Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Knowledge Database
• Slide Presentation for the lecture of: Dmitry Leontiev
Higher School of Economics, Russia
• Topic of ...
THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY RESOURCES
IN PHYSICALLY DISABLED STUDENTS
FACING THE ADJUSTMENT CHALLENGE
Dmitry Leontiev & Anna L...
Aims
It is widely acknowledged in our days that special physical
disabilities, that is deficiency of bodily resources, do ...
Theoretical Background
• Personality-focused rather than
disability-focused approach
• Self-regulation rather than
disposi...
Hampered personality development
model (Leontiev, 2011, 2014)
• HPD – neither “normal” nor “abnormal” developmental
path.
...
Theoretical assumptions
Basing on previous data and theoretical
considerations, we assumed that physical disability
≠malad...
Resources (assets) = that what makes
difference for goal attainment
• Bodily resources
• Social resources
• Macrosocial (s...
The base of the study
Moscow State University for Psychology and Education
Institute of the problems of integrative educat...
The present study
The sample: 210 college and university students studying
in inclusive settings (48 PD and 162 CH).
The p...
Methods
• Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) – E. Diener et al. (1984) / D. Leontiev, E. Osin (2008).
• Subjective Happin...
All resource variables highly
correlated with each other. All
scores were transformed into
a common scale to make the
aggr...
Results 1: Does health status make much difference?
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Independent var. Scales (Dependent v...
Results 1: Does health status make much difference?
9.6
9.8
10
10.2
10.4
10.6
10.8
11
11.2
EstimatedMarginalMeans
Health s...
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Independent var. Scales (Dependent var.) F Sig.
Health status *
Maladjustment
Perceived ...
Maladjustment * health status
Hardiness total Hardiness Control
- Normal (Mini-Mult results – all scales are in normal sco...
Correlations
Mini-mult scales
L F K HS 1 D 2 HY 3 PD 4 PA 6 PT 7 SE 8 MA 9
Disabled Resources Pearson
corr.
.252 -.050 .21...
higher in
“strong
resources”
group
higher in “weak
resources”
group
Heath status Group Scales F Sig.
Satisfaction with lif...
Results 4: Significant differences depending on resources
and maladjustment in the physically disabled
higher in
“strong
r...
The interaction effects of factors:
‘Resources’ and ‘Maladjustment’ (disabled)
Maladjustment
Posttraumatic Growth total
No...
Summary of results
1. Health status (disability), maladjustment (strained adjustment mechanisms)
and lack of personality r...
Thank you for your
attention
dmleont@gmail.com
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Dmitry Leontiev: The Role of Personality Resources in Physically Disabled Students Facing the Adjustment Challenge - Slide presentation

345 views

Published on

AAA

Published in: Services
  • Be the first to comment

Dmitry Leontiev: The Role of Personality Resources in Physically Disabled Students Facing the Adjustment Challenge - Slide presentation

