The Positioning Different Types of Personality Resourcefulness in the Coordinates of "against-and-owing to"

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

The Positioning Different Types of Personality Resourcefulness in the Coordinates of "against-and-owing to"

Shtepa Olena

Ph.D. in Psychology, Assistant Professor, Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, Lviv (Ukraine)

Abstract

The aim of the article was to establish the nature of the relationship between the types of resourcefulness of a personality based on empirical data.

Methods. In the empirical study, the psychological survey methods were used, as well as mathematical and statistical methods of correlation, classification, discriminant, multifactorial, significative, comparative analysis. The empirical study is implemented in the Nelson's model, which makes it possible to describe the phenomenon under study under given conditions.

Research results. The indicators of comparability based on the results of the multivariate test of signification and comparative analysis using the Schef- fe's test justified are: value of oneself, freedom, responsibility. It should be noted that the empirical argumentation of hardiness as an indicator of comparability and a vector for positioning resource types is weak. Personality resourcefulness is different from other types resourcefulness in terms of the smallest share of representation in the volume of generalized resourcefulness and in the secondary importance of semantic significance. Resource richness is the least, and psychological resource is the most operationalized of the type from resourcefulness. Psychological capital is the most clearly expressed type of resourcefulness.

Conclusions. In the manifestation of the types of resourcefulness of the personality, the experience of overcoming difficult life situations is revealed, at the same time, the main thing is the experience of independent choice according to conscience, the freedom to take advantage of the opportunity to choose and responsibility for its consequences. Therefore, we conclude that the positioning of the types of psychological resourcefulness in the coordinates of "against-and- owing to" is carried out, to a large extent, owing to the individual's reliance on the ethical choice. Empirical comparison of types of resourcefulness according to reasonable indicators allows us to determine the nature of their relationship as a constellation - an ordered matrix of interrelated valuable issues. The applied significance of the positioning of types of resourcefulness lies in the opening possibility of predicting a change in the type of resourcefulness of a personality when choosing freedom and responsibility, as well as maintaining of him internal dialogue with conscience.

Key words: personality resourcefulness, richness of resourcefulness, psychological capital, trained resourcefulness, positioning of types of resourcefulness.

Штепа Олена. Позиціонування різних типів ресурсностей особистості у координатах "всупереч-і-завдяки"

Метою дослідження було встановити характер співвідношення різних типів ресурсностей особистості на основі емпіричних даних.

У емпіричному дослідженні використано метод психологічного опитування, а такожматематико-статистичні методи кореляційного, класифікаційного, дискримінантного, багатофакторного, сигніфіка- тивного, порівняльного аналізу. Емпіричне дослідження реалізовано за моделлю Нельсона, що дає змогу описати досліджуване явище за наявних умов.

Результати дослідження. Індикаторами порівняння за даними мультиваріативного тесту сигніфікативності і порівняльного аналізу за тестом Шеффе обґрунтовано життєстійкість, самоцінність, свободу, відповідальність. Варто відзначити, що емпірична аргументація життєстійкості як індикатора порівняння, а, відтак, і вектора позиціонування типів ресурсності, є слабкою. Персональна ресурсність найбільше відрізняється від інших досліджуваних типів ресурсності за найменшою часткою представленості у обсязі узагальненоїресурсності і за другорядністю смислової значущості; ресурсна насиченість є найменш операціоналізованою; психологічний капітал є найбільш увиразненим типом ресурсності; психологічна ресурсність є найбільш операціоналізованим типом ресурсності. personality psychological resourcefulness

Висновки. У вияві ресурсності особистості наявний досвід долання складних життєвих ситуацій, водночас головним є досвід самостійного вибору за совістю, свобода скористатись можливістю вибору і відповідальність за його наслідки. Зроблено висновок що, позиціонування типів психологічної ресурсності у координатах "всупереч-і-завдяки" відбувається значною мірою завдяки опорі людини на етичність вибору. Емпіричне порівняння типів ресурсності за обґрунтованими індикаторами дає змогу визначити характер їх співвідношення, як констеляцію - упорядковану матрицю взаємопов'язаних значущих даностей. Прикладне значення позиціонування типів ресурсностей особистості полягає у можливості прогнозування зміни типу ресурсності людини за вибором нею свободи і відповідальності та наявності внутрішнього діалогу з совістю.

