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

In an empirical study, we tested the hypothesis that communicative tolerance is a holistic integral mental phenomenon, the formation and functioning of which is determined by complex of interrelated personality characteristics manifested in communication.

Analysis of the data obtained as a result of our empirical study shows:

respondents display high (56.76 %) and above average (43.24 %) levels of predisposition to proactive be-havior, which is manifested in the comprehend acceptance of another person; the high indicator corresponds to the mean of the sample by this technique (M = 60 points);

a competent style of communication behavior is clearly dominated in 72.07 % of the sample; a minority uses an aggressive position - 2.70 % of respondents, the rest - 25.22 % - are incline to dependent on the interlocutor behavior; therefore, the respondents mainly show communicative competence and the ability to freely solve prob-lems of the communicative situation without suppressing the communication partner;

the greatest the manifestation of communicative tolerance of respondents is hindered by: inability to hide their unpleasant feelings or smooth out the negativity, caused by the qualities of a communication partner (24.32 % of respondents - a high level of indicator), and the desire to fit the interlocutor to oneself personal qualities and habits (19.82 % ); the least role in this is given to intolerance to uncomfortable states (physical or mental) of the communi-cation partner (39.64 % of sample - a low level of the indicator, a high level is absent); according to all indicators of the technique of diagnostics of communicative tolerance, the average level of manifestation is dominant (all these indicators may be due to the situation of quarantine isolation);

the diagram shows the mean of all blocks of the technique of diagnostics of communicative tolerance; taking into account that the maximum number of points for each indicator is 15 points, we can see that only one block: intolerance to the uncomfortable states of the communication partner, - is represented by the mean of a low level of manifestation; all others - by average, which indicates their negative impact on reducing the degree of communicative tolerance of respondents;

* the majority of respondents showed an average level of communicative tolerance (67.57 % of the sample), 23.43% - a high level of overall indicator of tolerance in communication, the rest, 9.01 % - low; that is, only slightly more than a fifth of respondents tend to be tolerant to a communication partner, not provoking, but smoothing out possible misunderstandings and conflicts, not depriving another person of the freedom to decide, have and defend as their own opinion on the subject of conversation, and own and show individual qualities and properties;

* among the destructive attitudes that can be manifested in communication, partially or completely destroying it, the most often respondents show veiled and open cruelty to other people (high indicators in 64.86 % and 38.74 % of the sample, respectively), without the desire or attempt to moderate or hide their negative and sharp assessments, which is confirmed by the percentage (because different indicators of the technique are assessed by different points) values mean (M): 77 % and 63.33 % of the maximum score;

* emotional barriers in the interpersonal communication of the subjects, complicating it and deteriorating efficiency, were found in 48.65 % of the sample - at a high level, another 35.13 % of respondents - at a medium level; such groups of obstacles in communication as “inadequate expression of emotions” (75.68 %) and unwillingness to get close to a person on emotional basis (in 65.77 % of the sample) hinder to contact with another person mostly. The least traumatic for emotional interpersonal communication is such an emotional barrier as the "dominance of negative emotions", which is manifested only by 27.03 % respondents.

In order to identify the existing relationships between the variables of the analyzed technique, which can demonstrate the sophisticated and complex nature of the holistic phenomenon of communicative tolerance, we con-ducted a computer correlation analysis by the method of Ch. Pearson (Pearson r).

The results of correlation analysis of the obtained data revealed a significant number of statistically signifi-cant relationships between indicators of different techniques, but in this article we focused on the relationships of indicators of technique of diagnostic of communicative tolerance (V. V. Boyko) with other techniques. We shouled note that all correlation coefficients are statistically significant at p < 0.05. So :

* rejection, misunderstanding of the interlocutor correlates with open (r = 0.27, p < 0.01) and veiled (r = 0.29, p < 0.01) cruelty to him, with negative experience of the communicator (r = 0.19, p < 0.05) and ineptitude to control their emotions (r = 0.30, p < 0.01); that is, a person who has their own experience of negative communication and has not learned to control and manage their emotions so much that shows not only veiled but also undisguised cruel ty in communication, may be inclined to misunderstanding (unwillingness to understand) and rejection of their inter-locutor, as a partial manifestation of intolerance to him;

