Skip to Main Content

Counseling Psychology and Psychotherapy
2024. Vol. 32, no. 3, 116–138
doi:10.17759/cpp.2024320307
ISSN: 2075-3470 / 2311-9446 (online)

Study of Well-Being and Assertiveness Variables among Young People

31

S.R. Gevorgyan, N.R. Hakobyan, L.A. Kazanchian, A.G. Khachatryan

PDF (ENG)
GS
Information
in Google Scholar

Abstract

Relevance. In the context of the rapid development of modern urban society, the issues of studying psychological well–being are becoming increasingly in demand. Of greatest interest is the problem of psychological well–being among young people who are just starting their professional careers. An important research component on this problem is assertiveness, which manifests as a certain interconnection with the individual’s psychological well–being. Goal. This study aims to estimate the well–being and assertiveness variables among young people. The study sample (N = 627) consists of young men and women aged 18–34. The study was conducted in Yerevan and some regions of Armenia. Methods. The study includes an assessment of well–being and assertiveness in the groups of employed and unemployed young men and women. We use the BBC Well–Being Scale, Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (RAS) and Sheinov Assertiveness Questionnaire. Results. The high scores (0,624*) on the psychological well–being variable are positively correlated (p<0,001) with young people’s assertive behavior. The study results showed that there is no statistically significant difference in the variables of gender, employment, and education. The Χ² test yielded p values ​​of 0,995 for the gender and education variables, and p values ​​of 0,996 for the employment and education variables. The study results open new opportunities for discussion of the issue from the perspective of the person’s educational attainment. Further discussions may deal with young people’s capacity to analyze situations creatively, find relevant means to achieve goals and manage their behavior. Conclusion. In the groups of young men and women, the variables of relationships, psychological well–being, and assertiveness positively correlated. This conclusion can be investigated in future studies to elicit the factors of young people's psychological readiness for a changeable labor market and to investigate the characteristics of perception of psychological well–being.

General Information

Keywords: well–being, assertiveness, psychological health, behavior, young people

Journal rubric: Empirical Researches

Article type: scientific article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/cpp.2024320307

Funding. The reported study was funded by Science Committee of the Republic of Armenia, project number 21T-5A311.

Received: 06.06.2023

Accepted:

For citation: Gevorgyan S.R., Hakobyan N.R., Kazanchian L.A., Khachatryan A.G. Study of Well-Being and Assertiveness Variables among Young People. Konsul'tativnaya psikhologiya i psikhoterapiya = Counseling Psychology and Psychotherapy, 2024. Vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 116–138. DOI: 10.17759/cpp.2024320307.

Full text

Introduction

In this study, we show the interconnections between well–being and assertiveness variables among employed and unemployed young people. Investigation of the phenomenon of psychological well–being in the context of current globalization processes is highly pending. We can note that the psychological well–being of young people just starting their professional careers is of great interest to educational and medical healthcare professionals [12; 42; 44]. The study is also relevant because research on the associations between well–being and assertiveness among employed and unemployed young people remains quite scarce in the Republic of Armenia and the post–Soviet countries.

According to some authors [3; 12], well–being is the state of a person or an objective situation when a person has everything that favorably characterizes their life in the eyes of others, their loved ones, and themselves [26; 33]. Moreover, high levels of the key well–being components ensure that people function effectively, and, therefore, contribute to self–actualization [6; 20].

The modern concept of well–being mainly considers evaluative theories of well–being, the purpose of which is to determine what makes people feel happy and successful and what ultimately makes them unhappy. Moreover, modern research on the well–being phenomenon distinguishes between three main types of well–being theories: Hedonistic theories, desire–fulfillment theories, and objective list theories [11; 12; 33].

Well–Being Theories. According to hedonistic theories, it is pleasure alone that is truly good for the person, and pain is what is truly bad for him/her. Consequently, the desire for well–being is the desire for the predominance of pleasure over pain [2; 10; 34]. According to Guy Fletcher [12], the hedonist allows that all things, other than pleasure, such as money, friendship, and a house, can be good for the person only instrumentally, but not fundamentally because they are simply a means to pleasure (or avoidance of pain).

Desire–fulfillment (or desire–satisfaction) theories suggest that well–being is based on human desires. The simplest way to describe the theory of desire is to say that the more satisfied desires are, the better is well–being [7]. In Eden Lin's opinion [26], subjective theories claim that individual well–being depends on the degree to which their favorable attitudes (desires) are satisfied.

According to objective list theories, things in the world contribute to an individual's well–being regardless of what he/she wants to get or whether they make him/her happy. The concept of objective theories suggests that well–being is the result of significant circumstances that occur in a person's life rather than subjective pleasure or the fulfillment of subjective desires. Consequently, the list of these circumstances in a person’s life is objective because it improves the value and quality of life [19; 34].

