Suchergebnisse

Short description of the paper: To Reveal E.Fromm developed in social and political criticism of the content and its compatibility with the theories of the Frankfurt School. E.Fromm has little attetion in Lithuania as member of Frakfurt school member, so in this work is deeply delves into E.Fromm work as Frankfurt school member and one of the bigest book about destructivness "THE ANATOMY OF HUMAN DESTRUKTIVNESS". Whit this book critical analize I want to emphasize E. Fromm the importance of Frankfurt school member. Objectives: 1. Overview of E. Fromm psychoanalytic theories and psychotherapeutic treatment criticism. 2. Arrange E.Fromm social and political criticism of ideas and content. 3. Analyze E.Fromm anatomy of human destructiveness Frankfurt criticism in the context of Nazism 4. Arrange the Frankfurt school to develop Western Marxism guidelines. 5. Disclose E.Fromm and the Frankfurt School ideas interfaces.

Short description of the paper: To Reveal E.Fromm developed in social and political criticism of the content and its compatibility with the theories of the Frankfurt School. E.Fromm has little attetion in Lithuania as member of Frakfurt school member, so in this work is deeply delves into E.Fromm work as Frankfurt school member and one of the bigest book about destructivness "THE ANATOMY OF HUMAN DESTRUKTIVNESS". Whit this book critical analize I want to emphasize E. Fromm the importance of Frankfurt school member. Objectives: 1. Overview of E. Fromm psychoanalytic theories and psychotherapeutic treatment criticism. 2. Arrange E.Fromm social and political criticism of ideas and content. 3. Analyze E.Fromm anatomy of human destructiveness Frankfurt criticism in the context of Nazism 4. Arrange the Frankfurt school to develop Western Marxism guidelines. 5. Disclose E.Fromm and the Frankfurt School ideas interfaces.

Short description of the paper: To Reveal E.Fromm developed in social and political criticism of the content and its compatibility with the theories of the Frankfurt School. E.Fromm has little attetion in Lithuania as member of Frakfurt school member, so in this work is deeply delves into E.Fromm work as Frankfurt school member and one of the bigest book about destructivness "THE ANATOMY OF HUMAN DESTRUKTIVNESS". Whit this book critical analize I want to emphasize E. Fromm the importance of Frankfurt school member. Objectives: 1. Overview of E. Fromm psychoanalytic theories and psychotherapeutic treatment criticism. 2. Arrange E.Fromm social and political criticism of ideas and content. 3. Analyze E.Fromm anatomy of human destructiveness Frankfurt criticism in the context of Nazism 4. Arrange the Frankfurt school to develop Western Marxism guidelines. 5. Disclose E.Fromm and the Frankfurt School ideas interfaces.

[full article and abstract in Lithuanian; abstract in English] Different sides of the development of psychology as a science, a teaching subject and a professional activity in Lithuania during the 100-year period are analyzed and discussed. This analysis is performed in the context of the institutionalization of the modern Lithuanian State. The three main premises of the development of psychology in Lithuania are revealed: the sociopolitical and economical context of state, the influence of the global field of psychology and the activities of the enthusiasts of profession. The extent of development of psychology in Lituania during the different periods of Lithuanian history of last 100 years of its existance is evaluated according to 10 criteria of recognizing the profession: 1) Social need; 2) State regulation of the profession; 3) Legislative basis of the profession; 4) Trust by society and authority; 5) Control of professional competence; 6) Being included in a classification of scienes and a scientific studies system; 7) Education (teaching and training) of the profession; 8) Professional and scientiffic communication (journals, conferences); 9) Values and professional ethics; 10) Professional self-regulation (professional NGO). The development of psychology in Lithuania can be divided in stages according to the context of the modern state's development events: 1) Before the year 1918 (the period of arousal and enlightenment in psychological culture); 2) The years 1918–1940 (start of the institutionalization of psychology in the First Republic of Lithuania); 3) The years 1940–1944 (an empty, topsyturvy-esque or confused of social and economical life stage during the Second World War); 4) The years 1945–1988 (an unsettled stage of training and researches in psychology with stabilization after when psychologists were begun to be educated at Vilnius University in 1969); 5) The years 1989–2018 (a dissociation from the Russian academic field of psychology and an independent development with the rising ifluence of Western academic psychological influences). The names of the main enthusiasts of the institutionalization of psychology in Lithuania during the five listed stages are presented. The main persons from this list were Alfonsas Gučas (1907–1988), Jonas Vabalas-Gudaitis (1881–1955), Vladas Lazersonas (1889–1945) and Juvencijus Lapė (1925–1911). The main conclusion of paper is that psychology in Lithuania, during the 100-year period, was developed according to all 10 criteria; it was reasonably adapted to the national state culture and infrastructure. In other words, at the present time, we can speak and write not only about the development of psychology in Lithuania but about a Lithuanian psychology – a nationally indigenized profession. Eleven features of indeginized psychology are also listed.

