CC BY
10
DOI: 10.12731/2658-4034-2022-13-1-139-153 UDC 159.99
FEATURES
OF STUDENTS' RESISTANCE IN RELATIONSHIP WITH EARLY DEADAPTIVE SCHEMAS
T.I. Kulikova
Purpose. The article is devoted to the study of the presence of a connection between resilience and maladaptive schemas in students of different ages.
Method. Studying of the correlation between resilience and maladaptive schemas among students of different ages has been conducted on a sample of 67 students of Tula State Lev Tolstoy Pedagogical University students, aged 18 to 24, in the number of 67people. As diagnostic material, the study uses Maddi's Hardiness Survey; Young Schema Questionnaire "YSQ-S3R". Methods of mathematical statistics include Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC). Correlation analysis has revealed the presence of strong inverse correlations between the resilience with maladaptive schemas "Vulnerability to Harm or Illness" and "Mistrust" (r=-0.578 and r=-0.499 at a significance level of p<0.01), "Subjugation" (r=-0.486), "Failure" (r=-0.443), "Unrelenting Standards" (r=-0.441), "Dependence/Incompetence" (r=-0.431) and "Defectiveness" (r=-0.424) atp<0.01.
Results. The study has shown that resilience is a dynamic process caused by the age-psychological characteristics of an individual, including early maladaptive patterns of behavior. This is evidenced by differences in the structure of resilience in different age groups, as well as an increase in the level of resilience from youth to youth.
Practical implications. The research materials can be used in the work of the psychological service of an educational organization. Understanding the detailed content of the process of becoming resilience contributes to the purposefulness of developmental and psychoprophylactic work.
Keywords: resilience; maladaptive schemas; students; correlation analysis
ОСОБЕННОСТИ ЖИЗНЕСТОЙКОСТИ СТУДЕНТОВ ВО ВЗАИМОСВЯЗИ С РАННИМИ ДЕЗАДАПТИВНЫМИ СХЕМАМИ
Т.И. Куликова
Цель. Статья посвящена исследованию наличия связи между жизнестойкостью и дезадаптивными схемами у студентов разного возраста.
Метод. Исследование взаимосвязи жизнестойкости и дезадап-тивных схем у студентов разного возраста проводилось на выборке студентов Тульского государственного педагогического университета им. Л.Н. Толстого в возрасте от 18 до 24 лет (67 человек). В качестве диагностического материала были применены тест жизнестойкости С. Мадди; схемный опросникЯнга «YSQ-S3R». Методы математической статистики: коэффициент корреляции Пирсона. Корреляционный анализ выявил наличие сильных обратных корреляций жизнестойкости с дезадаптивными схемами «уязвимость» и «недоверие» (г=-0,578 и г=-0,499 при уровне значимости р<0,01), «покорность» (г=-0,486), «неуспешность» (г=-0,443), «жесткие стандарты» (г=-0,441), «зависимость/беспомощность» (г=-0,431) и «дефективность» (г=-0,424) при р<0,01.
Результаты. Исследование показало: жизнестойкость - динамический процесс, обусловленный возрастно-психологическими особенностями индивида. Об этом свидетельствуют различия в структуре жизнестойкости в разных возрастных группах, а также возрастание уровня жизнестойкости от юности к молодости.
Область применения результатов. Материалы исследования могут быть использованы в работе психологической службы образовательной организации. Понимание содержательного наполнения процесса становления жизнестойкости способствует целенаправленности развивающей и психопрофилактической работы.
Ключевые слова: жизнестойкость; дезадаптивные схемы; студенты; корреляционный анализ
Introduction
One of the qualities that allow students to adequately respond to changes and develop, i.e., to be more effective in modern conditions of higher education, is resilience. Today, psychological conditions for the development of resilience as a personal resource are being actively studied. The UNESCO Declaration "Education of the 21st Century" openly states that the main value of the new culture should be the stable development of person and society, and the main goal of education is the formation of a viable personality [17, p. 6]. Understanding that resilience as one of the integral characteristics of a personality, which is a system of knowledge about oneself, about the world, about relationships with the world, allowing a person to resist the negative influences of the environment, more successfully overcome the challenges of the VUCA world, turn problematic situations into new opportunities, and determined the topic of our research, e.g. the relationship of resilience and maladaptive schemas in students of different age groups.
