Sksb - Psychological diagnostics. Testing scale of subjective well-being Methodology scale of subjective well-being Sokolova

SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING SCALE (SWS)

INTRODUCTION

The Subjective Well-Being Scale is a screening psychodiagnostic tool for measuring the emotional component of subjective well-being (SWB).

The term "subjective well-being", widely used in foreign psychological literature, is relatively new, but the problem of subjective well-being has profound historical roots. A person’s assessment of his life, his emotional attitude towards it, were the topic of many philosophical works in which the term “happiness” was used predominantly. In modern works on this topic, the concepts of “happiness”, “satisfaction”, “positive emotions”, etc. are also widely used, but the concept of “subjective well-being” seems to us to be more psychologically accurate.

The problem of SB is considered by modern researchers both in practical and theoretical terms. A number of works are devoted to the measurement and conceptualization of subjective well-being; various methods are being created to assess both general subjective well-being and its individual components. Many studies have examined demographic and other environmental correlates of SWB. IN; in our country, the problem of subjective well-being is almost not studied in scientific works. There are practically no verified diagnostic techniques for measuring SB. At the same time, a screening tool for measuring the emotional component of subjective well-being can be useful to a wide range of psychologists both in practical and research activities.

PROBLEMS OF STUDYING SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING

Definition of subjective well-being

The definition of subjective well-being contained in the works of various authors can be grouped into three categories:

1. Well-being is determined by external criteria, such as a virtuous “correct” life. Such definitions are called normative. In accordance with them, a person feels well-being if he possesses certain socially desirable qualities; the criterion of well-being is the value system accepted in a given culture.

2. The definition of subjective well-being is reduced to the concept of life satisfaction and is associated with the respondent's standards of what constitutes a good life. Well-being is a global assessment of quality of lifeperson according to his own criteria. This definition implies that well-being is the harmonious satisfaction of a person's desires and aspirations.

3. The third meaning of the concept of subjective well-being is closely related to the everyday understanding of happiness as the superiority of positive emotions over negative ones. This definition emphasizes pleasant emotional experiences that either objectively predominate in a person’s life, or the person is subjectively prone to them.

The ambiguity of the concept of SWB makes it necessary to give it a working definition that would allow us to study the relationships of this construct with other variables. Based on the analysis of literary sources. E. Diener identified the following signs of subjective well-being:

a) Subjectivity. This means that SWB exists within individual experience;

b) Positivity of measurement. Subjective well-being is not simply the absence of negative factors, which is typical for most definitions of mental health. There must be certain positive indicators;

c) Global dimension. Subjective well-being usually includes a global assessment of all aspects of an individual’s life over a period from several weeks to tens of years.

These characteristics underlie both various studies that measure the degree of subjective well-being and its relationship with various variables, as well as a number of theories that attempt to explain the essence of well-being in human life.

THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF SUBJECTIVE

WELFARE

This review examines only some of the approaches that underlie psychological research and makes no mention of biological or social theories.

Teleological approaches

Teleological ( rp. teleos - goal) approaches or approaches associated with orientation to the final goal argue that well-being occurs when some goal or subject of need is achieved. Many research models of SWB are based on implicit needs and goals.

Depending on the type of aspirations, two alternative currents in line with teleological approaches are distinguished. Need theories assert the existence of certain innate or acquired needs that a person strives to satisfy in order to achieve well-being. Goal theories are based on specific desires: a person consciously sets himself certain goals, and well-being is the result of achieving them.According to teleological approaches, the level of SWB depends on specific conditions: for example, an individual may want to achieve goals that bring short-term satisfaction, but have long-term unpleasant consequences; the goals and desires of an individual may be in conflict with each other, and therefore cannot be fully satisfied, etc.

Modern teleological approaches have a number of disadvantages: it is rarely possible to carefully design an experiment: needs and goals are sometimes described very roughly, and to accurately test whether achieving goals actually increases the level of SWB, a longitudinal study is necessary.

Activity-oriented approaches

While teleological approaches place the apogee of subjective well-being at the point of achieving the final result, activity-oriented approaches argue that SWB is a by-product of human activity. For example, the process of conquering a mountain may have a greater impact on SWB than reaching the top.

One of the ideas often found in these approaches suggests that self-awareness reduces the sense of well-being; concentration on achieving SWB can be self-destructive. It follows that a person must focus on important activities, and well-being will come as a by-product.

Probably the most explicit formulation of the relationship between activity and SWB is contained in the theory of "flow" M. Csikszentmihalyi . Activities are perceived as enjoyable when the task matches the individual's skill level. If the activity is too easy, boredom develops; if it is too difficult, anxiety can result.

Some studies integrate teleological and activity-oriented approaches to explain subjective well-being.

Approaches based on the principles of "bottom-up" and "top-down"

These two approaches originate from philosophical movements. Locke argued that happiness is the sum of small pleasures (the “bottom-up” principle), and Kant argued that there is a global tendency to see everything in a favorable light and this tendency affects a person’s momentary interactions with the world around him (the “top-down” principle). .

IN psychological research SB there are two problems that are solved differently from the point of view of these approaches. First, adherents of the top-down approach view subjective well-being as a trait or predisposition of the individual, and within the framework of the top-down approachBased on the “bottom-up” principle, SB is considered a temporary state. Secondly, the role of pleasant events in a person’s life is assessed differently. On the one hand, it is argued that the absence of pleasant events leads to depression (the “bottom-up” principle), and on the other hand, on the contrary, repression leads to the inability to enjoy usually pleasant things (the “top-down” principle).

Since both approaches may be partially correct, the challenge is to discover how "higher" factors and "lower" individual events interact with each other. It is necessary to understand how personality factors can be changed by a combination of events. It is necessary to examine the process of a person acquiring an optimistic view of things and how resistant this view is to change.

Associative approaches

A number of models attempt to explain some people's predisposition to experience subjective well-being in terms of memory, thinking, or other cognitive patterns. All these models can be combined under the name associative. Cognitive approaches to explaining SB are in their infancy. One of them focuses on the properties that people attribute to the events that happen to them. For example, it is known that good events bring the greatest satisfaction when a person attributes them to the action of his internal, personal factors.

Another cognitive approach concerns associative networks in memory: people recall memories that are affectively congruent with their current state. If a person has a more developed network of positive associations, then, accordingly, a larger number of events “trigger” happy memories and feelings in him. Consequently, such a person tends to react positively to most events.

In the future, it is possible to develop an interactionist approach that would integrate the influence of external events and personal variables on a person’s affective state.

Comparative Judgment Approaches

In accordance with these approaches, it is assumed that subjective well-being is the result of a comparison of a certain standard and the actual state of affairs. In the case of the experience of satisfaction, this comparison can be conscious, and in the case of affect, it can be unconscious. Approaches based on such comparisons pay special attention not to the sign of affect (positive or negative), but to its strength.

One of the main features by which research models differ in line with approaches based on comparative judgment is the methods used.

4 standards. In the social comparison model, a person uses other people as a standard: if he has advantages over them in some way, then he experiences satisfaction or happiness. The adaptation and range-frequency models use a person's past life as a standard: if the current life is no worse than the past, then the person is happy. An individual may use other standards. For example, he may be inspired by a certain level of achievement based on his self-concept.

One limitation of comparative judgment approaches is that they reveal how events acquire a particular hedonic value.

FACTORS AFFECTING SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING

This review highlights only a few factors for which there is research evidence on their impact on SWB.

1. Income (level of material well-being)

There is a lot of evidence that income level and SB level are positively correlated, however absolute value the correlation is not too great. Researchers explain this by the fact that the main influence of income is not direct, but indirect: for example, through improved living conditions and improved health.

Research conducted in this area has revealed several patterns of the influence of income on the level of SB:

a) the influence of income is significant only at a relatively low level of well-being; once basic needs are satisfied, the impact of income declines sharply;

b) the influence of income on SB is mediated by factors such as status and power - they are relative in society and do not increase in direct proportion to income growth;

c) the influence of income can be direct, but depends on social comparison: people can determine how satisfied they are only by comparing their condition with the condition of others;

d) income is not only a direct benefit, but also difficulties that reduce the overall positive impact of income on SB: for example, high incomes can be associated with increased responsibility, stress, etc.

2. Employment

Some studies have found that unemployed people have the lowest levels of satisfaction, but there is no data on this. that for example, housewives are less happy compared to working women.

3. Education

The results of a number of studies suggest that education influences SWB (more educated people tend to report higher subjectivewell-being, but this influence is small and is associated with other factors, such as income. For example, higher education can serve as a source of increased income, which enhances the positive impact of education on SWB, but at the same time education increases the level of needs, which can negatively affect subjective well-being.

4. Religion

Since religiosity is understood in different ways, data in this area are contradictory. Faith and religious traditionalism usually have a positive effect on SWB. Although religiosity has also been found to be negatively correlated with good mood. Religion was found to have a significant effect on those under 65 years of age, but not on older people. Overall, there is still a lot of uncertainty about the impact of religion on subjective well-being.

5. Marriage and family

Although the literature on subjective well-being does not report whether marriage has a statistically significant effect on SWB, almost all correlations are positive. They found that while married women may report more stress than unmarried women, they also report greater life satisfaction. Marital status is also found to be a strong predictor of SWB, even when education, income, and employment are controlled.

6. Behavior and lifestyle

Social contacts.Most studies found positive correlations between SB and various indicators of serial activity, both objective and subjective. Longitudinal studies have found that changes in subjective well-being are directly related to increases or decreases in social contacts, with formal contacts having a greater impact than informal ones.

Types of activity.Research conducted on samples of older people supports the view that an active life contributes to feelings of happiness. In these studies, it was found that some types of activity have a significant effect on SWB, while others do not: the relationship between activity and SWB depends on the personality of the respondent. The ambiguity of the results is largely due to the vagueness of the concept of activity itself: it meant such various characteristics as physical activity, hobbies and participation in formal organizations.

7. Gender

In general, women report more intense feelings: they experience more joy and more depression compared to men. There is evidence that satisfaction is related not only to gender, but also to age: young women are happier than young men, and older women are less happy than older men.

