Natalia Gladkikh

Leading Expert, Institute of Socio-Economic Design, National Research University Higher School of Economics

Anna Movchan

Junior Researcher, Federal Resource Center, Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

Drawing attention to his impact, it is worth noting that Viktor Petrenko’s works have garnered over 12,000 citations, according to eLIBRARY.RU statistics. The magnitude of his influence becomes apparent when considering that a Hirsch index surpassing 30 is typically associated with Nobel laureates; however, Professor Petrenko’s index stands at an impressive 37. Yet, beyond these numerical achievements lies a vibrant tapestry of intellectual contributions, far from a mere collection of dry academic texts. Instead, it encompasses a living, breathing “algebra” – the psychosemantic methodologies that meticulously unravel intricate systems of individual meanings, illuminate the factors driving effectiveness, unravel the roots of loyalty, and decode the complex interplay of images and their associated connotations. Grounded in the principles of multivariate statistics, psychosemantics empowers us to delve into the true perceptions and emotions of individuals. From examining responses to artistic works and political figures to dissecting the impact of cultural differences, gender stereotypes, and even the subtleties of advertising campaigns, psychosemantics offers answers to seemingly unanswerable questions with remarkable precision.

In this article, our aim is to provide a general overview of psychosemantics, shedding light on its origins, the circumstances that led to its creation, its diverse applications, and the vast realm of possibilities it unlocks, particularly in the domain of art and cinema. In addition to scrutinizing various publications, we have incorporated insights from a recent interview with Viktor Fedorovich Petrenko, conducted this May.

As renowned American psychologist Michael Cole highlighted in the preface to Petrenko’s article, “Meaning as an Element of Consciousness” published in the English-language journal Psychology in Russia and Eastern Europe, “Petrenko draws upon the American technological toolkit to address traditional issues in psychology, influenced by the works of L. S. Vygotsky” (Cole, 1993). Methodologically, psychosemantics finds its roots in the pioneering works of a remarkable cohort of psychologists from the 1920s, including L. S. Vygotsky, A. N. Leontiev, and A. R. Luria. Viktor Fedorovich Petrenko, one of the early graduates from the Psychology Department of Moscow State University and a student of A. N. Leontiev, emerged as a frontrunner in the realm of experimental psychosemantics while still a student. During that time, the Department of Psychology at Moscow State University undertook a comprehensive exploration encompassing not only the study of consciousness but also the domains of child psychology and neuropsychology. However, it was within the department of “General Psychology,” helmed by A. N. Leontiev, that the profound investigation into the psychology of consciousness and perception found its most distinguished representation.

In the quest for methodologies capable of delving into the intricate nature of consciousness, V. F. Petrenko ventured into the realm of structural linguistics, drawing inspiration from the works of I. A. Melchuk, A. K. Jolkovsky and Yu. D. Apresyan, where semantic graphs were used to distill content into a language of meanings. Subsequently, the pioneering contributions of Charles Osgood and later George Kelly provided the foundation for the development of experimental psychosemantics. While these American psychologists employed similar psychosemantic frameworks, their paths remained distinct. Osgood stumbled upon this model while exploring the phenomenon of synesthesia, while Kelly utilized this apparatus to investigate the transformation of clients’ worldviews and consciousness during psychotherapy. Leveraging value assessments, factor analysis, and cluster analysis, semantic spaces were constructed to serve as portrayals of the world, unique to individual or group subjects. It is worth noting that the American authors did not use the term “psychosemantics.” It was V. F. Petrenko and A. D. Shmelev who compiled the works of Osgood, Kelly, and Miller under the umbrella of “psychosemantics,” distinguishing it from the psycholinguistics pioneered by Alexei Alexeevich Leontiev.

While Charles Osgood employed bipolar scales derived from the Dictionary of English Antonyms, V. F. Petrenko and his co-authors utilized opposing judgments as scales. For instance, the judgment scales in the study of gender stereotypes included such statements as “marrying someone from another culture,” “marrying someone I don’t love because my parents wanted so,” “striving to get higher education,” “raising a child alone,” and many more.

V. F. Petrenko was the second person in the Soviet Union to use factor analysis to assess the significance of each factor and facilitate the interpretation of each scale. This interpretation is derived from the inclusion of specific scales within the factors and the identification of the most contrasting objects within the semantic space.

The first large-scale study utilizing psychosemantics methods focused on Estonian and Azerbaijani samples. Discussions of ethnic differences were not customary at the time, which resulted in a six-year delay before the article could be published. During gender comparison, the data was found to be very similar between Azerbaijani women and Azerbaijani men; the same was true about Russian men and women. However, substantial differences were observed between Russians and Azerbaijanis. This suggests the presence of distinct social stereotypes and norms within each culture. Consequently, separate male and female cultures cannot be delineated, as the value systems in both cases exhibit significant proximity.

In the late 1980s, amid Gorbachev’s perestroika, the emergence of new political parties and movements prompted Viktor Petrenko an idea of constructing a semantic space for political parties to gain insights into the trajectory of unfolding events. Olga Valentinovna Mitina, a longstanding colleague and collaborator in numerous subsequent studies, provided invaluable support as his assistant and co-author.

Figure 1. Example of a semantic space depicting the dynamics of role positions during hypnotherapy in drug rehab patients, with the factors “General Well-Being” ↔ “Adversity” and “Orderly living” ↔ “Disorderly living (readiness for change)”

Methodologically, the study mirrored gender studies, albeit with political parties (a total of 28 entities) as the subjects of examination. The researchers meticulously analyzed an extensive corpus of newspapers, party programs, and speeches delivered by political leaders, extracting judgments that were subsequently transcribed into scales. Among the salient issues probed were questions that reflected the prevailing worldview of that era, such as “Can individuals possess private property?” “Should the republics maintain their own armed forces?” and “Is religious freedom essential?” In total, 212 judgments were scrutinized.

The outcomes of the study exhibited a remarkable predictive capacity, as it successfully identified the strongest factions: Democrats being the most influential, followed by the Communists, and then the National Patriots. When Hakob Pogosovich Nazaretyan, an expert in evolutionary theory, political psychology, and cultural anthropology, and a friend of Viktor Petrenko, examined the results, he made an astonishing statement: “There’s a good chance that the Soviet Union will break up.” At the time, that suggestion appeared absurd. A pilot experiment was conducted in 1990, revealing that the dominant factor was the “acceptance” or “rejection” of Communist ideology. Then, in 1991, just before the collapse of the USSR, the most influential factor became the “preservation of the Soviet Union” vs a “Federation” or “Confederation of Independent Republics.”