The Reflexive Aspect of the Perception of Each Other by the Subjects of the Conflict

The reflexive aspect of the perception of the subjects of the conflict became the main issue of the presented work. In the framework of the experimental study, the level of reflexivity (A.V.Karpov), the styles of leading behavior (the Thomas-Kilmann Method), as well as the assessment of the personality image (the Petrovsky-Uvarina Scaling Method) were diagnosed.The experiment was carried out using the created installation "Experiment for the Study of Negotiations" (the idea by V.A.Lefebvre, modification by B.I.Khasan).It was shown that the opponent's image significantly changes for respondents with a " low" level of reflexivity. Respondents with a "high" level of reflection are more differentiated in their assessment of the opponent in the conflict interaction. The change in the opponent's image is carried out to a greater extent by the respondents who end the conflict interaction with a compromise. It was revealed that a change in the leading behavior in a conflict is more typical for respondents with "medium" and "high" levels of reflection. A statistically significant positive relationship was determined between the level of reflexivity and a change in the style of behavior in the conflict interaction. The results obtained in the future will make it possible to simulate the process of getting out of the conflict and use the potential of virtual reality to work with conflict situations.

Introduction

Conflict as one of the forms of social interaction for decades has been the object of close attention of scientists in various scientific fields.The versatility and complexity of this phenomenon has become the source of the formation of a separate science — conflictology [6].Within the framework of con flictology, a wide range of conflict classifications is presented, which sets the specifics of the involvement of a particular scientific branch in their study.It can be said that specific for psychology are the following: intergroup [1], interpersonal [11], intrapersonal conflicts [32], since in the framework of their study the emphasis is placed on the study of various aspects of the psychological determinants of the occurrence, features of the functioning and manifestation of psychological processes and mechanisms of conflict [6, 25], a description of the psychic phenomena and phenomena inherent in this kind of relationship, etc.

Actual directions of the conflict interaction research are related to the study of the perception of each other by the subjects of the conflict and the mechanisms that ensure the formation of images of opponents; correction of conflict interaction, including the use of the potential of virtual reality (VR) [3, 27].

In the noted areas, recently, a number of studies has been carried out [6, 9, 14, 26, 30, 33], but they have mainly been carried out within the framework of the subject-object approach, the view through the prism which “turns” the conflict into a static object that loses its “nature”.The transition to the subject-subject position in the understanding of the conflict is the return to the conflict interaction of the genuine relations of its participants in all their diversity of manifestations in the situation “here and now”.Such a research position requires close attention to the study of the role of reflection in the perception of a conflict situation: the construction of images of the opponents of the conflict and the dynamics of these images, the impact of these changes on the choice of strategy to get out of a conflict situation, etc.

It should be noted that reflection manifests itself as a multifunctional mechanism, since it not only forms ideas about the parties of the conflict [2,15,18], builds a model of conflict interaction taking into account its dynamics and resources [28, 31], but, in general, is included in the development of the ways to transform the conflict into a search for an optimal solution to the way out of it [34, 29, 22].Reflection is the leading mechanism in organizing both personal and collective actions within the conflict [35].

Speaking about the reflexive aspect of perception in the interpersonal conflict, it is necessary to note its leading role in this process [4].Thus, Tatishcheva A.I.identifies in addition to the subjective space of conflict situational and suprasituative reflection, which determines the four most important variables: causes, frequency, time of course and duration of the consequences of the conflict [33].

Analysis of the studies on the reflexive aspect of the perception of the conflict subjects leads to the conclusion that this vector of study requires both the development of new methodological foundations, taking into account the subject-subject approach of conflict understanding, and new research designs, including the application of a wide range of new technical achievements.In this aspect, VR has a great potential.VR can be used to develop reflexive actions and the formation of skills of constructive exit from conflict situations as a chronotope of reflection [3].

