Disgust Fear Sadness

Rice. 7. FAST (Facial Affect Scoring Technique) technique

20,000 facial expression descriptions. In order to somehow classify them, a technique introduced by P. Ekman and called FAST - Facial Affect Scoring Technique was proposed. The principle is the same: the face is divided into three zones horizontal lines(eyes and forehead, nose and nasal area, mouth and chin). Then six basic emotions are identified, most often expressed through facial expressions: joy, anger, surprise, disgust, fear, sadness. Fixing an emotion “by zone” makes it possible to register more or less definitely facial movements (Fig. 7). This technique has become widespread in medical (pathopsychological) practice; currently there are a number of attempts to use it in “normal” communication situations. It can hardly be considered that here the problem of codes has been completely solved.

Thus, an analysis of all nonverbal communication systems shows that they undoubtedly play a large auxiliary (and sometimes independent) role in the communication process. Having the ability not only to strengthen or weaken verbal impact, all nonverbal communication systems help to identify such an essential parameter of the communicative process as the intentions of its participants. Together with the verbal communication system, these systems provide the exchange of information that people need to organize joint activities.

COMMUNICATION AS INTERACTION

(interactive side of communication)

Place of interaction in the structure of communication

The interactive side of communication is a conventional term denoting the characteristics of those components of communication that are associated with the interaction of people and the direct organization of their joint activities. The study of interaction problems has a long tradition in social psychology. It is intuitively easy to accept the undeniable connection that exists between communication and human interaction, but it is difficult to separate these concepts and thereby make experiments more precisely targeted. Some authors simply identify communication and interaction, interpreting both as communication in the narrow sense of the word (i.e., as an exchange of information), others consider the relationship between interaction and communication as the relationship between the form of a certain process and its content. Sometimes they prefer to talk about the connected, but still independent existence of communication as communication and interaction as interaction. Some of these discrepancies are generated by terminological difficulties, in particular by the fact that the concept of “communication” is used either in a narrow or in a broad sense of the word. If we adhere to the scheme proposed when characterizing the structure of communication, i.e. to believe that communication in the broad sense of the word (as the reality of interpersonal and social relations) includes communication in the narrow sense of the word (as the exchange of information), then it is logical to allow such an interpretation of interaction when it appears as another - compared to the communicative side - the side of communication. Which “other” is a question that still needs to be answered.

If the communicative process is born on the basis of some joint activity, then the exchange of knowledge and ideas about this activity inevitably presupposes that the achieved mutual understanding is realized in new joint attempts to further develop the activity and organize it. The participation of many people in this activity at the same time means that everyone must make their own special contribution to it, which allows interaction to be interpreted as the organization of joint activity.

During it, it is extremely important for participants not only to exchange information, but also to organize an “exchange of actions” and plan common activities. With this planning, it is possible to regulate the actions of one individual “by plans matured in the head of another” (Lomov, 1975, p. 132), which makes the activity truly joint, when its bearer will no longer be an individual, but a group. Thus, the question of what “other” side of communication is revealed by the concept of “interaction” can now be answered: the side that captures not only the exchange of information, but also the organization joint actions, allowing partners to implement some common activity for them. This solution to the issue excludes the separation of interaction from communication, but also excludes their identification: communication is organized in the course of joint activity, “about” it, and it is in this process that people need to exchange both information and the activity itself, i.e. develop forms and norms of joint action.

In the history of social psychology, there have been several attempts to describe the structure of interactions. For example, the so-called theory of action, or theory of social action, in which a description of the individual act of action was proposed in various versions, became widespread. Sociologists also addressed this idea: (M. Weber, P. Sorokin, T. Parsons) and social psychologists. Everyone recorded some components of interaction: people, their connections, their impact on each other and, as a consequence, their changes. The task was always formulated as a search for the dominant factors motivating actions in interaction.

An example of how this idea was realized is the theory of T. Parsons, in which an attempt was made to outline a general categorical apparatus for describing the structure of social action. Social activity is based on interpersonal interactions; human activity in its broad manifestations is built on them; it is the result of individual actions. A single action is some elementary act; systems of actions are subsequently formed from them. Each act is taken on its own, in isolation, from the point of view of an abstract scheme, the elements of which are: a) the actor, b) the “other” (the object towards which the action is directed); c) norms (by which interaction is organized), d) values ​​(which each participant accepts), e) situation (in which the action is performed). The actor is motivated by the fact that his action is aimed at realizing his attitudes (needs). In relation to the “other,” the actor develops a system of orientation and expectations, which are determined both by the desire to achieve a goal and by taking into account the likely reactions of the other. Five pairs of such orientations can be identified, which provide a classification of possible types of interactions. It is assumed that with the help of these five pairs all types of human activity can be described.

This attempt was unsuccessful: the action diagram revealing its “anatomy” was so abstract that it had no significance for the empirical analysis of various types of actions. It also turned out to be untenable for experimental practice: on the basis of this theoretical scheme, a single study was conducted by the creator of the concept himself. Methodologically incorrect here was the principle itself - the identification of certain abstract elements of the structure of individual action. With this approach, it is generally impossible to grasp the substantive side of actions, because it is determined by the content of social activity as a whole. Therefore, it is more logical to start with the characteristics of social activity, and from her go to the structure of separate individual actions, i.e. in the exact opposite direction (see, for example: Leontiev, 1972). The direction proposed by Parsons inevitably leads to the loss of the social context, since in it the entire wealth of social activity (in other words, the entirety of social relations) is derived from the psychology of the individual.

Another attempt to build a structure of interaction is related to the description of the stages of its development. In this case, interaction is divided not into elementary acts, but into the stages through which it passes. This approach was proposed, in particular, by the Polish sociologist J. Szczepanski. For Szczepanski, the central concept in describing social behavior is the concept of social connection. It can be presented as a sequential implementation of: a) spatial contact, b) mental contact (according to Shchepansky, this is mutual interest), c) social contact(here this is a joint activity), d) interaction (which is defined as “the systematic, constant implementation of actions aimed at eliciting an appropriate reaction from the partner...”), finally, e) social relations (mutually related systems of actions) ( Shchepansky, 1969. P. 84). Although all of the above relates to the characteristics of “social connection,” its type, such as “interaction,” is presented most fully. Arranging a series of steps preceding interaction is not too strict: spatial and mental contacts in this scheme act as prerequisites for an individual act of interaction, and therefore the scheme does not eliminate the errors of the previous attempt. But the inclusion of “social contact”, understood as joint activity, among the prerequisites for interaction largely changes the picture: if interaction arises as the implementation of joint activity, then the road to studying its substantive side remains open. Quite close to the described scheme is the scheme proposed in Russian social psychology by V.N. Panferov (Panferov, 1989).

Finally, another approach to the structural description of interaction is presented in transactional analysis - a direction that proposes regulating the actions of participants in interaction through regulating their positions, as well as taking into account the nature of situations and the style of interaction (Bern, 1988). From the point of view of transactional analysis, each participant in the interaction can, in principle, occupy one of three positions, which can be conventionally designated as Parent, Adult, Child. These positions are in no way necessarily connected with the corresponding social role: this is only a purely psychological description of a certain strategy in interaction (the Child’s position can be defined as the “I want!” position, the Parent’s position as “I must!”, the position

Rice. 8. Distribution of positions in interaction

(transactional analysis)

Adult - the union of “I want” and “I need”). Interaction is effective when transactions are of an “additional” nature, i.e. coincide: if a partner addresses another as an Adult, then he also responds from the same position. If one of the participants in the interaction addresses the other from the position of an Adult, and the other responds to him from the position of a Parent, then the interaction is disrupted and may stop altogether. In this case, the transactions are “overlapping”. An everyday example is given in the following diagram (Fig. 8).

The wife turns to her husband with the information: “I cut my finger” (an appeal to an Adult from the Adult’s position). If he answers:

“We’ll bandage it now,” then this is also an answer from the position of an Adult (I). If the maxim follows: “Something always happens to you,” then this is a response from the position of the Parent (II), and in the case of: “What should I do now?”, the position of the Child (III) is demonstrated. In the last two cases, the effectiveness of interaction is low (Krizhanskaya, Tretyakov, 1990). A similar approach was proposed by P.N. Ershov, who, designating positions, speaks of a possible “extension from above” and “extension from below” (Ershov, 1972).

