|
Library
|
Your profile |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|
Conflict Studies / nota bene
Reference:
Rostovtseva, M.V., Smirnaya, A.A., Novopashina, L.A., Tkacheva, A.V., Vladikin, I.V. (2024). Features of coping strategies and defense mechanisms for 1st and 4th year students with different levels of adaptability. Conflict Studies / nota bene, 2, 66–82. https://doi.org/10.7256/2454-0617.2024.2.70581
Features of coping strategies and defense mechanisms for 1st and 4th year students with different levels of adaptability
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0617.2024.2.70581EDN: AELBZJReceived: 26-04-2024Published: 05-07-2024Abstract: The subject of the study is the coping strategies and protective mechanisms of 1st and 4th year students with different levels of adaptability. Successful adaptation of a student is an important condition for successful educational and cognitive activity. Based on this, the problem of studying the adaptation process and determining the factors that affect the success of this process among students is relevant. Significant and important factors influencing the adaptation process of students are coping strategies and the protective mechanism of personality. Students of 1st (30 people) and 4th year (29 people) were examined. Significant differences were obtained in the groups of highly, medium and low-adaptive 1st and 4th year students in terms of psychological defense parameters and coping strategies. The study was conducted using the following methods: the methodology for diagnosing the socio-psychological adaptation of K. Rogers and R. Diamond, the Plutchik – Kellerman – Conte questionnaire "Lifestyle Index", the questionnaire "Methods of coping behavior" by R. Lazarus. The scientific novelty of the study is related to the results obtained in the diagnosis of coping strategies and defense mechanisms of the 1st and 4th year students with different levels of adaptability. 1st and 4th year students with a high level of adaptation have similar mechanisms of psychological protection, namely: rationalization, compensation, as well as similar types of coping strategies: problem solving planning, self-control, taking responsibility. 1st and 4th year students with a low level of adaptation have differences in the mechanisms of psychological protection, namely: 1st year students have such types of psychological protection as: regression; coping strategy – escape- avoidance; 4th year students have types of psychological protection – denial; coping strategy – search for social support. Keywords: adaptation, personal characteristics, coping strategies, defense mechanisms, adaptability, education, students, Course of Study, confrontation, social supportThis article is automatically translated. Relevance. The problem of adaptation has been studied in the scientific literature for a long time and is covered by various fields of science: both natural science and socio-humanitarian. The process of student adaptation has also long attracted the attention of scientists, primarily psychologists and educators, since successful adaptation to learning is the key to the success of learning itself, including at the university. To date, there are a number of contradictions that determine the relevance of studying the adaptation of students to the university environment. There is a contradiction between the objective need to find effective methods of successful integration and adaptation of students to learning and the insufficient development of theoretical and methodological foundations for creating adaptive models in the context of internationalization and digitalization of education. There is a need to create an adaptive environment for students in an ever-changing learning environment and the lack of methods to ensure this process. Finally, when an applicant enters a higher education institution, on the one hand, he needs to successfully adapt to the learning process, on the other hand, there are many difficulties and obstacles associated with the requirements of higher education for the learning process itself. Today, higher education institutions are designed to provide not only professional training, but also to exist as cultural centers that promote the personal development of students and their successful adaptation to society. Successful adaptation of a student is an important condition for successful educational and cognitive activity. Based on this, the problem of studying the adaptation process and determining the factors that affect the success of this process among students is relevant. Coping strategies and the protective mechanism of personality are significant and important factors influencing the adaptation process of students. The adaptive function of psychological defenses of the individual is beyond doubt, however, protective mechanisms can be maladaptive when used "over-intensively", which leads to an increase in anxiety, fears, neuroticism and, as a result, to maladaptation when a person stops struggling with difficulties. Ways of human interaction with difficult situations that actualize the adaptation process can manifest themselves in the form of psychological defense mechanisms, as well as the activity (coping) aimed at overcoming, coping with difficulties That is why it is very important not only to influence the adaptation process, but also the coping strategies of the individual. Coping strategies are an important internal resource of a person, and depending on their constructiveness, they can contribute to or hinder successful adaptation. The degree of elaboration of the problem. An analysis of the literature on the problems of university adaptation of students indicates that coping behavior and protective mechanisms are important factors influencing the socio –psychological adaptation of students at the university (L. I. Antsyferova, E. A. Belan, O. I. Zotova, I. K. Kryazheva, T. L. Kryukova, Yu. P. Povarenkov, P. M. Hedges, C. S. Craver, E.Karaosmanoglu