B.N. Ryzhov - Sistem psychology
Partners

WWW.SYSTEMPSYCHOLOGY.RU

 

P. A. Kislyakov, SYSTEM-PERSONAL DETERMINANTS OF SAFE PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR

Журнал » Journal_eng » Journal 32 : P. A. Kislyakov, SYSTEM-PERSONAL DETERMINANTS OF SAFE PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR
    Views: 23

SYSTEM-PERSONAL DETERMINANTS OF SAFE PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR

 

P. A. Kislyakov,

RSSU, Moscow,

pack.81@mail.ru

 

In modern conditions, the process of forming the social identity of the younger generation is complicated by consumer attitude to life, insufficient level of social and psychological protection, leveling of traditional moral values. Social institutions are faced with the task of developing safe prosocial behavior oriented to the benefit of society, as well as the formation of the ability to withstand social risk factors.

Taking into account the great practical importance of this direction, the article offers a review and discussion of domestic and foreign studies on the problem of prosocial behavior aimed at ensuring safety. The conclusion is that this psychological construct is a system of personal and due to the determinants on the individual level (satisfaction of needs for safety, stress, psychological well-being, tolerance to uncertainty, etc.), personality (adherence to moral norms, life orientation, etc.) and activity (social identity, interpersonal relations, etc.).

The aim of this study was to determine the impact of system-personal characteristics of a person (satisfaction of the need for safety, well-being, social identity) on the level of his prosociality.

The sample consisted of 90 people living in Moscow. The selection of respondents was carried out by spontaneous sampling using an Internet survey posted on the social network «VKontakte». The test battery was developed using the online service «Google Forms» and included the following psychodiagnostic techniques: «Content of prosocial identity» (GSA, Barriga et al., 2001, in the adaptation of N. V. Kuchtova); Questionnaire «Assessment of satisfaction of security needs» (O. Yu. Zotova); «Subjective well-being scale» (A. Perrudet-Badoux, G. Mendelsohn, J. Chiche in the in the adaptation of M.V. Sokolova); «Scale of identification with humanity» (S. McFarland, in the adaptation of T. A. Nestic). The data of sociological research «World Values Survey» (2010–2014) and the «European Social Survey – 2016» were also used for the analysis. Descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, regression analysis are used for calculations. The study revealed the relationship between the studied determinants, which indicates their systemic nature.

 

Keywords: prosocial behavior; psychological safety; system-personal determinants; system analysis; personality; behavior; well-being; social identity; psychological protection.

For citation: Kislyakov P. A. System-Personal Determinants of Safe Prosocial Behavior // Systems Psychology and Sociology. 2019. № 4 (32). P. 79–91. DOI: 10.25688/2223-6872.2019.32.4.07.

 

Kislyakov Pavel Aleksandrovich, Doctor of Psychological Sciences, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Labor Psychology and Special Psychology of the Russian State Social University, Moscow, Russia.

E-mail: pack.81@mail.ru

 

References

 

1. Aronson E., Wilson T. D., Akert R. M. Social Psychology. Psychological laws of human behavior in society / translated by L. Organovo etc. Moscow: OLMA-Press; Saint-Petersburg: publishing house of Prime EVROZNAK, 2002. 557 p.

2. Zotova O. Yu. Psychological well-being of the individual. Yekaterinburg: University of the Humanities, 2017. 312 p.

3. Ilyin E. P. Psychology of help. Altruism, egoism, empathy. SPb.: Peter 2013. 304 p.

4. Kislyakov P. A. Psychological foundations of a systematic approach to the study of personality // Modern studies of social problems (electronic scientific journal). 2014. № 1. P. 3.

5. Krysko V. G. Social psychology. Moscow: Yurayt Publishing House, 2016. 553 p.

6. Nestik T. A. Global identity as a socio-psychological phenomenon: theoretical and empirical research // Institute of psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Social and economic psychology. 2017. Т. 2. № 4 (8). P. 145–185.

7. Ryzhov B. N. System structure of personality // System psychology and sociology. 2017. № 3 (23). P. 5–11.

8. Barile L., Cullis J., Jones P. Will one size fit all? Incentives designed to nurture prosocial behavior // Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics. 2015. № 57. P. 9–16.

9. Bistricky S. L. Surviving the storm: Avoidant coping, helping behavior, resilience and affective symptoms around a major hurricane-flood / S. L. Bistricky et al. // Journal of Affective Disorders. 2019. Т. 257. P. 297–306.

10. Curcuruto M. The role of prosocial and proactive safety behaviors in predicting safety performance / M. Curcuruto et al. // Safety Science. 2015. № 80. P. 317–323.

11. Curcuruto M., Griffin M.A. Prosocial and proactive «safety citizenship behavior» (SCB). The mediating role of affective commitment and psychological ownership // Safety Science. 2018. № 104. P. 29–38.

12. Dawans B. The social dimension of stress reactivity: acute stress increases prosocial behavior in humans / B. Dawans et al. // Psychological Science. 2012. Vol. 23. № 6. P. 651–660.

13. Farrow K. The impact of goals and public rewards on a prosocial behaviour: an exploratory economic experiment / K. Farrow et al. // Applied Economics Letters. 2015. Vol. 22. № 4. P. 305–311.

