Communication is the basis of human existence. Abstract: Communication as the implementation of social and interpersonal relations

Communication is the process of establishing and developing contacts between people, generated by the need for joint activities and includes the exchange of information, the development of a single detail of interaction, perception and understanding of a person by a person.

Both sets of human relationships - both social and interpersonal - are revealed and realized precisely in communication. Thus, the roots of communication are in the very material life of individuals. Communication is the realization of the entire system of human relations.

Leontyev: Under normal circumstances, a person’s relationship to the objective world around him is always mediated by his relationship to people, to society, i.e. included in communication.

In real communication, not only interpersonal relationships of people are given, but also social ones, i.e. impersonal in nature, relationships.

The diverse relationships of a person are not covered only by interpersonal contact: the position of a person outside the narrow framework of interpersonal connections, in a broader social system, where his place is not determined by the expectations of the individuals interacting with him, also requires a certain construction of a system of his connections, and this process can also be realized only in communication. Without communication, human society is simply unthinkable. Communication appears in it as a way of cementing individuals and at the same time as a way of developing these individuals themselves. It is from here that the existence of communication simultaneously and as a reality follows public relations, and as the reality of interpersonal relationships.

Each series of relationships is realized in specific forms of communication. Communication as the implementation of interpersonal relationships is a process more studied in social psychology, while communication between groups is more likely to be studied in sociology.

Communication, including in the system of interpersonal relationships, is forced joint life activities people, therefore it must be carried out in a wide variety of interpersonal relationships, i.e. given both in the case of a positive and in the case of a negative attitude of one person towards another. The same applies to the characteristics of communication at the macro level as the implementation of social relations

Speaking as a representative of some social group, a person communicates with another representative of another social group and simultaneously realizes two types of relationships: both impersonal and personal.

9. Correlation of the concepts “communication”, “activity”, “personality”.

In a number psychological concepts there is a tendency to contrast communication and activity.

E. Durkheim: society is not a dynamic system of active groups and individuals, but a collection of static forms of communication. The factor of communication in determining behavior was emphasized, but the role of transformative activity was underestimated: the social process itself was reduced to the process of spiritual speech communication.

Domestic psychology: the idea of ​​unity of communication and activity. This conclusion logically follows from the understanding of communication as the reality of human relations, which assumes that any forms of communication are included in specific forms of joint activity: people do not just communicate in the process of performing various functions, but they always communicate in some activity, “about” it. It is communication that forms a community of individuals performing joint activities.

The nature of this connection is understood in different ways.

Lomov: activity and communication are considered not as parallel existing interconnected processes, but as two sides of human social existence; his way of life.

Leontiev: communication is understood as a certain aspect of activity: it is included in any activity, is its element, while the activity itself can be considered as a condition of communication.

Communication can be interpreted as special kind activities. Within this point of view, two of its varieties are distinguished: in one of them, communication is understood as a communicative activity, or a communication activity that occurs independently at a certain stage of ontogenesis, for example, in preschoolers and especially in adolescence (Elkonin). In the other, communication in general terms is understood as one of the types of activity (meaning, first of all, speech activity), and in relation to it all the elements characteristic of activity in general are sought: actions, operations, motives, etc. (A.A. Leontyev)

Communication. communication. social perception.

Communication in the system of interpersonal and social relations.

Analysis of the connection between social and interpersonal relations allows us to place the right emphasis on the question of the place of communication throughout complex system human connections with the outside world. However, first it is necessary to say a few words about the problem of communication in general. The solution to this problem is very specific within the framework of domestic social psychology. The term “communication” itself does not have an exact analogue in traditional social psychology, not only because it is not entirely equivalent to the commonly used English term “communication,” but also because its content can only be considered in the conceptual dictionary of a special psychological theory, namely activity theories. Of course, in the structure of communication, which will be discussed below, aspects of it that are described or studied in other systems of socio-psychological knowledge can be highlighted. However, the essence of the problem, as it is posed in domestic social psychology, is fundamentally different.

Both series of human relationships - both social and interpersonal,

are revealed and realized precisely in communication. Thus, the roots of communication

In the very material life of individuals. Communication is what it is

implementation of the entire system of human relations. "Under normal circumstances

a person’s relationship to the objective world around him is always

mediated by his attitude towards people, towards society”, i.e. included in communication. Here it is especially important to emphasize the idea that in real communication not only interpersonal relationships of people are given, i.e. Not only their emotional attachments, hostility, etc. are revealed, but social ones are also embodied in the fabric of communication, i.e. impersonal in nature, relationships. The diverse relationships of a person are not covered only by interpersonal contact: the position of a person beyond the narrow framework

interpersonal connections, in a broader social system, where his place is determined not by the expectations of the individuals interacting with him, also requires a certain construction of a system of his connections, and this process can also be realized only in communication. Without communication, human society is simply unthinkable. Communication appears in it as a way of cementing individuals and at the same time as a way of developing these individuals themselves. It is from here that the existence of communication flows both as a reality of social relations and as a reality of interpersonal relations. Apparently, this made it possible for Saint-Exupery to paint a poetic image of communication as “the only luxury that a person has.” Naturally, each series of relationships is realized in specific forms of communication. Communication as the implementation of interpersonal relationships is a process more studied in social psychology, while communication between groups is more likely to be studied in sociology. Communication, including in the system of interpersonal relations, is forced by the joint life activity of people, therefore it is necessarily carried out in a wide variety of interpersonal relationships, i.e. given both in the case of a positive and in the case of a negative attitude of one person towards another. The type of interpersonal relationship is not indifferent to how communication will be built, but it exists in specific forms, even when the relationship is extremely strained. The same applies to the characterization of communication at the macro level as the implementation of social relations. And in this case, whether groups or individuals communicate with each other as representatives of social groups, the act of communication must inevitably take place, is forced to take place, even if the groups are antagonistic. This dual understanding of communication - in the broad and narrow sense of the word - follows from the very logic of understanding the connection between interpersonal and social relations. In this case, it is appropriate to appeal to Marx’s idea that communication is an unconditional companion human history(in this sense, we can talk about the importance of communication in the “phylogenesis” of society) and at the same time an unconditional companion in everyday activities, in everyday contacts of people (see A.A. Leontyev, 1973). In the first plan, one can trace the historical change in forms of communication, i.e. changing them as society develops along with the development of economic, social and other public relations. Here the most difficult methodological question is being resolved: how does a process appear in the system of impersonal relations, which by its nature requires the participation of individuals? Acting as a representative of a certain social group, a person communicates with another representative of another social group and simultaneously realizes two types of relationships: both impersonal and personal. A peasant, selling a product on the market, receives for it a certain amount money, and money here acts as the most important means of communication in the system of social relations. At the same time, this same peasant bargains with the buyer and thereby “personally” communicates with him, and the means of this communication is human speech. On the surface of phenomena there is a form of direct communication - communication, but behind it there is communication forced by the system of social relations itself, in this case the relations of commodity production. In socio-psychological analysis, one can abstract from the “secondary plan”, but in real life this “second plan” of communication is always present. Although in itself it is a subject of study mainly by sociology, it should also be taken into account in the socio-psychological approach.

Unity of communication and activity.

The question of the connection between communication and activity is fundamental. In a number of psychological concepts there is a tendency to contrast communication and activity. So, for example, E. Durkheim ultimately came to such a formulation of the problem when, polemicizing with G. Tarde, he turned special attention not for dynamics social phenomena, but on their statics. Society looked to him not as a dynamic system of active groups and individuals, but as a collection of static forms of communication. The factor of communication in determining behavior was emphasized, but the role of transformative activity was underestimated: the social process itself was reduced to the process of spiritual speech communication. This gave rise to A.N. Leontyev notes that with this approach the individual appears more “as a communicating than as a practically acting social being.”

In contrast to this, domestic psychology accepts the idea of ​​the unity of communication and activity. This conclusion logically follows from the understanding of communication as the reality of human relations, which assumes that any forms of communication are included in specific forms of joint activity: people not only communicate in the process of performing various functions, but they always communicate in some activity, “about” it. Thus, an active person always communicates: his activities inevitably intersect with the activities of other people. But it is precisely this intersection of activities that creates certain relationships of an active person not only to the subject of his activity, but also to other people. It is communication that forms a community of individuals performing joint activities. Thus, the fact of the connection between communication and activity is stated in one way or another by all researchers. However, the nature of this connection is understood in different ways. Sometimes activity and communication are considered not as parallel existing interconnected processes, but as two sides of a person’s social existence; his way of life. In other cases, communication is understood as a certain aspect of activity: it is included in any activity, is its element, while the activity itself can be considered as a condition of communication. Finally, communication can be interpreted as a special type of activity. Within this point of view, two of its varieties are distinguished: in one of them, communication is understood as a communicative activity, or a communication activity that occurs independently at a certain stage of ontogenesis, for example, in preschoolers and especially in adolescence (Elkonin, 1991). In the other, communication in general terms is understood as one of the types of activity (meaning, first of all, speech activity), and in relation to it all the elements characteristic of activity in general are sought: actions, operations, motives, etc.

It is unlikely that it will be very important to clarify the advantages and comparative disadvantages of each of these points of view: none of them denies the most important thing - the undoubted connection between activity and communication, everyone recognizes the inadmissibility of separating them from each other during analysis. Moreover, the divergence of positions is much more obvious at the level of theoretical and general methodological analysis. As for experimental practice, all researchers have much more in common than different. This common thing is the recognition of the fact of the unity of communication and activity and attempts to fix this unity. In our opinion, it is advisable to have the broadest understanding of the connection between activity and communication, when communication is considered both as an aspect of joint activity (since activity itself is not only work, but also communication in the process of work), and as its unique derivative. Such a broad understanding of the connection between communication and activity corresponds to a broad understanding of communication itself: as the most important condition for an individual to appropriate the achievements of the historical development of mankind, be it at the micro level, in the immediate environment, or at the macro level, in the entire system of social connections. The acceptance of the thesis about the organic connection between communication and activity dictates some very specific standards for the study of communication, in particular at the level of experimental research. One of these standards is the requirement to study communication not only and not so much from the point of view of its form, but from the point of view of its content. This requirement is at odds with the principle of studying the communication process, typical of traditional social psychology. As a rule, communication is studied here primarily through a laboratory experiment - precisely from the point of view of form, when either the means of communication, or the type of contact, or its frequency, or the structure of both a single communicative act and communication networks are analyzed. If communication is understood as an aspect of activity, as a unique way of organizing it, then analyzing the form of this process alone is not enough. An analogy can be drawn here with the study of the activity itself. The essence of the principle of activity lies in the fact that it is also considered not just from the side of form (i.e., the individual’s activity is not simply stated), but from the side of its content (i.e., exactly the object to which this activity is directed is revealed). An activity, understood as an objective activity, cannot be studied outside of the characteristics of its subject. Likewise, the essence of communication is revealed only when not just the fact of communication itself, or even the method of communication, is stated, but its content (Communication and activity, 1931). In the real practical activity of a person, the main question is not how the subject communicates, but about what he communicates. Here again, an analogy with the study of activity is appropriate: if the analysis of the subject of activity is important there, then here the analysis of the subject of communication is equally important. Neither one nor the other formulation of the problem is easy for the system of psychological knowledge: psychology has always polished its tools only for analyzing the mechanism - if not activity, but activity; maybe not communication, but communication. Analysis of the substantive aspects of both phenomena is poorly supported methodologically. But this cannot become a reason for refusing to raise this question. (An important circumstance is that the proposed formulation of the problem is prescribed by the practical needs of optimizing activity and communication in real social groups.)

Naturally, highlighting the subject of communication should not be understood vulgarly: people communicate not only about the activity with which they are associated. In order to highlight two possible reasons for communication, the literature differentiates between the concepts of “role-based” and “personal” communication. Under some circumstances, this personal communication in form may look like role-playing, business, “subject-problem-based”. Thus, the separation of role and personal communication is not absolute. In certain relationships and situations, both are associated with activity.

The idea of ​​“wovenness” of communication into activity also allows us to consider in detail the question of what exactly in activity can “constitute” communication. In the very general view The answer can be formulated in such a way that through communication activities are organized and enriched. Building a plan for joint activities requires each participant to have an optimal understanding of its goals, objectives, understanding the specifics of its object and even the capabilities of each participant. The inclusion of communication in this process allows for “coordination” or “mismatch” of the activities of individual participants. This coordination of the activities of individual participants can be achieved thanks to such a characteristic of communication as the inherent impact function, in which the “reverse influence of communication on activity” is manifested (Andreeva, Yanoushek, 1987). We will find out the specifics of this function along with consideration of various aspects of communication. Now it is important to emphasize that activity through communication is not just organized, but actually enriched, new connections and relationships between people arise in it.

All of the above allows us to conclude that the principle of connection and organic unity of communication with activity, developed in domestic social psychology, opens up truly new perspectives in the study of this phenomenon.

Structure of communication. Given the complexity of communication, it is necessary to somehow indicate its structure so that analysis of each element is then possible. The structure of communication can be approached in different ways, as well as the definition of its functions. We propose to characterize the structure of communication by identifying three interrelated aspects in it: communicative, interactive and perceptual. The communicative side of communication, or communication in the narrow sense of the word, consists of the exchange of information between communicating individuals. The interactive side consists in organizing interaction between communicating individuals, i.e. in the exchange of not only knowledge, ideas, but also actions. The perceptual side of communication means the process of perception and cognition of each other by communication partners and the establishment of mutual understanding on this basis. Naturally, all these terms are very conditional. Sometimes others are used in a more or less similar sense. For example, in communication there are three functions: information-communicative, regulatory-communicative, affective-communicative. The task is to carefully analyze, including at the experimental level, the content of each of these aspects or functions. Of course, in reality, each of these sides does not exist in isolation from the other two, and their isolation is possible only for analysis, in particular for constructing a system of experimental research. All aspects of communication indicated here are revealed in small groups, i.e. in conditions of direct contact between people. Separately, we should consider the question of the means and mechanisms of influence of people on each other and in the conditions of their joint mass actions, which should be the subject of special analysis, in particular when studying the psychology of large groups and mass movements.

Specifics of information exchange in the communication process.

When we talk about communication in the narrow sense of the word, we first of all mean the fact that in the course of joint activities people exchange with each other various ideas, ideas, interests, moods, feelings, attitudes, etc. All this can be considered as information, and then the communication process itself can be understood as a process of information exchange. From here one can take the next tempting step and interpret the entire process of human communication in terms of information theory, which is what is done in a number of systems of socio-psychological knowledge. However, this approach cannot be considered as methodologically correct, because it omits some of the most important characteristics of human communication, which is not limited to the process of transmitting information. Not to mention the fact that with this approach, basically only one direction of the flow of information is recorded, namely from the communicator to the recipient (the introduction of the concept of “feedback” does not change the essence of the matter), another significant omission arises here. Whenever we consider human communication from the point of view of information theory, only the formal side of the matter is fixed: how information is transmitted, while in the conditions of human communication information is not only transmitted, but also formed, clarified, and developed.

Therefore, without excluding the possibility of applying some provisions of information theory when describing the communicative side of communication, it is necessary to clearly place all the emphasis and identify the specifics in the process of information exchange itself when it takes place in the case of communication between two people.

