Ministry of Education and Science Russian Federation
NATIONAL RESEARCH TOMSK STATE UNIVERSITY (NI TSU)
Faculty of Psychology
Department of Genetic and Clinical Psychology
ANALYTICAL ABSTRACT
on the topic “The concept of resilience according to S. Maddi”
in discipline " Scientific schools and theories in modern psychology"
"___"___________2015
Tomsk, 2015
1. Introduction. 3
2. Approaches to the study of resilience. 4
3. The concept of resilience. 8
4. The working principle of resilience. 10
5. Formation of resilience. 13
Conclusion. 15
References.. 16
1. Introduction
The problem of human resilience in the face of difficulties has always been interesting and significant and has attracted much attention from philosophers, physicians, psychologists, and teachers.
The topic of overcoming and surviving difficult life situations is still relevant in our time. Turbulent social, economic, and political changes greatly affect the mental health of modern people, which can lead to unproductive and ineffective work, neurosis, as well as distress and depression. Therefore, researchers are increasingly interested in questions about subjective well-being, quality and standard of living, resilience and vitality of a person in modern society.
When there is a threat to life, or a social threat to a person’s well-being, psychological stability in the face of difficulties is updated.
The idea of resilience implies the optimal realization by a person of his psychological capabilities in unfavorable life situations, “psychological vitality” and “extended effectiveness” in these situations (S. Maddi).
Various factors, both external and internal psychological environment, contribute or do not contribute to the development of such a phenomenon as resilience.
2. Approaches to studying resilience
The phenomenon of resilience is an integral personal formation that develops in the process of human life. Phenomenon (Greek phainomenon - appearing) is a concept meaning a phenomenon given to us in experience. A person discovers resilience in certain situations, regardless of the knowledge and understanding of this given personality.
Let us dwell on the most important aspects that reflect the general approach to understanding resilience as a phenomenon.
Even in the philosophical teachings of antiquity, the problem of human stability in the face of the adversities of life was very relevant. Philosophers of the Stoic school (Zeno, Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius) substantiated the rational nature of man and the need for a stoic attitude towards ongoing events that no longer depend on man. In the teachings of the Stoics, an important question was raised about the emergence of human emotional experiences associated not with the events that took place, but precisely with the attitude towards these events. The concept was understood that no adversity can harm a person against his will.
Stoic philosophers considered issues of attitude to the world, the problems of human capabilities and limitations in this world. They emphasized the importance of individual choice and the importance for a person of moving closer to a virtuous life; noted the importance of developing good habits; emphasized the need to respond to events with reason rather than emotions; considered issues of human capabilities and limitations in this world.
Also in the teachings of the Stoics, the important role of the social component in human life was noted, a person’s awareness of his contribution to the value of the world as a whole, the issue of duty as taking on the solution of a life task and fulfilling it to the best of his abilities.
It is important and interesting to emphasize that famous representatives of Stoicism in the description of their descendants remained precisely as resilient people. Epictetus (50 AD - 125 AD) amazed his contemporaries with his humor and calmness, focused attention on the practical side of philosophy, in his person philosophy became life, he considered himself a teacher of a virtuous life. Marcus Aurelius (121 AD - 180 AD), Emperor of Rome, author of the sublimely ethical treatise Meditations, managed to build his life, often in very unfavorable circumstances, in full accordance with the prescriptions of his book " thoughts to yourself."
About resilience as an operationalization of the courage to be - a concept introduced by the famous philosopher and theologian Paul Tillich. In his seminal work “The Courage to Be,” Tillich calls this concept the process of self-affirmation - a force that affirms being in spite of various threats. This process involves maintaining a more or less constant balance between fear and courage. In other words, when a person acts in proportion to the current situation.
According to P. Tillich, “the courage to be” is a function of vitality. “Vitality is a force that allows a person to create outside of himself without losing himself” (P. Tillich). In his opinion, weakening vitality leads to weakening of courage, and if vitality is strengthened, this means strengthening of courage.
Relying on Tillich’s definition of “courage to be,” Salvator Maddi and Susan Kobeisa introduced the term hardiness, which later D. A. Leontyev proposed to designate as “vitality.” Translation by D. A. Leontyev of hardiness, as vitality, gave this term a significant emotional connotation. According to Leontyev, the term “resilience” itself is attractive, since it includes the emotionally rich word “life” and the actual psychological property expressed by the term “resilience”.
The concept of hardiness, introduced by S. Maddi and S. Kobeis, is at the intersection of the theoretical views of existential psychology and the applied field of psychology of stress and coping with it. “Courage to be” and resilience, in S. Maddi’s opinion, are not synonyms, but represent two sides of the same phenomenon. Muddy talked about how the “courage to be” refers to the process, the force applied, the action. In his reasoning, courage is a human movement, and resilience is a characteristic of this movement.
S. Muddy, a student of Gordon Allport and Henry Murray, considered the phenomenon of resilience from the point of view of a holistic approach to personality. His longitudinal study of the personal characteristics of employees of one of the companies, who, under conditions of constant stress, not only did not leave the company, but also improved their professional activities, led to the identification of a structure of attitudes and skills among these employees that contribute to the transformation of a situation of stress into a situation of manifestation of their capabilities.
Many modern domestic sources say that S. Maddi coordinates his concept of vitality with his theory of personality, which he defines as activation theory, a variant of the coherence model (activation theory of S. Muddi, D. Fiske). This theory describes the consistency or inconsistency between the usual and actually necessary for a given situation levels of activation or tension in the human psyche.
The concept of activation denotes the level of energy, which includes both psychological and neuropsychological components. This theory emphasizes the importance of information and emotional experience that a person receives as a result of interaction with the outside world. That is, in other words, Muddy says that resilience is understood as a personality quality that provides the ability to withstand the “challenges” of life circumstances, the direction of choice towards the future, and a person’s conviction in the ability to influence the consequences of the events that happen to him; largely shaped by early childhood experiences.
3. The concept of resilience
Research by S. Muddy and S. Cobase demonstrated that resilience is a personal characteristic that is a general measure of a person’s mental health. According to these authors, the idea of resilience implies a person’s optimal realization of his psychological capabilities in adverse life situations, “psychological vitality” and “extended effectiveness” in these situations and reflects three life attitudes: involvement, confidence in the ability to control its events, and readiness to risk.
Commitment is defined as “the belief that involvement in what is happening gives the greatest chance of finding something worthwhile and interesting to the individual.” A person with a developed component of involvement enjoys his own activities, during which he feels his significance and value. In contrast, the absence of such conviction gives rise to a feeling of rejection, a feeling of being “outside” of life. “If you feel confident in yourself and that the world is generous, you will be engaged” (Maddi, 1987).
Control is the belief that struggle allows one to influence the outcome of what is happening, even if this influence is not absolute and success is not guaranteed. The opposite of this is a feeling of helplessness. A person with a highly developed control component feels that he chooses his own activities, his own path.
The control component is also similar to the category of “locus of control” by J. Rotter, which is a person’s tendency to attribute responsibility for events occurring in life and the results of his activities to external forces (external, external locus of control) or to his own abilities and efforts (internal, internal locus of control ).
Taking risks (challenge) is a person’s conviction that everything that happens to him contributes to his development through knowledge gained from experience, no matter whether positive or negative. A person who views life as a way of gaining experience is ready to act in the absence of reliable guarantees of success, at his own peril and risk, considering the desire for simple comfort and security to impoverish the life of the individual. Risk taking is based on the idea of development through the active assimilation of knowledge from experience and its subsequent use. This component allows the individual to remain open to the world around him and accept current events as a challenge and test.
In addition to these attitudes, “resilience” includes such basic values as cooperation, trust and creativity.
