Connection between the psychological sovereignty and social beliefs: personal boundaries in the social world

Connections between the psychological sovereignty and social beliefs: belief in a just world, religiosity, reward application, fate control were exanimated. 288 respondents (Mage = 23,7), 66 males participated in the survey. The foolowing tools were used: the Sovereignty of the psychological space questionnaire — 2010 (Nartova-Bochaver, 2014), the General and Personal Belief in a Just World Scales (Dalbert, 1999), and the Social axioms survey (Leung et al., 2002; Tatarko, Lebedeva, 2008). There has been found that social beliefs differ depending on the sovereignty level. In addition, it has been revealed that in deprived individuals the body and territory sovereignty predicted the social beliefs, and in super-sovereign individuals the regime habits and territory sovereignty did. In the group of moderate sovereignty there weren’t any significant connections. It was concluded that the most adapted group is free of typical beliefs as a form of social stereotypes.

1. Martirosjan K.V. Suverennost’ zhiznennogo hronotopa predstavitelej studencheskoj molodjozhi armjanskoj diaspory [The sovereignty of the life chronotope of young students from the Armenian diaspora]. Sborniki konferencij NIC Sociosfera, 2013, no. 41, pp. 108—112.
2. Martirosjan K.V. Jetnospecifichnost’ suverennosti psihologicheskogo prostranstva lichnosti [Ethnospesificity of the sovereignty of the personal life space]. Sovremennye problemy nauki i obrazovanija [The problems of the contemporary science and education], 2014, no. 6. Available at: https://www.science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=16262 (Accessed : 28.07.2017).
3. Nartova-Bochaver S.K. Edinstvo sub’ekta i bytija kak osnova estestvennoj psihoterapii [Integrity of the agency and Dasein as a basis of the natural psychotherapy]. In Zhuravleva A.L., Znakova V.V., Rjabikinoj Z.I., Sergienko E.A. (eds.). Sub’ektnyj podhod v psihologii [The sub’ect approach in psychology]. Moscow: Institut psihologii RAN, 2009, pp. 482—497.
4. Nartova-Bochaver S.K. Novaja versija oprosnika “Suverennost’ psihologicheskogo prostranstva — 2010” [The new version of the questionnaire “The sovereignty of the psychological space — 2010”]. Psihologicheskij zhurnal [Psychological Journal], 2014. Vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 105—119.
5. Nartova-Bochaver S.K. Psihologicheskaja suverennost’ kak kriterij lichnostnoj zrelosti [The psychological sovereignty as a criteria of the personal maturaty]. In Zhuravleva A.L., Sergienko E.A. (eds.) Fenomen i kategorija zrelosti v psihologii [Phenomenon and concept of the maturity in psychology]. Moscow: Institut psihologii RAN, 2007, pp. 149—173.
6. Nartova-Bochaver S.K. Sovremennoe sostojanie psihologii suverennosti kak uchenija o lichnostnyh granicah [The modern research of the psychological sovereignty as a personal boundaries theory]. In Obuhovoj L.F., Kotljar (Korepanovoj) I.A. (eds.). U istokov razvitija [At the source of development]. Moscow: MGPPU, 2013, pp. 56—67.
7. Nartova-Bochaver S.K., Astanina N.B. Psihologicheskie problemy spravedlivosti v zarubezhnoj personologii: teorii i jempiricheskie issledovanija [Theories and empirical research on justice in the foreign personality psychology]. Psihologicheskij zhurnal [Psychological Journal], 2014. Vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 16—32.
8. Sergienko E.A., Lebedeva E.I., Prusakova O.A. Model’ psihicheskogo v ontogeneze cheloveka [Theory of mind in the human ontogenesis]. Moscow: Institut psihologii RAN, 2009. 416 p.
9. Silina O.V. Struktura granic Ja u detej 2—10 let. [The structure of the boundaries I for children 2—10 years]. Sotsial’naia psikhologiia i obshchestvo [Social Psychology and Society], 2016. Vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 83—98. doi:10.17759/sps.2016070406 (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.).
10. Tatarko A.N., Lebedeva N.M. Issledovanie social’nyh aksiom: struktura i vzaimosvjazi s social’no-jekonomicheskimi ustanovkami rossijan [Investigation into social axioms: structure and interconnections with socio-economic attitudes in Russians]. Psikhologiya. Zhurnal Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki [Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics]. 2008. Vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 135—143.
11. Telegina S.Ja. Osobennosti suverennosti psihologicheskogo prostranstva u russkih, evrejskih i tatarskih podrostkov [Specificity of the sovereignty of the psychological space in Russian, Jewish, and Tatar adolescents]. Vestnik SPbgu. Psihologija i pedagogika [Vestnik SPbSU. Psychology and Education]. 2016. Vyp. 4, pp. 146—157. doi: 10.21638/11701/ spbu16.2016.412
12. Fominykh E.S. Viktimizacija i deviktimizacija studentov s ogranichennymi vozmozhnostjami zdorov’ja v sovremennyh obrazovatel’nyh uslovijah [Victimization and devictimization of students with disabilities in modern educational environment] [Elektronnyi resurs]. Klinicheskaia i spetsial’naia psikhologiia [Clinical Psychology and Special Education], 2012. Vol. 1, no. 4 (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.) URL: http://psyjournals. ru/psyclin/2012/n4/57313.shtml (Accessed: 30.03.2017).
13. Bardadymov V., Nartova-Bochaver S., Harutyunyan S., Khachatryan N., Wu M.S., Zhou C.,Yuan J., Hakobjanyan A. Personal sovereignty in secondary school and university students from Armenia, China, and Russia. 16th European Conference on Personality Psychology (Trieste, July 10-14 2012). Trieste: European Association of Personality Psychology, 2012, pp. 180.
14. Bond M.H. et al. Culture-level dimensions of social axioms and their correlates across 41 cultures. Journal of cross-cultural psychology. 2004. Vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 548—570. doi: 10.1177/0022022104268388
15. Bronfenbrenner U. Two worlds of childhood. New York: Russell Sage [Bronfenbrenner U. Dva mira detstva. Deti v SShA i SSSR (In Russ.)]. Moscow: Progress, 1976. 167 p.
16. Clayton S., Opotow S. Justice and identity: Changing perspectives on what is fair. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2003. no. 7, pp. 298—310.
17. Dalbert C. The world is more just for me than generally: About the personal belief in a just world scale’s validity. Social Justice Research, 1999. Vol. 12, pp. 79—98.
18. Lerner M.J. The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum, 1980. 217 p.
19. Leung K., Bond M. H., Reimel de Carrasquel S., Muñoz, C. Hernández M., Murakami F., et al. Social axioms: The search for universal dimensions of general beliefs about how the world functions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 2002. Vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 286— 302.
20. Schmitt M., Maes, J., & Schmal A. Gerechtigkeit als innerdeutsches Problem: Analyse der Messeigenschaften von Messinstrumenten für Einstellungen zu Verteilungsprinzipien, Ungerechtigkeitssensibilität und Glaube an eine gerechte Welt [Justice as an intra- German problem: analysis of psychometric properties of attitudes towards distribution principles, injustice sensitivity, and belief in a just world] Trier: Universität Trier, 1997. 47 p.
21. Smith D.M. Moral geographies: Ethics in a world of difference. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2000. 244 p.
22. Sutton R., Douglas K.M. Justice for all, or just for me? More evidence of the importance of the self—other distinction in just-world beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 2005. Vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 637—645. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.010 (data obrashhenija: 30.03.2017).
23. Zajonc R.B. The attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Monograph Supplement, 1968. Vol. 9. no. 2, pp. 1—28.