Hybrid theories not only combine elements of various theories but also seek a peaceful resolution of the dispute concerning various approaches to the concept of assertiveness. Researchers who adhere to hybrid theories identify assertiveness as life satisfaction (especially satisfaction with a particular sphere of life) and effective communication [16; 24; 26]. The popularity and acceptability of hybrid theories are mainly due to their holistic nature since all components of subjective well–being seem very important, and we cannot separate them from the concept of assertiveness.

It is noteworthy that in modern social philosophy and philosophy of law, the three types of well–being are emphasized: physical, spiritual, and social [1; 18; 23]. Whereas physical well–being includes the person’s health as well as his/her vital energy, which contributes to the implementation of his/her main plans and goals, spiritual well–being is a sense of belonging to the culture of society, as well as the individual’s psychological satisfaction from his/her activities. In addition, the conducted studies emphasize that social well–being has a tremendous impact on the development of the individual and society. In general, social well–being covers not only the individual’s general satisfaction with his/her status and interpersonal relationships but also his/her satisfaction with the current state of society and the state in which the person is. Therefore, the quality of life of a particular person is a measure of social well–being.

Modern scientists consider the concept of material well–being as a new type of social well–being based on socio–economic and legal processes in society and their impact on the individual’s psychological state. Material well–being characterizes the possession of a set of benefits that not only ensures the satisfaction of a person’s vital needs but also creates opportunities for his/her spiritual development [1; 8; 9]. According to M. Joseph Sirgy, “Material well–being is an umbrella concept that covers many concepts such as financial satisfaction, financial stress, feelings of financial security, subjective economic well–being, satisfaction with standard of living, satisfaction with material possessions, and sense of economic deprivation, among others” [39, p. 275].

It is worth noting that the concepts of well–being and social well–being are enshrined in international and domestic legal acts, thereby characterizing not only society but emphasizing the individual’s social and economic well–being in the given society, as well. Furthermore, these concepts are intertwined closely with human rights and State responsibilities. In particular, social well–being reflects the State's commitment to citizens and people to create socio–legal and economic prerequisites and opportunities for the realization of rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests.

In modern democratic societies, questions concerning the role and concept of well–being considered in the context of welfare and assertiveness. According to some authors, welfare is an institutional responsibility of the government to ensure high and stable employment of the population, protect health, training, education, etc. [32; 40]. In modern legal literature, the concept of welfare is the basis for the development of a social state or a welfare state. Moreover, the welfare state provides basic economic security for its citizens, and, in this context, goodness is an increasing function of individual welfare and does not depend on anything else. However, this concept does not explain the legal differences between the rights and freedoms of the individual. Consequently, egalitarian principles of equality of rights and opportunities for all members of society exclude cost–benefit analysis for setting health and safety standards, thereby casting doubt on the flawlessness of the theory of welfare [13; 22].

Assertiveness in Well–Being Theories. The concept of assertiveness first appeared in the 40s–60s of the 20th century in the works of Andrew Salter, Joseph Wolpe, and Arnold Lazarus from the standpoint of behavioral therapy [35; 48; 49]. In Salter's theory, an assertive person has a high level of motivation to achieve success, which is expressed in the sustainability of the need to achieve high results in any business, to do the job quickly and well at a high level, the willingness to make decisions in situations of uncertainty and be responsible for their actions, constructive approach to problem–solving [35]. Assertive behavior is an optimal and constructive way of interpersonal interaction as opposed to the two most common destructive methods, i.e., manipulation and aggression.

Salter [35] underlined the following characteristics of assertive behavior.

  1. Emotionality of speech: open, spontaneous, and authentic expression of all the feelings experienced verbally.
  2. Expressiveness of speech: clear non–verbal manifestations of feelings and correspondence between words and non–verbal behaviors.
  3. Confrontation: as a direct and honest expression of one’s own opinion, without paying attention to the other ones.
  4. Use of the I pronoun: as an expression of the fact that the person is behind the words, the absence of attempts hides behind vague wording.
  5. Acceptance of praise: as rejection of self–depreciation and discounting of one's strengths and qualities.
  6. Improvisation as a spontaneous expression of feelings and needs, day–to–day worries, and refusal to plan.

Based on his clinical experience, Lazarus [27] identified the four most general types of behavior and described the concept of assertiveness and assertive behavior as:

– the ability to say "No";

– the ability to speak openly about feelings and needs;

– the ability to establish contacts, start and end a conversation;

– the ability to openly express positive and negative feelings.

For him, these abilities include such cognitive aspects as attitudes, life philosophy, and values. An assertive person is willing to find any compromises, demonstrating self–respect and respect for others [27].

