The interactive party of dialogue is the conditional term designating the characteristic of those components of dialogue which are connected with interaction of people, with the direct organization of their joint activity. Research of a problem of interaction has old tradition in social psychology. It is intuitively easy to admit doubtless communication which exists between dialogue and interaction of people, however it is difficult to dissolve these concepts and by that to make experiments more precisely focused. A part of authors dialogue and interaction, interpreting both simply identify that and another as the communications in the narrow sense of the word (i.e. as information interchange), others consider attitudes between interaction and dialogue as the attitude of the form of some process and its maintenance. Sometimes prefer to speak about connected, but nevertheless independent existence of dialogue as communications and interactions as interaktsii. Part of these different interpretations porozhdena terminological difficulties, in particular that the concept "dialogue" is used that in narrow in the broad sense of the word. If to adhere to the structure of dialogue of the scheme offered at the characteristic, i.e. to believe, that dialogue in the broad sense of the word (as a reality of interpersonal and public attitudes) includes the communications in the narrow sense of the word (as information interchange) it is logical to admit such interpretation of interaction when it appears as another - in comparison with communicative - the party of dialogue. What "another" - on this question still it is necessary to answer.
If communicative process is born on the basis of some joint activity the exchange of knowledge and ideas in occasion of this activity inevitably assumes, that the reached mutual understanding is realized in new joint attempts to develop further activity, to organize it. Participation simultaneously in this activity means many people, that everyone should bring the special contribution to it, as allows to interpret interaction as the organization of joint activity.
During it for participants extremely important not only to communicate, but also to organize " an exchange of actions ", to plan the general activity. At this planning such regulation of actions of one individual " the plans which have ripened in a head another " (Lomov, 1975 is possible. With. 132) which does activity really joint when as its carrier not so separate individual will act, and group. Thus, on a question on what "other" party of dialogue reveals concept "interaction", it is possible to answer now: that party which fixes not only information interchange, but also the organization of the joint actions allowing partners to realize some general for them activity. Such decision of a question excludes otryv interactions from the communications, but excludes also their identification: The communications will be organized during joint activity, "in occasion of" it, and in this process it is necessary for people to exchange both the information, and the activity, i.e. to develop forms and norms of joint actions.
In history of social psychology there were some attempts to describe structure of interactions. So, for example, the big distribution was received with the so-called theory of action, or the theory of social action in which in various variants the description of the individual certificate of action was offered. To this idea sociologists addressed also: (M.Veber, P.Sorokin, T.Parsons) and social psychologists. All was fixed with some components of interaction: people, their communication, influence against each other and, as consequence of it, their changes. The problem was always formulated as search of dominating factors of motivation of actions in interaction.
Example of how this idea was realized, T.Parsonsa's theory in which attempt to plan the general kategorialnyj the device for the description of structure of social action has been undertaken can serve. In a basis of social activity interpersonal interactions lay, on them human activity in its wide display, it - result of individual actions is under construction. Individual action is some elementary certificate; of them subsequently there are systems of actions. Each certificate undertakes in itself, separately, from the point of view of the abstract scheme as which elements act: the figure, "another" (object on which action is directed); norms (on which interaction will be organized), values (which each participant accepts), a situation (in which action is made). The figure motivirovan that its action is directed on realization of its installations (needs). Concerning "another" the figure develops system of orientation and expectations which are certain both aspiration to achievement of the purpose, and the account of probable reactions of another. Can be allocated five pairs such orientations which give classification of possible kinds of interactions. It is supposed, that by means of these five pairs it is possible to describe all kinds of human activity.
