254
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.72.12.23
How to Cite:
Babchuk, M., Babchuk, O., Pospelova, I., Voznyi, D., & Ivanova, O. (2023). Peculiarities of decision-making by persons with high
and low levels of tolerance. Amazonia Investiga, 12(72), 254-267. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.72.12.23
Peculiarities of decision-making by persons with high and low levels of
tolerance
ОСОБЛИВОСТІ ПРИЙНЯТТЯ РІШЕННЯ ОСОБАМИ З ВИСОКИМ І НИЗЬКИМ
РІВНЕМ ТОЛЕРАНТНОСТІ
Received: October 18, 2023 Accepted: December 27, 2023
Written by:
Babchuk Mykyta1
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8725-799X
Babchuk Olena2
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5712-909X
Pospelova Iryna3
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8802-475X
Voznyi Denis4
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2712-5861
Ivanova Olena5
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5653-3661
Abstract
Abstract: the article examines the peculiarities of
decision-making by people with different levels
of tolerance. Tolerance is unity in diversity, it is
a quality that is a humanistic component of an
individual and is determined by his valuable
attitude towards others. It represents an attitude
towards a highly moral type of relationship,
which is manifested in a person's actions. The
purpose of this work was a theoretical-empirical
study of the psychological features of decision-
making by individuals with different levels of
tolerance. Diagnostics of decision-making
indicators and tolerance indicators was carried
out with the help of: "Melbourne Decision-
Making Questionnaire", "Personal Decision-
Making Factors", "Decision-Making
Questionnaire", "Qualitative Tolerance
Indicators Test-Questionnaire". Correlation
1
Teacher of the of the Department of Language and Psychological and Pedagogical Training of the Odesa National Economic
University, Odessa, Ukraine. WoS Researcher ID: AGT-7102-2022
2
PhD (Psychological Sciences), Associate Professor the Head of Department of Family and Special Pedagogy and Psychology of the
State institution «South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K.D. Ushynsky», Odessa, Ukraine.
WoS Researcher ID: AEI-7402-2022
3
PhD (Psychological Sciences), Associate Professor, Mykolas Romeris University Faculty of Human and Social Studies Institute of
Psychology, Vilnius, Lithuania. WoS Researcher ID: IQT-7961-2023
4
PhD (Medical Sciences), senior lecturer of the Department of Language and Psychological and Pedagogical Training of the Odesa
National Economic University, Ukraine and a narcologist of the highest category of the toxicological and narcological department of
the KNP "OOMTCPZ" OOR, Odessa, Ukraine.
5
PhD (Psychological Sciences), senior lecturer, Department of Practical Psychology Odesa National Maritime University, Odessa,
Ukraine. WoS Researcher ID: JTU-8479-2023
Babchuk, M., Babchuk, O., Pospelova, I., Voznyi, D., Ivanova, O. / Volume 12 - Issue 72: 254-267 / December, 2023
1Volume 12- Issue 72
/ December 2023
255
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
analysis made it possible to establish the nature
of interdependence between the studied
indicators - tolerance and decision-making. The
use of qualitative data analysis made it possible
to identify groups of people with a high and low
level of tolerance using the "aces" method and to
draw up their characteristics. Individuals with a
high level of tolerance demonstrate a high level
of attitude to complex tasks and novelty, have a
high readiness to adapt to an uncertain situation,
are able to change their plans in new conditions.
People with a low level of tolerance have a
tendency to spontaneity, impulsiveness when
making a decision.
Keywords: decision-making, tolerance,
personality, tolerance levels.
Introduction
The relevance of the study is determined by the
impact of changes taking place in the modern
social, economic, and political aspects of the
development of Ukrainian society, which
intensify the features of interactive
communication of people, their mental and
intellectual activity, consciousness, self-
awareness, which exacerbates the personal
problem of decision-making. The decision - the
process and result of choosing a goal and the way
to achieve it - is a connecting link between
knowledge and one or another variant of human
behavior and actions. Due to the complex life
situations of today, people are faced with the
choice of a further life path, the main direction of
life activity.
The psychological problem of choice is quite
relevant. In psychology, there are studies that
study this problem, considering it from different
positions. For example, choice is considered as a
decision-making process (Malakooti, 2012),
decision-making styles and individual
psychological features are considered in works
(Sannikov, 2015). Works are devoted to the study
of choice as a motivational and volitional process
(Ilyin, 2009), from the standpoint of a
metasystem approach (Karpov et al., 2016), the
activity-meaning aspect of the study problems of
choice are revealed in works (Asmolov, 2000)
Decision-making is defined as a special form of
mental activity, as well as one of the stages of
mental actions when solving any tasks. Selection
is one of the stages of the decision-making
procedure after the formation and comparison of
alternatives. Making an alternative choice is
possible for an individual based on psychological
characteristics that determine the individual's
interaction with the environment and make it
possible to find ways to make decisions. Among
such psychological features, in our opinion,
tolerance stands out as a personality trait. Despite
all the diversity of scientific approaches to the
study of the problem of decision-making and the
problem of tolerance, there are no works in
domestic science that investigate the peculiarities
of decision-making by a tolerant person.
The purpose of the research is to study the
psychological features of decision-making by
people with different levels of tolerance.
256
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
The object of research: decision-making of the
individual.
Methodology
The research used the following methods:
theoretical and methodological analysis of the
research topic, psychodiagnostic and
mathematical and statistical methods.
The theoretical method included a theoretical-
methodological analysis and generalization of
social-psychological achievements related to the
research topic, namely: the study of approaches
to the study of tolerance and peculiarities of
individual decision-making.
The complex of psychodiagnostic methods and
procedures is composed by: Test-questionnaire
of qualitative indicators of tolerance by
O.P. Sannikova, O.G. Babchuk (Sannikova &
Sannikov, 2020; Babchuk, 2015). "Melbourne
decision-making questionnaire" (MDMQ) by
L. Mann (Mann et al., 1997; Soldatova &
Shaigerova, 2008) "Personal decision-making
factors" by T. Kornilova (2003); "Decision-
making questionnaire" by H. Aizenko, modified
by E. P. Ilyin (Aizenko, 1963; Ilyin, 2009)
The sample consisted of 74 people aged 20 to 26
who are students of the Faculty of Preschool
Pedagogy and Psychology and the Faculty of
Physics and Mathematics of the State Institution
"South Ukrainian National Pedagogical
University named after K. D. Ushinsky".
