The concept of role behavior. Role theory of personality General characteristics of role theories of personality

Currently, in social science there are two types of role theories: structuralist and interactionist. Structuralist role theory is firmly rooted in sociological positions. The theoretical foundations of sociological role theory were laid by many authors - M. Weber, G. Simmel, T. Parsan and others. All of them developed the problems of the connection between individuals and society and the influence of society on the individual. Most of these authors considered the objective aspects of role theories and practically did not touch upon its subjective aspects. Weber alone once noted that sociology must take into account the subjective motivation of the actor in order to explain his behavior.

Modern interactionist role theories are based on the socio-psychological concepts of J. Mead, associated with the concept of “role”, which he introduced into use in social psychology. Mead did not define the concept of role when presenting his concepts, using it as very amorphous and vague. In fact, the concept was taken from the realm of theater or everyday life, where it was used as a metaphor to refer to a number of phenomena of social behavior, such as the occurrence of similar behavior in a variety of people in similar circumstances. Mead used this term when he developed the idea of "taking the role of another" to explain the act of interaction between individuals in the process of verbal communication.

According to J. Mead, “accepting the role of another,” i.e. the ability to look at oneself from the outside through the eyes of a communication partner is a necessary condition for the successful implementation of any act of interaction between people. Mead’s “acceptance of the role of another” included only children’s role-playing games, which he considered one of the most important means of personal socialization. This, in fact, limits his reasoning about the social role of the individual. Later, the concepts of “role” and “social role” began to be widely used and developed in Western sociology and social psychology. Social anthropologist R. Linton made a significant contribution to the development of role theory. He proposed the so-called status-role concept. According to Linton, terms such as “status” and “role” are very convenient for determining the connection of an individual with various systems of society. Status, according to Linton, is the place that an individual occupies in a given system. And he uses the concept of role to describe the entire sum of cultural patterns of behavior associated with a certain status. According to Linton, a role thus includes the attitudes, values and behavior prescribed by society for each of all people having a certain status. Because a role represents external behavior, it is a dynamic aspect of status, something that an individual must do in order to justify the status occupied. Therefore, when studying the social role, one can highlight the sociological and socio-psychological aspects, which are closely interrelated. The sociological approach to a social role, as a rule, is related to its impersonal, substantive and normative side, i.e. to the type and content of activity, to the proposed fulfillment of a certain social function, as well as to the norms of behavior required by society for the fulfillment of this social role is associated, first of all, with the study of subjective factors of the social role, i.e. with the disclosure of certain socio-psychological mechanisms and patterns of perception and performance of social roles. It is typical for interactionists to attach special importance to the socio-psychological side of role theory.

As can be seen, in most cases, the role of an individual, when viewed socially and psychologically, is associated with his position and status. At the same time, status is often considered by interactionists not as the objective position of an individual in a system of certain social relations, but primarily as a subjective category, i.e. “a set” or “organization of role expectations”, which are divided into expectations-rights and expectations-responsibilities of an individual when performing a particular role. Although a socio-psychological analysis of a social role presupposes consideration, first of all, of the subjective factors of role behavior, true insight into the essence of these factors requires not their absolutization, but the close connection of the subjective aspects of role behavior with objective social relations, since it is the latter that is ultimately determining for the formation in the public consciousness of expectations-demands, rights and responsibilities, and modes of behavior corresponding to a particular role.

Methods of mental influence on a person of interest in operational-search activities
All methods of mental influence in operational-search activities on a person of interest can be divided into three groups: · techniques that help recognize the falsity of testimony; · techniques for overcoming lies and obtaining truthful testimony: · techniques for providing mnemonic assistance. Within these groups, an additional class is possible...

Structure and features of motivation at the initial stage of training
One of the important characteristics of educational activities is motivation. It affects not only cognitive activity and the desire to learn, but also the success, efficiency and effectiveness of educational activities. “The motivation for learning consists of a series of constantly changing and entering into new relationships with each other motives (consum...

