Differential definitions Now we will define the mechanism of epistemological formation of all three types of things - real objects, eidos and ideals (ideas). True, we will not expand on the first mechanism, but will focus on criticizing the possibility

DEFINITIONS What is transpersonal? Transpersonal can be called experiences in which the sense of self-identity extends beyond the individual or personal self, embracing humanity as a whole, life, spirit and the cosmos. Transpersonal disciplines

Definitions By countertransference we mean the psychoanalyst's reaction to the patient's transference. For example, a psychoanalyst feels that one patient is trying to seduce him, another patient is competing with him, criticizing or attacking him. Some feeling prompts

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND YOUTH POLICY
STAVROPOL REGION
STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE
With. MOSCOW
KRASNOGVARDEYSKY BRANCH

Determination of the general level of sociability of students (test by V. F. Ryakhovsky)

Prepared
master p/o Frolova O.N.

With. Krasnogvardeiskoe

Sociability is one of the important communicative properties of a person, which allows one to more successfully adapt to the environment. A sociable person finds friends faster, which means he is less likely to develop personal problems; sociability acts as a tool for obtaining new significant information. Through communication, a person gets to know himself and the world around him.
Sociability develops in the process of a person’s educational and professional activities, on the one hand, and influences their success and quality, on the other.
We are all constantly in communication situations - at home, at work, on the street, in transport; with close people and complete strangers. And, of course, the huge number of contacts that a person enters into every day requires him to fulfill a number of conditions and rules that allow him to communicate while maintaining personal dignity and distance from other people.
In general, interaction with society today should be based on a deep analysis and understanding of all factors that can influence people and their attitude towards the company, its products or services.
The emergence of psychological and communicative barriers to communication significantly interferes with the communication of both individuals and entire social strata. And since man is a social being, he simply needs communication. That is why this problem is relevant today.
Testing was carried out among 2nd year students (17-19 years old, 16 boys and 12 girls). Students were given a test "Assessment of the level of sociability (V.F. Ryakhovsky).”
The test makes it possible to determine a person’s level of communication skills. Contains 16 questions. The points received are summed up, and the classifier determines which of the seven categories the subjects belong to.
The test classifies test takers into seven categories, which include:obvious lack of communication– inability to work in a team, which indicates a low level of socialization; isolation – taciturnity, preference for loneliness;somewhat sociable– feels quite comfortable in an unfamiliar environment, but is reluctant to participate in arguments and debates;normal communication skills– curiosity, interest in the interlocutor, patience in communicating with others, defending one’s point of view without temper;very sociable(sometimes it can be beyond the norm) – curiosity, talkativeness, likes to speak out on various issues, which sometimes irritates others, willingly meets new people;"shirt guy" – sociability is in full swing, always in the know about everything, likes to take part in all discussions, mostly on frivolous topics;communication skills of a painful nature- talkative, verbose, interferes in matters to which he has nothing to do,is taken judging problems in which one is completely incompetent often causes various kinds of conflicts in one’s environment.
During testing, the following results were obtained:
In the Ryakhovsky test, students scored approximately the same number of points (9-18). The average value is 13.5 points. This indicates approximately the same level of sociability. If you turn to the test classifier, this number of points indicates:
The subjects are inquisitive, willingly listen to an interesting interlocutor, are quite patient in communication, and defend their point of view without temper. They go to meet new people without any unpleasant experiences. At the same time, they do not like noisy companies; extravagant antics and verbosity irritate them. Also, respondents are very sociable (sometimes, perhaps even beyond measure). Sometimes they are even curious, talkative, and like to speak out on various issues, which sometimes irritates others. They are willing to meet new people. They love to be the center of attention and do not refuse anyone’s requests, although they cannot always fulfill them. Sometimes they get angry, but they quickly go away. What they lack is perseverance, patience and courage when faced with serious problems. If they wish, however, they can force themselves not to retreat.
When summing up the test results, we can say that the subjects are at the level of normal communication skills, but they can also be overly inquisitive and hot-tempered.

Answers are scored: “yes” – 2 points, “sometimes” – 1 point, “no” – 0 points. The points received are summed up, and the classifier determines which category the subject belongs to.

Questionnaire

1.You are about to have an ordinary or business meeting. Does her anticipation unsettle you?

2.Does the assignment to give a report, message, information at any meeting, meeting or similar event cause you confusion and displeasure?

3.Do you put off visiting a doctor until the last moment?

4. You are offered to go on a business trip to a city where you have never been. Will you make every effort to avoid this business trip?

5. Do you like to share your experiences with anyone?

6. Do you get annoyed if a stranger on the street asks you (to show the way, tell the time, answer some question)?

7. Do you believe that there is a problem of “fathers and sons” and that it is difficult for people of different generations to understand each other?

8.Are you embarrassed to remind a friend that he forgot to return the money he borrowed several months ago?

9. You were served an obviously poor quality dish in a restaurant or canteen. Will you remain silent and only angrily push your plate away?

10. Finding yourself face to face with a stranger, you will not enter into a conversation with him and will be burdened if he speaks first. Is it so?

11.You are horrified by any long line, no matter where it is (in a store, library, cinema box office). Do you prefer to give up your intention or stand in the back and languish in anticipation?

12.Are you afraid to participate in any commission for the consideration of conflict situations?

13.You have your own purely individual criteria for evaluating works of literature, art, culture, and you do not accept any other people’s opinions on this matter. This is true?

14. Having heard somewhere on the sidelines expressing a clearly erroneous point of view on an issue that is well known to you, do you prefer to remain silent and not enter into an argument?

15.Do you feel annoyed when someone asks you to help you understand a particular work issue or educational topic?

16.Are you more willing to express your point of view (opinion, assessment) in writing than orally?

Processing the results

“Yes” - 2 points, “sometimes” - 1 point, “no” - 0 points.

The points received are summed up, and the classifier determines which category of people the subject belongs to.

Classifier for the test by V.F. Ryakhovsky

30 - 32 points - You are clearly uncommunicative, and this is your problem, since you yourself suffer more from this. But it’s not easy for people close to you either. It is difficult to rely on you in a matter that requires group effort. Try to be more sociable, control yourself.

25 - 29 points - You are reserved, taciturn, prefer loneliness, so you have few friends. A new job and the need for new contacts, if not throwing you into panic, will throw you off balance for a long time. You know this feature of your character and are dissatisfied with yourself. But don’t limit yourself to just such dissatisfaction - you have the power to reverse these character traits. Doesn’t it happen that with any strong passion you suddenly acquire complete communication skills? You just have to shake yourself up.

19 - 24 points - You are to a certain extent sociable and feel quite confident in unfamiliar surroundings. New problems don't scare you. And yet, approach new people with caution; you are reluctant to participate in disputes and disputes. Your statements sometimes contain too much sarcasm, without any justification. These shortcomings can be corrected.

