(2017) Science and education, 11, 179-186. Odessa.

Olha Sannikova,
Doctor of Psychology, professor,
Head of the Department of General and Differential Psychology,
South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky,
4, Fontanska Doroha Str., Odesa, Ukraine

INDIVIDUAL-TYPICAL VARIATIONS OF NARCISSISM

In the period of global and large-scale socio-cultural changes, the desire for “free individualism”, for undesirable social manifestations referring to the extreme (subclinical) variants of the “norm”, to the growth of narcissistic tendencies increases. The urgency of the study is determined by the need to develop a theoretical and methodological substantiation of the issue of narcissism, its conceptualization as a psychological phenomenon, the need to study individualtypical variations of its features (components) and the features of their manifestations. The paper aims to present the results of investigating individual psychological features of non-clinical narcissism in persons who differ in emotionality. For the study of narcissism, “Test of Narcissism Assessment” was used. Emotionality was measured by “Psychodiagnostic Four-Modality Emotionality Questionnaire”. The presence of negative significant correlations between the emotional modality of Joy and the majority of indicators of narcissism was found, while the modalities “Anger”, “Fear”, “Sadness” correlate with the parameters of narcissism mostly positively. The individual peculiarity of the narcissistic traits within the limits of the mental norm, the variability of their individual combinations (qualitative and quantitative combination of indicators, characteristics of narcissism) are determined by the degree of dominance of one or another emotional modality.

dark triad, non-clinical narcissism, emotionality, profiles of narcissism, individual-typical variations.

1. A.s. Psihodiagnosticheskij chetyrehmodal'nostnyj test-oprosnik jemocional'nosti [Psychodiagnostic fourmodality emotionality test-questionnaire] (2003). Olha Pavlivna Sannikova. Zaiavka № 8664 vid 30.09.2003; reiestrats. № 8828 vid 24.11.2003. 30 s. [in Russian]
2. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). Struktura fenotipicheskih lichnostnyh kachestv [Structure of phenotypic personality traits]. Amerikanskij psiholog. – American psychologist, V. 48. P. 26-34 [in Russian]
3. Egorova, M. S. & Sitnikova, M. A. (2014). Tjomnaja triada [The Dark Triad]. Psihologicheskie issledovanija – Psychological Studies, Vol. 7, № 10 [in Russian].
4. Zaluckaja, N. M. (2003). Indeks funkcionirovanija Self-sistemy (na osnove testa ocenki narcissizma) [The index of the functioning of the Self-system (based on the narcissism assessment test)]. SPb. : NIPNI im. V. M. Behtereva [in Russian].
5. Klepikova, N. M. (2011). Operacional'noe opredelenie narcissizma v predelah psihicheskoj normy [The operational definition of narcissism within the psychic norm]. Extendd abstract of candidate’s thesis. Habarovsk [in Russian].
6. Kornilova, T. V., Kornilov, S. A., Chumakova, M. A. & Talmach, M. S. (2015). Metodika diagnostiki lichnostnyh chert «Temnoj triady»: aprobacija oprosnika «Temnaja djuzhina» [The technique of diagnosing the personality traits of the "Dark Triad": approbation of the "Dark Dozen" questionnaire]. Psihologicheskij zhurnal – Psychological Journal, Vol. 36, № 2. P. 99-112 [in Russian]
7. Model' struktury lichnosti HEXACO [HEXACO personality structure model] (2016) [Jelektronnyj resurs]. Rezhim dostupa: http://hexaco.org/ scaledescriptions. [in Russian]
8. Nebylicyn, V. D. (2000). Problemy psihologii individual'nosti [Problems of personality psychology]. Brushlinskyi, A. V. & Ushakova, T. N. (Eds.). – M. : Moskovskij psihologo-social'nyj institut; Voronezh : Izdvo NPO «MODJeK» [in Russian].
9. Ol'shannikova, A. E. (1978). K psihodiagnostike jemocional'nosti [Psychodiagnostics of emotionality]. Problemy obshhej, vozrastnoj i pedagogicheskoj psihologii – Problems of general, age and pedagogical psychology, M. p. 93-105 [in Russian].
10. Sannikova, O. P. (2003). Psihologicheskie zashhity: problema individual'nyh razlichij [Psychological protection: the problem of individual differences]. Proceedings of VI Kostyukov Readings «Psihologіja u XXI stolіttі: perspektivi rozvitku» - «Psychology in the XXI table: perspectives for development». (pp. 17-24). Kiїv [in Russian].
11. Sannikova, O. P. (2003). Fenomenologija lichnosti [Phenomenology of personality]. Odessa : SMIL, [in Russian].
12. Frejd, Z. (2006). O vvedenii ponjatija «narcissizm» [On the introduction of the concept of "narcissism"]. Psihologija bessoznatel'nogo [Psychology of the unconscious]. M. : STD [in Russian].
13. Fromm, Je. (2010). Dusha cheloveka [The Soul of Man]. М. : AST. Retrieved from: http://www.gumer.info/bibliotekBuks/Psihol/from/indexp hp [in Russian].
14. Buckels, E. E., Jones, D. N. & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). Behavioral Сonfirmation of Everyday Sadismulhus. Psychological Science, 24(11), 2201-2209 [in English].
15. Das «Narzißmusinventar» (1989-1994): Handbuch / F.-W. Deneke, B. Hilgenstock, B. R. Müller. Bern : Huber [in German].
16. Furnham, A., Richards, S. C. & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of Personality: a 10-year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, V. 7(3), P. 199-216 [in English]
17. Jonason, P., Jones, K. & Krause, L. (2013). The emotional deficits associated with the Dark Triad traits: Cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and alexithymia. Person. and Individ. Diff., V. 55, P. 532-537 [in English].
18. Jones, D. N. & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Different provocations trigger aggression in narcissists and psychopaths. Social Psychological and Personality Science, V. 1, Р. 12–18 [in English].
19. Morf, C.C. & Rhodewalt F. (2009). Die Paradoxa des Narzissmus ein dynamisches selbstregulatorisches Prozessmodell. Narzissmus Grundlagen – Störungsbilder – Therapie. Stuttgart – N.Y. : Schattauer, 308-347 [in German].
20. Kernberg, O.F. & Hartmann, H.-P. (Eds.) (2009). Narzissmus Grundlagen Störungsbilder–Therapie. Stuttgart – N.Y.: Schattauer [in German].
21. Paulhus, D. L. & Williams, K. M. The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, V. 36. P. 556–563 [in English].
22. Petrides, K. V., Pérez-González J. C. & Furnham A. (2007). On the criterion and incremental validity of trait emotional intelligence. Cognition & Emotion, V. 21. Р. 26–55 [in English].
23. Soyer, R. B., Rovenpor, J. L., Kopelman, R. E., Mullins, L. S. & Watson P. J. (2001). Further assessment of the construct validity of four measures of narcissism: replication and extension. J. Psychol., № 135. P. 245-258 [in English].
24. Svindseth, M. F., Sorebo, O., Nottestad, J. A., Roaldset, J. O., Wallin, J. & Dahl, A. A. (2009). Psychometric examination and normative data for the narcissistic personality inventory 29 item version. Scand J Psychol., 50(2), P. 151-159 [in English].