Methods for regulating the level of arousal in athletes
Clinical and experimental psychologists, psychiatrists and physiologists interested in problems of sports psychology have developed and partially studied a number of methods for regulating the level of arousal in athletes before, during competition and after a performance. Some of these methods represent an unsystematized generalization of clinical...

The characterization of a small group as a collection of subjects of communication presupposes its consideration as a “system of systems.” This means that a small group represents a specific socio-psychological system that integrates individuals as “microsystems”.

L.P. Bueva, who proposed this approach, considers the personality to be an open and dynamic system. It's hard to disagree with this.

I. S. Kon also understands personality as a system. He believes that objectively the personality system can best be described as a set of its social roles. According to I. S. Kohn,

“the concept of personality means a holistic person in the unity of his individual abilities and the social functions (roles) he performs.”

Social functions reveal her belonging to a certain social group, they record her rights and responsibilities in relation to the group. The personality is not limited to one role; the objective structure of the personality is revealed as a totality, the integrity of its roles in society.

In the literature, one can distinguish different points of view on the role behavior of an individual. Each of them reflects a subjective view of the essence and content of the concept of “role”. But it is objective that a role theory of personality has developed in sociology.

According to V. A. Yadov, the role theory of personality is a theory in which a personality is described through social functions and patterns of behavior learned and accepted by the subject (internalized) or forced to be performed (non-internalized) - roles determined by the social status of the individual in society or a social group.

Role theory of personality is an integration of the achievements of sociology and social psychology in the study of personality.

The main provisions of the role theory of personality were formed in social psychology by J. Mead, and in sociology by the social anthropologist R. Linton.

J. Mead pays main attention to “role learning,” mastering roles in the processes of interpersonal interaction (interaction), emphasizing the stimulating effect of “role expectations” on the part of “significant” persons for a given individual with whom he enters into communication.

R. Linton highlights, first of all, the sociocultural nature of role prescriptions and their connection with the social position of the individual, as well as the maintenance of role requirements by a system of social and group sanctions.

Within the framework of the role theory of personality, such phenomena as

“role conflict” - the subject’s experience of ambiguity or inconsistency of role requirements on the part of different social communities of which he is a member; what creates a stressful situation;
“integration and disintegration” of the role structure of the individual - as a consequence of the harmony or conflict of social relations.

Based on this theory, A. A. Nalchadpsyan developed the concept of role behavior. From his point of view, role behavior is the behavior of an individual in a group, determined by its status and the role it plays in accordance with this status.

The concept of a social role associated with norms and expectations includes the following “blocks”:

the represented role (the system of expectations of the individual and certain groups);
subjective role (those expectations (expectations) that a person associates with his status, i.e. his subjective ideas about how he should act in relation to persons with other statuses);
role played (observed behavior of a person having a given status in relation to another person with a different status).

The style of role behavior is the “personal coloring” of playing a role, depending on the temperament, character, motivation and other characteristics of the individual, on his knowledge and skills.

The role behavior of an individual is two-dimensional: these are actions

from regulatory requirements (I am in the role suggested by circumstances),
from personal claims (I as such).

The first plan of behavior is a social form of role-playing actions. The second plan is a psychological method of role self-realization.

personal concept;
role expectations;
personal role specificity;
personal strategy for role implementation;
personal cognitive program.

The concept of social role requires an understanding of the following four points:

firstly, that the social role is regulated by certain rights and responsibilities both in society as a whole and in small groups into which the individual is included through his life activities;
secondly, that the person himself has a definite opinion about how he will fulfill his role;
thirdly, the fact that different roles have different significance for the individual;
fourthly, the fact that the role of the individual is manifested in its actual behavior.

Acceptance of a role by an individual - in addition to depending on social factors - depends on his gender, age, typological characteristics of the nervous system, abilities, state of health, etc.

