1. TYPES OF STUDENTS’ INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AS PREDICTORS
INTED 2019
                         
13th annual International Technology, Education and Development Conference,
Valencia (Spain). 11th - 13th of March, 2019.
TYPES OF STUDENTS’ INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AS PREDICTORS
OF ESTIMATION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY AT SCHOOL
Galina Kozhukhar1, Ekaterina Gozhaya1, Vladimir Kovrov2
1 Moscow, Moscow State University of Psychology and Education (RUSSIA)
2 V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University (RUSSIA)

2. INTED 2019
INTRODUCTION
The phenomenon we investigate is the interconnections between interpersonal relations and estimation of psychological safety in the middle school. This topic is of great value in modern society because well- being and psychological conditions at school are important factors that influence the development of students, their academic success and their future as persons and a professionals

3. BACKGROUND
INTED 2019
Our study is based on the ideas of Baeva understanding psychological safety in education environment in terms of the three main factors: 1) the significance (referentiality) of the educational environment; 2) satisfaction of students and teachers with the basic features of their interactions; and 3) the level of protection against mental violence. These factors allow estimating the index of psychological safety of educational environment, which can be calculated using these three criteria [1].
The basic significance of interpersonal relations in personal growth throughout one’s life is revealed in many psychological approaches, ranging from psychoanalysis to existential-humanistic theories. Interpersonal relations are understood as circumstances for developing student's personality, his/her academic progress and a source for his/her successful psychosocial adjustment. Within the frame of interpersonal relations, the varying desires and requests of students are satisfied in the cognitive, emotional, social and educational spheres.

4. INTED 2019
METHODOLOGY
The study was aimed to identify the relationship between the perceived self-relationships in students with their estimation of psychological safety of school environment.
The main questions of this study were: How do different types of relations predict the estimation of school environment by students? What types of relations will be predictors of psychological safety in school environment?
So firstly we studied interpersonal relations as predictors of psychological safety of school environment.

5. INTED 2019
Sample
The sample included 624 students (7th and 8th grades), aged from 12 to 14.
Among them, there were 42.3% of girls and 57.7% of boys.

6. Measures In our study, we used the following methods:
INTED 2019
Measures
In our study, we used the following methods:
Diagnosis of interpersonal relations (Leary, adopted by Sobchik);
Estimation of safety in interpersonal interaction (Kozhukhar);
The method Psychological safety of school environment (Baeva).
For statistical analysis, we used the program SPSS, v. 23 (descriptive statistics, correlation, and linear regression analysis).

7. INTED 2019
Measures
"Diagnosis of interpersonal relations" ("Interpersonal Diagnosis of personality" by T. Leary), was adopted by L. Sobchik in Russia [2], [3].
This famous method is a questionnaire that includes 128 value judgments. We used it for the study of interpersonal relations as evaluation of the real Self. For eight types of relations, there are sixteen rates of judgments. The method describes two major factors that figure both the level and types of interpersonal relations. They are the scales of domination - subordination and friendliness - aggressiveness. These factors are integrate indices and can be calculated separately according to formulas. They are determining the behavioral tendencies of a person or group to a particular type of relations [2], [3].
“Estimation of safety in interpersonal interaction” scale is used to diagnose representations about the quality of communication in students. The scale includes two subscales: 1) natural and free communication, and 2) trust and self-disclosure within communication. In general, the index of the assessment of communication safety is calculated [4].
We used Baeva’s survey for estimating psychological safety of educational environment at school. The survey involves three scales: significance of educational environment, satisfaction with the fundamental features of social interactions and the level of protection against mental violence [5].

8. findings INTED 2019 Correlation analyses
We found out many correlations between different types of interpersonal relations, evaluation of interpersonal communication and characteristics of psychological atmosphere in the middle school.
Sex did not correlate with any characteristics of psychological safety of educational environment at school, but had correlations with types of relations and indices of dominance (r = 0.205; p ≤ 0.01) and friendliness (r = ; p ≤ 0.01). Correspondingly, boys are more dominant and less friendliness than girls.
Age was negatively associated with authoritativeness (r = ; p ≤ 0.01), egoism (r = ; p ≤ 0.01), aggression (r = ; p ≤ 0.01) and submission (r = ; p ≤ 0.01). Besides, age had a positive link with altruistic relation (r = 0.115; p ≤ 0.01). In addition, there was a link between age and indices of dominance (r = ; p ≤ 0.01) and friendliness (r = 0.153; p ≤ 0.01) too.

