IN SEARCH OF A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL-PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RECIPIENT AND HIS ASSESSMENT OF THE VOICE AND SPEECH PARAMETERS OF SPEAKERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE IMAGE OF THE AGRESSOR

Komalova L.R.

Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences
Russia, Moscow
e-mail: komalova@inion.ru

Introduction

 The basis of successful social interaction between people includes, among other things, the adequate encoding and decoding of information about the emotional state of communicants [21]. Statements can evoke various emotional and emotional-modal states depending on their semantics and prosodic design [10]. Physiological reactions provoked by emotions cause variations in breathing, phonation and articulation, which are directly related to speech [25]. In addition, emotionally charged events can also influence the speaker's cognitive processes, which can be reflected in the temporal characteristics of speech [15]. The following acoustic parameters are of decisive importance in the process of encoding and decoding various emotions: level, range and contour of the fundamental frequency (f0, in hertz); voice intensity (in decibels) and temporal phenomena (tempo, duration, pauses) [21]. Research results (see, for example, reviews: [10; 16]) demonstrate that different combinations of speech rate, pitch level and variation, and intensity convey different emotions. Based on combinations of these indicators, it becomes possible to describe prosodic profiles for each of the basic emotions. For example, anger is characterized by high speech rate, high pitch level and variability, high pitch level, and pitch variability [21].

According to the trait congruence hypothesis, one of the most influential hypotheses examining differences in emotion processing, the influence of stable personality traits on the accuracy of an individual's emotion processing is traced (see [13; 23]). For example, measures of extraversion and neuroticism are closely related to the processing of positive and negative emotions, respectively" [18; 14; 22]. Researchers confirm (see, for example, [24; 19]) that recognition accuracy varies depending on the quality of the emotion: anger is recognized most accurately, happiness is recognized with the greatest difficulty [13]; however, due to the lack of statistically confirmed data, they come to the conclusion that stable personality traits cannot serve as predictors of individual differences in the accuracy and speed of emotion recognition from voice and speech [13], which is confirmed in the studies of other authors (see, for example, [12; 11]). Along with this, distortion of perception can be caused by emotional characteristics: after all, stable personality traits influence the interpretation of reality [17].

Statement of the problem

A comprehensive approach to understanding the phenomenon of aggression requires taking into account that, when acting out aggressive behavior, the subject in the current situation not only experiences emotional and emotional-modal states associated with aggression, but also reproduces a mental image of a situation in which (in their opinion) aggressive behavior is tolerated/approved by society (see [2, pp. 88-93] for more details). Thus, a cognitive process is launched that activates attitudes ingrained in the child's upbringing, activating learned typical behavior patterns for a given type of situation. In other words, the law of energy conservation comes into play when the subject, finding themselves in a difficult situation (frustration, uncertainty, etc.), unconsciously chooses already familiar and previously learned behavior patterns, thereby relieving the load on the cognitive system.

Such a stereotypical response to a certain class of situations must be organic to the subject of the action, correspond to his psychophysiological and psychological characteristics, the type of central nervous activity - relatively stable parameters characterizing his personality.

Previously (see [5; 3] for more details), we examined the formation of the image of an act of aggression/aggressor based on speech production and gender-specific characteristics of the perception of this image, i.e., we took into account the situational aspect. In this paper, we will touch on a more stable element in the complex model of the communicative act of aggression, namely, the relationship between the individual-personal characteristics of the recipient (who perceives speech production that associates the speaker with the aggressor) and perceptual-auditory features, collectively perceived as verbal aggression.

The aim of this study is to test the hypothesis that subjects whose psychological profiles show a tendency towards an aggressive type of response to situations of conflict/frustration will characterize the stimulus as more aggressive in their reactions to a situational trigger.

Research methodology

The study involved 34 subjects (11 men, 23 women) at various stages – native speakers of Russian linguistic culture, who formed a homogeneous group balanced by age (young people aged 18–22), socioeconomic status (subjects considered themselves middle class), and level of education (full-time students, third-year students, humanities majors in theoretical and applied linguistics).

All subjects were informed in advance about the study being conducted, about the possibility of leaving the study at any time, and also signed informed consent.

To determine the psychological profile of the subjects in relation to the research topic, standardized psychological testing methods were used:

• (T2) the method of diagnosing indicators and forms of aggression by A. Bass and A. Darki (adapted by A.K. Osnitsky) [1, p.80-84];
• (T6) a method for diagnosing the dominant strategy of mental defense in communication (V.V. Boyko) [6, p.281-287];
• (T7a) a method for determining destructive attitudes in interpersonal relationships (V.V. Boyko) [8, p.265-267];
• (T7b) method of diagnosing communicative tolerance (V.V. Boyko) [8, p.107-109].

