Comparative Empirical Analysis of the Russian and Buryat Youth Resilience

90

Abstract

Objective. Identification of the possible, conditioned by the ethnocultural peculiarities of the way of living differences in the indicators of resilience, in the connections, in the significance of its components and the factors in the representatives of Russian and Buryat youth (from 15 to 24 years).
Background. The increase in social and economic tensions and the challenges of modern social life make for increased demands on human resilience. Psychological science is aware of the request for an analysis of phenomenology and the essence of resilience in its various aspects. One such angle is ethnocultural variations in the resilience of people from different nationalities, in particular Russians and Buryats. It is important to determine the general and the ethno-specific components of resilience, factors of its support and the risk factors.
Study design. There is studied the resilience indicators in the samples of Russian and Buryat respondents, by means of the cluster analysis has determined the structure of variables, their comparison is carried out. The correlations between the variables within each cluster are revealed, there were given a comparative assessment of these relationships, of resilience components significance, factors of support and the risk in each sample.
Participants. Sample: 109 Russian students from the universities and 98 Buryat students from the universities and a college. The total sample is 207 people.
Measurements. The diagnosis was carried out under the program “Resilient Youth in stressed environments” – “Zhiznesposobnaya molodezh' v stressovykh usloviyakh”, RYSE (Laktionova, Makhnach, 2008; Ungar, Hadfield, 2019), which includes 9 questionnaires named in the article, and a socio-demographic questionnaire.
Results. The results of the study testify to the similarity of the level (it is high for most of the respondents in both samples), basic characteristics of resilience and its factors (their own forces, support of family and society). At the same time, the differences for all variables included in the protective factors were revealed. The indicators of resilience Buryat students are higher than in Russians. The differences are particularly clear appeared in indicators of contextually resilience primarily in assessments of the significance of religious faith, the attitudes to the culture and traditions of their people. There were found differences in the interrelations of variables: the indicator of victimization in Buryat respondents is positively associated only with the indicator of the "Traumatic Symptoms" scale, and in the Russian sample – with indicators of depression and positive childhood experiences. Negative correlations of this variable in the Russian sample are noted with the indicators of all resilience components and with the rate of the Perception of Neighbourhood. There are no significant negative correlations on this scale in the Buryat sample.
Conclusions. Resilience has foundations, structure and factors common to people of different nationalities. No unique national peculiarities in the resilience of representatives of Russian and Buryat youth were found. However, the ethno-cultural features of the way of life determine some distinctions in an assessment conducted by the respondents of different nationalities of the resilience components significance, its factors, connections of its indicators and characteristics.

General Information

Keywords: resilience; youth; russians and buryats; culture; traditions; social ecology of residence places; risk and protective factors

Journal rubric: Empirical Research

Article type: scientific article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2023140205

Received: 15.04.2023

Accepted:

For citation: Makhnach A.V., Saraeva N.M., Dagbaeva S.B., Laktionova A.I., Postylyakova Yu.V., Suhanov A.A. Comparative Empirical Analysis of the Russian and Buryat Youth Resilience. Sotsial'naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo = Social Psychology and Society, 2023. Vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 66–84. DOI: 10.17759/sps.2023140205. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)