Ключові слова: персональна ресурсність, психологічна ресурсність, ресурсна насиченість, психологічний капітал, навчена ресурсність, позиціонування типів ресурсності.

Introduction

In modern research in the fields of professional activity, mental health, education, work, and life balance, scientists are increasingly turning to the study of configurations of success and resourcefulness of the person, which resourcefulness is interpreted, in our opinion, very broadly as certain content, its strengths and prospects. In our opinion, psychologists of theorists and practitioners are rightly considered resourcefulness as one of the basic characteristics of personality, so to bring clarity to scientific terminology and effectiveness of psychological practice; it is advisable to clarify the characteristics of "personality resourcefulness".

Our theoretical analysis of scientific literature has shown that currently in professional sources there are such configurations of the concept of "personality resourcefulness", which are probably appropriate to allow types of resourcefulness: psychological resourcefulness, personal resourcefulness, the richness of resourcefulness, psychological capital, and trained resourcefulness. Interpretation of resourcefulness in these terms, in our opinion, has a semantic difference. In particular, psychological resourcefulness emphasizes the ability of a person to operate with his own known psychological resources (Штепа, 2018: 382). Personal resourcefulness determines a person's willingness to watch and characterize the ratio of losses and gains of resources that he considers his own ones (Hobfoll et al, 2018: 105). The richness of resourcefulness is revealed as the reflexive determined human ability to transform the quantitative content of their psychological resources (Штепа, 2020: 233). Psychological capital (Gr zinger et al, 2022: 692) reveals a person's enduring ability to consider himself viable and life-giving. Learned resourcefulness is manifested through self-harmonization and self-actualization (Кривцова & Бірон, 2019: 71).

We believe that it is inexpedient to unify the characteristics of psychological resourcefulness, because updated data on theory and practice, of course, will lead to corrections in the content of the concept over time. At the same time, we drew our attention to the possibility of comparing the different "resourcefulness" of the person with the prospect of characterizing the way of expressing resourcefulness, because these interpretations of resourcefulness are about the operation of human own resources.

In order to implement this idea, it was necessary to compare different types of resourcefulness according to certain common internal indicators, so this task was implemented in the positioning method. Since the available research (Hobfoll et al, 2018; Grozinger et al, 2022) deals with the manifestation of personality's resourcefulness, both under stressful circumstances and under conditions of success, we decided to position different types of personality resourcefulness in the coordinates "against-and- owing to". Empirical descriptors of "against-and-owing to" coordinates have defined freedom and responsibility as fundamental authentic abilities of a person that presuppose choice (Savchin, 2017: 151, 157; Langle et.al, 2003: 138); self-worth as a conscience that allows a person to make their own choices reasonably (Koryakina, 2015: 53); vitality, manifested in human resistance to life difficulties (Sadeghpour et. Al, 2021: 42).

The aim of the study was to establish the nature of the ratio of different types of personality's resourcefulness on the basis of empirical data.

The aim of the article

The aim of this article is: 1) to verify the indicators of comparability of types of resourcefulness empirically - hardiness, the value of oneself, freedom, responsibility; 2) determine the ratio of types of resourcefulness empirically as parts to the whole - generalized resourcefulness; 3) empirically characterize the ratio of the types of resourcefulness to each other as part to part on the indicators of comparability; 4) to interpret the applied value of positioning the types of personality resourcefulness in the coordinates "against-and-owing to" on the basis of empirical data.