Additionally, the results obtained during psychological testing were checked for correlation between the parameters of the selected methods: the values for the parameters «verbal aggression» and «physical aggression» from T2 were compared with the values for the parameter «overt cruelty» from T7a; «negativism» from T2 and «justified negativism» from T7a; «indirect aggression» from T2 and «veiled cruelty» from T7a; the values for the parameter «direction of aggression» from T2 and the sum of the answers from T7a; «level of aggressive motivation» from T2 and the sum of the answers from T7b; «aggression index» from T2 and the sum of the answers from T7b; «hostility index» from T2 and the sum of the answers from T7b.

To identify the assessments formed by subjects in relation to speech production that associates the speaker with the image of an aggressor, a proven method of perceptual-auditory analysis was used (according to R.K. Potapova, see, for example, [20]).

As stimulus material, 20 samples of spoken speech associated with the image of aggression (monologues, in Russian, informants: 10 men, 10 women) were selected from the author’s multilingual annotated oral speech database of speech aggression (for more details see: [2, pp. 185-187]).

After listening to each monologue, subjects were asked to rate the overall emotional intensity of the communication on a scale from 0 to 10 (with 0 to 3 representing low emotional intensity, 4 to 6 representing medium, and 7 to 10 representing high). They were also asked to characterize the speaker's voice and speech (recording the strength and pitch of their voice, the melodic pattern of their speech, the tempo and rhythm of their speech, pauses, and breathing). The average ratings given by respondents for 20 speech samples were included in the mathematical processing of the data.

The statistical reliability of the obtained results was checked using the following mathematical methods: 1) one-way analysis of variance for unrelated samples (ANOVA), 2) Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (r_s).

We have previously found that, in the perceptual-auditory perception of Russian-speaking subjects, the following features dominate in the speech image of a Russian-speaking aggressor: a jerky melodic pattern of speech (sharp changes at the level of melodic registers with alternating peaks and valleys), a clear speech rhythm, a moderate-medium speech tempo, minimal duration of pauses (short pauses); a voice of medium pitch, the strength of the voice changes, moving from medium to strong; female aggressors are characterized by intermittent breathing, while men have normal breathing [4]. The progressive intensification of the emotional-modal complex «aggression» is associated with an increase in the pitch of the voice, an increase in the strength of the voice, an increase in the jaggedness of the melodic pattern of speech, an acceleration of the tempo of speech, difficulty in breathing, the saturation of the speaker’s voice with negative timbre shades (the voice is perceived as more muffled, hoarse, harsh, rough, unpleasant), in general, an increase in the importance of prosodic means in assessing the voice and speech of the speaker [2, pp. 209-212].

 

Research results

Psychological profile of the test group

During the analysis of the test results, a general psychological profile of the study participants (subjects) was determined.

Psychological testing using the diagnostic method of indicators and forms of aggression by A. Bass and A. Darki (adapted by A.K. Osnitsky)

According to the test results, the subjects demonstrated a wide repertoire of types and forms of aggressive behavior (Table 1). Most scores on this test varied within the normal range. Lower scores on the "tendency to suspiciousness" scale can be interpreted as a possible manifestation of excessive trustingness and openness, conditioned by a comfortable living environment (the ability to attend full-time education requires the satisfaction of basic needs for food and housing, as well as the absence of dependents) and the absence of negative interpersonal experiences in which they were deceived, misled, etc. Low scores on the "tendency to take offense" scale can be interpreted as a decrease in the corresponding psychological personality trait.

An elevated score on the "autoaggression (guilt)" scale indicates psychological immaturity in subjects, a tendency to attribute to themselves a weak position in interactions with other subjects, the belief that they themselves are the source of all troubles (both personal and external), searching for the causes of failures in themselves, and perhaps even a fear of taking an adult step and confronting difficulties that can be overcome by displaying aggressive character traits.

 

Table 1. 

Distribution of the results obtained by subjects using the method of diagnosing indicators and forms of aggression (n = 34)

	Norm (in %)	Not normal (in %)		Total (in %)
		below	higher
Physical aggression	44,12	32,35	23,53	100
Verbal aggression	58,82	17,65	23,53	100
Indirect aggression	61,76	14,71	23,53	100
Negativism	38,24	38,23	23,53	100
Tendency to irritability	58,82	23,53	17,65	100
Tendency to be suspicious	44,12	50	5,88	100
Tendency to show resentment	41,18	52,94	5,88	100
Autoaggression (guilt)	35,29	14,71	50	100

Legend: From here on, the dominant indicators of the group of subjects not differentiated by gender are marked in gray.

