Volume 13 - Issue 75
/ March 2024
369
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2024.75.03.31
How to Cite:
Shou, B., Babchuk, O., Melenchuk, N., Kolot, S., Venher, H. (2024). Interethnic tolerance of modern students. Amazonia
Investiga, 13(75), 369-378. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2024.75.03.31
Interethnic tolerance of modern students
МІЖЕТНІЧНА ТОЛЕРАНТНІСТЬ СТУДЕНТСЬКОЇ МОЛОДІ
Received: February 22, 2024 Accepted: March 27, 2024
Written by:
Shou Binbin1
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6868-4558
Babchuk Olena2
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5712-909X
Melenchuk Natalia3
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4749-6889
Kolot Svitlana4
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9145-9017
Venher Hanna5
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3485-594X
Abstract
The paper considers the problem of interethnic
tolerance in individuals. The theoretical analysis
of the scientific literature shows that interethnic
tolerance is an important indicator of the culture
of international relations, has a deep axiological
meaning, and is closely related to the value
perceptions of the individual. The aggravation of
interethnic issues in the youth student
environment causes local conflicts, xenophobia,
manifestations of nationalism, chauvinism,
incitement to ethnic hatred, enmity, and
intolerance between representatives of different
nationalities. In this regard, the difficulty of
developing interethnic tolerance when working
with the younger generation is of particular
importance, which makes it necessary to form a
personal social position for young people and
raise their level of interethnic culture. The
purpose of our work is to study the individual
1
Graduate student of the 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: L-4770-2017
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 the Head of Department of Pedagogy and Psychology International Humanitarian
University, Odessa, Ukraine. WoS Researcher ID: AAM-5199-2021
4
PhD (Psychological Sciences), Associate Professor, Department of Psychology and Social Work, Institute of Humanities, National
University "Odesa Polytechnic", Ukraine. WoS Researcher ID: HGT-9803-2022
5
PhD (Psychological Sciences), Senior lecturer of the department of psychiatry, medical and special psychology of the University
K.D. Ushinsky, Ukraine. WoS Researcher ID: KHV-5185-2024
370
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
psychological features of the manifestation of
interethnic tolerance in a person. The
psychodiagnostic complex consisted of the
“Tolerance Index” and the “16 Personality Factor
Questionnaire” by R. Cattell. The correlation
analysis allowed us to confirm the existence of
significant relationships between the indicators
of interethnic tolerance and personality factors.
The qualitative analysis and construction of
profiles allowed us to provide psychological
characteristics of individuals with different
levels of the general indicator of interethnic
tolerance.
Keywords: tolerance, interethnic tolerance,
personality, individual differences, personality
factors, student youth.
Introduction
Relevance of the research.
The issue of tolerance, interethnic tolerance of
the individual, has at various times taken a
certain position in philosophical, psychological,
pedagogical, political and other humanitarian
studies. Today, Ukrainian society is becoming
more multi-ethnic, new challenges arise due to
the intensification of migration flows and the
features of modern geopolitical processes.
Awareness of the interdependence of people in a
multiethnic society requires a change in the
existing relations, namely, respect for the
legitimate rights of another person, the right to be
different, to preach one's views, to belong to a
different culture, etc. Student youth are
especially sensitive to the problem of interethnic
tolerance and the most sensitive part of our
society.
Coexistence with people of other nationalities,
different beliefs, and a different worldview is
interethnic tolerance. Interethnic tolerance (from
the Latin tolerare - to tolerate) is a patient attitude
of representatives of one ethnic community
toward representatives of another community, to
different cultural traditions, and a willingness to
interact positively with people of different
ethnicities. The emergence and functioning of the
concept of “interethnic tolerance” are associated
with a multiethnic, multicultural environment,
the structuring of which is determined by the
presence of various ethnic and cultural
communities and the policy of the authorities
regarding this phenomenon (Yevtukh, 2012).
Interethnic tolerance is an active position of
helping another person and, at the same time,
feeling more confident and stable together in a
multiethnic, multi-religious country. Interethnic
tolerance in society contributes to the internal
sustainability of society, its stability, and the
stability of every citizen who has different views
and attitudes towards life and creates conditions
for self-discovery and self-development. Any
country, region, or oblast needs interethnic
tolerance as a form of diversity.
The methodological basis of the study of the
issue of the development of interethnic tolerance
as a personality quality is the work of researchers
who present tolerance as a social norm of human
life and a state capable of reconciling people of
different faiths and nations, and interpret
interethnic tolerance as a necessary quality of a
modern, developed human personality in
connection with the problem of establishing
equal relations with representatives of other
ethnic groups (Kolesnichenko, 2022; Sergienko
& Shevchenko, 2018).
