PEOPLE’S ATTITUDE TO DANGERS IN THE CONTEXT OF J. GRAY’S THEORY OF SENSITIVITY TO REINFORCEMENT

Aim of the study was to identify the relationship between the Behavioral Activation System (BAS) and the behavior inhibition system (Behavioral Inhibition System – BIS), which form the basis of J. Gray’s theory of sensitivity to reinforcement, with sensitivity to threats and the choice of adequate or inadequate ways to respond in situations of danger to the contingent of students.

Methodology. The study involved 298 students of the Ivanovo State Medical Academy and Cherepovets State University, among which there are: men - 51 (17%), women – 247 (83%), average age -19.7 years old. The author’s questionnaires as diagnostic tools were used to identify sensitivity to threats and the choice of adequate or inadequate ways to respond in situations of danger, the Carver-White questionnaire modified by G. G. Knyazev for the diagnosis of BAS and BIS systems. The processing was carried out by using the criterion of the φ* – Fisher angular transformation, as well as the methods of correlation analysis.

Results. It has been found that sensitivity to threats, the choice of adequate ways of responding and ignoring dangers are associated with various BAS scales, and exaggeration of dangers is associated with the BIS scale. It is concluded that BAS/BIS systems determine the dynamic side of people’s attitude to dangers and explain the phenomena of exaggeration or ignoring of dangers to a greater extent than the choice of adequate ways to respond in situations of danger.

Theoretical and/or practical significance. The obtained results can be used in the activities, as well as in the process of formation an adequate type of attitude towards hazards among people.

1. Baeva I. A., Gayazova L. A., Kondakova I. V. [Personal resources of psychological safety of adolescents and youth in the educational environment]. In: Integraciya obrazovaniya [Integration of education], 2021, no. 3, pp. 482–497.

2. Dubinskij A. A., Bulygina V. G., Lysenko N. E. [New methods for diagnosing individual typological characteristics in forensic psychiatric practice]. In: Mir nauki. Pedagogika i psihologiya [World of Science. Pedagogy and psychology], 2019, vol. 7, no. 1. Available at: https://mir-nauki.com (accessed: 30.01.22).

3. Zinchenko Yu. P. [Methodological foundations of security psychology]. In: Nacional’nyj psihologicheskij zhurnal [National Psychological Journal], 2011, no. 2 (6), pp. 11–14.

4. Ioseliani A. D. [Social behavior of people during the COVID-19 pandemic]. In: Manuskript [Manuscript], 2021, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 1151–1155.

5. Knyazev G. G. [Activation and inhibition of behavior as the basis of individual differences]. In: Psihologicheskij zhurnal [Psychological journal], 2004, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 28–40.

6. Krasnyanskaya T. M., Tylec V. G., Lyahov A. V. [Psychology of security in the modern scientific space of domestic psychology]. In: Gumanizaciya obrazovaniya [Humanization of education], 2021, no. 2, pp. 47–62.

7. Maralov V. G., Malysheva E. Yu., Nifontova O. V. [Development of a test-questionnaire for sensitivity to threats in adolescence]. In: Perspektivy nauki [Prospects of Science], 2012, no. 8, pp. 32–37.

8. Maralov V. G., Malysheva E. Yu., Smirnova O.V. [Development of a test-questionnaire to identify ways of responding to danger situations in adolescence]. In: Al’manah sovremennoj nauki i obrazovaniya [Almanac of modern science and education], 2012, no. 12-1 (67), pp. 92–96.

9. Nestik T. A. [The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on society: socio-psychological analysis]. In: Institut psihologii Rossijskoj akademii nauk. Social’naya i ekonomicheskaya psihologiya [Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Social and economic psychology], 2020, vol. 5, no. 2 (18), pp. 47–83.

10. Spicyn A. A., Ragusskij R.V. , Teloyan A.V. [Scientific foundations and theoretical and empirical rethinking of the principle of determinism in the subject-activity approach]. In: Nauka, tekhnika i obrazovanie [Science, technology and education], 2019, no. 1 (54), pp. 86–89.