(2017) Science and education, 11, 187-192. Odessa.

Larysa Zasiekina,
Doctor of Psychological Science, Full Professor, head of the
Department of General and Social Psychology and Social Studies,
Victoria Maystruk,
postgraduate student,
Lesya Ukrainka Eastern European National University,
12, Volia Avenue, Lutsk, Ukraine

UNCONDITIONAL SELF-ACCEPTANCE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING

The category of self-acceptance is usually considered as an appropriate instrument for enhancing mental health and well-being. From this perspective unconditional self-acceptance is often considered as an alternative for improving low self-esteem which is always regarded as dysfunctional global evaluating one’s worth. It would be preferable for individual well-being to accept oneself unconditionally. A novel approach to self-acceptance study is based on the primary issues of rational-emotive behavior therapy (Ellis, 1969), rational frames theory (Hayes et al., 2001, Zasiekina, 2015), acceptance and commitment therapy (Zettle et al., 2003). The goal of the study is adaptation and revealing psychometric properties for Ukrainian version of a novel measure of unconditional self-acceptance (Chamberlain J.M., Haaga, 2001). The procedure of adaptation and standardization of the Unconditional Self-Acceptance Questionnaire contains two stages. The first one is represented by feedback translation of the items and testing two versions of the Questionnaire in the students of Foreign Language Philology Departments. The indices of strong correlation were observed which proves the adequacy of translation version. The second stage contains data of reliability and validity of the Questionnaire. In a nonclinical adult sample, statistically controlling for unconditional self-acceptance, the latter was connected with the psychological well-being, a sense of autonomy in thoughts and actions, establishing closing ties to others, the ability to manage complex environments to suit personal needs and values. The results of the study allow using a Ukrainian version of Unconditional Self-Acceptance Questionnaire as a reliable measure for diagnostics.

unconditional self-acceptance, self-acceptance, mental health, well-being, self-esteem.

1.Beck, A.T. & Haigh, E. (2014). Advances in Cognitive Theory and Therapy: The Generic Cognitive Model. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. Vol. 10. pp. 1- 24.
2.Chamberlain, J.M., Haaga, D.A.F. (2001). Unconditional Self-acceptance and Psychological Health. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behaviour Therapy, 3, 163-176.
3.David, D., Lynn, S. J., Das, Lama Surya (2013). Self-Acceptance in Buddhism and Psychotherapy. The Strength of Self-Acceptance: Theory, Practice and Research, M.E. Bernard (ed.).
4.Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy. New York: Lyle Stuart.
5.Gould, J.A. (1978). Classic Philosophical Questions. Columbus: Bell and Howell Company.
6.Hayes, S.C.; Barnes-Holmes, D. & Roche, B. (Eds.). (2001). Relational Frame Theory: A PostSkinnerian account of human language and cognition. New York: Plenum Press.
7.Rogers, Carl R. (1985). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95-103.
8.Ryff, C., Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The Structure of Psychological Well-Being Revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 719-727.
9.Zasiekina, L. (2015). Psycholinguistic approach to diagnostics and modification of individual negative core beliefs. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics, 1, 151-157.
10. Zettle, R. D. (2003) Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) versus systematic desensitization in treatment of mathematics anxiety. Psychological Record, 53, 197–215.