8. Biological factors

Many researchers have found significant correlations between health and SWB, but they have also found that when these relationships are mediated by other factors, such as leisure activity, the effect of health on SWB may be significantly reduced. For example, a person in poor health who leads an active lifestyle. may be characterized by greater subjective well-being. Therefore, the impact of health from subjective well-being is not simply the impact of how people feel physically, but also the opportunities that are associated with their health status. The relationship between health and SWB was stronger in women and in cases where subjective health indicators were used.

Several other biological factors are also associated with SB. Poor sleep is associated with feelings of unhappiness; this connection is most likely two-way. Exercise is associated with improved mood, although data on this topic is limited. Finally, seasonal variations in mood have been found, although it is unclear whether these changes are biological in nature. Weather also affects mood, although this effect is short-lived.

9. Personality

The results of a number of studies suggest that stable personality traits, such as temperament, have the greatest influence on SWB. A connection was found between extraversion and a tendency towards positive affects, and neuroticism - with a tendency towards negative affects.

One of the most significant predictors of SWB is self-esteem, and the relationship between these two variables may be bidirectional.

Another personality feature that has a close connection with the level of SB is internality. The nature of this relationship can be either positive or negative, depending on cultural norms.

One might assume that intelligence should be significantly correlated with the level of SWB, because it is a socially desirable quality. However, this hypothesis was confirmed only in some studies; in others, the correlation between the value IQ and subjective well-being were either absent or negative. It is possible that there are some factors closely related to intelligence that may reduce SWB (e.g., higher needs). It has been found that individuals experience greatest well-being when situations match their personality traits, although this effect is not very pronounced.

Thus, we can say that the problem of the relationship between personality characteristics and the level of subjective well-being requires further study. For example, it is unclear whether personality traits such as optimism are a cause or a consequence of favorable events.

10. Subjective satisfaction with certain aspects of life

As research results show, a person’s subjective judgments about satisfaction with certain aspects of life have a closer correlation withlevel of SB than objective conditions. At the same time, the greatest influence on subjective well-being is a person’s satisfaction with himself; satisfaction with lifestyle and family is also highly correlated with SWB, while correlations with job satisfaction are more moderate, and with satisfaction with health and society (social environment) - even lower.

It should be taken into account that in some approaches, subjective satisfaction with certain aspects of life is not considered at all as a factor influencing SWB. It is assumed that there should be a direct relationship between objective external conditions and subjective well-being.

Thus, various data concerning the influence of various factors on the level of subjective well-being allow us to draw a number of conclusions:

1. Not a single variable, be it demographic data or personality characteristics, completely determines the level of SWB, but only makes its own, more or less pronounced contribution.

2. Almost all research in this area suffers from a lack of clear experimental conditions; Carefully designed longitudinal studies are required to differentiate the effects of variables.

3. It is necessary to further develop both the theoretical basis for studying SB and the tools for its diagnosis.

STRUCTURE OF SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING

The creation of diagnostic tools to measure subjective well-being has raised questions about its structure, which although may not be universal.

First of all, researchers distinguish cognitive (judgment about life satisfaction) and affective (positive and negative emotions) components in subjective well-being. Positive and negative emotions included in the affective component are in a complex relationship with each other. Like the first, Likewise, the latter correlate with general subjective well-being, but their correlations with each other can be different depending on a number of conditions:

First, positive and negative affect are not independent at any given time: each type of affect has a clear tendency to suppress the other type. As a consequence, the two types of affect are negatively correlated with each other in terms of frequency, i.e. the more often a person experiences one affect, the less often he experiences another;

Second, positive and negative affect are positively correlated in terms of intensity, i.e. a person who experiences more intense positive emotions in life tends to also experience more intense negative emotions;

Third, when average levels of positive and negative affect are measured over long periods of time, low correlations are found.between them, because average levels result from both frequency and intensity of affect.

Thus, the components of subjective well-being are: judgment of life satisfaction, positive emotions, varying in frequency and intensity, negative emotions, varying in frequency and intensity. Methods developed in the context of diagnosing subjective well-being can be aimed at measuring all of its components simultaneously, or one or more of them.

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING SCALE

The Subjective Well-Being Scale (SWB scale) was created in 1988 by French psychologists Perrudet - Badoux, Mendelsohn and Chiche . The reason for its creation was the expansion of research in the field of psychology of stress and its impact on individual health. While studying the impact of chronic diseases on the emotional state of an individual, the authors of the methodology were faced with the need to have a small screening tool that would reflect an individual’s assessment of his own emotional state. As a result, a scale was developed that measures the emotional component of subjective well-being.

The scale consists of 17 items, the content of which is related to emotional state, social behavior and some physical symptoms. In accordance with the content, the items are divided into six clusters:

1. TENSION AND SENSITIVITY (points 2. 12, 16) 2. SIGNS ACCOMPANYING MAIN PSYCHIATRIC SYMPTOMATICS, such as depression, drowsiness, absent-mindedness, etc. (points 4, 9, 14, 17)

3. MOOD CHANGES (points: 1.11)

4. IMPORTANCE OF THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT (points 3, 6, 8)

5. SELF-ASSESSMENT OF HEALTH (points 7.15)

6. DEGREE OF SATISFACTION WITH DAILY ACTIVITIES (points 5,10.13)

The test taker must rate each statement on a seven-point scale, where “1” means “completely agree”, “7” means “completely disagree”, intermediate scores have corresponding values. Some points are "direct", i.e. if the subject answers “1”, he is assigned 1 point, if the subject answers “2” -2 points, etc. Other points are “reverse”, i.e. if the subject answers “1”, he is assigned 7 points, if the subject answers “2” - 6 points, etc. The sum of the scores on all items constitutes the final score for the test. The final score is an indicator of the presence and depth of an individual’s emotional discomfort, and based on responses to individual items, the researcher can identify areas of particular tension or conflict.

The scope of application of the SB scale is quite wide. It can successfullyused to monitor the general condition of the client during treatment, detect problem areas during psychological counseling, assess emotional well-being during the selection and selection of personnel and other situations where it is necessary to assess the characteristics of the psycho-emotional sphere of the individual.

At the Psychodiagnostics Research and Production Center, the subjective well-being scale underwent the entire procedure of adaptation and psychometric testing on a Russian-speaking sample, including standardization of results. (See "Subjective Well-Being Scale" Manual of the Scientific and Practical Center "Psychodiagnostics", Yaroslavl, 1993.)

The technique assesses the quality of the subject's emotional experiences ranging from optimism, cheerfulness and self-confidence to depression, irritability and feelings of loneliness. Differentiation of items into six clusters allows for, along with quantitative, qualitative analysis of the subject’s responses. The scale requires minimal time to administer and process and can be used in a variety of situations for both practical and research purposes.

The advantages of this technique are its brevity and the screening nature of the information received, which makes it possible to outline directions for further research into the subject’s personality.

NORMS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE TOTAL SCORE

The sample for standardizing the questionnaire consisted of 215 subjects, of which 118 men and 97 women aged from 18 to 60 years (the majority were aged from 18 to 25 years).

The maximum test score in our sample was 100 points, the minimum was 25 points (mean value - 59.14, standard deviation - 14.81). Checking the distribution using the Kolmogorov criterion confirmed its normality, and the data obtained were used to construct local test norms (see Appendix).

In parallel, the dependence of test scores on the gender of the subject was studied. A comparison was made of the average final scores in the samples of men and women: I. The average score in the male sample was 58.73, and in the female sample - 60.03 points, the difference is statistically insignificant. Therefore, the calculation of norms was carried out for a generalized sample.

The raw score on the test, converted to a standard Sten score (mean - 5.5, standard deviation - 2), is the basis for interpreting the test results.

Average ratings (4-7 walls) indicate low expression of quality: persons with such ratings are characterized by moderate subjective well-being, they do not have serious problems, but complete emotional comfort cannot be said.

Ratings that deviate towards subjective ill-being (8-9 walls) are typical for people prone to depression and anxiety, pessimistic, withdrawn, dependent, and poorly able to tolerate stressful situations.

10 Extremely high scores (10 walls) indicate significantly expressed emotional discomfort. Persons with such assessments may have an inferiority complex; they are most likely dissatisfied with themselves and their position, lack trust in others and hope for the future, have difficulty controlling their emotions, are unbalanced, inflexible, and constantly worry about real and imagined troubles.

Ratings deviating towards subjective well-being (wall 2-3) indicate moderate emotional comfort of the subject: he does not experience serious emotional problems, is quite self-confident, active, successfully interacts with others, and adequately manages his behavior.

Extremely low scores on the SB scale (1st wall) indicate the complete emotional well-being of the subject and his denial of serious psychological problems. Such a person most likely has a positive self-esteem, is not inclined to express complaints about various ailments, is optimistic, sociable, confident in his abilities, acts effectively under stress, and is not prone to anxiety.

"KEYS" TO THE SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING SCALE

“Direct” points (the number of the selected answer directly corresponds to the score received): No. 1,3,4,5,7,8, 11, 13, 15.


Point assigned to the number

“Reverse” items (assigning points to answer numbers is reversed): No. 2, 6, 9, 10, 12,14, 16, 17.

Number of the subject's answer to the item
Point assigned to the number

The test subject's final score on the test is equal to the sum of the points on the “direct” and “reverse” points.

TABLE OF CONVERSION OF “RAW” POINTS TO STANDARD GRADES

"Raw" score	Walls	"Raw" score	Walls
25-33		63-70
34-40		71 -77
41 -48		78-85
49-55		86-92
56-62		93 - 100

Questionnaire “Subjective Well-Being Scale”,

adaptation of A.A. Rukavishnikova

Instructions

Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the statements below, using the following scale:

1 - completely agree;

2 – agree;

3 - more or less agree;

4 - difficult to answer;

5 - more or less disagree;

6 - disagree;

7 - completely disagree.

For each statement, place a cross in the box corresponding to the number of the answer you chose.


