Federal Agency for Education
Russian State Vocational Pedagogical University
Department of Theoretical and experimental psychology
TEST
by discipline
Psychological and pedagogical diagnostics
on the topic: “Diagnostics of behavioral characteristics in students’ conflict situations”
Completed by: Student of group ZVT-404s
Lebedev V.V.
I checked Zhdanov N.E.
Ekaterinburg 2006
Analysis of the characteristics of interpersonal conflicts in adolescents
The problem of conflicts in modern conditions is relevant and is in the focus of attention of many domestic and foreign scientists, theorists and practitioners, representatives of various scientific schools and directions. Applied aspects - the theory and practice of conflict resolution - are becoming increasingly important.
Conflicts and disputes between people, the search for effective ways to manage them, have as long a history as the very existence of humanity. Conflict is a complex phenomenon public life studied by many scientific disciplines: philosophy, sociology, ethics, pedagogy, social psychology, management psychology, labor psychology, medical psychology and etc.
Communicating and encountering mutual communication, adults - parents, teachers - and adolescents are constantly in a situation of mutual expectations. Adults expect from teenagers behavior that would minimize their mental and intellectual costs and allow them to control the situation and life of the child, and teenagers expect adults to understand their characteristics, help in the process of self-development, and accept teenagers into a circle of equals.
Conflicts among teenagers are a generally accepted fact and a reality of life.
Considering the difficult socio-economic situation in society, its instability and uncertainty about the future among the vast majority of the adult population, a heightened background of anxiety, unfortunately, is becoming the norm. Children, who are more sensitive to the atmosphere of their surroundings, cannot help but accept this as natural state.
Currently, aggressive behavior by teenagers is a problem that worries parents and teachers. The psychological atmosphere in a children's group often depends on children who are more aggressive towards others.
Features of interpersonal conflict are as follows:
· The confrontation between people occurs directly here and now, based on the clash of their personal motives. The rivals come face to face.
· The conflict reveals the entire spectrum of known causes: general and particular, objective and subjective.
· Interpersonal conflicts for subjects of conflict interaction are a unique place for testing characters, temperaments, manifestations of abilities, intelligence, will and other individual psychological characteristics.
· Interpersonal conflicts are characterized by high emotionality and coverage of almost all aspects of the relationship between the conflicting subjects.
· Such conflicts often affect the interests of others.
Depending on the mutual orientation of the subjects and interpersonal relationships(likes - antipathies) interpersonal conflicts can be classified as follows:
Types of interpersonal conflicts:
· Mutually positive;
· Mutually negative;
· One-sided positive-negative;
· One-sided-contradictory-positive;
· One-sided-contradictory-negative;
· Mutually contradictory;
·Indifferent.
It is also worth noting that school teachers often view conflicts as an undesirable phenomenon, as a natural disaster, as something uncontrollable and out of control. Based on the above, we can conclude that for a long time there were no common views on the nature and causes of conflicts; the very fact of the existence of contradictions and conflicts was not recognized; the very presence of conflicts was perceived as a negative phenomenon that interferes with normal functioning pedagogical system and the structural disturbances that cause it. However, if we talk about teenagers, then conflict is not always a negative phenomenon. From the point of view of the interest of this phenomenon for pedagogy, it can be assumed that students prone to competition may be more easily motivated to learn in a competitive situation, while students prone to cooperation can be more easily motivated in team learning methods.
The purpose of the research in this work is to diagnose behavioral characteristics in conflict situation students using the “method for diagnosing a person’s predisposition to conflict behavior by K. Thomas (adapted by I.V. Grishina).”
Organization and procedure of psychological and pedagogical research
Information about the location of the study.
Experimental part of this course work took place in vocational school No. 40 Irbit.
Given professional institution:
1.Gives initial professional education;
2.Provides secondary vocational education;
The experimental part was carried out in group No. 6. Students receive a specialty: mason, plasterer-painter.
The examination of students took place in a group form during classes from 11.00 to 11.45 in one of the classrooms of the specified lyceum.
During the diagnostic procedure, all participants in the experiment felt well and were positively disposed to the experiment. The diagnostic procedure did not cause any difficulties, since the students had previously taken classes in psychology and took part in diagnostic procedures.
In the experimental group there are 10 girls and 7 boys ( average age groups from 15 to 16 years old). Most family relationships are good. All children are from moderately wealthy families.
Successful students:
1.Berseneva Tanya
2.Veretennikov Anatoly
Zhiltsov Maxim
Ignatova Katya
Kazantsev Petr
Katkalo Irina
Kibis Elena
.Kolyasnikov Fedor
.Krasnoperova Olga
.Lagunova Svetlana
Leontyeva Yana
.Omelchenko Natasha
Popova Yulia
Pyatyshev Roman
Failing students:
15. Surin Denis
16. Vika Tikhonova
.Cherkasov Leonid.
Description of the method for diagnosing a person’s predisposition to conflict behavior by K. Thomas (adapted by I.V. Grishina)
In his approach to the study of conflict phenomena, K. Thomas emphasized changing the traditional attitude towards conflicts. K. Thomas considered it necessary to concentrate attention on the following aspects of the study of conflicts: what forms of behavior in conflict situations are characteristic of people, which of them are more productive or destructive; how it is possible to stimulate productive behavior.
K. Thomas identifies five ways to resolve conflicts:
1. Rivalry. His distinctive feature boils down to the desire to achieve one’s own goal, to defend one’s own position at any cost, to force others to accept precisely this vision of solving the problem. The one who adheres to this strategy tries to force others to accept his point of view; The opinions of others do not interest him.
Cooperation. Assumes joint decision problem that gave rise to the conflict. With this strategy, participants recognize each other’s right to their own opinion and are ready to understand it, which gives them the opportunity to analyze the reasons for disagreements and find a solution acceptable to everyone. One who relies on cooperation does not try to achieve his goal at the expense of others, but looks for a solution to the problem.
Compromise. The resolution of the contradiction is carried out on the basis of mutual concessions. This style is characterized by accepting the other party's point of view, but only to a certain extent. There is a possibility that after some time there may appear Negative consequences compromise solution, for example dissatisfaction with “half solutions”. In addition, the conflict in a slightly modified form may arise again, since the problem that gave rise to it remains unresolved.
Avoidance. Those who adhere to this strategy typically avoid resolving the conflict and ignore it. This strategy may be appropriate if the situation can resolve itself (this is rare, but it does happen) and if the conditions for effective conflict resolution are not present now, but they will appear after some time.
Device. This style is manifested in unilateral concessions: when acting together with someone, a person gives in to another and, without trying to defend his own interests, sacrifices them for the sake of the interests of the opposite party. The “accommodator” tries to prevent signs of conflict from appearing, calling for solidarity. At the same time, the problem underlying the conflict is often ignored. The result may be temporary peace. Negative emotions do not “spill out”, but they accumulate. Sooner or later, an unresolved problem and accumulated negative emotions will still lead to conflict.
In your identification questionnaire typical forms behavior K. Thomas describes each of the five listed possible options 12 judgments about an individual’s behavior in a conflict situation. 30 pairs are grouped in various combinations, in each of which the respondent is asked to choose the judgment that is most typical for characterizing his behavior. Based on all of the above, we chose this technique as it most fully meets our objectives.
Instructions for the research methodology: “You have a number of statements that will help you determine some of the features of your behavior. There are no “right” or “wrong” answers here. People are different and everyone can express their opinion.
There are two options for statements (A, B), from which you need to choose the one that most closely matches your opinion about yourself and mark it on the answer form.”
The results obtained are processed using a key.
TEST “BEHAVIOR STRATEGY IN A CONFLICT SITUATION”
a) Sometimes I give others the opportunity to take responsibility for resolving a controversial issue;
b) Instead of discussing where we disagree, I try to focus on what we both agree on.
b) I try to settle it taking into account all the interests of the other person and my own
b) Sometimes I sacrifice my own interests for the sake of the interests of another person
a) I am trying to find a compromise solution;
b) I try not to hurt the other person's feelings.
a) When resolving a controversial situation, I always try to find support from another;
b) I try to do everything to avoid useless tension.
a) I'm trying to avoid trouble for myself;
b) I try to achieve my goal.
a) I try to postpone the resolution of a controversial issue in order to resolve it finally over time;
b) I consider it possible to give in to something in order to achieve something else.
a) Usually I persistently strive to achieve my goal;
b) I first try to determine what all the interests involved and controversial issues are.
a) I think that you shouldn’t always worry about any disagreements that have arisen;
b) I make efforts to achieve my goal.
a) I am determined to achieve my goal;
b) I'm trying to find a compromise solution,
a) First of all, I strive to clearly define what all the interests involved and controversial issues are;
b) I try to reassure the other and mainly preserve our relationship.
a) I often avoid taking a position that may cause controversy;
b) I give the other person the opportunity to remain unconvinced in some way if he also agrees.
b) I insist that everything be done my way
a) I tell the other my point of view and ask about his views;
b) I am trying to show the other the logic and advantage of my views.
b) I try to do everything necessary to avoid tension.
b) I usually try to convince the other person of the advantages of my position.
a) Usually I persistently strive to achieve my goal;
b) I try to do everything to avoid useless tension.
a) If it makes someone else happy, I will give him the opportunity to insist on his own;
b) I will give another the opportunity to remain unconvinced if he meets me halfway
a) First of all, I try to determine what all the interests and controversial issues involved are;
b) I try to put aside controversial issues in order to finally resolve them over time.
a) I am trying to immediately overcome our differences;
b) I try to find the best combination of benefits and losses for both of us.
a) When negotiating, I try to be attentive to the other;
b) I always tend to discuss the problem directly
a) I am trying to find a position that is in the middle between mine and the other person’s position;
b) I defend my position.
a) As a rule, I am concerned with satisfying the desires of each of us;
b) Sometimes I let others take responsibility for resolving a controversial issue
a) If the position of another seems very important to him, I try to meet him halfway;
b) I try to convince the other person to compromise.
a) I am trying to convince another that I am right;
b) When negotiating, I try to be attentive to the arguments of the other.
a) I usually offer a middle position;
b) I almost always strive to satisfy the interests of each of us.
a) I often try to avoid disputes;
b) If it makes the other person happy, I will give him the opportunity to have his way.
a) Usually I persistently strive to achieve my goal;
b) When resolving a situation, I usually try to find support from another.
a) I propose a middle position;
b) I think that you shouldn’t always worry about disagreements that arise.
a) I try not to hurt the feelings of another;
b) I always take a position in a dispute so that we can achieve success together.
For each of the five sections of the questionnaire (competition, cooperation, compromise, avoidance, adaptation), the number of answers that match the key is counted.
Rivalries: 3a, 6b, 8a, 9b, 10a, 13b, 14b, 16b, 17a, 22b, 25a, 28a.
Cooperation: 2b, 5a, 8b, 11a, 14a, 19a, 20a, 21b, 23a, 26b, 28b, 30b.
Compromise: 2a, 4a, 7b, 10b, 12b, 13a, 18b, 20b, 22a, 24b, 26a, 29a.
Avoidance: 1a, 5b, 7a, 9a, 12a, 15b, 17b, 19b, 21a, 23b, 27a, 29b.
Device: 1b, 3b, 4b, 6a, 11b, 15a, 16a, 18a, 24a, 25b, 27b, 30a.
