Polarization of the Technological Future in the Perceptions of Russian Urban Residents: From Digital Centaur to Techno-Isolationist
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2026.5.3343Keywords:
sociotechnical imaginary, image of the future, social scenarios, social forecasting, digital inequality, digital centaur, techno-pessimismAbstract
The article analyzes the models of the human-technology relationship most preferred as a desired vision of the future among Russian urban residents. The authors base their estimates on a survey of 1,900 respondents living in five regions of Russia. Within the survey, the respondents assessed their identification with six types of technologically augmented personality, namely, digital native (donor), digital centaur, techno-conservative, cyborg, personoid, and techno-isolationist. Respondents provided current assessments of their identification, as well as projections for 10 years into the future. The findings reveal a profound value polarization. Alongside the dominant demand for symbiosis with technologies, manifesting in centaur, digital native, and cyborg scenarios, there is a consolidation of a techno-conservative pole, which includes a notable rise in a radical group of techno-isolationists. The data reveals correlations between preferences and individual socio-demographic characteristics, such as gender, age, region, income, and employment, as well as with user activity, digital competence, and attitudes toward technologies (technophilia, technophobia, techno-pessimism, techno-rationalism). The authors show that the ability to limit technological presence becomes a “new luxury” accessible to affluent groups, while less affluent individuals either view technologies as a tool for social mobility or use virtual reality as a compensatory mechanism. Regional differentiation reveals a contrast between cities as points of advanced development and territories with traditional social structures, which act as centers for the crystallization of techno-conservative and isolationist attitudes. The identified gender asymmetry in preferences reflects potential vectors for exacerbating inequality with respect to women. The results open prospects for monitoring social dynamics and developing differentiated technology policy strategies.
Acknowledgments. The study was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (RSF), Project No. 23-18-00350-П, https://www.rscf.ru/project/23-18-00350/.
References
Андерсон Б. Воображаемые сообщества. Размышления об истоках и распространении национализма. М.: КАНОН-пресс-Ц, Кучково поле, 2001.
Anderson B. (2001) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Moscow: KANON-press-TS, Kuchkovo Pole. (In Russ.)
Выготский Л. С. Инструментальный метод в психологии // Собрание сочинений: в 6 т. Т. 1. М.: Педагогика, 1982. С. 103―108.
Vygotskiy L. S. (1982) Instrumental Method in Psychology. In: Vygotskiy L. S. Complete Works: in 6 Vols. Vol. 1. Moscow: Pedagogika. P. 103―108. (In Russ.)
Журавлев А. Л., Нестик Т. А. Психологические факторы негативного отношения к новым технологиям // Психологический журнал. 2016. Т. 37. № 6. С. 5―14.
Zhuravlev A. L., Nestik T. A. (2016) Psychological Factors of Negative Attitudes Towards New Technologies. Psychological Journal. Vol. 37. No. 6. P. 5―14. (In Russ.)
Зубофф Ш. Эпоха надзорного капитализма. Битва за человеческое будущее на новых рубежах власти. М.: Издательство Института Гайдара, 2024.
Zuboff S. (2024) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publishing House. (In Russ.)
Лем С. Абсолютная пустота / пер. с польск. В. Кулагиной-Ярцевой, Е. Вайсброт, К. Душенко, Е. Калявиной. М.: АСТ, 2019.
Lem S. (2019) Doskonała próżnia. Moscow: AST. (In Russ.)
Маклюэн М. Понимание медиа: внешние расширения человека. М.: Кучково поле, 2007.
McLuhan M. (2007) Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Moscow: Kuchkovo Pole. (In Russ.)
Мартыненко Т. C., Добринская Д. Е. Социальное неравенство в эпоху искусственного интеллекта: от цифрового к алгоритмическому разрыву // Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены. 2021. № 1. С. 171―192. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2021.1.1807.
Martynenko T. S., Dobrinskaya D. E. (2021) Social Inequality in the Age of Algorithms: From Digital to Algorithmic Divide. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes. No. 1. P. 171―192. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2021.1.1807. (In Russ.)
Нестик Т. А. Коллективный образ будущего: социально-психологический анализ. М.: Институт психологии РАН, 2025.
