www.ijcrsee.com

779

Daver, D. I., & Pishchik, V. I. (2025). Dialogism of generation Y and generation Z in online communication, International Journal

of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 779-791.

Original scientific paper

Received: August 25, 2025.

Revised: November 11, 2025.

Accepted: November 20, 2025.

UDC:

316.346.36

316.4.051.6:004.738.5

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

Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Corresponding author:

dianadaver@gmail.com

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 representa-

tives 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 toler-

ance, 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.

Keywords: generations Z and Y, personality traits, empathy, tolerance, openness, empathy, prosocial behavior,

value-meaning orientation.

Diana I. Daver

, Vlada I. Pishchik

Higher School of Professional Development “Sigma”, Moscow, Russian Federation, e-mail:

dianadaver@gmail.com

Don State Technical University, Department of General and Consultative Psychology, Rostov-on-Don, Russian Federation,

e-mail:

vladaph@yandex.ru

Dialogism of Generation Y and Generation Z in Online Communication

Introduction

Due to digitalization of recent two decades and active development of online communication, in-

terest of the scientists to the quality of online communication was raised. As the internet communication

develops, young people experience lack of face-to-face communication and educating institutions need

to take actions to improve interpersonal communication skills (Moisei, 2024). Measuring indicators of

dialogism in online communication has potential for better understanding the difference of online behavior

of representatives of both generations and can be implemented in development of courses for raising

dialogistic communication quality.

Millennials and generation Z differ dramatically from the point of view of behavior as well as intrinsic

values (Karakuttikaran and Kolachina, 2024)

The impact of globalization and digitalization on millennials was already noticed by Howe and

Strauss, 2000 (Reeves, 2007) and since the level of internet influence on young people has been increas-

ing, the younger generation, so called media natives, are completely formed and defined by technology

(Singh and Dangmei, 2016). Their inner world, including values, meanings, personal traits and ways of

reacting to reality differ from previous generation which is reflected in online communication (Twenge,

2006). Decrease of dialogism in modern communication due to digitalization was criticized by Linell

(Lourenço, Basto, Cunha, and Bento, 2013).

www.ijcrsee.com

780

Daver, D. I., & Pishchik, V. I. (2025). Dialogism of generation Y and generation Z in online communication, International Journal

of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 779-791.

The concept of dialogism as exchange of facts in speech and exchange of meanings was firstly

introduced by M. Bakhtin and developed by a number of philosophers, linguists and psychologists. H.

Hermans developed the idea of dialogism into Dialogical Self Theory (DST) (

Hermans, 2001) where he

makes emphasis on socially constructed identity. In the dialogue identity emerges from inter-voice dynam-

ics, and voices are shaped by social discourses (e.g., gender norms, ideologies). So personal identity and

discourse are interconnected and mutually influenced. The necessity of dialogism for therapy in the field

of psychology has also been proved. To change one’s identity, one has to be in constant dialogue with

himself, challenging dominant self-narratives by innovations which emerge through dialogical ruptures

(Hermans and Thorsten, 2014). The loss of dialogical self-organization and disintegration of self-dialogue

can be conditioned by personality destruction in cases of mental disorders like schizophrenia (Lysaker

and Lysaker, 2010). Dialogical personality in terms of psychotherapy processes was studied a lot (Dimag-

gio et al. 2010) and (Stiles, 2011).

In attempts to analyze which traits of personality contribute to dialogism in communication we

revealed openness (McCrae and Sutin, 2018), empathy (Decety and Cowell, 2014; Deutsch, 2006), toler-

ance, emotional stability (Gross, 2015), collectivistic value meaning system (Sanchez-Burks et al.2003).

Such traits like aggressiveness (Hopwood and Wright, 2012), absence of altruistic and communi-

cative meanings and excessive self-focus like in case of narcissism (Campbell and Foster, 2007) on the

contrary act as dialogism prevention factors.

We suppose that dialogism can be presented as a construct with empathy, tolerance, value mean-

ing orientation, communicative and altruistic meanings and such personal trait as openness, emotional

stability, emotional balance and prosocial behavior. Some elements can be positioned in the core and the

others – in the periphery. On the contrary, low indicators on openness, empathy, tolerance, altruistic and

communicative meanings, aggressiveness, irritability, depressiveness, neuroticism, emotional liability can

prevent dialogism (we call it adialogism).