Some research on the inherent factors of assertiveness (the desire to defend their point of view) and autonomy (independence in decision–making) proved that assertive people are mainly satisfied: They have adaptive capabilities; they are self–confident, happy, successful in achieving goals, resistant to stress; they maintain ethical and moral attitudes, and analytical skills [11; 15; 17; 40]. The concept of assertiveness involves awareness of the ability to defend constructively his/her rights. According to this concept, assertive skills involve the ability to behave constructively without causing trouble to other people, the ability to keep to one’s perspective tactfully and politely, the ability to accept and provide feedback, and at the same time, the ability to act convincingly in the context of achieving the set goals [14; 35; 36; 46].

Considering the above, we aimed to answer several questions. Firstly, we were interested in investigating well–being and assertiveness variables among young people. The second question was whether these variables differed in the groups of employed and unemployed young people. Thirdly, we tried to elicit differences between the answers of young men and women.

To answer our research questions, we put forward the following hypotheses:

  1. There is no statistically significant difference in the levels of psychological well–being and assertiveness in the samples differing by independent variables of gender, employment, and education. (H1).
  2. Assertiveness positively correlates with the variables of psychological well–being and relationships (H2).

Method

DESIGN. The empirical study was supported by the Science Committee of the Republic of Armenia and was conducted under research project № 21T–5A311. The study was conducted at the Psychological Observatory of the International Scientific–Educational Center (ISEC) of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia. The respondents were recruited on a strictly voluntary basis.

PROCEDURE. The participants answered the questions after they gave their informed consent for participation according to the ethical norms and standards of scientific research approved by the Psychological Observatory. All the study procedures were conducted in line with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and the Helsinki Declaration of 1975 and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

SAMPLE. The empirical study was conducted among the Republic of Armenia's urban population aged 18–34 (N=627). We singled out the main subgroups of employed (N=204) and unemployed (N=110) men, and employed (N=154) and unemployed (N=159) women. The unemployed subgroups of men and women were recruited from those who did not work then. All respondents were married and had equal income (200,000–300,000 AMD).

The main characteristics of the sample are provided in Tables 1–2.

Table 1. Contingency characteristics of gender and education of the sample

Gender 

Contingency characteristics

Education

Total

Bachelor

High school

Master

 Chi–Squared Test

Contingency Table 1 

Value

df

p

Women

  

Count

  

106.00

  

104.00

  

103.00

  

314.00

  

Expected count

  

105.00

  

104.00

  

105.00

  

314.00

  

% within row

  

33.76 %

  

33.12 %

  

33.12 %

  

100.00 %

  

% within column

  

50.24 %

  

50.00 %

  

49.76 %

  

50.00 %

  

Men

  

Count

  

105.00

  

104.00

  

105.00

  

314.00

  

Expected count

  

105.50

  

104.00

  

104.50

  

314.00

  

% within row

  

33.44 %

  

33.12 %

  

33.44 %

  

100.00 %

  

% within column

  

49.76 %

  

50.00 %

  

50.24 %

  

50.00 %

  

Total

  

Count

  

211.00

  

208.00

  

209.00

  

628.00

  

Expected count

  

211.00

  

208.00

  

209.00

  

628.00

  

% within row

  

33.60 %

  

33.12 %

  

33.28 %

  

100.00 %

  

% within column

  

100.00 %

  

100.00 %

  

100.00 %

  

100.00 %

  

Χ²

  

.010

  

2

  

.995

  

Χ² continuity correction

  

.010

  

2

  

.995

  

N

  

627

      

 

  
                                     

Table 2. Contingency characteristics of employment and education of the sample

 

Employment 

Contingency characteristics

Education

Total

Bachelor

High school

Master

Chi–Squared Test

Contingency Table 2 

Value

df

p

Unemployed

  

Count

  

90.00

  

89.00

  

90.00

  

269.00

  

Expected count

  

90.38

  

89.10

  

89.52

  

269.00

  

% within row

  

33.46 %

  

33.09 %

  

33.46 %

  

100.00 %

  

% within column

  

42.65 %

  

42.79 %

  

43.06 %

  

42.83 %

  

Employed

  

Count

  

121.00

  

119.00

  

119.00

  

359.00

  

Expected count

  

120.62

  

118.90

  

119.48

  

359.00

  

% within row

  

33.70 %

  

33.15 %

  

33.15 %

  

100.00 %

  

% within column

  

57.35 %

  

57.21 %

  

56.94 %

  

57.17 %

  

Total

  

Count

  

211.00

  

208.00

  

209.00

  

628.00

  

Expected count

  

211.00

  

208.00

  

209.00

  

628.00

  

% within row

  

33.60 %

  

33.12 %

  

33.28 %

  

100.00 %

  

% within column

  

100.00 %

  

100.00 %

  

100.00 %

  

100.00 %

  

Χ²

  

.007

  

2

  

.996

  

Χ² continuity correction

  

.007

  

2

  

.996

  

N

  

628

      

 

  
                                     

According to Tables 1–2, there is no statistically significant difference in the groups of the sample differing by independent variables of gender, employment, and education.