Firstly, communication cannot be considered only as the sending of information by some transmitting system or as its reception by another system because, unlike the simple “movement of information” between two devices, here we are dealing with the relationship of two individuals, each of whom is active subject: mutual informing of them presupposes the establishment of joint activities. This means that each participant in the communicative process assumes activity in his partner as well; he cannot consider him as a certain object. The other participant also appears as a subject, and it follows that when sending him information, it is necessary to focus on him, i.e. analyze his motives, goals, attitudes (except, of course, the analysis of one’s own goals, motives, attitudes), “address” him, in the words of V.N. Myasishcheva. Schematically, communication can be depicted as an intersubjective process (S S). But in this case, it must be assumed that in response to the information sent, new information will be received coming from the other partner. Therefore, in the communication process there is not a simple movement of information, but at least an active exchange of it. The main “add” in a specifically human exchange of information is that here the significance of information plays a special role for each participant in communication (Andreeva, 1981), because people not only “exchange” meanings, but, as A.N. Leontiev, strive to develop a common meaning. This is only possible if the information is not just accepted, but also understood and meaningful. The essence of the communication process is not just mutual information, but joint comprehension of the subject. Therefore, in every communicative process, activity, communication and cognition are actually given in unity. Secondly, the nature of the exchange of information between people, and not cybernetic devices, is determined by the fact that through a system of signs partners can influence each other. In other words, the exchange of such information necessarily involves influencing the behavior of the partner, i.e. a sign changes the state of the participants in the communicative process; in this sense, “a sign in communication is like a tool in work” (Leontyev, 1972). The communicative influence that arises here is nothing more than the psychological influence of one communicator on another with the aim of changing his behavior. The effectiveness of communication is measured precisely by how successful this impact is. This means that when exchanging information, the very type of relationship that has developed between the participants in communication changes. Nothing similar happens in “purely” information processes.

Thirdly, communicative influence as a result of the exchange of information is possible only when the person sending the information (communicator) and the person receiving it (recipient) have a single or similar system of codification and decodification. In everyday language, this rule is expressed in the words: “everyone must speak the same language.”

This is especially important because the communicator and the recipient constantly change places in the communication process. Any exchange of information between them is possible only on the condition that the signs and, most importantly, the meanings assigned to them are known to all participants in the communicative process. Only the adoption of a unified system of meanings ensures that partners can understand each other. To describe this situation, social psychology borrows from linguistics the term “thesaurus,” which denotes a common system of meanings accepted by all members of a group. But the whole point is that, even knowing the meanings of the same words, people can understand them differently: social, political, age characteristics can be the reason for this. Also L.S. Vygotsky noted that thought is never equal direct meaning words Therefore, communicators must have identical - in the case of auditory speech - not only the lexical and syntactic systems, but also the same understanding of the communication situation. And this is only possible if communication is included in some common system activities. This is well explained by J. Miller using an everyday example. It seems essential for us to make some distinction between interpreting an utterance and understanding it, since understanding is usually facilitated by something other than the linguistic context associated with that particular utterance. A husband greeted at the door with his wife’s words: “I bought some light bulbs today” should not limit himself to their literal interpretation: he must understand that he needs to go to the kitchen and replace the burnt out light bulb.

Finally, fourthly, in the conditions of human communication, completely specific communication barriers can arise. They are not associated with vulnerabilities in any communication channel or with errors in encoding and decoding, but are of a social or psychological nature. On the one hand, such barriers may arise due to the lack of understanding of the communication situation, caused not simply by the different languages ​​spoken by the participants in the communication process, but by deeper differences that exist between partners. These can be social, political, religious, professional differences, which not only give rise to different interpretations of the same concepts used in the process of communication, but also generally different attitudes, worldviews, and worldviews. Barriers of this kind are generated by objective social reasons, the belonging of communication partners to various social groups, and when they manifest themselves, the inclusion of communication in a broader system of social relations becomes especially clear. Communication in this case demonstrates its characteristic that it is only a side of communication. Naturally, the communication process takes place even in the presence of these barriers: even military opponents negotiate. But the whole situation of the communicative act is significantly complicated by their presence.

On the other hand, barriers to communication may also be of a more purely psychological nature. They can arise either as a result of the individual psychological characteristics of the communicants (for example, excessive shyness of one of them (Zimbardo, 1993), the secrecy of another, the presence of a trait in someone called “uncommunicativeness”), or due to the special kind of psychological relationships that have developed between the communicants : hostility towards each other, mistrust, etc. In this case, the connection that exists between communication and attitude, which is naturally absent in cybernetic systems, becomes especially clear. All this allows us to pose the question of teaching communication in a completely special way, for example, in the context of socio-psychological training, which will be discussed in more detail below. The mentioned features of human communication do not allow us to consider it only in terms of information theory. Some terms from this theory used to describe this process always require a certain rethinking, at least those amendments discussed above. However, all this does not exclude the possibility of borrowing a number of concepts from information theory. For example, when constructing a typology of communication processes, it is advisable to use the concept of “signal directionality.” In communication theory, this term makes it possible to distinguish: a) axial communication process (from the Latin ahis - axis), when signals are sent to individual information receivers, i.e. to individuals; b) a real communication process (from the Latin rete - network), when signals are sent to many likely recipients. In the era of scientific and technological progress, in connection with the gigantic development of the media, the study of retial communication processes acquires particular importance.

Since in this case sending signals to the group makes the group members realize that they belong to this group, in the case of retial communication there is also not just a transfer of information, but also a social orientation of the participants in the communicative process. This also indicates that the essence of this process cannot be described only in terms of information theory. The dissemination of information in society occurs through a kind of filter of “trust” and “mistrust”. This filter acts in such a way that absolutely true information may be rejected, while false information may be accepted. Psychologically, it is extremely important to find out under what circumstances a particular channel of information can be blocked by this filter, as well as to identify means that help the acceptance of information and weaken the effects of filters. The combination of these means is called fascination. Various accompanying means act as fascination, acting as a “transportation”, an accompaniment of information, creating some additional background against which the main information benefits, since the background partially overcomes the filter of distrust. An example of fascination could be the musical accompaniment of speech, its spatial or color accompaniment. The information itself coming from the communicator can be of two types: motivating and stating. Incentive information is expressed in an order, advice, or request. It is designed to stimulate some action. Stimulation, in turn, can be different. First of all, this can be activation, i.e. motivation to act in a given direction. Further, it can be interdiction, i.e. an incentive that does not allow, on the contrary, certain actions, a prohibition of undesirable activities. Finally, it may be destabilization - a mismatch or disruption of some autonomous forms of behavior or activity.

Ascertaining information appears in the form of a message; it takes place in various educational systems and does not imply a direct change in behavior, although it indirectly contributes to this. The very nature of the message can be different: the degree of objectivity can vary from a deliberately “indifferent” tone of presentation to the inclusion of fairly obvious elements of persuasion in the text of the message. The message option is specified by the communicator, i.e. the person from whom the information comes.

Communication means. Speech. Transfer of any information

is possible only through signs, or rather sign systems. There are several sign systems that are used in the communication process; accordingly, a classification of communication processes can be constructed. In a rough division, a distinction is made between verbal and nonverbal communications that use different sign systems. Accordingly, a variety of types of communication process arises.

Each of them must be considered separately. Verbal communication uses human speech, natural sound language, as a sign system, i.e. a system of phonetic signs that includes two principles: lexical and syntactic. Speech is the most universal means of communication, since when transmitting information through speech, the meaning of the message is least lost. True, this should be accompanied by a high degree of common understanding of the situation by all participants in the communicative process, which was discussed above.

With the help of speech, information is encoded and decoded: the communicator encodes while speaking, and the recipient decodes this information while listening. The terms “speaking” and “listening” were introduced by I.A. Zimnyaya as a designation of the psychological components of verbal communication (Zimnyaya, 1991). The sequence of actions of the speaker and the listener has been studied in sufficient detail. From the point of view of transmission and perception of the meaning of the message, the K - S - R (communicator - message - recipient) scheme is asymmetrical.

For a communicator, the meaning of information precedes the encoding process (utterance), since the “speaker” first has a certain idea and then embodies it in a system of signs. For the “listener,” the meaning of the received message is revealed simultaneously with decoding. In this case, the significance of the situation of joint activity is especially clearly manifested: its awareness is included in the decoding process itself; revealing the meaning of the message is unthinkable outside of this situation. The accuracy of the listener’s understanding of the meaning of the statement can become obvious to the communicator only when there is a change in “communicative roles” (a conventional term meaning “speaker” and “listener”), i.e. when the recipient turns into a communicator and with his statement makes it known how he revealed the meaning of the received information. Dialogue, or dialogic speech, as a specific type of “conversation” is a consistent change of communicative roles, during which the meaning of the speech message is revealed, i.e. a phenomenon occurs that has been designated as “enrichment, development of information.”

The degree of coherence between the actions of the communicator and the recipient in a situation where they alternately assume these roles largely depends on their inclusion in the general context of activity. There are many experimental studies in which this dependence was revealed (in particular, studies devoted to establishing the level of operation with the joint meanings of the signs used). The success of verbal communication in the case of dialogue is determined by the extent to which the partners ensure the thematic focus of the information, as well as its two-way nature.

In general, regarding the use of speech as a certain sign system in the process of communication, everything that has been said about the essence of communication as a whole is true. In particular, when characterizing the dialogue, it is important to always keep in mind that it is conducted among themselves by individuals who have certain intentions (intentions), i.e. dialogue is “the active, two-way nature of interaction between partners.” This is what predetermines the need for attention to the interlocutor, consistency, and coordination of speech with him. Otherwise, the most important condition for the success of verbal communication will be violated - understanding the meaning of what the other person is saying, and ultimately - understanding and knowing another person (Bakhtin, 1979). This means that through speech it is not just “information that moves”, but the participants in communication influence each other in a special way, orient each other, convince each other, i.e. strive to achieve a certain change in behavior. There may be two different tasks in orienting a communication partner. A.A. Leontyev proposes to designate them as personal-speech orientation (LRO) and social-speech orientation (SRO), which reflects not so much the difference in the addressees of the message, but rather the predominant topic and content of communication. The influence itself can be understood differently: it can be in the nature of manipulation of another person, i.e. direct imposition of some position on him, or may contribute to the actualization of the partner, i.e. the discovery of some new possibilities in him and himself. In social psychology, there is a large number of experimental studies that clarify the conditions and methods for increasing the effect of speech influence; both the forms of various communication barriers and ways to overcome them have been studied in sufficient detail. Thus, an expression of resistance to accepting information (and therefore the influence exerted) can be a disconnection of the listener’s attention, a deliberate reduction in one’s perception of the authority of the communicator, the same - intentional or unintentional “misunderstanding” of the message: either due to the specific phonetics of the speaker, or due to the peculiarities of its style or the logic of text construction. Accordingly, every speaker must have the ability to re-engage the listener’s attention, to attract him with something, to confirm his authority in the same way, to improve the manner of presenting the material, etc. (Krizhanskaya, Tretyakov, 1992). Special significance has, of course, the fact that the nature of the statement corresponds to the situation of communication (Bern, 1988), the measure and degree of the formal (ritual) nature of communication and other indicators.

A set of certain measures aimed at increasing the effectiveness of speech influence is called “persuasive communication”, on the basis of which the so-called experimental rhetoric is developed - the art of persuasion through speech. To take into account all the variables included in the process of speech communication, K. Hovland proposed a “matrix of persuasive communication,” which is a kind of model of the speech communication process with the designation of its individual links. The point of constructing models of this kind (and several have been proposed) is to not miss a single element of the process when increasing the effectiveness of the impact. This can be shown using the simplest model proposed at one time by the American journalist G. Lasswell to study the persuasive influence of the media (in particular, newspapers). Lasswell's model of the communication process includes five elements.

1) Who? (transmits message) - Communicator

2) What? (transmitted) - Message (text)

3) How? (transfer in progress) - Channel

4) To whom? (message sent) - Audience

5) With what effect? - Efficiency

A wide variety of studies have been undertaken on each element of this framework. For example, the characteristics of a communicator that contribute to increasing the effectiveness of his speech are comprehensively described, in particular, the types of his position during the communicative process are identified. There can be three such positions: open - the communicator openly declares himself a supporter of the stated point of view, evaluates various facts in support of this point of view; detached - the communicator is emphatically neutral, compares conflicting points of view, not excluding orientation towards one of them, but not openly stated; closed - the communicator is silent about his point of view, sometimes even resorting to special measures to hide it. Naturally, the content of each of these positions is determined by the goal, the task that is pursued in the communicative influence, but it is important that, in principle, each of these positions has certain capabilities for increasing the effect of influence (Bogomolova, 1991).

Likewise, ways to increase the impact of message text have been extensively researched. It is in this area that the content analysis technique is used, establishing certain proportions in the relationship between different parts of the text. Audience studies are of particular importance. The results of research in this area refuted the traditional one for the 19th century. the view that logically and factually sound information automatically changes audience behavior. It turned out (in Klapper's experiments) that there is no automatism in this case: in fact, the most important factor It turned out to be an interaction between information and audience attitudes. This circumstance gave birth to a whole series of studies regarding the role of audience attitudes in the perception of information. It is easy to see that each of the areas of research outlined here is of great practical importance, especially in terms of increasing the effectiveness of the media. The considered scheme plays a certain positive role in understanding the methods and means of influence in the communication process. However, it and similar schemes record only the structure of the communication process, but this process is included in a more complex phenomenon - communication, therefore it is important to see its content in this one side of communication. And the content is that in the process of communication people interact with each other. To fully describe the process of mutual influence, it is not enough just to know the structure of the communicative act; it is also necessary to analyze the motives of the communicators, their goals, attitudes, etc. To do this, we need to turn to those sign systems that are included in verbal communication in addition to speech. Although speech is a universal means of communication, it acquires meaning only if it is included in the system of activity, and this inclusion is necessarily complemented by the use of other - non-speech - sign systems.

Nonverbal communication. Another type of communication includes the following main sign systems: 1) optical-kinetic, 2) para- and extralinguistic, 3) organization of space and time of the communicative process, 4) visual contact (Labunska, 1989).

The combination of these tools is designed to perform the following functions:

addition of speech, replacement of speech, representation of the emotional states of partners in the communication process.

The optical-kinetic system of signs includes gestures, facial expressions, and pantomime. In general, the optical-kinetic system appears as a more or less clearly perceived property of the general motor function of various parts of the body (hands, and then we have gestures; faces, and then we have facial expressions; postures, and then we have pantomimes). Initially, research in this area was carried out by Charles Darwin, who studied the expressions of emotions in humans and animals. It is the general motor skills of various parts of the body that reflect a person’s emotional reactions, therefore the inclusion of an optical-kinetic system of signs in a communication situation gives nuances to communication. These nuances turn out to be ambiguous when the same gestures are used, for example, in different national cultures. (Everyone knows the misunderstandings that sometimes arise when communicating between a Russian and a Bulgarian, if an affirmative or negative nod of the head is used, since the top-down movement of the head perceived by the Russian is interpreted as agreement, while for the Bulgarian “speech” it is a negation, and vice versa ). The significance of the optical-kinetic system of signs in communication is so great that at present a special field of research has emerged - kinesics, which specifically deals with these problems. For example, in the studies of M. Argyle, the frequency and strength of gestures in different cultures(within one hour, Finns gestured 1 time, Italians - 80, French - 20, Mexicans - 180). Paralinguistic and extralinguistic sign systems are also “additives” to verbal communication. The paralinguistic system is a vocalization system, i.e. voice quality, range, tonality. Extralinguistic system - the inclusion in speech of pauses, other inclusions, for example, coughing, crying, laughter, and finally, the very tempo of speech. All these additions increase semantically significant information, but not through additional speech inclusions, but by “near-speech” techniques.

