Self-Perception and Cognitive Features of Students with Different Sociometric Status
More details
Hide details
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, RUSSIA
Moscow Region State University, Moscow, RUSSIA
Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, Moscow, RUSSIA
Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow, RUSSIA
Ulyanovsk State University, Ulyanovsk, RUSSIA
Publish date: 2018-12-19
Eurasian J Anal Chem 2018;13(New Science Methodology 1b):em86
The article contains the results of an empirical study on self-perception and cognitive style of students. The issue of what psychological variables accompany the process of interpersonal interaction in small groups is considered from a viewpoint of cognitive structures of individual members that comprise such groups. The article also presents a theoretical and methodological analysis of personal and cognitive features of students with different sociometric status. The novelty of this work consists in studying self-perception of group members with different sociometric status, and personal and cognitive characteristics and features given to group members through a system of their opinions about each other. It was concluded from the results of the study that the subjects with different sociometric status are perceived differently by the group: leaders appear to be more aggressive and authoritarian than outsiders. The subjects-leaders when coming across the circumstances that subjectively experienced as unpleasant ones, are able to minimize negative experience and find positive moments in such situations. The outsiders are unable to see the positive aspects of situations they subjectively experience as unpleasant. The cognitive space of the subjects-leaders includes the binary opposition construct “optimistic – pessimistic” what can be determined as cognitive complexity. While the subjects-outsiders perceive the cognitive field of the construct as a one-sided structure, and in unpleasant situations they see the surrounding reality not from the positive side, but only from the negative one. The results presented in this article can be useful to optimize interpersonal relations in student groups, as well as to be a source of additional information to develop measures of a psychological impact.
1. Witkin HA, Goodenough DR, Oltman P. Psychological differentiation: current status. Journal of Personality and Soc. Psychology. 1979;37(7):1127-1145.
2. Gardner RW, Schoen RA. Differentiation and abstraction in concept formation. Baltimor: Thought and Personality; 1970.
3. Kagan J. Reflection-impulsivity: The generality and dynamics of conceptual tempo. Joyrnal of Abnorm. Psychology. 1966;2:101-108.
4. Mamedova LV, Gudkov YuE, Sergievich AA, Khoroshikh PP. Cognitive styles: modern aspects of research. Bulletin of A.S. Pushkin Leningrad State University. 2016;2:48-59.
5. Ostapenko GS, Zobkov AV. Dynamics of heterochronism of the development of cognitive styles in adolescence. PNiO. 2016;2(20):73-87.
6. Petrenko VF, Mitina OV, Korostina MA. Psychometric Analysis of Diagnostic Indicators of the Technique “Fabulous Semantic Differential”. Bulletin of Moscow University. Series Psychology. 2017;2:114-135.
7. Sachkova ME. A topical approach to the study of status relations in student groups in the framework of the school of thought at the Faculty of Social Psychology of Moscow State Pedagogical University. Social psychology and society. 2016;7(1):59-71.
8. Zolotovitsky RA. Sociometry by Ya.L. Moreno. Psychology and schoo. 2007;3:43-54.
9. Kuznetsova MA, Miroshkin DV, Chilingaridi SN. Methodical approaches to teaching human anatomy in modern conditions. Morphology. 2017;151(3):79-80.
10. Moreno JL. The first Book of Group Psychotherapy. New York: Beacon; 1932.
11. Prikhozhan AM. Psychology of Anxiety: Preschool and School Age. Santk-Petersburg: Speech, 2007.
12. Kelly JA. Theory of personality. Psychology of personal constructs. St. Petersburg: Speech; 2000.
13. Shkuratova IP. Cognitive style and communication. Rostov on Don: Publishing house of Rostov Pedagogical University; 1994.
14. Yemelyanenkova AV, Gagarina MA, Aygumova ZI, Kerimova IA, Deberdeeva NA. Motivational particularities among the members of successful and unsuccessful teams in local organizations. International journal of advanced biotechnology and research. 2017;8(2):667–673.
15. Karpova EV, Yablokova AV. Cognitive styles: the history of the issue and new problems. Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin. 2016;6:62-74.
16. Kholodnaya MA. Cognitive styles. The nature of the individual mind. St. Petersburg: Peter; 2004.
17. Kapesina TT. The study of interpersonal relations in a student group. Science, Society, State. 2016;4(1):95-102.
18. Masalimova AR, Chibakov AS. Experimental analytical model of conditions and quality control of vocational training of workers and specialists. Mathematics Education. 2016;11(6):1796-1808.
19. Salakhova VB, Tkhugo MM, Shalamova LF, Polevaya MV, Pozharskaya EL. Intergration resources of the personality in the context of human existence modes. Man in India. 2017;97(9):121-130.
20. Torlopova NV, Nizovskikh NA. Cognitive complexity of interpersonal perception as an indicator of communicative competence of senior preschool pupils. Kontsept. 2017;5:79-86.
21. Masalimova AR, Schepkina NK, Leifa AV, Shaidullina AR, Burdukovskaya EA. Mentoring perfection in modern enterprises conditions: practical recommendations. American Journal of Applied Sciences. 2014;11(7):1152-1156.
22. Salakhova VB, Kalinina NV, Belinskaya DB, Aygumova ZI, Tkhugo MM. Education as a factor of raising the adaptation potential in a delinquent personality. Man in India. 2017;97(3):1-13.
23. Lipatova NV. Salakhova VB, Chertushkina TA, Ermolayeva SV, Mikhaylova IV, Shrol OY, Panteleev SV. An adaptive man: hardiness resources in the conditions of system crises at the turn of the xix-xx and the xx-xxi centuries. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 2015;6(2):136-141.
24. Efimova ОI, Salakhova VB, Mikhaylova IV, Gnedova SB, Chertushkina TA, Agadzhanova ER. Theoretical review of scientific approaches to understanding crisis psychology. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 2015;2:3-11.
25. Kalinina NV, Salakhova VB, Artamonova EG, Efimova OI, Kalinin IV. Psychological Prevention Mechanisms of Minors’ Deviant Behavior. Eurasian Journal of Analytical Chemistry. 2017;12(Special Issue):663-672.
26. Obdalova OA, Soboleva AV, Naiman EA. The concept of cognitive style and its role in the functioning of the cognitive sphere of the individual when teaching a foreign language. Bulletin of Tomsk State University. 2013;366:126-131.
27. Leary T. Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Routledge; 1957.