The multiple identity status and psychological well-being of the Chinese and Taiwanese in the new sociocultural context
Multiple identity and psychological well-being forged in sociocultural context. Theories of multiple identities. De-identification and identity incompatibility. Multiple identity and psychological well-being. Sociocultural context of Taiwan problem.
07.12.2019 | |
898,6 K |
. ,
, , , , .
4.1 Limitations
Our study has several limitations. First of all, majority of respondents had average or high level of income, which can influence their psychological well-being and self-efficacy. Second, we could increase number of respondents in order to improve readability of data. Third, the political views of respondents were not considered, thus, for example, we could divide respondent for those who support reunion with China, and those who don't.
References
Abu-Rayya, H.M. (2006) Ethnic self-identification and psychological well-being among adolescents with European mothers and Arab fathers in Israel. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 5, pages 545-556.
Anteby, M., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2014). In search of the self at work: Young adults' experiences of a dual identity organization. Research in the Sociology of Work, 25, 13-50.
Benet-Martnez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII): Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 1015-1050.
Benet-Martnez, V., Lee, F., & Leu, J. (2006). Biculturalism and cognitive complexity expertise in cultural representation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(4), 386-407.
Blader, S. L. (2007). Let's not forget the me in team: Investigating the interface of individual and collective identity. In C. A. Bartel, S. Blader, & A. Wrzesniewski 640 The Academy of Management (Eds.), Identity and the modern organization (pp. 61-84). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bogardus, E. S. (1933). A social distance scale. Sociology & Social Research, 17, 265-271.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this we? Levels of collective identity and self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83-93.
Briley, D. A., Morris, M. W., & Simonson, I. (2005). Cultural chameleons: Biculturals, conformity motives, and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4), 351-363.
Brook A, Garcia J, Fleming M. (2008) The Effects of Multiple Identities on Psychological Well-Being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 12, 1588 - 1600.
Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., & Lehman, D. R. (1996) Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 141-156.
Chang P.H. (2014) Beijing's Unification Strategy toward Taiwan and Cross-Strait Relations. The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis. 3, 299-315.
Chao, G. T., & Moon, H. (2005). The cultural mosaic: a metatheory for understanding the complexity of culture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1128-1140.
Chattopadhyay, P., & George, E. (2005). Examining the effects of work externalization through the lens of social identity theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 761-788.
Deborrah E. S. Frable (1997) Gender, racial, ethnic, sexual, and class identities. Annual Review of Psychology 48: 139-162.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of personality assessment, 49(1), 71-75.
Hirsh J, Kang S. (2016) Mechanisms of Identity Conflict: Uncertainty, Anxiety, and the Behavioral Inhibition System. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20, 3, pages 223 -244.
Hoersting R, Jenkins S.R. (2011) No place to call home: Cultural homelessness, self-esteem and cross-cultural identities. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 1, pages 17-30.
Hofstede G. (1980), Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Sage, Beverly Hills.
James P. (2015), Despite the Terrors of Typologies: The Importance of Understanding Categories of Difference and Identity. Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies. 17 (2) 174-195.
Jasinskaja-Lahti I., Liebkind K., Solheim E. (2008) T Identify or Not To Identify? National Disidentification as an Alternative Reaction to Perceived Ethnic Discrimination. Applied Psychology: an international review, 58 (1), 105-128.
Kahneman D., Riis J. (2005), Living, and Thinking about It: Two Perspectives on Life. In Huppert, F.A., Baylis, N., & Keverne, B. (Eds.), The Science of Well-Being, 285-304. Oxford University Press.
Lakshmi Ramarajan (2014). Past, Present and Future Research on Multiple Identities: Toward an Intrapersonal Network Approach. The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 8 Iss: 1, pp. 589-659.
Leary, M. R.; Tangney, J. P. (2003) Handbook of self and identity. New York: Guilford Press.
Linville, P. W. (1987). Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer against stress-related illness and depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 663-676.
Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(2), 63-78.
Maaza M. (2014) Chinese Check: Forging New Identities in Hong Kong and Taiwan. American Enterprise Institute Web-source: http://www.aei.org/publication/chinese-check-forging-new-identities-hong-kong-taiwan-2/ (25th May, 2018).
Navarrete V, Jenkins S.R. (1999) Existential Hazards of the Multicultural Individual: Defining and Understanding Cultural Homelessness. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 5(1), 6-26.