There is a normative structure for fulfilling a social role, consisting of a description of behavior (corresponding to a given role); prescriptions (requirements for this behavior); assessment of performance of the prescribed role; sanctions (for violation of prescribed requirements). Each the social system has its own “set of roles”, which is determined:

firstly, the stable expectations of society or a group regarding the behavior of a person with a certain status;
secondly, a set of value orientations of the individual, called the “internalized” (internally accepted) role;
thirdly, by the fact that there are always people whose behavior and internal appearance are considered as the ideal embodiment of the role and serve as role models.

Fulfilling social roles can cause the following conflicts:

intrapersonal (caused by contradictions in the requirements placed on the behavior of an individual in his various social roles).
intra-role (arises as a result of contradictions in the requirements for the fulfillment of a social role by different participants in the interaction);
personal-role (consequence of a discrepancy between a person’s ideas about himself and his role functions);
innovative (as a result of the discrepancy between previously formed value orientations and the requirements of the new social situation).

We have always been interested in the communicative roles of the individual: it is their analysis that makes it possible to approach a small group as a set of subjects of communication. But this is a first-level approach, i.e. subjective. Within its framework, we developed a role morphology, including

role strategy (a way to adapt to a communication partner);
role task (goal that needs to be achieved in a problem situation);
role program (system of purposeful, ordered actions);
role actions (means of achieving a goal);
role competence (knowledge about the conditions of action);
role freedom (possible and unacceptable when playing a role);
role mood (psycho-emotional state corresponding to the interaction situation).

An integral part of any human existence is the need to play certain roles in society, since without this the functioning of the social organism is impossible and the self-realization of the individual is impossible. Role behavior is the behavior of an individual, manifested depending on the tasks performed in accordance with the expectations of others. Its main conditions are the acceptability and clarity of the role itself. The clarity of the role shows that this person (who performs it) understands the content of the role, as well as the connection between the activities he performs and other individuals. The acceptability of a role lies in the conscious readiness to perform it in order to obtain a certain satisfaction. The role itself is not a model of behavior. An individual's character serves as the link between expectations and behavior. As a result, role behavior acts as a unique product inherent in interpretation and interpretation.

Any human behavior begins with the role he performs in the social environment. Thus, a person can evaluate and know himself, determining his place in a specific environment, after which he controls, directs and corrects his own behavior. This process takes place individually in each individual case and depends solely on the parameters of the mental personality, when exposed to the influence of the industrial and social environment.

Personality is a multifaceted and rather complex phenomenon that acts as a certain link in social relations. In a psychological understanding, a personality is a specific person representing a certain class, nationality, team, society, where he carries out a certain type of activity, having mental individual characteristics.

Any social role has this structure:

Model of manifestation of human behavior from the social side;
A person’s system of representation about his own behavior in a specific situation;
The real behavior of a person who occupies a specific status and position in society.

When these components are mismatched, role conflict appears, manifested in one of the forms:
Inter-role conflict - in this case, a person acts as a bearer of several roles, the requirements of which are incompatible, he does not have the strength, time or opportunity to fulfill them efficiently. The basis of this conflict is an illusion;
Intra-role conflict occurs when fulfilling one role is impossible because it is subject to demands from different representatives of social groups. For the individual, the development of this conflict is extremely dangerous and can result in irreparable consequences.

Role conflict and its manifestations.

Adler, Freud, Fromm and Jung studied personality conflicts that manifested from within each individual person. Personality psychology is closely interconnected with its interaction with other members of a given group. Full agreement is characterized by meeting the expectations of other members and meeting their needs. Various types of group punishments and rewards allow you to achieve the most effective results. All social roles are subject to certain compatibility restrictions. Under certain conditions, a person may encounter the fact that certain needs lead to contradiction and, as a consequence, the breaking of roles. This is how role conflict arises.

