Psychological characteristics of persons with different types of empathy

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

State Institution «South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University after K.D. Ushynsky»

Psychological characteristics of persons with different types of empathy

Babchuk Olena Hryhoriivna Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Family and Special Pedagogy and Psychology

Odesa

Abstract

Today, one of the most important tasks of the development of Ukraine is the humanization of society, which requires a new type of mutual relations between people, relations built on a humanistic basis, on respect for the individuality of everyone. The process of approving new values becomes especially relevant, the main one of which is the formation of the spiritual culture of the individual, an integral part of which is emotional maturity, a wealth of feelings, the ability to empathize, compassion, and the ability to rejoice for others. In psychology, these most important abilities are summarized by the concept of «empathy». Empathy is defined as a property or ability of a person, which is revealed in the ability to give a mediated emotional response to the experiences of another, which includes a reflection of the internal states, thoughts and feelings of the subject of empathy. It involves the subjective perception of another person, penetration into his inner world, understanding of his experiences, thoughts and feelings. Cognitive, emotional, and behavioral characteristics of a person are involved in empathy, which allow him to identify himself with another, experience his problems with him, feel his condition, predict his reactions and actions. According to our task, a psychodiagnostic complex was used, which was made up of traditional, standardized psychodiagnostic methods: «Test-questionnaire of empathy» (O. Sannikova) and «16-factor personality questionnaire» (R. Cattell). Correlation analysis was used to analyze the obtained correlations between the indicators of empathy and personality factors according to R. Cattell, which allows not only to establish the nature of the relationships between the studied indicators, but also to establish the features of the manifestations of empathy. Carrying out a qualitative analysis, building and interpreting profiles of those personality traits that are studied in relation to empathy, made it possible to study the psychological characteristics of people with different types of empathy and provide them with a characteristic.

Keywords: personality, psychological features, empathy, types of empathy.

Анотація

Бабчук Олена Григоріївна кандидат психологічних наук, доцент, завідувач кафедри сімейної та спеціальної педагогіки і психології, Державний заклад «Південноукраїнський національний педагогічний університет імені К.Д.Ушинського», м. Одеса

ПСИХОЛОГІЧНІ ОСОБЛИВОСТІ ОСІБ З РІЗНИМ ТИПОМ ЕМПАТІЇ

На сьогодні, одним із найважливіших завдань розвитку України є гуманізація суспільства, яка потребує нового типу взаємовідносин між людьми, відносин, побудованих на гуманістичній основі, на повазі до індивідуальності кожного. Особливої актуальності набуває процес затвердження нових цінностей, головною з яких є формування духовної культури особистості, невід ємною частиною якої є емоційна зрілість, багатство почуттів, здатність до співпереживання, співчуття, вміння радіти за іншого. У психології ці найважливіші здібності узагальнюються поняттям «емпатія». Емпатія визначається як властивість або здатність особистості, яка розкривається в умінні давати опосередкований емоційний відгук на переживання іншого, що включає рефлексію внутрішніх станів, думок і почуттів самого суб'єкта емпатії. Вона передбачає суб'єктивне сприйняття іншої людини, проникнення в її внутрішній світ, розуміння її переживань, думок та почуттів. При емпатії є задіяними когнітивні, емоційні, поведінкові характеристики людини, які дозволяють їй ототожнювати себе з іншим, переживати разом з ним його проблеми, відчувати його стан, передбачати його реакції та вчинки. Згідно нашого завдання використано психодіагностичний комплекс, який склали традиційні, стандартизовані психодіагностичні методики: «Тест-опитувальник емпатії» (О. Саннікова) та «16-факторний особистісний опитувальник» (Р. Кеттелл). За допомогою кореляційного аналізу було проаналізовано отримані кореляційні зв'язки між показниками емпатії та факторів особистості за Р. Кеттеллом, що дозволяє не тільки встановити характер зв'язків між досліджуваними показниками, а й встановити особливості проявів емпатії. Здійснення якісного аналізу, побудова й інтерпретація профілів тих рис особистості, що вивчаються у співвідношенні із емпатією, дозволило вивчити психологічні особливості осіб з різним типом емпатії та надати їм характеристику.

Ключові слова: особистість, психологічні особливості, емпатія, типи емпатії.