Obst, P. L., & White, K. M. (2005). An exploration of the interplay between psychological sense of community, social identification and salience. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 15(2), 127-135.
Parrillo, Vincent N.; Donoghue, Christopher (2005). "Updating the Bogardus social distance studies: a new national survey". The Social Science Journal. 42 (2): 257-271
Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 499-514.
Pirutinsky S., Mancuso A.F. (2011). Who Are We? Social Identity and Psychological Well-Being. Graduate Student Journal of Psychology, 13, 39-44.
Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 88-106.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSE). Acceptance and commitment therapy. Measures package, 61, 52.
Schlenker, B. R. (1982). Translating actions into attitudes: An identity-analytic approach to the explanation of social conduct. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 193-247.
Sharma S., Sharma M. (2010). Self, social identity and psychological well-being. Psychological Studies, 55(2), 118-136.
Showers, C. J., Abramson, L. Y., & Hogan, M. E. (1998). The dynamic self: How the content and structure of the self-concept change with mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 478-493.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Optimistic self-beliefs as a resource factor in coping with stress. In Extreme stress and communities: Impact and intervention (pp. 159-177). Springer, Dordrecht.
Suanet, I., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2009). Perceived cultural distance and acculturation among exchange students in Russia. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19(3), 182-197.
Swann, W. B. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self 2, 33-66. New York: Psychology Press.
Swann, W. B., Polzer, J., Seyle, D., & Ko, S. (2004). Finding value in diversity: Verification of personal and social self-views in diverse groups. Academy of Management Review 29(1), 9-27.
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science information 13(2), 65-93.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1987). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations 7-24. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Thoits P.A. (1983). Multiple Identity and Psychological Well-Being: A Reformulation and Test of the Social Isolation Hypotheses. American Sociological Review 48(2), 174-187.
Verkuyten, M., & Martinovic, B. (2012). Social identity complexity and immigrants' attitude toward the host nation: The intersection of ethnic and religious group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1165-1177.
Verkuyten M., Yildiz A. (2007) National (Dis)identification and Ethnic and Religious Identity: A Study Among Turkish-Dutch Muslims. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2007; 33; 1448.
Wang C. (2012) A Study of Casual Order: Party Identification and Attitude toward the Independence/Unification Issue in Taiwan. Issues & Studies, 4, 145-169.
Widdicombe S. (2015). `Just like the fact that I'm Syrian like you are Scottish': Ascribing interviewer identities as a resource in cross-cultural interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(2), 255-272.
Wiley S. (2012) Rejection-identification among Latino immigrants in the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 37. 375- 384.
Yip T. (2015) To Be or Not to Be: How Ethnic/Racial Stereotypes Influence Ethnic/Racial Disidentification and Psychological Mood. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22(1), 38-46.
Appendix
Table 1.
source: Chao, G. T., & Moon, H. (2005). The cultural mosaic: a metatheory for understanding the complexity of culture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1128-1140.
Table 2. Social psychological approach
source: Lakshmi Ramarajan (2014). Past, Present and Future Research on Multiple Identities: Toward an Intrapersonal Network Approach. The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 8 Iss: 1, pp. 589-659.