Role conflict is a situation in which a person is faced with several demands simultaneously, in which the implementation of one of the roles leads to the inability to fulfill all the others. In general, there are two types of such conflicts:

interrole - when there is a conflict between roles;
intra-role - when it occurs within a single role.
They are described in more detail above. And only an even distribution of roles can relieve role tension and avoid conflict.

General characteristics of role theories of personality.

The role theory of personality acts as an approach to studying personality, described through the patterns of behavior and social functions accepted or forced to be performed by it, i.e., roles arising from the social status of a certain group or social society itself. The general characteristics of role theories of personality and its main provisions were formulated by anthropologist R. Linton and J. Mead, an American social psychologist.

Within the framework of role theory, it was experimentally found that role conflict is the experience of confrontation or ambiguity of role requirements by the subject himself on the part of the social communities in which he is a member, thinking that he is creating a certain stressful situation. It was also revealed that integration and disintegration of the personality structure are a consequence of conflict or harmony of social relations.

A role, according to the modern concept of role behavior, is a way of behavior set by society. It consists of two variables: the basic psychological attitudes of our “I” and the expectations of other people.

While role behavior typically consists of conscious role playing, in some cases it is highly conscious. With this behavior, the player constantly studies his own efforts and creates the desired image of his own self. In any case, a person’s individual performance of a role has a certain “personal coloring,” depending both on his knowledge and ability to be in a given role, on its significance for him, character, motivation, other personality characteristics, and sociocultural influences.

As noted by researchers T.V. Kazakova and S.I. Raikov, each individual during his life learns to perform a variety of roles, thereby mastering the norms of culture. Role-playing training, in their opinion, has two aspects:

1. Perform duties and exercise rights in accordance with the role played.

2. Acquisition of attitudes, feelings and expectations corresponding to the given role.

Learning to perform social roles can only be successful with consistent preparation for the transition from one role to another throughout the individual’s life. Studies of practice show that role learning is characterized by discontinuity, which leads to role tension. Role tension arises due to an incorrect understanding of the future role, as well as poor preparation for it and, as a consequence, poor performance of this role. Another source of role tension is that the moral preparation of an individual to perform roles includes mainly formal rules of social behavior. At the same time, teaching informal modifications of these rules that actually exist in the world around us is often ignored. In other words, individuals learning a certain role assimilate, as a rule, an ideal picture of the surrounding reality, and not real culture and real human interactions.

Role regulation is a formal procedure by which a person is relieved of personal responsibility for the consequences of performing a particular role. In practice, this looks like a person's reference to the influence of organizations, by virtue of which he is forced to act in a certain way.

In general, role behavior is determined by the following factors:

§ constantly occurring sociocultural changes;

§ the individual’s relationships with other members of the social group to which he belongs;

§ the individual’s assimilation of sociocultural values and norms, which are regulated mainly through role training;

§ the social status of the individual in society;

§ the expectations of others in relation to the individual.

The study of role behavior through socio-psychological conditions was carried out by the authors of these lines in the workforce of one of the enterprises in the city of Tambov and made it possible to identify a number of socio-psychological conditions that determine role behavior. The authors combined these conditions into three groups.

1. Conditions determined by the process of socialization:

§ the influence of social stereotypes (the presence of a social stereotype plays a significant role in a person’s assessment of the world around him, in his response to a changing reality, to the process of his cognition);

§ the influence of social values that a person acquires in the process of socialization (social values are more or less generally accepted behavioral standards, i.e. beliefs shared by a social group about the ways and means that lead to achieving a goal; social values answer the question of how refer to what already is and what could be);

§ the influence of social norms that a person internalizes and implements in his role behavior.

