specifics of the digital environment and how it is managed. The digitalization of human life can result in the restriction of personal freedom and sovereignty, the weakening or erasure of the boundaries of the “self”, and the loss of trusting, intimate communication and social sensitivity. This is primarily due to the anonymity of the interacting characters. Anonymity enables one to appear rather than be, to adopt various guises and, eventually, lose one’s authenticity and face. This results in the loss of the ability to make decisions and take responsibility. At the same time, modern psychologists, philosophers and cultural anthropologists (e.g. Florenskaya, 2001; Sloterdijk, 2005) have emphasized the importance of closeness, intimacy, emotionally charged interaction, care and sincerity for a person’s normal psychological state and children’s successful sociocultural development.

The effects of digitalisation may also be evident in cognitive processes, particularly in terms of attention (Firat, 2025). The most obvious and expected consequence is the weakening of memory productivity, since people no longer need to memorize and store information. This results in a primitivization of thought and understanding processes based on the limited information available in the realm of representations in the internal plane. Images impoverished or even distorted by the virtual environment cannot provide adequate material necessary for imagination, creativity and meaning-making to flourish. Thus, the general consequence of “moving” into the digital world can be a simplification of one's relationships with the outside world and other people, and a poverty of one’s inner world, experiences, value system and meanings (Bolshunov, Tyurikov, Bolshunova, 2019).

“Smart home”, “smart city”, “smart building”, and “internet of things” undoubtedly make everyday life easier for people, save resources and facilitate the interaction of information between people. However, Mattern (2021) suggests that a person who is detached from the physical world gradually loses the ability to control it and be a subject in relation to it. The problem of human interaction with social robots and artificial intelligence is also relevant in connection with the above projects. The psychological aspect of the problem stems from the fact that “social robotics begins to give robots the capacity for social interaction” (Motorina, 2023, p. 40), further exacerbating the issue of the decline in human ability for genuine, intimate interpersonal communication and replacing it with simulacra. Substituting genuine human communication, which is associated with the exchange of meanings, experiences and mutual understanding, with imitation of all these things, can lead to humans losing them and significantly changing the parameters of human civilization.

Digitalization has already brought about disturbing changes in human development, particularly among adolescents and young people. One such change is the tendency to transfer the communication features characteristic of virtual environments to reality. In this regard, the reflections of P. Slooterdijk are noteworthy. He distinguishes between two modes of existence: spheres and networks (Slooterdijk, 2010). According to this theory, the network relationships created by digitalization cause people to cease being subjects and become objects of the network. While the 'sphere' (home, family and intimacy) is a relationship of intimacy, people here are open with each other. This makes them “defiantly defenseless” towards each other (Sloterdijk, 2005), creating the conditions for subjective relations in the context of human meaning. Thus, in people's lives, society ontologically presents two modes of existence: the subject-oriented (world-oriented, spherological) mode and the object-oriented (network-oriented) mode. Currently, the object-oriented approach is becoming the dominant one, resulting in 'the substitution of subjectivity by agency' (Bolshunov et al., 2019, p. 88). It is important to understand that the modern person’s life is shaped by a new digital environment that competes with traditional ways of living and being. This environment changes many things, including habits, attitudes and views of the world and the people around us. It requires new approaches to changed conditions and, most importantly, changes our view of ourselves and our sense of uniqueness in a multitude of manifestations and relationships.

Conclusion

A review of studies on the preservation and development of human individuality in the context of pronounced civilizational changes associated with globalization and digitalization revealed that humanity lacks sufficient experience in organizing a developing digital environment. Consequently, we can conclude that the uncertain and insufficiently researched socio-psychological and socio-cultural consequences of digitalization carry a high risk of destructuralization of the main spheres of human life and of the loss of individuality and subjectivity in relation to the social, socio-cultural, and subjective environment (Bolshunova, Ustinova, 2024).

Civilizational changes raise a number of questions: what are the developmental possibilities of the digital environment; what is the nature of human subjectivity in relation to the digital environment; and what are the negative consequences of digitalization? The most significant problem is developing prevention principles and programs for a digital environment for children of different ages. In the context of the cultural-historical approach and the historical crisis of childhood, the most important problem becomes the study of ways and methods by which adults can mediate the developmental and educational functions of the digital environment, taking into account L.S. Vygotsky’s cultural-historical concept and S.L. Rubinstein’s subject-oriented approach (Bolshunova, 2022).

