Educational Acmeology. Developmental Psychology

Izvestiya of Saratov University.

ISSN 2304-9790 (Print)
ISSN 2541-9013 (Online)


For citation:

Ryaguzova E. V. Personality-driven kindness content in the context of interpersonal interactions. Izvestiya of Saratov University. Educational Acmeology. Developmental Psychology, 2024, vol. 13, iss. 1, pp. 40-49. DOI: 10.18500/2304-9790-2024-13-1-40-49, EDN: WWWVRT

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0).
Full text:
(downloads: 68)
Language: 
Russian
Article type: 
Article
UDC: 
316.6:159.9
EDN: 
WWWVRT

Personality-driven kindness content in the context of interpersonal interactions

Autors: 
Ryaguzova Elena V., Saratov State University
Abstract: 

The relevance of the research is due to the fact that in the modern technogenic world, kindness requires special attention because of several reasons: fi rst, kindness is a gift that contributes to the preservation of the humane in a human; second, it resists the devaluation and depersonalization of human individuality; third, it unites people on the basis of deep spiritual values; and fi nally, kindness helps people develop and improve themselves through the expansion of social ties and activation of prosocial behaviors. The objective of the research is to identify how kindness in interpersonal relationships is specifi c to a person depending on its dominant mode. Hypothesis: the subjective experience of receiving and showing kindness in interpersonal interactions determines its content and the specifi cs of verbal referents. Participants: students (N = 75) of Saratov State University (Saratov) aged between 20 and 22 years (M=21.48; SD=1.12), 83% female. Methods (tools): prototypical methodology for describing the structure of the social concept of kindness (P. Verges); semantic diff erential technique to characterize the semantic space of the construct “kind person” (Ch. Osgood); methodology of kindness modes to determine its dominant mode (D. E. Youngs, M. A. Yaneva & D. V. Canter); self-actualization test for the diagnosis of the self-actualization index (E. Shostrom adapted by A. Jones, R. Crandall); behavioral activity questionnaire to determine its type (L. I. Wasserman and N. V. Gumenyuk). Results: the research reveals the structure of the social concept of kindness, constructs the semantic space of the concept “kind person”, identifies the three groups that diff er in relation to themselves and Others, in relation to the modes of kindness, ideas of kindness, behavioral patterns and the specifi cs of verbal referents. Conclusions. The research has worked out the invariant meaning of the concept of good and kindness in diff erent languages; the study has emphasized intersubjective (caring for the Other) and intrasubjective (caring for oneself) psychological orientations of kindness, which are associated with the responsibility of the individual for the present and future of their own and of the Other’s; the research has identifi ed the tendency to understand kindness one-sidedly reducing it to a helping behavior and identifying it with the proper care of the Other; the study has established that the subjective experience of receiving and showing kindness in interpersonal interactions determines the type of the kindness mode and the specifi cs of verbal referents. Practical significance. The results of the study can be used in counseling and psychological training.

