The dissertation is devoted to the identification of psychosomatic factors of internal conflict in higher school teachers, in respect of the aspect their influence on the personality has been theoretically grounded and empirically proven.
The theoretical background of the study is based on the principles of determinism, objectivity, unity, system-synergetic principle and system analysis, development and goal-setting, as well as on the principles of systemic and scientific approach, and complexity. Within these approaches, appropriate methods were used to study the features of the internal conflict manifestation in teachers under condition of psychosomatic disorders: Questionnaire Plutchik-Kellerman Conte - Methodology Life Style Index (LSI) to diagnose the mechanisms of psychological protection; Bass-Durkey Hostility Inventory (BDHI) method to determine the level of aggression, indirect aggression, irritation, negativism, resentment, suspicion, verbal aggression, guilt; in terms of role approach P. Hornostay’s questionnaire "Scale of locus of role conflict" designed to study the socio-psychological patterns and individual formations of personality; the Giessen Somatic Complaints Questionnaire to reveal the intensity of emotionally coloured complaints about physical health, which is highly correlated with masked depression; questionnaire of the severity of psychopathological symptoms to establish the current psychological symptomatic status (on the scales of symptomatic disorders: somatization, internal conflict, depression, hostility, phobic anxiety, paranoid tendencies, psychoticism, as well as on three generalized scales of second-order symptomatology. distress, the total number of positive responses); The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) to assess psychosomatic complaints; test "Self-assessment of anxiety, frustration, aggression and rigidity" (adapted version of H. Eysenck’s method) to evaluate some nonadaptive states (anxiety, frustration, aggression) and personality traits (anxiety, frustration, aggression and rigidity); method "Determination of the level of conflict resilience of the individual (by N.P. Fetiskin)", for indirect determination of the level of conflict resilience of the individual.
As basic components of the structural-functional model of psychosomatic integration of determinants of internal conflict in teachers of higher educational environment the following components can be traced: psychological (individual personality traits, psychological protection, conscious and unconscious in the organization of mental activity); cortico-subcortical (specific features of the brain: visceral brain complex, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal system); neurohumoral (features of interaction and response to a conflict situation, taking into account the interaction of somatic and autonomic nervous and endocrine systems); dysfunctioning of an organ or body systems (due to the several stressors effect).
The results of the study show the advantage of such psychological defense mechanisms as rationalization (in CG), projection and reactive formation (in EG). Psychological protection is a number of unconscious reactions that are situationally triggered during a threat. Regardless of the type of mechanism of psychological protection, the significant amount of energy resources are used by the body, which deplete it and lead to the manifestation of psychosomatic disorders. In conditions of increased discomfort, these mechanisms of psychological protection are automatically activated, unconsciously providing effective behavioral strategies. However, natural protection should not be overused, even in conditions of conscious control, because, depleting his energy supply, a person rewards himself for the danger of developing a number of psychosomatic problems.
In CG we diagnose absence of aggressive and hostile behavior. In the analysis of the study of the level of aggression according to the Bass-Darka method, three groups of individuals with increased aggression and hostility have been identified: in the first group, physical aggression (57) and self-aggression (33) prevail among highly aggressive individuals; less manifested negativism (10). Self-aggression (54) and negativism (26) dominate in the group with average aggression (the second group). The third position in this group is occupied by physical aggression (20). Indicators for this group show the highest level of self-aggression (45) and negativism (35). The least studied resort to physical aggression (20). Analysis of the results of the study showed that the individuals demonstrated a high level of conflict and aggression, which provokes internal inconsistency and instability.
