Communication. communication. social perception.
Communication in the system of interpersonal and social relations.
Analysis of the connection between public and interpersonal relationships allows you to place the right emphasis on the question of the place of communication in the entire complex system of human connections with the outside world. However, first it is necessary to say a few words about the problem of communication in general. The solution to this problem is very specific within the framework of the domestic social psychology. The term “communication” itself does not have an exact analogue in traditional social psychology, not only because it is not entirely equivalent to the commonly used English term“communication”, but also because its content can only be considered in the conceptual dictionary of a special psychological theory, namely activity theories. Of course, in the structure of communication, which will be discussed below, aspects of it that are described or studied in other systems of socio-psychological knowledge can be highlighted. However, the essence of the problem, as it is posed in domestic social psychology, is fundamentally different.
Both series of human relationships - both social and interpersonal,
They are revealed and realized precisely in communication. Thus, the roots of communication
In the very material life of individuals. Communication is what it is
Implementation of the entire system of human relations. "Under normal circumstances
A person’s relationship to the objective world around him is always
They are mediated by his attitude towards people, towards society,” i.e. included in communication. Here it is especially important to emphasize the idea that in real communication not only interpersonal relationships of people are given, i.e. not only their emotional attachments, hostility, etc. are revealed, but social ones are also embodied in the fabric of communication, i.e. impersonal in nature, relationships. The diverse relationships of a person are not covered only by interpersonal contact: the position of a person beyond the narrow framework
Interpersonal connections, in a broader social system, where his place is determined not by the expectations of the individuals interacting with him, also requires a certain construction of a system of his connections, and this process can also be realized only in communication. Without communication, human society is simply unthinkable. Communication appears in it as a way of cementing individuals and at the same time as a way of developing these individuals themselves. It is from here that the existence of communication flows both as a reality of social relations and as a reality of interpersonal relations. Apparently, this made it possible for Saint-Exupery to paint a poetic image of communication as “the only luxury that a person has.” Naturally, each series of relations is realized in specific forms ah communication. Communication as the implementation of interpersonal relationships is a process more studied in social psychology, while communication between groups is more likely to be studied in sociology. Communication, including in the system of interpersonal relations, is forced by the joint life activity of people, therefore it is necessary to carry out a wide variety of interpersonal relationships, i.e. given both in the case of a positive and in the case of a negative attitude of one person towards another. The type of interpersonal relationship is not indifferent to how communication will be built, but it exists in specific forms, even when the relationship is extremely strained. The same applies to the characterization of communication at the macro level as the implementation of social relations. And in this case, do groups or individuals communicate with each other as representatives social groups, the act of communication must inevitably take place, is forced to take place, even if the groups are antagonistic. This dual understanding of communication - in the broad and narrow sense of the word - follows from the very logic of understanding the connection between interpersonal and social relations. IN in this case It is appropriate to appeal to Marx’s idea that communication is an unconditional companion of human history (in this sense, we can talk about the significance of communication in the “phylogenesis” of society) and at the same time an unconditional companion in everyday activities, in everyday contacts of people (see A.A. Leontiev, 1973). In the first plan, one can trace the historical change in forms of communication, i.e. changing them as society develops along with the development of economic, social and other public relations. Here the most difficult methodological question is being resolved: how does a process figure in the system of impersonal relations, which by its nature requires the participation of individuals? Acting as a representative of a certain social group, a person communicates with another representative of another social group and simultaneously realizes two types of relationships: both impersonal and personal. A peasant, selling a product on the market, receives a certain amount of money for it, and money acts here the most important means communication in the system of public relations. At the same time, this same peasant bargains with the buyer and thereby “personally” communicates with him, and the means of this communication is human speech. On the surface of phenomena, a form of direct communication is given - communication, but behind it there is communication forced by the system of social relations itself, in this case the relations of commodity production. In socio-psychological analysis, one can abstract from the “secondary plan”, but in real life this “second plan” of communication is always present. Although in itself it is a subject of study mainly by sociology, it should also be taken into account in the socio-psychological approach.
^ Unity of communication and activity.
The question of the connection between communication and activity is fundamental. In a number of psychological concepts there is a tendency to contrast communication and activity. So, for example, E. Durkheim ultimately came to such a formulation of the problem when, arguing with G. Tarde, he paid special attention not to the dynamics of social phenomena, but to their statics. Society looked to him not as a dynamic system of active groups and individuals, but as a collection of static forms of communication. The factor of communication in determining behavior was emphasized, but the role of transformative activity was underestimated: the social process itself was reduced to the process of spiritual speech communication. This gave rise to A.N. Leontyev notes that with this approach the individual appears more “as a communicating than as a practically acting social being.”
In contrast to this, domestic psychology accepts the idea of the unity of communication and activity. This conclusion logically follows from the understanding of communication as the reality of human relations, which assumes that any forms of communication are included in specific forms of joint activity: people do not just communicate in the process of performing various functions, but they always communicate in some activity, “about” it. Thus, an active person always communicates: his activities inevitably intersect with the activities of other people. But it is precisely this intersection of activities that creates certain relationships of an active person not only to the subject of his activity, but also to other people. It is communication that forms a community of individuals performing joint activities. Thus, the fact of the connection between communication and activity is stated in one way or another by all researchers. However, the nature of this connection is understood in different ways. Sometimes activity and communication are considered not as parallel existing interconnected processes, but as two sides of a person’s social existence; his way of life. In other cases, communication is understood as a certain aspect of activity: it is included in any activity, is its element, while the activity itself can be considered as a condition of communication. Finally, communication can be interpreted as a special type of activity. Within this point of view, two of its varieties are distinguished: in one of them, communication is understood as a communicative activity, or a communication activity that occurs independently at a certain stage of ontogenesis, for example, in preschoolers and especially in adolescence (Elkonin, 1991). In the other, communication in general terms is understood as one of the types of activity (meaning, first of all, speech activity), and in relation to it all the elements characteristic of activity in general are sought: actions, operations, motives, etc.
It is unlikely that it will be very important to clarify the advantages and comparative disadvantages of each of these points of view: none of them denies the most important thing - the undoubted connection between activity and communication, everyone recognizes the inadmissibility of separating them from each other during analysis. Moreover, the divergence of positions is much more obvious at the level of theoretical and general methodological analysis. As for experimental practice, all researchers have much more in common than different. This common thing is the recognition of the fact of the unity of communication and activity and attempts to fix this unity. In our opinion, it is advisable to have the broadest understanding of the connection between activity and communication, when communication is considered both as an aspect of joint activity (since activity itself is not only work, but also communication in the process of work), and as its unique derivative. Such a broad understanding of the connection between communication and activity corresponds to a broad understanding of communication itself: as the most important condition for an individual to appropriate the achievements of the historical development of mankind, be it at the micro level, in the immediate environment, or at the macro level, in the entire system of social connections. The acceptance of the thesis about the organic connection between communication and activity dictates some very specific standards for the study of communication, in particular at the level of experimental research. One of these standards is the requirement to study communication not only and not so much from the point of view of its form, but from the point of view of its content. This requirement is at odds with the principle of studying the communication process, typical of traditional social psychology. As a rule, communication is studied here primarily through a laboratory experiment - precisely from the point of view of form, when either the means of communication, or the type of contact, or its frequency, or the structure of both a single communicative act and communication networks are analyzed. If communication is understood as an aspect of activity, as a unique way of organizing it, then analyzing the form of this process alone is not enough. An analogy can be drawn here with the study of the activity itself. The essence of the principle of activity lies in the fact that it is also considered not just from the side of form (i.e., the individual’s activity is not simply stated), but from the side of its content (i.e., exactly the object to which this activity is directed is revealed). An activity, understood as an objective activity, cannot be studied outside of the characteristics of its subject. Similarly, the essence of communication is revealed only in the case when not just the fact of communication itself is stated, and not even the method of communication, but its content (Communication and activity, 1931). In the real practical activity of a person, the main question is not how the subject communicates, but about what he communicates. Here again, an analogy with the study of activity is appropriate: if the analysis of the subject of activity is important there, then here the analysis of the subject of communication is equally important. Neither one nor the other formulation of the problem is easy for the system of psychological knowledge: psychology has always polished its tools only for analyzing the mechanism - if not activity, but activity; maybe not communication, but communication. Analysis of the substantive aspects of both phenomena is poorly supported methodologically. But this cannot become a reason for refusing to raise this question. (An important circumstance is that the proposed formulation of the problem is prescribed by the practical needs of optimizing activity and communication in real social groups.)