A great number of researches have been conducted to study personal traits of dialogism of gener-

ations Y and Z. The values (Karakuttikaran and Kolachina, 2024, Deutsch, M. 2011, Črešnar and Nedelko,

2020), nature, level and quality of empathy (Lamm, 2023; Cherry, 2020; Decety and Cowell, 2014; Kritti,

2024), tolerance (McBeth, 2022); Tulgan, 2013; Twenge et al, 2019) differ from generation to generation.

It has already been noted that generation Z in comparison with Y is more inclined to diversity. Mil-

lennials have been developing tolerance (equality in marriage etc.), generation Z have a more diverse

approach to more social phenomena like gender fluidity, intersectionality; diversity means more racial

and ethnical diverse, it correlates with higher acceptance of multiculturalism and interracial relationships

(Parker and Igielnik, 2020). What makes generation Z more diverse than generation Y? First of all, Z are

internet natives, they think broadly, have no geographical limits and on the other hand they have lower

level of critical thinking in comparison with generation Y due to digital overload, short formats of informa-

tion (tik-tok), decreasing dynamics on reading books and long articles (

Twenge et al, 2019

). As a result of

digitalization algorithm-driven content discourages deep reading and fact-checking, generation Z tends to

prioritize speed over accuracy in information consumption (Baron, 2021) and are vulnerable for misinfor-

mation (Seemiller and Grace, 2016). Another basis for criticism of generation Z actions is their constant

fight over internet (boycotts, posts, petitions, twitter mobs) instead of systemic view and problem-solving

approach, taking into account dual nature of the social processes and the world in general. The dichotomy

reasoning brings young generation to vulnerability, depression, aggression (Lukianoff and Haidt, 2018)

Z’s choice to solve conflicts on social media field contributes to building victimhood culture, where young

people compete for the title of the most oppressed group. Together with moral dependency (appealing to

authorities on most conflicts, like HR, administrators) and micro aggression complaints, when any minor

misconduct perceived as systemic harm generation Z can be assumed as most victimized generation

(

Lukianoff and Haidt, 2018). Such attitude does not contribute into ability to build strong relationship on

transparent and clear communication, prevents young people from dialogism.

Collectivistic value meaning orientation when discussing Millennials has been emphasized by the

tendency to group collaboration (

Howe and Strauss, 2000) in comparison with Z generation, where col-

laboration is needed for entertainment mostly (Gabrielova and Buchko, 2021).

In order to study deeper the difference of dialogism of both generations we measured the men-

tioned above personal psychological traits, specified the level of dialogism of four groups and compared

discourses of respondents to realize if dialogism is expressed in discourse accordingly.

www.ijcrsee.com

781

Daver, D. I., & Pishchik, V. I. (2025). Dialogism of generation Y and generation Z in online communication, International Journal

of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 779-791.

Materials and Methods

A total of 784 respondents voluntarily participated in the study, 413 representatives of generation Y

(born between 1981 and 1999) and 371 representatives of generation Z (born between 2000 and 2010),

male and female. The geography of the study includes Moscow, Novosibirsk, St. Petersburg, Blagovesh-

chensk, and Rostov-on-Don. The study consists of the following stages: study of value meaning orienta-

tion of representatives of both groups (collectivistic or individualistic orientation) by means of the question-

naire of individualism and collectivism indicators (

Pochebut, 2012

). As a result, we formed four groups (Y

with individualistic orientation, Y with collectivistic orientation, Z with individualistic orientation and Z with

collectivistic orientation). We used “System of Life Meanings” (SLM) technique (Kotlyakov, 2003) to meas-

ure life meanings of four groups, multi-factor empathy questionnaire (Boyko, 1994) to measure the level

and quality of empathy, “Tolerance Index” questionnaire (Soldatova et al., 2008.) to measure level and

quality of tolerance, “Social norms of prosocial behavior” (Triandis (1995)) to study which kinds of proso-

cial behaviour all four groups tend to choose, Freiburg Multifactor Questionnaire FPI (Form B) (Kukhtova,

and Domoratskaya, 2011) to measure such personality traits like openness, aggression, shyness, emo-

tional stability or liability. At last, we applied content analysis to the discourses of representatives of four

groups in order to reveal if the level of dialogism of the group (measuring personality traits) coincide with

the number of dialogistic codes in discourse.

Here comes the description of methods.

L.G. Pochebut “Indicators of individualism - collectivism” technique (Pochebut, 2012) is based on the

identification of the cultural syndromes of Triandis (1995): collectivism and individualism. The questionnaire

consists of 30 statements, each of them marks one of the poles of the continuum of collectivism-individualism.

