Peculiarities of manifestations of communicative tolerance of students in the conditions of quarantine insulation

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Peculiarities of manifestations of communicative tolerance of students in the conditions of quarantine insulation

Halyna Chuyko1, Yan Chaplak2, Mariya Komisaryk3

1 PhD (Philology), Assistant Professor of the Department of Psychology of Chernivtsi National University named after Yuri Fedkovich, Chernivtsi (Ukraine)

2 PhD (Philology), Assistant Professor of the Department of Psychology of Chernivtsi National University named after Yuri Fedkovich, Chernivtsi (Ukraine)

3 PhD (Philology), Assistant Professor of the of pedagogy and psychology of preschool education department, Yuri Fedkovich Chernivtsi National University, Chernivtsi (Ukraine)

ABSTRACT

The article deals with the theoretical analysis and empirical research of psychological features of the phenomenon of communicative tolerance in the conditions of quarantine isolation.

Different understandings of the concept of tolerance / communicative tolerance and its structure by scientists in the scientific psychological literature are considered. It was found that most scientists, analyzing the meaning of the concept of "communicative tolerance", often describe it as: personal characteristic; attitude to another person and the corresponding behavior of a person in the communication process. And in the structure of communicative tolerance they more often distinguish cognitive, affective and behavioral components, or offer a list of qualities of a tolerant personality.

The understanding of communicative tolerance as a sophisticated complex holistic psychological phenomenon based on person's communicative experience, their morality, inner culture and upbringing, as well as on the development of such personal traits as: benevolence, politeness, sociability, empathy, courtesy, moderation, on tendency to solve existing problems through cooperation, agreements and taking into account the interests of both sides of the communication - is generalized.

It is stated that in the attempts of modern scientists to understand and explain the concept of tolerance in communication, we can distinguish two main approaches: linguistic and psychological, - which are partially opposed to each other. The first is by emphasizing that "communicative tolerance" is purely communicative category because it manifests itself in communication, and the second is by arguing that communicative tolerance is a complex and multifaceted mental phenomenon. It is noted that in the word combination "communicative tolerance" the concept of "communicative" - is just an attribute of the main word - "tolerance", emphasizing its psychological understanding.

Peculiarities of development and manifestation of communicative tolerance in first- and second-year students, future psychologists, for whom it is a professionally important quality, was studied. It was found that respondents mainly tend to show the competent position in communication and to comprehensive accept other people, but the degree of their tolerance in communication was insufficient, because they could not hide their own negative emotions and communicative experience; may show indisputability, aggression or cruelty to the interlocutor; aspire to change him by fiting to their own image; didn't want to get closer to another person on an emotional basis for the sake of effective communication.

The correlations between the indicators of the techniques of diagnostics of communicative tolerance and other methods, the existence of which confirms the sophisticated, complexity and multifaceted nature of the phenomenon of communicative tolerance; factors that discover the hidden behind the correlation of the reasons for intolerance of respondents in communication and the ineffectiveness of its results are analyzed.

It is concluded that tolerant communication is based on the conscious acceptance of another person's individuality; the desire to listen, to understand her, without suppressing the freedom of her expression and without aspire to change in her own way; the wish to communicate sincerely and openly, showing kindness and respect to human dignity and restrain possible negative feelings; on the desire to cooperate in order to avoid conflicts and achieve successful, effective and efficient communication.

Key words: tolerance, communicative tolerance, interpersonal communication, communicative competence, acceptance of another, emotional barrier in communication.

АНОТАЦІЯ

Чуйко Галина Василівна

Кандидат філологічних наук, доцент кафедри психології Чернівецького національного університету імені Юрія Федьковича, м. Чернівці (Україна)

Чаплак Ян Васильович

Кандидат психологічних наук, доцент кафедри психології Чернівецького національного університету імені Юрія Федьковича, м. Чернівці (Україна)

Комісарик Марія Іванівна

Кандидат педагогічних наук, доцент, доцент кафедри педагогіки та психології дошкільної освіти, Чернівецький національний університет імені Юрія Федьковича, м. Чернівці (Україна)

ОСОБЛИВОСТІ ПРОЯВУ КОМУНІКАТИВНОЇ ТОЛЕРАНТНОСТІ СТУДЕНТІВ В УМОВАХ КАРАНТИННОЇ ІЗОЛЯЦІЇ

У статті проведено теоретичний аналіз та емпіричне дослідження психологічних особливостей фено-мену комунікативної толерантності в умовах карантинної ізоляції.

Розглянуто різне розуміння науковцями в науковій психологічній літературі поняття толерантності/ комунікативної толерантності та його структури. Виявлено, що більшість науковців, аналізуючи зміст поняття «комунікативна толерантність», часто характеризують його як: особистісні властивості; ставлення до іншої людини і відповідна поведінка людини в процесі спілкування. А в структурі комунікативної толерантності частіше виділяють когнітивний, афективний і по- ведінковий компоненти або пропонують перелік якостей толерантної особистості.