Given the creative potential of digitalization, there is a high likelihood of developing digital co-dependency. This is characterized by toxic traits that manifest as a loss of subjectivity in relation to the digital environment, and deindividualization. Such traits include a deformed image of the self and its boundaries, communication difficulties, particularly in dialogue, and cognitive, emotional, and volitional changes. (Bolshunova, 2022). Special work is needed before digitalization is introduced in education to prevent such changes. Age-appropriate preventive programs should be used from preschool age onwards. They can be used to encourage reflection and model productive relationships with the virtual world in a context that considers value and sense. They can also be used to develop the ability to recognize attempts at manipulation and counteract them (Bolshunova, 2022). Implementing these kinds of programs involves adults fully mediating the introduction of children and adolescents to the digital world. From childhood, it is important to educate people on how to develop constructive relationships with the digital environment, making use of its developmental opportunities while avoiding dangerous interactions and promoting self-knowledge and self-development.

Limitations. As we are at the beginning of this process, there is not enough research on the impact of digitalization on individuality.

1. Алейников, А.В., Мальцева, Д.А., Тузова, П.Р. (2022). Медиатизация коммуникаций как фактор трансформации ценностных ориентаций российской молодежи: тенденции и риски (часть 1). Политическая экспертиза: ПОЛИТЭКС. 18(3), 288–303. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu23
   Aleynikov, A.V., Maltseva, D.A., Tuzova, P.R. (2022). Mediatization of communications as a factor in the transformation of value orientations of Russian youth: trends and risks (Part 1). Political expertise: POLITEX. 18(3), 288–303. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu23 (In Russ.).
2. Ананьев, Б.Г. (2001). Человек как предмет познания. СПб.: Питер.
   Ananyev, B.G. (2001). Man as an object of cognition. St. Petersburg. Publ. Peter. (In Russ.).
3. Астафьева, О.Н., Флиер, А.Я. (2013). Социокультурная модернизация: формирование новой культурной среды. Культурологический журнал. Электронное периодическое рецензируемое издание, (1)11, 1–15. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/sotsiokulturnaya-modernizatsiya-formirovanie-novoy-kulturnoy-sredy/viewer (дата обращения: 20.08.2025).
   Astafieva, O.N., Flier, A.Ya. (2013). Socio-cultural modernization: formation of a new cultural environment. Cultural journal. An electronic periodical peer-reviewed publication, (1)11, 1–15. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/sotsiokulturnaya-modernizatsiya-formirovanie-novoy-kulturnoy-sredy/viewer(accessed 08/20/2025). (In Russ.).
4. Берулава, Г.А. Теория сетевого образования как новая методологическая платформа высшего образования (2012). Гуманизация образования. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/teoriya-setevogo-obrazovaniya-kak-novaya-metodologicheskaya-platforma-vysshego-obrazovaniya/viewer (дата обращения: 18.08.2025).
   Berulava, G.A. Theory of network education as a new methodological platform of higher education (2012). Humanization of education. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/teoriya-setevogo-obrazovaniya-kak-novaya-metodologicheskaya-platforma-vysshego-obrazovaniya/viewer (date of access: 18.08.2025). (In Russ.).
5. Большунов, А.Я., Тюриков, А.Г., Большунова, С.А. (2019). Человек между смыслом и вздором (логико-семантический и психологический анализ сознания эпохи глобальных трансформаций). Развитие человека в современном мире, (3), 87–103.
   Bolshunov, A.Ya., Tyurikov, A.G., Bolshunova, S.A. (2019). A man between meaning and nonsense (logical, semantic and psychological analysis of consciousness in the era of global transformations). Human development in the modern world, (3), 87–103. (In Russ.).
6. Большунов, А.Я., Тюриков, А.Г., Большунова, С.А. (2020). Социопсихология атрофии духа человека (цивилизация без культуры). Развитие человека в современном мире, (1), 103–117.
   Bolshunov, A.Ya., Tyurikov, A.G., Bolshunova, S.A. (2020). Sociopsychology of the atrophy of the human spirit (civilization without culture). Human development in the modern world, (1), 103–117. (In Russ.).