A high level of resilience contributes to assessing events as less traumatic and successfully coping with stress.
S. Muddy in his concept, the central concept is a person’s belief system about himself, the world and relationships with it, which consists of 3 components (involvement, control and risk taking) and contributes to the assessment of events as less traumatic and successful coping with stress. According to S. Muddy’s theory, a person constantly makes a choice: “choice of the past” (habitual and familiar) or “choice of the future” (new, uncertain and unpredictable). The constant choice of the past leads to alienation in the form of vegetativeness (a combination of meaninglessness and powerlessness), nihilism (denial of meaning), adventurism (the search for meaning outside of usual activities). The basis of the “life improvement program” developed by S. Muddy is a change in the choice pattern of the past. Vitality in this process is a necessary resource that a person can rely on when choosing the future.
4. Working principle of resilience
The psychology of stress shows that there are two ways in which psychological factors influence stressful situations. The first way is to assess the situation. A person begins to wonder whether stress is a threat to him and whether he can overcome it. The second way is to influence a person’s reaction. It influences behavior, the way of overcoming a stressful situation.
Stress occurs due to many factors. This may be the congenital weakness of the body, susceptibility to disease, a person’s views and beliefs, external factors, or the individual’s ability to deal with a difficult situation. Innate vulnerabilities and external circumstances are most often uncontrollable, but developing resilience can mitigate their consequences.
According to S. Maddi, resilience influences the assessment of the situation. A person ceases to understand stress as something traumatic or dangerous, because beliefs make one think that a person is able to change the course of events and add self-confidence. The presence of the phenomenon of resilience pushes one to take active action. Moreover, beliefs help to overcome difficulties.
The authors of this concept believe that it is vitality that forces a person to do exercises every morning, eat right, and play sports because this contributes to the health of the body and further well-being. This way a person becomes less susceptible to psychosomatic or chronic diseases; constant stressful situations have minimal impact on the body.
When exposed to resilient beliefs, awareness of the surrounding reality occurs from a positive side. Events become joyful and interesting, which characterizes involvement. A person takes the current situation into his own hands and shows initiative, which characterizes control. As well as readiness to accept new knowledge from experience, which characterizes risk taking.
Vitality, according to D.A. Leontyev and E.I. Rasskazova, includes two components - psychological and activity, which are of a motivational nature.
The psychological side suggests that resilience changes the nature of relationships between people. They become more open, able to experience love, establish healthy relationships with others. Interest in the world in general and the people around you in particular increases. Additionally, people understand how they can get support from others. This expands their understanding of existence.
The activity side involves actions aimed at achieving the goal. These actions aimed at coping with a stressful situation and including constant concern for our health, practicing transformative coping, give us feedback about who we are and what is happening. The world cannot be changed without activity, and we must do something or the world will remain static. It takes time, effort, persistence, insight and responsibility for one's own life, and it is resilience that provides the necessary motivation.
In their opinion, the presence of two components precisely forms a system that protects people from excessive anxiety and loss of health. Thus, taking care of one's own health and transformative coping, as well as receiving social support in the form of help and encouragement from other people can increase resilience.
S. Maddi and his co-author believe that all components of resilience begin to develop in childhood and partly in adolescence, although they can be developed later. Their development depends decisively on the relationship between the parents and the child. In particular, for the development of the participation component (involvement), acceptance and support, love and approval from parents are fundamentally important.
For the development of the control component, it is important to support the child’s initiative, his desire to cope with tasks of increasing complexity to the limit of his capabilities. For the development of risk taking, the richness of impressions, variability and heterogeneity of the environment are important. Maddi (1998) emphasizes the importance of the expression of all three components for maintaining health and optimal levels of performance and activity under stressful conditions. We can talk about both individual differences in each of the three components in the composition of resilience, and the need for their consistency with each other and with the general (total) measure of resilience.
5. Building resilience
At the heart of resilience training is the concept that beliefs are not innate, but can be learned throughout life. Every person can develop resilience. The training has two main goals:
· deep awareness of the very concept of a stressful situation, finding ways to solve any difficulties, ways to overcome circumstances;
· deepening the three components of resilience – involvement, control, risk taking.
Muddy's resilience is improved through three main techniques:
1) Reconstruction of situations. Imagination plays an important role here. Stressful situations are given that must be resolved. Reconstruction allows you to understand what mistakes a person makes when resolving a conflict, what to do in a given case, and what circumstances are interpreted as stressful. When recreating stressful circumstances, a person can independently find solutions, see their consequences, both worst and worst. best option developments of events.
2) Focus. This technique is used when it is not possible to directly transform stressful circumstances. Making the right decision is often influenced by hidden and poorly understood emotional reactions. The technology allows you to find and identify them. With the help of focusing, you can learn to reframe stressful situations and use new opportunities for your own benefit.
3) Compensatory self-improvement. Here we focus on a different situation if transformation of stressful circumstances is impossible. The second situation must be related to the first. Resolving the second stressful situation will provide an incentive to pay attention to what can be changed.
Salvatore Maddi combined two methods in his theory - the study of resilience and healthy image life. This led to the creation of a hardiness program called the Hardiness Enhancing Lifestyle Program (HELP). The program includes:
· relaxing practices (working with breathing and muscles, ways to warm your hands, using biofeedback methods);
· proper nutrition;
· practice of coping (learning to solve problems, studying emotional qualities);
· communication training, development of communication skills and social support;
· training in physical exercises to make activities more effective;
· getting rid of bad habits(smoking, overeating);
· monitoring results throughout the year to prevent relapses.
From his work we can conclude that good resilience in psychology is associated with good regulation of activities. Vital beliefs must be related to personal potential. They are of great benefit in planning, when it is necessary to navigate an unclear or new situation, as well as when difficulties arise, when it is necessary to quickly overcome a crisis without threatening the success of the activity.
Conclusion
The general direction of resilience is determined by a person’s ability and ability to overcome, cope with the difficulties of life associated with different time periods, different demands made by life through the conscious and unconscious actualization of life experience, one way or another combined in the individual psychological properties of a person.
In the process of development and manifestation of personality resilience, there are many reasons, prerequisites, conditions that form a complex relationship. Vitality develops and transforms in the process of a person’s life, relying on a positive self-attitude and a sense of satisfaction from one’s own life activities, and includes value and semantic attitudes towards one’s own ability to determine and control the events of one’s life. Resilience is mediated by factors such as typological features, age, profession, social status, and manifests itself in the peculiarities of conscious self-regulation, success in overcoming stressful situations, and in the implementation of one’s life program.
Resilience is associated not only with behavior and the development of a new philosophy of life in difficult times. life situation, it is associated with various ways of realizing everyday life and all kinds of moments of life uncertainty.
References
1) Great thinkers of the West / translated from English. V. Fedorina. – M.: KRON-PRESS, 1998. – 800 p. – “Academy” series. – P. 796.
2) Tillich P. courage to be // Favorites. M.: “Lawyer”, 1995
3) Leontyev D.A., Rasskazova E.I. Vitality test. - M.: Smysl, 2006. - 63 p. Internet resource, access code - http://www.aksp.ru/work/activity/nac_strateg/resurs_centr/files/soln_testgizn.pdf (access date 11/18/2015)
4) Fominova A.N. Personal resilience. Monograph. – M.: MPGU, 2012. – 152 p. Internet resource, access code - http://fpp-mpsu.ru/uploads/all/all-h5bSrV5uyl.pdf (access date 11/20/2015)
5) Maddi S. R., Khoshaba D. M. . Hardiness and Mental Health // Journal of Personality Assessment, 1994. – Oct. – Vol. 63. – N 2. – P. 265–274. Internet resource, access code http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327752jpa6302_6 (access date 12/20/2015)
6) Maddi S. Meaning formation in the decision-making process // Meaning. 2005. No. 6. pp. 17-21.
