1 2009

.......................................................................................................................................

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

. . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

. . : . . . . . . . 48

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

. . , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Contents.......................................................................................................................................

FROM THE EDITORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Psychology at schoolO. E. KhukhlayevETHNIC ATTITUDES OF MOSCOW HIGHSCHOOL STUDENTS IN COEDUCATIONWITH MIGRANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

V. A. IlyinA COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE PSYCHOSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENTS IN SENIOR HIGHSCHOOL CLASSES AND FRESHMEN STUDENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

P. P. Astreyko TEMPORAL ORGANIZATION OF SELF IMAGE IN JUNIOR TEENAGERS WITH INTELLECTUALDISABILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

N. I. NovozhilovaSOCIOPSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MODERN CHILDREN'S AND YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS PSYCHOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Psychology at the universityG. P. Loginova, V. V. PonomarevaTHE ROLE OF EMPIRICAL AND THEORETICAL THINKING IN THE PROCESS OF TEACHING APPLIED PSYCHOLOGISTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

O. I. ShcherbakovaCONFLICT MANAGEMENT TRAINING: CONTEXTUAL APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

D. R. MerzlyakovaSYNDROME OF PROFESSIONAL BURNOUT AND TEACHER'S METAINDIVIDUALITY . . . . . . . . . . 55

I. U. YushvaevaDEVELOPMENT OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS OF PSYCHOLOGY STUDENTS IN THE PROCESS OF EDUCATION IN A UNIVERSITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

N.G. Garanyan, D. A. Andrusenko, I. D. HlomovPERFECTIONISM AS A FACTOR OF STUDENT DISADAPTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

V. N. KosyrevSTUDENT SELFCHANGE DURING THE ACTIVITY OF MASTERING THE CULTURE OF ACADEMIC WORKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

N. V. NozikovaTHE FORMATION OF FAMILY AND PARENT ORIENTATION IN FEMALE STUDENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Useful material for psychologistsL. M. ShishlyannikovaAPPLICATION OF CORRELATION ANALYSIS IN PSYCHOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

!

. :

; . ,

. . , (. . ). . . . . . . , (. . ).

, : (. . , . . ); (. . ); (. . ); (. . , . . . . ); (. . ); (. . ). . . , .

, (. . ), , .

, !

(2008, 4) , , . , . . , .

. .**,

. .

, .

[8], . , , ( ). .

5

.......................................................................................................................................

3 *

( ) . , ( ) .

: , , , , .

* 070600243.** huhlaev@mail.ru

? , . . , , . , , , . , , ( , ), , .

, , , [7]. , , , ( , ) , .

. . . . , : ) , ) ( ),) , ( ) ) , ( .: [6]).

80 , .

, 24 , .

2007 . 150 1518 , , (. ). .

, (. 1).

: 1) ,, 2) . . 1 . . , [2]. , , () .

: . : , .

: .

6

. . ........................................................................................................................................

, , ( ); , , .

:

. () = 0,8;

. () = 0,82;

. () = 0,79;

. () = 0,84.

5 :

1) ( = 0,7);

2) ( = 0,7);

3) ( = 0,7);

4) ( = 0,65);

5) ( = 0,77).

, , .

( ). .

(511 .).

1. , ( ) 189 . 1316 ( 14,7 ). 52 % , 48%.

7

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

3

3

.1. ,

3

3

3

2. 148 . 1416 , 15,3 . 49 % , 51 %.

3. , (. ) 53 . 15 17 ( 15,7 ).46 % , 54 % .

4. (), 42 , 1416 .

5. (79 . 14 17 , 15 , ).

1 2 .

, , , , , , .

( ) ,

( , ) .

. . 2.

. , . H , [4].

, : , .

8

. . ........................................................................................................................................

. 2 . ( )

.

"

Mea

n

3,8

3,6

3,4

3,2

3,0

2,8

2,6

2,4

. .

. . .

. .

. . .

.

.

. .

. . .

. . .

. . .

Mea

n

( ) , ( , Sig. = 0,023, Sig. = 0,030).

, , , ( , Sig. = 0,006). .

, , , . , , , .

H

. (Asymp. Sig. = 0,023; Asymp.Sig = 0,006). U.

. , , , .

. , ANOVA , . , . . 3.

,

9

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

. 3. ( )

.

"

Mean

4,0

3,5

3,0

2,5

2,0

.

.

.

.

.

Mea

n

, , , (Sig. = 0,015); , , (Sig. = 0,006). , .

, . ( ) , , , . (Sig. = 0,030).

H . (Asymp. Sig. = = 0,001; Asymp. Sig = 0,005). U , ( ) , , . , , , () .

. .

,

, . . . , , , , , , . , , .

, . . , .

[9], , . . , , , .

, . ( , , , ) , . , , , . , . , , [3]; [5].

, , , , .

10

. . ........................................................................................................................................

, , , , , , .

( ), , . , . . . . , , [1].

, . , , . ( ) . , .

. ,

( , ) , . . , ( ) .

1. ( ) .

2. , , , .

. .

, , ., , ., , , .

11

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

12

. . ........................................................................................................................................

1. . . .., 1994.2. . . . .,1999. 3. . . // II : . ., 2006.4. . . . ., 2007.5. ? / . . . . . . ., 2006.6. . . //

.. . . .2325 2008 .: 2 . . 1 / . .. . . , 2008. 7. . ., . . : // .2008. 3, 4 ( ).8. Maisonneuve C., Teste B. Acculturationpreferences of a host community: The effects ofimmigrant acculturation strategies on evaluationsand impression formation // International Journalof Intercultural Relations. 31 (2007). 669688.9. Pettigrew T. F. Future directions for intergroupcontact theory and research // InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations. 32 (2008).187199.

13

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

This article describes the impact of education in schools with a special educational center for cultural and linguistic adaptation of migrant children "School of Russian Language" on Moscow adolescents. To identify the ethnic attitudes (the object of which is the phenomenon of "nationality" in thecurrent Russian public discourse is synonymous of "ethnicity") we used the"Scale of ethnic attitudes" (O. E. Khukhlaev, I. M. Kuznetsov, N. V. Tkachenko). Research was carried out on 511 people, students of senior classes of secondary schools in Moscow and Armavir, schools with ethnocultural component, "cadet" schools and students of two Moscow schools with a special unit for the training of migrants ("The School of RussianLanguage"). Results indicate that joint education with migrants (with a running special unit in the school the "School of Russian Language") influences ethnic attitudes of the highschool students.

Keywords: nationalism, ethnic attitudes, psychology of migration, acculturation, intercultural communication.

Ethnic attitudes of Moscow high3school students in co3education with migrants

O. E. Khukhlayev,PhD in Psychology, Head of the Ethnopsychology and Psychological Problems

in Polycultural Education Chair, Department of Social Psychology, Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

References

1. Andreeva G. M. Social'naya psihologiya.M.,1994.2. Koroteeva V. V. Teorii nacionalizma v zarubezhnyh social'nyh naukah. M., 1999. 3. Kuznecov I. M. Perspektivy primeneniya rezul'tatov nauchnyh issledovanii v praktike social'nogo upravleniya migracionnymi processami //Vserossiiskii forum "Zdorov'e nacii osnovaprocvetaniya Rossii": Tezisy dokladov. M., 2006.4. Nasledov A. D. Matematicheskie metody psihologicheskogo issledovaniya. SPb., 2007.5. Nuzhny li immigranty rossiiskomu obshestvu?M., 2006.6. Huhlaev O. E. Nacionalizm v social'nopsihologicheskom diskurse // Aktual'nye problemyetnopsihologii v kontekste kul'turnoekonomicheskogo sotrudnichestva so stranami Aziatsko

Tihookeanskogo regiona: Sb. statei mezhdunar.nauchnprakt. konf. 2325 maya 2008 g.: V 2 t./ Pod. red. R. D. Sanzhaevoi. Habarovsk, 2008. 7. Huhlaev O. E., Kuznecov I. M. Nacionalizmkak social'nopsihologicheskii fenomen: k postanovke voprosa // Akmeologiya. 2008. 3, 4(v pechati).8. Maisonneuve C., Teste B. Acculturationpreferences of a host community: The effects ofimmigrant acculturation strategies on evaluations and impression formation // InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations. 31 (2007).669688. 9. Pettigrew T. F. Future directions for intergroupcontact theory and research // InternationalJournal of Intercultural Relations. 32 (2008).187199.