14 - 18 points -You have normal communication skills. You are inquisitive, willingly listen to an interesting interlocutor, patient enough in communicating with others, defend your point of view without temper. You go to meet new people without any unpleasant experiences. At the same time, you don’t like noisy companies; extravagant antics and verbosity irritate you.

9 - 13 points - You are very sociable (sometimes, perhaps even beyond measure), curious, talkative, like to speak out on various issues, which sometimes irritates others. Be willing to meet new people. You love to be the center of attention, you don’t refuse anyone’s requests, although you can’t always fulfill them. Sometimes you get angry, but quickly move away. What you lack is perseverance, patience and courage when faced with serious problems. If you wish, however, you can force yourself not to retreat.

4 - 8 points - You must be a “shirt guy.” Sociability flows out of you. You are always aware of everything. You love to take part in all discussions, although serious topics can give you migraines and even blues. Willinglytake a word on any issue, even if you have a superficial understanding of it. Everywhere you feel at ease.Take it for any task, although you cannot always successfully complete it. For this very reason, managers and colleagues treat you with some caution and doubt. Think about these facts.

3 points or less - Your communication skills are painful. You are talkative, verbose, and interfere in matters that have nothing to do with you. You undertake to judge problems in which you are completely incompetent. Knowingly or unwittingly, you are often the cause of various kinds of conflicts in your environment. You are quick-tempered, touchy, and often biased. Serious work is not for you. People - at work, at home, and everywhere in general - have a hard time with you. Yes, you need to work on yourself and your character! First of all, cultivate patience and restraint, treat people with respect, and finally, think about your health - this lifestyle does not pass without a trace.

1. Methodology for the general level of sociability (test by V.F. Ryakhovsky)

2. Methodology for studying communicative and organizational aptitudes (COS).

The methodological basis of the study is the principles of the personal approach adopted in Russian psychology (B.G. Ananyev); systemic approach (E.G. Yudin); objectivity of research and determinism (A.N. Leontiev, S.L. Rubinstein).

The basis is the works of Lomov B.F., Leontyev A.A., Parygin B.D., Shkoporov N.B., Labunskaya V.A., Tolstykh A.V., Gorelova I.N., R.S. Nemova, E.I. Golovakha, L.P. Grimaka et al.

Experimental base: University students in Yoshkar-Ola, in the amount of 10 people, took part in the study.

Communication as a specific social relationship has long attracted the attention of philosophers and representatives of other areas of social thought. Nowadays, communication has become the subject of special study in a whole group of sciences - primarily in general and social psychology, sociology, pedagogy, ethnography, ethics and aesthetics and other sciences. Of course, each of these sciences considers communication within the framework of its specific scientific problems.

It would seem that the meaning of the concept of communication is clear and does not require any special explanation. There are, however, many concepts whose meaning in everyday speech and in scientific use does not completely coincide. It also happens that in science itself the term is used in different meanings. This also applies to the concept of “communication”. In psychology, there are different approaches to understanding communication.

In the psychological dictionary, communication is defined as follows: “Communication is the interaction of two or more people, consisting in the exchange of information between them of a cognitive or affective-evaluative nature.”

V.N. Panferov, considering the epistemological formula of communication, “which assumes a sequential dependence of the following phenomena: person - channel - sign - meaning - meaning - attitude - behavior - personality,” believes that this chain determines “the main problematic aspects of the communication process that arise in the context of all levels of interaction between people with their differentiation according to the main functions of the subject of communication." Assuming that all human functions are his functions as a subject of mental activity, he proposes to include communicative, informational, cognitive, emotive, conative and creative functions among the main functions. Since these functions take place both in the processes of interaction between a person and a person, and in the processes of interaction between a person and objects, the author believes that they can be considered universal functions in the structure of an integral act of joint activity.

It is obvious that communication is the most important factor in the formation and development of personality. When moving from general philosophical to other levels of analysis, ideas about the process of communication are concretized, and the content of more and more new facets of this phenomenon is revealed.

The study of communication as a factor in personality development in socio-psychological analysis involves, first of all, the search for transitions of objective relations into subjective ones, as well as the objectification of subjective relations in the process of communication.

The categories “communication”, “social relations”, “activity” are inextricably interconnected, and “the necessary mediating link between the categories “social relations” and “communication” is the understanding of a person as a subject of activity.”

Analyzing the interaction of the categories “social relations” and “communication” at a general philosophical level, one can imagine the dialectic of their relationships as a dialectic of essence and phenomenon, content and form, universal, special and individual. At this level, communication acts as a process of updating all relationships of social individuals. The human relationship itself is considered here as a kind of integrity, in the unity of the subjective and objective aspects. Communication acts as an extremely broad concept, as a process of actualization of all human relationships, being, in fact, an attribute of the very existence of people.

Theoretical issues of the general philosophical theory of communication are raised in the works of S.S. Batenina, G.S. Batishcheva, L.P. Buevoy, M.S. Kagan, V.M. Sokovnina. The importance of studying the category of communication and all the personality qualities necessary for its success, presented by A.A. Brudny, was noted in ancient times.

Conceptual developments of the problem of communication in Russian psychology, first of all, are “connected with the names of B.G. Ananyev, L.S. Vygotsky, A.N. Leontyeva V.M. Myasishcheva, S.L. Rubinstein, who considered communication as an important condition for a person’s mental development, his socialization and individualization, and personality formation.

The genesis of communication abroad was studied by J. Bowlby, R. Spitz, A. Freud and many others.

In the early 60s of the 20th century, extensive research into the genesis of communication began in Russian psychology. For example, problems of interaction between an adult and a child are reflected in the works of N.M. Shchelovanova, N.A. Askarina, V. Tonkova-Yanpolskaya. Thanks to these scientists, a scientific school of normal childhood physiology was created. M.I. Lisin and A.V. Zaporozhets was subjected to a systematic and in-depth study of the genesis of communication in children in the first years of life.

E.G. Zlobodina sought to build a philosophical theory of communication, relying on the psychological concept of communication, presenting it as spiritual interpersonal contact, as “personification of social relations.” Other researchers, when considering communication, rely in their understanding on data from other sciences, which often leads to a one-sided interpretation of communication. Thus, in the work of B.A. Rodionov's communication is identified with communication.

The development in the 60s of the 20th century of social psychology as a scientific discipline located at the intersection of sociology, psychology and philosophy, gave impetus to the consideration of communication from a new angle. In the book published in 1965 by B.D. Parygin “Social psychology as a science”, the problem of communication was highlighted as one of the subjects of study of this science. Communication here refers to the mental interaction of people in all its forms, including information and communication, receptive, and oppositional. 13 of his next monograph, the author attached even greater importance to communication as a subject of socio-psychological research, recognizing it as one of the main objects of analysis. At the same time, communication was still interpreted as a purely psychological phenomenon, as “a complex and multifaceted process that can act at the same time as a process of interaction between individuals, and as an information process, and as the attitude of people towards each other, and as the process of their mutual influence on each other, and as a process of seeking empathy and mutual understanding of each other." Having identified content (communication) and form (interaction) in communication, then, based on these structural components, he again distinguishes content and form. Thus, the definition of B.D. Parygina focuses on a systematic understanding of the essence of communication, its multifunctionality and activity-based nature.