The research was conducted in accordance with
the principles of deontology and bioethics.
A set of valid and reliable diagnostic methods
was developed for this empirical study.
Computer data processing was carried out using
the statistical package SPSS 13.0 for Windows.
Literature review
In psychology, there is a large number of studies
that study this problem, considering it from
different facets. This is both the act of giving
preference to one of the alternatives given from
the outside or constructed by the subject, which
contributes to a choice that is not reduced to a
rational calculation E. Herrera-Viedma et al.,
(2021), and choice as a decision-making process
(Bryukhova, 2016; Larichev, 1979; Kozlov,
2009).
Analysis of the problem of decision-making
demonstrates the presence of theoretical
differences in the understanding of such related
concepts as "personal decision-making",
"strategic decision-making", "decision-making
style", "choice", "personal choice", which
indicates the complexity and multifaceted nature
of the studied phenomenon. The use of the
concept of "decision-making" is characteristic of
representatives of various concepts and areas of
research of the specified problem in philosophy,
sociology, pedagogy, economics, mathematics,
etc., which reveals the interdisciplinary nature of
the phenomenon being studied.
At the same time, despite the significant
relevance of this problem in domestic and foreign
psychology (Ball, 2006; Vasylyuk, 1997; Karpov
et al., 2016; Kornilova, 2003; Yakymchuk, 2022;
Sannikova & Sannikov, 2020; Malakooti, 2012;
Herrera-Viedma et al., 2021; Tweed &
Wilkinson, 2019), the results of the study of the
phenomenon of "decision-making" due to its
complexity and multifacetedness is represented
by a small number of works.
Decision-making is a mental process that
involves prior awareness of the goal and method
of action and working out various options. The
most important feature of this process is its
strong willed nature. Knowledge, interests and a
person's worldview are integrated in decision-
making. A decision is a social phenomenon, it is
always made by one or several persons. Decision
is the basis of a person's self-identification, as
any social type, any character is revealed through
action. The decision-making process begins with
the emergence of a problematic situation and
ends with the choice of a decision - an action that
should transform it. This process can be
presented in the form of a sequence of stages and
procedures that have direct and reverse
connections between them. Reverse ones reflect
the iterative, cyclic nature of the dependence
between stages and procedures. Iterations in the
execution of elements of the decision-making
process are due to the need to clarify and correct
data after the following procedures are
performed (Sannikov, 2015).
The concept of "decision-making" has become
popular in recent years under the strong influence
of the development of neurophysiology.
Psychologists often transferred this concept to
the field of terminology, to the field of ideas that
are closer to life than to scientific concepts. The
need to introduce the scientific concept of
"making a decision" appeared when it became
important to determine the stage at which the
1Volume 12- Issue 72
/ December 2023
257
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
formation ends and the execution of any act
begins, that is, when it can be said that a person
has made a decision.
Decision-making is a kind of problem solving.
The situation in which decisions are made is
characterized by the following main features
(Kulinich, 2008):
1. Presence of a goal. The need to make
decisions is determined by the presence of
some goal that must be achieved. For
example, complete a task, choose material,
make a date with a girl, do a new job, etc. If
the goal is not set, then there is no need to
make any decision.
2. Availability of alternative lines. Decisions
are made in situations where there is more
than one way to achieve a goal. Obviously,
when there is only one line of behaviour, no
decision needs to be made. Different
alternatives may have different costs and
different probabilities of success. These
costs and probabilities may not always be
known. It is for these reasons that decision-
making is often associated with
incomprehensibility and uncertainty.
3. Accounting of significant essential factors.
Decisions are made under the influence of a
large number of factors, which are different
for different alternatives. These are
economic, technical, social, personal and
other factors. Therefore, the task of decision-
making arises only when there is a goal to be
achieved, when different ways of achieving
it are possible, and when there are a large
number of factors that determine the value of
different alternatives or the probability of
success of each of them.
Decision-making, as a process, occupies a central
place in the structure of activity, it is included in
almost all its main "components", represented at
all stages of activity deployment. This process is
characterized by a pronounced systemic nature of
the organization, and acts, in fact, as a system-
wide process of mental regulation of activity. As
studies of this process in the structure of activity
have shown, decision-making is considered an
integral mental process (Karpov et al., 2016):
First, an objective criterion for distinguishing this
process in the structure of activity and at the same
time its system-forming factor is its compliance
with one of the main functions in the
organization of activity - the function of ensuring
preparation, development and decision-making
in conditions of uncertainty. Both this function
and the process unfolding on its basis are
objectively necessary for the activity, since
without them the activity is not carried out.
Secondly, the decision-making process has a
significant complex character, since it is
implemented on the basis of almost all traditional
mental processes that are analytically
distinguished, but not reduced to their one-order
sum, it is not additive. Thirdly, according to its
orientation, this process is not "purely" cognitive,
but regulatory, since it is directly oriented to the
generation, organization and stabilization of
activity. Fourthly, in the process of decision-
making, the phenomenon of "tripling of
qualities" is revealed as fully as possible - it is
initially threefold; it is a process, an action, and a
mental state at the same time. Depending on the
conditions of activity, motivation, etc., it unfolds
in different ways, and acts mainly as a process,
as an action, or as a state, and in extreme cases -
as a special decision-making activity (Karpov et
al., 2016).
In the decision-making process, almost all the
main ("forming") components of the activity
participate, but in a specific aspect - in the aspect
of their contribution to the development of a
decision. The psychological system of activity
and its constituent structural blocks act as a
functional basis for the formation of the
component composition of decision-making;
each of these blocks is adequately and
completely, naturally correlated with a certain
component of decision-making.