The Reflexive Aspect of Human Perception by a Person within the Framework of a Communicative Approach

In Russian psychology, the communicative approach developed by B.F.Lomov [18,19] is the basis for studying the problem of perception of each other by participants in interpersonal conflict, the specifics of their interaction.Using such theoretical and methodological provisions as the principle of systematization, ideas about the reflective essence of the psyche, the general psychological plan of the category of communication in Russian psychology, the activity and communication began to be considered as systematically organized phenomena [8].The peculiarity of communication as a system involves the consideration of communicants — subjects perceiving each other — holistically, and this is what allows you to form and implement qualitatively different relations between the participants in communication [7].The development of the communicative approach by V.A.Barabanschikov is presented with the ideas of establishing the patterns of effective functioning of cognitive processes during interaction of subjects.

In general, the school of V.A.Barabanschikov is characterized by the study of phenomena, processes, and mechanisms of perception of the personality, its psychological characteristics in various contexts of communication and interaction.The scientist notes that during the counter process of subjective cognition, communicants “penetrate” into the inner world of each other, and relying on the constructed picture of the personality, build their actions.

Psychological regularities identified in the framework of the communicative and cognitive approach of V.A.Barabanschikov were described, among other things, using the scientific term developed by him — “HE”- concept.The concept reflects a conceptual construct in which the personal certainty of the “other” is reflected.There is a coherent representation of the personality of the partner included in communication (including the vicarious), his assessment and attitude to him [8].

Meaningfully, this concept can reflect both real and small personality traits of the “other”.The formation of this image depends on the subject’s idea of himself and previous social experience.A component of the “HE”- concept is the “HE”-image, which is formed in the participants of the interaction and is a set of information about the opponent, which the subject reads during non-verbal (psychological characteristics of the personality, traceable in external activity, appearance of a person and, above all, the face) and verbal communication.How much the “HE”-image will affect the perception of a person by a person will depend on a number of factors: on the subject’s idea of himself, communicative experience, models of behavior in the social system, the formation and development of communication mechanisms, etc.It should be noted that in this conceptual construct, there is an important aspect that allows you to understand the mechanism of formation of the “HE”-concept.The “other” can be not only the “interlocutor, the communicator”, but also the “I am like the other”, that is, the psychologically distanced in the personality itself is the idea of oneself as different [3,4].

This allows us to say that in the process of communication, a person can work with images of himself and another as objects of cognition.The formation of this type of images (meaningful, conscious) is due to the functioning of the reflexive mechanism.Therefore, reflection, in addition to the mechanisms of projection, categorization, identification, is also included in the process of forming the “HE”-image of the personality [3].

In general, we can conclude about the involvement of the mechanism of reflection in the process of formation of the “HE”-concept [3], and hence about the possibility of studying the reflexive aspect of the perception of each other by the participants in the conflict interaction, including the context of the communicative approach.

The aim of the study was to analyze the reflexive aspect of the perception of the interpersonal conflict by the subjects.We suggested, firstly, that the reflection of the participants in the interpersonal conflict determines the formation of images about the components of the conflict interaction.Secondly, the reflection “constructs” conflict interaction, that causes a change in the strategy, style of behavior of the parties of the conflict. Organization, Methods and Research Procedure. Experimental Installation

The study involved 52 participants (M=20 years), of which 8 males and 44 females.All participants are students of Moscow universities.Before the research procedure, each of the respondents gave written consent to participate in the experiment and permission to process the data.

To conduct the experiment, the equipment “Experiment for the Study of Negotiations” was designed (the idea of V.A.Lefebvre, modified by B.I.Hasan), which allows to simulate a conflict situation in the laboratory [34].The installation is a playing field consisting of movable strips, on which the applied special elements — “smiling emoticons” (further in text, “emoticon”) (four at the opposite edges of the field, each “emoticon” is located on three independent strips).Participants are located on their half of the playing field.The playing field is divided by an opaque screen, to deprive participants from the opportunity to observe the position of “emoticons” on the side of the opponent.The location of the “emoticons” is not accidental — it is impossible to build all the faces of two participants at the same time.When building a whole “smiley” by one participant, the picture of the other one is distorted.The goal of the participants in the experiment is to build as many whole “emoticons” as possible.The experimental setup is presented in Fig.1 and Fig.2.

Psychodiagnostic methods:

1.Diagnostics of the level of development of reflexivity (A.V.Karpov) [13].

