ANALYSIS OF CORRELATION BETWEEN LEADING MECHANISMS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DEFENSE AND DEMONSTRATION OF A PSYCHOLOGICAL BARRIER BY STUDENTS

This paper presents the analysis of psychological defense mechanisms as a factor that impairs overcoming of psychological barriers among students. Analysis of the literature shows that many researchers consider psychological defense mechanisms as strategies for overcoming of psychological barriers. There is no a single classification of psychological defense mechanisms; the author uses in her study the classification of R. Plutchik, as the most common one. That classification gives such types of psychological defense mechanisms as denial, repression, regression, compensation, projection, replacement, intellectualization, reaction formation. Psychological defense mechanisms may not only be supporting tools used to overcome psychological barriers, but also may slow down the process. This differentiation is provisional because in different situations each psychological defense mechanism can act as a facilitating factor as well as impeding the development of a personality. This paper presents a correlation analysis of indicators of intensity of psychological barriers and severity of psychological defense mechanisms. Psychological defense mechanisms are considered in the article as factors hindering and contributing to overcoming the psychological barriers in academic activities. Data analysis of the correlation analysis has proved that some of their protective mechanisms (replacement, compensation, reaction formation) allow the student to ease the discomfort associated with a situation of collision with the psychological barrier, and are contributing factors of overcoming the barriers. Other kinds of defence (denial, repression, regression), on the contrary, hinder the process of overcoming and act as factors for overcoming the psychological barriers. But it's worth noting that this division is provisional because in each particular situation each psychological defense mechanism can act as a facilitating factor as well as one, impeding the development of a personality.