	IN Lately I was in a good mood
	My job is weighing me down
	If I have problems, I can turn to someone
	I've been sleeping well lately
	I rarely get bored in my daily activities
	I often feel lonely
	I feel healthy and energetic
	I feel great pleasure when being with my family or my friends
	Sometimes I get restless for some unknown reason
	I find it difficult to get up and work in the morning
	I'm an optimist about the future
	I would be less willing to ask others for anything
	I enjoy my daily activities
	Lately I've been overreacting to minor obstacles and setbacks.
	I've been feeling in great shape lately
	I increasingly feel the need for privacy
	I've been very distracted lately

The technique assesses the quality of the subject's emotional experiences ranging from optimism, cheerfulness and self-confidence to depression, irritability and feelings of loneliness.

Well-being is determined by external criteria, such as a virtuous, “correct” life. Such definitions are called normative. According to them, a person feels well-being if he possesses certain socially desirable qualities; the criterion of well-being is the value system adopted in a given culture.

The definition of subjective well-being boils down to the concept of life satisfaction and is associated with the respondent's standards of what constitutes a good life.

Low scores on the SB scale (less than 4 walls) indicate the complete emotional well-being of the subject and his denial of serious psychological problems.
Such a person most likely has a positive self-esteem, is not inclined to express complaints about various ailments, is optimistic, sociable, confident in his abilities, acts effectively under stress, and is not prone to anxiety.

Average ratings (4-7 walls) indicate low quality. Persons with such assessments are characterized by moderate subjective well-being; they have no serious problems, but one cannot speak of complete emotional comfort.

Extremely high scores (10 walls) indicate significantly pronounced emotional discomfort. Persons with such assessments may have an inferiority complex. They are likely to be dissatisfied with themselves and their position, lack trust in others and hope for the future, have difficulty controlling their emotions, are unbalanced, inflexible, and constantly worry about real and imagined troubles.

MEANING-LIFE ORIENTATIONS

Goals in life. Points on this scale characterize the presence or absence of goals in the subject’s life in the future, which give life meaning, direction and time perspective. Low scores on this scale, even with a generally high level of meaningfulness in life (OL), will be characteristic of a person living in today or yesterday. At the same time, high scores on this scale can characterize not only a purposeful person, but also a projector whose plans have no real support in the present and are not supported by personal responsibility for their implementation. These two cases are easy to distinguish, taking into account the indicators on other LSS scales.

The process of life or the interest and emotional intensity of life The content of this scale coincides with the well-known theory that the only meaning of life is to live. This indicator indicates whether the subject perceives the very process of his life as interesting, emotionally rich and filled with meaning. . High scores on this scale and low on the rest will characterize a hedonist who lives for today. Low scores on this scale are a sign of dissatisfaction with your life in the present; at the same time, however, it can be given full meaning by memories of the past or focus on the future.

Life effectiveness or satisfaction with self-realization. Points on this scale reflect an assessment of the passage of life, a feeling of how productive and meaningful the part lived was. High scores on this scale and low on the rest will characterize a person who is living out his life, for whom everything is in the past, but the past is capable of giving meaning to the rest of his life. Low scores indicate dissatisfaction with the part of life lived.

Locus of control – I (I am the master of life). High scores correspond to the idea of oneself as a strong personality, with sufficient freedom of choice to build one’s life in accordance with one’s goals and objectives and ideas about its meaning. Low scores - lack of confidence in your ability to control the events of your own life.

Locus of control – life or controllability of life. With high scores, the belief is that a person has the power to control his life, to freely make decisions and implement them. Low scores - fatalism, the conviction that human life is not subject to conscious control, that freedom is illusory, and it is pointless to make plans for the future.

General indicator– an indicator of the meaningfulness of life in general.

Scales	Low values	Below the average	average	Above average	High values
	m	and	m	and	m	and	m	and	m	and
Goals	< 20	<18	24-29	21-26	30-35	27-32	36-41	33-38	42>	39>
Process	<24	<20	25-28	21-26	29-33	27-32	34-37	33-38	38>	39>
Result	<19	<15	20-23	16-20	24-27	21-25	28-31	26-30	32>	31>
LK-Y	<15	<12	16-19	13-16	20-23	17-20	24-27	21-24	28>	25>
LK-life	<21	<19	22-27	20-25	28-33	26-31	34-38	32-37	39>	38>
General coolant indicator	<80	<85	81-95	86-92	96-110	93-99	111-125	100-105	126>	106>

MACHIAVEELLISM

Machiavellianism - as a person’s tendency in situations interpersonal communication manipulate others in subtle, subtle or non-physically aggressive ways, such as flattery, deception, bribery or intimidation

Machiavellianism is a strategy of social behavior that involves manipulating others for personal gain, often contrary to their (i.e., other people's) own interests.

The higher the values of the Mac-scale, the more manifested the property of Machiavellianism. The average value for men is 80.54, for women – 73.78. The maximum value is 140 points.

Reflexivity

1. Reflexivity as a mental property is one of the main facets of that integrative mental reality that correlates with reflection as a whole. Its other two modes are reflection in its procedural status and reflection as a special mental state. These three modes are closely interconnected and mutually determine each other, forming at the level of their synthesis a qualitative certainty denoted by the concept of “reflection.” Because of this, the developed methodology should focus not only directly on reflexivity as a mental property, but also indirectly take into account its manifestations in the other two noted modes. It follows that those behavioral and introspective indicators in which the theoretical construct is specified, as well as the questions of methodology themselves, must take into account reflexivity as a mental property, reflection as a process, and reflection as a state.

2. Along with this, as an analysis of literary data shows, the diagnosis of the property of reflexivity must necessarily take into account the differentiation of its manifestations according to another important criterion, the basis - according to its direction. In accordance with it, as is known, there are two types of reflection, which are conventionally designated as "intra- and interpsychic" reflection. The first CORRELATES with reflexivity as the ability to self-perception of the content of one’s own psyche and its analysis, the second with the ability to understand the psyche of other people, which includes, along with reflexivity as the ability to “stand in the place of another,” also the mechanisms of projection, identification, empathy Therefore, the general property of reflexivity includes both of these types, and the level of development of this property is derived from them at the same time.

3. The content of the theoretical construct, as well as the range of behavioral manifestations it defines - indicators of the property of reflexivity, presupposes the need to take into account three main species reflections, distinguished according to the so-called “temporal” principle: situational(current), retrospective And promising reflections.

Situational reflection provides direct self-control of a person’s behavior in a current situation, comprehension of its elements, analysis of what is happening, the subject’s ability to correlate his actions with the situation and coordinate them in accordance with changing conditions and his own state. Behavioral manifestations and characteristics of this type of reflection are, in particular, the time the subject thinks about his current activity; how often he resorts to analyzing what is happening; the degree of development of decision-making processes; a tendency to self-analysis in specific life situations.

Retrospective reflection manifests itself in a tendency to analyze activities already performed in the past and past events. In this case, the objects of reflection are the premises, motives and reasons for what happened; the content of past behavior, as well as its performance parameters and, in particular, mistakes made. This reflection is expressed, in particular, in how often and for how long the subject analyzes and evaluates the events that have occurred, and whether he is generally inclined to analyze the past and himself in it.

Perspective reflection correlates: with the function of analyzing upcoming activities and behavior; planning as such; forecasting likely outcomes, etc. Its main behavioral characteristics: careful planning of the details of one’s behavior, frequency of reference to future events, orientation to the future.

Communicative reflection (communication and interaction between people) – is considered in socio-psychological and engineering-psychological studies in connection with the problems of social perception and empathy in communication. It acts as the most important component of developed communication and interpersonal perception. The communicative aspect of reflection has a number of functions: cognitive, regulatory, and developmental functions. These functions are expressed in a change in ideas about another subject to ones that are more adequate for a given situation; they are actualized when there is a contradiction between ideas about another subject of communication and his newly revealed individual psychological traits. Communicative reflection consists in the subject’s awareness of how he is perceived, evaluated, and treated by others (“I am through the eyes of others”).

Interpretation. The results of the technique, equal to or greater than 7 walls, indicate highly developed reflexivity. Results in the range from 4 to 7 walls are indicators of an average level of reflexivity. Finally, indicators less than 4 walls are evidence of a low level of reflexivity development.

High results indicate that a person is highly inclined to analyze his own activities and the actions of other people, to identify the causes and consequences of his actions both in the past, present and future. He tends to think about his activities in the smallest detail, plan them carefully and predict all possible consequences. It is also likely that it is easier for such people to understand another, to put themselves in his place, to predict his behavior, to understand what they think about themselves. Low results probably indicate that the subject is less likely to think about what is happening, about the reasons for his actions and the actions of other people, about their consequences. Such people do not always plan their activities, are impulsive and limit themselves to considering fewer details when making a decision. They may have difficulties communicating with other people due to the inability to always accurately understand another and predict his reaction.

Attitude to religion

The technique allows us to identify high, low and average levels of religiosity of an individual.

Test norms:

1–2 – low level. Individuals belonging to this group do not at all share the beliefs and beliefs associated with basic Christian dogmas. They have very little expressed moral standards, beliefs in the supernatural, the presence of which is recognized by the Christian religion.

3–7 – average level.

8–10 – high level. Persons belonging to this group fully share the beliefs and convictions associated with the basic Christian dogmas and observe important moral norms approved by religion. In addition, beliefs in the supernatural are expressed, the presence of which is recognized by the Christian religion.

Subscale “Confessional Beliefs”

With its help, you can find out to what extent an individual’s “normative” beliefs, reflecting the basic Christian dogma, are expressed. Beliefs are manifestations of religious faith; faith integrates cognitive and emotional components (B. Russell, W. Lewis, D.M. Ugrinovich, etc.), which must be considered when studying religiosity. Empirical data confirm theoretical provisions about the significance of this factor for religiosity.

Key for the Religious Beliefs subscale. Test standards.

1–2 – low level.

3–7 – average level

8–10 – high level.

Subscale “moral standards”

The normative-value component is a component of the structure of religiosity. The subscale included questions reflecting Christian values and norms governing behavior. It is possible that a subject can get high scores on this subscale and low scores on others, but the result on the “religiosity” test will still be low. Using the subscale, you can also identify the conditionality of moral norms by religiosity or other reasons. The reliability of the subscale was determined using a Cronbach's Alpha coefficient of 0.688.

Key for the subscale “moral standards”:

1–2 – low level. Norms relate to the response to harm caused to a person by others. Individuals in this group do not share or follow the moral standards proclaimed by Christianity.

