Personality is a systemic social quality of an individual that is formed in joint activities and communication. Management methods Systemic social quality acquired by an individual in activities

The most important prerequisite for substantiating the theory of management is the presentation of management objects of socio-psychological management, people, as members of human society. This implies that the individual must be treated as a person.

A personality in psychology is a systemic social quality acquired by an individual in objective activity and communication and characterizing the level and quality of representation of social relations in an individual.

As follows from the fact of non-coincidence, non-identity of the concepts of "individual" and "personality", the latter can be understood only in the system of stable interpersonal relationships, which are mediated by the content, values, meaning of joint activity for each of the participants. These interpersonal connections are real, but by nature they are "supersensible." They are manifested in the specific individual properties and actions of the people included in the collective, but they are not reducible to them. They form a special quality of the group activity itself, which mediates these personal manifestations, which determine the special position of each individual in the system of interindividual relations and, more broadly, in the system of social relations.

The personality of each person is endowed only with her inherent combination of features and characteristics that form her personality. Individuality is a combination of the psychological characteristics of a person that make up his originality, his difference from other people. Individuality is manifested in the traits of temperament, character, habits, prevailing interests, in the qualities of cognitive processes (perception, memory, thinking, imagination), in abilities, individual style of activity, etc. There are no two people with the same combination of these psychological characteristics - human personality unique in its individuality.

Just as the concept of "individual" and "personality" are not identical, personality and individuality, in turn, form a unity, but not identity. The ability to very quickly "mentally" add and multiply large numbers, dexterity and decisiveness, thoughtfulness, the habit of biting nails, giggle and other features of a person act as traits of his personality, but do not necessarily enter into the characteristics of his personality, if only because they can and not be represented in the forms of activity and communication that are essential for the group, which includes an individual with these traits. If personality traits are not represented in the system of interpersonal relations, then they turn out to be insignificant for assessing the personality of an individual and do not receive conditions for development. Only those individual qualities that are most "involved" in the leading activity for a given social community act as personal ones. The individual characteristics of a person remain "dumb" until a certain time, until they become necessary in the system of interpersonal relations, the subject of which is the given person as a person.

Natural, organic sides and features exist in the structure of the individuality of the human personality as socially conditioned elements of it. The natural (anatomical, physiological and other qualities) and the social form a unity and cannot be mechanically opposed to each other as independent substructures of the personality.

Thus, the structure of the personality, therefore, first of all includes the systemic organization of its individuality, presented in the structure of temperament, character, human abilities, necessary, but not sufficient for understanding the psychology of personality. Thus, the first component of the personality structure is distinguished - its intraindividual (intraindividual) subsystem.

Personality, being the subject of a system of actual relations with society, with the groups in which it is integrated, cannot be enclosed only in some closed space within the organic body of the individual, but reveals itself in the space of interindividual relations. Not the individual itself, but the processes of interpersonal interaction, and which include at least two individuals (and in fact a community, group, collective), can be considered as manifestations of the personality of each of the participants in this interaction.

From this it follows that the personality in the system of its "real relations, as it were, acquires its own special being, which differs from the bodily being of the individual. The real existence of the personality is found in the totality of objective relationships of individuals, mediated by their activities, and therefore one of the characteristics of the personality structure should be sought in" space "outside the organic body of the individual, which constitutes the interindividual subsystem of the personality.

It is noteworthy that by transferring the consideration of the personality into the interindividual "space", we get the opportunity to answer the question of what the collective phenomena are: collectivist self-determination, collectivist identification, etc. What are these: group or personal manifestations themselves? When the characteristics and the very existence of the personality are not confined "under the skin" of the individual, but are carried out into the interindividual "space", the false alternative generated by the identification of the concepts "individual" and "personality" (either personal or group) is overcome. The personal acts as a manifestation of group relationships, the group appears in a specific form of personality manifestations.

Research on the systems approach in science has shown that the most important characteristic of each system is its structure. Structure - "a set of stable connections between many components of an object, ensuring its integrity." The development of a scientific understanding of the structure of personality is a prerequisite for the creation of a holistic theory capable of revealing the social essence of a person in all the variety of its manifestations. Among social scientists (primarily among psychologists), a generally accepted understanding of the social and psychological structure of the individual has developed. In particular, it is possible to consider the approach that is associated with the allocation of orientation, character, temperament and abilities in a person as well-established in psychology. Scientists consider them as complex structures of properties that together make up a common system that characterizes an integral personality. At the same time, they designate directionality as a system of needs, interests and ideals; temperament - as a system of natural properties; abilities - as an ensemble of intellectual, volitional and emotional properties and, finally, character - as a synthesis of attitudes and modes of behavior.

The foregoing makes it possible to schematically depict the socio-psychological structure of a person's behavior in the following way.

In the individual psychological differences between people, an essential place is occupied by the so-called dynamic features of the psyche. This means, first of all, the degree of intensity of mental processes and states, as well as one or another speed of their course. As you know, with a relative equality of the motives of behavior and activity, with the same external influences, people noticeably differ from each other in impressionability, impulsivity, and displayed energy. So, one person is prone to slowness, the other to haste, one is inherent in the ease of awakening feelings, and the other is composure, one is distinguished by sharp gestures, expressive facial expressions, the other is restraint of movements, very little mobility of the face. Differences in dynamic characteristics appear - all other things being equal - in the general activity of the individual, in his continent and his emotionality.

Of course, the dynamic manifestations of a person can largely depend on the attitudes and habits brought up, on the requirements of the situation, etc. But there is no doubt that the individual differences in question also have their innate basis. This is confirmed by the fact that such differences are found already in childhood, appear in various spheres of behavior and activity, and are distinguished by special constancy.

The dynamic features inherent in an individual are internally interconnected and constitute a kind of structure. Individually unique, naturally determined set of dynamic manifestations of the psyche is called human temperament.

The idea of ​​\ u200b \ u200bwhich a person's temperament is usually formed on the basis of some psychological characteristics characteristic of a given person. A person with noticeable mental activity, quickly responding to surrounding events, striving for a frequent change of impressions, relatively easily experiencing failures and troubles, alive, mobile with expressive facial expressions and movements is called a sanguine person. A person who is imperturbable, with stable aspirations and mood, with constancy and depth of feelings, with uniformity of actions and speech, with a weak external expression of mental states is called a phlegmatic person. A person who is very energetic, capable of giving himself up to business with special passion, quick and impetuous, prone to violent emotional outbursts and sudden changes in mood, with impetuous movements is called a choleric person. An impressionable person, with deep feelings, easily injured, but outwardly weakly reacting to the environment, with restrained movements and muffled speech, is called a melancholic.Each type of temperament has its own ratio of mental, first of all, varying degrees of activity and emotionality, as well as certain motor features. A certain structure of dynamic manifestations characterizes the type of temperament.