  1. 1. Knowledge Database • Slide Presentation for the lecture of: Dmitry Leontiev Higher School of Economics, Russia • Topic of lecture: The Role of Personality Resources in Physically Disabled Students Facing the Adjustment Challenge • The lecture was given at Beit Issie Shapiro’s 6th International Conference on Disabilities – Israel • Year: 2015
  2. 2. THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY RESOURCES IN PHYSICALLY DISABLED STUDENTS FACING THE ADJUSTMENT CHALLENGE Dmitry Leontiev & Anna Lebedeva National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia Moscow State University for Psychology and Education
  3. 3. Aims It is widely acknowledged in our days that special physical disabilities, that is deficiency of bodily resources, do not necessarily result in maladjustment, but can be compensated by social and personality resources. We hypothesized that the possession of personality resources is more predictive of well-being that the challenges of psychological adjustment.
  4. 4. Theoretical Background • Personality-focused rather than disability-focused approach • Self-regulation rather than dispositional A. Adler: compensation of organic deficits by other resources N. Bernstein: “functional organs” involving both bodily and mental structures L. Vygotsky: transformation of socially shared activities into individual ones M. Seligman: buffering function of personality strengths
  5. 5. Hampered personality development model (Leontiev, 2011, 2014) • HPD – neither “normal” nor “abnormal” developmental path. • Developmental tasks are “normal”; bodily resources are deficitary; compensatory redistribution to macrosocial, microsocial and finally personality resources. • Challenges are the same; stakes are higher and resources are permanently mobilized; this entails both risks (distress) and opportunities (eustress).
  6. 6. Theoretical assumptions Basing on previous data and theoretical considerations, we assumed that physical disability ≠maladjustment ≠ low resources In particular, we expected that personality resources would mediate the relationship between disability and maladjustment
  7. 7. Resources (assets) = that what makes difference for goal attainment • Bodily resources • Social resources • Macrosocial (societal, institutional) • Microsocial (interpersonal) • Personality resources (character strengths, values and meaning, attitudes) Deficit of bodily resources (the case of physical disability) can be compensated by all other types of resources. Deficit of social resources can be compensated by personality resources.
  8. 8. The base of the study Moscow State University for Psychology and Education Institute of the problems of integrative education Laboratory of personality development of the physically disabled (2009-2012) Inclusive education of physically disabled (PD) and “conditionally healthy” (CH) at college level and university level (IT department) Over 400 students investigated through 2010-2012
  9. 9. The present study The sample: 210 college and university students studying in inclusive settings (48 PD and 162 CH). The participants filled a battery of personality tests, including: • a shortened Russian version of MMPI for assessment of adjustment problems; • the measures of positive personality resources Analysis of variance (ANOVA & MANOVA)
  10. 10. Methods • Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) – E. Diener et al. (1984) / D. Leontiev, E. Osin (2008). • Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) – S. Lyubomirsky, H. Lepper (1999) / D. Leontiev, E. Osin (2008). • Subjective Vitality Scale – R. Ryan, C. Frederick (1997) / D. Leontiev, L. Aleksandrova (2011). • Meaningfulness of life test by D. Leontiev (1992) • Hardiness scale – S. Maddi (1998) / D. Leontiev, E. Rasskazova (2006). • Multiple Stimulus Types Ambiguity Tolerance (MSTAT-I) – D. McLain (1993) / E. Lukovitskaya (1998). • General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) – M. Jerusalem, R. Schwarzer (1992) / V. Romek (1996). • Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (Mindfulness) – K. Brown, R. Ryan (2004) / D. Leontiev (2011). • The Social Support Questionnaire – I. Sarason et al. (1983) / L. Aleksandrova, 2009. • The COPE Inventory – C. Carver, M. Scheier, J. Weintraub (1989) / T. Gordeeva, E. Osin, E. Rasskazova (2010). • The Posttraumatic Growth Inventory –R. Tedeschi, L. Calhoun (2006) / M. Magomed-Eminov (2007). • Mini-Mult (shortened version of MMPI) - James C. Kincannon (1968) / V. Zaicev, V. Kosuylya (1981). • The questionnaire aimed to identify the Perceived level of opportunities (3-grade scale). • The questionnaire aimed to identify psycho-traumatic situations in the person’s experience.