The second indicator of effectiveness is adequate understanding situations(as in the case of information exchange) and adequate style actions in it. In social psychology there are many classifications of interaction situations. The classification proposed in Russian social psychology by A.A. has already been mentioned. Leontiev (socially-oriented, subject-oriented and personality-oriented situations). Other examples are given by M. Argyle and E. Byrne. Argyle names official social events, random episodic meetings, formal contacts at work and at home, asymmetrical situations (in training, leadership, etc.). E. Bern pays Special attention various rituals, semi-rituals (which take place in entertainment) and games (understood very broadly, including intimate, political games, etc.) (Byrne, 1988).

Each situation dictates its own style of behavior and action: in each of them, a person “presents” himself differently, and if this self-presentation is not adequate, interaction is difficult. If a style is formed on the basis of actions in a specific situation, and then mechanically transferred to another situation, then, naturally, success cannot be guaranteed. There are three main styles of action: ritual, manipulative And humanistic. Using the example of the use of ritual style, it is especially easy to show the need to correlate the style with the situation. A ritual style is usually determined by some culture. For example, the style of greetings, questions asked during a meeting, the nature of the expected answers. Thus, in American culture it is customary to answer the question: “How are you?” answer “Wonderful!”, no matter how things really are. It is typical for our culture to answer “to the point,” and not to be ashamed of the negative characteristics of one’s own existence (“Oh, there is no life, prices are rising, transport is not working,” etc.). A person accustomed to a different ritual, having received such a response, will be puzzled as to how to interact further. As for the use of a manipulative or humanistic style of interaction, this is a separate big problem, especially in practical social psychology (Petrovskaya, 1983).

It is important to draw a general conclusion that the division of a single act of interaction into components such as the positions of the participants, the situation and the style of action also contributes to a more thorough psychological analysis of this side of communication, making a certain attempt to connect it with the content of the activity.

Types of interactions. There is another descriptive approach to analyzing interaction - constructing classifications of its various types. It is intuitively clear that in practice people engage in an infinite number of different types of interactions. For experimental studies, it is extremely important to at least identify some of the main types of these interactions. The most common is the dichotomous division of all possible types of interactions into two opposite types: cooperation And competition. Different authors refer to these two main species by different terms. In addition to cooperation and competition, they talk about agreement and conflict, adaptation and opposition, association and dissociation, etc. Behind all these concepts, the principle of identifying different types of interaction is clearly visible. In the first case, such manifestations are analyzed that contribute to the organization of joint activities and are “positive” from this point of view. The second group includes interactions that in one way or another “shatter” joint activity and represent a certain kind of obstacle to it.

Cooperation, or cooperative interaction, means the coordination of the individual forces of the participants (ordering, combining, summing up these forces). Cooperation is a necessary element of joint activity, generated by its special nature. A.N. Leontyev named two main features of joint activity: a) division of a single process of activity between participants; b) a change in everyone’s activities, because the result of each person’s activity does not lead to the satisfaction of his needs, which in general psychological language means that the “object” and “motive” of the activity do not coincide (Leontyev, 1972, pp. 270-271).

How is the immediate result of the activity of each participant connected with the final result of joint activity? The means of such connection are the relationship, which are realized primarily in cooperation. An important indicator of the “closeness” of cooperative interaction is the inclusion of all participants in the process. Therefore, experimental studies of cooperation most often deal with the analysis of the contributions of the participants in the interaction and the degree of their involvement in it.

As for the other type of interactions - competition, then here the analysis is most often concentrated on its most striking form, namely conflict. When studying conflict in social psychology, it is first of all necessary to determine one’s own angle of view in this problem, since conflicts are the subject of research in a number of other disciplines: sociology, political science, etc.

Social psychology focuses on two issues: on the one hand, on the analysis secondary socio-psychological aspects in each conflict (for example, awareness of the conflict by its participants); on the other - on the highlight private class conflicts generated by specific socio-psychological factors. Both of these problems can be successfully solved only if there is an adequate conceptual research framework. It must cover at least four main characteristics of the conflict: structure, dynamics, function and typology of the conflict (Petrovskaya, 1977, p. 128).

The structure of the conflict is described differently by different authors, but the basic elements are practically accepted by all. This is a conflict situation, the positions of participants (opponents), an object, an “incident” (trigger mechanism), development and resolution of the conflict. These elements behave differently depending on the type of conflict. The common idea that every conflict necessarily has a negative meaning has been refuted by a number of special studies. Thus, in the works of M. Deutsch, one of the most prominent conflict theorists, two types of conflicts are called: destructive and productive.

Definition destructive conflict to a greater extent coincides with the everyday idea. It is this type of conflict that leads to a mismatch in interaction, to its weakening. A destructive conflict often becomes independent of the reason that gave rise to it, and more easily leads to a transition to “personality”, which gives rise to stress. It is characterized by a specific development, namely an expansion in the number of participants involved, their conflicting actions, an increase in the number of negative attitudes towards each other and the severity of statements (“expansion” of the conflict). Another feature is that “escalation” of a conflict means increasing tension, including everything more false perceptions of both the traits and qualities of the opponent and the interaction situations themselves, an increase in prejudice against the partner. It is clear that resolving this type of conflict is especially difficult; the main method of resolution - compromise - is implemented here with great difficulty.

Productive conflict more often arises when the clash does not concern the incompatibility of personalities, but is generated by a difference in points of view on a problem and on ways to solve it. In this case, the conflict itself contributes to the formation of a more comprehensive understanding of the problem, as well as the motivation of the partner who defends a different point of view - it becomes more “legitimate”. The very fact of a different argumentation and recognition of its legitimacy contributes to the development of elements of cooperative interaction within the conflict and thereby opens up the possibility of its regulation and resolution, and therefore of finding an optimal solution to the problem under discussion.

The idea of ​​two possible types of conflict interaction provides the basis for discussing the most important general theoretical problem of conflict: understanding its nature as a psychological phenomenon. In fact: is conflict just a form of psychological antagonism (i.e., the representation of a contradiction in consciousness) or is it necessarily the presence of conflicting actions (Kudryavtsev, 1991, p. 37). Detailed description of various conflicts in their complexity and diversity allows us to conclude that both of these components are mandatory signs of a conflict.

The problem of conflict research has many practical applications in terms of development various forms attitude towards it (conflict resolution, conflict prevention, its prevention, weakening, etc.) and, above all, in situations of business communication: for example, in production (Borodkin, Karyak, 1983).

When analyzing various types of interaction, the problem of the content of the activity within which certain types of interaction are given is fundamentally important. Thus, we can state a cooperative form of interaction not only in production conditions, but, for example, also when carrying out any asocial, illegal acts - joint robbery, theft, etc. Therefore, cooperation in socially negative activities is not necessarily the form that needs to be stimulated: on the contrary, activities that are conflicting in conditions of asocial activities can be assessed positively. Cooperation and competition are only forms of “psychological pattern” of interaction, while the content in both cases is determined by a broader system of activity, which includes cooperation or competition. Therefore, when studying both cooperative and competitive forms of interaction, it is unacceptable to consider both of them outside the general context of activity.

Experimental schemes for recording interactions

The identification of two polar types of interaction plays a certain positive role in the analysis of the interactive side of communication. However, only such a dichotomous consideration of types of interaction turns out to be insufficient for experimental practice. Therefore, in social psychology there is a search of a different kind - to identify “smaller” types of interaction that could be used in an experiment as a unit of observation. One of the most famous attempts of this kind belongs to R. Bales, who developed a scheme that makes it possible to register various types of interaction in a group according to a single plan. Bales recorded, using the observation method, those real manifestations of interactions that could be seen in a group of children performing some joint activity. The initial list of such types of interactions turned out to be very extensive (there were about 82 items) and therefore was unsuitable for constructing an experiment. Bales categorized the observed patterns of interaction, suggesting that, in principle, each group activity can be described using four categories in which its manifestations are recorded: the domain of positive emotions, the domain of negative emotions, the domain of problem solving, and the domain of posing these problems. Then all recorded types of interactions were classified into four headings:

Area 1) solidarity

positive 2) stress relief

emotions 3) agreement

Area 4) offer, instruction

decisions 5) opinion

problems 6) orientation of others

Area 7) request for information

productions 8) please express your opinion

problems 9) request for guidance

Area 10) negative disagreement

11) creating tension

emotions 12) demonstration of antagonism

The resulting 12 types of interaction were left by Bales, on the one hand, as the minimum that is necessary to take into account all possible types of interaction; on the other hand, as the maximum that is permissible in the experiment.