It is clear that not all people can be classified into four types. The question of the variety of temperaments has not yet been finally decided in science. But the named types are considered to be the main ones. In life, quite often there are people who can be attributed to one or another of these types.

Translated from the Greek, “character” is “chasing,“ omen. ”Indeed, character is a special feature that a person acquires while living in society. imagination, ingenuity, etc.) and in the traits of temperament, we find ourselves in the traits of character.

A character is a set of stable individual personality traits that develops and manifests itself in activity and communication, determining the ways of behavior typical for an individual.

A person's personality is characterized not only by what he does, but also by how he does it. Acting on the basis of common interests and beliefs shared by all, striving for common goals in life, people can reveal in their social behavior, in their actions and deeds, not the same, sometimes opposite, individual characteristics. You can, along with other people, experience the same difficulties, fulfill your duties with equal success, love or not love the same thing, but at the same time be soft, compliant. , a friendly company, a work or educational team, an asocial association, etc.). Depending on how the individualization of a person is carried out in a group that is reference for her and what is the level of development of interpersonal relations in it, a teenager, for example, can form in one case openness, frankness, courage, adherence to principles, firmness of character, in the other case - hidden - not to eat, deceit, cowardice, conformity, weak character. In a team, as a group of a high level of development, the most favorable opportunities for the development and consolidation of the best character traits are created. This process contributes to the optimal integration of the individual in the team and the further development of the team itself.

Abilities are such psychological characteristics of a person, on which the success of acquiring knowledge, skills, and abilities depends, but which themselves cannot be reduced to the presence of this knowledge, skills and abilities. Otherwise, the assessment on the exam, the answer at the blackboard, the successful or unsuccessful test work would make it possible to make a final conclusion about the person's abilities. Meanwhile, the data of psychological research and pedagogical experience indicate that sometimes a person who initially did not know how to do something and thus differed unfavorably from those around him, as a result of training, begins to extremely quickly master the skills of inability and soon overtakes everyone on the path to mastery. Bliss manifests greater abilities than others. Manifesting in the mastery of knowledge, skills and abilities, abilities at the same time are not limited to knowledge and skills. Abilities and knowledge, abilities and skills, abilities and skills are not identical to each other. In relation to skills, abilities and knowledge, a person's abilities act as a certain possibility. Human abilities are only an opportunity to acquire skills and abilities.

So, abilities are individual psychological characteristics of a person, which are the conditions for the successful implementation of this activity and reveal differences in the dynamics of mastering the knowledge and skills necessary for it. If a certain set of personality traits meets the requirements of the activity that a person masters during the time pedagogically reasonably allotted for its development, then this gives reason to conclude that he has the ability for this activity. And if the other person, all other things being equal, does not cope with the demands that the activity presents to him, then this gives reason to assume that he has no corresponding psychological qualities, in other words, the lack of abilities. The latter does not mean, of course, that a person cannot master the necessary skills and knowledge at all, but only that the assimilation process will be delayed, will require significant efforts and time of teachers, an extraordinary effort with relatively modest results. This also does not exclude the possibility that abilities may develop over time.

Being individual psychological characteristics, abilities cannot be opposed to other qualities and personality traits - mental qualities, memory characteristics, character traits, emotional properties, etc., but must be put on a par with them. If any of these qualities or their combination meets the requirements of activity or is formed under the influence of these requirements, then this gives every reason to consider this individual psychological personality trait as an ability.

Among the many personality traits that make up its individuality, the qualities of the intellect (mind) are essential. They are manifested in the peculiarities of a person's mental activity, in the specifics of his mental abilities. Mental abilities are a collection of certain qualities that characterize the thinking of a given person. These qualities of the mind include: curiosity, inquisitiveness, depth of thought, flexibility and mobility of the mind, consistency, evidence, critical thinking, etc.

Curiosity is understood as the desire of a person to learn something new with which he meets in life, in work, in study. An inquisitive person is a person who seeks to learn about an object, an event, to comprehensively understand the main phenomena and reasons that were previously unknown to him.

Depth of mind. This quality of intelligence is manifested in a person's ability to reveal the essence of a specific phenomenon, in his ability to establish the basic, essential connections between phenomena and within them.

Flexibility and mobility of the mind. These qualities characterize a person's ability to quickly disconnect from old connections in the analysis of events and quickly establish new relationships and connections, while being able to consider a phenomenon, a fact from an unusual point of view.

Consistency. This quality of the mind characterizes the course of the thought process and is determined by the relations of analysis - synthesis, the clear directionality of the thinking process, its sequence, compliance with the question posed, and the correct comparison of general and particular problems.

Evidence and criticality of the mind reflect a person's ability to justify his decision. A person's thinking acquires evidence and persuasiveness when he knows how to give irrefutable arguments and facts to substantiate his decision.

The most important element of the socio-psychological structure of a person is will. Will is the regulating side of consciousness, expressed in a person's ability to perform purposeful actions and deeds that require overcoming difficulties.

As you know, an act of will is performed under conditions of a certain physical and psychological stress, i.e. volitional effort, which is characterized by the corresponding amount of energy spent not performing a purposeful action or, conversely, retention from it. Psychological studies show that the intensity of the volitional effort of the individual, his strength and stamina depend on the worldview, the significance of the goal, the level of responsibility and strength of character (including the type of temperament).

The level of will development is manifested in the following basic volitional properties of the individual: purposefulness, decisiveness, perseverance, endurance, independence.

Purposefulness is the ability of a person to set and achieve socially significant goals. A purposeful person has clear and distinct goals in life (work, study). Often this is a person obsessed with work, working 12-16 hours a day (for example, the famous physicist Edison believed that genius is 1% of inspiration and 99% of "sweating").

Determination is the ability of a person to quickly and thoughtfully choose a goal and determine ways to achieve it. A decisive person is able, at the right time, to cast aside all hesitations and doubts and firmly stop at a specific goal or choose a means of achieving it.

Perseverance. This volitional personality trait manifests itself in the ability to direct and control behavior for a long time in accordance with the intended goal. A persistent person does not stop at failures, does not give in to the feeling of doubt and reproaches that has arisen, but again and again mobilizes his physical and mental strength to fulfill his goal.

Endurance (or self-control) is understood as a volitional personality trait, which is reflected in the ability to restrain physical and mental manifestations (actions, emotions) that interfere with the achievement of the goal. Endurance is especially necessary in difficult, extreme conditions that threaten the health and life of a person, his honor, dignity, etc.

Independence is a volitional property of a person, expressed in the ability to set goals on his own initiative, to find means of achieving them. An independent person does not wait for instructions from other people, does not hope for a hint, but makes decisions and implements them in practice.

The next element of the socio-psychological structure, which plays a stimulating role in the activity of the individual, are emotions and feelings. Feelings are complex, stable personality traits, manifested under the influence of any influences. Personal experiences that reflect certain influences are emotions. Emotions are mental processes on the basis of which feelings are formed as personality traits.