7. Большунова, Н.Я. (2022). Организация цифровой среды или развитие цифровой компетентности – выборы цифрового образования / Л.С. Выготский и А.Р. Лурия: культурно-историческая психология и вопросы цифровизации в социальных практиках: материалы международного конгресса по культурно-исторической психологии, посвященного памяти Ж.М. Глозман (г. Новосибирск, 15–17 ноября г.) (с. 70–77) / под редакцией Т.Э. Сизиковой, Г.С. Чесноковой; Министерство просвещения Российской Федерации, Новосибирский государственный педагогический университет. Новосибирск: Изд-во НГПУ.
   Bolshunova, N.Ya. (2022). The organization of the digital environment or the development of digital competence – the choices of digital education. L.S. Vygotsky and A.R. Luria: cultural and historical psychology and issues of digitalization in social practices: proceedings of the International Congress on Cultural and Historical Psychology dedicated to the memory of J.M. Glozman (Novosibirsk, November 15-17) (pp. 70–77). Edited by T.E. Sizikova, G.S. Chesnokova; Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation, Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University. Novosibirsk: Publ. NSPU Publishing House. (In Russ.).
8. Большунова, Н.Я., Устинова, О.А. (2024). Проблема развития индивидуальности в современной социокультурной ситуации. Развитие человека в современном мире, (4), 7–21.
   Bolshunova, N.Ya., Ustinova, O.A. (2024). The problem of personality development in the modern socio-cultural situation. Human development in the modern world, (4), 7–21. (In Russ.).
9. Венгер, А.Л. (2008). Поколение пустыни. Культурно-историческая психология, (4), 62–70.
   Wenger, A.L. (2008). Generation of the Desert. Cultural and historical psychology, (4), 62–70. (In Russ.).
10. Выготский, Л.С. (1991). Педагогическая психология. Под ред. В.В. Давыдова. М.: Педагогика.
    Vygotsky, L.S. (1991). Pedagogical psychology. Edited by V.V. Davydov. Moscow: Publ. (In Russ.).
11. Горошко, Е.И. (2016). Новые тенденции в развитии интернет-лингвистики: общение от клавиатуры (звука) к экрану (звуку). Верхневолжский филологический вестник: научный журнал. (4). Ярославль: РИО ЯГПУ. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/novye-tendentsii-v-razvitii-internet-lingvistiki-obschenie-ot-klaviatury-zvuka-k-ekranu-zvuku (дата обращения: 22.08.2025).
    Goroshko, E.I. (2016). New trends in the development of Internet linguistics: communication from keyboard (sound) to screen (sound). Verkhnevolzhsky Philological Bulletin: scientific journal. (4). Yaroslavl: Publ. RIO YaGPU. (In Russ.). URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/novye-tendentsii-v-razvitii-internet-lingvistiki-obschenie-ot-klaviatury-zvuka-k-ekranu-zvuku (date of request: 22.08.2025).
12. Голубева, Э.А. (2005). Способности, личность, индивидуальность: взгляд и раздумья психофизиолога. Дубна: Феникс+.
    Golubeva, E.A. (2005). Abilities, personality, individuality: the view and reflections of a psychophysiologist. Publ. Dubna: Phoenix+. (In Russ.).
13. Зеньковский, В.В. (1996). Проблемы воспитания в свете христианской антропологии. М.: Школа–Пресс.
    Zenkovsky, V.V. (1996). Problems of education in the light of Christian anthropology. Moscow: Shkola-Press. (In Russ.).
14. Кабардов, М.К. (2020). Мозг и психика: от физиологических школ И.М. Сеченова – И.П. Павлова к дифференциально-психофизиологической школе Б.М. Теплова – И.Д. Небылицына. Сборник: Личность в меняющемся мире: здоровье, адаптация, развитие, 8(1(28)), 115–133. РГМУ им. акад. И.П. Павлова.
    Kabardov, M.K. (2020). Brain and psyche: from the physiological schools of I.M. Sechenov – I.P. Pavlov to the differential psychophysiological school of B.M. Teplov – I.D. Nebylitsyn. Collection: Personality in a changing world: health, adaptation, development, 8(1(28)), 115–133. Publ. Russian State Medical University named after Academician I.P. Pavlov. (In Russ.).
15. Карабанова, О.А., Тихомандрицкая, О.А., Молчанов, С.В. (2024). Связь базовых ценностей личности с характером психологической адаптации к глобальным цифровым рискам. Психологическая наука и образование, 29(4), 104–125. https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2024290409
    Karabanova, O.A., Tikhomandritskaya, O.A., Molchanov, S.V. (2024). The relationship between basic personality values and the nature of psychological adaptation to global digital risks. Psychological Science and Education, 29(4), 104–125. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2024290409