Розуміння комунікативної толерантності як складного комплексного цілісного психологічного фе-номену, що ґрунтується на комунікативному досвіді людини, її моральності, внутрішній культурі та вихованні, а також на розвитку таких особистісних якостей, як: доброзичливість, ввічливість, комунікабельність, емпатія, ввічливість, поміркованість, про схильність вирішувати наявні проблеми шляхом співпраці, домовленостей та врахування інтересів обох сторін комунікації - узагальнено.

Констатується, що у спробах сучасних науковців зрозуміти та пояснити поняття толерантності у спілкуванні можна виділити два основні підходи: лінгвістичний та психологічний, - які частково проти стоять один одному. Перший полягає в наголошенні на тому, що «комунікативна толерантність» є суто ко-мунікативною категорією, оскільки вона проявляється у спілкуванні, а другий -- у твердженні того, що ко-мунікативна толерантність є складним і багатогранним психічним феноменом. Зазначається, що у словосполу-ченні «комунікативна толерантність» поняття «комунікативний» - лише атрибут головного слова - «толерантність», підкреслюючи його психологічне ро-зуміння.

Досліджено особливості розвитку та прояву комунікативної толерантності у студентів І-ІІ курсів, майбутніх психологів, для яких вона є професійно важливою якістю. Виявлено, що респонденти в основному схильні проявляти компетентну позицію у спілкуванні та всебічно сприймати інших людей, але ступінь їх то-лерантності у спілкуванні був недостатнім, оскільки вони не могли приховати власні негативні емоції та комунікативний досвід; може проявляти до співрозмовника незаперечність, агресивність чи жорстокість; прагнуть змінити його, підійшовши під власний образ; не хотів зближуватися з іншою людиною на емоційній основі заради ефективного спілкування.

Встановлено кореляційні зв'язки між показниками методик діагностики комунікативної толерантності та інших методик, наявність яких підтверджує складність, складність і багатоаспектність феномену комунікативної толерантності; аналізуються фактори, що виявляють приховану кореляцію причин нетерпимості респондентів у спілкуванні та неефективності його результатів.

Зроблено висновок, що толерантне спілкування базується на свідомому прийнятті індивідуальності ін-шої людини; бажання вислухати, зрозуміти її, не пригнічуючи свободи її самовираження і не прагнучи змінитися по-своєму; бажання спілкуватися щиро і відкрито, виявляти доброзичливість і повагу до людської гідності та стримувати можливі негативні почуття; на прагнення до співпраці з метою уникнення конфліктів і досягнення успішної, ефективної та ефективної комунікації.

Ключові слова: толерантність, комунікативна толерантність, міжособистісне спілкування, комуніка-тивна компетентність, прийняття іншого, емоційний

Formulation of the problem

Human tolerance is recognizing by psychologists and related sciences repre-sentatives as an extremely important personal trait for a long time, but never before its importance for human rela-tions was as fundamental, as under quarantine to protect against COVID-2019. After all, several negative factors were suddenly combined: constantly growing anxiety due to complete uncertainty about next day (and this was not what in the future), which grew into depression; lack of full value communication and contacts even with the closest people and the situation of complete uncertainty, which simply lost its time and quality limits in quarantine: if before uncertainty was caused by instability of the information society, not felt by all, and the possibility of its stabilization and intensification to control and forsee processes in society was probably provided, then in conditions of dominance of coronavirus in the world, uncertainty began to concern to each person directly - the need to think about what would happen tomorrow, dissappeared the importance of planning was lost. S. Badner identified the following signs of an uncertain situation: novelty (a completely new situation, the experience of which was not exist); complexity (problem situation with a large number of components); unresolved (various elements of the situation give birth to contradictory interpretations) - all these features were inherent to the situation in the country now (Gusev, 2011). S. Kreitler, T. Maguen and H. Kreitler, clarified that uncertain situations arose because of one of three main reasons: 1) the situation can be interpreted (explained) in different ways; 2) the situation is difficult to categorize; 3) the situa-tion included contradiction or conflict (Gusev, 2011). It should also be noted that the tolerance for uncertainty, in which the world found itself due to the coronavirus, involves “a number of aspects: the ability to make decisions and thoughts on the problem, even when all the facts and possible consequences were unknown; socio-psychological attitude with affective, cognitive and behavioral components; skill to work in conditions of lack of information or its ambivalence; the ability of a person to feel positive emotions in new, unstructured, ambiguous situations, was per-ceiving them not as threatening, but as containing a challenge” (Hilko, 2017 : 424-425). S. V. Lytvyn aptnessly defines tolerance tor uncertainty as "a personality trait that manifests itself in a constant readiness for anything can happen" (Lytvyn, 2019 : 97). But, according to L. McLain, E. Kefallonitis, & K. Armani, tolerance for uncertainty de-pends on the peculiarities of the perception of information: as threatening or as desirable. In the first case, a person tends to show intolerance, in other conditions - tolerance to uncertainty (McLain, Kefallonitis, & Armani, 2015). However, we had noted earlier that a third version of the perception of uncertainty was possible: it can very frighten, but at the same time - be fascinated by person, awoke their imagination, the desire to learn anything, what was behind the veil of secrecy of uncertainty. And its somewhat paradoxically, but during communication, especially under our uncertain quarantine conditions, that a situation of uncertainty can occur, which is perceived as unequivocally threatening by the majority of perfectly rational people (Chuyko, Chap- lak, 2020). It should be added that when the question is about the stability of tolerance manifestation in situations involving uncertainty and unpredictability of communication partner's behavior, implicitly, without emphasizing this fact, scientists mean dyad interaction, dialogue. Because the communicative tolerance can become selective even in triad; and then we can talk about the varying degrees of its manifestation (which does not lose its meaning, content or essence) to different people.