* perception of oneself as a standard in communication - with acceptance (r = 0.34, p < 0.001), incompetence (r = - 0.24, p < 0.05) and dependent position (r = 0.32, negative experiences, combined with unwillingness to get emotionally close to other people, categorically and at the same time negatively assessing them and not giving them the right and freedom to choose the optimal way to respond to what was said;

* ineptitude to smooth out negative emotions in p < 0.001 ) in communication and inefficiency of communication (r = 0.19, p < 0.05). This may mean that a person's meaningful dependent from the interlocutor's style of communication, without allowing both their own freedom of choice of communicative behavior and without awareness of the accepted and chosen type of response of interlocutor, can naturally predict ineffective communication, complicated by negative emotions, as well as correlation of categoricalness in the assessment of a communication partner - with incompetence (r = - 0.24, p < 0.05), negativism in judgments (r = 0.27, p < 0.01), inability to manage emotions (r = 0,24, р < 0,05), dominance of negative emotions (r = 0,40, р < 0,001), unwillingness to get emotionally close to a communication partner (r = 0,19, р < 0,05) and with inefficiency of communicative process in general (r = 0.31, p < 0.001). This may also indicate the inability of respondents to control their emotions and hide the dominance of communication by correlation is associated with independence (r = - 0.32, p < 0.001) and competence (r = 0.25, p < 0.01) in communication, manifestations of veiled cruelty ( r = 0.27, p < 0.01), substantiated positive judgments (r = - 0.21, p < 0.05) and emotions towards the partner (r = - 0.27, p < 0.01), with absence of grunting (r = - 0.19, p < 0.05), negative communicative experience (r = 0.20, p < 0.05), development of the emotional sphere (r = - 0.41, p < 0.001) and manifestation of positive emotions, communication efficiency (r = - 0.24, p < 0.05); therefore, it may manifest that such an aspect of intolerance as inability / ineptitude to cope with negative emotions of the interlocutor, smooth out unpleasant moments of communication, does not destroy the effectiveness of communication due to the negative experience of the communicator and his tendency to show veiled cruelty, if the competent style and independence in communication are inherent to him, and he shows the skill to think logically and constructively and focus on positive emotions;

* desire to adjust the interlocutor to oneself, one's image, correlated with his acceptance (r = 0.22, p < 0.05), independence in communication (r = - 0.21, p < 0.05), veiled cruelty (r = 0.24, p < 0.05), inability to control one's emotions (r = 0.19, p < 0.05); and the desire to re-educate the interlocutor - with acceptance (r = 0.41, p < 0.001), underdevelopment of emotions (r = 0.36, p < 0.001), inefficiency of communication (r = 0.30, p < 0.01); therefore, communication with a person who considers it necessary to re-educate the interlocutor on his own example and demonstrates independence from him, whose emotions are underdeveloped or inadequately manifested in the communication process due to inability to control them and a tendency to veiled cruelty, may manifest itself as ineffective, because this circumstances hinder to establish normal relationships with people;

* ineptitude to forgive interlocutor is associated with his acceptance (r = 0.27, p < 0.01), non-aggressivity (r = - 0.19, p < 0.05), open cruelty (r = 0.28, p < 0.01), inability to manage emotions (r = 0.19, p < 0.05), underdevelop-ment of the emotional sphere in general (r = 0.23, p < 0.05). That is, the inability to control emotions can manifest itself as a combination of non-aggressive style of communication with manifestations of undisguised cruelty, which indicates the inadequacy of the development of the emotional sphere of the individual and coordinates with their inability to forgive involuntary mistakes of the interlocutor, even comprehending and accepting his behavior on the whole;

