Development of problems of personality psychology in the 80-90s

Published in: Psychological science in Russia of the XX century: problems of theory and history. Edited by A.V. Brushlinsky, Moscow: Institute of psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997, Pp. 331-367.

​

The 80-90s can be distinguished in a separate period of development of personality psychology not by the actual affiliation (year of publication) of certain works, but by new trends in the development of the personal research direction and the section of General psychology. The first and main feature of this period is the appeal to the study of the real person and the creation of such models that would embody the personality characteristics of a given society in a given period of time. This trend, as noted above, is not new for Russian psychology, since it was most pronounced in the psychology of the twenties. It is because of this that research is becoming more and more specific, concepts cover not only global, but also detailed problems of personality psychology. If in the sixties and seventies, during the beginning of the ""thaw"" in psychology, a humanistic approach to personality was outlined, which was an alternative to the socialist ideology, then in the eighties and subsequent years it became stronger, more concrete, spread and manifested itself in a number of new areas for Russian science. For Soviet ideology was characteristic not only of the creation of the standard model of personality ""the Soviet man"", not only the proclamation of the utopian thesis of the harmonious, comprehensively developed personality (which, admittedly, in their own way sounded value aspect), but theoretical and practical-life statement is the most severe of the principle of ""Soviet man can do anything"": the plan at any cost, the construction of socialism at any cost, etc. (this is repeatedly noted in his writings on philosophical anthropology, L. P., buoys). The humanistic approach to man in Russian psychology was expressed not so much in familiarity with the ideas of Rogers, but first of all in the growing attention (even in such applied areas of psychology as engineering) to the price of human activity, i.e. to the real personal and psychological costs that achieve a particular result.

The transition from abstract humanism, expressed in the formula about man as the goal of communism, to real humanism required, first, the identification of those contradictions that prevent the realization of his human essence, which Rubinstein expressed with his tragic question: ""How can a person become (or remain) human in an inhumane world?"" Secondly, the transition to real humanism was expressed in the convergence of personality psychology and ethics, in the appeal of researchers to the moral and value aspects of behavior, thinking, and motivation. He said, thirdly, increasing attention to problems of health and illness, the mental health problems of the individual: in the last period begins a rapid development of psychotherapy as applied psychology of personality, counseling, and attempts a theoretical understanding of applied problems of personality. The humanistic approach to personality is manifested in the eighties and nineties in the partial renewal of the national tradition, the partial application of foreign strategies and tactics of psychodiagnostics [195, etc.]. The latter can indeed be considered as a direct alternative to the thesis ""the Soviet man can do anything"", since psychodiagnostics is aimed at identifying the real, rather than socially required, capabilities of a person to establish his compliance-non-compliance with work, profession [76, 140, 154].

The development of a systematic approach by Lomov at the turn of this last period and its consistent implementation by the staff of the academic Institute of psychology contributed to the transfer of the philosophical and methodological problems listed above to the rank of specific scientific research strategies. Methodological analysis is integrated with theoretical analysis and becomes not only a professional occupation of leading methodologists, but also a problematic scientific consciousness of all psychologists. As V. K. Kalin rightly notes, there is a transition from a descriptive approach to an explanatory one [103, p. 14]. At first glance, methodological principles that had long existed in Russian psychology played the role of explanatory ones, but in reality they turned out to be a priori explanations. The peculiarity of the changes that took place in the eighties was that, on the one hand, the share of methodology in science as a whole significantly decreased (the methodology was partially identified with ideology and discredited on this incorrect basis). On the other hand, as B. A. subtly notes. Sosnovsky: ""but methodologically, the main thing is the commonality and clear continuity of many of the main postulates of Russian psychology"" [199, p. 14], i.e. methodological principles have turned from declared categorical postulates into methodological guidelines, which still constitute an enduring value for many modern studies. As methodological guidelines, they increase the level of problem psychology, which Sosnovsky also writes about, noting for each specific issue what remains unexplored, and what is a problem that requires empirical verification and proof. Thus, problematization of psychology does not reduce its explanatory capabilities, but rather increases it.