The obtained quantitative estimates are compared with each other to identify the most preferred form of social behavior of the subject in a conflict situation, the trends in his relationships in difficult conditions.
Analysis of diagnostic results
It is advisable to begin the analysis of the results obtained during the diagnostic procedure with a description of the features of interpersonal relationships in study group.
Table 1. Official group structure
Full name Position, responsibility Responsibilities Leontyeva Yana Head of group No. 6 Ensures that there is a magazine at each lesson; Appoints duty officers; Collects money for various needs of the group; Katya Ignatova, Natasha Omelchenko, Those responsible for the wall newspaper, publish a wall newspaper about the life of the group once a month; Anatoly Veretennikov, Roman Pyatyshev, Responsible for the safety of class property, monitor the integrity of chairs and desks; repairing broken chairs and desks;
Everyone treats their duties conscientiously, except Roman.
Informal leaders: Olga Krasnoperova, Yana Leontyeva, Tanya Berseneva.
-Olga is an excellent student and smart. A versatile girl. He enjoys respect and authority in the group. Some people are even afraid of her, because... Olya can't be wrong.
-Yana is considered the most beautiful girl in the group, so many are drawn to her.
-Tanya is a very calm and quiet girl; many people turn to her for help with their studies, because few people dare to disturb Olga.
There is only one isolated in the group - Maxim. His classmates do not respect him and do not accept him, because they believe that he has no willpower, he does not know how to stand up for himself, and also calmly looks at it when his friends are offended and insulted. They try not to be friends with Maxim, because, according to them, he “might betray.”
In order to determine the behavior strategy of adolescents in the experimental group in conflict situations in the group, we used an adapted N.V. Grishina, American method social psychologist K.N. Thomas (1973).
To study the response methods, we used a table of primary results, which we compiled based on the data obtained and is presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Diagnostic results for behavior strategy in a conflict situation
No. F.I. Rivalry Cooperation Compromise Avoidance Adaptation 1 Berseneva Tanya 4116362 Veretennikov Anatoly 157983 Zhiltsov Maxim 6281054 Ignatova Katya 3103775 Surin Denis 178776 Kazantsev Petr 349687 Katkalo Irina 388748 Kibis Elena 399369 Kol Yasnikov Fedor2886610Tikhonova Vika0896711Krasnoperova Olga3948512Lagunova Svetlana39106213Cherkasov Leonid91411514Leontyeva Yana9936315Omelchenko Natasha7877116Popova Yulia3794717Pyatyshev Roman957184.067.0 67,006,295.59
Behavior strategy in a conflict situation
Rice. 1. Diagram of indicators for choosing a behavior strategy in a conflict situation.
Based on the data in the table, a diagram was constructed that allows us to conclude that the group is dominated by strategies of behavior in conflict situations such as cooperation (7.06), avoidance (6.29) and compromise (7.0). Moreover, all three leaders identified as a result of sociometry, as the leader, use the collaboration style. Which has an undoubted impact on the rest of the experimental group and the cohesion of the team as a whole.
In general, the group has a positive attitude towards relationships within the team. The group is dominated by good mood, she has high communication skills. The group is guided by a common opinion and does its work together.
There is a high level of anxiety and preoccupied mood in the group. The group is not confident in its abilities, underestimates its abilities, capabilities, knowledge, is emotionally unstable, which is determined by the influence environment First of all, the general atmosphere.
Most students are focused on external reality (happy family life). According to static data, students have an insufficiently formed system of value orientations.
To improve discipline in the group, you need to pay attention to Anatoly, Roman, Denis, Leonid. To do this, they must be treated like adults and given increasingly complex and responsible tasks. The group's performance is high. You can “bring up” underperforming students; for this it is necessary that teachers give them additional training and classmates explain incomprehensible material. You can assign mentors who will help you with your studies.
Since there are clearly outsiders in the group, work is needed to unite the team and improve social significance rejected people. It is also possible to conduct classes to develop communication skills, the ability to resolve and prevent conflict situations, and reduce the level of anxiety in the group as a whole.
CONCLUSION
During adolescence, the number of difficult situations which become conflicting in nature. In the active reaction of adolescents to contradictory events in the surrounding life, to the behavior of adults and peers, the need to be a participant, and not just a witness of what is happening, to express oneself in action, to express one’s attitude towards the environment is manifested. This basic need activates a number of related needs that are characteristic of adolescence- need for self-expression; strengthening gender identification; the need to be able to “do something”, and not just study; the need to mean something to others, to be needed by someone, not to feel insignificant in the eyes of adults and peers.
Interpersonal conflicts in adolescents are the topic of many studies in sociology, psychology, and pedagogy by foreign and domestic scientists.
In resolving interpersonal conflicts in adolescence, a significant role is played by the tactful, thoughtful, balanced behavior of parents and teachers, who must increase their level of knowledge about adolescents and the peculiarities of their socialization.
Based on the diagnostics performed, the following conclusions can be drawn:
The use of such behavioral strategies as cooperation by informal leaders allows to reduce the number of conflicts in the group, but at the same time, work is necessary to unite the team and increase the social significance of rejected people.
It is also necessary to work with the internal aggression of some team members; it is possible to conduct classes to develop communication skills, the ability to resolve and prevent conflict situations, and reduce the level of anxiety in the group as a whole.
It is advisable to develop these skills with the help of training sessions conducted either in psychology classes or in free time from study. In my opinion, increasing the hours in psychology will allow training sessions to be carried out most effectively, supporting them with theoretical knowledge.
conflict teenage value anxiety
LITERATURE
1.Andreeva G.M. Social Psychology. M. 2003. 314 p.
2.Burlachuk L.F., Morozov S.M. Dictionary-reference book for psychological diagnostics. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2002.- 567 p.
3.Grishina N.V. Psychology of conflict. - St. Petersburg: PETER, 2004.
4.Eliseev O.P. Constructive typology and psychodiagnostics of personality. / Ed. V.N. Panferova. Pskov: Publishing house of the Pskov Regional Institute for Advanced Training of Teachers. 1994. - 280 p.
5.Pervisheva E.V. Interpersonal conflicts as a factor in the socialization of adolescents: Ph.D. psycho. Sci. - M., 1989
.Sobchik L.N. Methods psychological diagnostics. Issue 1. M.,. 1990. - 424 p.
Tutoring
Need help studying a topic?
Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
Methodology "Diagnostics of personality behavior in a conflict situation"
To determine the style of behavior of spouses in a conflict situation, an adapted N.V. was used. Grishina, the method of the American social psychologist K.N. Thomas (1973). It helps to identify typical ways respondents respond to certain conflict situations. With its help, you can determine how inclined a person is to competition and cooperation in the family, whether he strives for compromise, whether he avoids conflicts and, conversely, tries to aggravate them.
The purpose of this technique: get an idea of the severity of the tendency to display appropriate forms of behavior in a conflict situation.
To carry out the methodology and process the obtained data, we used the text and key, which are presented in Appendix 1. The results obtained after calculating the points scored by the subjects are presented in Table 1.
The number of points gives an idea of the severity of the tendency to display appropriate forms of behavior in a conflict situation.
Diagnostic test using the method of diagnosing personality behavior in a conflict situation by K. Thomas (adapted by N.V. Grishina) allows us to draw the following conclusions:
1. Alena and Nikolai K. married for 1 year
Alyona- When a conflict arises, the respondent resorts to a form of behavior called avoidance. In this case, neither party achieves success in resolving the conflict. The spouse has a chance to win the conflict (with this form of behavior)
Nikolai- In a conflict, the respondent uses such a form of behavior as cooperation. With this form of response, both parties benefit. The outcome of a conflict situation when using this strategy is higher for the spouse.
2. Evgenia and Dmitry K. married for 3 years
Evgenia- The method of behavior used in conflict is compromise. Either one or none of the spouses will win the conflict. But in combination with a high indicator - rivalry, the respondent is more likely to win.
Dmitriy- IN in this case It is difficult to identify a pronounced form of conflict behavior. It is clear that the respondent is not competing with his spouse in the conflict. The respondent uses the remaining forms equally. Under such circumstances, the spouse has a chance to win the conflict.
3. Alevtina and Artyom M. married for 14 years
Alevtina- The respondent in a conflict uses a form of behavior - rivalry. With this form of behavior, only one side wins, or both lose. The outcome of the conflict situation is higher for the respondent in this case.
Artyom- In case of conflicts, the respondent is guided by such a style of behavior as adaptation. In this case, one of the parties wins, or both lose. From the calculation using the formula for predicting the outcome of a conflict situation, we can conclude that the spouse has a much higher chance of winning the conflict (if the respondent chooses this style of behavior).
4. Elena and Maxim Z. married for 3 years
Elena- A pronounced form of behavior in conflicts is rivalry. This is the desire to achieve the satisfaction of one’s interests to the detriment of another. With this form of behavior, only the respondent will benefit, or neither the respondent nor the spouse.
Maksim- The respondent mostly uses this form of behavior as avoidance. This indicates a lack of desire for cooperation, and a lack of tendency to achieve one's own goals. With this form of behavior, neither party to the conflict will achieve success. And the wife has a higher chance of winning the conflict.
5. Valeria and Artyom M. married for 1 year
Valeria- A pronounced form of behavior is adaptation. But since the other methods have values from 5 to 7, it can be assumed that the respondent in conflict situations uses the optimal method of behavior. If adaptation were much higher than other indicators, one could assume that only 1 participant, or no one, would win the conflict. In a conflict, both or neither side wins.
Artyom- Almost the same as for a spouse, all modes of behavior have a value from 5 to 7. The respondent also uses the optimal method of behavior in a conflict. If only cooperation were the dominant form, then it could be argued that both parties benefit. But since the form - a compromise - has the same meaning, we can assume that one side wins in the conflict, perhaps the respondent himself, since a is greater than b.
6. Katya and Dmitry V. married for 2 years
Kate- The method used to resolve conflict is cooperation. This is the best way in which both sides of the conflict benefit. The chance of winning the conflict is slightly higher than that of your spouse.
Dmitriy- The method used to regulate the conflict is an adaptation. This is not the optimal way, meaning sacrificing one's own interests for the sake of the interests of another. With this method, neither side will win, or only one participant will win. The spouse has a higher chance of winning the conflict if the respondent uses this form.
7. Tatyana and Evgeniy Kh. married experience 1 year
Tatiana - The method used to resolve conflict is competition. The spouse has a higher chance of winning the conflict with this form of behavior.
Eugene - To resolve the conflict, the respondent uses the form of compromise. Is not optimal shape, since both will lose, or only one side will win. This respondent has a chance to win the conflict.
8. Irina and Denis Ya. Married experience 4 years
Irina- The respondent uses a method of conflict resolution such as cooperation. This is the optimal behavior strategy, thanks to which both parties usually win. The chance to win the situation prevails with this respondent.
Denis- The respondent uses 2 ways to regulate conflict equally: competition and avoidance. If he uses the avoidance method to a greater extent, then neither side will achieve success. If the respondent is guided by the competition method, only one side will win, or no one will win. So he doesn't use optimal ways conflict resolution. And in this case, a controversial situation arises in which no one has a chance to win the conflict.