Overall, a similar pattern was observed for the female and male groups (Tables 2 and 3). When analyzing the data by gender, the male group did not show an excessive tendency toward irritability, suspicion, and resentment (Table 2), which distinguishes the male group from the female group.

Table 2. 

Distribution of results obtained by male subjects using the methodology for diagnosing indicators and forms of aggression (n = 11)

	Norm (in %) Norm	Not normal (in %)		Total (in %)
		below	higher
Physical aggression	36,36	27,28	36,36	100
Verbal aggression	63,64	9,09	27,27	100
Indirect aggression	45,46	27,27	27,27	100
Negativism	36,36	36,36	27,28	100
Tendency to irritability	72,73	27,27	0	100
Tendency to be suspicious	36,36	63,64	0	100
Tendency to show resentment	45,45	54,55	0	100
Autoaggression (guilt)	27,27	27,27	45,46	100

Legend: From here on, the dominant indicators of the group of male subjects are marked in gray-blue color.

 

 

Table 3. 

Distribution of the results obtained by the subjects-women according to the methodology for diagnosing indicators and forms of aggression (n = 23)

	Norm (in %)	Not normal (in %)		Total (in %)
		below	higher
Physical aggression	47,83	34,78	17,39	100
Verbal aggression	56,52	21,74	21,74	100
Indirect aggression	69,56	8,7	21,74	100
Negativism	39,13	39,13	21,74	100
Tendency to irritability	52,17	21,74	26,09	100
Tendency to be suspicious	47,83	43,47	8,7	100
Tendency to show resentment	39,13	52,17	8,7	100
Autoaggression (guilt)	39,13	8,7	52,17	100

Legend: From here on, the dominant indicators of the female subjects group are marked in grey-red color.

In 100% cases (for all subjects), the aggression index (AI) values were below the norm. Furthermore, the level of aggressive motivation (LAM) values were two to three times higher than the aggression index value for all subjects, indicating unrealized aggression potential. Based on research practice and personal experience, it can be noted that such a situation among young people is partly due to the narrow repertoire of social roles played by subjects [5], the desire to appear only in a positive light in the eyes of others, and the denial of the shadow/dark side of one's personality (according to C.G. Jung [9]).

Psychological testing using the method of diagnosing the dominant strategy of psychological defense in communication (V.V. Boyko)

Twenty subjects (7 men, 13 women) completed the test. The subjects' predominant defense strategy was avoidance of situations of frustration, uncertainty, conflict, or individuals who provoke such situations (Table 4). This avoidance strategy is based on the conservation of intellectual and emotional resources. According to the interpretation provided in the method description, avoidance can be justified by both natural individual characteristics (weak innate energy: poor, rigid emotions, mediocre intelligence, sluggish temperament) and rational choice (having a strong nervous system, willpower, and life experience). This result, in our opinion, correlates with the subjects' high scores on the "autoaggression" scale, obtained during testing using the Bass-Darki method.

Interestingly, compared to the group of men, which did not include subjects with a dominant defense type in the form of aggression, almost a third of the group of women chose aggression as their dominant defense strategy.

 

 

Table 4. 

Distribution of the results obtained by subjects using the method of diagnosing the dominant strategy of psychological defense in communication

Gender of subjects	Defense Strategy (in %)			Total (in %)
	peacefulness	avoidance	aggression
By general group (m + f)	30	55	15	100
By group of women	23,08	53,84	23,08	100
By group of men	42,86	57,14	0	100

Psychological testing using the methodology for determining destructive attitudes in interpersonal relationships (V.V. Boyko)

19 subjects (6 men, 13 women) took part in the testing.

According to the methodology description, the maximum overall score obtained by a subject during testing is 100. A score exceeding 33 indicates a pronounced negative communicative attitude. We divided scores from 34 to 100 into three periods: 34-55 points correspond to a mild negative communicative attitude, 56-77 points to a moderate negative communicative attitude, and 78-100 points to a severe negative communicative attitude (Table 5).

Table 5. 