If at the early stages of the development of personality psychology, the personal principle played a decisive role as an approach to the study of all mental processes, then the last period of Russian psychology allows us to characterize it entirely as a person-oriented knowledge, in the terminology of polani [186], Feyerabend, etc. The personal basis is also present in studies of speech [123], thinking [50, etc.], memory (N. N. Korzh, etc.), etc. And if you work 60-70's, for example, even so deep as V. K. Viliunas about emotions, still focused on the detail themselves functions of emotions, studies of the eighties-nineties, enter the specific definition of personality ""functions"" (emotions, will, etc.) in the context of the internal functioning of the individual. For example, referring to the study of the will as a traditional personal education, V. K. Kalin writes: ""one of the most important methodological issues of the problem of will is the question of what whole the function of the will can be revealed, and through this its essence is understood"" [103, p. 7]. However, it is not just a question of ""fitting"" the will into a personal ""frame"" or a particular structure, which ultimately, by focusing researchers ' attention on the subordination of substructures, does not lead to an understanding of their functions in the very relationship of the individual with the world, but rather to understand the functional capabilities of the individual itself, related to the mechanisms of will, emotions, etc. And this approach is, in particular, the implementation of the system approach in its explanatory, rather than declarative version. This change appears very clearly in the scientific presentation of the problems of personality psychology, and not only in the characterization of it as a research area [163].

A concrete expression of the growing role of the explanatory approach and the type of research is theoretical modeling, which replaces the simple description of the subject of research, through an equally simple reference to the field of problems of personality psychology. Several decades earlier, Chkhartishvili tried to define a similar modeling principle in his doctoral dissertation ""The problem of the motive of volitional behavior"" (1955). ""The meaning of motivation,"" he wrote, ""consists precisely in this: activity is sought and found that corresponds to the basic attitude of the individual, fixed in the process of life"" [227, p. 104].

The same principle is contained in the approach to the will proposed by Kalin: ""the function of volitional regulation is to optimize the processes of formation and retention of the necessary form of activity"" [103, p. 9]. Also, when defining abilities and tracing their transformation into professionally important qualities, V. D. Shadrikov clarifies the characteristics or parameters of any activity-productivity, quality, reliability, and specifically (including empirically) traces how the PVC and the underlying abilities ensure that the subject meets certain parameters (requirements) of the activity when the subject focuses on them [230]. The main criterion is the preference criterion [ibid., p. 67], which, however, the subject sometimes has to minimize in order to carry out the activity not in the optimal way, but by those who have to carry it out in complex information or time conditions [ibid., p. 86]. In other words, periodization can be traced to the logic of staging in this case the problem of abilities: the first phase correlated abilities and activities, the second introduced ICR as a kind of transitional bridge between the skills and activities (its requirements), and the third capacity is determined not only according to individual criteria and criteria of social success activities, but according to the criterion of subjectively acceptable success. And, finally, the problem is radically transformed: both PVK and abilities are considered from the standpoint of their"" use "" by the individual in its way of correlation with activity. This transformation of the problem is paradigmatic in relation to the field of personality psychology and the whole of psychology.

In a similar functional way, K. A. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya defines responsibility as a task that a person sets for himself when performing an activity - to keep at the level of a certain quality of its performance that meets the individual's claims for a certain time and in the presence of unforeseen difficulties [12, 75]. Similarly, it defines the very activity of the individual as its vital ability to retain itself as the subject of its life (or - in the case of inability - to turn into its passive performer) [11, 12].

In other words, is it about strong-willed qualities of the personality, its abilities, responsibility, her motivation, or the property to be the subject of life, the purpose of each of these personal ""abilities"" at the present stage of development of psychology of personality is given through the system of relations of the individual with the world of activity, value etc., depending on the specific ""strategy"" which personality you choose to implement these relations.

