CC BY
11PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCES
SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL FEATURES OF THE PERSONAL'S SOCIAL STATUS OF IN THE
FIELD OF LEISURE
Lapshova N.S.
PhD student of the Department of Social Psychology Taras Shevchenko Kyiv National University
Abstract
The article presents the main results of an empirical study of the acquisition of social status by a person in a small group in the field of leisure. The social status of the individual is an essential component of the social life of every person. As its primary function should be noted the ordering, design, regulation, and behavior of groups and their members. Social status is a component that simultaneously affects the individual and which in some way depends on the individual. It was found that the social status of the individual is a structural and multi-component phenomenon. The components of the social status of the individual in the field of leisure included high group cohesion, positive social judgments, the tendency to affiliation. The selected components relate to the psychological dimensions of social conditions and group processes. Personal characteristics are less important in the context of leisure. The factors of acquisition of social status by a person in a small group in leisure are clarified: acceptance of others, the psychological climate of the team, the orientation of the individual to the actual period of life, social approval, and lack of normative behavior.
Keywords: social status of a person, small group, social context, personal characteristics, social conditions, group processes, structure of social status, factors of acquiring social status.
Introduction
The social status of the individual is an important component of the social life of every person. As its main function should be noted the ordering, design, regulation and behavior of groups and their members. Reflecting the position of man in the social system of society, the social status of the individual is determined by the set of rights and responsibilities of the individual in the system of social relations, groups and systems. Thus, social status is a component that simultaneously affects the individual him or herself, and which in some way depends on the individual.
Theoretical analysis
Analysis of recent publications. The concept of social status of the individual is largely developed by representatives of sociology. Among the researchers who have made a key contribution to the development of this concept are M. Weber (Weber, 1999), P. Sorokin (So-rokin, 1992), P. Bourdieu (Bourdieu, 2002), R. Linton (Linton, 2001). With regard to psychological science, it should be noted that the existing research is more concerned with studying the possible links between social status and the phenomena of modern social life. V. Moiseenko (Moiseenko, 2019), T. Parsons (Parsons, 2000), A. Kovalenko, M. Kornev (Kovalenko & Kor-nev, 2006), D. Olshansky (Olshansky, 2002), T. Senko (Senko, 1989) , A. Schram, J. Brands, K. Gorkshani (Schram, Brandts & Gerxhani, 2019), J. Wang, C. Matz-Costa (Wang & Matz-Costa, 2019), T. Dadaeva (Dadaeva, 2013), J. Park (Park, Kitayama, Markus & Coe, 2013), J. Hoebel (Hoebel, Maske, Zeeb & Lam-pert, 2017), L. Dementiy, O. Nechiporenko (Dementiy & Necheporenko, 2007), L. Frey & Alekseenko, 2016) and others. explored various aspects of the social status of the individual in a psychological context. Thus, V. Moiseenko and O. Blynova, considering the social sta-
tus of the individual in the context of psychological research, noted that in most existing scientific papers, social status acts as an independent variable or as an explanatory principle. At the same time, the social status itself is a phenomenon that is easily changed and acts as a socio-psychological characteristic of the individual, which is determined and evaluated by the subject of knowledge (Moiseenko & Blinova, 2018). L. Frey and E. Alekseenko made an attempt to consider the social status of the individual in connection with its tourist history. In this case, tourism acted as one of the indicators of social status. In this attempt, we can see that the authors adhere to a socio-stratification approach to the interpretation of social status, because they see it as a basis for social stratification of society (Frey & Ale-kseenko, 2016).