In the work of E.S. Kuzmin’s “Fundamentals of Social Psychology,” communication is considered as the basis for building a system of socio-psychological knowledge: “In social psychology, all subjective psychological qualities: attitudes, values, motives, group norms, opinions are considered in themselves, in their content and mechanisms, as a result direct communication between people, through the prism of which the entire system of social relations influences.” This understanding of communication laid the foundation for the idea of ​​its integrity, since it turned out to be not a simple sum of different forms of mental contacts of individuals, but the main phenomenon of the individual and collective psyche. There is no doubt that the study by social psychology of human communication was of great importance for deepening the general scientific understanding of the problems of man, life, and culture. Despite differences in the specific interpretation of communication within the framework of socio-psychological theory, as well as its place in the subject of science, communication was recognized by all representatives of this science as a necessary object of study, and it brought many valuable and practically important results.

Within the framework of research in child and general psychology, communication is traditionally considered as a condition for human development in the works of V.N. Panferova, B.F. Lomova, M.I. Lisina, L.I. Bozovic.

A.N. Leontiev considered communication and labor to be two main types of human activity. This is the essence of his concept and analysis of communication as an activity, which he designated as “communicative activity.”

At the same time, in the work “Man: Activity and Communication” L.P. Bueva interprets communication as something fundamentally different from activity: “Activity and communication are two interconnected, relatively independent, but not equivalent aspects of a single (individual and social) process of life.”

B.G. Ananyev also recognizes communication as one of the three main types of human activity, along with labor and knowledge.

B.F. Lomov, in his research, argues that “it is incorrect to consider the problem of communication only as exclusively belonging to social psychology,” because within the complex of psychological sciences, this problem is of interest to both work psychology, and management psychology, and engineering psychology, and medical, and pedagogical, “in which the problem of communication is one of the central ones,” and psycholinguistics, and, finally, the general theory of psychology.”

B.F. Lomov argued that communication cannot be defined as a type of human activity, that it is something fundamentally different from activity, because it connects the subject not with an object, but with another subject.

According to the definition of G.M. Andreeva “Communication is the process of establishing and developing contacts between people, including the exchange of information, the development of a unified interaction, perception and understanding by a person of another person.”

Trying to overcome the one-sidedness of various interpretations of this problem, G.M. Andreeva proposed a broader understanding of the connection between activity and communication, “when communication is considered both as an aspect of joint activity (since activity itself is not only work, but also communication in the labor process), and “as its peculiar derivative.” G.M. Andreeva considers the main processes of communicative activity to be: the communicative process itself (ensuring the exchange of information), interactive (regulating the interaction of partners in communication) and perceptual (organizing mutual perception, mutual assessment and reflection in communication).

M.I. Lisina, as a result of many years of experimental research into the processes of communication in children, identifies the following components: the subject of communication, the need for communication, communicative motives, actions of communication, tasks of communication, means of communication, products of communication:

The subject of communication is another person, a communication partner as a subject;

The need for communication is a person’s desire to know and evaluate other people, and through them and with their help - to self-knowledge, to self-esteem;

Communicative motives are what communication is undertaken for;

Actions of communication are units of communicative activity, a holistic act addressed to another person;

Means of communication are those operations through which communication actions are carried out;

The product of communication is formations of a material and spiritual nature that are created as a result of communication.

Based on the principles of system analysis, Kagan M. S. identifies the following goals of communication:

1) the purpose of communication is outside the interaction of subjects,

2) the purpose of communication lies in itself,

3) the purpose of communication is to familiarize the partner with the experience and values ​​of the initiator of communication,

4) the purpose of communication is to introduce the initiator himself to the values ​​of the partner.

A productive development of the problem of classifying communication functions is contained in the works of B.F. Lomova. In them, according to his own assessment, an attempt was made to classify some of the main functions of communication as yet incomplete; in particular, two series of functions were identified for different reasons. The first includes three classes of the following functions: information-communicative, regulatory-communicative, affective-communicative; the second is defined on a different basis and includes the organization of joint activities, people getting to know each other, the formation and development of interpersonal relationships.

The formation of communication needs can also be considered in terms of determining the patterns inherent in the formation of any communicative need during the inclusion of an individual in the system of interpersonal relationships. Analysis of the development of communication needs in ontogenesis allows us to consider the formation of personality and its development through the prism of the evolution of communicative needs, and shows in general the role of communication as one of the most important factors of socialization.

In the scheme of the evolution of communication needs proposed by M.I. Lisina, notes the emergence of a new need - for mutual understanding, for emotional empathy, because only if these needs are met does it become possible to form adequate self-esteem and mutual esteem.

Newcomb divided the social needs that determine interaction and communication into three main types: 1) needs focused on the object or goal of interaction; 2) needs focused on the interests of the communicator himself; 3) needs focused on the interests of another person or society as a whole. In real human social behavior, all three types of needs always appear, which, however, are hierarchized in different ways.

In motivation, notes V.G. Leontyev, there is a “coordination of external influences, key, environmental, trigger stimuli with the internal state of a person, with his needs and other mental formations, which constitutes acquired and innate experience.” Motivation is an active process that meets external influences. It directly opposes the “external” of a person through his behavior and activity.

Researchers distinguish speech (verbal) and non-speech (non-verbal) means in communication.

In particular, communication uses a rich range of non-verbal means, embodied in the behavioral characteristics of the rituals of acquaintance, greetings, and farewells; in the emotional tone of communication depending on the situation, reflecting the national, professional or other characteristics of those communicating; conventional gestures known only to one or another social group, and many others. A person’s behavior is built taking into account the actions and deeds of the people around him, and communication in itself is of intrinsic value to a person.

Based on the study of communication, such a personality trait as sociability, manifested in communication, is considered. A comparison of literary data allows us to characterize sociability as a relatively stable individual personality trait that develops in the course of communicative activity and is manifested in it. Sociability as a personality trait includes the following characteristics: the desire to communicate, initiative in communication, ease of making contact, stability, breadth of communication, expressiveness of communication and signs of an extroverted orientation. Sociability in the broadest sense is a person’s mental readiness for organizational and communicative activities.

In psychology, there are three functions of communication (sometimes called sides, aspects), which make it possible to more clearly structure this process. Among them are: communicative, including the exchange of information; interactive, involving the organization of interaction; perceptual, reflecting the process of perceiving and forming an image of another person and establishing interaction. Let's take a closer look at each of them.

The communicative function of communication involves the fact that people, in the course of joint activities, exchange various ideas, ideas, feelings, moods, etc. This is the information of human communication, during which information is not just transmitted, but also formed, clarified, and developed.

