Psychological boundaries and space sovereignty in the digital age: Intergenerational differences among generations X, Y, and Z

Authors

Veronika Yurchenko V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1065-9595
Oleksii Nalyvaiko V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7094-1047

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.34142/2709-7986.2026.31.1.15

Keywords:

Generation X, Generation Y, Generation Z, generational theory, intolerance of uncertainty, personal boundaries, psychological space sovereignty

Abstract

empirical analysis of personal psychological boundaries among representatives of Generations X, Y, and Z in the context of accelerating digital transformation. Drawing on frameworks from boundary psychology and generational theory, the study aimed to identify intergenerational differences in the characteristics of psychological boundaries, sovereignty of psychological space, and intolerance of uncertainty, as well as to examine the relationships among these constructs within each generational cohort.

Methodology. The study involved 128 adult respondents from Ukraine, divided into three age groups in accordance with the generational approach: Generation X (n = 34; aged 40-60), Generation Y (n = 50; aged 25-39), and Generation Z (n = 44; aged 18–24). Data were collected online using E. Hartmann's Boundary Questionnaire, Psychological Space Sovereignty Measure, and the IUS-12 Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. Statistical analyses included the Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney U post hoc comparisons, and Spearman correlation coefficients.

Results. The findings indicate that Generation X representatives exhibit higher psychological space sovereignty and "thicker" personal boundaries, whereas Generation Z demonstrates more permeable, flexible, and less integrated boundaries. Generation Y occupies an intermediate position. Statistically significant between-group differences were found for sovereignty of territory, sovereignty of personal possessions, and overall boundary thickness. Correlation analysis revealed distinct patterns of association between boundary characteristics and intolerance of uncertainty across generations: no significant correlation in Generation X, a negative association between uncertainty intolerance and habit sovereignty in Generation Y, and a positive correlation between thin boundaries and uncertainty intolerance in Generation Z. Overall intergenerational differences in uncertainty intolerance were less pronounced.

Conclusions. The most marked intergenerational differences concern the sovereignty of psychological space and the overall thickness of personal boundaries, whereas differences in intolerance of uncertainty are comparatively weaker. The findings carry practical implications for the design of intergenerational interaction and support programs, particularly within digital environments.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Veronika Yurchenko, V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Ukraine

Master’s Student, School of Psychology, V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Kharkiv, Ukraine.

Oleksii Nalyvaiko, V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Ukraine

Ph.D. in Pedagogy, Associate Professor, Applied Psychology Department, V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Kharkiv, Ukraine.

References

Altman, I. (1975). The environment and social behavior : privacy, personal space, territory, crowding. Books Cole Publ. Co. Monterey, California. https://archive.org/details/environmentsocia0000altm

Bomyea, J., Ramsawh, H., Ball, T. M., Taylor, C. T., Paulus, M. P., Lang, A. J., & Stein, M. B. (2015). Intolerance of uncertainty as a mediator of reductions in worry in a cognitive behavioral treatment program for generalized anxiety disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 33, 90–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2015.05.004

Buhr, K., & Dugas, M. J. (2002). The intolerance of uncertainty scale: Psychometric properties of the English version. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40(8), 931–945. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(01)00092-4

Carleton, R. N., Mulvogue, M. K., Thibodeau, M. A., McCabe, R. E., Antony, M. M., & Asmundson, G. J. G. (2012). Increasingly certain about uncertainty: Intolerance of uncertainty across anxiety and depression. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 26(3), 468–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2012.01.011

Carleton, R. N., Norton, M. A. P. J., & Asmundson, G. J. G. (2007). Fearing the unknown: A short version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21(1), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.014

Deursen, A. J. A. M. van, & Dijk, J. A. G. M. van. (2014). The digital divide shifts to differences in usage. New Media & Society, 16(3), 507–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813487959

Döring, N., Mikhailova, V., Brandenburg, K., Broll, W., Gross, H.-M., Werner, S., & Raake, A. (2022). Digital media in intergenerational communication: Status quo and future scenarios for the grandparent–grandchild relationship. Universal Access in the Information Society, 23(1), 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00957-w

Dugas, M. J., Gosselin, P., & Ladouceur, R. (2001). Intolerance of uncertainty and worry: Investigating specificity in a nonclinical sample. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 25(5), 551–558. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005553414688

Hartmann, E. (1991). Boundaries in the mind. BasicBooks. https://archive.org/details/boundariesinmind00hart/mode/2up

Hromova, H. (2021). Uncertainty tolerance measurement tools. Adaptation of n. Carleton’s «intolerance of uncertainty scale» (short version). Scientific Studios on Social and Political Psychology, 50(47), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.61727/sssppj/1.2021.115

