The article considers the results of the theoretical & empirical study on links between the "Me-Others" construct and the peculiarities of students’ conflict behaviour. The study idea was based on the fact of dynamic combination between self-image and an image of "Others" in the student’s psyche. They both reflect and influence her/his interpersonal relations, including the conflict clashes. These images form a pair of closely related polar psychic phenomena, which act during interpersonal relationships like connected receptacles. Therefore we have named these images as the "Me-Others" construct.
The internal structure of such "Me-Others" construct can be revealed taking into account the ratio between of students’ communicative needs and their self-esteem. Communicative needs reflect a student’s focus on other people. The higher is his/her communicative need, the more dominant is the "Others" component in his/her "Me-Others" construct. Self-esteem shows the degree of a person’s concentration on her/his own Self, it. designates importance of the “Me” component.
The Spearman rank correlation coefficient between the students' communicative needs and their self-esteem is equal to 0.48, i.e. there is a significant correlation. Taking into account that the diagnostic scale of students' communicative needs is direct, but the diagnostic scale of their self-esteem is negative we have made the conclusion about inverse correlation. The higher level of students’ communicative needs is, the lower level of their self-esteem is. The correlation between communicative needs and self-esteem for the gender subsamples is the same as that for the total sample.
The components of the "Me-Others" construct (students' communicative needs and their self-esteem) are dynamically interconnected. The growth of one of them correlates with the decrease of the other. Growth-lowering of communicative needs corresponds to lowering-growth of self-esteem.
Three types of "Me-Others" construct structures are highlighted in the article. The first type is the structure where the “Others” component dominates. Such students have high communicative needs and low self-esteem. It takes 10% of the sample. The second one is the structure where the “Me” component dominates, i.e. such students have low communicative needs and high self-esteem (16,7%). The third one is the harmonious ratio of both components (average levels both of communicative needs and self-esteem). The third type takes 73.3% of the sample. The students with the “Me” dominated structure as a rule choose cooperation as a conflict management style. The avoidance style is typical at the representatives having the “Others” dominate structure and the style of compromise is typical for the students with the harmonious “Me-Others” structure.
The peculiarities of the “Me-Others” construct structure influences significantly on the students’ choice of such behavioural styles at conflict as avoidance ("Me" is less important, self-esteem is low, communicative needs are high) and cooperation ("Others" are less important, self-esteem is high, communicative needs are low). Absence of significant correlations suggests that the “Me-Others” construct practically does not affect the students’ choice of competing, compromising and accommodating styles.
Students with high self-esteem are the most moderate, rational in choosing the behavioural styles at conflicts. The higher self-esteem is, the more often student uses dialogue strategy. Students with high communicative needs respond to a conflict mainly emotionally, which is determined both by their fear of relationship breaking and their desire of affiliation, emotional positive attitudes, approval, encouragement, etc. Students with high communicative needs use, as a rule, the avoidance strategy. However the less often students choose a dialogue, the lower is their communicative need.
There are not statistically significant correlations between the “Me-Others” construct components and the struggle strategy, i.e. the self-esteem and communicative needs do not affect significantly the students’ use of competition in conflict situations.
The next study will be aimed at revealing of inner psychological factors influencing students’ choice of the competing, compromising, accommodating styles and struggle strategy as ways of interpersonal conflict management. Also, the obtained results can create the basis for the individualized programs of students’ behaviour optimization at conflicts, taking into account the peculiarities of their “Me-Others” construct structure.
Antonioni, D. (1998). Relationship Between The Big Five Personality Factors And Conflict Management Styles. International Journal of Conflict Management. V. 9. Iss: 4. 336-355.
Batrachenko, I.G., Konovalova, O.A. (1995). Perceptions and expectations in the structure of conflict. Conflicts in society: Diagnosis and prevention. III-th International. Research Practice conference (pp. 31-34). Kyiv-Chernivtsi [in Ukrainian].
