Methods for diagnosing conflict at different levels of interaction

Study of self-assessment of conflict

Methodology S.M. Emelyanova

Instructions.

The test contains a scale that you will use to evaluate 10 pairs of statements. You evaluate each statement in the left and right columns by marking with a circle how many points the property presented in the left column manifests in you. The assessment is made on a 7-point scale. 7 points means that the assessed quality is always manifested, 1 point indicates that this property is not manifested at all.

Questionnaire text

1. You are eager to argue		Avoiding an argument
2. Accompany your conclusions in a tone that does not tolerate objections		Accompany your conclusions with an apologetic tone
3. You think that you will achieve your goal if you zealously object		Do you think that if you object, you won’t get your way?
4.You don’t pay attention to the fact that others don’t accept arguments.		You regret if you see that others do not accept arguments
5. Discuss controversial issues in the presence of your opponent		Discuss controversial issues in the absence of an opponent
6. Don't be embarrassed if you find yourself in a tense environment		Feel awkward in a tense environment
7. Do you think that in a dispute you need to show your character?		Do you think there is no need to show your emotions in an argument?
8. Don’t give in in disputes		Yield in disputes
9. Do you think that people easily get out of conflict?		Do you think that people have difficulty getting out of conflict?
10. If you explode, you think that you can’t live without it.		If you explode, you soon feel guilty

On each line, connect the marks by points (marks in circles) and build your graph. A deviation from the middle (number four) to the left means a tendency to conflict, and a deviation to the right will indicate a tendency to avoid conflict.

Calculate the total number of points you marked. A score of 70 points indicates a very high degree of conflict; 60 points - high; 50 points - for pronounced conflict. A score of 11-15 indicates a tendency to avoid conflict situations.

Find the average of all group members' assessments. This value reflects self-assessment of group conflict.

Personal aggressiveness and conflict

Methodology of E. P. Ilyin and P. A. Kovalev

The technique is intended to identify a subject’s tendency to conflict and aggressiveness as personal characteristics.

Instructions.

You are presented with a series of statements. If you agree with the statement in the survey card (given below), put a “+” (“yes”) sign in the appropriate box; if you disagree, put a “-” (“no”) sign.

Procedure for processing and interpreting data.

For the convenience of processing responses (opinions on statements), it is advisable for subjects to enter their answers (“yes”, “no”) into the survey card:

The answers to the questions correspond to 8 scales: “hot temper”, “offensiveness”, “touchiness”, “intransigence”, “compromise”, “vindictiveness”, “intolerance of the opinions of others”, “suspiciousness”. For each answer “yes” or “no” in accordance with the key to each scale, 1 point is awarded. On each scale, subjects can score from 0 to 10 points.

Key.

Answers “yes” to positions 1, 9, 17, 65 and answers “no” to positions 25, 33, 41, 49, 57, 73 indicate the subject’s tendency to be hot-tempered.

Answers “yes” to positions 2, 10, 18,42, 50, 58, 66, 74 and answers “no” to positions 26, 34 indicate a tendency to be offensive and assertive.

Answers “yes” to positions 3,11,19, 27, 35, 59 and answers “no” to positions 43, 51,67, 75 indicate a tendency to be touchy.

Answers “yes” to positions 4,12,20, 28,36, 60, 76 and answers “no” to positions 44, 52,68 indicate a tendency to intransigence.

Answers “yes” to positions 5, 13, 21, 29,37, 45, 53 and answers “no” to positions 61, 69, 77 indicate a tendency to compromise.

Answers “yes” to positions 6, 22, 38,62, 70 and answers “no” to positions 14, 30,46, 54, 78 indicate a tendency towards vindictiveness.

Answers “yes” to positions 7,23, 39, 55,63 and answers “no” to positions 15, 31,47, 71, 79 indicate a tendency to be intolerant of the opinions of others.

Answers “yes” to positions 8, 24, 32,48, 56,64, 72 and answers “no” to positions 16,40, 80 indicate a tendency towards suspicion.

The sum of points on the scales “offensiveness (assertiveness)” and “intransigence” gives the total indicator of the subject’s positive aggressiveness. The sum of points scored on the “intolerance of the opinions of others” and “vindictiveness” scales gives an indicator of the subject’s negative aggressiveness. The sum of points on the scales “compromise”, “hot temper”, “touchiness”, “suspiciousness” gives a generalized indicator of conflict.

Survey map.

No.	Yes	No	No.	Yes	No	No.	Yes	No	No.	Yes	No

Questionnaire text.