Nestik T. A. (2025) Collective Image of the Future: Socio-Psychological Analysis. Moscow: Institute of Psychology of the RAS. (In Russ.)
Нестик Т. А. Психологические аспекты корпоративного форсайта // Форсайт. 2018. Т. 12. № 2. С. 78―90. https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2018.2.78.90.
Nestik T. A. (2018) Psychological Aspects of Corporate Foresight. Foresight and STI Governance. Vol. 12. No. 2. P. 78―90. https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2018.2.78.90. (In Russ.)
Нестик Т. А., Задорин И. В. Отношение россиян к глобальным рискам: социально-демографические и психологические факторы восприятия угроз // Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены. 2020. № 5. С. 4–28. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2020.5.1700.
Nestik T. A., Zadorin I. V. (2020) Russian Attitudes Towards Global Risks: Socio-Demographic and Psychological Factors of Threat Perception. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes. No. 5. P. 4–28. https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2020.5.1700. (In Russ.)
Солдатова Г. У., Войскунский А. Е. Социально-когнитивная концепция цифровой социализации: новая экосистема и социальная эволюция психики // Психология. Журнал Высшей Школы экономики. 2021. Т. 18. № 3. С. 431―450. https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2021-3-431-450.
Soldatova G. U., Voiskunsky A. E. (2021) Socio-Cognitive Concept of Digital Socialization: A New Ecosystem and Social Evolution of the Psyche. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics. Vol. 18. No. 3. P. 431―450. https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2021-3-431-450. (In Russ.)
Солдатова Г. У., Нестик Т. А., Рассказова Е. И., Дорохов Е. А. Психодиагностика технофобии и технофилии: разработка и апробация опросника отношения к технологиям для подростков и родителей // Социальная психология и общество. 2021. Т. 12. № 4. С. 170―188. https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2021120410.
Soldatova G. U., Nestik T. A., Rasskazova E. I., Dorokhov E. A. (2021) Psychodiagnostics of Technophobia and Technophilia: Development and Testing of a Questionnaire on Attitudes Towards Technologies for Adolescents and Parents. Social Psychology and Society. Vol. 12. No. 4. P. 170―188. https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2021120410. (In Russ.)
Солдатова Г. У., Рассказова Е. И. Краткая и скрининговая версии индекса цифровой компетентности: верификация и возможности применения // Национальный психологический журнал. 2018. № 3. С. 47―56. https://doi.org/10.11621/npj.2018.0305.
Soldatova G. U., Rasskazova E. I. (2018) Brief and Screening Versions of the Digital Competence Index: Verification and Application Possibilities. National Psychological Journal. No. 3. P. 47―56. https://doi.org/10.11621/npj.2018.0305. (In Russ.)
Солдатова Г. У., Чигарькова С. В., Илюхина С. Н. Метаморфозы идентичности человека достроенного: от цифрового донора к цифровому кентавру // Социальная психология и общество. 2024. Т. 15. № 4. С. 40―57. https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2024150404.
Soldatova G. U., Chigarkova S. V., Ilyukhina S. N. (2024) Metamorphosis of the Identity of the Human Completed: from Digital Donor to Digital Centaur. Social Psychology and Society. Vol. 15. No. 4. P. 40―57. https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2024150404. (In Russ.)
Asmar A., Mariën I., Van Audenhove L. (2022) No One-Size-Fits-All! Eight Profiles of Digital Inequalities for Customized Inclusion Strategies. New Media & Society. Vol. 24. No. 2. P. 279―310. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211063182.
Bell W. (2009) Public Sociology and the Future: the Possible, the Probable and the Preferable. In: Jeffries V. (ed.) Handbook of Public Sociology. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. P. 89―106.
Bell W., Mau J. A. (1971) Images of the Future: Theory and Research Strategies. In: Bell W., Mau J. A. (eds.) The Sociology of the Future. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. P. 6―44.
Bostrom N. (2005) A History of Transhumanist Thought. Journal of Evolution and Technology. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 1―25.
Bronfenbrenner U. (1979) The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brosnan M. J. (1998) Technophobia: The Psychological Impact of Information Technology. London: Routledge.
Brubaker R. (2022) Hyperconnectivity and Its Discontents. Hoboken, NY: Polity.