and others) [1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 12, 17, 18, 20]. Scientists agree that coping is directly related to the adaptation of the subject to the conditions of the surrounding reality and is a factor influencing the course of adaptation and maladaptation (L. I. Antsyferova [1], N. G. Ershova [5], A. A. Nalchajan [11], M. F. Langer [21], R. Opoku [25] and others). The category of university adaptation is described in the works of domestic and foreign researchers (R. V. Bogdanov, M. V. Grigorieva, A.V. Karpov, D. V. Kolesov, S. Losoya) [3, 4, 8, 24]. R. S. Lazarus [21] and M. F. Langer [23] also noted that coping is a stabilizing stress factor that helps a person maintain psychosocial adaptation during stress exposure. Researchers have identified difficulties in adapting students to university conditions (M.V. Rostovtseva, A.A. Mashanov, O.V. Shaidurova, N.A. Goncharevich, etc.) [14, 15], as well as to a new socio-cultural environment depending on the course of study (S.A. Runova [13], A. L. Zhuravlev [6], T.L. Smolina [16], etc.). Thus, according to research data, the percentage of students with a high level of adaptation in the last courses is higher than in the first. Recent studies have discussed the problems of success or failure of students' adaptation to learning. In this context, much attention is paid to the study of the mechanisms of psychological protection and mechanisms of coping with stress [10], which are considered by many authors as a single and interrelated "protective-coping" personality style [11]. Research. The aim of the study was to determine the features of coping strategies and protective mechanisms in 1st and 4th year students with different levels of adaptation. We assumed that 1st and 4th year students with a high level of adaptation will have similar mechanisms of psychological protection, namely: rationalization, compensation, as well as similar types of coping strategies: problem solving planning, self-control, taking responsibility. 1st and 4th year students with a low level of adaptation will have differences in the mechanisms of psychological protection, namely: - 1st year students will have such types of psychological protection as: regression; coping strategy - escape- avoidance. - 4th year students will have a type of psychological defense expressed as denial; coping strategy – search for social support. Research methods: the methodology for diagnosing the socio-psychological adaptation of K. Rogers and R. Diamond, the Plutchik – Kellerman - Conte questionnaire Methodology The index of lifestyle", the questionnaire "Methods of coping behavior" by R. Lazarus. We examined students 1 (30 people) and 4 (29 people) the course of the field of study "Psychology" of the Siberian Federal University. According to the methodology of diagnosis of socio–psychological adaptation by K. Rogers and R. Diamond, we obtained the following data on the scale of "Adaptation", its indicator "adaptability" in 1st year students (see Fig. 1).
Figure 1 is an indicator of the adaptability of 1st year students.
27% of respondents have a high level of adaptability, 60% of respondents have an average level of adaptability, 13% of respondents have a low level of adaptability. Based on the data obtained on the adaptability scale, the respondents were divided into 3 groups: low-adaptive, medium-adaptive and highly adaptive.
Figure 2 – indicators of psychological defenses in respondents with a high level of adaptation. Further, after analyzing the data obtained from highly, medium and low-adaptive 1st year students, using the Plutchik-Kellerman-Conte method (the "Lifestyle Index" method), to study the mechanisms of psychological defenses, we obtained the following data for a group of highly adaptive respondents, 1st year students. (see Fig. 2).
Thus, we see that the predominant psychological defenses of respondents with a high level of adaptation are: rationalization (48% of respondents in this group), compensation (50% of respondents in this group). Based on the results of the data obtained in the group of average adapted respondents using the Plutchik-Kellerman-Conte method (the lifestyle index Method), we obtained the following data (see Fig. 3).
Figure 3 – indicators of the intensity of psychological defenses in respondents with an average level of adaptation. Thus, we see that the predominant psychological defenses of the group of average adaptive respondents are: rationalization (49% of respondents), projection (40% of respondents), regression (44% of respondents).
Figure 4 – indicators of the intensity of psychological defenses in respondents with a low level of adaptation. Based on the results of the data obtained in the group of low-adaptive respondents using the Plutchik- Kellerman-Conte method (the lifestyle index method), we obtained the following data (see Fig. 4). Thus, we see that the predominant psychological defenses in a group of low-adaptive respondents are: regression (in 44% of respondents in this group). Based on the results of the data of the Plutchik-Kellerman-Conte methodology (Life Style Index Methodology) conducted on the 1st year respondents, we found that: – in the group of respondents with a high level of adaptation, the predominant psychological defenses are: rationalization, compensation. – in the group of respondents with an average level of adaptation, the predominant psychological defenses are: rationalization, projection, regression. – in the group of respondents with a low level of adaptation, the predominant psychological defenses are: regression. Next, we analyzed the data obtained from highly, medium and low-adapted 1st year students using the method "methods of coping behavior" by R. Lazarus designed to determine coping mechanisms. We obtained the following data for a group of highly adaptive respondents, 1st year students. (see Fig. 5).