Methods and variables. We used the BBC Well–Being Scale [41], Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (RAS) [28; 31] and Sheinov Assertiveness Questionnaire [37; 38] to get the main data.

BBC Well–Being Scale [41] embraces three variables – psychological well–being, physical health, and relationships. These variables reflect interconnections between various aspects of human activity and assessment of their importance. In the field of mental health research, the BBC Well–Being Scale comprises a series of questions covering the areas of physical health, psychological well–being, and social relationships. The questions refer to various areas of a person’s life: their interaction with a social environment, issues of self–acceptance and behavioral autonomy, life goal setting, etc. In the process of improving the scale, 24 questions were formulated that had good internal consistency [41]. The BBC Well–Being Scale questions are rated on a range from the lowest level of well–being («0») to the highest level of well–being («4»). Higher scores indicate a higher level of well–being.  

Rathus Assertiveness Schedule scale (RAS) [31] score ranges from –90 to +90. This scale reveals the communicative skills of the individual and how he reacts in stress or in conflict situations. This scale consists of 30 items presenting examples of different situations. Rathus Assertiveness Schedule scale includes scores from «very characteristic of me» (+3) to «very uncharacteristic» (–3), and final scores are obtained by summarising the items' numerical responses. Higher scores indicate better level of assertiveness. 
 
The Sheinov Questionnaire [38] includes 26 questions to reveal the person’s attitude to the social environment. The range can vary from a score of below 60 meaning a lack of self–esteem, to a score of over 71 reflecting the tendency to be aggressive. Assertiveness falls within the range of 60–71.

The results of psychometric characteristics measurement of these 3 scales show that the standardized Cronbach’s alpha is 0.758.  The variable of physical health has the weakest item–rest correlation with other items of the BBC Well–Being Scale, Rathus Assertiveness Schedule scale, and The Sheinov Questionnaire (Table 3).

Table 3. Frequentist Scale Reliability Statistics

Estimate

Cronbach's α

Frequentist Individual Item Reliability Statistics

Item

If item dropped

Item–rest correlation

Mean

Sd

Cronbach's α

Point estimate

  

0.758

  

Rathus Assertiveness Schedule

  

0.702

  

0.553

  

43.954

  

19.585

  

Sheinov Assertiveness Questionnaire

  

0.669

  

0.586

  

67.420

  

11.478

  

psychological well–being

  

0.710

  

0.531

  

44.161

  

13.366

  

relationships

  

0.661

  

0.708

  

59.578

  

10.717

  

physical health

  

0.807

  

0.265

  

29.390

  

11.351

  
                         

 

Statistics. Statistical analysis was conducted using JASP 0.17.3.0. The normality assumption was checked using the Shapiro–Wilk Test. Shapiro–Wilk Test for most variables was significant (p=.001) meaning that the normality assumption was violated. Levene’s Test was non–significant (p=.990) which means that the criterion of homogeneity of variance was met. We found that the means of the variables of the gender and education subgroups were normally distributed. Despite this, the overall sample (N=627) was not normally distributed. Vickers [45] discussed this phenomenon and underlined that based on the central limit theorem methodology the sample mean may approach normal distribution. Correlational analysis was based on Spearman’s rho.

Results

We studied well–being and assertiveness variables in groups of young men and women differentiated by gender, employment, and education status.

The correlational analysis elicited strong positive associations between the variables of relationships and psychological well–being (p<.001) (Figure 1). The variable of physical health, as we can see in Spearman’s rho heatmap, had the weakest association with psychological well–being and relationships (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Correlation of assertiveness and psychological well–being variables (Spearman's rho)
According to the data presented in Figure 1, we can conclude that in the entire study sample, the associations between psychological well–being, relationships, and assertiveness were most significant.

These variables emerged as a universal construct: they positively correlated with each other in all groups, regardless of education and employment level. In other words, a positive correlation between the levels of assertiveness, psychological well–being, and relationships is typical for young people at all levels of education and employment.

Beneath we consider the correlation data within the groups by gender, employment, and education variables. (Table 4).

Table 4. Correlation characteristics in the groups of employed and unemployed men and women 

Variables

Employed men

Unemployed men

Employed women

Unemployed women

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

Psychological well–being

–

.57***

–.07

.35***

.57***

–

.39***

.04

.17

.60***

–

.48***

–.03

.26**

.66***

–

.61***

.03

.32***

.68***

Relationships

.572***

–

.07

.57***

.51***

.39***

–

.38***

.62***

.50***

.48***

–

.12

.62***

.44***

.61***

–

.10

.51***

.58***

Physical health

–.07

.07

–

.15*

.39***

.04

.38***

–

.36***

.53***

–.03

.12

–

.15

.40***

.03

.10

–

.17

.44***

Rathus Assertiveness Schedule

.35***

.57***

.15*

–

–.07

.17

.62***

.36***

–

–.06

.26**

.62***

.15

–

–.12

.32***

.51***

.17

–

–.07

Sheinov Assertiveness Questionnaire

.57***

.51***

.39***

–.07

–

.60***

.50***

.53***

–.06

–

.66***

.44***

.40***

–.12

–

.68***

.58***

.44***

–.07

–

Note: «*» - p < .05, «**» - p < .01, «***» - p < .001.