2.Thomas-Kilmann methodology for identifying the leading behavior in a conflict situation (modification by N.V.Grishina) aimed at studying personal predisposition to conflict behavior, identifying certain styles of conflict resolution [12].

3.The Petrovsky-Uvarina scaling method is aimed at determining the perception of each other.In the instructions for working with this technique, it is proposed to evaluate the characteristics of the personality according to a set of graduated scales arranged fan-like rays running from the center (Fig.3).The point of the beginning of the rays indicates the absence of severity of this quality — 0 points, the point on the circle — the maximum severity of the specified quality — 5 points [21].

Fig. 1. “Equipment to Study Negotiations” (top view)

Fig. 2. “Equipment to Study Negotiations” (frontal view)

Fig. 3. Stimulating Material of the Petrovsky—Uvarina Scaling

The learned empirical material was processed using the statistical program SPSS.21.The following statistical criteria were applied: T-Wilcoxon, φ* — Fisher angular transformation, Pearson correlation coefficient. Study Procedure

A feature of any psychological experiment, having the conflict interaction the subject of modeling and research, is primarily the difficulty of obtaining artificially a “living” psychological picture of the conflict.We provided the experimental plan which brought the participants of the interaction closer to the natural experiment, but at the same time helped avoid the appearance of additional variables, such as a strong emotional experience.To do this, an experimental installation was used — work in pairs —which involved the participants playing the role of the opponents striving to achieve personal goals.

At the first stage of the experiment, the diagnosis of the level of reflexivity was carried out using the method “Diagnosis of the Level of Development of Reflexivity” (A.V. Karpov); leading behavior in the conflict using the Thomas-Kilman Method (modification by N.V.Grishina).

The immediate experimental procedure began with the diagnosis of the participants’ perception of each other using the Petrovsky-Uvarina Scale.Each episode involved two people of the same sex — forming pairs that were created randomly.The total number of pairs is twenty-six.Participants who were positioned opposite each other were asked to rate each other using a personality traits scale.

After carrying out this procedure, the couples began to work with the installation.Separately, each of the participants was offered the following instruction: “You are asked to perform the following task: by alternately moving the strips, collect the maximum number of “emoticons” on your half.At the moment, they are shifted in an arbitrary order.The stripes are consistent, so moving them on your side of the playing field will cause moving them on the side of the second test subject.When working with the installation, we ask you, first, to try to perform the tasks without using the verbal means of communication, however, if you realize that this is impossible, you can immediately enter into a dialogue with the second subject.If necessary, you can ask questions.”

After the instruction clearance was confirmed, the participants in the experiment began, by alternately moving the strips (one per turn), to try to perform the task assigned to them, thereby creating interference in the performance of the task to their opponent.According to the conditions of the experiment, the subjects can (as stipulated in the instructions) discuss the progress of the task with each other, however, only if they feel the need for it.This clause is arranged to be able to establish the moment of formation of the HE-image in the participants of the experiment more clearly.

After finishing the installation work, the participants again filled out the Petrovsky- Uvarina Scale, which diagnoses the perception of each other by the opponents.Then a post-experimental survey was proposed, arranged to determine the degree of involvement of the subjects, their individual interpretation of the proposed task, as well as their own assessment of how much they coped with it.At the end of the study, the leading behavior in the conflict was diagnosed (Thomas-Kilman Method modified by N.V.Grishina).

The independent variables in the experiment were the level of reflexivity, while the dependent ones — the image of the opponent in the conflict interaction, the leading behavior in the conflict.

Study Results

The level of reflexivity of the participants in the experiment was diagnosed using the A.V.Karpov Method (Fig.4).

Fig.4 reflects the results of diagnosing the levels of reflexivity of the participants: 31% of respondents had a “low level” of reflexivity, 54% — “middle level”, and 15% — “high level”.In general, the sample data M=4,3; SD=1,84, slightly deviated towards

Fig. 4. Level of reflexivity (% of participants) in the experimental group N=52

low reflexivity values, but there were no significant differences between the percentages of “low level” and “high level”.In the future, we will consider such features of the sample while interpreting the obtained results.

Fig.5 presents the results of assessing the perception of each other by the opponents before and after the experiment (the entire sample).