One of the results obtained is the conclusion
according to which the components of decision-
making are formed on the basis of the main
"formative" activities at the expense of giving the
latter the property of efficiency in relation to
conditions of uncertainty by including in them
new, non-normative means that correspond to the
content of the decision-making processes in the
activity.
The above allows us to assume that the activity
system is an amplifier of the decision-making
process both in terms of content and structure:
when the degree of uncertainty increases, the
activity system becomes an amplifier of the
analysis of the content and structure of decision-
making parameters, which determines the
similarity of the structure of the decision-making
process and activity. The degree of reinforcing
action can be significantly different for different
conditions. In the extremely complete case,
decision-making acts, in fact, as a decision-
producing activity; in an undeveloped form,
decision-making acts as a process itself, and in
extreme cases - as an almost simultaneous act,
which is sometimes not realized.
258
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Such an interpretation removes the mistaken
comparison of the understanding of the
phenomenon that occurs sometimes, where
decision-making is considered either as an
activity or as a process. Decision-making can be
adequately understood and described both as an
activity and as a process at the same time, that is,
based on the principle of complementarity. One
of the principles of the activity approach is
precisely the reduction of the degree of multi-
functionality of activity in decision-making.
Initially formed as an activity, decision-making
gradually acquires the features of a mental
process and functions in the activity that is being
mastered. When the conditions of the activity are
complicated, a reverse transition is possible and,
moreover, expedient.
Until now, systematic studies of decision-making
as a psychical process can be considered
complete. Decision-making as an integral
psychical process (a system-wide process of
activity regulation) is sufficiently developed,
dominant ideas about the component
composition of the decision-making process have
been formed (the latter approach is generally
traditional for the study of the decision-making
process) (Karpov et al., 2016).
It is necessary to take into account two main
circumstances. First, as the analysis of ideas
about the structure of activity showed, this
structure can be sufficiently adequately and fully
described as a functional union of some basic
"components", "functional blocks": goals,
motives, information base, decision-making,
activity programs, individual qualities, executive
part, control, correction and so on. Secondly,
when considering the block of decision-making
as one of these components, a certain invariant
composition of its components is distinguished:
information base, criteria, rules, methods of
preparation for decision-making, etc.
However, one should also consider the obvious
fact that individual decision-making components
are naturally correlated with individual
functional blocks of the activity system. In fact,
any component of decision-making acts as a
certain facet, a specific aspect of one or another
functional unit of the activity system. Thus,
decision-making criteria are directly formed on
the basis of the motivational block of activity; the
informational basis of decision-making is
actually a specification of the information supply
of activities in a situation of choice; decision-
making rules are formed on the basis of ideas
about the activity program and are an integral
part of it; methods of preparation and direct
decision-making are part of the executive part of
the activity. In other words, almost all the main
constituent activities take part in the decision-
making, but in a specific aspect - in the aspect of
their contribution to the development of the
decision. The psychological system of activity
and its component structural blocks act as a
functional basis for the formation of the
component composition of decision-making. To
ensure the integrity of decision-making, a set of
connections between components is also formed.
Many connections in the activity system, acting
as its psychological architecture, are also the
basis for ensuring the integrity of decision-
making. These connections form the structural
basis on which the components are integrated in
decision-making. The formation of the main
formative activities is accompanied by the
establishment of regular connections between
them (Sannikov, 2015).
Therefore, decision-making is an important life
process characterized by the presence of its
stages, theories, methods, and specific
characteristics. Decision-making is a choice, an
act of will and an active complex process: a
special, specific, vital process of human activity,
characterized by value orientations, the presence
of a situation of uncertainty and alternatives, and
aimed at choosing from a certain number of
alternatives the best version of approval,
conviction, behavior. Decisions taken can be
classified according to the criterion of their level
of complexity. Since a person has to interact with
the outside world every day, this interaction must
be built by making clear decisions and even
planning. One can make a decision in different
ways: through a holistic assessment of the
situation, relying on your own emotional
perception, or through an objective logical
analysis, trying to distance yourself from the
situation and weigh all the pros and cons. The
main stages of decision-making are: finding
solutions, inventing new alternatives and
choosing the best alternative from a group of
alternatives. Of course, all these main decision-
making stages are found in different decision-
making situations.
Researchers T. Kornilova, O. Sannikov consider
choice as a mediated decision-making activity.
From their point of view, the result of intellectual
and personal mediation is an arbitrary choice in
conditions of uncertainty, that is, a person makes
a choice from a number of alternatives that must
necessarily be presented in the mental plane.
(Kornilova, 2003; Sannikov, 2015).
1Volume 12- Issue 72
/ December 2023
259
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Choice is a special activity of a person, a holistic
act of evaluating oneself as an individual;
assessment of one's capabilities in a specific life
situation. Only the subject himself can initiate the
choice, enter the state of choice. The selection
criteria are set by the norms and rules of the
individual himself, which may not coincide with
the requirements of generally accepted morality.
The choice is a reflective pause, an "active
passivity." Due to the choice, a person seems to
limit his field of existence, limits the excess of
the world, but, thereby, he "clarifies" himself as
a person. Choice is self-limitation. By exercising
his right to choose, a person takes on obligations
that he experiences as responsibility (Tytarenko,
2005). But making an alternative choice is
possible for an individual based on psychological
characteristics that determine the interaction of
the individual with the environment and make it
possible to find ways to make decisions. Among
such psychological features, in our opinion,
tolerance stands out as a personality trait. With
all the diversity of scientific approaches to the
study of the problem of decision-making and the
problem of tolerance, there are no works in the
science of our country that investigate the
features of decision-making by a tolerant
personality.