Naturally, highlighting the subject of communication should not be understood vulgarly: people communicate not only about the activity with which they are associated. In order to highlight two possible reasons for communication, the literature differentiates between the concepts of “role-based” and “personal” communication. Under some circumstances, this personal communication in form may look like role-playing, business, “subject-problem-based”. Thus, the breeding of role and personal communication is not absolute. IN certain relationships and situations, both are associated with activity.
The idea of “wovenness” of communication into activity also allows us to consider in detail the question of what exactly in activity can “constitute” communication. In the most general form, the answer can be formulated in such a way that through communication, activity is organized and enriched. Building a plan for joint activities requires each participant to have an optimal understanding of its goals, objectives, understanding the specifics of its object and even the capabilities of each participant. The inclusion of communication in this process allows for “coordination” or “mismatch” of the activities of individual participants. This coordination of the activities of individual participants can be achieved thanks to such a characteristic of communication as its inherent function of influence, in which the “reverse influence of communication on activity” is manifested (Andreeva, Yanoushek, 1987). We will find out the specifics of this function along with consideration of various aspects of communication. Now it is important to emphasize that activity through communication is not just organized, but actually enriched, new connections and relationships between people arise in it.
All of the above allows us to conclude that the principle of connection and organic unity of communication with activity, developed in domestic social psychology, opens up truly new perspectives in the study of this phenomenon.
^ Structure of communication. Given the complexity of communication, it is necessary to somehow indicate its structure so that analysis of each element is then possible. The structure of communication can be approached in different ways, as well as the definition of its functions. We propose to characterize the structure of communication by identifying three interrelated aspects in it: communicative, interactive and perceptual. The communicative side of communication, or communication in the narrow sense of the word, consists of the exchange of information between communicating individuals. The interactive side consists in organizing interaction between communicating individuals, i.e. in the exchange of not only knowledge, ideas, but also actions. The perceptual side of communication means the process of perception and cognition of each other by communication partners and the establishment of mutual understanding on this basis. Naturally, all these terms are very conditional. Sometimes others are used in a more or less similar sense. For example, in communication there are three functions: information-communicative, regulatory-communicative, affective-communicative. The task is to carefully analyze, including at the experimental level, the content of each of these aspects or functions. Of course, in reality, each of these sides does not exist in isolation from the other two, and their isolation is possible only for analysis, in particular for constructing a system of experimental research. All aspects of communication identified here are revealed in small groups, i.e. in conditions of direct contact between people. Separately, we should consider the question of the means and mechanisms of influence of people on each other and in the conditions of their joint mass actions, which should be the subject of special analysis, in particular when studying the psychology of large groups and mass movements.
^ Specifics of information exchange in the communication process.
When we talk about communication in the narrow sense of the word, we first of all mean the fact that in the course of joint activities people exchange with each other various ideas, ideas, interests, moods, feelings, attitudes, etc. All this can be considered as information, and then the communication process itself can be understood as a process of information exchange. From here one can take the next tempting step and interpret the entire process of human communication in terms of information theory, which is what is done in a number of systems of socio-psychological knowledge. However, this approach cannot be considered methodologically correct, because it omits some the most important characteristics namely human communication, which is not limited to the process of transmitting information. Not to mention the fact that with this approach, basically only one direction of the flow of information is recorded, namely from the communicator to the recipient (the introduction of the concept of “feedback” does not change the essence of the matter), another significant omission arises here. Whenever we consider human communication from the point of view of information theory, only the formal side of the matter is fixed: how information is transmitted, while in the conditions of human communication information is not only transmitted, but also formed, clarified, and developed.
Therefore, without excluding the possibility of applying some provisions of information theory when describing the communicative side of communication, it is necessary to clearly place all the emphasis and identify the specifics in the process of information exchange itself when it takes place in the case of communication between two people.
Firstly, communication cannot be considered only as the sending of information by some transmitting system or as its reception by another system because, unlike the simple “movement of information” between two devices, here we are dealing with the relationship of two individuals, each of whom is active subject: mutual informing of them presupposes the establishment of joint activities. This means that each participant in the communicative process assumes activity in his partner as well; he cannot consider him as a certain object. The other participant also appears as a subject, and it follows that when sending him information, it is necessary to focus on him, i.e. analyze his motives, goals, attitudes (except, of course, the analysis of one’s own goals, motives, attitudes), “address” him, in the words of V.N. Myasishcheva. Schematically, communication can be depicted as an intersubjective process (S S). But in this case, one must assume that in response to the information sent, new information emanating from another partner. Therefore, in the communication process there is not a simple movement of information, but at least an active exchange of it. The main “add” in a specifically human exchange of information is that here the significance of information plays a special role for each participant in communication (Andreeva, 1981), because people not only “exchange” meanings, but, as A.N. Leontiev, strive to develop a common meaning. This is only possible if the information is not just accepted, but also understood and meaningful. The essence of the communication process is not just mutual information, but joint comprehension of the subject. Therefore, in every communicative process, activity, communication and cognition are actually given in unity. Secondly, the nature of the exchange of information between people, and not cybernetic devices, is determined by the fact that through a system of signs partners can influence each other. In other words, the exchange of such information necessarily involves influencing the behavior of the partner, i.e. a sign changes the state of participants in the communicative process; in this sense, “a sign in communication is like a tool in work” (Leontyev, 1972). The communicative influence that arises here is nothing more than the psychological influence of one communicator on another with the aim of changing his behavior. The effectiveness of communication is measured precisely by how successful this impact is. This means that when exchanging information, the very type of relationship that has developed between the participants in communication changes. Nothing similar happens in “purely” information processes.
Thirdly, communicative influence as a result of information exchange is possible only when the person sending the information (communicator) and the person receiving it (recipient) have a single or similar system of codification and decodification. In everyday language, this rule is expressed in the words: “everyone must speak the same language.”