Figure 5 – ways of coping behavior of respondents with a high level of adaptation The results obtained using the methods of coping behavior by R. Lazarus demonstrate that for this group of respondents such coping strategies as: problem solving planning (for 52% of respondents), self-control (for 51% of respondents), taking responsibility (for 50% of respondents) are popular.
Figure 6 – methods of coping behavior of respondents with an average level of adaptation The results of the responses according to the method "methods of coping behavior" by R. Lazarus of respondents with an average level of adaptation are shown in Figure 6. The results obtained using the methods of coping behavior by R. Lazarus demonstrate that coping strategies such as self-control (57% of students), confrontation (51%), problem solving planning (55%) are popular for this group of respondents. The results of the responses according to the method "methods of coping behavior" by R. Lazarus of respondents with a low level of adaptation are shown in Figure 7
Figure 7 – ways of coping behavior of respondents with a low level of adaptation. The results obtained using the methods of coping behavior by R. Lazarus demonstrate that for this group of respondents, the most popular coping strategy is "escape – avoidance" (61% of respondents). Thus, based on the results of the responses of first-year respondents with high, medium, and low levels of adaptation, we conclude that the group of highly adapted respondents is characterized by the following features: a high level of self-perception and acceptance of others, a high level of emotional comfort, a high level of internality, a high level of striving for dominance, and an average level of escapism. The prevailing psychological defenses are: rationalization, compensation. Coping strategies such as problem-solving planning, self-control, and taking responsibility are popular. The group of average adapted respondents is characterized by: an average level of self-acceptance, an average level of acceptance of others, an average level of emotional comfort, an average level of internality, an average level of striving for dominance, an average level of escapism. The prevailing psychological defenses are: rationalization, projection, regression. Coping strategies such as self-control, confrontation, and problem-solving planning are popular. The group of low-adapted respondents is characterized by: a low level of self-acceptance, a low level of acceptance of others, a low level of emotional comfort, a low level of internality, a low level of striving for dominance, an average level of escapism. The predominant psychological defenses are: regression. Coping strategies such as escape and avoidance are popular. Next, let's consider the data obtained from 4th year students using the methodology of diagnosis of socio–psychological adaptation by K. Rogers and R. Diamond to determine the level of the adaptation scale of 4th year students. We have obtained the following data on the indicator of adaptability (see Fig. 8).
Figure 8 is an indicator of the adaptability of 4th year students. Thus, 27% of respondents have a high level of adaptability, 53% of respondents have an average level of adaptability, 20% of respondents have a low level of adaptability. Based on the data obtained on the adaptation scale, the respondents were divided into 3 groups: low-adaptive, medium-adaptive and highly adaptive. Next, we analyzed the data according to the three groups we identified.
Figure 9 – indicators of psychological defenses in respondents with a high level of adaptation. Further, after analyzing the data obtained from highly, medium and low-adaptive 4th year students, using the Plutchik-Kellerman-Conte method (the "Lifestyle Index" method), to study the mechanisms of psychological defenses, we obtained the following data for a group of highly adaptive respondents, 4th year students. (see Fig. 9).
Thus, we see that the predominant psychological defenses of respondents with a high level of adaptation are: rationalization (35% of respondents), compensation (40% of respondents). Based on the results of the data obtained in the group of average adapted respondents using the Plutchik-Kellerman-Conte method (the "Lifestyle Index" method), we obtained the following data (see Fig. 10).
Figure 10 – indicators of the intensity of psychological defenses in respondents with an average level of adaptation. Thus, we see that the predominant psychological defenses of the group of average adapted respondents are: rationalization (51%), displacement (37%), substitution (40%).
Figure 11 – indicators of the intensity of psychological defenses in respondents with a low level of adaptation. Based on the results of the data obtained in a group of low-adapted respondents using the Plutchik-Kellerman-Conte method (the lifestyle index Method), we obtained the following data (see Fig. 11). Thus, we see that the predominant psychological defenses of the group of low-adjusted respondents are: denial (38%). Based on the results of the data of the Plutchik-Kellerman-Conte methodology (the "Lifestyle Index" methodology), conducted on the respondents of the 4th year of study, we found that: – in the group of respondents with a high level of adaptation, rationalization and compensation are the predominant psychological defenses. – in the group of respondents with an average level of adaptation, the predominant psychological defenses are rationalization, displacement, and substitution. – in the group of respondents with a low level of adaptation, the predominant psychological defenses are:denial.