The organization of space and time of the communicative process also acts as a special sign system and carries a semantic load as a component of the communicative situation. For example, placing partners facing each other promotes contact and symbolizes attention to the speaker, while shouting in the back can also have a certain negative meaning. The advantage of certain spatial forms of organizing communication has been experimentally proven both for two partners in the communication process and in mass audiences.

In the same way, some standards developed in various subcultures regarding the temporal characteristics of communication act as a kind of addition to semantically significant information. Arriving on time for the start of diplomatic negotiations symbolizes politeness towards the interlocutor; on the contrary, being late is interpreted as a sign of disrespect. In some special areas (primarily in diplomacy), various possible lateness tolerances with their corresponding values ​​have been developed in detail. Proxemics, as a special field that deals with the norms of spatial and temporal organization of communication, currently has a large amount of experimental material. The founder of proxemics, E. Hall, who calls proxemics “spatial psychology,” studied the first forms of spatial organization of communication in animals. In the case of human communication, a special methodology has been proposed for assessing the intimacy of communication based on studying the organization of its space. Thus, Hall recorded, for example, the norms for a person’s approach to a communication partner, characteristic of American culture: intimate distance (0-45 cm); personal distance (45-120 cm), social distance (120-400 cm); public distance (400-750 cm). Each of them is characteristic of special communication situations. These studies are of great practical importance, primarily in analyzing the success of the activities of various discussion groups. For example, a number of experiments have shown what the optimal placement of members of two discussion groups should be from the point of view of the “convenience” of the discussion.

In each case, the team members are to the right of the leader. Naturally, it is not the means of proxemics that are able to ensure success or failure in discussions; their content, course, direction are set by much higher substantive levels of human activity (social affiliation, positions, goals of participants in discussions). The optimal organization of the communication space plays a certain role only “all other things being equal,” but even for this purpose it is worth studying the problem.

A number of studies in this area are associated with the study of specific sets of spatial and temporal constants of communicative situations. These more or less clearly defined sets are called chronotopes. (This term was originally introduced by A.A. Ukhtomsky and later used by M.M. Bakhtin). For example, such chronotopes are described as the chronotope of the “hospital ward”, “carriage companion”, etc. The specificity of the communication situation sometimes creates unexpected influence effects here: for example, not always explainable frankness towards the first person you meet, if this is a “carriage companion”. Studies of chronotopes have not become particularly widespread, however, they could significantly contribute to identifying the mechanisms of communicative influence. Optimal placement of participants in two discussion groups The next specific sign system used in the communicative process is “eye contact”, which takes place in visual communication. Research in this area is closely related to general psychological research in the field of visual perception - eye movements. In socio-psychological studies, the frequency of exchange of glances, their duration, changes in the statics and dynamics of the gaze, avoidance of it, etc. are studied. “Eye contact” at first glance seems to be such a symbolic system, the meaning of which is very limited, for example, within the boundaries of purely intimate communication. Indeed, in the initial studies of this problem, “eye contact” was tied to the study of intimate communication. M. Argyle even developed a certain “intimacy formula”, having found out the dependence of the degree of intimacy, including on such a parameter as communication distance, which allows the use of eye contact to varying degrees. However, later the range of such studies became much wider: signs represented by eye movements are included in a wider range of communication situations. In particular, there are works on the role of visual communication for a child. It has been revealed that a child tends to focus attention primarily on human face: the most lively reaction was found to two horizontally located circles (analogue of eyes). Not to mention medical practice, this phenomenon turns out to be very important in other professions, for example, in the work of teachers and, in general, persons related to management problems. Like all non-verbal means, eye contact has the value of complementing verbal communication, i.e. communicates readiness to support communication or stop it, encourages the partner to continue the dialogue, and finally, helps to discover one’s “I” more fully, or, on the contrary, to hide it.

For all four systems of nonverbal communication, one common methodological question arises. Each of them uses its own sign system, which can be considered as specific code. As noted above, all information must be encoded, and in such a way that the system of codification and decodification is known to all participants in the communication process. But if in the case of speech this codification system is more or less generally known, then in non-verbal communication it is important in each case to determine what can be considered a code here, and, most importantly, how to ensure that the other communication partner owns this same code. Otherwise, the described systems will not provide any semantic addition to verbal communication. As is known, the general theory of information introduces the concept of “semantically significant information”. This is the amount of information that is given not at the input, but at the output of the system, i.e. which is the only thing that “works”. In the process of human communication, this concept can be interpreted in such a way that semantically significant information is precisely that which influences behavior change, i.e. which makes sense. All non-verbal sign systems multiply this meaning, in other words, they help to reveal the full semantic side of information. But such additional disclosure of meaning is possible only if the participants in the communicative process fully understand the meaning of the signs and code used. To build a code that is understandable to everyone, it is necessary to identify some units within each sign system, by analogy with units in the speech system, but it is precisely the identification of such units in non-verbal systems that turns out to be the main difficulty. It cannot be said that this problem has been completely solved today. However, various attempts to solve it are being made.

One of these attempts in the field of kinetics belongs to K. Birdwhistle. Developing methodological problems in this area, Birdwhistle proposed identifying a unit of human body movements. The main reasoning is based on the experience of structural linguistics: body movements are divided into units, and then more complex structures are formed from these units. The set of units represents a kind of alphabet of body movements. It is proposed to consider the kin, or kineme, as the smallest semantic unit (by analogy with the phoneme in linguistics). Although a single kin has no independent meaning, when it changes, the entire structure changes. From kinems, kinemorphs are formed (something similar to phrases), which are perceived in a communication situation. Based on Birdwhistle’s proposal, a kind of “dictionary” of body movements was built, and even works appeared on the number of kines in different national cultures. But Birdwhistle himself came to the conclusion that it was not yet possible to build a satisfactory dictionary of body movements: the very concept of kin turned out to be quite vague and controversial. Proposals to build a dictionary of gestures are more local in nature. Existing attempts are not too rigorous (the issue of unity is simply not resolved in them), but nevertheless, a certain “catalog” of gestures in various national cultures can be described.

In addition to the choice of unit, there is also the question of “localization” of various facial movements, gestures or body movements. We also need a more or less unambiguous “grid” of the main zones of the human face, body, hand, etc. Birdwhistle's proposals contained this aspect as well; All human body was divided into 8 zones: face, head, right hand, left hand, right leg, left leg, upper part body as a whole, lower body as a whole. The point of constructing a dictionary comes down to ensuring that the units - kins - are tied to certain zones, then a “record” of body movement will be obtained, which will give it a certain unambiguity, i.e. will help execute the code function. However, the uncertainty of the unit does not allow this recording technique to be considered sufficiently reliable.

FAST (Facial Affect Scoring Technique) technique A somewhat more modest option is proposed for recording facial expressions and facial expressions. In general, there are more than 20,000 descriptions of facial expressions in the literature. In order to somehow classify them, a methodology was proposed, introduced by P. Ekman and called FAST - Facial Affect Scoring Technique. The principle is the same: the face is divided into three zones by horizontal lines (eyes and forehead, nose and nose area, mouth and chin). Then six basic emotions are identified, most often expressed through facial expressions: joy, anger, surprise, disgust, fear, sadness. Fixing an emotion “by zone” allows you to register more or less definitely facial movements. This technique has become widespread in medical (pathopsychological) practice; currently there are a number of attempts to use it in “normal” communication situations. It can hardly be considered that here the problem of codes has been completely solved.

Thus, an analysis of all nonverbal communication systems shows that they undoubtedly play a large auxiliary (and sometimes independent) role in the communication process. Having the ability not only to strengthen or weaken verbal impact, all nonverbal communication systems help to identify such an essential parameter of the communicative process as the intentions of its participants. Together with the verbal communication system, these systems provide the exchange of information that people need to organize joint activities.

Place of interaction in the structure of communication.

The interactive side of communication is a conventional term denoting the characteristics of those components of communication that are associated with the interaction of people, with the direct organization of their joint activities. The study of interaction problems has a long tradition in social psychology. It is intuitively easy to accept the undeniable connection that exists between communication and human interaction, but it is difficult to separate these concepts and thereby make experiments more precisely targeted. Some authors simply identify communication and interaction, interpreting both as communication in the narrow sense of the word (i.e., as an exchange of information), others consider the relationship between interaction and communication as the relationship between the form of a certain process and its content. Sometimes they prefer to talk about the connected, but still independent existence of communication as communication and interaction as interaction. Some of these discrepancies are generated by terminological difficulties, in particular by the fact that the concept of “communication” is used either in a narrow or in a broad sense of the word. If we adhere to the scheme proposed when characterizing the structure of communication, i.e. to believe that communication in the broad sense of the word (as the reality of interpersonal and social relations) includes communication in the narrow sense of the word (as the exchange of information), then it is logical to allow such an interpretation of interaction when it appears as another - in comparison with the communicative - side of communication . Which “other” is a question that still needs to be answered.

If the communicative process is born on the basis of some joint activity, then the exchange of knowledge and ideas about this activity inevitably presupposes that the achieved mutual understanding is realized in new joint attempts to further develop the activity and organize it. The participation of many people in this activity at the same time means that everyone must make their own special contribution to it, which allows interaction to be interpreted as the organization of joint activity. During it, it is extremely important for participants not only to exchange information, but also to organize an “exchange of actions” and plan common activities. With this planning, it is possible to regulate the actions of one individual by “plans matured in the head of another,” which makes the activity truly joint, when its carrier will no longer be an individual, but a group. Thus, the question of what “other” side of communication is revealed by the concept of “interaction” can now be answered: the side that captures not only the exchange of information, but also the organization of joint actions that allow partners to implement some common activity. This solution to the issue excludes the separation of interaction from communication, but also excludes their identification: communication is organized in the course of joint activity, “about” it, and it is in this process that people need to exchange both information and the activity itself, i.e. develop forms and norms of joint action.

In the history of social psychology, there have been several attempts to describe the structure of interactions. For example, the so-called theory of action, or theory of social action, in which a description of the individual act of action was proposed in various versions, became widespread. Sociologists (M. Weber, P. Sorokin, T. Parsons) and social psychologists also addressed this idea. Everyone recorded some components of interaction: people, their connections, their impact on each other and, as a consequence, their changes. The task was always formulated as a search for the dominant factors motivating actions in interaction.

An example of how this idea was realized is the theory of T. Parsons, in which an attempt was made to outline a general categorical apparatus for describing the structure of social action. Social activity is based on interpersonal interactions; human activity in its broad manifestations is built on them; it is the result of individual actions. A single action is some elementary act; systems of actions are subsequently formed from them. Each act is taken on its own, in isolation, from the point of view of an abstract scheme, the elements of which are: a) the actor, b) the “other” (the object towards which the action is directed); c) norms (by which interaction is organized), d) values ​​(which each participant accepts), e) situation (in which the action is performed). The actor is motivated by the fact that his action is aimed at realizing his attitudes (needs). In relation to the “other,” the actor develops a system of orientations and expectations, which are determined both by the desire to achieve a goal and by taking into account the likely reactions of the other. Five pairs of such orientations can be distinguished, which provide a classification of possible types of interactions. It is assumed that with the help of these five pairs all types of human activity can be described. This attempt was unsuccessful: the action diagram revealing its “anatomy” was so abstract that it had no significance for the empirical analysis of various types of actions. It also turned out to be untenable for experimental practice: on the basis of this theoretical scheme, a single study was conducted by the creator of the concept himself. Methodologically incorrect here was the principle itself - the identification of certain abstract elements of the structure of individual action. With this approach, it is generally impossible to grasp the substantive side of actions, because it is determined by the content of social activity as a whole. Therefore, it is more logical to start with the characteristics of social activity, and from there go to the structure of individual individual actions, i.e. in exactly the opposite direction. The direction proposed by Parsons inevitably leads to the loss of the social context, since in it the entire wealth of social activity (in other words, the entirety of social relations) is derived from the psychology of the individual.

Another attempt to build a structure of interaction is related to the description of the stages of its development. In this case, interaction is divided not into elementary acts, but into the stages through which it passes. This approach was proposed, in particular, by the Polish sociologist J. Szczepanski. For Szczepanski, the central concept in describing social behavior is the concept of social connection. It can be presented as a sequential implementation of: a) spatial contact, b) mental contact (according to Szczepansky, this is mutual interest), c) social contact (here this is a joint activity), d) interaction (which is defined as “systematic, constant carrying out actions aimed at causing an appropriate reaction on the part of the partner...", finally, e) social relations (mutually related systems of actions). Although all of the above relates to the characteristics of “social connection,” its type, such as “interaction,” is presented most fully. Arranging a series of steps preceding interaction is not too strict: spatial and mental contacts in this scheme act as prerequisites for an individual act of interaction, and therefore the scheme does not eliminate the errors of the previous attempt. But the inclusion of “social contact”, understood as joint activity, among the prerequisites for interaction largely changes the picture: if interaction arises as the implementation of joint activity, then the road to studying its substantive side remains open. Quite close to the described scheme is the scheme proposed in Russian social psychology by V.N. Panferov (Panferov, 1989).

Finally, another approach to the structural description of interaction is presented in transactional analysis - a direction that proposes regulating the actions of interaction participants through regulating their positions, as well as taking into account the nature of situations and style of interaction (Bern, 1988). From the point of view of transactional analysis, each participant in the interaction can, in principle, occupy one of three positions, which can be conventionally designated as Parent, Adult, Child. These positions are in no way necessarily connected with the corresponding social role: this is only a purely psychological description of a certain strategy in interaction (the Child’s position can be defined as the “I want!” position, the Parent’s position as “I must!”, the Adult’s position as the association “I want!” " and "It is necessary"). Interaction is effective when transactions are “complementary” in nature, i.e. coincide: if a partner addresses another as an Adult, then he also responds from the same position. If one of the participants in the interaction addresses the other from the position of an Adult, and the other responds to him from the position of a Parent, then the interaction is disrupted and may stop altogether. In this case, the transactions are “overlapping”. An everyday example is given in the following diagram.

Distribution of positions in interaction (transactional analysis) The wife turns to her husband with the information: “I cut my finger” (appeal to the Adult from the Adult’s position). If he answers: “We’ll bandage it now,” then this is also an answer from the position of an Adult (I). If the maxim follows: “Something always happens to you,” then this is a response from the position of the Parent (II), and in the case of: “What should I do now?”, the position of the Child (III) is demonstrated. In two recent cases the effectiveness of interaction is low (Krizhanskaya, Tretyakov, 1990). A similar approach was proposed by P.N. Ershov, who, denoting positions, speaks of a possible “extension from above” and “extension from below” (Ershov, 1972).

The second indicator of effectiveness is an adequate understanding of the situation (as in the case of information exchange) and an adequate style of action in it. In social psychology there are many classifications of interaction situations. The classification proposed in Russian social psychology by A.A. has already been mentioned. Leontiev (socially-oriented, subject-oriented and person-oriented situations). Other examples are given by M. Argyle and E. Byrne. Argyle names official social events, random episodic meetings, formal contacts at work and at home, asymmetrical situations (in training, leadership, etc.). E. Berne pays special attention to various rituals, semi-rituals (which take place in entertainment) and games (understood very broadly, including intimate, political games, etc.) (Bern, 1988).

