CC BY
7PSYCHOLOGICAL DETERMINANTS OF PERSONAL BEHAVIOR AND SELF-CONCEPT
Turaxonov Abdukarim Eshkuziyevich
Surkhandarya region national center for training pedagogues in new methods, Head of the educational process organization department, philosophy doctor on psychology (PhD) Associate Professor of the Department of Pedagogy, Psychology and Educational Technologies
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8301428
Abstract. This article is devoted to the topic of psychological determinants of personality and self-consciousness. The text of the article also highlights the psychological components that ensure the formation of the phenomenon of responsibility and the psychological components that determine self-awareness and professional responsibility among students.
Keywords: moral and ethical responsibility, psychological characteristics, students.
The concept of responsibility is characterized by the action of a person to actively respond to the demands of the environment, and until now this issue has been studied as an urgent problem in the system of sciences such as psychology, sociology, pedagogy and philosophy. However, there are no single concepts or approaches that explain the phenomenon of responsibility in all disciplines. Psychologically, the phenomenon of responsibility means responsibility, self-accountability, and many psychological factors that determine the individual's potential are reflected in it. At the same time, in the content of this feature there is also a system of special abilities and desires of a person, which requires mandatory solutions and answers.
According to the book "Annotated Dictionary of the Russian Language" published under the editorship of the researcher C.I. Ojegov, responsibility is a set of necessary actions of a person or qualities such as being responsible for one's work, realizing one's obligations. That is, a responsible person is a person who performs his duties with high level of emotions. It can be understood from this definition that the manifestation of high level of emotions is the result of characteristics such as the knowledge acquired by a person, high motivation for work, and the desire to actively respond to the demands of the environment.
In addition, the psychological basis of the concept of responsibility for the first time is reflected in the teaching of psychoanalysis, which recognizes conscience as a psychological basis that ensures responsibility. According to Z. Freud, responsibility is considered an integral part of conscience, and it is manifested through social fear that exists in a person.
According to L. I. Dementi, responsibility is an interdisciplinary phenomenon, and in a broad sense, it is a concept that describes the qualities of a person, such as compliance with norms and rules accepted in society, and control over his actions. It has two important aspects:
- External aspect (responsibility, punishment and incentive);
- Internal aspect (activity, duty, belonging).
According to this opinion, the external aspect of the formation of responsibility is the way a person performs tasks, and the internal aspect is reflected in the motivation, attitude towards activities and tasks, and the desire to fulfill them. The term "responsibility", which expresses personal behavior, is also widely covered in the psychological dictionary explained by Ye.C.Rapatsev, where this characteristic means self-control, taking responsibility for one's actions. characterized by meanings such as the ability to receive. In this case, the willful qualities and
personality qualities of a person are recognized as the main factors that ensure it. The definition of the concept of responsibility with the quality of initiative in a person can also be found in dictionaries related to the science of acmeology. That is, according to this source, the quality of responsibility is one of the best characteristics of a person, and it is compatible with initiative.
While analyzing the phenomenon of "Responsibility", C.V. Beccmertnaya, unlike other researchers, considers the basis of individual-typological characteristics of a person, the product of cognitive processes, as well as personal activity, readiness to perform organizational tasks, to be considered in the content. emphasizes. So, responsibility is a psychological phenomenon with several psychological components. V. P. Pryadein, one of the researchers, pays special attention to the scientific substantiation of the concept of "Responsibility" and tries to research the peculiarities of its manifestation. According to the author's interpretation, the characteristic of responsibility is considered a conscious action, which develops in the process of personal, collective, professional activity. There is also a reflexive aspect of responsibility, and such views are reflected in the researches of K. Muzdibayev. According to the author's interpretation, responsibility is the quality of responsibility for actions that are manifested or performed in reflexive conditions, in which a person shows his attitude to his future. Analyzing the psychological literature, we can see that the concept of "Responsibility" has not been fully developed and its full interpretation needs new scientific and psychological ideas.
The theoretical interpretation of the phenomenon of responsibility, the orientation of values specific to certain personality types, and the state of disclosure through emotional-will qualities are also reflected in the teachings of the schools of humanistic and existential psychology. According to these two doctrines, "Responsibility" is manifested in a person through the right orientation of values and freedom, independent decision-making skills, and the ability to take on tasks. In contrast, according to representatives of the psychodynamic theory, the manifestation and development of a sense of responsibility in a person occurs through social fear and pressure in society. Social pressure in society is a process of full compliance with the laws and regulations accepted by the society. Z. Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, said that the phenomenon of responsibility has a primitive character and is the result of the efforts of ancient people and communities to avoid punishment. However, a person loses responsibility in a crowd. That is, various social obstacles block the development of these qualities in a person.
