Personal characteristics of engineering and technical personnel with different response to negative information

Malyshev A.; Rylskaya E.; Pogorelov D.

doi:10.14529/jpps240203

A. V. Malyshev South Ural State University (76 V.I. Lenin Av., Chelyabinsk, 454080, Russia) elena_rylskaya@mail.ru
E. A. Rylskaya South Ural State University (76 V.I. Lenin Av., Chelyabinsk, 454080, Russia) https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3075-5255 elena_rylskaya@mail.ru
D. N. Pogorelov South Ural State University (76 V.I. Lenin Av., Chelyabinsk, 454080, Russia) https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4893-4334 pogorelovdn@mail.ru

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14529/jpps240203

Keywords: personal characteristics, engineering and technical personnel, negative information, sensitivity to negative information, uncertainty, tolerance to uncertainty, resilience, empathy

Abstract

Introduction. The present study focuses on exploring the personal characteristics of engineering and technical personnel, specifically examining their response to negative information under conditions of uncertainty. This topic is relevant due to the rapid growth of technology, constant changes in the economic situation, and global challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic and military conflicts. Aims: the primary aim of this study is to identify the personal characteristics of engineering and technical personnel with different responses to negative information under conditions of uncertainty. Materials and methods. The study encompasses a sample of 100 participants (52 males and 48 females), ranging in age from 18 to 69 years, all possessing engineering and technical expertise. Our multifaceted approach includes the Leonhard-Schmieschek test, the Human Resilience test (E.A. Rylskaya), a measure of emotional empathy (A. Mehrabien and N. Epstein), and a custom-developed questionnaire designed to examine responses to negative information. The study employs SPSS Statistics 27.0 for data analysis, the Kruskal–Wallis test, and the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. Results. It has been established that the perception of negative information is different for individuals exhibiting different accentuations. Notably, variations in the perception of negative information correlate with different indicators of resilience and empathy. Moreover, the study identifies a coherent hierarchy among the personal characteristics of respondents, underscoring the interconnected nature of these traits in relation to their response to negative information. Conclusion. This study provides a comprehensive theoretical and empirical examination of the personal characteristics of engineering and technical personnel in relation to their response to negative information under conditions of uncertainty. The insights derived from this research offer valuable implications for organizational managers operating under conditions of uncertainty and ensuring organizational sustainability and successful development. Based on these findings, programs can be developed to alleviate stress among employees, enhance their physical and psychological well-being, and potentially boost motivation and productivity.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

A. V. Malyshev , South Ural State University (76 V.I. Lenin Av., Chelyabinsk, 454080, Russia)

Undergraduate, Department of General Psychology, Psychodiagnostics and Psychological Counseling

E. A. Rylskaya , South Ural State University (76 V.I. Lenin Av., Chelyabinsk, 454080, Russia)

Doctor of Psychology, Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Psychology of Management and Performance