16. Корытина, М.А. (2016). Культурная глобализация: феномен, сущность, противоречия процесса. Изв. Сарат. ун-та. Нов. сер. Сер. Философия. Психология. Педагогика, 16(4), 381–387. 18500/1819-76712016-16-4-381-387
    Korytina, M.A. (2016). Cultural globalization: phenomenon, essence, contradictions of the process. Izv. Sarath. un-ta. New ser. Ser. Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy, 16(4), 381–387. 10.18500/1819-76712016-16-4-381-387 (In Russ.).
17. Крупенникова, Л.Ш., Курбатов, В.И. (2014). Виртуальная личность: Net-мышление, сетевой психотип и Интернет фобии. Электронный журнал Инженерный вестник Дона, (3). URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/virtualnaya-lichnost-net-myshlenie-setevoy-psihotip-i-internet-fobii-1 (дата обращения: 22.08.2025).
    Krupennikova, L.S., Kurbatov, V.I. (2014). Virtual personality: Net-thinking, network psychotype and Internet phobias. Electronic journal Engineering Bulletin of the Don, (3). (In Russ.). URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/virtualnaya-lichnost-net-myshlenie-setevoy-psihotip-i-internet-fobii-1 (date of request: 22.08.2025).
18. Лазурский, А.Ф. (1997). Избранные труды по психологии. М.: Наука.
    Lazursky, A.F. (1997). Selected works on psychology. Moscow: Publ. Nauka. (In Russ.).
19. Лосский, Н.О. (2000). Ценность и бытие: Бог и Царство Божие как основа ценностей. Харьков: Фолио; М.: АСТ.
    Lossky, N.O. (2000). Value and being: God and the Kingdom of God as the basis of values. Kharkiv: Folio; Moscow. Publ. (In Russ.).
20. Мерлин, В.С. (1986). Очерк интегрального исследования индивидуальности. М.: Педагогика.
    Merlin, V.S. (1986). Essay on the integral study of individuality. Moscow: Pedagogy. (In Russ.).
21. Моторина, Л.Е. (2023). Взаимосвязь человека и робота как феномен социального взаимодействия. Социальная психология и общество, 14(1), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2023140103
    Motorina, L.E. (2023). The relationship between humans and robots as a phenomenon of social interaction. Social psychology and society, 14(1), 38–54. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2023140103
22. Павлов, И.П. (1954). Избранные труды. М.: Учпедгиз, 1954.
    Pavlov, I.P. (1954). Selected works. Moscow: Uchpedgiz, 1954. (In Russ.).
23. Полянкина, С.Ю. (2020). Онлайн-образование: реонтологизация или деонтологизация. Профессиональное образование в современном мире, 10(1), 67–89. DOI:10.15372/PEMW20200105
    Polyankina, S.Y. (2020). Online-education: reontologisation or deontologisation? Professional education in the modern world, 10(1), 3428–3437. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.15372/PEMW20200105
24. Резвицкий, И.И. (2019). Существует ли индивидуальная социальность, или На пути к индивидуализированной социальной теории. Философские науки, 62(5), 62–79. DOI:10.30727/0235-1188-2019-62-5-62-79
    Rezvitsky, I.I. (2019). Is there an individual sociality, or is it on the way to an individualized social theory? Philosophicalsciences, 62(5), 62–79. (In Russ.). DOI:10.30727/0235-1188-2019-62-5-62-79
25. Слотердайк, П. (2005). Сферы. Микросферология. Т. I. Пузыри. СПб.: «Наука».
    Sloterdijk, P. (2005). Spheres. Microspherology. T. I. Bubbles. St. Petersburg: Nauka. (In Russ.).
26. Слотердайк, П. (2010). Сферы. Микросферология. Т. III. Пена. СПб.: «Наука».
    Sloterdijk, P. (2010). Microspherology. T. III. Foam. St. Petersburg: Nauka. (In Russ.).
27. Солдатова, Г.У., Войскунский, А.Е. (2021). Социально-когнитивная концепция цифровой социализации: новая экосистема и социальная эволюция психики. Психология. Журнал высшей школы экономики, 18(3), 431–450. DOI:10.17323/1813-8918-2021-3-431-450
    Soldatova, G.U., Voiskunsky, A.E. (2021). Social-cognitive concept of digital socialization: a new ecosystem and social evolution of the psyche. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 18(3), 431–450. (In Russ.). DOI:10.17323/1813-8918-2021-3-431-450
28. Солдатова, Г.У., Чигарькова, С.В., Илюхина, С.Н. (2024). Технологически расширенная личность: разработка и апробация шкалы самоуправления цифровой повседневностью. Вестник Московского университета. Серия 14. Психология, 47(2), 175–200. https://doi.org/10.11621/LPJ-24-20
    Soldatova, G.U., Chigarkova, S.V., Ilyukhina, S.N. (2024). DigitalExtended Personality: Development and Testing of а Digital Daily Life Self-Management Scale. Lomonosov Psychology Journal, 47(2), 175–200. (In Russ.). https://org/10.11621/LPJ-24-20
