Associate Professor M.V. Popova
Churapcha State Institute of Physical Culture and Sport, Churapcha, Republic of Sakha (Yakutia)

Keywords: professional competency, personality qualities, conflict management behavioural models.

Background. In the ongoing national socio-economic system transformation process, high priority is being increasingly given to personality professionalization issues, with the quality professional background being considered pivotal for success of a future specialist. The education process objectives and the education efficiency rating criteria have also been largely revised. A genuine objective and success indicator of the modern education may be described as a personality fully prepared to mobilize his/her resources, with due social stability and responsibility, plus mobile and flexible enough to adapt to varying situations and develop or revise own social behavioural policies as required by situations [5].

It is the university age that, as provided by B.G. Ananiev, is the sensitive period most appropriate for the individual's key socializing resources being developed. Higher education is known to cause a great effect on the individual mental qualities and personality progress [1] as it develops, among other things, high mental abilities and fitness in the students for success in their professional careers. However, the modern-day practice shows that the correlations of the university background with the actual professional responsibilities of the graduates are not always sound and constant enough [2].

Leading physical culture and sport sector specialists acknowledge that the modern physical training and sport process is largely driven by the people having widely variable professional backgrounds, good individual experiences, high executive and management styles, sound temperaments etc., with the individual differences naturally resulting in the variances in opinions and assessments that may trigger disagreements and disputes associated with the relevant unavoidable emotions. It is not unusual that the inability or unwillingness to understand one another often gives rise to conflict situations and tensions in the social, behavioural and mental domains [6].

It is only natural for any healthy individual to cope with or avoid conflicts/ disagreements that may arise in the intra- and interpersonal domains due to a variety of life situations on the whole and in relations with individually important people in particular. Generally, every individual has only three basic alternatives of conflict management responses (in conflicts with him/herself or other people) – by going away (avoiding response), or suppressing the opponent (struggling response), or making resort to a dialogue. It should be mentioned that every strategy designed to find an optimal way to solve the problem and settle the variances by the opposing views being integrated in a compromising solution for reconciliation – may be referred to as the dialogue [4]. For the purposes of the study, we qualify the Cooperative conflict management strategy with the category of dialogue-centred strategies. A core point of this strategy, as we mentioned above, is the balance of interests with due regard to the personal values and interests of the parties. Therefore, objective of the study was to test the variations of the students’ Cooperative conflict management behavioural models versus their individual personality qualities, the well-developed models being ranked among the key pedagogical competences of the future specialist.

Methods and structure of the study. A fact-finding experiment was undertaken under the study to identify the psychological preconditions for the Cooperative conflict management behavioural model being formed to settle the conflict situations faced by the subject 72 full-time course students of Churapcha State Institute of Physical Culture and Sport, with an emphasis on the students’ individual personality qualities mobilized, and with the Cooperative conflict management strategy individual developmental variations being rated. The study was based on the following test methods: conflict management behavioural model test based on the Thomas Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire adapted version by N.V. Grishina); and the personality qualities tests based on the Cattel’s 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire [3]; with Bravais-Pearson correlation coefficient being applied for the data processing by the mathematical methods of statistics. The test data were obtained at Saint Petersburg State University laboratory using a Longitude+ Computerised System (with ECG+ testing capacity) certified by the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation Certificate #2002620068, Sector Copyright Certificate #2020, State Registration Code 50200200334, License #554.

Study results and discussion. The personality factors rating tests of the first-year students (n=36) showed low emotional stability (Factor C), low social boldness (Factor H), low openness to change (Factor Q1), low self-reliance (Factor Q2); average group communicative ability/warmth (Factor A); average reasoning (Factor В); average dominance (Factor E); average liveliness (Factor F); and high group comfort/rule-consciousness (Factor G); high sensitivity (Factor I); high vigilance (Factor L); high creative potential/abstractedness (Factor M); high diplomacy/privateness (Factor N); high apprehension (Factor О); high self-control/perfectionism (Factor Q3); and high tension rates (Factor Q4): see Table 1.

The personality factors rating tests of the fourth-year students (n=36) showed low sensitivity (Factor I); low creative potential/abstractedness (Factor M); low diplomacy/privateness (Factor N); low apprehension (Factor О); average vigilance (Factor L); average liveliness (Factor F); average self-control/ perfectionism (Factor Q3); high group communicative ability/warmth (Factor A); high reasoning (Factor B); high emotional stability (Factor C); high dominance (Factor E); high group comfort/rule-consciousness (Factor G); high social boldness (Factor H); high openness to change (Factor Q1); and high self-reliance rates (Factor Q2): see Table 1.

Table 1

The Cooperative conflict management behavioural models were found to be applied by 14% and 41% of the first- and fourth-year students, respectively. The correlation analysis of the behavioural models rating data versus the individual personality qualities gave us the grounds to come to the following findings.

