RIGIDITY AND THINKING STYLE OF STUDENTS IN THE CONTEXT OF DIGITALIZATION

Panacheva T.A.¹, Kholopova E.S.²

Panacheva T.A.

Russian State Professional Pedagogical University
e-mail: romanovatanya1312@mail.ru

Kholopova E.S.

Russian State Professional Pedagogical University
e-mail: shikitti@gmail.com

The development of information technology in the modern world is one of the consequences of scientific and technological progress. Thanks to digitalization in many areas of life, people have new opportunities, more convenient interaction with the outside world, and the ability to transcend physical boundaries through virtual "travel" through the internet, providing access to virtually all human works: literature, art, science, and technology. Advances in digital technology allow people to work, study, and communicate under any conditions and without any difficulties or inconveniences. The development of artificial intelligence further simplifies modern life, frees up time, and provides interesting and relevant information by filtering recommendations based on user requests. On the other hand, scientific and technological progress has contradictory consequences. In the same areas where digitalization and information technology provide comfort and convenience, they also have negative consequences for the user, which they may not recognize due to the vast number of advantages and benefits of technology.

When a person interacts not with real society, where they encounter different opinions, viewpoints, and personalities, where they experience conflict and learn from interactions, but with computer technology, where information and social circles are strictly filtered by the user, they become isolated from the outside world and become accustomed to the environment they themselves have created. This can subsequently lead to a rejection of what they don't like, a denial of other points of view, the humiliation and oppression of people with different views, and a tendency to adopt the attitude of "I'm in charge, everything must serve my interests." This is a manifestation of one type of egoism—dictatorial egoism. This digital environment, in which the individual exists solely within the boundaries initially established by their own interests, strictly filtering out information that contradicts their subjective views, not leaving their familiar comfort zone, and perceiving simple information that cannot be analyzed or reflected upon, can be described as irrational and ineffective use of the information environment. In the information world, people exist alone, and everything is for them. As a result, users' thinking loses criticality, and stereotypes develop without the opportunity to experience new things. Since people live exclusively within their own interests and are not exposed to opposing opinions, they are unable to accept others' points of view. Conflict increases, and conflict resolution methods lacking critical thinking become destructive, ineffective, and, most likely, conflict management strategies are just as unfavorable. Negative consequences of the digitalization of the population can include narrowed horizons, decreased emotional and social intelligence, and increased conflict.

Digitalization primarily impacts human thinking. Complete immersion in information technology can lead to changes in thinking styles and mental rigidity, as a person in a closed information environment is unable to access potentially new information and experiences. Therefore, research into the transformation of thinking styles and the mental capacity to absorb new experiences—that is, mental flexibility—as a result of the digitalization of social life is relevant.

In the socio-pedagogical aspect, the relevance of the study is determined by the needs of the education system to adapt methodological materials for the training and development of the digital generation in order to compensate for and neutralize the negative impact of information technology on intellectual, spiritual and physical development, as well as to form constructive strategies for human behavior and interaction both in the digital environment and in society as a whole.

In the scientific and theoretical aspect, the relevance of the work is determined by the need to identify patterns and characteristics of thinking that have been transformed and transformed through digitalization, as well as in defining new scientific and methodological approaches to thinking in the context of the development of information technology.

In the scientific and methodological aspect, the relevance of the work is determined by the need to develop methods and techniques for interacting with established features of thinking, reducing the influence of information technology on the development of thinking in the context of digitalization.

The main field of problems within the framework of the research is the study of the style of thinking formed as a result of immersion in the information environment and identifying the influence of this environment on the ability of the human psyche to accept other opinions, new information and new experiences.

Digitalization is «the widespread process of dissemination and implementation of digital technologies in various spheres of society: economics, culture, education, etc.» [2, p. 112].

Digitalization is currently taking place in all spheres of human life. Digitalization has a significant impact on human consciousness and activity in the education system, as learning and development shape thinking and personality. Distance learning, which has progressed during the coronavirus pandemic, has both advantages and disadvantages.