Under the above conditions, communication, which is the basis of interpersonal relationships, was trans- fotmed into purely mediated by various technical means: because of this the ability to understand how the interlocu-tor perceived what was said, reacted to it mainly disappeared: in fact, most nonverbal means of communication has lost its unique meaning as an indicator of sincerity, emotional expressiveness of it.

In such a situation, the communicative tolerance of the individual and the empirical study of its manifestation in the specific conditions of quarantine uncertainty become objectively important.

Analysis of research and publications

It should be noted that the problem of tolerance in general and com-municative tolerance in particular were considering by a wide range of scientists during the last decades: philoso-phers, linguists, sociologists, psychologists, even physicians, as it was interdisciplinary. To present day, they have theoretically analyzed the phenomenon of tolerance of personality as the acceptance of another person and respect for their views / existence (V. V. Boyko, A. K. Abrahamyan, S. O Kolot, N.G. Kapustina, G.G. Kravtsov, T. Nuri, L.P. Shustova, O.A. Rivchachenko, E. A. Panasenko, A. G. Skok, L. McLain, E. Kefallonitis, & K. Armani, etc.) and communicative tolerance as prerequisite of effective communication (V.V. Boyko, E.I. Kasyanova, A.V. Zinchenko, S.L. Bratchenko, I. A. Sternin, K.M. Shilikhina, T. O. Shapovalova, K.Yu. Shamsutdinova, B.R. Mogilevich, F. Batsevich, O.A. Selyutin, Z. A. Ageeva, A.V. Sukacheva, T. M. Maslova, etc.), its structure, characteristic features and levels of manifestation, functions and role in profes-sional activity, psychologist in particular have distin- quished. However, scientists have not yet agreed even in defining the meaning of concept of "communicative tolerance". Although it is obvious that they imitate to some ex-tent in their interpretations of the understanding of the phenomenon by V. V. Boyko, who introduced the concept of communicative tolerance into psychology as "characteristics of the individual's attitude to people, which shows their degree to endure of unpleasant and unacceptable, in their opinion, mental states, qualities and deeds of interaction partners" (Sukacheva, Maslova, 2017) and noted that the level of it increases, if a person learns to overcome or smooth out negative impressions from the awareness of the difference between the substructures of their own per-sonality and the personality of the interlocutor and eliminate the circumstances that cause or emphasize these differ-ences (Boyko, 2008). The scientist also identified ten functional substructures of personality that could be the basis for the manifestation of communicative tolerance: intellectual - reports the paradigm of human thinking activity, the peculiarities of their understanding of reality; value- oriented - "absorbs" the worldview ideals of a particular person, their life goals and assessment of events; ethical - contains moral norms that a person follows; aesthetic - covers the sphere of tastes and perceptions of the beautiful, disgusting and tragic in the world around; emotional - demonstrates the range of emotions, which characterize the man; sensory substructure is based on human sensory perception of the world; energy-dynamic - reflects the quality and strength of the human energy field; algorithmic - combines personal qualities that have the property of reproducibility (repeatability); characterological - focuses on stable typological personality traits, and functional substructure - consolidates various systems of life support and maintenance of mental comfort of the individual (Boyko, 2008). V. O. Lectorskiy described the models of tolerance that correspond to different philosophical concepts (tolerance as: indifference, impossibility of mutual understanding, indulgence and expansion of one's own experience and critical dialogue) (Chuyko, Chaplak, 2020). O. Ya. Shayuk, in our opinion, made the most detailed analysis of the interpretation of the phenomenon of tolerance in scientific sources, proposed "essential-psychological characteristics of tolerance in the contexts of different methodological approaches" (Palko, 2014). In the context of the above, the opinion of N. G. Kapustina that tolerance is such a "complex, multifaceted, multicomponent and heterogeneous phenomenon" that it "cannot be described in only one dimension" (Kapustina, 2008) also deserves attention.

Thus, the aim of this work is to analyze and generalize the main theoretical aspects of studying and under-standing the problem of communicative tolerance in psychology; to conduct an empirical study of the peculiarities of the manifestation of communicative tolerance in student age.

Research methods

communicative tolerance student quarantine insulation

The article uses a system of methods of scientific research in psychology: theoretical: comprehension, analysis, comparison, systematization and generalization of scientific information related to the problem of work; empirical: technique "Diagnostics of the acceptance of others" by V. Fay, test of communicative skills by L. Michelson, questionnaire of communicative tolerance by V. V. Boyko, technique "Determination of destructive attitudes in interpersonal communication" by V. V. Boyko, "Technique of diagnostics of "obstacles" in establishing contacts (V. V. Boyko) / diagnostics of emotional barriers in interpersonal communication"; processing methods: descriptive statistics, correlation analysis (according to Ch. Pearson), factor analysis (Principal components).