For example, in the system of conceptual analysis of V. D. Shadrikov, in some cases, the individual as a subject of activity ""adheres to the principle of ""sufficiency"", and not to the principle of"" maximum "" [230, p.104], which it achieves in others. With regard to the use of the same abilities, a person can enter the path of their pure exploitation, for example, in creative professional activities, focusing in their motivation on the success achieved with their help, or choose a strategy for their professional improvement, a path that is labor-intensive and devoid of momentary success, but ultimately gives them a source of satisfaction other than success, a certain independence from the whims of professional fame, etc.

Such theoretical models, in which the studied parameters (or vectors of relations between these parameters) fit into a more General, dynamic and dependent on the individual as a subject (its choices, preferences, decisions) system (activities or relationships), are inextricably linked with the typological study of the individual and the construction of real typologies [9, 34, 69, 118, 144, 182, 207, 216, 221 we have traced the Fate of such typological studies from the first stages of the formation of Russian personality psychology, starting with Lazursky. Typological research can be divided into two main areas that will eventually be inextricably linked: one of them is aimed at building a typology (for one or another a priori basis) and the other - theoretical and phenomenological identification and generalization of existing types in reality. For example, in the period of the sixties, N. I. Reinwald defined three types:"" Creator"","" consumer ""and"" destroyer "" [182]. Subsequently, it developed into a direction that aims to identify the bases, parameters, and structures that could be used as the basis for a typology that leads to a list of personality traits. So Reinwald identified the motivating, orienting, controlling, evaluating and controlling functions of the mental in relation to activity, as a system - forming factor of personality - orientation, and awareness, organization and intensity-as three main parameters that are end-to-end for all acts of activity, personality properties and its structure. The main idea of this typology, which is close to it, is to overcome the previous principle of personality structuring, in attempts to identify parameters that are cross-cutting for all levels of personality or personality properties.

The typology proposed by A. I. Krupnov is based on three integral variables that were identified by Nebylitsyn [151] as ""the most General foundations of human individuality"", namely: activity, orientation, and self-regulation. Basic personality traits such as initiative, curiosity, hard work, it integrates in the continuum of activity; responsibility, organization, etc. - in the continuum of self-regulation, etc., and each of the specific personality properties is considered as including informational-cognitive, emotional-evaluative, motivational-semantic, regulatory-volitional, operational-dynamic, productive-effective components [114, 115].

E. A. Golubeva, setting as her specific task the study of abilities and aptitudes, analyzes the General features of the typological approach and notes as one of the most important characteristics of Pavlov's typology the tendency to constantly compare the properties of GNI and ideas about specifically human types-the artist and the thinker. It offers a model that is based on three universal primary foundations of abilities: two-with reference to NS. Leites, who identified activity and self-regulation [124], and the third - with reference to Ananyev-orientation, and, in turn, relies on four cross-cutting parameters of the personality structure-emotionality, activity, self-regulation and motivation, including motivation, temperament, abilities and character as personality substructures [69, 70].

However, you should pay attention to the fact that this typology is based on the relationship between ""organism and personality"", and not ""personality - activity"", which must be taken into account for comparing different typologies. The concepts of self - regulation, activity, and - to a certain extent-orientation are end-to-end in the Golubev and krupnovsky typologies, despite the indication of different sources of their development. As Krupnov himself rightly notes, at this historical stage, ""it is important not so much to compile lists of the most important personality traits in itself, as to develop theoretically justified criteria for their allocation"" [115, p.32].