9. Tatyana and Maxim Sh. Married experience 3 years
Tatiana- The form of behavior used is compromise - not an effective form, since either both lose or only one wins. The outcome of a conflict situation is higher for the spouse, provided that the respondent uses this form of behavior.
Maksim- A form of behavior in conflict is used - adaptation. It will not lead to a win for either party, or only one party to the conflict will win. The spouse has a higher chance of winning, provided that the form of behavior used is adaptation.
10. Alexandra and Sergey I. married for 2 years
Alexandra
Sergey- The form of behavior used in conflicts is adaptation. In this situation, only one side will win, or both will lose. The wife has a higher chance of winning.
11. Tatyana and Mikhail K. married for 9 years
Tatiana- When a conflict arises, the respondent uses 2 behavioral tactics to a greater extent: compromise and avoidance. These are not optimal forms of conflict behavior, since neither party reaches consensus. In this case, the spouse prevails in the conflict.
Michael- When a conflict arises, the respondent uses 2 behavioral tactics to a greater extent: compromise and avoidance. These are not optimal forms of conflict behavior, since neither party reaches consensus. In this case, the spouse has the upper hand in the conflict.
12. Galina and Denis U. married for 6 years
Galina- The respondent in conflicts uses such behavioral tactics as compromise. Not effective method, since both lose, or only one side wins. When choosing this method of behavior, the spouse will prevail.
Denis- In situations of conflict, the predominant form of behavior is cooperation. This is the optimal form of behavior in which both conflicting parties will benefit. But, according to the formula, it was calculated that the spouse still wins. Perhaps due to the high shape of the device. If this indicator were equal to 5, then the outcome of the conflict could be peaceful (14=14).
13. Zulfira and Alexey B. married for 6 years
Zulfira- In conflict situations, the respondent uses 2 forms of behavior. These are avoidance and cooperation. If avoided, neither party will succeed. When using a form of cooperation, both parties benefit. The results are somewhat contradictory. The spouse has a greater chance of winning the conflict (with this form of behavior).
Alexei- In case of conflicts, the respondent prefers to use this style of behavior as an adaptation. With this form of behavior, only one participant in the conflict wins, or both “lose.” This is not an optimal strategy. With this form of behavior, the spouse has a higher chance of “winning” the conflict.
14. Anna and Anton B. married experience 1.5 years
Anna- The respondent uses a style of behavior in conflict such as adaptation. This is not the optimal form of behavior, since only one wins, or both “lose” the conflict. The chance of winning a conflict when using this form of response is much higher.
Anton- There are two predominant methods in conflict situations: cooperation and adaptation. In a form of cooperation, both sides of the conflict will benefit. If the respondent chooses another form of behavior - adaptation, then only one of the participants will win, or both will “lose.” With this form of behavior, the chance of “winning” the conflict is higher than that of the spouse.
15. Zulfiya and Radik A. married for 14 years
Zulfiya- When a conflict arises, the respondent prefers to adapt. Those. sacrifices one's own interests for the sake of the interests of another. This form of behavior in conflicts is not optimal, since neither side, or only one side, wins. In this case, the outcome of the conflict situation will be on the side of the spouse.
Radik- When a conflict arises, the respondent chooses such a form of behavior as rivalry. With this form, only one side wins, or both lose. With this form, the respondent has a chance to win the conflict situation.
The use of the methodology “Diagnostics of Personal Behavior in a Conflict Situation” by K. Thomas (adapted by N.V. Grishina) showed that the majority of subjects in conflict situations use a behavioral strategy - adaptation (11 people out of 30 subjects); 7 out of 30 people use the cooperation form, 6 out of 30 - compromise and avoidance; the other 5 people are competing. The most optimal behavior strategy is cooperation.
Most subjects are conflicting personalities. Knowing this information, you can avoid unnecessary conflicts. As a result of the discussion of the Thomas test, various behavioral stereotypes are formed in conflict families. Taking into account your spouse’s style and knowing your own, you can avoid the emergence of a conflict situation and the escalation of the conflict.
Methodology "The nature of interaction between spouses in conflict situations"
The purpose of this technique:
The technique allows you to characterize the surveyed married couple according to a number of parameters: to identify the most conflict-prone areas of the marital relationship, the degree of agreement (or disagreement) in conflict situations, the level of conflict in the couple. The technique was developed by Yu.E. Aleshina and L.Ya. Gozman.
To carry out the methodology and process the data obtained, we used the text and key, which are presented in Appendix 2.
Forms with the test takers' answers are presented in Appendix 4. The results obtained after calculating the points scored by the test takers are presented below.
1. Alena and Nikolai K.
Alyona
Test indicators: 1) -0.5 2) -0.75 3) -1.25 4) -0.5 5)0 6) -1 7)0.25 8) -0.25 General test indicator: - 0.5
BP = -2 BC = -0.8
Conclusion: In general, there is a conflictual nature of interaction with the spouse. The predominant type of reaction in a conflict: negative. Character of behavior: passive. The most conflicting area: manifestation of the desire for autonomy (3). Reaction style when the spouse gave a reason for conflict: a negative reaction of a passive nature. When the respondent himself gave a reason: also a negative reaction, but less passive character.
Nikolai
Test indicators:1) 1.25 2)0.75 3)-0.5 4)0.5 5)1.25 6)0.75 7)1 8)0.25
Overall test score: +0.6
Index of “guilt” in the conflict: VR = 1 BC = 0.87
Conclusions: The respondent has a non-conflict nature of interaction with his wife (+0.6). The predominant type of reaction in a conflict: positive. Character of behavior: passive. Conflicts can arise in area No. 3: manifestation of the desire for autonomy. Response style when the respondent himself gave rise to a conflict: a positive reaction of a passive nature (VR = 1). The same behavior when the spouse is to blame for the conflict (VR = 0.87) .
2. Evgenia and Dmitry K.
Evgenia
Test indicators: 1)0.5 2)-0.25 3)0.75 4)0.5 5)0.75 6)1 7)0.25 8)0.75 Overall test indicator: 0.5
Index of “guilt” in the conflict: VR = 0.9 BC = 0.2
Conclusions: The nature of the respondent’s interaction with her spouse is not conflicting in nature. But a conflict may arise in area 2 - issues related to raising children. The nature of interaction during collisions: a positive reaction of a passive nature. Response style in cases where the respondent himself is “to blame” for the conflict: a positive reaction of a passive nature. The same style of response occurs in cases where the spouse is “guilty.”
Dmitriy
Test indicators: 1) -0.75 2) -0.5 3) -0.75 4) -0.25 5) -0.25 6)0 7)0.5 8) -0.25 General test indicator : -0.3
Index of “guilt” in the conflict: VR = 0.1 BC = -0.8
Conclusions: The nature of interaction with his wife is conflictual. Conflicts can arise in almost all areas, only area 7 - the manifestation of jealousy - is not conflict-free. The nature of interaction during collisions: a negative reaction of a passive nature. A response style when the respondent himself is “to blame” for the conflict, a positive reaction of a passive nature (or neutral). In cases where the conflict arises through the fault of the spouse, the response style is a negative reaction of a passive nature.
3. Alevtina and Artyom M.
Alevtina
Test indicators: 1) 0.5 2)1 3)1.25 4)0.75 5)0.5 6)-0.25 7)0.75 8)0.25
Index of “guilt” in the conflict: VR = 1.5 BC = -0.3
Conclusions: The nature of interaction with the spouse is not conflictual. The predominant type of reaction when a conflict arises: positive. Behavior during conflict: passive. Conflict may arise in area 6: manifestation of spouse dominance. Response style when the respondent himself gave rise to a conflict: a positive reaction of an active nature (VR = 1.5). When the “culprit” of the conflict is the spouse, then the response style is a negative reaction of a passive nature.
Artyom
Test indicators: 1)-1 2)0 3)-1 4)-0.75 5)-0.25 6)-0.5 7)-0.25 8)-0.25 Overall test indicator: -0 ,5
Index of “guilt” in the conflict: -VR = -0.25 -BC = -0.8
Conclusions: The nature of interaction with the spouse is of a conflictual nature. Conflicts arise or can arise in almost all areas (1, 3-8). Only area 2 - issues related to education - is neutral in nature. The predominant type of reaction in a conflict: negative. Behavior: passive. Reaction style when one is “to blame” for the conflict: a negative reaction of a passive nature. The same style of reaction to the “guilt” of the spouse.
4. Elena and Maxim Z.
Elena
Test indicators: 1) -0.25 2) -0.75 3) -0.25 4) -0.25 5) -0.75 6) -0.5 7) -0.25 8) -0, 25 Overall test score: -0.4
Index of “guilt” in the conflict: VR = -0.5 BC = -0.3
Conclusions:
Maksim
Test indicators: 1) -0.25 2) -1 3) -0.25 4) -0.75 5) -1 6) -0.75 7) -0.5 8) -0.75 General test indicator : -0.6
Index of “guilt” in the conflict: VR = -0.7 BC = -0.6
Conclusions: The nature of interaction with the spouse is conflicting in nature. Conflicts occur in all areas. Type of reaction in this case: negative. And the nature of the interaction: passive. Reaction style when the respondent himself is “guilty” of the conflict: a negative reaction of a passive nature, the same reaction in cases where the spouse is “guilty”.
5. Valeria and Artyom M.
Valeria
Test indicators: 1)0.5 2)0.75 3)-1 4)0.5 5)0 6)-0.25 7)0.5 8)1.25 Overall test indicator: 0.3
Index of “guilt” in the conflict: VR = 0.6 BC = 0
Conclusions: The nature of the relationship with the spouse is not conflictual. Conflicts may arise in areas 3 and 6: the manifestation of a desire for autonomy and the manifestation of dominance. Reaction style in conflicts: positive reaction of a passive nature. The respondent's response style when a conflict arises due to his “fault” is a positive reaction of a passive nature. The same style of response in cases of “guilt” of the spouse, or more neutral.
Artyom
Test indicators: 1)0.5 2)0.75 3)1.75 4)0.25 5)-0.5 6)1 7)0.5 8)1.5 Overall test indicator: 0.7
Index of “guilt” in the conflict: VR =0.8 BC =0.6
Conclusions: Non-conflict nature of interaction. Conflicts may arise in area 5 - mismatch of norms of behavior. Reaction style in conflicts: positive reaction of a passive nature. The respondent's response style when a conflict arises due to his “fault” is a positive reaction of a passive nature. The same style of response in cases of “guilt” of the spouse, or more neutral.
6. Katya and Dmitry V.
Kate
Test indicators: 1) -0.75 2) -0.75 3) -1 4) -1 5) -1 6) -1.25 7) -1 8) -1 General test indicator: -1
Guilt index: BP = -0.75 BC = -1.2
Conclusions: The nature of interaction with the spouse is conflicting in nature. The collision occurs in all 8 spheres. The predominant type of reaction in this case: negative. Nature of interaction: passive. Response style in situations where the respondent himself is “to blame” for the conflict: a negative reaction of a passive nature. The same style of response occurs when the conflict arose due to the “fault” of the spouse.