Educational materials have become more accessible to every student, and learners are improving their digital skills. Distance learning requires students to demonstrate independence and self-organization, which forces them to develop. Teachers' work, in turn, is simplified. Moreover, as technology evolves, users are also improving their skills and learning new things to effectively interact with it.

The negative consequences of digitalization manifest themselves in both physiological and psychological aspects.

Digitalization is, first and foremost, a simplification of the subject's physical activity, a reduction in motor activity, and a rejection of the ordinary use of the capabilities of the human anatomical and physiological structure.

For example, E.A. Strukova points out that the physiological characteristics of primary school-aged children are particularly vulnerable to social influence. Therefore, using a gadget for 15-20 minutes can lead to a decrease in concentration, making it difficult for the student to maintain it until the end of the lesson.

The impact further develops through the elimination of handwriting. Without writing, a student's reading skills decline, and motor skills and coordination deteriorate. Handwriting engages areas of the brain responsible for the relationship between thinking and activity, thoughts and actions. Expressive and receptive speech, therefore, also deteriorate.

Thanks to built-in text correction software, less attention will be paid to spelling and punctuation. People may focus less on how they write, which can lead to difficulties formulating thoughts, which can impact real-life communication.

The uncontrolled introduction of digital technologies into the activities of children, adolescents, and even adults leads to a huge number of physiological disorders affecting the visual, nervous, musculoskeletal, and cognitive systems. Moreover, in addition to physiological disorders, negative impacts on the social and psychological aspects of a person's life can be observed.

Remote learning and work take place at home, where other family members also study or work, resulting in a shift in environment and roles. Students find it harder to concentrate on their studies at home, and remote workers also find it more challenging to function in a professional environment. This shift in roles impacts family relationships, resulting in increased tension and discomfort. At the same time, self-organization and work-rest patterns are disrupted, which affects biological rhythms and productivity. Digitalization affects human socialization. As a result of digitalization, important components of this process, described by L.S. Vygotsky, E. Erikson, D.B. Elkonin, and other authors studying aspects of developmental and developmental psychology, are being lost. With the use of digital technologies, emotional contact between people is reduced, face-to-face communication is lacking, and student interaction with peers and teachers is limited to formal interactions. Remote learning can also impede the development of communication skills.

On the other hand, when using digital technologies, the subject doesn't completely cease interacting with the surrounding world; on the contrary, they enter another world where they continue to interact. Leaving the real world, they enter an information environment, the so-called information space.

The terms information space and information environment are often defined as synonyms in psychological science. However, according to the ecopsychological approach to the development of the psyche, information space is "an objectively existing space of information possibilities" [8, p. 38]. The information environment, unlike space, does not exist independently of the individual or group. On the contrary, the individual, based on his subjective needs and interests, forms around himself that part of the information space that meets his requirements. This environment changes as the individual changes, that is, the individual defines and changes his information environment. But the information environment also influences the individual. Thus, when moving on to the negative impact of digitalization in human life, we can conclude that harm is caused not by the very existence of the information space, the development of digital technologies, but by how the individual uses the opportunities of digitalization, how he adjusts and structures his own individual "information environment". Social networks, as a means of communication and interaction, contain cyberbullying. V.N. Stepanov writes that "digital technologies also expand the range of aggressive actions against the victim: the aggressor can create offensive memes, collages, cartoons, and videos, invent and spread rumors, write threatening comments and private messages, publish information about the victim without their consent, blackmail them by disseminating personal data, hack accounts, and write impersonated messages to their loved ones, colleagues, and teachers. Experts believe that cyberbullying can be more dangerous than physical bullying..." [10].

Foreign sources identify the FOMO effect (fear of missing out), loneliness, anxiety, and insomnia as negative consequences of digitalization [12, p. 257].