Distribution of results obtained by subjects using the method for determining destructive attitudes in interpersonal relationships

Gender of subjects	Negative communication attitude (in %)				Total (in %)
	not expressed	expressed
		weakly	moderately	strongly
By general group (m + f)	26,32	31,57	36,84	5,27	100
By group of women	23,08	30,77	46,15	0	100
By group of men	33,33	33,33	16,67	16,67	100

A destructive communicative attitude is not expressed in 26,32% subjects, i.e. such individuals build interpersonal relationships with other people and judge them impartially, their perception is not predetermined by previously established negative stereotypes of thinking or acting that form a hostile picture of the world and thereby force the individual to perceive others as enemies, choose conflicting behavior strategies, and attribute the intentionality of actions perceived as causing harm. In the study group (m = f), 73,68% subjects (53,84% women and 19,84% men) are guided by weak, moderate, and strongly expressed negative communicative attitudes. The average score for the group (m + f) was 49 points, which corresponds to a moderately expressed negative communicative attitude (Table 5). It should be noted that not a single subject scored the maximum possible 100 points. The highest score in the group was 79 points. Only one subject (a man) belonged to the group with a highly expressed negative communicative attitude (5.27%). The remaining subjects (68.41%) fell into the range of mild to moderate negative communicative attitudes (34-77 points).

 

Psychological testing using the method of diagnosing communicative tolerance (V.V. Boyko)

19 subjects (6 men, 13 women) took part in the testing.

The method allows us to identify the level of general communicative tolerance in subjects, which predicts their attitudes toward people in general, as well as their life experiences, attitudes, character traits, moral principles, and mental health. General communicative tolerance largely determines its other forms—situational, typological, and professional.

Based on research conducted by the methodology developer, it is stated that, on average, respondents score between 30 and 43 points (preschool teachers – 31 points, doctors – 40 points, nurses – 43 points). The maximum score is 135 points. To facilitate interpretation of the obtained results, we divided the scoring scale into three periods: 0 to 45 points characterize conditionally tolerant individuals, 46 to 90 points characterize moderately expressed conditional intolerance, and 91 to 135 points characterize severely expressed conditional intolerance. Table 6 shows that the majority of respondents (68,42%) are classified as individuals with moderately expressed conditional intolerance. This is typical for both the women and men groups, when calculating separately. Just over a third of the subjects (31,58%) belong to conditionally tolerant individuals.

Table 6. 

Distribution of results obtained by subjects using the communicative tolerance diagnostic method

Gender of subjects	Conditionally tolerant (in %)	Conditionally intolerant (in %)		Total (in %)
		moderately expressed	clearly expressed
By general group (m + f)	31,58	68,42	0	100
By group of women	23,08	76,92	0	100
By group of men	50	50	0	100

Further comparisons of subjects' assessments during the perceptual-auditory analysis will be conducted in accordance with the subjects' distribution into groups determined based on the psychological testing results—in the overall group and separately by gender (see paragraphs 6.1-6.4). It should be noted that, when using different testing methods, different subjects were included in the resulting groups; therefore, it is not possible to compare the results of perceptual-auditory analysis across groups beyond the boundaries of a single method.

 Identification of correlations between the parameters of psychological tests used in this study

Testing the relationship between the parameters of psychological methods revealed a statistically significant correlation only for two cases (see Table 7): 1) the relationship between the indicator «level of aggressive motivation» according to the method of diagnosing indicators and forms of aggression and the sum of points according to the method of diagnosing communicative tolerance (negative close relationship between the analyzed parameters at ρ < 0.01); 2) the relationship between the «direction of aggression» indicator according to the method of diagnosing indicators and forms of aggression and the sum of points according to the method of determining destructive attitudes in interpersonal relationships (positive correlation of medium strength at ρ < 0,05).

Table 7.

Correlations between the values of psychological testing parameters

	OZ	ZZ	HE	CT	DU
F	0,013
VA	0,053
KA		0,309
Н			0,107
UAM				-1,176*
ON					0,529**

Legend: PA = physical aggression, VA = verbal aggression, KA = indirect aggression, N = negativism, LAM = level of aggressive motivation, DA = direction of aggression; OC = overt cruelty, VC = veiled cruelty, JN = justified negativism, CT = communicative tolerance, DA = destructive attitudes. *Statistically significant relationship at ρ < 0.01. **Statistically significant relationship at ρ < 0,05.

Statistically significant correlations, in our opinion, confirm the information about the behavioral preferences of the subjects in the studied conditions, namely, the unrealized potential of aggression is correlated with moderately expressed intolerance of the subjects (the higher the indicators of communicative intolerance, the lower the indicators of the level of aggressive motivation).