[full article and abstract in Lithuanian; abstract in English] Different sides of the development of psychology as a science, a teaching subject and a professional activity in Lithuania during the 100-year period are analyzed and discussed. This analysis is performed in the context of the institutionalization of the modern Lithuanian State. The three main premises of the development of psychology in Lithuania are revealed: the sociopolitical and economical context of state, the influence of the global field of psychology and the activities of the enthusiasts of profession. The extent of development of psychology in Lituania during the different periods of Lithuanian history of last 100 years of its existance is evaluated according to 10 criteria of recognizing the profession: 1) Social need; 2) State regulation of the profession; 3) Legislative basis of the profession; 4) Trust by society and authority; 5) Control of professional competence; 6) Being included in a classification of scienes and a scientific studies system; 7) Education (teaching and training) of the profession; 8) Professional and scientiffic communication (journals, conferences); 9) Values and professional ethics; 10) Professional self-regulation (professional NGO). The development of psychology in Lithuania can be divided in stages according to the context of the modern state's development events: 1) Before the year 1918 (the period of arousal and enlightenment in psychological culture); 2) The years 1918–1940 (start of the institutionalization of psychology in the First Republic of Lithuania); 3) The years 1940–1944 (an empty, topsyturvy-esque or confused of social and economical life stage during the Second World War); 4) The years 1945–1988 (an unsettled stage of training and researches in psychology with stabilization after when psychologists were begun to be educated at Vilnius University in 1969); 5) The years 1989–2018 (a dissociation from the Russian academic field of psychology and an independent development with the rising ifluence of Western academic psychological influences). The names of the main enthusiasts of the institutionalization of psychology in Lithuania during the five listed stages are presented. The main persons from this list were Alfonsas Gučas (1907–1988), Jonas Vabalas-Gudaitis (1881–1955), Vladas Lazersonas (1889–1945) and Juvencijus Lapė (1925–1911). The main conclusion of paper is that psychology in Lithuania, during the 100-year period, was developed according to all 10 criteria; it was reasonably adapted to the national state culture and infrastructure. In other words, at the present time, we can speak and write not only about the development of psychology in Lithuania but about a Lithuanian psychology – a nationally indigenized profession. Eleven features of indeginized psychology are also listed.