Therefore, the phenomenon of responsibility is characterized by following the rules of the group, combining one's goals with others. Neo-Freudianism also has its own interpretation of the concept of responsibility. According to G. C. Sullivan, one of the leaders of this doctrine, the formation of responsibility should be considered not as a social fear, but as a specific action that can be deliberately chosen or rejected. Contrary to G.C.Sullivan, according to K. Horney, responsibility is a psychological necessity that is considered a condition for personal growth of the subject. Only neuroses stop a person from responsibility and development. According to the author's conclusions, in order for a person to be responsible in any activity, he must first be free from neurotic situations and neuroses.
E. Fromm, another well-known representative of neo-Freudianism, who continued the ideas of K. Horney, was one of the first to explain responsibility by connecting it with the characteristic of freedom. According to E. Fromm, responsibility begins in a person from childhood, and later it acquires a social character. Independence, freedom of choice, and responsibility are the main factors in this. E. From distinguishes two types of freedom: expected
and actual freedom. Through these two components, a person understands himself, makes plans, can foresee the results and has freedom of choice. In general, this understanding of the problem of responsibility is reflected in more humanistic and existential psychotherapeutic ideas.
According to J. Piaget, there are two important aspects of the qualities of responsibility formed in children, that is, objective and subjective aspects. Children try to evaluate the performance of their characters during the game or in any other situation. They also act objectively in assessing situations. That is, they acquire skills for moral standards. Later, J. Piaget's ideas were continued by his student L. Kohlberg. While researching the quality of responsibility, L. Kohlberg first paid more attention to its dynamic development character. In order to solve the problem, the author conducted extensive research and selected a group of students, college students and university students as the object. And in the end, he determined that the formation of the quality of responsibility is connected with the moral growth of a person. And distinguishes five stages of moral development that ensure the development of responsibility in a person:
The objective stage is the stage of awareness of responsibility based on the result of one's actions;
The subjective stage is the stage of evaluating not only the result, the motives of actions. That is, at this stage, responsibility is perceived as a social obligation;
The stage of moral maturity - at this stage, the quality of responsibility is determined by the moral rules accepted in the society as a whole. At the stage of moral maturity, the rights and freedoms of a person come to the fore, and in this process, a person and the meaning of his life are considered to be of special importance.
The prognostic (prediction) stage is the stage of knowing tasks and tasks in advance. For this, the experiences, competencies and high professional qualifications of a person are important.
Stimulating stage - intellectual and moral development are psychological factors that stimulate responsibility. It is clear from these classified comments that the phenomenon of responsibility is a psychological process that has a dynamic nature and improves with moral development. Unlike L. Kohlberg, researcher K. Helkama says that responsibility is manifested in its last two stages, not in the five recognized stages. That is, in these two stages, the cognitive and intellectual maturity that ensures responsibility is completed.
According to the author, "Responsibility" is a bridge that regulates human behavior and ensures their exchange into conscious actions.
There are many studies in foreign psychology that serve to psychologically justify the phenomenon of responsibility. Among them, A. Bandura's theory of social education is a unique study. The author says that the manifestation of responsibility in a person depends on the result of external circumstances and causes. That is, the understanding of responsibility begins with the understanding of failure. Failure is a psychological process that responds to regulating one's actions, self-control, increasing internal control, and being ready for the next situations. In this way, the relationship of the person to the requirements of the external environment is evaluated.
According to J. Rotter, another representative of the theory of social education, the study of the quality of responsibility begins with the study of the locus control mechanism in a person. According to this doctrine, people are divided into two categories. People of the first category are those who are far from responsibility and look for reasons from outside. People belonging to the second type are responsible persons. They look for any cause and effect in themselves, in their capabilities and achievements. However, some authors argue against equating locus control
mechanisms with responsibility. That is, only the achievements and the search for reasons are not enough to justify responsibility. For this purpose, it is appropriate to study the issue of human types.
It should be noted that the teaching of cognitive theory also reflects the specific psychological ideas of substantiating the phenomenon of responsibility. The research of G. Allport, one of the leading representatives of this doctrine, is a clear example of this. According to the author, responsibility begins with planning one's life. That is, reflexivity is the most important factor in feeling responsible. From these comments, it can be seen that the manifestation of responsibility in a person is regulated by the control of "I". Personal responsibility is widely interpreted in the works of A. Maslow, and the author tries to describe the phenomenon of responsibility with the concepts of love, friendship, partnership. That is, partnership in activity means being responsible not only for one's own benefit, but also for the benefit of others.
Taking into account the scientific research, views, and opinions of the above-mentioned research scientists, we conducted a survey on the methodology of "Determining the strategy of coping with life difficulties" and "Determining the characteristics of subjective local control" among students, and analyzed the results.