The communicative function has its own specifics. First, communication is not just the exchange or movement of information. Here we are dealing with a relationship between two individuals, each of whom acts as an active subject. Schematically, communication can be presented as an intersubjective process (S=S), as a “subject-subject relationship of active exchange of information, during which the subject of communication is jointly comprehended.

Secondly, the exchange of information involves the mutual influence of subjects and involves a psychological influence on the partner’s behavior in order to change it.

Thirdly, communicative influence is possible only when subjects have a single or similar system of encoding and decoding, i.e. speak the same language when the signs and the meanings assigned to them are known to everyone.

Fourthly, communication is characterized by communication barriers that are social or psychological in nature. On the one hand, this is a different worldview, worldview, worldview, which gives rise to different interpretations of the same concepts. On the other hand, barriers can be purely psychological in nature due to individual personality characteristics (shyness, secrecy, mistrust, incompatibility, etc.).

The interactive function of communication is associated with the development of strategies, tactics and techniques for the interaction of people, the organization of their joint activities to achieve certain goals. Such communication presupposes the achievement of mutual understanding, the application of joint efforts for the further organization of activities in the final results of which the communicating parties are interested. The specificity of interaction is that it records not only the exchange of information, but also, most importantly, the organization of joint actions, and, therefore, develops their forms and norms.

The diversity of the interaction structure has given rise to different approaches to its description. Social action theory analyzes the components of human interaction, their communication, interaction and their changes. Other scientists view interaction as a process that goes through certain stages: spatial, psychological, social contacts, interaction and, finally, social relationships.

An original approach to describing interaction is presented in E. Burn's transactional analysis - a direction that proposes to regulate the positions of the participants in the interaction (for example, a parent, an adult or a child) and take into account the nature of the situation and the style of interaction.

Possible types of interaction are usually divided into two opposing groups: positive (cooperation, agreement, adaptation, association) and negative (competition, conflict, opposition, dissociation). In the first case, interaction contributes to the organization of joint activities. In the second, he creates obstacles in her path. For a deeper understanding, consider two categories: cooperation and conflict.

Cooperation is the streamlining and coordination of the efforts of partners. A.N. In this case, Leontiev identified two features of joint activity: 1) division of a single process of activity between the participants; 2) changes in the activities of each of them. It is important that the result of each person’s activity is connected to the final result of joint activity through the development of interpersonal relationships.

Unlike cooperation, the phenomenon of conflict lies in the fact that it can be based on two characteristics: psychological antagonism and conflict actions. Destructive conflicts lead to mismatch and weakening of interaction. They are characterized by an increase in the number of participants and their conflict actions, an increase in negative attitudes and severity of statements, an increase in tension and prejudice, an increase in the number of incorrect perceptions of the personality traits and qualities of another person.

At the same time, not every conflict has a negative meaning. For example, a productive conflict is generated by different points of view on a problem and on how to solve it. There is no personality incompatibility here. Such a conflict promotes a comprehensive understanding of the problem and cooperative interaction within it.

The perceptual function of communication explains the perception and understanding of another person and oneself, and the establishment of mutual understanding and interaction on this basis. All mental processes are included and work in the act of communication. With their help, individual characteristics of the psyche and behavior of people are perceived and assessed. Social perception involves not only understanding and accepting the goals, motives, and attitudes of a communication partner, but also considers how he is perceived. In the process of interpersonal perception, we, according to S.L. Rubinstein, as if we “read” the thoughts of another person. This is on the one hand. On the other hand, the more fully another person reveals himself, the more complete his self-image becomes. In the course of knowing another person, several processes are simultaneously carried out: his emotional assessment, and an attempt to understand the structure of his actions, and the strategy of one’s own behavior based on this.

The mechanisms of social perception include identification, empathy and reflection. Identification means identification, likening oneself to others. To identify oneself with subordinates means, firstly, to unite oneself with them on the basis of an established emotional connection and include oneself in one’s own world of norms and values ​​accepted by them; secondly, this is the representation, the officer’s vision of his subordinates as an extension of himself (projection), endowing them with his own characteristics, traits, feelings, desires; thirdly, putting oneself in the place of a subordinate, which manifests itself in the form of immersion, transferring oneself into the field, space, circumstances of subordinates and leads to the assimilation of their personal meanings.

Rational understanding of the partner’s situation is enhanced by emotional experience, i.e. empathy (feeling). Empathy allows you to take into account the behavior of another person. Based on his emotional assessment, an appropriate attitude is formed: sympathy is a positive image of the other, antipathy is a negative one. Empathy can manifest itself in the following forms: empathy - experiencing the same emotional states as another person through identification with him or sympathy - experiencing one’s own emotional states about the feelings of another person. An important characteristic of empathy is isolation within the framework of direct emotional experience and poor development of the reflexive side.

The next mechanism of perception is reflection. In social psychology, it is understood as the awareness by the acting individual of how he is perceived by his communication partner. In other words, understanding the interlocutor by thinking for him. Mutual perception in the process of reflection presupposes the following positions: the subject himself, as he is in activity, and the subject, as he appears to the other. Both subjects of communication are in these positions. Consequently, reflection is a peculiar process of double mirroring of each other by subjects.

So, there are different approaches to understanding the category of communication and, accordingly, different interpretations of the relationship between communication and activity.

According to the meaning of our work, communication is an independent category, which has its own internal patterns of development and acts as:

Firstly, the interaction of subjects;

Secondly, the basis of interpersonal relationships;

Thirdly, how to exchange information.

1.2 Individual communication styles and their place in the stylistic space of the personality of a student, future psychologist

It is determined by the specifics of the activity itself, the individual psychological characteristics of its subject (I.V. Strakhov, N.D. Levitov, V.S. Merlin, E.A. Klimov, etc.).

In the strictly psychological, narrow sense, an individual style is “a stable system of methods, determined by typological characteristics, that develops in a person striving for the best implementation of a given activity, ... an individually unique system of psychological means that a person consciously or spontaneously resorts to in order to achieve the best results.” balancing one’s (typologically conditioned) individuality with the objective external conditions of activity.”

This definition especially emphasizes that this is “an individual, unique combination of techniques and methods that ensures the best performance of activities” (B.C. Merlin). The style of activity includes its operational composition, skills and abilities (V.E. Chudnovsky), identifying the abilities of the object itself and being determined by its individual psychological and personal characteristics.

The style of activity is associated with the style of self-regulation. Both are considered as two interconnected aspects of a holistic individual style of activity, human activity (V.I. Morosanova, G.A. Berulava). In the last decade, this education has included the concept of cognitive style, which determines the characteristics of cognitive activity and is characterized by field independence, differentiation, and analyticity. Currently, the concept of “style” is interpreted in a very broad context, as a style of behavior, style of activity, management style (leadership), communication style, cognitive style, etc.