Introduction

Formulation of the problem. Currently, one of the most important tasks of the development of Ukraine is the humanization of society, which requires a new type of relationships between people, relationships built on a humanistic basis, on respect for the individuality of everyone. The process of approving new values becomes especially relevant, the main one of which is the formation of the spiritual culture of the individual, an integral part of which is emotional maturity, a wealth of feelings, the ability to empathize, compassion, and the ability to rejoice for others. In psychology, these most important abilities are summarized by the concept of «empathy».

In general, a significant number of publications have been devoted to the study of the phenomenon of empathy, but until now this phenomenon remains the subject of heated discussions by philosophers, psychologists, teachers, and artists. As a psychological phenomenon, empathy has been known to us since antiquity. In particular, the ancient Greek Stoics argued that there is a special spiritual community between people, thanks to which they sympathize with each other. In ancient Greece, compassion was valued so highly that it deserved a special object of worship, and in ancient China, compassion was included in the register of the main human virtues.

In the psychological literature, the concept of «empathy» became widespread in the early 1950s. In earlier works, researchers more often used the concept of «sympathy», using it in a broad sense: as understanding, sensitivity, emotional complicity.

Thus, T. Ribault noted that «sympathy in the etymological sense, which expresses its true meaning, consists of identical inclinations of two or more individuals of the same or different species». The author in his work «Psychology of Feelings» traced the evolution of sympathy from elementary to the highest forms and identified three main stages of its evolution: «the first, physiological, is the coordination of motor aspirations - this is synergy; the second, psychological, is the coordination of feelings - this is synesthesia; the third, intellectual, is the result of the commonality of representations or ideas associated with feelings or movements» [7, р.206].

In domestic psychological science, the term «empathy» appeared only at the beginning of the 70s of the 20th centuries. T. Gavrilova was one of the first among Soviet scientists to consider this phenomenon [2]. The researcher carried out a thorough analysis of foreign studies of empathy in a historical perspective, which, in fact, actualized the wide research interest in this phenomenon, which has not faded to this day. According to T. Gavrylova, in ancient Greek and European philosophy, the response to the suffering of other people was called the concept of «sympathy»: from the Greek pathos (feeling), and the prefix syn denoted «with», that is, «to feel with someone, to sympathize». Along with the word «sympathy» in the Greek language was the word «empathy» - «to feel in, learn» [1, 2].

K. Rogers defined empathy as the ability to understand and penetrate the world of another person, as well as to convey this understanding to him. There are three levels of empathy. The first, deepest level is a «way of being», a way of «being together» with others, a way of understanding the nuances and complexities of their inner worlds. The second, empathy - as an extremely useful way of professional presence, a way of professional contact with clients whose inner life is complex and diverse. Third, empathy is a communication skill that can be learned, but the technology for communicating empathy will be useless unless it is an expression of the counselor's way of being. [6].

In other words, depending on the goals of the research, psychologists of various directions distinguish the cognitive or affective aspect of the process of empathic interaction.

Empathy as a specific way of knowing is considered in psychoanalysis and the neo-psychoanalytic school (S. Freud, C. G. Jung, E. Bleuler, E. Fromm, H. S. Sullivan, K. Horney). From this point of view, the unconscious largely determines various emotional manifestations of personality, including empathetic ones. The main mechanisms of empathy are identification, projection and emotional contagion. It is they who set the direction of future styles of empathic behavior. From the perspective of the psychoanalytic theory of the self, empathy means adequate perception and response to the patient's feelings and needs. In general, psychoanalysis considers empathy in terms of focusing on the inner world of the patient. In this regard, empathic components of understanding, interpretation and intervention were distinguished in psychoanalysis. As we can see, the psychoanalytic school also considers empathy in the context of interpersonal interaction.

The study of empathy occupies a special place within the humanistic approach (A. Maslow, C. R. Rogers, V. E. Frankl). Although empathy within the framework of this approach is also considered mostly in the aspect of psychotherapeutic work, but at the same time, the applied meaning of this phenomenon is widely revealed beyond the boundaries of the «psychotherapist - client» dyad. Representatives of this direction found that the actualizing factor of empathic behavior is the perceptual image of an empathogenic situation. The reaction of the empath depends on the interpretation of the latter direction.

Analysis of recent research and publications. In the pedagogical and psychological literature, there is no unity in views on the structure of empathy. Initially, this concept was considered as part of the emotional concept (emotional response to the experiences of another person in the form of empathy or sympathy). Later, empathy began to be considered as an affective-cognitive phenomenon, which is characterized as a mediated emotional response to the experiences of another person, associated with the reflection of his internal states (thoughts, feelings). The most promising was the «integrative direction» of research, in which empathy is studied as a complex psychological phenomenon [9].

