Abstract
<p>The work is aimed at studying the connection between value-semantic indicators and the author's technique for modeling extreme situations to assess the respondent's predisposition to commit unsafe acts was standardized. The <strong>technique</strong> includes two models: &ldquo;mine&rdquo; and &ldquo;bomb&rdquo;. The model is two sheets of paper (two tracks), behind one of which a conventional explosive is placed, the &ldquo;mine" is a five-ruble coin, the &ldquo;bomb&rdquo; is a lid 8&ndash;10 mm high and 68&ndash;70 mm in diameter. The subject's task is to walk along the safe sheet without stepping on the sheet hiding the explosive. Four tests are conducted. The following methods were used for standardization: 1) the author's technique for modeling extreme situations; 2) subjective assessment of unsafe behavior; 3) survey of the causes of erroneous reactions; 4) calculation of mathematical statistics: descriptive statistics, Spearman correlation coefficient, Cronbach's alpha. <strong>Subjects</strong>: psychology students specializing in extreme profiles &mdash; 100 people. <strong>Result</strong>: the method has subjective validity (r = 0.71) and structural reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.52). The average number of steps on a conventional &ldquo;mine&rdquo; = 2.1 + 0.89; it corresponds to the mathematical expectation calculated for this model. The average number of steps on a conventional &ldquo;bomb&rdquo; = 0.3 + 0.66. We defined the norm as: 0 steps; excess characterizes the presence of a predisposition to unsafe behavior in extreme conditions. <strong>Conclusion</strong>: it is recommended to use the experimental &ldquo;bomb&rdquo; model to assess the respondent's predisposition to unsafe behavior.</p>
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have