2. Condition of role tension (influences the occurrence or elimination of role tension):

§ the influence of the socio-psychological climate of the team, which affects the degree of trust and demands of group members towards each other, the degree of pressure from managers on subordinates, etc.;

§ pressure from surrounding circumstances, which leads to role tension and role conflict;

§ interaction of the personality of the role performer with other participants, because the concept of a role includes the set of expectations of each person in relation to both his own behavior and the behavior of other people when interacting in a certain situation;

§ the degree of correspondence between the expectations of other people and one’s own ideas about oneself and one’s role (the higher this degree of correspondence, the more effective the role behavior);

§ correspondence of a person’s existing role to his personal potential;

§ the degree to which an individual is aware of his roles (the extent to which a person understands the specifics of his role, the extent to which he imagines the appropriate line of behavior for himself, the extent to which it is interpreted by him, largely depends on the quality of its performance).

3. Condition for role self-realization:

§ personality activity (personal activity is understood as a person’s ability to make socially significant transformations, manifested in creativity, role behavior, communication; personality activity in role behavior can be expressed in the choice of a particular role, the person’s awareness of his role, the choice of a model for performing it, conscious submission their role behavior and the expectations of others);

§ level of sense of responsibility (responsibility determines the individual’s attitude towards his role responsibilities, since it serves as a means of internal control of the internal regulation of the individual’s behavior;

§ ability to adapt to changing situations.

Thus, role-playing games are always improvisation, drawing material from the social practice of human life with the introduction of three elements: fiction, historical truth and real reality. The unifying spontaneous element of the three elements is imagination.

Interactionism is a theoretical orientation rooted not in the psychological, but in the sociological tradition of studying human social behavior. Interactionism is based on the views of the American philosopher, sociologist and social psychologist George Mead. The starting point of analysis in the interactionist orientation is not the individual, as in other theoretical orientations of social psychology, but the social process, understood as the process of interaction of individuals in a group or society. For representatives of the interactionist orientation, it is important to find out by what human-specific means the process of social interaction is carried out and regulated. Hence the great interest in the problem of communication with the help of symbols, language, in the interpretation of the situation, in the problems of personality structure, role behavior and reference group as a source of formation of norms of social interaction and social attitudes.

The interactionist orientation covers a wide range of issues. The following socio-psychological theories can be distinguished in it:

symbolic interactionism;
role theories;
reference group theory.

Symbolic interactionism

J. Mead dealt with the problem of the origin and development of human consciousness at the end of the 19th century. His works laid the foundations for the theory of symbolic interactionism, but the term “symbolic interactionism” itself was introduced later in 1937 by Herbert Blumer, his student and follower.

The main idea of symbolic interactionism is that social actions are assigned a meaning accepted in society as a whole (= symbol). The focus is on the patterns of the social process, which represents the interaction (interaction) of people within a specific social situation. It is in interaction with others that a person learns to relate his actions to the symbolic meaning accepted in society. In the process of development, the child first learns external labels, and then he develops the internal ability to find appropriate names for his actions; In this way, activity is more precisely defined and linked to the structure of socio-cultural expectations and needs.

Mead believed that the “I” is not inherent in a person from birth. The self is largely a social construct that is formed through interactions with others. He believed that only when a person perceives the attitude of others towards himself and begins to act like others does his “I” arise. The principles of symbolic interactionism can, according to Mead, be clearly illustrated by the example of child development.

According to Mead, the child's development from imitation in self-play to the ability to participate in complex group games reflects the overall development of a person with regard to social interaction. The individual must learn to relate his actions to the same meanings as his environment so that his actions become meaningful and can function as meaningful symbols in interaction with others. Then we can say that the individual is able to look at himself as an object and look at his actions as others look at them. In the terminology of symbolic interactionism, this would mean that he perceived the attitude of significant others or the “generalized other” towards himself.

The special merit of symbolic interactionism lies in highlighting specifically human, symbolic aspects of communication - speech, gestures, facial expressions of feelings, etc. Within the framework of this approach, human social behavior is viewed as fundamentally different from the herd behavior of animals. The quintessence of human symbolic behavior is social role- a stable external and internal position of one person in relation to another and (or) the social system as a whole.