7) Maddi S. The effectiveness of hardiness training / S. Maddi, S. Kahn, K. Maddi // Practice and research, 1998. – No. 2. – Vol. 50 – P. 78–86.
The article discusses the role of resilience in an organizational context and the possibilities of its psychological diagnosis. The results of a study devoted to the development and testing of the reliability, structural and convergent validity of a shortened version of the Russian-language resilience test developed by D.A. are presented. Leontyev and E.I. Rasskazova. Based on data from a student sample (N=1285) from full version test (45 items), 24 statements were selected. An analysis of the psychometric properties of the short version was conducted on a sample of employees of a manufacturing enterprise (N=4647). Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the one-dimensional structure of the methodology (with the identification of a single factor of resilience and two factors of systematic error, reflecting the characteristics of respondents’ reactions to direct and reverse items and not correlating with each other and with the general indicator). The internal consistency of the abbreviated scale was high (Cronbach's alpha 0.91). The convergent validity of the methodology is evidenced by the obtained correlations with other indicators of psychological well-being: dispositional optimism, optimistic attributional style, hope, general self-efficacy, tolerance for uncertainty, vitality, satisfaction with life and work, as well as internal motivation for learning and labor activity. The results obtained allow us to recommend the short version as a means of express diagnostics of vitality in various samples.
Related publications
Based on the model of behavioral self-regulation by M. Scheier and C. Carver, the approach to the study of optimism as generalized expectations about future events is successfully used by foreign psychologists when analyzing the connections between optimism and various psychological characteristics, such as psychological well-being, health, adaptation to stress, etc. The most The well-known methodology for diagnosing dispositional optimism, developed within the framework of this approach, was taken as the basis for the development of the Russian version of the Dispositional Optimism Test. The results of the study on a Russian-speaking sample (N=639) show that the characteristics of the proposed methodology generally correspond to the characteristics of its original version and demonstrate fairly high levels of validity and reliability.
T. 2. Chelyabinsk: SUSU Publishing Center, 2013.
The yearbook of professional reviews is the first in Russia and is an analogue of the American publication Mental Measurements Yearbook (MMY). The Yearbook presents 40 professional reviews of leading domestic and foreign experts on psychodiagnostic techniques. The main goal of this publication is information and scientific support for the development of professional psychodiagnostics in Russia. The yearbook of professional reviews is intended for practicing psychologists and scientific researchers in the field of psychology. students of psychological faculties and related specialties. It will allow you to navigate the world of research and psychodiagnostic methods and obtain information about the quality of the methods.
The article is devoted to the analysis of psychometric indicators and factor structure of the D. McLain scale of general tolerance to uncertainty (MSTAT-I) as adapted by E.G. Lukovitskaya on a student sample (N=805). Using cluster analysis, groups of homogeneous items were identified in the questionnaire, forming five subscales: attitude towards novelty, attitude towards complex tasks, attitude towards uncertain situations, preference for uncertainty and tolerance/avoidance of uncertainty. The validity of the resulting structure was confirmed using confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometric properties and relationships of the resulting subscales with demographics and other variables are discussed.
The article is devoted to the vitality of the individual and its role in coping behavior in a situation of interpersonal conflict. To solve the assigned problems, S. Maddi’s vitality questionnaire (adapted by D. Leontiev, E. Rasskazova) and E. Heim’s method for identifying types of coping strategies of behavior were used. It was shown that respondents with high levels of resilience prefer adaptive options for cognitive, behavioral and emotional coping strategies in situations of interpersonal conflict. High levels of involvement and control are associated with the choice of adaptive behavioral and adaptive emotional coping strategies. At the same time, a low level of risk taking is associated with the choice of a strategy to avoid difficult situations that have arisen.
Golubkova O. A., Lavarello A. N. In the book: Psychological and pedagogical problems of the formation of a single Eurasian space: a collection of scientific articles from the materials of the Eurasian Scientific Forum. St. Petersburg: International Institute of Economics and Law, 2012. pp. 19-23.
The article presents materials from a study of adaptation of first-year students of the Faculty of Management of the National Research University Higher School of Economics - St. Petersburg to the educational process. As a result of the study, the dependence of a student’s successful adaptation in the first year of study on his level of resilience and educational environment was revealed.
Aimed at diagnosing psychological factors for successfully coping with stress, as well as reducing and preventing internal stress. tension in a stressful situation. According to S. Muddy’s theory, hardiness is a system of beliefs about oneself, the world, and relationships with it. This disposition includes 3 relatively autonomous components: involvement, control, risk taking. The severity of these components and vitality in general prevents the emergence of internal. tension in stressful situations due to persistent coping with stress and perceiving them as less significant (the difference from similar constructs will be justified below). The questionnaire contains 45 statements. The respondent evaluates the degree of his agreement with each of the items on a 4-point scale (“no”, “rather no than yes”, “rather yes than no”, “yes”). A high overall score on the resilience scale characterizes a person who is active and self-confident, who experiences stress infrequently and is able to cope with it, continuing to work effectively without losing mental balance. A low score for resilience is typical for people who are not confident in their strengths and abilities to cope with stress. Minor stress can cause them serious worries, deterioration of health and performance. The vitality test includes the following. 3 subscales: 1) Commitment is defined as “the conviction that involvement in what is happening gives the maximum chance of finding something worthwhile and interesting for the individual.” A person with a developed component of involvement enjoys his own activities and O. In contrast, the absence of such conviction gives rise to a feeling of rejection, a feeling of being “outside” of life; 2) Control is the belief that if a person actively tries to resolve a situation, struggles, he can influence the outcome of what is happening. The opposite of this is a feeling of helplessness. A person with a highly developed control component feels that he chooses his own activities, his own path. A person with a poorly developed control component believes that little that depends on him personally in life, feels helpless and easily surrenders to the mercy of fate; 3) Taking risks (challenge) - the belief that everything that happens contributes to development through knowledge gained from experience, no matter whether positive or negative. With high scores on the risk-taking scale, a person views life as a way of gaining experience, is ready to act in the absence of reliable guarantees of success, at his own peril and risk, considering the desire for simple comfort and security to impoverish the life of the individual. With low scores on the risk-taking subscale, a person strives for immutability, stability in life, simple comfort and security. He is not ready to take risks: the cost of a mistake is higher for him than the chance to achieve a result. The methodology has been validated and standardized. The technique is a reliable and valid tool and can be used both in studies of the motivational-volitional sphere of personality (including in studies within the psychology of stress and health psychology) and in psychodiagnostics. However, when using the questionnaire in conditions of high social desirability (when applying for a job, etc.), one should take into account higher normative indicators and refuse to use the indicator of the involvement subscale, which is most susceptible to social desirability.
The chapter examines the problem of social desirability as a threat to the validity of psychological diagnostic data collected by subjective self-report. Based on a review of studies, situational and personal factors influencing the severity of social desirability effects are systematized. A review of existing methods for identifying and controlling social desirability effects is provided, as well as recommendations for researchers to reduce these effects.
The manual provides basic information about the content, development and application of the psychodiagnostic methodology DOPO (Differential Questionnaire for Experiences of Loneliness). The methodology has a full and short form, containing 40 and 24 statements, respectively, which are assessed on a 4-point scale.
Edited by: I. Makarova, E. Postupinskaya Sochi: RIC SSU, 2013.
Arkhangelskaya V.V. Magazine practical psychologist. 2006. No. 3. P. 82-112.