Presentation of the main research material

It should be noted that the objective importance of the phe-nomenon of tolerance in the modern world is evidencing by the adoption of the UNESCO Declaration of Principles of Tolerance, where it is interpreting as respect to human rights, to their freedom to defend their beliefs and values; as "the acceptance and true understanding of the rich diversity of the cultures of our world, our forms of selfexpression and the ways in which human individuality manifests itself", despite the existence of “objective differences between people and don't imposing one's views on them" (Declaration of Principles, 1995).

The APA psychological dictionary defines tolerance as "acceptance of others whose actions, beliefs, physi-cal capabilities, religion, customs, ethnicity, nationality, and so on differ from one's own"; "a fair and objective atti-tude toward points of view different from one's own" (APA dictionary, n. d.). The dictionary also assumes that there is a limit of tolerance (from "highest to lowest value of tolerance" indicator (APA dictionary, n. d.), in fact, by analogy to the threshold of sensations), but does not try to thoroughly explain this idea. Instead of it, the Ukrainian philosophical encyclopedic dictionary states that the “limits of permissible tolerance (therefore, there is "unacceptable"?!) depend on the social norms, which act in the society... have a cultural origin; however, within the existing social norms, more tolerant and less tolerant variants of personal and group behavior are possible” (Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary, n. d.). Whereas, in our opinion, tolerance is a psychological and moral category (as noted in the scientific literature), which to some extent depends on the society, in which a person lives, and on the situation of uncertainty in it, but the limit of human tolerance, including communicative, - is rather subjective concept: each person, even if living in the same society that affects the development of personality, - has their own limit of manifestation of toler-ance, individual, moreover, it depends on both the situation and the object of tolerance.

Thinking on the limits of tolerance, T. P. Skryp- kina identifies five possible tolerant positions of personali-ty: tolerance as an internal attitude, as acceptance and pa- tiency to the other, the alien; as a culturological norm (tolerance of external expression); as unprejudice, indifference to another; tolerance for someone, who harms us and tolerance to someone, who not harms us, but another person, but we do not care about it, - and concludes: we can talk about a certain "moral norm of tolerance associated with the fact that man for relieving tension, resolving the conflict should not start to contradict with them, their values and meanings "(Skrypkina, 2009).

We should add that, taking into account the fact that tolerance (both as in general attitude to another person and in communication with them) should not be too little (which is reflected in the dehumanization of communication or relationships), as well as too much (which turns it into forgiveness), we can talk about the "norm" of tolerance as a correspondence of the degree of the manifestation of tolerance to the content of the situation and the characteristics of its object.

Let's consider how the concept of tolerance and communicative tolerance is interpreting in psychology.

A.G. Skok understands a person's tolerance as "such an attitude to others, which is characterized by respect and recognition of the equality of another person, denial from dominance, recognition of the multidimensionality and diversity of human culture, norms, attitudes, beliefs" (Skok, 2007).

According to A. K. Abrahamyan, tolerance - is just "the moral quality of personality, which is characterized by the ability of a person to accept another person in all their diversity, to recognize individuality, to respect their own and others' opinions and views. It is expressed in the desire to reach mutual understanding and agreement in the process of communication and interaction by the method of explanation and persuasion" (Abrahamyan, 2009 : 7). O. A. Rivchachenko, defining tolerance as "a moral quality of personality that characterizes the attitude to the interests, convictions, beliefs, habits, behavior of others, manifestes as respect for others, as well as the desire to achieve mutual understanding and agreement of different interests, points of view" (Rivchachenko, 2018 : 138) agrees with him to some extent.

In such a situation, the understanding the role of tolerance by S. O. Kolot, who emphasizes that "now toler-ance is recognizing as a necessary condition for the unity of people with different convintions, traditions, views, as a condition for preserving diversity, the right of individuals to be different" (Kolot, 2017 : 69) is generalizing.

However, in our opinion, the most meaningful definition of the phenomenon of tolerance, emphasizing its essence, gave G. Allport, according to whom, "tolerant is a person who is equally friendly to all people without excep-tion... They do not just tolerate... they love people... Man for them is just a man” (Allport, 2011 : 155).

It is also interesting that G. Allport noticed the closeness of a certain type of social tolerance with con-formity, highlighting "conformal tolerance and tolerance due to character" (Allport, 2011: 156). The first is manifest-ing, when the tolerance is appreciating by society, as a consequence of the subordination of its possible problems to the principles of tolerance: "such people base on group norms and are conformists", - write G. Allport. Tolerance in the second case is “a positive personal formation, which, like personal prejudice, is functionally significant in the whole personality. Tolerance as a character's trait means the respectful attitude of its host to people as such” (Allport, 2011 : 156). We add that conformal tolerance can occur, when a person is outwardly tolerant to another person (because this is their behavior / reaction to what was said / done by others is considered acceptable in a particular social environment, consistent with the rules of decency), although internally absolutely disagrees with them.

Among modern researchers, the most philosophically and psychologically detailed, in our opinion, is the understanding of tolerance as "a special principle of existence of those world of communication and mutual relations with people, which a person builds on understanding and accepting the diversity of being and recognizing the inevi-tability of coexistence differences" (Zinchenko, 2018).