As G.M. emphasizes Andreev, the styles of behavior defined by K. Levin related primarily to the type of decision-making by managers. Three leadership styles were identified: authoritarian, democratic and permissive. In subsequent studies, such definitions as directive, collegial and permissive were introduced. However, in relation to activity (behavior), interaction, and communication, the designations proposed by K. Levin are most often used. There are two sides to the style: content and technical, i.e. formal (techniques, methods). Below is a complete description of the formal and substantive aspects of the three styles according to G.M. Andreeva

Researchers have identified various functions of style:

instrumental,

compensatory,

system-forming

integrative.

Individual style of activity, according to E.A. Klimov, has a certain structure, the core of which includes individual psychological characteristics that either promote or counteract the success of activity.

Defining general styles of behavior, researchers note that in situations of difficulty and conflict, people identify up to ten individual styles of behavior: conflict, confrontational, smoothing, cooperative, compromise, opportunistic, avoidance, suppression, competition and defense (G.B. Morozova). It is important that these styles of behavior always accompany one or another individual style of activity, forming its background and giving it an appropriate emotional coloring. They also determine the general emotional background of the style of pedagogical activity and pedagogical communication.

In conclusion, we can say that in relation to behavior, activity, and communication, the most general definitions of style types (in the totality of its formal and substantive sides) proposed by K. Levin. Style differentiation is associated with the specific nature of people’s interaction and their individual psychological characteristics, for example, character accentuation.

The style of activity, reflecting its specificity, includes the management style, the self-regulation style, the communication style, and the cognitive style of the psychologist. The style of activity reveals the influence of at least three factors: a) individual psychological characteristics of the subject of this activity - the teacher (teacher), including individual typological, personal, behavioral characteristics; b) characteristics of the activity itself and c) characteristics of students (age, gender, status, level of knowledge, etc.). In pedagogical activity, characterized by the fact that it is carried out in subject-subject interaction in specific educational situations of organizing and managing the student’s educational activities, these factors also correlate with: a) the nature of the interaction; b) with the nature of the organization of activities; c) with the subject-related professional competence of the teacher; d) with the nature of communication. At the same time, under the style of communication, according to V.A. Kan-Kalik, the individual typological features of the socio-psychological interaction between the teacher and students are understood.

Types of styles. Communication styles are primarily divided into three general types: authoritarian, democratic and liberal-permissive, while at the same time being filled with actual “pedagogical” content. Let us give their description given by A.K. Markova.

Authoritarian style. The opponent is viewed as an object of communicative influence, and not an equal partner. The communicator alone decides, makes decisions, establishes strict control over the fulfillment of the requirements placed on him, uses his rights without taking into account the situation and opinions of students, and does not justify his actions to students. As a result, activity is lost or it is carried out only by the leading role of the psychologist, low self-esteem and aggressiveness are revealed. With an authoritarian style, for example, students’ strengths are aimed at psychological self-defense, rather than at mastering knowledge and personal development. The main methods of influence are orders and teaching. For the teacher, Character-L has low satisfaction with the profession and professional stability. Teachers with this leadership style pay the main attention to methodological culture and are often leaders in the teaching staff.

Democratic style. The opponent is considered as an equal partner in communication, a colleague in a joint search for knowledge. The teacher involves students in decision-making, takes into account their opinions, encourages independent judgment, and takes into account not only academic performance, but also the personal qualities of students. Methods of influence are encouragement to action, advice, request. With teachers with a democratic leadership style, schoolchildren more often experience states of calm satisfaction and high self-esteem. Teachers with this style pay more attention to their psychological skills. Such teachers are characterized by greater professional stability and satisfaction with their profession.

Liberal style. The teacher avoids making decisions, transferring the initiative to students and colleagues. Organizes and controls the activities of students without a system, shows indecision and hesitation. The classroom has an unstable microclimate and hidden conflicts.”

Each of these styles, revealing the attitude towards the interaction partner, determines its character: from subordination - to partnership - to the absence of directed influence. It is important that each of these styles presupposes the dominance of either a monologue or a dialogic form of communication. A more detailed differentiation of styles in terms of the nature of involvement in the activities of a communication teacher was proposed by V.A. Kan-Kalikom:

the teacher’s style of passion for joint creative activities with students, which is an expression of the teacher’s attitude to his work, to his profession;

a style of friendly disposition, which serves as a general background and a prerequisite for the success of interaction between the teacher and the class. V.A. Kan-Kalik draws attention to the danger of a friendly disposition turning into familiarity and familiarity, which can have a detrimental effect on teaching activity as a whole. “Friendliness should be pedagogically appropriate and not contradict the general system of interactions between the teacher and children”;

communication style - distance, which is an expression of an authoritarian style, which, having a beneficial effect on the external indicators of discipline, the organization of students, can lead to personal changes - conformism, frustration, inadequate self-esteem, a decrease in the level of aspirations, etc.;

communication style is intimidating and flirting, which indicates the professional imperfection of the teacher.

Based on the analysis of the dominance of each of the above styles in the behavior (activity) of teacher V.A. Kan-Kalik considers eight models.

Styles of activity depending on its nature

The most complete actual activity-based idea of ​​the styles of pedagogical activity was proposed by A.K. Markova, A.Ya. Nikonova. As these authors note, the basis for distinguishing style in a teacher’s work was the following: content characteristics of style (the teacher’s predominant focus on the process or result of his work, the teacher’s deployment of indicative and control-evaluative stages in his work); dynamic characteristics of the style (flexibility, stability, switchability, etc.); effectiveness (the level of knowledge and learning skills of schoolchildren, as well as students’ interest in the subject). On this basis, the authors have identified four types of individual styles that characterize a modern teacher.

Emotional-improvisational style (EIS). EIS teachers are distinguished by their primary focus on the learning process. The explanation of new material by such a teacher is very interesting, but in the process of explanation he often lacks feedback from the students. During the survey, the teacher addresses a large number of students, mostly strong ones, who are of interest to him, asks them at a fast pace, informal questions, but does not allow them to speak much, does not wait until they formulate the answer on their own. It is typical for a teacher with insufficiently adequate planning of the educational process: to practice in the lesson, he selects the most interesting educational material; less interesting, although important, is left for independent work by students. The teacher is distinguished by high efficiency and the use of a large arsenal of various teaching methods. He often practices collective discussions and stimulates spontaneous statements from students. The teacher is characterized by intuitiveness, which is expressed in the frequent inability to analyze the characteristics and effectiveness of his activities in the lesson.

Emotional-methodical style (EMS). A teacher with EMS is characterized by an orientation towards the learning process and results, adequate planning of the teaching and educational process, high efficiency, and a certain predominance of intuitiveness over reflexivity. Focusing on both the process and the results of learning, such a teacher adequately plans the educational process, gradually works through all educational material, carefully monitors the level of knowledge of all students (both strong and weak), his activities constantly include consolidation and repetition educational material, monitoring students' knowledge. Such a teacher is distinguished by high efficiency, he often changes the types of work in the lesson, and practices collective discussions. Using the same rich arsenal of methodological techniques when practicing educational material as a teacher with EMS, a teacher with EMS, unlike the latter, strives to activate children not with external entertainment, but to firmly interest them in the features of the subject itself.

