. .
| 05.12.2023 | |
| 32,9 K |
. ,
, , , , .
http://www.allbest.ru/
³ , , , , .
. , . , , , .
.
- , , ' , : , , . , ' , . ' , . . . , - , , , , . , , .
: , , , , .
Kulichenko Volodymir Viktorovich Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor at the Department of philosophy, Odessa National Marine University, Odesa,
CHARACTERISTICS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INSIGHT AND ITS INFLUENCE ON DECISION-MAKING
The article examines the phenomenon of psychological insight as a person's ability to act and make decisions with a certain prediction of future events. This issue is of particular importance at the current stage of the development of our country during military operations for researchers and representatives of socio-economic professions, the military, etc. The author emphasizes that modern scientists consider insight in the prism of decisionmaking and it is important for us to determine such features of psychological insight that affect the quality of decision-making, especially in a state of uncertainty.
The purpose of this article is to study the features of psychological insight and its influence on decision-making.
An analysis of the scientific and methodical literature was made, which shows the existence of various information about personality traits that are hypothetically related to psychological insight and allowed us to identify personality qualities that to some extent reflect psychological insight and are arranged in the system of related concepts: intuition, empathy, emotional intelligence. Based on the analysis of research on psychological insight, its manifestations in related concepts and connections with individual personality properties, the structure of psychological insight is presented. The author analyzed the relationships between indicators of psychological insight of empathic orientation, as well as between indicators of psychological insight and emotional intelligence according to N. Hall. Based on the obtained data, a correlation analysis was made between indicators of psychological insight and indicators of empathic orientation for all groups of subjects. It has been proven that the qualitative features of the resource concepts of psychological insight determine the individual specificity of the structure of psychological insight at the formal- dynamic and qualitative levels, that is, they act individually as typological factors of this personality trait that influence decision-making in a state of uncertainty, maladaptation, and stress. Psychological insight is a unique human ability that combines elements for creating new and creative solutions, making quick decisions in a state of uncertainty.
Keywords: psychological insight, structure of psychological insight, emotional intelligence, decision-making, intuition.
. - , ' , , - , , , , , . , : ', , , , . . , , , , , , .
. , : ( ): ( . intueri - , )- , , ' . ( ) , . ( , ), . , , , [1]. [1], , , , , . .
, - " : , , ' " [2].
: , : ( . ). , ' , , -. , , : , .
Frederic R. Hopp, Jacob T. Fisher, Devin Cornell, Richard Huskey & Rene Weber , . , - . , , . , . , ; ; ; , [3].
Bullini Orlandi, L. Pierce, P. , , , . , , , , [4].
.., . ., .., .. - . , , , , , [5, 6].
, , , .
.
. - , , ' , : , , .
.. , ", , , , , , , , " [7, C. 26].
.. 8 :
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
. ()
7.
8.
- . .. , .. , [8].
, ' .. . .. , , :
- - , : , .
- - - , , , ;
- - - - ( , , )- .
- ' :
(, ), (, , , ), (), (, , ), ( ) [9, 96]. .. .. , , , . .. , , , , , , , . - [9, 98].
' . .
' 1.
1.
. .
|
397** |
258* |
201 |
-230 |
314* |
|||||
|
247* |
404** |
351** |
469** |
376** |
|||||
|
237* |
292* |
475** |
592** |
298* |
|||||
|
214 |
238* |
232 |
201 |
||||||
|
260* |
263* |
353** |
449** |
423** |
|||||
|
Integr level |
295* |
439** |
397** |
563** |
211211 |
424** |
: 1) n=69; 2) **- _0,01; * -_0,05, - ; 3) : ( ), ( ), (), (), ( ), Integr level ( ); 4) .
' '. , () ' (<0,01) : (), (), (), (Integr level). ' ().
' (), . 1 % ' (), (), (Integr level), 5% - (), () ().
, () ' 1% (), (), (), (Integr level) ' ().
() ' 1% (), (), (), (Integr level) 5% (). () ' .
() ' ().
' (Integr level) ().
' ' () ().
' 1 % () , (), (), (Integr level) 5% (), ().
' .. , . .
' 2.
' , () ' 1% ' () ' ' () 1% .
() ' ' (<0,01) : ' () ' ().