To summarize: the analysis of the scientific psychological literature on the problem of personal tolerance, which is considered a generic concept for the phenomenon of communicative tolerance, allowed us to propose / formulate our own generalized its definition: "psychological tolerance - is a personal characteristic of man, manifesting in friendly and impartial attitude to others, who may differ in any way, as equals in everything; who have the right to their own system of life values, principles and worldview and the freedom to choose their way of life and achieving happiness and do not do moral evil (harm) to another person, nature or civilization" (Chuyko, Chaplak, 2020).

Scientists had also found that tolerance as an important characteristic of the individual "implied in its struc-ture associated with it intolerance" (Kravtsov, Nuri, 2010). In is absence of tolerance and active rejection of another person (actually, intolerance), which involves the interpretation of their views, beliefs, principles, style of life as su-perior to other people, simply because they are "other", and in extreme forms it can grow into an attitude to another as an enemy.

Some researchers tend to consider the opposition of communicative tolerance not intolerance in communica-tion, but, in our opinion, one of its manifestations - speech / verbal aggression, which is defining as "offensive communication, verbal expression of negative emotions, feelings or intentions in offensive, rude, unacceptable in this speech situation form” (Yenina, 2000), which is motivating by the aggressive state of the communicator. In this context, it is natural to define communicative tolerance as "a person's tolerance to other people and the ability to ac-cept other people as they are, without arising aggressive reactions" (Sukacheva, Maslova, 2017).

It should be noted that, considering the meaning of the concept of "communicative tolerance", scientists most often resort to its description and definition as: 1) personal quality; 2) attitude towards the interlocutor; 3) manifestation of corresponding behavior in communication.

Thus, Ye. A. Baldanova defines communicative tolerance as a socially significant quality of personality, which is manifesting: in everyday interpersonal communication, respectful attitude to the views, customs, habits and preferences of others; desire for dialogue and cooperation, positive assessment of others, agreement with their opinion; in empathy and emotional flexibility of reactions; in the presence of adequate behavior in unusual situations, understanding a different point of view, the ability to forgive other people's mistakes; in tolerability of unpleasant or unacceptable deeds of communication partners (Yesipov, 2017).

G. V. Gladush considers communicative tolerance “as such quality of relations between people, which is characterizing by the attitude not only to understand and allow, but also to some extent to accept the differences of another, including his appearance, expression, preferences, behavior peculiarities as having the right to exist and respect for condition, if they do not harm the very idea of tolerance, personal and social freedom of others, do not affect the dignity and human rights" (Gladush, 2011 : 243).

Whereas, according to S. L. Bratchenko, the most significant part of tolerance is its behavioral dimension, which contains the following personal abilities: to tolerant statements and defending one's own position; willingness to be tolerant of what other people say; to the "interaction of thinking in different ways" and the skill to negotiate; manifestation of tolerant behavior in tense situations (Zinchenko, 2018). Thus, communicative tolerance, manifesting in the profession of psychologists, involves the ability to: establish contacts with people; create an atmosphere of trust and friendliness; to conduct a critical dialogue; help clients in solving their professional and personal problems; understand the individual features of the client and find an individual-tolerant approach to solving his urgent problems and needs; demonstrate tolerant behavior (Derkach, Marchenko, 2018 : 27).

B. R. Mogilevich adds that communicative tolerance is characterizing by the behavior that “excludes vio-lence and the production of conflicts; recognizes that all participants in the communicative process have their rights; readiness to perceive other people's value models" (Mogilevich, 2016 : 194). According to F. Batsevych, the basis, the foundation of tolerant behavior in the process of interpersonal communication is "the inner culture of man, a positive perception of the world and people around the individual, the ability to listen attentively (empathize) to the interlocutor" (Batsevich, 2010).

I.A. Sternin and K. M. Shilikhina, for they part, in general propose to understand the communicative tolerance as "communicative behavior of the individual", which corresponds to the rules of politeness, absence of pressure, tact and attention to the interlocutor; conflict-free communication (Sternin, Shilikhina, 2001).

E.A. Panasenko determines the communicative tolerance from the view of its implementation in human behavior: as “conscious and active communicative connections that arise between the subjects of interaction in the process of their social, educational, cultural life and activity and are based on the acceptance of another person as a value, their right to be different, willingness to understand another person's phenomenal world and the ability to pre-serve their individuality" (Panasenko, 2019) quite appropriate and thorough, in our opinion. And, according to I. M. Dzialoshynskaya, who also implicitly emphasizes the behavioral manifestation of tolerance, we can calle tolerant a person, who "respects the interests, habits, beliefs of others, tries to understand them and reach mutual agreement without forcing and without pressure" (Kravtsov, Nuri, 2010).

However, in general, almost all psychologists tend to interpret communicative tolerance as a sophisticated, complex and holistic mental formation.

Apparently, V. V. Boyko, who to the manifestations (actually, components) of communicative tolerance referes: tolerance to other people's thoughts, beliefs, behavior; respect of the rights of another person and respect of human dignity; acceptance of the other man as he is; forgiveness; compassion; charity and cooperation and a spirit of partnership (Questionary of communicative tolerance, n. d.), - had initiated this.