The Cooperative conflict-management behavioural model building process in the first-year students was tested being controlled by the following factors: Factor M: high creative potential/abstractedness rates ([r xy]<0,95), direct correlation; Factor Q3: perfectionism, high emotional controls and general behaviour controls; social responsibility and care; self-respect and care of own social reputation ([r xy]<0,95), direct correlation; Factor A: average emotional stability, independence, criticism rates (0,8 <[r xy]<0,95), direct and very close correlation; Factor B: high reasoning, abstract thinking ability and leaning ability (0,3<[r xy]<0,65), direct mean correlation; Factor G: rule-consciousness, insistence, steadiness and obligation rates (0,3<[r xy]<0,65), direct mean correlation; Factor L: proneness to concentrate on own self, stubbornness, focus on internal mental agenda, responsibility in actions (03<[r xy]<0,65), direct mean correlation; Factor N: sophistication, experience, fashion, proneness to analysis, rationality in the situation rating and management (0,3<[r xy]<0,65), direct mean correlation; Factor I: dreaminess, selectivity, sensitivity to attention and help, dependence, unpractical mind, proneness to group activity retardation and group focus distraction by non-rational interest in and focus on trifles and details (-0,95<[r xy]<-0,8), inverse very close correlation; Factor Q1: high dependence of the knowledge learned, trust to facts regardless of contradictions, proneness to care and compromises in relations with new people, and tendency to dislike and oppose changes (-0,8<[r xy]<-0,95), inverse very close correlation; Factor O: anxiety, depression, worries, feeling of guilt (- 0,65<[r xy]<-0,3), inverse mean correlation. No correlations were found for the other factors under the study.

The Cooperative conflict-management behavioural model building process in the fourth-year students was tested being controlled by the following factors: Factor B: high reasoning, abstract thinking ability and learning ability (0,8<[rxy]<0,95), direct very close correlation; Factor Q3: perfectionism, control, social responsibility (0,8<[rxy]<0,95), direct very close correlation; Factor A: warmth, proneness to kindness, easy socialising, emotional expressivity, openness to cooperation, attention to people, gentleness, adaptability, proneness to dealing with people and socially important situations; high group activity and easiness, generosity in interpersonal relations, no fear of criticism, high facts/ names/ events memorizing ability (0,8 <[r xy]<0,95), direct very close correlation; Factor C: emotional stability, high sobriety in the situation assessment, activity, maturity (0,65<[rxy]<0,8), direct close correlation. No correlations were found for the other factors under the study.

Conclusion. We consider herein the Cooperative conflict-management behavioural model as the most relevant term for description of the intra- and interpersonal activities designed to cope with the conflicts and contradictions faced by an individual dealing with his/her own self and other people.

References

1. Ananiev B.G. K psikhofiziologii studencheskogo vozrasta [Psychophysiology of college age]. Sovremennye psikhologo-pedagogicheskie problemy vysshey shkoly [Modern psycho-pedagogical problems in higher education]. vol. 2, Leningrad: LSU publ., 1974, pp. 3-15.
2. Afonkina J.A. Genezis professinalnoy napravlennosti: avtoref. dis. dokt. psikh. nauk [Professional Genesis. Doctoral diss. abstract (Psych.)]. St. Petersburg, 2003. 33 p.
3. Glukhanyuk N.S., Shchipanova D.E. Psikhodiagnostika. Ucheb. posobie dlya stud. uchrezhdeniy vyssh. prof. obrazovaniya [Psychodiagnostocs. Study guide for university students]. Moscow: Academia publ., 2011, 240 p.
4. Grishina N.V. Psikhologiya konflikta. 2-e izd [Psychology of conflict. 2nd ed.]. St. Petersburg: Piter publ., 2008, 544 p.: il. ("Psychology Masters" series).
5. Levitskaya I.A. Psikhologicheskie osnovy formirovaniya professionalnoy napravlennosti lichnosti. [Psychological grounds of formation of individual's professional orientation]. Materialy Mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konf. "Psikhologicheskoe soprovozhdenie obrazovaniya: teoriya i praktika" [Proc. Intern. res.-pract. conf. "Psychological support of education: Theory and Practice"]. Inter-Regional Open Social Institute. 2012. Available at: htt:/mosi.ru (Accessed: 28.10.2016).
6. Neverkovich S.D., Aronova T.V., Baymurzin A.R. Pedagogika fizicheskoy kultury. Uchebnik dlya stud. vyssh. ucheb. zavedeniy. 2-e izd. [Pedagogics of Physical Education. Textbook for university students. 2nd ed., Rev. and sup.]. Moscow: Academia publ., 2013, 368 p.

Corresponding author: ssvjakutija@yandex.ru

Abstract      

The study was designed to test the variations of the students’ cooperative conflict management behavioural models versus their individual personality qualities, with 72 full-time students of Churapcha State Institute of Physical Culture and Sport (CSIPCS) being subject to the study. The study included analyses of the available psychological and pedagogical literature on the subject, fact-finding tests, qualitative and quantitative test data analyses, and mathematical statistical processing of the study data. The study data and findings demonstrated the need for a due priority to be given to the students’ diligence and determination formed in the education process with a special focus on the potential job responsibilities in the core professional fields.