Methods of research

The following psychodiagnostic methods were used in the empirical study: O. Shtepa's psychological resourcefulness questionnaire, E. Riazantseva's test-questionnaire for diagnosing indicators of existential resources of personality, and the selfassessment questionnaire (I. Burovikhina, D. Leontiev, E. Osin adapted the method of Values in Action of K. Peterson and M. Seligman), the questionnaire on strategies for overcoming the crisis by M. Laad, the questionnaire of psychological wellbeing (adaptation of S. Karskanova of the method of K. Riff), methods for determining (in)tolerance to the uncertainty of S. Baudelaire (adaptation of G. Soldatova, L. Scheiger), methods of assessing and predicting the psychological development of situations of interpersonal interaction of O. Bandarenko, the questionnaire of loss and acquisition of personal resources (developed by N. Vodopianova and M. Stein), the coherence scale of A. Antonovski in the adaptation of E. Osin, the test of existential motivations in the version of V. Shumskyi, E. Ukolova, E. Osina, Ya. Lupandina, Hardiness test (adaptation by D. Leontiev and

E. Rasskazova of S. Muddy's Hardiness Survey questionnaire), the existence scale (Existenzskala) by A. Lengle and K. Orgler (adaptation by S. Krivtsova). The study involved 420 people aged 22-64 (Mean = 36.2) (among them 59% of women and 41% of men) (students, teachers, lecturers, lawyers, doctors, entrepreneurs, housewives, freelancers, retirees). The theoretical hypothesis of the study: the positioning of types of resourcefulness will give the oportunity whether the resourcefulness of the person is in spite of difficult life circumstances or due to its ability to make independent choices to engage in life situations.

We considered the mathematical-statistical model of their correlation according to certain indicators of comparability to be an empirical verification of the positioning of resource types. Assumptions of empirical research: indicators of comparability of personality resource types are hardiness, the value of oneself, freedom, responsibility. The empirical research was implemented according to Nelson's model, which allows to describe the studied phenomenon under existing conditions. Empirical research of comparability indicators is determined of the indicators of freedom and responsibility of the scale of the existence of A. Lengle and K. Orgler, the indicator of self-worth of the test of existential motivations in the version of V. Shumsky and others; hardiness indicator - according to the questionnaire Hardiness Survey of S. Muddy.

Results and discussions

To substantiate the indicators of comparability of resource types, we used a multivariate test of significance and comparative analysis according to the Scheffe test, because we determined that the indicator of comparability should be significant to all compared phenomena and emphasize their diversity.

In order to clarify whether the indicators of comparability of different types of resourcefulness are tangible, a multivariate test of significance was used (Table 1).

Table 1

Results of a multivariate significance test of comparability indicators for different types of resourcefulness

Based on the data of significance, it can be argued that the value of oneself, freedom, and responsibility are important at the same time for all types of resourcefulness studied. Hardiness at a statistically significant level of expression in the types of resourcefulness did not show.

Checking the presence of differences between the types of resourcefulness from indicators of their comparability was implemented by the method of the Scheffe test (Fig. 1). The results of the comparative analysis according to the Scheffe test showed sufficient clarity of types of resourcefulness for the indicators of comparability. All the studied types of resourcefulness differ in three of the four indicators of comparability, only psychological and personal resourcefulness are different in only one indicator - freedom. According to the results of significant and comparative analysis, we included in the further analysis of the positioning of types of resourcefulness all four indicators of comparability: hardiness, value of oneself, freedom, responsibility.

Characterization of the ratio of different types of resourcefulness of the individual was implemented in two ways, namely: as the ratio of parts to the whole and as part to part. In order to characterize the ratio of different types of resources of the individual empirically as the ratio of parts to the whole was first mathematically calculated total sum of all types of resourcefulness, which was taken as a whole; then, with the help of such methods of mathematical and statistical analysis as discriminant, classification, correlation, comparative analysis, and the principal components method, data were obtained to decide on the positioning of resource types in the "against-and-owing to" coordinates.

Fig.1. Screenshot of the results of the Scheffe test on the differences between the types of resourcefulness on the indicators of hardiness, the value of oneself, freedom, responsibility

The results of the discriminant analysis presented in Table 2 made it possible to determine whether it is correct to consider different types of resourcefulness as part of a certain "general" resourcefulness of the person.

