Cognitive personality maps: method standardization
https://doi.org/10.23947/2658-7165-2022-5-6-31-40
Abstract
The article presents the results of approbation and standardization of the research questionnaire "Cognitive Personality Maps".
Introduction. The purpose of the questionnaire is to identify the type of cognitive map of personality. The questionnaire is based on the provisions on cognitive schemas by W. Neisser, E. Tolman, F. N. Shemyakin. The main types of maps are: a path map as a diagram of the relationship between objects, based on a phased resolution of current situations, and an overview map, which is characterized by a desire to resolve situations taking into account the consequences, a pronounced orientation to the future. The novelty of the study lies in the creation of a questionnaire that allows you to identify the type of cognitive map of a person using mathematical methods, and not just a qualitative analysis.
Methods. To study the type of cognitive personality maps, the author's research questionnaire "Cognitive Personality Maps" is proposed, which consists of 20 statements and involves 3 response options.
Results. 410 respondents took part in testing the questionnaire. At the first stage, the coefficient of linear correlation between the parts of the questionnaire was calculated, and the constancy of the questionnaire was studied. At the second stage, the content and criterion validity of the questionnaire were studied. During the standardization procedure, the calculated values of Cronbach's α-coefficient were in the range of 0.8–0.9, which indicates the development of the questionnaire, the balance of its parts and the possibility of its assessment as a reliable and valid diagnostic tool. In the process of approbation, types of cognitive personality maps were identified: path map, overview map, indefinite type of map.
Discussion. The results obtained were compared with the results of similar studies of the type of cognitive maps using the technique of cognitive mapping. The results have a high degree of agreement.
About the Author
N. A. Tishchenko
Crimean Engineering and Pedagogical University named after Fevzi Yakubov
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
lecturer
References
1. Arkin, R. M. (1981). Self-Presentation Styles. In J. T. Tedeschi: Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research (pp. 311–333). New York: Academic Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-685180-9.50020-8
2. Beck, A. T., Rector, N. A., Stolar, N., Grant P. (2009). Schizophrenia: Cognitive Theory, Research, and Therapy. New York: The Guilford Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465811000579
3. Bloomer, G. (1984). Society as symbolic interaction. In G. M. Andreeva, N. N. Bogomolova, L. A. Petrovskaya (eds): Modern Foreign Social Psychology: Texts (pp. 173–179). Moscow: Moscow University Press. (in Russ.).
4. Boorstin, D. J. (1961). Image or what happened to the American Dream. New York: Atheneum.
5. Efryushkina, O. V. (2009). Psychosemantic analysis of the employee's perception and evaluation of the organizational culture of the enterprise. Higher education today, 3, 58–60. (in Russ.).
6. Fong, G. T., Markus, H. (1982). Self-Schemas and Judgments about Others. Social Cognition, 1(3). doi: https://doi.org/10.1521/SOCO.1982.1.3.191
7. Furnham, A., Marks, J. (2013). Tolerance of Ambiguity: A Review of the Recent Literature. Psychology, 4(9), 717–728. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2013.49102
8. Lewicki, P. (1983). Self-image bias in person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 384–393. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.384
9. Lewicki, P. (1984). Self-schema and social information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1177–1190. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1177
10. Maddi, S. R. (2007). Relevance of Hardiness Assessment and Training to the Military Context. Military Psychology, 19(1), 61–70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/08995600701323301
11. Markus, H., Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954–969. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954
12. Neisser, W. (1981). Cognition and reality: Sense and principles of cognitive psychology. Moscow: Progress. (in Russ.).
13. Postovalova, V. I. (1988). A picture of the world in human life. In B. A. Serebrennikov (ed.): The role of the human factor in language: Language and picture of the world (pp. 8–69). Moscow: Nauka. (in Russ.).
14. Prokhorov, A. O. (2011). Psychic state representation: phenomenological characteristics and personality correlates. Psychological Studies, 4(17). doi: https://doi.org/10.54359/ps.v4i17.849 (in Russ.).
15. Shemyakin, F. N. (1940). About the psychology of spatial representations. In: Scientific notes of the Research Institute of Psychology, 1, 197–236. Moscow: Publishing House of State Research Institute of Psychology. (in Russ.).
16. Tolman, E. (1980). Cognitive maps in rats and humans. In: Reader on the history of psychology (pp. 63–82). Moscow: Publishing House of Moscow State University. (in Russ.).
17. Yurkova, I. G. (2005). Representations of the individual as an element of the organizational culture of the company. South Russian Journal of Social Sciences, 2, 113–123. (in Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Tishchenko N.A. Cognitive personality maps: method standardization. Innovative science: psychology, pedagogy, defectology. 2022;5(6):31-40. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.23947/2658-7165-2022-5-6-31-40
Views:
137
Email this article 