As we can see from Table 3, psychological well–being and relationship variables are positively correlated in the group of employed men. Physical health has only a weak correlation with Sheinov and Rathus assertiveness scales. It can be assumed that such an assessment of physical health is typical for the age group under study in general. Health is perceived as a given and is not associated with psychological variables of well–being. The weak perception of physical health as one of the indicators of psychological well–being is most clearly visible in employed men.

In the group of unemployed men, the variables of physical health, assertiveness, and relationships increased simultaneously. Moreover, the variable of relationships positively correlated with all other variables.

The data on associations between psychological well–being and relationship variables in the group of employed women is quite similar to the group of employed men (Table 3). In the group of employed women, in contrast to the employed men group, we noticed that the RAS levels decreased with a decrease in psychological well–being and there was no association with physical health.

In the group of unemployed women, just like employed women, there was no correlation between physical health and relationships. Other associations are similar to those in the employed women’s group with slightly stronger links between psychological well–being and assertiveness. In all the groups of employed and unemployed men and women, the positive correlation between the Sheinov assertiveness scale and the variable of psychological well–being was stronger than the association between the Rathus assertiveness scale and psychological well–being.

Analysis of variance for psychological well–being and assertiveness was conducted on the following factors (Tables 5–6).

Table 5. Descriptive statistics of the variables of assertiveness and socio–demographic variables

Factor 1 Assertiveness variables

Factor 2

Employment

Factor 3

Gender

Factor 4

Education

Sample size

Mean

SD

SE

Rathus Assertiveness Schedule

Employed

 

Men

 

Bachelor

68

41.99

20.65

2.50

High School

68

43.78

17.29

2.10

Master

68

44.49

21.03

2.55

Women

 

Bachelor

51

43.06

17.99

2.52

High School

52

41.12

21.21

2.94

Master

51

45.55

20.46

2.87

Unemployed

 

Men

 

Bachelor

36

48.56

22.30

3.72

High School

37

46.22

18.91

3.11

Master

37

45.19

18.03

2.96

Bachelor

53

41.00

18.43

2.53

Women

High School

53

46.04

19.22

2.64

Master

53

43.96

19.61

2.69

Shcinov Assertiveness Schedule

Employed

 

Men

Bachelor

68

67.31

10.91

1.32

High School

68

67.43

12.44

1.51

Master

68

65.94

11.13

1.35

Women

Bachelor

51

70.26

11.89

1.67

High School

52

66.29

10.40

1.44

Master

51

67.62

11.09

1.55

Unemployed

Men

Bachelor

36

66.50

9.99

1.67

High School

37

67.30

12.16

2.00

Master

37

69.92

13.43

2.21

Women

Bachelor

53

67.81

12.07

1.65

High School

53

66.87

11.78

1.62

Master

53

66.89

10.95

1.51

Table 6. Descriptive statistics of the variables of assertiveness, psychological well–being, and gender variables

Factor 1

Psychological well–being and assertiveness variables

Factor 2

Gender

Sample Size

Mean

SD

SE

Psychological well–being

Women

313

44.261

13.325

313

Men

314

44.061

13.427

314

Psychological health

Women

313

28.911

11.390

313

Men

314

29.869

11.310

314

Relationships

Women

313

59.854

10.896

313

Men

314

59.303

10.545

314

Rathus Assertiveness Schedule

Women

313

43.363

19.490

313

Men

314

44.545

19.693

314

Sheinov Assertiveness Questionnaire

Women

313

67.589

11.336

313

Men

314

67.252

11.634

314

 

The results of descriptive statistics presented in Tables 5–6 show the distribution of the psychological well–being and assertiveness variables in the sample.

Table 7. Analysis of variance for psychological well–being and assertiveness

 

Variables

Factor A:

Education

Factor B: Employment

Factor C:

Gender

Cumulative impact of

AxBxC factors

F

p

F

p

F

p

F

p

Psychological well–being

0.077

0.926

0.186

0.667

0.031

0.861

0.449

0.638

Assertiveness

0.170

0.844

1.414

0.235

1.068

0.302

1.087

0.338

Note:  differences are significant at p<0,05.

Based on our study findings, we can conclude that both hypotheses have been confirmed. The null hypothesis concerning the lack of statistically significant differences by gender, employment, and education status concerning the variables of well–being and assertiveness is proved (H1). The suggestion that there is a positive correlation between the variables of psychological well–being, relationships, and assertiveness is proved (H2) as well. 