This is especially important because the communicator and the recipient constantly change places in the communication process. Any exchange of information between them is possible only on the condition that the signs and, most importantly, the meanings assigned to them are known to all participants in the communicative process. Only acceptance unified system meanings ensures that partners can understand each other. To describe this situation, social psychology borrows from linguistics the term “thesaurus,” which denotes a common system of meanings accepted by all members of a group. But the whole point is that, even knowing the meanings of the same words, people can understand them differently: social, political, age characteristics can be the reason for this. Also L.S. Vygotsky noted that thought is never equal direct meaning words Therefore, those communicating must be identical - in case sound speech- not only the lexical and syntactic systems, but also the same understanding of the communication situation. And this is possible only if communication is included in some general system of activity. This is well explained by J. Miller using an everyday example. It seems essential for us to make some distinction between interpreting an utterance and understanding it, since understanding is usually facilitated by something other than the linguistic context associated with that particular utterance. A husband, greeted at the door by his wife's words: “I bought some light bulbs today,” should not limit himself to their literal interpretation: he must understand that he needs to go to the kitchen and replace the burnt out light bulb.
Finally, fourthly, in the conditions of human communication, completely specific communication barriers can arise. They are not associated with vulnerabilities in any communication channel or with encoding and decoding errors, but are social or psychological character. On the one hand, such barriers may arise due to the lack of understanding of the communication situation, caused not simply in different languages, spoken by the participants in the communicative process, but with deeper differences that exist between the partners. These can be social, political, religious, professional differences, which not only give rise to different interpretations of the same concepts used in the process of communication, but also generally different attitudes, worldviews, and worldviews. Barriers of this kind are generated by objective social reasons, the belonging of communication partners to various social groups, and when they manifest themselves, the inclusion of communication in a broader system of social relations becomes especially clear. Communication in this case demonstrates its characteristic that it is only a side of communication. Naturally, the communication process takes place even in the presence of these barriers: even military opponents negotiate. But the whole situation of the communicative act is significantly complicated by their presence.
On the other hand, barriers to communication may also be of a more purely psychological nature. They can arise either as a result of individual psychological characteristics communicating (for example, excessive shyness of one of them (Zimbardo, 1993), secrecy of another, the presence of a trait in someone called “uncommunicativeness”), or due to the special kind of psychological relationships that have developed between the communicating: hostility towards each other, mistrust, etc. In this case, the connection that exists between communication and attitude, which is naturally absent in cybernetic systems, becomes especially clear. All this allows us to pose the question of teaching communication in a completely special way, for example, in the context of socio-psychological training, which will be discussed in more detail below. The mentioned features of human communication do not allow us to consider it only in terms of information theory. Some terms from this theory used to describe this process always require a certain rethinking, at least those amendments discussed above. However, all this does not exclude the possibility of borrowing a number of concepts from information theory. For example, when constructing a typology of communication processes, it is advisable to use the concept of “signal directionality.” In the theory of communication, this term allows us to distinguish: a) axial communication process (from the Latin ahis - axis), when signals are sent to individual information receivers, i.e. individuals; b) a real communication process (from the Latin rete - network), when signals are sent to many likely recipients. In the era of scientific and technological progress in connection with the gigantic development of means mass media The study of real communicative processes is of particular importance.
Since in this case sending signals to the group makes the group members realize that they belong to this group, in the case of retial communication there is also not just a transfer of information, but also a social orientation of the participants in the communicative process. This also indicates that the essence of this process cannot be described only in terms of information theory. The dissemination of information in society occurs through a kind of filter of “trust” and “mistrust”. This filter acts in such a way that absolutely true information may be rejected, while false information may be accepted. Psychologically, it is extremely important to find out under what circumstances a particular channel of information can be blocked by this filter, as well as to identify means that help the acceptance of information and weaken the effects of filters. The combination of these means is called fascination. Various accompanying means act as fascination, acting as a “transportation”, an accompaniment of information, creating some additional background against which the main information benefits, since the background partially overcomes the filter of distrust. An example of fascination could be the musical accompaniment of speech, its spatial or color accompaniment. The information itself coming from the communicator can be of two types: motivating and stating. Incentive information is expressed in an order, advice, or request. It is designed to stimulate some action. Stimulation, in turn, can be different. First of all, this can be activation, i.e. motivation to act in a given direction. Further, it can be interdiction, i.e. an incentive that does not allow, on the contrary, certain actions, a prohibition of undesirable activities. Finally, it may be destabilization - a mismatch or disruption of some autonomous forms of behavior or activity.
Ascertaining information appears in the form of a message; it takes place in various educational systems and does not imply a direct change in behavior, although it indirectly contributes to this. The very nature of the message can be different: the degree of objectivity can vary from a deliberately “indifferent” tone of presentation to the inclusion of fairly obvious elements of persuasion in the text of the message. The message option is specified by the communicator, i.e. the person from whom the information comes.
^ Communication means. Speech. Transfer of any information
is possible only through signs, or rather sign systems. There are several sign systems that are used in the communication process; accordingly, a classification of communication processes can be constructed. In a rough division, a distinction is made between verbal and nonverbal communications that use different sign systems. Accordingly, a variety of types of communication process arises.
Each of them must be considered separately. Verbal communication uses human speech, natural sound language, as a sign system, i.e. a system of phonetic signs that includes two principles: lexical and syntactic. Speech is the most universal means of communication, since when transmitting information through speech, the meaning of the message is least lost. True, this should be accompanied by a high degree of common understanding of the situation by all participants in the communicative process, which was discussed above.
With the help of speech, information is encoded and decoded: the communicator encodes while speaking, and the recipient decodes this information while listening. The terms “speaking” and “listening” were introduced by I.A. Zimnyaya as a designation of the psychological components of verbal communication (Zimnyaya, 1991). The sequence of actions of the speaker and the listener has been studied in sufficient detail. From the point of view of transmission and perception of the meaning of the message, the K - S - R (communicator - message - recipient) scheme is asymmetrical.
For a communicator, the meaning of information precedes the encoding process (utterance), since the “speaker” first has a certain idea and then embodies it in a system of signs. For the “listener,” the meaning of the received message is revealed simultaneously with decoding. In this case, the significance of the situation of joint activity is especially clearly manifested: its awareness is included in the decoding process itself; revealing the meaning of the message is unthinkable outside of this situation. The accuracy of the listener’s understanding of the meaning of the statement can become obvious to the communicator only when there is a change in “communicative roles” (a conventional term meaning “speaker” and “listener”), i.e. when the recipient turns into a communicator and with his statement makes it known how he revealed the meaning of the received information. Dialogue, or dialogical speech, as a specific type of “conversation” is a consistent change of communicative roles, during which the meaning of the speech message is revealed, i.e. a phenomenon occurs that has been designated as “enrichment, development of information.”
The degree of coherence between the actions of the communicator and the recipient in a situation where they alternately assume these roles largely depends on their inclusion in the general context of the activity. There are many experimental studies in which this dependence was revealed (in particular, studies devoted to establishing the level of operation with the joint meanings of the signs used). The success of verbal communication in the case of dialogue is determined by the extent to which the partners provide the thematic focus of the information, as well as its bilateral character.