1. I get irritated easily, but calm down quickly.
2. In disputes, I always try to take the initiative.
3. More often than not, I don't get credit for what I do.
4. If they don't ask me nicely, I won't give in.
5. I try to do everything to avoid tension in relationships.
6. If they treat me unfairly, then I silently invite all sorts of misfortunes upon the offender.
7. I often get angry when people contradict me.
8. I think people are talking bad about me behind my back.
9. I'm much more irritable than I think.
10. The idea that attack is the best defense is correct.
11. Circumstances are almost always more favorable for others than for me.
12. If I don't like a rule, I try not to follow it.
13. I try to find a solution to a controversial issue that would satisfy everyone.
14. I believe that kindness is more effective than revenge.
15. Every person has the right to their opinion.
16. I believe in the integrity of most people's intentions.
17. I get angry when people make fun of me.
18. In an argument, I often interrupt my interlocutor, imposing my point of view on him.
19. I often take offense at the comments of others, even if I understand that they are fair.
20. If someone pretends to be an important person, I always act against him.
21. As a rule, I suggest a middle position.
22. I believe that the slogan from the cartoon: “A tooth for a tooth, a tail for a tail” is fair.
23. If I have thought everything through, then I do not need the advice of others.
24. I am wary of people who are nicer to me than I expected.
25. If someone makes me angry, I don't pay attention to it.
26. I consider it tactless not to allow the other side to speak out in a dispute.
27. I am offended by the lack of attention from others.
28. I don't like to give in when playing, even with children.
29. In a dispute, I try to find something that will suit both sides.
30. I respect people who do not remember evil.
31. The statement: “A mind is good, but two is better” is true.
32. The statement: “If you don’t deceive, you won’t live” is also true.
33. I never have angry outbursts.
34. I can listen carefully and completely to the arguments of those arguing with me.
35. I am always offended if I am not among those awarded for a cause in which I participated.
36. If someone in line tries to prove that he is ahead of me, I do not give in to him.
37. I try to avoid aggravating relations.
38. I often imagine the punishments that could befall my offenders.
39. I don’t think that I am stupider than others, so their opinion is not a decree for me.
40. I condemn distrustful people.
41. I always react calmly to criticism, even if it seems unfair to me.
42. I always confidently defend my rightness.
43. I don't get offended by my friends' jokes, even if they are mean.
44. Sometimes I give others the opportunity to take responsibility for solving an issue that is important to everyone.
45. I try to convince the other to come to a compromise.
46. I believe that evil can be repaid with good, and I act accordingly.
47. I often turn to my colleagues to get their opinion.
48. If they praise me, it means that these people need something from me.
49. In a conflict situation, I have good self-control.
50. My loved ones are often offended by me because I “don’t let them open their mouths” when talking to them.
51. It doesn’t bother me if my name is not mentioned when praising overall work.
52. When negotiating with a senior official, I try not to contradict him.
53. In solving any problem, I prefer the “golden mean”.
54. I have a negative attitude towards vindictive people.
55. I don’t think that a manager should take into account the opinions of his subordinates, since he is responsible for everything.
56. I am often afraid of tricks from other people.
57. I am not outraged when people push me on the street or in public transport.
58. When I talk to someone, I'm tempted to quickly express my opinion.
59. Sometimes I feel like life is treating me unfairly.
60. I always try to get out of the car before others.
61. It is hardly possible to find a solution that would satisfy everyone.
62. No insult should go unpunished.
63. I don't like it when others come to me with advice.
64. I suspect that many people keep in touch with me out of self-interest.
65. I do not know how to restrain myself when I am undeservedly reproached.
66. When playing chess or table tennis, I like to attack more than defend.
67. I feel sorry for people who are overly touchy.
68. It doesn’t really matter to me whose point of view in a dispute turns out to be correct - mine or someone else’s.
69. Compromise is not always the best resolution to a dispute.
70. I will not calm down until I take revenge on the offender.
71. I believe that it is better to consult with others than to make a decision alone.
72. I doubt the sincerity of most people's words.
73. It's usually hard to get me going.
74. If I see shortcomings in others, I do not hesitate to criticize them.
75. I don’t see anything offensive in what they tell me about my shortcomings.
76. If I were a seller at the market, I would not give in on the price for my goods.
77. To compromise is to show your weakness.
78. Is it fair to say that if you are hit on one cheek, you should turn the other one too?
79. I don't feel disadvantaged if someone else's opinion turns out to be more correct.
80. I never suspect people of dishonesty.

Questionnaire by K. Thomas “Preferred strategies of behavior in conflict”

Adapted version of N.V. Grishina

The technique is intended to measure personal predisposition to a particular behavioral tendency in a conflict situation.

Instructions.

You are presented with a series of statements. In each of 30 pairs of behavior options in a conflict situation, you must choose statement a or b.

The most common methods for diagnosing conflicts at the interpersonal level are methods based on the traditional method of sociometry. In this regard, it can be stated that the block of description of the real state of an object in this kind of method is based on a subject-based approach.

The most famous now is the so-called modular method for diagnosing interpersonal conflicts.

Its authors, A.Ya. Antsupov and A.I. Shipilov, there are two basic modules that allow you to assess the attitude towards employees on the part of each of your work colleagues. Comparing the answers to the first two questions makes it possible: -

identify real and potential conflict dyadic relationships in the group; -

quantify the intensity and severity of the conflict.

Additional modules are used depending on the goals of studying the team and allow you to evaluate: -

the quality of work of each group member; -

moral qualities of each group member; -

professional knowledge of each group member; -

the degree of his assistance to colleagues; -

efforts to achieve personal and group interests; -

the nature of the fulfillment of these promises.

The survey procedure involves each member of the team filling out a special form (sociometric card), which lists all members of the group. In order to remove the disadvantage inherent in any sociometric method, associated with the low level of reliability of the information obtained due to the fundamental non-anonymity of this method, the authors offer several variants of the method, some of which are anonymous. In one case, the form is not signed, and then it becomes possible to determine only who received what grades. In another case (with complete anonymity), grades are given to all members of the group, but only the respondent himself knows to whom he gave what grade. In this case, it is possible to assess the general situation in the group and give only a general description of the relationship.

the real activities and real relationships of group members over a long period are assessed; 2)

all relationships in the group are taken into account; 3)

the methodology uses formalized data processing methods; 4)

the ability for the respondent to determine the degree of anonymity of answers and a 10-point scale increase the objectivity of the assessment; 5)

The modular structure of the methodology allows it to be used to solve not just one, but a whole series of problems, depending on the situation in a particular organization.

The disadvantages of this method, as well as any method based on the sociometric method in its “survey” version, include the following point: the author and creator of the sociometric method, Ya. Moreno, said that “the degree of participation is minimal if individuals in a group only want to answer questions regarding each other. Any research that attempts, without the maximum participation of individuals in a group, to reveal the feelings that they have for each other is only quasi-sociometric... The information obtained in a quasi-sociometric research is based... on the lack of motivation of the participants who do not fully express their feelings. In the quasi-sociometric method, participants are rarely spontaneous and warm up only gradually” [Moreno, 2001, p. 69].

A similar technique for diagnosing relationships in a group was developed by internal consultants at the commercial bank Rossiysky Kredit. The questionnaire used is a sociometric card on which all members of the team are recorded, and then the respondent makes positive or negative choices according to certain 14 criteria.

The disadvantage of this design of the sociometric card is that the respondent is forced to mark even those individuals about whom he does not have a definite opinion.

The information obtained during the research is processed through several channels.

Firstly, at the first stage, sociograms are constructed that clearly show the connections within the team. Sociograms make it possible to identify the presence of microgroups in the team of a unit, identify leaders, outsiders, i.e. socio-psychological structure, since the main emphasis is on the informal aspect of social connections.

Such an analysis also allows us to highlight tense moments in the relationships between team members that are fraught with the emergence of conflict situations in the present and future.

Secondly, the chosen form of the sociometric card, when in fact each member of the team in one way or another determines his negative or positive attitude towards all his colleagues, with certain shortcomings still allows us to determine the “rating” of each member of the team, since 14 selection criteria come down to 4 parameters: -

leadership; -

compatibility (the ability to establish favorable relationships with colleagues); -

reliability (degree of trust in a team member); -

Thirdly, sociometric indices are calculated based on the data obtained.