Z.A. Ageyeva, specifically, proposes to understand this phenomenon as a holistic, multi-component inte-grative characteristic of personality, consisting of the following components: psychological stability; general positive attitudes of the person; individual personal qualities - empathy, altruism, tolerance to other people and their indi-vidual characteristics, the ability to work together and cooperate, to establish relationships and conduct a dialogue; system of personal and group values (Ageyeva, 2012). Ye. I. Kasyanova believes that interpersonal (communicative) tolerance contains a complex of interrelated qualities: recognition or ability to see the bearer of other values in another person, different logic of thinking, forms of behavior, awareness of their right to be other, different from the rest; acceptance or ability to have a positive attitude towards another person; understanding or ability to feel the other as them, to see the world from his positions and their own at the same time (Kasyanova, 2009).

We should also note that many researchers of tolerance, who attempt to interpret it as a social attitude, tend to distinguish in its structure cognitive ("knowledge about objects and situations of life actiity, which is the result of gaining individual experience"); affective / emotional ("emotional states that precede the emergence of a behavioral component, promoting to the systematization of knowledge and the emergence of certain behavior") and behavioral ("leads to the actualization of elementary fixed attitudes, value's orientations and ethnic values... mani- festes in human actions and deeds) components (Yalanska, 2016 : 101). This, in fact, notes N. G. Kapustina too, pointing out that it is the "attitude scheme proposed in 1942 by M. Smith", was considered a structure of tolerance (Kapustina, 2008). Instead of it N. G. Pochebut, obviously, focusing on various methodological approaches to the interpretation of the phenomenon of tolerance, identified by O. Ya. Shayuk, defines her own components of tolerance to three "traditional": need-motivational (need and desire of tolerance), activity-style (tolerant style of activity), ethical- normative (as a moral norm of tolerance), value-oriented (tolerance as a value), personal-meaning (personal mean-ings of tolerance), identification-group (tolerance as a basis of identification with group) and identification-personal (tolerance as a basis of self-identification) (Pochebut, 2005).

While A. K. Abrahamyan identifies "criteria" of tolerance: equality; mutual respect, friendliness and toler-ance attitude towards representatives of different groups and groups in general; equal opportunities for participation in the political life of all members of society; preservation and development of cultural identity and languages of na-tional minorities; opportunity to follow their traditions; freedom of religion; cooperation and solidarity in solving common problems; positive vocabulary in the most vulnerable areas of interethnic relations and relations between the sexes (Abrahamyan, 2009), - which essentially are its manifestations and may, in our opinion, represent its structure, perceiving as its components.

And O. G. Levchenko understands tolerance, which, in her opinion, is mainly "determining by its central structural components: value orientations, emotional stability, communicative competence, empathy, assertiveness" (Levchenko, 2006 : 4), quite similar, but more concise.

It should be noted that, if the division of the structure of tolerance on the model of social attitude is, in terms of philosophy, a structural approach to this phenomenon, but the attempts of other scientists to focus on tolerance manifestations, which are its components, can be considered a functional approach to this concept.

We also tend to understand communicative tolerance as “a complex phenomenon, the qualitative composi-tion of which includes both human experience and their inner culture, so and relevant personality traits: friendliness, empathy, patience, moderation, politeness, disposition to solve problems through constructive negotiations taking into account the interests of both parties" (Chaplak, Proskurnyak, & Chuyko, 2020).

Summarizing the content of the scientific literature that examines the problem of communicative tolerance, in attempts to understand and explain this phenomenon by modern scientists, we tend to identify two approaches that are partially opposed to each other: linguistic and psychological. The first is represented by the views of

F. Batsevich, B. Mogilevich, K. Shamsutdinova and others, who emphasize the verbal manifestation of tolerance, un-derstanding it as a purely communicative category, while partially ignoring its interpretation as a complex holistic psychological phenomenon. So, if Ye. I. Kasyanova aptly notes that "in essence, tolerance acts as the foundtion, the basis of communication", manifested at the beginning of the communication process, which aims to "achieve com-monality of acting objects by their free joint efforts while preserving the unique individuality of each" (Kasyanova, 2009), and the understanding of communicative tolerance by O. A. Selyutin already looks too narrow and reflects the tendency of linguists to separate "communication" and "tolerance". Thus, according to the scientist, communicative tolerance is "speech influence with positive intentions towards the addressee, which is realizing in the correct form" (Selyutin, 2009). And T. O. Shapovalova further narrows and concretizes the understanding of the concept of "communicative tolerance", emphasizing that it reflects the "linguistic and behavioral aspect of tolerance, which is realizing in potentially conflicting or conflict situations" (Shapovalova, 2012).

In this context, we note that, according to G. Grace, the process of communication is "a special kind of joint activity of the participants, each of which to some extent recognizes a common goal for both", or at least "direction" of dialogue (Kasmirli, 2018), which can appear both at the beginning and in the process of communication, where the participants of the dialogue adhere to the Principle of Cooperation: "the communicative contribution at this step of the dialogue should be such as is requiring by the commonly adopted goal of this dialogue" (Grice, 1975).