3–7 – average level.

8–10 – high level. Individuals in this group recognize and follow the moral standards proclaimed by Christianity.

METHODOLOGY: Subjective Well-Being Scale (G. Perrudet-Badoux) (adapted by M. V. Sokolova). The Subjective Well-Being Scale is a screening psychodiagnostic tool for measuring the emotional component of subjective well-being. The technique assesses the quality of the subject’s emotional experiences ranging from optimism, cheerfulness and self-confidence to depression, irritability and feelings of loneliness. Differentiation of items into six clusters allows for, along with quantitative, qualitative analysis of the test subject’s answers. The scale requires minimal time to conduct and process and can be used in various situations for both practical and research purposes. The advantages of this technique are its brevity and the screening nature of the information received, which makes it possible to outline directions for further research into the subject’s personality. Procedure for conducting and processing data. The subject must evaluate each statement on a seven-point scale, where “1” means “completely agree,” “7” means “completely disagree,” and intermediate scores have corresponding values. Some points are "direct", i.e. when the subject answers “1” he is assigned 1 point, when the answer is “2” - 2 points, etc. Other points are “reverse”, i.e. when the subject answers “1” he is assigned 7 points, when the answer is “2” " - 6 points, etc. The sum of points for all points is the final score for the test. The final score is an indicator of the presence and depth of an individual’s emotional discomfort, and based on the answers to individual items, the researcher can find areas of particular tension or conflict. The scope of application of the Subjective Well-Being Scale is quite wide. It can be successfully used to monitor the general condition of the client during treatment, detect problem areas during psychological counseling, assess emotional well-being during the selection and selection of personnel and other situations where it is necessary to assess the characteristics of the psycho-emotional sphere of the individual. At the Psychodiagnostics Research and Production Center, the Subjective Well-Being Scale underwent the entire procedure of adaptation and psychometric testing on a Russian-speaking sample, including standardization of results. Interpretation. The raw score on the test, converted to a standard Sten score (mean - 5.5, standard deviation - 2), is the basis for interpreting the test results. Average ratings (4-7 walls) indicate low quality. Persons with such assessments are characterized by moderate subjective well-being; they have no serious problems, but we cannot speak of complete emotional comfort. Ratings that deviate towards subjective unhappiness (8-9 walls) are typical for people prone to depression and anxiety, pessimistic, withdrawn, dependent, and poorly able to tolerate stressful situations. Extremely high scores (10 walls) indicate significantly expressed emotional discomfort. Persons with such assessments may have an inferiority complex; They are most likely dissatisfied with themselves and their position, lack trust in others and hope for the future, have difficulty controlling their emotions, are unbalanced, inflexible, and constantly worry about real and imagined troubles. Ratings deviating towards subjective well-being (2-3 walls) indicate moderate emotional comfort of the subject: he does not experience serious emotional problems, is quite self-confident, active, successfully interacts with others, and adequately controls his behavior. Extremely low scores on the SB scale (1st wall) indicate the complete emotional well-being of the subject and his denial of serious psychological problems. Such a person most likely has a positive self-esteem, is not inclined to express complaints about various ailments, is optimistic, sociable, confident in his abilities, acts effectively under stress, and is not prone to anxiety. The questionnaire consists of 17 statements. Approximate testing time is 5-10 minutes. EXAMPLE OF TESTING: --- PSYCHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSTICS. Methodology: Subjective Well-Being Scale. Full name:_____________________ Add. data:_______________ Diagnostic scale: ╟─▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓███████ █████─╢ ><────[-]───><─────[==]─────><───[+]────>Test indicator - PB = 93 10 INTERPRETATION: An extremely high indicator of subjective ill-being. Significantly expressed emotional discomfort. Such persons may have an inferiority complex; They are most likely dissatisfied with themselves and their position, lack trust in others and hope for the future, have difficulty controlling their emotions, are unbalanced, inflexible, and constantly worry about real and imagined troubles.

Scales: tension and sensitivity, psycho-emotional symptoms, mood changes, importance of the social environment, self-assessment of health, satisfaction with daily activities

Purpose of the test

The Subjective Well-Being Scale is a screening psychodiagnostic tool for measuring the emotional component of subjective well-being (SB) or emotional comfort (EC). The definition of subjective well-being includes three criteria.

The definition of subjective well-being boils down to the concept of life satisfaction and is associated with the respondent's standards of what constitutes a good life.

The third meaning of the concept of subjective well-being is closely related to the everyday understanding of happiness as the superiority of positive emotions over negative ones. This definition emphasizes pleasant emotional experiences that either objectively predominate in a person’s life, or the person is subjectively prone to them.

Test instructions

Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the statements below, using the following scale:

1 – completely agree;

2 – agree;

3 – more or less agree;

4 – difficult to answer;

5 – more or less disagree;

6 – disagree;

7 – completely disagree.

1 2
2 6
3 2
4 7
5 4
6 5
7 4
8 3
9 6
10 6
11 4
12 1
13 3
14 1
15 6
16 3
17 2
Key to the test

“Direct” points (the number of the selected answer directly corresponds to the score received) – No. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15.

Scoring "direct" items

Scoring "reverse" items

“Reverse” items (assigning points to answer numbers is reversed) – No. 2, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17.

The test subject’s final score on the test is equal to the sum of the points on the “direct” and “reverse” points.

The scale consists of 17 items, the content of which is related to the emotional state, social status and some physical symptoms. According to the content, the items are divided into six clusters:

Tension and sensitivity (2, 12, 16).

Signs accompanying the main psycho-emotional symptoms (9, 14, 17).

Mood changes (1, 11).

The importance of the social environment (3, 6, 8).

Self-rated health (7, 15).

Degree of satisfaction with daily activities (5, 10, 13).

The average score on the test, converted to a standard Sten score (mean - 5.5, standard deviation - 2), is the basis for interpreting the test results.

DIAGNOSTICS OF AGGRESSION (BASSA-DARKI QUESTIONNAIRE)

Scales: physical aggression, indirect aggression, irritability, negativism, touchiness, suspicion, verbal aggression, guilt

PURPOSE OF THE TEST

When creating their questionnaire differentiating manifestations of aggression and hostility, A. Bass and A. Darkey identified the following types of reactions:

Physical aggression is the use of physical force against another person.
Indirect - aggression directed in a roundabout way at another person or not directed at anyone.
Irritation is a readiness to express negative feelings at the slightest excitement (hot temper, rudeness).
Negativism is an oppositional manner of behavior from passive resistance to active struggle against established customs and laws.
Resentment is envy and hatred of others for real and fictitious actions.
Suspicion ranges from distrust and wariness of people to the belief that other people are planning and causing harm.
Verbal aggression is the expression of negative feelings both through form (screaming, screeching) and through the content of verbal responses (curses, threats).
Guilt - expresses the subject's possible belief that he is bad person that evil is being done, as well as the remorse of conscience felt by him.
The following principles were used when compiling the questionnaire:
The question may only apply to one form of aggression.
questions are formulated in such a way as to weaken to the greatest extent the influence of public approval of the answer to the question.
The questionnaire consists of 75 statements to which the subject answers “yes” or “no.”

PROCESSING AND INTERPRETING TEST RESULTS

Key to the test
Responses are scored on eight scales as follows:
1. Physical aggression:
"yes" = 1, "no" = 0: 1, 25, 33, 48, 55, 62, 68;
"no" = 1, "yes" = 0: 9, 17, 41.
2. Indirect aggression:
"yes" = 1, "no" = 0: 2, 18, 34, 42, 56, 63;
"no" = 1, "yes" = 0: 10, 26, 49.
3.Irritation:
"yes" = 1, "no" = 0: 3, 19, 27, 43, 50, 57, 64, 72;
"no" = 1, "yes" = 0: 11, 35, 69.
4. Negativism:
"yes" = 1, "no" = 0: 4, 12, 20, 23, 36;
5. Resentment:
"yes" = 1, "no" = 0: 5, 13, 21, 29, 37, 51, 58.
"no" = 1, "yes" = 0:44.
6. Suspiciousness:
"yes" = 1, "no" = 0: 6, 14, 22, 30, 38, 45, 52, 59;
"no" = 1, "yes" = 0: 65, 70.
7. Verbal aggression:
"yes" = 1, "no" = 0: 7, 15, 28, 31, 46, 53, 60, 71, 73;
"no" = 1, "yes" = 0: 39, 66, 74, 75.
8. Guilt:
"yes" = 1, "no" = 0: 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 47, 54, 61, 67
The hostility index includes scales 5 and 6, and the aggressiveness index (both direct and motivational) includes scales 1, 3, 7.
Hostility = Resentment + Suspicion;
Aggression = Physical aggression + Irritation + Verbal aggression.
Interpretation of test results
The norm for aggressiveness is its index value equal to 21 ± 4, and for hostility – 6-7 ± 3.
21 -5

Wagner Hand Test

Scales: aggression, direction, fear, emotionality, communication, dependence, demonstrativeness, mutilation, active impersonality, passive impersonality, description

Topics: aggressiveness

Testing: personality traits · Age: adults, schoolchildren, children
Test type: non-verbal, projective · Questions: 10
Comments: 23 · write

Purpose of the test

The Wagner hand test is designed to diagnose aggressiveness. The technique can be used to examine both adults and children.

In their theoretical justification, the authors proceed from the position that the development of hand function is associated with the development of the brain. The hand is of great importance in the perception of space, orientation in it, necessary for any action. The hand is directly involved in external activity. Consequently, by offering subjects as visual stimuli images of a hand performing various actions, it is possible to draw conclusions about the activity trends of the subjects.

The methodological technique underlying the hand test is that the subject is asked to interpret the content of an action presented in the form of a “freeze frame” image of a hand, socially neutral and not carrying any semantic load. It is assumed that the inclusion of an element in the context of a broader type of activity and in the very choice of this type of activity occurs through the mechanism of projection and is largely determined by the present state of the subject and, in particular, his active motives.

Test instructions

“Carefully look at the images offered to you and tell me what, in your opinion, this hand is doing?”

If the subject finds it difficult to answer, he is asked the question: “What do you think the person who owns this hand is doing? What can a person with such a hand do? Name all the options you can imagine.”