The main personal indices used in this study are: -

positive status of an individual - the position of the individual in accordance with the number of positive choices received; -

negative status of an individual - the position of the individual in accordance with the number of negative choices received.

In addition, two indices were calculated that characterize the positive and negative expansiveness of an individual and were constructed based on the objectives of a particular study: indices of positive and negative expansiveness of group members.

Positive expansiveness, calculated as the number of positive choices made by an individual in relation to the total number of possible choices, is understood in this case as a measure of the individual’s desire to establish positive social connections in the team, his focus on cooperation with colleagues.

By negative expansiveness (the number of negative choices in relation to the total number of possible choices) we understand the degree of an individual’s rejection of his colleagues, his reluctance to establish favorable relationships in a given team and possible hostility towards colleagues.

In addition to personal indices, during data processing, a group index of group cohesion is also calculated, calculated as the ratio of the number of pairs with mutual choice to the total number of possible pairs.

This index is used not only as a characteristic of one team, but also to compare this team or group with other groups in a given unit.

Sociometric research covers not only all groups (departments) that are part of a given structural unit, but is also carried out at the level of management (heads of the unit, their deputies, heads of departments, etc.).

The management team is considered in this case as a separate group. A sociometric survey allows not only to identify certain socio-psychological characteristics and ratings of managers, but also to determine how cohesive this group is, whether it represents a single team capable of leading the entire team of the department, and if not, what are the factors (in this case - socio-psychological), which interfere with the formation of a team among managers.

A similar technique was developed by A.N. Lebedev and received the name Methods for predicting interpersonal conflicts in teams.

The following parameters of mutual assessments were used, the most significant in terms of conflicts: -

level of professional training; -

attitude towards work; -

level of development of moral qualities; -

level of ability to lead a team; -

level of development of innovative qualities.

In the proposed procedure, employees evaluate their colleagues according to these parameters, comparing them with each other (ranking).

The common problem of all these methods is the value-normative approach when forming the “should” criterion. It is also assumed here that the optimal level is a minimum level of conflict, the absence of tension in relations between group members, and the absence of hostility between them.

In addition to the common problem of the sociometry method (on which all the considered methods are based) of reducing the reliability of this kind of diagnosis, one can also highlight a fairly common systematic error associated with the method of expert assessments - this is the phenomenon of the halo effect. This error manifests itself in a systematic overestimation (underestimation) of ratings if the expert’s overall attitude towards the person being assessed is positive (and vice versa). As for the methods (in particular, in the modular method of Antsupov and Shipilov), to a certain extent this problem is eliminated, since the task is to measure precisely a positive or negative attitude, and not a real assessment of certain qualities of colleagues. In other methods under consideration, this effect manifests itself in full, significantly distorting information.

A very serious problem with this group of methods (as, indeed, in the case of methods for diagnosing intrapersonal conflicts) is that methods based on the sociometry method only partially allow us to analyze the causes of interpersonal conflicts, and even then limiting their vision to the socio-psychological context. This is quite natural, given the subject field within which this method was formed. However, the tasks of diagnosing organizational conflicts are much broader. In particular, perhaps the most important point in diagnosis is to determine exactly the causes of organizational conflicts. Most of the methods used, at best, make it possible to identify socio-psychological, and not the actual organizational causes of conflicts.

The problem of identifying organizational causes is much better solved in the next group of techniques.

Diagnostics of conflict - knowledge of the main parameters of conflict interaction (composition of participants, object of disagreement, nature and degree of severity of contradictions, “scenario” for the development of interaction) with the aim of managerial influence on the opposing parties.

The ultimate goal of conflict diagnosis- obtaining new and reliable knowledge about conflict interaction, developing practical recommendations on their basis that would really improve the constructive management of conflicts.

When studying conflicts, it is necessary to consider them as complexly organized objects, consisting of hierarchically connected subsystems and, in turn, included as subsystems in higher-level systems. It is important to identify the variety of elements included in the structure of the conflict, the connections between them, as well as the relationship of the conflict being studied with phenomena external to it.

Modern conflictology does not develop its own tools, but widely uses methods and techniques developed in other branches of knowledge(Fig. 2.1).

Rice. 2.1.

Observation. Direct and immediate registration by a conflict specialist of events and the conditions in which they take place. It is used to study conflicts at various levels - from intrapersonal to interstate. As a method of collecting primary information about the object under study through targeted, organized, direct perception and recording of conflict events, observation has a number of advantages. During observation, the conflict is perceived directly. This can be ensured by participation in the conflict (the observer is one of the opponents) and the perception of the conflict from the outside (witness, secondary participant, mediator). Observation allows us to evaluate the effect of many factors in a conflict, their “weight” and effectiveness of influence. During observation, the naturalness of the conditions in which the conflict occurs is preserved. It is possible to study the conflict in dynamics.

However, observation as a method for studying conflict also has flaws: the private nature of the observed situation; mutual influence of the observer and the conflict. The observer becomes, to one degree or another, a participant in the conflict, and his psyche undergoes changes that are inherent in the warring parties (distorted perception, negative emotions, search for a fair position, etc.). The facts obtained in this way bear the imprint of a personal, subjective assessment. It is also necessary to take into account the influence of personal experience, knowledge, attitudes, and the emotional state of the observer on the results of studying a conflict. Disadvantages also include the laboriousness of documenting observation results.

Sociometry - a socio-psychological test for assessing interpersonal emotional connections in a group, developed by the American social psychologist and psychiatrist Ya. Moreno, in conflictology is used to identify tense relationships in a small group.

Sociometry is based on each member of the group determining their attitude towards others according to the proposed criteria.

Various modifications of sociometry have been developed: coordinate-sociogram the method allows us to identify conflict couples, indifferent individuals, microgroups with positive and negative statuses in official and unofficial communication in the groups under study; spatial sociometry allows you to identify group members with whom the subject has closer relationships, and those with whom he has indifferent or conflictual relationships; color relationship test can be used in cases where respondents have an intention to hide their conflictual relationships in the group, etc., from the researcher.

Studying documents. Research of information for retrospective analysis of conflicts, recorded in handwritten or printed text (employment contracts, agreements between organizations, job descriptions, specific orders and instructions, explanatory notes, reports, etc., depending on the situation), on a computer floppy disk, film and etc.

Survey- currently the most common in the study of conflicts and includes various scales for diagnosing the presence of a conflict and the degree of its severity, test procedures that identify chosen strategies of behavior in conflicts (often based on hypothetical interaction situations that are presented to the test subject). For example, the F. Fiedler-Yu. Khanin questionnaire scale, consisting of pairs of words (antonyms) that are opposite in meaning, allows you to describe the atmosphere in the group and obtain information about the level of its conflict.