The paper aims to empirically study the
psychological characteristics of individuals with
different levels of interethnic tolerance
The Object of the Study: interethnic tolerance
of the individual.
Research Methods.
The empirical study was conducted in three
stages: preparatory, diagnostic, analytical and
interpretive. To diagnose interethnic tolerance,
the methodology “Tolerance Index” by
Soldatova et al., (2008) was used; to study the
Shou, B., Babchuk, O., Melenchuk, N., Kolot, S., Venher, H. / Volume 13 - Issue 75: 369-378 / March, 2024
Volume 13 - Issue 75
/ March 2024
371
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
personality traits that accompany, in our opinion,
the manifestation of interethnic tolerance, the
methodology “The 16 Personality Factor
Questionnaire” by Cattell & Mead (2008) was
used. The study involved 242 students from the
Faculty of Preschool Pedagogy and Psychology
and the Faculty of Social Sciences and
Humanities of the State Institution “South
Ukrainian National Pedagogical University
named after K. D. Ushynsky”. To establish
significant relationships between the indicators
of interethnic tolerance and personality factors,
according to R. Cattell, a correlation analysis was
carried out using Spearman's coefficient, which
was calculated using the program SPSS 13.0 for
Microsoft Windows.
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
An analysis of the historical aspects of
interethnic tolerance in English-speaking
countries shows that the problems of xenophobia,
intolerance, and national hatred are also quite
acute here. Numerous publications have been
devoted to interethnic tolerance, covering
various aspects of this issue: the history of
interaction with forms and manifestations of
intolerance in the United States, Canada, the
United Kingdom, and other European countries;
the modern academic and cultural assimilation of
immigrants and the strengthening, the history of
multiculturalism and transnationalism (Carens
(1999); Hogarth, & Fletcher (2018); Kivisto, &
Ng. (2005); Mason (2000); Wallis, & Fleras
(2009); J. Kafka (2011)); modern racial prejudice
and bias Carbado et al., (2014); ethnic, national,
and religious discrimination Benner et al.,
(2018); Abrams et al., (2020).
The problems of interethnic tolerance are
comprehended in the works of such Ukrainian
scholars as: T. Atroshchenko (2018), Verbytskyi
(2013), Dichkivska. (2019); Zalanovska (2011);
Kolesnichenko (2022); Skok (2016), Tyshyk
(2013), and others. The issues of multicultural
education, interethnic relations, and tolerance
education were studied by Babchuk (2012);
Hryva (2008); Kapidinova (2015), Yaksa (2010),
and others.
The umbrella term and concept from which
“interethnic tolerance” is derived is, of course,
the multifaceted term “tolerance.” The
etymology of the term “tolerance” comes from
the Latin verb tolero - “to bear,” “to hold,” “to
endure” (Babchuk, 2012). A more complete
definition (although tolerance is here identified
with forbearance), revealing the moral essence of
tolerance (acceptance), is given in the ethics
dictionary: “Tolerance is a moral quality that
describes a patient attitude toward the interests,
beliefs, convictions, and behavioral habits of
other people. It is expressed in the desire to
achieve mutual understanding and agreement
among diverse interests and points of view
without the use of extreme pressure, mainly
through methods of explanation and persuasion.
It is a form of respect for another person,
recognition of his/her right to his/her own beliefs,
to be different from me” (Kon, 1981).
Furthermore, the first manifestations of tolerance
were associated with the regulation of
individuals' belonging to different religious
societies and were a form of religious tolerance.
Modern ideas about tolerance and its recognition
as a factor that strengthens the civilized world
and protects against injustice, were largely
prepared by the activities of philosophers of the
ХVІ-ХVІІ centuries, who rebelled against the
“patience of intolerance” and violent religious
conflicts. The most consistent critic of fanaticism
and defender of tolerance was Voltaire. In his
“Treatise on Tolerance” (Voltaire, 2017), he does
not criticize any particular religion, but shows
how they, merciful in nature, are corroded by
prejudice and intolerance. In his opinion, all
beliefs should have the opportunity for
expression, but “the height of madness is the
belief that all people are obliged to think alike
about abstract things.” The most important result
of the work of philosophers, and especially
Voltaire, was the recognition of tolerance as a
universal value and a key component of peace
and harmony between religions, nations, and
other social groups.