Dmitriy
Test indicators: 1) -1.5 2) -1.25 3) -0.5 4) -1 5) -1 6) -0.5 7) -1.75 8) -0.5 General test indicator : -1
Guilt index: BP = -1.10 BC = -0.8
Conclusions: The nature of interaction with the spouse is of a conflictual nature. Clashes with your spouse occur in all 8 areas. Moreover, the most conflicting area for him is the manifestation of jealousy. In this case, the predominant type of reaction: negative. Nature of interaction: passive. Response style in situations where the respondent himself is “to blame” for the conflict: a negative reaction of a passive nature. The same style of response occurs when the conflict arose through the “fault” of the spouse.
7. Tatyana and Evgeniy Kh.
Tatiana
Test indicators: 1) -0.5 2)0.75 3) -0.5 4)0 5) -0.25 6) -1.25 7) -0.5 8) -0.25 General test indicator : -0.3
Index of “guilt” in the conflict: VR = -0.6 BC = 0
Conclusions: The nature of interaction with a spouse is generally conflicting in nature. The most conflicting area 6 is the manifestation of dominance by one of the spouses. The nature of interaction during collisions: a negative reaction of a passive nature. Reaction style in situations where the respondent himself gave rise to a conflict: a negative reaction of a passive nature. Otherwise, if the spouse is “to blame,” the response style is neutral.
Eugene
Test indicators: 1)1 2)-0.75 3)1.25 4)-0.75 5)0.75 6)0.75 7)0 8)-0.5 Overall test indicator: 0.2
Index of “guilt” in the conflict: VR =0.1 BC =0.4
Conclusions: Non-conflict nature of interaction with your spouse. Conflicts can arise in areas 2, 4 and 8: issues of raising children, violation of role expectations and divergence in attitudes towards money. The nature of interaction in the event of a conflict: a neutral reaction of a passive nature. Reaction style when he himself gave rise to a collision: a positive reaction of a passive nature. The same style of reaction to the “guilt” of the spouse.
8. Irina and Denis Ya.
Irina
Test indicators: 1) -1.25 2)0.75 3)-0.25 4)-0.75 5)0 6)-0.75 7)1 8)0.25 General test indicator: -0, 1
Index of “guilt” in the conflict: VR = 0.3 BC = -1.10
Conclusions: In general, the nature of interaction with a spouse is of a conflictual nature. Clashes can occur in areas: 1, 3, 4, 6. The most conflicting area is 1 - problems of relationships with relatives and friends. The predominant type of reaction in this case is negative. Nature of interaction: passive-neutral. Response style in cases where the respondent himself is “guilty” of the conflict: a positive reaction of a passive nature. In cases where the spouse is “guilty”: a negative reaction of a passive nature.
Denis
Test indicators: 1) -1.25 2) 0.25 3)0 4) -0.75 5) -0.25 6) -1.25 7) -0.5 8) -0.5 General test indicator : -0.4
Index of “guilt” in the conflict: VR = -0.25 BC = -0.8
Conclusions: The nature of the interaction is conflicting. Collisions occur in spheres: 1, 4-8. The most conflicting areas are 1 and 6: the problem of relationships with relatives and friends and the manifestation of dominance. The predominant type of reaction is negative. The nature of the interaction is passive. Reaction style when one is “to blame” for the conflict: a negative reaction of a passive nature, the same thing is observed when the “fault” for the conflict lies with the spouse.
9. Tatiana and Maxim Sh.
Tatiana
Test indicators: 1) -0.25 2) -1.5 3)0.5 4) -0.25 5)0.25 6)0 7) -1.25 8) -1.5 General test indicator: -0.5
Guilt index: BP = -0.5 BC = -0.4
Conclusions: The nature of interaction with a spouse is generally conflicting in nature. The predominant type of reaction in conflicts: negative. Behavior in conflict situations is passive. The most conflicting areas for the respondent are areas 2 and 8: issues related to raising children and differences in attitudes towards money. Response style when the respondent himself is “to blame” for the conflict: a negative reaction of a passive nature, the same style in situations where the spouse is “to blame.” Conflicts can arise in areas 1, 2, 4, 7, 8.
Maksim
Test indicators: 1) -0.75 2)-0.5 3)0.25 4)-0.25 5)1 6)-0.75 7)1 8)-0.25 Overall test indicator: -0 .03
Guilt index: BP = 0.5 BC = -0.7
Conclusions: The nature of interaction with the spouse is generally neutral. The predominant type of reaction in conflicts: negative reaction of a passive nature. Conflicts can arise in areas: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8. Moreover, the most conflicting area: the problem of relationships with relatives and friends and the manifestation of dominance of the spouse. The response style, when the respondent himself is “to blame” for the conflict, is a positive reaction of a passive nature. When the spouse is “to blame,” the response style is: a negative reaction of a passive nature.
10.Alexandra and Sergey I.
Alexandra
Test indicators: 1) -0.5 2)0 3) -1 4) -1.25 5) -0.75 6)0.75 7) -0.25 8) -0.75 General test indicator: - 0.5
Index of “guilt” in the conflict: VR = -0.6 BC = -0.3
Conclusions: In general, the nature of the interaction is conflictual. The predominant type of reaction in this case is negative. The nature of behavior is passive.
In cases where the respondent himself is “to blame” for the conflict: a negative reaction of a passive nature. The same style of response in cases of spouse guilt.
Sergey
Test indicators: 1)0.25 2)0.25 3)-0.75 4)-0.25 5)0 6)1 7)1 8)-0.75 Overall test indicator: 0.1
Index of “guilt” in the conflict: VR = 0.25 BC = -0.1
Conclusions: The general level of conflict is neutral, or non-conflict. But conflicts can arise in areas 3, 4 and 8: manifestation of a desire for autonomy, violation of role expectations, divergence in attitudes towards money. In this case, the respondent’s response style: neutral reaction of a passive nature. In cases where the respondent is “guilty” - a neutral reaction of a passive nature. When the spouse is “to blame”: a negative reaction of a neutral (passive) nature.
11. Tatyana and Mikhail K.
Tatiana
Test indicators: 1) -0.25 2)0 3) -0.75 4) -1 5) -0.25 6) -0.5 7) -0.25 8) -0.5 General test indicator: -0.4
Index of “guilt” in the conflict: VR =0 BC =-0.8
Conclusions: The nature of interaction with the spouse is conflictual. Conflicts arise in all areas, only in area 2 - issues related to raising children - there is a neutral reaction. The predominant style of reaction during collisions is a negative reaction. The predominant nature of behavior is passive. The response style, when the respondent himself gave rise to a conflict, is a neutral reaction of a passive nature. When the spouse is to blame, the reaction is negative.
Michael
Test indicators: 1) -0.25 2)-1.5 3)0.5 4)0.5 5)0.25 6)-1.75 7)1 8)-0.25 General test indicator: - 0.2
Index of “guilt” in the conflict: VR = 0.4 BC = -0.7
Conclusions: In general, the respondent has a conflictual nature of interaction with his wife. Conflicts arise in spheres 1, 2, 6, 8. Moreover, the most conflicting sphere is a manifestation of dominance. At the same time, his reaction is neutral, his behavior is passive. The style of response, when he himself gave rise to a conflict, is a positive reaction of a passive nature. When the spouse is “to blame,” the respondent’s reaction is negative and the nature of the interaction is passive.
12.Galina and Denis U.
Galina
Test indicators: 1)-0.5 2)-1.25 3)-0.5 4)-1 5)-0.5 6)-0.5 7)-0.25 8)-0.75 General test indicator: -1.3
Index of “guilt” in the conflict: VR = -0.8 BC = -0.5
Conclusions: The nature of the interaction is conflictual. Conflicts can or do arise in all areas of your relationship with your spouse. The most conflicting area 2 is issues related to raising children. The nature of behavior in conflicts is passive. The respondent's reaction when a conflict arises is negative. Reaction style in situations where the respondent himself gave rise to a conflict: a negative reaction of a passive nature. The same style of response in the case of the spouse’s “guilt”.
Denis
Test indicators: 1)1 2)1.5 3)0.5 4)1 5)0.75 6)-0.25 7)1 8)-0.5 Overall test indicator: 0.6
Index of “guilt” in the conflict: VR =0.87 BC =0.4
Conclusions: The nature of interaction with the spouse is not conflicting in nature. But conflicts can arise in areas 6 and 8: manifestation of dominance and divergence in attitude towards money. The nature of behavior in conflicts: a positive reaction of a passive nature. The response style, when the respondent himself is “guilty” of conflicts, is a positive reaction of a passive nature. The same reaction and behavior when the spouse is “guilt”.
13. Zulfira and Alexey B.
Zulfira
Test indicators: 1) 0.75 2)0.5 3)0.5 4)0.25 5)-0.5 6)-0.5 7)0.25 8)0
Overall test score: 0.15
Index of “guilt” in the conflict:
BP = 0.7 positive reaction of a passive nature
BC = -0.4 negative reaction of a passive nature
Conclusions: The nature of the respondent’s interaction with his spouse is generally non-conflict in nature. Predominant reaction: positive. Behavior: passive. Conflicts with a spouse arise in areas 5 and 6: mismatch of behavioral norms and manifestation of dominance. Non-conflict area for respondent 1: problems with relationships with relatives and friends. Response style when the respondent himself gave rise to a conflict: a positive reaction of a passive nature. Reaction style in situations where the spouse largely gave rise to conflict: a negative reaction of a passive nature.
Alexei
Test indicators:1) -0.75 2) -0.25 3) -1 4) -0.5 5)0.5 6) -1.25 7) -0.25 8)0.25
Overall test score: -0.3
Index of “guilt” in the conflict:
BP = 0.1 positive reaction of a passive nature
BC = -0.87 negative reaction of a passive nature
Conclusions: Conflict nature of interaction with spouse. The predominant type of reaction in a conflict is a negative reaction. The nature of behavior in conflict is passive. The areas in which the conflict occurs are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7. Moreover, the most conflicting area is the manifestation of the spouse’s dominance. Least conflict area: mismatch of norms of behavior. Reaction style when he himself gave the reason: a positive reaction of a passive nature. Reaction style in situations where the spouse largely gave rise to conflict: a negative reaction of a passive nature.
14. Anna and Anton B.
Anna
Test indicators:1) -0.25 2)0.75 3)0.75 4)1 5)0.25 6)0.5 7)1.5 8)0.25
Overall test score: 0.6
Index of “guilt” in the conflict: VR = 1.37 BC = -0.2 Conclusions: The nature of interaction with the spouse is not conflicting in nature. Predominant type of reaction: positive. Behavior: passive. Conflict may arise in the area of relationship problems with relatives and friends. The style of response when the respondent himself is “to blame” is a positive reaction of a passive nature. When the spouse gave the reason - a negative reaction of a passive nature.
Anton
Test indicators:1)0.25 2)0.5 3)0.5 4)1 5)0.25 6)0.25 7)1 8)1.25
Overall test score: 0.6
Index of “guilt” in the conflict:
BP = 1.25 positive reaction of a moderate active nature
BC = 0 neutral behavior
Conclusions: The nature of the interaction with the spouse is absolutely non-conflict. The predominant type of reaction in conflict situations: positive. Behavior: passive. Reaction style in situations where the spouse himself gave rise to conflict: a positive reaction of an active nature. When the spouse is largely to blame for the conflict: the behavior style is neutral, neither negative nor positive.