intolerance to uncomfortable states of the partner correlates with indicators of aggression (r = 0.31, p < 0.001), tendency of the individual to show veiled (r = 0.28, p < 0.01) and open (r = 0.46, p < 0.001) cruelty in commu-nication, justified negativism in his judgments (r = 0.34, p < 0.001), grumbling (r = 0.25, p < 0.01); with a negative communicative experience (r = 0.24, p < 0,05), inability to control emotions (r = 0.44, p < 0.001), inadequacy of emotion's manifestations (r = 0.29, p < 0.01), unwillingness to get emotionally close to the interlocutor (r = 0.25, p < 0.01), inefficiency of communication in general (r = 0.33, p < 0.001). We can explain such circumstances by the fact that intolerance to the painful state of the interlocutor can manifest itself as a complex negative attitude towards him, which includes: affective component: inability to control one's negative emotions, despite the experience of unsuc-cessful communication (show aggression or cruelty, that complicate communicative process); cognitive: tendency to negativism in judgments; behavioral: the tendency to grumble, to show a desire to distance oneself from the interlocu-tor; which in general predictably lead to emotionally and profoundlly ineffective communication with him;

* inability to adapt to the interlocutor - with acceptance of him (r = 0.22, p < 0.05), dependence in com-munication (r = 0.38, p < 0.001), lack of aggression (r = - 0.21, p < 0.05) or competence (r = - 0.23, p < 0.05), a mani-festation of open cruelty (r = 0.21, p < 0.05), inability to control emotions (r = 0.20, p < 0.05), their underdevelop-ment (r = 0.45, p < 0.001), the dominance of negative emotions (r = 0.39, p < 0.001), unwillingness to get emotionally close to the interlocutor (r = 0.25, p < 0,01), inefficiency of communication in general (r = 0.47, p < 0.001). Therefore, we can suppose that the inability to adapt to the interlocutor, unwillingness to get emotionally close to him or show indulgence to his behavior or what he said, despite such favorable elements of communication as meaningful acceptance of the interlocutor and a sense of dependence on him, reluctance to suppress the communication partner and inability to find a way out of a problematic situation, can combine with manifestations of negative emotions, in particular, openly cruel attitude to him due to insufficient development of the emotional sphere of personality and inability to manage their emotions, which can provoke ineffective interaction situation, problems with establishing of emotional contact with another person, communicative incompetence;

* problems with communicative tolerance in general statistically significantly correlated with acceptance of interlocutor (r = 0.33, p < 0.001), veiled (r = 0.25, p < 0.01) and open (r = 0,26, р < 0,01) cruelty to him, inability to control emotions (r = 0,32, р < 0,001), inefficiency of communication (r = 0,28, р < 0,01). We can assume that just their own ability of freely and meaningfully, but not thoughtfully, without focusing on the interlocutor's personality, to choose as a way to respond to a particular person, event or situation, show cruelty to them due to ineptitude / inability to control their emotions, restraining their negative manifestations, which in result will lead to the inability to establish adequate emotional contact with the interlocutor and the inefficiency of the process and outcome of communication, can make a person intolerant to the interlocutor and incompetent in communication.

Note. Indicators of the questionnaire of communicative tolerance by V.V. Boyko: 1 - rejection of the individuality of another person; 2 - using onerself as a standard in the evaluation of others; 3 - categoricalness and conservatism in the assessment of others; 4 - inability to hide negative feelings; 5 - the desire to re-educate the partner; 6 - the desire to fit the partner under oneself; 7 - inability to forgive the mistakes of another; 8 - intolerance to painful states of the partner; 9 - inability to adapt to other participants in communication.

Diagram 1. Indicators (blocks) of the questionnaire of communicative tolerance by V.V. Boyko (M)

We can conclude that the results of correlation analysis confirm our hypothesis about the sophisticated complex nature and multifaceted of phenomenon of communicative tolerance, the content of which is provided by its components and their various aspects, which, acting, make possible its manifestation in interpersonal communication.