Recently, the number of studies concerning the social status of sick people has increased. O. Terenda's research is devoted to the study of the influence of the social status of patients with myocardial infarction on the choice of treatment methods and ways of hospitali-zation (Terenda, 2017). A. Chichuk studied the social status of teachers in the United States. The researcher concluded that it is the socio-economic status of the teacher and its main factors: the level of education of the teacher and the level of material remuneration for the performance of his/her professional duties (Chichuk, 2017). A. Schram, J. Brands and K. Grexhani studied the conditions of the competitive environment and, as a consequence, the ranking of social status (Schram, Brandts & Gerxhani, 2019). J. Wang and colleagues studied the impact of social status on the level of subjective well-being (Wang & Matz-Costa, 2019). T. Dadaeva considered the socio-professional status of university teachers in the context of the level of mastery of economic, political and cultural components (Da-
daeva, 2013). J. Park established statistically significant correlations between social status and the level of anger and aggression (Park, Kitayama, Markus & Coe, 2013). Recently, the number of studies that have highlighted the main links between social status and psychosomatic health of the individual has increased. For example, J. Hoebel considered the relationship between a person's social status and depressive symptoms (Hoe-bel, Maske, Zeeb & Lampert, 2017). Given the theoretical sources, it becomes obvious that the study of social status of the individual is mainly local in nature or one of many aspects of the formation or functioning of social status, and, accordingly, the results relate to a particular category of population - a particular profession, disease and more. However, it is important to consider the social context in which the individual operates. There is a need for a general study of the phenomenon of social status, its component structure and its main factors.
The purpose of the article is to empirically study the social status of the individual in a small group.
Research methodology
Social status must be considered taking into account the social context in which a person operates, so the article will consider the social status of the individual, which he can acquire only in the field of leisure.
An empirical study of the psychological features of a person's acquisition of social status in a small group was attended by 324 people: 27 small groups of 12 people. All of them are citizens of Ukraine, aged from 17 to 48 years. For the convenience of statistical calculations, they were divided into three age groups: 17 - 20 years (adolescence), 21 - 25 years (early maturity), from 26 years (average age). The study involved 96 men and 228 women. The age group "youth" consists of 208 people, "early maturity" - 94 people, "middle age" - 22 people.
The study of the social status of the individual was performed using a number of methods: sociometry, au-tosociometry, methods of diagnosing group motivation (I. Ladanov), methods of diagnosing motivators of so-cio-psychological activity of the individual (D. McClelland), methods of integrated self-assessment "Who am I in this world?" (Yu. Zabrodin, D. Novikov), methods of diagnosing the level of development of a small group (L. Umansky, A. Lutoshkin), methods of diagnosing locus-role conflict (P. Gor-nostay), methods of diagnosing socio-psychological adaptation (K. Rogers-Diamond), diagnosis of socio-psychological climate "Pulsar" (L. Pochebut), group cohesion index (K. Sishor), method Value orientations (K. Schwartz), method of meaning-life orientations (D. Leontiev), test "Social intelligence" (J. Guilford) (Fetiskin, Kozlov & Manuilov, 2009), methods of diagnosing subjective social well-being (T. Danilchenko) (Danilchenko, 2016).
The processing of the data of the empirical study was carried out using the program SPSS 15.0.
Results and discussion
The social status of the individual is a complex phenomenon, so it is necessary to determine its socio-psychological component structure. The focus of the study was on the study of sociometric status as one of the main elements of social status. Social status was studied through sociometric positions of respondents. The entire sample was divided into 4 groups depending on the number of elections: neglected, rejected, accepted, stars. Based on the results, there was a need to group study participants by social context. Thus, two social contexts were distinguished: interpersonal relations in the field of leisure and interpersonal relations in the work environment. Further results will be presented taking into account the social context, namely the field of leisure. The research has been conducted in several groups to identify potential differences in the allocation of the sociometric and social statuses.
Table 1
Distribution of res pondents by sociometric positions
Neglected Not accepted Accepted Stars
Group 1 2,8 4,1 7,1 8,8
Group 2 2,1 4,7 6,2 8,4
Group 3 2,9 4,3 6,4 8,6
Group 4 2,6 4,9 6,5 7,8
Average 2,4 4,8 6,9 8,4
The largest number of respondents is "accepted" -35.8% of the total sample. Such indicators can be explained by the fact that outside of work, respondents are grouped by interest groups. The group of "stars" included 18.5% of the total sample. The smallest group
consists of respondents who occupy the position of "neglected" - 14.8%.
The study took into account socio-demographic characteristics, the results of the distribution of which are presented in table. 2.
