CHARACTEROLOGICAL TRAITS OF TOLERANCE FOR AMBIGUITY IN THE PERSONAL WELL-BEING SYSTEM OF STUDENTS-PSYCHOLOGISTS
Abstract
Objectives. The purpose of the article is a theoretical substantiation and empirical study of the relationship between character traits, tolerance for ambiguity and components of personal well-being of studentspsychologists. Methods. The following diagnostic tools have been used in the study: “K. Riff's scale of psychological well-being” (adaptation by T.D. Shevelonkov, T.P. Fesenko); The Big Five Inventory (BFI), authors: Oliver P. John, Christopher J. Soto, 2015, adaptation: S.A. Shchebetenko, A.Y. Kalugina, A.M. Myshkevych (2018), “The scale of general tolerance for ambiguity of McLain” (adaptation: E.G. Lukovitskaya, 1998, revalidation of E.M. Osina, 2004). Results. The article theoretically substantiates and presents the results of an empirical study of the relationship between character traits, tolerance for ambiguity and components of personal well-being of psychologists. The study has been conducted with 311 students of the University of Kyiv named after Borys Hrinchenko and Precarpathian National University named after Vasyl Stefanyk, majoring in Psychology. The relationship between personal well-being, tolerance for ambiguity and character traits has been studied. There is a significant relationship between overall well-being and tolerance for ambiguity. A cross-link between the component of well-being “Personal growth”, tolerance reactions “Attitude to ambiguity situations”, “Advantage of novelty”, “Attitude to complex tasks”, and character traits “Extraversion” (“Persistence”), “Honesty” (“Responsibility”), “Openness of experience” (“Curiosity”, “Aesthetics”, “Creative imagination”). Conclusions. The article provides a brief overview of foreign approaches to the formation of the study of the phenomena of personal well-being and tolerance for ambiguity, summarizes and formulates the definition of personal well-being and tolerance for ambiguity. The correlations between indicators of personal well-being, tolerance for ambiguity and character traits are analyzed. Characteristic correlates of tolerance for ambiguity in the system of personal well-being of students-psychologists are determined. Prospects for further research on the influence on the personal well-being of students of psychology are identified.
References
2. Кашлюк Ю.І. Феномен психологічного благополуччя особистості як об’єкт наукового дослідження. Науковий вісник Херсонського державного університету. Серія: Психологічні науки. 2016. Вип. 2(1). С. 70–74. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/nvkhp_2016_2(1)__14 (дата звернення: 11.06.2021).
3. Леонов И.Н. Толерантность к неопределенности как психологический феномен: история становления конструкта. Вестник Удмуртского университета. 2014. № 4. С. 43–52.
4. Осин Е.Н. Факторная структура русскоязычной версии шкалы общей толерантности к неопределенности Д. Маклейна. Психологическая диагностика. 2010. № 2. С. 65–86.
5. Платонов-Поляков Р.С. Бытие к счастью: эвдемония в этике Аристотеля. Этическая мысль. 2015. № 15. С. 70–90.
6. Шевеленкова Т.Д., Фесенко П.П. Психологическое благополучие личности (обзор основных концепций и методика исследования). Психологическая диагностика. 2011. № 3. С. 95–123.
7. Cooke Р.J., Melchert Timothy P., Connor Korey. Measuring Well-Being: A Review of Instruments. The Counseling Psychologist. 2016. Vol. 44(5). P. 730–757. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000016633507 (дата звернення: 11.06.2021).
8. DeRoma V.M., Martin K.M., Kessler M. L. The relationship between tolerance for ambiguity and need for course structure. Journal of the Institute of Psychology. 2003. Vol. 30. P. 104–109.
9. Frenkel-Brunswick E. Tolerance towards ambiguity as a personality variable. The American Psychologist. 1948. Vol. 3. 268 p.
10. Furnham А., Marks J. Tolerance of Ambiguity: A Review of the Recent Literature. Psychology. 2013. Vol. 4. P. 717–728. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.49102 (дата звернення: 11.06.2021).
11. Kajs L.T., McCollum D.L. Dealing with ambiguity: assessment of tolerance for ambiguity in the context of school leadership. Educational Leadership. 2010. Vol. 14. P. 77–91.
12. Litman J.A. Relationships between measures of I- and D-type curiosity, ambiguity tolerance, and need for closure: An initial test of the wanting-liking model of information-seeking. Personality and Individual Differences. 2010. Vol. 48(4). Р. 397–402.
13. Moore С. What is Eudaimonia? Aristotle and Eudaimonic Well-Being. Positive Psychology. 2019. URL: https://positivepsychology.com/eudaimonia/ (дата звернення: 11.06.2021).
14. Ryff C.D. Psychological Well-Being Revisited: Advances in the Science and Practice of Eudaimonia. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 2014. 83(1), 10–28. URL: https://doi.org/10.1159/000353263 (дата звернення: 11.06.2021).
15. Ryff С., Singer B. Know thyself and become what you are: a eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2006. Vol. 9. P. 13–39.
16. Hazen B., Overstreet R., Jones-Farmer L.A., & Field H. The role of ambiguity tolerance in consumer perception of remanufactured products. International Journal of Production Economics. 2012. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijpe.2011.10.011 (дата звернення: 11.06.2021).
17. Herman J.L., Stevens M.J., Bird A., Mendenhall M., Oddou G. The tolerance for ambiguity scale: Towards a more refined measure for international management research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 2010. Vol. 34. P. 58–65.
18. Vapenstad E.V. The ambiguity of the psychoanalytic situation and its relation to the analyst’s reverie. Psychoanalytic Psychology. 2010. Vol. 27(4). P. 513–535. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020454 (дата звернення: 11.06.2021).