In the structure of empathy, the following are distinguished: cognitive (based on intellectual), predictive (manifested as a person's ability to predict effective reactions of another person in specific situations) and emotional (based on projection mechanisms and subsequent motor and affective reactions of another person). These three levels of empathy can be represented as three successive levels of sensitive penetration into the experiences of another person. The first level includes cognitive empathy, which is defined as understanding another person's mental state (without changing one's own state). The second level of emotional empathy allows not only to understand the state of the object, but also to sympathize with it. The third level contains cognitive, emotional, and most importantly - behavioral components. This level allows interpersonal identification. Different forms of empathy and its intensity can be characteristic of both the subject and the object of interaction [4].

O. Sannikova investigates empathy within the continuum-hierarchical structure of the personality, which contains a dynamic level (peculiarities of the emergence and course of empathic reactions); quality level (characteristics of the qualitative level included in the empathic process: emotional empathy, cognitive, effective and predictive) and content level (those aspects of empathy, with the help of which an empathic reaction to certain objects, stimuli arise) [8].

In the dissertation work of O. Orishchenko, empathy is studied from the standpoint of a continuum approach, which allows us to consider it as a complex multi-level, but at the same time, holistic education. In the context of this approach, indicators of empathy and qualitative (emotional, cognitive, predictive, effective empathy) and content levels (empathic orientation) are subjected to a comprehensive theoretical and empirical study. As indicators of empathic orientation (the content structure of empathy), the author identifies the following parameters: empathy for relatives, friends, relatives (relative empathy); empathy for colleagues, students, clients (spectrum of professional communication); empathy for unfamiliar and unfamiliar people (spectrum of non-professional communication); auto-empathy - the subject's empathy for himself; empathy for the heroes of works of art; to representatives of the animal world; to the plant world; to nature, to the surrounding world as a whole; to past events in the life of the subject or in the lives of the people around him; to the events of the future [5].

L. Zhuravlyova suggests considering empathy as a holistic phenomenon in which three interacting components can be distinguished: cognitive (mental operations, actual knowledge about an object or another person); affective (emotional reactions to some object or person, emotions, feelings, experiences); conative (motor reactions, behavioral intention of a person in relation to a person or object, relations, actions, deeds). She notes that empathy can develop both in the direction of antisocial behavior and in the direction of prosocial behavior. The links of the empathic process are the perception of another, empathy, sympathy, internal assistance, real assistance. In each link of the process, autonomous functioning of components (cognitive, affective, conative) or their combination takes place when one of them dominates. Each previous link determines the functioning of the next one [3].

Thus, we saw that there is no definitive classification of the structure of empathy. Many scientists have dealt with the problem of defining and identifying all the components and components of empathy, and each of them has made a certain contribution to solving this problem.

The purpose of the article - theoretical and empirical study of individual psychological characteristics of people with different types of empathy.

Presenting main material

Domestic psychologists ambiguously interpret the meaning of the concept of empathy, defining it either as an ability, or as a process, or as a state, associating it with various mental processes and psychological characteristics of the individual. In this regard, in the works of many researchers, empathy is considered under the term's social sensitivity, benevolence, responsiveness, emotional identification, humane relations, empathy, compassion.

At this stage of the research, we are solving the task of studying individual- typical features of empathy in persons who differ in certain characteristics. For this, we used the same methods: «Test-questionnaire of empathy» (O. Sannikova) and «16-factor personality questionnaire» (R. Cattell). The sample consisted of 67 people - students of the faculty of preschool pedagogy and psychology of the South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushinsky. For our study, information on the correlation of individual indicators of empathy with personality factors is important. These connections reflect trends, but also have certain specifics. We conducted a correlation analysis that allowed us to describe the relationships obtained. psychodiagnostic empathy individual

The obtained positive relationships indicate that the expression of empathy is accompanied by such qualities as sociability, good-naturedness, ease of communication, flexibility, adaptation (А+), readiness for the commonwealth, courage, responsiveness, carelessness, determination (Н+), sentimentality, sensitivity, tenderness, softness (І+), safety, activity (F+), orientation to social contacts, the presence of sufficient self-control (Q3+).