G. Grace concluded that in communication, which involves cooperation and a common goal of the interlocu-tors, which was tolerant in essence, dialogical in form, it was necessary to comply with such communicative maxims (as a kind of "quasi-agreement" of communicators) - just they revealed the principle of Cooperation: talk no less and no more than the situation requires (maxima of amount of information); not to tell lies, not to provide false and un-founded information (maxima of quality of information); do not deviate from the topic of conversation (maxima of relevance); speak briefly, systematically and consistently, avoid ambiguity and incomprehensible expressions (maxima of clarity). Otherwise, the scientist emphasized, there was a communicative implicature (understatement), which may require additional information to avoid misunderstanding and achieve the goal of communication. In our opinion, adherence to the maxims and the of G. Grice's principle of Cooperation in communication can improve its quality and effectiveness / success, but will not make it completely tolerant (although B.R. Mogilevich tries to in-terpret G. Grice's phenomena as "fundamental characteristics of tolerant interaction of different cultures in the pro-cess of natural human communication" (Mogilevich, 2016 : 194)), as G. Grace noted himself that the maxims had for-mulated by him in such a way "as if the purpose of speech communication is the most effective transmission of infor-mation", while the purpose of communication may be “to influence others people, managing their behavior" and many others (Grice, 1975), and the context of "maxims", focused only on adequate transmission of information and its understanding, does not take this into account.

We can add that the "communicative rights of the individual" of S. L. Bratchenko as a "system of psychologi-cal and legal norms of communication" is a certain degree analogue of G. Grice's maxims and, in our opinion, are more relating to business than interpersonal communication, while A. V. Zinchenko quite logically believes that communicative tolerance is not only "the most important attribute of dialogue "but also" a condition personal exist-ence and human development of full value" (Zinchenko, 2018).

Thus, if psychology recognizes communicative tolerance as a complex but holistic phenomenon that in-volves a complex of various manifestations, then linguists tend to emphasize that communicative tolerance is just a communicative category, the essence of which is in the optimal transmission of information, ignoring the fact that the word "communicative" - is just a attributive of concept of "tolerance", evidence that it is manifesting in communi-cation. We shoulde note: even without the use of this attributive, the phenomenon of tolerance implicitly implies that it must manifeste; and taking into account the fact that life a person constantly communicates throughout, - just in communication.

Much more interesting, with an unobvious, but not entirely successful attempt to reconcile psychologists and linguists in understanding (interpreting) of communicative tolerance, is the position of T. O. Shapovalova, who sees in this concept the other two components: content and form, "content plan" and "plan of expression" - social (philosophical, psychological) and speech aspects of communicative tolerance (Shapovalova, 2012). The plan of expression of tolerance is the "realization of this category in communication by using different language means", while the plan of content is interpreting by the scientist according to the understanding of communicative tolerance just in psychology: as non-aggressive, conciliatory, respectful vision of another person and attitude to them, aspiration for empathic perception of them (the ability to see the situation through the eyes of the interlocutor), the ability to negotiate, solve problems, avoiding confrontation (Shapovalova, 2012). In the future, the scholar interprets the "plan of expression" as the communicative tolerance, while the "plan of content" assigns the role of "social tolerance" ("close in its ideological essence to political correctness"), involuntarily contrasting them.

We should note the obvious: for the content to become noticeable / understandable, it must be expressed, that is separation and, in part, the opposition of content and form (manifestation) of tolerance does not seem very ap-propriate to us. In addition, in our opinion, the "plan of expression" may not be exclusively verbal (realizing not only in speech). It must correspond to a holistic behavioral dimension of tolerance; that is communicative tolerance ex-pressing in the corresponding human behavior (not only by words). At the same time the "content plan" (according to its characteristics by the scientist) is equivalent to a combination of cognitive, emotional and volitional components of a complex integral phenomenon of communicative tolerance.

To summarize: it is impractical, in our opinion, to separate, analyzing communicative tolerance, philosophical categories of form and content, thus destroying its integrity: the content of the phenomenon will remain inaccessible for contemplation or understanding if it is not represented in the appropriate form and the form (expression of tolerance) should correspond to its content. The integrity of the structure of communicative tolerance is determining by the correspondence of meaning (content) and form of its manifestation.

Thus, by our definition, communicative tolerance is a holistic and complex mental formation, which involves: unconditional acceptance of another person (interlocutor) as an equal, without trying to change or correct their behavior or statements; awareness of the fact of their difference from oneself; friendly and compassionate attitude towards them; disposition and ability to cooperate and find a compromise and joint solution of existing problems; ability to negotiate in emotionally difficult, unstable, psychologically uncertain situations; adequate assessment of oneself, one's own judgments, communicative activity, one's role in ensuring its effective efficiency; respect for the feelings, freedom, rights and dignity of another person, even in conflict with them.

