Categorization of the Concept of Freedom by the Representatives of Different Information Subcultures
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32626/2227-6246.2020-50.167-187Keywords:
freedom, ordinary consciousness, categories of consciousness, cognitive complexity, semantic differential.Abstract
The aim of the article is a comparative analysis of a structure and content of the concept «freedom» in the consciousness of adults who prefer different types of information media, traditional printed or new digital.
Methods. The study was carried out on a statistically large and homogeneous sample by age, level of education and professional activity (sphere of Intellectual labour). The differentiation of respondents into different information subculture representatives was carried out on the basis of two criteria: 1) the choice of an information media in their free time (printed media or the Internet); 2) the amount of time devoted to interaction with the chosen carrier. The criteria were determined through anonymous and voluntary questionnaires.
To study the structure and content of the concept «freedom» the author’s version of the method of semantic differential has been implemented. The author’s research method includes descriptors previously obtained by other researchers, on the basis of which, 7 categories («Assessment», «Strength», «Activity», «Complexity», «Orderliness», «Reality» and «Usuality») of everyday consciousness were extracted.
Results of the research. The results of a comparative analysis carried out in two contrasting groups choosing different information sources: the reading subjects and the active web-users are presented. Statistically, there is no significant difference between the two samples. As a result of a primary processing of the data of the average estimates on the scales of the semantic differential, the profiles coincide in the two groups. As a result of secondary processing (factor analysis), the representatives of different information subcultures revealed the same cognitive complexity of the concept «freedom» (12 factor-categories according to the Kaiser criterion, 4 of which are not accidental in their subjective significance for the respondents) and similar content of the leading categories.
Conclusions. There has empirically been revealed the cognitive simplicity of the «freedom» construct in the everyday consciousness of adult Belarusians and the unity of the representatives of various information subcultures in the understanding of the concept. This cognitive commonality can be explained by the common life experience background, which in the hierarchy of determinants of the content of consciousness turns out to be more authoritative than information habits and, therefore, information itself, regardless of its carrier. The obtained data partially dispel the frightening myth about possible rapid transformations of users’ consciousness through digital technologies.
References
Артемьева Е. Ю. Психология субъективной семантики. Москва : МГУ, 1980. 128 с.
Балл Г. А. Психологическое содержание личностной свободы: сущность и составляющие. Психологический журнал. 1997. Т. 18. № 5. С. 7–19.
Белова А. С. Проблема свободы в психологии: методический аспект. Педагогика и психология. 2008. № 1. С. 129–132.
Информационное общество в Республике Беларусь. 2019. Минск : Национальный статистический комитет Республики Беларусь, 2019. 100 с.
Кузьмина Е. И. Психология свободы. Москва : МГУ, 1994. 195 с.
Ланье Дж. 10 аргументов удалить все свои аккаунты в социальных сетях. Москва : Эксмо, 2019. 192 с.
Леонтьев Д. А. Психология свободы: к постановке проблемы самодетерминации личности. Психологический журнал. 2000. Т. 21. № 1. С. 15–25.
Мэй Р. Человек в поисках себя. Москва : Институт общегуманитарных исследований, 2016. 225 с.
О’Рейли Т. Что такое Веб 2.0? URL : http://www.computerra.ru/ think/234100/.
Паризер Э. За стеной фильтров. Что Интернет скрывает от вас? Москва : Альпина Бизнес Букс, 2012. 304 с.
Петренко В. Ф. Основы психосемантики. Санкт-Петербург : Питер, 2005. 480 с.
Франкл В. Человек в поисках смысла. Москва : Прогресс, 1990. 368 с.
Фромм Э. Бегство от свободы. Москва : Прогресс, 1990. 269 с.
Шмелев А. Г. Об устойчивости факторной структуры личностного семантического дифференциала. Вестник МГУ. Сер. 14. Психология. 1982. № 2. С. 62–65.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York : W. H. Freeman & Co. 603 р.
Bentler, P. M., & LaVoie A. L. (1972). An Extension of semantic Space. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour. Vol. 109. P. 123– 144.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. Perspectives on motivation. Vol. 38. P. 237–288.
Harre, R. (1983). Personal being. Oxford : Blackwell. 299 р.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Chicago and London : University of Illinois Press. 342 р.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright
The Editorial Board has the full right to publish original scientific papers containing results of theoretical and experimental research works which are not currently subject to review for publication in other scientific editions. The Author shall transfer to the editorial board of the Collection the right to spread the electronic version of the paper, as well as the electronic version of the paper translated into English (for papers originally submitted in Ukrainian and Russian) by all kinds of electronic means (placement at the official website of the Collection, electronic databases, repositories etc).
The Author of an article reserves the right to use materials of the paper, without approval with the editorial board and the founders of this Collection: a) partially or fully, for educational purposes; b) for writing own dissertation papers; c) for preparation of abstracts, conference reports and presentations.
The Author of an article can place electronic copies of the paper (including the final electronic version downloaded from the official website of the Collection) at:
- personal web resources of all Authors (websites, webpages, blogs etc.);
- web resources of the institutions where the Authors are employed (including electronic institutional repositories);
- non-profit public access web resources (for example, arXiv.org).
But in all cases, it is obligatory to have a bibliographic reference to the paper, or a hyperlink to its electronic copy placed at the official website of this Collection.