Table 3. Multiple identities hierarchies
source: Lakshmi Ramarajan (2014). Past, Present and Future Research on Multiple Identities: Toward an Intrapersonal Network Approach. The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 8 Iss: 1, pp. 589-659.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics of all variables
Variables |
Generation |
Mean |
Std. Deviation |
N |
|
Chinese Identity |
YoungGen |
2,3473 |
1,17069 |
65 |
|
MidlGen |
3,5867 |
,69222 |
56 |
||
OldGen |
4,6743 |
,54459 |
50 |
||
Total |
3,4336 |
1,29157 |
171 |
||
Taiwan Identity |
YoungGen |
4,6615 |
,60450 |
65 |
|
MidlGen |
4,5536 |
,49656 |
56 |
||
OldGen |
4,8133 |
,52881 |
50 |
||
Total |
4,6706 |
,55541 |
171 |
||
De-identification |
YoungGen |
3,5600 |
,90083 |
65 |
|
MidlGen |
2,6214 |
,64575 |
56 |
||
OldGen |
1,4360 |
,42893 |
50 |
||
Total |
2,6316 |
1,11511 |
171 |
||
Incompatibility |
YoungGen |
4,06 |
1,029 |
65 |
|
MidlGen |
3,20 |
,699 |
56 |
||
OldGen |
1,18 |
,560 |
50 |
||
Total |
2,94 |
1,435 |
171 |
||
Material cultural distance |
YoungGen |
2,6923 |
,57752 |
65 |
|
MidlGen |
3,0179 |
,34330 |
56 |
||
OldGen |
3,9500 |
,52732 |
50 |
||
Total |
3,1667 |
,71948 |
171 |
||
Inward cultural distance |
YoungGen |
3,4513 |
,64396 |
65 |
|
MidlGen |
3,6012 |
,35630 |
56 |
||
OldGen |
4,1933 |
,44206 |
50 |
||
Total |
3,7173 |
,59301 |
171 |
||
Interpersonal relations cultural distance |
YoungGen |
1,8500 |
,64620 |
65 |
|
MidlGen |
2,0670 |
,41966 |
56 |
||
OldGen |
2,7400 |
,58020 |
50 |
||
Total |
2,1813 |
,67029 |
171 |
||
Social interactions cultural distance |
YoungGen |
1,6423 |
,64039 |
65 |
|
MidlGen |
1,7946 |
,32018 |
56 |
||
OldGen |
2,1500 |
,53213 |
50 |
||
Total |
1,8406 |
,55952 |
171 |
||
Life Satisfaction |
YoungGen |
4,3731 |
,58484 |
65 |
|
MidlGen |
4,0357 |
,32132 |
56 |
||
OldGen |
4,2850 |
,46842 |
50 |
||
Total |
4,2368 |
,49650 |
171 |
||
Self-Esteem |
YoungGen |
4,2962 |
,63874 |
65 |
|
MidlGen |
3,8884 |
,51328 |
56 |
||
OldGen |
4,2200 |
,58606 |
50 |
||
Total |
4,1404 |
,60819 |
171 |
||
Self-Efficacy |
YoungGen |
4,1538 |
,65529 |
65 |
|
MidlGen |
3,7286 |
,52457 |
56 |
||
OldGen |
3,9660 |
,50004 |
50 |
||
Total |
3,9596 |
,59563 |
171 |
Table 5. Comparison of Chinese/Taiwan Identities, De-identification, Incompatibility of identities, 4 types of cultural distance, Life Satisfaction, Self-Esteem and Self-Efficacy of 3 generation of Taiwan citizens.
Variables |
Mean Generation 3 (18-35y.o.) |
Mean Generation 2 (35-60y.o) |
Mean Generation 1 (60+ y.o.) |
||||
Mean |
F |
Partial |
|||||
Chinese identity |
3,43 |
2,34a |
3,58b |
4,67c |
101,237 |
,547*** |
|
Taiwan identity |
4,67 |
4,66a |
4,55a |
4,81b |
2,970 |
,034 |
|
De-identification |
2,63 |
3,56a |
2,62b |
1,43c |
127,678 |
,603*** |
|
Incompatibility of identities |
2,94 |
4,06a |
3,20b |
1,18c |
183,561 |
,686*** |
|
Material cultural distance |
3,16 |
2,69a |
3,01b |
3,95c |
94,321 |
,529*** |
|
Inward cultural distance |
3,71 |
3,45a |
3,60a |
4,19b |
32,520 |
,279*** |
|
Interpersonal relations cultural distance |
2,18 |
1,85a |
2,06a |
2,74b |
37,269 |
,307*** |
|
Social interactions cultural distance |
1,84 |
1,64a |
1,79a |
2,15b |
13,695 |
,140*** |
|
Life Satisfaction |
4,23 |
4,37a |
4,03b |
4,28a |
7,864 |
,086** |
|
Self-Esteem |
4,14 |
4,29a |
3,88b |
4,28a |
7,971 |
,087*** |
|
Self-Efficacy |
3,95 |
4,15a |
3,72b |
3,96ab |
8,334 |
,090*** |
Note: Means with different subscripts are significantly different in Least Significant Differences post hoc tests (p < .05). **p < .01
Table 6. Correlations
|
Chinese Identity |
Taiwan Identity |
De-identification |
Incompatibility of identities |
Material CD |
Inward CD |
Interpersonal relations CD |
Social interections CD |
Life Satisfaction |
Self-Esteem |
Self-Efficacy |
||
Chinese Identity |
Pearson Correlation |
1 |
|||||||||||
Sig. (2-tailed) |