This attempt has appeared unsuccessful: the scheme of action opening its "anatomy", was so abstract, that any value for the empirical analysis of various kinds of actions had no. Insolvent it has appeared and for experimental practice: on the basis of this theoretical scheme it has been carried out the unique research by the founder of the concept. Methodologicalally incorrect the principle - allocation of some abstract elements of structure of individual action here was. At such approach in general it is impossible to seize the substantial party of actions for it is set by the maintenance of social activity as a whole. Therefore it is more logical to begin with the characteristic of social activity, and from it to go to structure of separate individual actions, i.e. in an opposite direction (see, for example: Leontev, 1972). The direction offered by Parsons, inevitably leads to loss of a social context, as in it all riches of social activity (differently, all set of public attitudes) are deduced from psychology of the individual.
Other attempt to construct structure of interaction is connected with the description of steps of its development. Thus interaction is dismembered not on elementary certificates, and at a stage which it passes. Such approach is offered, in particular, by Polish sociologist J.ShChepanskim. For SHCHepanskogo the central concept at the description of social behaviour is the concept of social communication. It can be presented as consecutive realization: spatial contact, mental contact (on SHCHepanskomu, it it is mutual interest), social contact (here it is joint activity), interactions (that regular, constant realization of the actions is defined, how ", having for an object to cause corresponding reaction from the partner... "), at last,) the social attitude (mutually interfaced systems of actions) (SHCHepansky, 1969. With. 84). Though all told concerns to the characteristic of " social communication ", its such kind as "interaction", it is presented most full. Forming in a number of the steps previous interaction, is not too strict: spatial and mental contacts in this scheme represent itself as preconditions of the individual certificate of interaction and consequently the scheme does not remove errors of previous attempt. But inclusion in number of preconditions of interaction of " social contact ", understood as joint activity, in many respects changes a picture: if interaction arises as realization of joint activity the road to studying its substantial party remains opened. Enough to the described scheme the scheme offered in domestic social psychology of V.N.Panferov (Panferov, 1989) is close.
At last, one more approach to the structural description of interaction is presented in tranzaktsionnom the analysis - a direction offering regulation of actions of participants of interaction through regulation of their positions, and also the account of character of situations and style of interaction (Bern, 1988). From the point of view of tranzaktsionnogo the analysis each participant of interaction basically can borrow one of three positions which can be designated as the Parent, Adult, the Child. These positions are not connected at all necessarily with a corresponding social role: it only cleanly psychological description of the certain strategy in interaction (the position of the Child can be certain as a position " I Want! ", a position of the Parent as " It is necessary! ", A position of the Adult - association I "Want" and It "is necessary"). Interaction is effective when transactions have "additional" character, i.e. coincide: if the partner addresses to another as the Adult also that answers from the same position. If one of participants of interaction is addressed to another from a position of the Adult, and that answers it from a position of the Parent interaction is broken and can stop in general. In this case transactions are "crossed". The everyday example is resulted in the following scheme (fig. 8).
Distribution of positions in interaction (tranzaktsionnyj the analysis)
The wife addresses to the husband with the information: " I have cut a finger " (the appeal to the Adult from a position of the Adult). If it answers: " Now we shall tie up " it is the answer also from a position of the Adult (I). If the maxim follows: " something is eternal at you happens " it is the answer from a position of the Parent (II), and in case of: " That I now should do? ", the position of the Child (III) is shown. In two last cases efficiency of interaction is insignificant (Krizhanskaja, Tretjakov, 1990). The similar approach is offered also to P.N.Ershovym who, designating positions, speaks about possible " to an extension from above " and " to an extension from below " (Ershov, 1972).
The second parameter of efficiency - adequate understanding of a situation (as well as in case of information interchange) and adequate style of action in it. In social psychology there are many classifications of situations of interaction. The classification offered in domestic social psychology of A.A.Leontevym (the socially-focused, subject-oriented and личностно-focused situations) was already mentioned. Other examples are resulted by M.Argajlom and E.Bernom. Argajl names official social events, casual incidental meetings, formal contacts on work and in a life, asymmetric situations (in training, a management and so forth). E.Bern pays special attention to various rituals, poluritualam (taking place in entertainments) and to games (understood rather widely, including intimate, politics tricks, etc.) (Bern, 1988).