Table 2

The results of discriminant analysis of different types of the resourcefulness of the individual to their total mathematical sum as a whole (Wilks' Lambda=0.57)

The overall rate of the correctness of discrimination is 94.8%, the rate of Wilks' Lambda (0.57) is quite high, mathematically generalized resourcefulness includes all studied types of personality resourcefulness. The results of discriminant analysis allowed us to state that personal resourcefulness, psychological resourcefulness, psychological capital, the richness of resourcefulness with a high probability can be shown as parts of certain generalized resourcefulness of personality; therefore, it is expedient to characterize their comparability.

In order to identify the conditionality of the types of resourcefulness to each other, a comparative analysis was applied, which found that only if increasing levels of personal resourcefulness decreases the level of the richness of resourcefulness (t-test: Ml = 133.00; M2 = 124.25; p = 0.02; p < 0.05). Such results have called into question the conclusion that there is a linear relationship between resource types. Correlation analysis was used to clarify the nature of the relationship between resource types (Table 3).

Table 3

Results of correlation analysis of types of personality resourcefulness (p < .001*)

Correlation analysis has shown that all types of resourcefulness are directly related to generalized resourcefulness, while the relationship between the very types of resourcefulness is maintained only by psychological resourcefulness. The connection between the types of resourcefulness, in our opinion, is spectral with the breaking point in psychological resourcefulness. The ratio of types of resourcefulness to generalized resourcefulness can be described as cumulative. Figure 2 illustrates the quantitative relationship of resource types in the content of the generalized resourcefulness.

It is important to note that psychological resourcefulness, the richness of resourcefulness, and psychological capital represent from 26 to 31% of the content of generalized resourcefulness, and personal resourcefulness - only 13%. Such data show, that the psychological resources, that a person determines on his own through the ratio of losses and gains (actually, personal resources), cover a much smaller share of personality resourcefulness than those that he operates, which he experiences and capitalizes. Thus, resourcefulness to a lesser extent characterizes a person's appropriated capabilities, and to a greater extent - access to them. Such inferences can be confirmed by the results of classification analysis (Table 4).

Fig. 2. Diagram of the quantitative ratio of types of resourcefulness in the content of the generalized resourcefulness (%)

The types of resourcefulness as predictors of generalized personality resourcefulness.

Table 4

The results of the classification analysis revealed the nature of the imbalance of types of resourcefulness in relation to generalized resourcefulness of personality: psychological resourcefulness and psychological capital with high probability determine the functioning of generalized resourcefulness, while its definition of the richness of resourcefulness and personal resourcefulness is modest. At the same time, it is noteworthy that the richness of resourcefulness as a predictor of generalized resourcefulness is insignificant, and quantitatively it is one of the main components. The empirical results by the principal components method (in which resource types were specified as dependent variables and generalized resource status as a grouping indicator) revealed that the correct description of the ratio of resource types covers four types of resourcefulness and has certain features (Fig. 3).

Fig.3. Correlation of types of resourcefulness as a component of the generalized resourcefulness of the personality

The first factor of the components of generalized resourcefulness included psychological resourcefulness, the richness of resourcefulness, psychological capital; the second included personal resourcefulness.

Psychological capital as a type of resourcefulness with a factor weight of 0.56 is represented in both the first and second f actors (factor weight 0.56), which, in our opinion, gives grounds for assumptions about the possibilities of capitalization of psychological resources, as a consequence of psychological resource and the richness of resourcefulness, and as personal resourcefulness.

In order to characterize the positioning of different types of the resourcefulness of personality empirically as the ratio of parts of generalized resources, empirical indicators were introduced to enable such a comparison - indicators of freedom, responsibility, the value of oneself, hardiness. Mathematical and statistical verification of positioning is implemented using a cluster, correlation, multifactor analysis.