In psychology, the following personality feelings are distinguished: moral (moral), intellectual (cognitive), aesthetic.

Moral feeling is the emotional; the attitude of the individual to the behavior of people and his own. Such feelings arise and develop in the process of joint activities of people and reflect the moral norms adopted in society, in a particular team. These experiences are the result of assessing actions, their compliance or non-compliance with moral norms, which a person considers obligatory for himself and others. Moral feelings include feelings of sympathy and antipathy, respect and contempt, gratitude and ingratitude, love and hate. The highest moral feelings, conditioned by the worldview of a person (a system of views and beliefs), are Intellectual feelings are experiences that arise in the process of mental activity. The main intellectual (cognitive) feelings include: curiosity, joy and admiration, pride in solving a problem, doubt and disappointment in case of failure, inspiration, etc. as a motive for the search for new techniques and methods of work, the struggle for the introduction of innovations (innovations) and practice, the formation of market thinking.Intellectual feelings are very closely related to moral feelings.So, the desire to know the truth is determined not only by intellectual feeling, but also dictated by a person's moral duty.

Aesthetic feelings arise and develop when a person perceives and creates beauty. Perceiving the beautiful (for example, masterpieces of art), a person experiences an aesthetic sense of beauty, which causes a desire to admire it, encourages more and more new meetings with it.

The systemic qualities of an individual include the entire set of characteristics that reflect its sociality, belonging to humanity. These qualities include such generalized characteristics as worldview, convictions, patriotism, civic responsibility, etc.

The social behavior of an individual is largely related to her role. The concept of "role" in social psychology means the social function of a person, a way of behavior corresponding to the accepted norms, depending on its status (positions) in the system of interpersonal relations. This understanding is due to the fact that in similar circumstances (for example, at the same enterprise), employees, occupying the same positions, behave in the same way in the labor process in accordance with the requirements of production, i.e. their labor behavior is regulated by the relevant documents (regulations, job descriptions, etc.). In other words, a role is a stable pattern of behavior reproduced by people who have the same status (position) in the social system. The role reflects, therefore, the socio-typical aspects of behavior.

Based on the above definition, the social role performs two functions:

1) tells a person how to behave in a given position (a student, a customer in a store, a passenger on a bus, a son in a family, etc.);

2) forms certain expectations of the partner from the behavior of her performer, which, in turn, determine the reciprocal behavior of the partner. The functional role of each member of the work collective is determined; job descriptions (seller, foreman, etc.), which reflect the duties, rights, responsibilities of the employee, his official relationship with other team members, as well as the basic requirements for his professional qualities. A detailed and clear job description is the basis for adequate understanding) and assimilation of the functional role. However, as evidenced by the results of sociological research, detailed regulation of the functional activity of an employee is not always justified, i.e. the instruction should establish a certain degree of independence of the employee, the opportunity for the manifestation of initiative and creativity.

The foregoing allows us to reveal the structure (internal structure) of the social role. It includes the following elements:

1) role prescriptions (social and group norms of behavior, requirements of a specific profession, position, etc.);

2) role expectations;

3) role-playing behavior (i.e. playing a role);

4) assessment of role behavior;

5) sanctions (in case of failure to fulfill the role). The central element of the structure, which allows us to explain why the same role, for example, the line manager (manager) in the enterprise, different people perform differently, is the concept of "role behavior".

The above-described features of the social behavior of an individual are clearly manifested in groups.

A group is a really existing formation in which people are gathered together, united by some common feature, a kind of joint activity, or placed in some identical conditions, circumstances, in a certain way they realize their belonging to this formation.

The elementary parameters of any group include: the composition of the group (or its composition), the structure of the group, group processes, group norms and values, the system of sanctions Each of these parameters can acquire completely different meanings depending on the type of the studied group. For example, the composition of a group can be described in different ways depending on whether in each particular case, for example, age, professional or social characteristics of the group members are significant. A single recipe cannot be given for describing the composition of a group in connection with the variety of real groups; in each specific case, one must start with which real group is chosen as the object of research: a school class, a sports team or a production team. In other words, we immediately set a certain set of parameters to characterize the composition of the group, depending on the type of activity with which this group is associated. Naturally, the characteristics of large and small social groups differ especially strongly, and they should be studied separately.

The same can be said for the structure of the group. There are several rather formal signs of the structure of a group, which, however, are revealed mainly in the study of small groups: the structure of preferences, the structure of "power", the structure of communications.

However, if we consistently consider the group as a subject of activity, then its structure must be approached accordingly. Apparently, in this case, the most important thing is to analyze the structure of group activity, which includes a description of the functions of each member of the group in this joint activity. At the same time, a very significant characteristic is the emotional structure of the group - the structure of interpersonal relations, as well as its connection with the functional structure of group activity. In social psychology, the relationship between these two structures is often viewed as the relationship between "informal" and "formal" relationships.

An important component of characterizing the position of an individual in a group is the system of "group expectations". This term denotes the simple fact that every member of the group not only performs his functions in it, but is also necessarily perceived and appreciated by others. In particular, this refers to the fact that each position, as well as each role, is expected to perform certain functions, and not only a simple list of them, but also the quality of performance of these functions. The group, through a system of expected patterns of behavior corresponding to each role, in a certain way controls the activities of its members. In some cases, there may be a mismatch between the expectations that the group has regarding any of its members, and its real behavior, the real way of fulfilling its role. In order for this system of expectations to be somehow defined, there are two more extremely important formations in the group: group norms and group sanctions.

All group norms are social norms, i.e. represent "establishments, models, standards of due, from the point of view of society as a whole and social groups and their members. behavior."

In a narrower sense, group norms are certain rules that are developed by a group, accepted by it and which the behavior of its members must obey in order for their joint activity to be possible. The norms thus fulfill a regulatory function in relation to this activity. Group norms are associated with values, since any rules can be formulated only on the basis of the acceptance or rejection of some socially significant phenomena. The values ​​of each group are formed on the basis of the development of a certain attitude towards social phenomena, dictated by the place of this group in the system of social relations, its experience in organizing certain activities.

Although the problem of values ​​is fully investigated in sociology, it is extremely important for social psychology to be guided by some facts established in sociology. The most important of them is the different significance of various kinds of Nastya's prices for group life, their different correlation with the values ​​of society. When it comes to relatively general and abstract concepts, for example, about good, evil, happiness, etc., then we can say that at this level values ​​are common to all social groups and that they can be considered as the values ​​of society. However, with the transition to the assessment of more specific social phenomena, for example, such as labor, education, culture, groups begin to differ in the accepted assessments. The values ​​of various social groups may not coincide with each other, and in this case it is difficult to talk about the values ​​of society. The specificity of the attitude towards each and such values ​​is determined by the place of the social group in the system of social relations. Norms as rules governing the behavior and activities of group members, naturally, are based precisely on group values, although the rules of everyday behavior may not carry any special specificity of the group. Group norms thus include both generally valid norms and specific ones, developed by this particular group All of them, taken together, act as an important factor in the regulation of social behavior, ensuring the ordering of the position of various groups in the social structure of society. The concreteness of the analysis can be ensured only if the ratio of these two types of norms in the life of each group, and in a specific type of society, is revealed.