A.I. Gordin and O.V. Gordina consider transhumanism, a transitional stage of humanism toward self-destruction, to be the primary consequence of digitalization. Humanism, at its core, embraces human rights, while transhumanism, in turn, embraces the human right to change one's nature. Transhumanism views humans not as individuals, but as imperfect beings. The authors examine information culture in two aspects: technical and technological and sociocultural. Technical and technological culture is the ability to find, process, generate, and transmit information using technical information tools, while the sociocultural aspect is the ability to identify universal social meanings in the flow of information, which directly influence the user's worldview, values, and behavior. A person with a balanced understanding of these two aspects is considered informationally cultured. Excessive technocratization threatens the robotization of consciousness, while excessive sociocultural information activity threatens the ideologization of consciousness. The consequences include technical or ideological dependence, loss of subjectivity, and the possibility of totalitarian external control [3, p. 539]. The main objective of this study is to determine the impact of digitalization on thinking style and the ability of thinking to perceive and assimilate new experience. In psychological science, thinking is considered as "a process of human cognitive activity characterized by a generalized, mediated reflection of objects and phenomena of reality in their essential connections and relationships, which is based on a set of cognitive and metacognitive skills, abilities, and attitudes" [6, p. 36]. Modern psychological research shows that thinking is probabilistic in nature. This probabilistic nature is based on an "assumption," that is, on the decision-making mechanism. It is based on the belief that the decision made is correct. The complexity of the decision-making process lies in the limitations of external information; therefore, it is necessary to develop a thinking style that will ensure the most rational and effective decision-making with limited external data.

A.K. Belousova made a significant contribution to the study of thinking in Russian psychology. She identifies three areas of research in thinking: cognitive style; psychophysiological mechanisms; and the identification and study of thinking styles.

A.K. Belousova defines thinking style through a set of functions used by a person in various problem-solving situations.

The author identifies four styles of thinking: proactive, practical, managerial, and critical.

Foreign psychologists A. Harrison and R. Bramson developed a theory of thinking styles. They identified five thinking styles: dialectic (Hegel) – synthesizer; philosophical idealism (Kant) – idealist; philosophical pragmatism (E.A. Singler) – pragmatist; symbolic logic (Leibniz) – analyst; empiricism (Locke) – realist. This idea is based on differences in the methods and systems of thinking and cognition of famous scientists.

This theory was translated and adapted by Russian authors A.A. Alekseev and L.A. Gromova. The synthetic style is the unification of parts of phenomena or objects into a whole, a synthesis of thoughts. People with this type of thinking are inclined to create something new and original, to imagine and fantasize; they strive to create a general concept by combining what they have; they view the problem globally. This thinking style is theoretical; its owners notice contradictions in the reasoning of others; they strive to unite opposing views. People with this thinking style are receptive to something new; they see the world as changing and try to change it themselves; they are categorical in their reasoning and do not accept criticism. Synthesizers have difficulty with monotonous work. The analytical style is also a theoretical style. It differs from the synthetic style, on the contrary, in the decomposition of the whole into its parts.

Those with this style are distinguished by a logical, rational, detailed, and cautious decision-making approach. Their work involves developing a plan, analyzing external and internal conditions, implementing it, and preparing. Analysts value knowledge, eagerly and successfully absorbing it, eventually becoming automatic. They are reluctant to change their views, valuing consistency and stability, and therefore find it difficult to adapt to a new environment. Like synthesizers, analysts do not accept other people's positions. The idealistic style is characterized by a broad view of the world. People with this type of thinking idealize reality, plans, and the future. Consequently, they are often disappointed by unfulfilled plans and hopes. Idealists tend to make intuitive assessments without analyzing the circumstances; they have a heightened interest in values, morality, and needs; they strive to smooth over contradictions by finding similarities; and they effectively solve problems determined by emotions and feelings. People with this style of thinking are characterized by kindness, modesty, lack of self-confidence, are sensitive to quarrels, and are themselves quite touchy.

The realistic thinking style is practical. Those with this mindset place greater emphasis on practice than theory; they value facts, concreteness, straightforwardness, and the ability to acknowledge and correct mistakes. Realists consider only what can be felt and seen to be significant and real. This thinking style is characterized by concreteness and rigor in thought and action. Realists prioritize results; they often strive to correct what they believe is incorrect or untrue.

