About the Journal
Editorial Board
Scientific Council
Reviewers
Ethical Code
Special Issue
GDRP - information on the processing of personal data
Terms of the journal
Indexing
Licenses & Access
Archive
For Authors
Publishing Policy
Technical instruction for the authors
Agreement CC BY-SA
Copyright statement
Publication procedure
Peer Review Process
Contact
ORIGINAL PAPER
State anxiety and positive affect among modern digital native generations compared to earlier Polish generations
1
Maria Curie-Skłodowska University
Submission date: 2023-07-26
Final revision date: 2025-02-18
Acceptance date: 2025-06-11
Publication date: 2025-07-17
JoMS 2025;62(2):185-199
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Objectives:
We aimed to compare state anxiety and positive affect in people from the Polish digital native generations and older generations as some researchers suggest that experiencing fear and positive emotions in digital generations is higher and associated with excessive use of social media.
Material and methods:
We conducted a cross-sectional study. We hypothesized that the generation Z could experience a higher level of fear and a lower level of positive affect than other generations. We used the State and Trait Anxiety Inventory to measure the state of anxiety and the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule to assess positive affect. A sample of 926 participants was examined – including individuals from generations Z, Y, X, and Baby Boomers.
Results:
The results showed the generation effect of state anxiety. People from Generation Z experienced higher anxiety than people from Generation Y. There were no significant generation effects of experiencing positive affect.
Conclusions:
Higher anxiety among Gens Z can be associated with an impact of unprecedented social factors.
We aimed to compare state anxiety and positive affect in people from the Polish digital native generations and older generations as some researchers suggest that experiencing fear and positive emotions in digital generations is higher and associated with excessive use of social media.
Material and methods:
We conducted a cross-sectional study. We hypothesized that the generation Z could experience a higher level of fear and a lower level of positive affect than other generations. We used the State and Trait Anxiety Inventory to measure the state of anxiety and the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule to assess positive affect. A sample of 926 participants was examined – including individuals from generations Z, Y, X, and Baby Boomers.
Results:
The results showed the generation effect of state anxiety. People from Generation Z experienced higher anxiety than people from Generation Y. There were no significant generation effects of experiencing positive affect.
Conclusions:
Higher anxiety among Gens Z can be associated with an impact of unprecedented social factors.
License
REFERENCES (51)
1.
Amstadter, A. B., Broman-Fulks, J., Zinzow, H., Ruggiero, K. J., Cercone, J. (2009). Internet-based interventions for traumatic stress-related mental health problems: a review and suggestion for future research, 29 (5), 410-420. Clinical Psychology Review.
2.
Anderson, M., Perrin, A. (2017). Tech adoption climbs among older adults, 2017, 1-22. Pew Research Center.
3.
Arampatzi, E., Burger, M. J., Novik, N. (2018). Social network sites, individual social capital and happiness, 19 (1), 99-122. Journal of Happiness Studies.
4.
Autry, A. J., Berge, Z. (2011). Digital natives and digital immigrants: getting to know each other, 43 (7), 460-466. Industrial and Commercial Training.
5.
Ball, C., Francis, J., Huang, K. T., Kadylak, T., Cotten, S. R., Rikard, R. V. (2017). The physical–digital divide: Exploring the social gap between digital natives and physical natives, 38 (8), 1167-1184. Journal of Applied Gerontology.
6.
Bennett, S., Maton, K., Kervin, L. (2008). The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence, 39 (5), 775-786. British Journal of Educational Technology.
7.
Berezan, O., Krishen, A. S., Agarwal, S., Kachroo, P. (2019). Exploring loneliness and social networking: Recipes for hedonic well-being on Facebook, 115, 258-265. Journal of Business Research.
8.
Berkup, S. B. (2014). Working with generations X and Y in generation Z period: Management of different generations in business life, 5 (19), 218-218. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences.
9.
Bilgiç, H. G., Doğan, D., Seferoğlu, S. S. (2016). Digital Natives in Online Learning Environments: New Bottle Old Wine–The Design of Online Learning Environments for Today’s Generation. In: M. Pinheiro and D. Simões (ed.), Handbook of Research on Engaging Digital Natives in Higher Education Settings, 192-221. IGI Global.
10.
Bruggeman, H., Van Hiel, A., Van Hal, G., Van Dongen, S. (2019). Does the use of digital media affect psychological well-being? An empirical test among children aged 9 to 12, 101, 104-113. Computers in Human Behavior.
11.
Brzozowski, P. (2010). Skala Uczuć Pozytywnych i Negatywnych SUPIN. Polska adaptacja skali PANAS Davida Watsona i Lee Anny Clark. Podręcznik. Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego.
12.
Carstensen, L. L., Charles, S. T. (1998). Emotion in the Second Half of Life, 7 (5), 144–149. Current Directions in Psychological Science.
13.
Carstensen, L. L., Fung, H. H., Charles, S. T. (2003). Socioemotional Selectivity Theory and the Regulation of Emotion in the Second Half of Life, 27 (2), 103–123. Motivation and Emotion.
14.
Casale, S., Fioravanti, G. (2011). Psychosocial correlates of internet use among Italian students, 46 (4), 288-298. International Journal of Psychology.
15.