. .*, , ,

( ) : , ( )

, , . , . , ,

14

. . ........................................................................................................................................

3

, , . , .

: , , .

* va0405@mail.ru

, , , .

20052007 . , . , , . , , , , . 170 I ( ) 121 . , , , , , , 100 % . , . .

.

(. . ,. . ). , , [3]; [4];[5], . . , (, : 1 /; 2 /, ; 3 /; 4 /;5 / ).

, , .

, , . , . SPSS 11.13. , ( U < 0,01).

15

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

( U = 0,170 0,929).

. , Frequencies SPSS 11.13.

, , , . . 75 % 4 ( 4,07)

. . (). 50 % ( 4 ) . . . , 25 % ( ) 4 4,29, 0 +0,29. , 1 ( , ), 2 ( ) 3 ( ). , , , . , 25 % .

16

. . ........................................................................................................................................

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 2 3 4 5

(

)

-

(

)

, . , 50 % , , 4,07 5,29, +0,07 +1,29 . . ,

. , 25 % . ( ), , ,

17

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

1 (

)

2(

,)

3(

)

4(3

)

5 ( 3

)

33

3

33

3

33

3

33

3

33

3

5,20 5,48 3,92 4,70 4,86 4,93 3,87 5,43 4,15 4,96

5,57 5,71 4,00 4,86 5,00 5,00 3,86 5,57 4,14 5,14

6,14 5,86 4,00 5,00 5,29 5,00 3,86 5,29 4,14 5,14

1,28 0,94 0,72 0,91 1,08 0,93 0,71 0,84 0,81 0,94

1,65 0,88 0,52 0,83 1,18 0,87 0,50 0,70 0,66 0,89

1,00 1,57 1,00 2,14 1,00 2,29 1,00 2,43 1,00 2,43

7,00 7,00 6,14 7,00 7,00 6,71 6,29 6,86 5,71 7,00

: 25 4,54 5,14 3,57 4,07 4,43 4,29 3,57 5,00 3,86 4,43

50 5,57 5,71 4,00 4,86 5,00 5,00 3,86 5,57 4,14 5,14

75 6,14 6,00 4,29 5,29 5,57 5,43 4,29 6,00 4,57 5,57

1

, . , , ( < 0,01 ). , , , . ,, , , [1]; [3]; [4].

, , , , . , ( ) [5].

, , , , ., , 50 % ( ) 1 3,86 . . . 25 % ( ) 0,14 +0,29,

. , +0,29 +2,29 . . 25 % . , , , ( = 0,351). ( < 0,01 ). , .

. , 50 % ( ) +1,57 +3, . 25 % ( ) +1 +1,57, , , , . , +1, , 25 % ( 1,57). , ,

18

. . ........................................................................................................................................

, ( = 0,419). ( < 0,01 ). , . , , , , .

, ( , , , ) , , .

, , , ( , , ), , , . ( , , . .) ,

. , , . , , , . ., [5]; [6].

, , , (, . .), , ( ) , , , , , , , . , , . ( [2]), , , , [5]; [6]. , . , , , , .

19

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

( , , ), , , , . , . , , , .

, , . , , . , , , , . , , , , . , , , [5]; [6]. , ,

.

, , , 25 % , , ( +1,57 +3). ( +0,43 +1,57). , , , 2021 . [5].

, , , . . , ( < 0,01 ). , ( , ), .

, , , . , , , . 25 %

20

. . ........................................................................................................................................

, , ( +1,57 +3 1,43 2,71 ). ( +0,43 +1,57 +0,29 +1,43 ). , , , ( = 0,490). [2]; [4], , , , , .

, , , , .

, ,

. ( . , , , , .)

, , , , .

, , , .( , , .)

, . , , , .

21

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

22

. . ........................................................................................................................................

1. . . ., 2004.2. . . // . 2007. 5. 3. . .

// . 2007. 2.4. . . . , 2007.5. . : .., 2006.6. Erikson E. The life cycle completed N.Y.,1982.

23

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

The article presents results of the study that indicate that currently a largepart of Russian schoolchildren has serious deformations in psychosocialdevelopment. Some of them get successfully corrected on the stage of goaloriented preparation for the entrance to university. Rationale for the necessity of increasing attention to implementing a developing function by the middle school in the course of reforming the educational system is provided, aswell as a number of scientific and practical recommendations aimed ataddressing this problem are proposed.

Keywords: psychosocial development, basic conflict, epigenetic relevance.

A comparative study of the psychosocial development of students in senior high3school classesand freshmen students in higher educational institutions

V. A. Ilyin,PhD in Psychology, Associate Professor, Professor, Psychology of ManagementChair, Department of Social Psychology, Moscow State University of Psychologyand EducationPsychology, Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

References

1. Gudkov L. Negativnaya identichnost'. M.,2004.2. Erasova N. Yu. Stanovlenie professional'noiidentichnosti individa v kontekste psihosocial'nogo podhoda k probleme razvitiya / Psihologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie. 2007. 5.3. Il'in V. A. Ispol'zovanie psihosocial'nogo podhoda dlya izucheniya social'nopsihologicheskih

problem sovremennogo obshestva / Voprosy psihologii. 2007. 2.4. Il'in V. A. Tendencii psihosocial'nogo razvitiyav rossiiskom obshestve. Ufa, 2007.5. Erikson E. Identichnost': yunost' i krizis. M.,2006.6. Erikson E. The life cycle completed N.Y.,1982.

. .*,

, , , , , . . , , ,

, , , , . , [2]; [4]; [8]. , , , , , , ,

24

. . ........................................................................................................................................

, . 1214 , .

: , , , , .

* stolyarova@list.ru

, .

, [13]; [14]. , [1]; [3]; [5]; [6]. , [2]; [10]. . () (), , , , . , , , [7]; [9]; [11].

, , , , . , , , , , [12]. , ,

[9]. , c, , , .

, , . . . . , .

. .

.

. , (, ). : L , ,

25

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

, .

12 14 : (16 22, 25 168 ); 32 , 10 . 73 .

, : , , . :

) ;

) ; ) . .

:

1) . ,

, . . , . , ;

2) (). , . . , ;

3) (). , , ( );

4) . , . , .

. 1.

26

. . ........................................................................................................................................

1

3

. % . % . % . %

24 58,53 13 40,62 18 43,90 20 62,5

2 4,87 3 9.37 6 14,63 3 9,37

3 7,31 8 25 4 9,75

12 29,26 8 25 13 31,70 9 28,12

:

) (, );

) ( , 34 );

) ( 12 );

) ( )(. 2).

.

1. . ,, , .

2. . , .

3. . , .

4. . , .

, , , , (, ) , . .

5. . , , , .

6. . , .

7. . , , . , , , . , , .

27

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

3

3

. % . % . % . %

3 7,31 18 56,25 3 7,31 23 71,87

29 70,73 3 9,37 31 75,60 4 12,5

8 19,51 8 25 5 12,19 2 6,25

1 2,43 3 9,37 2 4,87 3 9,37

2

1. . , , , , . ( 95 %) . (, , , ). (58,53 %) (40,62 %) , . . .