Test procedures make it possible to identify the behavioral strategies chosen by the test subject in conflicts (for example, the K. Thomas questionnaire, which allows you to identify the extent to which a person’s repertoire includes strategies of competition, cooperation, avoidance, concessions or compromise). Using the well-known F. Rosenzweig questionnaire (consists of pictures describing certain incidents between characters in which the subject is asked to identify with one of them), it is possible to identify to what extent a person tends to react to frustrating situations by looking for someone to blame outside, self-accusation and other well-known types reactions. There is a modification of the test created on the basis of Rosenzweig’s methodological ideas, adapted to the organizational conditions of our culture.

In modern practice, a wide range of survey methods is used to identify the interaction styles of conflicting parties.

Experiment. The experimental study of conflict is based on modeling conflict situations, mainly in laboratory conditions, and recording human reactions to these situations. Among the developed experimental game procedures are matrix games (such as the "prisoner's dilemma"), negotiation games (in which participants enter into communication with each other, trying to achieve one-sided or mutual gain), coalition games (involving the formation of coalitions by participants within the group), locomotion games (with the movement of the parties in the direction of the task or goal chosen by the participants and social games-traps (social tasks-dilemmas), as well as more complex conflict situations that simulate real collisions (for example, a series of studies by M. Sherif). More details about the experiments in for the study of conflicts, see Grishina N.V. Psychology of Conflict - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2002. However, such studies of conflicts are associated with difficulties of an organizational nature, some of them are unacceptable from a moral point of view. In addition, complex forms of human behavior in reality turn out to be much more richer than its “staging”, there is no certainty that the relationships identified in the game situation will manifest themselves in real conflicts. These difficulties have led to the fact that the experiment is now quite rarely used to study intragroup and interpersonal conflicts.

System-situational analysis of the conflict. Involves studying conflicts unit by unit. As a unit of analysis, a conflict situation is used - the smallest integral, often indivisible conflict, possessing all its basic properties, having certain substantive and dynamic characteristics, temporal and spatial boundaries. During the study, all the main and minor participants in the conflict are identified. The spatial boundaries of conflict interaction are determined. Phases in the development of the conflict are identified, during which the nature of the interaction of its main participants does not qualitatively change. After determining the spatial, temporal and substantive boundaries of the conflict situation, its systemic analysis is carried out. Using a conflict situation as a unit of analysis makes it possible to standardize, store and accumulate information about real conflicts. A conflict situation allows us to study the characteristics of conflicts not “in general,” but on the basis of systematizing specific information about the behavior of specific people and social groups. Conflict situations can be analyzed retrospectively (studying documents, interviewing participants and witnesses to the conflict) and directly during the actual development of events. To conduct a situational analysis, a special form is developed that reflects the main characteristics of the conflict that are of interest to the conflictologist. For more information about the situational method of conflict research, see Antsupov A.Ya., Shipilov A.I. Conflictology. - M.: UNITY, 2003.

Math modeling. Mathematical modeling with the use of modern computer technology allows us to move from simple accumulation and analysis of facts to forecasting and assessing events in real time of their development. Mathematical model conflict is a system of formalized relationships between the characteristics of the conflict, divided into parameters (reflecting external conditions and weakly changing characteristics of the conflict) and variable components. Among the mathematical models used in conflictology are probability distributions, Markov chains, models of goal-directed behavior, and simulation models. To date, the greatest progress has been achieved in the analysis and description of conflicts with the following properties: the number of participants in the conflict is 2, the number of methods of action of each participant is finite, and their individual goals are diametrically opposed. These limitations, as well as the non-obviousness of the goals and strategies of the participants in conflicts, significantly reduce the range of situations of real interpersonal interaction to which the descriptions created by mathematicians are applicable.

The above methods of collecting and analyzing information are used by conflictologists to study organizations and small groups. Intrapersonal and interpersonal conflicts often require techniques of a completely different kind.

Personality tests. To date, psychology has not yet developed a questionnaire or test specifically designed to determine such an integral personality trait as conflict, reflecting the frequency of entering into interpersonal conflicts. Therefore, experts use a number of proven tests that record the severity of qualities, properties and states that indicate increased conflict in a person. The most commonly used generally accepted tests and questionnaires, which allow us to identify certain aspects of personality conflict and determine its level, include:

• · test A. Bass - A. Darkey ( designed to determine the individual level of aggressiveness of a person),
• · diagnostics of interpersonal relationships T. Leary(makes it possible to determine the prevailing type of attitude of the individual towards others);
• · personality test by G. Eysenck(allows you to identify the type of personality temperament using two scales - “extraversion-introversion” and “neuroticism-stability”);
• · Cattell's 16-factor personality questionnaire(allows us to identify psychological characteristics that influence conflict - secrecy, practicality, rigidity, severity, ambition, etc.);
• scale of reactive and personal anxiety Ch. Spielberger-Yu. Hanina(intended to measure anxiety as an emotional state and as a personality trait);
• · technique "Q-sort" H. Zalena-D. Stock(allows you to measure the manifestation of such behavioral tendencies as dependence-independence, sociability-unsociability, desire to fight - avoidance of fight), etc.

Personality tests are used for research purposes and as sources of information about the participants in the conflict, but, in a strict sense, are not methods for studying the conflict itself.

In modern conflictology, traditionally, much attention is paid to qualitative methods that carry out a semantic interpretation of data. Moreover, along with general scientific qualitative methods (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, etc.), empirical qualitative methods appeared: case-study methodology - the study of a single specific conflict, and the reconstruction of an existing theory based on the conclusions drawn; expert survey - a survey of a competent group of people; focus group research method.

The complexity of a phenomenon such as conflict and the variety of approaches to understanding it determine the variety of methodological approaches and techniques for studying conflict.

Test questions and assignments for Chapter 2:

• 1. What are the main features of conflict?
• 2. Define conflict.
• 3. How does conflict differ from other types of social contradictions?
• 4. List the main functions of conflict.
• 5. What is characteristic of a functional-positive conflict in an organization?
• 6. What are the negative consequences of conflict in an organization?
• 7. Determine the meaning of conflict classification.
• 8. Name the main characteristics, types and types by which conflicts in organizations are grouped.
• 9. Name the main methods used in diagnosing conflicts. Discover their strengths and weaknesses.