The study determined a statistically significant increase in the assessment of the personality traits of the opponents in the experiment participants Temp=13,5, at p≤0,003 (T-Wilcoxon).Maximum shifts in the indicators of the values were observed in the assessment of such qualities as individuality (from 3.5 to 3.9), a sense of superiority over the others (from 2.7 to 3.1).The obtained data prove the involvement of the subjects in a direct opposition within the framework.This causes a change in the opponents’ ideas about each other: the image of the opponent becomes more pronounced and differentiated.

Fig. 5. Perception of each other by opponents the (average value) before and after the experiment N=52 (26 pairs)

Changes in the indicators of perception of each participant of the survey in three groups are shown as follows: with “low”, “middle” and “high” levels of reflexivity indicators presented in Fig.6—8.

In subjects with a low level of reflexivity, a significant shift in the assessment of the opponent’s personality qualities Temp=14 at p<0,015 was revealed.The obtained data show that the respondents with a low level of reflexivity, the change in the assessment of the opponent’s personality in the process of conflict interaction significantly changes towards an increase in the values of the assessment of indicators.That is, among the respondents of a low level of reflexivity depicts an adjustment of the image of the opponent.The maximum changes occur in the assessment of such parameters as “knowledge of oneself”, “the accumulation of superiority over another”, “mind”, “courage”, “pride”, “ability to commit an act”, “extraordinariness of thinking”.Researchers note that after the experimental interaction, the opponent is perceived as more strong-willed, thinking, understanding himself, etc.

In subjects with a middle level of reflexivity and a change in the perception of the opponent in the process of experimental influence, the Temp=31.5 did not change significantly, at p≤0.057 (T-Wilcoxon), regardless of who won in the experiment.However, the obtained empirical value of the Wilcoxon is close enough to the critical values, which shows that there is some trend in the indicators for estimating the shift.For this group of the respondents, the most pronounced shifts in a larger range of assessments of such personality qualities as “knowledge of oneself”, “feeling superiority over one’s friend”, “originality of thinking” are most pronounced from high to mid-range.However, in general, we can still talk about adjusting the image of the opponent to the area of higher values, but it is not

Fig. 6. Assessment of the opponentsꞌ personality traits (average value) with a “low level” of reflexivity before and after the experiment, N=16 (8 pairs)

Fig. 7. Assessment of the opponentsꞌ personality traits (average value) with a “middle level” of reflexivity before and after the experiment, N=28 (14 pairs)

so pronounced in the respondents of this group, in contrast to the respondents with a low level of reflexivity.

In the course of the study, it was found that in subjects with a high level of reflexivity, the change in the perception of another in the process of experimental exposure did not change significantly Temp=38.5, at p≤0.375 (T-Wilcoxon).Unlike the previous groups, in the group with a high level of reflexivity, one can observe multidirectional trends in assessing the personality of the opponent.For example, there is a decrease in the scores of the indicator “self-knowledge”, “contrariness”, “self-esteem” to the average range, and an increase in scores on the parameters “sense of personality”, “courage”, “independence from others’’, “mind”.The data obtained show that reflection is included in the adjustment of the opponent’s image, functionally manifesting itself as a mechanism that carries out multidirectional changes in the perception of the personality, which, as we believe, to a greater extent, considers the originality, individual characteristics of the opponent.

Fig. 8. Assessment of the opponents’ personality traits (average value) with a “high level” of reflexivity before and after the experiment, N=28 (14 pairs)

The results of the diagnosis of the leading behavior in a conflict situation (Thomas- Kilman Method) are presented in Fig.9.

In general, the sample is characterized by a greater severity of such styles of behavior in the conflict: avoidance (26%) and competition (23%), less pronounced cooperation (19%) and accomodation (17%), the minimum indicators are represented by the indicator — compromise (13%).It shall be noted that the compromise as a style of behavior was diagnosed as the least pronounced style in this sample, but most of the conflict situations recreated by us, with the help of an experimental setup, were resolved within the framework of this style.

The correlation of indicators of the behavior style in a conflict situation and the levels of reflexivity in the study participants are presented in Fig.10.