[full article and abstract in Lithuanian; abstract in English] Different sides of the development of psychology as a science, a teaching subject and a professional activity in Lithuania during the 100-year period are analyzed and discussed. This analysis is performed in the context of the institutionalization of the modern Lithuanian State. The three main premises of the development of psychology in Lithuania are revealed: the sociopolitical and economical context of state, the influence of the global field of psychology and the activities of the enthusiasts of profession. The extent of development of psychology in Lituania during the different periods of Lithuanian history of last 100 years of its existance is evaluated according to 10 criteria of recognizing the profession: 1) Social need; 2) State regulation of the profession; 3) Legislative basis of the profession; 4) Trust by society and authority; 5) Control of professional competence; 6) Being included in a classification of scienes and a scientific studies system; 7) Education (teaching and training) of the profession; 8) Professional and scientiffic communication (journals, conferences); 9) Values and professional ethics; 10) Professional self-regulation (professional NGO). The development of psychology in Lithuania can be divided in stages according to the context of the modern state's development events: 1) Before the year 1918 (the period of arousal and enlightenment in psychological culture); 2) The years 1918–1940 (start of the institutionalization of psychology in the First Republic of Lithuania); 3) The years 1940–1944 (an empty, topsyturvy-esque or confused of social and economical life stage during the Second World War); 4) The years 1945–1988 (an unsettled stage of training and researches in psychology with stabilization after when psychologists were begun to be educated at Vilnius University in 1969); 5) The years 1989–2018 (a dissociation from the Russian academic field of psychology and an independent development with the rising ifluence of Western academic psychological influences). The names of the main enthusiasts of the institutionalization of psychology in Lithuania during the five listed stages are presented. The main persons from this list were Alfonsas Gučas (1907–1988), Jonas Vabalas-Gudaitis (1881–1955), Vladas Lazersonas (1889–1945) and Juvencijus Lapė (1925–1911). The main conclusion of paper is that psychology in Lithuania, during the 100-year period, was developed according to all 10 criteria; it was reasonably adapted to the national state culture and infrastructure. In other words, at the present time, we can speak and write not only about the development of psychology in Lithuania but about a Lithuanian psychology – a nationally indigenized profession. Eleven features of indeginized psychology are also listed.

[full article and abstract in Lithuanian; abstract in English] Different sides of the development of psychology as a science, a teaching subject and a professional activity in Lithuania during the 100-year period are analyzed and discussed. This analysis is performed in the context of the institutionalization of the modern Lithuanian State. The three main premises of the development of psychology in Lithuania are revealed: the sociopolitical and economical context of state, the influence of the global field of psychology and the activities of the enthusiasts of profession. The extent of development of psychology in Lituania during the different periods of Lithuanian history of last 100 years of its existance is evaluated according to 10 criteria of recognizing the profession: 1) Social need; 2) State regulation of the profession; 3) Legislative basis of the profession; 4) Trust by society and authority; 5) Control of professional competence; 6) Being included in a classification of scienes and a scientific studies system; 7) Education (teaching and training) of the profession; 8) Professional and scientiffic communication (journals, conferences); 9) Values and professional ethics; 10) Professional self-regulation (professional NGO). The development of psychology in Lithuania can be divided in stages according to the context of the modern state's development events: 1) Before the year 1918 (the period of arousal and enlightenment in psychological culture); 2) The years 1918–1940 (start of the institutionalization of psychology in the First Republic of Lithuania); 3) The years 1940–1944 (an empty, topsyturvy-esque or confused of social and economical life stage during the Second World War); 4) The years 1945–1988 (an unsettled stage of training and researches in psychology with stabilization after when psychologists were begun to be educated at Vilnius University in 1969); 5) The years 1989–2018 (a dissociation from the Russian academic field of psychology and an independent development with the rising ifluence of Western academic psychological influences). The names of the main enthusiasts of the institutionalization of psychology in Lithuania during the five listed stages are presented. The main persons from this list were Alfonsas Gučas (1907–1988), Jonas Vabalas-Gudaitis (1881–1955), Vladas Lazersonas (1889–1945) and Juvencijus Lapė (1925–1911). The main conclusion of paper is that psychology in Lithuania, during the 100-year period, was developed according to all 10 criteria; it was reasonably adapted to the national state culture and infrastructure. In other words, at the present time, we can speak and write not only about the development of psychology in Lithuania but about a Lithuanian psychology – a nationally indigenized profession. Eleven features of indeginized psychology are also listed.

The topic and problem of the dissertation is very interesting and important in Lithuanian context. Lithuania has its own military forces only for twenty years, so minor empirical studies concerning military psychology have been conducted. The empirical research provides interdisciplinary insights and implications, useful not only for military contexts but also for organizational psychology in the field of team performance. The author of the dissertation has made the important step towards development of understanding the relationship between team cohesion, trust, perceived self and collective efficacy, stress and performance efficacy.