Methods for diagnosing conflicts in an organization

Conflicts cover all spheres of people’s life, the entire set of social relations and social interaction. Conflict, in fact, is one of the types of social interaction, the subjects and participants of which are individuals, large and small social groups and organizations. Conflict interaction presupposes confrontation between the parties, i.e. actions directed against each other.

Conflict grows out of a conflict situation, which forms the basis of the conflict. A conflict situation is a situation in which the parties are aware of the incompatibility of the actions of one party with the norms and expectations of the other.

2.1 Diagnosis of conflict

Conflict management should be preceded by the stage of its diagnosis, i.e. identification of the main components of the conflict, the reasons that gave rise to it. In most cases, diagnostics involves determining:

The origins of the conflict, subjective or objective experiences of the parties, methods of “struggle”, conflicting opinions, events, affected needs and interests;

Biographies of conflict, i.e. its history, the background against which it progressed, the escalation of the conflict, the crises and turning points in its development;

Participants in conflict interaction: individuals, groups, units;

Positions and relationships of the parties, their interdependence, roles, expectations, personal relationships;

Initial attitudes towards the conflict - whether the parties themselves want and can resolve the conflict, what are their hopes, expectations, attitudes, conditions, or whether the conflict is provoked specifically in the interests of one of the parties, which constantly maintains the level of tension.

Methods for diagnosing organizational conflicts.

Basic methods for diagnosing conflicts:

1. Descriptive and analytical methods: description and analysis of specific conflict situations according to the schemes proposed by the researcher (comparative historical, systems approach, logical analysis, etc.)

The main parameters are closer to research than to diagnosis:

Gaining new knowledge;

Focus on a larger volume of new knowledge;

Part of the object is being examined

Interpretation is required: explanation is the result of the study.

Diagnostics of organizational conflicts according to the model of L. Greenhelg.

1. Subject of the dispute.

Is it a “matter of principle” or does it concern individual differences between the parties? Detachment from one's own principles is difficult, so to the extent that the conflict is related to individual differences between the parties, it is easier to resolve constructively.

2. bet size. –

what is the value of what can be lost by a participant in the conflict if the outcome is unsuccessful for him. Greenhelg believes that people may exaggerate the real value of a "stake" if they are involved in a gain-oriented confrontation or if the outcome of the conflict may set a precedent for subsequent situations.

3. The nature and degree of interdependence of the participants in this conflict.

Are the participants bound by “strict competition”, where one side’s gain means the other’s loss, resulting in a strong tendency to follow only their own interests, or can a solution be found in which the parties can mutually benefit from resolving the conflict. Zero-sum relationships (one side gains at the expense of the other) make conflict difficult to resolve.

4. The nature of the relationship between the parties.

Are they episodic (limited to a given situation - a single transaction) or are the participants in the conflict connected by long-term relationships? The latter circumstance will contribute to a more successful search for a solution.

5. Structure of the parties.

For organizational conflicts, an important characteristic from the point of view of the ease or difficulty of resolving conflicts is the presence of strong leaders of the opposing parties. A strong leader is able to unite his followers to accept an agreement. Greenhelg refers to experience working with trade unions in decision-making situations on organizational innovations. Strong leaders can take a tough stance in negotiations and bargain hard, but ensure that agreements are followed. In the case of a weak leader, his position may be challenged by group members who disagree with him, as a result of which opposition to change and conflicts on this basis may become chronic.

6. Participation of a third neutral party

Even if the third party is not actively involved in the dialogue between the parties to the conflict, its very presence can restrain some destructive manifestations, primarily of an emotional nature, in the conflict interaction of the parties. The positive impact is potentially stronger the more prestigious it is. The third party is influential, credible and neutral.

7. Perceived progress of the conflict

Is there a possibility of equal “cost” of the conflict for both parties or does one of them feel more harmed? The latter circumstance makes it difficult to find a way out. Although this score is determined subjectively, the parties want to be convinced that the overall score is approximately equal and that everyone has already suffered enough.

2. Experimental studies of conflict

The largest number of methodological procedures for the experimental study of conflict was proposed by representatives of the behaviorist paradigm. Among the experimental game procedures they developed are matrix games (such as the “prisoner’s dilemma”, coalition games (involving the formation of coalitions by participants within a group), locomotion games (with the movement of parties in the direction of a given task or a goal chosen by the participants) and social trap games (social tasks -dilemmas).

To study conflict interaction in laboratory conditions, business task games related to the distribution of common resources or the need to jointly care for them are used. We can talk, for example, about general finances.

However, all these tasks can be used to study people’s behavior in conflicts or to teach them certain methods of behavior, choice of strategies, etc. But they cannot be used to diagnose real conflicts, since when diagnosing you are dealing with integrity, and not with individual aspects of the conflict.

Another variant of the methodological procedure for the experimental study of conflicts is the creation of real conflict situations between experimental participants in laboratory conditions. Usually the subject needs to complete some task, and a figurehead - a participant in the experiment - interferes with him. In this way, the choice of behavior strategy and participants’ response to a conflict situation is studied.

Experiments with provoking conflicts in natural conditions.

Research of this kind most often models short-term interaction; in addition, this type of research is quite problematic from the point of view of ethical standards.

At the same time, practical conflictologists (L.N. Tsoi), engaged in management consulting, use this method to work with real conflicts. A methodological principle was formulated for using conflict in order to identify all existing contradictions in views, values, ideas, theoretical constructs, etc. Conflict modeling (this method Tsoi called the “conflict method”) is based on the regularity of the stages of development of the “natural” unfolding and escalation of a conflict situation.

The “conflict method” is a path of knowledge and a way of constructing rational activity, as well as mastering conflict reality in order to identify contradictions and minimize destructive elements in the conflict, transferring the conflict into a socially positive direction.

This method allows you to:

Identify the main contradictions between the conflicting parties;

Conduct a diagnosis of the situation at the micro level;

In accordance with the obtained material, separate the “waste” rock from the valuable one;

Provide the necessary means of working with this material to the participants in the conflict;

Minimize destructive consequences, etc.

From the moment when conflictologists turned to practical issues of conflict regulation, the task of diagnosis mainly arose, and it was then that they turned to diagnosing real conflict situations. And here survey methods rather dominate.

3. Survey methods.

Diagnostic techniques:

3.1 Diagnosis of conflicts at the personal level:

Most of the methods are built within the framework of subject-specific positive methodology (obviously, this is due to the fact that most of them are based on methods taken from social psychology - tests, sociometry).