In the approach to role behavior, one can find a reflection of differences in the methodological principles of the Chicago and Iowa schools of interactionism. Both schools are led by followers of Mead's theory. The head of the Chicago School of Interactionism is Mead's student G. Bloomer. This school strives to follow the Foreign Ministry's socio-psychological traditions as closely as possible. Representatives of the Chicago School opposed the use of research methods such as tests, scaling, experiment, etc. in social psychology. Considering that a personality in interactions with other people cannot constantly manifest itself in the same way, it is impossible and meaningless to express the socio-psychological characteristics of a personality in mathematical quantities. Blumer believed that descriptive methods used in the humanities, which identify the most general characteristics and trends, are more suitable for identifying socio-psychological phenomena and personality characteristics. For example, interviews, various types of observation, study of documents, etc.

The Iowa school of symbolic interactionism, led by M. Kuhn, a professor at the University of Iowa, set itself the task of proving some of Mead's theoretical positions empirically. For this purpose, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs concept was modified, operational definitions were introduced to create a methodology for studying personality. According to Kuhn, the essence of personality can be determined by the answers that an individual gives to the question: “Who am I?” addressed to himself, or to the question: “Who are you?” addressed to him by another person. Thus, Kuhn and his supporters viewed personality as a structure of social attitudes formed on the basis of internalized roles, giving them decisive importance in determining individual behavior.

Bloomer and other representatives of the Chicago School view the individual as an active and creative being who “designs” his actions depending on how he perceives and interprets the environment. Accordingly, role behavior, to denote which they use the term “role-making,” is a searching, dynamic, creative process.

In contrast to the Chicago School, representatives of the Iowa School prefer to talk not about “doing a role”, but about “performing”, “playing” a role or “accepting a role”, in fact excluding the spontaneous, creative element from an individual’s behavior. G. M. Andreeva, N. N. Bogomolova, L. A. Petrovskaya quote Kuhn, who believes that the individual “forms his plans of behavior in accordance with the roles played and statuses occupied in the groups with which he identifies himself, i.e. . in his reference groups. His attitude towards himself as an object is the best indicator of these plans of behavior ... they are decisive for self-esteem and for the evaluation of others.

Interest in a deep understanding of the socio-psychological mechanisms of interaction arose among scientists after the following experiment, which was conducted by Philip Zimbardo in the late 1960s. (Stanford experiment)

The presence of social roles and their enormous influence on individual behavior has been proven experimentally.

Within the framework of symbolic interactionism, theories have been formed that are of great importance for social psychology. First of all, these are theories of role behavior (T. Sarbin, E. Goffman, R. Linton, etc.) and the reference group as a source of personal norms and values of the individual (T. Newcomb, M. Sheriff, G. Kelly).

Theories of role behavior

The social anthropologist made a great contribution to the development of role theory R. Linton, who proposed status-role concept. Linton believed that terms such as “status” and “role” are very convenient for determining the connection of an individual with various systems of society. Status, according to Linton, is the place that an individual occupies in a given system, and the concept of “role” is the sum of cultural patterns of behavior associated with this status. Thus, a role includes the attitudes, values and behavior prescribed by society for each of all people having a certain status. A role is a dynamic aspect of an individual's status, representing external behavior. In other words, by playing a role, an individual justifies the status he occupies.

Linton's understanding of the role can be found in I. Goffman, who put forward a special the concept of “social dramaturgy”. He also defined the role as “the exercise of the rights and responsibilities associated with a given status.” Describing role behavior, Goffman used concepts taken from theatrical usage:

role-playing “party” - creating a certain impression of oneself on the interaction partner or the “audience”;
“façade” (“front”) of performing a role - standard means of expression, intentionally or involuntarily used by an individual during the performance of a role;
“proscenium”, where interaction takes place directly;
“backstage”, where activities related to the performer of the role take place, but are inaccessible to the eyes of the audience.