. . , , . [1]; [6]; [8]. , ,

. , , , , , ., , , .

, , ( ) .

() . , , , . , , , , . ,

28

. . .......................................................................................................................................

.

, , , . , 1214 , , .

2. . , (95 %) , (p = 0,05). . . , , . , , , . , ,

, , .

, , , , , , , , . , . , , ( , ) .

, , , . . . , , , 50 % [7]. . , ,

29

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

. , , . , . , , , . , , ,

.

, , . , , .

30

. . .......................................................................................................................................

1. . . . ., 1985.2. . . . . ... .. . , 2001. 3. . . // . . . I. .,1982.4. . . . . ... . . . , 1998. 5. . . // . .,1987.6. . ., . . // : . ., 1987.7. . . . ., 2003.8. . .

. . ... .. . , 1972. 9. . . .., 1989.10. . . // . ., 1982.11. . ., . ., . . // , . . 2. ., 1996.12. . ., . ., . . : // : . , 2002.13. . . . ., 1989.14. . . // . ., 1977.

31

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

This study is devoted to the Self image through a subject's notion of own variability over time. The article presents results of the empirical study on thetemporal organization of the Self in normal adolescents 1214 years and withmental retardation. Structural types of selfesteem and their content characteristics were identified.

Keywords: selfesteem, selfconsciousness, Self image, adolescence, mental retardation.

Temporal organization of Self image in junior teenagers with intellectual disabilities

P. P. Astreyko,PhD student, Psychology Chair, Department of Philosophy and Social Sciences,

Belarus State University

References

1. Alekseev V. A. Razvitie samosoznaniya narubezhe podrostkovogo i yunosheskogo vozrasta.M., 1985.2. Biryukevich E. A. Razvitie obraza ya u detei priperehode ot starshego doshkol'nogo k mladshemushkol'nomu vozrastu. Dis. ... kand. psihol. nauk.Brest, 2001.3. Vygotskii L. S. Soznanie kak problema psihologiipovedeniya // Sobr. soch. T. 1. M., 1982.4. Gaurilyus A. I. Vozrastnaya dinamika predstavlenii uchashihsya vspomogatel'noi shkoly osebe i odnoklassnikah v sisteme mezhlichnostnyhotnoshenii. Dis. ... kand. psihol. nauk. Minsk, 1998.5. Gutkina N. I. Lichnostnaya refleksiya kak odin izmehanizmov samosoznaniya // Formirovanie lichnosti v perehodnyi period ot podrostkovogo kyunosheskomu vozrastu. M., 1987.6. Gutkina N. I., Prihozhan A. M. Osobennostisamosoznaniya // Formirovanie lichnosti v perehodnyi period: Ot podrostkovogo k yunosheskomuvozrastu. M., 1987.7. Isaev D. N. Umstvennaya otstalost' u detei ipodrostkov. SPb., 2003.8. Kolominskii N. L. Samoocenka i uroven' prityazanii uchashihsya starshih klassov vspomogatel'

noi shkoly v uchebnoi deyatel'nosti i mezhlichnostnyh otnosheniyah. Dis. ... kand. psihol. nauk.Minsk, 1972.9. Lubovskii V. I. Psihologicheskie problemy diagnostiki anomal'nogo razvitiya detei. M., 1989.10. Prihozhan A. M. Analiz soderzhaniya obraza Yav starshem podrostkovom vozraste u uchashihsyamassovoi shkoly i shkolyinternata // Vozrastnyeosobennosti psihicheskogo razvitiya detei. M.,1982.11. Prihozhan A. M., Vohmyanina T. V., Dvoinishnikov V. A. Predstavlenie o zhizni v risunkah i samosoznanie podrostkov i starsheklassnikov // Psihologicheskii monitoring detei, roditelei i uchitelei v raionahradiacionnogo zagryazneniya. Vyp. 2. M., 1996.12. Slepovich E. S., Gavrilko T. I., Polyakov A. M.Psihologiya rebenka s anomal'nym razvitiem kakpraktika psihologii Vygotskogo: podhody k postroeniyu i translyacii // Psihologicheskaya praktika:Problemy i perspektivy. Minsk, 2002.13. Sokolova E. T. Samosoznanie i samoocenkapri anomaliyah lichnosti. M.,1989.14. Chesnokova I. I. Osobennosti razvitiya samosoznaniya v ontogeneze // Princip razvitiya v psihologii. M., 1977.

. .*,

, . , 1909 . .

[1]:

1) (, );

2) ( );

32

. . ........................................................................................................................................

3 3

** berkana_aria@mail.ru

. , , . , . , , ( ), ( , , , ).

: , , , , , ,, , , , .

3) . . ( : , ,, , , , . .).

, , , . , , . , , , , [4].

, 100 % , . , , , . , .

(. . , . . ),

, . [6].

, . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . . . . , . . , . , , , . , , . , , , , . .

, , . .

33

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

. .

, .

, .

, . . c .

, ( , ); .

, . . [7].

. U .

( 1) ( 2). 200 , 80 . 9 21 ( = 16,7).

, (, , ). , , . ( ,, ) ( , ) .

, (. 1). . , 2 : 8 10 .

34

. . ........................................................................................................................................

, . , 2 (. 2).

, . , , . , , . .

, , , , . 1 2 , , , .

, . , , 85 % . , , , , ,

35

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

1 ,

1 2 ( )

2 ,

2 ( )

1 0,36 0,34 0,30

2 0,57 0,27 0,16

0,61 0,18 0,21

0,1 0,8 0,1

0 0,5 0,5

`

. , .

. , , , .

, (. 3).

. : 9 13 . , , , : .

, , , .

, , , , (. 4). , , , .

. . , ,

, . , , , , , . (., .: [2]; [3]; [5]).

, .

36

. . ........................................................................................................................................

3 ,

1 2 ( )

1 0,64 0,20 0,16

2 0,56 0,24 0,20

`

, , (. 5). ,, . 1

. , , , , ,

37

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

4 ,

( )

,

( )

, ( )

0,24 0,40 0,36

0,42 0,29 0,29

0,27 0,33 0,4

5 (()) D(x)

/

1 2

M(x) D(x) M(x) D(x)

1 5,385 0,697 5,95 0,75

2 3,07 0,963 3,31 1,25

3 5,393 0,865 4,5 0,95

4 5,167 1,368 3 1,36

5 3,961 1 4 0,87

6 5,969 1,165 6,35 1,17

7 4,333 1,073 3,875 1,45

8 3,352 0,759 3,9 0,96

9 5,443 1,124 3,3 1,24

10 5,324 0,693 4,1 0,64

`

, , . , . , . , .

, . () , , 70% . , , , . (85 %), (58 %) (61 %). , , ( : , , ! ! !) . , 60 %, 48 %. , ( , ) .

, . , . , , ( 2) ( , ), , . . , . ( 1),, , , , .

1. , ( ), ( , , , ).

2. , , (, , ).

3.

38

. . ........................................................................................................................................

( ). ( ).

4. .

5.

, , .

6. ( 1) , , , .

39

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

1. : /.. . . . ., 1998. 2. . . . ., 1997.3. . . // . , 1981.4. . . : . . ., 2006.

5. / . . . . ., 1979. 6. : : 2 / . .. . , . . . ., 2000.7. . . : . . . ., 1979.8. Rubini M., Graziani A. R., Palmonari A. Whyadolescent groups are not all alike: the role ofgroup functions. (2005) Abstracts of 14thInternational Meeting of EAESP, Wzburg.

40

. . ........................................................................................................................................