Table 2
The average value of social status by socio-demographic characteristics
Neglected Not accepted Accepted Stars
Man 4,6 11,2 16,4 19,1
Woman 5,1 9,4 15,6 19,4
Youth 4,1 9,2 14,4 19,6
Early maturity 4,6 10,1 15,2 19,1
Middle age 7,1 12,1 15,8 17,9
Based on the results of the study, it can be assumed that age is not a major factor in the social status of the individual. The distribution of sociometric positions in relation to the age of the respondents is almost the same: most of the respondents belong to the groups of "unaccepted" and "accepted".
Since leisure activities are voluntary, ie in this area people are grouped according to the parameters of common values and interests, it is worth considering the value orientations of respondents and other studied psychological characteristics. Detailed results are presented in table 3.
Table 3
The results of the application of t-test for psychological characteristics and sociometric positions in the leisure
environment
Sociometric positions
Psychological dimension Psychological variable Neglected Not accepted Accepted Stars
Adaptation 57,13 60,28 62,86 61,40
Escapism 17,08 14,64 14,24 12,80
Acceptance of others 56,67 58,68 63,03 56,80
Emotional comfort 58,63 56,52 60,95 67,00
Internality 60,88 65,24 65,52 67,00
Kindness (normative) 3,44 5,32 4,09 3,90
Personal charac- Achievements (normative) 5,13 4,04 4,93 1,90
teristics Universalism (individual) 6,08 5,97 5,20 4,30
Achievements (individual) 5,23 4,49 5,72 7,50
Security (individual) 5,48 5,30 5,79 6,60
Locus of control I 7,17 5,82 5,91 7,00
Overall awareness 116,92 128,14 135,84 144,60
Social visibility 6,79 5,54 5,50 6,20
Social distance 6,54 5,36 5,60 6,00
Tendency to affiliation 19,08 18,94 19,33 20,80
Group processes The level of development of the group 16,58 13,66 14,02 19,80
The overall performance of the group 20,69 19,13 20,11 21,64
Group cohesion 13,46 13,24 13,76 16,60
"Neglected": have the highest level of escapism, which indicates their tendency to escape to their own illusory world; strive for success, through the manifestation of their own competencies that do not go beyond social acceptance, and to universalism - understanding, patience and well-being of the world around them; have the highest conviction that they manage their own lives, the highest rates for the variables of social visibility and social distance.
"Unaccepted": characterized by a prosocial orientation, which is expressed in maintaining the well-being of those people with whom the respondent is in close contact.
"Stars": are characterized by the highest development of the group, the highest level of emotional comfort, assessment of the psychological climate of the group as a favorable and the highest level of group cohesion; they tend to seek to express themselves, but will do so within the framework of normative behavior, and to take care of the safety of their own lives and the world around them.
In general, it was found that respondents with a low tendency to affiliation (willingness to be accepted by the rest of the team) have low levels of socio-psy-chological adaptation, self-esteem, but, at the same time, they are characterized by high acceptance of other
people, high level of emotional comfort and psychological satisfaction. climate of own group. The youngest respondents are the most active, have the highest level of self-esteem and are characterized by a high level of desire for affiliation; middle-aged respondents have low self-esteem. The obtained results allow to assert the relevance of these features for the study of social status, as the specifics of the manifestation of personal characteristics, determine the dynamics of group processes and clarify the nature of social conditions.
In order to fill the social status with psychological content, it is necessary to establish the specifics of its relationship with the psychological variables of research. By using correlation analysis, the features of the relationship between psychological variables and soci-ometric status are determined. Thus, the sociometric status of the individual in the field of leisure has both direct and inverse correlation coefficients. The most statistically significant are the connections with the locus of control "I", awareness, achievements (as a personal characteristic). Sociometric status of a person in the field of leisure has negative correlations with achievements (normative indicator), universalism (as a personal characteristic), conformity (normative indicator) and independence (as a personal characteristic).