Each situation dictates its own style of behavior and action: in each of them, a person “presents” himself differently, and if this self-presentation is not adequate, interaction is difficult. If a style is formed on the basis of actions in a specific situation, and then mechanically transferred to another situation, then, naturally, success cannot be guaranteed. There are three main styles of action: ritual, manipulative and humanistic. Using the example of the use of ritual style, it is especially easy to show the need to correlate the style with the situation. The ritual style is usually determined by some culture. For example, the style of greetings, questions asked during a meeting, the nature of the expected answers. Thus, in American culture it is customary to answer the question: “How are you?” answer “Wonderful!”, no matter how things really are. It is typical for our culture to answer “to the point,” and not to be ashamed of the negative characteristics of one’s own existence (“Oh, there is no life, prices are rising, transport is not working,” etc.). A person accustomed to a different ritual, having received such a response, will be puzzled as to how to interact further. As for the use of a manipulative or humanistic style of interaction, this is a separate big problem, especially in practical social psychology (Petrovskaya, 1983).

It is important to draw a general conclusion that the division of a single act of interaction into components such as the positions of the participants, the situation and the style of action also contributes to a more thorough psychological analysis of this side of communication, making a certain attempt to connect it with the content of the activity.

Types of interactions. There is another descriptive approach to analyzing interaction - constructing classifications of its various types. It is intuitively clear that in practice people engage in an infinite number of different types of interactions. For experimental studies, it is extremely important to at least identify some of the main types of these interactions. The most common is the dichotomous division of all possible types interactions into two opposite types: cooperation and competition. Different authors refer to these two main species by different terms. In addition to cooperation and competition, they talk about agreement and conflict, adaptation and opposition, association and dissociation, etc. Behind all these concepts, the principle of identifying different types of interaction is clearly visible. In the first case, such manifestations are analyzed that contribute to the organization of joint activities and are “positive” from this point of view. The second group includes interactions that in one way or another “shatter” joint activity and represent a certain kind of obstacle to it.

Cooperation, or cooperative interaction, means the coordination of individual forces of participants (ordering, combining, summing up these forces). Cooperation is a necessary element of joint activity, generated by its special nature. A.N. Leontyev named two main features of joint activity: a) division of a single process of activity between participants; b) a change in everyone’s activities, because the result of each person’s activity does not lead to the satisfaction of his needs, which in general psychological language means that the “object” and “motive” of the activity do not coincide.

How is the immediate result of the activity of each participant connected with the final result of joint activity? The means of such connection are the relationships developed during joint activities, which are realized primarily in cooperation. An important indicator of the “closeness” of cooperative interaction is the inclusion of all participants in the process. Therefore, experimental studies of cooperation most often deal with the analysis of the contributions of the participants in the interaction and the degree of their involvement in it.

As for another type of interaction - competition, here the analysis is most often concentrated on its most striking form, namely conflict. When studying conflict in social psychology, it is first of all necessary to determine one’s own angle of view in this problem, since conflicts are the subject of research in a number of other disciplines: sociology, political science, etc.

Social psychology focuses its attention on two issues: on the one hand, on the analysis of secondary socio-psychological aspects in each conflict (for example, the awareness of the conflict by its participants); on the other hand, on identifying a particular class of conflicts generated by specific socio-psychological factors. Both of these problems can be successfully solved only if there is an adequate conceptual research framework. It must cover at least four main characteristics of conflict: structure, dynamics, function and typology of conflict.

The structure of the conflict has been described in different ways by different authors, but the basic elements are practically accepted by everyone. This is a conflict situation, the positions of participants (opponents), an object, an “incident” (trigger mechanism), development and resolution of the conflict. These elements behave differently depending on the type of conflict. The common idea that every conflict necessarily has a negative meaning has been refuted by a number of special studies. Thus, in the works of M. Deutsch, one of the most prominent conflict theorists, two types of conflicts are called: destructive and productive.

The definition of destructive conflict largely coincides with the common understanding. It is this type of conflict that leads to a mismatch in interaction, to its weakening. A destructive conflict often becomes independent of the reason that gave rise to it, and more easily leads to a transition to “personality”, which gives rise to stress. It is characterized by a specific development, namely an expansion in the number of participants involved, their conflicting actions, an increase in the number of negative attitudes towards each other and the severity of statements (“expansion” of the conflict). Another feature is that “escalation” of a conflict means increasing tension, including everything more false perceptions of both the traits and qualities of the opponent, and the situations of interaction themselves, an increase in prejudice against the partner. It is clear that resolving this type of conflict is especially difficult; the main method of resolution - compromise - is implemented here with great difficulty.

A productive conflict most often arises when the clash does not concern the incompatibility of personalities, but is generated by a difference in points of view on a problem and on ways to solve it. In this case, the conflict itself contributes to the formation of a more comprehensive understanding of the problem, as well as the motivation of the partner who defends a different point of view - it becomes more “legitimate”. The very fact of a different argumentation and recognition of its legitimacy contributes to the development of elements of cooperative interaction within the conflict and thereby opens up the possibility of its regulation and resolution, and therefore of finding an optimal solution to the problem under discussion.

The idea of ​​two possible types of conflict interaction provides the basis for discussing the most important general theoretical problem of conflict: understanding its nature as a psychological phenomenon. In fact: is conflict just a form of psychological antagonism (i.e., the representation of a contradiction in consciousness) or is it necessarily the presence of conflicting actions. A detailed description of various conflicts in their complexity and diversity allows us to conclude that both of these components are mandatory signs of a conflict.

The problem of conflict research has many practical applications in terms of development various forms attitude towards it (conflict resolution, conflict prevention, its prevention, weakening, etc.) and, above all, in situations of business communication: for example, in production (Borodkin, Karyak, 1983).

When analyzing various types interaction, the problem of the content of the activity within which certain types of interaction are given is fundamentally important. Thus, we can state a cooperative form of interaction not only in production conditions, but, for example, also when carrying out any asocial, illegal acts - joint robbery, theft, etc. Therefore, cooperation in socially negative activities is not necessarily the form that needs to be stimulated: on the contrary, activities that are conflicting in conditions of asocial activity can be assessed positively. Cooperation and competition are only forms of a “psychological pattern” of interaction, while the content in both cases is determined by a broader system of activity in which cooperation or competition are included. Therefore, when studying both cooperative and competitive forms of interaction, it is unacceptable to consider both of them outside the general context of activity.

The concept of social perception. As has already been established, in the process of communication there must be mutual understanding between the participants in this process. Mutual understanding itself can be interpreted here in different ways: either as an understanding of the goals, motives, and attitudes of the interaction partner, or as not only understanding, but also acceptance and sharing of these goals, motives, and attitudes. However, in both cases, the fact of how the communication partner is perceived is of great importance, in other words, the process of perception by one person of another acts as an obligatory component of communication and can conditionally be called the perceptual side of communication. Before revealing the substantive characteristics of this side of communication, it is necessary to clarify the terms used here. Quite often, the perception of a person by a person is referred to as “social perception”. This concept is not used very precisely in this case. The term “social perception” was first introduced by J. Bruner in 1947 during the development of the so-called New Look at perception. Initially, social perception was understood as the social determination of perceptual processes. Later, researchers, in particular in social psychology, gave the concept a slightly different meaning: social perception began to be called the process of perceiving so-called social objects, which meant other people, social groups, large social communities. It is in this usage that the term has become established in the socio-psychological literature. Therefore, the perception of a person by a person belongs, of course, to the field of social perception, but does not exhaust it.

If we imagine the processes of social perception in full, we get a very complex and branched scheme. It includes various options not only for the object, but also for the subject of perception. When the subject of perception is an individual (I), then he can perceive another individual belonging to “his” group (1); another individual belonging to an “out-group” (2); your own group (3); “foreign” group (4). Even if we do not include large social communities in the list, which in principle can be perceived in the same way, then in this case we get four different processes, each of which has its own specific characteristics. The situation is even more complicated in the case when not only an individual, but also a group is interpreted as the subject of perception (G). Then one should also add to the compiled list of processes of social perception: the group’s perception of its own member (5); the group's perception of a representative of another group (6); the group’s perception of itself (7), and finally, the group’s perception as a whole of another group (8). Although this second series is not traditional, in different terminology almost each of the “cases” identified here is studied in social psychology. Not all of them are related to the problem of mutual understanding of communication partners.

In order to more accurately indicate what we are talking about in terms of interest to us, it is advisable to talk not about social perception in general, but about interpersonal perception, or interpersonal perception (or - as an option - about the perception of a person by a person). It is these processes that are directly included in communication in the sense in which it is considered here. In other words, in this context we are talking only about positions 1) and 2) of the proposed scheme. But besides this, there is a need for one more comment. Perception social facilities has so many specific features that the very use of the word “perception” seems not entirely accurate here. In any case, a number of phenomena that take place during the formation of an idea about another person do not fit into the traditional description of the perceptual process, as it is given in general psychology. Therefore, in the socio-psychological literature the search for the most accurate concept to characterize the described process is still ongoing. The main goal of this search is to include some other cognitive processes in the process of perceiving another person more fully. In this case, many researchers prefer to turn to the French expression “connaissance d’autrui”, which means not so much “perception of the other” as “knowledge of the other”. In Russian literature, the expression “cognition of another person” is also very often used as a synonym for “perception of another person.” This broader understanding of the term is due to the specific features of the perception of another person, which include the perception of not only the physical characteristics of the object, but also its behavioral characteristics, the formation of ideas about his intentions, thoughts, abilities, emotions, attitudes, etc. In addition, the content of this same concept includes the formation of an idea of ​​the relationships that connect the subject and object of perception. This is what gives particularly great importance to a number of additional factors that do not play such a significant role in the perception of physical objects. So, for example, such a characteristic feature as selectivity (selectivity) of perception manifests itself here in a very unique way, since the significance of the goals of the cognizing subject, his past experience, etc. are included in the selection process. The fact that new impressions of a perceptual object are categorized on the basis of similarity to previous impressions gives rise to stereotyping. Although all these phenomena have been experimentally recorded in the perception of physical objects, their significance in the field of people’s perception of each other increases enormously.

Another approach to problems of perception, which has also been used in social psychological research on interpersonal perception, is associated with the school of so-called transactional psychology, some of which have already been discussed in the previous chapter. Particularly emphasized here is the idea that the active participation of the subject of perception in the transaction involves taking into account the role of expectations, desires, intentions, and past experience of the subject as specific determinants of the perceptual situation, which seems especially important when knowledge of another person is considered as the basis not only for understanding the partner, but to establish coordinated actions with him, a special kind of relationship.

All of the above means that the term “social perception”, or, in a narrower sense of the word, “interpersonal perception”, “perception of another person” is used in the literature in a somewhat free, even metaphorical sense, although recent research in the general psychology of perception is characterized by a well-known the convergence of perception and other cognitive processes. In the most general terms, we can say that perceiving another person means perceiving his external signs, correlating them with the personal characteristics of the perceived individual and interpreting his actions on this basis.

Mechanisms of mutual understanding in the process of communication.

Since a person always enters into communication as a person, he is perceived by another person - a communication partner - also as a person. Based on the external side of behavior, we seem to “read” another person, decipher the meaning of his external data. The impressions that arise in this case play an important regulatory role in the communication process. Firstly, because by cognizing another, the cognizing individual himself is formed. Secondly, because the success of organizing coordinated actions with him depends on the degree of accuracy of “reading” another person.

The idea of ​​another person is closely related to the level of one’s own self-awareness. This connection is twofold: on the one hand, the wealth of ideas about oneself determines the richness of ideas about another person, on the other hand, the more fully the other person is revealed (in more and deeper characteristics), the more complete the idea of ​​oneself becomes . This question was once posed at a philosophical level by Marx when he wrote: “Man first looks, as in a mirror, into another person. Only by treating the man Paul as one like himself, does the man Peter begin to treat himself as a man.” Essentially the same idea, at the level of psychological analysis, is found in L.S. Vygotsky: “The personality becomes for itself what it is in itself, through what it represents for others.” As we have seen, Mead also expressed a similar idea when he introduced the image of the “generalized other” into his analysis of interaction. However, if for Mead this image characterized only the situation of direct interaction, then in reality, according to B.F. Porshneva, “Peter learns his nature through Paul only due to the fact that behind Paul there is a society, a huge number of people connected into a whole by a complex system of relationships.”

If we apply this reasoning to a specific situation of communication, then we can say that the idea of ​​oneself through the idea of ​​another is necessarily formed, provided that this “other” is not given in the abstract, but within the framework of a fairly broad social activity, which includes interaction with him. An individual “correlates” himself with another not in general, but primarily by refracting this correlation in the development of joint decisions. In the course of knowing another person, several processes are simultaneously carried out: an emotional assessment of this other, and an attempt to understand the structure of his actions, and a strategy based on this for changing his behavior, and building a strategy for one’s own behavior.

However, at least two people are involved in these processes, and each of them is an active subject. Consequently, comparison of oneself with another is carried out, as it were, from two sides: each of the partners likens itself to the other. This means that when building an interaction strategy, everyone has to take into account not only the needs, motives, and attitudes of the other, but also how this other understands my needs, motives, and attitudes. All this leads to the fact that the analysis of awareness of oneself through another includes two sides: identification and reflection. Each of these concepts requires special discussion. The term "identification", literally meaning identification of oneself with another, expresses the established empirical fact that one of the simplest ways of understanding another person is to liken oneself to him. This, of course, is not the only way, but in real interaction situations people often use this technique, when an assumption about the partner’s internal state is based on an attempt to put oneself in his place. In this regard, identification acts as one of the mechanisms of cognition and understanding of another person. There are many experimental studies of the process of identification and elucidation of its role in the communication process. In particular, a close connection has been established between identification and another phenomenon that is similar in content - empathy. Descriptively, empathy is also defined as a special way of understanding another person. Only here we do not mean a rational understanding of the problems of another person, but rather the desire to respond emotionally to his problems. Empathy is opposed to understanding in the strict sense of the word; the term is used in this case only metaphorically: empathy is affective “understanding.” Its emotional nature is manifested precisely in the fact that the situation of another person, a communication partner, is not so much “thought through” as “felt.” The mechanism of empathy is in certain respects similar to the mechanism of identification: both there and here there is the ability to put oneself in the place of another, to look at things from his point of view. However, seeing things from someone else's point of view does not necessarily mean identifying with that person. If I identify myself with someone, this means that I build my behavior the way this “other” builds it. If I show empathy towards him, I simply take into account his line of behavior (I treat it sympathetically), but I can build my own in a completely different way. In both cases, there will be “taking into account” the behavior of the other person, but the result of our joint actions will be different: it is one thing to understand a communication partner, taking his position, acting from it, another thing is to understand him, taking into account his point of view, even sympathizing with it,” but acting in his own way. However, both cases require the solution of one more question: how will the “other” be, i.e. communication partner, understand me. Our interaction will depend on this. In other words, the process of understanding each other is complicated by the phenomenon of reflection. In contrast to the philosophical use of the term, in social psychology reflection is understood as the awareness by the acting individual of how he is perceived by his communication partner. This is no longer just knowledge or understanding of the other, but knowledge of how the other understands me, a kind of double process of mirror reflections of each other, “deep, consistent mutual reflection, the content of which is the reproduction of the inner world of the interaction partner, and in this inner world, in turn, reflects the inner world of the first researcher.”