Discussion

The study results showed that social relationship is the key aspect in the perception of well–being and assertiveness. Psychological well–being is associated with the social side of life of young men and women, regardless of gender, level of employment, and education. The results of the study show that the perception of psychological well–being and assertiveness is closely linked with the area of the individual’s social relations. The World Health Organization revealed the concept of “health” based on the integrity of the physical, spiritual, and social well–being of the individual. According to the Preamble of the Charter of the World Health Organization, “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well–being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” [43].

According to some authors, showing greater efficiency in the creative analysis of situations, an assertive person exhibits "self–efficacy" which allows:
– understand the content of the problem;
– create alternative situations;
– conceptualize relevant means to achieve the goal;
– anticipate the consequences of a decision;
– implement the decision;
– independently control behavior and, if necessary,
– change decisions and goals [21]. 

As we saw above, theories of well–being show that the development processes of modern urban society, growing competition in the labor market, and the need to satisfy personal interests are closely related. For young people, these associations manifest themselves in the opportunity to take a place in the social structure of society and satisfy the need for self–actualization. As shown by the data on the characteristics of psychological well–being of the World Health Organization, the main emphasis in the presentation of this phenomenon is placed on the personal growth of the individual, and the ability to quickly adapt to the socio–economic conditions of society. However, the results of this study show that young people perceive psychological well–being and assertiveness as the need to create appropriate systems of social relations, and the individual’s ability to navigate the social environment.

Assertiveness promotes equality in human relationships; allows a person to act in line with their interests; develops the ability to express true feelings and use their rights without violating others’ rights [4; 5; 29; 30; 42; 44].

These trends toward understanding assertiveness and its connection with psychological well–being lead us to the idea that in the studied age group, the level of education and employment is now gradually becoming secondary, giving way to the key role of the relationship factor.

Psychological well–being has mainly been interpreted as the emotional health of the individual as hedonic theories have been developed [10; 34], which limited the concept of psychological well–being within the framework of pleasure. Gradually, the view of the phenomenon under study expanded and included the socio–psychological component of the phenomenon of psychological well–being [5; 30]. From this point of view, the results of this study provide grounds to characterize psychological well–being as a phenomenon closely related to social relationships and leading to assertive behavior of the individual. The study also revealed a tendency towards a weakening of the physical health factor concerning the psychological well–being of young women in comparison with a sample of young men.

The limitation of the study refers to the sample of the respondents – the results of the study may differ in other age groups and rural communities. It should be noted, that these results are a phase of ongoing research embracing various social and age groups. In our future research activities, we will discuss the presented variables in other age groups more thoroughly.

Conclusions

  1. An integral characteristic of personality is assertiveness, which is associated with the purposefulness, self–reliance, independence, enterprising, and decisiveness of young people. Assertiveness is manifested in the ability to go beyond one's own "Self", to find positive meaning in unfavorably developing situations and adapt himself to existing conditions. 
  2. The results of the study show that assertive behavior in young men and women is associated with the assessment of social relationships as the basis for psychological well–being.
  3. The attainment of education and employment status has no significant impact on psychological well–being and assertiveness features. Physical health doesn't correlate with general psychological well–being, at least, within the given age range.
  4. The relationship variable is the most pronounced, and it is significant for the development of assertive behavior among all groups of respondents. This means that among young people the most important feature of well–being is social relationship and communication.