Note

Stimulus material - standard 9 images of a hand and one without an image (like a blank card in the Thematic Apperception Test), when shown, they are asked to imagine the hand and describe its imaginary actions.

Images are presented in a certain sequence and position.

If the answer is unclear and unambiguous, they ask for clarification, ask: “Okay, what else?”, but do not impose any specific answers. If the experimenter feels that his actions are met with resistance, it is recommended to move to another card.

You can hold the drawing card in any position.

The number of answer options on the card is not limited and is not stimulated in such a way as to cause resistance from the subject. It is advisable to have four possible answers. If the number of answers is smaller, specify whether there is a desire to say anything else about this image of the hand, and in the protocol, for example, if there is only one answer option, its designation is indicated with the sign *4, i.e. this single uncontested answer is worth four points instead of one.

It is important in all possible cases (if the subject does not protest) to reduce the uncertainty of the answer as much as possible, to fill statements like “someone, something, someone” with meaning, etc.

All answers are recorded in the protocol. In addition to recording the responses, the position in which the subject holds the card is recorded, as well as the time from the moment the stimulus is presented to the start of the response.

Processing and interpretation of test results

When processing the results obtained, each response of the subject is assigned to one of 11 categories.

Aggression(s). The hand is perceived as dominant, causing damage, actively grasping an object, performing an aggressive action (pinching, slapping, crushing an insect, ready to strike, etc.).

Indication(s). The hand participates in an action of an imperative nature: it leads, directs, obstructs, dominates other people (conducts an orchestra, gives instructions, gives a lecture, a teacher tells a student: “get out,” a policeman stops a car, etc.).

Fear (c). The hand appears in answers as a victim of aggressive manifestations of another person or seeks to protect someone from physical influence; may be perceived as self-harming. This category also includes answers containing tendencies to deny aggression (not an evil hand; a fist is clenched, but not for a blow; a hand raised in fear; a hand that averts a blow, etc.).

Emotionality (uh). The hand expresses love, positive emotional attitudes towards other people; participates in an action that expresses affection, a positive attitude, benevolence (a friendly handshake; a pat on the shoulder; a hand stroking an animal, giving flowers; a hugging hand, etc.).

Communication (k). The hand is involved in a communicative action: it addresses someone, makes contact, or seeks to establish contacts. Communicating partners are in a position of equality (gestures in conversation, body language, showing the way, etc.).

Dependency (h). The hand expresses submission to other persons: it participates in a communicative action in a position “from below”, the success of which depends on the favorable attitude of the other party (a request; a soldier salutes an officer; a student raised his hand for a question; a hand extended for alms; a man stops a passing car, etc. .P.).

Demonstrativeness (d). Hand different ways puts himself on display, participates in clearly demonstrative action (shows a ring, admires a manicure, shows shadows on the wall, dances, plays musical instrument and so on.).

Mutilation (uv). The hand is damaged, deformed, sick, incapable of any action (wounded hand, hand of a sick or dying person, broken finger, etc.).

Active impersonality (ab). The hand is involved in an action not related to communication; however, the hand must change its physical location, make an effort (threads a needle, writes, sews, drives a car, swims, etc.).

Passive impersonality (pb). The hand is at rest, or a tendency to action appears, the completion of which does not require the presence of another person, but at the same time the hand still does not change its physical position (lying, resting; calmly stretched out; a person leans his elbows on the table; hanging while sleeping; etc. .P.).

There may be some unambiguousness in categorization, but it is assumed that this does not greatly influence the final interpretation. An example protocol form is provided below for illustration.

The first column indicates the card number. In the second, the time of the first reaction to the card is given in seconds. In the third, all the test subject’s answers are given. The fourth contains the results of categorizing the answers. If the experimenter has to contact the subject with clarifications, this is indicated (about).

The maximum number of points that a subject can score, given that he gives four answers to each card, is 40. However, a subject can give more answers in some categories and fewer in others. In the above example, we have more than four statements in the categories “Aggression”, “Indication”, “Communication” and no statements in the categories “Demonstration” and “Mutilation”.

The response categories: “Fear,” “Emotionality,” “Communication,” and “Dependency” reflect a tendency to action aimed at adapting to the social environment; the likelihood of aggressive behavior is negligible.

Answers related to the categories “Demonstrativeness” and “Mutilation” are not taken into account when assessing the likelihood of aggressive manifestations, because their role in a given area of behavior is variable. These answers can only clarify the motives for aggressive behavior.

The total aggressiveness score is calculated using the formula:

A = (Aggression + Direction) – (Fear + Emotionality + Communication + Dependency),

That is, a quantitative indicator of open aggressive behavior is calculated by subtracting the sum of “adaptive” responses from the sum of responses in the first two categories.

The first term of the formula characterizes aggressive tendencies, the second – tendencies that restrain aggressive behavior.

An abbreviated interpretation of test results is based on comparing the total score with test norms and making a decision about the level of aggressiveness and the current state of the subject. However, more meaningful information can be obtained by analyzing the share and location of aggressive tendencies in common system dispositions. Information in terms of predicting aggressive behavior is the proportion of responses in the “Aggression” category in relation to the total number of responses in the categories taken into account when calculating the total score.

Thus, 2-3 aggressive responses in the complete absence of responses such as social cooperation indicate a greater degree of hostility than many such responses against the backdrop of an even greater number of attitudes towards friendly interpersonal interaction. In the example under consideration

A = (6+9) – (3+2+11+2) = -3.

That is, attitudes towards social cooperation and dependence prevail over aggressive, dominant tendencies.

It is important that what matters is not only the ratio of attitudes toward social cooperation and aggression, but also what specific tendencies are opposed to confrontation, which prompts a person to cooperate: fear of retaliatory aggression, a sense of inferiority, dependence, or the need for warm, friendly contacts with others . Externally similar behavior in these cases has fundamentally different internal determinants. Data on their nature can be obtained by analyzing the proportion of attitudes that resist aggression (categories “Fear”, “Communication”, “Emotionality”, “Dependence”).

In addition to data on the level of aggressiveness, using a hand test you can get a lot additional information, characterizing the current mental condition subject. To do this, an analysis is carried out across all categories of the test and the percentage of answers for individual categories is determined.

Interesting information can be obtained by analyzing responses to those categories that are not included in the calculation of the total aggressiveness score.

A high percentage of responses in the “Demonstrativeness” category indicates manifestations of hysteria and demonstrativeness (especially among male subjects).

An increase in the percentage of answers in the “Mutilation” category (if there are no objective prerequisites for this) indicates that the subject has hypochondriacal experiences.

In the case where the majority of responses are occupied by the categories “Description” and “Passive impersonality”, we can conclude that there is a significant decrease general level activity of the subject. This condition may be a consequence of asthenia, or a manifestation of deeper changes in energy.

A decrease in the number of answers in the categories “Emotionality” and “Communication” associated with the learning process indicates the need to draw the psychologist’s attention to the area of the subject’s social contacts, suggesting the presence of difficulties in this area, isolation from others, or autism.

Data analysis for the selected parameters is qualitative in nature and should be carried out with great care with sufficient experience in working with the methodology.

Application areas of the test

Using the Wagner hand test can be productive not only in diagnosing aggressiveness, but also in some other cases.

To diagnose interpersonal relationships. In this case, the instructions are modified. The subject is asked to answer the question of what the hand depicted on the cards is doing, but the psychologist says: “Imagine that this is the hand of your friend (child, husband, wife, manager, etc.).” This option makes it possible to see what tendencies and what sign of social orientation (positive or negative) are attributed to the partner and, thus, it is possible to analyze the subject’s current attitude towards him.

To diagnose candidates nominated for leadership positions. If the testing process reveals an increased share of responses in the “Instruction” category and at the same time an insignificant percentage of attitudes towards social cooperation, then it is possible to predict with a high probability a tough, authoritarian position of the future leader. If there are no answers in the categories “Indication” and “Aggression” and a simultaneous increase in answers in the categories “Dependence” and “Fear”, the candidate most likely shows himself as a follower, dependent, unable to defend his position.

To diagnose the aggressiveness of various groups of criminals, to predict open aggressive behavior in criminal psychology during a forensic psychological examination.

Methodology for studying self-attitude
S.R. Panteleev (MIS)

The technique is intended to identify the structure of a person’s self-attitude, as well as the severity of individual components of self-attitude: closeness, self-confidence, self-leadership, reflected self-attitude, self-worth, self-attachment, internal conflict and self-blame.
Self-attitude is understood in the context of a person’s ideas about the meaning of “I” as an expression of the meaning of “I”, as a generalized feeling towards one’s own “I”. The understanding of self-attitude is based on the concept of self-awareness by V.V. Stolin, who identified three dimensions of self-attitude: sympathy, respect, intimacy.
The technique allows individual and group use without time limits. In the case of a group survey, the number of participants should not exceed 15 people. The duration of the task is 30 - 40 minutes.

Instructions. You are offered a list of judgments that characterize a person’s attitude towards himself, towards his actions and actions. Read each statement carefully. If you agree with the content of the judgment, then in the answer form, next to the serial number of the judgment, put “+”; if you do not agree, then “-”. Work quickly and carefully, do not miss a single judgment. It is possible that some judgments will seem overly personal to you, affecting intimate aspects of your personality. Try to determine their suitability for yourself as sincerely as possible. Your answers will not be shown to anyone.

Processing of results and interpretation
During processing, a special “key” is used, with the help of which the so-called “raw” points are obtained.
The coincidence of the subject's answer with the “key” is assessed as 1 point. First, the matches of answers are counted according to the criterion “agree”, then - according to the criterion “disagree”. The results obtained are summarized. Then the sum of “raw” points for each of the scales is converted into walls using a special table. The walls provide a basis for interpretation.
To convert a “raw” score to a standard value (sten), you need to find the desired scale in the first column and move along the line until it intersects with the column in which the individual “raw” score or the interval of individual “raw” points is located. The top line of the found column indicates the corresponding wall. For example, if the “raw” score on the “Self-Acceptance” scale is 7, then in line 6 we find the interval 6 - 7. The top line of this column indicates the wall value - 5.
Self-attitude is considered as a person’s idea of the meaning of his own “I”. Self-attitude is largely determined by the experience of one’s own value, expressed in a fairly wide range of feelings: from self-esteem to self-abasement.
Interpretation of indicators is carried out depending on their severity. In this case, values of 1-3 walls are conventionally considered low, 4-7 - average, 8-19 - high. Below is a brief interpretation of each scale.