The tradition of studying reflection in social psychology is quite old. Even at the end of the last century, J. Holmes, describing the situation of dyadic communication between certain John and Henry, argued that in reality in this situation at least six people are given: John, as he really is (for Holmes, literally “as the Lord God created him "); John as he sees himself; John as Henry sees him. Accordingly, there are three “positions” on Henry’s part. Subsequently, T. Newcomb and C. Cooley complicated the situation to eight people, adding: John, as he sees his image in Henry’s mind, and, accordingly, the same for Henry. In principle, of course, one can assume as many such mutual reflections as desired, but in practice experimental studies are usually limited to fixing two stages of this process. G. Gibsch and M. Vorverg reproduce the proposed models of reflection in general form. They designate the participants in the interaction process as A and B. Then the general model of the formation of a reflexive structure in a situation of dyadic interaction can be presented as follows (Gibsch, Forverg, 1972). There are two partners A and B. Communication is established between them A X B and feedback about B’s reaction to A, B A. In addition, A and B have an idea of ​​themselves “A” and “B”, as well as an idea of ​​“the other "; A has an idea of ​​B - B" and B has an idea of ​​A - A." Interaction in the communicative process is carried out like this: A speaks as A, addressing B. B reacts as B to A.” How close all this turns out to be to the real A and B still needs to be investigated, because neither A nor B knows that there are A’s, B’s, A’s and B’s that do not coincide with objective reality, while between A and A’ and there are no communication channels between B and B. It is clear that the success of communication will be maximum with a minimum gap in the lines A - A" - A" and B - B" - B". The significance of this coincidence can be easily demonstrated by the example of the speaker’s interaction with the audience. If the speaker (A) has the wrong idea about himself (A"), about the listeners (B") and, most importantly, about how the listeners perceive him (A"), then his mutual understanding with the audience will be excluded and, therefore, interaction too Bringing the entire complex of these ideas closer to each other is a complex process that requires special efforts. One of the means here is a type of socio-psychological training aimed at increasing perceptual competence. The construction of models of the type considered plays an important role. A number of studies attempt to analyze the reflexive structures of a group united by a single joint activity. Then the very scheme of emerging reflections relates not only to dyadic interaction, but to general activities group and the interpersonal relationships mediated by it (Danilin, 1977).

Content and effects of interpersonal perception.

The considered mechanisms of mutual understanding allow us to move on to the analysis of the process of people learning about each other as a whole. All research in this area can be divided into two large classes: 1) the study of the content of interpersonal perception (characteristics of the subject and object of perception, their properties, etc.); 2) study of the process of interpersonal perception itself (analysis of its mechanisms and accompanying effects).

The content of interpersonal perception depends on the characteristics of both the subject and the object of perception because they are included in a certain interaction, which has two sides: evaluating each other and changing some characteristics of each other due to the very fact of their presence. In the first case, the interaction can be stated by the fact that each of the participants, assessing the other, strives to build a certain system of interpretation of his behavior, in particular its reasons. Interpretation of another person's behavior can be based on knowledge of the reasons for this behavior, and then this is the task of scientific psychology. But in everyday life, people often do not know the real reasons for another person’s behavior or do not know them enough. Then, in conditions of a lack of information, they begin to attribute to each other both the reasons for behavior and sometimes the patterns of behavior themselves or some more general characteristics. Attribution is carried out either on the basis of the similarity of the behavior of the perceived person with some other model that existed in the past experience of the subject of perception, or on the basis of an analysis of one’s own motives assumed in a similar situation (in this case, the identification mechanism may operate). But one way or another it arises the whole system methods of such attribution (attribution). A special branch of social psychology, called causal attribution, analyzes precisely these processes (G. Kelly, E. Jones, K. Davis, D. Kennose, R. Nisbet, L. Strickland). Research on causal attribution is aimed at studying the attempts of the “ordinary person,” the “man on the street,” to understand the cause and effect of those events in which he is a witness or participant. This also includes the interpretation of one’s own and others’ behavior, which is an integral part of interpersonal perception. If at first the study of attribution was only about attributing reasons for the behavior of another person, then later they began to study ways of attributing a wider class of characteristics: intentions, feelings, personality traits. The phenomenon of attribution itself arises when a person has a deficit of information about another person: it must be replaced by the process of attribution.

The measure and degree of attribution in the process of interpersonal perception depends on two indicators: the degree of uniqueness or typicality of the act and the degree of its social “desirability” or “undesirability.” In the first case, we mean the fact that typical behavior is behavior prescribed by role models, and therefore it is easier to interpret unambiguously. On the contrary, unique behavior allows for many different interpretations and, therefore, gives scope for attribution of its causes and characteristics. The same is true in the second case: socially “desirable” is understood as behavior that corresponds to social and cultural norms and is therefore relatively easily and unambiguously explained. When such norms are violated (socially “undesirable” behavior), the range of possible explanations expands. This conclusion is close to the reasoning of S.L. Rubinstein about the “collapsed” process of cognition of another person under normal conditions and its “expandedness” in cases of deviation from accepted models. Other works have shown that the nature of attributions also depends on whether the subject of perception is himself a participant in an event or an observer of it. In these two different cases, a different type of attribution is chosen. G. Kelly identified three such types: personal attribution (when the cause is attributed personally to the person committing the act), object attribution (when the cause is attributed to the object to which the action is directed) and circumstantial attribution (when the cause of the action is attributed to the circumstances) (Kelly, 1984). It was found that the observer more often uses personal attribution, and the participant is more inclined to explain what is happening by circumstances. This feature is clearly manifested when attributing reasons for success and failure: the participant in the action “blames” the failure primarily on the circumstances, while the observer “blames” the performer for the failure primarily (Andreeva, 1981). Of particular interest is also that part of attribution theories that analyzes the issue of attributing responsibility for any events, which also occurs when a person is perceived by a person (Muzdybaev, 1983).

Based on numerous experimental studies of attributional processes, it was concluded that they constitute the main content of interpersonal perception. And although this conclusion is not shared by all researchers (some believe that the attributional process and the process of interpersonal cognition cannot be completely identified), the importance of the discovery of the attribution phenomenon is obvious for a more in-depth understanding of the content of interpersonal perception. Additional knowledge was also obtained that this process is determined by the characteristics of the subject of perception: some people tend to fix physical features to a greater extent in the process of interpersonal perception, and then the “sphere” of attribution is significantly reduced, others perceive predominantly the psychological characteristics of others, and in this case a special “space” for attribution opens up. The dependence of the attributed characteristics on the previous assessment of the objects of perception was also revealed. In one of the experiments, assessments of two groups of children given by the subject of perception were recorded. One group was made up of “favorite” children, and the other group was made up of “unloved” children. Although the “favorite” (in this case, more attractive) children made (intentional) errors in performing the task, and the “unfavorite” children performed it correctly, the perceiver attributed positive ratings to the “favorite” ones and negative ratings to the “unloved” ones.

This corresponds to the idea of ​​F. Heider, who deliberately introduced into social psychology the legitimacy of references to the “naive” psychology of the “man on the street”, i.e. based on common sense considerations. According to Heider, people generally tend to reason in this way: “a bad person has bad traits,” “a good person has good traits,” etc. Therefore, attribution of causes of behavior and characteristics is carried out according to the same model: “bad” people are always assigned bad actions, and “good” people are always assigned good actions.

True, along with this, theories of causal attribution also pay attention to the idea of ​​contrasting ideas, when negative traits are attributed to a “bad” person, and the perceiver evaluates himself by contrast as the bearer of the most positive traits. All this kind of experimental research raised an extremely important question of a more general nature - the question of the role of attitude in the process of human perception by a person. This role is especially significant when forming the first impression of stranger, which was revealed in the experiments of A.A. Bodalev (Bodalev, 1982). Two groups of students were shown a photograph of the same person. But first, the first group was told that the person in the photograph presented was an inveterate criminal, and the second group was told about the same person that he was a prominent scientist. After this, each group was asked to create a verbal portrait of the photographed person. In the first case, the corresponding characteristics were obtained: deep-set eyes indicated hidden anger, a prominent chin indicated the determination to “go to the end” in a crime, etc. Accordingly, in the second group, the same deep-set eyes spoke about the depth of thought, and a prominent chin - about willpower in overcoming difficulties on the path of knowledge, etc. This kind of research tries to find an answer to the question about the role of the characteristics of the perceiver in the process of interpersonal perception: which characteristics are significant here, under what circumstances they appear, etc. Another series of experimental studies is devoted to the characteristics of the object of perception. As it turns out, the success or failure of interpersonal perception also largely depends on them. The individual psychological characteristics of different people are different, including in terms of more or less “revelation” of themselves for the perception of other people. At the level of common sense, these differences are recorded quite clearly (“he is secretive,” “he is on his own mind,” etc.). However, these common sense considerations can be of little help in establishing the causes of this phenomenon, and therefore in constructing a forecast for the success of interpersonal perception.

To ensure such a prediction of the situation of interpersonal perception, it is necessary to take into account the second area of ​​research, which is associated with the identification of various “effects” that arise when people perceive each other. Three such “effects” have been most studied: the halo effect (“halo effect”), the effect of novelty and primacy, as well as the effect, or phenomenon, of stereotyping.

The essence of the “halo effect” is the formation of a specific attitude towards the perceived through the directed attribution of certain qualities to him: information received about a certain person is categorized in a certain way, namely, superimposed on the image that has already been created in advance. This pre-existing image acts as a “halo” that prevents one from seeing the actual features and manifestations of the object of perception.

The halo effect manifests itself when forming a first impression of a person in that a general favorable impression leads to positive evaluations of unknown qualities of the perceived person and, conversely, a general unfavorable impression contributes to the predominance of negative evaluations. Experimental studies have found that the halo effect is most pronounced when the perceiver has minimal information about the object of perception, as well as when judgments concern moral qualities. This tendency to obscure certain characteristics and highlight others plays the role of a kind of halo in the person's perception of a person.

Closely related to this effect are the effects of “primacy” and “novelty”. Both of them concern the significance of a certain order of presentation of information about a person in order to form an idea about him. In one experiment, four different groups of students were presented with a stranger who was told: in the 1st group, that he was an extrovert; in the 2nd group that he is an introvert; in the 3rd group - first that he is an extrovert, and then that he is an introvert; in the 4th group - the same, but in reverse order. All four groups were asked to describe the stranger in terms of suggested personality traits. In the first two groups no problems with such a description arose. In the third and fourth groups, impressions of the stranger exactly corresponded to the order in which the information was presented: the one presented earlier prevailed. This effect is called the “primacy effect” and has been recorded in cases where a stranger is perceived. On the contrary, in situations of perception of a familiar person, the “novelty effect” operates, which consists in the fact that the latter, i.e. newer information turns out to be the most significant. In a broader sense, all these effects can be considered as manifestations of a special process that accompanies the perception of a person by a person, namely the process of stereotyping. The term “social stereotype” was first introduced by W. Lippmann in 1922, and for him this term contained a negative connotation associated with the falsity and inaccuracy of the ideas used by propaganda. In the broader sense of the word, a stereotype is a certain stable image of a phenomenon or person, which is used as a well-known “abbreviation” when interacting with this phenomenon. Stereotypes in communication, which arise, in particular, when people get to know each other, have both a specific origin and a specific meaning. As a rule, a stereotype arises on the basis of fairly limited past experience, as a result of the desire to draw conclusions on the basis of limited information. Very often, a stereotype arises regarding a person’s group membership, for example, his belonging to a certain profession. Then the pronounced professional traits of representatives of this profession encountered in the past are considered as traits inherent in every representative of this profession (“all teachers are edifying,” “all accountants are pedants,” etc.). Here there is a tendency to “extract meaning” from previous experience, to draw conclusions based on similarities with this previous experience, without being embarrassed by its limitations.

Stereotyping in the process of people getting to know each other can lead to two different consequences. On the one hand, to a certain simplification of the process of knowing another person; in this case, the stereotype does not necessarily carry an evaluative load: in the perception of another person there is no “shift” towards his emotional acceptance or non-acceptance. What remains is simply a simplified approach, which, although it does not contribute to the accuracy of constructing the image of another, often forces it to be replaced with a cliche, is nevertheless in some sense necessary, because it helps to shorten the process of cognition. In the second case, stereotyping leads to prejudice. If a judgment is based on limited past experience, and this experience was negative, any new perception of a member of the same group is tinged with hostility. The emergence of such prejudices has been documented in numerous experimental studies, but it is natural that they manifest themselves especially negatively not in laboratory conditions, but in real life, when they can cause serious harm not only to people’s communication with each other, but also to their relationships. Ethnic stereotypes are especially common when, based on limited information about individual representatives of any ethnic groups, preconceived conclusions are drawn about the entire group (Stephanenko, 1987). All of the above allows us to conclude that the extremely complex nature of the process of interpersonal perception makes it necessary to study with particular care the problem of the accuracy of human perception by a person.

Interpersonal perceptual accuracy. This question is related to the solution of a more general theoretical and methodological problem: what does “accuracy” of perception of social objects generally mean? When perceiving physical objects, we can check the accuracy of perception by comparing its results with objective fixation, measurement of certain qualities and properties of objects. In the case of knowing another person, the impression received about him by the perceiving subject has nothing to compare with, since there are no methods for directly recording the numerous personality traits of another person. Of course, various personality tests can provide some help in this case, but, firstly, there are no tests to identify and measure all the characteristics of a person (hence, if comparison is possible, then only for those characteristics for which tests exist); secondly, as already noted, tests cannot be considered as the only tool for studying personality, since they have certain limitations.

The limitations of tests, associated both with a limited repertoire of measured characteristics and with their general cognitive capabilities, are generated by the fact that they record and measure what is specified by the experimenter, and not what “really” is. Therefore, any comparison that can be made in this way is always a comparison with the data of some third party, which in turn are the results of someone’s knowledge of another person. A similar problem arises when the method of expert assessments is used. People who know the person who is the object of perception are selected as experts. Their judgments about it (“expert assessments”) are compared with the data of the subject of perception. Compared to tests, expert assessments have an important advantage: here we are dealing with a criterion that practically does not limit the choice of parameters of interpersonal perception (Zhukov, 1977), as is the case when using tests. These expert assessments play the role of that external criterion, which represents “objective data”. But even in this case, we essentially again have two rows of subjective judgments: the subject of perception and the expert (who also acts as a subject of perception, and, therefore, his judgments do not at all exclude the element of evaluation).

Nevertheless, both tests and expert assessments in certain cases are accepted as an external criterion, although their use does not remove the main difficulty. This difficulty - the inability to verify the accuracy of another person's perception by direct comparison with data from objective methods - forces us to look for other approaches to understanding the problem itself and ways to solve it.

One of these ways is to comprehend the totality of “interference” that stands in the way of interpersonal perception. Such “interference” can include all the mechanisms we have considered and the effects that arise in this process. Of course, knowledge of the fact that impressions of a person are categorized primarily on the basis of past experience, or that a primacy effect operates in their formation, indirectly helps in identifying the inaccuracy of interpersonal perception. However, knowledge of these mechanisms can only indicate the fact of such inaccuracy, but does not help in determining its extent.