The methodology of studying the system of life meanings by V.Y. Kotlyakov (Kotlyakov, 2003) is

used to determine life meanings. The questionnaire consists of 24 statements that should be ranked.

Then, for each meaning (altruistic, existential, hedonistic, self-realization, status, communicative, family,

cognitive) rank values are calculated, and the lowest rank value has the greatest importance in the system

of human life meanings.

The method of diagnosing the level of empathic abilities by V. V. Boyko (Boyko, 1994) is a question-

naire of 36 statements that divide the answers into 6 scales:

• rational channel of empathy, focus of attention, perception and thinking of another personы feelings;

• emotional channel of empathy, the ability to be with the object of empathy “on the same wavelength”,

the ability to “feel into the situation of another”, emotional alinement to the empathized;

• intuitive channel of empathy determines the ability to act in a situation of lack of information about

another and on the basis of experience accumulated in the subconscious;

• attitudes promoting empathy, which characterize the presence/absence of attitudes that contribute to

a high/low level of empathy.

• identification in empathy reflects the ease, flexibility, mobility of an individual’s emotions, easy adjust-

ment and the ability to put oneself in another’s place, the ability to imitate.

• pervasive ability in empathy is assessed as a communicative property of an individual, necessary for cre-

ating an atmosphere of openness, trust, which directly contribute to empathy, and vice versa, low scores

on this scale mean that a person does not know how to create an atmosphere of openness and trust;

The main result is a point score, and an auxiliary result can be obtained by interpreting the results

for each scale separately.

To measure tolerance, the express questionnaire “Tolerance Index” (Soldatova et al., 2008) was

used. This questionnaire consists of 22 statements that must be assessed from “absolutely disagree” to

“completely agree”. The questionnaire includes three subscales: ethnic tolerance, social tolerance and

tolerance as a personality trait. Social tolerance demonstrates the attitude towards some social minorities

(mentally ill, poor), ethnic tolerance demonstrates the attitude towards representatives of other ethnic

groups, races. The subscale “tolerance as a personality trait” demonstrates beliefs (respect for opinions

different from one’s own, readiness for dialogue and conflict resolution). In addition to high, medium or

low levels of tolerance, different subscales can be considered to assess not only the level, but also the

qualitative characteristics of tolerance.

www.ijcrsee.com

782

Daver, D. I., & Pishchik, V. I. (2025). Dialogism of generation Y and generation Z in online communication, International Journal

of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 779-791.

To measure prosociality (prosocial behaviour) the method “Social norms of prosocial behavior”

(

Kukhtova, 2021) was used. This method is presented by 62 statements that determine a person’s beliefs

about helping others and are reflected in 4 subscales:

• the norm of social responsibility is the belief that “people should help each other”, following these

beliefs is necessary to avoid feelings of guilt and maintain stability of self-esteem, this norm requires

that a person helps in any case when another person depends on him, which is due to a sense of

responsibility and causal attribution;

• the norm of reciprocity is set of beliefs about “exchange relations”, that is, a person’s belief that he/she

will be helped if he helps;

• the norm of justice is set of beliefs that benefits should be distributed in accordance with efforts, with

costs. “Everything should be fair”, including helping each other;

• the “cost-reward” norm reflects a person’s beliefs about helping others in emergency situations, in

situations that cause distress.

The Freiburg Personality Questionnaire FPI is designed to diagnose states and personality traits

that are of high importance for the regulation of behavior and communication. The FPI questionnaire con-

tains 12 scales; Form B differs from the full form only by a smaller number of questions. The total number

of questions in the questionnaire was 114. We were interested in sociability, emotional stability, openness,

aggressiveness, neuroticism.

The content analysis was applied according to methodology of Kimberly Neuendorf for quantity

analysis and Klaus Krippendorff for quality conceptual analysis.

The data were statistically processed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, median values, Kruskal-Wallis

criterion, K-means, PCA (Principal Component Analysis), content analysis of written discourses. We made

assumptions: H1- personal psychological traits which are responsible for dialogism in communication like

empathy, tolerance, openness, collectivistic value-meaning orientation, altruistic and communicative mean-

ings, emotional stability, sociability, and prosocial behavior differ between representatives of two generations

qualitatively and quantitatively. H2 - high level of dialogistic traits of personality is reflected in discourse.