15. Zulfiya and Radik A.
Zulfiya
Test indicators: 1)-1.5 2)-1 3)-0.25 4)0.75 5)-0.5 6)0 7)0 8)0 Overall test indicator: -0.3
Index of “guilt” in the conflict: VR = -0.3 BC = -0.3
Conclusions: In general, the respondent has a conflictual nature of interaction with his spouse. Conflicts arise in areas 1, 2, 3 and 5. Moreover, the most conflicting area is 1: problems with relationships with relatives and friends. The predominant type of reaction in conflicts is either negative or neutral. The nature of the interaction is passive. The response style in a situation where the spouse gave rise to a conflict is a negative reaction of a passive nature. The same style of response when the respondent himself is “guilty”.
Radik
Test indicators: 1)-2 2)-0.75 3)-1.25 4)-0.25 5)-1 6)-2 7)-1 8)-1.75 General test indicator: -1, 25
Index of “guilt” in the conflict: VR = -1.3 BC = -1.4
Conclusions: The respondent has a conflictual nature of interaction with his wife. The most conflicting areas are 1, 6 and 8: problems in relationships with relatives and friends, manifestation of dominance by one of the spouses, divergence in attitudes towards money. The predominant type of reaction in this case is negative. The nature of the interaction is passive. In situations where the respondent himself is “guilty” of the conflict, the predominant type of reaction is a negative reaction, and the nature of interaction with his spouse is passive. The same style of reaction when the spouse is “guilty”.
Using the “Nature of interaction between spouses in conflict situations” methodology, areas family life, the most conflict-producing for spouses. At the same time, a negative value of the indices indicates a negative reaction of the respondent in conflict situations, positive values indicate positive reactions. Values close to “1” or “-1” emphasize the passive nature of behavior in case of family misunderstandings, while values close to “2” or “-2” indicate an active position in this situation.
In addition, the analyzed situations can be divided into two groups based on the “culprit in the conflict”. We put the word “guilt” in quotation marks, because... we're talking about not about real guilt (which is often difficult to identify at all), but about the reason for the quarrel. Thus, in some situations, the respondent is to a greater extent “to blame” for the conflict, while in other situations, the spouse gave such a reason.
The data obtained indicate that in general for the sample, both husbands and their wives in conflict situations in most cases are characterized by a negative reaction, as evidenced by negative index values.
The most conflict-prone area for 17 out of 30 subjects was the manifestation of dominance by one of the spouses; 15 out of 30 - problem of relationships with relatives and friends, 14 out of 30 - discrepancies in attitudes towards money, 13 out of 30 - issues related to raising children and manifestation of a desire for autonomy, 10 out of 30 - violation of role expectations, 9 out of 30 - mismatch norms of behavior, 7 out of 30 are manifestations of jealousy. 2 out of 15 couples have conflicts in all areas; in one couple out of 15, a non-conflict nature predominates, so there are no clashes in any area.
Methodology "Diagnostics of Interpersonal Relationships"
The purpose of this technique: to explore the subject’s ideas about himself and the ideal “I”, as well as to study relationships in small groups. Determine the types of attitude towards others (authoritarian, selfish, aggressive, suspicious, submissive, dependent, friendly, altruistic).
To carry out the methodology and process the data obtained, we used the text and key, which are presented in Appendix 3.
The forms with the test takers' answers are presented in APPENDIX 4. The results obtained after calculating the points scored by the test takers are presented below.
1. Alena and Nikolai K.
AlyonaI'm real:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = -16.8
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = -6.6
I am ideal:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 12.3
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 8.9
Alena has a pronounced tendency towards subordination, refusal of responsibility and a leadership position, manifestation of an aggressive-competitive position that impedes cooperation and successful joint activities.
A big difference between “I am current” and “I am ideal” may indicate that a person is not satisfied with himself.
No. 4 Distrustful - a skeptical style of interpersonal behavior is an extremely touchy and distrustful mode of attitude towards others with a pronounced tendency towards criticism, dissatisfaction with others and suspicion.
#5 Submissive-shy. Reflects such features of interpersonal relationships as modesty, shyness, and a tendency to take on other people's responsibilities.
According to Nikolai’s psychogram, his wife’s octants are dominant:
No. 1 Powerful - leading. Didactic style of statements, imperative need to command others, features of despotism.
No. 2 Independent - dominant. Reveals interpersonal style to the point of being complacent, narcissistic, expressed feeling own superiority over others (9 – 12 points).
No. 7 Collaborative - conventional. Reveals the style of interpersonal relationships characteristic of individuals striving for close cooperation with a reference group and friendly relations with others.
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 10
Moving on to the digital indices that characterize Nikolai’s idea of Alena, we see that the personal profile does not match. Nikolai believes that his wife exhibits an aggressive and competitive position that impedes cooperation and successful joint activities. Therefore, conflict situations may arise. Alena's opinion about herself does not coincide with the opinion of those around her, in this case with the opinion of her husband Nikolai. Alena has low self-esteem and needs to reconsider her self-image.
NikolaiI'm real:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 10.2
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 7.6
I am ideal:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 15.9
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 6.5
Nikolai has a pronounced desire for leadership in communication, for dominance, and a desire to establish friendly relations and cooperation with others. He sets realistic goals for himself, accepts himself as he is, and therefore is in a cheerful, efficient state.
The respondent has dominant octants:
#1 dictatorial, domineering, despotic character, the type of strong personality who leads in all types of group activities. He instructs and teaches everyone, strives to rely on his own opinion in everything, and does not know how to accept the advice of others. Those around them notice this authority, but acknowledge it.
No. 7 is friendly and accommodating to everyone, focused on acceptance and social approval, strives to satisfy the demands of everyone, “be good” for everyone without taking into account the situation, strives for the goals of microgroups, has developed mechanisms of repression and suppression, emotionally labile.
His wife’s opinion and Nikolai’s opinion about himself coincide; they both consider him friendly.
2. Evgenia and Dmitry K.
EvgeniaI'm real:
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 3.4
I am ideal:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 5.1
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 6.1
Evgenia has a pronounced desire for leadership in communication, for dominance, and a desire to establish friendly relations and cooperation with others. She sets realistic goals for herself, accepts herself as she is, and therefore is in a cheerful, efficient state.
Evgeniya sees herself as a person: prone to cooperation, cooperation, flexible and compromising when solving problems and in conflict situations, strives to be in agreement with the opinions of others, consciously conformist, follows conventions, rules and principles of “good manners” in relations with people, an initiative enthusiast in achieving the goals of the group, strives to help, feel in the center of attention, earn recognition and love, sociable, shows warmth and friendliness in relationships.
Evgenia’s opinion about herself coincides with the opinion of those around her, in this case with the opinion of her husband Dmitry. They both consider Evgenia friendly.
DmitriyI'm real:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 4.8
I am ideal:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 0
Dmitry has a pronounced desire for leadership in communication, for dominance. He sets realistic goals for himself, accepts himself as he is, and therefore is in a cheerful, efficient state.
The respondent has dominant octants:
No. 8 Altruistic - responsible towards people, delicate, gentle, kind, shows emotional attitude towards people in compassion, sympathy, care, affection, knows how to encourage and reassure others, selfless and responsive.
The wife’s opinion and Dmitry’s opinion about himself completely coincide; they both consider him an altruist. The spouses know and understand each other well.
3. Alevtina and Artyom M.
AlevtinaI'm real:
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 10.9
I am ideal:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 3.4
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 8.8
The respondent has a pronounced desire for leadership in communication, for dominance, and a desire to establish friendly relations and cooperation with others. The difference between “I am relevant” and “I am ideal” is small. This means that the respondent sets realistic goals for himself, accepts himself as he is, and therefore is in a cheerful, efficient state.
According to Artyom’s psychogram, his wife has dominant octants:
No. 1 Powerful - leading. Moderate indicators (up to 8 points inclusive) reveal self-confidence, the ability to be a good mentor and organizer, and the qualities of a leader.
No. 6 Dependent - obedient, the need for help and trust from others, for their recognition.
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 4.6
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 10.6
Moving on to the digital indices, we see that the personal profile is almost identical. Alevtina’s opinion about herself does not coincide with the opinion of those around her, in this case with the opinion of her husband Artyom.
ArtyomI'm real:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 1.4
I am ideal:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 2.7
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 4.9
A pronounced desire for leadership in communication, for dominance, the individual’s desire to establish friendly relations and cooperation with others. According to the schedule, the difference between “I am relevant” and “I am ideal” for the test taker is small. Accordingly, he sets realistic goals for himself, accepts himself as he is, and therefore is in a cheerful, efficient state.
The respondent has a dominant octant:
No. 2 Selfish – selfish traits, self-orientation, tendency to compete.
Artem's opinion about himself does not coincide with the opinion of those around him, in this case with the opinion of his wife. Alevtina sees him as extremely friendly. Let's turn to the description of the test - interpretation of the results and find that "If the psychogram does not have octants shaded above 4 points, then the data are doubtful in terms of their reliability: the diagnostic situation is not conducive to frankness."
4. Elena and Maxim Z.
ElenaI'm real:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 1.6
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 1.7
I am ideal:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 4.4
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 2.4
A person’s expressed desire for leadership in communication, for dominance, the individual’s desire to establish friendly relations and cooperation with others. According to the schedule, the difference between “I am relevant” and “I am ideal” for the test taker is small. She sets realistic goals for herself and accepts herself as she is.
The respondent has a dominant octant:
No. 7 Friendly - prone to cooperation, cooperation, flexible and compromising when solving problems and in conflict situations, strives to be in agreement with the opinions of others, consciously conformist, follows conventions, rules and principles of “good manners” in relations with people, an initiative enthusiast in achieving the goals of the group, strives to help, feel in the center of attention, earn recognition and love, sociable, shows warmth and friendliness in relationships.
According to her husband Maxim, Elena is dominated by octant No. 2: egoistic traits, self-orientation, and a tendency to compete.
Elena's opinion about herself does not coincide with the opinion of those around her, in this case with the opinion of her husband Maxim. Let's turn to the description of the test - interpretation of the results and find that "If the psychogram does not have octants shaded above 4 points, then the data are doubtful in terms of their reliability: the diagnostic situation is not conducive to frankness." It should be assumed that in this case Maxim’s opinion about Elena is more reliable than her opinion about herself.
MaksimI'm real:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = -3.9
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 5.5
I am ideal:
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 2.7
No. 5 Subordinate - modest, timid, compliant, emotionally restrained, capable of obeying, does not have own opinion, obediently and honestly performs his duties.
No. 8 A responsible and generous version of interpersonal behavior is manifested by an expressed willingness to help others, a developed sense of responsibility (up to 8 points).
The wife’s opinion and Maxim’s opinion about himself completely coincide; they both consider him subordinate.
5. Valeria and Artyom M.
ValeriaI'm real:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 5.5
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 3.1
I am ideal:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 2.6
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = -1.2
Valeria's expressed desire for leadership in communication, for dominance, desire to establish friendly relations and cooperation with others. She sets realistic goals for herself, accepts herself as she is, and therefore is in a cheerful, efficient state.
The respondent has a dominant octant:
No. 8 Altruistic – hyper-responsible, always sacrifices his own interests, strives to help and sympathize with everyone, obsessive in his help and too active towards others, takes responsibility for others (there may only be an external “mask” hiding a personality of the opposite type ).