The “Closedness” scale determines the predominance of one of two tendencies: either conformity, expressed motivation for social approval, or criticality, deeply self-awareness, internal honesty and openness.
High values (8-10 walls) reflect pronounced defensive behavior of the individual, the desire to comply with generally accepted norms of behavior and relationships with other people. A person tends to avoid open relationships with himself; the reason may be either a lack of reflection skills, a superficial vision of oneself, or a conscious reluctance to reveal oneself and admit the existence of personal problems.
Average values (4-7 walls) mean a person’s selective attitude towards himself; overcoming some psychological defenses while updating others, especially in critical situations.
Low values (1-3 walls) indicate internal honesty, openness of a person’s relationship with himself, sufficiently developed reflection and deep understanding of himself. The person is critical of himself. In relationships with people, the orientation towards one’s own vision of the situation and what is happening is dominant.

The “Self-confidence” scale reveals self-respect, the attitude towards oneself as a confident, independent, strong-willed and reliable person who knows that he has something to respect himself for.
High values (8-10 walls) characterize pronounced self-confidence, a sense of the strength of one’s own “I”, and high courage in communication. The motive of success dominates. A person respects himself, is satisfied with himself, his undertakings and achievements, feels his competence and ability to solve many problems. life questions. Obstacles to achieving a goal are perceived as surmountable. Problems affect shallowly and are not experienced for long.
Average values (4-7 walls) are characteristic of those who, in their usual situations, maintain efficiency, self-confidence, and an orientation toward the success of their endeavors. When difficulties arise unexpectedly, self-confidence decreases, anxiety and restlessness increase.
Low values (1-3 walls) reflect disrespect for oneself, associated with uncertainty in one’s capabilities, with doubt in one’s abilities. A person does not trust his decisions, often doubts his ability to overcome difficulties and obstacles and achieve his goals. Avoidance of contacts with people, deep immersion in one’s own problems, and internal tension are possible.

The “Self-leadership” scale reflects the individual’s idea of the main source of his own activity, results and achievements, the source of his own personality development, and emphasizes the dominance of either his own “I” or external circumstances.
High values (8-10 walls) are typical for those who consider themselves to be the main source of their personality development, the regulator of achievements and success. A person experiences his own “I” as an internal core that coordinates and directs all activity, organizes behavior and relationships with people, which makes him able to predict his actions and the consequences of emerging contacts with others. He feels able to resist external influences, resist fate and the elements of events. It is human nature to control emotional reactions and feelings about oneself.
Average values (4-7 walls) reveal the characteristics of the attitude towards one’s “I”, depending on the degree of adaptation in the situation. In familiar conditions of existence, in which all possible changes are familiar and well predictable, a person can exhibit a pronounced ability for personal control. In new situations, the regulatory capabilities of the “I” weaken, and the tendency to submit to environmental influences increases.
Low values (1-3 walls) describe the subject’s belief in the subordination of his “I” to external circumstances and events. Self-regulation mechanisms are weakened. Volitional control is not sufficient to overcome external and internal obstacles on the way to achieving the goal. External circumstances are recognized as the main source of what happens to a person. Self-contained reasons are either denied or, which happens quite often, repressed into the subconscious. Experiences regarding one’s own “I” are accompanied by internal tension.

The “Reflected Self-Attitude” scale characterizes the subject’s idea of the ability to evoke respect and sympathy from other people. When interpreting, it is necessary to take into account that the scale does not reflect the true content of interaction between people, it is only a subjective perception of the existing relationship.
High values (8-10 walls) correspond to a person who perceives himself as accepted by the people around him. He feels that he is loved by others, valued for his personal and spiritual qualities, for his actions and actions, for his adherence to group norms and rules. He feels sociable, emotionally open to interact with others, and easy to establish business and personal contacts.
Average values (4-7 walls) mean a person’s selective perception of the attitude of others towards him. From his point of view, the positive attitude of others extends only to certain qualities, to certain actions; other personal manifestations can cause them irritation and rejection.
Low values (1-3 walls) indicate that a person views himself as incapable of arousing respect from others, as causing condemnation and censure from other people. Approval and support from others are not expected.

The Self-Worth scale conveys the sense of self-worth and the perceived value of one's self to others.
High values (8-10 walls) belong to a person who highly values his spiritual potential, the richness of his inner world; a person tends to perceive himself as an individual and highly value his own uniqueness. Self-confidence helps to withstand environmental influences and rationally perceive criticism addressed to you.
Average values (4-7 walls) reflect a selective attitude towards oneself. A person tends to highly value a number of his qualities and recognize their uniqueness. Other qualities are clearly underestimated, so the comments of others can cause a feeling of low value and personal failure.
Low values (1-3 walls) indicate a person’s deep doubts about the uniqueness of his personality, underestimation of his spiritual self. Self-doubt weakens resistance to environmental influences. Increased sensitivity to the comments and criticism of others towards oneself makes a person touchy and vulnerable, prone to not trusting one’s individuality.

The “Self-Acceptance” scale allows you to judge the severity of the feeling of sympathy for yourself, agreement with your inner motives, acceptance of yourself as you are, despite shortcomings and weaknesses.
High values (8-10 walls) characterize the tendency to perceive all aspects of one’s “I”, to accept oneself in the fullness of behavioral manifestations. The general background of self-perception is positive. A person often feels sympathy for himself, for all the qualities of his personality. He considers his shortcomings to be a continuation of his advantages. Failures and conflict situations do not give reason to consider yourself a bad person.
Average values (4-7 walls) reflect the selectivity of one’s attitude towards oneself. A person is inclined to accept not all of his strengths and criticize not all of his shortcomings.
Low values (1-3 walls) indicate a general negative background of self-perception, a tendency to perceive oneself overly critically. Self-sympathy is not expressed enough and appears sporadically. Negative self-evaluation comes in many forms, from describing oneself in a comical light to self-deprecation.

The “Self-attachment” scale reveals the degree of desire to change in relation to the current state.
High values (8-10 walls) reflect the high rigidity of the “I” concept, the desire to preserve unchanged one’s qualities, requirements for oneself, and most importantly, one’s vision and assessment of oneself. The feeling of self-sufficiency and achievement of an ideal interferes with the realization of the possibility of self-development and self-improvement. A high level of personal anxiety and a predisposition to perceive the world around us as threatening to self-esteem can also be an obstacle to self-disclosure.
Average values (4-7 walls) indicate a selective attitude towards one’s personal properties, a desire to change only some of one’s qualities while maintaining others.
Low values (wall 1-3) indicate a high readiness to change the “I” concept, openness to new experiences of self-knowledge, and the search for correspondence between the real and ideal “I”. The desire to develop and improve one’s own “I” is clearly expressed, the source of which may be dissatisfaction with oneself. Ease of changing ideas about yourself.

The “Internal Conflict” scale determines the presence of internal conflicts, doubts, disagreement with oneself, and the severity of tendencies toward self-examination and reflection.
High values (8-10 walls) correspond to a person who has a predominantly negative background attitude towards himself. He is in a state of constant control over his “I”, strives for a deep appreciation of everything that happens in his inner world. Developed reflection turns into self-examination, leading to the discovery of condemned qualities and properties. He is distinguished by high demands on himself, which often leads to a conflict between the real “I” and the ideal “I”, between the level of aspirations and actual achievements, and to the recognition of one’s low value. He considers his own advantage to be the true source of his achievements and failures.
Average values (4-7 walls) are typical for a person whose attitude towards himself, the attitude to see himself depends on the degree of adaptation in the situation. In familiar conditions, the features of which are well known and predictable, one observes a positive background of attitude towards oneself, recognition of one’s merits and a high assessment of one’s achievements. Unexpected difficulties and additional obstacles that arise can contribute to increased underestimation of one’s own successes.
Low values (1-3 walls) are most often found among those who have a generally positive attitude towards themselves, feel a balance between their own capabilities and the demands of the surrounding reality, between aspirations and achievements, and are satisfied with the current life situation and with themselves. At the same time, denial of one’s problems and a superficial perception of oneself are possible.

The “Self-blame” scale characterizes the severity of negative emotions towards one’s “I”.
High values (8-10 walls) can be observed in those who see themselves primarily as shortcomings, who are ready to blame themselves for all their mistakes and failures. Problem situations and conflicts in the sphere of communication actualize existing psychological defenses, among which the dominant reactions are defense of one’s own “I” in the form of censure, condemnation of oneself, or the attraction of mitigating circumstances. The attitude towards self-blame is accompanied by the development internal tension, a feeling of inability to meet basic needs.
Average values (4-7 walls) indicate a selective attitude towards oneself. Blaming oneself for certain actions and actions is combined with an expression of anger and annoyance towards others.
Low values (1-3 walls) show a tendency to deny one’s own guilt in conflict situations. The defense of one's own "I" is carried out by blaming mainly others, transferring responsibility to others for removing barriers to achieving the goal. A feeling of self-satisfaction combined with blaming others, looking for the sources of all troubles and troubles in them.

"Level of subjective control"
(USK)

The technique is a modified version of the questionnaire of the American psychologist J. Rotter. With its help, you can assess the level of subjective control over various situations, in other words, determine the degree of responsibility of a person for his actions and his life. People differ in how they explain the causes of events that are significant to them and where they localize control over them. There are two possible polar types of such localization: external (external locus) and internal (internal locus). The first type manifests itself when a person believes that what happens to him does not depend on him, but is the result of external causes (for example, chance or the intervention of other people). In the second case, a person interprets significant events as the result of his own efforts. When considering two polar types of localization, it should be remembered that each person has his own level of subjective control over significant situations. The locus of control of a particular individual is more or less universal in relation to the different types of events that he has to face, both in case of success and in case of failure.