It is obvious that these typologies are based on a certain structural or structural-functional model of personality and its properties. The typological properties themselves turn out to be a manifestation of some cross-cutting parameters, among which most authors include emotionality as the most versatile and dynamic component or mechanism associated with almost all other parameters. The most important feature of the typology proposed by E. A. Golubeva is its connection with the measurement procedures of abilities. Thus, the synthesis of typologies of differential psychology and psychophysiology and personal typology is carried out, which it characterizes as an ""individual typological approach"" [69, p.80]. Back in 1969, V. M. Banshchikov and G. I. Isaev, during a conference devoted to the problem of personality, largely based on Rubinstein's idea of the relative independence of function from structure (and the possibility of functional changes in activity regardless of structure), expressed an interesting position on the typology of personality [159]. First, they noted the role identified by Ananyev and I. M. The palaeum of correlation Pleiades is a complex chain of connections between relationships and personality properties, intellectual and other mental functions, somatic and neurodynamic features of a person [159, p. 79]. Second, they expressed an important idea about the principle of hierarchical ""removal"" of features of some functions by functions (or properties) of another level. Third, they formulated a number of contradictions related to the self-movement of the individual and the hypothesis that the typology of the individual must first reveal its relations (and contradictions) with the environment.

We would comment on these considerations in such a way that psychology has developed two - in a certain sense, opposite ideas about the hierarchical laws of mental systems (primarily personality). One claims that higher-level patterns are transformed and specifically manifested at the lower level. The second is that the higher ""removes"" the lower - in the sense, in particular, that the properties of temperament can be transformed and changed at the highest level (although V. M. Banshchikov himself believes that "" certain types of higher nervous activity relate mainly only to certain characters... it is very difficult to develop a different character based on such typological features"" [159, p. 80].

We support the idea of the possibility of the higher levels of personal organization"" removing "" the features (and patterns) of the lower ones, and their radical transformation. But we believe that such ""removal"" is not a universal law, but a manifestation of the very personality traits that are subject to typology. This depends on the method of self-regulation, self-organization of the individual, thanks to which its higher or lower levels gain the ""upper hand"". In turn, agreeing with the third idea, expressed in a very General form, about a typology that covers not the personality itself, but its relation to reality, we suggest ""starting"" with the construction of typologies of the higher life ""abilities"" of the individual associated with his life path [9, 11, 12]).

The typological method of personality research developed by us was also based on its specific theoretical model, which, however, covered the highest level of personality organization and did not have the main purpose of tracing the vertical connection with the lower levels of personal organization, as the typology of E. A. Golubeva. Our typology did not cover the ratio ""organism-personality"" and not the ratio ""personality-activity"", but""personality - life path"". We chose an extremely broad version of the basis: namely, we defined activity as a vital ability of the individual, not only the ability to work, but its main characteristic was associated with the way of self-expression (objectification) of the individual in life [11, 12]. Thus, if in the above-mentioned typologies, three characteristics were chosen as the basis for the definition of personality (even with different initial relations in which it was defined: ""personality-activity"" or ""organism-personality"") - activity, self-regulation, and orientation (as the highest level of personal integration, according to Ananyev, Rubinstein, and others), we, relying on repeated criticism of the concept of orientation (it was criticized as a dichotomy of collectivism and individualism, as too amorphous a description that does not include wealth, contradictory complexity, and interactivity of the individual), replaced it in our chosen system of analysis with activity. The concept of activity was associated with the definition of a person as a subject of life and with the measure of its becoming a subject. It was assumed that activity - depending on the measure of becoming a person by the subject-has a typological character. For a more specific definition of activity than was the case when describing orientation, we identified two main forms of activity-initiative and responsibility, and empirically investigated the relationship and nature of these forms. This study (and the corresponding typologies of initiative and responsibility) revealed a more subtle relationship between external and internal determinants of activity [75]. In addition, we developed a hypothetical model of the activity structure. Namely, activity was defined as a semantic integral of personal claims and achievements, but, unlike K. Levin and F. Hoppe, we included self-regulation as a mediating link [5, 11, 12]. Thus, self-regulation, in contrast to the above typologies and the way of combining concepts, coming from Nebylitsyn, Leites, and others, was considered not as a series of activities, but as an operational and performing component and mechanism of activity, and the latter - as a vital ability of the individual [12].