The article presents materials from the abstract of a candidate's dissertation on the topic of understanding in modern instructive psychotherapy. The status of understanding is considered in relation to classical natural scientific research schemes and requirements, psychotechnical research methodology, as well as with the ways of cognition implemented in the instructive practices of psychotherapy and counseling.
Edited by: A. Zhuravlev, A. Yurevich M.: Institute of Psychology RAS, 2012.
The book serves as a continuation of the collective scientific works “Psychology of Morality” (2010) and “Psychological Studies of Spiritual and Moral Problems” (2011) previously published by the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, developing a psychological approach to the study of spiritual and moral issues. It examines the theoretical and methodological foundations of the study of morality, the moral and psychological components of a number of social processes and the most pressing problems of modern Russian society, such as corruption, drug addiction, fraud, etc.
The article analyzes the influence of distractors on the efficiency of solving attention tasks. It is demonstrated what effects - negative (interference effects), negative (redundancy effects) or neutral (null effects) - distractors can have. Distractor effects reported in the literature are classified according to their hypothetical source. Also introduced general rule theories. It involves a formal prediction of a particular distractor effect based on measures of entropy and redundancy from mathematical communication theory (Shannon, 1948). Single- and dual-process models are considered as hypothetical mechanisms underlying distractor effects. Also in the work, distractor profiles (DP) are introduced to formalize and easily visualize experimental data associated with distractor effects. Typical PD forms and their interpretation are discussed, with examples from three widely cited experiments. Finally, the paper introduces a hierarchical hypothesis proposing level-based modulatory interactions between distractor effects of different classes.
The objective of this research was to assess the mechanism through which the individual level components of social capital, that is, individuals‘ levels of trust, tolerance and civic identity affect their economic behavior. The sample of the study included 634 aged 20 to 59. A structural equation model relating social capital with economic attitudes was specified and controlling tested for age, gender and education. We found that higher levels of individual social capital were associated with adverse monetary attitudes. Attitudes money toward as a means of influence and protection and the desire to accumulate it reflect a personal sense of dependency on money and lead to constant concern about it. A greater social capital, by providing social support that serves as an alternative source of security, influence, and protection, may reduce this dependence on money. An important finding of our research has been that the component of social capital that correlated most frequently and strongly with monetary attitudes was civic identity. Generally, based on our findings we propose that the negative association between monetary attitudes and individual level social capital suggests that, when social capital decreases, people try to compensate by accumulating financial capital.
The analysis of modern society, permeated by media, is carried out from the perspective of an ethnomethodological approach and represents an attempt to answer the cardinal question: what are the observed orderings of events broadcast by mass intermediaries. The study of rituals proceeds in two main directions: firstly, in the organizational and production system of media, focused on constant reproduction, which is based on the transmission model and the information/non-information distinction and, secondly, in the analysis of the perception of these messages by the audience, which is the implementation of a ritual or expressive model, the result of which is a shared experience. This means the ritual nature of modern media.
The book contains complete and comprehensive information on the history of Imperial Russia - from Peter the Great to Nicholas II. These two centuries became the era when the foundations of Russia's power were laid. But this same time also caused the fall of the empire in 1917. The text of the book, presented in the traditional manner of chronological presentation, includes fascinating inserts: “ Characters", "Legends and Rumors" and others.
Humanity is experiencing a change in cultural and historical eras, which is associated with the transformation of network media into the leading means of communication. The consequence of the “digital schism” is changes in social divisions: along with the traditional “haves and have-nots”, the confrontation “online (connected) versus offline (unconnected)” arises. Under these conditions, traditional intergenerational differences lose their significance, and the decisive factor is belonging to one or another information culture, on the basis of which media generations are formed. The work analyzes the diverse consequences of networking: cognitive, arising from the use of “smart” things with a user-friendly interface, psychological, giving rise to networked individualism and the increasing privatization of communication, social, embodying the “paradox of the empty public sphere.” The role of computer games as “substitutes” for traditional socialization and education is shown, and the vicissitudes of knowledge losing its meaning are examined. In conditions of excess information, the scarcest human resource today is human attention. Therefore, new principles of doing business can be defined as attention management.
In this scientific work The results obtained during the implementation of project No. 10-01-0009 “Media rituals”, implemented within the framework of the HSE Research Foundation Program in 2010-2012, were used.
Aistov A.V., Leonova L. A. OPTIONS Ñвенного ›› P1. Р𸶵ices ðion ð´ñññ¹¹¹ ¹ ñ ð¸ ð ° ° ð ð ð ð ð ð¨ð, 2010.  p1/2010/04.
The work analyzes factors for choosing employment status (based on data from the Russian Monitoring of the Economic Condition and Health of the Population 1994-2007). The analysis carried out does not reject the assumption of the forced nature of informal employment. The work also examined the influence of informally employed status on life satisfaction. It has been shown that informally employed people, on average, are more satisfied with life compared to formally registered workers.
What psychological factors contribute to successfully coping with stress and reducing internal tension?
The answer can be given by " Vitality test" which is an adaptation of the Hardiness Survey Salvatore Maddi.
Personality variable hardiness(resilience) characterizes the measure of an individual’s ability to withstand a stressful situation, maintaining internal balance and without reducing the success of activities.
The applied aspect of resilience is determined by the role that this personal variable plays in the individual’s successful confrontation with stressful situations, primarily in professional activities. According to research, resilience turns out to be a key personal variable that mediates the influence of stress factors (including chronic ones) on somatic and mental health, as well as on the success of activities.
In theoretical terms, the concept of resilience fits into the system of concepts of the existential theory of personality, acting as an operationalization of the concept of “courage to be” introduced by the existential philosopher P. Tillich (1995). This existential courage presupposes the readiness to “act in spite of” - in spite of ontological anxiety, anxiety of loss of meaning, in spite of the feeling of “abandonment” (M. Heidegger). It is resilience that allows a person to endure the ineradicable anxiety that accompanies the choice of the future (unknown) rather than the past (unchangeability) in a situation of existential dilemma.
The concept of resilience thus allows us to relate research in the field of stress psychology with existential ideas about ontological anxiety and ways of coping with it, offering a practically effective, existentially based answer to one of the most current problems the end of the 20th century.
Since 2002, the authors of this manual, with the permission of S. Maddi, have been working on the development and testing of a Russian-language version of the vitality test; today it can be considered completed.
Since the English version of the resilience test consists of only 18 points, and when directly translating the questionnaire there was no confidence that the number of items would not be reduced, during Russification, based on the theoretical structure of the resilience construct, additional items were proposed. The first Russian version was a questionnaire similar in structure to the original, but containing 119 statements. The third, final version, obtained as a result of testing, includes 45 items containing direct and reverse questions of all three scales of the questionnaire (involvement, control and risk taking).
PROCESSING
To calculate points, answers to direct items are assigned points from 0 to 3 (“no” - 0 points, “rather no than yes” - 1 point, “rather yes than no” - 2 points, “yes” - 3 points) , answers to reverse items are assigned points from 3 to O (“no” - 3 points, “yes” - 0 points). The overall resilience score and the scores for each of the 3 subscales (involvement, control, and risk taking) are then summed. The forward and backward items for each scale are presented below.
INTERPRETATION
Resilience
(hardiness) is a system of beliefs about oneself, about the world, about relationships with the world. This is a disposition that includes three relatively autonomous components: involvement, control, and risk taking. The severity of these components and resilience in general prevents the emergence of internal tension in stressful situations due to persistent coping with stress and perceiving them as less significant (the difference from similar constructs will be justified below).
Engagement
Commitment is defined as “the belief that being involved in what is happening gives the greatest chance of finding something worthwhile and interesting to the individual.” A person with a developed component of involvement enjoys his own activities. In contrast, the absence of such conviction gives rise to a feeling of rejection, a feeling of being “outside” of life. “If you feel confident in yourself and that the world is generous, you are engaged.”