Tolerance as a psychological phenomenon has a
fairly short history of study in domestic research,
since tolerance has not been adequately studied
in domestic psychology. This is explained by the
prevailing totalitarian ideology, which assumes
intolerance as a necessary element of the class
struggle. In recent decades, in connection with
the change of socio-political life in the country,
there has been a demand for research on various
problems of tolerance (Asmolov, 2000;
Soldatova & Shaigerova, 2008). In the modern
world, tolerance is understood as an important
element of peaceful coexistence of mankind, it is
recognized as a humanistic value and a necessary
condition for the social unity of people of
different cultural traditions, beliefs, scientific and
political beliefs. Tolerance becomes a key moral
principle of civil society, which is confirmed by
the international document - "Declaration of
Principles of Tolerance" (Liga 360, 1995). This
document reveals the essence of the concept of
"tolerance": as respect, acceptance and correct
understanding of the rich diversity of cultures,
forms of self-expression and ways of manifesting
human individuality; as harmonies in diversity;
as a moral debt, political and legal need; as a
virtue that makes it possible to achieve peace and
promotes the replacement of the culture of war
with the culture of peace; as an active attitude to
reality, which is formed on the basis of the
recognition of universal human rights and
freedoms (Liga 360, 1995).
In the modern world, the problem of tolerance is
the subject of discussion and research in various
humanitarian and social sciences. Despite its
complexity and contradictions, the phenomenon
of tolerance today is understood not just as an
abstract philosophical ideal, but more than ever,
it is widely recognized as a universal human
value and a practical condition for the survival
and development of civilizations, dialogue and
in-depth constructive interaction of different
cultures.
The understanding of tolerance is ambiguous in
different cultures and depends on the historical
experience of the people. In English, tolerance is
defined as "the willingness and ability to accept
a person or thing without protest". In the English-
Russian psychological dictionary, the translation
of the English word tolerance means "acquired
stability, the limit of a person's stability
(endurance); resistance to stress; resistance to
conflict; resistance to behavioral deviations. In
the French one - "respect for the freedom, matter
of another, his way of thinking, behavior,
political and religious views"; in the Chinese one
- to be "tolerant" means "to show" magnanimity
towards others, to enable, to allow"; in the Arabic
one - "forgiveness, leniency, mildness,
condescension, compassion, affection, patience,
positive attitude towards others"; in the Persian
one - "patience, open-mindness, endurance,
readiness for reconciliation" (Babchuk, 2015).
R. Valitova considers tolerance as a moral
benevolent personality, which characterizes its
attitude to another as a free equal personality,
which consists in the voluntary and conscious
suppression of the feeling of rejection caused by
certain characteristics of the personality, both
external (racial, national characteristics) and
internal (religion, which is professed, respected
traditions, moral preferences), attitude towards
dialogue and understanding of the other,
rejection of the privileges of the first person,
recognition and respect of his right to distinction
(Valitova, 1997). The author also formulated
three principles of tolerance: 1) tolerance is
conditional virtue. Its applicability depends on
the answer to the question: in relation to what or
to whom one should be tolerant; 2) renunciation
of the monopoly on knowledge of the truth in
morality is a condition under which tolerance is
possible; defending one's point of view, the
thought arises that we should be tolerant of
another's opinion; 3) tolerance is not the final
goal of moral improvement of interpersonal
260
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
communication, it is a starting position on the
path of humane existence (Valitova, 1997).
Thus, the phenomenon of "tolerance" is the
subject of study in philosophical, ethical,
psychological and other sciences, which
indicates its importance for modern society.
Domestic and foreign scientists recognize that
tolerance, being a moral value, implies pluralism
of views, respect for others, a desire for
constructive dialogue, peaceful coexistence of
cultural, socio-political, scientific and religious
differences.
A. G. Asmolov singles out the following most
important functions of tolerance in the modern
social space, based on the analysis of existing
modern ideas and studies of the phenomenon of
tolerance. 1) Support of the diversity of complex
systems is the first and most important function
of tolerance, which is manifested, including, in
the support of polyethnicity and
multiculturalism. 2) Support of each person`s
right to be different, which is one of the main
meanings of tolerance, which follows from its
semantic analysis. 3) Ensuring the sustainable
development of systems and the balance of
various conflicting parties in the economy,
culture and politics. 4) Ensuring the possibility of
dialogue and achieving agreement between
different worldviews, religions and cultures
(Asmolov, 2000).
Signs of the phenomenon of tolerance can be
classified into three categories: 1) signs
characterizing tolerance as a quality: the basis of
spirituality, morality (tolerance as a quality is the
basis of something spiritual, moral), identity with
acceptance (tolerance is often associated and
completely identified with acceptance),
discursiveness (tolerance permeates almost all
modern discourses) etc.; 2) signs characterizing a
tolerant personality (a subject who shows
tolerance): spiritual strength, an active position,
a search for unity, a desire for spiritual
perfection, doubt in the single truth of one's own
position, humility, generosity, etc.; 3) signs
characterizing the relationship of the subject of
tolerance to its object: interaction with the other,
coexistence with the other, overcoming the other
(if the object of tolerance is negative, for
example, violence), recognition of the rights of
the other, the right to existence of his position,
allowance of the other, indifference towards the
other, respect for the other, critical dialogue with
the other (the result of which can be an exchange
of thoughts), compassion (empathy for the
other), preservation of differences in unity,
evaluating the other with dignity, establishing a
spiritual connection with another etc. (Sumina,
2007). The highlighted signs are relevant for the
phenomenon of tolerance to a different extent,
often the manifestation and importance of one or
another sign is determined by certain
circumstances. In the scientific literature devoted
to the problem of tolerance, considerable
attention is paid to the construction of
classifications.
Domestic scientists consider the principle of
active tolerance to be one of the main principles
of tolerance, since "tolerance implies an
interested attitude towards the other, the desire to
feel his "otherness", which prompts the mind to
work, if only because the other's worldview is
different from one's own. Such an understanding
contributes to the expansion of one's own
experience. At the same time, the manifestation
of tolerance does not mean the rejection of one's
own views and beliefs, it indicates the openness
of the dialogue participants, their "mutual
insight" (Bezyuleva & Shelamova, 2003).