The concept of “tolerance” is undergoing a
certain transformation and rethinking in the
modern scientific literature. For example, the
book by Professor D. Carson, “The intolerance of
tolerance” questions the current understanding of
tolerance (Carson, 2012). The book describes a
huge shift in the way we have come to understand
tolerance in recent years - from protecting the
rights of those who hold different beliefs to
affirming all beliefs as equally valid and correct.
Looking back at the evolution of this shift, the
372
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
author discusses its importance for culture today,
its impact on democracy, and the debate about
good and evil. In doing so, D. Carson proves not
only that the “new tolerance” is socially
dangerous, but also that it actually leads to real
intolerance towards all those who try their best to
defend their beliefs.
Many contemporary scholars try to understand
the essence of true tolerance and interpret it as the
ability to live among ethnocultural differences
that we cannot approve of, or as a “virtue” that
allows us to accept: beliefs that we consider
false; actions that we consider unjust;
institutional mechanisms that we consider cruel
or corrupt; and people who embody what we
oppose (Bowlin, 2017). Other researchers, on the
other hand, provide convincing arguments in
favor of “conditional tolerance,” which requires
us to constantly discuss and reflect on the limits
of what we are willing to tolerate (Nuraan &
Waghid, 2017).
Today, there is a wide range of interpretations of
this term. Tolerance understood as an important
element of the peaceful coexistence of mankind,
is recognized as a humanistic value and a
necessary condition for the social unity of people
of different cultural traditions, beliefs, scientific
and political convictions. Tolerance means
respect, acceptance, and proper understanding of
the entire diversity of cultures, forms of
expression, and manifestations of human
individuality. It is unity in diversity, a quality that
is a humanistic component of a personality and is
determined by his or her value attitude toward
others. It represents an attitude toward a highly
moral type of relationship, which is manifested
in the personal actions of a person (Babchuk et
al., 2023).
The analysis of scientific literature allows us to
consider many factors that influence the
development of interethnic tolerance in a person.
Their components are: education, learning,
cultural, social, and mental features of the region
and ethnicity in which a person, stereotypes, and
religion live and develops.
Thus, E. Bimbaeva presents the main aspects of
the manifestation of internal and external factors
in the formation of interethnic tolerance among
students. The author includes the following
internal factors: “individual features of a
personality (age, gender, level of education,
social status, ethnicity); individual-typological
features of a personality (ethnic self-
identification, type of interethnic behavior,
presence of stable models of perception of
representatives of different ethnic groups as
“close”, “strangers”, “special”)”. The external
factors of interethnic tolerance include the
specifics of the socio-cultural environment, state
policy in the interethnic sphere, the political
situation in the country and the region, the
education system and educational institutions,
and the media (Bimbaeva, 2011).
The study by Abdul Razaq Ahmad, et al (Ahmad
et al., 2018), which aims to study the factors that
contribute to ethnic tolerance among
multinational youth, identified the following four
factors: social environment, social participation,
knowledge, and experience of patriotism. The
researchers define ethnic tolerance as ethnic
relations and unity between a plurality of ethnic
groups that follow different cultures, religions,
and lifestyles that differ from each other, and that
can live together without experiencing prejudice
towards each other.
The development of interethnic tolerance in an
individual is carried out in the process of
multicultural education. It is understood as
education based on two or more cultural
traditions in their dynamic combination and
ensuring the development of students' culture and
themselves as a result of creative intercultural
enrichment (Yaksa, 2010).
A similar view is shared by Per Adman and Lutz
Gschwind (Adman & Gschwind, 2023), who
hypothesize that education can contribute to
ethnic tolerance. They propose a new approach
to help mitigate the risk of social-desirability bias
(SDB) using a multivariate survey experiment
with vignette-sized names. In an experiment with
a well-established survey, the Swedish version of
the European Values Survey, the authors show
that people with high levels of education are
more tolerant of ethnic minorities, even at a
lower risk of SDB.
In our opinion, the most important aspect of the
development of interethnic tolerance is the
personality traits that enhance and facilitate the
manifestation of the phenomenon.
For example, L. Zalanovska, based on a
systematic approach to the study of interethnic
tolerance, concludes that the sources of this
phenomenon can be occurrences at both
individual and group levels. Also, norms, values,
ideas, and patterns of behavior are enshrined in
public opinion. Meanwhile, group and individual
determinants of interethnic intolerance are in
close interaction with the phenomenon of public
opinion. At the individual level, the emergence
Volume 13 - Issue 75
/ March 2024
373
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
of interethnic intolerance occurs primarily as a
result of frustration, which leads to aggression, or
improper upbringing, which forms a set of
psychological properties of a person. At the
group level, the determinants of interethnic
intolerance are negative ethnic identity,
migration, nationalism, and negative
ethnostereotypes (Zalanovska, 2011).