A formal approach to the analysis of group norms, when in experimental studies only the mechanism of acceptance or rejection of group norms by an individual is clarified, but not their content, determined by the specifics of activity, is clearly insufficient. It is possible to understand the relationship of an individual with a group only if it is revealed which norms of the group he accepts and which he rejects, and why he does so. All this takes on special significance when there is a mismatch between the norms and values ​​of the group and society, when the group begins to focus on values ​​that do not coincide with the norms of society.

An important problem is the measure of acceptance of norms by each member of the group: how is the acceptance of group norms by an individual carried out, how much each of them deviates from the observance of these norms, how social and "personal" norms relate. One of the functions of social (including group) norms consists precisely in the fact that, through them, the demands of society "are addressed and presented to a person as a person and a member of a particular group, community, society." This requires an analysis of sanctions - the mechanisms by which a group "returns" its member to the path of compliance. Sanctions can be of two types: encouraging and prohibitive, positive and negative. The sanctions system is not intended to compensate for non-compliance, but to enforce compliance. The study of sanctions makes sense only if specific groups are analyzed, since the content of sanctions is correlated with the content of norms, and the latter are determined by the properties of the group.

Thus, the considered set of concepts, with the help of which the socio-psychological description of the group is carried out, is only a certain conceptual grid, which has yet to be filled with content.

Such a grid is useful and necessary, but the problem is to clearly understand its functions, not to reduce it to a simple statement, a kind of "fitting" to this grid, the real processes taking place in groups. In order to take the next step along the path of analysis, it is now necessary to give a classification of the groups that are the subject of consideration in the framework of social psychology.

First of all, for social psychology, the division of groups into conditional and real is significant. She focuses her research on real-world groups. But among these real ones there are those that mainly figure in general psychological research - real laboratory groups. In contrast, there are real natural groups. Socio-psychological analysis is possible with respect to both types of real groups, however, real natural groups identified in sociological analysis are of the greatest importance. In turn, these natural groups are subdivided into the so-called "large" and "small" groups. Small groups are a habitable field of social psychology. As for large groups, the question of their study is much more complicated and requires special consideration. It is important to emphasize that these large groups are also unequally represented in social psychology: some of them have a solid tradition of research (these are mainly large, unorganized, spontaneously emerging troupes, the very term "group" in relation to which is rather arbitrary), while others are organized , long-existing groups - like classes, nations, are much less represented in social psychology as an object of research. The whole point of the preceding discussion of the subject of social psychology requires the inclusion of these groups in the scope of analysis. In the same way, small groups can be subdivided into two types: becoming troupes, already set by external social requirements, but not yet united by joint activity in the full sense of the word, and groups of a higher level of development, already established. This classification can be visualized in the following diagram. Everything from the rubric "real natural groups" is the object of research in social psychology. All further presentation will be carried out according to this scheme. The general patterns of communication and interaction between people analyzed above should now be considered in the context of those real groups where these patterns acquire their special content.

Hence - the content of the second node: what exactly does social psychology investigate in the field of intergroup relations? The fundamental difference between the socio-psychological point of view on the problem lies in the fact that here the focus (in contrast to sociology) is not intergroup processes and phenomena in themselves or their determination by social relations, but the internal reflection of these processes, i.e. cognitive sphere associated with various aspects of intergroup interaction. Socio-psychological analysis focuses on the problem of relationships that arise in the course of interaction between groups, as an internal, psychological category. However, in contrast to the cognitive orientation, such an understanding presupposes not only the closest connection between the subjective reflection of intergroup relations with the real activity of the studied groups, but also its determination of all cognitive processes accompanying these relations. Just as in the interpretation of the group itself, here cause-and-effect relationships, the conditioning of the cognitive sphere by the parameters of joint group activity are the main direction of study of the entire area. In this case, reasoning by analogy is appropriate: groups exist objectively, and for social psychology it is important under what conditions a group turns for an individual into a psychological reality; in the same way, intergroup relations exist objectively (their study from this point of view is the business of sociology), and it is important for social psychology how this fact is reflected in the consciousness of group members and predetermines their perception of each other.

The nature of intergroup perception lies in the fact that here we are dealing with the ordering of individual cognitive structures, linking them into a single whole; it is not a simple sum of the perception of an alien group by individuals belonging to the subject of perception, but precisely a completely new quality, a group formation. It has two characteristics: for the group-subject of perception it is "integrity", which is defined as the degree of coincidence of the ideas of the members of this group about the other group ("all" and this way or "not all" think about the other group in this way). With regard to the group-object of perception, this is "uniformity", which shows the extent to which ideas about another group are spread to its individual members ("all" in another group are the same or "not all"). Integrity and uniformity are specific structural characteristics of intergroup perception. Its dynamic characteristics also differ from the dynamic characteristics of interpersonal perception: intergroup social-perceptual processes have greater stability, conservatism, rigidity, since their subject is not one person, but a group, and the formation of such processes is not only a longer, but also a more complex process, which includes both the individual life experience of each member of the group and the experience of the "life" of the group. The range of possible sides, from the point of view of which the other group is perceived, is much narrower than that which takes place in the case of interpersonal perception: the image of the other group is formed directly depending on the situations of joint intergroup activity.

This joint intergroup activity is not limited to direct interaction (as was the case in Sheriff's experiments). Intergroup relationships and, in particular, ideas about "other groups" can also arise in the absence of direct interaction between groups, as, for example, in the case of relationships between large groups. Here, a broader system of social conditions, the socio-historical activity of these groups acts as a mediating factor. Thus, intergroup activity can appear both in the form of direct interaction of various groups, and in its extremely mediated impersonal forms, for example, through the exchange of cultural values, folklore, etc. There are a lot of examples of this kind of relationship in the field of international life, when the image of the “other” (another country, another people) is not necessarily formed in the course of direct interaction, but on the basis of impressions gleaned from fiction, the media, etc. NS. Both the very nature of intergroup perception and its dependence on the nature of culture determine the especially important role of stereotypes in this process. Perception of an out-group through a stereotype is widespread. It is necessary to distinguish two sides in it: the stereotype helps to quickly and reliably categorize the perceived group, i.e. to attribute it to some broader class of phenomena. As such, a stereotype is necessary and useful, since it provides relatively quick and schematic knowledge. However, as soon as the stereotype of another group is filled with negative characteristics ("they are all such and such"). he begins to contribute to the formation of intergroup hostility, as there is a polarization of value judgments. As already noted, this pattern is especially pronounced in interethnic relations.