Next, we analyzed the data obtained from highly, medium and low-adapted 4th year students using the method "methods of coping behavior" by R. Lazarus designed to determine coping mechanisms. We obtained the following data for a group of highly adapted respondents, 4th year students. (see Fig. 12). The results obtained using the methods of coping behavior by R. Lazarus demonstrate that coping strategies such as self-control (59%), taking responsibility (55%), and problem solving planning (50%) are popular for this group of respondents. The results of the responses according to the method "methods of coping behavior" by R. Lazarus of respondents with an average level of adaptation are shown in Figure 13.
Figure 13 – ways of coping behavior of respondents with an average level of adaptation The results obtained using the methods of coping behavior by R. Lazarus demonstrate that such coping strategies as confrontation (54%), positive reassessment (54%) are popular for this group of respondents. The results of the responses according to the method "methods of coping behavior" by R. Lazarus of respondents with a low level of adaptation are shown in Figure 14.
Figure 14 – ways of coping behavior of respondents with a low level of adaptation. The results obtained using the methods of coping behavior by R. Lazarus demonstrate that such coping strategies as: seeking social support (48%), distancing (44%) are popular for this group of respondents. Thus, based on the results of the responses of the respondents of the 4th year of high, medium and low adapted students, we conclude that the group of highly adapted respondents is characterized by the following features: a high level of self-acceptance, a high level of acceptance of others, a high level of emotional comfort, a high level of internality, a high level of striving for dominance, an average level of escapism, but one respondent has a low level. The prevailing psychological defenses are: rationalization, compensation. Coping strategies such as self-control, rationalization, and taking responsibility are popular. The group of average adapted respondents is characterized by: an average level of self-acceptance, an average level of acceptance of others, an average emotional comfort, an average level of internality, an average level of striving for dominance, an average level of escapism. The prevailing psychological defenses are: rationalization, displacement, substitution. Coping strategies such as confrontation and positive reassessment are popular The group of low-adapted respondents is characterized by: low level of self-acceptance, low level of acceptance of others, while 1 respondent is in the middle range of the indicator of acceptance of others, low emotional comfort, low level of internality, low level of desire for dominance, while 1 respondent is in the middle range of the indicator of desire for dominance. The average level of escapism. The predominant psychological defenses are: denial. Coping strategies such as the search for social support are popular. The ratio of indicators by groups (a group of 1st year students and a group of 4th year students) according to the Mann-Whitney U-criterion shows that: 1. The indicators of coping strategies and psychological defense mechanisms in the groups of highly adaptive 1st and 4th year students are similar, the empirical value obtained is in the zone of significance (Figure 15).
Figure 15. Differences in the indicators of coping strategies in groups of weakly, medium and highly adaptive 1st and 4th year students. 2. The indicators of coping strategies and psychological defense mechanisms in the groups of low-adaptive 1st and 4th year students are different, the empirical value obtained is in the zone of insignificance (Figure 16).
Figure 16. Differences in indicators of psychological defenses in groups of weakly, moderately and highly adaptive 1st and 4th year students. Thus, the respondents of the first year of study who are highly, medium and low adapted are characterized by such indicators as: - for highly adaptive respondents: The predominant psychological defenses are: rationalization, compensation; - coping strategies such as problem-solving planning, self-control, and taking responsibility are popular; - the group of average adaptive respondents is characterized by: The predominant psychological defenses are: rationalization, projection, regression; - Coping strategies such as self-control, confrontation, and problem-solving planning are popular. The group of low-adaptive respondents is characterized by: - the predominant psychological defenses are: regression; - such coping strategies as: escape - avoidance, distancing are popular; The respondents of the fourth year of study who are highly, medium and low adapted are characterized by such indicators as: The group of highly adaptive respondents is characterized by: - the prevailing psychological defenses are: rationalization, compensation; - coping strategies such as self-control, problem-solving planning, and taking responsibility are popular; The groups of medium-adaptive correspondents are characterized by: - the predominant psychological defenses are: rationalization, displacement, substitution; - coping strategies such as confrontation and positive reassessment are popular. The group of low-adaptive respondents is characterized by: - the predominant psychological defenses are: displacement; - such coping strategies as: search for social support are popular. Conclusions. Thus, the hypothesis of our study has been confirmed. 1st and 4th year students with a high level of adaptation have similar mechanisms of psychological protection, namely: rationalization, compensation, as well as similar types of coping strategies: problem solving planning, self-control, taking responsibility. 1st and 4th year students with a low level of adaptation have differences in the mechanisms of psychological protection, namely: 1st year students have such types of psychological protection as: regression; coping strategy - escape- avoidance; 4th year students have a pronounced type of psychological protection – denial; coping strategy - search for social support. The obtained data can be used by the social and psychological services of the university to manage the process of adaptation of students at the university. References
1. Antsyferova, L.I. (1994). Personality in difficult life conditions: rethinking, transformation of situations and psychological protection. Psychological Journal, 1, 3–18.