14. Frazier M. L., Tupper C. Supervisor prosocial motivation employee thriving and helping behavior: a trickle-down model of psychological safety // Group & Organization Management. 2018. Vol. 43. № 4. P. 561–593.

15. Harris P. B. The prosocial and aggressive driving inventory (PADI): A self-report measure of safe and unsafe driving behaviors / P.B. Harris et al. // Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2014. № 72. P. 1–8.

16. Harvey J., Erdos G. Psychological rewards and bad risks: the roles of prosocial antisocial moral and immoral attitudes values and beliefs as determinants of individual risk-taking behaviour: a framework for further research // Safety and Reliability; eds. T. Bedford, P. H. A Van Gelder. 2003. P. 769–773.

17. Hatakeyama A., Souma I. Causal analysis of relationship between environmental concern and prosocial behavior // International Journal of Psychology. 2000. Vol. 35. № 3–4. P. 176–176.

18. Hobfoll S. E., Schroder K. E. E. Distinguishing between passive and active prosocial coping: Bridging inner-city womenʼs mental health and AIDS risk behavior // Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2001. Vol. 18. № 2. P. 201–217.

19. Jakovljević M. Hubris syndrome and a new perspective on political psychiatry: need to protect prosocial behavior, public benefit and safety of our civilisation // Psychiatria Danubina. 2011. Vol. 23. № 2. P. 136–138.

20. Kislyakov P. A. Research on prosocial behavior of Russian youth: statement of the problem in the context of security of the individual and society / P. A. Kislyakov et al. // Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research. Proceedings of the International Conference Communicative Strategies of Information Society (CSIS 2018). Saint-Petersburg: Saint-Petersburg Polytechnic University, 2019. P. 519–523.

21. Kline R. Differentiated responsibilities and prosocial behaviour in climate change mitigation / R. Kline et al. // Nature Human Behaviour. 2018. Vol. 2. № 9. P. 653–661.

22. Leung K. Beyond risk-taking: effects of psychological safety on cooperative goal interdependence and prosocial behavior / K. Leung et al. // Group & Organization Management. 2015. Vol. 40. № 1. P. 88–115.

23. McFarland S., Brown D., Webb M. Identification with all humanity as a moral concept and psychological construct // Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2013. Vol. 22. № 3. P. 194–198.

24. Moradi S., Van Quaquebeke N., Hunter J.A. Flourishing and prosocial behaviors: A multilevel investigation of national corruption level as a moderator // Plos One. 2018. Vol. 13. № 7. e0200062.

25. Rao L. L. Disadvantage and prosocial behavior: the effects of the Wenchuan earthquake / L. L. Rao et al. // Evolution and Human Behavior. 2008. Vol. 32. № 1. P. 63–69.

26. Raposa E. B., Laws H. B., Ansell E. B. Prosocial behavior mitigates the negative effects of stress in everyday life // Clinical Psychological Science. 2016. Vol. 4. № 4. P. 691–698.

27. Rodriguez H., Trainor J., Quarantelli E. L. Rising to the challenges of a catastrophe: The emergent and prosocial behavior following Hurricane Katrina // Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2006. № 604. P. 82–101.

28. Schacter H. L., Margolin G. When it feels good to give: Depressive symptoms, daily prosocial behavior, and adolescent mood // Emotion. 2019. Т. 19. № 5. P. 923–927.

29. Shaver P. R., Mikulincer M., Cassidy J. Attachment, caregiving in couple relationships, and prosocial behavior in the wider world // Current Opinion in Psychology. 2019. Т. 25. P. 16–20.

30. Shen B. Y. The different effects of personality on prosocial and aggressive driving behaviour in a Chinese sample / B. Y. Shen et al. // Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 2018. № 56. P. 268–279.

31. Taylor L. K. Impact of political conflict on trajectories of adolescent prosocial behavior: implications for civic engagement / L. K. Taylor et al. // Developmental Psychology. 2018. Vol. 54. № 9. P. 1785–1794.

32. Vardy T., Atkinson Q. D. Property damage and exposure to other people in distress differentially predict prosocial behavior after a natural disaster // Psychological Science. Т. 30. № 4. P. 563–575.

33. Velez M. A. Prosocial behavior and subjective insecurity in violent contexts: field experiments / M. A. Velez et al. // Plos One. 2016. Vol. 11. № 7. e0158878.

34. Vives M. L., FeldmanHall O. Tolerance to ambiguous uncertainty predicts prosocial behavior // Nature Communications. 2018. Vol. 9. № 2156.

35. Xu H. Y., Begue L. B., Bushman B. J. Too fatigued to care: Ego depletion guilt and prosocial behavior // Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2012. Vol. 48. № 5. P. 1183–1186.

36. Yang Y. Orientations to happiness and subjective well-being in chinese adolescents: the roles of prosocial behavior and internet addictive behavior / Y. Yang et al. // Journal of Happiness Studies. 2017. Vol. 18. № 6. P. 1747–1762.

37. Zabkar V., Hosta M. Willingness to act and environmentally conscious consumer behaviour: can prosocial status perceptions help overcome the gap? // International Journal of Consumer Studies. 2013. Vol. 37. № 3. P. 257–264.

38. Zotova O. Yu., Karapetyan L. V. Psychological security as the foundation of personal psychological wellbeing (analytical review) // Psychology in Russia: State of the Art. 2018. Т. 11. № 2. P. 100–113.