B. Reardon singles out the following principles
of tolerance: the diversity of people beautifies
and enriches life; conflict is a normal process that
must be solved constructively; social
responsibility and the ability of each person to
meaningfully apply moral norms when making
personal and social decisions are very important
for democracy" (Reardon, 2001).
Modern studies show that decision-making itself
largely determines the substantive, procedural
and effective parameters of an individual's life.
Accordingly, the "price of error" for an
inadequate choice of personality, possible wrong
decisions, is extremely high. Due to this, applied
research on the rationalization of complex types
of activities, optimization of the individual's life
path, must also take into account the patterns of
decision-making, and in this the immediate
practical significance of studying both the
individual as a whole and directly what ensures
decision-making by the individual.
During such a short period of decision-making
research, several independent directions have
developed, while some of the research on this
issue has taken the form of completed conceptual
developments. First, it is a practice-confirmed
concept of a psychological decision-making
system, which represents decision-making as an
"integral mental process" (Karpov et al., 2016)
Secondly, O. K. Tikhomirov's theory of semantic
regulation gave a new sound to the cognitive
direction of modern decision-making psychology
(Tikhomirov et al., 1977). And, thirdly, the
1Volume 12- Issue 72
/ December 2023
261
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
concept of multiple functional-level regulation of
intellectual decision-making, which also
partially affects personal variables (Kornilova,
2003). P. K. Anokhin's theory of functional
systems served as a more general basis for
existing areas of decision-making research
(Anokhin, 1978)
Making a decision is a specific, vitally important
manifestation of the individual's activity, which
ensures the choice of the best solution option, or
those that are subjectively perceived by the
individual as such for solving the life situation
(Sannikov, 2015). When the need for decision-
making arises, the individual shows a tolerant or
intolerant attitude towards it, which allows or
blocks the manifestation of the multivariate
decision and its implementation. This ratio of
tolerance / intolerance of personality and
characteristics of choice and decision-making
requires empirical verification of this
assumption.
So, general scientific ideas about the essence of
tolerance are based on two central points: the
idea of tolerance, as a passive acceptance of the
surrounding reality, not resisting it, and the idea
of human mutual understanding of other people.
A tolerant person seeks to understand another, to
come to an agreement with him through active
forms of tolerance: cooperation, dialogue,
interaction, negotiations, friendship, support,
reconciliation, etc. There is an opinion that
tolerance consists in overcoming feelings of
rejection of others, in showing tolerance in
relation to someone else's opinion, someone
else's culture, someone else's way of life. Such
point of view excludes respect for the partner, the
manifestation of empathy, benevolence, sincere
sympathy, the desire for understanding, the
possibility of freedom of choice in decision-
making.
The goal is a theoretical-empirical study of the
psychological features of decision-making by
individuals with different levels of tolerance.
The concept of "decision-making" implies its
consideration not only as a phenomenon, but also
as a result of choosing a goal, forming and
implementing an action program, using a method
of obtaining a result or a strategy for achieving a
goal - a strategy of choice. Most researchers
define "decision-making" as "a volition of
forming a sequence of actions leading to the
achievement of a goal based on the
transformation of initial information in a
situation of uncertainty." A narrower "decision"
is interpreted as a choice of one of the available
alternative options for actions (in the simplest
case - between action or inaction) (Sannikov,
2015).
Diagnostics of decision-making indicators was
carried out using the following methods:
"Melbourne decision-making questionnaire"
(MDMQ) by L. Mann (Mann et al., 1997;
Soldatova & Shaigerova, 2008), "Personal
decision-making factors" by T. Kornilova
(2003); "Decision-making questionnaire" by
H Aizenko, modified by E. P. Ilyin (Aizenko,
1963; Ilyin, 2009). Diagnosis of tolerance was
carried out using the "Qualitative Tolerance Test
Questionnaire" by O.P. Sannikova,
O.G. Babchuk (Sannikova & Sannikov, 2020;
Babchuk, 2015). The empirical research was
conducted on the basis of the State institution "K.
D. Ushinskyi National Pedagogical University".
74 students of the faculty of preschool pedagogy
and psychology and the faculty of physics and
mathematics aged 20 to 26 participated in the
study.
Results
To establish the relationship between tolerance
indicators and decision-making indicators, a
correlation analysis was used, which showed that
an increase in the values of tolerance indicators
is accompanied by an increase in the values of
such indicators as decisiveness, impulsiveness in
decision-making, purposefulness and risk-
taking.
Table 1 provides significant correlations between
qualitative indicators of tolerance and decision-
making.
262
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Table 1.
Significant correlations between qualitative indicators of tolerance and decision-making
Indicators of decision-making
Qualitative indicators of tolerance
CТ
ЕТ
BТ
TТ
V
–226*
–229*
НV
–483**
–355**
–334**
–475**
Notes. 1) Conventional abbreviations: CT – cognitive component of tolerance, ET – emotional component
of tolerance, BT – behavioral component of tolerance, TT – total indicator of tolerance; 2) Conditional
shortening of decision-making indicators: V – vigilance, Pr – procrastination, HV – hypervigilance.
Correlation analysis showed that the cognitive
component of tolerance (CT) is negatively
connected to indicators of vigilance (V) (ρ≤0.05)
and hypervigilance (HV) (ρ≤0.01). The indicator
of emotional tolerance (ET) is negatively related
to the indicator of hypervigilance (HV) (ρ≤0.01).
The behavioral index of tolerance has a negative
connection to the hypervigilance index (HV)
(ρ≤0.01). The general index of tolerance revealed
negative connections to indicators of vigilance
(V) (ρ≤0.05) and hypervigilance (HV) (ρ≤0.01).
Next, we will consider significant correlations
between indicators of tolerance and decision-
making according to the "Decision-Making
Questionnaire" method. Table 2 shows the
results of the correlation analysis between
indicators of tolerance and decision-making.
Table 2.