The EE indicator (emotional empathy) reveals positive relationships with indicators: А+ (affectothymia), F+ (safety), І+ (sensitivity), М+ (dreaminess), Q3+ (high self-control) - on the level р<0.05. The resulting connections are characterized by susceptibility to feelings, circumstances, flexibility by indulging one's desires, etc., as well as dreaminess, imbalance.

The indicator of KE (cognitive empathy) reveals positive relations with the indicator: Н+ (courage) on the level р<0.01, and with indicators: А+ (affectothymia), І+ (sensitivity), Q3+ (high self-control) - on the level р<0.05. Such connections are characterized by: flexibility, ease of communication (А+), impulsiveness and courage, readiness for fellowship, responsiveness, carelessness, determination (Н+), sentimentality, sensitivity, tenderness, softness (І+), orientation to social contacts, the presence of sufficient self-control (Q3+).

The PE indicator (predicative empathy) revealed positive relationships with indicators Н+ (courage), М+ (dreaminess) - on the level р<0.01; with an indicator N+ (insight) on the level р<0.05. Such connections indicate aversion to threats, social courage, friendliness, impulsiveness (Н+), perceptiveness in relationships N+ (insight), openness, resistance to dreaminess (М+).

The DE indicator (active empathy) revealed positive relationships with the indicators: F+ (safety), H+ (courage) at the p<0.01 level, and with the indicators A+ (affectotimia), N+ (insight), Q3+ (high self-control of behavior) - on the level р<0.05. Such connections are characterized by perceptiveness in relation to others, flexibility, carelessness, decisiveness, courage and readiness for fellowship, high control of behavior, safety, activity, control of desires, objectivity, balance.

We obtained more detailed information about the peculiarities of the manifestation of empathy as a result of a qualitative analysis of personality profiles of representatives of individual types of empathy, namely: emotional, cognitive, predictive and action types.

Therefore, representatives of EE (emotional empathy) have more pronounced characteristics of factor (I+) than individuals with a cognitive type. This, on the one hand, indicates their more pronounced ability to sympathize and empathize, which is consistent with the psychological essence of emotional empathy; on the other hand, it indicates the manifestation of such qualities as frivolity, changeability, restlessness, dependence, expectation of attention from others, obsessiveness, search for support, sympathy, etc. In combination with such characteristics as expressiveness, enthusiasm, lightheartedness, cheerfulness, energy, sincerity, dynamism and intensity of emotionality and sociability, the desire for social contacts (F⁺), as well as developed attention, tendency to idealization, dreaminess, spiritual interests, creative potential (М+).

Low values of the factor (L^-) indicate the tendency of people with the EE type of empathy to trust, their inherent qualities of inner relaxation, sincerity, freedom from addiction, the ability to forgive, understand other people, get along with them, tolerance and benevolence. At the same time, negative manifestations can be a feeling of one's own insignificance, vulnerability, the ease of forgetting difficulties and difficulties in one's own experience, a careless attitude to remarks, etc.

The above-mentioned properties make up a fairly complete psychological portrait of individuals with a pronounced type of emotional empathy, prone to active interest in the world of the surrounding people, to experiencing emotions of acceptance and their expression.

KE (cognitive empathy) individuals are characterized by radicalism (Q1+), analytical, critical, intellectual interests, informedness, tendency to free-thinking, mistrust of authorities. They are tolerant of inconveniences, inclined to experiment. The moderate expression of factors (I⁺), (A⁺) indicates their spiritual, human qualities: cordiality, kindness, openness, attentiveness to others and the expectation of the same from them, the desire to join and communicate; sensitivity, the ability to empathize (compassion, empathy), tolerance for oneself and others.

They can be overly soft, dependent. Among the negative manifestations characteristic of them, one should mention mannerism, arrogance, pretense, uncontrolled fantasizing. But at the same time, there is a positive side - sophistication, artistry, inclination to romanticism, artistic perception of the world. Some of the listed qualities contradict each other, but it is necessary to remember that a living person can really be contradictory in his emotional nature. Contradictions can manifest themselves at the level of thoughts and behavior. It should also be taken into account that the unique combination of these qualities is always a balance between opposites: if more rational qualities are revealed, the qualities of emotionality, intuition, etc. will be different.