In order to check possible substantive changes in the ratio of resource types with the activation of comparability indicators, cluster analysis was used (Figs. 4, 5).

Initially, the location of the types of resourcefulness only was established. Cluster analysis revealed that psychological resourcefulness, personal resourcefulness, psychological capital belong to one cluster, and the richness of resourcefulness stands separately from them.

Fig.4. Clustering tree of types of resourcefulness of personality

Fig.5. Clustering tree of types of resourcefulness of personality and indicators of their comparing

Further, indicators of comparability of resource types were added to the cluster analysis. The results shown in Fig. 5 showed the invariability of the mutual location of types of resourcefulness, which indicates that the comparability indicators do not distort the ratio of types of resourcefulness. At the same time, it is important to pay attention to which types of resourcefulness the comparability indicators have qualitatively joined: freedom, responsibility, the value of oneself - to psychological capital and personal resourcefulness, and hardiness - to psychological resourcefulness; we tend to describe the richness of resourcefulness as inoperative.

Correlation analysis was used to check the linearity of the relationship between resource types and indicators of their comparability (Table 5).

Table 5

Results of correlation analysis of types of resourcefulness of personality and indicators of their comparability (p < 0.001*)

The results of correlation analysis showed that with the increase in the level of indicators of comparability indicators, the level of psychological resourcefulness increases proportionally. Since psychological resourcefulness is associated with all the studied types of resourcefulness, it is reasonable to assume the existence of such a relationship of types of resourcefulness, in which the features of psychological resourcefulness are, positioned other types of resourcefulness. Freedom can be interpreted as a linear indicator of comparability for all types of resources. The value of oneself should not be allowed as an indicator of linear comparability for personal resourcefulness and psychological capital.

In order to generalize the structuring of types of resourcefulness in relation to the tools of their comparability, a multifactor analysis was implemented. Initially, only types of resourcefulness were included in the factor model, and it was found that they constitute one factor, which cumulatively explains 38.5% of the variance (factor weight> 0.7) (psychological resource (0.83), personal resource (0, 40), the richness of resourcefulness (0.62), psychological capital (0.56) Further, the multifactor model included indicators of comparability of types of resourcefulness (cumulatively this model explained 60% of the variance), which further allowed to characterize the ratio of types of resourcefulness through their structuring (Table 6; Fig. 6).

Table 6

Results of multifactor analysis of types of resourcefulness of personality

In the multifactor model, it is expedient to note its optimality (the model is three-factor) and to pay attention to the revealed combination of types of resourcefulness and indicators of their comparability. In particular, hardiness is both a tool of comparability for psychological capital and psychological and personal resourcefulness; psychological resourcefulness is active for comparison through responsibility, freedom, hardiness, the value of oneself.

Figure 6 illustrates a two-vector model of mathematical positioning of resource types and empirical indicators of instruments of their comparability. The results of the multifactor analysis showed the validity of the assumption of the value of oneself, freedom, responsibility indicators of comparability of resource types; at the same time, hardiness is not likely to be an indicator of comparability, however, mathematical and statistical bases are insufficient to reject it from the analytical field.

Fig.6. Two-vector model of mathematical positioning of resourcefulness and indicators of their comparability

Results and discussion

We have assumed that the resourcefulness of personality is manifested in the "against-and-owing to" coordinates, in spite of life difficulties, which is expressed in hardiness, and due to the experience of conscientious choice, which is represented in the value of oneself. Freedom and responsibility as authentic abilities of the personality were suggested as an alternative to indicators of positioning the types of resourcefulness.

The results of empirical research, in particular discriminant analysis and the method of principal components, allowed us to generalize that psychological resourcefulness, personal resourcefulness, the richness of resourcefulness, psychological capital should be considered the types of personality resourcefulness. At the same time, personal resourcefulness differs most from other studied types of resourcefulness in the smallest share of representation in the amount of generalized resourcefulness and in the secondary substantive significance; the richness of resourcefulness is the least operationalized; psychological capital is the most pronounced type of resourcefulness; psychological resourcefulness is the most operationalized type of resourcefulness.