In general, comparing the styles according to “reflexivity” parameter, it can be noted that the “high-level” of reflexivity reaches its maximal expression in the style of “cooperation”, and minimal — in the style of “adaptation” and “competition”.The “middle level” of reflexivity is more inherent in such styles as “avoidance” and “compromise”, while the “low level” of reflexivity is mostly pronounced in the styles of “accommodation” and “competition”, and least pronounced in the styles of “avoidance” and “compromise”.

As part of the study, an assessment of the shift (T-Wilcoxon criterion) in the ideas about the opponent in participants who ended the experiment mental interaction with the styles of “compromise” and “competition” was carried out.The results are represented in Table 1.

It was revealed that in the subjects for whom a compromising style of behavior is leading in a conflict interaction, the change in the perception of another is more reliably expressed (Temp = 12,5, at p≤0,01), than in the ones whose interaction was characterized as competitive.

Below are the results of assessing the personality qualities of the opponents in the respondents who ended the experiment with a “compromise” (Fig.11).

The minimum changes (increase in values) in the assessment of the personal qualities of the opponent before and after the experiment are the characteristic of the following range of qualities: “feeling superiority over others”, “originality of thinking”, “courage”.It can be said that the opponent is perceived as more strong-willed, dominant, and creative in the process of interaction.

There was no decrease in the assessment of the personal qualities of opponents.

As noted, reflection is included in the conflict interaction not only as a mechanism for constructing images of the participants and adjusting them, but also as a mechanism for changing the behavior in a conflict interaction.Data on the change in the leading style of behavior of the participants in the experiment and indicators of their reflexivity are presented in Table 2.

Fig. 9. Styles of behavior (% participants) in a conflict situation N=52

Fig. 10. Correlation of the behavior style in a conflict situation (% of participants) and the level of reflexivity, N=52

Table 1

Results of the Calculation of the T-Wilcoxon Criterion for Respondents Demonstrating the Style of “Compromise” and “Competition” when Assessing the Image of the Opponent Before and After the Experiment

Fig. 11. Assessments of the personal qualities of the opponents before and after the experiment in respondents who completed the experiment with a compromise

The data of Table 2 are presented in Fig. 12.

The maximum number of changes in the style of behavior in the conflict interaction during the experiment was revealed in respondents with a “middle” level of reflexivity — 75%.For respondents with a “high” level, this indicator is — 17%, and with a “low” level — 8%.Comparison of the share of respondents with the “middle” level of reflexivity that changed and did not change the style of their behavior in the experimen

Table 2

Change in the Leading Style of Behavior and the Level of Reflexivity in the Participants of the Experiment After the End of the Conflict Interaction N=52

Fig. 12. Change in the leading style of behavior (%) in the participants of the experiment and the level of reflexivity after the end of the conflict interaction N=52

al interaction showed significant differences (φ*emps = 2,17, at p ≤0,05).

If we turn to the parameter “the style of behavior has not changed”, then it is most pronounced for the respondents with a “low level” and minimally with a “high level” of reflexivity.

We identified the relationship between the indicators of the level of development of reflexivity and the change of the leading style of behavior during the conflict interaction.A reliable positive correlation r=0.372 was obtained, at p <0,007 (Pearson correlation coefficient), which reflects the tendency to unidirectional conjugation between the selected parameters: an increase in reflexivity values is associated with a change in behavioral strategy in conflict resolution.

Conclusions

The aim of the research was to study the reflexive aspect of the perception of each other by the subjects of interpersonal conflict.It was assumed that the reflection is included in the formation and correction of images of the opponents of conflict interaction, and also determines the strategy resolving the conflict situation.The results of the experiment showed that in the study a significant change in the images of the opponents in conflict interaction has taken place.It was revealed that for respondents with a “low” level of reflexivity the changes in the assessment of the personal qualities of the opponents at the end of the con

flict interaction are reliably expressed to a greater extent than with a “middle” one.It is important to talk about the tendency to change the image of the opponent — it becomes more positive and brighter.For respondents with a “high” level of reflex inactivity in the process of conflict interaction, a differentiated approach is characterized when assessing the opponent’s personality.This way, the adjustment of the image, to a greater extent, is determined by an understanding of the individual characteristics of the opponent.