Bales's scheme has become quite widespread, despite a number of significant criticisms made against it. The most elementary objection is that no logical justification for the existence of exactly twelve possible species is given, as well as the definition of exactly four (and not three, five, etc.) categories. A natural question arises: why exactly these twelve characteristics exhaust all possible types of interactions? The second objection concerns the fact that in the proposed list of interactions there is no single basis on which they would be singled out: the list contains mixed up both purely communicative manifestations of individuals (for example, expressing an opinion) and their direct manifestations in “actions” (for example, pushing away another when performing some action, etc.). The main argument that prevents us from attaching too much importance to this scheme is that it completely omits the characteristic of the content of general group activity, i.e. only formal moments of interaction are captured.

Here we are again faced with an acute methodological question: can, in principle, the methodology of socio-psychological research capture the substantive side of activity?

Traditional approaches assume a negative answer. Moreover, in a certain sense this inability is considered as a distinctive feature of social psychology, i.e. included in the definition of the subject of this discipline, which, according to this point of view, should only investigate forms interactions, answer the question “How?”, but not the question “What?” done together. Separation from the content of activity receives its legalization here. All methods built on the basis of such starting positions will inevitably appeal only to the formal aspect of interactions. In the absence of other methods, within certain limits, they can naturally be used, but we must remember that they all provide data only regarding one component of the interaction - its form.

The difficulty of fixing the meaningful side of interaction in an experiment has given rise in the history of social psychology to a tendency to simplify the situation of analysis and turn primarily to the study of interaction in dyad, those. to the interaction of only two people. This kind of research, carried out within the framework of the theory of “dyadic interaction,” is another example of how even the most thorough study of the form of a process gives little insight into its essence. When studying “dyadic interaction”, and it was studied in most detail by American social psychologists J., Thibault and G. Kelly, the “prisoner’s dilemma” proposed on the basis of mathematical game theory is used (Andreeva, Bogomolova, Petrovskaya, 1978). The experiment sets up a certain dyad: two prisoners who are in captivity and deprived of the opportunity to communicate. A matrix is ​​constructed that records possible strategies for their interaction during interrogation, when each will answer without knowing exactly how the other behaves. If we accept two extreme possibilities of their behavior: “confess” and “not confess,” then, in principle, everyone has exactly this alternative. However, the result will be different depending on which answer option each person chooses. Four situations can arise from combinations of different strategies of the “prisoners”: both confess; the first confesses, the second does not confess; the second confesses, but the first does not; Both don't confess. The matrix captures these four possible combinations. In this case, the winnings that will be obtained with various combinations of these strategies for each “player” are calculated. This winning is the “outcome” in each model of the gaming situation. The application in this case of some provisions of game theory creates a tempting prospect of not only describing, but also predicting the behavior of each participant in the interaction.

However, now there are numerous limitations that the application of this technique entails to the analysis of real situations of human interaction. First of all, as you know, game theory considers two types of games: zero-sum and non-zero-sum. The first case assumes that in such a game the gain of one is exactly equal to the loss of the other, i.e. a situation that is extremely rare in real interaction between even two participants.

As for non-zero-sum games, the analogues of which can be found much more in real manifestations of human interaction, their apparatus is much more complex and the degree of formalization is much less. It is no coincidence that their use in socio-psychological work is quite rare. The applied apparatus of zero-sum games leads to an extreme impoverishment of the specifics of socio-psychological interaction between people. In numerous interaction situations, when developing strategies for their behavior, people extremely rarely become like prisoners in a dilemma. Of course, this technique cannot be denied that in terms of formal analysis of interaction strategies, it provides certain material; in any case, it allows us to state various ways of constructing such strategies. This explains the possibility of using the technique in some special studies.

Interaction approach in concept "symbolic interactionism"

The importance of the interactive side of communication is determined by the fact that in the history of social psychology a special direction has emerged that considers interaction as the starting point of any socio-psychological analysis. This direction is associated with the name of G. Mead, who gave the direction a name - “symbolic interactionism”. Clarifying the social nature of the human “I,” Mead, following W. James, came to the conclusion that interaction plays a decisive role in the formation of this “I.” Mead also used C. Cooley’s idea of ​​the so-called “mirror self,” where personality is understood as the sum of a person’s mental reactions to the opinions of others. However, Mead's solution to the problem is much more complicated. The formation of the “I” actually occurs in situations of interaction, but not because people are simple reactions to the opinions of others, but because in these situations a personality is formed, in them she realizes herself, not just looking at others, but acting together with them . The model for such situations is play, which Mead has in two forms: play and game. In the game, a person chooses a so-called significant other for himself and is guided by how he is perceived by this “significant other.” In accordance with this, a person develops an idea of ​​himself, of his “I”. Following W. James, Mead divides this “I” into two principles (here, for lack of adequate Russian terms, we retain their English name), “I” and “me”. “I” is the impulsive creative side of the “I”, a direct response to the demands of the situation; “me” is a reflection of “I”, a kind of norm that controls the actions of “I” on behalf of others, this is the individual’s assimilation of the relationships that develop in a situation of interaction and which require conformity with them. Constant reflection of “I” with the help of “te” is necessary for a mature personality, because it is precisely this that contributes to the individual’s adequate perception of himself and his own actions.

Thus, the central idea of ​​the interactionist concept is that personality is formed in interaction with other individuals, and the mechanism of this process is the establishment of control over the actions of the individual by those ideas about him that are formed by others. Despite the importance of posing such a problem, Mead's theory contains significant flaws. The main ones are two. First, this concept places disproportionate emphasis on the role characters. The entire outline of interaction outlined above is determined by a system of symbols, i.e. Human behavior in interaction situations is ultimately determined by the symbolic interpretation of these situations. A person appears as a creature living in a world of symbols, included in iconic situations. And although to a certain extent one can agree with this statement, since to a certain extent society really regulates the actions of individuals with the help of symbols, Mead’s excessive categoricalness leads to the fact that the entire totality of social relations, culture - everything comes down only to symbols. This leads to the second important miscalculation of the concept of symbolic interactionism - the interactive aspect of communication here is again divorced from the content of the activity, as a result of which all the richness of the macro social relations personality is essentially ignored. The only “representative” of social relations remains only relations of direct interaction. Since the symbol remains the “last” social determinant of interaction, only a description of the given field of interactions is sufficient for analysis without involving the broad social connections within which this act of interaction takes place. There is a well-known “closure” of interaction to a given group. Of course, this aspect of analysis is possible - and even tempting for social psychology, but it is clearly insufficient.

Nevertheless, symbolic interactionism, more acutely than many other theoretical orientations of social psychology, raised the question of the social determinants of interaction and its role in the formation of personality. The weakness of the concept is that it essentially does not distinguish between two sides in communication, such as the exchange of information and the organization of joint activities. It is no coincidence that many adherents of this school use the concepts of “communication” and “interaction” as synonyms (see: Shibutani, 1961). In addition, Mead's concept again stops at the fact that any forms, aspects, functions of communication can only be understood in the context of the real activity during which they arise. If this connection of communication (or any aspect of it) with activity is severed, the consequence is an immediate separation of the consideration of all these processes from the broad social background against which they occur, i.e. refusal to study the content side of communication.

Interaction as an organization of joint activities

The only condition under which this meaningful moment can be captured is to consider interaction as a form of organization of some specific human activity. The general psychological theory of activity, accepted in Russian psychological science, also sets in this case some principles for socio-psychological research. Just as in individual activity its goal is revealed not at the level of individual actions, but only at the level of activity as such, in social psychology the meaning of interactions is revealed only if they are included in some common activity.

The specific content of various forms of joint activity is a certain ratio of individual “contributions” made by the participants. Thus, one of the schemes suggests distinguishing three possible forms, or models: 1) when each participant does his part general work independently of others - “joint-individual activity” (for example, some production teams, where each member has his own task); 2) when a common task is performed sequentially by each participant - “joint-sequential activity” (example - conveyor); 3) when there is simultaneous interaction of each participant with all the others - “joint-interacting activity” (for example, sports teams, scientific teams or design bureaus) (Umansky, 1980, p. 131). The psychological pattern of interaction in each of these models is unique, and it is up to experimental research to establish it in each specific case.