From now on, taking into account the fact that were found very much significant correlations between different indicators of techniques, which makes rather difficult to systematize and generalize their meaning, we also conducted a factor analysis of the data obtained in the study, trying to organize them, identify hidden causes of consistent change of various signs of communicative tolerance / intolerance and optimize the structure of the relationships of variables. The method of Principal components analysis was used as an independent variant of factor analysis, and varimax rotation. As a result, under a large number of correlations the latent action of five factors (components) (according to the elimination criteria of G. Kaiser and R. Kettel) was detected. The total informativeness of the factors (the share of variance of variables which is explaining by the influence of factors) is 66.29 %, which is more than half. The identified factors were named, taking into account the variables that determine these factors:

Factor 1. "Complete rejection of others" (informativity of factor - 24.80 %, eigenvalue - 6.1997), the main content of the factor is determined by the following variables: "rejection or misunderstanding of the individuality of person" (component loading of the variable - 0.8742), the desire to rework, re-educate the communication partner" (0.8601), "inability to forgive others mistakes" (0.7080) and "degree of communicative tolerance" (0.9167), - additional - as in other factors - variables, factor's loading of which is in the range from 0.51 to 0.70. Thus, the significance of factor 1 is: rejection of another person and unwillingness to understand them and their differences, inability to forgive their unintentional mistakes and omissions in the communication process, smooth out the negative, in communication with an uncommunicative person, the desire to change the interlocutor, according to communicator's sample, to fit him for oneself, to re-educate him, intolerance of others, which increases the probability of conflicts, inability to establish an effective communication process, communicative intolerance.

Factor 2. "Ineptitude to communicate" (informativity of factor - 15.62 %, eigenvalue - 3.9055), the content of the factor is determined by the following variables: "inability to adapt to other participants in communication" (0.7275), "inflexibility, underdevelopment, inexpressiveness of emotions” (0.7470) and "emotional inefficiency in communication, the presence of serious emotional barriers that complicate the establishment of contacts and interaction with a person" (0.7050). The significance of factor 2 is: problems with establishing emotional contact with another person, underdevelopment of emotions, the dominance of negative emotions, ineptitude / inability to accept the otherness of the interlocutor, to adapt to him, his features, characteristics and habits; categoricity in assessment of another person; ineffective communication.

Factor 3. "Cruelly aggressive attitude towards others" (informativity of the factor - 13.08 %, eigenvalue - 3.2691), the content of the factor is determined by the following variables: "aggressive position in communication" (0.7040), "open cruelty in attitude to people" (0.7378). The significance of factor 3 is: manifestation of open, un-disguised and not always controlled cruelty in relation to others (interlocutors), aggressive reaction to what is said / done by another person, deprivation of their freedom to decide; inability to control emotions, to dose them.

Factor 4. "Unreasonable prediction of negative communication" (informativity of factor - 6.76 %, eigenvalue - 1.6897), the content of the factor is determined by the following variables: grumbling, tendency to make un-substantiated generalizations of negative facts in the field of relationships with partners and in monitoring social reality” (0.7177) and “negative personal experience of communication with others” (0.7596). Thus, the significance of factor 4 is: obsessive tendency to notice and emphasize differences in positions, problems and troubles in commu-nication and unreasonably transfer one's own perception and negative communicative experience to communication in general; the predominance of negative emotions in communication, anticipation and anticipation of its failure.

Factor 5. "Subordinate communica tion" (informativity of factor - 6.03 %, eigenvalue - 1.5085), the content of the factor is determined by the following variables: "dependent position in communication" (0.7535) - the positive pole of the factor, and "incompetent position in communication" (- 0.7819) - its negative pole. Thus, the significance of factor 5 is: manifestation of insecurity, dependence on the interlocutor, absence of inner freedom and the ability to help to feel it by the partner in communication; communication not on equal terms, the fear of expressing one's own opinion, different from the views of the interlocutor; one-way / one-directed communication.

We should note that the factors, identified in the study, are able to explain, why students-psychologists are not inclined to show an adequate level of tolerance in communication.