Ihnatenko, K., & Shorena, S. (2024). Distance education in higher education institutions in Ukraine during war: challenges and adaptations. Social Work and Education, 11(4), 500–514. https://doi.org/10.25128/2520-6230.24.4.4

Korda, M., Shulhai, A., Shulhai, A., Shevchuk, O., Shulhai, O., Shulhai, A.-M., & Shulhai, A.-M. (2025). Psychological well-being and academic performance of Ukrainian medical students under the burden of war: a cross-sectional study. Frontiers in Public Health, 12, 1457026. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1457026

López Seguí, F., de San Pedro, M., Aumatell Verges, E., Simó Algado, S., & García Cuyàs, F. (2019). An intergenerational information and communications technology learning project to improve digital skills: User satisfaction evaluation. JMIR Aging, 2(2), Article e13939. https://doi.org/10.2196/13939

Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. In P. Kecskemeti (Ed.), Essays on the sociology of knowledge (pp. 276–320). Routledge & Kegan Paul. https://ia801905.us.archive.org/10/items/essaysonsociolog00mann/essaysonsociolog00mann.pdf

Margulis, S. T. (2003). On the Status and Contribution of Westin’s and Altman’s Theories of Privacy. Journal of Social Issues, 59(2), 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00071

Oleksenko, S., Sabol, D., & Khomenko, O. (2025). Supporting students’ psychological well-being in the process of distance learning during war [Pidtrymka psykholohichnoho blahopoluchchia uchniv v protsesi dystantsiinoho navchannia pid chas viiny]. SWorldJournal, 4(34-04), 225–230. https://doi.org/10.30888/2663-5712.2025-34-04-013 [in Ukrainian].

Oliveira, A. F., Brites, M. J., & Cerqueira, C. (2022). Intergenerational Perspectives on media and fake news during COVID-19: Results from online intergenerational focus groups. Media and Communication, 10(4), 277–288. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v10i4.5712

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751

Phang, J. K., Kwan, Y. H., Yoon, S., Goh, H., Yee, W. Q., Tan, C. S., & Low, L. L. (2022). Digital Intergenerational Program to Reduce Loneliness and Social Isolation among Older Adults: Realist Review. JMIR Aging, 6, e39848. https://doi.org/10.2196/39848

Pinchuk, I., Feldman, I., Seleznova, V., & Virchenko, V. (2025). Braving the dark: mental health challenges and academic performance of Ukrainian university students during the war. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 60(10), 2505–2516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-025-02867-7

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon. 9. 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424816.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. In CSCW '00: Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. Simon & Schuster. https://doi.org/10.1145/358916.361990

Rózsa, Z., Ferenčáková, L., Zámek, D., & Firstová, J. (2024). Generation Z’s perception of privacy on social media: Examining the impact of personalized advertising, interpersonal relationships, reference group dynamics, social isolation, and anxiety on self-disclosure willingness. Oeconomia Copernicana, 15(1), 229–266. https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2956

Rylance-Graham, R., & Ismail, N. (2026). Generation Z and digital learning: preference or assumption? A narrative synthesis of contemporary literature. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, 39, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.47408/jldhe.vi39.1682

Santabárbara, J., Lasheras, I., Lipnicki, D. M., Bueno-Notivol, J., Pérez-Moreno, M., López-Antón, R., de la Cámara, C., Lobo, A., & Gracia-García, P. (2021). Prevalence of anxiety in the COVID-19 pandemic: An updated meta-analysis of community-based studies. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry, 109, 110207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.110207

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–37). Brooks/Cole. https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/an-integrative-theory-of-intergroup-conflict/

Towner, E., Grint, J., Levy, T., Blakemore, S.-J., & Tomova, L. (2022). Revealing the self in a digital world: A systematic review of adolescent online and offline self-disclosure. Current Opinion in Psychology, 45, 101309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101309

Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2017). Digital divide: Impact of access. In The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects (pp. 1–11). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0043

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Volynchuk, O. (2022). Sformovanist psykholohichnoho prostoru y osobystisnykh mezh yak determinanta psykholohichnoho blahopoluchchia studentiv [Psychological space and personal boundaries formation as a factor of students’ psychological well-being]. Psykholohiia ta osobystist – Psychology and Personality, 12(2), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.33989/2226-4078.2022.2.265491 [in Ukrainian].

Westin, A. F. (1967). Privacy and freedom. Atheneum. https://archive.org/details/privacyfreedom00west/page/n7/mode/2up

Downloads

Published

2026-05-18

How to Cite

Yurchenko, V., & Nalyvaiko, O. (2026). Psychological boundaries and space sovereignty in the digital age: Intergenerational differences among generations X, Y, and Z. Educational Challenges, 31(1), 204-222. https://doi.org/10.34142/2709-7986.2026.31.1.15