Control
(control) represents the belief that struggle allows you to influence the outcome of what is happening, even if this influence is not absolute and success is not guaranteed. The opposite of this is a feeling of helplessness. A person with a highly developed control component feels that he chooses his own activities, his own path.
Taking risks
(challenge) - a person’s conviction that everything that happens to him contributes to his development through knowledge gained from experience, no matter whether positive or negative. A person who views life as a way of gaining experience is ready to act in the absence of reliable guarantees of success, at his own peril and risk, considering the desire for simple comfort and security to impoverish the life of the individual. Risk taking is based on the idea of development through the active assimilation of knowledge from experience and its subsequent use.
The components of resilience develop in childhood and partly during adolescence, although they can be developed later (see below about resilience training). Their development depends decisively on the relationship between the parents and the child. In particular, acceptance and support, love and approval from parents are fundamentally important for the development of the participation component. For the development of the control component, it is important to support the child’s initiative, his desire to cope with tasks of increasing complexity to the limit of his capabilities. For the development of risk taking, the richness of impressions, variability and heterogeneity of the environment are important.
Muddy emphasizes the importance of all three components to maintain health and optimal levels of performance and activity under stressful conditions. We can talk about both individual differences in each of the three components in the composition of resilience, and the need for their consistency with each other and with the general (total) measure of resilience.
Averages and standard deviations of the total indicator
INSTRUCTIONS:"Hello! Please answer the following questions by ticking the answer that best reflects your opinion.”
Questionnaire text
more likely no than yes | more likely yes than no | ||||
I am often unsure of my own decisions. | |||||
Sometimes I feel like no one cares about me. | |||||
Often, even after a good night's sleep, I have difficulty forcing myself to get out of bed. | |||||
I'm constantly busy and I love it. | |||||
Often I prefer to “go with the flow.” | |||||
I change my plans depending on the circumstances. | |||||
I get irritated by events that force me to change my daily routine. | |||||
Unforeseen difficulties sometimes tire me greatly. | |||||
I always control the situation as much as necessary. | |||||
Sometimes I get so tired that nothing can interest me anymore. | |||||
Sometimes everything I do seems useless to me. | |||||
I try to be aware of everything that happens around me. | |||||
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. | |||||
In the evening I often feel completely exhausted. | |||||
I prefer to set difficult goals for myself and achieve them. | |||||
Sometimes I get scared thinking about the future. | |||||
I am always confident that I can bring to life what I have in mind. | |||||
It seems to me that I am not living my life to the fullest, but only playing a role. | |||||
It seems to me that if I had fewer disappointments and adversities in the past, it would be easier for me to live in the world now. | |||||
Problems that arise often seem insoluble to me. | |||||
Having experienced defeat, I will try to take revenge. | |||||
I love meeting new people. | |||||
When someone complains that life is boring, it means that he simply does not know how to see interesting things. | |||||
I always have something to do. | |||||
I can always influence the outcome of what happens around me. | |||||
I often regret things that have already been done. | |||||
If a problem requires a lot of effort, I prefer to put it off until better times. | |||||
I find it difficult to get close to other people. | |||||
As a rule, those around me listen to me carefully. | |||||
If I could, I would change a lot of things in the past. | |||||
I quite often put off until tomorrow what is difficult to do, or what I am not sure about. | |||||
It seems to me that life is passing me by. | |||||
My dreams rarely come true. | |||||
Surprises give me interest in life. | |||||
Sometimes I feel like all my efforts are in vain. | |||||
Sometimes I dream of a calm, measured life. | |||||
I don't have the tenacity to finish what I started. | |||||
Sometimes life seems boring and colorless to me. | |||||
I have no ability to influence unexpected problems. | |||||
People around me underestimate me. | |||||
As a rule, I work with pleasure. | |||||
Sometimes I feel out of place even among my friends. | |||||
Sometimes I get so many problems that I just give up. | |||||
My friends respect me for my perseverance and persistence. | |||||
I willingly undertake to implement new ideas. |
| № | QUESTIONS | NO | More likely NO than YES | More YES than NO | YES |
| I am often unsure of my own decisions | |||||
| Sometimes I feel like no one cares about me | |||||
| Often, even after a good night's sleep, I find it difficult to force myself to get out of bed | |||||
| I'm always busy and I love it | |||||
| Often I prefer to go with the flow | |||||
| I change my plans depending on the circumstances | |||||
| I get irritated by events that force me to change my daily routine | |||||
| Unforeseen difficulties sometimes tire me out | |||||
| I always control the situation as much as necessary | |||||
| Sometimes I'm so tired that nothing can interest me anymore | |||||
| Sometimes everything I do seems useless | |||||
| I try to be aware of everything that happens around me | |||||
| A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush | |||||
| I often feel completely exhausted in the evening | |||||
| I prefer to set difficult goals for myself and achieve them | |||||
| Sometimes thoughts about the future scare me | |||||
| I am always confident that I can bring to life everything I have in mind. | |||||
| It seems to me that I am not living my life to the fullest, but only playing a role | |||||
| It seems to me that if I had fewer disappointments and adversities in the past, it would be easier for me to live in the world now | |||||
| Problems that arise often seem insoluble to me | |||||
| Having experienced defeat, I will try to take revenge | |||||
| I love meeting new people | |||||
| When someone complains that life is boring, it means they simply don't know how to see interesting things. | |||||
| I always have something to do | |||||
| I can always influence the outcome of what happens around me | |||||
| I often regret things that have already been done | |||||
| If a problem requires a lot of effort, I prefer to put it off until better times. | |||||
| I find it difficult to get close to other people | |||||
| As a rule, people around me listen to me carefully | |||||
| If I could, I would change a lot in the past | |||||
| I quite often put off until tomorrow what is difficult to do, or what I am not sure about. | |||||
| I feel like life is passing me by | |||||
| My dreams rarely come true | |||||
| Surprises give me interest in life | |||||
| Sometimes I feel like all my efforts are in vain | |||||
| Sometimes I dream of a calm, measured life | |||||
| I don't have the tenacity to finish what I started | |||||
| Sometimes life seems boring and colorless to me | |||||
| I have no ability to influence unexpected problems | |||||
| People around me underestimate me | |||||
| As a rule, I work with pleasure | |||||
| Sometimes I feel out of place even among friends | |||||
| Sometimes I get so many problems that I just give up | |||||
| Friends respect me for my tenacity and inflexibility | |||||
| I am willing to implement new ideas |
AND wear resistance, How personality trait, is characterized by the extent to which a person overcomes given circumstances. On the other hand, this personality trait is determined by the extent of the efforts made by the individual to work on himself and on the circumstances of his life. Human resilience is associated with the ability to cope with various stresses, maintain high levels of physical and mental health, as well as optimism, self-efficacy and satisfaction with one's life. It is a key personal variable that mediates the influence of stress factors on somatic and psychological health, as well as on the success of activities.
Resilience is a belief system that allows a person to perceive even negative events as experience and successfully cope with them. It includes three components: involvement (the belief that only through one’s activity a person finds interesting things in the world), control (the belief in the controllability of the world and one’s ability to achieve results) and risk taking (the willingness to act despite the uncertainty of the situation and threat and to learn from any situations).
Processing the results of the questionnaire.
To calculate points for answers to direct points points are assigned from 0 to 3.
“No” – 0 points; “Rather no than yes” – 1 point; “Rather yes than no” – 2 points;
“Yes” – 3 points.
Replies to return points points are assigned from 3 to 0.
“No” – 3 points; “Rather no than yes” – 2 points; “Rather yes than no” – 1 point;
“Yes” – 0 points.