 

Results of the perceptual-auditory experiment

In this study, we are interested in the distribution of subjects' scores across groups identified based on psychological testing results (in the overall group and separately by gender). At this stage of the study, a one-way analysis of variance for unrelated samples was used (the results of the analysis of the perceptual-auditory experiment data are presented in Table 8).

Table 8. 

Results of the analysis of variance

Voice and speech parameters assessed by subjects	Psychological tests in which the subjects participated
	T2, VA	T6	T7a	T7b
Emotional assessment	**	**	**	**
Voice pitch assessment	**	**	**	**
Voice strength assessment	*	**	**	**
Evaluation of speech melody	**	**	**	**
Speech rate assessment	**	**	**	**
Evaluation of speech pauses	**	*	**	*
Speech rhythm assessment	**	*	***	**
Evaluation of speech breathing	**	**	**	**

Legend: * indicates that the data is statistically significant at 0.01 < ρ < 0.025; ** at 0.05 < ρ < 0.1; *** at ρ < 0,5

 

Identification of patterns between the results of testing using the method of diagnosing indicators and forms of aggression by A. Bass and A. Darki and the assessments obtained during perceptual-auditory analysis

Compared with groups of subjects with verbal aggression (VA) below normal and within normal limits group with VA indicator above normal evaluates emotional richness of communication in the stimulus material as higher, pitch of voice speaking as higher, power of voice as stronger, melodic pattern of speech as more jagged (jumpy), rate of speech as faster, speech rhythm as less clear, pauses in speech as shorter ones, speech breathing as closer to the norm.

Identification of patterns between the results of testing using the method of diagnosing the dominant strategy of mental defense in communication and the assessments obtained during perceptual-auditory analysis

Compared to groups of subjects who chose the strategy of peacefulness or the strategy of avoidance as their dominant psychological defense, a group choosing an aggressive strategy, evaluates emotional richness of communication in the stimulus material as higher, melodic pattern of speech as smoother, speech rhythm as more clear, speech breathing as closer to the norm. Voice pitch perceived as higher compared to the group of subjects choosing the avoidance strategy, but lower compared to the group choosing the peacefulness strategy. Groups of subjects choosing avoidance or aggression strategies, power of voice is assessed as weaker compared to the group that chooses the peaceful strategy. Speech rate rated as faster than the avoidance group but slower than the peacefulness group. Pauses in speech are rated as longer than the "peacefulness" group, but shorter than the "avoidance" group.

Identification of patterns between the results of testing using the method for determining destructive attitudes in interpersonal relationships and the assessments obtained during perceptual-auditory analysis

Compared with groups of subjects with an unexpressed and weakly expressed negative communicative attitude (NCA) group of subjects with moderately severe NKU evaluates emotional richness of communication as higher, pitch of voice as higher, power of voice as stronger, melody of speech as more jagged (jumpy), rate of speech as faster. Groups with moderate and mild NKU speech pauses are perceived as longer lasting compared to the group with unexpressed NKU. Speech rhythm Speech breathing is assessed as more unclear compared to the group with mild NKU, but less unclear compared to the group with mild NKU. Speech breathing is assessed equally by the groups with mild NKU and moderate NKU, but as closer to normal compared to the assessments given by the group with mild NKU.

 

Identification of patterns between the results of testing using the communicative tolerance diagnostic method and the assessments obtained during perceptual-auditory analysis

Compared with subjects assigned to the conditionally tolerant group, group with a moderate intolerance indicator evaluates emotional richness of communication as less high, pitch of voice as higher, power of voice as less strong, melodic pattern of speech as smoother, rate of speech as less fast, pauses in speech as longer ones, speech rhythm as more clear, speech breathing as closer to normal.

Overall, a tendency toward perceiving the emotional intensity of communication as higher is noted. This suggests, in this particular case, that subjects who tend to choose aggression as their dominant psychological defense strategy are guided by negative communicative attitudes. Those with verbal aggression scores above the norm in their psychological profiles evaluate speech products associated with aggression as more aggressive than subjects with verbal aggression scores below or within the norm, who tend to resort to avoidance or peacefulness as a psychological defense and are guided by tolerant communicative attitudes. Moreover, with regard to the speech material studied, the first group also exhibits a tendency toward closer correspondence to the perceptual-auditory image associated with aggression: speech rate is perceived as moderately fast, voice pitch as average with a tendency to rise, and speech breathing as normal.