Conclusions

Thus, as a result of our analysis of the scientific literature on the problem of tolerance and our own empirical research under quarantine isolation of respondents, we can draw the following main conclusions: communicative tolerance of modern students is underdeveloped and manifested in the conditions of quarantine isola-tion insufficiently, partly due to the fact that it is quite sophisticated, complex and a holistic mental phenomenon that manifests itself as a person's personal quality in communication, too restricted by circumstances of isolation of exam-inees. The communication of the majority of respondents shows that their ability to display a tolerant attitude to the interlocutor is insufficiently developed: they are not inclined to accept him as he is, trying to change him according to one's own model and depriving him of the freedom to live his own life; unable to hide their negative emotions or attitude towards a partner, to forget negative communicative experience; can be aggressive and even cruel to the interlocutor; they are not inclined to empathize with another person and get closer to them on an emotional basis, more often demonstrating an objectively comprehend acceptance of another person and do not to expect its confirmation in today's communication, because of which - taking a subordinate position in relation to the communication partner, to deprive oneself of the freedom to develop and improve oneself own communication style in order to increase the manifestation of communicative competence and of tolerance in communication; which in general is more characteristic to business, than to interpersonal communication. While tolerant communication is based on the meaningful acceptance of another person, the desire to understand them in the fullness of individual manifestations, using a competent communicative position and not suppressing the freedom of the interlocutor; on the recognition of their right to defend their own opinion and to be oneselves; on the ability to communicate, openly, friendly and responsive to the interlocutor; establishing sincere, positive and unprejudiced emotional contact with another person, based on mutual understanding and mutual respect; adequate perception of their possible disagreement with our opinion, without focusing on contradictions; on the ability to forgive their unintentional unprincipled mistakes or errors, to overcome one's own negative experience of communication and restrain negative emotional experiences, trying not to multiply and intensify existing misunderstandings, turning them into emotional barriers that can worsen communication and complicate achieving of its effectiveness, provoking manifestations of aggression or cruelty; on striving to solve common problems through negotiations, avoiding conflicts, realizing one's own role in ensuring effective and emotional communication.

The prospect of further research may become the study and analysis of communicative tolerance of the individual in the post-quarantine period.

References :

Abramjan, A. K. (2009). Tolerantnost' kak social'no znachimaja cennost' [Tolerance as a socially significant value]. Vestnik Taganrogskogo instituta imeni A. P. Chehova, 2, 3-12. [in Russian]

Ageeva, Z. A. (2012). Kommunikativnaja tolerantnost' kak jelement kommunikativnoj kompetentnosti lichnosti [Communicative tolerance as an element of communicative competence of the person]. Vestnik IGU. Serija: estestvennye, obshhestvennye nauki, 1, 49-53 [in Russian].

Bacevych, F. (2010). Lingvokul'turni aspekty komunikatyvnoi' tolerant- nosti [Linguistic and cultural aspects of communicative tolerance]. Sociogumanitarni problemy ljudyny. Filosofs'ko- kul'turologichni problemy movy i komunikacii', 5, 108-119 [in Ukrainian].

Bojko, V. V. (2008). Psihojenergetika [Psychoenergetics]. Sankt Peterburg : Piter [in Russian].

Chaplak, Ja. V., Proskurnjak, O. P., & Chujko, G. V. (2020).

Komunikatyvna tolerantnist' jak psyhologichna problema [Communicative tolerance as the psychological problem]. Psyhologichnyj chasopys, 3, Vol.6, 33-44. DOI:

10.31108/1.2020.6.3.3 [in Ukrainian]

Chujko G. V., Chaplak Ja. V. (2020). Tolerantnist' u zhytti ljudyny i suspil'stva [Tolerance in the life of human and society]. Psyhologichnyj zhurnal, issue 2, Vol. 6, 29-42. DOI: 10.31108/1.2020.6.2.3 [in Ukrainian].