Table 4
Results of correlation analysis of sociometric status in the field of leisure and psychological variables
Psychological variable The value of (r) at p <0,05
Locus of control I 0,262
Awareness 0,243
Adaptation 0,183
Internality 0,172
Achievement -0,138
Purposes 0,191
Emotional comfort 0,161
Group cohesion 0,257
Positive social judgments 0,170
Self-acceptance 0,139
Acceptance of others 0,145
Tendency to affiliation 0,199
Achievements (individual) 0,225
Universalism (individual) -0,170
Conformity (normative) -0,138
Independence (individual) -0,117
Power (individual) 0,112
Based on the obtained results, a psychological portrait of a typical participant of interpersonal interaction in a small group was constructed. Thus, a typical participant in interpersonal interaction in the field of leisure is characterized by: the desire to express themselves; low level of understanding and patience; tendency to restrain potentially dangerous actions of others and others; tendency to listen to the opinion of an authoritative member of the team; propensity for power; self-confidence; high awareness; significant so-cio-psychological adaptability; high responsibility for one's own life; the desire to express themselves; future orientation; high rate of emotional comfort; high rate of group cohesion; the need for positive assessments of others; adequate acceptance of oneself and other people; desire to be a member of the team.
A list of psychological variables that have the largest number of statistically significant relationships with other studied characteristics was also identified: socio-psychological adaptation and its components (self-acceptance, acceptance of others and emotional comfort), group cohesion, locus of control "I", awareness, tendency to affiliation, self-esteem, social distance, which in the vast majority has negative correlation coefficients, except for the variable of achievements (as a normative indicator).
With the help of factor analysis, the component structure of the social status of an individual in the field of leisure was determined. First, some regularities of acquiring a certain social status in the field of leisure were singled out: the formation of a high social status is facilitated by a high level of desire for power, low conformity of personality; the lack of universalism contributes to the formation of a high social status; the formation of a high sociometric status is facilitated by the presence of positive social judgments; the formation of a high sociometric status is facilitated by a high level of group cohesion. Secondly, the results of the factor analysis revealed the content of the social status in the field of leisure:
• high group cohesion (high index of emotional attractiveness of group members);
• the presence of positive social judgments (positive social perception of others);
• tendency to affiliation (desire to be accepted by the rest of the group).
Through correlation analysis, variables were identified that have statistically significant links with social status in the field of leisure: Acceptance of others (r = 0.333), Psychological climate (r = 0.285), Group cohesion (r = 0.634), Kindness (normative) r = -0,133), Universalism (normative) (r = 0,137), Power (normative) (r = 0,170), Hedonism (individual) (r = -0,125), Stimulation (individual) (r = -0,141), Positive social judgment (r = 0.668), Stimulation (normative) (r = 0.253), Achievement (individual) (r = 0.155), Process (r = 0.379), Result (r = 0.306), Locus of control I (r = 0.233), Locus of life control (r = 0.245), Awareness (r = 0.237), SSW (r = 0.402).
Thus, the social status of the individual in the field of leisure correlates with socio-psychological adaptation (or its individual components), stimulation (as a normative indicator), achievements (as an individual characteristic), meaningful life orientations and subjective social well-being. Social status in the field of leisure has statistically significant correlations with the components of group dynamics, namely with the psychological climate and group cohesion.
Based on the generalization of the results obtained during the study, a ranking scale was derived, which reflects the social status of the individual: low, medium-low, medium and high. Table 6 presents the numerical distribution of the sample by social status of the individual in the field of leisure. In percentage terms, this distribution is as follows: 9.25% are respondents with low social status, 19.75% are respondents with medium-low social status, 65.8% are respondents with average social status, 4.4% are respondents with high social status in the field of leisure.
Using the Levin homogeneity test and MANOVA multivariate analysis of variance, a list of psychological variables with statistically significant differences in the factor of social status in the field of leisure (p <0.05): adaptation, process, result, locus of control, subjective
social well-being, group motivation. In general, the indicators of the selected variables gradually increase from low to high social status. Respondents with low social status have the lowest rates for all variables - the focus of the individual on the past and present, subjective social well-being, socio-psychological adaptation, group motivation and a sense of responsibility for their own lives (maladapted-depressed). Respondents with medium-low and medium status have slightly higher
8 -
scores on the above characteristics (disoriented). Respondents with average status follow group norms and are conformal (normative-procedural). Respondents with high social status have the highest indicators of subjective social well-being, group motivation, focus on the present and past (adapted-internal). Below in fig. 1 presents the dependence of a certain social status in the field of leisure on the manifestation of psychological characteristics.