Reference: 
  1. Селигман М. Новая позитивная психология. М. : София, 2006. 367с.
  2. Чиксентмихайи М. Поток: психология оптимального переживания. М. : Смысл ; Альпина нон-фикшн, 2013. 464с.
  3. Мордовина Л. В. Природа и сущность доброты // Аналитика культурологии. 2014. № 2 (29). С. 218‒224. EDN: TMZKRL
  4. Черных П. Я. Историко-этимологический словарь современного русского языка : в 2 т. М. : Русский язык, 1999. Т. 1. 622 с.
  5. Ожегов С. И. Словарь русского языка / под ред. Н. Ю. Шведовой. М. : Русский язык, 1986. 797 с.
  6. Палеха Е. С. Концептосфера лексико-семантического поля добра в русском языке // Вестник Чувашского университета. 2007. № 3. С. 193‒199. EDN: JWVYSF
  7. Усачева О. А. Количественная характеристика качества «доброта» в современном публицистическом дискурсе // Ученые записки Казанского университета. Серия: Гуманитарные науки. 2022. Т. 164, № 5. С. 22‒31. https://doi.org/10.26907/2541- 7738.2022.5.22-31, EDN: ZSVDRD
  8. Dossey L. Generosity and kindness in our pandemic era // Explore. 2021. Vol. 17, iss. 2. P. 101‒102. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2020.12.008
  9. Рахимова А. Э. Бинарная оппозиция «Gutes» («добро») / «Böses» («зло») в современном немецкоязычном художественном дискурсе (на материале романа И. Троянова «Собиратель миров») // Филология и культура. 2013. № 3 (33). С. 107‒113. EDN: RPKNTP
  10. Голованивская М. К. Абсолюты в национальных картинах мира: представление французов и русских о добре и зле // Вестник Новосибирского государственного университета. Серия: Лингвистика и межкультурная коммуникация. 2018. Т. 16, № 3. С. 77‒87. https://doi.org/10.25205/1818-7935-2018- 16-3-77-87
  11. Brownlie J., Anderson S. Thinking sociologically about kindness: Puncturing the blasé in the ordinary city // Sociology. 2017. Vol. 51, iss. 6. P. 1222–1238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038516661266
  12. Gilbert P., Basran J., MacArthur M., Kirby J. N. Differences in the semantics of prosocial words: An exploration of compassion and kindness // Mindfulness. 2019. Vol. 10. P. 2259–2271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671- 019-01191-x
  13. Фуко М. Герменевтика субъекта: Курс лекций, прочитанных в Коллеж де Франс в 1981–1982 учебном году / пер с фр. А. Г. Погоняйло. СПб. : Наука, 2007. 677 с.
  14. Фуко М. Говорить правду о самом себе. Лекции, прочитанные в 1982 году в Университете Виктории в Торонто / пер. с фр. Д. Кралечкина. М. : Дело, 2021. 336 с.
  15. Делурм А. Насколько вы добры? URL: https:// www.psychologies.ru/tests/test/301/?ysclid=lrrtszdj oi887504267 (дата обращения: 31.01.2023).
  16. Malti Т. Kindness: A perspective from developmental psychology // European Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2020. Vol. 18, iss. 5. P. 629‒657. https://doi.or g/10.1080/17405629.2020.1837617
  17. Сапогова Е. Е. «Забота о себе»: автопостроение жизни как смысловой системы // Вестник гуманитарного образования. 2015. № 3. С. 49‒66. EDN: WJBEGH
  18. Иванченко Г. В. Забота о себе: История и современность. М. : Смысл, 2009. 303 с.
  19. Melamed D., Simpson B., Abernathy J. The robustness of reciprocity: Experimental evidence that each form of reciprocity is robust to the presence of other forms of reciprocity // Science Advances. 2020. Vol. 6, iss. 23. Article number eaba0504. https://doi. org/10.1126/sciadv.aba0504
  20. Binfet J.-T. Not-so random acts of kindness: A guide to intentional kindness in the classroom // International Journal of Emotional Education. 2015. Vol. 7, iss. 2. P. 49‒62. URL: https://www.um.edu.mt/library/ oar//handle/123456789/6905 (дата обращения: 29.07.2023).
  21. Binfet J. T., Enns C. Quiet kindness in school: Socially and emotionally sophisticated kindness fl ying beneath the radar of parents and educators // Journal of Childhood Studies. 2018. Vol. 43, iss. 2. P. 31‒45. https://doi. org/10.18357/jcs.v43i2.18576
  22. Youngs D. E., Yaneva M. A., Canter D. V. Development of a measure of kindness // Current Psychology. 2023. Vol. 42. P. 5428–5440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144- 021-01882-6
  23. Vergès P. L’Evocation de l’argent: Une méthode pour la defi nition du noyau centra ld’unereprésentation // Bulletin de psychologie. 1992. T. XLV, № 405. P. 203–209. https://doi.org/10.3406/bupsy.1992.14128
  24. Osgood C. E., Suci G. J., Tannenbaum P. H. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana-Champaign : University of Illinois Press, 1957. 300 р.
  25. Джоунс А., Крэндалл Р. Краткий индекс самоактуализации. URL: https://psytests.org/exist/poijc.html (дата обращения: 10.04.2023).
  26. Тест-опросник для диагностики типа поведенческой активности (Л. И. Вассерман, Н. В. Гуменюк). URL: https://psycabi.net/testy/608-metodika-diagnostikitipa-povedencheskoj-ak... (дата обращения: 10.04.2023)
  27.  Andreoni J. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving // The Economic Journal. 1990. Vol. 100, iss. 401. P. 464–477. https:// doi.org/10.2307/2234133
  28. Konow J. Mixed feelings: Theories and evidence of warm glow and altruism (September 2006). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstrac t=980349 or http:// dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.980349 (дата обращения: 17.06.2023)
  29. Evren O., Minardi S. Warm-glow giving and freedom to be selfi sh // Ethics eJournal. 2013. HEC Paris Research Paper No. ECO/SCD-2013-1011. https://doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.2347111. URL: https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:58943216 (дата обращения: 09.08.2023).
Received: 
17.09.2023
Accepted: 
15.11.2023
Published: 
29.03.2024
Short text (in English):
(downloads: 40)