In the subjects of the conflict interaction, reliable changes in the assessment of such personal qualities as “outstanding personality” (individuality), “feeling superiority over others”, “originality of thinking”, “knowledge of oneself”, “courage” were revealed.In the very aspect of changes in the assessment of personal qualities is the emergence of greater confidence in the correctness of actions, a greater understanding of the situation.

Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the data obtained showed that those respondents who end the conflict interaction with a compromise, change the image of the opponent more intensively than those who end the interaction with the “victory” of one of the participants.No less interesting result of the study was the data that for the respondents with high and medium levels of reflexivity, there is a greater change in the leading style of behavior in a conflict situation than for the ones with a low level.

Our research laid the foundations for further study of the reflexive aspect of the perception of each other by the subjects of the conflict, which can be aimed at:

1. The study of the role of self-assessment of the personal qualities of the opponents in the process of perceiving each other in the conflict interaction.
2. The study of verbal and non-verbal means of communication in the process of reflexive construction of images of the opponents.
3. Research of personal determinants associated with the construction of the image of the opponent, which cause a change in the leading behavior in the conflict, considering the level of reflexivity.
4. The study of objective indicators (time, speed, etc.) of the reflexive construction of the image of the personality and its changes in the process of interaction of communicants.
5. The study of the age features the reflexive aspect of the perception of interaction by the subjects and the factors that determine the formation of reflection as an effective mechanism of interpersonal communication.
6. Using the potential of VR to create conditions for conflict resolution skills, considering VR as a “chronotope of reflection” (the space-time continuum of the presence of the self “outside” of the situation, relative to which the reflective process is meaningfully carried out), we noted that functionally VR can be included in the implementation of the reflection process.This is exactly what will effectively use its potential to solve a wide range of practical problems, and above all, to resolve conflicts [3].
7. Using the potential of the reflexive mechanism to for effective conflict resolution skills in the educational process.It is necessary to pay attention to the need to develop techniques for the development of reflection aimed at the formation of constructive styles for resolving conflict situations in students.

In general, the study of the reflexive aspect in the perception of the subjects of the interaction and determinants that prove its effectiveness is one of the relevant areas for the psychology of reflection, conflictology and the psychology of perception.In complex, constantly changing social processes, the identification of patterns of this process is the basis for the effective organization and management of interpersonal communication, a condition for the prevention and constructive resolution of conflicts, primarily in the educational environment.