In general, regarding the use of speech as a certain sign system in the process of communication, everything that has been said about the essence of communication as a whole is true. In particular, when characterizing the dialogue, it is important to always keep in mind that it is conducted among themselves by individuals who have certain intentions (intentions), i.e. dialogue is “the active, two-way nature of interaction between partners.” This is what determines the need for attention to the interlocutor, consistency, and coordination of speech with him. Otherwise it will be broken the most important condition the success of verbal communication - understanding the meaning of what another is saying, and ultimately - understanding, knowing another person (Bakhtin, 1979). This means that through speech it is not just “information that moves”, but the participants in communication influence each other in a special way, orient each other, convince each other, i.e. strive to achieve a certain change in behavior. There may be two different tasks in orienting a communication partner. A.A. Leontyev proposes to designate them as personal-speech orientation (LRO) and social-speech orientation (SRO), which reflects not so much the difference in the recipients of the message, but rather the predominant topic and content of communication. The influence itself can be understood in different ways: it can be in the nature of manipulation of another person, i.e. direct imposition of some position on him, or may contribute to the actualization of the partner, i.e. the discovery of some new possibilities in him and himself. In social psychology, there is a large number of experimental studies that elucidate the conditions and methods for increasing the effect of speech influence; both the forms of various communication barriers and ways to overcome them have been studied in sufficient detail. Thus, an expression of resistance to accepting information (and therefore the influence exerted) can be a disconnection of the listener’s attention, a deliberate reduction in one’s perception of the authority of the communicator, the same - intentional or unintentional “misunderstanding” of the message: either due to the specific phonetics of the speaker, or due to the peculiarities of its style or the logic of text construction. Accordingly, every speaker must have the ability to re-engage the listener’s attention, to attract him with something, to confirm his authority in the same way, to improve the manner of presenting the material, etc. (Krizhanskaya, Tretyakov, 1992). Of particular importance, of course, is the fact that the nature of the statement corresponds to the situation of communication (Bern, 1988), the measure and degree of the formal (ritual) nature of communication, and other indicators.
A set of certain measures aimed at increasing the effectiveness of speech influence is called “persuasive communication”, on the basis of which the so-called experimental rhetoric is developed - the art of persuasion through speech. To take into account all the variables included in the process of speech communication, K. Hovland proposed a “matrix of persuasive communication,” which is a kind of model of the speech communication process with the designation of its individual links. The point of constructing models of this kind (and several have been proposed) is to not miss a single element of the process when increasing the effectiveness of the impact. This can be shown using the simplest model proposed at one time by the American journalist G. Lasswell to study the persuasive influence of the media (in particular, newspapers). Lasswell's model of the communication process includes five elements.
1) Who? (transmits message) - Communicator
2) What? (transmitted) - Message (text)
3) How? (transfer in progress) - Channel
4) To whom? (message sent) - Audience
5) With what effect? - Efficiency
A wide variety of studies have been undertaken on each element of this framework. For example, the characteristics of a communicator that contribute to increasing the effectiveness of his speech are comprehensively described, in particular, the types of his position during the communicative process are identified. There can be three such positions: open - the communicator openly declares himself a supporter of the stated point of view, evaluates various facts in support of this point of view; detached - the communicator is emphatically neutral, compares conflicting points of view, not excluding orientation towards one of them, but not openly stated; closed - the communicator is silent about his point of view, sometimes even resorting to special measures to hide it. Naturally, the content of each of these positions is determined by the goal, the task that is pursued in the communicative influence, but it is important that, in principle, each of these positions has certain capabilities for increasing the effect of influence (Bogomolova, 1991).
Likewise, ways to increase the impact of text have been extensively explored.
Communication is the process of establishing and developing contacts between people, generated by the need for joint activities and including the exchange of information, the development of a single detail of interaction, perception and understanding of a person by a person.
Both sets of human relationships - both social and interpersonal - are revealed and realized precisely in communication. Thus, the roots of communication are in the very material life of individuals. Communication is the realization of the entire system of human relations.
Leontyev: Under normal circumstances, a person’s relationship to the objective world around him is always mediated by his relationship to people, to society, i.e. included in communication.
In real communication, not only interpersonal relationships of people are given, but also social ones, i.e. impersonal in nature, relationships.
The diverse relationships of a person are not covered only by interpersonal contact: a person’s position outside the narrow framework of interpersonal connections, in a broader social system, where his place is not determined by the expectations of the individuals interacting with him, also requires a certain construction of the system of his connections, and this process can also only be realized in communication. Without communication, human society is simply unthinkable. Communication appears in it as a way of cementing individuals and at the same time as a way of developing these individuals themselves. It is from here that the existence of communication flows both as a reality of social relations and as a reality of interpersonal relations.
Each series of relationships is realized in specific forms of communication. Communication as the implementation of interpersonal relationships is a process more studied in social psychology, while communication between groups is more likely to be studied in sociology.
Communication, including in the system of interpersonal relations, is forced by the joint life activity of people, therefore it is necessary to carry out a wide variety of interpersonal relationships, i.e. given both in the case of a positive and in the case of a negative attitude of one person towards another. The same applies to the characteristics of communication at the macro level as the implementation of social relations
Acting as a representative of a certain social group, a person communicates with another representative of another social group and simultaneously realizes two types of relationships: both impersonal and personal.
9. Correlation of the concepts “communication”, “activity”, “personality”.
In a number of psychological concepts there is a tendency to contrast communication and activity.
E. Durkheim: society is not a dynamic system of active groups and individuals, but a collection of static forms of communication. The factor of communication in determining behavior was emphasized, but the role of transformative activity was underestimated: the social process itself was reduced to the process of spiritual speech communication.
Domestic psychology: the idea of unity of communication and activity. This conclusion logically follows from the understanding of communication as the reality of human relations, which assumes that any forms of communication are included in specific forms of joint activity: people not only communicate in the process of performing various functions, but they always communicate in some activity, “about” it. It is communication that forms a community of individuals performing joint activities.
The nature of this connection is understood in different ways.
Lomov: activity and communication are considered not as parallel existing interconnected processes, but as two sides of human social existence; his way of life.
Leontiev: communication is understood as a certain aspect of activity: it is included in any activity, is its element, while the activity itself can be considered as a condition of communication.
Communication can be interpreted as a special type of activity. Within this point of view, two of its varieties are distinguished: in one of them, communication is understood as a communicative activity, or a communication activity that occurs independently at a certain stage of ontogenesis, for example, in preschoolers and especially in adolescence (Elkonin). In the other, communication in general terms is understood as one of the types of activity (meaning, first of all, speech activity), and in relation to it all the elements characteristic of activity in general are sought: actions, operations, motives, etc. (A.A. Leontyev)
Communication concept. Communication and speech. Concept of speech. Types of speech. Properties of speech. The influence of communication and speech on people’s lives and activities. Development and speech disorders.
Communication as interaction and exchange of information. Communication as interconnection and mutual influence. The main aspects of the communication process: perceptual, communicative, interactive. Types of communication. Non-verbal communication. Communication functions. The role of communication and speech in the mental and personal development of a person.
Psychological means of influence and influence in the process of communication. Communication style. Contact strategies.
Characteristics of socio-psychological processes unfolding during communication (imitation, infection, persuasion, suggestion). Feedback in communication. The concept of a communication barrier.
Basic concepts of the topic: communication, speech (external, internal, oral, written, affective, dialogical, monologue), communication, perceptual, interactive aspects of communication, language, non-verbal communication, interpersonal interaction, psychological contact, semantic barrier, interpersonal conflict, style and communication strategies: reverse connection.
Topic 20. Communication as mutual understanding and mutual knowledge.
Interpersonal relationships (relationships) as a socio-psychological phenomenon. Classification and types of relationships. Patterns of manifestation of interpersonal relationships between people. The role of communication in the system of social and interpersonal relations.
Understanding how highest level interactions. Psychological features of mutual understanding. Mechanisms of mutual understanding in the process of communication. Conditions and factors for achieving mutual understanding.