|||||||||||||
N |
171 |
||||||||||||
Taiwanese Identity |
Pearson Correlation |
-0,12 |
1 |
||||||||||
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0,119 |
||||||||||||
N |
171 |
171 |
|||||||||||
De-identification |
Pearson Correlation |
-,925** |
0,126 |
1 |
|||||||||
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0 |
0,101 |
|||||||||||
N |
171 |
171 |
171 |
||||||||||
Incompatibility of identities |
Pearson Correlation |
-,870** |
0,022 |
,874** |
1 |
||||||||
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0 |
0,771 |
0 |
||||||||||
N |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
|||||||||
Material CD |
Pearson Correlation |
,754** |
-0,041 |
-,781** |
-,781** |
1 |
|||||||
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0 |
0,595 |
0 |
0 |
|||||||||
N |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
||||||||
Inward CD |
Pearson Correlation |
,706** |
-0,086 |
-,683** |
-,699** |
,722** |
1 |
||||||
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0 |
0,264 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||||||||
N |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
|||||||
Interpersonal relations CD |
Pearson Correlation |
,677** |
-,298** |
-,714** |
-,685** |
,760** |
,586** |
1 |
|||||
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|||||||
N |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
||||||
Social interections CD |
Pearson Correlation |
,598** |
-,343** |
-,593** |
-,568** |
,651** |
,534** |
,773** |
1 |
||||
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
||||||
N |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
|||||
Life Satisfaction |
Pearson Correlation |
-,162* |
0,141 |
0,104 |
0,075 |
0,008 |
0,029 |
-0,081 |
-0,071 |
1 |
|||
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0,034 |
0,067 |
0,174 |
0,329 |
0,915 |
0,707 |
0,291 |
0,355 |
|||||
N |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
||||
Self Esteem |
Pearson Correlation |
-0,12 |
,199** |
0,069 |
0,061 |
-0,01 |
0,022 |
-0,121 |
-0,098 |
,824** |
1 |
||
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0,117 |
0,009 |
0,368 |
0,429 |
0,896 |
0,772 |
0,114 |
0,202 |
0 |
||||
N |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
|||
Self-Efficacy |
Pearson Correlation |
-,205** |
,196* |
,158* |
0,128 |
-0,073 |
-0,016 |
-0,142 |
-0,133 |
,802** |
,821** |
1 |
|
Sig. (2-tailed) |
0,007 |
0,01 |
0,039 |
0,094 |
0,34 |
0,837 |
0,064 |
0,082 |
0 |
0 |
|||
N |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
171 |
||
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) . *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). |
Table 7. SEM model
Table 8. Fit Indices of the Path Models of the role of Aspect of Cultural Distance as mediator between Chinese/Taiwanese identities, De-identification, Incompatibility of identities and Well-Being, Self-Efficacy.
2/df |
CFI |
SRMR |
RMSEA |
PCLOSE |
||
1. Material cultural distance |
3.3 |
.997 |
.0250 |
.086 |
.152 |
|
2. Inward cultural distance |
3.3 |
.997 |
.0267 |
.086 |
.152 |
|
3. Interpersonal relations cultural distance |
3.3 |
.997 |
.0252 |
0.86 |
.152 |
|
4. Social interactions cultural distance |
3.3 |
.997 |
.0255 |
0.86 |
.152 |
Table 9. SEM model #1 with Material cultural distance as mediator.
*Only the significant regression coefficients in figures is indicated.
Table 10. SEM model #2 with Inward cultural distance as mediator
*Only the significant regression coefficients in figures is indicated.
Table 11. SEM model #3 with Interpersonal relations cultural distance as mediator.
*Only the significant regression coefficients in figures is indicated.
Table 12. SEM model #4 with Social interactions cultural distance as mediator.
*Only the significant regression coefficients in figures is indicated
Questionnaire (RUS)
!
, . , .
, , . .
1. ?
[ ] (. ).