According to S. Maddi, resilience is something that contributes to the maintenance of physical, mental and social health, an attitude that gives life value and meaning in any circumstances [10]. D.A. Leontiev considers the phenomenon of resilience in the context of the concept of personal potential and defines resilience as an integrative characteristic of a person responsible for success in overcoming various life difficulties by a person [9]. A.A. Klimov defines resilience as a key resource for transforming life events into new opportunities despite external pressures [7]. M.V. Loginova, A.N. Fominova, M.A. Frizen understand resilience as the ability of a person to withstand a stressful situation while maintaining internal balance [10; 17; 18]. L.V. Karapetyan explores the adaptive capabilities of the individual as determinants of emotional and personal well-being/distress [5].
The analysis of studies devoted to the development of personal resilience in student age [2; 9; 14] shows the researchers's interest mainly in studying the relationship of resilience with individual personal characteristics [4; 11; 12] and coping behavior strategies [13; 23; 24]. Much less work is devoted to the study of resilience in the context of early
maladaptive schemas and modes of their functioning. According to E.N. Bogdanov, early maladaptive schemas can influence the specifics of a person's experiences and one's behavior in difficult life situations. The more pronounced various maladaptive schemas are in people, the lower the level of their adaptability is [3].
Under the influence of similar conditions, different individuals may form similar beliefs and behavioral patterns, which J. Young called maladaptive schemas [25]. The maladaptive schema represents a symptom complex of rigid beliefs, associated emotional states and behavioral patterns, the high degree of severity of which indicates the presence of a personality disorder [20].
E.S. Akarachkova shares this point of view, believing that the adaptive mechanisms of the psyche are a hierarchical structure, the formation of which is laid at the early stages of embryogenesis. Genetic and biochemical factors specifically affect the formation of brain structures responsible for adaptation to stress - the amygdala, hippocampus, hypothalamus, pituitary gland [1]. L.N. Sobchik argues that the basis of maladaptive mechanisms are innate biological and psychophysiological properties that create the basis and conditions for the interaction of these properties with the surrounding world [15].
Adaptation allows a person to stand in difficult unpredictable modern living conditions. Literature review on the phenomenon of personality resilience by international and domestic scholars actualizes the need to study the adaptive capabilities of young people to the conditions of rapidly changing Russian reality, especially at the stage of mastering the future profession.
We have assumed that the degree of severity of early maladaptive schemas is determined by the level of development of students' resilience, the development of which is facilitated not only by reaching a certain age, but also by the choice of coping behavior strategies.
The purpose of the article is to test and substantiate the connection between resilience and maladaptive schemas in students of different ages. Based on the purpose and hypothesis, the following tasks have been set: - to study the characteristics of students' resilience in different age periods;
- to determine the severity of early maladaptive schemas in students of different age groups;
- to identify the relationship between the indicators of resilience and early maladaptive schemas in students.
Method
The study has involved first- and sixth-year students of Tula State Lev Tolstoy Pedagogical University, studying under bachelor's and master's degree programs in the field of "Psychological and Pedagogical Education", aged 18 to 24 years. The quantitative composition of the sample is 67 people. The gender and age composition of the sample involves 58 girls and 9 boys; the students participating in the study have been divided into two groups according to the age criterion; the gender criterion has been taken into account. The average age of the subjects is 20.7±1.8 years, and the median age - 21 years. The median age is the criterion for dividing the subjects into two equal groups: The 1st group is age of <= 21 years and the 2nd group is age of 22+.
The following methods have been used in the study: Maddi's Hardiness Survey (translation and adaptation by D.A. Leontiev, E.I. Rasska-zova) [8]; Young Schema Questionnaire "YSQ-S3R" adapted by P.M. Kasyanik and E.V. Romanova [6].
Research results
To obtain generalized information about the empirical study data, the distribution and homogeneity of data, the presence of errors and outliers, as well as the possibility of using parametric analysis methods, a primary descriptive analysis of the results of the entire sample (n=67) has been carried out without dividing into groups obtained during the study (Table 1).
The analysis of the mean and standard deviation allows us to conclude about the stability of the values of the studied indicators. The values of the mean and median are close, which is a sign of a symmetrical distribution. The values of the asymmetry and kurtosis indicators are in the range from -1 to +1 for almost all indicators, therefore, the distribution of values corresponds to the normal law or does not deviate much from it.
Table 1.
