Attitudes to global risks students of orthodox and secular universities

The study is devoted to the problem of comparing attitudes towards global risks among students of different mentality (religious and secular). It was assumed that this attitude varies in a number of components and forms links with identity and tolerance for uncertainty. Respondents: students of an Orthodox university (58 people at the age of 17—29 years old, of which 52% are girls, 48% are boys) and students of a secular university (69 people at the age of 16—31 years old, of whom 71% are girls, 29% are young men). The study used a questionnaire method using the techniques: “Attitude to global risks”, “Tolerance to uncertainty”, “Social identity”. Data was processed in the SPSS 20.0 program. The hypothesis was partially confirmed. Religious authoritarianism as a strategy to prevent global risks by returning to traditional values and controlling citizens is higher for Orthodox students. For secular students, it is more typical to see threats from a fatalistic point of view and to believe in the possibility of preventing global disasters by maintaining a balance of power, cooperation and compromises. Significant relationships of risk attitudes with tolerance to uncertainty and identity are found.

 

1. Daudrih N.I. Social’naja identichnost’: metodicheskij aspekt [Social identity: methodical aspect]. Sociologija [Sociology], 2000, no. 12, pp. 77—95.
2. Kitova D.A., Zhuravlev A.L. Global’nye protsessy kak ob”ekt sotsial’no-psikhologicheskogo issledovaniya [Global processes as an object of socio-psychological research]. Chelovecheskii faktor: Sotsial’nyi psikholog [The human factor. Social psychologist], 2017, no. 2 (34), pp. 307—314.
3. Leont’ev D.A. Vyzov neopredelennosti kak central’naja problema psihologii lichnosti [Jelektronnyj resurs] [The challenge of uncertainty as the central problem of personality psychology]. Psihologicheskie issledovanija [Psychological research], 2015. Vol. 8, no. 40, p. 2. URL: http://psystudy.ru (Accessed 15.06.2019).
4. Lumann N. Ponyatie riska [Concept of risk]. THESIS [THESIS], 1994, no. 5, pp. 135— 60.
5. Nestik T.A., Zhuravlev A.L. Otnoshenie k global’nym riskam: social’no-psihologicheskij analiz [Attitude to global risks: a socio-psychological analysis]. Psihologicheskij zhurnal [Psychological Journal], 2018. Vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 127—138.
6. Rjazancev I.P., Podlesnaja M.A., Kozlov I.I. Fenomenologija pravoslavnyh cennostej v ocenke jekspertov [The phenomenology of Orthodox values in the evaluation of experts]. Sociologicheskie issledovanija [Sociological studies], 2014, no. 8, pp. 128—135.
7. Soldatova G.U., Shajgerova L.A. Psihodiagnostika tolerantnosti lichnosti [Psychodiagnostics of tolerance]. M.: Smysl. 2008. 172 p.
8. Sotsial’no-psikhologicheskaya otsenka riskov sovremennoi real’nosti: ochevidnoe i veroyatnoe [Socio-psychological risk assessment of modern reality: the obvious and probable]. Belobrykina O.A. (scien. ed.). Novosibirsk: Publ. NGPU, 2017. 113 p.
9. Khukhlaev O.E., Shorokhova V.A. Research on Religious Identity of Orthodoxy Youth. Sotsial’naia psikhologiia i obshchestvo [Social Psychology and Society], 2016. Vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 35—50. doi:10.17759/sps.2016070203 (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)
10. Bostrom N., Cirkovic M.M. Introduction.Global Catastrophic Risks. Bostrom N., Cirkovic M.M. (ed.). L.-N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 1—29.