However, the task of studying interaction does not end there. Just as in the case of analyzing the communicative side of communication, a relationship was established between the nature of communication and the relationships existing between partners, here it is also necessary to trace how this or that interaction system is associated with the existing ones between the participants of the interaction relationships.

Social relations are “given” in interaction through that real social activity of which interaction is a part (or a form of organization of which). Interpersonal relationships are also “given” in interaction: they determine how type interaction that arises under given specific conditions (whether it be cooperation or competition), and degree of expression of this type (whether it will be a more successful or less successful collaboration).

The emotional basis inherent in the system of interpersonal relationships, which gives rise to different assessments, orientations, and attitudes of partners, “colors” the interaction in a certain way (Obozov, 1979). But at the same time, such an emotional (positive or negative) coloring of interaction cannot completely determine the fact of its presence or absence: even in conditions of “bad” interpersonal relationships in groups defined by certain social activities, interaction necessarily exists. The extent to which it is determined by interpersonal relationships and, conversely, the extent to which it is “subordinated” to the activities performed by the group, depends both on the level of development of the given group and on the system of social relations in which this group exists. Therefore, consideration of interaction taken out of the context of activity is meaningless. The motivation of the participants in interaction in each specific act cannot be identified precisely because it is generated by a broader system of activity in the conditions of which it unfolds.

Since interactions are “identical” in the form of their manifestation, in the history of social sciences there has already been an attempt to build an entire system of social knowledge, relying only on an analysis of the form of interaction (the so-called formal sociology of G. Simmel). A convincing example of the inadequacy of only a formal analysis of interaction is provided by the tradition associated with the study of “altruism.” Altruism refers to such an area of ​​manifestations of the human personality that acquire meaning only in a system of certain social activities. The question here rests on the content of moral categories, and it cannot be understood only from “nearby” manifestations of interaction. Is it altruistic behavior of a person who helps a malicious criminal escape? Only a broader social context allows us to answer this question.

When analyzing interaction, the fact that each participant is aware of his contribution to the overall activity is also important (Kharash, 1977, p. 29): it is this awareness that helps him adjust his strategy. Only under this condition can the psychological mechanism of interaction that arises on the basis of mutual understanding between its participants be revealed. Obviously, the success of the strategy and tactics of joint actions depends on the extent to which partners understand each other, so that their “exchange” is possible. Moreover, if strategy interaction is determined by the nature of those social relations that are represented by the social activity performed, then tactics interaction is determined by the direct idea of ​​the partner.

Thus, to understand the mechanism of interaction, it is necessary to find out how the intentions, motives, and attitudes of one individual “overlay” the idea of ​​a partner, and how both are manifested in making a joint decision. In other words, further analysis of the problem of communication requires a more detailed consideration of the question of how the image of a communication partner is formed, on the accuracy of which the success of joint activities depends.

This formulation of the question requires a transition to the consideration of the third side of communication, which we conventionally called perceptual.

COMMUNICATION AS PEOPLE'S PERCEPTION OF EACH OTHER

(perceptual side of communication)

Concept of social perception

As has already been established, in the process of communication there must be mutual understanding between the participants of this

process. Mutual understanding itself can be interpreted here in different ways: either as an understanding of the goals, motives, attitudes of the interaction partner, or as not only understanding, but also Adoption, separation of these goals, motives, attitudes. However, in both cases, the fact of how the communication partner is perceived is of great importance, in other words, the process of perception by one person of another acts as an obligatory component of communication and can conditionally be called the perceptual side of communication.

Before revealing the substantive characteristics of this side of communication, it is necessary to clarify the terms used here. Quite often, the perception of a person by a person is referred to as “social perception”. This concept is not used very precisely in this case. The term “social perception” was first introduced by J. Bruner in 1947 during the development of the so-called new look(New Look) on perception. Initially, social perception was understood as the social determination of perceptual processes. Later, researchers, in particular in social psychology, gave the concept a slightly different meaning: social perception began to be called the process of perceiving so-called social objects, which meant other people, social groups, large social communities. It is in this usage that the term has become established in the socio-psychological literature. Therefore, the perception of a person by a person belongs, of course, to the field of social perception, but does not exhaust it.

If we imagine the processes of social perception in in full, then a very complex and branched scheme is obtained (Fig. 9). It includes various options not only for the object, but also for the subject of perception. When the subject of perception is an individual (I), then he can perceive another individual belonging to “his” group (1); another individual belonging to an “out-group” (2); your own group (3); “foreign” group (4). Even if we don’t include large ones in the list

Rice. 9. Variants of social-perceptual processes

social communities, which in principle can be perceived in the same way, then in this case four different processes are obtained, each of which has its own specific characteristics.

The situation is even more complicated in the case when not only an individual, but also a group is interpreted as the subject of perception (G). Then one should also add to the compiled list of processes of social perception: the group’s perception of its own member (5); the group's perception of a representative of another group (6); the group’s perception of itself (7), and finally, the group’s perception as a whole of another group (8). Although this second series is not traditional, in different terminology almost each of the “cases” identified here is studied in social psychology. Not all of them are related to the problem of mutual understanding of communication partners (Andreeva, 1981, p. 30).

In order to more accurately indicate what we are talking about in terms of interest to us, it is advisable to talk not about social perception in general, but about interpersonal perception, or interpersonal perception (or - as an option - about the perception of a person by a person). It is these processes that are directly included in communication in the sense in which it is considered here. In other words, in this context we're talking about only about positions 1) and 2) of the proposed scheme. But besides this, there is a need for one more comment. The perception of social objects has so many specific features that the very use of the word “perception” seems not entirely accurate here. In any case, a number of phenomena that take place during the formation of an idea about another person do not fit into the traditional description of the perceptual process, as it is given in general psychology. Therefore, in the socio-psychological literature the search for the most accurate concept to characterize the described process is still ongoing. The main goal of this search is to include some other cognitive processes in the process of perceiving another person more fully. In this case, many researchers prefer to turn to the French expression “connaissance d"autrui,” which means not so much “perception of another” as “knowledge of another.” In Russian literature, the expression “cognition” is also very often used as a synonym for “perception of another person.” another person” (Bodalev, 1982, p. 5).

This broader understanding of the term is due to the specific features of the perception of another person, which include the perception of not only the physical characteristics of the object, but also its behavioral characteristics, the formation of ideas about his intentions, thoughts, abilities, emotions, attitudes, etc. In addition, the content of this same concept includes the formation of an idea of ​​the relationships that connect the subject and object of perception. This is what gives particularly great importance to a number of additional factors that do not play such a significant role in the perception of physical objects. So, for example, such a characteristic feature as selectivity (selectivity) of perception manifests itself here in a very unique way, since the significance of the goals of the cognizing subject, his past experience, etc. are included in the selection process. The fact that new impressions of a perceptual object are categorized on the basis of similarity to previous impressions gives rise to stereotyping. Although all these phenomena have been experimentally recorded in the perception of physical objects, their significance in the field of people’s perception of each other increases enormously.

Another approach to problems of perception, which has also been used in social psychological research on interpersonal perception, is associated with the school of the so-called transactional psychology, individual provisions of which have already been discussed in the previous chapter. Particularly emphasized here is the idea that the active participation of the subject of perception in the transaction involves taking into account the role of expectations, desires, intentions, and past experience of the subject as specific determinants of the perceptual situation, which seems especially important when knowledge of another person is considered as the basis not only for understanding the partner, but to establish coordinated actions with him, a special kind of relationship.

All of the above means that the term “social perception”, or, in a narrower sense of the word, “interpersonal perception”, “perception of another person” is used in the literature in a somewhat free, even metaphorical sense, although recent research in the general psychology of perception is characterized by a well-known the convergence of perception and other cognitive processes. In the most general terms, we can say that perceiving another person means perceiving his external signs, correlating them with the personal characteristics of the perceived individual and interpreting his actions on this basis.