Each situation dictates the style of behaviour and actions: in each of them the person differently "submits" itself and if this self-submission is not adequate, interaction is complicated. If style is generated on the basis of actions in any concrete situation, and then mechanically transferred on other situation, that, naturally, the success cannot be guaranteed. Distinguish three basic styles of actions: ritual, manipuljativnyj and humanistic. On an example of use of ritual style it is especially easy to show necessity of correlation of style with a situation. Ritual style is usually set by some culture. For example, style of greetings, the questions set at a meeting, character of expected answers. So, in the American culture it is accepted on a question: " What's up? "To answer" It is beauty! ", business as though were actually. For our culture it is peculiar to answer "in essence", besides to not hesitate of negative characteristics of own life (" Oh, lives are not present, the prices grow, transport does not work ", etc.). The person who has got used to other ritual, having received such answer, will be puzzled how to cooperate further. As to use manipuljativnogo or humanistic style of interaction it is a separate greater problem, especially in practical social psychology (Peter, 1983).
It is important to draw the general conclusion that a partition of the uniform certificate of interaction on such components as positions of participants, the situation and style of actions, also promotes more careful psychological analysis of this party of dialogue, doing the certain attempt to connect it with the maintenance of activity.
There is one more descriptive approach at the analysis of interaction - construction of classifications of its various kinds. Intuitively clearly, that practically people enter infinite quantity of various kinds of interaction. For experimental researches it is the extremely important to designate at least some basic types of these interactions. The most widespread is dichotomizing division of all possible kinds of interactions into two opposite kinds: cooperation and a competition. Different authors designate these two basic kinds various terms. Except for cooperation and a competition, speak about the consent and the conflict, the adaptation and opposition, association and dissotsiatsii, etc. Behind all these concepts the principle of allocation of various kinds of interaction is clearly visible. In the first case its such displays which organizations of joint activity promote are analyzed, are "positive" from this point of view. In the second group the interactions anyhow "loosening" joint activity, obstacles representing certain sort for it get.
Cooperation, or cooperative interaction, means coordination of individual forces of participants (ordering, a combination, summation of these forces). Cooperation - a necessary element of joint activity, porozhdennyj its special nature. A.N.Leontev named two basic features of joint activity: division of uniform process of activity between participants; change of activity of everyone since the result of activity of everyone does not lead to satisfaction of its need, that on obshchepsihologicheskom language means, that "subject" and "motive" of activity do not coincide (Leontev, 1972. With. 270-271).
In what image the direct result of activity of each participant incorporates to an end result of joint activity? Means of such connection are the attitudes which have developed during joint activity which are realized first of all in cooperation. The important parameter of "narrowness" of cooperative interaction is the inclusiveness in it all participants of process. Therefore experimental researches of cooperation deal with the analysis of contributions of participants of interaction and a degree of their inclusiveness in it more often.
As to other type of interactions - a competition here more often the analysis is concentrated on its brightest form, namely on the conflict. At studying the conflict by social psychology definition of own corner of sight in this problem as conflicts act as an object of research and in a number of other disciplines first of all is necessary: sociology, political science and so forth
The social psychology concentrates the attention on two questions: on the one hand, on the analysis of secondary socially-psychological aspects in each conflict (for example, comprehension of the conflict by its participants); with another - on allocation of a private class of the conflicts generated by specific social factors-psychological. Both these problems can be successfully solved only at presence of the adequate conceptual scheme of research. It should capture at least four basic characteristics of the conflict: structure, dynamics, function and typology of the conflict (Peter, 1977. With. 128).
The structure of the conflict is described differently by different authors, but basic elements practically are accepted by all. It is a disputed situation, positions of participants (opponents), object, "incident" (the starting mechanism), development and the resolution of conflict. These elements behave variously depending on type of the conflict. Ordinary representation that any conflict necessarily has negative value, is denied by a number of special researches. So, in M.Dojcha's works, one of the most visible theorists of the conflict, two versions of conflicts refer to: destructive and productive.