1. Ageev V.S.Psikhologiya mezhgruppovykh otnoshenii [Psychology of intergroup relations].Moscow: Izd-vo MGU, 1983.144 p.(In Russ.).
2. Andreeva G.M.Sotsial’naya psikhologiya [Contemporary social psychology].Moscow: Aspekt Press, 2009.362 p.(In Russ.).
3. Anikina V.G.Refleksiya i virtual’naya real’nost’: ot ehtimologicheskogo analiza ponyatii k ponimaniyu sushchnostnykh otnoshenii [Reflection and virtual reality: from etymological analysis of concepts to understanding essential relationships].Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, 2021.Vol.26, no.1, pp.19—26.DOI:10.17759/ pse.2021000002 (In Russ.).
4. Anikina V.G.Refleksiya v kul’turno-istoricheskoi psikhologii [Reflection in cultural-historical psychology].Moscow: MAKS-Press, 2012.244 p.(In Russ.).
5. Anikina V.G.Dialogicheskii podkhod k razrabotke modeli refleksii kak mekhanizma mezhlichnostnogo vospriyatiya [A dialogue approach to the development of a model of reflection as a mechanism of interpersonal perception].Poznanie i perezhivanie [ Cognition and experience], 2021.Vol.2, no.2, pp.53—67.(In Russ.).
6. Antsupov A.Ya., Shipilov A.I.Konfliktologiya [Conflictology].Moscow: YuNITI, 2000.551 p.(In Russ.).
7. Barabanshchikov V.A.Dinamika vospriyatiya vyrazhenii litsa [The dynamics of the perception of facial expressions].Moscow: Kogito-Tsentr, 2016.376 p.(In Russ.).
8. Barabanshchikov V.A.Kommunikativnyi podkhod k issledovaniyu kognitivnykh protsessov [Communicative approach to the study of cognitive processes].Psikhologicheskie i psikhoanaliticheskie issledovaniya [Psychological and psychoanalytic research].Moscow: Negosudarstvennoe obrazovatel’noe chastnoe uchrezhdenie vysshego obrazovaniya «Moskovskii institut psikhoanaliza» [Non-state educational private institution of higher education “Moscow Institute of Psychoanalysis”], 2009, pp.8—20.(In Russ.).
9. Grishina N.V.Psikhologiya konflikta [The psychology of conflict].SPb.: Piter, 2008.538 p.(In Russ.).
10. Druzhini V.V., Kontorov D.S., Kontorov M.D.Vvedenie v teoriyu konflikta [Introduction to the theory of conflict].Moscow: Radio i svyaz’, 1986.286 p.(In Russ.).
11. Emel’yanov Yu.N.Issledovanie i proektirovanie mezhlichnostnykh situatsii kak teoretiko-prikladnoe napravlenie sotsial’noi psikhologii [Research and design of interpersonal situations as a theoretical and applied direction of social psychology].Vestnik LGU.Seriya 6.1986, no.1, pp.55—62.(In Russ.).
12. Psikhologicheskie testy [Psychological Tests].Pod red.A.A.Karelina [Ed.A.A.Karelina].Moscow: VLADOS: IMPE im.A.S.Griboedova, 2001.(In Russ.).
13. Karpov A.V.Refleksivnost’ kak psikhicheskoe svoistvo i metodika ee diagnostiki [Reflexivity as a mental property and a technique for its diagnosis.Psychological journal].Psikhologicheskii zhurnal [ Psychological journal], 2003, no.5(24), pp.45—57.(In Russ.).
14. Kornelius Kh., Feir Sh.Znakomstvo s ponyatiem konflikt.Khrestomatiya po sotsial’noi psikhologii [Acquaintance with the concept of conflict.Reader on social psychology].Moscow: Mezhdunarodnaya pedagogicheskaya akademiya, 1994, pp.234—248.(In Russ.).
15. Lavrinovich E.V.Transformatsiya obraza vospriyatiya konflikta kak metod upravleniya.Avtoref.diss.… kand.psikhol.nauk [Transformation of the image of the perception of the conflict as a method of management (PhD thesis)].Moscow, 1999.24 p.(In Russ.).
16. Lepskii V.E.Refleksivno-aktivnye sredy innovatsionnogo razvitiya [Reflexive-active environments of innovative development].Moscow: Kogito-Tsentr, 2010.255 p.(In Russ.).
17. Lefevr V.A.Konfliktuyushchie struktury [Conflicting structures.Second edition, revised and enlarged].Moscow: Izd-vo «Sovetskoe radio», 1973.158 p.(In Russ.).
18. Lomov B.F.Metodologicheskie i teoreticheskie problemy psikhologii [Methodological and theoretical problems of psychology].Moscow: Nauka, 1984.349 p.(In Russ.).
19. Lomov B.F., Obozov N.N., Nosulenko V.N.i dr.Problema obshcheniya [Communication problem].Moscow: Nauka, 1981.280 p.(In Russ.).
20. Luriya A.R.Priroda chelovecheskikh konfliktov: Ob”ektivnoe izuchenie dezorganizatsii povedeniya cheloveka [The Nature of Human Conflict: An Objective Study of the Disorganization of Human Behavior.Under total].Pod obshch.red.V.I.Belopol’skogo [Ed.V.I.Belopolsky].Moscow: «Kogito-Tsentr», 2002.527 p.(In Russ.).