Results

The Shapiro-Wilk test confirmed that the sample of data (784 results) does not belong to a nor-

mally distributed population. As a result, we chose median values, which were analyzed for four groups

(Y collectivists -25%, Y individualists -28%, Z collectivists -23%, Z individualists -24%). Here we mention

only the outstanding results. Generation Z (collectivists and individualists) show higher results in rational,

emotional and intuitive empathy channels (M=4) in comparison with generation Y (M=2). They have also

high results in identification of empathy and Z individualists show higher results in pervasive empathy.

Tolerance index shows the highest scores of generation Y. Social tolerance is higher (M=38), com-

paring with other groups (M=33), tolerance as a personality trait is higher (M=37) in comparison with three

other groups (M=32). The general level of tolerance: Y collectivists (M=107), Y individualists (M=104,5), Z

collectivists (M=97) and Z individualists (M=92). Life meaning system questionnaire showed high scores

in communicative values for Z individualists (M=13), the lowest score for Y individualists (M=7), for altru-

istic values Z collectivists (M=13) and Z individualists (M=12) compared to Y collectivists (M=11) and Y

individualists (M=8).

FPI showed the highest scores for neuroticism, openness, irritability, emotional liability and aggres-

siveness of Z collectivists. The other groups did not show any specific difference.

In norms of prosocial behaviour (M=7) according to the scale of reciprocity norm (exchange rela-

tions) Y collectivists ranked higher in comparison with other groups (M=6, 3-6,5). Z collectivists demon-

strated the highest scores on social responsibility (M=12, 5), only half point higher than three other groups.

The next stage was aimed at finding out to what extent all four groups are different according to

the measured traits and how significant this difference is. We applied Kruskal-Wallis criterion (Table 1).

www.ijcrsee.com

783

Daver, D. I., & Pishchik, V. I. (2025). Dialogism of generation Y and generation Z in online communication, International Journal

of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 779-791.

Table 1. H-criterion. Difference significance of personal psychological traits

Personality psychological traits

H-criterion /

significance

Comparison

inside Y

generation

(collectivists (C)-

individualists (I))

Comparison of Y

and Z generations

inside of

collectivistic value-

meaning orientation

Comparison

of Y and Z

generations inside

of individualistic

value-meaning

orientation

Comparison

inside Z

generation

(collectivists (C)-

individualists (I))

Y, C- Y, I Y, C- Z, C Y, I- Z, I Z, I- Z, C

Rational channel of empathy 131,391 P<0,001 p 0,007 (C<I) p<0,001 (Z>Y) p<0,001 (Z>Y)

Emotional channel of empathy 31,012 P<0,001 p<0,001 (Z>Y) p<0,001 (I<C)

Intuitive channel of empathy 36,119 P<0,001 p 0,003 (C<I) p<0,001 (Z>Y) p 0,003 (I<C)

Attitudes that promote empathy 53,131 p 0,024 p<0,001 (Z>Y) p <0,001 (Z>Y)

Pervasive ability in empathy 9,401 P<0,001 p 0,012 (I<C) p 0,002 (Y<Z)

Identification in empathy 120,108 P<0,001 p<0,001 (Z>I) p <0,001 (Z>I)

Norm of social responsibility 29,628 P<0,001 p<0,001 (Z>Y) p <0,001 (C>I)

Norm of reciprocity 141,157 P<0,001 p 0,027и (C<I) p<0,001 (Z>Y) p<0,001 (Z>Y)

Norm of justice 36,95 P<0,001 p<0,001 (C>I) p<0,001 (K>I)

Norm of cost-reward 28,572 P<0,001 p<0,001 (K>I)

Altruistic meanings 30,539 P<0,001 p<0,001 (Z>Y) p<0,001 (Z>Y)

Level of tolerance 100,872 P<0,001 p<0,001 (Y>Z) p<0,001 (Y>Z)

Ethnic tolerance 141,337 P<0,001 p<0,001 (Y>Z) p<0,001 (Y>Z)

Social tolerance 49,717 P<0,001 p 0,033 (C>I) p<0,001 (Y>Z) p<0,001 (Y>Z)

Tolerance as a personality trait 17,692 P<0,001 p<0,001 (Y>Z) p<0,001 (Y>Z)

Neuroticism 281,655 P<0,001 p<0,001 (C<I) p<0,001 (Z>Y) p<0,001 (Z>Y) p <0,001 (C>I)

