The positioning different types of personality resourcefulness in the coordinates of "against-and-owing to"

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Ivan Franko National University of Lviv

The positioning different types of personality resourcefulness in the coordinates of "against-and-owing to"

Shtepa Olena Ph.D. in Psychology, Assistant Professor

Lviv (Ukraine)

Abstract

Штепа Олена

Кандидат психологічних наук, доцент, Львівський національний університет імені Івана Франка, м. Львів (Україна)

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 узагальненої ресурсності і за другорядністю смислової значущості; ресурсна насиченість є найменш операціоналізованою; психологічний капітал є найбільш увиразненим типом ресурсності; психологічна ресурсність є найбільш операціоналізованим типом ресурсності.

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 & Бфон, 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 position ing 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

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

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. resourcefulness personality psychological

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)

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).

Table 4 The types of resourcefulness as predictors of generalized personality resourcefulness

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

The results of the classification analysis revealed the nature of the imbalance of types of resourcefulness 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 factors (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*)