Deklaracija pryncypiv tolerantnosti (1995). Retrieved from: https:// zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_503 (data zvernennja 25.01.2020). [in Ukrainian]

Derkach, L. M., Marchenko, O. G. (2018). Psyhologija kar'jery ta profesijna komunikatyvna tolerantnist' v ukrai'ns'komu konteksti [Career psychology and professional communicative tolerance in the Ukrainian context]. Mizhnarodnyj naukovyj visnyk, 1(17), 21-33. DOI: 10.24144/2218-5348.2018.1(17).21 -3 [in Ukrainian]

Diagnostika prinjatija drugih, V. Fej (n. d.) [Diagnostics of acceptance of others, V. Fey]. Retrieved from: https://psycabi.net/testy/455- diagnostika-prinyatiya-drugikh-v-fej-metodiki-i-testy-dlya- shkolnikov [in Russian].

Enina, L. (2000). Rechevaja agressija i rechevaja tolerantnost' v sredstvah massovoj informacii [Speech aggression and speech tolerance in the media]. Retrieved from: http://www.tolerance.ru/RP-rech -agress.php?PrPage=MKO [in Russian].

Esipov, M. A. (2017). Soderzhanie i struktura fenomena kommunikativnoj tolerantnosti v otechestvennyh psihologo-pedagogicheskih issledovanijah [Content and structure of the phenomenon of communicative tolerance in Russian psychological and pedagogical research]. Mir nauki, 6, Vol. 5. Retrieved from: https://mir-nauki.com/PDF/22PDMN617.pdf [in Russian].

Gladush, G. V. (2011). Formuvannja tolerantnosti jak osnovy pozytyvnyh mizhosobystisnyh stosunkiv u pidlitkovomu vici [Formation of tolerance as a basis for positive interpersonal relationships in adolescence]. Problemy suchasnoi' psyhologii', Vol.12, 241249. DOI: 10.32626/2227-6246.2011-12.%p. [in Ukrainian]

Grajs, G. P. (1975). Logika i rechevoe obshhenie [Logic and speech communication]. Retrieved from: http://kant.narod.ru/grice.htm [in Russian].

Gusev, A. I. (2011). Tolerantnost' k neopredelennosti kak

sostavljajushhaja lichnostnogo potenciala. Tolerance to uncertainty as a component of personal potential. In D. A. Leont'ev (Ed.), Lichnostnyj potencial: struktura i

diagnostika (pp. 300-329). Moskva: Smysl [in Russian].

Hil'ko, S. O. (2017). Psyhologichni koreljaty formuvannja tolerantnosti do nevyznachenosti u majbutnih psyhologiv [Psychological correlates of formation of future psychologists' ambiguity tolerance]. Problemy suchasnoi' psyhologii', 38, 421-437. DOI: 10.32626/2227-6246.2017-38.%p [in Ukrainian]

Jalans'ka, S. P. (2016). Psyhologichni aspekty rozvytku tolerantnosti osobystosti v osvitn'omu seredovyshhi [Psychological aspects of the development of individual tolerance in the educational environment]. Psyhologija osobystosti, 1, Vol. 7, 100-109. DOI: 10.15330/ps.7.1.100-108. [in Ukrainian]

Kapustina, N. G. (2008). Tolerantnost' kak vnutrennij resurs lichnosti [Tolerance as an internal resource of the individual]. Sibirskij psihologicheskij zhurnal, 30, 64-69. [in Russian]

Kas'janova, E. I. (2009). Nravstvennye osnovy tolerantnosti v sovremennoj sociokul'turnoj situacii [Moral foundations of tolerance in the modern socio-cultural situation]. Extended abstract of Doctor's thesis. Sankt-Peterburg: SPGU [in Russian].