The socio-psychological structure of the team ends with the promotion of leaders in small groups and in the whole team. Leadership is a natural socio-psychological process in a group, built on the influence of a person's personal authority on the behavior of group members. 3. Freud understood leadership as a two-pronged psychological process: on the one hand, a group process, on the other, an individual one. These processes are based on the ability of leaders to attract people to themselves, to unconsciously evoke a feeling of admiration, adoration, and love. The worship of people of the same person can make that person a leader. Psychoanalysts have identified ten types of leadership

1. "Sovereign" or "patriarchal ruler". A leader in the image of a strict but beloved father, he is able to suppress or suppress negative emotions and instill confidence in people. He is promoted on the basis of love and revered.

2. "Leader". In it, people see the expression, the concentration of their desires, corresponding to a certain group standard. The personality of the leader is the bearer of these standards. They try to imitate him in the group.

3. "Tyrant". He becomes a leader because he inspires others with a sense of obedience and unaccountable fear, he is considered the strongest. A tyrant leader is a dominant, authoritarian personality, he is usually feared and obeyed.

4. "Organizer". It acts for the members of the group as a force to maintain the "I-concept" and satisfy the needs of everyone, relieves feelings of guilt and anxiety. Such a leader unites people, he is respected.

5. "Seducer". A person becomes a leader by playing on the weaknesses of others. He acts as a "magical force", giving an outlet to the suppressed emotions of other people, prevents conflicts, relieves tension. Such a leader is adored and often overlooked for all his shortcomings.

6. "Hero". Sacrifices himself for the sake of others; this type manifests itself especially in situations of group protest - thanks to his courage, others are guided by him, see in him a standard of justice. The hero-leader draws people along with him.

7. "Bad example". Acts as a source of contagion for a conflict-free person, emotionally infects others.

8. "Idol". Attracts, attracts, positively infects the environment, he is loved, idolized and idealized.

9. "Outcast".

10. "Scapegoat".

There is a distinction between “formal” leadership — when influence comes from formal position in an organization, and “informal” leadership — when influence comes from others' recognition of the leader's personal superiority. In most situations, of course, these two influences are intertwined to a greater or lesser extent.

A formally appointed unit leader has the advantage of gaining leadership positions in a group and is therefore more likely to be recognized as a leader than anyone else. However, his status in the organization and the fact that he is appointed "from outside" place him in a position somewhat different from that of informal natural leaders. First of all, the desire to move up the career ladder prompts him to identify himself with larger divisions of the organization, rather than with a group of his subordinates. He may believe that emotional attachment to any work group should not serve as a brake on him on this path, and therefore identifying himself with the leadership of the organization is a source of satisfying his personal ambitions. But if he knows that he will not rise higher, and does not particularly strive for this, often such a leader decisively identifies himself with his subordinates and does everything in his power to protect their interests.

Formal leaders first of all determine how and in what ways to achieve the goal set, as a rule, by other people, organize and direct the work of subordinates in accordance with detailed plans, while taking a passive position. They build their interaction with others on the basis of a clear regulation of rights and obligations, try not to go beyond them, seeing themselves and others as members of one organization in which a certain order and discipline should prevail.

In contrast, informal leaders determine which goals to strive for, formulating them independently, without going into unnecessary details. Their followers are those who share their views and are willing to follow them, despite the difficulties, and the leaders find themselves in the role of inspirers as opposed to managers who ensure the achievement of goals through reward or punishment. Unlike formal leaders, informal leaders are not controlled by others, but build relationships with followers on trust in them.

To summarize what has been said, we will use the table, which is based on the materials of O. Vikhansky and A. Naumov.

In a team, the general level of which is below average, the informal leader most often acts as an expert-specialist on any issues or an emotional center, can cheer, sympathize, and help. In a team with a high level of development, he is primarily an intellectual center, a source of ideas, a consultant on the most difficult problems. And in both cases, he is the integrator of the collective, the initiator and organizer of its active actions, the model with which the rest check their thoughts and actions.

Since the informal leader reflects the interests of the collective, he is a kind of controller, making sure that the specific actions of each of its members do not contradict the general interests, do not undermine the unity of the group. In necessary cases, he can enter into a conflict with the administration in this regard, authorizing, even in the field of production activities, only those decisions that do not contradict the interests of the team he represents. It is practically impossible to fight this phenomenon, because pressure on the leader only causes even greater cohesion of the team and its opposition to the administration.

It is believed that in a conflict situation, if there is an opportunity with an informal leader, it is better to compromise by offering him at the same time an official position, which he usually does not have, but fully deserves.

The easiest way to do this is when the boundaries of the formal and informal team headed by such a leader coincide, and its members are guided by corporate values. Under these conditions, it will be much easier for a leader who has received official powers to manage the team, and to a certain extent he will be able to neglect the interests of the team for the sake of the interests of the official organization, to which people, trusting him, will agree. However, in this case, the official decisions still have to be adjusted taking into account the interests of the collective, because it is dangerous to abuse its trust.

The study of leadership has been undertaken on a large scale and systematically since the early 1930s. Then the goal was set to identify those personal characteristics of people that make them leaders. They turned out to be such qualities: the level of knowledge and intelligence, impressive appearance, common sense, a high degree of self-confidence, honesty, etc. most of the listed requirements.

Page 2

in psychology, a systemic social quality is designated, acquired by an individual in objective activity and communication and characterizing the level and quality of representation of social relations in an individual. "

A.V. Petrovsky in his developments proceeds from the fact that the concepts of "individual" and "personality" are not identical. Personality is a special quality that is acquired by an individual in society in the process of his entry into social relations by nature. To understand the foundations on which these or those personality traits are formed, it is necessary to consider a person's life in society. The involvement of the individual in the system of social relations determines the content and nature of the activities performed by him, the circle and methods of communication with other people, that is, the features of his social life, way of life. But the way of life of individual individuals, certain communities of people, as well as society as a whole, is determined by the historically developing system of social relations. This means that a person can be understood or studied only in the context of specific social conditions, of a specific historical era. Moreover, it should be noted that for the individual, society is not just an external environment. The personality is constantly included in the system of social relations, which is mediated by many factors.

Petrovsky believes that the personality of a particular person can continue in other people, and with the death of an individual, it does not completely die. And in the words "he lives in us and after death" there is neither mysticism, nor pure metaphor, it is a statement of the fact of the ideal representation of the individual after his material disappearance.

Considering further the point of view of representatives of the Moscow psychological school on the problem of personality, it should be noted that in the concept of personality, in most cases, the authors include certain properties belonging to the individual, and they also mean those properties that determine the originality of the individual, his individuality. However, the concepts of "individual", "personality" and "individuality" are not identical in content - each of them reveals a specific aspect of the individual being of a person. Personality can be understood only in a system of stable interpersonal relationships mediated by content, values, and the meaning of joint activities of each of the participants. These interpersonal relationships are real, but supersensible in nature. They are manifested in the specific individual properties and actions of the people included in the collective, but are not reduced to them.