In the factor structure of the personality of the researched persons, the value of (Q1+) is greater than that of (I+), this may be evidence that the rational beginning, the tendency to think freely and unlimitedly is expressed in them more than the group of characteristics of factor I, which combines sensitivity, dependence, tenderness, intuition, etc. The portrait of these persons is complemented by the qualities of selfsufficiency (Q2+) and social courage (H+). This indicates their ability to be independent (make decisions independently), independent from the group. They are sociable, good-natured, sensitive, free.

Among the qualities inherent in them may be carelessness, lack of understanding of danger, etc. Low tension (Q4^-) is expressed as relaxation and calmness, restraint and satisfaction, non-frustration. Values of factors A, I, M determined the low expression of cortical vitality in representatives of this type (Qin^- is in the zone of moderately expressed values). In them, it is possible to ascertain the presence of balanced control with the help of both intellect and emotions. Such individuals are not characterized by strict balance, but they are not completely influenced by emotions.

Individuals with PE (predicative empathy) are distinguished by the power of "I" (C+), which characterizes them as emotionally stable, mature, resilient, capable of realistic assessments of reality, managing the situation, and the ability to reason rationally. Insensitivity and emotional rigidity may occur. Expressed values (Q3+) indicate a high level of self-control characteristic of these individuals (they control their own emotions and behavior), developed strong-willed qualities, a tendency to act according to a plan, purposefulness, and a tendency to see things through. In addition, the description of this factor indicates a tendency to accept social norms.

They are the only ones of all that have found quite high values of the factor (N+). This gives reason to consider them perceptive, emotionally stable. They know how to behave in society, have refined aesthetic preferences, and are quite diplomatic. The psychological portrait is complemented by the qualities of safety (F⁺) (which is confirmed by our study of the characteristics of sociability in these individuals: the expressiveness of communication is revealed); emotional stability (QII^-) and a moderate expression of cortical liveliness (QIII+). This is the only one of all types that showed a positive, but not very high value of the QIII+ factor, which indicates such characteristics as a tendency to energetic realistic behavior, the ability to manage the intellect, and the readiness to objectively solve life problems. The content of this factor indicates the qualities of detachment, straightforwardness of thinking. However, it should be noted once again that in the literature we are talking about high, and not moderate, values of the factor that were obtained in our sample.

Persons with DE (active empathy) are characterized by the expressiveness of the "Superior - I" (G+) force, which characterizes them as highly normative, moral, balanced, responsible. Such persons have a strong character, are trustworthy, have a sense of duty, adhere to standards and rules (especially the moral sphere of life). In addition, they are characterized by perseverance in achieving the goal, accuracy, and business orientation. They are conscientious people, but they are very regulated, and cannot deviate from the rules and standards, even when it is more expedient for them and those around them. They are often fixated on a certain order of things and do not deviate from it one iota. High values indicate "rigidity", which is the result of a strong commitment to order, paying tribute not to people, first of all, but to principles.

Adherence to order is combined in these individuals with conservatism (Q1^_). As you know, the factor of conservatism in R. Cattell's model contains such qualities as stability of views, tolerance for traditional difficulties, acceptance of only what has passed the test of time, tendency to moralize. This factor includes suspicion towards new people, new ideas, which vividly complements the portrait of an intolerant personality. Individuals with a low level of tolerance have pronounced cortical vitality.

The positive pole of the secondary factor QIII+ is characterized by alienation, isolation, low sensitivity, possibly cruelty and severity (І ^_).

Low sensitivity and practicality stand out the most from the mentioned primary factors. The first is expressed in thick-skinnedness, prudence, realism, as already noted, can be expressed in cruelty. Such persons are not prone to sentimentality, self-confident, responsible, can be strict, cynical, callous in relationships. They are prone to practical actions, logical, consistent, constant. Their practicality is associated with the lack of belief in illusions, which, in turn, is combined with limited imagination and fantasy, expressed in the mundaneness of principles and aspirations, strict adherence to generally accepted norms. They are able to quickly solve practical issues, are reliable, honest, conscientious, have a strong character.

However, the representatives of this group are characterized by restlessness and a certain limitation. Excessive attention to details also does not contradict the overall picture of the traits of an intolerant personality, but on the contrary, it is combined with their inability to deviate from a certain order of things, which is a sign of categoricalness. The best feature of these personalities is the tendency to dominate, the desire to subordinate, but at the same time the inability to be truly independent and self-sufficient. Dominance is manifested in them as a desire for power, a commitment to authoritarianism in the regulation of social relations, intransigence, self-confidence, aggressiveness, stubbornness, willfulness, even conflict. Of course, this can be demonstrated as independence, but at the same time hostility, rebelliousness, stubbornness, and the need to capture others are not excluded.