21. Petrovskii V.A.“Ya” v personologicheskoi perspective [Logic “I”: a personological perspective].Moscow: Izd.dom Vyssh.shk.ekonomiki, 2013.502 p.(In Russ.).
22. Petrovskii V.A.Implikatsiya: eksplikatsiya implitsitnogo.Chelovek v situatsii neopredelennosti [Implication: explication of the implicit.A person in a situation of uncertainty].Moscow: TEIS, 2007, pp.49— 57.(In Russ.).
23. Petrovskii V.A.Sostoyatel’nost’ i refleksiya: model’ chetyrekh resursov [Consistency and Reflection: The Four Resource Model].Psikhologiya. Zhurnal Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki [Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics], 2008, no.1(5), pp.77—100.(In Russ.).
24. Petrovskaya L.A.Neadekvatnost’ vospriyatiya kak faktor sotsial’no-psikhologicheskogo konflikta  Teoreticheskie i prikladnye problemy psikhologii poznaniya lyud’mi drug druga [Inadequacy of perception as a factor of socio-psychological conflict].Teoreticheskie i prikladnye problemy psikhologii poznaniya lyud’mi drug druga [Theoretical and applied problems of the psychology of people knowing each other].Moscow: Izd-vo Mosk.un-ta, 1975, pp.48—50.(In Russ.).
25. Petrovskaya L.A.O ponyatiinoi skheme sotsial’no-psikhologicheskogo analiza konflikta [On the conceptual scheme of the socio-psychological analysis of the conflict].Teoreticheskie i metodologicheskie problemy sotsial’noi psikhologii [Theoretical and applied problems of the psychology of people knowing each other].Pod.red.G.M.Andreevoi, N.N.Bogomolovoi [Ed.G.M. Andreeva, N.N.Bogomolova].Moscow: Publ.Mosk.Un-ta, 1977, pp.126—143.(In Russ.).
26. Ryabinina E.V.Aktual’nye problemy konfliktologii: teoretiko-metodologicheskii analiz [Actual problems of conflict management: theoretical and methodological analysis].Teorii i problemy politicheskikh issledovanii [Theory and Problems of Political Research], 2016, no. 1, pp.126—141.(In Russ.).
27. Selivanov V.V., Selivanova L.N.Poznanie i lichnost’ v virtual’noi real’nosti [Cognition and personality in virtual reality].Psikhologiya kognitivnykh protsessov [Psychology of cognitive processes], 2015, pp.107— 121.(In Russ.).
28. Semenov I.N.Teoreticheskie osnovy izucheniya roli refleksii v protsessakh samosti v transdistsiplinarnom kontekste chelovekoznaniya [Theoretical foundations for studying the role of reflection in the processes of selfhood in the transdisciplinary context of human knowledge].Mir psikhologii [ World of Psychology], 2018, no.3(95), pp.7—24.(In Russ.).
29. Semenov I.N., Stepanov S.Yu.Problema predmeta i metoda psikhologicheskogo izucheniya refleksii [The problem of the subject and method of psychological study of reflection].Issledovanie problem psikhologii tvorchestva [Study of the problems of the psychology of creativity].Pod red.P.Ya.Ponomarevа [Ed.Ponomarev].Moscow: Nauka, 1983, pp.154—182.(In Russ.).
30. Serebryakova T.A., Desyatova S.V.Problema konflikta v psikhologii [The problem of conflict in psychology].Byulleten’ nauki i praktiki [Bulletin of Science and Practice], 2017, no.1(14), pp.210— 215.URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/problema-konflikta-v-psihologii (Accessed 22.03.2020).(In Russ.).
31. Skityaeva I.M.Zakonomernosti strukturno-funktsional’noi organizatsii refleksii i ikh rol’ v formirovanii lichnosti.Avtoref.Diss.… kand.psikhol.nauk [Regularities of the structural and functional organization of reflection and their role in the formation of personality.PhD (Psychology) Thesis].Yaroslavl’, 2002.22 p.(In Russ.).
32. Stolin V.V.Samosoznanie lichnosti [Self-awareness of the individual].Moscow: Izd-vo Mosk.un-ta, 1983.286 p.(In Russ.).
33. Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ po psikhologii obshcheniya [Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Psychology of Communication].Pod red.A.A.Bodaleva [Ed.A.A. Bodalev].Moscow: Izd-vo «Kogito-Tsentr», 2013.551 p.(In Russ.).
34. Khasan B.I., Sergomanov P.A.Razreshenie konfliktov i vedenie peregovorov [Conflict resolution and negotiation].Moscow: MIROS, 2001.174 p.(In Russ.).
35. Shelling T.S.The strategy of conflict.Cambridge (Mass) Harvard University Press, 1980.309 p.