In her study, A. Skok notes that the main
components of interethnic tolerance are cognitive
(a set of knowledge and views about the mental
composition of ethnic groups, ethnic stereotypes,
ethnic conflicts, and national character),
emotional and communicative (external
manifestation of interethnic tolerance; levels of
manifestation - emotionality, ability to
empathize, communicative tolerance) and
personal-communicative (integral property of a
person's integral personality; level of
manifestation - motivational and value - value
orientations, ethnic identity, needs) (Skok, 2016).
Results and Discussion
In light of the above, the correlations between the
indicators of interethnic tolerance and
personality factors, according to R. Cattell were
analyzed. The results of the correlation analysis
are presented in Table 1.
Table 1.
Significant correlation coefficients between indicators of interethnic tolerance and personality factors
Factors of personality (according to R. Cattell)
Indicators of interethnic tolerance
ЕТ
ST
TPT
GIIT
C
175**
138*
172**
H
138*
169**
130*
169**
O
-132*
-125*
-128
1
Q
127*
4
Q
-180**
-128*
-136*
-130*
І
Q
132*
134*
126*
135*
ІІ
Q
-122*
-129*
-181**
-129*
(according to R. Cattell)
Notes: 1) in the table zeros and commas are
omitted; 2) p< 0.01**, p<0.05*;3) indicators of
interethnic tolerance: ET - Ethnic tolerance; ST -
Social tolerance; TPT - Tolerance as a
personality trait; GIIT - general indicator of
interethnic tolerance; 4) indicators of personality
factors: C (self-strength - self-weakness); H
(courage - timidity); O (guilt - self-confidence);
Q1 (radicalism - conservatism); Q2 (self-
sufficiency - dependence on the group); Q4
(frustration - non-frustration); Q І (extraversion -
introversion); Q ІІ (anxiety - emotional stability).
For our study, it is important to know how
certain indicators of interethnic tolerance
correlate with personality factors. These
connections reflect tendencies but also have
certain specifics.
The ET (Ethnic Tolerance) indicator reveals
positive and negative relationships with the
indicators: C+ (self-strength) and Q4- (non-
frustration) - at the level of p≤0.01. This indicator
of ET (emotional tolerance) shows positive
relationships with the indicators: H+ (courage),
Q1 (radicalism), Q І+ (extraversion), negative -
with indicators and Q ІІ - (emotional stability) -
at the level of p≤0.05. The resulting connections
are characterized by emotional maturity, constant
interests (C+), idealism, high creative potential,
a tendency to be enthusiastic, and balanced
(Q4-), responsiveness and impulsivity (H+),
free-thinking, tolerance for inconvenience
(Q1+), maintaining social ties (Q І+), and the
ability to achieve the desired (Q ІІ -).
The indicator ST (Social Tolerance) shows
positive relationships with the indicators, H+
(Courage) - at the level of p≤0.01. Positive
relationships are found with the indicators: Q І+
(extraversion) and negative ones with the
indicators: O- (self-confidence); Q4- (non-
frustration); Q ІІ - (emotional stability) - at the
level of p≤0.05.
Such connections are characterized by the
presence of the following mental characteristics
in a person: impulsiveness and courage,
readiness for cooperation, sensitivity, serenity,
determination (H+), dissatisfaction with what has
been achieved (Q І+), self-confidence, coolness,
insensitivity to the approval or disapproval of
others (O-), relaxation, weakness, indifference,
(Q4-), and restraint and maintenance of social
contacts (Q ІІ -).
The indicator TPT (Tolerance as a personality
trait) revealed a negative connection with the
374
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
indicator Q ІІ - (emotional stability) at the level
of p≤0.01. Positive connections at the level of
p≤0.05 were found with the indicators: С+ (self-
strength), Н+ (courage), Q І + (extraversion), and
negative with the indicators: O- (self-
confidence); Q4- (non-frustration).
Thus, according to our study, such connections
are accompanied by the presence of such
qualities as emotional stability, emotional
resilience, confidence, perseverance, persistence,
serenity, determination, and courage. They are
characterized by the ability to manage the
situation, avoid difficulties, realism about life,
and readiness for the community (H+),
experiencing internal conflict (O-), excessive
satisfaction, and equanimity (Q4-).