Chung, C., Pennebaker, J. (2007). The psychological functions of function words. In: K. Fiedler (ed.), Social communication, 343-359. Psychology Press.
16.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17.
Czapiński J., Panek T., (2015). Diagnoza społeczna 2015. Dostęp 06.06.2022 z http://www.diagnoza.com/pliki/....
18.
Dahlin, M., Joneborg, N., Runeson, B. (2005). Stress and depression among medical students: a cross-sectional study, 39 (6), 594–604. Medical Education.
19.
Epstein, M., Howes, P. (2008). Recruiting, retaining and managing the millennial generation. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
20.
Gawda, B., Korniluk, A. (2022). Multitasking among modern digital generations Y and Z, 49 (2), 421–430. Journal of Modern Science.
21.
Gawda, B., Kosacka, K., Banaszkiewicz, P. (2020). Psychologia emocji pokolenia digital natives. UMCS.
22.
Gross, J. J., Carstensen, L. L., Pasupathi, M., Tsai, J., Götestam Skorpen, C., Hsu, A. Y. C. (1997). Emotion and aging: Experience, expression, and control, 12(4), 590–599. Psychology and Aging.
24.
Joiner, R., Gavin, J., Brosnan, M., Cromby, J., Gregory, H., Guiller, J., Maras, P., Moon, A. (2013). Comparing first and second generation digital natives’ Internet use, Internet anxiety, and Internet identification, 16 (7), 549-552. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking.
25.
Khosravi, P., Rezvani, A., Wiewiora, A. (2016). The impact of technology on older adults’ social isolation, 63, 594-603. Computers in Human Behavior.
26.
Labouvie-Vief, G., Diehl, M. (2000). Cognitive complexity and cognitive-affective integration: related or separate domains of adult development?, 15 (3), 490–504. Psychology and Aging.
27.
Lawton, M. (2001). Emotion in later life, 10 (4), 120–123. Current Directions in Psychological Science.
28.
Nowland, R., Necka, E. A., Cacioppo, J. T. (2018). Loneliness and social internet use: pathways to reconnection in a digital world?, 13 (1), 70-87. Perspectives on Psychological Science.
29.
Palfrey, J., Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of Digital Natives. Basic Books.
30.
Pennebaker, J. W., King, L. (1999). Linguistic styles: language use as an individual difference, 77 (6), 1296–1312. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
31.
Pennebaker, J. W., Stone, L. (2003). Words of wisdom: language use over the life span, 85 (2), 291–301. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
32.
Prensky, M. (2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants: Part 1. On the Horizon,.
34.
Prensky, M. (2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants: Part 2. Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9 (6), 1–6.
35.
Prensky, M. (2005a). Engage me or enrage me, September/October, 61-64. EDUCASE Review.
36.
Prensky, M. (2005b). Listen to the natives, 63 (4), 8-13. Educational Leadership.
37.
Roblek, V., Mesko, M., Dimovski, V., Peterlin, J. (2019). Smart technologies as social innovation and complex social issues of the Z generation, 48 (1), 91–107. Kybernetes.
38.
Rosal, M. C., Ockene, I. S., Ockene, J. K., Barrett, S. V, Ma, Y., Hebert, J. R. (1997). A longitudinal study of students’ depression at one medical school, 72 (6), 542–546. Academic Medicine.
39.
Seemiller, C., Grace, M. (2016). Generation Z Goes to College. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
40.
Selfhout, M. H., Branje, S. J., Delsing, M., ter Bogt, T. F., Meeus, W. H. (2009). Different types of Internet use, depression, and social anxiety: The role of perceived friendship quality, 32 (4), 819-833. Journal of Adolescence.
41.
Sosnowski, T., Wrześniewski, K., Jaworowska, A. i Fecenec, D. (2006). STAI-Inwentarz Stanu i Cechy Lęku STAI. Polska adaptacja. Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych PTP.
42.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press.
43.
Spielberger, C., Sydeman, S. J. (1994). State-trait anxiety inventory and state-trait anger expression inventory. W: M. E. Maruish (ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcome assessment, 292-321. Erlbaum.
45.
Titko, J., Svirina, A., Skvarciany, V., Shina, I. (2020). Values of young employees: Z-generation perception, 21 (1), 10-17. Business: Theory and Practice.
46.
Tsai, H. Y. S., Shillair, R., Cotten, S. R., Winstead, V., Yost, E. (2015). Getting grandma online: are tablets the answer for increasing digital inclusion for older adults in the US?, 41 (10), 695-709. Educational Gerontology.
47.
Twenge, J. M. (2017). IGen: Why today’s super-connected kids are growing up less rebellious, more tolerant, less happy and completely unprepared for adulthood and what that means for the rest of us. Atria Books.
48.
Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E., Rogers, M. L., Martin, G. N. (2018). Increases in depressive symptoms, suicide-related outcomes, and suicide rates among U.S. adolescents after 2010 and links to increased new media screen time, 6, 3–17. Clinical Psychological Science.
49.
Venter, E. (2017). Bridging the communication gap between Generation Y and the Baby Boomer generation, 22 (4), 497-507. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth.
50.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales, 54 (6), 1063-1070. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
51.
Winograd, M., Hais, M. D. (2011). Millennial momentum: How a new generation is remaking America. Piscataway, Rutgers University Press.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2391-789X |
| ISSN: | 1734-2031 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