Conclusions

Theoretically, it has been established that empathy is a complex phenomenon that is difficult to define. Empathy is defined as a property or ability of a person, which is revealed in the ability to give a mediated emotional response to the experiences of another, which includes a reflection of the internal states, thoughts and feelings of the subject of empathy. Empirical research has shown the existence of interdependencies between indicators of empathy and personality factors according to R. Cattell, which confirms the integrity of all its manifestations. The next step in the qualitative analysis was the construction and interpretation of profiles of those personality traits studied in relation to empathy. This made it possible to study individual characteristics and provide a psychological characteristic of persons with different types of empathy.

References

1. Vasilishina, T.V. (1999). Empatijni zdibnosti vchiteliv: psihologichnij aspekt [Empathic abilities of teachers: psychological aspect]. Praktichnapsihologija ta social'na robota - Practical psychology and social work, 5, 16-21 [in Ukrainian].

2. Gavrilova, T. P. (1975). Ponjatie jempatii v zarubezhnoj psihologii. Istoricheskij obzor i sovremennoe sostojanie problemy [The concept of empathy in foreign psychology]. Voprosy psihologii - Historical review and the current state of the problem. Questions of psychology, 2, 147 - 156 [in Ukrainian].

3. Zhuravl'ova, L.P. (2007). Ps~iholog~ija е~^^а^~ії[Ps^ychology of Zhitomir: Vid-vo ZhDU im. І. Franka [in Ukrainian].

4. Kajris, O.D. (2002). Razvitie jempatii v professional'nom stanovlenii studentov vysshih pedagogicheskih uchebnyh zavedenij [The development of empathy in the professional development of students of higher pedagogic institutions]. Candidate's thesis. Kiev: Institut psihologii* im. G.S.Kostjuka APN Ukraini . [in Ukrainian].

5. Orishhenko, O.A. (2004). Differencial'no-psihologicheskij analiz jempatii [Differential psychological analysis of empathy]. Candidate's theses. Odessa: PDPU im. K.D. Ushinskogo [in Ukrainian].

6. Rodzhers ,K. R. (1991). Jempatija[Em^pathy]. Nezavisimaja firma "Klass" [in Russian].

7. Ribo, T. (1897). Psihologija chuvstv [Psychology offfeelings]. Kiev: Juzhno-russkoe knigoizd-vo F. A. Ioganson [in Russian].

8. Sannikova (1995). Jemocional'nosf v strukure lichnosti [Emotionality in the personality structure]. Odessa: Hors [in Russian].

9. Semichenko , V. A. (1999). Psihologija jemocij [Psychology of emotions]. Kiev: Magistr-S [in Russian].

Література

1. Василишина Т.В. Емпатійні здібності вчителів: психологічний аспект. психологія та соціальнаробота.1999. №5.С.16-21.

2. Гаврилова Т. П. Понятие змпатии в зарубежной психологии. Исторический обзор и современное состояние проблеми. Вопросьг пси:хологии. 1975. №2. С. 147 - 156.

3. Журавльова Л.П. Психологія емпатії: монографія. Житомир: Вид-во ЖДУ ім. І. Франка, 2007. 328с.

4. Кайрис О.Д. Развитие змпатии в профессиональном становлении студентов внсших педагогических учебннх заведений: дис.…канд. психол. наук: 19.00.07. / Інститут психології ім. Г.С.Костюка АПН України, Київ, 2002. 223 с.

5. Орищенко О.А. Дифференциально-психологический анализ змпатии: дис. ... канд. психол. наук: 19.00.01./ПДПУ им. К.Д. Ушинского. Одесса, 2004. 200с.

6. Роджерс К. Р. Змпатия: пер. с англ. Независимая фирма ''Класс”Ј¬1991. 412 с

7. Рибо Т. Психология чувств. Киев: Южно-русское книгоизд-во Ф. А. Иогансон, 1897. 388 с.

8. Санникова Змоциональность в структуре личности. Одесса: Хорс, 1995. 334 с.

9. Семиченко В. А. Психология змоций. Киев: Магистр-S, 1999. 140.

Размещено на Allbest.ru