Assessing Predisposition to Unsafe Behavior: Standardization of the Methodology

<p>The work is aimed at studying the connection between value-semantic indicators and the author's technique for modeling extreme situations to assess the respondent's predisposition to commit unsafe acts was standardized. The <strong>technique</strong> includes two models: “mine” and “bomb”. The model is two sheets of paper (two tracks), behind one of which a conventional explosive is placed, the “mine" is a five-ruble coin, the “bomb” is a lid 8–10 mm high and 68–70 mm in diameter. The subject's task is to walk along the safe sheet without stepping on the sheet hiding the explosive. Four tests are conducted. The following methods were used for standardization: 1) the author's technique for modeling extreme situations; 2) subjective assessment of unsafe behavior; 3) survey of the causes of erroneous reactions; 4) calculation of mathematical statistics: descriptive statistics, Spearman correlation coefficient, Cronbach's alpha. <strong>Subjects</strong>: psychology students specializing in extreme profiles — 100 people. <strong>Result</strong>: the method has subjective validity (r = 0.71) and structural reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.52). The average number of steps on a conventional “mine” = 2.1 + 0.89; it corresponds to the mathematical expectation calculated for this model. The average number of steps on a conventional “bomb” = 0.3 + 0.66. We defined the norm as: 0 steps; excess characterizes the presence of a predisposition to unsafe behavior in extreme conditions. <strong>Conclusion</strong>: it is recommended to use the experimental “bomb” model to assess the respondent's predisposition to unsafe behavior.</p>