This characterization of the place of role behavior was used by Goffman to emphasize stricter compliance with the requirements of the role on the front stage (for example, in the behavior of a doctor when communicating with his patient) and optional compliance with them “behind the scenes” (for example, the behavior of a doctor out of sight of the patient ).

Goffman's concept served to describe the various subtleties of the “technology” of an individual’s role behavior when he performs a variety of roles - from social to interpersonal - in his everyday life. At the same time, he interprets the entire process of social interaction as a process of adaptation of the individual to the situation and self-disguise, and the individual acts as a bearer of numerous disparate roles alien to his personality, either as a puppet or a cynical deceiver. In this regard, according to Goffman, the researcher should not completely trust external forms of role behavior.

The interactionist approach as a whole is characterized by an understanding of the role of the individual in connection with his position and status. At the same time, status is considered not as the objective position of an individual in a system of certain social relations, but rather as a subjective category, reflecting a set of role expectations, which can be divided into expectations-rights and expectations-responsibilities when performing a particular role.

G. M. Andreeva, N. N. Bogomolova, L. A. Petrovskaya describe several role classifications, formulated within the framework of role theories.

For example, T. Sarbin And W. Allen allocated formal And informal roles as relating respectively to macro- and microstructure. The difference between formal roles was determined based on the fact that in relation to them, the participants in the interaction have more unified and clear ideas about the rights and responsibilities of the bearers of these roles, which are often even recorded in writing, than about the rights and responsibilities of the bearers of informal roles.

Classification T. Shibutani also relies on the principle that social roles are more strictly determined than interpersonal ones, since they are directly related to socially necessary activities and objective social relations. He divides the roles into "conventional", i.e. those in relation to which members of society have generally accepted, conventional ideas about what the behavior of the performers of these roles should be, and on "interpersonal", in relation to which there are no similar more or less unified ideas.

J. Thibault And G. Kelly proposed to separate "prescribed roles", i.e. externally given, independent of the individual’s efforts, and "roles achieved» that are achieved through the personal efforts of a given individual.

R. Linton proposed to allocate active And latent roles, noting that the individual, as a member of society, participates in many relationships and is simultaneously the bearer of many roles, but at each moment he can actively perform only one role. It is this role that should be considered active, while others, which can be actualized depending on the type of activity and circumstances of the individual’s life, are latent.

Much work in the field of role theories has been devoted to analysis of factors influencing the individual’s perception and performance of a particular role. G. M. Andreeva, N. N. Bogomolova, L. A. Petrovskaya identify the following groups of factors: 1) knowledge of the role or ideas about the rights and responsibilities associated with this role, i.e. cognitive aspect; 2) the significance of the role performed, i.e. emotional aspect; 3) the ability to perform a given role, i.e. behavioral aspect; 4) the ability to reflect on one’s role behavior. The study of these factors is directly related to the study of role conflict.

In role theories there are interrole And intra-role conflicts. Inter-role conflicts include conflicts that are associated with the simultaneous performance of a large number of roles by an individual, and therefore he cannot meet the requirements of these roles, or he does not have enough time and physical capabilities, or because different roles make incompatible demands on him. In studies of inter-role conflict caused by an excessive number of roles that an individual has to play, mention should be made of works devoted to the role conflict of working women. This is a contradiction between the professional and family (wife, mother) roles of a woman.

Intra-role conflict involves conflicting demands placed on the bearer of the same role by different people or social groups. For example, boys and men - performers of the male role - are often presented with conflicting demands. At school, boys are focused on achievement, encouraged to compete, but just as girls are expected to be obedient and conform. Following the norms of traditional masculine ideology often prevents modern men from satisfying their emotional needs and expressing their feelings.

Reference group theories

The development of reference group theories in modern Western social psychology is associated primarily with the names of such authors as G. Hyman, T. Newcome, M. Sherif, G. Kelly, R. Merton, etc. Most authors in this direction associate the concept of a reference group, or “ reference” group, designating the group to which the individual identifies himself psychologically, while focusing on its values and norms. This group serves as a kind of standard, a frame of reference for evaluating oneself and others, as well as a source for the formation of social attitudes and value orientations of the individual.

