Методы наблюдения и психосемантические методы исследования группового процесса в учебно-терапевтических группах

  • Published on
    05-Apr-2017

  • View
    216

  • Download
    4

Embed Size (px)

Transcript

<ul><li><p>1 2 7</p><p>-</p><p>.--</p><p>, -, -, -</p><p>; - (</p><p>); -, </p><p>-</p><p>. , , -</p><p>, , -, -</p><p>, -</p><p>-, .</p><p>-, -</p><p>, .</p><p>: ----</p><p>. ---</p><p>. , -,-</p><p>.</p><p>1 . . : . .,2000. . 50.</p><p>2 : / . . . . -, . . . ., 2004. . 29.3 . . 17.</p><p>. . </p><p>. , . . </p><p>, -. </p><p>. -.</p><p>The article presents the results of theoretical and practical research on the assessment of group processin the dynamic training therapeutic groups where the group psychotherapists and psychologists havebeen trained. The existing problem of group process assessment is analysed. The building of group processmodel and the development of psychosemantic methods of its research are given.</p><p>...</p></li><li><p>1 2 8</p><p>, </p><p>-</p><p> 15 -</p><p> 450 ), 120 </p><p>.</p><p>-</p><p>, </p><p>, : </p><p>; , .</p><p>. - </p><p>, </p><p>, -1.</p><p>, -, </p><p>, -.-</p><p>.1. -</p><p> () </p><p>, , -, -</p><p>. -</p><p>--</p><p>2.2. -</p><p>-.--</p><p>. -</p><p>, ( ,</p><p>HIM- .).3. , </p><p>, -, -</p><p>- , -</p><p> . -, -</p><p>-.</p><p>-. </p><p>--</p><p>. ---</p><p> - , </p><p>- .</p><p>-. -</p><p>-</p><p>.1. . -</p><p>, -, -</p><p>, -. </p><p>.,</p><p>, , , </p><p>. -: </p><p> . ( - -</p><p>, -.)</p><p>2. . , -, -</p><p>-, -</p></li><li><p>1 2 9</p><p>.--</p><p> ( -, , </p><p>, , -, . .) </p><p>. , -</p><p>.3. . </p><p>-, .</p><p>-, </p><p>, -. -</p><p>.</p><p>-. </p><p>.4. . -</p><p>-</p><p>, . -</p><p> ( --</p><p>, ), , -</p><p>-. , -</p><p>, -:</p><p>. --</p><p>.-</p><p>, , -: , , </p><p>. -, </p><p>---</p><p>. ( </p><p>), --</p><p>. -</p><p>, -. -</p><p>-. </p><p>. -</p><p>.-</p><p>- ( 10 ) -</p><p> ( - 10 ).</p><p>--</p><p>. --</p><p>, </p><p>. , -</p><p>-. </p><p>-, -</p><p>, 23 </p><p>, -</p><p>. </p><p>, .</p><p>, , -</p><p>-</p><p> ( , -</p><p>...</p></li><li><p>1 3 0</p><p>, </p><p>). --</p><p>, -</p><p>.---</p><p>. --</p><p>, --</p><p> (-</p><p>). 8- -</p><p>- -</p><p>. --</p><p> 12 . , -</p><p>-. </p><p>111 ( ) * 12 ( ) -:</p><p>1. ( - 22,9%). : -</p><p>, , , .</p><p>2. ( - 20,2%). : -</p><p>, , , .</p><p>3. (20,0%). : , -</p><p> , -, .</p><p> 63,1%, . . 63,1% -</p><p>, -. -</p><p>, , --</p><p>. -</p><p>, -, -</p><p>, -. -</p><p>-</p><p>.-</p><p>. -</p><p> -</p><p> ( -</p><p>)3 . , , -</p><p>- 2- -</p><p> 0,1. - -, 75%</p><p>, -</p><p>. -</p><p>, -</p><p>. - , </p><p>, -. -</p><p>-, , , -</p><p>, ., </p><p> - 30 , -</p><p> .</p><p>.</p><p>, . </p><p>-</p></li><li><p>1 3 1</p><p>. ---</p><p>.-</p><p>:1. -</p><p>-: -</p><p> -. </p><p>-, </p><p>, -.</p><p>2. -, </p><p>-. </p><p>.3. -</p><p>, , -, </p><p>, --</p><p>, .</p><p>4. -</p><p>.</p><p>1 . . : ; -, 1978.</p><p>2 . . .; .; ; : , 2000.3 . . . .: ; , 1999.</p><p>- ( ) -</p><p>. , -, , -</p><p>.</p><p>In the article there are the results of experimental research of influence of typological specialities ofneurotic system features (CNS) and their combinations upon the expression of different sychological featuresof a personality. It was shown that with the rowth of the number of CNS in typological complexes crediblyinfluencing upon the different manifestations of personalitys features also grows the difference betweenthe groups of experimented with high or low manifestation of this feature.</p><p>. . </p><p>...</p><p>. , . . </p><p>--</p><p>. . -</p><p>. . , . . -, . . , . . ,</p><p>. . ( . . , . . -</p></li></ul>

Recommended

View more >