2. Belan, E. A. (2004). Psychology of coping behavior. Krasnodar: Kuban State University. 3. Bogdanov, R.V. (2019). Adaptation of students to the educational process as a result of extracurricular work. Vestn. Krasnoyarsk state un-ta. Ser. Humanitarian sciences, 3/1, 106–107. 4. Grigorieva, M.V. (2020). Subjectivity of the adapting personality of the university. Personality and being: a subjective approach: mat. scientific conf., dedicated 75th anniversary of the birth of corresponding member. RAS A.V. Brushlinsky, October 15–16, 2008. Resp. ed. A. L. Zhuravlev, V. V. Znakov, Z. I. Ryabikina. Moscow: Publishing house IP RAS, pp. 522–524. 5. Ershova, N. G. (2020). Methodological aspects of psychological and pedagogical support of the educational process during the period of students’ adaptation to higher school. Theory and practice of physical culture (scientific and theoretical journal), 5, 18–24. 6. Zhuravlev, A. L. (2017). “Socio-psychological maturity”: justification of the concept. Psychological Journal, 2, 44–54. 7. Zotova, O.I. (1979). Some aspects of socio-psychological adaptation. O.I. Zotova, I.K. Kryazheva. Psychological mechanisms of regulation of social behavior, pp. 219–232. Moscow: Nauka. 8. Karpov, A. V. (2019). Study of general adaptive ability. A. V. Karpov, A. Yu. Konovalov. Scientific search: collection. scientific works of students, graduate students and teachers. Ed. prof. A. V. Karpova, pp. 126–130. Yaroslavl: YarSU. 9. Kryukova, T. L. (2004). Psychology of coping behavior: monograph. Kostroma: Avantitul. 10. Kryukova, T. L. (2008). Man as a subject of coping behavior. Psychological Journal, 2, 88–95. 11. Nalchadzhyan, A.A. (1988). Social and mental adaptation of the individual. Yerevan: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the ArmSSR. 12. Povarenkov, Yu.P., & Smirnov, Yu.I. (2016). Psychological characteristics of inertia and mechanisms of educational and professional adaptation of university students. Yaroslavl psychological bulletin, 6, 10–15. 13. Runova, S.A. (2001). Social and professional adaptation of first-year students to the conditions of a pedagogical university: dis... cand. ped. sciences. Bryansk: BSU Publishing House. 14. Rostovtseva, M.V. (2021). Methodological approaches to the study of social adaptation of personality: monograph. Krasnoyarsk. 15. Rostovtseva, M.V., Shaidurova, O.V., Goncharevich, N.A., Kovalevich, I.A., & Kudashov, V.I. (2018). Level of development of students' adaptive potential. Bulletin of the Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University, 2, 43-61. 16. Smolina, T. L. (2007). Adaptation to a foreign cultural environment: analysis of related concepts. Human psychology: an integrative approach, pp. 162-167. Digest of articles. St. Petersburg: publishing house ANO "IPP". 17. Hedges, P.M. (2003). Antecedents and outcomes of international student adjustment: Dis. Doctor of philosophy. University of Western Australia. 18. Craver, C. S. (2017). What accounts for students' loyalty? Some field study evidence. International Journal of Educational Management, 2, 35. 19. Helm, S. (2007). The Role of Corporate Reputation in Determining Investor Satisfaction and Loyalty. Corporate Reputation Review, 10, 56-70. 20. Karaosmanoglu, E. (2006). Corporate communications, identity and image: A research agenda. Journal of Brand Management, 14, 196–206. 21. Langer, M. F. (2001). Modeling and Managing Student Loyalty. Journal of Service Research, 4, 331–344. 22. Lasarus, R. S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping. N. – Y.: Springer. 23. Lazarus, R. (1991). The concept of coping. A. Monat and R. S. Lazarus. Stress and Coping. N. – Y. P. 189–206. 24. Losoya, S. (2018). Developmental issues in the study of coping. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22(2), 231–237. 25. Opoku, R. (2019). Communicating brand personality: Are the web sites doing the talking for the top South African Business Schools. Journal of Brand Management, 14, 20–39.
Peer Review
Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
|
© 1998 – 2025 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.