Defining activity as a semantic integral of claims, achievements, and self-regulation of the individual, we took into account the position of A.V. and V. A. Petrovsky, who, defining activity as one of the most important personal characteristics proper, first, insisted on the need to differentiate the concepts and essence of activity and activity, and secondly, considered it as a supra-situational, i.e. fourthly, attention was paid not only to its socially useful Result, but also to its subjective acceptability, success For the subject (A.V. Petrovsky, V. D. Shadrikov, O. A. Konopkin, etc.). in Other words, if the concept of orientation in the end turned out to be associated only with the value-ideological socialist orientation, i.e. in fact, it was reduced to the characteristic of the individual's consciousness, and not its real activity (reality showed that the collectivistic orientation of a significant part of society was combined with a passive attitude to work, the psychology of performance), the concept of activity, revealed through claims, included (among other things) orientation to one or another way of self-realization of the individual in Claims, as our research has shown, are themselves an integral characteristic of an individual's orientation to social approval of the result and method of its activity, and to the way it is included in joint activities, and the position in the group, and the nature of its behavior in group relationships. Moreover, this orientation of claims is quite abstract (meaning social norms) and, at the same time, includes personal and subjective acceptability of the very quality of activity and ways to overcome the difficulties associated with it and ways to include it in various group relationships. However, claims are not fatal (as the collectivist and individualistic orientation seemed to be), but have a direct and inverse relationship with self-regulation, with ""achievements"" (in Levin's terminology), and with satisfaction (in our terminology).

Self-regulation as an operational mechanism for the implementation of claims is a flexible mechanism that embodies not a fixed, but an existential (in Rubinstein's terminology) or procedural (in Brushlinsky's understanding) essence of the individual. Claims are only an ideal projection of the personality, which is existentially realized by self-regulation, and the latter in our understanding (in contrast to the understanding of differential psychology and psychophysiology) covers not only the"" inner contour "" of the personality (even if we keep in mind different levels of its organization), but a contour that combines the external and internal. It is thanks to self-regulation that the most daring act can be performed impromptu, and not intentionally, which then generalizes (according to Rubinstein) turns into a stable intention to behave boldly. It is necessary to identify how close these claims are to V. A. Yadov's understanding of personal dispositions. But the main thing is that self-regulation is the vertical in personal organization and self-organization, which in a certain way subordinates and correlates all levels of personal organization. This understanding of the"" tasks "" and functions of self-regulation overcomes the alternative identified by Heckhausen, when some personal concepts consider the determination of personality, and others-its situational conditionality [223]. This alternative attributes statics to the personality itself, and dynamics to external conditions and situations. In fact, as has been repeatedly noted, the personality is both stable, which is recorded in its definition as a stable mental warehouse of a person, and changeable. However, in relation to its activity, we can speak about the stability of its claims rather in the sense of their certainty and about dynamism - self - regulation-in the sense of consistency of its external and internal conditions. Satisfaction, in turn, is included in their integral, since it "" evaluates ""the resulting"" product "" of claims to regulation, intentions for the way they are implemented, according to certain criteria.

The semantic integral of activity is due to its unified value-semantic character. It is claims and self-regulation, providing a way to implement them, solving the problem of coordinating the system of internal conditions with each other and the internal system and external conditions with each other, in our opinion, form the very personal meaning that has not been definitively defined in the concept of A. N. Leontiev and his successors (D. A. Leontiev). The volitional function is a component of self-regulation, giving the activity and activity in which it is embodied, certainty and holding, one might say, ""constituting"" its form, as Kalin rightly noted. However, the coordinating, coordinating, figuratively speaking, ""conducting"" function of self-regulation, which leads to a certain order, an organized state, does not exclude the fact that it also resolves contradictions that require a volitional or conscious decision (or choice).

The typology we built on these initial theoretical foundations was progressive and open, since it was more of an empirical methodology or strategy for studying higher personal abilities, in particular activity, which we differentiated into two main forms - initiative and responsibility. It was based not on structural, but on functional principles, and therefore the type-forming parameters were not set a priori, but represented the desired, which was found in an empirical study that models situations like a natural experiment (K. A. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya, 1988, 1991). In more than ten years of research, typologies of initiative, responsibility, semantic integral of personal activity, personal ability to organize time, social thinking of the individual, and a number of others were obtained, the comparison of which made it possible to develop a typological method or strategy [11, 12, 34, 71, 75, 118, 207 etc.].