In general, people with an external locus of control are more likely to exhibit conformal and compliant behavior; they prefer to work in a group; they are more often passive, dependent, anxious, and lacking self-confidence. People with an internal locus are more active, independent, independent in work, they often have positive self-esteem, which is associated with expressed self-confidence and tolerance towards other people. Thus, the degree of internality of each person is related to his attitude towards his development and personal growth.

The USC questionnaire consists of 44 sentences-statements relating to externality-internality in interpersonal (work and family) relationships, as well as in relation to one’s own health.

Instructions: After reading each statement, decide for yourself whether you agree with it or not. If you agree, place a “+” sign next to the serial number of the proposal (you can do this on a separate sheet of paper). If you do not agree with this statement, then put a “-” sign next to the serial number. Be careful when doing this work and at the same time try not to linger or think too much about a particular statement.

30 6 8 7 5 4 3
Processing of completed answers should be carried out using the keys below, summing up the answers that match the key. The USC questionnaire is accompanied by seven keys corresponding to seven scales:

General internality scale (Io).
A high score on this scale corresponds to high level subjective control over any significant situations. Such people believe that the majority important events in their lives was the result of their own actions, that they can control them and therefore take responsibility for their lives as a whole. A low score on the Io scale corresponds to a low level of subjective control. Such people do not see the connection between their actions and significant events, which they consider as the result of chance or the actions of other people. To determine the USC on this scale, it is necessary to remember that the maximum value of the indicator on it is 44, and the minimum is 0.

Achievement Internality Scale (Id).
A high score on this scale corresponds to a high level of subjective control over emotionally positive events. Such people believe that they have achieved all the best things in their lives themselves and that they are able to successfully achieve their goals in the future. A low score on the Id scale indicates that a person associates his successes, achievements and joys with external circumstances - luck, good fortune or the help of other people. The maximum value of the indicator on this scale is 12, the minimum is 0.

Internality scale in the field of failures (In).
A high score on this scale indicates a developed sense of subjective control in relation to negative events and situations, which manifests itself in a tendency to blame oneself for various troubles and failures. A low score indicates that a person tends to attribute responsibility for such events to other people or consider them to be the result of bad luck. The maximum value of In is 12, the minimum is 0.

Internality scale in family relationships (Is).
A high Is score means that a person considers himself responsible for the events occurring in his family life. Low Is indicates that the subject considers their partners to be the cause significant situations arising in his family. The maximum value of Is is 10, the minimum is 0.

Internality scale in the field of industrial relations (Ip).
A high IP indicates that a person considers himself and his actions an important factor in organizing his own production activities, in particular, in his career advancement. Low IP indicates a tendency to attach more importance to external circumstances - management, work colleagues, luck - bad luck. Maximum IP - 8, minimum - 0.

Internality scale in the field of interpersonal relations (Im).
A high score on IM indicates that a person feels able to command the respect and sympathy of other people. Low Im indicates that the subject is not inclined to take responsibility for his relationships with others. The maximum value of Im is 4, the minimum is 0.

Scale of internality in relation to health and illness (Iz).
A high Iz score indicates that a person considers himself largely responsible for his health and believes that recovery depends mainly on his actions. A person with low I considers health and illness to be the result of chance and hopes that recovery will come as a result of the actions of other people, especially doctors. The maximum value of From is 4, the minimum is 0.

The personality differential (LD) technique has been developed based on the modern Russian language and reflects the ideas about the structure of personality that have formed in our culture. The LD technique was adapted by employees of the Psychoneurological Institute named after. V. M. Bekhtereva. The purpose of its development was to create a compact and valid tool for studying certain personality traits, self-awareness, and interpersonal relationships, which could be used in clinical-psychological and psychodiagnostic work, as well as in socio-psychological practice.

Procedure for selecting LD scales.

The LD was formed by a representative sample of words in the modern Russian language that describe personality traits, followed by a study of the internal factor structure of a unique “personality model” that exists in culture and develops in each person as a result of assimilation of social and linguistic experience.

From explanatory dictionary Ozhegov's Russian language selected 120 words denoting personality traits. From this initial set, features were selected that most characterize the poles of the 3 classical factors of the semantic differential:

3. Activities.

The initial set of traits was randomly divided into 6 lists of 20 traits. Three parallel methods were used to classify traits within each of these lists.

1. Subjects’ assessment (on a 100-point scale) of the probability that a person with personality traits A also has personality traits B. As a result of averaging the probabilities of individual assessments, generalized indicators of ideas about the conjugacy of personality traits that make up the so-called implicit personality structure were obtained, characteristic of the entire sample as a whole.

2. Correlations between self-ratings of personality traits. The subjects filled out 6 self-assessment forms, each of which was composed of 20 personality traits and required the subject to rate their presence on a 5-point scale.

3. 120 personality traits were assessed on 3 scales (7 points), representing semantic differential factors, the scores were averaged.

21 personality traits were selected in LD. In several cases, the original list did not contain one of the members of the required antonymous pair and was supplemented. The LD scales were completed by subjects with instructions to rate themselves on selected personality traits.

Interpretation of LD factors

When using LD to study self-esteem of the value of the Evaluation factor (O), the results indicate the level of self-esteem. High values of this factor indicate that the subject accepts himself as an individual, tends to recognize himself as a bearer of positive, socially desirable characteristics, and is, in a certain sense, satisfied with himself.

Low values of factor O indicate a person’s critical attitude towards himself, his dissatisfaction with his own behavior, level of achievements, personality characteristics, and an insufficient level of self-acceptance. Particularly low values of this factor in self-esteem indicate possible neurotic or other problems associated with a feeling of low value of one’s personality.

When using LD to measure mutual assessments, factor O is interpreted as evidence of the level of attractiveness and sympathy that one person has in the perception of another. Wherein

positive (+) values of this factor correspond to the preference given to the object of evaluation, negative (-) - to its rejection.

The Strength factor (C) in self-assessments indicates the development of the volitional aspects of the personality, as they are recognized by the subject himself. Its high values indicate self-confidence, independence, and a tendency to rely on one’s own strengths in difficult situations. Low values indicate insufficient self-control, inability to adhere to the accepted line of behavior, dependence on external circumstances and assessments. Particularly low scores indicate and indicate asthenia and anxiety. In mutual assessments, factor (C) reveals the dominance-subordination relationship as it is perceived by the subject of the assessment.

The Activity factor (A) in self-assessments is interpreted as evidence of an extroverted personality. Positive (+) values indicate high activity, sociability, and impulsiveness; negative (-) – for introversion, a certain passivity, calm emotional reactions. Mutual assessments reflect people's perceptions of each other's personal characteristics.

When interpreting data obtained using LD, one should always remember that they reflect a person’s subjective, emotional and semantic ideas about himself and other people, his relationships, which may only partially correspond to the real state of affairs, but often in themselves are of paramount importance.

Using the LD method

LD can be used in all cases where it is necessary to obtain information about the subjective aspects of the subject’s relationship with himself or with other people. In this regard, LD is comparable to two categories of psychodiagnostic methods - personality questionnaires and sociometric scales. It differs from personality questionnaires in its brevity and directness, and its focus on self-awareness data. Some traditional personality characteristics obtained using questionnaires can also be obtained using LD. The level of self-esteem, dominance - anxiety and extraversion - introversion is a fairly important indicator in such clinical tasks as the diagnosis of neuroses, borderline states, differential diagnosis, study of the dynamics of the state in the process of rehabilitation, monitoring the effectiveness of psychotherapy, etc. The brevity of the method allows it to be used not only independently, but also in combination with other diagnostic procedures.

LD differs from sociometric methods in the multidimensionality of the characteristics of relationships and their greater generalization. As a method of obtaining mutual assessments, LD can be recommended for use in two areas: group and family psychotherapy.

In group psychotherapy, LD can be used to study such aspects of the individual and the group process as a whole, such as increasing the level of acceptance by group members of each other, bringing real and expected assessments closer together, reducing dependence on the psychotherapist, etc.

In family psychotherapy, the ability to compare different points of view on family members (for example, a child) with each other, which LD represents, as well as the possibility of differentiated assessment of emotional attractiveness, dominance-submission status and the level of activity of family members (for example, spouses), may be useful. It may be useful to vary the assessment items (for example, “what a father should be like,” “the ideal wife,” “my wife thinks that I ...”) and then calculate the distance between the ideal and the real, the expected and the real, etc. LD can help in determining the actual nature of dissatisfaction in marital relationships (lack of emotional attractiveness, avoidance of responsibility, etc.), and in understanding the role of the child in the family conflict.

Repertory grid technique (RPG)- one of the ways to study personality in cognitive psychology, developed by psychologist J. Kelly. This technique is based on the belief that a person acts and thinks in accordance with an individual scheme built on constructs. A construct is a pair of subjective, that is, used by a specific person, concepts that describe a particular phenomenon, personality quality, etc. Any thought process, according to this theory, is based on the “movement” of thought from one construct to another.

Application of the repertory grid technique

Thanks to Kelly's repertory grid technique in personnel management, in particular, it is possible to identify the cause of internal conflict in a team, by conducting a personnel study, you can find ways to increase labor productivity. When studying demand and competitiveness, it allows you to identify the strengths and weaknesses of products or goods from the consumer's point of view. You can also plan and calculate a long-term marketing strategy.

As for psychotherapy and psychology, this technique makes it possible to study and, subsequently, correct thought processes that lead to unwanted actions or changes in the psyche. With the help of repertory grids, it is possible to monitor changes that occur over time in a person’s consciousness and draw conclusions about the consistency or failure of certain methods of therapy.

How do Kelly repertory grids differ from conventional tests?

The difference between the Kelly repertory grid technique and questionnaire tests is very striking and speaks in favor of the former. Tests are essentially one-time, since their repeated use causes an expected effect. The subject seeks to predict an answer that will be “desirable” from his point of view for a specialist, therefore the results will be incorrect. Moreover, tests are narrowly focused and static, while repertoire lattices are labile (mobile, changeable) and can be used to study both narrow aspects of perception, for example, the patient’s family relationships, and more global ones, for example, perception of society and the ability to adapt to his requirements.