The indicator of GIIT (general indicator of
interethnic tolerance) revealed positive
relationships with the indicators: C+ (self-
strength), and H+ (courage) - at the level of
p≤0.01. Positive and negative relationships with
the indicators: Q І+ (extraversion), Q4- (non-
frustration), Q ІІ - (emotional stability) - at the
level of p≤0.05. Such connections demonstrate
emotional maturity, the presence of permanent
interests, the ability to really assess and manage
the situation (C+), being unfavorable to danger,
social courage, friendliness, impulsivity (H+),
maintaining social ties (Q І +), the ability to
achieve the desired (Q ІІ -), balance and apathy
(Q4-).
Overall, the results of our study revealed that the
indicators of interethnic tolerance correlate at a
high level of significance (p ≤ 0.01, p ≤ 0.05)
with the following personality factors: C+ (self-
strength), H+ (courage), Q І + (extraversion),
Q4- (non-frustration), Q ІІ - (emotional stability).
That is, we can assume that all these factors are
inherent in interethnic tolerance.
The next step in the qualitative analysis was to
build and interpret the profiles of personality
traits studied in relation to interethnic tolerance.
The level of tolerance was determined as follows.
First, the “raw” scores obtained on the scales of
the methodology were converted into percentiles.
The range from 0 to 25 was considered the range
of unexpressed values of the indicator
corresponding to manifestations of interethnic
intolerance; from 25 to 50 - the range of weakly
expressed values (low); from 50 to 75 - the range
of sufficiently expressed values; and from 75 to
100 - the range of distinctly manifested values of
interethnic tolerance indicators. Thus, people
with a general indicator of interethnic tolerance
in the range of 0-25 percentiles formed a group
with a low level of interethnic tolerance - GIIT-
(n=15). However, people with a general indicator
whose values are in the range of 75-100
percentiles created a group with a high level of
interethnic tolerance - GIIT+ (n=7).
Curves are built using numerical data represented
in percentiles, bars, etc. Raw scores can also be
used, taking into account the average line of the
range. In each group, arithmetic averages are
calculated for each psychological indicator. This
makes it possible to identify the specifics of the
psychological properties being studied, the
representatives of the selected groups, and to
compare the profiles of these properties among
representatives of different groups. The
psychological interpretation of the profile is
based on the indicators that deviate most from the
average line of the row (Babchuk, 2012).
At this stage of the research, we solve the
problem of studying the factor structure of
personality in individuals with different
manifestations of interethnic tolerance. This
makes it possible to draw up a psychological
characterization of a person depending on his or
her level of interethnic tolerance.
Pic. 1 shows the profiles of personality factors in
individuals with high and low levels of
interethnic tolerance. The abscissa axis indicates
the factors, and the ordinate axis shows the
degree of their expression in the bars. The middle
line of the row passes through the point at 5.5
bars.
Volume 13 - Issue 75
/ March 2024
375
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Pic. 1. Factor structure of personality in people with different levels of general interethnic tolerance.
To compile a psychological characterization of
people with different manifestations of
interethnic tolerance, we will determine by
ranking the factors that most clearly differ from
the average values (see Table 2).
Table 2.
Ranking of personality factors according to Cattell in groups with high and low levels of interethnic
tolerance (GIIT+ and GIIT-)
Rank
Levels of interethnic tolerance
High level (GIIT+)
Low level (GIIT-)
1
Affectothymia
+
А
Sensitivity
+
І
2
Safety
+
F
Perceptiveness
+
N
3
The power of the “Upward Self”
+
G
Conservatism
−
1
Q
4
Social bravery
+
Н
Humility
−
Е
5
М- Practicality
6
control-High self
+
3
Q
Consequently, people with a high general level of
interethnic tolerance (GIIT+) are inherent in the
diversity and brightness of emotional
manifestations, naturalness, and ease of
behavior, willingness to cooperate, sensitive,
attentive attitude toward people, kindness, and
cordiality. Individuals with values in the A+
category get along well in a team, are active in
establishing contacts, and enjoy working with
people and participating in social events.
High scores on the F+ factor is typical for people
who are cheerful, active, carefree, and easy-
going. They live their lives without thinking
seriously about what is happening, have an
easygoing attitude to life, believe in luck and
their talent, do not worry about the future, and
build their lives on the rule of “maybe it will
work out.” Studies show that these people have a
simpler, more optimistic character, or their
carefree attitude toward life arises from a lower
level of aspirations.
At the pole of high values of the G+ factor are
such traits as responsibility, discipline,
conscientiousness, and the stability of moral
principles. These people are deeply decent, not
because it is beneficial to behave in this way in
certain circumstances, but because they cannot
behave differently according to their beliefs.