Primary descriptive analysis of significant sample results (n=67) without division into groups obtained during the study
Scale Title Mean±SD Me[Q1; Q3] As Ek min; max
Age (y.o.) 20.7±1.8 21[19; 22] -0.3 -1.2 18; 24
Involvement 36,.8±19.5 34[24; 42] 1.1 1.3 5; 97
Control 26.4±9.5 26[21; 33] -0.04 -0.3 6; 48
Risk taking 16.9±6.9 16[12; 21] 0.5 -0.2 2; 34
Resilience 61.9±29.5 68[38; 86] -0.2 -0.8 8; 127
Unrelenting Standards 17.9±4.9 18[14; 22] 0.02 -0.4 6; 29
Mistrust 16.9±5.8 16[12; 19] 0.6 -0.1 7; 30
Vulnerability to Harm or Illness 13.1±5.2 13.3[10; 16] 0.4 -0.1 5; 27
Subjugation 12.5±5.1 12[8; 16] 0.7 0.07 5; 26
Negativity / Pessimism 14.9±5.1 14[11; 18] 0.3 -0.6 5; 27
Alienation 13.4±6.0 13[9; 16] 0.9 0.3 5; 30
Failure 13.3±5.9 12[9; 17] 0.9 0.4 5; 30
Dependence/Incompetence 11.1±4.9 10[7; 14] 0.9 1.0 3; 28
Defectiveness 10.5±6.9 9[5;14] 1.3 1.4 3; 30
Distancing 56.2±14.4 58[50; 65] -1.3 1.2 10;82
Self-control 47.5±12.4 49[43; 58] -0.9 1.3 11;66
Taking responsibility 49.3±13.1 51[46; 58] -1.3 1.3 6;66
Escape/Avoidance 56.7±15.6 60[48; 67] -1.1 1.2 8;84
Planning 50.4±13.3 53[44; 59] -1.4 1.3 8; 71
Positive revaluation 51.9±13.4 53[48; 61] -1.3 1.2 10; 75
The analysis of the obtained data on Maddi's Hardiness Survey (Table 2, Fig. 1) has been carried out in two ways using a parametric (Student's t-test) and a nonparametric test (Mann-Whitney U-test). As a result, it has been found that between the two experimental groups (<= 21 and 22+) there are differences in the indicators of structural components of resilience (p-value <0.001). The average score on the "Resilience" scale in both the first and second groups is in the range of the average value, the medians of the indicators are also close to the average value in both groups.
Structural components of resilience in different age groups have different levels of severity. Comparison of the two groups by the test has revealed significant differences in the indicator of involvement. A direct relationship was found between the involvement and the age of students (r=0.428, p<0.001). People with a high level of involvement, as a rule, enjoys their life and activities, there is an awareness of life values and meanings. Also,
using the Pearson coefficient, a weak positive relationship between risk acceptance and the age of students has been revealed (r=0.271, p<0.001).
Table 2.
Descriptive statistics for Maddi's Hardiness Survey indicators with division into age groups
Scale Title Group (y.o.) Mean±SD Me[Q1; Q3] p-value t-criterion p-value U-criterion
Involvement 1 (<= 21) 33.4±18.4 34 [22; 35] <0.001 <0.001
2 (22+) 42.3±20.4 43 [35; 43]
Control 1 (<= 21) 26.0±10.7 25 [21; 22] <0.001 <0.001
2 (22+) 27.0±7.3 28 [23; 27]
Risk taking 1 (<= 21) 16.3±6.7 16 [15; 18] <0.001 <0.001
2 (22+) 18.0±7.2 19 [16; 20]
Resilience 1 (<= 21) 59.9±28.3 63 [45; 83] <0.001 <0.001
2 (22+) 63.2±29.7 68 [38; 86]
We have applied a regression model of the dependence of resilience on age (without dividing into groups) to determine possible factors affecting the dependent variable. As a result, a regression model of the dependence of resilience on age (without division into groups) has been obtained, characterizing the nonlinear change in the index of resilience (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Regression model of the dependence of resilience on age (without division into groups)
We have found that the period from 18 to 21 years proceeds with a slight decrease in the indicators of students' resilience, but at the age of 22+ there is a rise and a gradual increase in resilience in the future. Without any doubt, only the age of the subjects is not enough to predict the resilience index, but the purpose of this regression is to show and describe the influence of age on overcoming early maladaptive schemas and compare coping strategies among students.
