Features of personal resources for psychological safety of students in an educational environment in conditions of socio-cultural tension

Context and relevance. In the current geopolitical environment, safeguarding the health and security of the younger generation is of particular importance. The incorporation of new regions into the Russian Federation presents the education system with the challenge of sociocultural integration of these territories and the creation of conditions for students’ successful adaptation and development. Objective. The aim is to study the features of students’ personal resources as predictors of psychological safety in the educational environment. Hypothesis. There are differences in the personal resources contributing to students’ psychological safety, arising from exposure to a tense sociocultural environment. Methods and materials. The study involved 1834 students in grades 9-11: students from the Constituent entities of the Russian Federation (N = 737, M = 15,86, SD = 0,82; girls – 63,5%, boys – 36,5%) and students from the historical regions of the Russian Federation – the Zaporizhia region and the Lugansk People's Republic (N = 737, M = 15,86, SD = 0,82; 63,5% female, 36,5% male) and students from the new regions of the Russian Federation (Zaporizhzhia Oblast and the Luhansk People’s Republic; N = 1097, M = 16,03, SD = 0,85; 60,5% female, 39,5% male). We employed the following measures: “Psychological Safety of the School Educational Environment” (I.A. Baeva, 2008); the Subjective Well-being Scale (adapted by M.V. Sokolova); the Tromsø Social Intelligence Scale (D.H. Silvera et al.); the Hardiness Test (adapted by D.A. Leontiev and E.A. Rasskazova); and the SACS questionnaire – Strategies of Coping with Stressful Situations (adapted by N.E. Vodopyanova and E.S. Starchenkova). Data were analyzed using the Student's t-test for independent samples, Cohen’s d effect size, and linear regression analysis (forward stepwise method). Results. The study revealed significant differences between students from the new regions and those from the established regions of Russia in their perceptions of the school environment’s psychological safety, reflecting the influence of a tense sociocultural context. The two groups differed not only in their levels of hardiness, coping strategies, and social intelligence, but also in the role of these characteristics as predictors of psychological safety. Hardiness, social intelligence, coping strategies, and subjective well-being were overall significant predictors of students’ psychological safety. However, the nature of their influence varied: hardiness and social intelligence contributed most positively to adolescents’ sense of security, whereas certain personal resources (for example, a propensity for indirect coping strategies or an overly high self-evaluation of one’s health) were associated with a lower sense of safety under specific conditions. Conclusions. Students’ personal resources act as significant internal predictors of their perceived psychological safety; however, their influence unfolds in interaction with the conditions created by adults and the educational institution and is context-dependent. This calls for a contextualized, differentiated approach to safeguarding psychological safety in the educational environment, especially under conditions of social tension.