Sources and reasons for people's misunderstanding of each other. Understanding the interlocutor's speech. Awareness of the manifesting qualities of interacting individuals. Identification of the influence of the situation of interaction with a partner on the personality.
Basic concepts of the topic: interpersonal relationships, partnership qualities, mutual understanding, mutual misunderstanding, mutual assistance, opposition, empathy, mutual influence, contact.
2.3. Thematic plan of seminar classes.
Topic 1: History of the formation of psychological science
QUESTIONS FOR THE SEMINAR:
Psychology as a subject. Main branches of psychology
The concept of the soul, psyche and mental activity.
The role of psychology in the activities of a social worker.
The relationship between everyday and scientific psychology.
REPORT TOPICS:
Democritus, Plato, Aristotle - biography and philosophical reflections on the soul.
ABSTRACT TOPICS:
The importance of psychological knowledge for a social worker.
Introduction to psychology. Textbook for university students / Ed. ed. prof. A.V.Petrovsky. - M.: "Academy", 1995. 496 p.
Gipenreiter Yu.B. Introduction to Psychology. – M., 2006.
Druzhinin V.N. General psychology. - SPb.: PETER, 2006.
Enikeev M.I. General and social psychology. – M.: Publishing house
NORM, 2002.
Maklakov A.G. General psychology. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2006.
Topic 2: History of the formation of psychological science.
QUESTIONS FOR THE SEMINAR:
Depth psychology.
Behaviorism.
Gestalt - psychology.
Transpersonal psychology.
Cognitive psychology.
Genetic psychology.
Humanistic psychology.
Domestic psychological school.
ABSTRACT TOPICS:
The founder of Russian psychology V.M. Bekhterev.
MINI STUDY:
Find in educational literature all areas in psychology. Select scientists who have contributed to this area. Make a table
LITERATURE:
Gipenreiter Yu.B. Introduction to Psychology. – M., 2006.
Petrovsky A.V., Yaroshevsky M.G. History and theory of psychology. - Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 1996. - 416 p.
Kjell L. Ziegler D. Theories of personality. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2006. – 608 p.
SUBJECT: Methodology of psychological research
QUESTIONS FOR THE SEMINAR:
Methods of psychological research.
The relationship between methodology, methods and techniques of psychological research.
Objective research methods.
Types of observation. Advantages and disadvantages of observation.
The essence of experimental research. Advantages and disadvantages of the experimental method.
Comparative analysis of observation and experiment.
ABSTRACT TOPICS:
Methods of scientific psychology.
Methods practical psychology.
Method of observation and self-observation in psychology.
Psychological tests and their features.
Research methods in psychology.
MINI STUDY:
Study the methods of psychology in the scientific literature. Make a table:
SUBJECT:
QUESTIONS FOR THE SEMINAR:
Definition of the concept of “psyche”
The structure of the psyche in the traditions of Russian psychology
The main differences between the animal psyche and the human psyche.
Main features of the intellectual behavior of animals.
Development of higher mental functions.
Conscious reflection of reality.
General problems of the origin of the human psyche.
REPORT TOPICS:
Psyche and consciousness: on the relationship between phenomena and concepts.
The problem of determining the natural or social conditioning of the human psyche and behavior.
Mysteries of consciousness.
The structure of consciousness according to A.N. Leontiev and V.P. Zinchenko.
Druzhinin V.N. General psychology. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2006.
Luria A.R. Lectures on general psychology. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2007. - 320 p.
Maklakov A.G. General psychology. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2006.
SUBJECT: Origin and development of the psyche and consciousness
QUESTIONS FOR THE SEMINAR:
Consciousness as the highest level of mental reflection and the highest level of self-regulation.
Self-awareness. Concept.
Functions of self-awareness.
The structure of self-awareness. Levels of self-awareness.
Stages of development of self-awareness.
Criteria for impairment of object consciousness
ABSTRACT TOPICS:
The problem of the unconscious in psychology.
Cognitive and active-creative sides of consciousness.
Development of consciousness of a child (adult).
Levels and properties of consciousness.
Altered states of consciousness. Sleep and its stages.
Artificially induced states of consciousness.
Intuition as a form of superconscious phenomenon.
SUBJECT: Psychological characteristics of activity QUESTIONS FOR THE SEMINAR:
Activity. Interdisciplinary approach to activities.
The relationship between external and internal activities.
Mastering the activity.
Main types of activities and their characteristics (work, play, study)
Abilities, skills, habits and their characteristics.
ABSTRACT TOPICS:
Psychological analysis of people's habits.
The work of an artist, scientist, inventor.
Abilities, skills, habits and their characteristics.
MINI STUDY:
Analyze the scientific literature, make a table on the topic: “Main types of activities and their characteristics.”
Druzhinin V.N. General psychology. - St. Petersburg: Publishing house PETER, 2006.
Maklakov A.G. General psychology. – St. Petersburg: Publishing house PETER, 2006.
Petrovsky A.V. Introduction to psychology. - M.: Academy, 2005.
Rubinshtein S.L. Fundamentals of general psychology: In 2 volumes. - T.1 - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2002. - 720 p.
SUBJECT: Feeling.
QUESTIONS FOR THE SEMINAR:
Feel.
Basic properties of sensations (quality, intensity, duration, spatial localization of stimuli)
General patterns of sensations (sensitivity, sensation thresholds, adaptation, sensitization, synesthesia)
Compensation for sensations.
REPORT TOPICS:
Sherrington Charles Scott - major scientific discoveries.
ABSTRACT TOPICS:
Luria A.R. Sensation and perception. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2005. – 320 p.
SUBJECT: Perception.
QUESTIONS FOR THE SEMINAR:
Perception and its psychological properties.
Peculiarities of time perception depending on the content of the activity.
Perceptual actions in the process of perception.
Conditions for adequate perception of the world.
Illusions of perception.
ABSTRACT TOPICS:
Laws and mysteries of visual perception.
Development of perception in children.
The role and types of sensitivity (sensation) in humans.
Bashaeva T.V. Development of perception in children. Shape, color, sound. – Yaroslavl, 1998.
Gippenreiter Yu.B. Psychology of sensations and perceptions. – M., 2002
Luria A.R. Sensation and perception. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2005
Martsinkovskaya G.D., Yaroshevsky M.G. 100 outstanding psychologists of the world. – Voronezh, 1996. – 320 s.
Shiffman H. Sensation and perception. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2003.
SUBJECT: Memory.
QUESTIONS FOR THE SEMINAR:
Memory, definition, concept, types.
Characteristics of memory processes.
Individual differences in memory processes.
Patterns of memory.
Rational memorization techniques
MINI STUDY:
Study the scientific literature, make a table on the topic: “Characteristics and patterns of memory.”
ABSTRACT TOPICS
Relationship and interaction various types human memory.
Individual characteristics of memory and human abilities.
Memory disorders.
Rational methods of memorization.
Druzhinin V.N. General psychology. - St. Petersburg: Publishing house PETER, 2006.
Lapp D. The art of remembering and forgetting. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 1995
Lapp D We improve memory at any age. M.: Mir, 1993
Maklakov A.G. General psychology. – St. Petersburg: Publishing house PETER, 2006.
SUBJECT: Thinking.
QUESTIONS FOR THE SEMINAR:
General characteristics of thinking. Types of thinking.
Classification of types of thinking.
Thinking speech.