Bazhutina, S.B. & Lukyanchenko, A.Yu. (2003). The peculiarities of interpretation of the inner world of Another by students in the process of communication. Problems of General and Educational Psychology. Scientific Review. H.S. Kostyuk Institute of Psychology, Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of Ukraine. V, 8-13 [in Ukrainian].
Bodtker, A.M. & Jameson, J.K. (2001). Emotion in conflict formation and its transformation: application to organizational conflict management. The International Journal of Conflict Management. 12 (3). 259-275.
Desivilya H.S. & Yagil D. (2005). The role of emotions in conflict management: The case of work teams. The International Journal of Conflict Management.16 (1). 55-69.
Doroshenko, N.M. (2003). Gender Determination of Students' Conflict Behavior Strategy Choice: Dissertation. Kyiv, 188 [in Ukrainian].
Ilyin, E.P. (2009). The psychology of communication and interpersonal relations (pp. 402-403). St. Petersburg [in Russian].
Fetiskin, N.P., Kozlov, V.V. & Manuilov, N.P. (2002). The personality and small groups development social and psychological diagnosis. Moscow. Publishing house of the Institute of Psycho-therapy, 38-39 [in Russian].
Filonenko, M.M. (2008). The Psychology of Communication. Textbook. Pp. 210-213. Kyiv: Educational Literature Center [in Ukrainian].
Grishina, N.V. (2008). Psychology of conflict. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg: Peeter, 544 [in Russian].
Kobernik, L.O. (2009). The psychology of the conflict behavior forms manifestation in the age of student (pp. 232-240). Practical psychology in higher education: theory, research results, technology: monograph. Kyiv: M.P. Drahomanov NPU [in Ukrainian].
Koshova, I.V. (2005). The influence of interpretation schemes on the conflict situations development and completion. Scientific Notes. H.S. Kostyuk Institute of Psychology. No. 26, V. 2. 384-389. Kyiv. [in Ukrainian].
Koval, I.M. (2003). Psychological peculiarities of conflicts during students’ joint learning activity. Dissertation. Kyiv, 192 [in Ukrainian].
Krychfalushiy, M. (2012). Communicative need as a factor of personality’s formation in the process of future sport teacher vocational training. Physical education, sport and health culture in modern society. Scientific Review. 1 (17), 24-28 [in Ukrainian].
Lozhkin, G.V. & Povyakel, N.I. (2007). The Psychology of Conflict: Theory and Modern Practice: A Textbook. Kyiv, 407 [in Ukrainian].
Maksymenko, S.D. (2010). Theoretical and methodological problems of personality psychology. The modern psychology problems: Scientific Review. 7. 3-18. Kamianets-Podilskyi: Axioma [in Ukrainian].
McGuigan, R.J. & Popp, N. (2016). Integral Conflict: The New Science of Conflict. SUNY Press State University of New York, Press Albany. 330.
Moskalenko, V.V. (2008). Social Psychology. Textbook. 2nd ed. Kyiv: Center for Educational Literature, 688 [in Ukrainian].
Orlov, Yu. M. (1991). The Ascension to Individuality: Book for teacher. Moscow: Prosveshcheniie, 287 [in Russian].
Pavlenko, T.V. (2018). The Identification of personal factors of communicative traits development at adolescents. Psychological Journal: Scientific Review / red. S. Maksymenko. 1 (11). 126-137. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Piren, M.I. (2007). The Conflictology. Textbook. Kyiv: Academia, 452 [in Ukrainian].
Rahim, A.M., Magner, N.R. & Shapiro, D.L. (2000). Do justice perceptions influence styles of handling conflict with supervisors?: What justice perceptions, precisely? The International Journal of Conflict Management. 11 (1). 9-31.
Sinyavsky, V.V. & Serheyenkova, O.P. (2007). The Psychological Dictionary. Red. N.A.Pobirchenko. Kyiv: Naukovyi Svit, 274 [in Ukrainian].
Zakholodna, E. (2013). The "conflict" concept meaning among student-athletes. Physical activity, health, sports. 1 (11). 3-11. [in Ukrainian].
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles in the Psychological Journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License International CC-BY that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. For more detailed information, please, fallow the link - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/