The fifth thinking style is the pragmatic style. Pragmatists rely solely on their own experience, using readily available knowledge and materials. The goal of those with a pragmatic mindset is to achieve results and practical gains as quickly and effectively as possible. Pragmatists' behavior may seem superficial; they believe that everything in the world happens by chance and depends on random circumstances. They successfully determine the behavioral tactics of others, are flexible and adaptive, and are able to use the circumstances of a situation to their advantage. Thinking styles are correlated with the level of cognitive development, and the thinking style itself is a socialized construct, which means that an individual is capable of learning different thinking styles. According to numerous studies, it is important to develop a thinking style that allows one to seek ways and means of solving complex problems based on intellectual abilities and a probabilistic assessment of events and phenomena in the external world. A thinking style will also be most effective when it is appropriate for the individual's current time. Thus, the most effective style of thinking for the current time is one that incorporates nonlinearity, the fundamental nature of interdisciplinary knowledge, systematicity, and the ability to apply knowledge in an uncertain situation, under the influence of random factors. This style in psychological science is defined as probabilistic by authors such as Burmenskaya, Dvoryatkina, Ponomarev, and Teplov, and is a unifying style of some fragments of other styles. The next characteristic of thinking is rigidity. Rigidity is the difficulty in changing an individual's intended program of activity under conditions that objectively require its restructuring [5, p. 50]. The term itself appeared at the end of the 19th century and was described by such psychologists as R. Cattell, E. Frankel-Brunswick, and W. James. Rigidity of thinking as a quality is not negative; to a moderate degree, rigidity, on the contrary, brings benefits to the individual. A person with moderate rigidity has good communication skills, perseverance, has an active life position, is capable of playing the role of an organizer, a leader, and is capable of engaging in monotonous activities for a long time.

Rigidity as a mental property unites various mental processes: cognitive, emotional, and motivational [9, p. 321]. Rigidity can also relate to personality traits and qualities, manifesting itself in an unwillingness to change and develop.

In general, as a physiological component, mental rigidity is a psychopathological condition characterized by a lack of mental agility, a pathological shift in thought and speech, and inert attitudes. Mental rigidity most often characterizes people with exogenous organic brain disorders.                                                                                                                          Cognitive rigidity Concerns perception and cognition of the world. A person has difficulty accepting a new picture of the surrounding world because it contradicts their established, ingrained beliefs. Cognitive rigidity manifests itself in an unwillingness or inability to change their thinking style or habits. The individual's behavioral strategies in new conditions are maladaptive and ineffective. Motivational rigidity – a person is unable to give up any needs; their needs are stronger than they are. The individual is also unwilling to accept new motives and goals. Affective rigidity (Emotional) is associated with the characteristics of emotional expression and responses to external factors. Excessive stability of emotional states, replaying episodes that evoke emotionally charged reactions. Feelings persist for a long time and can become obsessive. Excessive rigidity of thinking hinders the assimilation of new ideas, learning, and development; promotes passivity and laziness; can lead to emotional burnout and mental illness; and hinders adaptation.

In addition to rigidity, the psyche possesses a polar opposite property: lability. According to N.E. Vvedensky, from a physiological perspective, lability is characterized by the rate of neural processes—excitation in nervous tissue, an indicator of which is the frequency with which nervous tissue is excited by rhythmic stimuli.

If we extrapolate the above to psychological science, then lability manifests itself in mental fluidity or instability. Like rigidity, lability can have both a positive and negative impact on an individual's activity and thought processes.

Lability allows an individual to quickly and effectively adapt to a changing environment. A flexible psyche is a survival mechanism. An individual's past experience is undoubtedly important, providing a person with familiar and safe methods of action, but it can also hinder them, creating a conservative basis for problem-solving. Thus, it can be concluded that a moderate degree of rigidity and lability combined allows an individual to most effectively and efficiently solve problems, learn, and develop. The study was conducted to identify the relationship between digitalization of an individual's personality, thinking style, and the ability to perceive new experiences. The study sample consisted of students, as secondary vocational and higher education are the most digitalized, as they involve a large proportion of self-education, primarily through digital technologies.