The aim of the current sociopsychological research was been to explore thesystem of interpersonal relations in modern youth organizations. The studyapplied a standardized set of sociopsychological methods and techniques.Results indicate that modern children's and youth organizations have anumber of sociopsychological features associated both with the processesof differentiation (the formation and development of status structures) andwith the processes of integration (common values, proclaimed as the valuesof the organization, aspiration for social interaction, and collaboration).

Keywords: children's and youth organizations, interpersonal relations, leader, outsider, middle status member of the group, emotional, referencescaled, imperative intragroup structures, differentiation, integration andcohesion.

Socio3psychological characteristics of modern children'sand youth organizations

N. I. Novozhilova,PhD Student, Theoretical Basis Chair, Department of Social Psychology,

Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

References

1. Detskoe dvizhenie: slovar'spravochnik / Red.sost. T.V. Truhacheva. M., 1998. 2. Kondrat'ev M. Yu. Podrostok v zamknutomkruge obsheniya. M., 1997.3. Kuz'mina Z. V. Sootnoshenie sociometricheskih i referentometricheskih vyborov // Problemykommunikativnoi i poznavatel'noi deyatel'nostilichnosti. Ul'yanovsk, 1981.4. Mal'ceva E. A. Detskaya obshestvennayaorganizaciya kak prostranstvo social'nogo vospitaniya podrostkov: Avtoref. dokt. diss. Izhevsk,2006.

5. Psihologicheskaya teoriya kollektiva / Pod red.A. V. Petrovskogo. M., 1979. Sociokinetika.Kniga o social'nom dvizhenii v detskoi srede:V 2h chastyah / Sost. i red.: T. V. Truhacheva, A. G. Kirpichnik. M., 2000.6. Shedrina E. V. Issledovanie yavleniya referentnosti v sisteme mezhlichnostnyh otnoshenii:Avtoref. kand. dis. M., 1979.7. Rubini M., Graziani A. R., Palmonari A. Whyadolescent groups are not all alike: the role ofgroup functions. (2005) Abstracts of 14th International Meeting of EAESP, Wrzburg.

. ., ,

. .,

, , , , . [3].

, , ,

. , c , . , , .

41

........................................................................................................................................

, . , , , . , .

: , , , .

, . , .

. . , , , , , [6].

. ,, . . :

, ,

, , , , ( . . , 1992, 1,. 1532).

, , :

?

() ()?

, , , .

68 5 .

(), . . . . , , , . , . , , , , 22 . , , , . , 12 , .

, .

: ( 18), ( 911), ( 12). , ,

42

. . , . . ........................................................................................................................................

. .

68 (. 1).

. (%):

71 %;

29 %.

. , . [5]; [7]. , . , , .

, , ,

. , , () , [11]. , . , . , , , . .

. , . , . : .

43

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

1

3

3

3

3 1

3 2

3 3

+++ ++ ++ + + ++

48 1 9 2 2 6

71 % 1 % 13 % 3 % 3 % 9%

. , , , . . . , , . , , .

, , (,, ), , . . . : ) ; ) , , , [8].

?

, , , . .

, , . , , (),, ( ), .

. , , : .

. , , . , . , , , ( ). , , , ., , .

, , , . , , , . , , , .

44

. . , . . ........................................................................................................................................

, . . . , . , . , , .

:

1) (), ;

2) , . , , , , .

.

1. ( ) , , , . , , , , , . , , , , , , , , , , .

2. ( )

, . , , . , ( : , ).

3. () , . , . , .

4. , , . , , . , . , . , .

5. ( ). , . ,

45

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

, . , , , . , .

. , .

. , , .

25 % ; 45 %. [15]. . , .

, , .

46

. . , . . ........................................................................................................................................

1. . / . . . . ., 2000.2. . ., . ., . . // .1999. 1.3. . . // . 1992. 1. 4. . . . . . .. , 1973.5. . . : . ., 1998.6. . . . ., 1986.

7. . . . ., 2004.8. . . , ,. ., 2003.9. . . . ., 1996.10. / .. . . . . ., 1997.11. / .. . , . . . .,1990.12. . . , . ., 1967.13. . . . ., 1996. 14. / . . . . , 2002.15. . . . ., 2001.

47

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

This article is devoted to the problem of determining the relevant professional qualifications required for applied psychologist. The study was conducted in two stages. The first stage identifies what kind of thinking contributes to the professional development of the applied psychologists themost theoretical or empirical. On the next stage a comparative analysis of conflict resolution style among students with different types and levels of thinking development was carried out. Results indicate that theoreticaltype of thinking shaping in the process of professional training is closelylinked with the development of such an adequate for a professional psychologist behaviour strategy in the conflict as "Cooperation".

Keywords: professional training, thinking type, proficiency, behaviour strategies.

The role of empirical and theoretical thinking in the processof teaching applied psychologists

G. P. Loginova, PhD in Psychology, Professor, Developmental Psychology Chair, Department ofPsychology of Education, Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

V. V. Ponomareva,Head of the Library Department,

Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

References

1. Atahanov R. Matematicheskoe myshlenie imetodiki opredeleniya urovnya ego razvitiya /Pod red. V. V. Davydova. M.Riga, 2000.2. Akimova M. K., Kozlova V. T., Ferens N. A. Teoreticheskie podhody k diagnostike prakticheskogomyshleniya // Voprosy psihologii. 1999. 1.3. Vasilyuk F. E. Ot psihologicheskoi praktiki kpsihotehnicheskoi teorii // Moskovskii psihoterapevticheskii zhurnal. 1992. 1. 4. Granovskaya L. N. Primenenie kolichestvennyhmetodov k analizu vozrastnoi izmenchivosti vzaimosvyazei intellektual'nyh funkcii vzroslyh: Avtoref. diss. ... kand. psihol. nauk. Leningrad, 1973.5. Gurevich K. M. Problemy differencial'noi psihologii: izbrannye psihologicheskie trudy. M., 1998.6. Davydov V. V. Problemy razvivayushegoobucheniya. M., 1986.

7. Klimov E. A. Psihologiya professional'nogosamoopredeleniya. M., 2004.8. Leont'ev A. N. Deyatel'nost', soznanie, lichnost'. M., 2003.9. Markova A. K. Psihologiya professionalizma.M., 1996.10. Psihologicheskaya diagnostika: Uchebnoeposobie / Pod red. K. M. Gurevicha i E. M. Borisovoi. M., 1997.11. Psihologicheskii slovar' / Pod red A. V. Petrovskogo, M. G. Yaroshevskogo. M., 1990.12. Ponomarev Ya. A. Znaniya, myshlenie i umstvennoe razvitie. M., 1967.13. Pryazhnikov N. S. Professional'noe i lichnostnoe samoopredelenie. M., 1996. 14. Prakticheskaya psihodiagnostika / Pod red.D. Ya. Raigorodskogo. Samara, 2002.

. .*, , . . .

, , , , . , , . , .

, , , , .

50 . . ( . ),

48

. . ........................................................................................................................................

:

* olga716@rambler.ru

. , , . : , , , , , .

: , , ,.

, [3]; [4]; [8];[9]. , , [1].

. , , , , . , , [1, c. 29]., , , , , .

. . [11, c. 13] , , , , , , .

, , . . . , , [7, . 77].

. , , ; [14, . 30].

: . . , (), .

, , :

, ,, , [7];

, , , , , , , [2].

. . , . , [7, . 124].

, . , , , , ( ) . , .

49

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

, , , , . , .

. . , , , , [5].

, , . . , , , [18, . 60]. , , , , , , , [18, . 105].

. . : , , . , , , ; . . [15, . 111112]. ,

. , , , . .

. . . . . , ; , , , , [10, c. 7].

. . , [12, . 216].

. . , , : , , , , . .[6, . 188].

, , . , . [17, . 401].

, . [6, . 52] . , , , , .

50

. . ........................................................................................................................................

, . [19] .

. , , . . , . , . , , , , . , , , , . , , , [16, . 22].