They are precise and thorough in their dealings,
like order in everything, do not break the rules,
and follow them even when the rules seem to be
an empty formality. High integrity and
conscientiousness are usually combined with
good self-control and the desire to promote
universal values, sometimes in spite of their own
selfish goals.
A C E F G H I L M N O Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 QI QII QIII QIV
GIIT+ 7,1 4,1 4,7 6 6,7 6,4 4,2 5 3,6 4,4 4,8 6,1 4,1 7 5,1 5,8 4,8 5,3 3,3
GIIT- 4,3 5,2 3,2 4,6 5,1 4,9 5,9 5,3 4,5 6,2 4,8 3,9 4,6 6,1 5,2 4,6 4,9 5,1 3,5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
376
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
High scores indicate immunity to danger,
courage, risk-taking, and keen senses.
Examinations of people with H+ show that they
freely establish contacts, do not experience
difficulties in communication, speak willingly
and a lot, do not get confused when faced with
unforeseen circumstances, and forget about
failures quickly. They also do not draw proper
conclusions from the punishments they have
experienced. In group activities, people with H+
are often chosen as leaders, especially if the
activity involves rivalry, competition, or risk.
Apparently, this factor is important for success in
those activities where it is necessary to be able to
counteract fatigue when working with people and
withstand emotional stress. There is
experimental evidence that people with H+ have
more frequent blood pressure elevations and are
more likely to suffer from cardiovascular disease,
which is explained by their greater emotional
activity.
Low scores on the M- factor are inherent in
people who are mature, balanced, sensible, well
versed in vital things, and soberly assess
circumstances and people. However, in
unexpected situations, they often lack
imagination and ingenuity.
High scores indicate organization and the ability
to control emotions and behavior. A person with
Q3+ acts in a systematic and measured manner,
overcomes obstacles with perseverance, does not
take on several tasks at once, and completes the
work he or she has started. He or she is well
aware of social requirements, tries to fulfill them
carefully, and cares about the impression they
make with their behavior and their public
reputation. Reliable leaders score highly on this
factor.
People with a low general level of interethnic
tolerance (GIIT-) are characterized by pretense,
prudence, perceptiveness, the ability to behave
coldly and rationally, not to respond to emotional
impulses, and to see logic behind feelings. They
always behave in a correct, polite and detached
manner, approach everything in a rational and
unsentimental way, assess possible chances with
cold analytical skills before doing anything,
cunningly and skillfully build their behavior, are
skeptical to slogans and appeals, and are prone to
intrigue and sophisticated cunning.
A high score on the I+ factor is an indicator of
softness, sophistication, imaginative, and artistic
perception of the world. Appearance, style of
behavior - everything indicates a refined taste,
sophistication, and subtlety of vision. Such
individuals do not like “rude people” and “rough
work”; they are romantically inclined to travel
and new experiences, have developed
imagination and aesthetic taste, and artistic
works have a greater impact on their lives than
real events.
Low scores on factor Q1 are typical of
conservative, rigid people who do not like
change. These are people with stable views. They
meet everything new with caution, even hostility.
It seems absurd to them, they do not allow for a
different point of view, they are prone to
preaching, moralizing, and giving advice. They
believe that all shortcomings will be overcome if
they strictly follow all the requirements of older
and more experienced people. Their own
initiative and ingenuity can only destroy
everything that is already well organized. All
harm, in their opinion, comes from people who
violate principles and traditions and do not want
to accept the experiences of older generations.
People with a low score on the E-factor behave
as obedient, conformist, unable to defend their
point of view, obey the stronger, voluntarily give
up their own interests and do not believe in
themselves and their abilities. They often find
themselves dependent on others, take the blame,
and humbly submit to all responsibilities. Such
passivity is part of many neurotic conditions.
Low dominance is positively related to academic
performance in all age groups.
Thus, it can be noted that the psychological
characteristics obtained by us of persons with a
high level of interethnic tolerance indicate that
they have the qualities of warmth and courage
described above. These qualities are also
confirmed by literature data (Zalanovska, 2011;
Bimbaeva, 2011). And representatives of the
group with a low level of interethnic tolerance
are characterized by restlessness and a certain
limitation. Excessive attention to details also
does not contradict the overall picture of
personality traits, but on the contrary, it is
combined with their inability to deviate from a
certain order of things, which is a sign of
categoricalness. In the literature, it is indicated
that the simultaneous expression of all the
obtained factors testifies to the independence of
the individual, his criticality, originality
(Babchuk, 2012; Skok, 2016).
Conclusions
1. An empirical study of the psychological
characteristics of people with different
levels of interethnic tolerance allowed us to
Volume 13 - Issue 75
/ March 2024
377
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
consider interethnic tolerance as an integral
property of a person's integral individuality
in the unity of his personal, subject and
individual properties.