The same applies to another series of means, namely, a closer study of the perceptual abilities of the subject of perception. In this case, it is possible to establish (and do this quite accurately) what is the relationship between the characteristics of the perceiver and the object of perception. In experiments on interpersonal perception, four groups of factors are established: a) variables with the help of which the subject of perception describes himself; b) previously familiar personalities; c) the relationship between oneself and the object of perception, and finally d) the situational context in which the process of interpersonal perception takes place. By correlating these four groups of factors, we can at least determine in which direction perception tends to shift in each specific case. An important factor in increasing the accuracy of perception of another person is receiving feedback from him, which helps to correct the image and contributes to a more accurate prediction of the behavior of the communication partner (Solovieva, 1992).

Quite a long time ago, a tempting idea was born in social psychology to find means of developing perceptual abilities. different people . A number of experiments were carried out in order to determine whether the ability of individuals to “read” the characteristics of other people has a certain stability. These experiments did not give an unambiguous answer to the question: in approximately 50% of cases such stability was recorded, and in the other 50% of cases it could not be detected. Similar conflicting results have been found regarding whether the art of more accurately perceiving another person can be taught. Despite the fact that this issue remains controversial, a number of efforts are nevertheless being made. They are associated with the use of socio-psychological training for these purposes. Along with the fact that the training is used to teach the art of communication in general, its special techniques are aimed at increasing perceptual competence, i.e. accuracy of perception (Petrovskaya, 1989). The training programs used in this case are very diverse. The simplest and most unexpected of them is fixing the attention of people for whom the accuracy of perception of other people is especially significant (teachers, doctors, managers of various ranks), on such a simple fact as the extreme prevalence of various “current ideas” regarding the connection between a person’s physical characteristics and his psychological features. Arbitrary ideas about the connection between various human characteristics are called “illusory correlations.” These unique “stereotypes” are based not only on “life” experience,” but often on scraps of knowledge, information about various psychological concepts that were widespread in the past (for example, Kretschmer’s ideas about the connection between the types of a person’s constitution and his character traits, the ideas of physiognomy about the correspondence facial features, some psychological characteristics, etc.). Drawing attention to these circumstances is very important, since usually few people are aware of how much these factors complicate the process of interpersonal perception. A.A. Bodalev received very interesting data in this regard: out of 72 people he surveyed regarding how they perceive the external features of other people, 9 answered that a square chin is a sign of a strong will, 17 - that a large forehead is a sign of intelligence, 3 identify coarse hair with rebellious character, 16 - plumpness with good nature, for two, thick lips are a symbol of sexuality, for five, short stature is evidence of power, for one person, eyes set close to each other mean hot temper, and for five others, beauty is a sign of stupidity (Bodalev, 1982) . No training can completely remove these everyday generalizations, but it can at least puzzle a person on the issue of the “unconditionality” of his judgment about other people.

Another technique, used in particular in video training, is to teach you to see yourself from the outside, comparing your ideas about yourself with how others perceive you. Of particular importance in this case is the set of concepts and categories with the help of which the subject himself and other people describe him. This convergence of one’s own and others’ ideas about oneself also, to a certain extent, serves to increase the accuracy of perception. However, in this regard, a fundamentally important question arises regarding in which groups it makes sense to engage in training. Extensive experience in organizing this work has shown that the skills acquired in special training groups are not necessarily retained later in real interaction situations. Therefore, it is especially appropriate to train for accuracy of perception in real groups united by joint activities. G. Gibsch and M. Vorverg at one time drew attention to the fact that, for example, the closeness of one’s own and another’s ideas about one person is greater in long-existing groups connected by a single system of activity. However, the question of whether it helps to improve the accuracy of perception long-term communication with a person, given by joint activity, cannot be considered completely resolved. A number of experimental studies show that as long-term contact continues, the emerging bias towards the object of perception, on the contrary, serves as a source of various kinds of distortions in the image of what is perceived. The study of this particular issue related to the characteristics of communication demonstrates the need for further research in the context of specific groups and the specific activities of these groups.

Self-test questions

Communication in the system of interpersonal and social relations.

The problem of unity of communication and activity

Features of the structure of communication.

The problem of information exchange in the communication process.

Types and methods of communication – verbal and non-verbal methods of communication.

Types of communication, structure interaction process, types of interaction.

Concepts of social perception and interpersonal perception.

Mechanisms of mutual understanding in the process of communication.

1. Questions for the exam in the discipline Interpersonal and Social Relations

   Questions for the exam

   Discipline: “Psychology communication» Group: 1zDO Questions for the exam in the discipline Interpersonal And public relationship Place communication V system interpersonal And public relations Communication as an object...

2. Social psychology (Simonenko S.I., Voronin.) and Psychology (Krysko)

   Document

   ... communications, using different symbols systems. Verbal communication ... public, so interpersonal). Attraction is associated primarily with this second type relations, implemented in communication. Attraction research in social ...

3. Panfilova A. P. Gt167 Theory and practice of communication: textbook, manual for student environments, educational institutions, institutions / A. P. Panfilova

   Document

   ... communication. IN communications ... public), as a rule, serves the sphere public relations ... communication Social perception Effects interpersonal perception and mutual understanding Mechanisms of mutual understanding in communication

Now it is fundamentally important to understand the place of these interpersonal relationships in the real system of human life.

In the socio-psychological literature, different points of view are expressed on the question of where interpersonal relationships are “located”, primarily in relation to the system of social relations. Sometimes they are considered on a par with social relations, at their basis, or, on the contrary, at the highest level (Kuzmin E. S. Fundamentals of Social Psychology. L., Leningrad State University, 1967. P. 146), in other cases - as a reflection in the consciousness of social relations (Platonov K, K. On the system of psychology. M., 1974. P. 30), etc. It seems to us (and this is confirmed by numerous studies) that the nature of interpersonal relationships can be correctly understood if they are not put on a par with social relations, but to see in them a special series of relations that arise within each type of social relations, not outside of them (be it “below”, “above”, “sideways” or otherwise). Schematically, this can be represented as a section through a special plane of the system of social relations: what is found in this “section” of economic, social, political and other types of social relations is interpersonal relations (Fig. 1.1).

Rice. 1.1. Interpersonal relationships and social relations

With this understanding, it becomes clear why interpersonal relationships seem to “mediate” the impact on the individual of the broader social whole. Ultimately, interpersonal relationships are determined by objective social relations, but it is precisely in ultimately. Practically both series of relations are given together, and underestimation of the second series prevents a truly in-depth analysis of the relations of the first series.

The existence of interpersonal relations within various forms of social relations is, as it were, the implementation of impersonal relations in the activities of specific individuals, in the acts of their communication and interaction.

At the same time, during this implementation, relations between people (including social ones) are again reproduced. In other words, this means that in the objective fabric of social relations there are moments emanating from the conscious will and special goals of individuals. It is here that the social and the psychological directly collide. Therefore, for social psychology, the formulation of this problem is of paramount importance.

The proposed structure of relations gives rise to the most important consequence. For each participant in interpersonal relationships, these relationships may seem to be the only reality of any relationship whatsoever. Although in reality the content of interpersonal relations is ultimately one or another type of social relations, i.e. a certain social activities, but the content and especially their essence remain largely hidden. Despite the fact that in the process of interpersonal, and therefore social relations, people exchange thoughts and are aware of their relationships, this awareness often does not go further than the knowledge that people have entered into interpersonal relationships.

Certain moments of social relations are presented to their participants only as their interpersonal relationships: someone is perceived as an “evil teacher”, as a “cunning merchant”, etc. At the level ordinary consciousness, without special theoretical analysis, this is exactly the situation. Therefore, the motives of behavior are often explained by this picture of relationships given on the surface, and not at all by the actual objective relationships behind this picture. Everything is further complicated by the fact that interpersonal relationships are the actual reality of social relations: outside of them, there are no “pure” social relations anywhere. Therefore, in almost all group actions, their participants appear in two capacities: as performers of impersonal social role and as unique human individuals. This gives grounds to introduce the concept of “interpersonal role” as a fixation of a person’s position not in the system of social relations, but in the system of only group connections, and not on the basis of his objective place in this system, but on the basis of the individual psychological characteristics of the individual. Examples of such interpersonal roles are well known from everyday life: about individual people in a group they say that he is a “good guy”, “one of the guys”, “a scapegoat”, etc. The discovery of personality traits in the style of fulfilling a social role causes other group members responses, and thus, a whole system of interpersonal relationships arises in the group (Shibutani, 1968).

The nature of interpersonal relations differs significantly from the nature of social relations: their most important specific feature is their emotional basis. Therefore, interpersonal relationships can be considered as a factor in the psychological “climate” of the group. The emotional basis of interpersonal relationships means that they arise and develop on the basis certain feelings, born in people in relation to each other. In the domestic school of psychology, three types or levels of emotional manifestations of personality are distinguished: affects, emotions and feelings. The emotional basis of interpersonal relationships includes all types of these emotional manifestations.

However, in social psychology it is the third component of this scheme that is usually characterized - feelings, and the term is not used in the strictest sense. Naturally, the “set” of these feelings is unlimited. However, all of them can be reduced into two large groups:

1. conjunctive - this includes various kinds bringing people together, uniting their feelings. In each case of such a relationship, the other party acts as a desired object, in relation to which a willingness to cooperate, to joint actions, etc. is demonstrated;
2. disjunctive feelings - This includes feelings that separate people, when the other side appears as unacceptable, perhaps even as a frustrating object, in relation to which there is no desire to cooperate, etc. The intensity of both types of feelings can be very different. The specific level of their development, naturally, cannot be indifferent to the activities of groups.

At the same time, the analysis of only these interpersonal relationships cannot be considered sufficient to characterize the group: in practice, relationships between people do not develop only on the basis of direct emotional contacts. The activity itself sets another series of relationships mediated by it. That is why it is an extremely important and difficult task for social psychology to simultaneously analyze two series of relationships in a group: both interpersonal and those mediated by joint activities, i.e., ultimately, the social relations behind them.

Communication in the system of interpersonal and social relations

Analysis of the connection between social and interpersonal relations allows us to place the correct emphasis on the question of the place of communication in the entire complex system of human connections with the outside world. However, first it is necessary to say a few words about the problem of communication in general. The solution to this problem is very specific within the framework of domestic social psychology. The term “communication” itself does not have an exact analogue in traditional social psychology, not only because it is not entirely equivalent to the commonly used English term “communication,” but also because its content can only be considered in the conceptual dictionary of a special psychological theory, namely the theory activities. Of course, in the structure of communication, which will be discussed below, aspects of it that are described or studied in other systems of socio-psychological knowledge can be highlighted. However, the essence of the problem, as it is posed in domestic social psychology, is fundamentally different.

Both sets of human relationships - both social and interpersonal - are revealed and realized precisely in communication. Thus, the roots of communication are in the very material life of individuals. Communication is the realization of the entire system of human relations. “Under normal circumstances, a person’s relationship to the objective world around him is always mediated by his relationship to people, to society” (Leontiev A.A. Communication as an object of psychological research. Methodological problems of social psychology, 1975. P. 289), i.e. included in communication. Here it is especially important to emphasize the idea that in real communication not only interpersonal relationships of people are given, that is, not only their emotional attachments, hostility, etc. are revealed, but social, i.e., impersonal in nature, relationships are also embodied in the fabric of communication . The diverse relationships of a person are not covered only by interpersonal contact: a person’s position outside the narrow framework of interpersonal connections, in a broader social system, where his place is not determined by the expectations of the individuals interacting with him, also requires a certain construction of the system of his connections, and this process can also only be realized in communication. Without communication, human society is simply unthinkable. Communication appears in it as a way of cementing individuals and at the same time as a way of developing these individuals themselves. It is from here that the existence of communication flows both as a reality of social relations and as a reality of interpersonal relations. Apparently, this made it possible for Saint-Exupery to paint a poetic image of communication as “the only luxury that a person has.”

Naturally, each series of relationships is realized in specific forms of communication. Communication as the implementation of interpersonal relationships is a process more studied in social psychology, while communication between groups rather studied in sociology. Communication, including in the system of interpersonal relations, is forced by the joint life activity of people, therefore it is necessarily carried out in a wide variety of interpersonal relationships, that is, given both in the case of a positive and in the case of a negative attitude of one person to another. The type of interpersonal relationship is not indifferent to how communication will be built, but it exists in specific forms, even when the relationship is extremely strained. The same applies to the characterization of communication at the macro level as the implementation of social relations. And in this case, whether groups or individuals communicate with each other as representatives of social groups, the act of communication must inevitably take place, is forced to take place, even if the groups are antagonistic. This dual understanding of communication - in the broad and narrow sense of the word - follows from the very logic of understanding the connection between interpersonal and social relations. In this case, it is appropriate to appeal to Marx’s idea that communication is an unconditional companion of human history (in this sense, we can talk about the significance of communication in the “phylogenesis” of society) and at the same time an unconditional companion in everyday activities, in everyday contacts of people (see. A. A. Leontyev. Psychology of communication. Tartu, 1973). In the first plan, one can trace the historical change in forms of communication, that is, their change as society develops along with the development of economic, social and other social relations. Here the most difficult methodological question is being resolved: how does a process appear in the system of impersonal relations, which by its nature requires the participation of individuals? Acting as a representative of a certain social group, a person communicates with another representative of another social group and simultaneously realizes two types of relationships: both impersonal and personal. A peasant, selling a product on the market, receives a certain amount of money for it, and money here acts as the most important means of communication in the system of social relations. At the same time, this same peasant bargains with the buyer and thereby “personally” communicates with him, and the means of this communication is human speech. On the surface of phenomena there is a form of direct communication - communication, but behind it there is communication forced by the system of social relations itself, in this case the relations of commodity production. In socio-psychological analysis, one can abstract from the “second plan”, but in real life this “second plan” of communication is always present. Although in itself it is the subject of study mainly by sociology, it should also be taken into account in the socio-psychological approach.

Unity of communication and activity

However, with any approach, the fundamental question is the connection between communication and activity. In a number of psychological concepts there is a tendency to contrast communication and activity. So, for example, E. Durkheim ultimately came to such a formulation of the problem when, polemicizing with G. Tarde, he paid special attention not to the dynamics of social phenomena, but to their statics. Society looked to him not as a dynamic system of active groups and individuals, but as a collection of static forms of communication. The factor of communication in determining behavior was emphasized, but the role of transformative activity was underestimated: the social process itself was reduced to the process of spiritual speech communication. This gave reason to A. N. Leontiev to note that with this approach the individual appears more “as a communicating than as a practically acting social being” (Leontiev A. N. Problems of mental development. M., 1972. P. 271).

In contrast to this in domestic psychology idea accepted unity of communication and activity. This conclusion logically follows from the understanding of communication as the reality of human relations, which assumes that any forms of communication are included in specific forms of joint activity: people not only communicate in the process of performing various functions, but they always communicate in some activity, “about” it. Thus, an active person always communicates: his activities inevitably intersect with the activities of other people. But it is precisely this intersection of activities that creates certain relationships of an active person not only to the subject of his activity, but also to other people. It is communication that forms a community of individuals performing joint activities. Thus, the fact of the connection between communication and activity is stated in one way or another by all researchers.

