The paper is devoted to the dynamics of pithy features of student attitude to the political leaders over the past 10 years in Moscow, Russia. The research data in 2004 and 2014 are based on the method of semantic differential. The research involved the high school students of 10-11 grades, Moscow, Russia (80 individuals in 2004 and 110 individuals in 2014). The students got a list of political leaders, each of them they need to evaluate by a number of semantic features (scales). In both research the same set of 33 words describing various personality traits was used. In 2004 the list of political leaders was composed of the Soviet state’s leaders and the most popular political leaders of that time. In 2014 research, the list of politicians was partially preserved and supplemented because of the changed political situation in Russia. Also the 2014 list was extended with several foreign politicians’ names. The hypothesis of the study suggests that the generation of 2014, compared with the high school students of 2004 presupposes a more simple perception structure of the political leaders.
According to the results of the comparative analysis of the factors the following conclusions were made: 1) simplification of psychosemantic structure which was indicated by the decreased number of factors from 5 in 2004 to 4 in 2004, 2) in 2014 students there is no negative moral evaluation of intolerant manifestations of personality, 3) increased importance of moral characteristics in evaluating the activity and self-presentation of a political leader, 4) the value of power and intelligent characteristic increased.
PDF: Download
Keywords: political psychology; political socialization; semantic differential; attitude toward political leaders; generations;
Available Online 30.12.2016
Table 1. The structure of the highlighted factors for the subsample of high school male students, 2004
|
F1 «Openness» 25.1% |
F2 «Ascendance/Intelligence» 22.1% |
F3 «Tolerance/Intolerance» 19.5% |
F4 «Erudition/Narrow-Mindedness» 14.2% |
F5 «Slyness» 5.1% |
|||||
|
openness |
0,95 |
adherence to principles |
0,87 |
restraint |
0,79 |
erudition |
0,50 |
Slyness |
0,72 |
|
visual appeal |
0,83 |
ascendance
|
0,85 |
tolerance |
0,72 |
wisdom |
0,46 |
|
|
|
straightforwardness |
0,79 |
prudence |
0,81 |
|
|
education |
0,44 |
|
|
|
honesty |
0,77 |
force |
0,76 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wit |
0,70 |
intelligence |
0,65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
competency |
0,68 |
masculinity |
0,64 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ambition |
0,65 |
complexity |
0,64 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reliability |
0,63 |
professionalism |
0,53 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rudeness |
-0,82 |
narrow-mindedness |
-0,78 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aggressiveness |
-0,80 |
self-interest |
-0,72 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
emotionality |
-0,74 |
superficialism |
-0,70 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
discourtesy |
-0,72 |
hypocrisy |
-0,58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
immorality |
-0,67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
viciousness |
-0,62 |
|
|
|
|
Table 2. The structure of the highlighted factors for the subsample of high school male students, 2014
|
F1' «Властность, интеллект/ Ограниченность» 27,2 % |
F2' «Нравственность/ Безнравственность» 23,6% |
F3' «Толерантность/ Интолерантность» 19,7% |
F4' «Честолюбие» 19,6% |
||||
|
slyness |
0,87 |
honesty |
0,65 |
tolerance |
0,78 |
ambition |
0,75 |
|
complexity |
0,82 |
straightforwardness |
0,64 |
restraint |
0,72 |
openness |
0,59 |
|
prudence |
0,81 |
competency |
0,60 |
|
|
|
|
|
ascendance |
0,79 |
reliability |
0,58 |
|
|
|
|
|
professionalism |
0,69 |
visual appeal |
0,53 |
|
|
|
|
|
erudition |
0,68 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
masculinity |
0,67 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
adherence to principles |
0,66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
intelligence |
0,64 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wisdom |
0,62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
force |
0,58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wit |
0,56 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
education |
0,55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
narrow-mindedness |
-0,58 |
hypocrisy |
-0,88 |
aggressiveness |
-0,92 |
|
|
|
superficialism |
-0,53 |
self-interest |
-0,85 |
rudeness |
-0,89 |
|
|
|
|
|
immorality |
-0,67 |
emotionality |
-0,78 |
|
|
|
|
|
viciousness |
-0,64 |
discourtesy |
-0,60 |
|
|
Fig. 1. Transformation features of factor structures in assessing personal qualities of political leaders in high school male students, 2004 and 2014.