References

  1. Bromley Yu.V. Sovremennyye problemy etnografii (ocherki teorii i istorii) [Contemporary Problems of Ethnography (Essays in Theory and History)]. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 390 p. (In Russ.).
  2. Dagbayeva S.B. Psihologo-pedagogicheskoe obespechenie processa etnicheskoy socializacii uchaschihsya sredney shkoly. dokt.psihol. nauk [Psychological and pedagogical support of the ethnic socialization process of secondary school students. Dr. Sci. (Psychology) Diss.]. Kemerovo, 2015. 420 p. (In Russ.).
  3. Zhiznesposobnost' molodezhnogo naseleniya v regione ekologicheskogo neblagopoluchiya (v Zabaikal'skom krae): kollektivnaya monografiya. N.M. Saraeva, A.A. Sukhanov i dr. Pod nauch. red. N.M. Saraevoi [The resilience of youth population in the region of environmental disadvantage (in the Transbaikal Territory)]. In Saraeva N.M., Sukhanov A.A. (ed.). Chita:TSU, 2019. 260 p. (In Russ.).
  4. Krys'ko V.G., Fel'dshtejn D.I. Etnopsihologicheskij slovar' [Elektronnyi resurs] [Ethnopsychological dictionary]. Mosсow: MPCU, 343 p. Available at: https://vocabulary.ru/termin/nacionalnost.html (Accessed 07.04.2023). (In Russ.).
  5. Laktionova A.I. Zhiznesposobnost' cheloveka: metakognitivnyy podkhod [Human resilience: a metacognitive approach]. In V. Makhnach, L.G. Dikaya (Eds.). Zhiznesposobnost' cheloveka: individual'nyye, professional'nyye i sotsial'nyye aspekty [Human Resilience: Individual, Professional and Social Aspects]. Moscow: Institute of Psychology RAS Publ., 2016, pp. 88–110. (In Russ.).
  6. Makhnach A.V. Zhiznesposobnost' cheloveka i sem'i: sotsial'no-psikhologicheskaya paradigma [Human and family resilience: the socio-psychological paradigm]. Mosсow: Institute of Psychology RAS Publishing House, 2016. 459 p. (In Russ.).
  7. Makhnach A.V., Laktionova A.I. Zhiznesposobnost' podrostka: ponyatie i koncepciya [Adolescent resilience: concept and construct]. Psihologiya adaptacii i social'naya sreda: sovremennye podhody, problemy, perspektivy [Psychology of adaptation and social environments: modern approaches, problems, perspectives]. Mosсow: Institute of Psychology RAS Publishing House, 2007, pp. 290–312. (In Russ.).
  8. Nesterova A.A. Sotsialno-psikhologicheskaya kontseptsiya zhiznesposobnosti molodezhi v situatsii poteri raboty. А diss. dokt.psihol. nauk [Socio-psychological conception of youth resilience in situations of job loss. Dr. Sci. (Psychology) Diss.]. Moscow, 2011. 525 p. (In Russ.).
  9. Postylyakova Yu.V. Individual'naya zhiznesposobnost' i resursy studentov vuza [Elektronnyi resurs] [Individual resilience and resources of university students]. Institut psikhologii Rossiyskoy akademii nauk. Organizatsionnaya psikhologiya i psikhologiya truda = Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Organizational Psychology and Labor Psychology, 2018. 3(1), pp. 92–108. Available at: http://work-org-psychology.ru/engine/documents/document323.pdf (In Russ.).
  10. Rylskaya E.A. Psikhologiya zhiznesposobnosti cheloveka [Psychology of human resilience. Dr. (Psychology) Diss.]. Yaroslavl', 2014. 446 p. (In Russ.).
  11. Makhnach A.V. et al. Sravnitel'nyj analiz zhiznesposobnosti molodezhi iz regionov s raznymi kul'turno-social'nymi i ekologicheskimi usloviyami [Comparative analysis of youth resilience from regions with different cultural, social and environmental conditions of life]. Psihologicheskij zhurnal = Psychological Journal, 2021. 42, no. 4, pp. 16–27. DOI:10.31857//S020595920016005-1 (In Russ.).
  12. Tolochek V.A. Fenomen «zhiznesposobnost'»: vozmozhnye perspektivy issledovaniya [The phenomenon of Resilience: the possible perspectives for research]. Institut psihologii RAN. Organizacionnaya psihologiya i psihologiya truda = Institute of Psychology of RAS. Organizational and Labor Psychology, Vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 21–46. DOI:10.38098/ipran.opwp_2021_21_4_005 (In Russ.).
  13. Armsden G.C., Greenberg M.T. The Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment: Relationships to well-being in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1987. Vol. 16(5), pp. 427–450.
  14. Arrington E.G., Wilson M.N. A reexamination of risk and resilience during adolescence: Incorporating culture and diversity. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 2000. Vol. 9, pp. 221–230. DOI:10.1023/A:1009423106045
  15. Beck A.T., Steer R.A., Brown G. Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation, 1996. 38 p.
  16. Deb S., McGirr K., Bhattacharya B., Sun J. Role of home environment, parental care, parents personality and their relationship to adolescent mental health. Journal of Psychology and Psychotherapy, 2015. Vol. 5(6), pp. 1–8. DOI:10.4172/2161-0487.1000223
  17. Frederick C.J., Pynoos R.S., Nader K.O. Childhood Posttraumatic Stress Reaction Index (CPTS-RI). Los Angeles, CA, 1992. 48 p.