11. Harlamenkova N. E. [Scientific foundations and theoretical and empirical rethinking of the principle of determinism in the subject-activity approach]. In: Psihologicheskij zhurnal [Psychological journal], 2013, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 17–28.

12. Benard S., Barclay P. Democratic Competition for Rank, Cooperation, and Deception in Small Groups. In: Social Science Quarterly, 2020, vol. 101, no 7. Available at: https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com (accessed: 30.01.22).

13. Borders A. Rumination and related constructs: Causes, consequences, and treatment of thinking too much. London, United Kingdom, Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier, 2020. 432 p.

14. Buelow M. T. Risky Decision Making in Psychological Disorders. Academic Press, 2020. 403 p.

15. Chen F. R. Behavioral Inhibition System function as the mediator in the pathway from electrodermal fear conditioning to antisocial behavior: Integrating the Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory. In: Personality and Individual Differences, 2020, vol. 166. Available at: https://www. sciencedirct.com (accessed: 30.01.22).

16. Denefrio S., Dennis-Tiwary T. A. Threat Sensitivity. In: Personality and Individual Differences. London: Springer, Cham, 2018. Available at: https://link.springer.com (accessed: 30.01.22).

17. Gray J. A. The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry in to the functions of the septohippocampal system. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982. 448 p.

18. Gray J. A., McNaughton N. The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000. 443 p.

19. Krupić D. , Krizanic V. , Corr P. Personality and defensive behaviour: A factor analytic approach to threat scenario choices. In: Personality and Individual Differences, 2016, vol. 94, pp. 303–308.

20. Krupić D. High BAS and low BIS in overconfidence, and their impact on motivation and self-efficacy after feedback. In: Primenjena psihologija, 2017, vol. 10, no 3, pp. 297–312.

21. Logan E., Kaye S. A., Lewis I. The influence of the revised reinforcement sensitivity theory on risk perception and intentions to speed in young male and female drivers. In: Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2019, vol. 132. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (accessed: 30.01.22).

22. Maralov V. G., Kudaka M. A., Pogodin A. M. Psychological characteristics of attitudes towards dangers among healthcare professionals working and not working with COVID-19 patients. In: Russian Psychological Journal, 2021, vol. 18 (2), pp. 6–20.

23. Nowland R., Qualter P. Influence of social anxiety and emotional self‐efficacy on pre‐transition concerns, social threat sensitivity, and social adaptation to secondary school. In: British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2020, vol. 90, no 1. Pp. 227–244

24. O ’Dea C. J., Bueno A. M. C. , Saucier D. A. Fight or flight: Perceptions of men who confront versus ignore threats to themselves and others. In: Personality and Individual Differences, 2017, vol. 104, pp. 345–351.

25. Perkins A. M, Cooper A., Abdelall M. Personality and defensive reactions: Fear, trait anxiety, and threat magnification. In: Journal of Personality, 2010, vol. 78, no 3, pp. 1071–1090.

26. Permatasari S., Tentama F. Anxiety scale: Psychomothoric studies and the applications to students who conducting a thesis research. In: International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 2020, vol. 8, no 1, pp. 606–610.

27. Pourmohseni K. F. The relation between behavioral-brain systems activity with forgiveness and marital satisfaction in couples. In: Contemporary Psychology, 2014, vol. 8, no 2, pp. 17–26

28. Reicher S. D. , Stott C. On order and disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic. In: British Journal of Social Psychology, 2020, vol. 59 (3), pp. 694–702.

29. Wallace J. C. , Vodanovich S. J. Workplace safety performance: Conscientiousness, cognitive failure, and their interaction. In: Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2003, vol. 8, no 4, pp. 316–327.

30. Waller R., Wagner N. The Sensitivity to Threat and Affiliative Reward (STAR) model and the development of callous-unemotional traits. In: Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 2019, vol. 107, pp. 656–671.