In the sixties and seventies, specifically oriented personality research rarely led to the construction of typologies. For example, the Western typology of managers that appeared in the field of management psychology was then concretized on the basis of domestic research [92], but in the last period, obtaining typological results has become widespread, in some cases demonstrating a phenomenological picture of the diversity of personal characteristics, in others - indicating the fundamental need to study the personality in a typological way.

However, the typological method of research is not the only one, since another way to identify the multifunctionality of personal properties and qualities is the strategy of identifying the leading or system-forming factor (or vector). Built on this principle of the work of the two above-identified authors, Kalina and Sosnovsky, although they are dedicated to different personality characteristics, the first volitional regulation of activity, the second ratio of motive and meaning. This principle of activity analysis was once proposed by A. N. Leontiev, highlighting different relationships in the system of activity. These authors identify and analyze the vectors ""motive-goal"", ""motive-need"", ""motive-object"", ""motive-meaning"", ""motive-emotion"", etc.. As a result, strategic principles are established, according to which some components should be studied independently of each other, and then correlated through a whole system of mediating relations, others - improperly bring together or identify with each other as a motive and subject (according to Sosnovsky), and others, for example, the relationship of meaning and emotions, according to Vilyunas [59], ""are interpreted as manifestations of different languages that Express a single world of the biased in the psyche and have different levels of generalization"" (quoted in [199, p. 49]). With this method of theoretical analysis, it is possible to determine the same phenomenon (for example, the positive or negative quality of volitional regulation) by different determinants or its determinism by several dependencies at once. ""Therefore, it is hardly advisable to determine the level of effectiveness of volitional regulation without first studying the typological properties of the nervous system. - writes Kalin, - otherwise, we can take for the manifestation of positive or negative qualities of volitional regulation completely different properties (for example, low emotional excitability to qualify as a good endurance) ""[103, p. 24]. It is this kind of analytical-synthetic strategies that can generate a system of hypotheses that require empirical verification.

Other types of research, for example, the motivational system of the individual (V. G. Aseev), are initially more synthetic in nature, since to determine this system, the bases or ""axes"" that go beyond its immediate components, such as a separate motive or meaning or need, and even their vectors are distinguished. These grounds are identified using a kind of operational methodology that has developed in Russian science. As motivational tendencies or ""axis"" stands for the so-called substantial dynamic, interpreted in the categories accepted (Rusalov, etc.) to differentiate actually reflected the content and the dynamic mechanisms by which they are reflected, or for differentiation and value-semantic levels of personal organization and proper functional (e.g., temperamental). Further Aseev is based on the principle of actual and potential, developing it more specifically transonline the structure of the motivational system and private motives, having ""relevant Central zone and two extreme potential (extreme), one of which is the activity meaningful or dynamic type is not needed because of the availability of relevant external circumstances and the other impossible or excessive in the subjective representation of a person"" [24, p. 5-6]. This idea is extremely close to the above principle of Shadrikov's analysis of activity, according to which subjective preferences (claims, according to Abulkhanova-Slavskaya) are minimized due to the complexity of the external circumstances of the activity. In other words, the subject does not choose the optimal strategy that meets his claims, but the appropriate difficult circumstances. The third ""dimension"" or ""axis"" of motivation is made up by Aseev on the temporal basis of ""past-present-future"". And then they consider the combination or divergence of axes, which gives a qualitative characteristic of the motivational system, absorbing the phenomenological richness of its real functioning (in contrast to traditional schemes that capture only one ""dimension"" of motivation). The motivational system turns out to be described as in the desirability modality, i.e. motivation initiated by the subject, as well as necessity (which was noted by Chkhartishvili and others), both in the modality of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, both in a