Bozovich, L.I. (2008) Personality and its development in childhood. SPb. [Et al.], Piter, 398.
El’konin, D.B. (1971) On the periodization of mental development in children. [Voprosy psikhologii]. 4, 6-20. 3.
Erikson, E. (2006) Identity, youth and crisis. Moscow, Flint, 352.
Grachev, A.M. (1996) Psychological analysis of the development features of the national identity in adolescents (based on studies of Russian and Jewish high schol students): Ph.D. thesis. Moscow, 21.
Grachev, A.M. (1996) Today’s politics through the eyes of the voters of tomorrow. [Informatsionno-analiticheskaya gazeta «Modus»]. Moscow, 11 (25), 20.
(2003) Indexes. Assessment of the current situation in the country. Analytical Center of Yuri Levada. Retrieved from: http://www.levada.ru/indeksy (accessed: 08.15.2016).
Kon, I.S. (1980) Psychology of high school students. Moscow, Prosveshchenie. 192.
José Ortega y Gasset J. (1997) Around Galileo (crises scheme). Ortega y Gasset J. Selected works. Moscow, 249.
Osgood, C.E. (1952) The nature and measurement of meaning. Psychological Bulletin. 49, 197—237. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0055737 (accessed 15/08/2016). doi: 10.1037/h0055737
Petrenko, V.F. (2005) Basics of psychosemantics: manual for psychology students. SPb, Piter, 480.
Petrenko, V.F., & Mitina, O.V. (1997) Psychosemantic analysis of social consciousness dynamics based on the political mentality. Moscow, Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo Unoversiteta, 214.
Petrenko, V.F., & Mitina, O.V. (2015) Psychosemantic analysis of the political mentality in the society. [Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta]. Series 16. Psychology. Pedagogy. 3, 27-40.
Political Indicators. Electoral rankings in 2004. [Fond Obshhestvennoe mnenie 2003]. Retrieved from: http://bd.fom.ru/report/cat/polit/el_rat/elect_ ratings_2004/dd045201 (accessed 08/15/2016).
Sobkin, V.S. (1997) High school student in the world of politics. Empirical research. Moscow, TsSO RAO, 320.
Sobkin, V.S. (2008) Teenager and policy: changing value orientations. [Voprosy obrazovaniya]. 4, 180-216.
Sobkin, V.S., & Burelomova, A.S. (2011) Representations of the modern adolescent who should prepare school. [Voprosy psikhologii]. 5, 17-24.
Sobkin, V.S., Burelomova, A.S., & Smyslov, M.M. (2011) Representations of the modern Russian adolescent about significant personal qualities. [Sotsial’naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo]. 1, 44-55.
Sobkin, V.S., & Vaganova, M.V. (2004) Political leaders of Russia: Youth opinion (based on psychosemantic experiment). [Tolerantnost’ v podrostkovoy i molodezhnoy srede. Trudy po sotsiologii obrazovaniya]. Vol. XVI. Moscow, Tsentr Sotsiologii Obrazovaniya RAO, 160-204.
Sobkin, V.S., & Grachev, A.M. (1990) Age peculiarities of orientation in the social and professional sphere. [Zhiznennye orientatsii uchashchikhsya i problemy sovremennogo obrazovaniya: sbornik nauchnukh trudov]. Moscow, Izdatel’stvo APN USSR, 102-130.
Sobkin, V.S., & Mnatsakanyan, M.A. (2015) Features of student perception of youth modern Russia’s political leaders (based on psychosemantic research). [Sotsial’naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo]. Vol.6, 3, 46-63.
Sobkin, V.S., & Mnatsakanyan, M.A. (2015) The ratio of modern senior political leaders (based on psychosemantic research). [Sotsial’naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo]. Vol. 6, 4, 41-59. doi: 10.17759 / sps.2015060404
The electoral politicians ratings [Fond Obshhestvennoe mnenie 2003]. Retrieved from: http://bd.fom.ru/pdf/d08ind14.pdf (accessed 15/08/2016).
Sobkin V.S., Mnatsakanyan M.A. (2016). Comparative analysis of the relations between two generations of high school male students to the political leaders of Russia (based on the psychosemantic research of 2004 and 2014). National Psychological Journal. 4, 79-86.