Kasmirli, M. (2018). Conversational Implicature: What We Say vs. What We Mean. Retrieved from: https://brewminate.com/

conversational-implicature-what-we-say-vs-what-we-mean/

Kolot, S. A. (2017). Tolerantnost' i psihologicheskaja bezopasnost' lichnosti [Tolerance and psychological safety of personality[. Science and Education a New Dimension. Pedagogy and Psychology, 135, Vol. 60, 69-71. [in Russian]

Kravcov, G. G., & Nuri, T. (2010). Psihologicheskoe soderzhanie ponjatija tolerantnosti [Psychological content of the concept of tolerance]. Vestnik RGGU. Serija “Psihologija. Pedagogika. Obrazovanie”, 17(60), 23-35. [in Russian]

Levchenko, E. G. (2006). Psihologicheskie uslovija razvitija tolerantnogo povedenija uchitelja [Psychological conditions for the development of tolerant behavior of teacher]. Extended abstract of candidate's thesis. Krasnojarsk: SibGTU. [in Russian]

Lytvyn, S. V. (2019). Tolerantnist' do nevyznachenosti jav psyhologichnyj konstrukt [Tolerance to uncertainty is a psychological construct]. Psyhologichnyj chasopys, 1(21), 90-107. DOI: 10.31108/1.2019.1.21.6 [in Ukrainian]

McLain, D. L., Kefallonitis E. & Armani K. (2015). Ambiguity tolerance in organizations: definitional clarification and perspectives on future research. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 344. DOI: 10.3389/ fpsyg.2015.00344.

Metodika diagnostiki «pomeh» v ustanovlenii jemocional'nyh kontaktov V. V. Bojko / Diagnostika jemocional'nyh bar'erov v mezhlichnostnom obshhenii (V. V.Bojko) (n. d.). [Technique of diagnostics of "interference" in establishing emotional contacts V. V. Boyko. / Diagnostics of emotional barriers in interpersonal communication (V. V. Boyko)]. Retrieved from: https://psycabi.net/testy/278-metodika-diagnostiki-pomekh-v- ustanovlenii-emotsionalnykh-kontaktov-diagnostika- emotsionalnykh-barerov-v-mezhlichnostnom-obshchenii-v-v- bojko [in Russian].

Mogilevich, B. R. (2016). Diskurs kommunikativnoj tolerantnosti [Discourse of communicative tolerance]. VestnikMGU. Ser. 18.

Sociologija i politologija, 3, 192-201. DOI: 10.24290/10293736-2016-22-3-192-201 [in Russian].

Olport, G. U. (2011). Tolerantnaja lichnost'. [Tolerant personality].

Nacional'nyjpsihologicheskij zhurnal, 2, 155-159 [in Russian].

Opredelenie destruktivnyh ustanovok v mezhlichnostnyh otnoshenijah (V. V.Bojko) (n. d.). [Definition of destructive attitudes in interpersonal relationships (V. V. Boyko)]. Retrieved from: http://www.gurutestov.ru/test/212/ [in Russian].

Oprosnik kommunikativnoj tolerantnosti V. V. Bojko (Test Bojko) (n. d.)

[The questionnaire of communicative tolerance of V. V. Boiko (Boiko Test)]. Retrieved from: https://psycabi.net/testy/83-test- kommunikativnoj-tolerantnosti-v-v-bojko [in Russian].

Oshibki v obshhenii. Test kommunikativnyh umenij L. Mihel'sona (n. d.).

[Communication errors. L. Michelson's test of communication skills]. Retrieved from: https://psycabi.net/testy/86-oshibki-v- obshchenii-test-kommunikativnykh-umenij [in Russian].

Pal'ko, I. M. (2014). Tolerantnist' [Tolerance]. Retrieved from: http:// eprints.zu.edu.ua/23739/1/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%BB% D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%BE_%D0%86.PDF [in Ukrainian].