Indicators of comparability according to the multivariate test of significance and comparative analysis according to the Scheffe test substantiate the value of oneself, freedom, responsibility. According to the results of the study, the empirical argumentation of hardiness as an indicator of comparability, and, consequently, the vector of the positioning of resource types, is weak. In our opinion, it is expedient to take into account vitality as a secondary, background indicator of comparability of types of the resourcefulness of personality, which characterizes a person's ability to operate with their own psychological resources precisely after collisions with difficult life circumstances. In particular, psychological resourcefulness as the ability to know, accommodate and update their own psychological resources, personal resourcefulness as an interpretation of acquired and lost opportunities, psychological capital as a characterization of the ability to successfully use life chances are the types of resourcefulness. At the same time, such a type of resourcefulness as the richness of resourcefulness, which reveals a person's existing and not always known to himself of person volume of his psychological resources, is least identified through hardiness, and largely - through the value of oneself. In our opinion, a person has a sense of the richness of resourcefulness due to his inherent interest in himself and in life, he feels resourcefulness, as full of energy. Hardiness is a component of psychological capital, so, of course, emphasizes this type of resourcefulness, but it is its only emphasis. The type of personal resourcefulness turned out to be difficult to express: it differs from psychological resourcefulness only in the indicator of freedom, and the content of the freedom of personal resourcefulness is largely a "liberty" of human interpretations of their own gains and losses. According to the existential paradigm of the individual, the freedom of the individual is complemented by responsibility, so, in the absence of responsibility, personal resourcefulness can assimilate psychological capital, and a personality may be illusory to consider himself viable.

According to the results of this research, we can say, that for the manifestation of the resourcefulness of the person there is the experience of overcoming difficult life situations, but the major thing is the understanding of the independent choice of conscience, freedom to choose, and responsibility for its consequences. Therefore, we conclude that the positioning of types of psychological resourcefulness in the "against-and-owing to" coordinates is largely due to - due to human reliance on the ethics of choice. It is revealed that freedom and responsibility are not alternative coordinates of positioning the types of resources, but the available vectors of their expression teamwise with the value of oneself.

The empirical possibility of comparing the types of resourcefulness on the basis of sound indicators makes it possible to determine the nature of their relationship as a constellation - an ordered matrix of interconnected significant data. An empirical comparison of types of resourcefulness according to reasonable indicators allows us to determine the nature of their relationship as a constellation - an ordered matrix of interrelated givens. The applied significance of the positioning of types of resourcefulness lies in the opening possibility of predicting a change in the type of resourcefulness of a personality when choosing him freedom and responsibility, as well as maintaining his own internal dialogue with conscience.

Literature

1. Кривцова Н.В., Бірон Б.В. Роль відчуття когеренції у зростанні ресурсності особистості та рівнів само ефективності. Science and Education. A New Dimension. Pedagogy and Psychology, 2019. Vol. 79, No 197. P. 70-73. URL: https://repo.odmu.edu.ua:443/xmlui/ handle/123456789/9719.

2. Савчин М. Здатності особистості: монографія. Київ: ВЦ "Академія", 2016.288с.

3. Штепа О.С. Ресурсна насиченість особистості. Збірник наукових праць "Проблеми сучасної психології", 2020. Вип. 47. С. 231-252. URL: https://doi.org/10.32626/2227-6246.2020-47.231-252.

4. Штепа О.С. Опитувальник психологічної ресурсності особистості: результати розробки й апробації авторської методики. Збірник наукових праць "Проблеми сучасної психології", 2018. Вип. 39. С. 380-399. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Pspl_2018_39_33.

5. Grozinger A., Wolff S., Ruf P.J. et al. The power of shared positivity: organizational psychological capital and firm performance during exogenous crises. Small Bus Econ., 2022. Vol. 58. P. 689-716. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00506-4.