[ ] ? _________________________
1.1. , ? _______________
2. -. , , , , . , .
|
|
, |
|
. |
|||
1 |
|
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
2 |
|
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
3 |
, |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
4 |
, - , |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
5 |
- |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
6 |
, |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
7 |
|
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
8 |
|
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
9 |
|
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
10 |
, |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
11 |
|
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
12 |
|
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
13 |
|
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
3. / :
|
|
, |
|
|
|||
a |
|
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
b |
|
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
c |
|
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
d |
|
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
e |
, , - |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
:
|
|
, |
|
||||
1. |
( , , ) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
2. |
( , ) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
3. |
( , , ) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
4. |
( , , , , , .) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
5 |
( , ) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
6 |
( , , .) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
7 |
( , ) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
8 |
( , - , .) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
9. |
(, , , ) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
10. |
( , , ..) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
11. |
( , , ) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
12. |
( , , , ) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
13. |
( , , ) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
5. , , , ?
1 -------------------2-----------------------3----------------------4 ------------------5 |
||||
|
|
6. ?
|
|
, |
|
||||
1 |
|
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
2 |
, . |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
3 |
, |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
4 |
, , , |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
7. , ?
|
|
, |
|
|
|||
1 |
, |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
2 |
. |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
3 |
, |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
4 |
, |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
8. , ?
|
|
, |
, |
|
|||
1. , . |
|||||||
2. - , . |
|||||||
3. . |
|||||||
4. , . |
|||||||
5. , . |
|||||||
6. , . |
|||||||
7. , . |
|||||||
8. - , . |
|||||||
9. - . |
|||||||
10. . |
9. ? ____
10. ?
[ ] [ ]
11. ?
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ] [ ] ______________
12. ?
_________________________
13. ?
_________________________
_________________________
14. ?
[ ] [ ]
[ ] []
[ ] [ ]
[ ] [] [ ] _________________________
15. ?
[ ] ,
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
!
Questionnaire (CHN)
eIF!
?ڙoꚠېI푰𗬌BYȓ`isCLIʛ|B
e??I?CnCՈsvR{CB??IŖ@쎧sdvB
2. ??Əo?
[ ] ؖ sC
[ ] ?? _________________________
1.1. ?sݑsoġAOb@~ho̪?_______________N
MIRIPS???
2. l쌦ҵJ֪DzһӵāB@Cеˉ\Fȴ^(犿)ij@(@ŋ)CcͬrҲȓI(@)BʓIo?ݔʓIL萁F
^s |
s |
smCs_ |
S |
||||
1 |
FȐl |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
2 |
SȐIꕔ |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
3 |
Ȑgגlמ |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
4 |
lIgҕs |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
5 |
d?K |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
6 |
k䐥l |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
7 |
䕪lIz@aMO |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
8 |
FȐsl |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
9 |
SȐsIꕔ |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
10 |
Ȑgבslמ |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
11 |
gבslkK |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
12 |
k䐥sl |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
13 |
䕪slIz@aMO |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
Jͬ
4. ]?ȉŏqI܁F
^s |
s |
smCs_ |
S |
||||
a |
ț?F䐥l |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
b |
sSȐl |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
c |
nsalێ |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
d |
NjaliLXy |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
e |
cʐlk_萉alIAnҕsSaL |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
Ļ֪IJ
5. Ш̤UCЫXMxWhۦΤPG
s |
s |
LyLys |
푊 |
||||
1. |
(ǭwAp\A\ɶu) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
2. |
axͬ (ax˱KסAc˦@ɶĪu) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
3. |
lkоi (gϥΡAaxĵaAĵۥѫ) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
4. |
kʪA (|WkʪaAkʪaxB¾~B|A¾PBaxd) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
5 |
v (vЬʡAH̪vЫH{) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
6 |
DzΩM߫U (wAB§§|쵥) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
7 |
|Wd (@Ҧ欰|{AǦ欰Q\ ) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
8 |
~ (ЩAwA~˧ - vBƧ) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
9. |
[MH (H̹FvBaݪkAH̹|cοQk) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
10. |
u@A (u@pP@ػȡAu@pP@ئ\qAu@pPg@) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
11. |
H (h͵AhiΩPA~HA) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
12. |
B (B͡APBͪ˱K{סApôƶqApLvɶ) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
13. |
y (yDzߡAHPHzѡADzߩMzѨ䥦yʾ) |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6. g?se
wo?FבslalseIx
1 -------------------2-----------------------3----------------------4 ------------------5 |
||||
ۮe |
ۮe |
?ӓx
Life satisfaction The four items of The Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larson, & Griffin, 1985).
6. ȉŏqo?aԼIL萌W?