Significant correlations between qualitative indicators of tolerance and decision-making (DMQ)
Indicators of decision -making
Qualitative indicators of tolerance
CT
ЕТ
BТ
TТ
Dcs
329**
328*
Prs
–436**
–381**
–437**
Іmp
–285*
–327**
–311**
–400**
Notes. Conventional abbreviations: Dsc - decisiveness in decision-making, Prs - purposefulness in decision-
making, Imp - impulsiveness in decision-making
Correlation analysis of the primary data revealed
the following interrelationships of the measured
indicators: the cognitive component of tolerance
(CT) revealed negative relations between the
indicators of purposefulness in decision-making
(Prs) (ρ≤0.01) and with the indicator of
impulsivity in decision-making (Imp) (ρ≤0.05).
The indicator of emotional tolerance has a
positive connection to the indicator of
decisiveness in decision-making (Dcs) (ρ≤0.01)
and a negative relationship to the indicator of
impulsivity in decision-making (Ips) (ρ≤0.01).
The indicator of behavioral tolerance (BT)
revealed a negative relationship to the indicators
of purposefulness in decision-making (Prs)
(ρ≤0.01) and to the indicator of impulsivity in
decision-making (Imp) (ρ≤0.01).
The general indicator of tolerance has a positive
relationship with the indicator of decisiveness in
decision-making (Dcs) (ρ≤0.05) and negative
connections to indicators of purposefulness in
decision-making (Prs) (ρ≤0.01) and with the
indicator impulsiveness in decision-making
(Imp) (ρ≤0.01).
The analysis of theoretical and empirical
literature and the results obtained in the course of
correlation analysis allow us to assume the
presence of psychological features of decision-
making in people with differences in the level of
tolerance.
In our work, the "aces" method was used.
Previously, all numerical scores were converted
into percentiles in order to approximate the
distribution of values to normal. This made it
possible to distinguish groups of individuals with
a high level (fourth quartile of the distribution
from 75 to 100 percentile) and a low level (first
quartile from 0 to 25 percentile) of tolerance.
Thus, the sample was divided into two groups:
individuals with high values of the total tolerance
index (ТТmax, n=10) and a group with low
values of the total tolerance index (ТТmin,
n=12).
The next step of the research was to determine
the specifics of individual characteristics of
1Volume 12- Issue 72
/ December 2023
263
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
choice in conditionally defined groups with
different levels of tolerance using the "profiles"
method. The analysis and interpretation of the
profiles was carried out based on those indicators
that maximally deviate from the middle line of
the series (50 percentile).
Fig. 1 provides decision-making profiles of
groups of people with different levels of
tolerance (according to the MDMQ
methodology).
Fig. 1. Decision-making profiles of groups of people with different levels of tolerance (according to the
MDMQ methodology)
Notes. Abbreviations: V – vigilance, A – avoidance, Prc – procrastination, HV – hypervigilance.
Analysis of the profiles of decision-making
indicators in groups that are distinguished by
high and low values of tolerance shows that the
level of tolerance affects the decision-making
indicators of an individual.
Thus, the representatives of the group (Tmax)
demonstrate high values of the "vigilance"
indicator (V+) and low values of the indicators of
avoidance (A–), procrastination (Prc–) and
hypervigilance (НV–), while in the group
(Тmin), on the contrary, the indicator of vigilance
has low values with high values of avoidance
(A–), procrastination (Prc–) and hypervigilance
(HV–).
So, in a group of people with a high level of
tolerance, the indicator of vigilance (V+) ensures
the search for the optimal decision option,
consideration of alternatives, comparison of the
data of life decision-making experience with the
requirements of the current situation,
characterizes them as having a need for
knowledge. Clarification of the goals and
objectives of the decision, consideration of
alternatives among members of this group is
connected with the search for information, its
assimilation "without prejudice" and evaluation
before making a choice. They do not try to avoid
making a life decision (A-) or postpone its
making "for later", and they also do not pay
attention to unimportant facts (Prc-).
Individuals of the group with a low level of
tolerance (Тmin) pay a lot of attention to small
things, are constantly distracted, try to avoid
making a decision and transfer decision-making
to others (A+). Their unjustified "tossing"
between different alternatives sometimes causes
impulsive decision-making to get rid of the
situation that has arisen. In extreme conditions,
"panic" in the choice between alternatives is
possible.
According to T. Kornilova, decision-making is
related to such personal factors as risk-taking and
rationality. Readiness to risk is considered as
readiness to make decisions and act in conditions
of subjective uncertainty, that is, it implies self-
control in a situation of unclear orientation. In
this sense, accepting a certain degree of risk
(rather than avoiding it) can serve as a criterion
for a rational decision. The result of decision-
making can be a strategy that is considered
(rational) and "risky" at the same time.
Rationality acts as a readiness to consider one's
decisions and act completely oriented to the
situation, it is not the opposite of the riskiness of
the decision made and can characterize various,
including risky decisions of the subject
(Kornilova, 2003).
The results of decision-making diagnostics using
the "Personal decision-making factors" method
are given in fig. 2.
V A Prc HV
Tmax 65 34 26 23
Tmin 32 76 62 65
65
34 26 23
32
76
62 65
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
264
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
The analysis of the obtained results indicates the
presence of differences in the dominance of
certain decision-making factors in the studied
groups. Thus, individuals with a high level of
tolerance when making decisions demonstrate a
greater willingness to take risks, that is, in
situations of uncertainty, situations of chance,
when not only is there no discrepancy between
the necessary and available opportunities, but
also where it is impossible to assess such
opportunities, they rely more often on themselves
and demonstrate greater readiness to act in such
conditions (RR+).
Representatives of the group with a low level of
tolerance are more inclined to consider their
decisions and act with possible complete
orientation in the situation. For them, the
connections between actions and life events are
less obvious, they are unable to control these
connections, they consider most events and their
own actions to be the result of chance (R+). The
tendency to attribute more importance to external
circumstances, for example, social factors,
fortune, also characterizes representatives of this
group.
Fig. 2. Histogram of decision-making factors of groups of people with different levels of tolerance
Notes. Abbreviations: RR – readiness for risk, Rat– rationality
In the following, we will consider the results of
decision-making diagnostics using the decision-
making questionnaire (DMQ), which provides an
opportunity to obtain information about such
features of decision-making as decisiveness,
purposefulness, rigidity and impulsiveness in
decision-making.