The study was conducted online, using the following methods: A.G. Shmelev's "Rigidity Questionnaire," R. Bramson's "Thinking Styles Questionnaire" adapted by A.A. Alekseev, and a specially developed questionnaire aimed at collecting data on respondents' engagement with digital technologies. Thirty-seven people aged 17 to 22 participated in the study. The questionnaire revealed that the majority of respondents had encountered the digitalization of education and professional activity (see Figure 1), but significantly fewer currently utilize the opportunity to study or work remotely (see Figure 2).

Fig. 1. The number of respondents who have encountered digitalization of education and professional activities.

Fig. 2. The number of respondents using the opportunity to study and work remotely.

In addition, it was important to find out to what extent respondents need to use computer technologies in their everyday lives (see Fig. 3) and how much time they spend immersed in them (see Fig. 4).

Fig. 3. Respondents' assessment of the need for digital technologies.

Fig. 4. Time spent by respondents on the computer/phone.

The majority of respondents also prefer to communicate with friends and family both in person and online (91.9%), with only 8.9% communicating exclusively in person. 37.8% of respondents are active online, while 32.4% spend their free time using digital technologies. R. Bramson's "Thinking Styles" questionnaire, adapted by A.A. Alekseev, allows one to determine the leading, preferred thinking style, without excluding the respondent's use of other styles depending on the situation. The results of the methodology revealed that, among the entire sample, the most frequently identified preferred thinking style is analytical, followed by realistic, synthetic, and idealistic, with the least number of respondents preferring the pragmatic style (see Figure 5).

Fig. 5. Predominant thinking styles of respondents according to the «Thinking Style» method by R. Bramson.

The prevalence of an analytical thinking style among respondents may be related to digitalization, as it involves a rational, logical, and objective examination of a problem from all angles. An analytical thinking style is primarily about developing a plan, algorithm, and collecting information. Analysts see the world as logical, rational, orderly, and predictable; they seek a formula for life. While working with information technology involves order, algorithms, rationality, and information collection, computer programs are exclusively formulas and algorithms. Therefore, it can be assumed that the analytical thinking style is predominant among the sample due to its determination by digital technology, specifically working with it. Immersion in an information space whose activities are built on algorithms and logic shapes an individual's thinking, adapting it to the principles of working with digital technology.

A.G. Shmelev's "Rigidity Questionnaire" allows one to determine the degree of rigidity/lability of a subject's psyche. Thus, the higher the score obtained using the questionnaire, the more rigid the psyche, indicating a tendency to maintain attitudes, stereotypes, and an inability to change one's way of thinking. The study revealed that the majority of respondents were at an average level (14-27 points), in other words, exhibiting traits of both rigidity and lability. However, some respondents straddled the line between rigidity and lability: those below 14 were considered lable, while those above 27 were considered rigid (see Figure 6).

Fig. 6. The degree of rigidity/lability of respondents according to the «Rigidity Questionnaire» method by A.G. Shmelev.

SPSS 13 was used to determine the relationship between the digitalization of everyday life and thinking patterns. The distribution of diagnostic results differed from normal, so correlation analysis was performed using the nonparametric Spearman coefficient.

As a result of the correlation analysis, a statistically significant relationship was found between the degree of rigidity/lability of an individual's psyche and the time spent daily using a computer or other gadgets.

Since the correlation is positive, it can be assumed that the more time the respondent spends using information technology, the more rigid their psyche. This may be due to the algorithmic nature of activity carried out through computer technology. As a result of the digitalization of activity, an individual becomes accustomed to algorithms, rational and economizing methods of activity, and begins to perceive reality and life's activities as a program with certain conditions and methods for achieving tasks. Thus, they may be unprepared for the changing circumstances of the real world and not adaptive to irrational conditions that are quite common in reality. In addition, excessive immersion in the information environment acquires a negative pole, in which an individual perceives only the information that has been filtered and selected by software algorithms. As a result, the individual does not encounter anything that contradicts their point of view or does not correspond to their interests. A user immersed in the information environment does not encounter anything that could change them; they see only what is already present in their personality and consciousness; they receive news from sources to which they are already subscribed; Reads information that is already within their interests; communicates with people who, by default, share common interests or viewpoints. The resulting in-depth information environment, due to its detachment from the external, does not allow the user to abandon existing attitudes and stereotypes, nor does it allow for the consideration of a different point of view. Moreover, the information environment reinforces a person's way of thinking, making them unadaptable to situations that require different thinking. Even artificial intelligence, which operates according to a specific algorithm, changes its search and generation algorithms as it interacts with the user, adapting to the individual and delivering what the individual needs. Thus, even AI contributes to the strengthening of a person's way of thinking and style, making them less capable of "thinking differently.".