2. Correlation analysis suggests that the
expression of interethnic tolerance is
accompanied by such qualities as emotional
stability and maturity, realism, confidence,
perseverance, persistence, readiness for
cooperation, courage, sensitivity, serenity,
determination, unconstrained, balanced,
indifference, ability to establish and
maintain social contacts, stability,
cheerfulness, determination, and
entrepreneurship.
3. Qualitative analysis made it possible to
single out persons with different levels of
interethnic tolerance and provide them with
a psychological characteristic. So, an
empirical study of the psychological
characteristics of people with different
general levels of interethnic tolerance
showed that the expressiveness of this
multicomponent property determines the
overall picture of personality traits, since its
various components are closely related to the
peculiarities of temperament and character.
The development of a training program on
the formation of interethnic tolerance of
future specialists can be a perspective of the
research.
Bibliographic References
Adman, P., & Gschwind, L. (2023) Is the
Positive Effect of Education on Ethnic
Tolerance a Method Artifact? A
Multifactorial Survey Experiment on Social
Desirability Bias in Sweden. International
Journal of Public Opinion Research, 35, 1-6.
URL: https://acortar.link/RRzIaO
Abrams, J. A., Tabaac, A., Jung, S., &
Else-Quest, N. M. (2020). Considerations for
employing intersectionality in qualitative
health research. Social science &
medicine, 258, 113138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.11
3138
Ahmad, A. R., Rahman, A. A. A., Awang, M. M.,
& Chew, F. P. (2018). Influencing factors
of ethnic tolerance among multiethnic
youths. Issues and Trends in
Interdisciplinary Behavior and Social
Science: Proceedings of the 6th
International Congress on
Interdisciplinary Behavior and Social
Sciences, July 22-23, Bali, Indonesia: CRC
Press, 8 р. URL https://acortar.link/SvPTUU
Atroshchenko, T. O. (2018). Formation of
interethnic tolerance of future primary school
teachers in the process of practical training.
Scientific Bulletin of Uzhhorod University.
Series: Pedagogy. Social work, 2, 18-24.
http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Nvuuped_2018_2_
5
Babchuk, O.G. (2012). Peculiarities of tolerance
of persons with different types of
emotionality. (Candidate's thesis). psychol.
Sciences: 19.00.01/ Govt. closing "Southern
Ukraine national ped. University named after
K. D. Ushinsky", Odesa, 221 p.
http://dspace.pdpu.edu.ua/handle/123456789
/1580?locale=uk
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. (WOS)
https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.72.12.23
Benner, A. D., Shen, Y., Wang, Y., Boyle A. E.,
Polk, R., & Cheng, Y.P. (2018). Racial /
Ethnic Discrimination and Well-Being
During Adolescence: A Meta-Analytic
Review. American Psychological
Association. American Psychologist, 73(7),
855-883
https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/a
mp-amp0000204.pdf
Bimbaeva, E.V. (2011). Interethnic tolerance of
modern students: (on the example of The
Republic of Buryatia). (Extended abstract of
candidate's thesis) Buryat State University,
Ulan-Ude, 23 p. https://acortar.link/PxbVIP
Bowlin, J. R. (2017). Tolerance among the
Virtues. Princeton University Press
Hardcover – September 6, 280 р.
https://acortar.link/FsSI9f
Carbado, D. W., Crenshaw, K. W., Mays, V. M.,
& Tomlinson, B. (2014). Intersectionality:
Mapping the Movements of a Theory. Du
Bois review: social science research on
race, 10(2), 303-312. (in English) URL:
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X1300034
9
Carens, J. H. (1999). A Reply to Meilaender:
Reconsidering Open Borders. The International
Migration Review, 33(4), 1082-1097.
https://acortar.link/6fysnz
Carson, D. A. (2012). The Intolerance of
Tolerance. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing,
186 p. URL:
https://www.perlego.com/book/3165463/the-
intolerance-of-tolerance-pdf
Cattell, H. E. P., & Mead, A. D. (2008). The
Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire
(16PF). In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, &
378
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook
of personality theory and assessment, Vol. 2.
Personality measurement and testin,
135-159.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200479.n7
Dichkivska, I. (2019). Formation of international
tolerance my buttens in preschool education
in the process of professional training.