Thinking and sensory cognition.
Thinking as problem solving.
ABSTRACT TOPICS:
Psychology of creative thinking.
Problems and ways to develop creative thinking.
Diagnostics of mental development.
Comparative characteristics of theoretical and empirical thinking
Gipenreiter Yu.B. Introduction to Psychology. Lecture course. – M., 2006. – 336 p.
Godefroy J. What is psychology: in 2 volumes. / ed. Ankelova A.G. – M.:Mir, 1996. – 370 p.
Luria A.R. Lectures on general psychology. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2007. – 320 p.
Martsinkovskaya G.D., Yaroshevsky M.G. 100 outstanding psychologists of the world. – Voronezh, 1996. – 320 s.
Nemov R.S. Psychology: in 3 books. Book 1. General fundamentals of psychology. –M.: VLADOS center, 1998.
SUBJECT: Imagination.
QUESTIONS FOR THE SEMINAR:
Imagination, psychological characteristics.
Individual characteristics of imagination.
The role of fantasy in personality activity.
Psychological techniques for creating imaginary images.
ABSTRACT TOPICS:
Imagination and individual creativity.
Imagination and artistic creativity.
Using imagination for social and psychotherapeutic purposes.
Gipenreiter Yu.B. Introduction to Psychology. Lecture course. – M., 2006. – 336 p.
Luria A.R. Lectures on general psychology. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2007. – 320 p.
Martsinkovskaya G.D., Yaroshevsky M.G. 100 outstanding psychologists of the world. – Voronezh, 1996. – 320 s.
Nemov R.S. Psychology: in 3 books. Book 1. General fundamentals of psychology. –M.: VLADOS center, 1998.
SUBJECT: Attention
QUESTIONS FOR THE SEMINAR:
Attention : definition, types. Comparative characteristics main types of attention.
Properties of attention.
Methods for studying the properties of attention.
Attention disturbance.
Development of attention in ontogenesis.
REPORT TOPICS:
Lange Nikolai Nikolaevich, Galperin Pyotr Yakovlevich, Ukhtomsky Alexey Alekseevich, Uznadze Dmitry Nikolaevich - biography and psychological works.
ABSTRACT TOPICS:
Attention and attitude (concept by D.N. Uznadze)
Techniques for developing attention.
Emotional-motor theory of T. Ribot
Individual characteristics of students' attention.
Is intelligent activity possible without attention?
What could be the reason for students' inattention? Students?
Reveal the content of each quality of attention, its role in human life and activity, name the factors influencing the manifestation and development of these qualities.
What are the ways to attract attention at different stages of a lecture? Lesson?
Gipenreiter Yu.B. Introduction to Psychology. Lecture course. – M., 2006. – 336 p.
Godefroy J. What is psychology: in 2 volumes. / ed. Ankelova A.G. – M.: Mir, 1996. – 370 p.
Luria A.R. Lectures on general psychology. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2007. – 320 p.
Martsinkovskaya G.D., Yaroshevsky M.G. 100 outstanding psychologists of the world. – Voronezh, 1996. – 320 s.
Nemov R.S. Psychology: in 3 books. Book 1. General fundamentals of psychology. – M.: VLADOS, 2007.
SUBJECT:
QUESTIONS FOR THE SEMINAR:
1. Basic theoretical approaches to the study of personality.
2. Psychodynamic theory of personality.
3. Analytical theory of personality.
4. Behavioral theory of personality.
5. General idea of self-actualization in humanistic psychology..
6. Four-component model of personality in the activity approach.
7. Dispositional theory of personality.
REPORT TOPICS:
Sigmund Freud, C.G. Jung, A. Maslow, K. Rogers, A. Bandura, J. Rotter, A.N. Leontyev – biography and psychological works.
ABSTRACT TOPICS:
The problem of personal meaning in psychology.
What are the main criteria for distinguishing different theories?
Why is there not one, but many theories?
What are the similarities and differences between the classical psychoanalysis of S. Freud and the analytical theory of personality of C. Jung?
How do needs develop according to A. Maslow?
What is the main function of behavioral potential?
How is self-efficacy formed according to A. Bandura?
What is the fundamental difference between the activity approach to the study of personality and other approaches.
What are the main factors in personality development among dispositionists?
Druzhinin V.N. General psychology. - St. Petersburg: Publishing house PETER, 2006.
Maklakov A.G. General psychology. – St. Petersburg: Publishing house PETER, 2006.
Nemov R.S. Psychology: in 3 books. Book 1. General fundamentals of psychology. –M.: VLADOS, 2005.
Pershina L.A. General psychology. – M.: Academic Project, 2004.
SUBJECT: Psychological characteristics of personality
QUESTIONS FOR THE SEMINAR:
Personality orientation as a system of dominant motives.
Personal self-awareness. Self-concept of personality.
Personality assessment and self-esteem.
Socialization and individualization as forms of personality development. Stages, factors of socialization.
Personal development. Abnormal personality development.
ABSTRACT TOPICS:
Socialization of personality.
Self-concept of personality.
Conditions and factors of normal and abnormal personality development.
Sources, factors, conditions and driving forces of personality development.
Blum J. Psychoanalytic theories of personality / Transl. from English, intro. Art. A.B. Havina. - M.: Academic project; Ekaterinburg: Business book, 1999. - 222 p.
Druzhinin V.N. General psychology. - St. Petersburg: Publishing house PETER, 2006.
Maklakov A.G. General psychology. – St. Petersburg: Publishing house PETER, 2006.
Nemov R.S. Psychology: in 3 books. Book 1. General fundamentals of psychology. –M.: VLADOS, 2005.
Pershina L.A. General psychology. – M.: Academic Project, 2004.
Kjell L., Ziegler D. personality theories. – St. Petersburg, 2006, pp. 105-146, 161-187, 271-315, 479-514, 528-556.
TOPIC: Emotions and feelings.
QUESTIONS FOR THE SEMINAR:
Types of emotions and their general characteristics.
The role of emotions.
Psychological theories of emotions.
Emotional stress, its types and phases.
Managing emotions. Ways to relieve emotional stress.
The development of emotions and their significance in human life.
Possible violations in emotional sphere person.
ABSTRACT TOPICS:
The development of emotions and their meaning in human life.
Emotions and human relationships.
The role of adults in the formation of emotions and emotional states in children
Gorbatkov A.A. Two models of the dynamics of connections between positive and negative emotions // Questions of Psychology, No. 3, 2004.
Izard K.E. Psychology of emotions - St. Petersburg, Peter, 1999.
Leontyev A.N. lectures on general psychology. – M, 2000. Lecture 48, 49.
Langle A. Introduction to the existential-analytical theory of emotions: touching value. // Questions of Psychology, No. 4, 2004. P. 3
Subbotin V.E. Motivation and emotions // Modern psychology. Reference Guide/Ed. Druzhinina. – M: Infra, 1999.
Stolyarenko L.D. Basics of psychology. – Rostov-on-Don, 2000, pp. 255-259.
SUBJECT: Will.
QUESTIONS FOR THE SEMINAR:
Will as a regulatory process. The mechanism of will.
The structure of the volitional process.
Volitional personality traits.
Development of the will in man.
Formation of strong-willed personality traits.
REPORT TOPICS:
W. James - biography and contribution to psychology.
ABSTRACT TOPICS:
The formation of volitional regulation of behavior in children.
The main directions and ways of developing the will.