In accordance with the assumption that chronological maturation contributes to the development of students' resilience, accompanied by an increase in adaptive capabilities through the acquisition of coping behavior experience, leveling the influence of maladaptive schemas, in order to establish a close relationship between resilience, maladaptive schemas and coping behavior strategies, the Pearson correlation coefficient has been calculated.
On the basis of a dedicated by Young aggregated categories (domains) of the non-adaptive schemas [25], we have identified the four most important ones at the respondents - disconnection and rejection (BTR); impaired autonomy (IA); focus on the other (F/O) (violation of requirements of self-respect and acceptance of self) and hypervigilance and inhibition (HI) (violation of requirements in the free expression of their needs and emotions). Table 3 shows the correlations of significant categories of maladaptive schemas in students.
The most pronounced maladaptive categories have turned to be "disconnection and rejection" (BTR) and "hypervigilance and inhibition" (HI). In these categories, 14 statistically significant correlations between individual schemas have been found (with coefficients r=0.271 ^ 0.709, when p<0.01 and p<0.05). The found connections speak about the internal consistency of the test, as well as about the totality of the maladaptive mentality: maladap-tive attitudes in one sphere (domains) do not exist in isolation from others.
It has been revealed the greatest number of strong inverse correlations between the resilience with maladaptive schemas "Vulnerability to Harm or Illness" and "Mistrust" (r= -0.578 and r=-0.499 at a significance level of p<0.01), "Subjugation" (r=-0.486), "Failure" (r=-0.443), "Unrelenting Standards" (r=-0.441), "Dependence/Incompetence" (r=-0.431) and "Defectiveness" (r=-0.424) at p<0.01.
Table 3.
Correlations of significant categories of maladaptive schemas in students (n=67)
Maladaptive Schemas Categories S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9
BTR S2 .296*
S7 ,663** ,507** ,709** ,653** ,523**
S10 517** ,525** ,572** ,608** ,692** ,748** ,627** 749**
IA S4 ,616** ,451**
S6 ,289* ,569** ,659** ,521** ,588**
F/O S5 ,429** ,633** 579** ,708**
HI S3 ,271* ,700**
S8 ,493** ,659** 579** ,587** ,581**
S9 417** ,554** ,464** ,587** ,697** ,562** 559**
Note 1. In the table, the following notation is adopted: BTR- Disconnection and Rejection; IA- Impaired Autonomy; F/O- Focus on Others; HI- Hypervigilance and Inhibition; S1- Unrelenting Standards; S2 - Mistrust; S3 - Vulnerability to Harm or Illness; S4 - Emotional Inhibition; S5 - Subjugation; S6 - Negativity/Pessimism; S7 - Alienation; S8 - Failure; S9 - Dependence/Incompetence; S10 - Defectiveness.
Note 2. *Correlation is significant at the level of 0.05; **Correlation is significant at the level of 0.01.
The found connections, in general, show that maladaptive schemas and coping strategies form multidirectional tendencies in relation to resilience, in the first case - reducing, in the second - strengthening its manifestations. Analyzing the data of correlations of the studied variables, we observe that some of them have a high correlation coefficient.
The study has shown that resilience as a complex quality of a personality is manifested in the active participation of students in the learning process, in their awareness of their leading role in this process, as well as their ability to draw objective conclusions from a variety of situations, including complex, educational and life ones. We agree with the authors [18; 19] that resilience is determined by a person's ability to adapt socially and is part of the subjective picture of the world of youth.
The data we have obtained on the relationship of resilience and coping strategies among students are consistent with the opinion of the authors [21; 22] that the process of developing resilience is a new level of functioning, which differs from previous levels in the development of its individual components (involvement, control and risk-taking) and the nature of their relationships.
In our study, all the subjects are students between the ages of 18 and 24. Traditional postulates of age psychology and modern data in the field of neu-rophysiology and psychophysiology allow us to assert that this age range covers fundamentally different from the point of view of the formation of volitional regulation of behavior, forecasting, risk assessment and control, age stages - associated with the maturation of the frontal cortex of the large hemispheres [16]. In ontogenesis, the functions of volitional regulation begin to develop actively with the onset of puberty, ending around the age of 20; this period is accompanied by both the acquisition of new coping strategies and a rollback to the "childish" mechanisms of psychological defences. The data obtained by us on the differences in the indicators of students' resilience at different age stages, as well as age-related changes in the "Mal-adaptation-Coping" dichotomy, reflect the dynamics of both physiological maturation and, as a consequence, psychological maturation.