According to her husband Artyom, Valeria is dominated by octants:
No. 2 Selfish traits, self-orientation, tendency to compete.
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 1.7
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = -9.5
Artyom believes that his wife exhibits an aggressive and competitive position that impedes cooperation and successful joint activities. But Valeria thinks differently. Valeria's opinion about herself does not coincide with the opinion of those around her, in this case with the opinion of her husband Artyom. Let's move on to Artyom's results.
ArtyomI'm real:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = -0.7
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 1.3
I am ideal:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 2.4
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 0
A negative value on the Dominance scale indicates a tendency toward submission, refusal of responsibility, and a leadership position. A positive result according to the “Friendliness” formula is an indicator of the individual’s desire to establish friendly relations and cooperation with others. The respondent has dominant octants:
No. 2, No. 4, No. 6 and No. 7. There are no octants shaded above 4 points in the psychogram, which means the data are questionable in terms of their reliability. It should be assumed that in this case Artyom’s opinion about himself and his wife is not reliable.
6. Katya and Dmitry V.
KateI'm real:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 6.1
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = -7.9
I am ideal:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 5.8
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = -7.2
Katya’s expressed desire for leadership in communication, for dominance, manifestation of an aggressive-competitive position that impedes cooperation and successful joint activities. She sets realistic goals for herself, accepts herself as she is, and therefore is in a cheerful, efficient state.
According to the dominant octants, Katya: a self-confident person, but not necessarily a leader, stubborn and persistent (1), prone to competition, selfish traits predominate (2).
According to her husband Dmitry, in Katya, in addition to octant No. 2, octants also predominate:
#3 Aggressive – stubborn, tenacious, persistent and energetic.
#4 Suspicious – critical of everyone social phenomena and the people around you.
Katya's opinion about herself almost coincides with the opinion of those around her, in this case with the opinion of her husband. They both think she's selfish.
DmitriyI'm real:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 0.7
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 2.1
I am ideal:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 3
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 1
Dmitry does not have octants shaded above 4 points, which means the data is questionable in terms of its reliability.
7. Tatiana and Evgeniy Kh.
TatianaI'm real:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 0.3
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = -1.7
I am ideal:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = -1.4
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 0.6
Tatyana has a pronounced desire for leadership in communication, for dominance, and displays an aggressive-competitive position that impedes cooperation and successful joint activities. According to the schedule, the difference between “I am relevant” and “I am ideal” for the test taker is small. This suggests that she sets realistic goals for herself, accepts herself as she is, and therefore is in a cheerful, efficient state. The respondent considers himself a self-confident person, stubborn and persistent (1), modest, timid, compliant, emotionally restrained, able to obey (5).
According to her husband Evgeniy, Tatiana’s octants are predominant: No. 5, No. 7 and No. 8. From these data, one should agree with the ideas of her husband Evgeniy about Tatiana, since Tatiana does not have octants shaded above 4 points, which means the data is doubtful in terms of its reliability.
EugeneI'm real:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 5.7
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 10.7
I am ideal:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 0.4
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = -5.2
Evgeniy has a pronounced desire for leadership in communication, for dominance, for establishing friendly relations and cooperation with others. The big difference between “I am current” and “I am ideal” indicates that the person is not satisfied with himself and will have difficulty achieving his goals in self-development.
The respondent has dominant octants: No. 1, No. 7, No. 8.
This is a self-confident person, but not necessarily a leader, tenacious and persistent, friendly and accommodating to everyone, oriented towards acceptance and social approval, strives to satisfy the demands of everyone, “be good” to everyone regardless of the situation, responsible towards people, sensitive , gentle, kind, shows an emotional attitude towards people in compassion, sympathy, care, affection, knows how to cheer up and reassure others, selfless and responsive.
In this case, one can agree with Evgeniy’s results, since the results of his wife may not be reliable.
8. Irina and Denis Ya.
IrinaI'm real:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = -7
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 2.8
I am ideal:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 7.4
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = -1
The bias goes towards submission, because a negative value indicates a tendency towards submission, refusal of responsibility and a leadership position. At the same time, the result is positive according to the “friendliness” formula, which is an indicator of the individual’s desire to establish friendly relations and cooperation with others.
The big difference between “I am current” and “I am ideal” indicates that the person is not satisfied with himself and will have difficulty achieving his goals in self-development.
The respondent is dominated by octants No. 5 and No. 8. Irina sees herself as modest, timid, compliant, emotionally restrained, able to obey, has no opinion of her own, obediently and honestly fulfills her duties (5), responsible towards people, delicate, soft, kind, shows emotional attitude towards people in compassion, sympathy, care, affection, knows how to cheer up and calm others, selfless and responsive (8).
According to her husband Denis, Irina has predominant octants: No. 1 Authoritarian - a dominant, energetic, competent, authoritative leader, successful in business, loves to give advice, demands respect.
No. 4 Suspicious - alienated in relation to a hostile and evil world, suspicious, touchy, prone to doubting everything, vindictive, constantly complaining about everyone, dissatisfied with everything ( schizoid type character).
No. 6 Dependent - conformist, soft, expects help and advice, trusting, inclined to admire others, polite.
No. 7 Friendly - prone to cooperation, cooperation, flexible and compromising when solving problems and in conflict situations, strives to be in agreement with the opinions of others, consciously conformist, follows conventions, rules and principles of “good manners” in relations with people, an initiative enthusiast in achieving the goals of the group, strives to help, feel in the center of attention, earn recognition and love, sociable, shows warmth and friendliness in relationships.
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = -3.7
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 1.9
Moving on to the digital indices that characterize Denis’s idea of Irina, we see that the personality profile coincides.
Irina’s opinion about herself does not coincide with the opinion of those around her, in this case with the opinion of her husband. This may mean that Irina has low self-esteem.
DenisI'm real:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 4.3
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = -2.1
I am ideal:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 3.1
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 0.7
Denis’s expressed desire for leadership in communication, for dominance, manifestation of an aggressive-competitive position that impedes cooperation and successful joint activities. According to the schedule, the difference between “I am relevant” and “I am ideal” for the test taker is small. Accordingly, he sets realistic goals for himself, accepts himself as he is, and therefore is in a cheerful, efficient state.
The respondent has dominant octants: No. 1, No. 3, No. 4 and No. 7.
He considers himself dominant, energetic, competent, an authoritative leader, successful in business, loves to give advice, demands respect for himself(1), demanding, straightforward, frank, strict and harsh in his assessment of others, irreconcilable, inclined to blame others for everything, mocking , ironic, irritable(3), critical, uncommunicative, has difficulties in interpersonal contacts due to self-doubt, suspicion and fear of a bad attitude, closed, skeptical, disappointed in people, secretive, shows his negativism in verbal aggression(4), friendly and accommodating to everyone, oriented toward acceptance and social approval, strives to satisfy everyone's demands, "be nice" to everyone regardless of the situation (7).
His wife Irina sees him as exceptionally aggressive. From this we can assume that Denis’s opinion of himself partially coincides with the opinions of others.
9. Tatiana and Maxim Sh.
TatianaI'm real:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 3.7
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 0.3
I am ideal:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 11.7
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 2.5
Tatyana has a pronounced desire for leadership in communication, for dominance, and a desire to establish friendly relations and cooperation with others. The big difference between “I am current” and “I am ideal” indicates that the person is not satisfied with himself.
The respondent is dominated by octants No. 1, No. 4 and No. 8. Tatyana sees herself as a dominant, energetic, competent, authoritative leader, successful in business, loves to give advice, demands respect for herself (1), critical of all social phenomena and people around her (4), hyper-responsible, always sacrifices her own interests, strives to help and sympathize with everyone, is obsessive in his help and too active in relation to others, takes responsibility for others (there may only be an external “mask” hiding a personality of the opposite type).
Tatyana's ideas about herself and her husband completely coincide.
MaksimI'm real:
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = -2.5
I am ideal:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 8.6
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = -2.8
Maxim's expressed desire for leadership in communication, for dominance, desire to establish friendly relations and cooperation with others. He sets realistic goals for himself, accepts himself as he is, and therefore is in a cheerful, efficient state.
The respondent has dominant octants: No. 1 and No. 8.
He considers himself dominant, energetic, competent, an authoritative leader, successful in business, loves to give advice, demands respect for himself (1), hyper-responsible, always sacrifices his interests, strives to help and sympathize with everyone, is obsessive in his help and is too active in relation to others, takes responsibility for others (8).
Maxim’s ideas about himself completely coincide with his wife’s ideas about him. From this it follows that the spouses Tatyana and Maxim Sh. know each other’s personalities well. And if you look at the “My Ideal Spouse” graphs, they are almost identical to the spouses’ real ideas about each other, except that Maxim sees Tatyana, ideally, as a subordinate.
10. Alexandra and Sergey I.
AlexandraI'm real:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = -3
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 14.2
I am ideal:
Dominance = (I – V) + 0.7 x (VIII + II – IV – VI) = 6.9
Friendliness = (VII – III) + 0.7 x (VIII – II – IV + VI) = 4.1
Alexandra has a pronounced tendency towards subordination, refusal of responsibility and a leadership position, the desire of the individual to establish friendly relations and cooperation with others. The big difference between “I am current” and “I am ideal” indicates that the person is not satisfied with himself.
The respondent is dominated by
The personality questionnaire was developed by K. Thomas and is intended to study personal predisposition to conflict behavior and identify certain styles of resolving a conflict situation. In Russia, the test was adapted by N.V. Grishina.
In his approach to the study of conflict phenomena, K. Thomas emphasized changing the traditional attitude towards conflicts. Pointing out that the term “conflict resolution” was widely used in the early stages of their study, he emphasized that this term implies that the conflict can and should be resolved or eliminated. The goal of conflict resolution, then, was some ideal conflict-free state where people work in complete harmony. However, recently there has been a significant change in the attitude of specialists to this aspect of conflict research. It was caused, according to K. Thomas, by at least two circumstances: the awareness of the futility of efforts to completely eliminate conflicts, and an increase in the number of studies pointing to the positive functions of conflicts. Hence, according to the author, the emphasis should be transferred from eliminating conflicts to managing them. In accordance with this, K. Thomas considers it necessary to concentrate attention on the following aspects of the study of conflicts: what forms of behavior in conflict situations are characteristic of people, which of them are more productive or destructive; how it is possible to stimulate productive behavior.
To describe the types of behavior of people in conflict situations, K. Thomas considers a two-dimensional model of conflict regulation to be applicable, the fundamental dimensions of which are cooperation, associated with a person’s attention to the interests of other people involved in the conflict, and assertiveness, which is characterized by an emphasis on protecting one’s own interests. According to these two main dimensions, K. Thomas identifies the following methods of conflict resolution:
avoidance (withdrawal) is a reaction to conflict, expressed in ignoring or actual denial of the conflict;
rivalry (struggle) - the desire for dominance and, ultimately, the elimination of one of the parties to the conflict;
adaptation - concessions to the opposite side in achieving its interests, up to their complete satisfaction and abandonment of their interests;
cooperation - the desire to integrate the interests of all parties to the conflict. The content of the interests of each party includes satisfying the basic interests of the other party;
compromise - mutual concessions; agreement to partially satisfy one's own interests in exchange for achieving partial interests of the other party.
|
Assertiveness (attention to your interests) | |||
|
Domination |
Cooperation |
||
|
Compromise | |||
|
Avoidance |
Device |
||
|
Cooperation (attention to the interests of another) |
|||
K. Thomas believes that when conflict is avoided, neither side achieves success; in such forms of behavior as competition, adaptation and compromise, either one of the participants wins and the other loses, or both lose because they make compromise concessions. And only in a situation of cooperation both parties benefit.