29. Теплов, Б.М. (1961). Проблемы индивидуальных различий. М.: Учпедгиз.
    Teplov, B.M. (1961). Problems of individual differences. Moscow: Uchpedgiz. (In Russ.).
30. Ухтомский, А.А. (2002). Доминанта. Статьи разных лет. 1887-1939. СПб, «Питер».
    Ukhtomsky, A.A. (2002). Dominant. Articles from different years. 1887-1939. St. Petersburg, "Piter". (In Russ.).
31. Фельдштейн, Д.И. (2011). Глубинные изменения современного Детства и обусловленная ими актуализация психолого-педагогических проблем развития образования. Вестник практической психологии образования, (4), 3–12.
    Feldstein, D.I. (2011). Profound changes in modern Childhood and the resulting actualization of psychological and pedagogical problems of educational development. Bulletin of practical Psychology of Education, (4), 3–12. (In Russ.).
32. Флоренский, П.А. (2001). Христианство и культура. М.: Изд-во АКТ, Фолио.
    Florensky, P.A. (2001). Christianity and Culture. Moscow: AKT Publishing House. Folio. (In Russ.).
33. Флоренская, Т.А. (2001). Диалог в практической психологии: Наука о душе. М.: Гуманит. изд. центр ВЛАДОС.
    Florenskaya, T.A. (2001). Dialogue in Practical Psychology: The Science of the Soul. Moscow: Humanitarian Publishing Center Vlados. (In Russ.).
34. Флорова, М.И. (2013). Деиндивидуализация как объект социально-философской рефлексии. Философия и культура, (8), 1069–1076.
    Florova, M.I. (2013). Deindividualization as an object of socio-philosophical reflection. Philosophyandculture, (8), 1069–1076. (In Russ.).
35. Фортунатов, А.Н., Бокова, А.В., Егоров, В.И. (2014). Поствиртуальный человек: есть ли надежда на социокультурное возрождение? Вестник Нижегородского университета им. Н.И. Лобачевского, (6), 242–245.
    Fortunatov, A.N., Bokova, A.V., Egorov, V.I. (2014). Post-virtual person: is there any hope for a socio-cultural revival? Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod Lobachevsky University, (6), 242–245. (In Russ.).
36. Франк, С.Л. (2007). Реальность и человек: Метафизика человеческого бытия. М.: АСТ: Хранитель.
    Frank, S.L. (2007). Reality and Man: Metaphysics of Human Existence. Moscow: AST: Keeper. (In Russ.).
37. Фират, М. (2025). Эффект длительного времени, проведенного за экраном смартфона, на непрерывное распределенное внимание. Психологическая наука и образование, 30(3), 72–84. https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2025300306
    Firat, M. (2025). The effect of prolonged smartphone screen time on sustained divided attention. Psychological Science and Education, 30(3), 72–84. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/pse.2025300306
38. Хоблик, Ю.Ю. (2014). Религиозные корни понятия индивидуальности у С.Л. Франка. К реабилитации индивидуальности, о которой говорилось еще в еврейской древности. Мысль. Журнал Петербургского философского общества, (16), 85–89.
    Hoblik, Yu.Y. (2014). The religious roots of the concept of individuality in S. L. Frank. Towards the rehabilitation of individuality, which was discussed in Jewish antiquity. Thought. Journal of the St. Petersburg Philosophical Society, (16), 85–89. (In Russ.).
39. Эльконин, Б.Д. (1992). Кризис детства и основания проектирования форм детского развития. Вопросы психологии, (3), 7–13.
    Elkonin, B.D. (1992). The crisis of childhood and the foundations of designing forms of child development. Questions of psychology, (3), 7–13. (In Russ.).
40. The Age of Digital Interdependence. (2019). Retrieved from 47 p. URL: https://www.un.org/en/pdfs/DigitalC-ooperation—report—for%20web.pdf (date of request: 05.03.2022).
41. Mattern, Sh. (2021). A City Is Not a Computer: Other Urban Intelligences by Shannon Mattern. Princeton University Press.
42. Prensky, M. (2012). From digital natives to digital wisdom: Hopeful essays for 21st century learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
43. Squires, S., Johnson, J. (2020). Anthropological Take on Cyber-security: How a Legacy Security Belief System is Impacting Us Today. Open Access Journal of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2(2). DOI:10.33552/OAJAA.2020.02.000535
44. Uhls, Y., Michikyan, M., Morris J., Garcia, D., Small, G., Zgourou, (2014). Five days at outdoor education camp without screens improves preteen skills with nonverbal emotion cues. Computers in Human Behavior, (39), 387–392.