The overall resilience score and scores for each of the 3 subscales are then summed ( involvement, control and risk taking). The forward and backward items for each scale are presented below.
Keys to the Vitality Test
Average values of the general indicator and scales of the Vitality test
Interpretation of scales.
Engagement (commitment) defined as “the belief that being involved in what is happening gives the greatest chance of finding something worthwhile and interesting to the individual.” A person with a developed component of involvement enjoys his own activities. He is constantly busy, and he likes it, he works with pleasure, tries to keep abreast of everything that is happening, and loves meeting new people. In contrast, the absence of such conviction gives rise to a feeling of rejection, a feeling of being “outside” of life. Such a person is passive, feels the meaninglessness of his activities, so he lacks the perseverance to finish the things he has started, it is difficult for him to get close to new people, and he feels superfluous.
Control(control) represents the conviction that struggle allows you to influence the outcome of what is happening, even if this influence is not absolute and success is not guaranteed. Such a person controls the situation to the extent necessary, sets difficult-to-achieve goals and strives to realize them, and is confident that he can bring to life everything he has in mind, is persistent and persistent, confident that he can influence the results of what is happening around him. In general, such a person feels like the master of life. The opposite of this is a feeling of helplessness. Such a person is not confident in his own decisions, prefers to “go with the flow”, because problems seem insurmountable, and difficulties are tiring. He often changes his plans depending on circumstances and postpones solving problems until better times.
Taking risks (challenge)– a person’s conviction that everything that happens to him contributes to his development through knowledge gained from experience, no matter whether positive or negative. A person who views life as a way of gaining experience is ready to act in the absence of reliable guarantees of success, taking risks, considering the desire for comfort and security to impoverish the life of the individual. Such a person loves surprises, they give him interest in life and willingly undertakes to implement even the most daring ideas. In contrast to this, dreams of a measured peaceful life, regrets about the past, a feeling that life is passing you by, irritability about sudden changes.
1. Life Meaning Orientations Test (LSO)(D.A. Leontyev).
Instructions: You will be offered pairs of opposing statements. Your task is to choose one of two statements, which, in your opinion, is more true, and mark one of the numbers 1, 2, 3, depending on how confident you are in your choice (or “0”, if both statements are true for you). views are equally correct).
| 1. I am usually very bored | 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 | I'm usually full of energy |
| 2. Life always seems exciting and exciting to me. | 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 | Life seems completely calm and routine to me |
| 3. I don’t have specific goals or intentions in life. | 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 | I have very clear goals and intentions in life |
| 4. My life seems extremely meaningless and aimless to me. | 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 | My life seems to me quite meaningful and purposeful |
| 5. Every day seems new and different to me. | 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 | Every day seems exactly like every other day to me |
| 6. When I retire, I'll do the fun things I've always wanted to do. | 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 | When I retire, I will try not to burden myself with any worries |
| 7. My life turned out exactly as I dreamed | 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 | My life didn't turn out at all the way I dreamed |
| 8. I have not made progress in implementing my life plans. | 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 | I accomplished a lot of what I planned in life |
| 9. My life is empty and uninteresting | 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 | My life is filled with interesting things |
| 10. If I had to sum up my life today, I would say that it was quite meaningful | 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 | If I had to sum up my life today, I would say that it had no meaning |
| 11. If I could choose, I would build my life completely differently. | 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 | If I could choose, I would live my life again the same way I live now |
| 12. When I look at the world around us, he often makes me confused and anxious | 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 | When I look at the world around me, it does not cause me anxiety or confusion at all |
| 13. I am a very obliging person | 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 | I'm not a obligatory person at all |
| 14. I believe that a person has the opportunity to make his life choices as he wishes | 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 | I believe that a person is deprived of the opportunity to choose due to the influence of circumstances |
| 15. I can definitely call myself a must-have person. | 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 | I can't call myself a goal-oriented person |
| 16. I have not yet found my calling and clear goals in life. | 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 | In life I found my recognition and goals |
| 17. My views on life have not yet been decided. | 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 | My life views are completely determined |
| 18. I believe that I managed to find a calling and interesting goals in life. | 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 | I am hardly able to find a calling and interesting goals in life |
| 19. My life is in my hands, and I manage it myself | 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 | My life is not under my control and it is controlled by external circumstances |
| 20. My daily activities bring me pleasure and satisfaction. | 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 | My daily activities bring me a lot of troubles and worries |
Keys of LSS test scales
To calculate points, it is necessary to convert the positions marked by the subject on a symmetrical scale 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 into ratings on an ascending or descending asymmetric scale according to the following rule:
In ascending scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 points are translated 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17.
To descending scale 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 points are translated 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20.
After this, the points of the asymmetric scales corresponding to the positions marked by the subject are summed up.
General indicator coolant– all 20 test points;
Subscale 1 (Goals) - p. 3, 4, 10, 16, 17, 18.
Subscale 2 (Process) – p. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9.
Subscale 3 (Result)– p. 8, 9, 10, 12, 20
Subscale 4 (Locus of control - Self)– p. 1, 15, 16, 19.
Subscale 5 (Locus of control - life)– p. 7, 10, 11, 14, 18, 19.
Interpretation of subscales
1. Goals in life. Points on this scale characterize the presence or absence of goals in the subject’s life in the future, which give life meaning, direction and time perspective. Low scores on this scale, even with a generally high level of coolant, will be characteristic of a person living today or yesterday. At the same time, high scores on this scale can characterize not only a purposeful person, but also a projector whose plans have no real support in the present and are not supported by personal responsibility for their implementation. These two cases are easy to distinguish, taking into account the indicators on other LSS scales.
2. Life process, or the interest and emotional richness of life. The content of this scale coincides with the well-known theory that the only meaning of life is to live. This indicator indicates whether the subject perceives the very process of his life as interesting, emotionally rich and filled with meaning. High scores on this scale and low scores on the others will characterize a hedonist who lives for today. Low scores on this scale are a sign of dissatisfaction with your life in the present; at the same time, however, it can be given full meaning by memories of the past or focus on the future.
3. Life productivity or satisfaction with self-realization. Points on this scale reflect an assessment of the passage of life, a feeling of how productive and meaningful the part lived was. High scores on this scale and low on the rest will characterize a person who is living out his life, for whom everything is in the past, but the past is capable of giving meaning to the rest of his life. Low scores – dissatisfaction with the part of life lived.
4. Locus of control-I (I am the master of life). High scores correspond to self-image as a strong personality who has sufficient freedom of choice to build her life in accordance with her goals and ideas about its meaning. Low scores - lack of confidence in your ability to control the events of your own life.
5. Locus of control - life, or controllability of life. With high scores, the belief is that a person has the power to control his life, to freely make decisions and implement them. Low scores – fatalism, the belief that human life is not subject to conscious control, that freedom of choice is illusory and it is pointless to make plans for the future .
Norms, necessary to evaluate the results are given in the table.
When creating the resilience questionnaire, the authors selected 6 scales of different tests (S. Muddy’s Alienation Test, M. Khan’s California Test for Assessing Goals in Life, D. Jackson’s Personality Traits Test, J. Rotter’s Locus of Control Test), which meaningfully correspond to the components of involvement, control and risk acceptance. During testing, the most valid and reliable items were selected.
The original English version of the Personal Views Survey III-R consists of 18 items, including direct and reverse questions, covering all three scales of the questionnaire (involvement, control, and risk taking). The testing sample included 430 1BT managers experiencing stress due to changes in the company. Managers reported increases in subjective stress and illness over 10 years (Maddi, Kobasa, 1984). The study was conducted over 12 years. To date, the number of subjects who have responded to the vitality test exceeds 6,000 people of different gender, age, family and social status, education and religion. Both measures of resilience and studies of stress-related illness symptoms have used primarily self-report data; In selected cases, objective data, expert reports, and medical records were also considered. Indicators of resilience turned out to be independent of education, age, gender, marital status, status in society, as well as religion and ethnicity.