Scientific notes BDPU. Series: Pedagogical
sciences, V. 2. Berdyansk: BDPU, 189-197
DOI: 10.31494/2412-9208-2019-1-2-189-
197
Hogarth, K., & Fletcher, W. L. (2018). A Space
for Race: Decoding Racism,
Multiculturalism, and Post-Colonialism in
the Quest for Belonging in Canada and
Beyond. Oxford University Press, 141 р.
URL: https://acortar.link/MSn5Up
Hryva, O.A. (2008). Tolerance in the process of
formation of young people in the conditions
of a multicultural environment (Doctoral
thesis). National Pedagogical University
named after M. P. Dragomanov, Kyiv, 275 р.
https://acortar.link/HBtlio
Kafka, J. (2011). The History of “Zero
Tolerance” in American Public Schooling
(Palgrave Studies in Urban Education). New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 181 p. URL:
https://acortar.link/kpm4sT
Kapidinova, S. B. (2015). Tolerance as a factor
in the development of the culture of
interethnic relations of students (Extended
abstract of candidate's thesis). National
Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Kyiv, 18 р.
URL: http://www.irbis-
nbuv.gov.ua/publ/REF-0000602889
Kivisto, P., & Ng, W. (2005). Americans All.
Race and Ethnic Relations in Historical,
Structural, and Comparative Perspectives.
Second Edition. New York: Oxford
University Press, 430 p. URL:
https://global.oup.com/ushe/product/america
ns-all-9780195330533?cc=ua&lang=en&
Kolesnichenko, M. V. (2022). Interethnic
tolerance as a factor of social cohesion in an
ethnicly diversified society. Cultural
Almanac, (4), 99-110.
https://doi.org/10.31392/cult.alm.2022.4.12
Kon, I.S. (1981). Dictionary of ethics. 4th ed. M.:
Politizdat, 430 p. URL:
https://acortar.link/4edUtO
Mason, D. (2000). Race and Ethnicity in Modern
Britain. 2nd edn, Oxford, Publisher: Oxford
University Press, 176 p. URL:
https://acortar.link/FKgRvy
Nuraan, D., & Yusef, W. (2017). Tolerance and
Dissent within Education: On Cultivating
Debate and Understanding. Palgrave
Macmillan. 203 р. URL:
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-
3-319-58109-5
Skok, A.G. (2016). Peculiarities of ethnic
tolerance of young people. Actual problems
of psychology, 7(42), 194-201
http://appsychology.org.ua/data/jrn/v7/i42/2
2.pdf
Sergienko, N.P., & Shevchenko, O.V. (2018).
Peculiarities of interethnic tolerance and
communicative competence of students in the
process of educational activities. Modern
problems of legal, economic and social
development of the state, Kharkiv, 345-347
https://univd.edu.ua/general/publishing/konf/
30_11_2018/pdf/175.pdf
Soldatova, G.U., Shaigerova, L.A.,
Prokofieva, T.Yu., & Kravtsova, O.A. (2008)
Psychodiagnostics of personality tolerance:
practical work: allowance. Moscow: Smysl,
172 p. (in Russia)
Tyshyk, I. (2013). Interethnic tolerance as a
component of personality formation of the
future history teacher. Pedagogical
education: theory and practice, 14, 140-145.
http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/znppo_2013_14_2
8
Verbytskyi, O. V. (2013). The structure and
content of the concept of "interethnic
tolerance". Theoretical and methodological
problems of raising children and school
youth, 17(1), 137-146.
http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Tmpvd_2013_17
%281%29__17
Voltaire, F-M. A. (1763). Treatise on Tolerance,
1763, to the Marquis de Girard by Voltaire.
M.DCC. LXIII. https://documents.univ-
toulouse.fr/150NDG/PPN075853078.pdf
Wallis, M. A., & Fleras, A. (2009). The Politics
of Race in Canada : Readings in Historical
Perspectives, Contemporary Realities, and
Future Possibilities. Don Mills, Ont: Oxford
University Press, 296 р. (in English) URL:
https://acortar.link/hKHpzJ
Yaksa, N.V. (2010). The teacher as a subject of a
multicultural environment. Bulletin of
Zhytomyr Ivan Franko State University, 50,
64-67. URL: http://eprints.zu.edu.ua/4254/
Yevtukh, V. B. (2012). Ethnicity: an
encyclopedic guide. National ped.
M. P. Drahomanov University, Center for
Ethnoglobal Studies. Kyiv: Phoenix, 396 p.
https://archive.org/details/etnichnist2012
Zalanovska, L.I. (2011). Problems of formation
of interethnic tolerance. Theory and practice
of modern psychology, 3, 49-53 http://tpsp-
journal.kpu.zp.ua/archive/3_2011/11.pdf