: , ,, , , , .

1. , , , , . ,

, . , ; , ; .

2. . , . , , , . / , , , . . . . , , .

3. ; , . . , , , .

51

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

, , . , , : , , , , . : , , , . .

4. ( ) , , , . . , .

5. ( ), , . . . : ;

. . .

6. ( ). , : , , , . , . . : , , , ( , , ,, , .) [13]. , , , , , . .

, , , .

52

. . ........................................................................................................................................

53

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

1. . . . ., 2004.2. . ., . . . .,2005. 3. . ., . . . ., 2004.4. . ., . . . ., 2004.5. . . . ., 1999. 6. . . : . ., 2007. 7. . . . ., 2001. 8. . . .,1909. 9. . . . ., 2003. 10. . ., . . : . ., 2002.

11. . . . ., 2005. 12. . . . .,2006. 13. . . // . 2003. 6.14. . . ., 1994. 15. . . . . ., 2007. 16. / . ,. . ., 2003. 17. ., . . ., 2002. 18. . . . ., 2003. 19. DePree M. Leadership Jazz: The Art ofConducting Business through Leadership,Followship, Teamwork, Touch, Voice. N.Y.,1993.

54

. . ........................................................................................................................................

The article analyzed the context aspect of conflict management training ofmodern professionals. It is noted that the effectiveness of conflict management is largely determined by ability of being aware and take into accountmany contexts in which conflicts occur. The following examples of contextswhere conflicts occur are presented: crosscultural, spatialtemporal, intrapersonal, developmental, gender, and communicative.

Keywords: conflict management, conflict, context.

Conflict management training: contextual approach

O. I. Shcherbakova,PhD in Education, Associate Professor, Psychology Chair, G. V. Plekhanov Russian

Academy of Economics

References

1. Ancupov A. Ya. Profilaktika konfliktov v shkol'nom kollektive. M., 2004.2. Ancupov A. Ya., Baklanovskii S. V. Konfliktologiya v shemah i kommentariyah. SPb.,2005. 3. Ancupov A. Ya., Shipilov A. I. Konfliktologiya.M., 2004.4. Bogdanov E. N., Zazykin V. G. Psihologiya lichnosti v konflikte. SPb., 2004.5. Verbickii A. A. Novaya obrazovatel'naya paradigma i kontekstnoe obuchenie. M., 1999. 6. Evtihov O. V. Trening liderstva: Monografiya.SPb., 2007. 7. Emel'yanov S. M. Praktikum po konfliktologii.SPb., 2001. 8. Zimmel' G. Sociologiya konflikta. M., 1909. 9. Kashapov M. M. Teoriya i praktika resheniyakonfliktnyh situacii. M.Yaroslavl', 2003. 10. Krol' L. M., Mihailova E. L. Trening trenerov:kak zakalyalas' stal'. M., 2002.

11. Leonov N. I. Konflikty i konfliktnoe povedenie.SPb., 2005. 12. Morozova G. B. Psihologicheskoe soprovozhdenie organizacii i personala. SPb., Rech',2006. 13. Mudrik A. O. kommunikativnoi kul'ture // Direktor shkoly. 2003. 6.14. Mei R. Iskusstvo psihologicheskogo konsul'tirovaniya. M.,1994. 15. Petrovskaya L. A. Obsheniekompetentnost'trening. Izbrannye trudy. M., 2007. 16. Psihologiya lichnosti / Dzh. Karpara, D. Servon. SPb., 2003. 17. Rodzhers K., Fraiberg D. Svoboda uchit'sya.M., 2002. 18. Hasan B. I. Konstruktivnaya psihologiya konflikta / B. I. Hasan. SPb., 2003. 19. DePree M. Leadership Jazz: The Art of Conducting Business through Leadership, Followship, Teamwork, Touch, Voice. N. Y., 1993.

. ., ,

, , , , , .

, , , .

,

(. . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , K. Levin, R. Lippit, . White). . , .

55

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

*sagitova_77@mail.ru

, . : , , .

: , , .

(. . , . . , . . , . . ,. . , . . , . . , H. J. Freundenberger, C. Maslach) , , . .

. . , .

, , . . , . . (1986), .

, , , ,, . . , , , ( . ., 2001; . .,2005; . ., 1986; . .,1992).

. Maslach, S. E. Jackson , ,

.

, . , . , , , , , . , , .

, .

. . . , ; , , , ., .

, . . , , , . , , , .

. , .

56

. . ........................................................................................................................................

. , . .

. , . . , . , ( ) , , . , , .

. . [2] , . .

, . . , . , , .

. , . .

, , , . . . .

, . [3], , , . . .

. . ( . .,1996), . , . , , . , . . , .

, . . , . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . ., , . , , . ,

57

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

. , . (, ). , . . , . . , , . , , .

, c ( . .,2001; . ., 1992), .

, , , , , , .

, , 45 . . 1080 34 , . , .

:

1) MBI; 2) ; 3)

(. . , . . , . . );

4) .

: , (. 1).

58

. . ........................................................................................................................................

1 3

n = 14

n = 16

3 n = 15

32,9 19,1 27,3 43,7

11,2 1,4 4,4 6

0,05 0,06 0,05 0,05

:

(n = 14) (n = 336);

(n = 16) (n = 384);

(n = 15) (n = 360). . .

U , .

: (U = 41452,p 0,01); (U = 45772,5, p 0,01); (U = = 44659,5, p 0,01); (U = 43575,5, p 0 ,01); (U = 37035, p 0,01); (U = 33302,5, p 0,01); (U = 46134,5, p 0,01); (U = 40436,5, p 0,01).

: (U = 54640, p 0,01); (U = 48531, p 0,01); (U = 43685,5, p 0,01); (U = 41505,5, p 0,01). (U = 49592,p 0,01). ,

(U = 50325,50, p 0,01), (U = 51186,5, p 0,01) (U = 51436, p 0,01).

ANOVA :

; ;

;

;

.

:

; ; .

, , , . , .

.

1. . .

2. :

59

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

60

. . ........................................................................................................................................

, , .

3. ,

, , , , .

1. . . : . .; ,2002. 2. . . : . ., 1996.3. . ., . . : . ., 2005.4. . . // . 2001. 3.

5. . . : . ., 2005.6. . . . ., 1986.7. . . ., 2004.8. . . . . . . . , 1992.

61

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

The article identifies the impact of elementary school teacher's professional"burnout" on personality characteristics and success of young schoolchildren study activity. The following personality characteristics of pupils in primary classes were considered: selfattitude, school anxiety, school motivation.

Keywords: professional burnout, metaindividuality, junior schoolchild.

Syndrome of professional "burnout" and teacher's metaindividuality

D. R. Merzlyakova,PhD in Psychology, Senior Lecturer, Psychology and Special Education Chair,

Institute of Qualification Raising and Further Training for Educational Workers of UR.

References

1. Baranov A. A. Stresstolerantnost' pedagoga:teoriya i praktika. M., 2002.2. Boiko V. V. Energiya emocii v obshenii:vzglyad na sebya i na drugih. M., 1996.3. Vodop'yanova N. E., Starchenkova E. S.Sindrom vygoraniya: diagnostika i profilaktika.SPb., 2005.4. Vyatkin B. A. Metaindividual'nost' i ee proyavleniya u uchitelei nachal'nyh klassov // Voprosypsihologii. 2001. 3.

5. Dorfman L. Ya. Metodologicheskie osnovyempiricheskoi psihologii: ot ponimaniya k tehnologii. M., 2005.6. Merlin V. S. Ocherk integral'nogo issledovaniya individual'nosti. M., 1986.7. Mitina L. M. Psihologiya truda i professional'nogo razvitiya uchitelya. M., 2004.8. Subbotin S. V. Ustoichivost' k psihicheskomustressu kak harakteristika metaindividual'nostiuchitelya. Dis. kand. psihol. nauk. Perm', 1992.