Panasenko, E. (2019). Formuvannja komunikatyvnoi' tolerantnosti u majbutnih praktychnyh psyhologiv: teoretyko-prykladnyj aspekt [Development of future practical psychologist's communicative tolerance: theoretical and applied aspect]. Profesionalizm pedagoga: teoretychni j metodychni aspekty, 10, 127-140. DOI: 10.31865/2414

9292.10.2019.182169. [in Ukrainian]

Pochebut, L. G. (2005). Vzaimoponimanie kul'tur : Metodologija i metody jetnicheskoj i kross-kul'turnoj psihologii. Psihologija

mezhjetnicheskoj tolerantnosti [Mutual understanding of cultures: Methodology and methods of ethnic and cross-cultural psychology. Psychology of interethnic tolerance]. Sankt Peterburg : SPbU. [in Russian]

Rivchachenko, O. A. (2018). Psyhologichne zabezpechennja formuvannja komunikatyvnoi' tolerantnosti v pracivnykiv Nacional'noi' policii' Ukrai'ny. [Psychological support in forming communicative tolerance of the Ukraine National police officers]. Jurydychna psyhologija, 2, Vol. 23, 136-144. Retrieved from: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/urpp_2018_2_13. [in Ukrainian]

Seljutin, A. A. (2009). Kommunikativnaja tolerantnost' v virtual'nom prostranstve : na primere analiza tekstov social'nyh sajtov [Communicative tolerance in the virtual space: on the example of analysis of texts of social sites]. Extended abstract of candidate's thesis. Cheljabinsk: ChGU [in Russian].

Shamsutdinova, E. Ju. (2006). Tolerantnost' kak kommunikativnaja kategorija (lingvisticheskij i lingvodidakticheskii aspekt) [Tolerance as a communicative category (linguistic and linguodidactic aspects)]. Extended abstract of candidate's thesis. Moskva: GIRJa im. A.S. Pushkina [in Russian].

Shapovalova, T. A. (2012). Social'nyj i kommunikativnyj aspekty ponjatija «tolerantnost'» [Social and communicative aspects of the con

cept of “tolerance”]. Izvestija Saratovskogo universiteta. Novaja serija. Serija Filologija. Zhurnalistika, 12 (1), 64-67 [in Russian].

Skok, A. G. (2007). Social'no-psyhologichni umovy formuvannja komunikatyvnoi' tolerantnosti vykladacha vyshhogo navchal'nogo zakladu [Socio-psychological conditions of development of communicative tolerance in lecturers of institutions of higher education]. Extended abstract of candidate's thesis. Kyiv: Kostyuk Institute of Psychology, Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine [in Ukrainian].

Skripkina, T. P. (2009). Doverie i toleratnost'. Sushhestvujut li granicy?

[Trust and tolerance. Are there boundaries?]. In G. U. Soldatova, T. Ju. Prokofeva, T. A. Ljutaja (Eds). Mezhkul'turnyj dialog. Issledovanija i praktika (pp. 47-56). Moskva: Centr SMI MGU im. M. V. Lomonosova [in Russian].

Sternin, I. A., Shilihina, K. M. (2001). Kommunikativnye aspekty tolerantnosti [Communicative aspects of tolerance]. Voronezh : Istoki [in Russian].

Sukacheva, A. V., & Maslova, T. M. (2017). Kommunikativnaja tolerantnost': teoreticheskij i prakticheskij aspekty [Communicative tolerance: theoretical and practical aspects]. Sovremennye nauchnye issledovanija i innovacii, 3. Retrieved from: http:// web.snauka.ru/issues/2017/03/79178 [in Russian].

Tolerance (n. d.). APA Dictionary of Psychology. Retrieved from: https:// dictionary.apa.org/tolerance

Tolerantnist' (2002). Shynkaruk, V. I. (Ed.). Filosofs'kyj encyklopedychnyj slovnyk [Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary]. Kyi'v : Abrys, 642. [in Ukrainian]

Zinchenko, A. V. (2018). Sutnist' fenomena «komunikatyvna tolerantnist'» u psyhologo-pedagogichnij literaturi [The essence of the phenomenon of "communicative tolerance" in psychological and pedagogical literature]. Visnyk Cherkas'kogo universytetu. Serija Pedagogichni nauky, 8, 73-78. Retrieved from: http:// ped-ejournal.cdu.edu.ua/article/view/2756/2917 [in Ukrainian].

Размещено на Allbest.ru