Erina S.I. A scale for diagnosing role conflict among managers of a primary production team.

The presence of psychological conflict among managers, the degree of its severity, and areas of activity of the manager that cause conflict experiences are revealed. The manager is offered a questionnaire with a set of judgments with which he must agree or disagree. Depending on his choice, a conclusion is made about the presence of intrapersonal conflicts.

The subject of study in this class of techniques is also the behavioral strategies of the participants in the conflict:

The T. Thomas test is aimed at identifying a repertoire of behavioral tendencies in contradictory situations. A person is offered 30 pairs of judgments, each of which reflects one of the possible behavioral strategies. The subject chooses from each pair the one that he considers more consistent with his typical behavior. As a result, it can be determined to what extent a person’s repertoire includes strategies of competition, cooperation, avoidance, concessions, or compromise. The formulations of judgments are “cleared” of the situational context and therefore make it possible to diagnose personal tendencies towards the predominant use of certain strategies.

A similar questionnaire, aimed at studying the strategies chosen by the leader in conflict situations, was developed by A.A. Ershov. He identifies 4 main areas of value orientations among the leaders of primary organizations, which are updated in conflict situations:

Focus on work and its efficiency;

Focus on yourself, your views and experience;

Focus on official subordination, rights and responsibilities.

The methodology consists of 12 conflict situations, for each of which four possible solutions are proposed. corresponding to four possible orientations.

Projective tests to determine behavior strategies in conflict situations.

F. Rosenzweig test. It consists of pictures describing an incident between characters, and the subject is asked to identify himself with one of them. The partner’s words in the picture contain some kind of accusation (explicit or hidden) against the respondent or interfere with the satisfaction of his needs. The test subject's responses are categorized in accordance with a special scheme and this makes it possible to determine how a person usually reacts to a frustrating situation: by looking for someone to blame outside, by self-accusation, or in some other way.

Based on this test, the “Business Situations” test (20 pictures) was developed, depicting conflict situations in the organization.

Using psychological tests to determine the level of personality conflict:

Questionnaire by A. Bass and A. Darkey. (1957) Designed to determine the individual level of aggressiveness of a person. Aggression is considered by the authors as a complex phenomenon, manifested in various forms of aggressive and hostile reactions: physical, indirect, verbal aggression, irritability, resentment, etc. The questionnaire makes it possible to determine individual indices of aggressiveness and hostility.

Cattell Questionnaire.

Questionnaire by G. Eysenck.

Determination of anxiety level using the Spielberg questionnaire.

The general problem of using all these methods for diagnosing specific conflicts in organizations is that since they were created by psychologists and on the basis of psychological methods and tests, the concept of norm embedded in them (where it exists at all) is either related to the psychological norm - the boundaries of manifestation of one or another characteristic in the general population, or it is a definition of a norm within the framework of a value-normative approach, when the concept of a norm is laid down by the author of the concept.

3.2 Diagnosis of conflicts at the interpersonal level.

Most often, the traditional method of sociometry is used for this (usually in the form of a survey):

Lebedev A.N. Methodology for predicting interpersonal conflicts in teams.

Parameters of mutual assessments that are most significant in terms of conflicts:

Level of professional training;

Attitude to work;

Level of development of moral qualities;

Level of ability to lead a team;

Level of development of innovative qualities.

In the proposed procedure, employees evaluate their colleagues according to these parameters, comparing them with each other (ranking).

Disadvantages of the technique:

1. value-normative approach;

2. halo effect.

Modular methodology for diagnosing interpersonal conflicts.

A.Ya.Antsupov. A.I. Shipilov.

Based on sociometric methodology.

Two basic modules that allow you to assess the attitude towards employees on the part of each of your work colleagues. Comparing the answers to the first two questions makes it possible:

Identify real and potential conflict dyadic relationships in the group;

Quantify the intensity and severity of the conflict.

Additional modules are used depending on the goals of studying the team and allow you to evaluate:

The quality of work of each group member;

Moral qualities of each group member;

Professional knowledge of group members;

The extent of his assistance to colleagues;

Efforts to achieve personal and group interests;

The nature of the fulfillment of these promises.

The survey procedure involves each member of the team filling out a special form (sociometric card), which lists all members of the group.

The rating is given on a ten-point scale from +5 to –5

Methodology for diagnosing relationships in a group

The questionnaire is a sociometric card on which all members of the team are recorded, and then the respondent makes positive or negative choices according to certain 14 criteria.

The disadvantage of this design of the sociometric card is that the respondent is forced to mark even those individuals about whom he does not have a definite opinion.

The information obtained during the research is processed through several channels.

Firstly, at the first stage, sociograms are constructed that clearly show the connections within the team. Sociograms make it possible to identify the presence of microgroups in the team of a unit, identify leaders, outsiders, i.e. socio-psychological structure, since the main emphasis is on the informal aspect of social connections.

Such an analysis also allows us to highlight tense moments in the relationships between team members that are fraught with the emergence of conflict situations in the present and future.

Secondly, the chosen form of the sociometric card, when in fact each member of the team in one way or another determines his negative or positive attitude towards all his colleagues, with certain shortcomings, still allows us to determine the “rating” of each member of the team,” since there are 14 selection criteria comes down to 4 parameters:

Leadership;

Compatibility (ability to establish favorable relationships with colleagues);

Reliability (the degree of trust in a team member);

Thirdly, sociometric indices are calculated based on the data obtained.

2.3. Diagnosis of intergroup conflicts in an organization.

1. Methods focused on subject methodology in the block of describing the real state of an object are usually based on survey methods. at the same time, the block of setting what should be done is value-normative.

A technique for identifying contradictions in the formal structure as causes of conflicts. The main areas of possible emergence of contradictions in the organization were identified

Categories	Empirical indicators
Workplace organization	Forms for distributing tasks between employees
Task implementation or goal orientation
Forms of labor organization
Balance of rights and responsibilities
Level of formalization of procedures
Relationships between management and subordination	Compliance with the principle of unity of command
Identifying forms of control
Participation in decision making
Determining the degree of formalization of relations
Information and communications	Assessing the efficiency and accuracy of information transfer
Assessment of the main channels of information transmission
Awareness of sources of necessary information
Assessing the correctness of interpretation of management orders
Assessing the level of feedback
Staff	Assessment of the level of professional knowledge
Level of employee awareness of goals and objectives
Assessing the possibility of employees taking initiative
Satisfaction with the remuneration system
Individual assessment of career prospects
Culture	Compliance with labor discipline standards
Identifying the frequency of communication with department management
Attitude to change
Presence of conflicts in the department
Perceptions and ways of resolving conflicts
Assessing the level of team cohesion

Each empirical indicator assumes four possible situations that reveal it, each of them is assigned a certain number of points. Employees answering the questionnaire select situations that are specific to their department. Then the average value for each indicator is calculated, and on this basis a profile of the department is built.