However, the nature of this connection is understood in different ways. Sometimes activity and communication are considered not as parallel existing interconnected processes, but as two sides social existence of a person, his way of life (Lomov B. f. Communication and social regulation of individual behavior // Psychological problems of social regulation of behavior. M., 1976. P. 130). In other cases, communication is understood as a certain side activity: it is included in any activity, is its element, while the activity itself can be considered as condition communication (A. N. Leontyev. Activity. Consciousness. Personality. M., 1975. P. 289). Finally, communication can be interpreted as a special type of activity. Within this point of view, two of its varieties are distinguished: in one of them, communication is understood as a communicative activity, or a communication activity that occurs independently at a certain stage of ontogenesis, for example, in preschoolers and especially in adolescence (Elkonin, 1991). In the other, communication in general terms is understood as one of the types of activity (meaning, first of all, speech activity), and in relation to it all the elements characteristic of activity in general are sought: actions, operations, motives, etc. (A. A. Leontyev. Communication as an object of psychological research //Methodological problems of social psychology. M., 1975. P. 122).

It is unlikely that it will be very important to clarify the advantages and comparative disadvantages of each of these points of view: none of them denies the most important thing - the undoubted connection between activity and communication, everyone recognizes the inadmissibility of separating them from each other during analysis. Moreover, the divergence of positions is much more obvious at the level of theoretical and general methodological analysis. As for experimental practice, all researchers have much more in common than different. This common thing is the recognition of the fact of the unity of communication and activity and attempts to fix this unity.

Isolating the subject of communication should not be understood vulgarly: people communicate not only about the activity with which they are associated. In order to highlight two possible reasons for communication, the literature differentiates between the concepts of “role-based” and “personal” communication. Under some circumstances, this personal communication in form may look like role-playing, business, “subject-problem-based” (Kharash A.U. Towards the definition of tasks and methods of social psychology in the light of the principle of activity // Theoretical and methodological problems of social psychology. M., 1977 . P. 30). Thus, the breeding of role and personal communication is not absolute. In certain relationships and situations, both are associated with activity.

The idea of ​​“wovenness” of communication into activity also allows us to consider in detail the question of what exactly in activity can constitute communication. In the most general form, the answer can be formulated in such a way that through communication, activity is being organized And enriches itself. Building a plan for joint activities requires each participant to have an optimal understanding of its goals, objectives, understanding the specifics of its object and even the capabilities of each participant. The inclusion of communication in this process allows for “coordination” or “mismatch” of the activities of individual participants (A. A. Leontyev. Communication as an object psychological research//Methodological problems of social psychology. M., 1975. P. 116).

This coordination of the activities of individual participants can be achieved thanks to such a characteristic of communication as its inherent function impact, in which the “reverse influence of communication on activity” is manifested (Andreeva G.M., Yanoushek Ya. The relationship of communication and activity // Communication and optimization of joint activities. M., 1987). We will find out the specifics of this function along with consideration of various aspects of communication. Now it is important to emphasize that activity through communication is not just organized, but actually enriched, new connections and relationships between people arise in it.

Communication structure

Given the complexity of communication, it is necessary to somehow indicate its structure so that analysis of each element is then possible. The structure of communication can be approached in different ways, as well as the definition of its functions. We propose to characterize the structure of communication by identifying three interrelated aspects in it: communicative, interactive and perceptual. The structure of communication can be schematically depicted as follows (Fig. 1.2).

Rice. 1.2. Communication structure

Communicative side of communication, or communication in the narrow sense of the word, consists of the exchange of information between communicating individuals. Interactive side consists in organizing interaction between communicating individuals, i.e. in the exchange of not only knowledge, ideas, but also actions. Perceptual The side of communication means the process of perception and knowledge of each other by communication partners and the establishment of mutual understanding on this basis. Naturally, all these terms are very conditional. Sometimes others are used in a more or less similar sense. For example, in communication there are three functions: information-communicative, regulatory-communicative, affective-communicative (Lomov B.F. Communication and social regulation of individual behavior // Psychological problems of social regulation of behavior. M., 1976. P. 85). The task is to carefully analyze, including at the experimental level, the content of each of these aspects, or functions. Of course, in reality, each of these sides does not exist in isolation from the other two, and their isolation is possible only for analysis, in particular, for building a system of experimental research. All aspects of communication indicated here are revealed in small groups, that is, in conditions of direct contact between people. Separately, we should consider the question of the means and mechanisms of influence of people on each other and in the conditions of their joint massive actions, which should be the subject of special analysis, in particular, when studying the psychology of large groups and mass movements.

A. Dobrovich. Sisyematics of generalizations

1) General model

When constructing a general model of communication, it is advisable to use R. Jacobson’s scheme (1964):

Where A -“addressee”, B -“addressee” of information.

Connection can be direct (in human communication - speech and gestures in the broad sense of the word, including, for example, “vocal gestures”; intonation) or indirect (telephone, teletype, etc.).

Code - the rules of the language (or “bundle” of languages) used to convey the message; context- a predetermined “semantic field” in which the message becomes informative.

2) Contact

By “contact” we mean a case of communication with feedback:

This is precisely how K. Büller understands “contact” as the “mutual orientation” of partners (1927). For him, contact is “a process of coordinated changes in behavior.”

The addressee not only communicates information, but also receives a response. In other words, the sender, having made a message, becomes the addressee; he, having received the message, becomes the addressee. This process can continue indefinitely.

From our point of view, the concept of “formal” (or “informal”) communication is applicable specifically to contact, and not to communication in general. “Formal communication” we will call contact on which certain restrictions are imposed. The meaning of this definition will be revealed later. For now, let's continue to consider the contact.

3) Contact unit

A transmits to B one “communicative stimulus” (or “communication”) and receives one response; B receives one stimulus and transmits one in response; there is an “exchange” of communications. Following the psychotherapist E. Berne (1964), let's call such an exchange a “transaction.”

Examples.

A looked at B with a contemptuous look. He pointedly turned away - a transaction had taken place. The same thing, but B simply looked in the other direction and did not notice the sign of contempt - the transaction did not take place (there was no contact). A told B some news, B smiled without saying a word - the transaction nevertheless took place, since a smile is a “gesture”, a communicative stimulus. And as an actor he delivered a spectacular line, the audience (as the addressee) held their breath - the transaction took place. The same - if the audience hissed indignantly, laughed or burst into applause. Human transactions almost always involve the use of several codes simultaneously, i.e., a “bundle” of languages. The language of words is combined with the language of pauses, intonations, postures and facial expressions.

As can be seen from the examples just given, communication is capable of carrying both elementary and highly complex information. An example of an elementary one is the so-called “stroking”: information about belonging to the same community, about a favorable attitude towards a partner. An example of highly complex information is the verbal-musical-pantomimic transmission of mystical experience by a priest or shaman.

Let us especially highlight the “emotional radical” of the communicative stimulus. If we agree, according to Berne, to call an elementary “positive” stimulus “stroking,” then an elementary “negative” stimulus deserves the name “kick,” “bite,” or “puncture.” “Prick” is preferable from a style point of view.

5) Contact partners. Masks

Further development of the scheme concerns contact partners. Since we are talking about people, each of them has:

• a) a set of masks for “impersonal” communication;
• 6) personality for “interpersonal” communication. Let us now turn to the contact of the masks.

Mask - this is a set of signs (speech, gestures), the presentation of which ensures “smooth” and safe interaction in human group. Examples: politeness mask. IN public place the absence of such a mask (an angry or absent-minded facial expression, a rude tone, too loud laughter, etc.) entails sanctions from the group: criticism, ridicule, aggressiveness. And at the same time, appearing in a mask of politeness among tipsy revelers means causing them irritation or offense; here a different mask is required: benevolence or loyal non-interference. The mask of grief is suitable for funerals, but not for weddings, etc. People change masks almost automatically, depending on the circumstances.

If in communication between partners only contact between masks is allowed, i.e. a restriction on participation is imposed personalities in conversation, then in front of us the first case of formal communication.

The specified limitation may be different in nature. Let us note four types of restrictions imposed on contact.

• a) Conventional restrictions. In this social group there is a “convention” - a custom according to which on the bus it is not customary to ask questions of a personal nature to a random companion (“You must have slept poorly today?”) or to communicate anything from your personal sphere (“You know, I I was disappointed in life." Only impersonal communicative stimuli such as: “Allow me?” - Please”, “Sorry! “It’s okay,” etc. The Convention, therefore, forces partners to “impersonal” contact, to communicate in masks.
• b) Situational restrictions. They are close to conventional. Here we highlight special situations in which participation personalities as contact partners only “spoils” the matter. Examples: the ceremony of turning over a shift or changing the guard, the Japanese tea ceremony, etc.
• c) Emotional restrictions. Communication partners are emotionally cold or hostile to each other and, trying to prevent conflict, use masks exclusively in contact.
• d) Violent restrictions. One of the partners may be ready for interpersonal communication, but the other, for one reason or another, suppresses these attempts, putting on a mask and forcing his interlocutor to do the same. Restrictions of this kind, as we see, differ from emotional ones only in some nuances.

Contact restrictions, according to D. S. Parygin (1970), create “psychological barriers between people,” replacing genuine communication with “stereotypes” and “standard behavioral reactions.”

Any instance of mask contact can be explained by the listed limitations or a combination of them.

6) Personality and position of the individual in contact

Personality is a structure of extreme complexity, and we will consider it only in particular aspects that are of greatest importance in contact. A person as a “communicator” has at least three personal positions. They, according to E. Berne, coexist within the same personality, complementing each other.

• a) Position of the child, “child” (position D). Saved from early age. Concentrates the strengths and weaknesses of a child's nature. The “strong” ones, apparently, should include looseness, creative impulses, impulsive cheerfulness, imagination, and curiosity. To the “weak” - timidity, uncertainty, helplessness, gullibility, lack of restraint.
• b) Position of the parent (position P). It is learned in childhood through adoration and imitation of elders. Her strengths: confidence in the correctness of moral demands, the ability to use an authoritative tone, to patronize and protect the weak. Less attractive traits: peremptory nature, dogmatism, consciousness of superiority and the right to “punish.”
• c) Adult position (position B). Calculation of actions, control over them, sobriety in assessments, understanding of the relativity of dogmas. At the same time, excessive skepticism, stiffness (lack of spontaneity), poverty of imagination, underestimation of the emotional side of life.

If a person were deprived of any of these positions, his behavior would become “non-adaptive”: either too rigid, or too loose and careless. However, at a certain unit of time (during the course of contact), one of the positions is leading; the next moment another may prevail.

From the above it follows that not two, but six partners actually participate in the contact:

Addressee Addressee

This circumstance requires a more detailed taxonomy of transactions. They are divided as follows:

7) Complementary transactions

A communicative stimulus is sent by the addresser from position X and received by the addressee in position Y; a response stimulus is sent from position Y to be received by a partner in position X.

Ivanov.
Petrov. Yes, in their years we were more modest.

In this example, the communication stimulus is sent from the parent's position (from left to right, as indicated by the arrow). The stimulus is addressed to the “parental” position of the partner. The partner answers from this position (arrow from right to left).

Teacher. How did you come up with a three-digit number?
Student. Oh yes: I forgot to take the square root.

C h e t o d . Shouldn't we go to the bar while the bosses aren't there?
Accountant. Just hurry up: I’m dying - I want beer.

Examples I, II and III can, as is sometimes done in directing, be called “attaching partners side by side.”

Ivanov. In my opinion, you should give way to that old lady.
Petrov. You're right (gives way).

Option: Unfortunately, I am sick and can barely stand on my feet. I hope the lady will forgive me.

Ivanov. Aren't you ashamed to sit when someone is standing next to you? elderly woman?
Petrov. Forgive me, I just didn't notice. I was thinking, you know...

Option:Why are you here? Who are you to tell me?;

S i d o r o v a . Show me out: there are always drunks milling around our entrance.
Ivanov. Well, of course, I’ll see you off.

Petrov. You are so experienced - teach me how to live further.
Ivanov. First of all, you need to rest and calm down.

Option:You are always whining and waiting for advice from others!

Examples IV and V for the partner on the left are “top extension”; examples VI and VII for the partner on the left are “an extension from below.”

Often such transactions are fixed. For example, the small talk of pensioners who do not know each other may be limited to P-P transactions (see I). Business conversation or diplomatic reception require fixed B-B transactions (see II). In a picnic or costume ball situation, D-D transactions are recorded (see III), while others are considered inappropriate. The relationship between teacher and student prescribes transactions in positions R-V(see IV), and between the teacher and schoolchildren - R-D (see V). Transactions with men are natural (and desirable) for women. type VR(see VI) or even D-R (see VII). Transactions type D-R constantly arise between the patient and the psychotherapist, and changing the mutual position during contacts was considered prohibited until recently.

If we defined the contact of masks as the first case of formal communication, then with fixed transactions we are faced with second case; there is a restriction imposed on changing positions. As in the previous case, the restriction can be conventional, situational, emotional, violent or mixed in nature.

8) Transactions without complementarity

Here, the partner's response stimulus either comes from a different position than the original stimulus was sent, or is addressed to a different position from which this original stimulus was sent.

Ivanov. What happened to the young people? They have completely blossomed.
Petrov. Remember: when we were young, our parents said the same thing.

C h e t o d .
Accountant. For shame, you're at work!

We call cases of types VIII and IX transactions without complementarity, but "With taking into account the address.” Indeed: the right partner in these examples does not respond from the position from which it was expected, but is addressed to the original position of the left partner.

C h e t o d . Shouldn't we go to the cinema while the bosses are away?
Accountant. Please give me the statement for the month of July.

Husband.
Wife.

Cases of type X and XI are transactions “without taking into account the address”. Indeed: the right partner not only responds from an unexpected position, but also does not address the original position of the left partner. Case XI depicts the so-called “cross” transaction. Here are more examples of the same type.

Husband. Have you ever seen my cufflinks?
Wife. Are you always nagging me? Why do I have to remember everything?

S e m e n. Take your bag, brother, and go get some bread.
S t e p a n. Too lazy to tear yourself away from the sofa? Take it and go yourself!

Cross transactions often mean a quarrel between partners. In general, transactions without complementarity usually contain a painful “prick” for at least one of the participants in the contact.

If transactions of type VIII - XIII are determined all contact progress, i.e. a limitation is imposed on any complementarity before us the third case of formal communication. We will call such communication “conflict”. The nature of the restriction is most often emotional or violent.

And however, if a restriction is imposed on any of the two “emotional radicals” of the communicative stimulus, then this is - the fourth case of formal communication. We are talking about a ban on “pricks” (salon chirping, where only mutual stroking is allowed) or a ban on stroking (traditional picking of partners who are ordered to act only as opponents to each other; the extreme case is the Montagues and Capulets).

9) Hidden transactions

A communicative stimulus may consist of two (or three) messages, each of which is addressed to a different position of the partner. The message that most closely matches the “conventions” and context of the conversation is considered explicit; the other turns out to be “hidden”, indirect.

Ivanov. Come to me, I live alone. Let's drink some hot tea... (I really like you.)
Petrova. Yes, it would be nice to warm up with tea... (You do too.)

Petrov. Now I will give you the floor. (I see you are burning with impatience to show off on the podium.)
Ivanov. Hm! (I don’t have to perform at all if you intend to make a laughing stock out of me.)

Petrov. Now I will give you the floor. (I can imagine how you will deal with them!)
Ivanov. Great! (Don't worry, I'll give them a hard time.)

Salesman . This thermos would suit you best... (I just don’t know if you can afford such expenses.)
Buyer. I take it, it's just what I need.