Definition of the destructive conflict in a greater degree coincides with ordinary representation. Such type the conflict conducts to a mismatch of interaction, to its shaking. The destructive conflict becomes more often not dependent on the reason, its generated, and leads to transition " on the person " is easier, than and generates stresses. For it specific development, namely expansion of quantity of the involved participants, their disputed actions, multiplication of quantity of negative installations to address of each other and acuteness of statements ("expansion" of the conflict) is characteristic. Other feature - "escalation" of the conflict means escalating intensity, inclusion of the increasing number false vosprijaty both features and qualities of the opponent, and situations of interaction, growth of bias against the partner. It is clear, that the sanction of such type of the conflict especially difficultly, basic way of the sanction - the compromise - here is realized with greater difficulties.
The productive conflict arises in that case when collision concerns not to incompatibility of persons, and porozhdeno distinction of the points of view on any problem, for ways of its decision is more often. In that case the conflict promotes formation of more all-round understanding of a problem, and also motivation of the partner protecting other point of view - it becomes more "legitimate". The fact of other argument, a recognition of its legality promotes development of elements of cooperative interaction inside of the conflict and by that opens opportunities of its regulation and the sanction, so, and findings of the optimum decision of a discussed problem.
Representation about two possible versions of disputed interaction gives the basis for discussion of the major general-theoretical problem of the conflict: to understanding of its nature as psychological phenomenon. Really: whether there is a conflict only the form of psychological antagonism (i.e. predstavlennosti contradictions in consciousness) or it is obligatory presence of disputed actions (Kudryavtsev, 1991. With. 37). The detailed description of various conflicts in their complexity and variety allows to draw a conclusion that both named components are obligatory attributes of the conflict.
The problem of research of the conflict has many practical appendices by way of development of various forms of the attitude to it (the resolution of conflict, prevention of the conflict, its preventive maintenance, easing, etc.) and first of all in situations of business dialogue: for example in manufacture (Borodkin, Karjak, 1983).
At the analysis of various types of interaction the problem of the maintenance of activity within the limits of which those or other kinds of interaction are given is essentially important. So it is possible to ascertain the cooperative form of interaction not only in conditions of manufacture, but, for example, and at realization any asotsialnyh, illegal acts - a joint robbery, theft, etc. Therefore cooperation in socially-negative activity it is not obligatory that form with which it is necessary to stimulate: on the contrary, activity, disputed in conditions asotsialnoj activity, can be estimated positively. Cooperation and a competition only forms of " psychological figure " interactions, the maintenance both in that and in other case is set by wider system of activity where cooperation or a competition are included. Therefore at research both cooperative, and competitive forms of interaction is inadmissible to consider both of them outside of the general context of activity.
Allocation of two polar types of interaction plays the certain positive role in the analysis of the interactive party of dialogue. However only such dichotomizing consideration of kinds of interaction appears insufficient for experimental practice. Therefore in social psychology there are searches and other sort - to allocate "fineer" types of interaction which could be used in experiment as an observation unit. One of the most known attempts such belongs to R.Bejlsu who has developed the scheme allowing on a coherent plan to register various kinds of interaction in group. Bejls fixed by means of a method of supervision those real displays of interactions which could be seen in group of children who are carrying out some joint activity. The initial list of such kinds of interactions has appeared rather extensive (totaled about 82 names) and consequently was unsuitable for construction of experiment. Bejls has reduced observable samples of interactions in a category, having assumed, that basically each group activity can be described by means of four categories in which its displays are fixed: area of positive emotions, area of negative emotions, area of the decision of problems and area of statement of these problems. Then all the fixed kinds of interactions have been carried on four headings:
Emotions 1) solidarity
2) removal of a pressure
3) the consent
Problems 4) the offer, the instruction
6) orientation of others
Problems 7) the request for the information
8) the request to express opinion
9) the request for the instruction
Emotions 10) disagreement
11) creation of intensity
12) demonstration of antagonism
The turned out 12 kinds of interaction have been left Bejlsom, on the one hand, as that minimum which is necessary for the account of all possible kinds of interaction; on the other hand, as that maximum which is admissible in experiment.