J. Mead only pointed out the meaning of the group for the individual included in it as a system of generalized attitudes - “I through the eyes of others.” The author of the main ideas of modern reference group theory is G. Hyman. In 1942, he conducted a study of an individual’s ideas about his own property status in comparison with the status of other people, in which he first used the term “reference group.” This concept was used by Hyman to refer to a group of people with whom the subject compared himself. The result of comparison with the reference group was the subject’s self-assessment of his status. Self-perceived status was considered by Hyman to be a dependent variable because it related to the reference group that the subject used as a starting point or frame of reference.

Later T. Newcome used the concept of “reference group” to designate a group to which an individual identifies himself psychologically and therefore shares its goals and norms and is guided by them in his behavior. He singled out positive And negative reference groups. The former are understood as such groups, the norms and orientations of which are accepted by the individual and which cause the individual to desire to be accepted by these groups. A negative reference group is a group that makes him want to oppose it and of which he does not want to consider himself a member. Newcomb considered “adolescent rebellion” to be a manifestation of behavior in a situation where parents act as a negative reference group for him.

The modern understanding of the use of the term “reference group” was influenced by the works M. Sheriff. He noted that a person is included in many groups, the norms of which may differ from each other. He also emphasized the importance of the reference group, since its norms become the social attitudes of individuals and serve them not only for self-esteem, but also for the formation of the entire “picture of the world.” The sheriff suggested distinguishing between actual membership group And reference group, to which an individual can relate himself psychologically, consciously or unconsciously.

One of J. Mead's key ideas about the “generalized other”, embodied in the concept of “reference group”, was used in what has become a classic experiment by R. Merton in collaboration with A. Kitt. It studied the social attitudes of front-line soldiers and rookie soldiers. When mobilized soldiers in Merton and Kitt's study compared their situation with those who were not mobilized and remained at home (one reference group), they rated their situation as worse. When they compared it with the situation of those who were mobilized and fought at the front (another reference group), they considered their situation more favorable.

L. G. Pochebut And I. A. Meizhis list the conditions under which, according to Merton, a person is more likely to choose an outgroup rather than a membership group as a normative reference group:

1. If a group does not provide sufficient prestige to its members, they will tend to choose as a reference group instead of their membership group an outgroup that they perceive as having greater prestige than their own.

2. The more isolated an individual is in his group, the lower his status in it, the more likely it is that he will choose an external group as a reference group, in which he expects to occupy a higher status.

3. The more social mobility an individual has, i.e. the opportunity to change his social status and group affiliation, the more likely it is that he will choose a group with a higher social status as a reference group.

4. An individual’s choice of one or another reference group depends on his personal characteristics.

A great contribution to the development of the concept of “reference group” was made by G. Kelly, showing that it can perform various functions in the formation of an individual’s social attitudes. On the one hand, it can express recognition to the individual or not, on the other hand, the group can serve as a standard for comparison that the individual uses to develop his assessments. First, normative, the function is to establish and even impose standards of behavior for the individual. Such standards are called group norms. A group fulfills this function if it is able to reward conformity or punish nonconformity. Second, comparative, the function of the group is that the group serves as a standard, a standard, a starting point for comparison. A group performs a comparative function if the behavior, attitudes and other characteristics of its members serve the individual as a standard for forming assessments and self-esteem. Both functions, normative and comparative, can be performed by the same group.

Thus, the theory of reference groups showed the influence of values, attitudes, norms of society and specific groups on the self-esteem and behavior of the individual. In general, interactionism, as a socio-psychological theory, has identified a number of directions in the study of the relationship between the individual and society, a person’s ideas about other people, the roles and statuses of the individual, and reference groups.