6. Koriakina Julia. Conditions for fulfilled life: description and measurement of existential motivations. National Psychological Journal, 2015. Вип. 4. С. 49-65. URL: https://doi.org/10.11621/npj.2015.0404.

7. Langle A., Orgler Ch., Kundi M. The Existence Scale. A new approach to assess the ability to find personal meaning in life and to reach existential fulfilment. European Psychotherapy, 2003. Vol. 4. No 1. P. 135-151. URL: https://www.existenzanalyse.org/wp-content/uploads/ESK- Article_-_EP_2003.pdf.

8. Sadeghpour M., Fereydooni-Moghadam M., Namnabati M. The Impact of Ko- basa and Maddi Hardiness Model on Stress and Hardiness of Iranian Pediatric Nurses: A Clinical Trial Study. Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery research, 2021. Vol. 26(1). P. 42-46. URL: https://doi. org/10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_128_20.

9. Hobfoll Stevan E., J. Halbesleben, Jean-Pierre Neveu, Mina Westman. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2018. Vol. 5 (1).P. 103-128. URL: h^://^ca3.^ch.edu/i^^t₁es/<^(^fei^l't/^i3/ lecturereadinglists/Hobfoll%20et%20al.%2C%202018.pdf.

10. References

11. Grozinger, A., Wolff, S., & Ruf, P.J. (2022). The power of shared positivity: organizational psychological capital and firm performance during exogenous crises. Small Bus Econ., 58, 689-716. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00506-4.

12. Hobfoll, Stevan E., Halbesleben, J., Neveu, J.-P., & Westman, M. (2018). Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5 (1), 103-128. Retrieved from https://icos.umich.edu/sites/ default/files/lecturereadinglists/Hobfoll% 20et% 20al.% 2C% 20 2018.pdf.

13. Koriakina, Julia. (2015). Conditions for fulfilled life: description and measurement of existential motivations. National Psychological Journal, 4, 49-65. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.11621/npj.2015.0404.

14. Kryvtsova, N.V., & Biron, B.V. (2019). Rol vidchuttia koherentsii u zrostan- ni resursnosti osobystosti ta rivniv samoefektyvnostii [The role of a sense of coherence in the growth of personal resources and levels of self-efficacy]. Science and Education. A New Dimension. Pedagogy and Psychology, 79 (197), 70-73. Retrieved from https://repo.odmu. edu.ua:443/xmlui/handle/123456789/9719 [in Ukrainian].

15. Langle, A., Orgler, Ch., & Kundi, M. (2003). The Existence Scale. A new approach to assess the ability to find personal meaning in life and to reach existential fulfilment. European Psychotherapy, 4 (1), 135-151. Re- trived from https://www.existenzanalyse.org/wp-content/uploads/ ESK-Article_-_EP_2003.pdf.

16. Sadeghpour, M., Fereydooni-Moghadam, M., & Namnabati, M. (2021). The Impact of Kobasa and Maddi Hardiness Model on Stress and Hardiness of Iranian Pediatric Nurses: A Clinical Trial Study. Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery research, 26(1), 42-46. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_128_20.

17. Savchin, M. (2016). Personality abilities [Personality abilities]. Kyiv: "Academy" [in Ukrainian].

18. Shtepa, O. (2020). Resursna nasychenist osobystosti [Resource richness of personality]. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats "Problemy suchasnoi psy- kholohii" - Collection of research papers "Problems of modern psychology", 47, 231-252. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.32626/2227- 6246.2020-47.231-252 [in Ukrainian].

19. Shtepa, O.S. (2018). Opytuvalnyk psykholohichnoi resursnosti osobystosti: rezultaty rozrobky i aprobatsii avtorskoi metodyky [Questionnaire of psychological resource personality: results of development and testing of the author's method]. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats "Problemy suchasnoi psykholohii" - Collection of research papers "Problems of modern psychology", 39, 380-399. Retrieved from http://nbuv.gov.ua/ UJRN/Pspl_2018_39_33 [in Ukrainian].

Размещено на Allbest.ru