Just as the concepts "individual" and "personality" are not identical, personality and individuality, in turn, form a unity, but not identity.

If personality traits are not represented in the system of interpersonal relations, they turn out to be insignificant for personality assessment and do not receive conditions for development, just as only individual traits act as personal ones, to the greatest extent "involved" in the activity leading for a given social community. Therefore, according to representatives of the Moscow psychological school, individuality is only one of the aspects of a person's personality.

Thus, in the position of representatives of the Moscow psychological school, two main provisions can be traced. First, the personality and its characteristics are compared with the level of social manifestation of the qualities and properties of a person. Secondly, the personality is considered as a social product, in no way connected with biological determinants, and, therefore, it can be concluded that the social to a greater extent affects the mental development of the individual.

Leisure and personal characteristics of a person
Leisure is an integral part of a person's living space, which is diverse in the forms of its manifestation and the motives realized in it. We believe that the personality traits of a person affect the choice of a certain ...

Features of the development of moral consciousness in adolescence
Morality is "moral norms of behavior, relationships with people, as well as morality itself." In general, in most teachings, morality is identified with morality. In foreign psychology of morality, the question of the existence of "morality ...

Psychology as an academic discipline. psychological knowledge in people's lives
Education was one of the first areas where psychological knowledge began to be consciously and purposefully applied. It is no accident, therefore, psychology as an academic discipline has long become compulsory in the training of educators ...

Topic 2.7. Personality and its socialization.

Plan

1. The concept of personality. Basic theories of personality.

2. Personality structure. Self-awareness of the individual. Formation of personality.

3. Socialization and its main characteristics.

4. The concept of social behavior. Prosocial and asocial behavior. Aggression and regulation of social behavior

1. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya K.A. Activity and personality psychology. –– M .: Nauka, 1980 .–– P. 113-185, 210-259.

2. Averin V.A. Personality Psychology: Textbook. –– SPb .: Publishing house of Mikhailov V.A., 1999. –– 89 p.

3. Asmolov A.G. Personality Psychology: Principles of General Psychological Analysis: Textbook. –– M .: Publishing house of Moscow State University, 1990. –– P. 7-363.

4. Bodalev A.A. Personality and communication: Selected psychological works. –– 2nd ed., Rev. –– M .: International Pedagogical Academy, 1995 - P. 5-20.

5. Bodalev A.A. Psychology about personality. –– M .: Publishing house of Moscow State University, 1988. –– P. 5-11, 37-59.

6. Bozhovich L.I. Personality and its formation in childhood. –– M .: Education, 1982. –– P. 39-123.

7. Zeigarnik B.V. Personality theories in foreign psychology. –– M .: Publishing house of Moscow State University, 1982 .–– P. 6-97.

8. Leontiev A.N. Activity. Consciousness. Personality. –– M .: Nauka, 1982. –– P. 86-135.

9. Merlin V.S. Personality structure. Character, ability, self-awareness. Textbook for the special course. –– Perm: University Press, 1990. –– P.81-108.

10. Orlov A.B. Personality and essence: external and internal "I" of a person. // Questions of psychology. –– 1995. –– № 2. –– P. 5 - 19.

11. Psychology of individual differences. Texts .–– M: Pedagogy, 1982 .–– P. 179-218.

12. Psychology of personality. Texts. –– M: Pedagogy, 1982 .–– pp. 11-19, 39-41.

13. Psychology of the Developing Personality / Ed. A.V. Petrovsky. –– M .: Pedagogika, 1987 .–– P. 10-105.

Personality concept. Basic theories of personality.

A person as a subject of social relations, a bearer of socially significant qualities is personality.

Personality is a systemic social quality of an individual that is formed in joint activities and communication.

Along with the concept of personality, we also use terms such as man, individual and individuality. All these concepts are specific, but they are interrelated:

Man is the most general, integrative concept. It means a being that embodies the highest degree of development of life, a product of social and labor processes, an indissoluble unity of the natural and the social. But, carrying within himself the social-tribal essence, each person is a single natural being, an individual;

An individual is a concrete person as a representative of the genus Homo sapiens, a bearer of the prerequisites (inclinations) of human development;

Individuality is the unique originality of a particular person, his natural and socially acquired properties.

In the concept of personality, the system of socially significant human qualities is brought to the fore.

The personality has a multilevel organization. The highest and leading level of the psychological organization of a personality - its need-motivational sphere - is - focus personality, her relationship to society, individuals, to herself and her social responsibilities.

A person is not born with ready-made abilities, character, etc. These properties are formed during life, but on a certain natural basis. The hereditary basis of the human body (genotype) determines its anatomical and physiological characteristics, the main qualities of the nervous system, the dynamics of nervous processes. The natural, biological organization of a person contains the possibilities of his mental development.

A human being becomes a human only thanks to the assimilation of the experience of previous generations, enshrined in knowledge, traditions, objects of material and spiritual culture.

In the formation of an individual as a person, processes are essential personal identification (the formation of an individual's identification with other people and human society as a whole) and personalization (an individual's awareness of the need for a certain representation of his personality in the life of other people, personal self-realization in a given social community).

The personality interacts with other people on the basis of " Self-concepts ", personal reflection - their ideas about themselves, their capabilities, their significance.

A person is born with certain hereditary inclinations. Most of them are ambiguous: on their basis, various personality traits can be formed. In this case, the process of education plays a decisive role.

However, the possibilities of upbringing are associated with the hereditary characteristics of the individual. Hereditary basis the human body determines its anatomical and physiological characteristics, the basic qualities of the nervous system, the dynamics of nervous processes. The biological organization of a person, his nature, contains the possibilities of his future mental development.

Modern scientific evidence suggests that certain biological factors can act as conditions that hinder or facilitate the formation of certain mental qualities of a person.

In the second floor. In the 20th century, many approaches and theories of personality have developed.

Structural personality theories are aimed at identifying the structure of the personality, its typology, constituent elements, personality traits. The largest representatives of the structural theories of personality are G. Allport, K. Rogers, D. Cattell, G. Eysenck.

Gordon Willard Allport(1897 - 1967), an American psychologist, one of the founders of the modern systems approach to the study of personality psychology, believed that any personality has a stable set of traits. (His theory is called the "theory of personality traits".) Allport investigated the hierarchy of personal value orientations and typologized individuals on this basis ("Personality: psychological interpretation", 1938).

Another American psychologist Carl Ransom Rogers (1902 - 1987), one of the leaders of the so-called humanistic psychology, believed that the core of the personality is its self-concept. Forming in a social environment, it is the main integrative mechanism of personality self-regulation. The self-concept is constantly compared with the ideal self, causes attempts to protect the self-concept from disintegration: the individual constantly strives for self-justification of his behavior, uses various mechanisms of psychological defense (up to perceptual distortions - distortions of perception, and ignoring objects that he does not like). Rogers developed a special (interactive) system of psychotherapy based on trust in the patient ("Client-Centered Therapy", 1954).