Plus, questionnaires assume unidirectionality, that is, the researcher sets a task for the person. In turn, Kelly's repertory grids can be compiled in advance, or they can be compiled simultaneously by both the subject and the researcher. In the latter version, the TPP is very similar to the free associative series, also used in neuropsychology. Let's look at how exactly the repertory grid method works using an example.
Initial parameters for the test

To conduct a test using the Kelly repertory grid method, the test taker is presented with twelve so-called role characters. For example, “I”, “in 10 years”, “Mother”, “Father”, “Friend”, “Girlfriend”, “Spouse”, “Brother”, “Sister”, “The person who causes unpleasant feelings”, “The one whom you sympathize with”, “A person who has had a strong positive influence on life” (analogous to “Teacher”, “Guru”), “Unloved politician”. The most suitable analogues are selected for each specific subject. For example, if a person does not have a brother or sister (or both), then it can be replaced with a close relative (relative). These characters are arranged horizontally in the table.

Assessment using the repertory grid method

Then triplets are formed from these people in such a way that each character appears at least twice in the entire grid. In the cells of the matrix these people are designated by circles. On the left vertically they write positive traits, on the right - negative. Qualities should unite two of the three people, the third should be different from them. For example, “Mother” and “Father” are good, “Unloved Politician” is evil. In the character cells for which the comparison is made, it is necessary for the subject to give quality ratings. For positive ones: 1 - strongly expressed, 2 - average, 3 - weak. For negative ones: 7 - strong, 6 - average, 5 - weak.

If a person finds it difficult to assess the degree of expression of a particular characteristic, he can give 4 points, but care must be taken that this assessment is used as rarely as possible. The recorded constructs must have a clear description and emotional connotation. It is unacceptable to use non-specific components such as “attractive” - “unattractive”. In this case, the researcher must clarify what is meant by these words.

Getting Results

The results of a study using the repertory grid method are calculated using computer programs and they can tell you a lot. In particular, about how a person evaluates himself; what internal conflicts exist in the family; how promising he sees his future, etc.

Depending on the direction of the research, the list of “characters” or any other images changes, but the essence remains the same - assigning ratings and qualities in the formed matrix. The TPP method is quite complicated, but at the same time it is practically the most informative. The main thing in research using repertory grids is that the person being studied is not against an in-depth study of his psyche and understands the goals and objectives that are being pursued by the researcher.

Methodology "Sociometry" J. Moreno is used to diagnose interpersonal and intergroup relations in students in grades 2-11.

This technique allows you to indirectly determine the level of development of communication skills in students.

Objectives of the diagnostic study:

measuring the degree of cohesion-disunity in a group;

detection of intra-group cohesive formations led by informal leaders.

The technique allows you to take a snapshot of the dynamics of intragroup relations in order to subsequently use the results obtained to restructure groups, increase their cohesion and efficiency.

Materials for diagnostics.

Sociometric survey form, list of group members, sociomatrix (For an example of filling, see the table).

№

Last name, first name

Total

IN.

AND.

TO.

Number of elections

Number of mutual elections

0,5

4,5

Preparation of the study. Any group of people of any age, starting from preschool, who have some experience of interaction and communication, can be examined. Depending on the tasks that the study is designed to solve, and on the characteristics (age and professional) of the groups being studied, criteria for sociometric choice are formed. A criterion is an activity for which an individual must select or reject one or more group members. It is formulated in the form of a specific sociometric test question. In terms of content, the criteria can be formal and informal. With the help of the former, relationships regarding the joint activity for which the group was created are measured. The latter serve to measure emotional and personal relationships not related to joint activities (for example, the choice of “leisure buddies”).

Research procedure.

Before the start of the survey, the test group is briefed (sociometric warm-up). And during it, you should explain to the group the purpose of the study, emphasize the importance of its results for the group, show how to complete the tasks, and ensure that the answers are kept secret.

Instructions for students:

“When answering the question, indicate the names of the classmates you would choose.
Try to be sincere in your answers. The researchers guarantee the secrecy of individual responses.”

It is necessary to try to establish an atmosphere of trust in relations with the group. Lack of trust in the experimenter and suspicions that the survey results can be used to harm the subject lead to a refusal to complete the task as a whole or to a refusal to make a negative choice. After this, we proceed directly to the survey. All members of the group are subject to it. Respondents must write down the names of the group members they selected based on one or another criterion on the questionnaire and indicate their last name. During the survey, the researcher must ensure that the respondents do not communicate with each other, constantly emphasize and remind them of the obligation to answer all questions. There is no need to rush into asking subjects to give answers. At the same time, if subjects do not have a list of group members, visual contact should not be prevented. It is advisable to write the names of those absent on the board.

There are three main selection methods:

The number of selections is limited to 3-5;

complete freedom of choice is allowed (everyone can write down as many decisions as they wish);

the subject ranks all group members depending on the proposed criterion.

From the point of view of simplicity and convenience of processing the results, the first method is preferable.
From the point of view of reliability and reliability of the results obtained, it is the third.

mydocx.ru - 2015-2019 year. (0.032 sec.) All materials presented on the site are solely for the purpose of information for readers and do not pursue commercial purposes or copyright infringement -

Research base: 4th year students of psychological and economic faculties MOSI.

Sample: 37 people.

To study subjective well-being, we used the following methods:

1. “Subjective Well-Being Scale” (M.V. Sokolova)

The Subjective Well-Being Scale assesses the emotional component of subjective well-being, ranging from optimism, cheerfulness, and self-confidence to depression, irritability, and feelings of loneliness.

Purpose: to measure the emotional component of subjective well-being (SB) or emotional comfort (EC).

Procedure: The subjects are given a questionnaire with 17 statements; they must answer the degree of agreement or disagreement with them using the following scale: 1 - completely agree; 2 - agree; 3 - more or less agree; 4 - difficult to answer; 5 - more or less disagree; 6 - disagree; 7 - completely disagree.

Processing of results: The value of the subjective well-being scale is calculated by summing up the points received for answering each question at the following rate: 1 - 1 point, 2 - 2 points, 3 - 3 points, 4 - 4 points, 5 - 5 points, 6 - 6 points , 7 - 7 points.

The translation of primary data into the wall scale is carried out in accordance with the table:

Measured parameters:

Average ratings (4-7th level) indicate a low level of quality: persons with such ratings are characterized by moderate subjective well-being, they do not have serious problems, but complete emotional comfort cannot be said.

Ratings that deviate towards subjective ill-being (high ratings) are typical for people prone to depression and anxiety, pessimistic, withdrawn, dependent, and poorly able to tolerate stressful situations.

Extremely high scores (10 walls) indicate significantly expressed emotional discomfort. Persons with such assessments may have an inferiority complex; they are most likely dissatisfied with themselves and their position, lack trust in others and hope for the future, have difficulty controlling their emotions, are unbalanced, inflexible, and constantly worry about real and imagined troubles .

Ratings deviating towards subjective well-being (low ratings) indicate moderate emotional comfort of the subject: he does not experience serious emotional problems, is quite self-confident, active, successfully interacts with others, and adequately manages his behavior.

Extremely low scores on the scale of subjective well-being (1st wall) indicate the complete emotional well-being of the subject and his denial of serious psychological problems. Such a person has a positive self-esteem, is not inclined to express complaints about various ailments, is optimistic, sociable, confident in his abilities, acts effectively under stress, and is not prone to anxiety.

2. Test questionnaire for the level of subjective control.

Purpose: to study the type of localization of subjective control of the individual, the nature of the subjective acceptance of individual responsibility for events occurring in various areas (achievements, failures, communication, family relationships, health).

Procedure: The subjects are given a questionnaire consisting of 44 statements, where they had to indicate the degree of agreement or disagreement with them.

Processing of results: Points are calculated on 7 scales, raw scores are converted into walls, results expressed in walls are compared with the norm (5.5 walls). An indicator above 5.5 indicates an internal type of control in this area, below 5.5 indicates an external type and a profile of the USC (level of subjective control) is built.

1. Scale of general internality (Io).

A high score on this scale corresponds to a high level of subjective control over any significant situations: internal control, internal personality. Such people believe that most of the important events in their lives are the result of their own actions, that they can control them, and thus they feel their own responsibility for these events and for how their lives turn out in general.

A low score on this scale corresponds to a low level of subjective control: external control, external personality. Such people do not see the connection between their actions and the events of their lives that are significant to them, and do not consider themselves capable of controlling their development. They believe that most events in their lives are the result of chance or the actions of other people. Generalization of various experimental data allows us to talk about externals as people with increased anxiety and concern. They are distinguished by conformity, less tolerance towards others and increased aggressiveness, less popularity in comparison with internals.

2. Scale of internality in the field of achievements (Id).

High scores on this scale correspond to a high level of subjective control over emotionally positive events and situations. Such people believe that they themselves have achieved all the good things that have happened and are in their lives, and that they are able to successfully pursue their goals in the future.

Low scores on the scale indicate that a person attributes his successes, achievements and joys to external circumstances - luck, good fortune or the help of other people.

3. Scale of internality in the field of failures (In).

High scores on this scale indicate a developed sense of subjective control in relation to negative events and situations, which is manifested in a tendency to blame oneself for various troubles and suffering.

Low scores indicate that a person tends to attribute responsibility for such events to other people or consider them the result of bad luck.

4. Scale of internality in family relationships (Is).

High scores mean that a person considers himself responsible for the events occurring in his family life.

Low scores indicate that the subject considers not himself, but his partners, to be the cause of significant situations that arise in his family.

5. Scale of internality in the field of production relations (IP).

High indicators also indicate that a person considers his actions an important factor in organizing his own production activities, developing relationships in the team, his advancement, etc.

Low scores indicate that a person is inclined to attribute more importance to external circumstances - management, workmates, luck or bad luck.

6. Internality scale in the field of interpersonal relations (Im).

High scores indicate that a person considers himself responsible for building interpersonal relationships with others.

Low scores indicate that a person tends to attribute more importance in this process to circumstances, chance, or the people around him.

7. Scale of internality in relation to health and illness (Iz).

High rates indicate that a person considers himself largely responsible for his health: if he is sick, he blames himself for it and believes that recovery largely depends on his actions.

A person with low scores on this scale considers illness and health to be the result of chance and hopes that recovery will come as a result of the actions of other people, especially doctors.

The reliability of the results obtained was determined using Student's t-test, with p ? 0.05.