The third, final version of the questionnaire included the most valid and reliable items, and items were considered internally valid if they predicted the development of somatic diseases in a stressful situation within a year after measuring hardiness { Maddi, 1998 b). Research by S. Maddi and his colleagues (Maddi, Khoshaba, 2001) confirmed the reliability and consistency of the questionnaire (Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.70 to 0.75 for the involvement component, from 0.61 to 0.84 for control, from 0.60 to 0.71 for risk taking and from 0.80 to 0.88 on the total resilience scale) and its reliability-stability (overall on the resilience scale 0.58 after 3 months, 0.57 after 6 months). Factor analysis confirmed the presence of a three-factor structure corresponding to the model proposed by S. Maddi.
Research on hardiness has not found an association between hardiness and the race of subjects studying in the United States. According to cross-cultural studies of immigrants from Asia to the United States, from Turkey to Canada, and from Latin America to Australia (Maddi, Harvey, 2005), the higher the resilience, the faster the adaptation to new conditions, the less pronounced the culture shock and subjective level of stress. Similarly, resilience among US residents who went to work in China for 2 years was positively correlated with stabilization of emotional state and quality of work after culture shock.
Testing the validity of the Resilience Questionnaire was the most important task. A number of studies have aimed to identify the relationship between the results of measuring resilience and its individual components, on the one hand, and other variables (indicators of health/illness, efficiency, etc.) on the other.
Research on resilience in line with S. Muddy’s concept, which simultaneously serves as a test of the validity of the methodology for measuring resilience, can be divided into three main areas:
Research on the relationship between resilience and psychological variables reflecting various types of problems and disorders (construct validity);
Research on the connection between resilience and other positive personality characteristics and the rationale for their differences (discriminant validity);
Research on the relationship between resilience and clinical and behavioral variables - health, performance efficiency, etc. (ecological validity).
There are also studies on the development of resilience { Khoshaba, Maddi, 1999) and the effects of resilience training { Maddi, 1987, 1994, 1998 b; Maddi, Kapp,Maddi, 1998).
Resilience and coping with problems and disruptions
In accordance with the theoretical model of resilience, a positive correlation of resilience with transformational coping and a negative correlation with the level of stress was identified (Maddi, 1999). Ways of coping were measured using the Ways of Coping Checklist, and stress levels were measured using blood pressure and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist. Interestingly, resilience was not associated with innate constitutional vulnerability to disease (Maddi, Kobasa, 1984). However, in subjects with a high level of subjective stress, low resilience was a predictor of the development of somatic diseases over the next year (the probability of their illness in the near future was 92%, within a year - 81%, while with high resilience - less than 10% and less than 24%, respectively). More recent research suggests that the positive effects of resilience extend beyond stressful situations: high levels of resilience are associated with imagination and creativity in normal environments. Promoting awareness and adequate assessment of the situation (Maddi et ai, 2006), resilience correlates negatively with repression and authoritarianism (an inflexible dominant mode of interaction) and positively with creativity and the tendency to innovate, which were measured experimentally (subjects suggested ways of acting with various objects).
Experimental study of the reaction to a stressful situation (Solcova, Sykora, 1995; Alexandrova, 2004) showed that physiological reactions to stress are significantly less pronounced in subjects with low anxiety and high resilience.
Resilience is associated with a person’s sustainable experience of his actions and events occurring around him “as interesting and joyful (involvement), as the result of personal choice and initiative (control), and as an important incentive to learn new things (risk taking).” (Maddi, Kobasa, 1984; Maddi, 1999, p. 85). In order to test this hypothesis, the “Experience Sampling Method” of M. Csikszentmihalyi was used: each subject wore a pager for a week, and when it beeped (10 times a day), he filled out a short questionnaire regarding his activity and state at the moment . In the group of subjects with high vitality scores, interest and passion for the activity, its importance, mood, and feeling of support from others were significantly higher than in the group of subjects with low vitality scores (p<0,006-0,04 для разных показателей), тогда как выполнение работы просто потому, что ее «надо» выполнить, встречается значимо реже (р<0,001). Испытуемые с высокими показателями жизнестойкости чаше говорили, что сами выбирают, чем заниматься (компонент контроля), и чувствуют, что получают важный опыт во всем, что с ними происходит (компонент вовлеченности).
In other studies (Maddi, 1998 b) a moderate negative correlation of resilience with “type A behavior” was identified - a behavioral syndrome expressing a psychological predisposition to cardiovascular diseases. (S. Booth-Kewley, N. Friedman). The high level of resilience in some people who exhibit Type A behavior dramatically reduces their likelihood of becoming ill. Although both Type A behavior and resilience share one common component - control - they are in other respects rather opposite. Type A people are intolerant of other views, even to the point of hostility, and experience a constant lack of time. Engagement and risk taking as components of resilience reflect fundamentally opposing attitudes.
In one of the recent works (Maddi et ai, 2002) a correlation analysis of the results of measures of hardiness was carried out with the results of MCMI-III (Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory) and MMPI-II (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory).
A negative relationship was found between resilience and the severity of most personality traits on the MMPI-II and MCMI-III, reflecting clinically significant symptoms, with problems at work, and with the aggravation scale F. Vitality was positively associated with the scales of the MMPI-II and MCMI-III questionnaires, reflecting strength ego, dominance, with the social desirability scale K and social responsibility. The positive correlation of resilience with histrionic and narcissistic personality traits according to the MCMI-III was unexpected. Muddy notes that these traits may also reflect ego strength rather than the presence of neurotic symptoms.
In another study by S. Maddi and D. Khoshaba (Maddi, Khoshaba, 1994) assessed the relationship of MMPI indicators with resilience and the largely opposite variable negative affective™ - the tendency to negative emotions and pessimism in response to current events { Watson, Pennebaker, 1989; Bright, Jones 2003). The difficulty in relating resilience to negative affectivity was the difficulty of differentiating between strain and negative affectivity. The multiple regression analysis carried out for this purpose gave the following results:
A significant correlation was found between negative affectivity and the tendency to use defense mechanisms (defensiveness), while resilience did not correlate with this indicator.
A significant negative correlation of resilience was found with indicators of depression, paranoia, psychasthenia, schizophrenia, social interest, anxiety, addiction, as well as a positive correlation with ego strength.
Neither resilience nor negative efficacy showed statistically significant correlations with other MMPI measures.
Another interesting study regarding the correlation between resilience and other indicators related to human health is a study of the relationship between resilience and alcohol and drug use in adolescents (Maddi, Wadhwa, Haier, 1996). Unfortunately, despite a fairly large sample (the participation rate was 88.5% of the 226 students who agreed), the toxicological analysis yielded isolated results, on the basis of which it is difficult to draw conclusions. However, according to questionnaires and indicators of resilience, taking into account the family risk factor (measured based on self-reports of domestic violence, frequency of job changes, legal, financial problems, psychiatric illnesses of parents), a significant negative correlation was revealed between the level of resilience and alcohol consumption during the year , with current drug use and its frequency (rather than variety).