Formation of normative criteria:

the norm is set on the basis of an expert survey: the heads of the department act as experts (questionnaires and interviews). Based on the data obtained, a reference profile of the department is formed, which is then compared with the real profile obtained as a result of processing employee questionnaires.

However, the mismatch block is speculative.

2. The class of diagnostic techniques, as a rule, is focused on the problem methodology in the description of the object, but in the block of task assignment, the situational approach (problem-situational) is more common.

Methods of obtaining information: gaming methods

poorly structured interviews

sometimes - questionnaires.

Positional analysis (A.I.Prigozhin)

PA is a diagnostic technique that allows you to identify positionality, determine the lines dividing the organization into groups of workers who are in positional conflict with each other.

The essence of PA is the definition of those lines that divide the organization into a set of social. groups that are in positional conflict with each other or have different interests that interact with each other.

Psychology of communication and interpersonal relationships Ilyin Evgeniy Pavlovich

Methodology “Personal aggressiveness and conflict”

The technique is intended to identify a subject’s tendency to conflict and aggressiveness as personal characteristics.

Instructions

You are presented with a series of statements. If you agree with the statement in the survey card (given below), put a “+” (“yes”) sign in the appropriate box; if you disagree, put a “-” (“no”) sign.

Questionnaire text

1. I get irritated easily, but calm down quickly.

2. In disputes, I always try to take the initiative.

3. I most often do not get credit for my work.

4. If they don’t ask me nicely, I won’t give in.

5. I try to do everything to avoid tension in relationships.

6. If someone treats me unfairly, then I silently call upon the offender all sorts of misfortunes.

7. I often get angry when people object to me.

8. I think that people are talking badly about me behind my back.

9. I'm much more irritable than I think.

10. The opinion that attack is the best defense is correct.

11. Circumstances are almost always more favorable for others than for me.

12. If I don’t like the established rule, I try not to follow it.

13. I try to find a solution to a controversial issue that would satisfy everyone.

14. I believe that kindness is more effective than revenge.

15. Every person has the right to their opinion.

16. I believe in the honesty of most people's intentions.

17. I get angry when people make fun of me.

18. In an argument, I often interrupt my interlocutor, imposing my point of view on him.

19. I am often offended by the comments of others, even if I understand that they are fair.

20. If someone pretends to be an important person, I always act against him.

21. As a rule, I propose a middle position.

22. I believe that the slogan from the cartoon: “A tooth for a tooth, a tail for a tail” is fair.

23. If I have thought everything through, then I do not need the advice of others.

24. I am wary of people who are nicer to me than I expected.

25. If someone makes me angry, I don’t pay attention to it.

26. I consider it tactless not to allow the other side to speak out in a dispute.

27. I am offended by the lack of attention from others.

28. I don’t like to give in to games even for children.

29. In a dispute, I try to find something that will suit both sides.

30. I respect people who do not remember evil.

31. The statement “A mind is good, but two is better” is true.

32. The statement “If you don’t deceive, you won’t live” is also true.

33. I never have outbursts of anger.

34. I can listen carefully and to the end to the arguments of someone arguing with me.

35. I am always offended if I am not among those awarded for a cause in which I participated.

36. If someone in line tries to prove that he is ahead of me, I do not give in to him.

37. I try to avoid aggravating relationships.

38. I often imagine the punishments that could befall my offenders.

39. I don’t think that I’m stupider than others, so their opinion is not my decree.

40. I condemn distrustful people.

41. I always react calmly to criticism, even if it seems unfair to me.

42. I always confidently defend my rightness.

43. I am not offended by my friends’ jokes, even if they are mean.

44. Sometimes I give others the opportunity to take responsibility for solving an issue that is important to everyone.

45. I try to convince the other person to come to a compromise.

46. ​​I believe that evil can be repaid with good, and I act in accordance with this.

47. I often turn to my colleagues to find out their opinion.

48. If they praise me, it means that these people need something from me.

49. In a conflict situation, I have good self-control.

50. My loved ones are often offended by me because I “don’t let them open their mouths” when talking to them.

51. It doesn’t bother me if my name is not mentioned when praising someone for their overall work.

52. When negotiating with a senior official, I try not to contradict him.

53. In solving any problem, I prefer the “golden mean”.

54. I have a negative attitude towards vindictive people.

55. I don’t think that a manager should take into account the opinions of his subordinates, since he is responsible for everything.

56. I am often afraid of tricks from other people.

57. I am not outraged when people push me on the street or in public transport.

58. When I talk to someone, I am tempted to quickly express my opinion.

59. Sometimes I feel that life treats me unfairly.

60. I always try to get out of the carriage before others.

61. It is hardly possible to find a solution that would satisfy everyone.

62. No insult should go unpunished.

63. I don’t like it when others come to me with advice.

64. I suspect that many people keep in touch with me out of self-interest.

65. I don’t know how to restrain myself when I’m undeservedly reproached.

66. When playing chess or table tennis, I like to attack more than defend.

67. I feel sorry for people who are overly touchy.

68. It doesn’t really matter to me whose point of view in a dispute turns out to be correct - mine or someone else’s.

69. Compromise is not always the best resolution to a dispute.

70. I don’t calm down until I take revenge on the offender.

71. I believe that it is better to consult with others than to make a decision alone.

72. I doubt the sincerity of most people's words.

73. It’s usually difficult to make me angry.

74. If I see shortcomings in others, I do not hesitate to criticize them.

75. I don’t see anything offensive in what they tell me about my shortcomings.

76. If I were a seller at the market, I would not give in on the price for my goods.

77. To compromise means to show your weakness.

78. Is it fair to say that if you are hit on one cheek, you should turn the other one too?

79. I don’t feel disadvantaged if someone else’s opinion turns out to be more correct.

80. I never suspect people of dishonesty.

Processing the results

For the convenience of processing responses (opinions on statements), it is advisable for subjects to enter their answers (“yes”, “no”) into a survey card that looks like this:

The answers to the questions correspond to 8 scales: “hot temper”, “offensiveness”, “touchiness”, “intransigence”, “compromise”, “vindictiveness”, “intolerance of the opinions of others”, “suspiciousness”. For each answer “yes” or “no” in accordance with the key to each scale, 1 point is awarded. On each scale, subjects can score from 0 to 10 points.

