EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF GENDER CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENTS’ INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32689/2663-0672-2022-1-6Keywords:
communication, interpersonal communication, communicative competence, junior year students, gender characteristics of interpersonal communication, feeling of loneliness, self-esteem, dominance, benevolence.Abstract
Abstract. Introduction. The relevance of the research is due to the fact that communication competence is today one of the key competences that modern education is aimed at forming, and is especially important for medical professionals, in particular, psychologists. Analysis of recent research and publications. Researchers consider interpersonal communication as a guarantee of the effectiveness of the educational process and the success of professional development in medicine, pedagogy, management and other areas. Formulation of the problem. The analysis of sources of scientific literature showed that the problem of the peculiarities of interpersonal communication of modern students has not been sufficiently investigated, and the gender aspect of this issue has not been disclosed. Formulation of the purpose of the research. Purpose: to study the gender features of the process of interpersonal communication of students of 1–3 years. Research materials and methods. In the study, which is a component of the subject of the NDR of the Department of Medical Psychology of the Institute of Medical Sciences PJSC “Interregional Academy of Personnel Management” “Medical-psychological aspects of the educational process”, took part 96 students of the 1st-3rd years, of which 49 were girls and 47 were boys. The following psychodiagnostic methods were used: T. Leary’s method of diagnosing interpersonal relations; L. I. Wasserman’s method of diagnosing the level of social frustration (modified by V. V. Boyko); D. Russell’s and M. Ferguson’s method of diagnosing the level of subjective feeling of loneliness. Research results. The majority of studied students preferred moderate (48.9% of boys, 53.1% of girls) and low (40.4% of boys, 24.5% of girls) levels of dominance. However, in girls, unlike boys (р<0.05 ), quite often a high level of dominance was also found (16.3%). A moderate level of friendliness prevailed in both groups of respondents (51.1% of girls and 57.4% of boys), but there were twice as many boys with a low level of friendliness as girls (34.0% and 16.3%, respectively). High and very high levels of frustration were absent in both studied groups of students. The overwhelming number of studied students (63.2% of girls and 53.2% of boys) showed a low level of subjective feeling of loneliness. Among young men, in contrast to girls (p<0.05), a high level of subjective feeling of loneliness was not recorded. Conclusions and prospects for further research. The dependence of the characteristics of students’ interpersonal relationships on gender is proven, which is confirmed by the presence of statistically significant (p<0.05) differences between boys and girls. It was determined that the most significant factor affecting interpersonal communication is the subjective feeling of loneliness. Prospective areas of research are the study of the connection between the subjective feeling of loneliness and extra- and introversion of the personality, verbal and non-verbal aspects of the communicative process, as well as the influence of communicative features of students on their academic performance. It is also planned to continue research among students of other educational institutions and among senior students, as well as to differentiate the obtained results depending on the chosen specialty.
References
Andrea E. Abele, & Vincent Yzerbyt (2021). Body posture and interpersonal perception in a dyadic interaction: A Big Two analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. 51(1). 23–39. [Online] available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2711
Behzad Behzadnia, Paul J.C. Adachi, Edward L. Deci, & Hasan Mohammadzadeh (2018). Associations between students’ perceptions of physical education teachers’ interpersonal styles and students’ wellness, knowledge, performance, and intentions to persist at physical activity: A self-determination theory approach. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. Vol. 39. Pp. 10–19. [Online] available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.07.003 ; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S1469029217303205
Enrico De Luca, Marilena Fatigante, Cristina Zucchermaglio, & Francesca Alby (2021).“Awareness to touch”: A qualitative study of nurses’ perceptions of interpersonal professional contact after an experiential training. Nurse Education in Practice. Vol. 56. 103187. [Online] available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2021.103187 ; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S1471595321002237 4. Gabrielle S. Adams, Kieran S. O’Connor, & Peter Belmi (2022). Social perception in moral judgments of interpersonal transgressions. Current Opinion in Psychology. Vol. 44. Pp. 177–181. [Online] available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. copsyc.2021.09.006 ; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X21001755