Scheme Bejlsa has received enough wide circulation, despite of a number of the essential critical remarks stated in its address. The bare objection consists that any logic substantiation of existence of twelve possible kinds is not resulted, similarly as well as definitions of four (instead of three, five, etc.) categories. There is a natural question: why these twelve characteristics settle all possible kinds interaktsy? The Second objection concerns that in the offered list of interactions there is no uniform basis on which they would be allocated: in the list are present alternately as cleanly communicative displays of individuals (for example, the statement of opinion), and their direct displays at "actions" (for example, pushing away of another at performance of any action, etc.) . The main argument, not allowing to give to this scheme too great value, consists that in it the characteristic of the maintenance of the general group activity is completely lowered, i.e. only formal moments of interaction are seized.
Here we again collide with a sharp methodological question on, whether the technique of socially-psychological research can fix basically the substantial party of activity?
In traditional approaches the negative answer is meant. Moreover, in a sense this inability is considered as distinctive feature of social psychology, i.e. joins in definition of a subject of this discipline which, according to such point of view, and should investigate only forms of interactions, answer a question " As? ", but not on a question " That? " It is done in common. Otryv from the maintenance of activity receives here the legalization. All the techniques constructed on the basis of such initial positions, inevitably will appeal only to formal aspect of interactions. At absence of other techniques in the certain borders they can, naturally, to be used, but is necessary to remember, that all of them data only concerning one component of interaction - deliver its forms.
Difficulty of fixing in experiment of the substantial party of interaction has generated in history of social psychology the tendency to simplify a situation of the analysis and to address mainly to research of interaction in a diad, i.e. to interaction only two people. The such researches spent within the limits of the theory " diadicheskogo interactions ", show one more example of that, how much even the most careful studying of the form of process gives for understanding of its essence a little. At studying " diadicheskogo interactions ", and it is the most detailed is investigated by American social psychologists Dzh. Tibo and G.Kelli, is used offered on the basis of the mathematical theory of games " a dilemma of the prisoner " (Andreeva, Bogomolova, Peter, 1978). In experiment some diad is set: two prisoners who are being an imprisonment and deprived opportunities to communicate. The matrix in which possible strategy of their interaction on interrogation when everyone will answer are fixed is under construction, not knowing precisely as another behaves. If to accept two extreme opportunities of their behaviour: " soznatsja "and" not soznatsja ", basically, everyone has this alternative. However the result will be distinguished depending on what of variants of the answer will select everyone. There can be four situations of combinations of various strategy of "prisoners": both confess; the first confesses, the second does not confess; the second confesses, and the first - is not present; both do not confess. The matrix fixes these four possible combinations. Thus the prize which will turn out at various combinations of these strategy for each "player" pays off. This prize also is "outcome" in each model of a game situation. Application in this case some positions of the theory of games creates tempting prospect not only descriptions, but also the forecast of behaviour of each participant of interaction.
However now there are numerous restrictions which are entailed with application of this technique to the analysis of real situations of human interaction. First of all, as is known, in the theory of games games of two types are considered: with the zero sum and with the nonzero sum. The first case assumes, that the prize of one is precisely equal such game to loss of another, i.e. a situation extremely seldom meeting in real interaction even of two participants.
As if to games with the nonzero sum which analogues it is possible to find much more in real displays of human interaction their device is much more complex also a degree of formalization much less. Not casually, that their use in socially-psychological works meets seldom enough. The applied device of games with the zero sum leads to extreme pauperization of specificity of socially-psychological interaction of people. In numerous situations of interaction by development of strategy of the behaviour people extremely seldom assimilate to prisoners from a dilemma. Certainly, it is impossible to give up to this technique that by way of the formal analysis of strategy of interaction it gives the certain material, anyway allows to ascertain various ways of construction of such strategy. It the opportunity of application of a technique in some special researches also speaks.
