Рус Eng Cn Перевести страницу на:  
Nota Bene. Books, journals, publishing technologies.
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate ☒
Библиотека
 ваш профиль
Creative Commons License CC-BY-NC Статья опубликована с лицензией Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) – Лицензия «С указанием авторства – Некоммерческая».
Вернуться к содержанию

Психология и Психотехника
Правильная ссылка на статью:

Щебетенко С.А. Отраженные установки на черты личности как предиктор успеваемости студентов

Аннотация: В работе предлагается понятие отраженной установки на черту личности, определяемое как мнение индивида о валентном (положительном/отрицательном) отношении значимых других к данной черте. В терминах пятифакторной теории личности (McCrae & Costa, 1996, 2013) этот конструкт рассматривается как частный случай метакогнитивных характерных адаптаций. Последние представляют собой «мысли о чертах» ― элемент структуры личности, предполагающий ее мониторинг со стороны индивида. На выборке в 1030 студентов университета изучалось то, насколько отраженная установка на черту способна предсказывать варьирование академической успеваемости ― при статистическом контроле соответствующей черты личности и других метакогнитивных характерных адаптаций. Исследование носило корреляционный характер. Измерялась Большая Пятерка черт личности и метакогнитивные характерные адаптации ― диспозиционная эффективность, установка на черту, отраженная черта и отраженная установка на черту. Измерялись показатели академической успешности: ЕГЭ по русскому языку и математике, семестровая успеваемость по дисциплинам специальности. Основные гипотезы тестировались средствами корреляционного и иерархического множественного регрессионного анализов. Обнаружено, что отраженные установки на доброжелательность, добросовестность и нейротизм могут вносить дополнительный вклад в объяснение академической успешности ― даже после статистического контроля соответствующей черты личности и прочих ее метакогнитивных характерных адаптаций. Автор утверждает, что специфика действия отраженных установок на черты может быть заключена в том, что индивид положительно реагирует на проявление этих черт среди других людей ― например, преподавателей, студентов. Это в целом может стать причиной формирования вокруг него соответствующей среды, в частности ― способствующей академическим достижениям студента.

Ключевые слова:

черты личности, социальные установки, интерсубъективность, пятифакторная теория личности, академическая успешность, ЕГЭ, доброжелательность, добросовестность, нейротизм, метакогниции

Abstract: In this article Schebetenko offers a definition of the ‘reflected attitude to personality feature’ as an individual opinion on what his significant others view as a positive or negative personality feature. In terms of the five-factor model of personality (McCrae & Costa, 1996, 2013) this construct is viewed as a particular case of typical metacognitive adaptations. The latter represent the ‘thoughts about features’, i.e. the element of personality structure being monitored by an individual. 1030 university students participated in the research of how a reflected attitude to a personality feature may predict the academic success taking into account the statistical control of a particular personality feature and other metacognitive adaptations. This is a correlational research. The researcher has studied the Big Five of personality traits and metacognitive adaptations including dispositional efficiency, attitude to a feature, reflected feature and reflected attitude to a feature. The following indicators of academic success have been studied: results of the Russian language and mathematics USE and quarterly academic records. The main hypotheses have been proved by the means of correlation and hierarchic multiple regression analysis. Schebetenko has discovered that reflected attitudes to friendliness, diligence and neuroticism can make additional contribution to academic success, even after the statistical control of a personality feature and other metacognitive adaptations associated with it. The researcher proves that the particular influence of a reflected attitude to personality traits can make an individual to positively react to these features among other people, for example, students or lecturers. Generally speaking, this can lead to the formation of a certain environment around an individual which, in particular, can stimulate his academic activity.

Keywords:

personality features, social attitudes, intersubjectivity, five-factor model, academic success, USE (Unified State Exam), friendliness, diligence, neuroticism, metacognition.


Эта статья может быть бесплатно загружена в формате PDF для чтения. Обращаем ваше внимание на необходимость соблюдения авторских прав, указания библиографической ссылки на статью при цитировании.