In the 20th century, the widespread use of experimental and mathematical methods began in the study of personality psychology. American psychologist James McKean Cattell (1860 - 1944) pioneered the testological movement in psychology. He was the first to use in the psychological study of personality a complex method of modern statistics - factor analysis, which minimizes many different indicators and assessments of personality and makes it possible to identify 16 basic personality traits (Cattell's 16-factor personality questionnaire).

The Cattell questionnaire reveals such basic personality traits as rationality, secrecy, emotional stability, dominance, seriousness (frivolity), conscientiousness, caution, sensitivity, gullibility (suspicion), conservatism, conformity, controllability, tension.

The Cattell questionnaire contains more than 100 questions, the answers to which (affirmative or negative) are grouped in accordance with a "key" - a certain method of processing the results, after which the severity of one factor or another is determined.

Methods of mathematical analysis of the results of observations and surveys, documentary data were also developed G. Eysenck ... His concept of personality traits is associated with its two interrelated basic qualities: 1) extraversion-introversion; 2) stability-instability (neuroticism, anxiety).

cognitive psychology

The disadvantage of structural theories of personality was that it is impossible to predict human behavior on the basis of knowledge of personality traits. it also depends on the situation itself.

As an alternative to this theory, arose theory of social learning. The main psychological characteristic of a person in this theory is an act, or a series of acts. Influence on human behavior is provided by other people, support or condemnation of actions on their part. A person acts in one way or another, based on his life experience, which is acquired as a result of interaction with other people. Behavior forms are acquired by imitation (vicarious learning). A person's behavior and his personality characteristics depend on the frequency of occurrence of the same “stimulus situations” and on the assessments of behavior in these situations received from other people.

One of the main directions of modern foreign psychology is becoming cognitive psychology(from lat. congnitio - cognition), which, in contrast to behaviorism, postulates knowledge as the basis of behavior. Within the framework of cognitive psychology, the patterns of cognitive activity (J. Bruner), the psychology of individual differences (M. Eysenck), and personality psychology (J. Kelly) are investigated. In connection with the development of cybernetics and the actualization of the problem of managing complex systems, an increased interest in the human structure arises.

Proponents also suggested their own approach to personality psychology. humanistic psychology(Maslow, Rogers). The main attention of the representatives of this direction was paid to the description of the inner world of the individual. The basic human need, according to this theory, is self-actualization, the desire for self-improvement and self-expression.

A person who has emerged from the animal world thanks to labor and develops in society, carries out joint activities with other people and communicates with them, becomes a person, a subject of knowledge and active transformation of the material world, society and himself.

Man is born into the world already as a man. This statement only at first glance seems to be a truth that does not require proof. The fact is that the human embryo has natural prerequisites in the genes for the development of proper human characteristics and qualities. The configuration of the body of a newborn assumes the possibility of walking upright, the structure of the brain provides an opportunity for the development of intelligence, the structure of the hand - the prospect of using tools, etc., and in this the infant - already a man in the sum of its capabilities - differs from the baby of an animal. Thus, the fact of the infant's belonging to the human race is proved, which is fixed in the concept of an individual (in contrast to a baby animal, which is called an individual immediately after birth and until the end of its life). The concept of "individual" embodies the generic affiliation of a person. An individual can be considered both a newborn and an adult at the stage of savagery, and a highly educated resident of a civilized country.

Therefore, speaking about a specific person that he is an individual, we essentially assert that he is potentially a person. Being born as an individual, a person gradually acquires a special social quality, becomes a person. Even in childhood, the individual is included in the historically established system of social relations, which he finds ready-made. The further development of a person in society creates such an interweaving of relations that forms him as a person, i.e. as a real person, not only not like others, but also not like they are acting, thinking, suffering, included in social ties as a member of society, an accomplice in the historical process.

A personality in psychology is a systemic (social) quality acquired by an individual in objective activity and communication and characterizing the degree of representation of social relations in an individual.

So, personality can be understood only in the system of stable interpersonal relationships, which are mediated by content, values, and the meaning of joint activity for each of the participants. These interpersonal connections are manifested in specific individual properties and actions of people, forming a special quality of the group activity itself.

The personality of each person is endowed only with her inherent combination of psychological traits and characteristics that form her individuality, constituting the originality of a person, his difference from other people. Individuality is manifested in the traits of temperament, character, habits, prevailing interests, in the qualities of cognitive processes (perception, memory, thinking, imagination), in abilities, individual style of activity, etc. There are no two identical people with the same combination of these psychological characteristics - a person's personality is unique in its individuality.

Just as the concepts “individual” and “personality” are not identical, personality and individuality, in turn, form a unity, but not an identity. The ability to very quickly “in the mind” add and multiply large numbers, thoughtfulness, the habit of biting nails and other features of a person appear as traits of his personality, but do not necessarily enter into the characteristics of his personality, if only because they may not be presented in forms activities and communication, essential for the group, which includes an individual with these traits. If personality traits are not represented in the system of interpersonal relations, then they turn out to be insignificant for the characteristics of the individual's personality and do not receive conditions for development. The individual characteristics of a person remain “dumb” until a certain time, until they become necessary in the system of interpersonal relations, the subject of which is the given person as a person.

The problem of the relationship between biological (natural) and social principles in the structure of a person's personality is one of the most difficult and debatable in modern psychology. A prominent place is occupied by theories that distinguish two main substructures in a person's personality, formed under the influence of two factors - biological and social. The idea was put forward that the entire human personality breaks up into an “endopsychic” and “exopsychic” organization. “Endopsychics” as a substructure of the personality expresses the internal mechanism of the human personality, identified with the neuropsychic organization of a person. “Exopsychics” is determined by a person's attitude to the external environment. “Endopsychia” includes such traits as susceptibility, features of memory, thinking and imagination, the ability to volitional effort, impulsivity, etc., and “exopsychia” is a system of human relations and his experience, ie. interests, inclinations, ideals, prevailing feelings, formed knowledge, etc.

How should we relate to this concept of two factors? Natural organic sides and traits exist in the structure of the individuality of the human personality as its socially conditioned elements. The natural (anatomical, physiological and other qualities) and the social form a unity and cannot be mechanically opposed to each other as independent substructures of the personality. So, recognizing the role of the natural, biological, and social in the structure of individuality, it is impossible to distinguish biological substructures in a person's personality, in which they already exist in a transformed form.