The key to deciphering the answers

Answers “yes” to positions 1, 9, 17, 65 and answers “no” to positions 25, 33, 41, 49, 57, 73 indicate the subject’s tendency to be hot-tempered.

Answers “yes” to positions 2, 10, 18, 42, 50, 58, 66, 74 and answers “no” to positions 26, 34 indicate a tendency to be offensive and assertive.

Answers “yes” to positions 3, 11, 19, 27, 35, 59 and answers “no” to positions 43, 51, 67, 75 indicate a tendency to be touchy.

Answers “yes” to positions 4, 12, 20, 28, 36, 60, 76 and answers “no” to positions 44, 52, 68 indicate a tendency to intransigence.

Answers “yes” to positions 5, 13, 21, 29, 37, 45, 53 and answers “no” to positions 61, 69, 77 indicate a tendency to be uncompromising.

Answers “yes” for positions 6, 22, 38, 62, 70 and answers “no” for positions 14, 30,

46, 54, 78 - about a tendency to vindictiveness.

Answers “yes” for positions 7, 23, 39, 55, 63 and answers “no” for positions 15, 31,

47, 71, 79 - about the tendency to be intolerant of the opinions of others.

Answers “yes” to positions 8, 24, 32, 48, 56, 64, 72 and answers “no” to positions 16, 40, 80 indicate a tendency to suspicion.

conclusions

The sum of points on the scales “offensiveness (assertiveness)” and “intransigence” gives the total indicator positive aggressiveness subject. The sum of points scored on the scales “intolerance of the opinions of others” and “vindictiveness” gives the indicator negative aggressiveness subject. The sum of points on the scales “uncompromising”, “hot temper”, “touchiness”, “suspiciousness” gives a generalized indicator conflict.

From the book FAQ author Protopopov Anatoly

From the book Pickup. Seduction tutorial author Bogachev Philip Olegovich

Method number four: the “plus-minus” method - You broke my arm! - There are 215 bones in the human body. There was only one. Terminator 2. This technique is used in conversations as a means of making a good, advanced compliment. The main thing in this technique is contrast.

From the book How to Manage Others, How to Manage Yourself. author Sheinov Viktor Pavlovich

Personal anxiety as a personality characteristic Scores are given as follows: almost never - 1 point, sometimes - 2 points, often - 3 points, almost always - 4 points, depending on how you feel

From the book No to Bad Behavior by Borba Michelle

CHAPTER 17 Conflict I'm starting to feel like a judge: my children constantly quarrel, and I have to reconcile them all the time. I know I'm not helping them by solving their problems, but to be honest, it's a lot easier to tell them what to do than to listen to the yelling and screaming and arguing. It should be

From the book Severe Personality Disorders [Psychotherapy Strategies] author Kernberg Otto F.

BORDERLINE PERSONALITY ORGANIZATION I have already mentioned the tendency of patients with borderline personality organization to confuse information about their past with their current difficulties. This is even more pronounced in patients with functional psychoses. Closer

From the book Introducing Reading: Innovations for Parents, Librarian Toolkit author Kashkarov Andrey Petrovich

PSYCHOTIC PERSONALITY ORGANIZATION By the presence or absence of diffuse identity syndrome, we can distinguish borderline character pathology from non-borderline character pathology in a structural interview. And the presence or absence of reality testing allows borderline

From the book Individual psychological diagnostics of a child 5-7 years old. A manual for psychologists and teachers author Veraksa Alexander Nikolaevich

1.2. Personal motivation for reading Each person is a separate, specific personality that will not exist again. People differ in the very essence of the soul; their similarity is only external. The more someone becomes himself, the more deeply he begins to understand himself, the more clearly

From the book Psychology of Communication and Interpersonal Relationships author Ilyin Evgeniy Pavlovich

Emotional and personal sphere Methodology “Drawing a Person” (K. Machover) General characteristics of the methodology Initially, the “Draw a Person” test was developed by F. Goodenough to diagnose the level of intelligence. However, in the process of work a large amount was obtained

From the book Motivation and motives author Ilyin Evgeniy Pavlovich

Emotional-personal sphere Methodology “Drawing of a Person” We present those points of analysis of the drawing (see Fig. 47) that seem to us the most significant in this case. Rice. 47 Drawing analysis form Style aspect: pressure: strong; type of lines: curved,

From the book Serious Conversation about Responsibility [What to do with disappointed expectations, broken promises and inappropriate behavior] author Patterson Kerry

4.4. Conflict and aggressiveness There is no need to explain the negative role of conflict and aggressiveness for the process of communication, establishing mutual understanding between people and relationships between them. Conflict is a complex personal quality, including

From the book Conflict Management author Sheinov Viktor Pavlovich

Methodology “Personal aggressiveness and conflict” The method is intended to identify a subject’s tendency to conflict and aggressiveness as personal characteristics. Instructions You are offered a number of statements. If you agree with the statement in the survey card

From the book Integral Relations by Uchik Martin

Methodology “Personal aggressiveness and conflict” Authors E. P. Ilyin and P. A. Kovalev. The technique is intended to identify a subject's tendency to conflict and aggressiveness as personal characteristics. Instructions You are offered a number of statements. In agreement with

From the book Gestalt: The Art of Contact [A New Optimistic Approach to Human Relationships] by Ginger Serge

Source 1. Personal motivation We are already familiar with the first source. This is what causes us to make the fundamental attribution error. People base their actions on personal motivation. Do we have an incentive to take action? Does it give you pleasure?

From the author's book

External influence on the group and conflict In the experimental studies of V. S. Ageev (1990), three groups were placed in initially unequal conditions of intergroup interaction. At the same time, different types of influence of this situation on the internal atmosphere and

From the author's book

Personal matrix The dynamics of relations between partners, which goes beyond the implementation of individual primary fantasy, is determined by their personal characteristics. In particular, this includes eight levels of consciousness development (from archaic to

From the author's book

Personal basis According to Freud, the two main human drives are sexuality and aggressiveness (Eros and Thanatos, or the drive to live and the drive to die). Anxiety is born out of unsatisfaction of archaic sexual needs. All