Скачать статью

Библиография
1. Valsiner, J. (2000). Culture and human development. SAGE.
2. Tice, D. M., & Wallace, H. M. (2003). The reflected self: Creating yourself as (you think) others see you. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 91–105). Guilford Press.
3. Trapmann, S., Hell, B., Hirn, J.-O. W., & Schuler, H. (2007). Meta-analysis of the re-lationship between the Big Five and academic success at university. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology, 215(2), 132–151.
4. Sutin, A. R. (2008). Autobiographical memory as a dynamic process: Autobiograph-ical memory mediates basic tendencies and characteristic adaptations. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(4), 1060–1066.
5. Slobodskaya, H. R. (2007). The associations among the Big Five, behavioural inhibi-tion and behavioural approach systems and child and adolescent adjustment in Russia. Personali-ty and Individual Differences, 43(4), 913–924.
6. Shchebetenko, S., & Bergfeld, A. Y. (unpublished manuscript). Reflected personality traits and attitudes toward personality as metacognitive characteristic adaptations that contribute to academic achievement in Russian universities.
7. Shrauger, J. S., & Schoeneman, T. J. (1979). Symbolic interactionist view of self-concept: Through the looking glass darkly. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 549–573.
8. Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of univer-sity students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bul-letin, 138(2), 353–387.
9. Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and ac-ademic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338.
10. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behav-iorist. University of Chicago Press.
11. Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2012). The history of attitudes and persuasion research. In A. W. Kruglanski & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook of the history of social psychology (pp. 285–320). New York: Psychology Press.
12. Mead, G. H. (1932). The philosophy of the present. (A. E. Murphy, Ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
13. Martin, J., & Gillespie, A. (2010). A neo-Meadian approach to human agency: Relat-ing the social and the psychological in the ontogenesis of perspective-coordinating persons. Inte-grative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 44(3), 252–272.
14. McAbee, S. T., & Oswald, F. L. (2013). The criterion-related validity of personality measures for predicting GPA: A meta-analytic validity competition. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 532–544.
15. McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr., P. T. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The Five-factor Model of Personality: Theoretical Perspectives (pp. 51–87). Guilford Press.
16. McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr., P. T. (2013). Introduction to the empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor model of personality traits. In T. A. Widiger, P. T. Costa, & Jr. (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (3rd ed.) (pp. 15–27). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
17. Laing, R. D., Phillipson, H., & Lee, A. R. (1966). Interpersonal perception: A theory and a method of research (Vol. vii). Oxford, England: Springer.
18. Löckenhoff, C. E., Terracciano, A., Ferrucci, L., & Costa, P. T. (2012). Five-factor personality traits and age trajectories of self-rated health: The role of question framing. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 375–401.
19. Malloy, T. E., Albright, L., Kenny, D. A., Agatstein, F., & Winquist, L. (1997). Inter-personal perception and metaperception in nonoverlapping social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 390–398.
20. Kenny, D. A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1993). Do people know how others view them? An empirical and theoretical account. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 145–161.
21. Jost, J. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Nelson, T. O. (1998). Social metacognition: An ex-pansionist review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(2), 137–154.
22. John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Rob-ins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
23. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Digireads.com Publishing.
24. John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory--Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.
25. Gillespie, A. (2012). Position exchange: The social development of agency. New Ide-as in Psychology, 30(1), 32–46.
26. Hopwood, C. J., Morey, L. C., Donnellan, M. B., Samuel, D. B., Grilo, C. M., McGlashan, T. H., … Skodol, A. E. (2013). Ten year rank-order stability of personality traits and disorders in a clinical sample. Journal of Personality, 81(3), 335–344.