Correlation analysis also revealed a statistically significant relationship between the synthetic thinking style and the degree of mental rigidity. Since the relationship is negative, it can be assumed that the more rigid the mentality, the less capable the respondent is of thinking using a synthetic style. This may be due to the essence of the synthetic thinking style, which involves creating something new and original, combining old ideas, and engaging in thought experiments. Synthesizers resolve contradictions and break the rules, which is the opposite of rigidity. Rigidity prevents a person from changing habitual forms of activity, attitudes, or accepting new experiences, while the synthetic thinking style embodies change and innovation. On the other hand, it is possible that the greater an individual's ability to think synthetically, the less inclined they are to exhibit rigidity. Therefore, it can be assumed that with the development of a synthetic thinking style, it is possible to maintain active thinking and avoid rigidity. From this, we can assume that the development of a synthetic style of thinking through, for example, solving problems, demonstrating creativity, conducting experiments, changing everyday life and creating something new, helps a person maintain flexibility, lability of thinking, the development of adaptability and the ability to make decisions in unfamiliar situations.

To summarize, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. Most respondents highly value the need to use digital technologies in their daily lives.

2. The predominant thinking style among respondents was analytical, which may be related to the way they work with computer technology: patterns, algorithms, and programs. Meanwhile, pragmatic thinking was the least frequently preferred style.

3. Most subjects are capable of critical thinking, adapting, perceiving new experiences, understanding and accepting opposing points of view, but in stressful or extremely significant situations, they may distance themselves, close themselves off, or exhibit childish defensiveness, denying the possibility of change, transformation, or other perspectives. 4. Excessive immersion in the information environment hinders the development of the individual's psyche and the individual as a whole, limiting their perception of new information and experiences that promote adaptability, broaden horizons, and develop soft skills, communication skills, and survival skills in today's changing world.

4. A synthetic thinking style can be contrasted with rigidity, which hinders change, development, and the perception of new experiences. Developing a synthetic thinking style can be viewed as a way to overcome or neutralize the negative consequences of immersion in the information environment. The practical significance of the study lies in the fact that the empirical data obtained allow us to identify a number of aspects of the impact of digitalization of activity, particularly learning and work, on human thinking. This, in turn, necessitates improving information technology or the way we interact with it in order to minimize the negative impact on the individual. Furthermore, the study's results can be used to develop recommendations on how to develop flexibility and mental lability using the material and knowledge about a synthetic thinking style. This research can be further expanded to examine the impact of digitalization on personal qualities such as communication skills, empathy, and conflict resolution. When immersed in an information environment, individuals minimize face-to-face interactions with others and society, which influences the formation and development of certain personality traits. Digitalization is an inevitable and integral process in the modern world. Like many scientific advances, digitalization carries both positive and negative consequences for individuals and society as a whole. Currently, the task of science, education, politics, and society is not to eliminate the digitalization process, but to study all its aspects and improve it in such a way that it enables society to progress and develop without detriment to individuals and humanity as a whole.

