Tolerance of ambiguity and properties of the nervous system in students of different education fields
Abstract
Introduction. The impact of a number of factors of the educational environment on social and cultural parameters makes relevant the assessment of students' tolerance of ambiguity. Aim: to identify the features of tolerance of ambiguity and assess the relationship of its parameters with the properties of the nervous system among university students of different education fields. Materials and methods. The study involved 147 university students of both sexes (mean age 21.7, SD 1.1) of different education fields (law, physical education and sport, pedagogy). The tolerance of ambiguity (the Multiple Stimulus Type Ambiguity Tolerance I scale following E. Osin) and the main properties of nervous processes (express techniques) were examined. Statistical data processing was performed using SPSS v.23. Parametric methods were used to describe and compare the variation series of the studied parameters. The significance of the differences between the percentages of the samples was assessed with the Fisher test. Correlation analysis and correlation adaptometry were used to identify the structure of the relationships of the studied parameters.
Results. Regardless of the education field, the surveyed students are predisposed to avoid novelty; from 50 to 65% of students demonstrate a low level of tolerance of ambiguity. High values on the “Attitude to complex tasks” scale are less typical of pedagogy students; high values on the “Attitude to ambiguous situations” scale are more typical of law students. Low values on the “Preference for ambiguity” scale are twice as common among pedagogy and law students compared to physical education students. The highest weight of the correlation graph in the “Tolerance of ambiguity – Properties of the nervous system” system was found in physical education students, the lowest one – in pedagogy students. Conclusion. The study of tolerance of ambiguity will allow researchers to evaluate and predict the tactics of structural and functional transformation of teaching methodology with respect to the education field.
Downloads
References
2. Kornilova T.V. The principle of uncertainty in psychology of choice and risk. Psikhologicheskie issledovaniya = Psychological Studies. 2015;8(40) Available at: http://psystudy.ru/index.php/num/ 2015v8n40/1111-kornilova40.html (accessed: 22.12.2021). (in Russ).
3. Gusev A.I. Tolerantnost k neopredelennosti kak sostavlyayushchaya lichnostnogo potentsiala [Tolerance to uncertainty as a component of personal potential]. Lichnostnyi potentsial: struktura i diagnostika [Personal potential: structure and diagnostics]. Ed. D.A. Leontiev. Moscow. Smysl Publ. 2011:300–329. (in Russ).
4. Leonov I.N. Tolerance for ambiguity as a psychological phenomenon: the history of a construct. Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Psikhologiya. Pedagogika = Bulletin of Udmurt University. Series Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy. 2014;4:43–52. (in Russ).
5. Malushanskaya A.G., Alishev B.S. Ambiguity tolerance and related concepts of cognitive psychology. Uchenye zapiski Kazanskogo universiteta. Seriya Gumanitarnye nauki = Proceedings of Kazan university. Humanities series. 2011;153(5):25–33. (in Russ).
6. Zinchenko V.P. Tolerance to uncertainty: news or psychological tradition. Voprosy psychologii. 2007;6:3–20. (in Russ).
7. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.38098/ipran.opwp.2020.17.4.006 (in Russ).
8. Lazyuk I.V. Study of Tolerance to Uncertainty in Students. Reflexio. 2020;13(1):21–31. (in Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.25205/2658-4506-2020-13-1-21-31
9. Bykova E.A. Psychological characteristics of students as future teachers with different levels of innovative activity. Mir nauki, kultury, obrazovaniya = The world of science, culture and education. 2021;№3(88):271–273. (in Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.24412/1991-5497-2021-388-271-273
10. Naumova D. Personal characteristics of young people who are tolerant and intolerant towards uncertainty. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Svyato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriya 4: Pedagogika. Psikhologiya = St. Tikhons University Review. Series IV: Pedagogy. Psychology. 2021;62:142–156. (in Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.15382/sturIV202162.142-156
11. Tong D., Yang W., Zhang Q. et al. Association between regional white and gray matter volume and ambiguity tolerance: Evidence from voxel-based morphometry. Psychophysiology. 2015;52(8):983–989. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12433
12. Pavlova E.V., Chupryaeva N.P. Tolerance to uncertainty as a predictor of students readiness for digitalization of education. Mir nauki. Pedagogika i psikhologiya = World of Science. Pedagogy and psychology. 2020;3(8). Available at: https://mir-nauki.com/PDF/37PSMN320.pdf (accessed: 22.12.2021). (in Russ.).
