Keywords: representation, spatially-subject environment, place, situation, sensitive and value-semantic levels of representation, formal, pragmatic, aesthetic, moral and ethical components of representation
Abstract
The article is dedicated to the description of the empirical study aimed at analysis of the peculiarities of perception by the subject of the environment of everyday life. On the basis of developed theoretical model of psychological representation of spatially-subject environment, including the operational unit of analysis, the means of its description, levels, components and parameters of representation, provided data on the specific properties that are spatially-subject environment of everyday life (residential, industrial, recreational, natural, city, etc.) represented in the minds of the subject.
References
Anan’ev B. G. Psihologiya chuvstvennogo poznaniya. (Psychology of
sensual perception) M.: Nauka, 2001. 279 s.
Andreeva G. M. Social’naya identichnost’: vremennie i sredovie
komponenty (Social identity: time and environmental components) // Psihologiya
lichnosti v trudah otechestvennyh psihologov. (Personal Psychology in the works
of Russian psychologists) SPb.: Piter, 2000. S. 344–357.
Artem’eva E. Yu. Osnovy psihologii sub’ektivnoi semantiki. (Basics
of psychology of subjective semantics) M.: Nauka; Smysl, 1999. 350 s.
Barabanschikov V. A. Vospriyatie i sobytie. (Perception and event)
SPb.: Aleteiya, 2002. 512 s.
Vekker L. M. Psihika i real’nost’: edinaya teoriya psihicheskih
protsessov. (Mind and reality: a single theory for mind processes) M.: Smysl;
Per Se, 2000. 685 s.
Velichkovskij B. M., Blinnikova I. V., Lapin E. A. Predstavlenie
real’nogo i ideal’nogo voobrazhaemogo prostranstva (Real and ideal imaginary
space repersentation) // Voprosy psihologii. (Issues of Psychology) 1986. № 3.
S. 103–113.
Gabidulina S. E. Psihosemantika gorodskoi sredy (ob’ektivnie i
sub’ektivnie faktory otnosheniya gorozhan k elementam gorodskogo landshafta).
Avtoref. diss. … kand. psihol. nauk. (Urban environment psychosemantics.
Objective and subjective factors of citizens intention to urban landscape
elements.PhD thesis) M., 1991. 23 s.
Gibson Dzh. Ekologicheskij podhod k zritel’nomu vospriyatiyu. (The
ecological approach to visual perception) M.: Progress, 1988. 464 s.
Deryabo S. V., Yasvin V. A. Metodologicheskie problemy stanovleniya
i razvitiya ekologicheskoi psihologii (Methodological problems of establishing
and development of Ecological Psychology) // Psihologicheskij zhurnal,
(Psychological journal) 1996. № 6. S. 4–18.
Zinchenko V. P., Vergiles N. Yu. Formirovanie zritel’nogo obraza
(issledovanie deyatel’nosti zritel’noi systemy). (Visual image shaping. A study
of activity in visual system) M.: MGU, 1969. 106 s.
Kovalev G. A. Psihicheskoe razvitie rebenka i zhiznennaya sreda
(Child psychical development and living environment) // Voprosy psihologii.
(Issues of Psychology) 1993. № 1. S. 13–23.
Lapin E.A. Prostranstvennie reprezentatsii v deyatel’nosti
cheloveka. Avtoref. diss. … kand. psihol. nauk. (Spatial representations in
human activity. PhD thesis) M., 1987. 23 s.
Levin K. Opredelenie ponyatiya «pole v dannyi moment» (Defining the
"Field at a Given Time") // Istoriya psihologii. Period otkrytogo krizisa
nachala 10-h – serediny 30-h godov. (History of Psychology. Period of the
open crisis in early 1910-middle 1930 years) M.: MGU, 1992. S. 190–203.
Levin K. Teoriya polya v social’nyh naukah. (Field theory in social
science) SPb., 2000. 368 s.
Leont’ev A. N. Psihologiya obraza (Psychology of image) // Vestnik
MGU. Ser. 14, Psihologiya. (MSU Bulletin. Series 14. Psychology) 1979. №2.
S. 3–14.
Leont’ev D. A. Psihologiya smysla. (Psychology of meaning) M.:
Smysl, 1999. 486 s.
Logvinenko A. D. Chuvstvennie osnovy vospriyatiya prostranstva
(Sensorial basement of space perception) M.: MGU, 1985. 223 s.
Mirakyan A. I. Konstantnost’ i polifunktsional’nost’ vospriyatiya.
(Constancy and multyfunctionality of perception) M., 1992. 216 s.
Osorina M. V. Sekretnyi mir detei v prostranstve mira vzroslyh.
(Secret children’s world in the space of the adults’ world) SPb.: Piter, 1999.
288 s.
Oshanin D. A. Predmetnoe deistvie i operativnyi obraz: Izbrannie
psihologicheskie trudy. (Action with object and working representation:
selected psychological works) M.-Voronezh, 1999. 512 s.
Panov V. I. Neposredstvenno-chuvstvennoe vospriyatie dvizheniya
ob’ektov. (Spontaneous sensory perception of objects’ movement) M.: PI RAO,
1993. 139 s.
Panov V. I. Vvedenie v ekologicheskuyu psihologiyu: Ucheb. posobie.
Chast’ 1. (Introduction to ecological psychology: study guide. Part 1) M.:
Izd-vo MNEPU, 2001. 144 s.
Petrenko V. F. Vvedenie v eksperimental’nuyu psihosemantiku.
Issledovanie form prezentatsii v obydennom soznanii. (Introduction to
experimental psychosemantics. A study of forms of presentation in common sense)
M.: MGU, 1983. 176 s.
Petrenko V. F. Psihosemantika soznaniya. (Psychosemantics of
consciousness) M.: Izd-vo MGU, 1988. 208 s.
Rubtsov V. V. Psihologicheskaya podderzhka sovremennogo obrazovaniya
(Psychological support of modern education) // Izvestiya Rossijskoi akademii
obrazovaniya. (Russian Academy of Education Bulletin) M., 1999. S. 49–58.
Fel’dshtein D. I. Detstvo i social’nyi mir (social’noe bytie detstva
v bytie sociuma) (Childhood and social world. Social being of a child in the
being of socium) // Mir psihologii. (World of Psychology) 2002. № 1. S.
9–20.
Shteinbah H. E. Vospriyatie i otsenka gorodskoi sredy. Avtoref.
diss. … kand. psihol. nauk. (Perception and estimate of urban environment. PhD
thesis) L., 1987. 24 s.
Yasvin V. A. Obrazovatel’naya sreda: ot modelirovaniya k
proektirovaniyu.(Educational enviromnent: from model to design) M.,
1997.
Altman I. The Environment and the Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal
Space, Territory, Crowding. Monterey, 1975.
Barker R. Ecological psychology: Concepts and Methods for Studying
the Environment of Human Behavior. Stanford, 1968.
For Reference:Panyukova Yu. G.
Empirical Studies of Structural Organization of Psychological Representation of Spatially-Subject Environments // Experimental Psychology. 2009 #3. – P. 111-122
