Unsustainable youth employment in the digital economy: Cognitive dissonance and social mechanisms of adaptation
- Authors: Leshkova O.V.1, Shimolina M.V.1
-
Affiliations:
- Far Eastern State Transport University
- Issue: Vol 9, No 2 (2025)
- Pages: 40-55
- Section: Статьи
- Published: 30.06.2025
- URL: https://journal-vniispk.ru/2576-9782/article/view/301334
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.12731/2576-9782-2025-9-2-280
- EDN: https://elibrary.ru/WOZRFD
- ID: 301334
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
The article examines the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance among young people employed in the digital economy, amid the growth of precarious employment in Russia. According to the Federal Tax Service and Rosstat, from 2020 to 2024, the number of self-employed people exceeded 12 million people, while young people actively choose platform employment, despite the awareness of its risks. The author analyzes this paradox through the prism of theories of cognitive dissonance (L. Festinger), risk society (U. Beck) and the precariat (G. Standing), revealing the contradiction between the rhetoric of "freedom" and real instability.
The empirical part of the study is based on a survey of 450 respondents (18-35 years old) living in different cities of Russia, employed on platforms (delivery, freelancing, taxi), and an analysis of digital communities. The results showed that 65-80% of workers experience dissonance (expressed in the contradiction between the declared "freedom" and actual dependence, the absence of a long-term work plan, the "demonization" of traditional labor, the illusion of autonomy, ignoring financial risks), rationalizing it with different psychological attitudes. The manifestation of dissonance is manifested at three levels: emotional, behavioral and social. These signs confirm that dissonance is not just an individual psychological conflict, but a systemic mechanism of adaptation to precarity.
Conclusions
- State policy (tax breaks without social guarantees) and the lack of transparency of algorithms exacerbate dissonance.
- Young people aged 18-25 and residents of small towns are more likely to justify precarity.
- Social consequences include increased inequality, postponement of family creation and "deferred poverty" due to the lack of pension savings.
The author proposes measures to reduce dissonance: regulation of algorithms, inclusion of the self-employed in the social security system, and the creation of legal associations to protect rights.
About the authors
Oksana V. Leshkova
Far Eastern State Transport University
Author for correspondence.
Email: lov11@bk.ru
SPIN-code: 7035-3853
Associate Professor of the Department of International Communications, Service and Tourism, Candidate of Sociological Sciences
Russian Federation, 47, Serisheva Str., Khabarovsk, Khabarovsk Krai, 680021, Russian FederationMaria V. Shimolina
Far Eastern State Transport University
Email: mahanka-1408@mail.ru
SPIN-code: 4700-3838
Associate Professor of the Department of International Communications, Service and Tourism, Candidate of Sociological Sciences
Russian Federation, 47, Serisheva Str., Khabarovsk, Khabarovsk Krai, 680021, Russian FederationReferences
- Akisheva, P. S. (2022). Transformation of hired workers class in modern Russia in precariat conception. Theory and Practice of Social Development, (7), 62–66. https://doi.org/10.24158/tipor.2022.7.7
- Bezsmertny, V. V. (2023). Digital Feudalism: Age of Control and Freedom. Moscow: Publishing Solutions. 240 p.
- Beck, U. (2000). Risk Society: On the Way to Another Modernity (Translated by V. Sedelnick, N. Fedorova). Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya. 381 p.
- Veretennikova, A. Y., & Kozinskaya, K. M. (2019). Modeling influence of institutional environment on development of digital platforms and sharing economy. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecasts, 15(5), 257–273.
- Interview with Minister of Labour and Social Protection of the Russian Federation Anton Kotyakov for newspaper Vedomosti, October 14, 2024. Retrieved June 8, 2025, from https://mintrud.gov.ru/employment/249
- Manuylova, A. (2024). Labor shortage goes platform-wide. Kommersant, (95/P), 2. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/7657203
- Manuylova, A. (2025). Remote work as privilege. Kommersant, (67/P), 2. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/7656647
- Novozhilov, K. S., Golubev, D. V., & Entin, N. I. (2019). Core of digital platform. Colloquium-Journal, (15), 78–85.
- Pashkin, S. A. (2024). Development of digital platforms in Russia. International Research Journal, (1), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.23670/IRJ.2024.139.47
- Platform employment in Russia: dynamics of prevalence and characteristics of employed persons. (2024). National Research University Higher School of Economics. Moscow: HSE Publishing House. 64 p. https://doi.org/10.17323/978-5-7598-4067-1
- Rozhkov, E. V. (2022). Governance of digital platforms. Innovative Science, (12-2), 90–95.
- Russian data: HSE research on labor market (2020–2024). (2024). Moscow: HSE.
- Rosstat official website. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://78.rosstat.gov.ru/folder/252811
- Slobootskaya, A. V. (2016). Place of precariat in the social structure of modern society: critical analysis of G. Standing's concept debate. Manuscript, (4-1), 145–150.
- Smirnov, A. I. (2021). Digital society: theoretical model and Russian reality. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, (1), 129–153.
- Smolina, E. G. (2025). Precariatization as characteristic feature of modern digital society. Theory and Practice of Social Development, (1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.24158/tipor.2025.1.3
- Srnicek, N. (2019). Platforms capitalism. Economic Sociology, 20(1), 72–80.
- Tikhonova, N. E. (2019). Precariat and perspectives of change in Russian society's social structure. Sociological Studies, (2), 167–173. https://doi.org/10.31857/S013216250004023-8
- Work and employment in Russia. Statistical collection. (2023). Moscow: Rosstat. 180 p.
- Federal Tax Service of the Russian Federation. Official website. Retrieved May 15, 2025, from https://www.nalog.gov.ru/rn77/news/activities_fts/15487019
- Shuraleva, S. V. (2024). Labor relations in context of labor and employment precarization in Russia. Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences, (4), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.17072/1995-4190-2024-66-687-705
- Kenney, M., & Zysman, J. (2016). The rise of the platform economy. Issues in Science and Technology, 32, 61–69.
- Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. 291 p. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503620766
- Rosenblat, A. (2018). Uberland: how algorithms are rewriting the rules of work. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. 226 p. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520970632
- Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: the new dangerous class. Bloomsbury Academic. 198 p. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781849664554
- Stark, D., & Pais, I. (2020). Algorithmic management in the platform economy. Sociologica, 14(3), 47–72. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1971-8853/12221
- Wood, A. J., Graham, M., Lehdonvirta, V., & Hjorth, I. (2019). Good gig, bad gig: autonomy and algorithmic control in the global gig economy. Work, Employment and Society, 33(1), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017018785616
Supplementary files