Determination of the correlation of individual and personal characteristics of subjects with the assessment of the voice and speech parameters of speakers associated with the image of the aggressor

The results obtained during the analysis (Table 9) indicate the prevalence of weak or very weak relationships between the analyzed parameters. Moreover, these relationships were not statistically confirmed. Of the compared parameters, moderate relationships were found only between 1) the indicators of verbal aggression (VA), the level of aggressive motivation (LAM) with the indicators of the perceptual-auditory assessment of speech melody, 2) the total score for T6 and the indicators of the assessment of the emotionality of communication, speech rate, and speech breathing, 3) the indicator of communicative tolerance (T7a) and the assessment of speech melody, 4) the indicator of negative communicative attitude (T7b) and the assessment of speech pauses.

It can be hypothesized that an increase in verbal aggression correlates with an increase in subjects' propensity to perceive aggressive speech stimulus material as characterized by a more jagged melodic pattern. Conversely, an increase in aggressive motivation is accompanied by a decrease in the number of ratings for "jagged speech melody." A more pronounced negative communicative attitude in interpersonal relationships correlates with ratings of the melodic pattern of speech as less jagged. An increase in communicative intolerance is positively associated with the perception of pauses in speech as longer in relation to the speech material under study.

When analyzing the assessments of speech material based on the characteristics of voice and speech, no complete correspondence was found between those previously identified in

During the comparison of the results of psychological testing using different methods, correlations were found in relation to the following parameters: the level of aggressive motivation and communicative tolerance; the direction of aggression and the negative communicative attitude, which was noted in paragraph 6.1.5.

In general, comparisons of the results based on correlation analysis reveal similar trends identified in the course of variance analysis, with regard to the relationships between the assessment of the melody of speech in the stimulus material and indicators of verbal aggression, the direction of aggression; the assessment of the rate of speech and indicators of a negative communicative attitude; the assessment of the pitch of the voice and indicators of verbal aggression, communicative intolerance; the assessment of speech breathing and indicators of verbal aggression, a negative communicative attitude.

The results of the analysis of the data of the perceptual-auditory experiment using the method of determining the Spearman rank correlation coefficient (r_s) are presented in Table 9.

Table 9. 

Results of data analysis using the rank correlation method

Voice and speech parameters assessed by subjects	Psychological tests in which the subjects participated
	T2		T6	T7a			T7b
	VA	UAM	total score	OZ	Б	total score	total score
Emotional assessment	.141	–.0485	–.306	.236	.243	.111	–.243
Voice pitch assessment	.0413	.0279	.0966	.122	–.0929	.0278	–.0625
Voice strength assessment	.16	.151	.0634	–.0197	–.0977	–.12	–.173
Evaluation of speech melody	.375	–.301	.0562	–.106	–.197	–.393	–.252
Speech rate assessment	.265	–.0139	.37	.151	.188	.0279	–.192
Evaluation of speech pauses	–.034	–.0627	–.00103	.0697	.23	.0674	.424
Speech rhythm assessment	.102	–.17	.0853	–.0504	–.11	–.169	–.2
Evaluation of speech breathing	.221	.118	.384	–.16	–.0468	–.218	.177

Legend: To save space, the digit "0" before the decimal point has been removed and the decimal point has been replaced with a period; negative correlations are marked with a "–" sign. VA = verbal aggression, LAM = level of aggressive motivation, OC = overt cruelty, G = grumbling. Relationships of moderate strength are shown in bold, weak relationships are shown in italics, and very weak relationships are shown in upright font (for more details, see [7, p. 204]).

Conclusion

The results obtained during the analysis of variance indicate that, compared with individuals who choose the strategy of avoidance or peacefulness as a psychological defense, individuals who prefer the strategy of attack (aggression) as a defensive reaction, in situations of conflict and frustration, are distinguished by a tendency to perceive the speaker's speech as more aggressive.

The absence of significant relationships as a result of correlation analysis may mean the following: subjects in the group with high levels of individual personality traits related to the category

«"Aggressiveness" - they recognize aggression by voice and speech, but do not identify themselves with a potential participant in the perceived situation, i.e. they look at the situation from the outside, thus they do not show either an increased or decreased reaction of involvement in the situation.

