Abstract
The phenomenon of whistleblowing has always attracted scientific attention and received quite a definitive interpretation. However, the popular evaluation of whistleblowing remains ambiguous: it ranges from extremely negative to demands to legalize it as a social institution, which makes related studies highly relevant. Law, phenomenology, sociology, and behavioral studies have their own definitions of this phenomenon. As a result, its overall understanding still remains multifaceted, as each science focuses on its own epidemiological and etiological factors and proceeds from its own methodology in assessing the consequences of whistleblowing as negative or positive. The authors analyzed numerous scientific sources and revealed a lack of empirical research about the whistleblower as a personality, e.g. personal dispositions, components, structure, motivations, social consequences, etc. The paper introduces some materials that partially fill this gap. The authors used a specialized projective diagnostic technique (BUK-MIF v.7.2) to study various manifestations of human personality. The first stage of the research involved a handwriting analysis of denunciation samples dated 1826–1988. After that, the results were compared with the data of similar psychographic diagnostics in control groups and groups of respondents with addictive behavior. The authors used data factorization, regression, variance, and graphical data analysis to identify the psychological symptom cluster of a whistleblower as a personality. After defining its stability and differentiating properties, the authors built an empirical model of motivation for the act of whistleblowing and described its intentional, regulatory, cognitive, dispositional, and beneficial components.
Highlights
The popular evaluation of whistleblowing remains ambiguous: it ranges from extremely negative to demands to legalize it as a social institution, which makes related studies highly relevant
Phenomenology, sociology, and behavioral studies have their own definitions of this phenomenon
The results were compared with the data of similar psychographic diagnostics in control groups and groups of respondents with addictive behavior
Summary
Направления доносительство рассматривается как прояв- Для определения устойчивого психологического синдрома ления различных форм девиантного поведения – аддиктив- информатора данные выборки Информаторы сравнивались ного [19; 20], оппозиционного, социального отчуждения по критерию t-Стьюдента с данными реальных испытуеи предательства [21; 22]. В качестве образцов для анализа использовались фото- категорий населения, собственно составляющих психолокопии, ксерокопии, сканированные копии текстов доно- гический симптомокомплекс информатора, использовался сов на сайтах различных архивов документов (хэштэги графический метод сравнения доверительных интервалов запроса: доносы тексты; архив доносов; доносы фотокопии; с учетом ошибки среднего (μ±1,96×SE) в переменных, дифдоносы НКВД; доносы ГУЛАГ; доносы в Российской империи ференцирующих группу Информаторы от групп Аддикты тексты; доносы в СССР тексты). Differences between the Informants and Addicts groups according to the t-Student criterion
Published Version (Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have