Oleksiy Chebykin, Oksana Vdovichenko. Specificity of Risk Propensity in Age Crisis Periods of Ontogenesis.

(2020) Science and education, 2, 5-13. Odessa.

Oleksiy Chebykin,
Doctor of Psychological Sciences, professor,
Full member of the NAPS of Ukraine,
Oksana Vdovichenko,
Doctor of Psychological Sciences, associate professor,
The State institution "South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University
named after K. D. Ushynsky",
26, Staroportofrankivska Str., Odessa, Ukraine


SPECIFICITY OF RISK PROPENSITY
IN AGE CRISIS PERIODS OF ONTOGENESIS


SUMMARY:

The problem of the specifics of risk propensity in age crisis periods of ontogenesis is analyzed in the article. The theoretical and methodological analysis of approaches to the study of the problem of risk in psychology, as well as the selection of its specific levels have been described. The generalization of different approaches made it possible to note that the problem of risk is a multifaceted phenomenon and is considered from two directions: as positive which is characterized by a certain driving force of progress in general and personal development, in particular, and as negative which lead to regression, loss, etc. Based on the selected approaches, as well as the results of the research, the authors will follow the understanding of risk as a specific emotional and volitional action that activates various mental functions that are aimed at overcoming a dangerous situation. The aim is to reveal the severity of risk and to identify certain dominant levels in the age crisis periods of ontogenesis. The latter include crises of adolescence (13-16), early adulthood (30-35) and midlife (45-50). The complex of psychodiagnostic techniques, both the author's development and other researchers have been used to identify certain levels of risk propensity. It has been empirically shown that excessive, high, medium and moderate risk is more evident in adolescent crisis; excessive, high and low risk – in the crisis of early adulthood; high, moderate and low risk – in the midlife crisis. It has been found that the dominance of the affective factor, which is expressed in the emotional non-acceptance of the situation of uncertainty, excitement and confidence in the situation of uncertainty, anger and embarrassment in a situation of danger and personal anxiety is most typical in the adolescent crisis. The dominance of motivational and regulatory risk factor, namely indicators of the pursuance of perfection and benefits, focus on action during the planning and implementation of activities, engagement with life events, achievement motivation is typical in early adulthood crisis. The dominance of the cognitive risk factor, where the most important are the abilities to quickly solve creative tasks and to be tolerant to uncertainty is typical in midlife crisis.


KEYWORDS:

 risk, Psychology of Risk, risk propensity, age periods, crisis, age crisis.


FULL TEXT:

 


REFERENCES:

1. Abchuk, V. A. (1983). Teoriya ryzyku v morskiy praktytsi [Risk Theory in Marine Practice]. Leningrad: Sudnostroenie [in Russian].
2. Alhyn, A. P. (1989). Risk and its role in public life [Ryzyk i yoho rol v suspilnomu zhytti]. Moscow: Dumka [in Russian].
3. Vdovichenko, O. V. (2007). Aprobatsiia opytuvalnyka skhylnosti do ryzyku v riznykh sferakh diialnosti [Approbation of the risk propensity questionnaire in various spheres of activity]. Naukovyy chasopys NPU imeni M. P. Drahomanova – Scientific journal of NPU named after M. P. Drahomanov, 12. Psychological sciences: Collection of scientific works, 17 (41). Part I. (pp. 66-69). Kyiv: NPU named after M. P. Drahomanov [in Ukrainian].
4. Vdovichenko, O. V. (2016). Korehuvannia stresovykh staniv v usloviiakh rekreatsiinykh zakladiv u pidlitkiv [Correction of stress in recreational facilities in adolescents]. Nauka i osvita – Science and education, 9, 23-28 [in Ukrainian].
5. Vdovichenko, O. V. (2014). Problema ryzyku: Hendernyi aspekt [Risk issue: Gender]. Nauka i osvita – Science and education, 11, 71-77 [in Russian].
6. Vdovichenko, O. V. (2018). Test subiektyvnoi otsinky sytuatsii yak nevyznachennykh/nebezpechnykh [Test of subjective assessment of situations as uncertain/dangerous]. Proceedings of the Scientific and Practical Conference: «Kharkivskii osinnii marafon psikhotekhnolohii – Kharkiv autumn marathon of psychotechnologies. (рр. 21-22). Kharkiv: DISA plius [in Ukrainian].
7. Lystsov, V. N. (1985). Mira ryzyku [Risk measure]. Lyudyna i pryroda – Human and nature, 8, 34-39 [in Russian].
8. Oyhenzikht, V. A. (1984). Volya i ryzyk [Volition and risk]. Pravoznavstvo – Jurisprudence. 4, 40-46 [in Russian].
9. Rudashevskiy, V. D. (1974). Ryzyk, konflikt i nevyznachenist v protsesi prinyattiya rishen ta yikh modelyuvannya [Risk, conflict and uncertainty in the decision-making process and their modeling]. Voprosy psykholohii – Psychology Issues, 2, 84-94 [in Russian].
10. Sannikova, O. P., & Sannikov, O. I. (2018). Avantiurnіst і ryzyk u strukturі pryiniattia rіshen [Adventure and risk in the decision-making structure]. Nauka i osvita – Science and Education, 9-10, 111-119 [in Ukrainian].
11. Sobchak, A. A. (1968). O nekotorykh spornykh voprosakh obshchey teorii pravovoy otvetstvennosti [Some controversial issues in the general theory of legal responsibility]. Pravoznavstvo – Jurisprudence, 1, 55-60 [in Russian].
12. Chebykin, A. Ya., & Vdovichenko, O. V. (2004). Vyraznist ziska u studentov [The severity of risk in students]. Odesa: Vydavets Cherkasov M. P. [in Russian].
13. Bilous, M., Dikal, M. V., & Kaniovska, L. M. (2018). Risk Assessment of the Development and Signs of Emotional Burnout Syndrome in Lecturers of Theoretical and Practical Departments of Medical University. Science and Education, 7, 70-75 [in English]
14. Glynis, M. Breakwell (2014). The Psychology of Risk. (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [in English]. 
15. Harrison, S. (2015). Germanwings crash and the psychology of risk. Psychologist, 28 (6) [in English].
16. Mata, R., Frey, R., Richter, D., Jürgen, S., & Hertwig, R. (2018). Risk Preference: A View from Psychology. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2(32), 155-172 [in English].
17. Nina, P. Grishina (2018). Psychology of risk and risk perception: theoretical aspect in decision-making. International Annual Edition of Applied Psychology: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1(5), 9-19 [in English].
18. Roland-Levy, C. D. (2016). Risk and Risktaking from a social psychology perspective. International journal of psychology, (Vol. 51) [in English].
19. Steinberg, L. A. (2008). Social Neuroscience Perspective on Adolescent Risk-Taking. Developmental Review, 28, 78-106 [in English].
20. Trimpop, R. (2014). The Psychology of Risk Taking Behavior. North-Holland [in English].
21. Vdovichenko, O. V. (2018). Subjective risk assessment of uncertainty and danger situations: diagnostics, psychological predicators and age dynamics. Visnyk Kharkivsʹkoho natsionalʹnoho pedahohichnoho universytetu imeni G. S. Skovorody – Bulletin of G. S. Skovoroda Kharkiv National Pedagogical University, I (57), 31–39 [in English].
22. Zuckerman, M. (2005). Psychobiology of Personality. New York: Cambridge University Press [in English].

         

       
   
   
         

 

©2020 Університет Ушинського. Всі права захищені, мабуть.