Reasoning-improvisational style (RIS). A teacher with RIS is characterized by an orientation towards the process and results of learning, and adequate planning of the educational process. Compared to teachers with emotional styles, a teacher with RIS shows less ingenuity in selecting and varying teaching methods, is not always able to ensure a high pace of work, practices collective discussions less often, and the relative time of spontaneous speech of his students during lessons is less than that of teachers with an emotional style. A teacher with RIS speaks less himself, especially during a survey, preferring to influence students indirectly (through hints, clarifications, etc.), giving respondents the opportunity to formulate their answer in detail.

Reasoning-methodical style (RMS). Focusing primarily on learning outcomes and adequately planning the educational process, a teacher with RMS is conservative in the use of means and methods of teaching. High methodicality (systematic reinforcement, repetition of educational material, control of students’ knowledge) is combined with a small, standard set of teaching methods used, preference for students’ reproductive activity, and rare collective discussions. During the questioning process, the teacher addresses a small number of students, giving each a lot of time to answer, paying special attention to weak students. The teacher is generally characterized by reflexivity."

So, communicative activity, like any other activity, is characterized by a certain style. In the broad sense of the word, the style of activity (for example, managerial, production, pedagogical) is a stable system of methods and techniques, manifested in different conditions of its implementation.

To study the level of sociability, we conducted an experimental study in which 10 students from universities in Yoshkar-Ola took part.

The study used the method of determining the general level of sociability of V.F. Ryakhovsky and the methodology for assessing communicative and organizational aptitudes (COS) (Appendices 1-2)

The methodology of V.F. Ryakhovsky examines the level of sociability and communication; the students we studied took part in it. We proposed a test that contained the ability to determine a person’s level of communication skills. Students had to answer the questions using three answer options – “yes”, “sometimes” and “no”. The results we obtained were summarized, and the classifier was used to determine which category the subject belonged to (see Appendix 1).

The students willingly took part in this study. They answered the questions posed in the methodology with interest, wanting to identify their level of sociability

The CBS methodology determines the level of development of communicative and organizational abilities (Appendix 2). The “CBS” technique is also based on the principle of the subject reflecting and assessing certain features of his behavior in various situations. The selected situations were familiar to the subject from his personal experience. Therefore, the assessment of the situation and behavior in its conditions is based on the subject’s reproduction of his real behavior and the real attitude experienced in his experience. Based on this principle, a projective questionnaire was created that allows us to identify stable indicators of communicative and organizational inclinations.

In our study, the test students were given the texts of the questionnaire, answer forms, and the instructions were read out. Everyone took an active part in the study, tried to answer the questions of the methodology as truthfully as possible, and then shared their impressions.

2.2 Analysis and processing of research results

Sociability results in Table 1 and Chart 1.

Table 1

Results of a study of the level of sociability using the method of V. Ryakhovsky

Rice. 1. Analysis of the results of a study of the level of sociability using the method of V. Ryakhovsky

So, according to the results of this study, it is clear that students generally have an underestimated and low level of sociability.

No one showed a high level of sociability (0%), average – 1 person, low – 4 people, very low – 5 people.

From the data in diagram 1 it can be seen that the average level of sociability of managers is 10%, high level – 0%, low – 40% and very low – 50%.

An analysis of the results of the level of development of communicative and organizational aptitudes using the CBS method is presented in tables 2-3 and diagrams 2-3.

table 2

Results of a study of the level of communication skills (CS) among social educators using the CBS methodology

Table 3

Results of a study of the level of organizational skills (OS) among social educators using the CBS methodology

Diagram 2. Results of a study of the level of communication skills (CS) of managers using the COS method

Diagram 3. Results of a study of the level of organizational skills (OS) of managers using the CBS methodology

So, according to the results of this study, it is clear that 40% of students have a very high level of communication skills, 20% have a below average level of communication skills, and 40% have a low level of skills.

Only 1 psychology student showed a high level of organizational skills (10%), 60% of students demonstrated a low level, and 30% demonstrated a very high level of organizational skills.

To increase the level of development of sociability, communication and organizational skills, we have developed a system of classes (APPENDIX 3) to develop students’ communication skills and communication styles. The program is based on the works of A.S. Prutchenkov and F. Burnard.

The program is the development of classes to improve the level of communication, communication and organizational skills, and communication style of students.

The training system is based on 10 classes of 2 exercises for 1.5-2 hours per week on weekends. There are 10 people in the group.

In conclusion, after conducting theoretical and practical research, it is necessary to draw the following conclusions:

The problem of human communication and its place in the development of a person’s ideas about himself is one of the most pressing among those that psychological science is working on.

The concepts consider communication as an independent category, which has its own internal patterns of development and acts as an interaction between subjects; as the basis of interpersonal relationships and a condition for personal development; as an exchange of information. Communication unfolds in the presence of a communicative need, initiative and activity of the subject. Communication is a complex, multi-level and multifunctional social phenomenon. From the standpoint of modern concepts, we have characterized three interconnected aspects of communication: information (communication), interactive and perceptual.

In communication, as in the process of sequential actions, behavioral acts (both verbal and non-verbal), information is exchanged, its interpretation, mutual perception, mutual understanding, mutual assessment, empathy, the formation of likes and dislikes, the nature of relationships, psychological impact, resolution of contradictions, implementation and regulation joint activities. In business communication, people are united by business interests and joint activities aimed at achieving common goals. The basic principle of business relationships is rationality, the search for means to increase the efficiency of cooperation.

Communication activity, like any other activity, is characterized by a certain style. In the broad sense of the word, the style of activity (for example, managerial, production, pedagogical) is a stable system of methods and techniques, manifested in different conditions of its implementation.

It is determined by the specifics of the activity itself, the individual psychological characteristics of its subject.

In the strictly psychological, narrow sense, an individual style is “a stable system of methods, determined by typological characteristics, that develops in a person striving for the best implementation of a given activity, ... an individually unique system of psychological means that a person consciously or spontaneously resorts to in order to achieve the best results.” balancing one’s (typologically conditioned) individuality with the subject ones in Communication styles are primarily divided into three general types: authoritarian, democratic and liberal-permissive, while at the same time being filled with the actual “pedagogical” content by external conditions of activity.”

An empirical study of communication was conducted using the example of a group of students, future psychologists. The general level of sociability, the level of development of communicative and organizational inclinations were determined.

For students, well-developed communication skills, the desire to expand the scope of contacts, the ability to persuade and achieve their goals are of greater importance.

Analysis of the results of the empirical study showed that students have a low level of sociability and a low level of communication and organizational skills.

40% of students had a very high level of communication skills, 20% had a below average level of communication skills, and 40% had a low level of skills.

Only 10% of those studied showed a high level of organizational skills, 60% of students demonstrated a low level, and 30% demonstrated a very high level of organizational skills.