  11. 11. All resource variables highly correlated with each other. All scores were transformed into a common scale to make the aggregate measure. Aggregate measure of personality resources APR
  12. 12. Results 1: Does health status make much difference? Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Independent var. Scales (Dependent var.) F Sig. Health status Perceived opportunities 3.807 .056 Satisfaction with life .479 .490 Happiness .163 .687 Vitality .021 .884 Meaningfulness of life .001 .971 Hardiness 2.029 .156 Hardy Involvement 2.650 .105 Hardy Control .267 .606 Hardy Risk 3.162 .077 Tolerance for ambiguity 4.550 .004 Mindfulness .669 .414 Self-efficacy .452 .502 Satisfaction with social support .074 .786 Types of the psycho-traumatic situations: - Accident .069 .793 - Disease 34.422 .000 - heavy loss .206 .650 - Danger .024 .877 Psycho-trauma (sum.) 1.828 .178 Posttraumatic Growth .205 .651 Positive reinterpretation & growth COPE 1.497 .223 Mental disengagement COPE .225 .636 Focus on & venting of emotion COPE .061 .805 Seeking social support—instrumental COPE 1.834 .177 Active coping COPE .250 .618 Denial COPE .757 .385 Religion COPE .502 .479 Humor COPE .030 .862 Behavioral disengagement COPE .002 .969 Restraint coping COPE 5.083 .009 Seeking social support—emotional COPE 2.886 .091 Alcohol-drug COPE .044 .833 Acceptance COPE .109 .741 Suppression of competing activities COPE 9.716 .002 Planning COPE .162 .688
  13. 13. Results 1: Does health status make much difference? 9.6 9.8 10 10.2 10.4 10.6 10.8 11 11.2 EstimatedMarginalMeans Health status Restraint coping 8.5 9 9.5 10 10.5 11 EstimatedMarginalMeans Health status Suppression of competing activities Note: significant differences p< .01 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 102 EstimatedMarginalMeans Health status Tolerance for Ambiguity Most of personality resources are NOT impaired in PD as compared to CH respondents
  14. 14. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Independent var. Scales (Dependent var.) F Sig. Health status * Maladjustment Perceived level of opportunities 6,125 ,011 Satisfaction with life ,947 ,332 Happiness ,412 ,522 Vitality ,605 ,438 Meaningfulness of life 2,363 ,126 Hardiness total 5,543 ,018 Hardy Involvement 2,748 ,099 Hardy Control 9,168 ,003 Hardy Risk 2,680 ,103 Tolerance for ambiguity 2,019 ,157 Mindfulness 3,224 ,074 Self-efficacy ,671 ,414 Satisfaction of the social support ,397 ,529 Types of the psycho-traumatic situations: - accident ,797 ,373 - disease ,004 ,949 - heavy loss 1,294 ,257 - danger 3,162 ,077 Psycho-trauma (summ.) 3,300 ,071 Posttraumatic Growth total ,087 ,768 Positive reinterpretation & growth COPE ,022 ,882 Mental disengagement COPE 1,162 ,282 Focus on & venting of emotion COPE ,051 ,821 Seeking social support—instrumental COPE 3,078 ,081 Active coping COPE 1,325 ,251 Denial COPE ,910 ,341 Turning to religion COPE ,376 ,540 Humor COPE ,005 ,941 Behavioral disengagement COPE ,267 ,606 Restraint coping COPE ,068 ,794 Seeking social support—emotional COPE 1,964 ,163 Alcohol-drug disengagement COPE 2,026 ,156 Acceptance COPE 1,830 ,178 Suppression of competing activities COPE ,000 ,996 Planning COPE ,157 ,693 Results 2: Does maladjustment make much difference?
  15. 15. Maladjustment * health status Hardiness total Hardiness Control - Normal (Mini-Mult results – all scales are in normal score range) - Maladjustment (Mini-Mult results – one of scales are higher than 70 T score) Note: significant differences p<.01 Perceived opportunities In adjusted participants hardiness and perceived opportunities are significantly higher in non-disabled (CH) sample. In maladjusted participants it is not the case. It seems the health status produces opposite effects to maladjustment.