0
Average High
Group motivation Locus of control I.
Low Medium-low
Result Process
9 SSW 9 Adaptation
Fig. 1. Graph of the dependence of social status in the field of leisure on psychological characteristics
By applying multiple regression analysis, a model was obtained that explains 53% of the variance (Table 7).
Table 5
Quality indicators of the regression model
Model Multiple correlation coefficient Coefficient of multiple determination Refined coefficient of multiple determination The standard error of the assumption Derbin-Watson coefficient
1 ,680a ,537 ,526 1,593 1,850
Thus, the factors of formation of social status in the field of leisure are: the acceptance of others, the psychological climate of the team, focus on the present, social approval, lack of normative behavior (conformity). The regression equation is as follows:
Y = 1.273 + 0.203 (acceptance of others) + 0.175 (psychological climate of the team) + 0.218 (focus on the present) + 0.161 (social approval) + (-0.289) (conformity).
10 9
Low
I Escapism I Kindness
I Acceptance of others I Social welfare
Medium-low
Average
■ Social distance
■ Focus on the past
■ Tendency to affiliation
■ Adaptation
Fig. 2. Factors of social status
High
I The desire for power I Internality I Awareness
Thus, for the leisure sphere, social factors and emotional comfort in a small group are more important, satisfaction with the process of being in it, in contrast to purposeful and / or forced stay in a small group. There are also different factors for each status. Low (neglected): escapism, social distance, desire for power. Medium-low (unaccepted): kindness, focus on the past. Average (accepted): internality, acceptance of others, tendency to affiliation. High (stars): awareness, subjective social well-being, adaptation.
Conclusions The social status of an individual is defined as the position of an individual or an entire social group, which is determined by two different factors: the characteristics of the individual or group and the characteristics of society and the conditions of joint activities. The component structure of social status is determined by sociometric status (a person's position in interpersonal interaction), high cohesion of the team, the presence of positive social perceptions of others and the desire to be accepted by the rest of the group.
Social status can be represented in the ranking scale in combination with psychological characteristics that determine social status: low (maladapted-de-pressed), medium-low (disoriented), medium (normative-procedural), high (adapted-internal). Accordingly, each of these levels has its own main characteristics.
Factors in the formation of social status in the field of leisure are: the acceptance of others, the psychological climate of the team, focus on the present, social approval, lack of normative behavior.
The prospect of further research is to expand the age range of the sample and to study the consequences of changes or loss of social status in selected psychological dimensions.
References
1. Burde, P. (2002). Formy kapytala. Journal of Economic Sociology, №3, S. 60 - 74.
2. Veber, M. (1999). Osnovnye ponyatyya stratyfykacyy. Chelovek y obshhestvo. Hrestomatyya / red. S. M. Makeeva. Kyev: Ynstytut socyologyy NAN Ukrayny, S. 85 - 106.
3. Dadaeva, T. M. (2013). Socyalno-professy-onalnyj status prepodavatelej vuza: gendernyj aspekt. Yntegracyya obrazovanyya, №3.
4. Danylchenko, T. V. (2016). Subyektyvne so-cialne blagopoluchchya: psyhologichnyj vymir: mono-grafiya. Chernigiv: Desna Poligraf, 544 s.
5. Dementyj, L. Y. & Necheporenko, O. P. (2007). Osobennosty socyalnyh predstavlenyj ob uspehe y uspeshnoj lychnosty u lycz s razlychnym socyalnym statusom. Vestnyk Omskogo unyversyteta. Seryya «Psyhologyya», №2.
6. Kovalenko, A. B. & Kornyev, M. N. (2006). Socialna psyhologiya: Pidruchnyk. Kyyiv, 400s.
7. Kornysheva, A. E. (2013). Osobennosty socyalnogo statusa pozhylyx lyudej. Gumanytarnye, socyalno-ekonomycheskye y obshhestvennye nauky, №3.