Table 1
The overall average indicators of the methodology "Determining a person's strategy for coping with life difficulties" and the questionnaire "Determining the characteristics of
subjective local control"
Scales M Styudent-t
Solving the problem 6,62 0,51**
Propensity for social support 6,62 0,55**
Avoiding the problem 6,67 0,56**
Critical thinking 5,84 0,66**
Internal 13,62 0,38*
External 15,81 0,23*
Note: *r<0.05, ** r<0.01.
It can be seen that students' ability to solve problems is average with a value of 6.62 (see Table 1). That is, they have an average level of problem-solving ability and have shown that they have the ability to independently solve certain situations. The fact that the tendency to social support according to the second scale showed a moderate value of 6.62 indicates that students do not fully rely on others in the process of interpersonal relations. Problem avoidance on the third scale is characterized by the fact that it recorded a ratio of 6.17, and this result shows an average level according to the standard norm, which means that they have formed a stable immunity to avoid life difficulties and situations. According to the fourth scale, the results of the sincerity scale of the students were 5.34 with a total average amount. This shows that it is characterized by the ability to understand the content of the given survey and objectively evaluate their situation at a moderate level in relation to the comments given during the survey process. The next scale is the indicator of internal locus of control, students' ability to have knowledge about professions, to be able to give up many things when choosing a suitable profession, to be able to succeed in a profession, and to choose a profession. refers to qualities such as following the advice given about The internal locus of control scale showed an average value in students. The next scale external locus of control was the average value among students. The scale of external locus of control
indicates that students can choose a profession taking into account external factors, make clear plans, change their characteristics to be suitable for their future profession, and are suitable for their future profession.
Individual-psychological indicators of the formation of professional responsibility of students are "problem avoidance", "propensity for social support", "sincerity", "external local control", reflection, moral-ethical responsibility, altruistic responsibility , moral-ethical values, problem solving, critical thinking, internal local control, responsibility, initiative, tenacity and enthusiasm are determined and evaluated by the manifestation of personal qualities.
REFERENCES
1. Бандура A. Теория социального научения. - СПб.: Евразия, 2000. - 320 c.
2. Бессмертная С.В. Психологические детерминанты ответственности студентов вуза: дис. канд. психол. наук: 19.00.01 / Бессмертная Светлана Викторовна. - Ставрополь, 2006. - 184 c.
3. Дементий Л.И. К проблеме меры ответственности / Л.И.Дементий // Личность. Культура. Общество. - 2004. - №> 3 (№ 23). - C. 264-274.
4. Маслоу A. Мотивация и личность. 3-е изд. - СПб.: Питер, 2003. - 352 c.
5. Муздыбаев К. Ответственность личности в производственном коллективе. // Социально-психологические проблемы производственного коллектива. М., вт. Изд. «Образования» 2007. - 284 c.
6. Ожегов С.И. Толковый словарь русского языка / С.И.Ожегов, Н.Ю.Шведова. - 4-е изд., доп. - Москва: Азбуковник, 2000. - 940 c.
7. Олпорт Г. Становление личности: Избр. труды / Пер. с англ. М., 2002. - 462 c.
8. Пиаже В.Ж. Логика и психология. // Избранные психологические труды. 1. М., 1997. -C. 583.
9. Прядеин В.П. Комплексное исследование ответственности как системного качества личности: Дисс. д-ра психол. наук: 19.00.01: Екатеринбург, 1999. - 299 c.
10. Психолого-педагогический словарь. под ред. Е.С.Рапацев. Издательство: Современное Слово, 2006. - 938 c.
11. Салливан Г., Роттер Дж., Мишел У. Теория межличностных отношений и когнитивные теории личности; Прайм-Еврознак - Москва, 2007. - 128 c.
12. Фрейд З. Я и Оно: Сочинения / З.Фрейд. - М.; Харьков: ЭКСМО Пресс; Фолио, 2000. -1040 c.
13. Фромм Э. Величие и ограниченность Фрейда. М., 2000. - 266 c.
14. Хорни Карен Новые пути в психоанализе / Карен Хорни; пер. с англ. В.В.Старовойтова; под. ред. А.М.Боковикова. - М.: «Канон» РООИ «Реабилитация», 2014. - 400 c.
15. Helkama K. Development of attribution of responsibility in ontogenesis // Problems of personality psychology. M., 2002. - P. 148 - 154
16. Kohlberg Lawrence. The Claim to Moral Adequacy of a Highest Stage of Moral Judgment // Journal of Philosophy, USA, 2007. - PP. 63.
17. Rotter J.B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement // Psychological monographs: G