The covert transactions in Examples XV, XVI and XVII are clearly provocative. However, in some cases such provocation is not intentional. If we return to the cross-transactions of examples XI, XII and XIII, then, strictly speaking, these are most likely cases of unintentional provocations. The picture here seems to be like this.

Husband. Have you seen my cufflinks? (Sorry, honey, for distracting you, I'm so distracted.)
Wife. You're always losing everything, you can't live without a nanny!

Husband. Have you ever seen my cufflinks?

Wife. Why are you picking on me? Why do I have to remember everything?

Although the use of hidden transactions sometimes leads to cross-transactions and further to disrupted complementarity or a breakdown in communication (i.e., to a quarrel), it should be noted the special role of this “hidden” interaction in arousing the feelings of the interlocutors. The restriction placed on hidden transactions is the fifth case of formal communication. Contact becomes “dry”, “boring”, “painful” for the partner. Such a restriction can be either conventional-situational in nature (business meeting) or emotionally violent (conversation between hostile and wary people).

Before we go any further, we need to address the issue of violent contact restrictions. Such restrictions are referred to as cases of “games,” meaning the “losing” of the partner who was limited in communication or in achieving their goals. We would prefer to call these cases “manipulation.” Communicative manipulations of people are most often far from innocent games. Unlike sports, card, and similar games, which can be “fair” or “unfair,” manipulation is always dishonest. Let's talk about them in more detail.

10) Manipulation

According to their structure, they can be divided into “single-cycle” And “multi-cycle”. An example of a one-step manipulation TRAP is the case of Seller-Buyer (see XVII), although such manipulation often consists of many “steps” - cunning “moves”. Example XI is sometimes a one-shot version of the DOOR SLAMMING manipulation:

Husband (friendly). Have you ever seen my cufflinks?
Wife. You're always losing everything, you can't live without a nanny!

(The husband, having exploded, leaves the room, slamming the door hard. For some reason, this is what the wife wanted).

Another example: a single-cycle version of the manipulation ALL BECAUSE OF YOU. The father of the family pores over drawings, which he does not know how to make and does not like. The son knocks and comes in with the question: “Mom is calling for dinner - are you coming?” The unfortunate draftsman places a blot on whatman paper and exclaims fiercely: “What have you done, it’s all because of you!”

Multi-cycle manipulations consist of a whole series of transactions.

Example:

Multi-cycle manipulation DOOR SLAMMING:

Husband (friendly). I wonder where the key to this box went. Didn't you come across it?
Wife. Blind, or what? Over there, by the mirror.
Husband. What does being “blind” have to do with it - things should be in their places.
Wife. You and your mommy won't miss a chance to say nasty things to me.

Another example: the DEAD-END manipulation. The wife feels that her husband has begun to be burdened by her. Meanwhile, he brings tickets to the theater for a performance that has long interested both. During his wife's excited dressing, he, however, makes a sharp remark to her: “You're always digging!”

No problem, we can take a taxi.

By taxi? What extravagance! This is why I have to work like hell!

If he manages to provoke his wife into retaliatory “injections,” the manipulation turns into DOOR SLAMMING. The husband goes to his friends, leaving his wife, if she wishes, to rush to the theater herself. At the same time, on the one hand, he achieved what he wanted, on the other, he is not responsible for the scandal. After all, it was none other than him who brought the tickets! The wife finds herself driven into a “dead end”.

Sometimes there may be long (and planned) breaks between series of manipulative transactions. This is the manipulation TRY TO TAKE IT AWAY. Petrov took a rare book from Ivanov. Ivanov asks to return her. Petrov expresses his readiness to do this, “forgets” his promise several times, and then invites Ivanov to visit. Accepting him, he behaves in such a way that he feels flattered. However, as if by the way, Petrov drops the phrase: “I hope you came to us not only because of your book?” This makes it difficult for Ivanov to remember the book, and he leaves with nothing. The next day, Petrov throws up his hands: “We started talking and forgot about the book!” Ivanov is forced to answer: “It’s okay.” Taking advantage of this, Petrov immediately seeks permission to transfer the book to his friend N. - “just for a couple of days.” Further, forestalling Ivanov’s question about the book, he again invites him to visit, etc.

From the point of view of the “benefit” of the manipulator, manipulations can be divided into everyday beneficial and psychologically beneficial (although often one is combined with the other). Everyday benefits, for example, TRAP, DEAD END, TRY TO TAKE IT AWAY. A striking example of everyday beneficial manipulation is the so-called SANDWICH. The husband asks his wife not to throw away yesterday’s cutlets, but to make a sandwich out of them and wrap them for him at work (although the wife knows that at work there is a buffet where the food is tasty and inexpensive). This continues day after day and has a very specific purpose: to prevent the wife from asking her to buy her a new coat. A “context” is created in which such a request would sound inappropriate and even impudent.

Psychologically the manipulation ALL BECAUSE OF YOU, described earlier, is beneficial. It represents a typical “cleansing of conscience” at the expense of a scapegoat. Psychological gain, in addition to clearing your conscience, may also consist in receiving “strokes” to which you have the right not to respond, in delivering “injections” with impunity, or in “an extension from above.”

Examples.

Manipulation ALCOHOLIC. A drunkard turns to a friendly acquaintance with repentance and requests for help with advice. An acquaintance sincerely sympathizes with him and discusses his problems with him.

After a long conversation, the alcoholic, however, reveals that he remains inconsolable. Thus, he, firstly, clears his conscience, and secondly, receives “strokes” that he has not been given for a long time; and thirdly, without confirming the value of the consolations heard, it leaves the partner without reciprocal strokes. Sometimes, to “add on from above,” he also resorts in the finale to a sensitive “prick”: “What can you, a teetotaler, understand in the soul of a drinker?” (in fact, this is an R-D transaction: addressing a “wise” person to a “naive child”),

Manipulation COULD YOU? - YES, BUT...

D a m a. My TV hasn't worked for a month now.
O D I N I G O S T E Y. Could you ask your husband to fix it?
D a m a. Yes, but my husband is absolutely helpless in these matters.
Another one. Then call a specialist.
D a m a. Yes, but the repairman will most likely demand that the TV be taken to the workshop.
Third year. Why don't you do it?
D a m a. Yes, but I don't have time to spend an hour on the phone ordering a taxi.
Fourth year. So ask your husband about it.
D a m a. What are you, this is a helpless person...

The conversation descends into awkward silence. The lady is secretly triumphant: the guests gave her a whole bouquet of “strokes”, sympathizing or at least feigning sympathy. At the same time, she is not obliged to “return” their strokes in return.

Manipulation IF YOU WERE NOT HERE. The husband constantly tells his wife that “if it weren’t for you,” he would have finished his dissertation long ago. One fine day, the wife and children are going to live with their relatives for two weeks. The husband, however, is not enthusiastic about this idea. He is forced to undertake a new manipulation (for example, IMAGINAL SICK) in order to detain his wife. In reality, he needed to clear his conscience, and at the same time maintain a sense of guilt in his wife, which would make it easier for him to “get on top.”

Manipulation HOME SAGE. Someone accustoms his surroundings to the idea that he is capable of disinterestedly giving wise advice. Skillfully encouraging the pilgrimage of those thirsty for advice, he keeps a secret count of his victories - “extensions from above.” The manipulative nature of such actions is revealed by the fact that the “sage” himself cannot stand anyone’s advice. An extension “next to” or “below” is considered by him as a loss.

Another manipulation. Her children's version presented in Charles Dickens's novel “Great Expectations”. A girl in a clean, starched dress goes out onto the porch and asks the boy, her admirer, to make her a pie out of sand. The boy rushes to fulfill this request, after which the girl winces; “Ugh, how dirty and disgusting you are - covered in sand.” The manipulation may accordingly be called SAND PIE. Its adult version is often associated with the sexual negativism of one of the spouses. A woman can reproach a man for being an “animal” and experiencing only attraction to her, but not love. Under this pretext, she provokes a long-term cooling in the relationship. Nevertheless, after some time, she resorts to coquetry, caresses, etc., giving the man a reason to be more persistent. However, in response to his more decisive demands, she bursts into tears: “What did I say - you’re just an animal!” Thus, she manages, on the one hand, to avoid relationships that are unpleasant to her, and on the other, to maintain the appearance of marriage, to keep the man “with her.”

A simple manipulation model might look like this:

Petrov. Now I will give you the floor. (I can imagine how you will deal with them!) Petrov’s hidden transaction involves “stroking.”
Ivanov. Great. (I’ll give them some pepper.)

P etrov . Well, step up to the podium. (Just don't mumble, for God's sake!)

Petrov’s hidden transaction is an offensive “prick.”

Ivanov. I'm coming, I'm coming.

Option:A?..(Ivanov, not finding anything to answer, obediently goes to the podium.)

In the “I’m going, going” option, Ivanov accepts a forced extension from below; in option “Ah?” he does not have the opportunity to deliver a retaliatory “injection” and involuntarily finds himself “on the ground”. Witnesses to this scene hold back their laughter.

Manipulators are often psychologically perverted people (sadistic tendencies). They are dangerous for the partner and force him to be on guard in the future, that is, to contact him formally - right up to the contact of masks. Moreover, one of the “pleasures” of the manipulator is to again extract the partner “from under the mask” at any cost, in order to then again inflict a humiliating “injection” on him.

If contact as a whole is a series of manipulations and nothing more, we are undoubtedly facing sixth case of formal communication. Here one of the partners forcibly limits the actions of the other.

We should not forget, however, that manipulation is sometimes resorted to out of unconscious deceit or intuitively pursuing mutually beneficial goals. So, DOOR SLAMMING is sometimes provoked loving woman. Following the manipulation, her communication with the man becomes formal for some time. But this is unusual for a man and is extremely painful for him. A feeling of guilt, attachment to a woman, or at least boredom prompts him to take the first step towards reconciliation, which turns out to be the more ardent, the colder the formal period of the relationship. This is how a faded marriage is sometimes “revitalized.” The formalization of contacts in this example serves the task of more complete informal (intimate) communication.

Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Similar documents

Business communication concept. Oral and written methods of exchanging information. Communicative, interactive and perceptual functions of communication. Ethical and cultural requirements for giving a speech. Establishing contact with the audience, gestures and facial expressions of the speaker.

test, added 03/02/2011


Sides of the communication structure. Communicative, interactive and perceptual side communication. Information-communicative, regulatory-communicative and affective-communicative functions. The mechanism of socio-psychological regulation of human behavior.

presentation, added 12/27/2015


The concept and classification of communication as the basis of interpersonal relationships. Specifics of the perceptual phase of business communication. The essence of transaction analysis. The main forms of transaction, their significance in the conflict-free construction of reasonable, cultural behavior.

test, added 05/18/2009


The role of communication in mental development person. Aspects and types of communication. The structure of communication, its level and functions. The concept of encoding information in the process of communication. Interactive and perceptual aspects of communication. Accumulation of a culture of communication by a person.

test, added 11/09/2010


Types of business communication: oral and written types business communication. Structure and functions of communication. Levels of communication. Communicative function of communication. Business conversation as the main form of business communication. The influence of a business person's image. Communication tactics.

abstract, added 06/09/2008


Business communication, its types and forms. Regulatory framework business communication. Definition, structure and sides, functions, levels and types of communication. Psychological characteristics direct participants in business communication. Possible structures of business conversations.

abstract, added 04/17/2012


Communication as a basic category of psychology along with consciousness, activity and personality. The process of establishing and developing contacts between people. Communicative, interactive, perceptual aspects of communication. Verbal and non-verbal communication.

test, added 04/21/2012

Analysis of the connection between social and interpersonal relations allows us to place the correct emphasis on the question of the place of communication in the entire complex system of human connections with the outside world. However, first it is necessary to say a few words about the problem of communication in general. The solution to this problem is very specific within the framework of domestic social psychology. The term “communication” itself does not have an exact analogue in traditional social psychology, not only because it is not entirely equivalent to the commonly used English term “communication,” but also because its content can only be considered in the conceptual dictionary of a special psychological theory, namely the theory activities. Of course, in the structure of communication, which will be discussed below, aspects of it that are described or studied in other systems of socio-psychological knowledge can be highlighted. However, the essence of the problem, as it is posed in domestic social psychology, is fundamentally different.

Both sets of human relationships - both social and interpersonal - are revealed and realized precisely in communication. Thus, the roots of communication are in the very material life of individuals. Communication is the realization of the entire system of human relations. “Under normal circumstances, a person’s relationship to the objective world around him is always mediated by his relationship to people, to society” (Leontiev, 1975, p. 289), i.e. included in communication. Here it is especially important to emphasize the idea that in real communication not only interpersonal relationships of people are given, i.e. Not only their emotional attachments, hostility, etc. are revealed, but social ones are also embodied in the fabric of communication, i.e. impersonal in nature, relationships. The diverse relationships of a person are not covered only by interpersonal contact: a person’s position outside the narrow framework of interpersonal connections, in a broader social system, where his place is not determined by the expectations of the individuals interacting with him, also requires a certain construction of the system of his connections, and this process can also only be realized in communication. Without communication, human society is simply unthinkable. Communication appears in it as a way of cementing individuals and at the same time as a way of developing these individuals themselves. It is from here that the existence of communication flows both as a reality of social relations and as a reality of interpersonal relations. Apparently, this made it possible for Saint-Exupery to paint a poetic image of communication as “the only luxury that a person has.”

Naturally, each series of relationships is realized in specific forms of communication. Communication as the implementation of interpersonal relationships is a process more studied in social psychology, while communication between groups is more likely to be studied in sociology. Communication, including in the system of interpersonal relations, is forced by the joint life activity of people, therefore it is necessarily carried out in a wide variety of interpersonal relationships, i.e. given both in the case of a positive and in the case of a negative attitude of one person towards another. The type of interpersonal relationship is not indifferent to how communication will be built, but it exists in specific forms, even when the relationship is extremely strained. The same applies to the characterization of communication at the macro level as the implementation of social relations. And in this case, whether groups or individuals communicate with each other as representatives of social groups, the act of communication must inevitably take place, is forced to take place, even if the groups are antagonistic. This dual understanding of communication - in the broad and narrow sense of the word - follows from the very logic of understanding the connection between interpersonal and social relations. In this case, it is appropriate to appeal to Marx’s idea that communication is an unconditional companion of human history (in this sense, we can talk about the importance of communication in the “phylogenesis” of society) and at the same time an unconditional companion in everyday activities, in everyday contacts of people (see. A.A. Leontyev, 1973). In the first plan, one can trace the historical change in forms of communication, i.e. changing them as society develops along with the development of economic, social and other public relations. Here the most difficult methodological question is being resolved: how does a process appear in the system of impersonal relations, which by its nature requires the participation of individuals? Acting as a representative of a certain social group, a person communicates with another representative of another social group and simultaneously realizes two types of relationships: both impersonal and personal. A peasant, selling a product on the market, receives a certain amount of money for it, and money here acts as the most important means of communication in the system of social relations. At the same time, this same peasant bargains with the buyer and thereby “personally” communicates with him, and the means of this communication is human speech. On the surface of phenomena there is a form of direct communication - communication, but behind it there is communication forced by the system of social relations itself, in this case the relations of commodity production. In socio-psychological analysis, one can abstract from the “background”, but in real life this “background” of communication is always present. Although in itself it is a subject of study mainly by sociology, it should also be taken into account in the socio-psychological approach.