D. N. Pogorelov , South Ural State University (76 V.I. Lenin Av., Chelyabinsk, 454080, Russia)

Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of General Psychology

References

1. Dukhnovsky S.V. Psychological reliability as a manifestation of self-regulation of state civil and municipal employees. Uspekhi sovremennoi nauki = Successes of modern science. 2017;7(1):76–72.
(in Russ.).
2. Makarova E. The problem of professionalism in psychological and acmeological researches. Ekonomika obrazovaniya = Economics of education. 2015;2:122–126. (in Russ.).
3. Gapanovich S.O., Levchenko V.F. On the issue of information anthropoecology. Printsipy ekologii = Principles of the Ecology. 2017;4:4–16. (in Russ.).
4. Yurev A.I. Vvedenie v politicheskuyu psikhologiyu [Introduction to Political Psychology]. Saint-Petersburg. Sankt-Peterburgskii gosudarstvennyi universitet Publ. 1992:348. (in Russ.).
5. Grachev G.V., Melnik I.K. Manipulirovanie lichnostyu. Organizatsiya, sposoby i tekhnologii informatsionno-psikhologicheskogo vozdeistviya [Manipulation of personality. Organ-ization, methods and technologies of information and psychological impact]. Moscow. RUGRAM Publ. 2019:236. (in Russ.).
6. Rylskaya E.A., Pogorelov D.N. Personal identity in the virtual space of social networks and real identity: comparative characteristics. Yaroslavskii pedagogicheskii vestnik = Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin. 2021;1(118):105–114. (in Russ.). DOI: 10.20323/1813-145X-2021-1-118-105-114.
7. Ivanov S.A. Information warfare: its contents and forms. Izvestiya Altaiskogo gosudar-stvennogo universiteta = Izvestiya of Altai State University. 2013;4-2(80):276–279. (in Russ.). DOI: 10.14258/izvasu(2013)4.2-54.
8. Wardle C., Derakhshan H. Thinking about information disorder: formats of misinformation, disinformation, and mal information // Journalism, fake news and disinformation. Org. C. Ireton, J. Posetti. Paris: UNESCO. 2018:43–54. URL: https://bit.ly/2FW3Esb (access 25.03.2024).
9. Alishev B.S. Psyche and overcoming uncertainty. Psikhologiya. Zhurnal Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki = Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics. 2009;6(3):3–26. (in Russ.).
10. Kornilova T. The uncertainty principle in psychology: foundations and challenges. Psikhologicheskie issledovaniya = Psychological Studies. 2010;3(11). (in Russ.). DOI: 10.54359/ps.v3i11.920
11. Kondrashikhina O.A. “Neopredelennost” kak konstrukt: retrospektivnyi obzor issledo-vanii [“Uncertainty” as a construction: a retrospective review of research]. Nauka, innovatsii, obrazovanie: aktualnye voprosy i sovremennye aspekty [Science, innovation, education: current issues and modern aspects]. Penza. Nauka i Prosveshchenie Publ. 2023:6–15. (in Russ.).
12. Makhnach A.V. Resilience in conditions of uncertainty. Institut psikhologii Rossiiskoi akademii nauk. Organizatsionnaya psikhologiya i psikhologiya truda = Institute of psychology Russian Academy of Sciences. Organizational Psychology and Labor Psychology. 2020;5(4):131–166. (in Russ.). DOI: 10.38098/ipran.opwp.2020.17.4.006.
13. Aldasheva A.A., Zelenova M.E., Runets O.V. Tolerance to uncertainty in pilots with different levels of self-trust. Institut psikhologii Rossiiskoi akademii nauk. Organizatsionnaya psikhologiya i psikhologiya truda = Institute of psychology Russian Academy of Sciences. Organizational Psychology and Labor Psychology. 2020;5(3):137–156. (in Russ.). DOI: 10.38098/ipran.opwp.2020.16.3.007
14. Zinchenko V.P. Tolerance to uncertainty: news or psychological tradition? Voprosy psikhologii = Questions of psychology. 2007;6:3–20. (in Russ.).
15. Leontev D.A. K tipologii zhiznennykh mirov [To the typology of life worlds]. 2 Vserossiiskaya nauchno-prakticheskaya konferentsiya po ekzistentsialnoi psikhologii: Materialy soob-shchenii [2 All-Russian Scientific and practical Conference on Existential Psychology: Conference Materials].
Ed. D.A. Leontev. Moscow. Smysl. 2004:114–116. (in Russ.).
16. Sagaidak S.S. The field of professional uncertainty in the coordinates of “ability – inclination”. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal Minskogo instituta upravleniya = Psychological Journal of the Minsk Institute of Management. 2006;2(10):4–9. (in Russ.).
17. Norton R.W. Measure of ambiguity tolerance. Journal of Personality Assessment. 1975;39(6):607–619.
18. Nikiforov G.S. Nadezhnost professionalnoi deyatelnosti [Reliability of professional activity]. Saint-Petersburg. Sankt-Peterburgskii gosudarstvennyi universitet Publ. 1996:172. (in Russ.).
19. Pukhareva T.S. Psychological safety and its role in the professional development of personality. Psikholog = Psychologist. 2016;2:9–19. (in Russ.).
20. Leonov I.N. Tolerance to uncertainty as a psychological phenomenon: the history of the formation of the construct. Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. Seriya “Filosofiya. Psikhologiya. Pedagogika” = Bulletin of the Udmurt University. Series “Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy”. 2014;4:43–52. (in Russ.).
21. Egorshin A.P. Upravlenie personalom [Personnel management]. Nizhniy Novgorod. NIMBUS Publ. 2003:720. (in Russ.).
22. Soshina O.N. Conceptual approach to ecology of a psychological assistance: personal psychological safety in work with. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta Gosudarstvennoi protivopozharnoi sluzhby MChS Rossii = Bulletin of the St. Petersburg University of the State Fire Service of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Russia. 2012;4:105–108. (in Russ.).
23. Medovikova E., Morozova I., Kargina A. Predictors ofpsychological safety of a person in a professional environment. Izvestiya Baltiiskoi gosudarstvennoi akademii rybopromyslovogo flota: psikhologicheskie nauki (teoriya i metodika professionalnogo obrazovaniya) = The Tidings of the Baltic State Fishing Fleet Academy: Psychological and pedagogical sciences (Theory and methods of professional education). 2020;2(52):161–167. (in Russ.).
24. Galanina O.N. Employees trust to the management style in organizations. Upravlenie ustoichivym razvitiem = Sustainable development Management. 2016;2(03):54–59. (in Russ.).

References on translit

-