. .**,c

. : , . , .

, . . c . . (. . , . . ,. . , . . ),

62

. . ........................................................................................................................................

3 *

. , , . , , . , , .

: , , , , .

* , . . .** Irina_84@list.ru

, . , , . . , , . , . . [5], . , , . . . , ; , [1]. , , .

. , . . .

, . . , . . [2], , . , .

, , .

. . [6], : , , . . : , . , , .

, . , , , ,. . .

, , . , , .

, , . , , , .

, 250 15

63

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

17 22 .

.

.

. , , , , . , , . , , .

. , , : ,, , .

, , ,

, , , .

,, .

. . . . *

, . . ** .

, , , . , , , .

, 22 . , , , .

64

. . ........................................................................................................................................

* . . . . .: 6 . . 6. .: , 1983. 64 .** . . // / . . . . .:, 1979. . 2042.

, . . . , . . , [4].

. , , . , . .

, , . , [ ].

3 . , . , [ ] , .

, , . . . , , . ( ) .

3 , . , *, (. ).

. 1 , , ;

. 2 . , . ( , );

. 3 . . , ,, . ;

. 4 17 , , . , , . .

65

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

* , , .

. .

, ,

. . , , . .

N, , . ,, , , , .

. 1, N 64 %. 66 %, 66 % , 62 % 65 % .

, N . . , . . [7], , . , . , . . ; , . , .

.

66

. . ........................................................................................................................................

3

N

13 23 33 43 53

, % 1354 1248 1902,7 1603 1102

, % 64,46 65,69 65,61 61,6 64,8

64 66 66 62 65

1

, , 33, , . , , c NP (r = 0,436;p 0,043).

, (r = 0,617; p 0,002). : 3 (r = 0,544; p 0,003). , . , .

, , . , , . , , . . . , , .

(. . ). , . . [3],

.

[8], , , , . , , , , .

, , , (,, , ), .

:

;

;

( );

, , ;

, ;

, ;

;

.

.

, (. 2). , .

67

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

. 2, K 35 %, 33 %. 31 %, 28 %. K = 16 %.

, , . , .

, , . .

. , ( ., 1 ).

, . , , . , . . ( ., 2 )

, .

2 . , , , . ( ., 2 )

(K = 28 %) , , . , , , . , .

, . , . , , . : , ?( ., 3 )

, , . , , . ( ., 3 )

. , . , , ( ., 3 ).

, . K .

68

. . ........................................................................................................................................

2

3

1 2 3 4 5

K 35% 33% 28% 31% 16%

, , ., , . , , .

, , . . , , .

. , , . , , ,

.

, , .

1. ; , , .

2. . : , , , .

3. , , , , . .

69

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

1. . . . ., 2001.2. . . : // . 2000. 5.3. . . . ., 2000.4. . ., . . . ., 2007.

5. . . . ., 2001. 6. . . . ., 1986. 7. . . // . ., 1979.8. Group Norms, Threat, and Children's RacialPrejudice Child Development. 2005.

70

. . ........................................................................................................................................

. 1. , ,

. 2. , ,

. 3. , ,

. 4. , ,

71

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

The article presents results of an experimental study on professional standards development of psychology students in the process of education in aPedagogical University. Analysis of students' professional activity was carried out. Attitude of psychology students to their profession is shown.Patterns of student behavior in the specified educational situations are identified. Diagnosis was performed using questionnaire "It's not a standard",sociometric technique and reference scaling, and "Four educational situations" method. The results indicate that transition from school to universitytype of interaction is accounted for by mastering the professional standards.As a result level of professional orientation and activity awareness of students increases.

Keywords: professional standards, the social situation of development,education, professional identity, educational situations.

References

1. Bozhovich L. I. Problemy formirovaniya lichnosti. M., 2001.2. Veraksa N. E. Lichnost' i kul'tura: strukturnodialekticheskii podhod // Voprosy psihologii.2000. 5.3. Vygotskii L. S. Psihologiya. M., 2000.4. Kondrat'ev M. Yu., Il'in V. A. Azbuka social'nogo psihologapraktika. M., 2007.5. Leont'ev A. N. Lekcii po obshei psihologii. M., 2001.

6. Lisina M. I. Problemy ontogeneza obsheniya.M., 1986. 7. Petrovskii A. V. Vozniknovenie i sushnost' stratometricheskogo podhoda k psihologii kollektiva //Psihologicheskaya teoriya kollektiva. M., 1979.8. erry D. J.& Hogg M. A. Group norms and attitude behavior relationship: A role for groupidentification. Personality and social PsychologyBulletin. 2001. V. 234.

Development of professional standards of psychologystudents in the process of education in a University

I. U. Yushvaeva,PhD Student, Social Psychology of Development Chair, Department of Social

Psychology, Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

, , [4]; [5].

[1]; [7]. ,

72

. . , . . , . . ........................................................................................................................................

*

(309 ) . , . , , , , , .

: , , , .

* ( , 70; 080600767). ** garanian@mail.ru*** Dmitry.Andrusenko@cchellenic.com**** kidw@bk.ru

. ., ,

. .,

. .,

73

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

2030 % [8]. , (, , . .) [12]. , , [9].

[2]. , , [13]. , [14].

, , ( , , ). [3];[10]. , , , [6]. ( ).

. , , , , c [15]. , [7]. . ( ). [17]. . . ( ). [16].

. 3: 1) ; 2) , .

309 . , , . . , . 19 , 290 ( 17,5 , SD = 1,5; 214 , 76 ).

.

. (Beck Depression Inventory, BDI) . . . , 21 4 , 0 3 . : 9 ; 1018 ; 1929 ; 3063 . 21 .

. (BeckAnxiety Inventory, BAI), 21 . : 0 , 1 , , 2 ,

3 . : 3 ; 48 ;918 ;1963 . .

3 . (Test Anxiety Scale, C. Sarason, TAS). 37 , , . . . ; 15, . ( 0,87). .

3 (Social Avoidance and DistressScale, Watson, Friend, SADS). 28 , . ; 1 . , . , 14 . ( 0,94) (0,680,79). .

3 (Inventory of CollegeStudent's Recent Life Experiences, Kohn,Lafreniere, Gurevich, ICSRLE). 49

74

. . , . . , . . ........................................................................................................................................

, . , ( 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 ). ; 96 . ( 0, 89) , .

. . . . . 35 , 6 . , 4 : , (4 ), , (3 ), , (1 ), , (0 ). 6 ( ). 6 ( 0,6038 0,7855; Guttman Splithalf 0,8835), ( rSpearmen 0,523 0,795) [10].

. (Procrastination Scale forstudent population, S. Lay, PSS) (General Procrastination Scale, B. Tuckman, TGPS).20 . , , 1 5, 1 , 5

. 16 . , , 5 (1 , 5 ). ( 0,86). ( ), . .

SPSS for Windows, Standard Version 12.

( Z, , = 0,564, asymp. Sig. = 0,908). ( 64 , 33 ), ( 65 80 , 3366 ) ( 81 , 66 ) . 3 , (. 1).

1 (U = 2736,500; p < 0,001) 2 (U = 1796,500; p < 0,001). 1 %, 8 %, 27 %. 3 1 (U = 3253,500;p < 0,001). 3 1(U = 2009,000; p < 0,001) 2

75

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

(U = 3331,500; p = 0,001). 1 24,2 %, 2 40 %, 65 %.

1 (U = 2996,000; p < 0,001) 2 (U = 3563,500; p = 0,009). ( 96 )

1 20 %, 2 30,9 %, 3 48,2 %.