Literature

1. Diagnostics of emotional and moral development / compiled by I.B. Dermanova. St. Petersburg: Rech, 2002. 171 p.
2. KomalovaL.R. Aggressogenic Discourse: Typology of Multilingual Verbalization of Aggression. Moscow: Sputnik +. 275 p.
3. KomalovaL.R. Verbal implementation of aggression as a product of social-cognitive deprivation // Questions of psycholinguistics. 2016a. No. 4 (30). P. 103-115.
4. KomalovaL.R. Perceptual-auditory profile (image) of the aggressor // Bulletin of the Moscow State Linguistic University. Humanities. 2016b. No. 7 (746). P. 116-126
5. KomalovaL.R. Repertoire of verbal implementation of retaliatory aggression in a situation of status-role asymmetry // Bulletin of the Moscow State Linguistic University. Humanities. 2014. No. 9 (695). P. 104-116.
6. RaigorodskyD.Ya. Practical psychodiagnostics. Methods and tests. Samara: Bakhram-M, 2001. 664 p.
7. SidorenkoE.V. Methods of Mathematical Processing in Psychology. St. Petersburg: Social and Psychological Center, 2000. 350 p.
8. FetiskinN.P., Kozlov V.V., Manuilov G.M. Social and psychological diagnostics of personality and small group development. Moscow: Publishing house of the Institute of Psychotherapy, 2002. 362 p.
9. JungK.G. Problems of the Soul of Our Time. Moscow: AST, 2022. 336 p.
10. Banse R., Scherer KR. Acoustic profiles in vocal emotion expression // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996. Vol. 70. P. 614-636.
11. Banziger T., Grandjean D., Scherer KR. Emotion recognition from expressions in face, voice, and body: the Multimodal Emotion Recognition Test (MERT) // Emotion. 2009. Vol. 9. P. 691-704.
12. Elfenbein HA, Foo MD, White J., Tan HH, Aik VC. Reading your counterpart: the benefit of emotion recognition accuracy for effectiveness in negotiation // Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 2007. Vol. 21. P. 205-223. DOI: 10.1007/s10919-007-0033-7
13. Furnes D., Berg H., Mitchell RM, Paulmann S. Exploring the effects of personality traits on the perception of emotions from prosody // Frontiers in Psychology. 2019. Vol. 10. P. 1-14.
14. Gomez R., Gomez A., Cooper A. Neuroticism and extraversion as predictors of negative and positive emotional information processing: comparing Eysenck's, Gray's, and Newman's theories // European Journal of Personality. 2002. Vol. 16 (5). P. 333-350.
15. Johnstone T., Scherer KR. Vocal communication of emotion // Lewis M., Haviland JM (Org.). Handbook of emotions. 2^and Guilford: Nova Iorque, 2000. P. 220-235.
16. Juslin PN, Laukka P. Communication of emotions in vocal expression and music performance: different channels, same code? // Psychological Bulletin. 2003. Vol. 129. P. 770-814.

17. Koich Miguel F., Pessotto F. Projective aspects on cognitive performance: distortions in emotional perception correlate with personality // Psicologia: Reflexão e Critica Psychology: Research and Review. 2016. Vol. 29 (17). P. 1-8.
18. Larsen RJ, Ketelaar T. Extraversion, neuroticism and susceptibility to positive and negative mood induction procedures // Personality and Individual Differences. 1989. Vol. 10. P. 1221-1228.
19. Paulmann, S., Furnes D., Bokenes A. M., Cozzolino P. J. (2016). How psychological stress affects emotional prosody. PLoS ONE, 11 (URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0165022)

20. Potapova R., Potapov V. Communikative Sprechtätigkeit: Rußland u. Deutschland im Vergleich. Böhlau Verlag, Köln, Weimar, Wien, 2011. 320 s.
21. Preti E., Suttora Ch., Richetin J. Can you hear what I feel? A validated prosodic set of angry, happy, and neutral Italian pseudowords // Behavior Research Methods. 2016. Vol. 48. P. 259–271.
22. Robinson MD, Ode S., Moeller SK, Goetz PW. Neuroticism and affective priming: evidence for a neuroticism-linked negative schema // Personality and Individual Differences. 2007. Vol. 42. P. 1221-1231.
23. Rusting CL. Personality, mood, and cognitive processing of emotional information: three conceptual frameworks // Psychological Bulletin. 1998. Vol. 124. P. 165-196.
24. Scherer KR. Emotion psychology can contribute to psychiatric work on affect disorders: A review // Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 1989. Vol. 82. P. 545-547.
25. Scherer KR. Vocal affect expression: a review and a model for future research // Psychological Bulletin. 1986. Vol. 99(2). P. 143-165.