Gentiana Sadikaj, D. S. Moskowitz, & David C. Zuroff (2018). What’s interpersonal in interpersonal perception? The role of target’s attachment in the accuracy of perception. Personality. Vol. 86. Issue 4. Pp. 665–678. [Online] available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12343
Jean Costa, Malte F. Jung, Mary Czerwinski, et al. (2018). Regulating feelings during interpersonal conflicts by changing voice self-perception. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Pp. 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174205
Jeong, M., Minson, J., & Gino, F. (2021). Psychological shortcomings to optimal negotiation behavior: Intrapersonal and interpersonal challenges. In P. A. M. Van Lange, E. T. Higgins, & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.). Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. Pp. 532–544. The Guilford Press. [Online] available at: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-23032-027
John Adamopoulos, & Ariana Stogiannidou (2018). The Perception of Interpersonal Action: Culture-General and Culture- Specific Components. In Key issues in cross-cultural psychology. Pp. 263–275. Garland Science. [Online] available at: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.1201/9781003077442-25/perception-interpersonal-actionculture- general-culture-specific-components-john-adamopoulos-ariana-stogiannidou
Kathrene Diane Valentine, & Laura D (2022). Scherer, Interpersonal (mis)perceptions and (mis)predictions in patient-clinician interactions. Current Opinion in Psychology. Vol. 43. Pp. 244–248. ISSN 2352-250X. [Online] available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X21001305
Kayleigh-Ann Clegg, D. S. Moskowitz, & Christopher T. H. (2021). Miners, Goce Andrevski, Gentiana Sadikaj, David C. Zuroff. Interpersonal perception and interpersonal spin. Vol. 89. Issue 3. Pp. 483–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jopy.12594
Khan R. L. Collins, Melissa N. Legendre, Werner G. K. Stritzke, & Andrew C. Page (2018). Experimentally-enhanced perceptions of meaning confer resilience to the interpersonal adversity implicated in suicide risk. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. Vol. 61. Pp. 142–149. ISSN 0005-7916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2018.07.004
Ki Eun Shin, & Michelle G. (2019). Newman, Self- and other-perceptions of interpersonal problems: Effects of generalized anxiety, social anxiety, and depression. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. Vol. 65. Pp. 1–10. ISSN 0887-6185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2019.04.005
Krstić Milan, Skorup Ana, & Gavrić Gordana (2017). Metodologija istraživanja interpersonalne komunikacije mladih bazirane na savremenoj tehnologiji. Trendovi u poslovanju. Vol. 2(10). Pp. 55–60. [Online] available at: http://scindeks.ceon.rs/ article.aspx?artid=2334-816X1702055K
M. C. Macpherson, N. Fay, & L. K. Miles (2020). Seeing synchrony: A replication of the effects of task-irrelevant social information on perceptions of interpersonal coordination. Acta Psychologica. Vol. 209. 103140. ISSN 0001-6918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103140
Monika H. Donker, Lian van Vemde, David J. Hessen, et al. (2021). Observational, student, and teacher perspectives on interpersonal teacher behavior: Shared and unique associations with teacher and student emotions. Learning and Instruction. Vol. 73. 101414. ISSN 0959-4752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101414
aula Kukko, Marja Silén-Lipponen, & Terhi Saaranen (2020). Health care students’ perceptions about learning of affective interpersonal communication competence in interprofessional simulations. Nurse Education Today. Vol. 94. 104565. ISSN 0260-6917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104565
Pype, P., Mertens, F., Helewaut, F. et al. (2018). Healthcare teams as complex adaptive systems: understanding team behaviour through team members’ perception of interpersonal interaction. BMC health services research. Vol. 18(1). Pp. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3392-3
Ruth Crawford, Belinda McGrath, Angela Christiansen, et al. (2020). First year nursing students’ perceptions of learning interpersonal communication skills in their paid work: A multi-site Australasian study. Nurse Education in Practice. Vol. 48. 102887. ISSN 1471-5953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2020.102887
Stefany Monsalve, Érika Leitão Pereira, Luana Oliveira Leite, et al. (2019). Perception, knowledge and attitudes of small animal practitioners regarding animal abuse and interpersonal violence in Brazil and Colombia. Research in Veterinary Science. Vol. 124. Pp. 61–69. ISSN 0034-5288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rvsc.2019.03.002
Thomas E. Malloy (2018). Social Relations Modeling of Behavior in Dyads and Groups. Academic Press. Pp. 171–199. ISBN 9780128119679. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811967-9.00008-4
Thomas Lösch, & Katrin Rentzsch (2018). Linking Personality With Interpersonal Perception in the Classroom: Distinct Associations With the Social and Academic Sides of Popularity. Journal of Research in Personality. Vol. 75. Pp. 83–93. ISSN 0092- 6566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.06.003