In his questionnaire to identify typical forms of behavior, K. Thomas describes each of the five listed possible options with 12 judgments about the individual’s behavior in a conflict situation. In various combinations, they are grouped into 30 pairs, in each of which the respondent is asked to choose the judgment that is most typical for characterizing his behavior.
Instructions. The test evaluates psychological characteristics that determine success and failure in work and relationships with people. Allows you to analyze the behavior of participants in a conflict situation. Choose from the two statements the one that best suits you. If any statement seems inappropriate, try to give your best guess.
Questionnaire
1. A) Sometimes I give others the opportunity to take responsibility for resolving a controversial issue.
B) Rather than discussing what we disagree on, I try to draw attention to what we both disagree with.
2. A) I am trying to find a compromise solution.
B) I try to settle the matter taking into account the interests of the other and my own.
3. A) I usually persistently strive to achieve my goal.
B) I try to reassure the other and, mainly, preserve our relationship.
4. A) When resolving a controversial situation, I always try to find support from another.
5. A) I'm trying to avoid causing trouble for myself.
B) I try to achieve my goal.
6. A) I try to postpone the resolution of a controversial issue in order to resolve it finally over time.
B) I consider it possible to give in on something in order to achieve something else.
7. A) I usually persistently strive to achieve my goal.
B) I first try to clearly define what all the interests and issues involved are.
8. A) I think that you shouldn’t always worry about any disagreements that arise.
B) I make efforts to achieve my goal.
9. A) I am determined to achieve my goal.
B) I'm trying to find a compromise solution.
10. A) First of all, I try to clearly define what all the interests and issues involved are.
B) I try to reassure the other and, mainly, preserve our relationship.
11. A) I propose a middle position.
B) I insist that it be done my way.
12. A) I tell the other person my point of view and ask about his views.
B) I am trying to show the other the logic and advantages of my views.
13. A) I try to reassure the other and, mainly, preserve our relationship.
B) I try to do everything necessary to avoid tension.
14. A) Usually I persistently try to achieve my goal.
B) I try to do everything to avoid unnecessary tension.
15. A) If it makes someone else happy, I will give him the opportunity to insist on his own.
B) I give the other person the opportunity to remain unconvinced in some way if he also meets me halfway.
16. A) I am trying to immediately overcome our differences.
B) I try to find the best combination of benefits and losses for both of us.
17. A) When negotiating, I try to be attentive to the wishes of the other.
B) I always tend to discuss the problem directly.
18. A) If the position of another seems very important to him, I will try to meet his wishes.
B) I try to convince the other to come to a compromise.
19. A) I propose a middle position.
B) I am almost always concerned with satisfying the desires of each of us.
20. A) I often avoid taking positions that might cause controversy.
B) If it makes someone else happy, I will give him the opportunity to insist on his own.
Analysis of test results and key questions
· Rivalry strategy(competition) manifests itself as the desire to achieve the satisfaction of one’s interests to the detriment of another). Key statements: 3a, 5b, 7a, 8b, 9a, 11b, 12b, 14a.
· Cooperation strategy, in which a participant in a conflict situation strives to come to an alternative that satisfies the interests of both parties. Key statements: 2b, 4a, 7b, 10a, 12a, 16a, 17b, 19b.
· Compromise Strategy– readiness to renounce part of one’s claims in a conflict and expectation of reciprocal concessions: 2a, 6b, 9b, 11a, 15b, 16b, 18b, 19a.
· Avoidance strategy– characterized by both a lack of desire for cooperation and a lack of tendency to achieve one’s own goals. Key statements: 1a, 4b, 5a, 6a, 8a, 13b, 14b, 20a.
· Adjustment strategy, for which it is typical to sacrifice one’s own interests for the sake of another. Key statements: 1b, 3b, 10b, 13a, 15a, 17a, 18a, 20b.
Task 2. Answer the questions of the questionnaire “Psychological defenses of the individual” (see below). Analyze the results. Draw conclusions. What mistakes do you most often make in assessing situations and other people (based on the test results). What is the specificity of your awareness of certain aspects of the behavior of participants in a conflict situation and yourself?
Diagnosis of psychological defenses of the individual
Instructions. Read the statements regarding your health and character. Decide if they are true to you. Don't waste time thinking, use the answer that comes to mind first. If you decide that the statement is true, put a “+” sign. If the statement is incorrect in relation to you – “-”. A statement that you cannot evaluate in relation to yourself as true should be considered false.
Questionnaire text
1. I am an easy person to get along with.
2. When I want something, I don't have the patience to wait.
3. There has always been a person I would like to be like.
4. People consider me a reserved, reasonable person.
5. I am disgusted by obscene films.
6. I rarely remember my dreams.
7. People who control everything infuriate me.
8. Sometimes I have desire punch a wall.
9. It irritates me that people wonder too much.
10. In my fantasies, I am always the main character.
11. I don’t have a very good memory for faces.
12. I feel a little awkward using a public bath.
13. I always listen carefully to all points of view in a dispute.
14. I lose my temper easily, but calm down quickly.
15. When someone pushes me in a crowd, I feel the urge to respond in kind.
16. There are many things about me that people admire.
17. When I go on a trip, I make sure to plan every detail.
18. Sometimes, for no reason, stubbornness attacks me.
19. Friends almost never let me down.
20. I have sometimes thought about suicide.
21. I am offended by obscene jokes.
22. I always see the bright side of things.
23. I hate unkind people.
24. If someone says that I cannot do something, then I deliberately want to do it to prove him wrong.
25. I have difficulty remembering people's names.
26. I am prone to excessive impulsiveness.
27. I can’t stand people who get their way by making themselves feel sorry for themselves.
28. I am not prejudiced towards anyone.
29. Sometimes I worry that people will think that I am being strange, stupid or funny.
30. I always find logical explanations for any troubles.
31. Sometimes I want to see the end of the world.
32. Pornography is disgusting.
33. When I'm upset about something, I eat a lot.
34. I have no enemies.
35. I don’t remember my childhood very well.
36. I'm not afraid of getting old because it happens to everyone.
37. In my fantasies, I do great things.
38. Most people annoy me because they are too selfish.
39. Touching something slimy makes me disgusted.
40. I often have vivid, plot-driven dreams.
41. I am convinced that if I am not careful, people will take advantage of it.
42. It takes me a long time to spot bad qualities in people.
43. When I read or hear about a tragedy, it doesn’t touch me too much.
44. When there is a reason to get angry, I prefer to think it over thoroughly.
45. I have a strong need for compliments.
46. Sexual intemperance is disgusting.
47. When someone in a crowd interferes with my movement, I sometimes have the urge to push him with my shoulder.
48. As soon as something is not my way, I become offended and gloomy.
49. When I see someone covered in blood, it almost never bothers me.
50. In difficult life situations I can't do without the support and help of friends.
51. Most people around me find me very interesting.
52. I wear clothes that hide the imperfections of my figure.
53. It is very important for me to always adhere to generally accepted rules of behavior.
54. I often tend to contradict people.
55. In almost all families, spouses cheat on each other.
56. Apparently, I look at things too detachedly.
57. When talking with members of the opposite sex, I try to avoid sensitive topics.
58. When I can't cope with something, I'm ready to cry.
59. Some little things often disappear from my memory.
60. When someone pushes me, I feel indignant.
61. What I don’t like, I throw out of my head.
62. I always find positive aspects in any failure.
63. I can't stand people who are always the center of attention.
64. I hardly throw away anything and carefully store many different things.
65. In the company of friends, what I like most is talking about past events, entertainment and pleasures.
66. Children's crying doesn't irritate me too much.
67. I get so angry that I want to destroy everything around me.
68. I am always optimistic.
69. I feel uncomfortable when people don’t pay attention to me.
70. No matter what passions are played out on the screen, I am always aware that it is only on the screen.
71. I often feel jealous.
72. I would never deliberately go to see an overtly erotic film.
73. It’s unpleasant that people, as a rule, cannot be trusted.
74. I am ready to do anything to make a good impression.
75. I have never been scared.
76. I never miss a chance to watch a good thriller or action movie.
77. I think the situation in the world is better than most people believe.
78. Even a little disappointment can make me despondent.
79. I don't like it when people flirt openly.
80. I never allow myself to lose control.
81. I always prepare for failure so as not to be caught off guard.
82. It seems that some of my friends are jealous of my ability to live.
83. I have happened to hit or kick something so hard out of anger that I unintentionally hurt myself.
84. I know that behind my back someone speaks ill of me.
85. I can hardly remember my first school years.
86. When I'm upset, I unwittingly act like a child.
87. It is much easier for me to talk about my thoughts than about my feelings.
88. When I am away and have troubles, I immediately begin to feel very homesick.
89. When I hear about cruelty, it doesn’t touch me too much.
90. I can easily tolerate criticism and comments.
91. I do not hide my irritation with the habits of some members of my family.
92. I know that there are people who are against me.
93. I cannot face my failures alone.
94. Fortunately, I have less problems than most people.
95. If something worries me, I sometimes feel tired and want to get some sleep.
96. The disgusting thing is that almost all people who have achieved success achieved it with the help of lies.
97. I often feel the desire to feel a pistol or machine gun in my hands.
Processing and analysis of questionnaire results. Calculate the number of points for each indicator:
1) negation (statement numbers): 1, 16, 22, 28, 34, 42, 51, 61, 68, 77, 82, 90, 94 (13 statements in total);
2) suppression: 6, 11, 19, 25, 35, 43, 49, 59, 66, 75, 85, 89 (total 12).
3) regression (statement numbers): 2, 14, 18, 26, 33, 48, 50, 58, 69, 78, 86, 88, 93, 95 (14 in total);
4) compensation: 3, 10, 24, 29, 37, 45, 52, 64, 65, 74 (total 10);
5) projection: 7, 9, 23, 27, 38, 41, 55, 63, 71, 73, 84, 92, 96 (13 in total);
6) replacement: 8, 15, 20, 31, 40, 47, 54, 60, 67, 76, 83, 91, 97 (total 13);
7) rationalization: 4, 13, 17, 30, 36, 44, 56, 62, 70, 80, 81, 87 (total 12);
8) opposition: 5, 12, 21, 32, 39, 46, 53, 57, 72, 79 (total 10).
Divide the number of positive answers for each indicator by the number of questions in it. A high value of the indicator indicates the dominance of this type of defense mechanisms. For a description of the protections, see below.
"Negation"- a protective mechanism with the help of which the refusal of consciously intolerable thoughts, desires, facts and actions is carried out. The real turns out to be non-existent or is transformed in such a way that it is no longer painfully experienced. This defense in its constructive version resembles self-hypnosis of a favorable emotional mood and hope for the best, and in its destructive form it can lead to ignoring existing problems and refusing to solve them. If “repression” is directed inward, then “denial” is directed outward. Increased suggestibility and gullibility are associated with the action of this mechanism, due to which the social environment denies unwanted, internally unacceptable traits, properties or negative feelings towards the subject. Denial as a mechanism psychological protection is realized in various conflicts and is characterized by a distortion of the perception of reality.
