Knowledge Database

• Slide Presentation for the lecture of: Dmitry LeontievHigher 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

THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY RESOURCES IN PHYSICALLY DISABLED STUDENTS

FACING THE ADJUSTMENT CHALLENGE

Dmitry Leontiev & Anna LebedevaNational Research University Higher School

of Economics, Moscow, RussiaMoscow State University for Psychology

and Education

AimsIt 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.

Theoretical Background• Personality-focused rather than

disability-focused approach• Self-regulation rather than

dispositionalA. Adler: compensation of organic deficits by other resourcesN. Bernstein: “functional organs” involving both bodily and mental structuresL. Vygotsky: transformation of socially shared activities into individual onesM. Seligman: buffering function of personality strengths

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).

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

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.

The base of the study

Moscow State University for Psychology and Education Institute of the problems of integrative educationLaboratory 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

The present studyThe 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)

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.

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

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 .056Satisfaction with life .479 .490Happiness .163 .687Vitality .021 .884Meaningfulness of life .001 .971Hardiness 2.029 .156Hardy Involvement 2.650 .105Hardy Control .267 .606Hardy Risk 3.162 .077Tolerance for ambiguity 4.550 .004Mindfulness .669 .414Self-efficacy .452 .502Satisfaction with social support .074 .786

Types of the psycho-traumatic situations: - Accident .069 .793- Disease 34.422 .000- heavy loss .206 .650- Danger .024 .877Psycho-trauma (sum.) 1.828 .178Posttraumatic Growth .205 .651Positive reinterpretation & growth COPE 1.497 .223Mental disengagement COPE .225 .636Focus on & venting of emotion COPE .061 .805Seeking social support—instrumental COPE 1.834 .177Active coping COPE .250 .618Denial COPE .757 .385Religion COPE .502 .479Humor COPE .030 .862Behavioral disengagement COPE .002 .969Restraint coping COPE 5.083 .009Seeking social support—emotional COPE 2.886 .091Alcohol-drug COPE .044 .833Acceptance COPE .109 .741Suppression of competing activities COPE 9.716 .002Planning COPE .162 .688

Results 1: Does health status make much

difference?

Disable

d

Non-D

isable

d9.610

10.410.811.2

Restraint coping

Health statusEst

imat

ed M

argi

nal M

eans

Disa

bled

Non-D

isable

d8.59.5

10.5

Suppression of competing ac-

tivities

Health statusEst

imat

ed M

argi

nal M

eans

Note: significant differences p< .01

Disable

d

Non-D

isable

d889296

100

Tolerance for Ambiguity

Health statusEst

imat

ed M

argi

nal M

eans

Most of personality resources are NOT impaired in PD as compared to CH respondents

Tests of Between-Subjects EffectsIndependent

var. Scales (Dependent var.) F Sig.Health status * Maladjustment

Perceived level of opportunities 6,125 ,011Satisfaction with life ,947 ,332Happiness ,412 ,522Vitality ,605 ,438Meaningfulness of life 2,363 ,126Hardiness total 5,543 ,018Hardy Involvement 2,748 ,099Hardy Control 9,168 ,003Hardy Risk 2,680 ,103Tolerance for ambiguity 2,019 ,157Mindfulness 3,224 ,074Self-efficacy ,671 ,414Satisfaction 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 ,077Psycho-trauma (summ.) 3,300 ,071Posttraumatic Growth total ,087 ,768Positive reinterpretation & growth COPE ,022 ,882Mental disengagement COPE 1,162 ,282Focus on & venting of emotion COPE ,051 ,821Seeking social support—instrumental COPE 3,078 ,081Active coping COPE 1,325 ,251Denial COPE ,910 ,341Turning to religion COPE ,376 ,540Humor COPE ,005 ,941Behavioral disengagement COPE ,267 ,606Restraint coping COPE ,068 ,794Seeking social support—emotional COPE 1,964 ,163Alcohol-drug disengagement COPE 2,026 ,156Acceptance COPE 1,830 ,178Suppression of competing activities COPE ,000 ,996Planning COPE ,157 ,693

Results 2: Does maladjustment make much difference?

Maladjustment * health statusHardiness 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.

Correlations 

Mini-mult scales

L F KHS 1 D 2 HY 3 PD 4 PA 6 PT 7 SE 8 MA 9

Disabled

Resources

Pearson corr. .252 -.050 .216 -.07

0 -.185 -.054 -.071 -.192 -.286 -.192 -.033p .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 .034Notes: ** - 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!!!

higher in “strong resources” grouphigher in “weak resources” group

Heath status Group Scales F Sig.Satisfaction with life 12,734 ,000Happiness 30,239 ,000Vitality 36,514 ,000Meaningfulness of life 72,792 ,000Hardiness 74,050 ,000Hardy Involvement 58,372 ,000Hardy Control 62,629 ,000Hardy Risk 49,008 ,000Tolerance for ambiguity 99,541 ,000Self-efficacy 10,315 ,002Satisfaction with the social support 15,421 ,000Reapprisal COPE 8,494 ,004Mental disengagement COPE 4,413 ,037Active COPE 14,927 ,000Denial COPE 5,692 ,018Behavioral disengagement COPE 19,396 ,000Perceived level of opportunities 4,149 ,043Vitality 8,364 ,004Meaningfulness of life 5,990 ,015Hardiness 4,041 ,046Hardy Involvement 4,467 ,036Hardy Control 4,345 ,039Mindfulness 5,114 ,025Behavioral disengagement COPE 8,131 ,005Alcohol-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

Results 4: Significant differences depending on resources and maladjustment in the physically

disabled

higher in “strong resources” grouphigher in “weak resources” group

Heath status Group Scales F Sig.Meaningfulness of life 13,951 ,001Hardiness 21,195 ,000Hardy Involvement 12,348 ,001Hardy Control 13,536 ,001Hardy Risk 12,451 ,001Tolerance for ambiguity 22,504 ,000Psycho-trauma (summ.) 7,083 ,011Self-efficacy 11,894 ,001Behavioral disengagement COPE 6,027 ,019Focus on & venting of emotion COPE 11,110 ,002Psycho-trauma (summ.) 4,384 ,043Posttraumatic Growth total 4,640 ,038Mental disengagement COPE 4,322 ,044

Resources * Maladjustment

Posttraumatic Growth total7,542 ,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

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

Summary of results1. 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.

Thank you for your attention

dmleont@gmail.com