To increase the level of development of sociability, communication skills and communication style, we have developed a system of classes to develop empathy, communication and organizational skills of managers. The program is based on the works of A.S. Prutchenkov and F. Burnard. The program is a system of classes to improve the level of communication, empathy, communication and organizational skills of managers.

Completing the training helps develop communication skills, develop an optimal communication style, more effective communication with clients and partners, quickly resolve issues and, ultimately, improve work efficiency.

Thus, the hypothesis has been proven, goals have been achieved, problems have been solved.

1. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya, K.A. Activity and personality psychology. /K.A. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya, - M.: Mysl, 1991.-174 p.

2. Andreeva, G.M. Social psychology / G.M. Andreeva, - M.: AspectPress, 2002. - 363 p.

3. Batarshev, A.V. Psychodiagnostics of the ability to communicate, or how to determine the organizational and communicative qualities of an individual

/A.V. Batarshev, - M.: VLADOS, 1999. - 174 p.

4. Bodalev, A.A. On the problem of social perception. Sat. Experimental and applied psychology/A.A. Bodalev, - L.-1970.- 312 p.

5. Bodalev, A.A. Personality and communication: Selected psychological works. - 2nd ed./ A.A. Bodalev, - M.: International. ped. Academy, 1995.- 420 p.

6. Bueva, G.A. Man: activity and communication / G.A. Bueva, - M., 1978. - 132 p.

7. Gorelov, I.N. Nonverbal components of communication / I.N. Gorelov - M., Nauka, 1980. - 345 p.

8. Zlobodina, E.G. Communication as a factor in personality development. / E.G. Zlobodina, - Kyiv: Nauk, Dumka, 1982.

9. Fundamentals of management/G.B. Kaznachevskaya, I.N., Chuev, - Rostov-on-Don, 2004. – 490 p.

10. Kalyuzhny, A.S. Psychology of interpersonal communication: Textbook. village /A.S. Kalyuzhny, - N.Novgorod: NSTU, 2004. -132 p.

11. Kolominsky, Ya.L. Psychology of communication /Ya.L. Kolominsky, - M.: Knowledge, 1989. - 440 p.

12. Kuzmin, E.S. Fundamentals of social psychology. / B.C. Kuzmin, - St. Petersburg: Leningrad State University, 1967. -173 p.

13. Carnegie D. How to win friends and influence people / D. Carnegie. – M., 2006. – 864 p.

14. Lavrinenko V.N. Psychology and ethics of business communication / V.N. Lavrinenko, - M.: Unity, 1997. - 211 p.

15. Leontyev A.L. Pedagogical communication / A.L., Leontiev - M., 1979 - 118 p.

16. Lisina M.I. Communication, personality and psyche of the child / M.I. Lisina, - M.: Voronezh, 1997.-320 p.

17. Lomov, B.F. Communication and social regulation of individual behavior // Psychological problems of social regulation of behavior / B.F. Lomov, - M., 1976. – 345 p.

18. Meskon M.Kh. Fundamentals of management / M.Kh. Meskon, M. Albert, F. Khedouri, - M.: Delo, M., 1993. - 512 p.

19. Panferov V.N. Communication as a subject of socio-psychological research. Diss. Doctor of Psychological Sciences / V.N. Panferov - St. Petersburg: Leningrad State University, 1983.-300 p.

20. Parygin, B.D. Fundamentals of socio-psychological theory / B.D. Parygin, - M.: Mysl, 1971.-351 p.

21. Rodionov, B.A. Communication as a social phenomenon / B.A. Rodionov / Rep. ed. V.E. Davidovich. - Rostov-on-Don: RSU, 1984. -143 p.

22. Rytchenko T.A. Psychology of business relations / T.A. Rytchenko - MGUESI, M., 2001. – 356 p.

Annex 1

Methodology “Determination of the general level of sociability”

Instructions: “Your attention is invited to several simple questions. Answers are scored: “yes” – 2 points, “sometimes” – 1 point, “no” – 0 points.

The points received are summed up, and the classifier determines which category the subject belongs to.

Test classifier

30-31 points. You are clearly uncommunicative, and this is your misfortune, since you yourself suffer the most from this. But it’s not easy for people close to you either. It is difficult to rely on you in a matter that requires group effort. Try to be more sociable, control yourself.

25-29 points. You are reserved, taciturn, prefer loneliness, so you have few friends. A new job and the need for new contacts, if not throwing you into panic, will throw you off balance for a long time. You know this feature of your character and are dissatisfied with yourself. But don’t limit yourself to such dissatisfaction - you have the power to reverse these character traits. Doesn’t it happen that with any strong passion you suddenly acquire complete communication skills? You just have to shake yourself up.

19-24 points. You are to a certain extent sociable and feel quite confident in unfamiliar surroundings. New problems don't scare you. And yet, approach new people with caution; they are reluctant to participate in disputes and disputes. Your statements sometimes contain too much sarcasm, without any justification. These shortcomings can be corrected.

14-18 points. Your communication skills are normal. You are inquisitive, willingly listen to an interesting interlocutor, patient enough in communication, defend your point of view without temper. You go to meet new people without any unpleasant experiences. At the same time, you don’t like noisy companies; extravagant antics and verbosity irritate you.

9-13 points. You are very sociable (sometimes, perhaps even beyond measure). They are curious, talkative, and like to speak out on various issues, which sometimes irritates others. Be willing to meet new people. You love to be the center of attention, you don’t refuse anyone’s requests, although you can’t always fulfill them. Sometimes you get angry, but quickly move away. What you lack is perseverance, patience and courage when faced with serious problems. If you wish, however, you can force yourself not to retreat.

4-8 points. You must be a "shirt guy." Sociability flows out of you. You are always aware of everything. You love to take part in all discussions, although serious topics can give you a migraine or even the blues. You willingly take the floor on any issue, even if you have a superficial understanding of it. Everywhere you feel at ease. You take on any task, although you cannot always successfully complete it. For this very reason, managers and colleagues treat you with some caution and doubt. Think about these facts.

3 points or less. Your communication skills are painful. You are talkative, verbose, and interfere in matters that have nothing to do with you. You undertake to judge problems in which you are completely incompetent. Knowingly or unwittingly, you are often the cause of various kinds of conflicts in your environment. You are quick-tempered, touchy, and often biased. Serious work is not for you. People - at work, at home, and everywhere in general - have a hard time with you. Yes, you need to work on yourself and your character! First of all, cultivate patience and restraint, treat people with respect, and finally, think about your health - this lifestyle does not pass without a trace.

Questionnaire text

You are about to have an ordinary or business meeting. Does her anticipation unsettle you?

Do you feel confused or displeased when asked to give a report, message, or information at a meeting, gathering, or similar event?

Do you put off visiting a doctor until the last moment?

You are offered to go on a business trip to a city where you have never been. Will you make every effort to avoid this business trip?

Do you like to share your experiences with anyone?