Conclusion
Resilience manifests itself as a set of personal and behavioral characteristics. The dynamic nature of the formation of resilience, as well as its conditionality both by early experience of interaction with the environment, have been confirmed in the results we obtained, which has confirmed the hypothesis we put forward.
We have revealed that:
- structural components of resilience in different age groups have different levels of severity: indicators of involvement and risk-taking grow with age, as well as the integral indicator of resilience.
In the future, conducting a meaningful analysis of the identified relationships and tendencies will allow building key "targets" of psychological work. Understanding the detailed content of the process of becoming resilience will contribute to the purposefulness of developmental and psy-choprophylactic work.
References
1. Akarachkova E.S., Artemenko A.R., Beliaev A.A. et al. Mozg kak mish-
en' dlya stressa i arterial'noi gipertenzii [Brain as a Target of Stress and
Hypertension]. Meditsinskoe obozrenie [Medical Review], 2019, no. 4(II), pp. 59-64.
2. Alikin I.A., Alikin M.I., Luk'yanchenko N.V. Svyaz' zhiznestoykosti stu-dentov s otnosheniyem k nim roditeley [Relationship between Hardiness in Students and Their Parents' Attitude to Them]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education], 2020, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 75-89.
3. Bogdanov E.N. Sotsial'no-psikhologicheskaya adaptatsiya vzroslykh v svyazi s rannimi dezadaptivnymi skhemami [Socio-psychological Adaptation of Adults in Maladaptive Schemas]. Prikladnaya yuridicheskaya psikhologiya [Applied Legal Psychology], 2019, no. 1(46), pp. 31-39.
4. Ermolaeva M.V., Isaev E.I., Lubovsky D.V. Razvitiye lichnostnykh kachestv studentov v khode obucheniya v magistrature [Personality Trait Development in Psychology Students During the Graduate Year]. Psik-hologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education], 2020, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 33-43.
5. Karapetyan L.V., Glotova G.A. Psikhologicheskiye determinanty emotsion-al'no-lichnostnogo blagopoluchiya trudyashchikhsya [Emotional and Personal Well-being of Workers: Psychological Determinants]. Organizacionnaja psihologja [Organizational Psychology], 2018, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 8-23.
6. Klimov A.A. Zhiznestoykost' i yeye vzaimosvyaz' s lichnostnymi tsen-nostyami studentov [Viability and its relationship with the personal values of students]. VestnikSamarskoy gumanitarnoy akademii. Seriya «Psikhologiya» [Bulletin of Samara Humanitarian Academy. Psychology Series], 2011, no. 2(10), pp. 14-23.
7. Leontiev D.A., Rasskazova E.I. Test zhiznestoykosti [Hardiness Survey]. Moscow: Smysl Publ., 2006, 63 p.
8. Leontiev D.A., Rasskazova E.I. Zhiznestoykost' kak sostavlyayushchaya lichnostnogo potentsiala [Resilience as a component of personal potential]. Lichnostnyypotentsial: struktura i diagnostika [Personal potential: structure and diagnostics]. Moscow: Smysl, 2011, pp. 178-210.
9. Loginova M.V. Zhiznestoykost' kak vnutrenniy klyuchevoy resurs lichnosti [Vitality as an internal key resource of the person]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universitetaMVD Rossii [Vestnik of Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia], 2009, no. 6, pp. 19-22.
10.Nalivaiko T.V. Issledovaniye zhiznestoykosti iyeye svyaz'so svoystvami lichnosti [The study of resilience and its relation with personality traits]. Abstract of PhD dissertation. Yaroslavl, 2006, 30 p.
11. Nalivaiko T.V. K voprosu osmysleniya kontseptsii zhiznestoykosti S. Maddi [On the issue of understanding the concept of resilience by S. Maddi]. Vestnik integrativnoy psikhologii [Bulletin of Integrative Psychology], 2006, no. 4, pp. 45-54.
12. Odintsova M.A., Semenova E.M. Preodolevayushchiye strategii pov-edeniya belorusov i rossiyan [Coping Strategies in Byelorussians and Russians]. Kul'turno-istoricheskayapsikhologiya [Cultural-historical Psychology], 2011, no 3, pp. 82-89.