Spontaneous aggressiveness 210,195 P<0,001 p<0,001 (Z>Y) p<0,001 (Z>Y)

Depressiveness 150,127 P<0,001 p<0,001 (Z>Y) p<0,001 (Z>Y)

Irritability 143,29 P<0,001 p<0,001 p<0,001 (Z>Y) p<0,001 (Z>Y)

Sociability 69,57 P<0,001 p 0,01 (C>I) p<0,001 (Y>Z) p<0,001 (Y>Z)

Balance 63,378 P<0,001 p 0,002 (C<I) p<0,001 (Y>Z) p<0,001 (Y>Z)

Reactive aggressiveness 41,696 P<0,001 p 0,003 (I>C) p<0,001 (Z>Y) p<0,001 (Z>Y)

Openness 196,111 P<0,001 p<0,001 (Z>Y) p<0,001 (Z>Y)

Emotional lability 296,655 P<0,001 p<0,001 (Z>Y) p<0,001 (Z>Y) p 0 ,002 (C>I)

As follows out of the table all scales of tolerance, empathy, prosocial behavior, life meanings and

personal traits have significant difference inside generations and inside value-meaning orientation.

At the next stage we applied cluster analysis to identify personality psychological traits grouped

naturally. We received two clusters and here comes the description. When assessing the percentage of

respondents who fell into clusters, it was found that:

The first cluster mostly consists of Generation Y (it included 73.5% individualists and 85.1% collectivists)

The second cluster, on the contrary, mostly consists of Generation Z (67.0% individualists and

79.9% collectivists). The first cluster was dominated by: all tolerance indicators: general, ethnic, social,

tolerance as a personality trait, cost-reward norm (prosocial behavior); sociability; balance (emotional

stability). The second cluster was dominated by: altruistic and communicative life meanings, rational and

emotional channels of empathy, general empathy; reciprocity norm (prosocial behavior); neuroticism;

spontaneous aggressiveness; depressiveness; irritability; emotional lability; openness.

So, at this stage we can accept H1. The results show significant difference in dialogism quality:

for generation Y (first cluster) all tolerance indicators are typical: general, ethnic, social, tolerance as a

personality trait, cost-reward norm (prosocial behavior); sociability; balance (emotional stability). Dialo-

gism of generation Z is based on empathy, reciprocity, norms of prosocial behavior and openness, but

www.ijcrsee.com

784

Daver, D. I., & Pishchik, V. I. (2025). Dialogism of generation Y and generation Z in online communication, International Journal

of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 779-791.

has indicators of adialogism like neuroticism; spontaneous aggressiveness; depressiveness; irritability;

emotional lability.

It is important to notice that generation Y cluster includes no personal psychological traits which

prevent dialogism (like aggressiveness, depressiveness, irritability, emotional liability), which proves that

this generation is more dialogic. It is also worth to signify that altruistic and communicative life meanings

were only specified in Z generation cluster. Factors in both clusters are represented in Table 2.

Table 2. Factors represented in 2 clusters

Factors 1 cluster 2 cluster

Rational channel of empathy -0.3928104 0.4147306

Emotional channel of empathy -0.3193282 0.3371479

Intuitive Empathy Channel -0.263947 0.2786762

Attitudes that promote empathy -0.1657499 0.1749993

Penetrating power in empathy 0.0700873 -0.0739984

Identification in empathy -0.2743749 0.289686

General empathy -0.4239101 0.4475658

Social responsibility 0.0528368 -0.0557852

Norm of reciprocity -0.4188191 0.4421907

Norm of justice 0.1556937 -0.1643819

Cost-reward 0.354938 -0.3747448

Altruistic meanings

-0.3611787 0.3813338

Communicative meanings -0.2811196 0.2968071

Ethnic tolerance 0.4711973 -0.4974918

Social tolerance 0.35265 -0.3723291

Tolerance as a personality trait 0.2656954 -0.2805222

General tolerance 0.484459 -0.5114936

Neuroticism -0.6236496 0.6584515

Spontaneous aggressiveness -0.6164374 0,6508368

Depressiveness -0.6063147 0.6401492

Irritability -0.6253794 0.6602778

Sociability 0.2724351 -0.287638

Emotional balance 0,2066082 -0.2181377

Reactive aggression -0.3586997 0.3787165

Openness -0.4772753 0.5039089

Emotional lability -0.5993781 0.6328255

In order to identify elements of core and periphery of dialogism and in order to understand the role

of value-meaning orientation we applied PCA (Principal Component Analysis) for each generation group.