Conducted studies (in which, in particular, bus drivers, lawyers, nurses, military personnel under stressful circumstances, Americans working abroad and immigrants to the United States participated) allowed us to record significant inverse correlations in the likelihood of illness, culture shock, post-traumatic disorders, depression, etc. .d. with the level of vitality (Maddi, Khoshaba, 1994). In a study by X. Li (Lee, 1991; Alexandrova, 2004) showed that subjects with high resilience feel healthier socially and mentally, but not physically. A negative relationship between resilience and the development of somatic diseases was identified by S. Maddi in his early study of company managers 1ET (Maddi, 19986). Resilience has been shown to be negatively associated with depression and anger (Maddi, 2004 b).
Resilience is of particular importance in severe and terminal diseases (Maddi, 2003). Advances in resuscitation and surgery often make it possible to significantly prolong life, but at the cost of disability or serious limitations. In this case, resilience becomes a resource to cope with despair, feelings of helplessness and loss of meaning. In addition, in a resilient patient, the disease is less likely to cause an exacerbation of old psychological experiences and conflicts and feelings of guilt in the family. In turn, more resilient health and social care workers are more open and willing to accept the illness, aging and death of others than their colleagues with low levels of resilience.
The relationship between resilience and other positive personality characteristics
In his works, S. Maddi considers a number of psychological variables that are similar to resilience in some respects, but which must be distinguished from it:
/. Feeling connected. This concept, developed by A. Antonovsky, characterizes the potential for healthy development and psychological stability (see: Osin, in print). If, however, the sense of connectedness is based on understanding and acceptance, then resilience is more about turning difficulties into advantages through more proactive and active intervention in events.
2. Optimism. Modern psychology is dominated by two approaches to understanding optimism. One of them considers optimism-pessimism as a generalized disposition (C. Carver, M. Scheier), and the other as an attribution style, a way of explaining current events (M. Seligman). Like resilience, optimism gives a person self-confidence and provides a sense of support. On the other hand, effective coping with stressful circumstances presupposes their adequate assessment, with which expressed optimism may be inconsistent.
In a study of the connection between optimism and resilience and various types of coping strategies (Maddi, 1994) it was shown that the predictive ability of hardiness is higher than the predictive ability of optimism. Of the 15 types of coping strategies, the level of hardiness predicted 8, five of which (emotional social support, denial, alcohol and drug use, psychological and behavioral withdrawal) could not be predicted on the basis of optimism. The correlation of optimism with the indicator “positive reappraisal” was higher than that of resilience, which is associated with the already mentioned theoretical differences between the constructs: a positive reappraisal of any event is possible only with an inadequately positive assessment of it.
In a later study (Maddi, Hightower, 1999) in the first two series, indicators of optimism and resilience among students were compared with their usual ways of coping with the situation and behavior in current stressful circumstances. The subjects in the third series were women awaiting the results of a medical examination on suspicion of having a tumor. Resilience, optimism were tested (the Life Orientation Test questionnaire by C. Carver and M. Scheier was used) and coping strategies (two different questionnaires were used).
In the first and second series, resilience turned out to be more strongly related to coping strategies than optimism, and only it showed a significant negative correlation with the regressive type of coping. In the third series, optimism showed a higher correlation with the type of coping than resilience. Muddy's explanation for this finding is that high levels of risk make optimistic subjects more persistent in coping than they would under normal circumstances (although the subjects' older age may play a role). However, in this series, hardiness, in contrast to optimism, turned out to be a negative predictor of three types of regressive coping, which is consistent with Muddy's hypothesis.
3. Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy, or confidence in one's ability to perform a particular activity. (Bandura, 1977), often correlated with the control component of vitality. However, resilience is a general disposition, whereas self-efficacy is activity-specific. General self-efficacy, as the sum of the self-efficacies experienced by a person in various types of activities, is indeed close to the control component, but its relationship with engagement and risk taking remains unclear (Maddi, Harvey, 2005).
4. Sustainability(resilience). Distinguishing this concept from resilience, Muddy notes that resilience is related to behavioral reactions, being rather a possible consequence of resilience as a personal disposition. A recent book by S. Muddy and D. Khoshaba is called Resilience in Action; the authors characterize sustainability as a problem, or more precisely, a problem area, and resilience as a specific approach to solving this problem, an answer to the question about the mechanisms of sustainability { Maddi, Khoshaba, 2005).
5. Religiosity. Both religiosity and resilience share a sense of grounding and spirituality. However, the source of spirituality in religiosity is belief in the supernatural, which is attributed responsibility for what is happening, while the source of spirituality in resilience is personal efforts to interpret, organize and generalize the picture of the surrounding world.
Based on empirical research { Maddi, 2004/?), religiosity is significantly correlated with involvement and control, but is not associated with the risk-taking component. Both religiosity and resilience were negatively associated with depression and anger, but only resilience predicted levels of depression independent of religiosity. Finally, although both indicators protect a person from stress and tension, as well as from regressive coping, only resilience predicts transformational coping, a person’s active actions to overcome and reappraise the situation. In other words, resilience and religiosity, although related, independently enhance stress coping.
6. Big Five scales. When compared with data from the NEO-FFI “Big Five” scale questionnaire, not only a negative relationship between resilience and neuroticism was recorded, but also positive connections with other “Big Five” traits (strong ones with extraversion and openness, weaker ones with friendliness and conscientiousness) . However, regression analysis confirmed the discrepancy between these variables. Ch. Sensan et al. { Sansone et al., 1999), who studied the influence of hardiness on the self-regulation of monotonous activities, came to the same conclusion about the discrepancy between hardiness and the Big Five scales.
Linking resilience to environmental variables
Resilience turned out to be significantly associated not only with clinical variables, but also with success in various areas. Thus, in a prospective study of the activities of consultants (Maddi et al., 2006) revealed a positive relationship between all components of resilience and work efficiency over the next year (r=0.32-0.46).
The connection between performance under stress and resilience was shown in a study of college basketball players in Southern California. (Maddi, Hess, 1992). Testing was carried out before the start of the season, and after its end, the coaches provided the experimenters with game statistics reports on each of the subjects based on 9 parameters. The only indicator not related to resilience was the success of free throws, which are made when the game is stopped and there is no interference; all other indicators reflecting the success of actions in conditions of struggle on the court found a significant correlation with resilience (0.269-0.522). A study of resilience in rugby players in the UK also found that all components of resilience were associated with the players' professional level: involvement, control and risk taking were highest in the international team, average in the Super League team, and least in the second division team. (Golby, Sheard, 2004). Thus, the level of stress affects, if not resilience itself, then its manifestation in activity.
Resilience promotes self-regulation of activity not only under stress, but also under conditions of monotonous activity (Sansone et al., 1999): in fatigue tasks, subjects with high resilience tended to independently vary the way they performed the task and, as a result, completed it longer, but only if completing the task was meaningful to them (they were told that their comments would optimize people's performance occupied with such monotonous activities). For comparison, subjects with high conscientiousness on the NEO-FF1 questionnaire varied their methods of completion and took longer to complete the task, regardless of its meaningfulness. In other words, unlike conscientiousness, resilience provides “flexible” self-regulation and the ability to choose between continuing an activity despite fatigue and stopping it.
Interestingly, resilience also contributes to effective performance under conditions in which stressful events are replaced by long waits and periods of monotonous activity. Thus, studies of firefighters have shown that the higher their resilience, the more satisfied they are with their jobs and experience lower levels of stress, the higher the score they receive in a scoring system for assessing their job performance 4 months after graduation. (Maddi et al, 2007). The connection between resilience and performance efficiency was identified among firefighters even before undergoing training, which indicates the causal influence of resilience on the performance of activities under stressful conditions. In addition, performance was positively associated with the level of family support.
A study by S. Kobeisa and R. Hinkler found that resilience demonstrates a stable positive correlation not only with operational efficiency, but also with satisfaction with all aspects of work, confidence that the organization provides sufficient autonomy and freedom of decision-making (Maddi, Kobasa, 1984).