Do you get annoyed if a stranger on the street asks you (to show the way, tell the time, answer some question)?

Do you believe that there is a problem of “fathers and sons” and that it is difficult for people of different generations to understand each other?

Are you embarrassed to remind a friend that he forgot to return the money he borrowed several months ago?

You were served an obviously poor quality dish in a restaurant or canteen. Will you remain silent and only angrily push your plate away?

Finding yourself face to face with a stranger. You will not enter into a conversation with him and will be burdened if he speaks first. Is it so?

You are horrified by any long line, no matter where it is (in a store, library, cinema box office). Would you prefer to give up your intention or stand in the back and languish in anticipation?

Are you afraid to participate in any commission for considering conflict situations?

You have your own purely individual criteria for evaluating works of literature, art, culture, and you do not accept any other people’s opinions on this matter. This is true?

Having heard somewhere on the sidelines expressing a clearly erroneous point of view on an issue that is well known to you, do you prefer to remain silent and not engage in conversation?

Do you feel annoyed when someone asks you to help them understand a particular work issue or educational topic?

Are you more willing to express your point of view (opinion, assessment) in writing than orally?

Appendix 2

Methodology for studying communication and organizational skills

Instructions: “The test offered to you contains 40 questions. Read them and answer all questions using the form. Question numbers are printed on the form. If your answer to the question is positive, that is, you agree with what is being asked in the question, then circle the corresponding number on the form. If your answer is negative, that is, you do not agree, then cross out the corresponding number. Make sure that the question number and the number on the answer sheet match. Please note that the questions are general in nature and may not contain all the necessary details. Therefore, imagine typical situations and do not think about the details. Don't waste a lot of time thinking, answer quickly. It may be difficult for you to answer some questions. Then try to give the answer that you consider preferable. When answering any of these questions, pay attention to his first words and coordinate your answer with them. When answering questions, do not try to make a deliberately pleasant impression. Sincerity in answering is important.”

Select "yes" or "no" to the questions below.

Keys and results processing.

The results are processed by comparing the answers with the key (separately for communication (CS) and organizational (OU) skills).

The answer is “yes” to questions No. 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, 29, 33, 37

The answer is “no” to questions No. 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23, 27, 31, 35, 39

The answer is “yes” to questions No. 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, 26, 30, 34, 38

The answer is “no” to questions No. 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40

The number of answers that match the key is counted for each section of the methodology, then the estimated coefficients are calculated separately for CU and OU using the formula:

K=0.05*C, where:

K - the value of the evaluation coefficient

C – number of answers matching the key.

Estimated coefficients can vary from 0 to 1

An indicator close to 1 indicates a high level of GC and OA, close to 0 - a low level. Primary indicators of CG and OC can be presented in the form of assessments indicating different levels of the skills being studied

Communication skills:

Organizational skills:

Analysis of the results obtained.

Ryakhovsky’s technique is quite simple: you need to answer the following questions with one of three possible answers: “yes”, “no” or “sometimes”. It is important to answer quickly, without thinking much. The questions are simple and do not require thought - all you need is honesty.

You are about to have an ordinary or business meeting. Does waiting unsettle you?

Do you feel confused or displeased when asked to give a report, message, or information at a meeting, gathering, or similar event?

Do you put off visiting the doctor until the last minute?

You are offered to go on a business trip to a city where you have never been. Will you make every effort to avoid this business trip?

Do you like to share your experiences with anyone?

Do you get annoyed if a stranger on the street asks you (to show the way, tell the time, answer some question)?

Do you believe that there is a problem of “fathers and sons” and that it is difficult for people of different generations to understand each other?

Are you embarrassed to remind a friend that he forgot to return the money he borrowed several months ago?

You were served an obviously poor quality dish in a restaurant or canteen. Will you remain silent and only angrily push your plate away?

Finding yourself face to face with a stranger, you will not enter into a conversation with him and will not be bothered if he speaks first. Is it so?

You are horrified by a long line, no matter where it is (in a store, library, cinema box office). Would you prefer to give up your intention or stand in the back and languish in anticipation?

Are you afraid to participate in any commission for considering conflict situations?

You have your own purely individual criteria for evaluating works of literature, art, culture, and you do not accept any other people’s opinions on this matter. This is true?

Having heard somewhere on the sidelines expressing a clearly erroneous point of view on an issue that is well known to you, do you prefer to remain silent and not engage in conversation?

Do you feel annoyed when someone asks you to help them understand a particular work issue or educational topic?

Are you more willing to express your point of view (opinion, assessment) in writing than orally?

Ryakhovsky test is the key

The technique that Ryakhovsky developed, like many other tests, requires summarizing the results obtained. For each answer “yes” give yourself 2 points, “sometimes” - 1 point, “no” - 0 points. Add up all the numbers and find your result in the classifier below.

• ·30-31 points. You are very uncommunicative, and this can cause a lot of problems for both you and your loved ones. It is important for you to learn self-control, because in some cases the ability to interact is more important than ever.
• ·25-29 points. Without hesitation, you can be called a closed person; you probably have very few friends and, in general, a narrow circle of friends. Any new communication throws you off balance for a long time, and the anticipation of meeting a stranger completely plunges you into horror. You are probably unhappy with this trait of your character. When you have a strong passion, you can be quite sociable, and there are simple ways for you to solve this problem.
• ·19-24 points. You are quite sociable, and even in a new environment you will feel very comfortable. However, you are in no hurry to enter into various disputes. Your expressions sometimes contain too much irony and sarcasm, but you can easily correct this deficiency yourself.
• ·14-18 points. Your sociability is within normal limits. You are moderately curious, know how to listen, can defend your point of view, and will not flare up again. Meeting new people does not depress you, but you do not tolerate noisy companies joylessly. As a rule, you are irritated by extravagant antics and verbose people seeking to attract attention.
• ·9-13 points. You are very sociable, talkative and inquisitive. You love to express your opinions on various issues so much that it sometimes pushes more introverted people away from you. You easily get to know each other and communicate, and do not like to refuse requests. Hot-tempered, but quick-witted. As a rule, you lack perseverance to solve problems, but this is easily corrected.
• ·4-8 points. People like you are referred to as a "good guy." You are overly sociable and always aware of all events. Despite your love of conversation, you do not like to discuss any serious topics. You are ready to talk even about what you are hearing about for the first time in your life. Despite the fact that you feel great everywhere, people around you are wary of you because you are not the most reliable person. It is sometimes impossible to trust you with a secret or to convince you to complete the work you have started. You should develop perseverance and take information more seriously.
• ·3 points or less. You are painfully sociable. You often interfere in other people's affairs, judge things you don't know about, are quick-tempered and easily offended. Serious work is clearly not for you - you are often too superficial. As a rule, it is difficult for an ordinary person to be with you. You should work on your character, learn to be a more restrained and tolerant person. It might even be worth talking to a psychologist about this topic, because because of this lifestyle, you are likely to have problems at work and in your personal life.