The approach to interaction in the concept " symbolical interaktsionizma "
Importance of the interactive party of dialogue has caused that fact, that in history of social psychology there was a special direction which considers interaction by a starting point of any socially-psychological analysis. This direction is connected with G.Mida's name which has given a direction and a name - " symbolical interaktsionizm ". Finding out the social nature human "I", Mid after V.Dzhemsom have come to conclusion, that in becoming it "I" the main role plays interaction. Mid I used also C.Kuli's idea about so-called " mirror " where the person is understood as the sum of mental reactions of the person on opinions of associates. However at Mida the question is solved much more difficultly. Becoming "I" occurs really in situations of interaction, but not because people are simple reactions to opinions of others that is why, that in these situations the person is formed, in them it realizes herself, not simply being looked in others, but operating together with them. Model of such situations is game which at Mida acts in two forms: play and game. In game the person chooses for itself so-called significant another and is guided by how it is perceived by it " significant another ". According to it at the person representation about itself, about the "I" is formed also. After V.Dzhemsom Mid divides it "I" into two beginnings (here for the lack of adequate Russian terms we keep their English name), "I" and "me." "I" is impulsive creative party " I ", the direct answer to the requirement of a situation; " me " is a reflection "I", some kind of the norm supervising actions "I" on behalf of others, this mastering by the person of attitudes which develop in a situation of interaction and which demand soobrazovyvatsja with them. The constant reflection " I "by means of" me " is necessary for the mature person for it promotes adequate perception the person of and own actions.
Thus, the central idea interaktsionistskoj concepts consists that the person is formed in interaction with other persons, and the mechanism of this process is the establishment of the control of actions of the person those representations about it which develop at associates. Despite of importance of statement of such problem, in theory Mida essential miscalculations contain. The main things from them are two. First, the great value is disproportionate is given in this concept of a role of symbols. All outline of interaction depicted above is determined by system of symbols, i.e. the behaviour of the person in situations of interaction finally is caused by symbolical interpretation of these situations. The person appears as an essence living in the world of symbols, included in sign situations. And though to a certain extent with this statement it is possible to agree, as in the certain measure the society really adjusts actions of persons by means of symbols, excessive categoriality Mida leads to that all set of social attitudes, cultures - all is reduced only to symbols. Also the second important miscalculation of the concept symbolical interaktsionizma from here follows - the interactive aspect of dialogue here again comes off the maintenance of activity owing to what all riches of macrosocial attitudes of the person are in essence ignored. Unique "representative" of social attitudes there are only attitudes of direct interaction. As the symbol remains to "last" social determinantoj interactions, for the analysis there is sufficient only a description of the given field of interactions without attraction of wide social communications within the limits of which the given certificate of interaction takes place. There is known "short circuit" of interaction on the set group. Certainly, and such aspect of the analysis is possible - and for social psychology even is tempting, but it is obviously insufficient.
Nevertheless symbolical interaktsionizm many other things theoretical is sharper than orientation of social psychology has raised the question about social determinants of interaction, about its role for formation of the person. Weakness of the concept that it in essence does not distinguish in dialogue of two such parties as information interchange and the organization of joint activity. Not casually many adherents of this school use concept "communications" and "interaktsija" as synonyms (sm.: SHibutani, 1961). Besides concept Mida again stops before that fact, that any forms, the parties, functions of dialogue can be understood only in a context of that real activity during which they arise. If this communication of dialogue (or its any party) with activity is broken off, consequence is immediate otryv considerations of all these processes from a wide social background on which they occur, i.e. refusal of studying the substantial party of dialogue.