Returning to the question of understanding the essence of personality, it is necessary to dwell on the structure of personality when it is viewed as a “supersensible” systemic quality of an individual. Considering the personality in the system of subjective relations, there are three types of subsystems of the personal being of the individual (or three aspects of the interpretation of personality). The first aspect of consideration is the intraindividual subsystem: personality is interpreted as a property inherent in the subject itself; the personal is immersed in the inner space of the individual's being. The second aspect is the interindividual personal subsystem, when the “space of interindividual connections” becomes the sphere of its definition and existence. The third aspect of consideration is the meta-individual personality subsystem. Here attention is drawn to the effect that an individual has, willingly or unwillingly, on other people. The personality is perceived from a new angle of view: its most important characteristics, which they tried to see in the qualities of the individual, are proposed to be sought not only in himself, but also in other people. Continuing in other people, with the death of the individual, the personality does not completely die. The individual as the bearer of the personality passes away, but, personalized in other people, continues to live. In the words "he lives in us and after death" there is neither mysticism, nor pure metaphor, this is a statement of the fact of the ideal representation of the individual

after his material disappearance.

Of course, a personality can be characterized only in the unity of all three proposed aspects of consideration: its individuality, representation in the system of interpersonal relations and, finally, in other people.

If, when deciding why a person becomes more active, we analyze the essence of needs, in which a state of need for something or someone is expressed, leading to activity, then in order to determine what activity will result in, it is necessary to analyze what determines its focus, where and what this activity is focused on.

The set of stable motives that orient the activity of the individual and are relatively independent of the existing situations is called the orientation of the person's personality. The main role of the orientation of the personality belongs to conscious motives.

Interest is a motive that contributes to orientation in any area, acquaintance with new facts, a fuller and deeper reflection of reality. Subjectively - for the individual - interest is revealed in a positive emotional tone, which the process of cognition acquires, in the desire to get to know the object more deeply, to learn more about it, to understand it.

Thus, interests act as a constant stimulating mechanism of cognition.

Interests are an important aspect of motivating an individual's activity, but not the only one. Beliefs are an essential motive for behavior.

Beliefs are a system of personality motives that induce them to act in accordance with their views, principles, and worldview. The content of needs, acting in the form of beliefs, is knowledge about the surrounding world of nature and society, their certain understanding. When this knowledge forms an ordered and internally organized system of views (philosophical, aesthetic, ethical, natural-scientific, etc.), they can be considered as a worldview.

The presence of convictions covering a wide range of issues in the field of literature, art, social life, industrial activity, indicates a high level of activity of a person's personality.

Interacting and communicating with people, a person separates himself from the environment, feels himself a subject of his physical and mental states, actions and processes, acts for himself as “I”, opposing “others” and at the same time inextricably linked with him.

The experience of having your “I” is the result of a long process of personality development that begins in infancy and which is referred to as “the discovery of the“ I ””. A one-year-old child begins to realize the difference between the sensations of his own body and those sensations that are caused by objects outside. Then, at the age of 2-3 years, the child separates the process that gives him pleasure and the result of his own actions with objects from the objective actions of adults, presenting the latter with the requirements: “I myself!” For the first time he begins to realize himself as a subject of his own actions and deeds (a personal pronoun appears in the child's speech), not only separating himself from the environment, but also opposing himself to all others (“This is mine, this is not yours!”).

It is known that in adolescence and adolescence, the desire for self-perception increases, for the realization of one's place in life and oneself as a subject of relations with others. The formation of self-awareness is associated with this. Older schoolchildren form an image of their own “I”. The image of "I" is a relatively stable, not always conscious, experienced as a unique system of ideas of the individual about himself, on the basis of which he builds his interaction with others. The image of "I" thus fits into the structure of the personality. He acts as an attitude towards himself. Like any installation, the “I” image includes three components.

First, the cognitive component: an idea of ​​one's abilities, appearance, social significance, etc.

Second, the emotional-evaluative component: self-esteem, self-criticism, self-love, self-deprecation, etc.

Thirdly, behavioral (strong-willed): the desire to be understood, to win sympathy, to raise one's status, or the desire to remain unnoticed, to evade evaluation and criticism, to hide one's shortcomings, etc.

The image of "I" is a stable, not always conscious, experienced as a unique system of ideas of the individual about himself, on the basis of which he builds his interaction with others.

The image of "I" is both a prerequisite and a consequence of social interaction. In fact, psychologists fix in a person not one image of his “I”, but many successive “I-images”, alternately coming to the fore of self-awareness, then losing their meaning in a given situation of social interaction. “I-image” is not a static, but a dynamic formation of an individual's personality.

The “I-image” can be experienced as an idea of ​​oneself at the moment of the experience itself, usually denoted in psychology as the “real I”, but it would probably be more correct to call it the momentary or “current I” of the subject.

The “I-image” is at the same time the “ideal I” of the subject - what he should, in his opinion, become in order to meet the internal criteria of success.

Let us point out another variant of the emergence of the “I-image” - the “fantastic I” - what the subject would like to become, if it turned out to be possible for him, what he would like to see himself. The construction of their fantastic “I” is characteristic not only of young men, but also of adults. When assessing the motivating significance of this “I-image”, it is important to know whether the individual's objective understanding of his position and place in life has been replaced by his “fantastic I”. The predominance of fantastic ideas about oneself in the personality structure, which are not accompanied by actions that would contribute to the realization of the desired, disorganizes the activity and self-consciousness of a person and, in the end, can severely injure him due to the obvious discrepancy between the desired and the actual.

The degree of adequacy of the "I-image" is found out when studying one of its most important aspects - self-esteem of the individual.

Self-esteem - a person's assessment of himself, his capabilities, qualities and place among other people. This is the most essential and most studied side of personality self-awareness in psychology. With the help of self-esteem, the regulation of personality behavior takes place.

How does a person carry out self-esteem? K. Marx owns a just thought: at first a person looks like in a mirror, in another person. Only by treating the man Paul as his own kind does the man Peter begin to treat himself as a man. In other words, knowing the qualities of another person, a person receives the necessary information that allows him to develop his own assessment. In other words, a person is guided by a certain reference group (real or ideal), the ideals of which are its ideals, interests are its interests, etc. In the process of communication, she constantly checks herself against the standard and, depending on the results of the test, turns out to be satisfied with herself or dissatisfied. Too high or too low self-esteem can become an internal source of personality conflicts. Of course, this conflict can manifest itself in different ways.

Overestimated self-esteem leads to the fact that a person is inclined to overestimate himself in situations that do not give a reason for this. As a result, he often encounters opposition from others who reject his claims, gets angry, shows suspicion, suspiciousness and deliberate arrogance, aggression, and in the end may lose the necessary interpersonal contacts, become isolated.

Excessively low self-esteem may indicate the development of an inferiority complex, persistent self-doubt, rejection of initiative, indifference, self-blame, and anxiety.

In order to understand a person, it is necessary to clearly imagine the action of unconsciously emerging forms of controlling a person's behavior, to pay attention to the entire system of assessments with which a person characterizes himself and others, to see the dynamics of changes in these assessments.