15 , , , . 1 2 (U = 1666,000; p < 0,001; U = 3254,000;p = 0,001 ). 20,8 % 1 ( 15 ), 2

76

. . , . . , . . ........................................................................................................................................

1 ,

N = 290

13 (N = 99) 2 (N = 94) 33 (N = 97)

(BDI)

M 5,72 10,07a 15,16b,c

SD 4,98 6,60 9,91

(BAI)

M 5,51 10,27a 14,76b,c

SD 7,05 10,37 10,96

(BDI)

M 0,07 0,23a 0,38b

SD 0,25 0,56 0,69

(TAS)

M 10,95 15,56a 18,90b,c

SD 4,96 6,47 6,80

(ICSRLE)

M 82,03 88,96a 97,95b,c

SD 17,71 18,33 26,90

(SADS)

M 2,32 2,71a 4,53b,c

SD 3,14 2,42 3,65

M ; SD ; ( ); b ( ); c ( ).

47 %, 3 65 %.

: , 1 (U = = 3008,000; p < 0,001) 2 (U = = 326,500; p = 0,003).

(r = 0,497; p < 0,01; BDI), (0,211; p < 0,01; BDI), (0,342; p < 0,01; BAI), (0,256; p < 0,01;ICSRLE), (0,481; p < 0,01;TAS) (0,341; p < 0,01; SADS).

. 2.

. ( ) 3

, ; (U = = 4181,000; p = 0,118; U = 4442,500;p = 0,760, ). 3 (U = 2988,000; p < 0,001).

1 (U = 3303,500; p < 0,001). 2 (U = 3917,000; p = 0,090). SADS 1 (U = 2968,000; p < 0,001) 2 (U = 5330,000; p = 0,007). ( 14 ),

77

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

2

N = 290

13 (N = 99) 23 (N = 94) 33 (N = 97)

(PSS)

M 57,91 59,69 61,06

SD 11,13 10,97 10,70

(TGPS)

M 42,29 46,57a 50,31b

SD 12,48 10,38 12,30

(SADS)

M 4,78 5,78a 8,40b,c

SD 5,22 4,21 5,88

c (SADS)

M 2.46 3,1a 3,38b

SD 2,48 2,24 2,81

, 1 7,4 %, 2 9 %, 19,5%.

, (r = 0,144; p < 0,05; ), (0,288; p < 0,01; TGPS), (0,274; p < 0,01; SADS).

, .

( , , , , ), , [14]; [10]. , , . , ( ) . , . , (, , ) , . , ,

. .

( , ) . . , , , . , , , . : , . , .

, . . , .

1. ( ,

78

. . , . . , . . ........................................................................................................................................

) :

) , , , ;

) ;

) ,, , .

2.

:

) .

) .

) .

3. : , .

79

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

80

. . , . . , . . ........................................................................................................................................

1. ., . : [www document] http://www.fzr.ru/231.htm 2. . . () // . 2006. 1. 3. . ., . ., . . , // . 2001. 4. 4. . . [www document]http://www.bsmu.by/bmm/01.2002/29.html 5. . . ( 17 ). ., 1996.6. . . . . . . . . ., 2008.7. ., . . ., 2002. 8. . ., . . , . . .., 1987.9. . . // . . . . 2006. 2.

10. . . . . . . .. ., 2007.11. . ., . . : // . 2007. 4. 12. Enns M., Cox B. Personality dimensions anddepression: Review and commentary // Can. J.Psychiatry. 1997. V. 42. 3. 13. Flett G. L., Hewitt P. L., DeRosa T. Dimensions of perfectionism, psychosocial adjustment,and social skills // Personality and IndividualDifferences. 1996. V. 20. 2.14. Hamilton T. K., Schweitzer R. D. The cost ofbeing perfect: perfectionism and suicide ideationin university students // Australian and NewZealand Journal of Psychiatry. 2000. V. 34. 15. Hewitt P., Flett G. Perfectionism and stressprocess in psychopathology // Perfectionism:Theory, research and Treatment / Ed. by G. Flett,P. Hewitt. Washington, 2002.16. Kaminer D., Stein D. Social anxiety disorderin children and adolescents // Social AnxietyDisorder / Ed. by H. Westenberg, J. den Boer.Amsterdam, 1999.17. Saddler C. D., Sacks L. A. Multidimensionalprefectionism and academic procrastination:Relationships with depression in University students // Psychological Reports. 1993. V. 73. 6.

81

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

In the group of 309 freshmen students of a Moscow university the day beforethe first exam session the indices of perfectionism, emotional disadaptationand avoiding behavior were assessed. Results show that students with highindices of perfectionism also have high indices of depression, suicidal intent,general anxiety, daily stress, examination and social anxiety, procrastinationand social avoidance.

Keywords: emotional disadaptation in students, perfectionism, procrastination, social avoidance.

Perfectionism as a factor of student disadaptation

N. G. Garanyan, PhD in Psychology, Professor, Clinical Psychology Chair, Department of

Psychological Counseling, Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

D. A. Andrusenko,PhD student, Clinical Psychology Chair, Department of Psychological Counseling,

Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

I. D. Hlomov,Alumnus, Clinical Psychology Chair, Department of Psychological Counseling,

Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

References

1. Voiceh V., Semikin G. Simpozium "Rossiiskaya molodezh': V budushee bez riska" [wwwdocument] http://www.fzr.ru/231.htm. 2. Garanyan N. G. Perfekcionizm i psihicheskierasstroistva (obzor) // Terapiya psihicheskih rasstroistv. 2006. 1. 3. Garanyan N. G., Holmogorova A. B., Yudeeva T. Yu. Perfekcionizm, depressiya i trevoga //MPZh. 2001. 4. 4. Zorko Yu. A. Psihicheskie i povedencheskierasstroistva u studentov [www document]http://www.bsmu.by/bmm/01.2002/29.html. 5. Kulagina I. Yu. Vozrastnaya psihologiya (razvitie rebenka ot rozhdeniya do 17 let). M., 1996.6. Moskova M. V. Lichnostnye faktory emocional'noi dezadaptacii studentov // Avtoref. diss. kand. psih. nauk. M., 2008.7. Perre M., Bauman U. Klinicheskaya psihologiya. SPb., 2002. 8. Severnyi A. A., Anufriev A. K. Profilaktikauchebnoi dezadaptacii u studentov, svyazannoi sdepressivnymi rasstroistvami pogranichnogourovnya // Metod. rekomendacii. M., 1987.9. Chehlatyi E. I. Issledovanie kopingmehanizmovu studentov vuzov v svyazi s zadachami pervichnoi psihogigieny i psihoprofilaktiki // Obozreniepsihiatrii i medicinskoi psihologii im. V. M. Behtereva. 2006. 2.

10. Yudeeva T. Yu. Perfekcionizm kak lichnostnyifaktor depressivnyh i trevozhnyh rasstroistv //Avtoref. diss. kand. psihol. nauk. M., 2007.11. Yasnaya V. A., Enikolopov S. N. Perfekcionizm: istoriya izucheniya i sovremennoe sostoyanie problemy // Voprosy psihologii. 2007. 4. 12. Enns M., Cox B. Personality dimensions anddepression: Review and commentary // Can. J.Psychiatry. 1997. V. 42. 3. 13. Flett G. L., Hewitt P. L., DeRosa T. Dimensions of perfectionism, psychosocial adjustment,and social skills // Personality and IndividualDifferences. 1996. V. 20. 2.14. Hamilton T. K., Schweitzer R. D. The cost ofbeing perfect: perfectionism and suicide ideationin university students // Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 2000. V. 34. 15. Hewitt P., Flett G. Perfectionism and stressprocess in psychopathology // Perfectionism:Theory, research and Treatment / Ed. by G. Flett,P. Hewitt. Washington, 2002.16. Kaminer D., Stein D. Social anxiety disorderin children and adolescents // Social AnxietyDisorder / Ed. by H. Westenberg, J. den Boer.Amsterdam, 1999.17. Saddler C. D., Sacks L. A. Multidimensionalprefectionism and academic procrastination:Relationships with depression in University students // Psychological Reports. 1993. V. 73. 6.