(2017) Science and education, 11, 1. Odessa.

Tetiana Koknova,
PhD (Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences), associate professor,
Roman and Germanic Philology Department, Luhansk Taras Shevchenko National University,
1, Gogol square, Starobilsk, Ukraine

ES”

nce.

alty.

an].

(2017) Science and education, 11, 5-17. Odessa.

Willie van Peer,
PhD, professor,
Ludwig Maximilian University,
2, Professor-Huber-Platz, Munich, Germany,
Anna Chesnokova,
PhD (Candidate of Philological Sciences), professor,
Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University,
18/2, Bulvarno-Kudriavska Str., Kyiv, Ukraine

LITERARINESS IN READERS’ EXPERIENCE.
FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN EMPIRICAL RESEARCH AND THEORY

In the past, several studies have found empirical support for the psychological notion of foregrounding. In this article we will present the results of a series of reading experiments investigating descriptive and evaluative reader reactions to poems, both in their original form (containing rather heavy foregrounding, both deviation and parallelism) and versions from which all foregrounding has been removed. In this sense the research presents a replication of earlier experiments as well as a comparison with some more recent ones that failed to find empirical evidence for the notion of foregrounding. It will also cast light on Bortolussi and Dixon’s (2003) ‘rereading paradigm’. The results will be combined with a reconsideration of the concept of literariness, which will be confronted with the variety within a reader population, as well as with the diversity within a text corpus. The latter will be confronted with Van Peer’s (1991) effort to develop a descriptive definition of literature, incorporating the heterogeneous nature of the corpus of texts that are regarded as literary. Revisiting these aspects of texts and their reception may illuminate persistent problems in the theory of literariness.

 literariness, empirical research, reading experiment, rereading paradigm, foregrounding.

1. Bortolussi, M. & Dixon, P. (2003). Psychonarratology. Foundations for the empirical study of literary response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Chesnokova, A.V. (2011). Yak vymiryaty vrazhennya vid poeziyi abo Vstup do empirychnyh metodiv doslidzhennya u movoznavstvi [Measuring the impression of poetry: Introduction to empirical research methods in linguistics]. Kiev: Lenvit [in Ukrainian].
3. Chesnokova, A. & van Peer, W. (2016). Anyone came to live here some time ago: A cognitive semiotics approach to deviation as a foregrounding device. Versus: Quaderni di studi semiotici 122, 5-22.
4. Field, A. (2002). Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows. London: Sage.
5. Fricke, H. (2008). How scientific can literary evaluation be? Arguments and experiments. The quality of literature: Linguistic studies in literary evaluation. W. van Peer (Ed.). (pp. 191–207). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins, .
6. Hutcheson, G. & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist. London: Sage.
7. Koopman, E. (2016). Reading suffering. An empirical inquiry into empathic and reflective responses to literary narratives. Rotterdam: ERNeCC.
8. Language and Literature 16 (2). (2007). (= Thematic issue on ‘foregrounding’).
9. Leech, G.N. (1969). A linguistic guide to English poetry. London: Longman.
10.Miall, D. S. & Kuiken, D. (1994). Foregrounding, defamiliarization, and affect: Responses to literary stories. Poetics 22 (5), 389-407.
11.Moretti, F. (2005). Graphs, maps, trees. Abstract models for a literary history. London / New York: Verso.
12. Popper, K.R. (1972). Objective knowledge. An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
13. Shklovsky, V. (1917 / 1965). Art as technique. Russian Formalist criticism: Four essays. L.T. Lemon & M.J. Reis (Eds.). (pp. 3-57). Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press,
14. Simpson, P. (2014). Stylistics: A resource book for students. 2nd edition. London: Routledge.
15. van Peer, W. (1986). Stylistics and psychology. Investigations of foregrounding. London: Croom Helm.
16. van Peer, W. (1991). But what is literature? Toward a descriptive definition of literary texts. Literary pragmatics, R.D. Sell (Ed.). (pp. 127-141). London: Routledge.
17. van Peer, W. (1993). Typographic foregrounding. Language and Literature 2 (1), 49-61.
18. van Peer, W., Hakemulder, F. & Zyngier, S. (2007). Lines on feeling: Foregrounding, aesthetic appreciation, and meaning. Language and Literature 16 (2), 197-213.
19. van Peer, W., Hakemulder, F. & Zyngier, S. (2012). Scientific methods for the Humanities. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
20.Weinberg, S. (2001). Facing Up. Science and its cultural adversaries. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.