Ilyin E.P. Psychology of will. – St. Petersburg, 2000.
Ladanov I.D. Stress management. – M., 1989. Will training. Page 43-69.
Leontyev A.N. Will / Bulletin of Moscow State University. Series 14. – M., 1993, No. 2 p. 3-14.
Leontyev A.N. lectures on general psychology. – M, 2000. Lecture 50.
Maklakov A.G. General psychology. – St. Petersburg, 2006.
Pershina L.A. General psychology. –M., 2004.
Rubinshtein S.L. Fundamentals of general psychology. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2006.
Smirnov B.N. On different approaches to the problem of will in psychology // Journal “Questions of Psychology” No. 3 2004, pp. 64-70.
SUBJECT: Character.
QUESTIONS FOR THE SEMINAR:
Concept of character. Character traits.
Theoretical and experimental approaches to character research. (physiognomy, palmistry, graphology, constitutional method).
Typology of character according to Leonhard.
Typology of character according to Lichko.
Character formation.
The influence of factors on the formation of character (factor of work activity, factor of imitation, conflict situations).
Character diagnostics.
REPORT TOPICS:
Johann Kasper Lavater - life path, outstanding works.
E. Fromm – outstanding research.
ABSTRACT TOPICS:
Character and temperament.
Age-related characteristics of the development of character traits in humans.
Granovskaya R. M. Elements of practical psychology. - St. Petersburg: Light, 2005.
Maklakov A.G. General psychology. – St. Petersburg: Peter, 2006.
Rubinstein S. L. Fundamentals of general psychology. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2005.
Practical tasks:
Exercise 1.
CHARACTEROLOGICAL QUESTIONNAIRE(QUESTIONNAIRE BY K. LEONHARD)
Instructions: “You will be offered statements regarding your character. If you agree with the statement, put a sign next to its number « + » (yes), if no – sign « - » (no). Don’t think about the questions for too long, there are no right or wrong answers.
|
№ p/p |
Judgment |
(Not really) « + »/« - » |
|
Are you often in a cheerful and carefree mood? | ||
|
Are you sensitive to insults? | ||
|
Does it ever happen that tears come to your eyes at the cinema, theater, conversation, etc.? | ||
|
Having done something, do you doubt whether everything was done correctly, and do not calm down until you are convinced once again that everything was done correctly? | ||
|
As a child, were you as brave as your peers? | ||
|
How often do your moods suddenly change from a state of boundless jubilation to disgust for life and for yourself? | ||
|
Are you usually the center of attention in society or company? | ||
|
Does it ever happen that you are in such a grumpy mood for no reason that it is better not to talk to you? | ||
|
Are you a serious person? | ||
|
Are you capable of admiring and admiring something? | ||
|
Are you entrepreneurial? | ||
|
Do you quickly forget if someone offends you? | ||
|
Are you kind-hearted? | ||
|
When placing a letter in a mailbox, do you check by running your hand along the slot of the box that the letter has completely fallen into it? | ||
|
Have you ever been scared as a child during a thunderstorm or when meeting with an unfamiliar dog? | ||
|
Do you strive to maintain order in everything and everywhere? | ||
|
Does your mood depend on external factors? | ||
|
Do your friends love you? | ||
|
Do you often have a feeling of inner restlessness, a feeling of possible trouble or trouble? | ||
|
Do you often feel somewhat depressed? | ||
|
Have you ever had a hysteria or nervous breakdown at least once? | ||
|
Is it difficult for you to sit in one place for a long time? | ||
|
If you were treated unfairly, do you vigorously defend your interests? | ||
|
Can you slaughter a chicken or a sheep? | ||
|
Does it irritate you if a tablecloth or curtain hangs unevenly at home, or do you immediately try to straighten it? | ||
|
Were you afraid of being alone at home as a child? | ||
|
Do you often have mood swings? | ||
|
Do you always strive to be a strong enough worker in your profession? | ||
|
Do you quickly become angry or angry? | ||
|
Can you be absolutely, carefree cheerful? | ||
|
Does it ever happen that a feeling of boundless happiness literally permeates you? | ||
|
Do you think you would make a lead in a humorous play? | ||
|
Do you usually express your opinions to people quite frankly, directly and unambiguously? | ||
|
Do you find it difficult to bear the sight of blood? Doesn't this cause you any discomfort? | ||
|
Do you like work with high personal responsibility? | ||
|
Are you inclined to speak out in defense of people who have been treated unfairly? | ||
|
Is it difficult or scary for you to go down into a dark basement? | ||
|
Do you prefer a job where you have to act quickly, but the quality requirements are low? | ||
|
Are you sociable? | ||
|
Did you like to recite poetry at school? | ||
|
Did you run away from home as a child? | ||
|
Does life seem difficult to you? | ||
|
Does it ever happen that after a conflict or resentment, you were so upset that going to work seemed unbearable? | ||
|
Can you say that when you fail, you lose your sense of humor? | ||
|
Would you take the first steps towards reconciliation if someone offended you? | ||
|
Do you really love animals? | ||
|
When you return, you make sure that you have left the house or workplace in such a state that nothing will happen there? | ||
|
Are you sometimes haunted by the thought that something terrible might happen to you and your loved ones? | ||
|
Do you find that your mood is very changeable? | ||
|
Is it difficult for you to report (perform on stage) in front of a large number of people? | ||
|
Can you hit the offender if he insults you? | ||
|
Do you have a great need to communicate with other people? | ||
|
Are you one of those who, when disappointed, falls into deep despair? | ||
|
Do you like work that requires energetic organizational activity? | ||
|
Do you persistently achieve your goal if you have to overcome a lot of obstacles on the way to it? | ||
|
Can a tragic film move you so much that tears come to your eyes? | ||
|
Do you often find it difficult to sleep because the problems of the day and the future are always spinning in your thoughts? | ||
|
At school, did you sometimes give your friends hints or let them copy? | ||
|
Will it require more willpower for you to walk through the cemetery alone? | ||
|
Do you carefully ensure that every item in your apartment is always in the same place? | ||
|
Does it happen that while you are in a good mood before going to bed, you get up the next day in a depressed mood that lasts for several hours? | ||
|
Do you easily get used to new situations? | ||
|
Do you have headaches? | ||
|
Do you laugh often? | ||
|
Can you be friendly even with someone whom you clearly do not value, love, or respect? | ||
|
Are you an active person? | ||
|
Are you very worried about injustice? | ||
|
Do you love nature so much that you can call it a friend? | ||
|
When leaving home or going to bed, do you check whether the gas is turned off, the lights are off, or the door is closed? | ||
|
Are you very fearful? | ||
|
Does your mood change when you drink alcohol? | ||
|
In your youth, did you willingly participate in an amateur art group? | ||
|
Do you view life somewhat pessimistically, without expecting joy? | ||
|
Do you often want to travel? | ||
|
Can your mood change so dramatically that the state of joy suddenly gives way to gloomy and depressed? | ||
|
Is it easy for you to cheer up your friends in company? | ||
|
How long have you been offended? | ||
|
How long have you been experiencing the sorrows of other people? | ||
|
How often, as a schoolchild, did you rewrite a page in your notebook if you accidentally left a blot in it? | ||
|
Do you treat people with distrust and caution rather than trust? | ||
|
How often do you see scary dreams? | ||
|
Does it happen that you are afraid that you will throw yourself under the wheels of a passing train or, standing at the window of a multi-story building, you are afraid that you might suddenly fall out of the window? | ||
|
Are you usually cheerful in a cheerful company? | ||
|
Are you able to distract yourself from difficult problems that need to be solved? | ||
|
Do you become less inhibited and feel more free after drinking alcohol? | ||
|
Are you short on words in conversation? | ||
|
If you had to act on stage, would you be able to get into the role and forget that it’s just a game? |
When calculating points on each scale of the Leonhard questionnaire, the value of each scale is multiplied by a certain number to standardize the results. This is indicated in the key to the method. Accented personalities are not pathological. They are characterized by highlighting bright character traits.