Castaneda A. R., Maseeh H. I., Surachartkumtonkun J., Shao W., Thaichon P. (2026) Impact of Frontline Employees’ Perceived Benefits of Artificial Intelligence on AI Adoption and Job Engagement: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management. Vol. 133. Art. 104446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2025.104446.
Clark A. (2003) Natural-Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clark A., Chalmers D. (1998) The Extended Mind. Analysis. Vol. 58. No. 1. P. 7―19.
Fukuyama F. (2002) Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Glendinning C. (1990) When Technology Wounds: The Human Consequences of Progress. New York, NY: William Morrow & Co.
Haraway D. (1991) A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century. In: Haraway D. Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York, NY: Routledge. P. 149―181.
Hendriks A., Karhunmaa K., Delvenne P. (2025) Shaping the Future: A Conceptual Review of Sociotechnical Imaginaries. Futures. Vol. 170. Art. 103607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2025.103607.
Jasanoff S. (2015) Future Imperfect: Science, Technology and the Imaginations of Modernity. In: Jasanoff S., Kim S.-H. (eds.) Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. P. 1―33.
Johnson G., Puplampu K. (2008) A Conceptual Framework for Understanding the Effect of the Internet on Child Development: The Ecological Techno-Subsystem. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. Vol. 34. No. 1. P. 19―28.
Kato T. A., Sartorius N., Shinfuku N. (2024) Shifting the Paradigm of Social Withdrawal: A New Era of Coexisting Pathological and Non-Pathological Hikikomori. Current Opinion in Psychiatry. Vol. 37. No. 3. P. 177―184. https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0000000000000929.
Khasawneh O. Y. (2018) Technophobia: Examining its Hidden Factors and Defining It. Technology in Society. Vol. 54. P. 93―100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.03.008.
Licklider J. C. R. (1960) Man-Computer Symbiosis. IRE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics. Vol. HFE-1. No. 1. P. 4―11. https://doi.org/10.1109/thfe2.1960.4503259.
Mays K. (2024) Authentic Impediments: The Influence of Identity Threat, Cultivated Perceptions, and Personality on Robophobia. Human-Machine Communication. Vol. 8. P. 205―226. https://doi.org/10.30658/hmc.8.10.
Meissner D., Gokhberg L., Sokolov A. (eds.) (2013) Science, Technology and Innovation Policy for the Future: Potentials and Limits of Foresight Studies. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer.
Merton R. K. (1948) The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. Antioch Review. Vol. 8. P. 193―210.
Novozhilova E., Mays K., Katz J. E. (2024) Looking Towards an Automated Future: U.S. Attitudes Towards Future Artificial Intelligence Instantiations and Their Effect. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. Vol. 11. No. 1. Art. 132. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02625-1.
Park S. (2026) Wealth, Digital Overuse, and the Changing Landscape of Digital Inequality. Computers in Human Behavior. Vol. 174. Art. 108805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108805.
Patrignani N., Whitehouse D. (2014) Slow Tech: A Quest for Good, Clean and Fair ICT. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society. Vol. 12. No. 2. P. 78―92.
Polak F. (1973) The Image of the Future. London; New York, NY: Elsevier Publishing.
Popper R. (2008) Foresight Methodology. In: Georghiou L., Cassingena Harper J., Keenan M., Miles I.,
Popper R. (eds.) The Handbook of Technology Foresight: Concepts and Practice. Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar. P. 44―88.
Schleiger E., Mason C., Naughtin C., Reeson A., Paris C. (2024) Collaborative Intelligence: A Scoping Review of Current Applications. Applied Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 38. Art. 2327890. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2024.2327890.
Shahmehr F. S., Khaksar S. M. S., Miah S. J., Moughari M. M., Daim T. (2024) Reconciling Technophilia and Technophobia Using Intrarole Identity Tensions: A Paradox Theory perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. Vol. 71. P. 14500―14511. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2024.3454547.
Van Deursen A. J. A. M., Helsper E. J. (2015) The Third Level Digital Divide: Who Benefits Most from Being Online? Studies in Media and Communications. Vol. 10. P. 29―53.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Галина Уртанбековна Солдатова, Светлана Вячеславна Чигарькова, Елена Игоревна Рассказова
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
