PSYCHOLOGICAL FEATURES OF VITALITY IN HYBRID WAR
Abstract
The article provides an overview of hybrid war, psychological stability and related issues that people and communities face. Social security regarding the psychological consequences of hybrid threats was reviewed in this article. Based on scientific sources, we have identified that stability is the overriding concept of security policy. Stability refers to the ability of a person to cope with troubles – to resume and return to normal activity after confronting an abnormal, alarming and often unexpected threat.
The article presents an analysis of the concept of McAslan’s stability, which includes seven characteristics of stability. The article’s purpose is to conduct an empirical study of the stability and style of self-regulation of servicemen’s behavior.
Methods. For the study of compliance with the pressures we used the Stability test (D.O. Leontiev, E.I. Rasskazov). To diagnose the style of self-regulation of personality, we used the questionnaire “Style of self-regulation of behavior” (V.I. Morosanov).
Results. In an empirical study, we found that in the group of subjects with a below-average viability level, 66% of cases had a low level of overall self-regulation, and a high level of compliance with the pressures was characteristic of 34% of the subjects.
A high level of overall self-regulation was found in the group of respondents with a higher average survival rate than average of 76%, with only 24% being low. Therefore, the lower the level of sustainability, the lower the level of overall self-regulation, and vice versa.
Conclusions. We have determined that military personnel who are above average resilient, flexibly and adequately respond to changing conditions of service, easily master new types of activity, feel more confident in unfamiliar situations. The success of mastering new activities in such subjects depends to a large extent on the correspondence of the style features of regulation and the requirements of the type of activity being mastered.
They often have difficulty in defining a goal and program of action appropriate to the current situation; they do not always notice changes in the situation, which often leads to setbacks.
References
2. Коростылева Л.А. Психология самореализации личности: затруднения в профессиональной сфере. Санкт-Петербург, 2005. 222 с.
3. Либина А.В. Совладающий интеллект: человек в сложной жизненной ситуации. Москва, 2008. 400 с.
4. Личностный потенциал: структура и диагностика / под ред. Д.А. Леонтьева. Москва : Смысл, 2011. URL: http://www.litres.ru/pages/biblio_book/?art=5973929 (дата звернення: 10.07.2019).
5. Моросанова В.И. Развитие теории осознанной саморегуляции: дифференциальный подход. Вопросы психологии. 2011. № 3. С. 132–144.
6. Наливайко Т.В. Исследование жизнестойкости и ее связей со свойствами личности: автореф. дисс. … канд. психол. наук : 19.00.01. Челябинск, 2015. 21 с.
7. Осницкий А.Н. Саморегуляция активности субъекта в ситуации потери работы. Вопросы психологии. 1999. № 1. С. 92–104.
8. Фоминова А. Жизнестойкость личности. Москва, 2015. 152 с.
9. Чудновский В.Э. Становление личности и проблема смысла жизни: избранные труды. Москва, 2006. 768 с.
10. Hoffman F. Conflict in the 21st Century: The rise of Hybrid Wars. Arlington, 2015.
11. Pospisil J. Resilienz: Die Neukonfiguration von Sicherheitspolitik im Zeitalter von Risiko. Austrian Journal of Political Science. 2013. No. 1. pp. 18–42.
12. Garmezy N. Vulnerability Research and the Issue of Primary Prevention. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2014. No. 41. pp. 101–116.
13. Rutter M. Protective Factors in Children’s Responses to Stress and Disadvantages in Primary prevention of psychopathology, M.W. Kent and J.E. Rolf editors. Primary prevention of psychopathology (Vol. 3, Social competence in children.University Press of New England). Hanover, 2015. pp. 49–74.
14. McAslan A. The Concept of Resilience. Understanding its Origins, Meaning and Utility. Adelaide, Australia, 2010.
15. Brassett J., Croft S., Vaughan-Williams N. Introduction: An Agenda for Resilience Research in Politics and International Relations. Politics. 2014. No. 4. pp. 221–228.
16. Joseph J. Resilience as Embedded Neoliberalism: A Governmentality Approach. Resilience. 2013. No. 1. pp. 38–52.
17. Dunn Cavelty M., Prior T. Resilience in Security Policy: Present and Future. CSS Analysis in Security Policy. 2014. No. 142. pp. 142.
18. Bērziņš J. Russia’s New Generation Warfare in Ukraine: Implications for Latvian Defense Policy. Policy Paper. 2014. No. 02. pp. 125–127.
19. Giegerich B. Hybrid Warfare and the Changing Character of Conflict. Connections: The Quarterly Journal 15. 2016. No. 2. pp. 65–72.
20. Joel Andersson J. Hybrid Operations: Lessons from the Past. 2015. URL: https://www.iss.europa.eu/content/hybrid-operations-lessons-past (дата звернення: 10.07.2019).
21. Anthony I., Grand C., Lewis P. Towards a New European Security Strategy? Assessing the Impact of Changes in the Global Security Environment. Luxembourg, 2015.
22. Samelson F. World War I Intelligence Testing and the Development of Psychology. Journal of the History of Behavioral Sciences. 2014. No. 3. pp. 274–282.
23. Brett T. Litz. Research on the Impact of Military Trauma: Current Status and Future Directions. Military Psychology. 2007. No. 3. pp. 217–238.
24. William P. Nash. Combat/Operational Stress Adaptations and Injuries. New York, 2007.
25. Litz B., King L., King D., Orsillo S., Friedman M. Warriors as Peacekeepers: Features of the Somalia Experience and PTSD. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1997. No. 6. pp. 1001–1010.