Literature

1. Gvozdeva E.Yu. Rigidity in the modern world // Problems and trends of scientific research in the education system. - 2019. - No. 2. - P. 54-55.
2. Gordeeva E.V., Muradyan Sh.G., Zhazhoyan A.S. Digitalization in education // Economics and business: theory and practice. - 2021. - No. 4-1. - P. 112-115.
3. Gordin A.I., Gordina O.V. Transhumanism as a consequence of possible total digitalization of education (experience of psychological and pedagogical analysis) // Pedagogy. Theoretical and Practical Issues. - 2021. - No. 6-4. - P. 537-547.
4. Dobrin A.V., Lopukhin A.M. Substantive characteristics of the probabilistic thinking style: theoretical foundations of the study // Psychology of education in a multicultural space. - 2019. - No. 2 (46). - P. 32-48.
5. Mazur E.Yu., Peresko E.V. A study of rigidity (lability) of thinking in psychology students. // Bulletin of the UMC. - 2019. - No. 3 (24). - P. 48-55.
6. Mikhailovskaya D.M. A study of thinking styles in adolescence // Spring psychological and pedagogical readings. - 2021. - Pp. 66-69.
7. Molchanova E.V., On the pros and cons of digitalization of modern education // Problems of modern pedagogical education. - 2019. - No. 64-4. - P. 133-135.
8. Panov V.I. Some psychological aspects of digitalization // New psychology of professional work of a teacher: from the instability of reality to sustainable development. - 2021. - No. 1. - P. 36-39.
9. Pevneva A.N. Rigidity in the personality structure: history of the issue and research problems // Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics. - 2023. - No. 2. - P. 320-337.
10. Stepanov V.N. Media ecology and its problem field // Organizational psycholinguistics. - M .: ASGT, 2021. - No. 3 (15). - P. 10-33. EDNRSNNIU.
11. Strokov A.A. Digitalization of education: problems and prospects // Bulletin of Minin University. - 2020. - No. 8 (2). - P. 31-46.
12. Sramova B., Hamranová A. Psychological and social risks of digitalization in adolescents // Education and New Developments. – 2022. – P. 256-258.
13. Zheng Liu, Huihui Yu, Minxuan Feng, Youbo Hou, Thinking Styles and Creativity: The Mediating Role of Psychological Adjustment in College Students // Behavioral Sciences. – 2023. – No. 13(10).

References

1. Gvozdjova E.Ju. Rigidity in the modern world // Problems and trends of scientific research in the education system. – 2019. – No. 2. – P. 54-55.
2. Gordeeva EV, Muradjan Sh.G., Zhazhojan AS. Cifrovizacija v obrazovanii // Jekonomika i biznes: theory and praktika. – 2021. – No. 4-1. – S. 112-115.
3. Gordin AI, Gordina OV. Transhumanism as a consequence of the possible total digitalization of education (experience of psychological and pedagogical analysis) // Pedagogy. Issues of Theory and Practice. - 2021. - No. 6-4. - P. 537-547.
4. Dobrin AV, Lopuhin AM. Substantive characteristics of the probabilistic style of thinking: theoretical foundations of the study // Psychology of education in a multicultural space. - 2019. - No. 2 (46). - P. 32-48.
5. Mazur E.Ju., Peres'ko EV. A study of rigidity (lability) of thinking in psychology students. // Vestnik UMC. - 2019. - No. 3 (24). - P. 48-55.
6. Mihajlovskaja DM. A Study of Thinking Styles in Adolescence // Spring Psycho-Pedagogical Readings. – 2021. – P. 66-69.
7. Molchanova EV. On the Pros and Cons of Digitalization of Modern Education // Problems of Modern Pedagogical Education. – 2019. – No. 64-4. – P. 133-135.
8. Panov VI. Some psychological aspects of digitalization // Novaja psihologija professinal'nogo truda pedagoga: ot instabil'nosti real'nosti ustojvomu razvitiju. – 2021. – No. 1. – P. 36-39.
9. Pevneva AN. Rigidity in personality structure: history of the issue and research problems // Psihologija. Journal of Higher School of Economics. – 2023. – No. 2. – P. 320-337.
10. Stepanov VN. Mediajekologija i ee problemnoe pole // Organizacionnaja psiholingvistika. – M.: ASGT, 2021. – No. 3(15). – S. 10-33.
11. Strokov AA. Digitalization of education: problems and prospects // Bulletin of Mininsky University. - 2020. - No. 8 (2). - P. 31-46.
12. Sramova B., Hamranová A. Psychological and social risks of digitalization in adolescents // Education and New Developments. – 2022. – S. 256-258.
13. Zheng Liu, Huihui Yu, Minxuan Feng, Youbo Hou, Thinking Styles and Creativity: The Mediating Role of Psychological Adjustment in College Students // Behavioral Sciences. – 2023. – No. 13(10).