Mechanisms of mutual understanding in the process of communication

Since a person always enters into communication as a person, he is perceived by another person - a communication partner - also as a person. Based on the external side of behavior, we seem to “read” another person, decipher the meaning of his external data (Rubinstein, 1960, p. 180). The impressions that arise in this case play an important regulatory role in the communication process. Firstly, because by cognizing another, the cognizing individual himself is formed. Secondly, because the success of organizing coordinated actions with him depends on the degree of accuracy of “reading” another person.

The idea of ​​another person is closely related to the level of one’s own self-awareness. This connection is twofold: on the one hand, the wealth of ideas about oneself determines the richness of ideas about another person, on the other hand, the more fully the other person is revealed (in more and deeper characteristics), the more complete the idea of ​​oneself becomes . This question was once posed at a philosophical level by Marx when he wrote: “Man first looks, as in a mirror, into another person. Only by treating the man Paul as one like himself, does the man Peter begin to treat himself as a man.” Essentially the same idea, at the level of psychological analysis, is found in L. S. Vygotsky:

“A personality becomes for itself what it is in itself, through what it represents for others” (Vygotsky, I960, p. 196). As we have seen, Mead also expressed a similar idea when he introduced the image of the “generalized other” into his analysis of interaction. However, if for Mead this image characterized only the situation of direct interaction, then in reality, according to B.F. Porshnev, “Peter learns his nature through Paul only due to the fact that behind Paul there is a society, a huge number of people connected into a whole by a complex system of relationships” (Porshnev, 1968, p. 79).

If we apply this reasoning to a specific situation of communication, then we can say that the idea of ​​oneself through the idea of ​​another is necessarily formed provided that this “other” is not given in the abstract, but within the framework of a fairly broad social activity that includes interaction with him. An individual “correlates” himself with another not in general, but primarily by refracting this correlation in the development of joint decisions. In the course of knowing another person, several processes are simultaneously carried out: an emotional assessment of this other, and an attempt to understand the structure of his actions, and a strategy for changing his behavior based on this, and building a strategy for one’s own behavior.

However, at least two people are involved in these processes, and each of them is an active subject. Consequently, comparison of oneself with another is carried out from two sides:

each partner likens himself to the other. This means that when building an interaction strategy, everyone has to take into account not only the needs, motives, and attitudes of the other, but also how this other understands my needs, motives, and attitudes. All this leads to the fact that the analysis of awareness of oneself through another includes two sides: identification And reflection. Each of these concepts requires special discussion,

Term "identification", literally meaning identifying oneself with another, expresses the established empirical fact that one of the simplest ways of understanding another person is to liken oneself to him. This, of course, is not the only way, but in real interaction situations people often use this technique when an assumption about the partner’s internal state is based on an attempt to put themselves in his place. In this regard, identification acts as one of the mechanisms of cognition and understanding of another person.

There are many experimental studies of the process of identification and elucidation of its role in the communication process. In particular, a close connection has been established between identification and another phenomenon similar in content - empathy.

Descriptively, empathy is also defined as a special way of understanding another person. Only here we do not mean a rational understanding of the problems of another person, but rather the desire to respond emotionally to his problems. Empathy is opposed to understanding in the strict sense of the word; the term is used here only metaphorically: empathy is affective “understanding.” Its emotional nature is manifested precisely in the fact that the situation of another person, a communication partner, is not so much “thought through” as “felt.” The mechanism of empathy is in certain respects similar to the mechanism of identification: both there and here there is the ability to put oneself in the place of another, to look at things from his point of view. However, seeing things from someone else's point of view does not necessarily mean identifying with that person. If I identify myself with someone, this means that I build my behavior the way this “other” builds it. If I show empathy for him, I simply take into account his line of behavior (I treat it sympathetically), but I can build my own in a completely different way. In both cases, there will be “taking into account” the behavior of the other person, but the result of our joint actions will be different: it is one thing to understand a communication partner, taking his position, acting from it, another thing is to understand him, taking into account his point of view, even sympathizing with it,” but acting in his own way.

However, both cases require the solution of one more question: how will the “other” be, i.e. communication partner, understand me. Our interaction will depend on this. In other words, the process of understanding each other is complicated by the phenomenon reflections. In contrast to the philosophical use of the term, in social psychology reflection is understood as the awareness by the acting individual of how he is perceived by his communication partner. This is no longer just knowledge or understanding of the other, but knowledge of how the other understands me, a kind of double process of mirror reflections of each other, “deep, consistent mutual reflection, the content of which is the reproduction of the inner world of the interaction partner, and in this inner world, in turn, the inner world of the first researcher is reflected” (Kohn, 1978, p. 110).

The tradition of studying reflection in social psychology is quite old. Even at the end of the last century, J. Holmes, describing the situation of dyadic communication between certain John and Henry, argued that in reality in this situation at least six people are given: John, as he really is (for Holmes, literally “as the Lord God created him "); John as he sees himself; John as Henry sees him. Accordingly, there are three “positions” on Henry’s part. Subsequently, T. Newcomb and C. Cooley complicated the situation to eight persons, adding: John, as he sees his image in Henry’s mind, and, accordingly, the same for Henry. In principle, of course, one can assume as many such mutual reflections as desired, but in practice experimental studies are usually limited to fixing two stages of this process. G. Gibsch and M. Vorverg reproduce the proposed models of reflection in general form. They designate the participants in the interaction process as A and B. Then the general model of the formation of a reflexive structure in a situation of dyadic interaction can be presented as follows (Gibsch, Forverg, 1972).

There are two partners A and B. Communication is established between them

A ٱ B and reverse information about B’s reaction to A, BA. In addition, A and B have an idea of ​​themselves, A" and B", as well as an idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe "other"; A has an idea of ​​B - B" and B has an idea of ​​A - A". Interaction in the communicative process is carried out like this: A speaks as A, addressing B." B reacts as B" to A". How close all this turns out to be to the real A and B still needs to be investigated, because neither A nor B knows that there are A's, B's, A's and B's that do not coincide with objective reality, while between A and A' and there are no communication channels between B and B. It is clear that the success of communication will be maximum with a minimum gap in the lines

A - A" - A" and B - B" - B"

The significance of this coincidence can easily be illustrated by the interaction of a speaker with an audience. If the speaker (A) has the wrong idea about himself (A"), about the listeners (B") and, most importantly, about how the listeners perceive him (A"), then his mutual understanding with the audience will be excluded and, therefore, interaction too Bringing the entire complex of these ideas closer to each other is a complex process that requires special efforts.One of the means here is a type of socio-psychological training aimed at increasing perceptual competence.

The construction of models of the type considered above plays an important role. A number of studies attempt to analyze the reflexive structures of a group united by a single joint activity. Then the very scheme of emerging reflections relates not only to dyadic interaction, but to the general activity of the group and the interpersonal relationships mediated by it (Danilin, 1977).

The considered mechanisms of mutual understanding allow us to move on to the analysis of the process of people learning about each other as a whole. All research in this area can be divided into two large classes: 1) study content interpersonal perception (characteristics of the subject and object of perception, their properties, etc.); 2) study itself process interpersonal perception (analysis of its mechanisms, accompanying effects).

The content of interpersonal perception depends on the characteristics of both the subject and the object of perception because they are included in a certain interaction, which has two sides: evaluating each other and changing some of each other’s characteristics due to the very fact of their presence. In the first case, the interaction can be stated by the fact that each of the participants, assessing the other, strives to build a certain system of interpretation of his behavior, in particular its reasons. Interpretation the behavior of another person can be based on knowledge of the reasons for this behavior, and then this is the task of scientific psychology. But in everyday life People quite often do not know the real reasons for another person’s behavior or do not know them enough. Then, in conditions of information deficiency, they begin attribute communicate to each other both the reasons for behavior and sometimes the patterns of behavior themselves or some more general characteristics. Attribution is carried out either on the basis of the similarity of the behavior of the perceived person with some other model that existed in the past experience of the subject of perception, or on the basis of an analysis of one’s own motives assumed in a similar situation (in this case, the identification mechanism may operate). But one way or another, a whole system of ways of such attribution arises (attribution).