To achieve the goal, stated in the work, we conducted during April 2020 (in a situation of quarantine isola-tion) an empirical study of the peculiarities of the development of communicative tolerance in students of I-II courses of Chernivnsy national university, names after Yuriy Fedkovych, future psychologists (n = 111 (89 women, 22 men)), the average age of the respondents was 19.08 years. The following techniques were used:

1) the technique "Diagnostics of acceptance of others" by V. Fey, which determines the level of acceptance by the respondent of another person. The author understands the concept of "acceptance" as a proactive response of a person during the communication, when before answering; they comprehend the received information and consciously choose the optimal answer, having the freedom to choose their own reaction to events and situations, re-specting themselves and others. That is, "acceptance of oneself becomes decisive in the acceptance of another per-son" (Diagnostics of acceptance, n. d.) and is quite meaningful and justified. The questionnaire consists of 18 ques-tions, the answers to which are evaluating on a scale from 1 (very rare) to 5 (almost always) points. The sum of points is calculating in this technique; some of them are inverted, and the level of acceptance of other people by the respondent is determining: high, medium with a tendency to high, medium with a tendency to low and low (Diagnostics of acceptance, n. d.), according to the key;

2) L. Michelson's test of communicative skills diagnoses how competently, confidently, amicably the re-spondent behaves in communication, avoiding mistakes that worsen it. The questionnaire is built on the principle of the test of achievements, consists of 27 communicative situations, containing 5 answer options, one of which is optimally correct, close to the standard of behavior. The examinee chooses one answer that is most characteristic of him in this situation. The degree of approximation of the respondent's communicative behavior to this standard is determined by the number of "correct" answers. "Wrong" - are divided into wrong "from bottom" (dependent) and wrong "from top" (aggressive). Three types of human responses in communication are diagnosing: confident (competent), dependent and aggressive, - and the dominant type is determining with the help of the key to the tech-nique (Mistakes in communication, n. d.);

3) communicative tolerance questionnaire by V. V. Boyko helps to identify the level of tolerance / intolerance manifestation of respondents in communication, to assess in which aspects of the relationship they are inclinee to conflict response, which behavioral reactions should be correct to optimize the communication process. The questionnaire consists of 45 questions, divided by the author into 9 blocks, diagnosing the peculiarities of behavior of respondents in specific communication conditions. The answers are evaluated from 0 to 3 points (from "incorrect" to "completely correct"). Both scores for each block of questions, determining the features of communicative behavior of respondents in a particular communication situation, and the total score of the technique, which diagnoses the level of communicative tolerance of respondents (high, medium, low and "complete rejection of others") are calculated, according to the key to the technique. Moreover, the more points scored, meam the lower level of communicative tolerance of the respondent, up to the complete intolerance of the respondent and the tendency to provoke conflicts. In this case, the blocks, rated highest, mean the lowest level of manifestation of communicative tolerance in this aspect: 1) rejection or misunderstanding of the individuality of person; 2) using oneself as a standard in the evaluation of another person; 3) categoricalness and conservatism in people's assessments; 4) inability to hide or smooth out unpleasant feelings in communication; 5) the desire to rework, re-educate the interlocutor; 6) the desire to fit another participant in the communication for themselves; 7) inability to forgive others mistakes; 8) intolerance to uncomfortable states of the communication partner; 9) inability to adapt to other participants in communication. That is, in essence, this technique by V.V. Boyko is focusing on the diagnosis of communicative intolerance / tolerance (Questionnaire of communicative tolerance, n. d.);

4) technique "Definition of destructive attitudes in interpersonal communication (V. V. Boyko) diagnoses the following destructive for communication attitudes (contains the following scales): veiled cruelty, open cruelty, reasonable negativity, grumbling and negative experience of communication. The technique contains 25 statements, assessing which respondents should express their agreement ("yes") / disagreement ("no") with them. The results of the scales are evaluating according to the key to the technique with different number of points (from 5 (third scale) - up to 45 maximum points (second scale) (depending on the importance of the scale for the content of the technique)), as well as the results of individual statements (from 1 to 10 points, depending from their significance in the manifestation of the corresponding destructive attitude.) The degree of manifestation of the corresponding destructive attitude in the respondents depends on the number of points scored for it (Definition of destructive attitudes, n. d.);

5) "Technique of diagnosing of "obstacles" in establishing contacts (V. V. Boyko) / diagnostics of emotional barriers in interpersonal communication" is directed at determining the level of emotional effectiveness of re-spondents in communication and identifying types of emotional obstacles: 1) inability to manage their emotions; 2) inadequacy of expression of emotions, 3) underdevelopment of emotions; 4) the dominance of negative emotions; 5) unwillingness to get closer to people on an emotional basis, - which can manifest itself in communication. The technique consists of 25 statements, with which the respondent needs to express his consent or disagreement. The conclusion about the level of emotional effectiveness of the subject in communication (from the first - the bias and insincerity of the respondent - and the second - "emotions do not interfere with communication with a partner" (Technique of diagnosing of "obstacles", n. d.) - to the fifth, on which emotions clearly hinder to establish contact with people) is based on the results of the analysis of the amount of points obtained by the technique (from 0 to 25 points). The sum of points for each subgroup of emotional barriers in communication is also calculated, and if 3 or more points are scored for a certain "obstacle", - it can be concluded that there is a significant emotional barrier in the interpersonal communication of the respondent (Technique of diagnosing of "obstacles", n. d.).