We will remind you that determination is
presented as the ability to independently make
responsible decisions and consistently
implement them in action. Determination is
especially clearly manifested in difficult
situations, when the act is associated with a
known risk and the need to choose from several
alternatives. Determination is also the ability to
take responsibility for the decision made, ensures
the timeliness of the action, the ability to quickly
execute it or delay it (Golovin, 1998). E. Ilyin
emphasizes that decisiveness characterizes the
speed of making a considered decision, when the
consequences can lead to either an undesirable or
a negative result (Ilyin, 2009).
O. Sannikov claims that determination is the
ability to boldly and independently make mature
life decisions, selectively using personal
resources. Determination is not a manifestation
of the individual's will in making and carrying
out difficult decisions, but the ability to take the
first step and lead others along, assessing risks.
Determination is full concentration in an extreme
situation, the ability to fight, take into account
past mistakes and flexibly adapt to changing
conditions (Sannikov, 2015).
Let's analyze the results of decision-making
diagnostics, which are presented in fig. 3.
Analysis of the content characteristics of the
decision-making indicators proposed by the
author of the methodology allows us to
characterize the peculiarities of their
manifestation by the representatives of each
group.
So, in the group of people with a high level of
tolerance, there is a tendency to show
determination when making a decision (Det+).
RR Rat
Tmax 77,228125 47
Tmin 37,4875 71,908333
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1Volume 12- Issue 72
/ December 2023
265
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
They are characterized by a quick and energetic
reaction to the situation, moderation and
rationality, measured caution when making a
decision, independence from circumstances,
pragmatism, independence, persistence in
implementing the decision.
A characteristic feature of the individuals of this
group is the development of their own strategy
for achieving the goal, the implementation of a
purposeful choice of the goal itself and decision-
making regarding its achievement with a clearly
expressed desire for anticipation (Pr+). They are
characterized by easy switching from one
installation to another, taking into account minor
changes in external circumstances in the choice
situation, readiness to change the plan and
program of decision implementation in
accordance with the new requirements of the
situation (RG–). They demonstrate sufficiently
good self-control, balanced decisions, striving
for independence, and understanding the
consequences of decisions (IMP-).
Fig. 3. Decision-making profiles (DMQ) of groups of people with different levels of tolerance
Notes. Conventional abbreviations: Det - determination, Pr - purposefulness, RG - rigidity, IMP -
impulsivity
People with a low level of tolerance have a
tendency of spontaneity, impulsiveness when
making a decision (IMP+), it can be assumed that
decisions are made on the first impulse, under the
influence of external circumstances and
emotions. Decisions are impetuous, sudden, not
always considered, do not weigh "for" and
"against", so the first impression (guess) without
thinking, analysis and development becomes the
basis of the decision.
Manifestations of rigidity (RG+) indicate
complications in changing the planned activity
program, action plan or act in conditions that
objectively require its restructuring. They have a
low ability to change the emotional perception of
objects of changing emotions, to change the
perception and idea of the environment in
accordance with the real changes in this
environment, to change the system of motives,
incentives to act in circumstances that require the
subject to be flexible and change behavior. When
making a decision, there is thoughtlessness of the
decisions made, indecisiveness, dependence
when making a decision on circumstances, which
may be related to dreaminess and instability of
intentions. They demonstrate reduced activity
when choosing a goal, as well as making a
decision to achieve it.
Conclusions
1. The theoretical analysis showed that the
choice is the main stage of the decision-
making process. It consists in selecting one
option from several possible ones. A choice
is a person's acceptance of one decision from
the many options offered, the resolution of
uncertainty in a person's life and activity in
the context of a plurality of various
alternatives. The phenomenon of tolerance
today is understood not just as an abstract
philosophical ideal, but more than ever, it is
widely recognized as a universal human
value and a practical condition for the
survival and development of civilizations,
dialogue and deep constructive interaction
of different cultures. In the modern world,
the problem of tolerance is the subject of
discussion and research in various
humanitarian and social sciences. Despite its
complexity and contradictions, the
Det Pr Rg IMP
Tmax 70,033329 61,17336 30,82663 38,92078
Tmin 37,56716 40,5618 59,70149 69,09569
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
266
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
phenomenon of tolerance today is
understood not just as an abstract
philosophical ideal, but more than ever, it is
widely recognized as a universal human
value and a practical condition for the
survival and development of civilizations,
dialogue and in-depth constructive
interaction of different cultures.
2. The use of qualitative data analysis made it
possible to identify groups of people with a
high and low level of tolerance using the
"aces" method and to draw up their
characteristics. Therefore, individuals with a
high level of tolerance demonstrate a high
level of attitude to complex tasks and
novelty, have a high readiness to adapt to an
uncertain situation, are able to change their
plans in new conditions. They are
characterized by a quick and energetic
reaction to the situation, moderation and
rationality, measured caution when making
a decision, independence from
circumstances, pragmatism, independence,
purposefulness, persistence in implementing
a decision, sufficient self-control. The
group's representatives are characterized by
the lack of hesitation and reflection in
decision-making, quick, energetic reaction
to the situation, independence and stability
in decision-making, far-sightedness,
thoroughness in gathering and analyzing
information, providing a guaranteed and
effective decision option. People with a low
level of tolerance have a tendency to
spontaneity, impulsiveness when making a
decision. When making a decision, there is
rigidity, ill-considered decisions,
indecisiveness, dependence on
circumstances when making a decision).
People of this group can be characterized as
independent, inclined to make decisions
under the influence and with the help of
other people, transferring responsibility to
them.
Bibliographic references
Anokhin, P.K. (1978). Fundamental issues of the
general theory of functional systems.
Selected works. Philosophical aspects of the
theory of functional systems. Science, 2099,
17-60.
https://www.keldysh.ru/pages/BioCyber/RT/
Functional.pdf (Russia)
Asmolov, A.G. (2000). On the way to tolerant
consciousness. Moscow: Meaning, 255 p.