9. of psychological safety at school
INTED 2019
Correlation analyses
Positive correlation of the subscale “Natural and free communication” as part of estimation of safety in interpersonal interactions was observed with the dominance index (r = 0.258; p ≤ 0.01). Subscale “Trust and self-disclosure within communication” was connected both with dominance (r = 0.145; p ≤ 0.01) and friendliness indices (r = 0.192; p ≤ 0.01). Correlation analysis exposed the interconnection between the assessment of communication safety and such types of interpersonal relationships as suspicion (r = ; p ≤ 0.01), submission (r = ; p ≤ 0.05), friendliness (r = 0.090; p≤0.05) and altruistic (r = 0.118; p≤ 0.01). The assessment of communication safety in the relationship was positively related both to dominance index and friendliness index as well as the index of psychological safety (Table 1).
Table 1. Correlations between index of interpersonal relations and characteristics
of psychological safety at school
Characteristics
Dominance
index
Friendliness
Natural and free communication
.258**
-.017
Trust and self-disclosure within communication
.145**
.192**
Assessment of communication safety
.224**
.106**
Significance of educational environment
.124**
.025
Psychological satisfaction of school environment
.156**
.181**
Psychological self-protection
.004
.163**
The index of psychological safety
.113**
.104*

10. in interpersonal interactions
INTED 2019
Multiple regression analysis
We discovered the specific predicting role of types of interpersonal relations for these characteristics. There were five main predictors of the overall index of the assessment of communication safety in interpersonal interactions, which were included in the regression model: dominance index (β=0.212, ρ=0.000), friendliness index (β=0.101, ρ=0.023), aggression (β=0.207, ρ=0.000), suspicion (β=-0.119, ρ=0.035) and egoism (β=-0.112, ρ=0.040)
Table 2. Dependent variable: the overall index of the assessment of communication safety
in interpersonal interactions
Model 5 β t p
(Constant)
46.075
.000
Dominance index
.212
4.195
Friendliness index
.101
2.278
.023
Aggression
.207
3.941
Suspicion
-.119
-2.115
.035
Egoism
-.112
-2.060

11. INTED 2019
LIMITATIONS
There are limits of our study. We didn’t compare interpersonal relations of students with different levels of estimation of psychological safety at school. Besides, we didn’t make comparative analysis of students by the criteria of sex, age and grade.

12. INTED 2019
conclusion
Thus, in our study positive estimation of educational environment as safe by teenagers was possible when they gave the constructive evaluation of interpersonal communication. At the same time, their level of aggression and authoritativeness got higher. Their friendliness index rose, but their level of suspicion and egoism became lower. Therefore, it is important to note that among predictors of the perception of safety of educational environment in adolescents, there were not only positive attitudes of students but authoritarianism, aggression and dominance.
For discussion, we would like to emphasize the role of aggression, authoritativeness and dominance that can be psychological resource for teenagers to experience and evaluate their school environment as safe. However, we suppose it can make a negative effect on their future development. Therefore, we consider our study to give birth to new hypotheses and implications for practice.

13. References
INTED 2019
I.A. Baeva, M.D. Bazhenova, G.S. Bannikov, O.V. Vikhristiuk, L.A. Gayazova. “Psychological safety of school environment and adolescents’ attitude to life”. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences. International Conference on Psychology and Education, ICPE Future Academy, pp , 2018.
T. Leary “Interpersonal Diagnosis of personality”. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, vol. 9, pp , 1958.
L.N. Sobchik “Interpersonal relations diagnostic method (adapted from of interpersonal diagnosis by T. Leary)”. Methodological Guide. M.: VNIIIMT. 49 p
G. Kozhukhar “Constracting the scale safety assessment interpersonal communication for spesialists of helpful professions”. 3rd International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts, SGEM, Albena, BULGARIA: AUG 24-30, pp , 2016.
I.A. Baeva “Psikhologicheskaya bezopasnost' v obrazovanii” [Psychological safety in education]. St. Petersburg: Soyuz (in Russian).

14. Thank you Gracias Спасибо