Smirnov, Sergei D.

The article presents the result of a series of five empirical studies. Across multiple samples with typical development we have established a set of relationships between decision making strategies in Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) and such traits as intelligence (general, verbal), executive functions (shifting and inhibition), as well as personality traits of tolerance/intolerance for uncertainty and Big Five personality traits.

The series of empirical studies aimed at verifying a set of hypotheses regarding the role of intelligence and tolerance/intolerance for uncertainty as predictors of choice strategies in IGT, regarding the contribution of executive functions to the regulation of these strategies, as well as identifying the specifics of prognostic strategies of professionals whose occupation involves high risk – i.e., military leaders.

The main measure was Iowa Gambling Task. This task relies on the prognostic/anticipatory activity of the person playing the game that regulates the sequence of choices that they make from four decks of “cards” that have a probabilistic structure of gains and losses, unknown to the participant at the beginning. According to A. Damasio's somatic marker hypothesis, emotional components play a key role in decision making regulation.

Studies 1 through 3 recruited undergraduate students and general population samples; studies 4 and 5 relied on samples of military leaders.

In addition to the IGT, we also measures a set of cognitive and personality traits, including executive functions (using the Go/No Go paradigm), intelligence (using ROADS and ICAR), tolerance-intolerance for uncertainty (using the NTN questionnaire), Big Five personality traits (using the TIPI questionnaire), and personal factors of decision making (using the LFR questionnaire).

The studies revealed significant and positive contributions of intelligence and executive functions (i.e., shifting and inhibition) to decisional efficiency and the development of choice strategies, thus implicating cognitive orienting as the key component of decision making in IGT. We also established a set of group differences in both strategies and patterns of the regulation of choices in IGT between military and non-military samples. We also found that it is specifically during early game stages (characterized by maximal uncertainty) that specific personality traits contribute most to decision making – tolerance for uncertainty was such a predictor for our non-military samples, and risk readiness acted as one in military leaders. Conventional Big Five personality traits did not contribute to participants’ performance in the IGT.

The present paper discusses contemporary problems and approaches to the development of assessments in domains of educational psychology and psychology of abilities. We briefly report the results of the development and the adaptation of two assessment batteries based on R. Sternberg’s theory of successful intelligence. The paper shows that a cross-cultural adaptation of contemporary foreign assessments is a productive approach.

Intellectual abilities and personality traits of students were considered as predictors of academic success. R. Amthauer’s intelligence structure test, A. Edwards’ personal preferences questionnaire, C. Dweck’s questionnaire modified version, LFR questionnaire and new method of group estimation of mind (GEM) were used. Results of this study of MSU students sample (N=177) allowed to conclude, that: 1. Group estimation of mind acts as significant prognostic variable of students’ exam passing success. Psychometric intelligence variables concede to it. 2. “Self-esteem of mind” correlates with “self-esteem of academic success” and with academic progress, but doesn’t act as it’s significant predictor. 3. A set of motivation variables appears to predict effectiveness of learning better, than intellectual abilities.

The paper presents a comparative analysis of the two major forms of pedagogicalactivity of an educator — pedagogical activity (with agency) and pedagogicalcommunication. We show that the two are qualitatively different yet they are sincreticallyunited and cannot function in isolation. We describe general and specific functionsof pedagogical activity and pedagogical communication emphasizing the role ofunmediated (direct face to face) communication between an educator and a studentin communicating personal knowledge. We also discuss the issue of developmentof the optimal individual style of pedagogical communication as a component ofcommunication competence of an educator.