The only stipulation at which this substantial moment can be caught, consideration of interaction as forms of the organization of any concrete activity of people is. Obshchepsihologicheskaja the theory of activity accepted in a domestic psychological science, sets and in this case some principles for socially-psychological research. Just as in individual activity its purpose reveals not at a level of separate actions, and only at a level of activity as those, in social psychology the sense of interactions reveals only under condition of their inclusiveness in some general activity.
The concrete maintenance of various forms of joint activity is the certain parity of individual "contributions" which are done by participants. So one of schemes suggests to allocate three possible forms, or models: 1) when each participant does the part of the general work irrespective of others - " in common-individual activity " (an example - some production teams, where at each member the task); 2) when the general problem is carried out consistently by each participant - " in common-consecutive activity " (an example - the conveyor); 3) when simultaneous interaction of each participant with all others - " in common-cooperating activity " (an example - sports commands, scientific personnels or design offices) (Umajsky, 1980 takes place. With. 131). Psychological figure of interaction in each of these models is original, and business of experimental researches to establish it in each concrete case.
However the research problem of interaction is not settled by it. Just as in case of the analysis of the communicative party of dialogue dependence between character of the communications and the attitudes existing between partners has been established, here too it is necessary to track, as this or that system of interaction is interfaced with developed between participants of interaction by attitudes.
Public attitudes "are given" in interaction through that real social activity which part (or which form of the organization) interaction is. Interpersonal attitudes also "are given" in interaction: they define as type of interaction, which arises under the given concrete conditions (whether there will be this cooperation or rivalry), and a degree of expressiveness of this type (whether there will be this more successful or less successful cooperation).
Inherent in system of interpersonal attitudes the emotional basis generating various estimations, orientations, installations of partners, definitely "paints" interaction (Transports, 1979). But at the same time such emotional (positive or negative) painting of interaction cannot define completely the fact of its presence or absence: even in conditions of "bad" interpersonal attitudes in the groups set by certain social activity, interaction necessarily exists. In what measure it is defined by interpersonal attitudes and, on the contrary, in what measure it "is subordinated" by carried out group of activity, depends both on a level of development of the given group, and from that system of social attitudes in which this group exists. Therefore consideration of a taken out of context of activity of interaction is deprived sense. The motivation of participants of interaction in each concrete certificate is revealed cannot be just because is generated by wider system of activity in which conditions it is developed.
As interactions "are identical" under the form of the display, in history of social sciences already there was an attempt to construct all system of social knowledge, leaning only on the analysis of the form of interaction (G.Zimmelja's so-called formal sociology). The convincing example of insufficiency only the formal analysis of interaction is given with the tradition connected with research of "altruism". Altruism concerns to such area of displays of the human person which get sense only in system of the certain social activity. The question here rests against the maintenance of moral categories, and it cannot be understood only from "nearby" displays of interaction. Whether the behaviour of the person is altruistic, helping to run to the malicious criminal? Only wider social context allows to answer this question.
At the analysis of interaction that fact as its contribution to the general activity (Harash is realized by each participant, 1977 matters also. With. 29): this comprehension helps it to correct the strategy. Only the psychological mechanism of interaction arising on the basis of mutual understanding between its participants provided that can be opened. It is obvious, that success of strategy and tactics of joint actions that their "exchange" was possible each other depends on a measure of understanding partners. And, if strategy of interaction is certain by character of those public attitudes which are presented by carried out social activity tactics of interaction is defined by direct representation about the partner.
Thus, for knowledge of the mechanism of interaction it is necessary to find out, how intentions, motives, installations of one individual "are imposed" on representation about the partner and as that and another is shown in acceptance of the joint decision. Differently, the further analysis of a problem of dialogue demands more detailed consideration of a question on how the image of the partner on dialogue on which accuracy the success of joint activity depends is formed.
Such statement of a question demands transition to consideration of the third party of the dialogue conditionally named by us pertseptivnoj.