The topic and problem of the dissertation is very interesting and important in Lithuanian context. Lithuania has its own military forces only for twenty years, so minor empirical studies concerning military psychology have been conducted. The empirical research provides interdisciplinary insights and implications, useful not only for military contexts but also for organizational psychology in the field of team performance. The author of the dissertation has made the important step towards development of understanding the relationship between team cohesion, trust, perceived self and collective efficacy, stress and performance efficacy.

The article discloses that the modern prevalent consciousness of the society (ideology and psychology) predetermines that human rights and freedoms are the most importand value of the modern world.

The article discloses that the modern prevalent consciousness of the society (ideology and psychology) predetermines that human rights and freedoms are the most importand value of the modern world.

Cohesion, team trust, stress, perceived Self and collective efficacy are considered to be significant factors of military teams performance efficacy. Still it is not clear, what the interaction between these factors are and in what way they predict performance efficacy. For the purpose of the study three questionnaires were developed: Perceived Military Stress, Perceived Military Self –efficacy and Perceived Military Collective Efficacy questionnaires, two scales of other authors were adapted to Lithuanian military population. 160 soldiers of Lithuanian professional military, belonging to 28 military teams (sections) took part in the research. It was estimated that cohesion, team trust, perceived Self and Collective efficacy are related to performance efficacy. Path model proves, that perceived collective efficacy is the most important variable predicting military team's performance efficacy and stress. Team's performance efficacy can also be predicted by cohesion, team trust and perceived Self - efficacy, but these factors predict performance efficacy not directly, but through perceived collective efficacy. Besides, higher levels of perceived Self and collective efficacy characterize person with international operation experience. Privates tend to experience higher levels of stress and to trust their teams less to compare to junior privates. Commanders of the section and their subjects evaluate their teams similar.

Cohesion, team trust, stress, perceived Self and collective efficacy are considered to be significant factors of military teams performance efficacy. Still it is not clear, what the interaction between these factors are and in what way they predict performance efficacy. For the purpose of the study three questionnaires were developed: Perceived Military Stress, Perceived Military Self–efficacy and Perceived Military Collective Efficacy questionnaires, two scales of other authors were adapted to Lithuanian military population. 160 soldiers of Lithuanian professional military, belonging to 28 military teams (sections) took part in the research. It was estimated that cohesion, team trust, perceived Self and Collective efficacy are related to performance efficacy. Path model proves, that perceived collective efficacy is the most important variable predicting military team's performance efficacy and stress. Team's performance efficacy can also be predicted by cohesion, team trust and perceived Self - efficacy, but these factors predict performance efficacy not directly, but through perceived collective efficacy. Besides, higher levels of perceived Self and collective efficacy characterize person with international operation experience. Privates tend to experience higher levels of stress and to trust their teams less to compare to junior privates. Commanders of the section and their subjects evaluate their teams similar.

Cohesion, team trust, stress, perceived Self and collective efficacy are considered to be significant factors of military teams performance efficacy. Still it is not clear, what the interaction between these factors are and in what way they predict performance efficacy. For the purpose of the study three questionnaires were developed: Perceived Military Stress, Perceived Military Self –efficacy and Perceived Military Collective Efficacy questionnaires, two scales of other authors were adapted to Lithuanian military population. 160 soldiers of Lithuanian professional military, belonging to 28 military teams (sections) took part in the research. It was estimated that cohesion, team trust, perceived Self and Collective efficacy are related to performance efficacy. Path model proves, that perceived collective efficacy is the most important variable predicting military team's performance efficacy and stress. Team's performance efficacy can also be predicted by cohesion, team trust and perceived Self - efficacy, but these factors predict performance efficacy not directly, but through perceived collective efficacy. Besides, higher levels of perceived Self and collective efficacy characterize person with international operation experience. Privates tend to experience higher levels of stress and to trust their teams less to compare to junior privates. Commanders of the section and their subjects evaluate their teams similar.