 

 

References

1. Diagnostics of emotional and moral development / compiled by I.B. Dermanova. St. Petersburg: Rech, 2002. 171 p.
2. Komalova LR. Aggressogenic discourse: typology of multilingual verbalization of aggression. Moscow: Sputnik +. 275 pp.
3. Komalova LR. Verbal implementation of aggression as a product of social-cognitive deprivation // Questions of psycholinguistics. 2016a. No. 4 (30). P. 103-115.
4. Komalova LR. Perceptual-auditory profile (image) of an aggressor // Bulletin of the Moscow State Linguistic University. Humanities. 2016b. No. 7 (746). P. 116-126
5. Komalova LR. Repertoire of verbal implementation of retaliatory aggression in a situation of status-role asymmetry // Bulletin of Moscow State Linguistic University. Humanities. 2014. No. 9 (695). P. 104-116.
6. Rajgorodskij D.Ja. Practical psychodiagnostics. Methods and tests. Samara: Bahram-M, 2001. 664 s.
7. Sidorenko EV. Methods of mathematical processing in psychology. St. Petersburg: Social-psychological center, 2000. 350 p.
8. Fetiskin NP, Kozlov VV, Manujlov GM. Social and psychological diagnostics of personality development and small groups. Moscow: Institute of Psychotherapy, 2002. 362 p.
9. Jung KG. Problemy dushi nashego vremeni. Moscow: AST, 2022. 336 pp.
10. Banse R., Scherer KR. Acoustic profiles in vocal emotion expression // Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996. Vol. 70. P. 614-636.
11. Banziger T., Grandjean D., Scherer KR. Emotion recognition from expressions in face, voice, and body: the Multimodal Emotion Recognition Test (MERT) // Emotion. 2009. Vol. 9. P. 691-704.

12. Elfenbein HA, Foo MD, White J., Tan HH, Aik VC. Reading your counterpart: the benefit of emotion recognition accuracy for effectiveness in negotiation // Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. 2007. Vol. 21. P. 205-223. DOI: 10.1007/s10919-007-0033-7
13. Furnes D., Berg H., Mitchell RM, Paulmann S. Exploring the effects of personality traits on the perception of emotions from prosody // Frontiers in Psychology. 2019. Vol. 10. P. 1-14.
14. Gomez R., Gomez A., Cooper A. Neuroticism and extraversion as predictors of negative and positive emotional information processing: comparing Eysenck's, Gray's, and Newman's theories // European Journal of Personality. 2002. Vol. 16 (5). P. 333-350.
15. Johnstone T., Scherer KR. Vocal communication of emotion // Lewis M., Haviland JM (Org.). Handbook of emotions. 2nd ed. Guilford: Nova Iorque, 2000. P. 220-235.
16. Juslin PN, Laukka P. Communication of emotions in vocal expression and music performance: different channels, same code? // Psychological Bulletin. 2003. Vol. 129. P. 770-814.
17. Koich Miguel F., Pessotto F. Projective aspects on cognitive performance: distortions in emotional perception correlate with personality // Psicologia: Reflexão e Critica Psychology: Research and Review. 2016. Vol. 29 (17). P. 1-8.
18. Larsen RJ, Ketelaar T. Extraversion, neuroticism and susceptibility to positive and negative mood induction procedures // Personality and Individual Differences. 1989. Vol. 10. P. 1221-1228.
19. Paulmann, S., Furnes D., Bokenes A. M., Cozzolino P. J. (2016). How psychological stress affects emotional prosody. PLoS ONE, 11 (URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0165022)
20. Potapova R., Potapov V. Communikative Sprechtätigkeit: Rußland u. Deutschland im Vergleich. Böhlau Verlag, Köln, Weimar, Wien, 2011. 320 s.
21. Preti E., Suttora Ch., Richetin J. Can you hear what I feel? A validated prosodic set of angry, happy, and neutral Italian pseudowords // Behavior Research Methods. 2016. Vol. 48. P. 259–271.
22. Robinson MD, Ode S., Moeller SK, Goetz PW. Neuroticism and affective priming: evidence for a neuroticism-linked negative schema // Personality and Individual Differences. 2007. Vol. 42. P. 1221-1231.
23. Rusting CL. Personality, mood, and cognitive processing of emotional information: three conceptual frameworks // Psychological Bulletin. 1998. Vol. 124. P. 165-196.
24. Scherer KR. Emotion psychology can contribute to psychiatric work on affect disorders: A review // Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 1989. Vol. 82. P. 545-547.
25. Scherer KR. Vocal affect expression: a review and a model for future research // Psychological Bulletin. 1986. Vol. 99(2). P. 143-165.