References

  1.  Agapov E.P. Fenomen chelovecheskogo blagopoluchiya [The phenomenon of human well-being]. Mediko-sotsial'nye i psikhologicheskie aspekty bezopasnosti promyshlennykh aglomeratsii: materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii [Medical, social and psychological aspects of the safety of industrial agglomerations: materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference]. Ekaterinburg, fevral’ 16–17, 2016. [Yekaterinburg, February 16–17, 2016]. Yekaterinburg: UrFU, 2016, pp. 216-223. (In Russ.).
  2. Alexandrova A., Fabian M. The Science of Wellbeing. Montgomery. John Tempelton Foundation, 2022. 63 p.
  3. Bardly B. Well–being (Key Concepts in Philosophy). Malden, Policy Press, 2015.125p. 
  4. Berkowitz L. Words and symbols as stimuli to aggressive responses. Control of Aggression: Implications From Basic Research / J.F. Knutson (ed.) Chicago: Aldine Atherton, 1973, pp. 113-143.
  5. Bowen D.D. Toward a viable concept of assertiveness. Experiences in management and organizational behavior / D.T. Hall, D.D. Bowen, R.J. Lewicki, F.S. Hall (eds.). 2nd ed. N.Y.: John Wiley & Sons, 1982. 380p.
  6. Bradburn N.M. The measurement of psychological well–being. In Health Goals and Health Indicators: Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Elison J.(ed.). Routledge, NY. 2019, pp. 84-94.
  7. Bramble B. The Distinctive Feeling Theory of Pleasure. Philosophical Studies. 2013. № 162, pp. 201-217.
  8. Butler P.E. Self-Assertor for Women. Harper and Row, San Francisco. 1981. 336 p.
  9. Cartledge G., Milburn J.F. The case for teaching social skills in the classroom. Review of Educational Research. 1978. № 1, pp. 133-156. 
  10. Deonna J., Teroni F. The Hedonist’s Emotions. The Ethics Forum. Volume 17, Number 1–2, 2022, pp. 176-191. URL: https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/ateliers/2022-v17-n1-2-ateliers07741/  (Accessed 20.05.2023).
  11. Engelsen S. Wellbeing Competence. Philosophies. 2022. Vol. 7, № 2, pp. 42-55. DOI: 10.3390/philosophies7020042
  12. Fletcher G. The Philosophy of Well-Being. New-York: Routledge. 2016. 184 p. 
  13. Geistfeld A. M. Cost benefit analysis outside of welfarism. Journal of constitutional theory and philosophy of law, 2019, № 37, pp.1-15.
  14. Grossberg J. Successful behavior therapy in a case of speech phobia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1965, vol. 30, pp. 285-288. 
  15. Gupta M., Hooda R.C., Kumar J. Effect of different techniques of assertiveness training on students self-concept. Recent Researches in Education and Psychology, 2002, № 7, pp. 19-24.
  16. Hurka T. On «Hybrid» Theories of Personal Good. Utilitas, 2019, vol. 31, № 4, pp. 450-462. DOI:10.1017/S0953820819000256
  17. Ikiz F.E. Self-perception about properties affecting assertiveness of trainee counselors. Social behavior and personality, 2011, vol. 39, № 2, pp. 199-206. 
  18. Ilyukhin A.G. Vygoranie v zhizni shkol'nikov i studentov: prichiny, posledstviya i sposoby preodoleniya [Burnout in the lives of schoolchildren and students: causes, consequences and ways to overcome]. Sovremennaya zarubezhnaya psikhologiya = Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology, 2021, vol. 10, № 2, pp. 117-127. DOI: 10.17759/ jmfp.2021100212 (In Russ.).
  19. Intelisano S., Krasko J., Luhmann M. Integrating Philosophical and Psychological Accounts of Happiness and Wellbeing. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2020, vol. 21, pp.161-120.
  20. Isaeva O.M., Akimova A.Yu., Volkova E.N. Factors of Psychological Well-Being in Russian Youth [Factors of Psychological Well-Being in Russian Youth]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie = Psychological Science and Education, 2022, vol. 27, № 4, pp. 24-35. DOI: 10.17759/pse.2022270403 (In Russ.). 
  21. Jinsi A.J. Self-assertiveness and emotional intelligence of higher secondary students. Unpublished M. Ed dissertation, Farook Training College, University of Calicut, 2006. 150 p.
  22. 22.            Keating G.C.  Products liability as enterprise liability. Journal of Tort Law, 2017, № 10, pp. 41-97.
  23. 23.            Khachaturova M.R., Erofeeva V.G., Bardadymov V.A. Obraz myshleniya i sub"ektivnoe blagopoluchie obuchayushchikhsya v period «stanovyashcheisya vzroslosti» [Way of thinking and subjective well-being of students in the period of «becoming adulthood»]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie=Psychological Science and Education, 2022, vol. 27, № 1, pp.121-135. DOI: 10.17759/ pse.2022270110 (In Russ.).
  24. 24.             Lauinger W. A. Defending a Hybrid of Objective List and Desire Theories of Wellbeing. In Measuring Wellbeing: Interdisciplinary Perspectives from the Social Sciences and Humanities. Lee M. T., Kubzansky L. D., VanderWeele T. J. (eds). NY, 2021, pp. 229-256.
  25. 25.            Lewittes H.J., Bern S.L. Training women to be more assertive in mixed sex task-oriented discussions. Sex Roles, 1983, № 9, pp. 581-596.
  26. 26.            Lin E. Well‐being, part 1: The concept of well‐being. Philosophy Compass. 2022, № 17 (1), pp. 1-15.
  27. 27.            Molinsky A. A simple way to be more assertive (without being pushy). Harvard Business Review. URL: https://hbr.org/2017/08/a-simple-way-to-be-more-assertive-without-being-pushy (Accessed 20.05.2023).
  28. Nevid J. S., Rathus S. A. Multivariate and normative data pertaining to the RAS with the college population. Behavior Therapy, 1978, 675 p.