Generation Z showed a lower dispersion of the first two components (lower completeness of the

sample description by the obtained components – 17 and 15.3%, respectively), that is reflected in table 3.

www.ijcrsee.com

785

Daver, D. I., & Pishchik, V. I. (2025). Dialogism of generation Y and generation Z in online communication, International Journal

of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 779-791.

Table 3. Generation Z, distribution of 2 components

Factor 1 component 2 component

Rational channel of empathy 0,07643 0,08404

Emotional channel of empathy 0.05133 0,00411

Intuitive Empathy Channel 0.02923 0,01723

Attitudes that promote empathy 0.02228 0.06185

Penetrating power in empathy

0.15294 0.02403

Identification in empathy 0.04012 0.02768

General empathy 0.00016 0.11732

Social responsibility standard 0.05694 0,00064

Norm of reciprocity 0.38705 0.00409

Norm of justice 0,05650 0,00080

Standard of remuneration expenditure 0.21151 0.02816

Altruistic meanings 0.00934 0.47849

Communicative meanings 0,00117 0,68120

Ethnic tolerance 0.30635 0.00375

Social tolerance 0,18166 0.00294

Tolerance as a personality trait 0.29650 0.00585

General tolerance 0.50015 0,00788

Neuroticism 0.35553 0,01585

Spontaneous aggressiveness 0.62032 0.00688

Depressiveness 0.42251 0.00096

Irritability 0.62769 0,00000

Sociability 0,08848 0,00483

Emotional balance 0.00023 0.00532

Reactive aggression 0.38074 0.00556

Openness

0.20387 0,00678

Emotional lability 0.43728 0,00008

Generation Y has higher dispersion rates of the first two components (20.5 and 12.1%, respec-

tively), that is reflected in table 4.

Table 4. Generation Y, distribution of 2 components

Factor 1 component 2 components

Rational channel of empathy 0,07643 0,08404

Emotional channel of empathy 0.05133 0,00411

Intuitive Empathy Channel 0.02923 0,01723

Attitudes that promote empathy 0.02228 0.06185

Penetrating power in empathy 0.15294 0.02403

Identification in empathy 0.04012 0.02768

General empathy 0.00016 0.11732

Social responsibility standard 0.05694 0,00064

Norm of reciprocity 0.38705 0.00409

Norm of justice 0,05650 0,00080

Standard of remuneration expenditure 0.21151 0.02816

Altruistic meanings 0.00934 0.47849

www.ijcrsee.com

786

Daver, D. I., & Pishchik, V. I. (2025). Dialogism of generation Y and generation Z in online communication, International Journal

of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 779-791.

Factor 1 component 2 components

Communicative meanings 0,00117 0,68120

Ethnic tolerance 0.30635 0.00375

Social tolerance 0,18166 0.00294

Tolerance as a personality trait 0.29650 0.00585

General tolerance 0.50015 0,00788

Neuroticism

0.35553 0,01585

Spontaneous aggressiveness 0.62032 0.00688

Depressiveness 0.42251 0.00096

Irritability 0.62769 0,00000

Sociability 0,08848 0,00483

Emotional balance 0.00023 0.00532

Reactive aggression 0.38074 0.00556

Openness 0.20387 0,00678

Emotional lability 0.43728 0,00008

For each generation correlation circles were compiled. When constructing a correlation circle (the

correlation between the indicator of the feature fed into the model and the selected component is estimat-

ed), the following results were obtained: for Y individualists high correlation – the core of dialogism (0,4-

0,6) was revealed for neuroticism, irritability, depressiveness, spontaneous aggressiveness, openness;

for Y collectivists -general tolerance, social tolerance, ethnic tolerance, sociability; for Z individualists

– cost reward norm, social , ethnic tolerance, tolerance as trait of character, sociability; for Z collectivists

– irritability, spontaneous aggressiveness, reactive aggressiveness, norm of reciprocity, emotional liability,

neuroticism, depressiveness. For all four groups communicative and altruistic meanings have high cor-

relation (0,6), which means each group has these meanings in the core of dialogism. Empathy (all kinds)

and some kinds of prosocial behavior have lover correlation index (0,2), which means these features will

be placed at periphery.

Now we proceed to H-2. We analyzed 559 written discourses of four groups of respondents. The

task was to write how respondents understand dialogue in on-line communication, participants of dia-

logue, what is the purpose of dialogue.