' () , , 볺 (), () 1% (), (), () 5%.
2.
.. , ..
|
227* |
||||||||
|
353** |
264* |
-270* |
208 |
|||||
|
416** |
505** |
306* |
-339* |
377** |
||||
|
354** |
-218 |
|||||||
|
-253* |
||||||||
|
287* |
466** |
-299* |
||||||
|
227* |
273* |
-296* |
||||||
|
340* |
314* |
-273* |
245* |
|||||
|
-391** |
-556** |
|||||||
|
-438** |
-405** |
-380** |
-463** |
: 1) n=69; 2) **- _0,01G * -_0,05, - ; 3) : ( ( , , )), ( , , 볺), ( ), (), ( ), ( ), ( ), ( ), ( ' ), ( ' ); 4) .
() ' 1% (), () ' 5% , , 볺 (), (), (), ' ' ' () 1% .
³' ' 1% () ' (), 5% (). ' 5% () ().
³' (<0,05) ' () , , 볺 (), (), (), (), ().
() ' (<0,01) () ' (<0,05) (), (), ' ' (<0,01) ' (). ' ' , , 볺 () ().
, : (; ) (), (), (), () ' ' (<0,05) (); (; ; ) ' 5% ( ), ( ), ' 1% , ' '(<0,05) (). ; ( , ) ' ' 1% (), (), (), () (). ( ) () ' (), () ' ' ().
' . ϳ , - . .
, , , , . , , [10].
, , . . , -, ; -, , ; -, ; -, , [11].
. , , . ' , .
Christian Julmi , ' . , , , . , , . , , ' , . , . [12].
, , . , . , , , . , , . , , , . , , , ' . , , , , .
, , , , . , - , - , , , . , , . , .
˳
1. C^^sCY., Orlenko, I., Borinshteyn, E., Atamaniuk, Z., & Dobrolyubska, Y. Intuition as a philosophical reflection at the time of COVID-19 pandemic. Amazonia Investiga, 2022. 11(49), 108-116. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2022.49.01.12
2. . URL: http://ukrbukva.net/print:page,1,71638- Issledovanie-emocional-nogo-intellekta.html
3. Frederic R. Hopp, Jacob T. Fisher, Devin Cornell, Richard Huskey & Rene Weber. The extended Moral Foundations Dictionary (eMFD): Development and applications of a crowd-sourced approach to extracting moral intuitions from text. Behavior Research Methods, 2021. volume 53, pages232-246 https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-020-01433-0
4. Bullini Orlandi, L. and Pierce, P. (2020), "Analysis or intuition? Reframing the decision-making styles debate in technological settings^, Management Decision, 2020. Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 129-145. https://doi.org/10.n08/MD-10-2017-1030 .
5. .. . ;:㳿, 2020. 1, . 1. . 74-78.
6. . ., .., .. . , 2020. 16. . 71-75.
7. .. . ^ . . . .-.. " 㳿 㳿 ". .: .. , - , 2009. . 22-28.
8. .. - . .. , .. . 8831. ̳. . 8648 01.10.2003. . 24.11.2003. 17 .
9. Գ .. . , 2013. 7 . 94-98.
10. Matthieu Raoelison, Valerie A. Thompson, Wim De Neys. The smart intuitor: Cognitive capacity predicts intuitive rather than deliberate thinking. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.cognition.2020.104381 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027720302006.
11. Robin M. Hogarth. Intuition: A Challenge for Psychological Research on Decision Making, Psychological Inquiry, 2010. 21:4, 338-353, DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2010.520260 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/1047840X.2010.520260?scroll=top&need Access=true&role=tab&aria-labelledby=cit .
12. Christian Julmi. When rational decision-making becomes irrational: a critical assessment and re-conceptualization of intuition effectiveness. Business Research, 2019. volume 12, p. 291-314. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40685-019-0096-4 .
13. References:
14. Asieiev^ Y., Orlenko, I.CBorinshteyn, E.CAtamaniuk, Z.C& Dobrolyubska, Y. (2022) Intuition as a philosophical reflection at the time of COVID-19 pandemic. Amazonia Investiga, 11(49), 108-116. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2022.49.01.12 [in Ukrainian].
