STUDYING PSYCHOLOGICAL RESILIENCE BY SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL METHOD

Svitlana Leontiivna Kravchuk

doi:10.32999/ksu2312-3206/2019-3-3

Svitlana Leontiivna Kravchuk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32999/ksu2312-3206/2019-3-3

Keywords: psychological resilience scale, validity, reliability, hardiness, sociability, flexibility, communication

Abstract

Purpose. The aim of this study is to investigate the psychometric properties of version of the semantic differential method (Psychological Resilience Scale – 11) and the empirical establishment of a connection between the psychological resilience of the personality with its contact and flexibility in communication in a sample of 289 Ukrainian students (140 males and 149 females), of which 123 students aged 19 to 23 years old receive first higher education, and 166 students aged between 24 and 45 years old who receive a second higher education.

Methods. In the empirical study the following psychodiagnostic methods were used: 1) a special variant of the semantic differential method (Psychological Resilience Scale – 11) (S. Kravchuk); 2) S. Muddy’s hardiness test (in the adaptation of D. Leontiev and O. Rasskazova); 3) questionnaire “Diagnosis of self-actualization of personality” (A. Lazukin, in the adaptation of N. Kalina).

Results. Special version of the semantic differential method for study of psychological resilience of personality is characterized by high retest reliability. Eleven items of the special variant of the semantic differential method for study of psychological resilience of personality are characterized by good internal consistency. The concept of psychological resilience is regarded as an integrative property of the individual, which manifests itself in the ability to maintain a stable level of psychological and physical functioning in critical situations, to proceed from such situations without persistent violations, to successfully adapt to adverse changes. Significant direct correlation relations are revealed between psychological resilience and hardiness and three components of hardiness – taking risks, control and involvement.

Conclusions. The obtained empirical results testify to the reliability and validity of the special variant of the semantic differential method for studying the psychological resilience of personality. Empirically established direct meaningful correlation relations between psychological resilience and contact, flexibility in communication. The more people are characterized by contact and flexibility in communication, the more they are inclined to psychological resilience.

References

1. Block J.H. The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization of behavior. Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology. 1980. № 13. P. 39–101.
2. What predicts psychological resilience after disaster? The role of demographics, resources, and life stress / G.А. Bonanno et al. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2007. № 75 (5). P. 671–682. DOI: 10.1037/0022-006X.75.5.671 (дата звернення: 22.05.2019).
3. Garmezy N. Resilience and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcomes associated with poverty. The American Behavioral Scientist. 1991. № 34. 416 p.
4. Kravchuk S. Hardiness as a factor of psychological resilience of youth in conditions of military conflict. Mental Health: global challenges. 2018. № 32. P. 42.
5. Lazarus R.S. From psychological stress to emotions: A history of changing outlooks. Annual Review of Psychology. 1993. № 44. P. 1–21.
6. Luthar S.S., Cicchetti D., Becker B. The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development. 2000. № 71 (3). P. 543–562.
7. Maddi S.R., Khoshaba D.M. Hardiness and Mental Health. Journal of Personality Assessment. 1994. № 63 (2). P. 265–274.
8. Masten A.S. Global perspectives on resilience in children and youth. Child Development. 2014. № 85. P. 6–20. DOI: 10.1111/cdev.12205 (дата звернення: 22.05.2019).
9. Norris F.H. Community Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness. Am J Community Psychol. 2008. № 41 (1–2). P. 131–134.
10. Rutter M. Annual research review: Resilience – clinical implications. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2013. № 54. P. 474–487. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469–7610.2012.02615.x (дата звернення: 22.05.2019).
11. Scoloveno R. A Concept Analysis of the Phenomenon of Resilience. Simulation Laboratory, Rutgers University Camden, USA. 2016. № 5. 353 p. DOI: 10.4172/2167–1168.1000353 (дата звернення: 22.05.2019).
12. Silk J.S. Resilience among children and adolescents at risk for depression: Mediation and moderation across social and neurobiological contexts. Dev Psychopathol. 2007. № 19. P. 841–865.
13. Tusaie K., Dyer J. Resilience: A Historical review of the construct. Holist Nurst Pract. 2004. № 18 (1). P. 3–8. DOI: 10.1097/00004650–200401000–00002 (дата звернення: 22.05.2019).
14. Ungar M. A constructionist discourse on resilience: Multiple contexts, multiple realities among at-risk children and youth. Youth and Society. 2004. № 35. P. 341–365. DOI: 10.1177/0044118X03257030 (дата звернення: 22.05.2019).
15. Walsh F. Family Resilience: A developmental systems framework. European Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2016. № 13 (3). P. 313–324. DOI: 10.1080/17405629.2016.1154035 (дата звернення: 22.05.2019).
16. Werner E.E. Vulnerable but invincible: a longitudinal study of resilient children and youth. New York : McGraw-Hill, 1989. 284 p.
17. Williamson J. Psychosocial interventions, or integrated programming for well-being? Interventions. 2006. № 4 (1). P. 4–25. DOI: 10.1097/01.WTF.0000229526.63438.23 (дата звернення: 22.05.2019).