  16. 16. Correlations Mini-mult scales L F K HS 1 D 2 HY 3 PD 4 PA 6 PT 7 SE 8 MA 9 Disabled Resources Pearson corr. .252 -.050 .216 -.070 -.185 -.054 -.071 -.192 -.286 -.192 -.033 p .108 .752 .169 .658 .242 .736 .654 .223 .067 .223 .834 Non- Disabled Resources Pearson corr. .128 -.182* .233** .027 -.219** -.072 -.177* -.181* -.204** -.197* -.168* p .108 .021 .003 .735 .005 .363 .025 .022 .010 .012 .034 Notes: ** - p < .01, * - p < .05 Results 3. Aggregate resources * maladjustment Mini-Mult clinical scales: • Hypochondriasis (Hs 1); • Depression (D 2); • Hysteria (Hy 3); • Psychopathic Deviate (Pd 4); • Paranoia (Pa 5); • Psychasthenia (Pt 6); • Schizophrenia (Sc 8); • Hypomania (Ma 9). Significant negative correlations of aggregate personality resources with maladjustment in non-disabled (CH) only! In the PD maladjustment does not hinder personality resources!!!
  17. 17. higher in “strong resources” group higher in “weak resources” group Heath status Group Scales F Sig. Satisfaction with life 12,734 ,000 Happiness 30,239 ,000 Vitality 36,514 ,000 Meaningfulness of life 72,792 ,000 Hardiness 74,050 ,000 Hardy Involvement 58,372 ,000 Hardy Control 62,629 ,000 Hardy Risk 49,008 ,000 Tolerance for ambiguity 99,541 ,000 Self-efficacy 10,315 ,002 Satisfaction with the social support 15,421 ,000 Reapprisal COPE 8,494 ,004 Mental disengagement COPE 4,413 ,037 Active COPE 14,927 ,000 Denial COPE 5,692 ,018 Behavioral disengagement COPE 19,396 ,000 Perceived level of opportunities 4,149 ,043 Vitality 8,364 ,004 Meaningfulness of life 5,990 ,015 Hardiness 4,041 ,046 Hardy Involvement 4,467 ,036 Hardy Control 4,345 ,039 Mindfulness 5,114 ,025 Behavioral disengagement COPE 8,131 ,005 Alcohol-drug disengagement COPE 9,706 ,002 Resources * Maladjustment none - - Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Non-disabled Resources Maladjustment Results 4: Significant differences depending on resources and maladjustment in the non-disabled
  18. 18. Results 4: Significant differences depending on resources and maladjustment in the physically disabled higher in “strong resources” group higher in “weak resources” group Heath status Group Scales F Sig. Meaningfulness of life 13,951 ,001 Hardiness 21,195 ,000 Hardy Involvement 12,348 ,001 Hardy Control 13,536 ,001 Hardy Risk 12,451 ,001 Tolerance for ambiguity 22,504 ,000 Psycho-trauma (summ.) 7,083 ,011 Self-efficacy 11,894 ,001 Behavioral disengagement COPE 6,027 ,019 Focus on & venting of emotion COPE 11,110 ,002 Psycho-trauma (summ.) 4,384 ,043 Posttraumatic Growth total 4,640 ,038 Mental disengagement COPE 4,322 ,044 Resources * Maladjustment Posttraumatic Growth total 7,542 ,009 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Disabled Resources Maladjustment ! See the next slide Maladjustment thus makes difference for personality resources only in the non-disabled
  19. 19. The interaction effects of factors: ‘Resources’ and ‘Maladjustment’ (disabled) Maladjustment Posttraumatic Growth total Note: significant differences p=.009 - low resources - high resources Cluster of resources: Higher PTG in the disabled is thus predicted by maladjustment and low resources; no interaction in the non- disabled
  20. 20. Summary of results 1. Health status (disability), maladjustment (strained adjustment mechanisms) and lack of personality resources are three different things. They interact, rather than covariate, and should be considered separately. 2. Health status per se makes not much difference (in an inclusive setting). Most of personality resources are NOT impaired in PD as compared to CH respondents. The share of participants with strong/weak resources and with strained/unstrained adjustment mechanisms does not significantly differ in disabled/non-disabled subsamples. 3. The degree of strain of adjustment mechanisms in the disabled participants makes no difference for the functioning of personality resources, unlike in nondisabled participants. Strained adaptation resources in the physically disabled reflects the stable features of their character developed in course of hypercompensation, rather than the result of maladjustment (like in the non- disabled). 4. Personality resources mediate the impact of health status and maladjustment, especially in the disabled students.
  21. 21. Thank you for your attention dmleont@gmail.com

×