(2017) Science and education, 11, 86-91. Odessa.

Alla Skok,
PhD (Candidate of Psychological Sciences), associate professor,
Dean of the Faculty of Psychology and Pedagogy,
Irina Shlimakova,
PhD (Candidate of Psychological Sciences), associate professor,
head of the Department of Ecological Psychology and Sociology,
T. Shevchenko National University “Chernihiv Collegium”,
53, Hetman Polubotko Str., Chernihiv, Ukraine

MANIPULATIVE INFLUENCE APPLICATION IN WORK BY RESEARCH-PEDAGOGICAL STAFF

The purpose of the research is to analyze the results of the study of manipulative techniques application by school teachers, principals and university teachers in their work; searching for correlations between psychodynamic manifestations of the temperament of teachers and peculiarities of manipulations use. The following research methods were used in the study: Bant’s Scale of Manipulation Approach techniques, S. Bartchenko’s “Personality Orientation in Communication” Scale and V. Rusalova’s “Questionnaire of the Structure of Temperament”. On the basis of the results obtained, it has been determined that all the respondents use manipulating strategies in their work. The indicators vary from the average level to high. It has been found that school principals are characterized by the high level of manipulations application as distinct from university teachers. In the process of pedagogical interaction, university teachers are oriented mainly to equal communication, mutual understanding and communicative cooperation. There is a relationship between communicative authoritarianism and the manipulative influences of educators. Also, there are statistically significant relationships between social flexibility and the use of manipulative actions. Taking this into account, four types of pedagogical workers have been distinguished (“Indifferent”, “Conformal”, “Dialogical” and “Authoritarian”). One of the main tasks of training future educators is the formation of their skills according to the “Dialogical” type. The realization of this task is considered by means of the introduction of the principles of humanization and fundamentalization into the educational space of a higher educational establishment.

influence, manipulation, makiavellizm, humanitarization, fundamentalization, humanization.

1. Garifullin, R. (1997). Illyuzionizm lichnosti kak novaya fyilosofsko-psikhologicheskaya kontseptsiya [Illusionism of the individual as a new philosophical and psychological concept]. Psikhologiya obmana, manipulyatsii, kodirovaniya – Psychology of deception, manipulation, coding. Yoshkar-Ola [in Russian].
2. Bessnovov, B. (2010). Istoriya i filosofiya nauki: uchebnoe posobie [History and philosophy of science: textbook]. BM. : Publishing house «Yurait»; ID «Yurait» [in Russian].
3. Dotsenko, E. L. (1997). Psikhologiya manipulyatsii: fenomeny, mekhanizmy i zashchity [Psychology of manipulation: phenomena, mechanisms and protection]. Moscow: CheRo, Moscow State University [in Russian].
4. Kara-Murza, S.G. (2006). Manipuliatsiia svidomistiu: navchalnyi posibnyk [Manipulation of Consciousness: Textbook]. Kyiv: Orioni [in Ukrainian].
5. Mikhailova, N.N. (2001). Pedagogika podderzhki: uchebno-metodicheskoe posobie [Pedagogy of support: educational and methodical manual]. Мoscow: MIROS [in Russian].
6. Sidorenko, E.V. (2004). Training of influence and confrontation with influence [Trening vliyaniya i protivostoyaniya vliyaniyu]. St. Petersburg: Rech [in Russian].
7. Sosnin, V.A. (1993). Uchymsia obshchenyiu: vzaymoponymanye, vzaymodeistvye, perehovorы, trenynh [Learn to communicate: mutual understanding, interaction, negotiations, training]. Moscow [in Russian].
8. Shainov, V.P. (2010). Psikhologiya manipulirovaniya [Psychology of manipulation]. Minsk: Harvest [in Russian].
9. Goodin, R.E. (1980). Manipulatory politics. Yale U. Pr. N. Haven [in English].
10. Hayes, N. (1993). Principles of social psychology. Hove, Hillsdale : Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. [in English].
11. Freire, P. (1990). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continun, N.Y. [in English].