13. Permyakova M.E., Barsukov A.A., Ershova I.A. Svyaz' zhiznestoykosti, schast'ya i koping-strategiy u studentov [The Research of Hardiness, Happiness and Coping Strategies Among Students]. Izvestiya Ural'sko-go federal'nogo universiteta. Seriya 1: Problemy obrazovaniya, nauki i kul tury [Izvestiya Ural Federal University. Series 1: Problems of Education, Science and Culture], 2017, vol. 23, no. 3(165), pp. 132-140.
14. Sobchik L.N. Psikhologiya individual'nosti. Teoriya i praktikapsikho-diagnostiki [Psychology of Individuality. Theory and Practice of Psychodiagnostics]. St. Petersburg, Rech' Publ., 2005, 324 p.
15. Tsekhmistrenko T.A., Obukhov D.K., Chernykh N.A. Vozrastnyye morfo-funktsional'nyye izmeneniya prefrontaTnoy kory bol'shogo mozga u detey i podrostkov [Age Related Morphofunctional Changes in the Prefrontal Cortex of the Brain in Children and Adolescents]. FORCIPE, 2020, no. 4, pp. 35-40.
16. Fominova A.N. Razvitiye zhiznestoykosti uchashchegosya v shkole [Development of Student's Resilience at School]. Moscow, Sentyabr' Publ, 2014, 160 p.
17. Frizen M.A. Zhiznestoykost' kak vnutrenniy resurs professional'noy deyatel'nosti pedagoga [Resilience as Internal Resource in the Teaching Profession]. Organizacionnajapsihologija [Organizational Psychology], 2018, vol. 8, no. 2, 72-85.
18. Eidelman G.N. Osobennosti zhiznennoy pozitsii pri razlichnykh urovnyakh psikhologicheskogo blagopoluchiya u sovremennoy molodezhi [The Features of Beliefs at Different Levels of Psychological Well-being Among Today's Youth]. Eksperimental'nayapsikhologiya [Experimental Psychology], 2016, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 82-94.
19.Ahami A., Mammad K., Azzaoui F., Boulbaroud S., Rouim F. & Rusinek S. Early Maladaptive Schemas, Working Memory and Academic Performances of Moroccan Students. Open Journal of Medical Psychology, 2017, no. 6, pp. 53-65. https://doi.org/10.4236/ ojmp.2017.62004
20. Cicchetti D. Resilience under Conditions of Extreme Stress: A Multilevel Perspective. World Psychiatry, 2010, no. 9, pp. 145-154.
21. Engmann B. Could Resilience Predict the Outcome of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Patients? Open Journal of Depression, 2013, no. 2, pp. 7-10. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojd.2013.22002
22. Hudson K. Coping Complexity Model: Coping Stressors, Coping Influencing Factors, and Coping Responses. Psychology, 2016, no. 7, pp. 300-309. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2016.73033
23. Wang Z. Coping Style and Mental Health on High School Students. Health, 2013, no. 5, pp. 170-174. https://doi.org/10.4236/health.2013.52023
24. Young J.E., Klosko J.S., Weishaar M. Schema Therapy: A Practitioner's Guide. NY, Guilford Publications, 2003, 436 р.
Список литературы
1. Акарачкова Е.С., Артеменко А.Р., Беляев А.А. и др. Мозг как мишень для стресса и артериальной гипертензии // РМЖ: Медицинское обозрение. 2019. №4 (II) С.59-64.
2. Аликин И.А., Аликин М.И., Лукьянченко Н.В. Связь жизнестойкости студентов с отношением к ним родителей // Психологическая наука и образование. 2020. Т.25. № 3. С. 75-89.
3. Богданов Е.Н. Социально-психологическая адаптация взрослых в связи с ранними дезадаптивными схемами // Прикладная юридическая психология. 2019. № 1(46). С. 31-39.
4. Ермолаева М.В., Исаев Е.И., Лубовский Д.В. Развитие личностных качеств студентов в ходе обучения в магистратуре // Психологическая наука и образование. 2020. Т. 25. № 2. С. 33-43.
5. Карапетян Л.В., Глотова Г.А. Психологические детерминанты эмоционально-личностного благополучия трудящихся // Организационная психология. 2018. Т. 8. № 4. С. 8-23.
6. Климов А.А. Жизнестойкость и ее взаимосвязь с личностными ценностями студентов // Вестник Самарской гуманитарной академии. Серия «Психология». 2011. №2(10). С. 14-23.