13. Evtukh T.V., Kharlamova T.M. Characteristics of ambiguity tolerance in social sciences and humanities students. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Psikhologiya. Sotsiologiya = Perm university herald. Series “Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology”. 2022;1:146–158. (in Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2022-1-146-158
14. Titova O. Sibirskii psikhologicheskii zhurnal = Siberian Journal of Psychology. Tolerance to uncertainty as a factor of the relation to business interaction in the context of students common cultural competences development. 2018;68:131–142. (in Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17223/17267080/68/8
15. Leung J., Cloninger C.R., Hong B.A. et al. Temperament and character profiles of medical students associated with tolerance of ambiguity and perfectionism. PeerJ, 2019;7:e7109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7109
16. Goñi J., Aznárez-Sanado M., Arrondo G. et al. The neural substrate and functional integration of uncertainty in decision making: an information theory approach. PLoS One. 2011;6(3):e17408. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017408
17. Luo J., Knoblich G. Studying insight problem solving with neuroscientific methods. Methods. 2007;42(1):77–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2006.12.005
18. Osin E.N. Factor structure of the version of the scale of general tolerance to uncertainty
by D. McLane. Psikhologicheskaya diagnostika = Psychological diagnostics. 2010;2:65–86. (in Russ.).
19. Shapar V.B., Timchenko A.V., Shvydchenko V.N. Prakticheskaya psikhologiya. Instrumentarii [Practical psychology. Tools]. Rostov-on-Don. Feniks Publ. 2002:269–270. (in Russ.).
20. Gorban A.I., Manchuk V.T., Petushkova E.V. Dynamics of correlations between physiological parameters during adaptation and ecological-evolutionary principle of polyfactoriality. Problemy ekologicheskogo monitoringa i modelirovaniya ekosistem = Problems of ecological monitoring and modeling of ecosystems. Leningrad Hydrometeoizdat Publ. 1987;10:187–198. (in Russ.).
21. Klimov V.M., Aizman N.I. Dynamics of Psycho-Physiological and SocioPsychological Characteristics of University Students of Different Specialties. Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. 2018;(3):93-101. (in Russ.). DOI: https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2018-3-93-101
22. Tarabrina N.Yu. Psychophysiological assessment of law students health. Teoriya i praktika fizicheskoi kultury = Theory and Practice of Physical Culture. 2015;1:52–54. (in Russ.).
23. Kazakevich I.V., Sinko T.V., Pishchik V.I. The model of teachers attitude to uncertainty construct: With the main focus on different generations of educators. Science for Education Today. 2022;12(3):31–47. (in Russ.). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2203.02
24. Baiguzhin P.A., Makunina O.A., Shibkova D.Z. Neirodinamicheskie markery v prognoze psikhofiziologicheskoi nadezhnosti organizma u molodezhi, realizuyushchei uchebnuyu i sportivnuyu deyatelnost [Neurodynamic markers in the prognosis of psychophysiological reliability of the organism in young people implementing educational and sports activities]. Resursy zhiznesposobnosti i stressoustoichivosti sovremennogo cheloveka: psikhologicheskie, psikhofiziologicheskie, neirobiologicheskie, pedagogicheskie aspekty [Resources of viability and stress resistance of a modern person: psychological, psychophysiological, neurobiological, pedagogical aspects]. Ed. E.A. Rylskaya, V.E. Tseilikman, E.G. Shchelokova. Chelyabinsk, Poligraf-Master Publ. 2021:4–20. (in Russ.).
25. Grube M. Ambiguitätstoleranz und kreative Therapieverfahren bei psychiatrischen Erkrankungen [Tolerance of ambiguity, art therapy and psychiatric illness]. Psychiatr Praha. 2002;29(8):431–437. (in German). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2002-35509
References on translit
-
Copyright (c) 2022 Psychology. Psychophysiology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