. .*, , , . .

: , , , . , , ; ; , (. . , . . , . . , . . , . . , . . .).

, , : , , . , , . , , , .

:

?

82

. . ........................................................................................................................................

. , :, , , , , , , . .

: , , , , .

* vkosyrev39@mail.ru

; () ?

. , : .

. , , , . , , , . , . .

. , . . , , , , , [2]; [5]; [6]; [7]; [10] .

. ,

. , [9]. . , , .., [. : 4, . 109]. , . , , , ... , , , , [11, . 44]. , . . , . , , , , , ,, , [3, . 251]. , , .

, , :, . ( ) :

( );

, , , ( );

, ( ).

83

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

, , , , , , , , , .

. , , , , .

, , , , , . , , , , , , :

. . (, , , , ,);

. . (, , , , ,);

. . (, , , , , );

. . (, , , , ,);

. . (, ,, , , ,

, , , ) . [3].

. . , :, , , . , . . [1], , () . :

;

, ;

, ;

;

;

;

; ,

; ,

, , .

. , , , , , : 1) ; 2) ; 3) ; 4)

84

. . ........................................................................................................................................

.

:

) , , ;

) ;

) ;

) , .

, . .

3 . , , . , , , , , , , , , . . , . ?

, . , , , . , ,

, . , . , .

. , . , , , , .

3. , , , [1, . 113]. , , , , . , , , , . , . .

, . , . . , . . , . . , . . . . . 2000 , . !.. ,

85

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

! , , : , , , ! : , 1/100 . . :2 100 60 = 12 000 . , 4000 . . , 600700 , .

3. (600700 ), , , .

3 . . , . , , , , . 1) ,

, , ; 2) ; 3) ; 4) ; 5) , .

3 . . , . . :

1) , : , , , . .);

2) ( : , , . .).

. , .

33 .

86

. . ........................................................................................................................................

. , . . , . ., , () .

() 3 . . , , , . , , . : , , , , , [8].

.

1. , .

: , , , , .

2. , .

, . , , . , .

, , , :

, ;

;

;

;

, .

3. , . 3

87

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

. , ,

. , , , , , , , .

88

. . ........................................................................................................................................

1. . . . ., 1991. 2. . . . . ., 1992. 3. / . . . . . , . . .., 2004. 4. . . // . 3 2528 2003 .: 8 .., 2003. . 2.

5. . . . ., 1995. 6. . . // ( ). ., 2004.7. . . . ., 1991.8. . . . , 2007. 9. . . ., 1988. 10. . . . . . ... . .. ., 1995. 11. Geertz C. The interpretation of culture. N. Y.,1973.

89

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

The article presents a psychological analysis of the student activity of masteringthe culture of academic work. A sequence of the regulatory mechanisms of activity leading to student selfchange: the need, motive, purpose, action, reflection,selfdetermination, activity reorganization, restructuring of the Self. On the example of mastering the dynamic reading the contents of the aforementioned mechanisms and conditions of their actualization are demonstrated.

Keywords: culture, activity, educational activity, academic work, the culture ofacademic work.

Student self3change during the activity of mastering the culture of academic work

V. N. Kosyrev,PhD in Psychology, Professor, Head of the General Psychology Chair,

G. R. Derzhavin Tambov State University

References

1. Anisimov O. S. Metodologicheskaya kul'tura pedagogicheskoi deyatel'nosti i myshleniya / M., 1991.2. Arnol'dov A. I. Chelovek i mir kul'tury. Vvedenie v kul'turologiyu. M., 1992. 3. Bol'shoi psihologicheskii slovar' / Sost. i obsh.red. B. Mesheryakov, V. Zinchenko. SPb., 2004. 4. Vikent'eva E. N. Osobennosti organizacionnoikul'tury rossiiskih organizacii // EzhegodnikRossiiskogo psihologicheskogo obshestva:Materialy 3go Vserossiiskogo s'ezda psihologov2528 iyunya 2003 g.: V 8 t. SPb., 2003. T. 2. 5. Gurevich P. S. Filosofiya kul'tury / Uchebnoe posobie dlya studentov gumanitarnyh vuzov. M., 1995.

6. Dobrohotov A. L. Kul'turologiya // BE KiM(elektronnoe izdanie). M., 2004.7. Kagan M. S. Sistemnyi podhod i gumanitarnoe znanie. SPb., 1991.8. Kosyrev V. N. Psihologiya razvitiya kul'turyuchebnogo truda studenta. Tambov, 2007. 9. Mid M. Kul'tura i mir detstva. M., 1988. 10. Silyaeva E. G. Teoreticheskie osnovy formirovaniya professional'noeticheskoi kul'tury uchitelya / Avtoreferat diss. ... dokt. psychol. nauk.M., 1995. 11. Geertz C. The interpretation of culture. N. Y.,1973.

. ., ,

, , , .

, , . . ,

[1]. 1516 , . . , [2]. . , . ,

90

. . ........................................................................................................................................

3 3

* nv_nozikova@bk.ru

1517 1822 . , , . , . .

: , , , , , , .

[7].

. . , , , . [6, . 151].

, 1991 1996 . . 84,6 % 66,3 %[4, . 8283].

.

1517 1822 [3]. 158 : 86 911 . 1517 72 1822 .

, , . (. . ) [5].

,

, . , 25 , , . 7 , . OSGOOD . , . , . , , , .

: .

.

, . , , .

1,5. , 5 6 , .

(. 1),

91

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

, :

1) , , , ;

2) , , ;

3) , , , , , , , , , , ;

4) , , , ;

5) , ; 6) . ,

, , , , , , .

, . . , .

, (1 ). (2 ). , (4 ).

, , ,

92

. . ........................................................................................................................................

. 1. 1516 ,

93

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

.

. , , , , . , .

, . , , .

. , .

(. 2) :

1) ; 2) ; 3) , ; 4) , ,

; 5) , ,

, ; 6) , ,

, , , , , , , , ;

7) , , .

, , ,

. 2. 1822 ,

, , , , . . , .

., , . , . , , .

.

, . .

, , .

, , .

, , , , , .

, , , , , , .

, , , .

, 1822 , , . . , , , . , . , , .

1517 1822 .

1) , ;

94

. . ........................................................................................................................................

95

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

2) , , , ;

3) , , , , , ;

4) , .

, . , .

, 1517 1822 .

, . 1822 , , ,

. , .

, , . , , .

, , , . , .

, .

. .

96

. . ........................................................................................................................................

1. . . . ., 1968. 2. . . : . .,1979. 3. . . 1522 : . ... . . ., 2005.

4. / . . . . ., 2003. 5. . . : . ., 2001.6. . . : . ., 2002. 7. Ericson E. H. Identity, Youth and Crisis. N. Y.,1968.

97

, 2009, 1........................................................................................................................................

The article presents a study on developmental characteristics of structure of family and maternal orientation motives in 1517 and 1822 years old girls. Resultsshow that satisfaction of vital needs of girls in their minds is linked to their parentalfamily in the early adolescence and to their future family in late adolescence.Change in the semantic content and in structure of the motivational complex offamily and maternal personality orientation becomes a newformation of the adolescence that orients young girls towards creating their future family and motherhood. The necessity of conducting psychologicaleducational correction and personality growth programs during adolescence in order to create motivational basisof successful familyoriented focus is supported.

Keywords: personality, personality orientation, motivation, youth, family, maternity, temporary vector of familyoriented focus o