7. Леонтьев Д.А., Рассказова Е.И. Тест жизнестойкости. М.: Смысл. 2006. 63 с.
8. Леонтьев Д.А., Рассказова Е.И. Жизнестойкость как составляющая личностного потенциала // Личностный потенциал: структура и диагностика. М.: Смысл. 2011. 680 с.
9. Логинова М.В. Жизнестойкость как внутренний ключевой ресурс личности // Вестник Московского ун-та МВД России. 2009. № 6. С. 19-22.
10. Наливайко Т.В. Исследование жизнестойкости и ее связь со свойствами личности: автореф. ... дис. ... канд. психол. наук. Ярославль. 2006. 30 с.
11. Наливайко Т.В. К вопросу осмысления концепции жизнестойкости С. Мадди // Вестник интегративной психологии. Ярославль. 2006. № 4. С. 45-54.
12. Одинцова М.А., Семенова Е.М. Преодолевающие стратегии поведения белорусов и россиян. Культурно-историческая психология. 2011. №3. С.82-89.
13. Пермякова М.Е., Барсуков А.А., Ершова И.А. Связь жизнестойкости, счастья и копинг-стратегий у студентов // Известия Уральского федерального университета. Серия 1: Проблемы образования, науки и культуры. 2017. Т. 23. №3(165). С. 132-140.
14. Собчик Л.Н. Психология индивидуальности. Теория и практика психодиагностики. СПб.: Речь, 2005. 324 с.
15. Цехмистренко Т.А., Обухов Д.К., Черных Н.А. Возрастные морфо-функциональные изменения префронтальной коры большого мозга у детей и подростков // FORCIPE. 2020. №4. С. 35-40.
16. Фоминова А.Н. Развитие жизнестойкости учащегося в школе. М.: Сентябрь, 2014. 160 с.
17. Фризен М.А. Жизнестойкость как внутренний ресурс профессиональной деятельности педагога // Организационная психология. 2018. Т. 8, № 2. С. 72-85.
18. Эйдельман Г.Н. Особенности жизненной позиции при различных уровнях психологического благополучия у современной молодежи // Экспериментальная психология. 2016. Т. 9, № 2. С. 82-94.
19. Ahami A., Mammad K., Azzaoui F., Boulbaroud S., Rouim F. & Rusinek S. Early Maladaptive Schemas, Working Memory and Academic Performances of Moroccan Students // Open Journal of Medical Psychology, 2017, no. 6, pp. 53-65. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojmp.2017.62004
20. Cicchetti D. Resilience under Conditions of Extreme Stress: A Multilevel Perspective // World Psychiatry, 2010, no. 9, pp. 145-154.
21. Engmann B. Could Resilience Predict the Outcome of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Patients? // Open Journal of Depression, 2013, no. 2, pp. 7-10. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojd.2013.22002
22. Hudson K. Coping Complexity Model: Coping Stressors, Coping Influencing Factors, and Coping Responses // Psychology, 2016, no. 7, pp. 300-309. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2016.73033
23. Wang Z. Coping Style and Mental Health on High School Students. Health, 2013, no. 5, pp. 170-174. https://doi.org/10.4236/health.2013.52023
24. Young J.E., Klosko J.S., Weishaar M. Schema Therapy: A Practitioner's Guide. NY, Guilford Publications, 2003, 436 р.
DATA ABOUT THE AUTHOR Tatyana I. Kulikova, Candidate of Psychology Science (PhD in Psychological Sciences), Docent (Associate Professor)
Tula State Lev Tolstoy Pedagogical University
125, Lenin Ave., Tula, 300026, Russian Federation
tativkul@gmail.com
SPIN-code: 7146-4060
ORCID: 0000-0001-8655-1599
ResearcherlD: AAI-5902-2020
Scopus Author ID: 55570121100
ДАННЫЕ ОБ АВТОРЕ Куликова Татьяна Ивановна, доцент кафедры психологии и педагогики, кандидат психологических наук, доцент
Тульский государственный педагогический ун-т им. Л.Н. Толстого пр-т Ленина, 125, г. Тула, 300026, Российская Федерация tativkul@gmail.com
Поступила 11.02.2022 Received 11.02.2022
После рецензирования 20.02.2022 Revised 20.02.2022
Принята 25.02.2022 Accepted 25.02.2022