At the first stage we specified two themes: dialogism and adialogism. As a result of qualitative con-

tent analysis at the coding stage, the following codes for the theme “dialogism” with different word forms

were identified: listening (active, attentive), conversation, mutual, relationships, mutual understanding,

mutual respect, ready to hear/listen/hear, trust, critical thinking, bridge, communication, open, relation-

ships, understanding, acceptance, equal, development of relationships, meaning, creating a common un-

derstanding, calm, creativity/creation, tolerance, respect, ability to listen, establish the truth, truth. Codes

for the theme “adialogism”: interaction, change, express an opinion, discussion, presentation of facts,

tool, tool for achieving a goal, exchange of information, exchange of thoughts, exchange of remarks,

transfer of knowledge, conversation, solution, problem solving, coordination of actions, dispute, means of

communication/exchange, means of achieving a goal, style/manner/method, fun/entertainment, transfer

of meaning, convince, establishing contact, simplifying life, establishing connections, goal, pleasure. The

“dialogic” group includes words connected in meaning with an empathic attitude, reciprocity, listening,

attention and respect for the interlocutor, with acceptance, perception of the interlocutor as an equal-

ity, comprehension, consideration, with the depth of relationships and feelings. The adialogic codes are

represented by words expressing the attitude to dialogue as an exchange of information, a tool, enter-

tainment, management, expressing a utilitarian meaning. A total of 53 codes (semantic units - words and

expressions) were encountered in 559 texts (episodes) 776 times.

The next step was to group the codes into larger groups, for example, words such as mutual under-

standing, mutual relations, mutual respect, mutual* (word forms of the word mutual) were combined into

the code group “reciprocity”. Such words and expressions as active listening, ready to hear, ability to listen

were combined into the code group “listening”. Thus, in dialogism, the following code groups(categories)

www.ijcrsee.com

787

Daver, D. I., & Pishchik, V. I. (2025). Dialogism of generation Y and generation Z in online communication, International Journal

of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 779-791.

were distinguished: reciprocity, listening, communication, community and understanding, trust, critical

thinking, openness, relationships, equal, calm, creativity/creation, tolerance, respect, truth. In adialogism,

the following code groups (categories) were identified: interaction/coordination, influence, conversation,

instrument, exchange, transfer, solution, means, style/manner, simplification/entertainment, connection/

contact.

Code categories of dialogism are presented at Figure 1, code categories for adialogism are pre-

sented at Figure 2.

Figure 1. Code categories of dialogism theme

Figure 2. Code categories of adialogism theme

At the last stage we calculated which out of four groups has in their discourses more dialogism

codes and which one has more adialogism codes. Figure 3 and 4 show the distribution of dialogism and

adialogism categories in discourses of different generation and value-meaning groups.

www.ijcrsee.com

788

Daver, D. I., & Pishchik, V. I. (2025). Dialogism of generation Y and generation Z in online communication, International Journal

of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 779-791.

Figure 3. The distribution of dialogism categories in

discourses of four groups

Figure 4. The distribution of adialogism categories in

discourses of four groups

Discussions

The obtained results show that representatives of generation Y are more dialogistic in online com-

munication due to the absence of psychological personal traits which prevent dialogism like aggressive-

ness, neuroticism, depressiveness, shyness and emotional liability. They seem to understand dialogue

in online communication as well as they do in off line communication. For them dialogue is the process

of mutual listening, understanding, where interlocutors are treated with respect and equality. This can be

explained by the fact that generation Y use online communication like extra channel, extra tool to maintain

relationships offline. They seem to accept online communication like additive way of communication and

apply the same attitude to online dialogue as to offline one. Collectivistic value-meaning system helps

them to maintain collaboration, to which they tend online as well as offline, they have enough offline re-

lationships and they do not concentrate on online only. Individualists of generation Y have less tendency

to collaboration due to their value-meaning organization, as a result they are more exposed to influence

of online communication styles and express adialogism personality psychological traits in online com-

munication. Z generation individualists have approximately the same level of dialogism as Y individualists

and have medium expression of dialogism in their discourses. Their value-meaning orientation does not

demand a lot collaboration by any means, even though they appreciate communication and have altruistic

meanings. The most adialogistic group is representatives of generation Z of collectivistic orientation. We

suppose this can be the result of the inner conflict of their need in collaboration and inability to maintain

it online. As it is known young generation enter big number of groups and leave them as easily as they

entered, under these circumstances it is impossible to maintain collaboration and dialogism cannot be

developed due to the presence of adialogism psychological personal traits. They perceive online commu-

nication as a tool for utilitarian purposes and do not have enough ability to develop communication offline.