A special branch of social psychology called causal attribution, analyzes precisely these processes (G. Kelly, E. Jones, K. Davis, D. Kennose, R. Nisbet, L. Strickland). Research on causal attribution is aimed at studying the attempts of the “ordinary person,” the “man on the street,” to understand the cause and effect of those events in which he is a witness or participant. This also includes the interpretation of one’s own and others’ behavior, which is an integral part of interpersonal perception. If at first the study of attribution was only about attributing reasons for the behavior of another person, then later methods of attributing a wider class of characteristics began to be studied: intentions, feelings, personality traits. The phenomenon of attribution itself arises when a person has a deficit of information about another person: it must be replaced by the process of attribution.

The measure and degree of attribution in the process of interpersonal perception depends on two indicators: the degree of uniqueness or typicality of the action and the degree of its social “desirability” or “undesirability.” In the first case, we mean the fact that typical behavior is behavior prescribed by role models, and therefore it is easier to interpret unambiguously. On the contrary, unique behavior allows for many different interpretations and, therefore, gives scope for attribution of its causes and characteristics. The same is true in the second case: socially “desirable” is understood as behavior that corresponds to social and cultural norms and is therefore relatively easily and unambiguously explained. When such norms are violated (socially “undesirable” behavior), the range of possible explanations expands. This conclusion is close to the reasoning of S.L. Rubinstein about the “collapsed” process of cognition of another person under normal conditions and its “expandedness” in cases of deviation from accepted models.

Other works have shown that the nature of attributions also depends on whether the subject of perception is himself a participant in an event or an observer of it. In these two different cases it is elected different type attribution. G. Kelly identified three such types: personal attribution (when the reason is attributed personally to the person committing the act), objective attribution (when the cause is attributed to the object to which the action is directed) and circumstantial attribution (when the cause of what is happening is attributed to circumstances) (Kelly, 1984, p. 129). It was found that the observer more often uses personal attribution, and the participant is more inclined to explain what is happening by circumstances. This feature is clearly evident when attributing reasons for success and failure:

the participant in the action “blames” the failure primarily on the circumstances, while the observer “blames” the failure primarily on the performer himself (Andreeva, 1981, pp. 35-42). Of particular interest is also that part of attribution theories that analyzes the issue of attributing responsibility for any events, which also occurs when a person is perceived by a person (Muzdybaev, 1983).

Based on numerous experimental studies of attributional processes, it was concluded that they constitute the main content of interpersonal perception. And although this conclusion is not shared by all researchers (some believe that the attributional process and the process of interpersonal cognition cannot be completely identified), the importance of the discovery of the attribution phenomenon is obvious for a more in-depth understanding of the content of interpersonal perception.

Additional knowledge was also obtained that this process is determined by the characteristics of the subject of perception: some people tend to fix physical features to a greater extent in the process of interpersonal perception, and then the “sphere” of attribution is significantly reduced, others perceive predominantly the psychological characteristics of others, and in this case a special “space” for attribution opens up. The dependence of the attributed characteristics on the previous assessment of the objects of perception was also revealed. In one of the experiments, assessments of two groups of children given by the subject of perception were recorded. One group was made up of “favorite” children, and the other group was made up of “unloved” children. Although the “favorite” (in this case, more attractive) children made (intentional) errors in performing the task, and the “unfavorite” children performed it correctly, the perceiver attributed positive ratings to the “favorite” ones and negative ratings to the “unloved” ones.

This corresponds to the idea of ​​F. Heider, who deliberately introduced into social psychology the legitimacy of references to the “naive” psychology of the “man on the street”, i.e. based on common sense considerations. According to Heider, people generally tend to reason in this way: “a bad person has bad traits,” “a good person has good traits,” etc. Therefore, attribution of causes of behavior and characteristics is carried out according to the same model: “bad” people are always assigned bad actions, and “good” people are always assigned good actions.

True, along with this, theories of causal attribution pay attention to the idea of ​​contrasting ideas, when negative traits are attributed to a “bad” person, and the perceiver himself evaluates himself by contrast as a bearer of the most positive traits. All experimental studies of this kind have raised an extremely important question: general plan- question about the role installations in the process of perceiving a person by a person. This role is especially significant in the formation first impression of a stranger, which was revealed in the experiments of A.A. Bodalev (Bodalev, 1982). Two groups of students were shown a photograph of the same person. But first the first group was told that the man in the photograph shown was a hardened criminal, and the second group was told about the same person that he was a prominent scientist. After this, each group was asked to create a verbal portrait of the photographed person. In the first case, the corresponding characteristics were obtained: deep-set eyes indicated hidden anger, a prominent chin indicated the determination to “go to the end” in a crime, etc. Accordingly, in the second group, the same deep-set eyes spoke about the depth of thought, and a prominent chin - about willpower in overcoming difficulties on the path of knowledge, etc.

This kind of research tries to find an answer to the question about the role of the characteristics of the perceiver in the process of interpersonal perception: which characteristics are significant here, under what circumstances they appear, etc. Another series of experimental studies is devoted to the characteristics of the object of perception. As it turns out, the success or failure of interpersonal perception also largely depends on them. The individual psychological characteristics of different people are different, including in terms of more or less “revelation” of themselves for the perception of other people. At the level of common sense, these differences are recorded quite clearly (“he is secretive,” “he is on his own mind,” etc.). However, these common sense considerations can be of little help in establishing the causes of this phenomenon, and therefore in constructing a forecast for the success of interpersonal perception.

To ensure such a prediction of the situation of interpersonal perception, it is necessary to take into account the second area of ​​research, which is associated with the identification of various “effects” that arise when people perceive each other. Three such “effects” have been most studied: the halo effect (“halo effect”), the effect of novelty and primacy, as well as the effect, or phenomenon, of stereotyping.

Essence "halo effect" consists in the formation of a specific attitude towards the perceived through the directed attribution of certain qualities to him: information received about a certain person is categorized in a certain way, namely, superimposed on the image that has already been created in advance. This pre-existing image acts as a “halo” that prevents one from seeing the actual features and manifestations of the object of perception.

The halo effect manifests itself when forming a first impression of a person in that a general favorable impression leads to positive evaluations of unknown qualities of the perceived person and, conversely, a general unfavorable impression contributes to the predominance of negative evaluations. Experimental studies have found that the halo effect is most pronounced when the perceiver has minimal information about the object of perception, as well as when judgments concern moral qualities. This tendency to obscure certain characteristics and highlight others plays the role of a kind of halo in the person's perception of a person.

Closely related to this effect are the effects "primacy" And "novelty". Both of them concern the significance of a certain order of presentation of information about a person in order to form an idea about him. In one experiment, four different groups of students were presented with a stranger who was told: in the 1st group, that he was an extrovert; in the 2nd group that he is an introvert; in the 3rd group - first that he is an extrovert, and then that he is an introvert; in the 4th group - the same, but in reverse order. All four groups were asked to describe the stranger in terms of suggested personality traits. In the first two groups no problems with such a description arose. In the third and fourth groups, impressions of the stranger exactly corresponded to the order in which the information was presented: the one presented earlier prevailed. This effect is called the “primacy effect” and has been recorded in cases where a stranger is perceived. On the contrary, in situations of perception of a familiar person, the “novelty effect” operates, which consists in the fact that the latter, i.e. newer information turns out to be the most significant.

In a broader sense, all these effects can be considered as manifestations of a special process that accompanies the perception of a person by a person, namely the process stereotyping. The term “social stereotype” was first introduced by W. Lippmann in 1922, and for him this term contained a negative connotation associated with the falsity and inaccuracy of the ideas used by propaganda. In the broader sense of the word, a stereotype is a certain stable image of a phenomenon or person, which is used as a well-known “abbreviation” when interacting with this phenomenon. Stereotypes in communication, which arise, in particular, when people get to know each other, have both a specific origin and a specific meaning. As a rule, a stereotype arises on the basis of fairly limited past experience, as a result of the desire to draw conclusions on the basis of limited information. Very often, a stereotype arises regarding a person’s group affiliation, for example, his belonging to a certain profession. Then the pronounced professional traits of representatives of this profession encountered in the past are considered as traits inherent in every representative of this profession (“all teachers are edifying,” “all accountants are pedants,” etc.). Here there is a tendency to “extract meaning” from previous experience, to draw conclusions based on similarities with this previous experience, without being embarrassed by its limitations.