27. Felson, R. B. (1993). The (somewhat) social self: How others affect self-appraisals. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self, Volume 4: The self in social perspective. Psychology Press.
28. Farmer, S. M., & Van Dyne, L. (2010). The idealized self and the situated self as pre-dictors of employee work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 503–516.
29. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. Transaction Publishers.
30. DeYoung, C. G., Hirsh, J. B., Shane, M. S., Papademetris, X., Rajeevan, N., & Gray, J. R. (2010). Testing predictions from personality neuroscience: Brain structure and the Big Five. Psychological Science, 21(6), 820–828.
31. Cook, W. L., & Douglas, E. M. (1998). The looking-glass self in family context: A social relations analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 12(3), 299–309.
32. Щебетенко С.А. (неопубл.). Метакогнитивные характерные адаптации.
33. Щебетенко С.А. Установки на черты личности в контексте Большой Пятерки // Психология. Журнал Высшей Школы Экономики, в печати.
34. Щебетенко С.А., Тютикова Е.А. «Картина хороша, потому что хороша открытость опыту»: опосредующая роль установок на черты в индивидуальных различиях отношения к живописи // Психология. Журнал Высшей Школы Экономики, в печати.
35. Allik, J., & Realo, A. (1997). Intelligence, academic abilities, and personality. Per-sonality and Individual Differences, 23(5), 809–814.
36. Baumeister, R. F. (1986). Identity: cultural change and the struggle for self. Oxford University Press, Incorporated.
37. Первин Л., Джон О. Психология личности: Теория и исследования. М: Аспект-Пресс, 2001. 607 с.
38. № 27. 6. Мерлин В.С. Очерк интегрального исследования индивидуальности. Педагогика, 1986. 253 c.
39. Аронсон Э. Общественное животное. Введение в социальную психологию. М: Аспект-Пресс, 1998. 517 c.
40. Выготский Л.С., Лурия А.Р. Этюды по истории поведения: Обезьяна. Примитив. Ребенок. М: Педагогика-Пресс, 1993. 224 c.
41. Дорфман Л.Я. Метаиндивидуальный мир. М: Смысл, 1993. 456 c.
42. Дорфман Л.Я. Концепция метаиндивидуального мира: современное состояние. // Психология. Журнал Высшей Школы Экономики. 2006. Т. 3. № 3. С. 3–34.
43. Кочергина Е.В., Най Д., Орел Е.А. Факторы «Большой пятерки» как психологические предикторы академической успеваемости студентов вузов // Психологические Исследования. 2013. Т.
References
1. Valsiner, J. (2000). Culture and human development. SAGE.
2. Tice, D. M., & Wallace, H. M. (2003). The reflected self: Creating yourself as (you think) others see you. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 91–105). Guilford Press.
3. Trapmann, S., Hell, B., Hirn, J.-O. W., & Schuler, H. (2007). Meta-analysis of the re-lationship between the Big Five and academic success at university. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology, 215(2), 132–151.
4. Sutin, A. R. (2008). Autobiographical memory as a dynamic process: Autobiograph-ical memory mediates basic tendencies and characteristic adaptations. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(4), 1060–1066.
5. Slobodskaya, H. R. (2007). The associations among the Big Five, behavioural inhibi-tion and behavioural approach systems and child and adolescent adjustment in Russia. Personali-ty and Individual Differences, 43(4), 913–924.
6. Shchebetenko, S., & Bergfeld, A. Y. (unpublished manuscript). Reflected personality traits and attitudes toward personality as metacognitive characteristic adaptations that contribute to academic achievement in Russian universities.
7. Shrauger, J. S., & Schoeneman, T. J. (1979). Symbolic interactionist view of self-concept: Through the looking glass darkly. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 549–573.
8. Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of univer-sity students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bul-letin, 138(2), 353–387.
9. Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and ac-ademic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338.
10. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behav-iorist. University of Chicago Press.
11. Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2012). The history of attitudes and persuasion research. In A. W. Kruglanski & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook of the history of social psychology (pp. 285–320). New York: Psychology Press.
12. Mead, G. H. (1932). The philosophy of the present. (A. E. Murphy, Ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
13. Martin, J., & Gillespie, A. (2010). A neo-Meadian approach to human agency: Relat-ing the social and the psychological in the ontogenesis of perspective-coordinating persons. Inte-grative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 44(3), 252–272.
14. McAbee, S. T., & Oswald, F. L. (2013). The criterion-related validity of personality measures for predicting GPA: A meta-analytic validity competition. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 532–544.
15. McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr., P. T. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The Five-factor Model of Personality: Theoretical Perspectives (pp. 51–87). Guilford Press.
16. McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr., P. T. (2013). Introduction to the empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor model of personality traits. In T. A. Widiger, P. T. Costa, & Jr. (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (3rd ed.) (pp. 15–27). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
17. Laing, R. D., Phillipson, H., & Lee, A. R. (1966). Interpersonal perception: A theory and a method of research (Vol. vii). Oxford, England: Springer.
18. Löckenhoff, C. E., Terracciano, A., Ferrucci, L., & Costa, P. T. (2012). Five-factor personality traits and age trajectories of self-rated health: The role of question framing. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 375–401.
19. Malloy, T. E., Albright, L., Kenny, D. A., Agatstein, F., & Winquist, L. (1997). Inter-personal perception and metaperception in nonoverlapping social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 390–398.
20. Kenny, D. A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1993). Do people know how others view them? An empirical and theoretical account. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 145–161.
21. Jost, J. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Nelson, T. O. (1998). Social metacognition: An ex-pansionist review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(2), 137–154.
22. John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Rob-ins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
23. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. Digireads.com Publishing.
24. John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory--Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.
25. Gillespie, A. (2012). Position exchange: The social development of agency. New Ide-as in Psychology, 30(1), 32–46.
26. Hopwood, C. J., Morey, L. C., Donnellan, M. B., Samuel, D. B., Grilo, C. M., McGlashan, T. H., … Skodol, A. E. (2013). Ten year rank-order stability of personality traits and disorders in a clinical sample. Journal of Personality, 81(3), 335–344.
27. Felson, R. B. (1993). The (somewhat) social self: How others affect self-appraisals. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self, Volume 4: The self in social perspective. Psychology Press.
28. Farmer, S. M., & Van Dyne, L. (2010). The idealized self and the situated self as pre-dictors of employee work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 503–516.
29. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. Transaction Publishers.
30. DeYoung, C. G., Hirsh, J. B., Shane, M. S., Papademetris, X., Rajeevan, N., & Gray, J. R. (2010). Testing predictions from personality neuroscience: Brain structure and the Big Five. Psychological Science, 21(6), 820–828.
31. Cook, W. L., & Douglas, E. M. (1998). The looking-glass self in family context: A social relations analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 12(3), 299–309.
32. Shchebetenko S.A. (neopubl.). Metakognitivnye kharakternye adaptatsii.
33. Shchebetenko S.A. Ustanovki na cherty lichnosti v kontekste Bol'shoy Pyaterki // Psikhologiya. Zhurnal Vysshey Shkoly Ekonomiki, v pechati.
34. Shchebetenko S.A., Tyutikova E.A. «Kartina khorosha, potomu chto khorosha otkrytost' opytu»: oposreduyushchaya rol' ustanovok na cherty v individual'nykh razlichiyakh otnosheniya k zhivopisi // Psikhologiya. Zhurnal Vysshey Shkoly Ekonomiki, v pechati.
35. Allik, J., & Realo, A. (1997). Intelligence, academic abilities, and personality. Per-sonality and Individual Differences, 23(5), 809–814.
36. Baumeister, R. F. (1986). Identity: cultural change and the struggle for self. Oxford University Press, Incorporated.
37. Pervin L., Dzhon O. Psikhologiya lichnosti: Teoriya i issledovaniya. M: Aspekt-Press, 2001. 607 s.
38. № 27. 6. Merlin V.S. Ocherk integral'nogo issledovaniya individual'nosti. Pedagogika, 1986. 253 c.
39. Aronson E. Obshchestvennoe zhivotnoe. Vvedenie v sotsial'nuyu psikhologiyu. M: Aspekt-Press, 1998. 517 c.
40. Vygotskiy L.S., Luriya A.R. Etyudy po istorii povedeniya: Obez'yana. Primitiv. Rebenok. M: Pedagogika-Press, 1993. 224 c.
41. Dorfman L.Ya. Metaindividual'nyy mir. M: Smysl, 1993. 456 c.
42. Dorfman L.Ya. Kontseptsiya metaindividual'nogo mira: sovremennoe sostoyanie. // Psikhologiya. Zhurnal Vysshey Shkoly Ekonomiki. 2006. T. 3. № 3. S. 3–34.
43. Kochergina E.V., Nay D., Orel E.A. Faktory «Bol'shoy pyaterki» kak psikhologicheskie prediktory akademicheskoy uspevaemosti studentov vuzov // Psikhologicheskie Issledovaniya. 2013. T.
Издательство
 
Авторам
 
Услуги
 
Разное
 
Наши сайты

© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.