Conclusions

Online communication of representatives of two generations differ due to the value-meaning orien-

tation (individualistic and collectivistic) and belonging to a certain generation group. Other psychological

peculiarities like openness, empathy, prosocial behavior, tolerance, altruistic and communicative mean-

ings, emotional stability/lability, neuroticism, aggressiveness, irritability, sociability define the level of di-

alogism in on-line communication.

The level of dialogism (openness, motivation to communicate (communicative meaning), be in the

group (collectivistic orientation), high level of tolerance, empathy and prosocial behavior, sociability and

altruistic meanings) is expressed in the online discourse. The basis of dialogistic online communication is

introduced by semantic codes connected with trust, tolerance, openness, equality.

Adialogistic online communication is explained by low tolerance and empathy, as well as by the

www.ijcrsee.com

789

Daver, D. I., & Pishchik, V. I. (2025). Dialogism of generation Y and generation Z in online communication, International Journal

of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 779-791.

presence in personality such traits like aggressiveness, irritability, emotional lability, depressiveness, neu-

roticism and expressed in online discourse by semantic codes with instrumental meaning.

Due to low level of dialogism in personal traits and expression of adialogism in discourse genera-

tion Z representatives need to be trained for communication competence, especially those who have

collectivistic value -meaning orientation.

Acknowledgements

The study presented in this paper is part of a PhD thesis titled “Dialogism in on-line communication

of representatives of different generations of users” and was conducted in Moscow College of Geodesy

and Cartography. The authors would like to express gratitude to the Deputy Director for Educational Work

Popova Larisa V. and to all participants of the study.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial,

or not-

for-profit sectors.

Conflict of interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Data Availability Statement

The derived data and the results of this study are available on request from the corresponding

author. The data have been anonymized, but are not publicly available due to privacy issues.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Participant Consent Statement

All participants involved in this study consciously and voluntarily participated in the research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.D., and V.P.; methodology, DD., and V.P.; software, D.D.; formal analysis,

D.D..; writing—original draft preparation, D.D.; writing—review and editing, D.D., and V.P; valida-

tion, D.D., and V.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

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

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

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

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

Deutsch, M. (2011). Cooperation and Competition. Conict, Interdependence, and Justice, 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-

1-4419-9994-8_2

www.ijcrsee.com

790

Daver, D. I., & Pishchik, V. I. (2025). Dialogism of generation Y and generation Z in online communication, International Journal

of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 779-791.

Dimaggio, G., Montano, A., Popolo, R., & Salvatore, G. (2015). Metacognitive Interpersonal Therapy for Personality Disorders.

Routledge.

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 Auage. 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

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

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

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. Jour-

nal of Personality Assessment, 94(3), 296–303.

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).

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

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

Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2018). The coddling of the American mind: how good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a gen-

eration 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

McBeth, M. K. (2022). Coddled or Engaged? Teaching Political Tolerance to Generation Z Students. Journal of Political Sci-

ence Education, 1–17.

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

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

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/publica-

tion/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 communi-

cation 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

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

Siberian psychology today: A collection of scientic papers. (2003). Issue 2. Kemerovo: Kuzbassvuzizdat. (In Russ). http://

hpsy.ru/public/x2633.htm (In Russ).

www.ijcrsee.com

791

Daver, D. I., & Pishchik, V. I. (2025). Dialogism of generation Y and generation Z in online communication, International Journal

of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(3), 779-791.

Singh, A. P., & Dangmei, J. (2016). Understanding the Generation Z: The Future Workforce. South-Asian Journal of Multidisci-

plinary 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., Prokoeva, T. Yu., & Kravtsova, O. A. (2008). Психодиагностика толерантности

личности[Psychodiagnostics of personality tolerance]. Moscow, Russia: Smysl.

https://djvu.online/le/n5ycF1t46fuli

?ysclid=mikjeq8uau461831270

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism And Collectivism (1st ed.). Routledge. 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 Condent, 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: Reex-

amining a cohort-sequential longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, e9-e17.

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

Workshop on psychodiagnostics and research of personality tolerance (2003). Edited by G.U. Soldatova et al. Moscow: Mos-

cow State University. (In Russ).