Background. The growth of outstanding loans leads to dire consequences for both the state (due to shortfalls in profits) and for the individuals, causing health problems, severe depression and suicidal attempts. Debt relationships are both economic and psychological by their nature. As a psychological relationship, debt relations have not been considered so far, and therefore the purpose of this article is a psychological analysis of debt relations. 

Objective of this article is a psychological analysis of the structure, types, levels and functions of debt relations. 

Results. The article provides the author’s definition of debt relations as a type of psychological relationship that develops as a result of social interaction aimed at solving economic problems related to borrowing, lending and fulfilling debt obligations. The classification of debt relations based on their conative component is presented. Debt relations arising in the “person — person” and “person — organization” interaction are described. The author considers debt relations at different levels (intrapersonal, interpersonal, inter- group and societal) and gives the analysis of their functions. 

Conclusion. Subject-subject debt relations arise when lending or borrowing between participants, where each party has integrity, activity and independence. It means that in the case of subject-subject debt relations, in addition to assessing economic rationality, participants can express their value-semantic and affective assessment of the borrowing situation. In the case of subject-object debt relations, the object (credit organization) evaluates only the economic rationality of the deal. A theoretical model of debt relations with different types of interaction is given.

Abstract

Background. In Russian psychology, there is a shortage of experimental research on the attitudes toward the death penalty (DP) as a source of opinion polarization, as well as its dynamics in the context of a group discussion. Studying the dynamics of these attitudes during group discussions allows to identify patterns of opinion polarization and the influence of social interaction mechanisms on the polarization process. Understanding this phenomenon is important for modern psychology in the context of increasing polarization in society.

Objective. To study the dynamics of attitudes towards DP among students in a group discussion.

Study Participants. The total sample consisted of 88 people aged 18 to 22 years. Sample 1 (2024) — students, N = 56 (41% boys), 55% studying, 45% combining work and study. Sample 2 (2025) — students, N = 32 (25% boys), 51% studying, 49% combining work and study.

Methods. An online survey; the experiment implementing a group discussion were conducted twice with different samples: in 2024 and in 2025 (one year after the terrorist attack at a Moscow shopping and entertainment center). Attitudes toward DP were measured on a 10-point Likert scale. Changes in attitudes toward DP from the first to the second measurement (before and after the group discussion) were compared in the control and experimental groups. Data processing included descriptive statistics and a significance analysis of differences; comparisons of indicators were conducted using the Wilcoxon criterion.

Results. In Experiment 1, differences between the two measures of attitudes toward DP were significant in the "DP supporters" and "Doubters" subgroups. In Experiment 2, significant differences were found between the two measures only in the experimental group — discussion participants; no differences were found in the control group.

Conclusions. Public presentation of opinions and discussion regarding abolition of the moratorium on the death penalty in Russia among student participants in the experiment are essential conditions for the dynamics of attitudes toward DP, leading to a shift in opinions toward lower approval of DP among representatives of both the "inert" and "polarized" subgroups. The study design and results obtained have practical implications for the development of experimental approaches to studying public opinion polarization processes.

`

Background. Technological advances, such as the emergence of self-driving cars, challenge the established social norms and values, raising the question of whether the expectations for a driver's actions in a critical situation are the same as those for a self-driving car. Investigating the psychological factors that determine moral choices in critical situations involving interactions with technology is becoming increasingly important, which is the purpose of this article.

Objective. A study of choice factors in solving moral dilemmas (using the example of driving a car in different conditions).

Study Participants. Sample 1: online panel respondents, N = 473 people (47% — male, 53% — female), aged 18 to 73 years (M = 33.5 years, SD = 14.7 years); Sample 2: students, N = 36, aged 18 to 26 years.

Methods. The first stage implemented moral dilemmas modeled by the authors on the MoralMachine platform; Moral Foundations Questionnaire; Attitudes toward technologies questionnaire; Dark Tetrad (D.S. Kornienko); questionnaire "Personality factors in decision making". In the second stage, moral dilemmas were modeled and presented as scenarios in the Varwin Education environment, which made it possible to evaluate respondents' choices in virtual reality.

Results. Analysis of the obtained data revealed that in the driver-driven car situation, "Machiavellianism" and "narcissism" are significant predictors of moral choice, with "loyalty to the group" serving as the moral foundation. In the self-driving car situation, the significant predictors of moral choice are "Machiavellianism," "narcissism," "respect for authority," "readiness to risk" and "techno-rationalism." Perceptions of one's choice in situations of static presentation of an ethical dilemma significantly differ from the actual choice made when it is presented dynamically in virtual reality.

Conclusions. Moral choices in a situation with a self-driving car are more complexly determined than in the same situation with a human driver. There are certain differences in the resolution of ethical dilemmas presented in different forms: when presented statically, most respondents choose to avoid hitting pedestrians, while when directly driving a car (dynamic VR-presentation), the option to hit pedestrians and the option to hit an obstacle are chosen equally often.