  18. Höltge J., Theron L., Cowden R.G., Govender K., Maximo S.I., Carranza J.S., Ungar M. A cross-country network analysis of adolescent resilience. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2021. Vol. 68(3), pp. 580–588. DOI:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.07.010
  19. Kapoor M., Darda P. Happiness and self as social constructs an interpretative phenomenological analysis of Buddhist practitioners transcendence: Key lessons in Resilience. Journal of Resilient Economies, 2022. Vol. 2(1), pp. 86–95. DOI:10.25120/JRE.2.1.2022.3916
  20. Luthar S.S., Ebbert A.M., Kumar N.L. Risk and resilience among Asian American youth: Ramifications of discrimination and low authenticity in self-presentations. American Psychologist, Vol. 76(4), pp. 643–657. DOI:10.1037/amp0000764
  21. Manning L.K., Miles A. Examining the effects of religious attendance on resilience for older adults. Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 57(1), pp. 191–208. DOI:10.1007/s10943-017-0438-5
  22. Masten A.S. Global perspectives on resilience in children and youth. Child Development, 2014. Vol. 85, pp. 6–20. DOI:10.1111/cdev.12205
  23. Meindl P., Yu A., Galla B., Quirk A., Haeck C., Parker G.J., Lejuez C.W., D`Mello S.K., Duckworth A.L. A brief behavioral measure of frustration tolerance predicts academic achievement immediately and two years later. Emotion, Vol. 19(6), pp. 1081–1092. DOI:10.1037/EMO0000492
  24. Narayan A.J., Ghosh Ippen C., Harris W.W., Lieberman A.F. Assessing angels in the nursery: A pilot study of childhood memories of benevolent caregiving as protective influences. Infant Mental Health Journal, Vol. 38, pp. 461–474. DOI:10.1002/imhj.21653
  25. Ruchkin V., Schwab-Stone M., Vermeiren R. Social and Health Assessment (SAHA): Psychometric development summary. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 2004. 90 p.
  26. Shea M., Yeh C. Asian American students’ cultural values, stigma, and relational self-construal: Correlates of attitudes toward professional help seeking. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, Vol. 30(2), pp. 157–172. DOI:10.17744/mehc.30.2.g662g5l2r1352198
  27. Theron L., Murphy K., Ungar M. Multisystemic resilience: Learning from youth in stressed environments. Youth and Society, Vol. 54(6), pp. 1000–1022. DOI:10.1177/0044118X211017335
  28. Tseliou F., Ashfield-Watt P. The association between resilience resources, contextual factors and mental health status: a national population-based study. BMC Public Health, Vol. 22. Art. 602. DOI:10.1186/s12889-022-13013-2
  29. Twum-Antwi A., Jefferies P., Ungar M. Promoting child and youth resilience by strengthening home and school environments: A literature review. International Journal of School and Educational Psychology, Vol. 8(2), pp. 78–89. DOI:10.1080/21683603.2019.1660284
  30. Ungar M. Designing resilience research: using multiple methods to investigate risk exposure, promotive and protective processes, and contextually relevant outcomes for children and youth. Child Abuse and Neglect, Vol. 96. Art. 1040982, pp. 1–8. DOI:10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104098
  31. Ungar M., Liebenberg L. Assessing resilience across cultures using mixed methods: Construction of the child and youth resilience measure. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol. 5(2), pp. 126–149. DOI:10.1177/1558689811400607
  32. Ware J.E., Sherbourne C.D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, Vol. 30(6), pp. 473–483.

Information About the Authors

Alexander V. Makhnach, Doctor of Psychology, Deputy Director for Science, Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2231-1788, e-mail: makhnach@ipran.ru

Nadezhda M. Saraeva, Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Department of Theoretical and Applied Psychology, Transbaikal State University, Chita, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4946-8360, e-mail: saraiewa@mail.ru

Soelma B. Dagbaeva, Doctor of Psychology, Head of the Department of Theoretical and Applied Psychology, Transbaikal State University, Chita, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1696-2370, e-mail: soela@bk.ru

Anna I. Laktionova, PhD in Psychology, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9682-2142, e-mail: apan@inbox.ru

Yuliya V. Postylyakova, PhD in Psychology, Research Fellow, Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6318-1572, e-mail: postylyakova@mail.ru

Alexey A. Suhanov, PhD in Psychology, Associate Professor of the Department of Theoretical and Applied Psychology, Transbaikal State University, Chita, Russia, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2062-9642, e-mail: suhanob-71@mail.ru

Metrics

Views

Total: 248
Previous month: 11
Current month: 4

Downloads

Total: 90
Previous month: 2
Current month: 1