KEY
|
1. Hyperthymic x 3 1, 11, 23, 33, 45, 55, 67, 77 |
6. Cyclotic x 3 6, 18, 28, 40, 50, 62, 72, 84 |
|
2. Excitable x 2 2, 15, 24, 34, 37, 56, 68, 78, 81 |
7. Demonstrative x 2 7, 19, 22, 29, 41, 44, 63, 66, 73, 85, 88 |
|
3. Emotive x 3 3, 13, 35, 47, 57, 69, 79 |
8. Unbalancedx 3 8, 20, 30, 42, 52, 64, 74, 86 |
|
4 . Pedantic x 2 4, 14, 17, 26, 39, 48, 58, 61, 70, 80, 83 |
9. Dysthymic x 3 9, 21, 43, 75, 87 |
|
5. Alarming x 3 16, 27, 38, 49, 60, 71, 82 |
10. Exalted x 6 Sots.ps analyzes first of all those patterns of human behavior and activity that are determined by the fact of communication and interaction of people. Ch. task, cat. stands before social ps, - reveal the specific mechanism of “weaving” the individual into the fabric of social reality in order to understand what the result of the impact is social conditions on the activities of the individual. The personality itself, on the one hand, is already a “product” of these social connections, and on the other hand, is their creator, an active creator. There is an interaction between the individual and society as a whole, so the study of the individual is always another side of the study of society. There are two main types of relationships: public and interpersonal General structure relationships are studied by sociology. They are impersonal. They are based on production, material relations, and a whole series is built on top of them: social, political, ideological. All this together represents a system of social relations. The specifics of their mortgage. in that they do not simply “meet” individual with individual, but individuals “meet” as representatives of certain social groups (classes, professions, political parties, etc.). Such relationships are not built on the basis of interaction specific individuals, but on the basis of a certain position occupied by everyone in the system of society. Interpersonal(Myasishchev calls them “psychological”) relationships do not develop somewhere outside the community. rel., and within them, there are no “pure” general rel. In almost all group actions, their participants appear in two capacities: as performers of impersonal social role and how unique human personalities. The concept of “interpersonal role” is introduced as a fixation of a person’s position in the system of group connections based on the individual psychological characteristics of the individual (shirt-guy, insider, scapegoat, etc.). Interl. rel. can be considered as a factor in the psychological “climate” of the group. The most important specific feature of interl. rel. – emotional basis. Based on the set of feelings, two large groups can be distinguished: 1) conjunctive - this includes various kinds of things that bring people together, uniting their feelings. The parties demonstrate their readiness to cooperate, to collaborate. actions. 2) disjunctive feelings – here rel. feelings that separate people, there is no desire to collaborate. Practical rel. relationships between people in a group do not develop solely on the basis of immediate emotions. contacts. Relationships mediated by joint activities are important here. When the act of communication must take place even if the groups are antagonistic. Question 26 Language as a means of communication Question 27 Nonverbal communication
Let's consider the main types of nonverbal communication:Kinesics– this element represents a set of body movements, gestures and poses used to complement expressive means communications. The main elements of kinesics are facial expressions, postures, gestures and views that have a physiological or sociocultural origin. The gestures used must be understood unambiguously, since if the gestures are interpreted incorrectly, unpleasant circumstances may arise; Tactile e behavior - it has been found that when communicating, all people use various types of touches to those interlocutors who are in close proximity. Different types of touch are of a different nature and have different, different effectiveness and significance. Tactile behavior can be divided into the following types: : professional, ritual, friendly and love. However, in different cultures nonverbal elements have different labels; Sensory- is one of the types of non-verbal communication, which is based on sensory perception in all cultures. The attitude towards a partner is based on the sensation of the senses: smells, taste, perception of sound and color combinations, sensation of the interlocutor’s body and the warmth emanating from him. Thanks to all this, non-verbal communication with this partner will be established; Proxemics– a type of nonverbal communication based on the use of spatial relationships. This type of communication implies the direct influence of distances and territories on the manifestation of interpersonal relationships between people. 28 Communication as interaction (interaction) 29. Approaches to describing the structure of interaction
1) Area positive emotions: Total 12 types of interaction. Criticism: there is no logical justification for exactly 12 possible types, as well as for the definition of four categories. There is no basis for distinguishing these interactions; there is a mixture of communicative manifestations of individuals (expressing opinions) and direct manifestations in actions (pushing away another). Theory of dyadic interaction (J. Thibault, G. Kelly). The difficulty of fixing the meaningful side of interaction led to the study of a dyad - the interaction of two people. Prisoner's dilemma (based on mathematical game theory). In the experiment there are two prisoners, he is in captivity and cannot communicate with each other. If we take two extreme possibilities of their behavior: to confess, not to confess, then each of them has this choice. We get 4 combinations of the prisoners' strategies. The winnings that will result from different combinations of these strategies are calculated. There is an organic connection between personality and interpersonal relationships. On the one hand, even in the most fleeting interactions there are interpersonal reactions, i.e. interpersonal relationships. On the other hand, the development of personality itself is entangled in networks of interpersonal relationships, and the nature of interpersonal relationships is predetermined by the character of the individual. By engaging in interpersonal communication, people remain unique living beings. The reactions of each individual turn out to be dependent on certain qualities of those with whom they happen to come into contact. The nature of interpersonal relationships in each specific case depends on the individual personality traits of the people involved in the interaction, and its range is unusually wide - from love at first sight to hatred to death. As part of the study of social psychology, we are faced with the awareness of the fact that both social and interpersonal relationships are revealed and realized precisely in communication. The roots of communication are in the very material life of individuals. Today it is obvious to everyone that, under ordinary circumstances, a person’s relationship with the objective world around him is always mediated by his relationship with society, with people, i.e. included in communication Without communication, human society is simply unthinkable. Communication exists simultaneously as a reality of both social and interpersonal relations. Perhaps that is why Saint-Exupery painted a poetic image of communication as “the only luxury that a person has.” The joint life activity of people forces them to communicate in a wide variety of interpersonal relationships, i.e. both in the case of positive and in the case of negative relations of one person to another. The same is true for social groups. Communication between groups is inevitable, even if the groups are antagonistic. One of the specific forms of communication is war. The cause of communication disruption is usually dissonance - a mismatch between the content and method of communication. There can be many ways to communicate or, as they say, to treat a person with a person: Soft or hard; Humiliating or uplifting; Overwhelming or equal; Encouraging or depressing; Rude or polite; Warm or cold; Affectionate or callous; Forming the need for communication or avoidance of it, etc. We can talk about different levels of communication: Macro level: a person’s communication with other people in accordance with established public relations, norms and traditions; Meso level: communication within a meaningful topic, one-time or multiple-time; Micro level: the simplest act of communication.  Loading... |