URL: https://klex.ru/7sy (Russia)
Aizenko, H. (1963). Personal questionnaire
Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI).
Studlancer. https://acortar.link/itLk89
Babchuk, O. G. (2015). Psychological
characteristics of tolerant and intolerant
individuals. Science and education, 10,
116-121. https://acortar.link/b0rjFQ
(Ukraine)
Ball, G.A. (2006). Psychology in a rational
humanistic perspective: Selected works. K.:
"Osnova" Publishing House, 408.
https://acortar.link/qi0mjA (Russia)
Bezyuleva, G.V., & Shelamova, G.M. (2003).
Tolerance: view, search, solution.: Moscow:
Verbum-M, 164.
https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01002429529
(Russia)
Bryukhova, N.G. (2016). Moral and
psychological aspects of the manager making
an organizational decision. Innovation
Science, 3-3(15), 200-201.
https://acortar.link/40Cm4w (Russia)
Golovin, S. Yu. (1998). Dictionary of a practical
psychologist. Minsk: Harvest, 800 URL:
https://acortar.link/Difvch (Russia)
Herrera-Viedma, E., Palomares, I.,
Cong-Cong, Li., Cabrerizo, F. J., Dong, Y.,
Chiclana, F., & Herrera, F. (2021).
Revisiting Fuzzy and Linguistic Decision
Making: Scenarios and Challenges for
Making Wiser Decisions in a Better Way.
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics: Systems, 51(1), 191-208
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.2020.30430
16
Ilyin, E. P. (2009). Psychology of will: textbook;
2nd ed. Peter Press LLC, 368
https://4sport.ua/_upl/2/1401/105_Ilin_E_P_
_Psikhologia_voli.pdf (Ukraine)
Karpov, A.V., Karpov, A.A., & Markova, E.V.
(2016). Psychology of decision making in
management activities. Metasystem
approach. Yaroslavl: YarSU; M.: Publishing
house. house of RAO, 644.
http://www.lib.uniyar.ac.ru/edocs/iuni/20160
531.pdf (Russia)
Kornilova, T. V. (2003). Psychology of risk and
decision making: a textbook for universities.
Publishing house Aspect Press, 286.
https://www.klex.ru/v5b (Russia)
Kozlov, V. N. (2009). System analysis and
decision making. St. Petersburg: Publishing
house of the Polytechnic University, 223
URL: https://b.eruditor.link/file/501357/
(Russia)
Kulinich, I.O. (2008). Psychology of
management: teaching. manual. Kyiv:
Znannia, 292 URL:
https://acortar.link/vcbHZT (Ukraine)
1Volume 12- Issue 72
/ December 2023
267
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Larichev, O.I. (1979). The Science and Art of
Decision Making. M.: Nauka, 200.
https://acortar.link/PLu6QJ (Russia)
Liga 360. (1995). Declaration of principles of
tolerance. Department of education and
science of the executive body of Kyiv city
council.
https://ips.ligazakon.net/document/MU9532
4
Malakooti, B. (2012). Decision making process:
typology, intelligence, and optimization.
J Intell Manuf, 23, 733-746
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-010-0424-1
Mann, L., Burnett, P., Radford, M., & Ford, S.
(1997). The Melbourne Decision Making
Questionnaire: An instrument for measuring
patterns for coping with decisional
conflict. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Making, 10(1), 1-19.
https://acortar.link/yEYUhK
Reardon, B.E. (2001). Tolerance is the road to
peace. Publishing house "Bon Fi", 304.
https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01005476585
(Russia)
Sannikov, A. I. (2015). Individual psychological
qualities of a personality and of decision-
making style. Science and Education a New
Dimension. Pedagogy and Psychology,
III(22), 75-78. https://acortar.link/BkqcW0
(in English)
Sannikova, O.P., & Sannikov, A.I. (2020).
Tolerance to uncertainty as a predictor of
decision-making by an individual. Bulletin of
postgraduate education. Series: Social and
behavioral sciences, 12, 98-123.
https://doi.org/10.32405/2522‐9931/2522‐
9958‐2020‐12(41)‐98‐123
Soldatova, G.U., & Shaigerova, L.A. (2008).
Psychodiagnostics of a tolerant personality.
Smysl Publishing, 172
https://studfile.net/preview/8977454/
(Russia)
Sumina, E.S. (2007). Tolerance (from a
phenomenon to a linguistic concept) (diss. ...
cand. Philol. Sciences Thesis), "Ural State
Pedagogical University", Yekaterinburg,
277 p. https://acortar.link/Y0RNmA (Russia)
Tikhomirov, O.K., Telegina, E.D., &
Volkova, T.G. (1977). Psychological
mechanisms of goal formation. Moscow:
Nauka, 259
https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01007648820
(Russia)
Tweed, M., & Wilkinson, T. (2019). Student
progress decision-making in programmatic
assessment: can we extrapolate from clinical
decision-making and jury decision-making?
BMC Medical Education, 19, 176.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1583-1
Tytarenko, T.M. (2005). Personal Choice: The
Psychology of Despair and Hope. K.:
Millennium, pp 336 URL:
https://acortar.link/mnsRLb (Ukraine)
Valitova, R.R. (1997). Tolerance as an ethical
problem (dis. ...cand. philosopher. Sciences),
"Buryat State University", Ulan-Ude, 159 p.
https://www.dissercat.com/content/tolerantn
ost-kak-eticheskaya-problema
Vasylyuk, F. E. (1997). Psychotechnics of
choice. Psychology with a human face: a
humanistic perspective in post-Soviet
psychology. Ed. YES. Leontyeva,
V.G. Shchur. M.: Smysl, 336 p.
https://acortar.link/gbBKY8 (Russia)
Yakymchuk, I. (2022). Individual psychological
prerequisites and types of personal choice.
Bulletin of the National University of Defense
of Ukraine, 69(5), 151-157.
https://doi.org/10.33099/2617-6858-2022-
69-5-151-157 (Ukraine)