15. Doslidzhennia emotsiinoho intelektu URL: http://ukrbukva.net/print:page,1,71638- Issledovanie-emocional-nogo-intellekta.html [in Ukrainian].
16. Frederic R. Hopp, Jacob T. Fisher, Devin Cornell, Richard Huskey & Rene Weber. The extended Moral Foundations Dictionary (eMFD): Development and applications of a crowd-sourced approach to extracting moral intuitions from text. Behavior Research Methods, 2021. volume 53, pages232-246 https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-020-01433-0
17. Bullini Orlandi, L. and Pierce, P. (2020), "Analysis or intuition? Reframing the decision-making styles debate in technological settings", Management Decision, 2020. Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 129-145. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2017-1030 .
18. Sorochenko O. V. Osoblyvosti osib iz riznym rivnem psykholohichnoi pronyklyvosti. Teoriia i praktyka suchasnoi psykholohii, 2020. 1, t. 1. S. 74-78. [in Ukrainian].
19. Bilova M. E., Koval H. Sh., Kremenchutska M. K. Psykholohichna pronyklyvist yak skladnyk profesiinoi kompetentnosti maibutnikh psykholohiv. Habitus, 2020. 16. S. 71-75. [in Ukrainian].
20. Sannikova O.P. O strukturi psykholohychnoi pronyklyvosti. Tezy dopov. uchasn. Druhoi mizhn. nauk.-prakt.konf. "Metodolohiia ta tekhnolohii praktychnoi psykholohii v systemi vyshchoi shkoly". K.: NPU imeni M.P. Drahomanova MON Ukrainy, Polithraf - tsentr, 2009. S. 22-28. [in Ukrainian].
21. A.s. Test-oprosnyk psykholohichnoi pronyklyvosti. O. P. Sannykova, O. A. Kyseleva. Svidotstvo pro reiestratsiiu avtorskoho prava na tvir 8831. Min. osvity i nauky Ukrainy. Zaiava 8648 vid 01.10.2003. Opubl. 24.11.2003. 17 s. [in Ukrainian].
22. Fishchyna H.O. Osoblyvist psykholohichnoi pronyklyvosti osib z vysokym ta nyzkym rivnem emotsiinoho intelektu. Nauka i osvita, 2013. 7 s. 94-98. [in Ukrainian].
23. Matthieu Raoelison, Valerie A. Thompson, Wim De Neys. The smart intuitor: Cognitive capacity predicts intuitive rather than deliberate thinking. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j .cognition.2020.104381 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027720302006.
24. Robin M. Hogarth. Intuition: A Challenge for Psychological Research on Decision Making, Psychological Inquiry, 2010. 21:4, 338-353, DOI: 10.1080/1047840X.2010.520260 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/1047840X.2010.520260?scroll=top&need Access=true&role=tab&aria-labelledby=cit .
25. Christian Julmi. When rational decision-making becomes irrational: a critical assessment and re-conceptualization of intuition effectiveness. Business Research, 2019.volume 12, p. 291-314. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40685-019-0096-4 .
Allbest.ru
.... - , . .
[292,0 K], 05.10.2017- . ϳ . . г .
[20,7 K], 11.05.2009, . - .
[51,7 K], 05.03.2011" ", . - . .
[114,6 K], 24.11.2014- . .
[348,2 K], 05.10.2017. . - .
[89,5 K], 17.09.2014. . . ij , .
[60,5 K], 14.02.2009. , - . . ' .
[48,1 K], 31.01.2011, , 볺. , .
[219,9 K], 05.10.2017. . ij . , .
[303,3 K], 17.10.2010. . . .
[61,2 K], 16.07.2011, . ( , , , , ).
[149,0 K], 14.04.2016. -. - , . , .
[25,7 K], 23.02.2011. ij . . . .
[72,6 K], 25.11.2011- - . . .
[28,0 K], 07.02.2013. . . . , . , .
[640,1 K], 04.04.2014䳿 , - . - , . .
[24,5 K], 16.10.2009. 㳿, . . ( -). . .
[36,4 K], 16.02.2012ǒ - 쒿 , , 쒿. .
[113,1 K], 21.12.2017. , . , ' . - .
[502,6 K], 12.12.2011
