Abstract
Background: This article examines the component-structural characteristics of personal resilience in the context of stressogenic influences.
Aims: This study examines the component-structural characteristics of resilience, identifies its key resources through the integration of internal and external factors, and assesses their influence on adaptation under crisis conditions.
Methods: The study included 84 respondents aged between 18 and 65, of whom 68 were located in Ukraine and 18 were residing abroad. For the empirical analysis of resilience, the following psychodiagnostic methods were employed: the Hardiness Test (S. Maddi), which assesses resilience levels across the scales of commitment, control, and risk acceptance; the modified BBC-SWB Subjective Well-Being Scale (P. Pontin, M. Schwannauer, S. Tai, M. Kinderman), which measures overall psychological well-being and life satisfaction; the Social Adaptability Questionnaire (O. Sannikova, O. Kuznetsova), which examines respondents’ social connections and adaptive capacities; and the Schwartz Value Survey, which evaluates value orientations that influence the development of resilience. Statistical data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 27.0.1. The stages of the analysis included: Correlation analysis (Pearson’s coefficient) to determine the relationships between the resilience scales and other variables; Analysis of variance (ANOVA) to identify significant differences in resilience indicators and other variables within a single group; Factor analysis (principal component method, varimax rotation) to identify the component-structural composition of resilience.
Results: The study examined the intra-active and extra-active components of resilience and their integrative interrelations. Among respondents residing in Ukraine, resilience was primarily grounded in intra-active components, including goal orientation, stability of emotional experience, overall life satisfaction, physical health, and psychological well-being. Extra-active resources encompassed readiness for change as an external motivator; social interaction expressed through interpersonal relationships; and cognitive processing manifested in the regulation of social information – latitude of coverage of signals of society (LCSS), ease of understanding and hierarchizing the signals of society (EUSS), and accuracy of orientation in social expectations (AOSE). These were complemented by effective coping strategies under conditions of uncertainty, such as the ability to take risks and readiness to make constructive actions aimed at overcoming failures (RMCA).
For respondents living abroad, resilience was centered on the concept of integrated well-being, which emphasized basic needs – psychological well-being, life satisfaction, and physical health – alongside engagement as an integrative component of interaction with the new sociocultural environment.
Conclusion: The study established that the integration of internal and external resources fosters adaptation to crisis conditions, with its effectiveness dependent on the specific context. The results highlight the distinctive features of resilience formation in the context of war and migration, and, in particular, confirm that the multidimensional nature of resilience underscores the importance of integrating diverse resources to ensure adaptation and survival in crisis situations.