Stereotyping in the process of people getting to know each other can lead to two different consequences. On the one hand, to a certain simplification of the process of knowing another person; in this case, the stereotype does not necessarily carry an evaluative load: in the perception of another person there is no “shift” towards his emotional acceptance or non-acceptance. What remains is simply a simplified approach, which, although it does not contribute to the accuracy of constructing the image of another, often forces it to be replaced with a cliche, is nevertheless in some sense necessary, because it helps to shorten the process of cognition. In the second case, stereotyping leads to prejudice. If a judgment is based on limited past experience, and this experience was negative, any new perception of a representative of the same group is colored by hostility. The emergence of such prejudices has been documented in numerous experimental studies, but it is natural that they manifest themselves especially negatively not in laboratory conditions, but in real life, when they can cause serious harm not only to people’s communication with each other, but also to their relationships. Particularly common are ethnic stereotypes, when, based on limited information about individual representatives of any ethnic groups, preconceived conclusions are drawn regarding the entire group (Stephanenko, 1987, pp. 249-250).

All of the above allows us to conclude that the extremely complex nature of the process of interpersonal perception makes it necessary to study with particular care the problem of the accuracy of human perception by a person.

3.3. Communication as the exchange of information (communicative side of communication)

When they talk about communication in the narrow sense of the word, they first of all mean the fact that in the course of joint activities people exchange with each other various ideas, ideas, interests, moods, feelings, attitudes, etc. All this can be considered as information, and then The communication process itself can be understood as a process of information exchange.

From here one can take the next tempting step and interpret the entire process of human communication in terms of information theory, which is what is done in a number of systems of socio-psychological knowledge. However, this approach cannot be considered as methodologically correct, because it omits some of the most important characteristics of human communication, which is not limited to the process of transmitting information.

Firstly, communication cannot be considered only as the sending of information by some transmitting system or as its reception by another system because, unlike the simple “movement of information” between two devices, here we are dealing with the relationship of two individuals, each of whom is active subject: mutual informing of them presupposes the establishment of joint activities. The essence of the communication process is not just mutual information, but joint comprehension and understanding of the subject. Therefore, in every communicative process, activity, communication and cognition are actually given in unity.

Secondly, the nature of the exchange of information between people, and not cybernetic devices, is determined by the fact that through a system of signs partners can influence each other. The communicative influence that arises here is nothing more than the psychological influence of one communicator on another with the aim of changing his behavior. The effectiveness of communication is measured precisely by how successful this impact is.

Thirdly, communicative influence as a result of information exchange is possible only when the person sending the information (communicator) and the person receiving it (recipient) have a single or similar system of codification and decodification. In everyday language, this rule is expressed in the words: “everyone must speak the same language.” But the whole point is that, even knowing the meanings of the same words, people can understand them differently: social, political, age characteristics can be the reason for this. Also L.S. Vygotsky noted that thought is never equal to the direct meaning of words.

Finally, fourthly, in the conditions of human communication, completely specific communication barriers can arise. On the one hand, such barriers may arise due to the fact that there is a lack of understanding of the communication situation, caused not simply by the different language spoken by the participants in the communication process, but by deeper differences that exist between partners. These can be social, political, religious, professional differences, which not only give rise to different interpretations of the same concepts used in the process of communication, but also generally different attitudes, worldviews, and worldviews.

On the other hand, barriers to communication may also be of a more purely psychological nature. They can arise either as a result of the individual psychological characteristics of the communicants (for example, excessive shyness of one of them, the secrecy of another, the presence of a trait in someone called “lack of communication”), or due to the special kind of psychological relationships that have developed between the communicants: hostility towards each other friend, mistrust, etc.

The mentioned features of human communication do not allowconsider it only in terms of information theory.

The dissemination of information in society occurs through a kind of filter of “trust” and “mistrust”. This filter acts in such a way that absolutely true information may be rejected, while false information may be accepted. Psychologically, it is extremely important to find out under what circumstances a particular channel of information can be blocked by this filter, as well as to identify means that help the acceptance of information and weaken the effects of filters. The combination of these means is called fascination. An example of fascination could be the musical accompaniment of speech, its spatial or color accompaniment.

The information itself coming from the communicator can be of two types: motivating and stating. Incentive information is expressed in an order, advice, or request.

Ascertaining information appears in the form of a message; it takes place in various educational systems and does not imply a direct change in behavior, although it indirectly contributes to this.

Communication means. Speech

The transmission of any information is possible only through signs, or rather sign systems. There are several sign systems that are used in the communication process; accordingly, a classification of communication processes can be constructed. In a rough division, a distinction is made between verbal and nonverbal communications that use different sign systems.

Verbal communication uses human speech, natural sound language, as a sign system, i.e. a system of phonetic signs that includes two principles: lexical and syntactic. Speech is the most universal means of communication, since when transmitting information through speech, the meaning of the message is least lost.

With the help of speech, information is encoded and decoded: the communicator encodes while speaking, and the recipient decodes this information while listening.

For a communicator, the meaning of information precedes the encoding process (utterance), since the “speaker” first has a certain idea and then embodies it in a system of signs. For the “listener,” the meaning of the received message is revealed simultaneously with decoding. In this case, the significance of the situation of joint activity is especially clearly manifested: its awareness is included in the decoding process itself; revealing the meaning of the message is unthinkable outside of this situation.

Dialogue, or dialogic speech, as a specific type of “conversation” is a consistent change of communicative roles, during which the meaning of a speech message is revealed, i.e., the phenomenon that was designated as “enrichment, development of information” occurs.

In social psychology, there is a large number of experimental studies that elucidate the conditions and methods for increasing the effect of speech influence; both the forms of various communication barriers and ways to overcome them have been studied in sufficient detail. Thus, an expression of resistance to accepting information (and therefore the influence exerted) can be a disconnection of the listener’s attention, a deliberate reduction in one’s perception of the authority of the communicator, the same - an intentional or unintentional “misunderstanding” of the message: either due to the specific phonetics of the speaker, or due to the peculiarities of its style or the logic of text construction. Accordingly, every speaker must have the ability to re-engage the listener’s attention, to attract him with something, to confirm his authority in the same way, to improve the manner of presenting the material, etc. A set of certain measures aimed at increasing the effectiveness of speech influence is called “persuasive communication”, on the basis of which the so-called experimental rhetoric is developed - the art of persuasion through speech.

Thus, a number of studies are based on the model proposed by the American journalist G. Lasswell for studying the persuasive influence of the media and includes five elements.

Who? (transmits message) - Communicator

What? (transmitted) - Message (text)

How? (transfer in progress) - Channel

To whom? (message sent) - Audience

With what effect? - Efficiency

Likewise, ways to increase the impact of message text have been extensively researched. It is in this area that the content analysis technique is used, establishing certain proportions in the relationship between different parts of the text. Audience studies are of particular importance.

Despite the fact that speech is a universal means of communication, it acquires meaning only if it is included in the system of activity, and this inclusion is necessarily complemented by the use of other - non-speech - sign systems.

Nonverbal communication

Nonverbal communication includes the following main sign systems: 1) optical-kinetic, 2) para- and extralinguistic, 3) organization of space and time of the communicative process, 4) visual contact.

The combination of these means is designed to perform the following functions: supplementing speech, replacing speech, representing the emotional states of partners in the communication process.

The optical-kinetic system of signs includes gestures, facial expressions, and pantomime. In general, the optical-kinetic system appears as a more or less clearly perceived property of the general motor function of various parts of the body (hands, and then we have gestures; faces, and then we have facial expressions; postures, and then we have pantomimes).

The significance of the optical-kinetic system of signs in communication is so great that at present a special field of research has emerged - kinesics, which specifically deals with these problems. For example, in the studies of M. Argyll, the frequency and strength of gestures were studied in different cultures (within one hour, Finns gestured 1 time, Italians - 80, French - 20, Mexicans - 180).

Paralinguistic and extralinguistic sign systems are also “additives” to verbal communication. The paralinguistic system is a vocalization system, i.e. voice quality, range, tonality. Extralinguistic system - the inclusion in speech of pauses, other inclusions, for example, coughing, crying, laughter, and finally, the very tempo of speech. All these additions increase semantically significant information, but not through additional speech inclusions, but by “near-speech” techniques.

