Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, reflectivity is considered as an individual general ability to develop different attitudes to life events in order to reduce an external and internal uncertainty in situations. The objective of the research is to examine the self-assessment criteria for reflectivity with psychosemantic procedure. The author designs a modified version of the Ch. Osgood’s (1957) Semantic Differential (SD) for examining the content and formal features of the self-assessment criteria of reflectivity. This study suggests two main processes of self-assessment of reflectivity, notably differentiation and integration. The results of factor analysis indicate that individuals with high reflectivity level are aligned with low differentiation of the semantic space and monolithic nature of self-assessment criteria. The coherence and consistency of self-assessment criteria reduce the individuals’ level of inner uncertainty, transform external problems to familiar tasks and increase an efficient decision-making. A high level of differentiation is related to individual readiness to make a correct decision in the situation of multiple choice. High differentiation increases the individual adjustment and prevents from poor effects of high reflectivity. Consequently, a high level of reflectivity is associated with a low level of differentiation of self-assessment criteria. References Грановская Р.М. Психология веры. Санкт-Петербург: Питер, 2010. Карпов А.В. Психология рефлексивных механизмов деятельности. Москва: Изд-во «Институт психологии РАН», 2004. Карпов А.В., Пономарева В.В. Психология рефлексивных механизмов управления. М.: Издво ИП РАН, 2000. Лактионов А.Н. Координаты индивидуального опыта. Харьков: Харьк. нац. ун-т им. В. Каразина, 2010. Леонтьев Д.А. Психологические ресурсы преодоления стрессовых ситуаций: к уточнению базовых конструктов. Психология стресса и совладающего поведения в современном российском обществе: Материалы II Междун. научно-практич. конференции. Кострома: КГУ им. Н.А. Некрасова, 2010, 2, 40–42. Леонтьев Д.А., Аверина А.Ж. Феномен рефлексии в контексте проблемы саморегуляции. Психологические исследования. 2011. №2(16). Режим доступа: http://psystudy.ru/index.php/num/2011n2-16/463-leontiev-averina16.html. Петренко В.Ф. Основы психосемантики. Москва: Эксмо, 2010. Похилько В. И., Федотова Е.О. Техника репертуарных решеток в экспериментальной психологии личности. Вопросы психологии, 1984. № 3, 151–157. Проблемы психологической герменевтики / Под ред. Н.В. Чепелевой. Киев : Изд-во Национального педагогического университета им. Н. П. Драгоманова, 2009. Савченко О.В. Рефлексивна компетентність особистості. Херсон : ПП Вишемирський В. С., 2016 Савченко О. Структура семантичного простору, що відображає уявлення суб’єкта про власну рефлексивну активність // East European Journal of Psycholinguistics. 2015. Т. 2 (1), 114–123. Чуприкова Н.И. Психология умственного развития: Принцип дифференциации. Москва : АО «Столетие», 1997. Gawronski, B. & Bodenhausen, G. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 692-731. Halpern, D. F. (2001). Assessing the Effectiveness of Critical Thinking Instruction. The Journal of General Education, 50(4), 270–286. Harvey, O.J., Hunt, D. E., & Schroder, H. M. (1961). Conceptual System and Personality Organization. New York: Wiley & Sons. Janzen, G. (2006). The Representational Theory of Phenomenal Character: A Phenomenological Critique. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 5, 321–339 [in English]. Kriegel, U. (2003). Consciousness as Intransitive Self-Consciousness: Two views. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 33, 103-132. Lieberman, M. D., Gaunt, R., Gilbert, D. T., & Trope, Y. (2002). Reflexion and reflection: A social cognitive neuroscience approach to attributional inference. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 199-249). Academic Press. Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(5), 400–424. Peters, F. (2013). Theories of consciousness as reflexivity. The Philosophical Forum, 44, 341-372. Savchenko O. (2016b) The formation level of the components of the reflective experience as a factor of the students` educational success. Psychological Prospects, 28, 269-282. References (translated and transliterated) Granovskaya, R. M. (2010). Psihologiya Very [Psychology of Faith]. S.-Petersburg: Piter. Karpov, A. V. (2004). Psihologiya Refleksivnyh Mehanizmov Deyatelnosti [Psychology of Reflective Activity Mechanisms]. Moscow: Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Karpov, A. V., Ponomareva, V. V. (2000). Psihologiya Refleksivnyh Mehanizmov Upravleniya [Psychology of Reflective Management Mechanisms]. Moscow: Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Laktionov, A.N. (2010). Koordinaty Individualnogo Opyta [Coordinates of Individual Experience]. Kharkiv: Karazin National University of Kharkiv. Leontyev, D. A. (2010). Psihologicheskie resursyi preodoleniya stressovyih situatsiy: k utochneniyu bazovyih konstruktov [Psychological resources of stressful situations overcoming: to clarify the basic constructs]. Psychology of Stress and Coping Behavior in Modern Russian Society. Book of Abstracts of the 2nd International Scientific and Applied Conference, 2. Kostroma: Nekrasov Kostroma State University. (40-42). Leontyev, D.A., Averina, A. Zh. (2011). Fenomen refleksii v kontekste problemyi samoregulyatsii [The phenomenon of reflection in the context of the problem of self-regulation]. Psihologicheskie Issledovaniya, 2(16). Retrieved from http://psystudy.ru/index.php/num/2011n2-16/463-leontiev-averina16.html. Petrenko, V.F. (2010). Osnovyi Psihosemantiki [Fundamentals of Psychosemantics]. Moscow: Eksmo. Pohilko, V. I., Fedotova, E. O. (1984). Tehnika repertuarnyih reshetok v eksperimentalnoy psihologii lichnosti [Repertory grid technique in experimental psychology of personality.]. Voprosy Psihologii, 3, 151–157. Chepeleva, N. V. (Ed.). (2009). Problemy Psihologicheskoy Germenevtiki [Issues of Psychological Hermeneutics]. Kyiv: Drahomanov National Pedagogical University. Savchenko, O.V. (2016a). Refleksyvna Kompetentnist Osobystosti [Personality`s Reflective Competence]. Kherson: Vyshemyrskyi. Savchenko, O. (2015). Struktura semantychnoho prostoru, shcho vidobrazhaie uiavlennia subyekta pro vlasnu refleksyvnu aktyvnist [The Semantic space structure of the subject’s sonception of his own mental activity]. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics, 2(1), 114–123. Chuprikova, N. I. (1997). Psihologiya Umstvennogo Razvitiya: Printsip Differentsiatsii [Psychology of Mental Development: The Principle of Differentiation.]. Moscow: Stoletiye. Gawronski, B. & Bodenhausen, G.V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 692-731. Halpern, D. F. (2001). Assessing the effectiveness of critical thinking instruction. The Journal of General Education, 50(4), 270–286. Harvey, O.J., Hunt, D. E., & Schroder, H. M. (1961). Conceptual System and Personality Organization. New York: Wiley & Sons. Janzen, G. (2006). The Representational Theory of Phenomenal Character: A Phenomenological Critique. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 5, 321–339. Kriegel, U. (2003). Consciousness as Intransitive Self-Consciousness: Two views. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 33, 103-132. Lieberman, M. D., Gaunt, R., Gilbert, D. T., & Trope, Y. (2002). Reflexion and reflection: A social cognitive neuroscience approach to attributional inference. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 34 (pp. 199–249). Academic Press. Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B. E., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008). Rethinking rumination. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(5), 400–424. Peters, F. (2013). Theories of consciousness as reflexivity. The Philosophical Forum, 44, 341-372. Savchenko O. (2016b) The formation level of the components of the reflective experience as a factor of the students` educational success. Psychological Prospects, 28, 269-282.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".