8. Lynton, R. (2001). Lychnost, kultura y obshhestvo. Lychnost, kultura y obshhestvo, №7, S. 68 - 87.
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
9. Mojseyenko, V. V. (2019). Socialno-psyhologichni osoblyvosti statusu osobystosti v studentskij grupi. Teoriya i praktyka suchasnoyi psyx-ologiyi. №2, S. 165 - 169.
10. Mojseyenko, V. V. & Blinova, O. Ye. (2018). Socialnyj status u konteksti psyhologichnyh doslidzhen. Suspilstvo i osobystist u suchasnomu komunikacijnomu dyskursi: materialy vseukr. nauk.-prakt. konf., 2-10 kvitnya 2018 r. Dnipro: LIRA, S. 398
- 401.
11. Olshanskyy, D. V. (2002). Polytycheskaya psyhologyya. SPb. : Pyter, 146 s.
12. Parsons, T. (2000). O strukture socyalnogo dejstvyya. Moskva: Akademycheskyj Proekt, 880 s.
13. Popper, K. (1992). Otkrytoe obshhestvo y ego vragy. Tom II. Vremya lzheprorokov: Gegel, Marks y drugye orakuly / per. s angl., V. N. Sadovskogo. Moskva: Mezhd. Fond «Kulturnaya ynycyatyva».
14. Senko, T. V. (1989). Statusnaya psyhotera-pyya kak metod korrekcyy polozhenyya rebenka v gruppe detskogo sada. Voprosy psyhologyy, №1, S. 76
- 82.
15. Sorokyn, P. A. (1992). Chelovek. Cyvylyzacyya. Obshhestvo: pod red. Sogomonova A. Yu. M.: Polytyzdat, 543 s.
16. Terenda, N. O. (2017). Socialnyj status hvoryh na infarkt miokarda ta jogo vplyv na vybir metodyky likuvannya i shlyahy gospitalizaciyi. Visnyk socialnoyi gigiyeny ta organizaciyi ohorony zdorovya Ukrayiny, №1, S. 14 - 18.
17. Fetyskyn, N. P., Kozlov, V. V. & Manujlov, G. M. (2009). Socyalno-psyhologycheskaya dyagnostyka razvytyya lychnosty y malyx grupp. Moskva: Yzd-vo Ynstytuta Psyhoterapyy, 544 s.
18. Frej, L. V. & Alekseyenko, Ye. V. (2016). Turyzm yak pokaznyk socialnogo statusu. Turystychnyj ta gotelno-restorannyj biznes v Ukrayini: problemy rozvytku ta regulyuvannya: materialy VII mizhnarodnoyi nauk.-prakt. konf., 22 - 25 bereznya 2016r. Cherkasy.
19. Chychuk, A. P. (2017). Socialnyj status uchyteliv u Spoluchenyh Shtatah Ameryky. Naukovi zapysky [Kirovogradskogo derzhavnogo pedagogichnogo universytetu imeni Volodymyra Vynnychenka]. Ser.: Pedagogichni nauky, №155, S. 69 - 72.
20. Firth, R. (2004). Elements of social organisation. Routledge: Psychology Press, 288 p.
21. Hoebel, J., Maske, U. E., Zeeb, H. & Lampert, T. (2017). Social inequalities and depressive symptoms in adults: the role of objective and subjective socioeconomic status. PloS one, №12(1).
22. Park, J., Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R. & Coe, C. L. (2013). Social status and anger expression: The cultural moderation hypothesis. Emotion, №13(6), P. 11 - 22.
23. Schram, A., Brandts, J. & Gerxhani, K. (2019). Social-status ranking: a hidden channel to gender inequality under competition. Experimental economics, №22(2), P. 396 - 418.
24. Wang, Y. & Matz-Costa, C. (2019). Gender differences in the effect of social resources and social status on the retirement satisfaction and health of retirees. Journal of gerontological social work, №62(1), P. 86 -107.