  29. Pfafman T. «Assertiveness». The Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. eZeigler-Hill V., Shackelford T. K.(eds.). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2017, pp. 1-7.
  30. Plantade-Gipch A., Bruno J, Strub L., Bouvard M., Martin-Krumm C. Emotional regulation, attachment style, and assertiveness as determinants of well-being in emerging adults. Frontiers in Education, 2023. Vol. 8, pp. 1-13. DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2023.1058519
  31. Rathus S. A. A 30-item schedule for assessing behavior. Behavior Therapy, 1973. Vol. 4, №  3, pp. 398-406.
  32. Raz J. The morality of freedom. Oxford. Oxford University Press, 2009. 435 p.
  33. Roger C. «Well–Being». The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/well-being/ (Accessed 20.05.2023).
  34. Sadovskaya A.A. Teorii blagopoluchiya i ikh otrazhenie v sovremennykh filosofskikh kontseptsiyakh [Theories of Welfare and Their Reflection In Modern Philosophical Concepts]. Vektory blagopoluchiya: ekonomika i sotsium= Vectors of well–being: economics and society, 2019, № 2 (33), pp. 87-101. (In Russ.).
  35. Salter A. Conditioned reflex therapy N.Y.: Capricorn, 1949. 245 p. 
  36. Scheer J.K., Ansorge C.J., Howard J. Judging bias induced by viewing contrived videotapes: A function of selected psychological variables. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1983, vol. 5, pp. 427-437. 
  37. Sheinov V.P, Assertivnoe povedenie: preimushchestva i vospriyatie[Assertive behavior: Advantages and perception]. Sovremennaya zarubezhnaya psikhologiya=Modern world psychology, 2014, № 2, pp.107-120. (In Russ.).
  38. Sheinov V.P, Razrabotka testa assertivnosti, udovletvoryayushchego trebovaniyam nadezhnosti i validnosti [Development of the Assertiveness test that satisfies the requirements of reliability and validity]. Voprosy psikhologii=Psychology issues. 2014. № 2, pp. 107-116 (In Russ.).
  39. Sirgy M.J. The Psychology of Material Well–being. Applied Research Quality Life, 2018, № 13, pp. 273-301.
  40. Spicker P. The Welfare State: a general theory. California, T. Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd., 164 p.
  41. Swimmer G.I., Ramanaiah N.V. Convergent and discriminant validity of selected assertiveness measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1985, vol. 49, pp. 243-249.
  42. Tanck R.H., Robbins P.R. Assertiveness, locus of control and coping behaviors to diminish tension. Educational Gerontology, 2008, vol. 34, pp. 503-519. 
  43. The Constitution of the World Health Organization (was adopted by the International Health Conference held in New York from 19 June to 22 July 1946). URL: https://apps.who.int/gb/bd/PDF/bd47/EN/constitution-en.pdf (Accessed 20.05.2023).
  44. Thurman C.W. Effectiveness of cognitive behavioral treatments in reducing type A behavior among university faculty. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1985, vol. 32, pp. 74-83.
  45. Vickers A.J. Parametric versus nonparametric statistics in the analysis of randomized trials with nonnormally distributed data. BMC Med Res Methodology, 2005, vol. 5, p. 35. 
  46. Weitlauf J.C., Smith R.E., Cervone D. Generalization effects of coping6skills training: Influence of self6defense training on women's efficacy beliefs, assertiveness and aggression.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 2000, vol. 85, № 4, pp. 625-633.
  47. Wellbeing Budget 2023, New Zealand. 2023. Budget Policy Statement. URL: https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/budget-2023-provide-security-difficult-global-environment (Accessed 20.05.2023). 
  48. Wolpe J. Psychotherapy by Reproach Inhibition. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1958. 239 p.
  49. Wolpe J., Lazarus A.A. Behavior therapy techniques: A guide to the treatment of neuroses. New York: Pergamon Press, 1966. 198 p.

Information About the Authors

Srbuhi R. Gevorgyan, Doctor of Psychology, Professor, rector, Khachatur Abovyan Armenian State Pedagogical University, Yerevan, Armenia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4467-9759, e-mail: gevorgyansrbuhi@aspu.am

Naira R. Hakobyan, Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Deputy Director on Research Affairs, ISEC NAS RA, The International Scientific-Educational Center of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia, Yerevan, Armenia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0753-2774, e-mail: naira.hakobyan@isec.am

Lilit A. Kazanchian, PhD in Law, PhD, Associate Professor, Lecturer of the Department of Jurisprudence, The International Scientific-Educational Center of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia, Senior Researcher of the Institute of Philosophy, Sociology and Law of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia, Yerevan, Armenia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7887-4619, e-mail: lilit_law@mail.ru

Anna G. Khachatryan, PhD in Psychology, Associate Professor, Lecturer of the Department of Psychology, The International Scientific-Educational Center of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia, Yerevan, Armenia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5761-8838, e-mail: anna.khachatryan@isec.am

Metrics

Views

Total: 59
Previous month: 0
Current month: 59

Downloads

Total: 31
Previous month: 0
Current month: 31