"Suppression"– displacement of unacceptable impulses, desires and thoughts from consciousness into the unconscious. The repressed is not destroyed, but when the suppression mechanism is weakened, it causes a feeling of anxiety and the activation of other defense mechanisms. It manifests itself in forgetting, ignoring obvious facts of incorrect behavior or symptoms of illness, and, with moderate severity, in reducing the negative impact of the environment.
"Regression"– a return to childish forms of behavior when responding to problems caused by external circumstances and internal conflicts. Like any defense mechanism, it becomes an obstacle to personal growth. A manifestation of this method of defense is the desire to “forget” with the help of alcohol or psychoactive substances.
"Compensation"- a mechanism for replenishing real or imagined inferiority. Includes the desire to replace failures in one area by success in another, to achieve success in what was most difficult, fantasizing, and identification with significant persons.
"Projection"– attributing one’s unacceptable thoughts, feelings, and intentions to other people. It manifests itself in attributing blame for shortcomings or failures to someone or something, in the desire to find in one’s environment something that will correspond to one’s state of mind.
"Replacement"(transfer) is an unconscious mechanism in which an unattainable or unacceptable goal or object is consciously replaced by a more acceptable one. The feeling is transferred from the actual object to the substitute. Thus, the true object of hostility is replaced by something much less threatening to the subject.
"Rationalization"– a subjectively acceptable explanation of behavior and events, finding the so-called. objective reasons(while the real reasons may remain unconscious). This confirms the feeling self-esteem and the experience of guilt decreases.
"Counter Awareness"- such character traits or attitudes that are opposite to the content of the unconscious provide protection from awareness of unacceptable experiences. Resistance is especially noticeable in socially approved behavior, which at the same time appears exaggerated and inflexible. For example, a woman who experiences anxiety about her own expressed sexual desire may become an adamant fighter against pornographic films, writing letters of protest to the film company, expressing strong concern about the degradation of modern film art. Freud wrote that many men who ridicule homosexuals were actually defending themselves against their own homosexual urges.
On topic 4
Exercise. Analyze the possibility of implementing the so-called. Harvard Rules of Negotiation in Mediation. What difficulties does the mediator face when implementing them? Please note that negotiation is one of the effective means conflict resolution. The principled negotiation method is solving a problem based on the essence of the matter. It allows, as its authors Fischer and Ury believe, “to achieve what you are entitled to by right and at the same time remain within the bounds of decency”1.
Rules for negotiations in conflicts
1. Separate the person from the problem - discuss the problems, not each other. In conditions of conflict, there is a tendency to transfer dissatisfaction with the opponent’s position onto the personality of this opponent. Be firm when talking about the problem, but gentle with people. To resolve a conflict, it is not necessary to change the identity of your opponent. Moreover, it is better to try to understand his experiences and way of thinking.
2. Focus on interests, not positions. Positions are more or less openly formulated by the conflicting parties, while each of them does not always clearly understand its own interests, not to mention the interests of the other side. Conflict usually flares up around positions, but genuine driving forces his interests are. As a rule, it is better to harmonize the interests of conflicting parties than to harmonize their positions. A person has much more interests than those expressed in the position he takes.
3. Look for mutually beneficial options. Often people are afraid to offer their opponents during negotiations some options that are not well thought out or that do not seem to be very profitable for them, fearing that this will weaken their position: the opponent may immediately seize on what is proposed and achieve an advantage. To avoid this, you should separate the proposal of options from making the final decision. By offering your opponent a variety of options, you can find out his preferences and take into account his interests.
4. Insist on using objective criteria. An option that takes into account the interests of the opponent may not suit him. To get out of this situation, it is necessary to have objective criteria for evaluating the proposed solutions. These criteria must be recognized by both conflicting parties. They should not depend on the wishes of one of the parties, but be fair and practical. Example of criteria: tradition, expert assessment, professional norm, scientific calculation, etc.
On topic 5
Exercise. Study the interview with M. Souquet regarding French legislation on the settlement of family law disputes with the participation of a mediator. Think about the prospects for family mediation in our country. Additionally, read the Presidium Help Supreme Court dated 04/01/2015 on the use of mediation by the courts. About the history of the development of mediation in the USA, read the article: * Barrett D. 51 years for the forecast // Mediation and law. Mediation and reconciliation. – 2015. – No. 1. – P. 34–38.
Questionnaire “Behavior style in conflict” developed by K. Thomas and intended to study personal predisposition to conflict behavior, identify certain styles resolving a conflict situation. The technique can be used as a guide for studying the adaptive and communicative characteristics of a person and the style of interpersonal interaction.
In Russia, the test was adapted by N.V. Grishina.
The test can be used in group examinations (and then the stimulus material is read aloud) and individually (in this case, it is necessary to make 30 pairs of cards with statements written on them, and then ask the subject to choose one card from each pair, the one that seems closer to the truth in relation to his behavior). Time spent - no more than 15-20 minutes.
In his approach to the study of conflict phenomena, K. Thomas focuses on the following aspects: the study of forms of behavior in conflict situations characteristic of people; which ones are more productive or destructive; how it is possible to stimulate productive behavior. To describe the types of behavior of people in conflict situations, the author uses a two-dimensional model of conflict regulation, the fundamental dimensions of which are cooperation, associated with a person’s attention to the interests of other people involved in the conflict, and assertiveness, which is characterized by an emphasis on protecting one’s own interests. According to these two main dimensions, K. Thomas identifies the following methods of conflict resolution:
1. competition (competition) as the desire to achieve satisfaction of one’s interests to the detriment of another;
2. adaptation, which means, as opposed to competition, sacrificing one’s own interests for the sake of another;
3. compromise
4. avoidance, which is characterized by both a lack of desire for cooperation and a lack of tendency to achieve one’s own goals;
5. cooperation, when the participants in the situation come to an alternative that fully satisfies the interests of both parties.
K. Thomas believes that when conflict is avoided, neither side achieves success; in such forms of behavior as competition, adaptation and compromise, either one of the participants wins and the other loses, or both lose because they make compromise concessions. And only in a situation of cooperation both parties benefit. In his Questionnaire for Identifying Typical Forms of Behavior, K. Thomas describes each of the five listed possible options with 12 judgments about the individual’s behavior in a conflict situation. In various combinations, they are grouped into 30 pairs, in each of which the respondent is asked to choose the judgment that is most typical for characterizing his behavior.
Instructions: In each pair, choose the judgment that most accurately describes your typical behavior in a conflict situation.
- A. Sometimes I allow others to take responsibility for resolving a controversial issue.
- B. Rather than discussing what we disagree on, I try to draw attention to what we both disagree with.
- B. I try to settle the matter, taking into account the interests of the other and mine.
3.
- B. I try to reassure the other and maintain our relationship.
- A. I'm trying to find a compromise solution.
- B. Sometimes I sacrifice my own interests for the sake of the interests of another person.
- A. When resolving a controversial situation, I always try to find support from another.
- B. I try to do everything to avoid tension.
- A. I'm trying to avoid causing trouble for myself.
- B. I try to achieve my goal.
- A. I try to postpone the resolution of a controversial issue in order to resolve it finally over time.
- B. I consider it possible to give in in order to achieve something else.
- A. I usually persistently strive to achieve my goal.
- B. I first try to clearly define what all the interests and issues involved are.
- A. I think that you should not always worry about any disagreements that arise.
- B. I make efforts to achieve my goal.
- A. I am determined to achieve my goal.
- B. I'm trying to find a compromise solution.
- A. The first thing I do is try to clearly define what all the interests and issues involved are.
- B. I try to reassure the other and mainly preserve our relationship.
- A. I often avoid taking positions that might cause controversy.
- B. I insist that it be done my way.
- A. I tell the other my point of view and ask about his views.
- B. I am trying to show the other the logic and advantages of my views.
- A. I try to reassure the other and, mainly, preserve our relationship.
- B. I try to do everything necessary to avoid tension.
- B. I am trying to convince another of the benefits of my position.
- A. I usually persistently try to achieve my goal.
- B. I try to do everything to avoid unnecessary tension.
- A. If it makes the other person happy, I will give him the opportunity to have his way.
- B. I give the other person the opportunity to remain unconvinced in some way if he also meets me halfway.
- A. The first thing I try to do is to clearly define what all the interests and issues involved are.
- B. I try to postpone the resolution of a controversial issue in order to finally resolve it over time.
- A. I am trying to overcome our differences immediately.
- B. I strive to the best combination benefits and losses for everyone.
- A. When negotiating, I try to be attentive to the wishes of the other.
- B. I always tend to discuss the problem directly.
- A. I try to find a position that is in the middle between my position and the other person's point of view.
- B. I stand up for my desires.
- A. I am concerned to satisfy everyone's desires.
- B. Sometimes I provide opportunities for others to take responsibility for resolving a controversial issue.
- A. If the position of another seems very important to him, I will try to meet his wishes.
- B. I try to persuade the other to reach a compromise.
- A. I am trying to prove to another the logic and advantages of my views.
- B. When negotiating, I try to be attentive to the wishes of the other.
- A. I propose a middle position.
- B. I am almost always concerned with satisfying the desires of each of us.
- A. I avoid positions that might cause controversy.
- B. If it makes the other person happy, I will give him the opportunity to have his way.
- A. I usually persistently strive to achieve my goal.
- B. When resolving the situation, I try to find support from another.
- A. I propose a middle position.
- B. I think that you shouldn’t always worry about any disagreements that arise
- A. I try not to hurt the other person's feelings.
- B. I always take a position on a controversial issue so that the other person and I can achieve success.
Processing the results.
For each answer that matches the key, one point is awarded for the corresponding type of behavior in a conflict situation.
Key
| № | Rivalry | Cooperation | Compromise | Avoidance | Device |
| 1 | |||||
| 2 | |||||
| 3 | |||||
| 4 | |||||
| 5 | A | B | |||
| 6 | |||||
| 7 | |||||
| 8 | |||||
| 9 | |||||
| 10 | |||||
| 11 | |||||
| 12 | |||||
| 13 | |||||
| 14 | |||||
| 15 | |||||
| 16 | |||||
| 17 | |||||
| 18 | |||||
| 19 | |||||
| 20 | |||||
| 21 | |||||
| 22 | |||||
| 23 | |||||
| 24 | |||||
| 25 | |||||
| 26 | |||||
| 27 | |||||
| 28 | |||||
| 29 | |||||
| 30 |
Interpretation of results.
The number of points scored by an individual on each scale gives an idea of the severity of his tendency to display appropriate forms of behavior in conflict situations. The type(s) with the maximum number of points is considered dominant.
- Rivalry:The least effective, but most often used method of behavior in conflicts is expressed in the desire to achieve satisfaction of one’s interests to the detriment of another.
- Device:means, in contrast to rivalry, sacrificing one's own interests for the sake of another.
- Compromise:compromise as an agreement between the parties to the conflict, achieved through mutual concessions.
- Evasion (avoidance): which is characterized by both a lack of desire for cooperation and a lack of tendency to achieve one’s own goals
- Cooperation:when participants in a situation come to an alternative that fully satisfies the interests of both parties.