The organization of space and time of the communicative process also acts as a special sign system and carries a semantic load as a component of the communicative situation. For example, placing partners facing each other promotes contact and symbolizes attention to the speaker, while shouting in the back can also have a certain negative meaning. The advantage of certain spatial forms of organizing communication has been experimentally proven both for two partners in the communication process and in mass audiences.

Proxemics, as a special field that deals with the norms of spatial and temporal organization of communication, currently has a large amount of experimental material. The founder of proxemics, E. Hall, who calls proxemics “spatial psychology,” studied the first forms of spatial organization of communication in animals. In the case of human communication, a special methodology has been proposed for assessing the intimacy of communication based on studying the organization of its space. Thus, Hall recorded, for example, the norms for a person’s approach to a communication partner, characteristic of American culture: intimate distance (0-45 cm); personal distance (45-120 cm), social distance (120-400 cm); public distance (400-750 cm).

A number of studies in this area are associated with the study of specific sets of spatial and temporal constants of communicative situations. These more or less clearly defined sets are called chronotopes. (This term was originally introduced by A. A. Ukhtomsky and later used by M. M. Bakhtin). For example, such chronotopes are described as the chronotope of a “hospital ward”, “carriage companion”, etc. The specificity of the communication situation sometimes creates unexpected influence effects here: for example, not always explainable frankness towards the first person you meet, if this is a “carriage companion”. Studies of chronotopes have not become particularly widespread, however, they could significantly contribute to identifying the mechanisms of communicative influence.

The next specific sign system used in the communicative process is “eye contact”, which takes place in visual communication. Research in this area is closely related to general psychological research in the field of visual perception - eye movements. In socio-psychological studies, the frequency of exchange of glances, their duration, changes in the statics and dynamics of the gaze, avoidance of it, etc. are studied.

For all four systems of nonverbal communication, one common methodological question arises. Each of them uses its own sign system, which can be considered as a specific code. As noted above, all information must be encoded, and in such a way that the system of codification and decodification is known to all participants in the communication process. But if in the case of speech this codification system is more or less generally known, then in non-verbal communication it is important in each case to determine what can be considered a code here, and, most importantly, how to ensure that the other communication partner owns this same code. To build a code that is understandable to everyone, it is necessary to identify some units within each sign system, by analogy with units in the speech system, but it is precisely the identification of such units in non-verbal systems that turns out to be the main difficulty. It cannot be said that this problem has been completely solved today. However, various attempts to solve it are being made.

Thus, an analysis of all nonverbal communication systems shows that they undoubtedly play a large auxiliary (and sometimes independent) role in the communication process. Having the ability not only to strengthen or weaken verbal impact, all nonverbal communication systems help to identify such an essential parameter of the communicative process as the intentions of its participants.

§ 58. COMMUNICATION OF PEOPLE

Communication is a form of people living together. The social nature of man is primarily manifested in the fact that prerequisite his existence is life in society. Life in human society involves constant contact with other people - communication. Communication is a form of interaction between people, the act of mutual exchange of information and emotional contact. Communication can take place in formal or free form.

Communication - the process of establishing and developing contacts between people, generated by the needs of joint activities and including the exchange of information, the development of a unified interaction strategy, perception and understanding of another person.This is a complex, multifaceted process in the field of socio-psychological relations. In the process of communication, the degree of understanding and spiritual mutual influence of people is revealed.

We define the concept of communication as follows:

a means of identifying a person, bringing people closer (or further apart);

- a condition for satisfying the organic and spiritual needs of people;

- one of the forms of human life;

- a means of enhancing people's mental activity;

- means of education.

Relationships between people are not limited to meetings and conversations between two or more people. Achievements of modern scientific and technological progress allow people to communicate not only with colleagues in the field professional activity or with loved ones and acquaintances in everyday life, but also to build multilateral, multi-stage relationships with tens, thousands, millions of people. These circumstances contribute to the formation of norms of behavior that go far beyond the everyday and professional spheres, covering relationships with people in in public places, with elders, children, etc.

Sides of communication. There are three aspects to communication: communicative, interactive and perceptual.

The communicative side of communication(lat. communica- tio- “I make it common, I connect, I communicate”) is associated with the exchange of information, opinions, ideas between people in the process of cognitive and labor activity. In the course of communication, the specifics of the information process between people as active subjects are revealed, relationships are established between partners, their attitudes, goals are clarified, intentions, which leads not only to the movement of information, but also to the clarification and enrichment of the knowledge and information that people exchange.The means of the communicative process are, first of all, speech (as well as gestures, facial expressions, pantomime, etc.).

The interactive side of communication(English, interaction- “interaction, influence on each other”) is a construction overall strategy interactions. A person must be able to determine how a communication partner or group perceives him, and design his own actions accordingly. There are a number of types of interaction between people, primarily cooperation and competition.

Perceptual side of communication(lat. perceptio- “perception”) includes the process of perception, understanding and evaluation by people of social objects (other people, themselves, groups, etc.). If we are talking about the perceptual abilities of an artist performing on stage, then you need to understand that we are talking about its capabilities to satisfy the tastes of the audience sitting in the hall.

Types of communication. Communication happens different types. Depending on the driving forces(reasons) that force people to meet and exchange information, communication can be divided into formal and informal.

There are two spheres of human life. The first is the sphere of professional activity, the second is the domestic sphere. Communication between people occurs in these two areas. Accordingly, there are two types of communication. Communication in public places, in the course of professional activities, is called official. Official communication includes any meeting, exchange of information between colleagues, employees of an institution, between an employee and a boss, employees of various organizations in the course of completing a task, solving production problems. Official communication has its own established rules. These rules are called norms of official etiquette.

Outside the sphere of production activity, communication between people does not stop. At home, on the street, at the stadium, in the park, people communicate with relatives and friends. Such communication is called informal.

Forms of communication. The forms of information exchange between people are very diverse. Among them, the most common, both in official and informal communication, are direct and indirect forms.

Direct communicationcarried out in a direct, face-to-face meeting of people. Examples of direct communication could be meetings with colleagues at work, at home with loved ones, friends or with strangers under other circumstances - on the street, in transport, etc.

Direct communication is always two-way. This means that in such a meeting there are two parties entering into dialogue - two people or two groups of people.

With direct communication, people can establish relationships and exchange information with tens or hundreds of people. However, this is usually not enough. Therefore, whenever possible, people expand their circle of acquaintances through indirect communication.

TO indirect form refers to the communication of people using various non-personal means of exchanging information. These include means of disseminating information, means of communication (newspapers, magazines, television, radio, cinema, other audiovisual and printed media, telephone, letters, telegrams, etc.), scientific or works of art. Indirect communication can be two-way, one-way or indirect.

A telephone conversation or correspondence is usually two-way, but sometimes it is one-way (for example, when information received over the phone is recorded or there is no response to a letter). Communication through the media is in most cases one-way. Empathy for the hero of a work of art is an example of indirect communication.

Verbal and non-verbal communication. Depending on the use or non-use of linguistic means, communication can be verbal or non-verbal. The exchange of information between people using any language is verbal communication, and with the use of other non-linguistic signs, symbols, schemes - nonverbal communication.

The current level of development of society requires a high culture of communication, especially among those people who speak in front of large masses. Communication culture is one of important factors necessary to implement any task and obtain a satisfactory result in any matter. Modern scientists - sociologists, psychologists, philosophers are inclined to believe that for the effectiveness of any joint activity of people, three conditions are necessary. The first condition is money, the second is hierarchy, the third is the ability of people to establish cultural relations among themselves. The information explosion, the excess of scientific and political-journalistic information offered to modern man, forces us to consider relations between people not only as an inter-individual process, but as a socio-social phenomenon.

A person’s socio-psychological competence begins with the ability to behave in a public environment and strictly fulfill one’s duties to other members of society. Gestures, words, facial expressions, any nuances in the behavior of a person speaking in front of the masses do not go unnoticed by the people receiving the information and necessarily leave their mark on their consciousness.

English psychologists studying customs different nations, including communication norms, made interesting conclusions regarding the distance between interlocutors. Too close a distance between interlocutors creates a feeling of pressure, and too far away creates a feeling of indifference and indifference. No one, of course, measures this distance; it is established unconsciously, automatically.

Question and task

1.What do you understand by communication culture?

2. Characterize the inter-individual and social aspects of relationships between people.