^s |
s |
smCs_ |
S |
||||
1 |
铎A䛔Ȝkވ |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
2 |
FLǍDIis |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
3 |
ȑɐlAN\hưoܦn |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
4 |
S?hΡAals㉺ |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
Self-esteem. The four items of the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg,1965).
7. ȉŏqo?aԼIŖ@Α?
Ss |
cs |
smCsm |
c |
S |
|||
1 |
ʘ?AI |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
2 |
䛔ȓIވ |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
3 |
iLvI |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
|
4 |
@ʉ\ďdꎟAYss |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
[ ] |
The first measure we use is the General Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M., 1995). This scale is a self-report measure of self-efficacy.
Items: 10
Internal reliability for GSE = Cronbach's alphas between .76 and .90
Validity: the GSE is correlated to emotion, optimism, work satisfaction. Negative coefficients were found for depression, stress, health complaints, burnout, and anxiety.
Example of the item: I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough (1-Not at all true, 4-Exactly true).
8. ʎ\ʕ\.
ŏq |
Ssm |
sm |
\A\s |
cm |
?m |
||
1. @ʉw͡A`\QI@ֆ}܍ |
|||||||
2. AZLYjGC䘹R\z?@ڕW |
|||||||
3. jՒBȓIڕW |
|||||||
4. ӑzsIC`mȊY |
|||||||
5. cӑzsIC䑊MȉȜt |
|||||||
6. @ʉto?IẃCș|啔I |
|||||||
7. 䏀D}ڔCCϓIȓI\ |
|||||||
8. ډʑOoCrCʏQ@ |
|||||||
9. gݓŔV?]I`C\zoꍱ@ |
|||||||
10. ʏ\?Tǐ |
9. ?g? ____
10. ?I?
[ ] [ ] j
11. ?MY@?
[ ] L@M [ ]Ɏz [ ] ҌWf
[ ]ŋ [ ] [ ] @______________
12. ?I?
_________________________
13. ?HHI?
e _________________________
e _________________________
14. ?Ix?
[ ] [{]
[ ] []
[ ] [EƋ]
[ ] [] [ ] _________________________
15. ŏq?c?ڑOƒISZ?ӽ?
[ ] N
[ ]
[ ]
[ ] n
[ ] ȉ
튴!
Allbest.ru
The problem of evaluation, self-assessment of personality as a psychological category. Factors of formation evaluation and self-esteem of children of primary school age. An experimental study of characteristics evaluation and self-esteem of junior pupils.
[28,6 K], 19.05.2011Theoretical basis of a role plays as a teaching aid. Historic background of game origin. Psychological value of a role plays. The main function and principles of game organization. Gaming technique. Classification of role plays. Advantages of a game.
[50,7 K], 26.04.2013The study of harm to children from watching American cartoons. Problem of imitating negative or mindless characters from cartoons. Leading role of American cartoon industry in the animation history. First steps in the progress of a childs development.
[16,3 K], 11.04.2013The history of corporate identity. The elements of corporate identity. The examples of a strong corporate identity and new trends. Corporate identity today and in the future. Past of corporate identity. The origin of logos and corporate identity.
[1,0 M], 19.03.2015Multiple negation the use of two or sometimes several negative markers in a statement. Old English and Middle English periods. Decline of multiple negation. Approaches to the multiple negation classification. Analysis of Maylorys Morte Darthur.
[31,7 K], 17.04.2011Personal identity deals with questions about ourselves qua people (or persons). The most common question is what it takes for us to persist from one time to another. What is necessary, and what is sufficient, for some past or future being to be you?
[10,4 K], 25.08.2006The concept of "intercultural dialogue". The problem of preserving the integrity nations and their cultural identity. formation of such a form of life, as cultural pluralism, which is an adaptation to a foreign culture without abandoning their own.
[108,6 K], 12.11.2012Present-day issues of foreign language teaching at secondary school. Current concepts in secondary school graduates EFL. Psychological analysis of Gardner's Theory. Learning environment in teaching English conversation.
[71,5 K], 20.11.2004The concept and sex, and especially his studies in psychology and sociology at the present stage. The history of the study of the concepts of masculinity and femininity. Gender issues in Russian society. Gender identity and the role of women in America.
[73,0 K], 11.11.2013The methodology multiple models and switching for realtime estimation of center of gravity (CG) position and rollover prevention in automotive vehicles. Algorithm to determine the vehicle parameters. The efficacy estimation switched controller scheme.
[238,6 K], 28.05.2012