AAA

1. Knowledge Database
• Slide Presentation for the lecture of: Dmitry Leontiev
Higher 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

2. THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY RESOURCES
IN PHYSICALLY DISABLED STUDENTS
FACING THE ADJUSTMENT CHALLENGE
Dmitry Leontiev & Anna Lebedeva
National Research University Higher School of
Economics, Moscow, Russia
Moscow State University for Psychology and
Education

3. Aims
It 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.

4. Theoretical Background
• Personality-focused rather than
disability-focused approach
• Self-regulation rather than
dispositional
A. Adler: compensation of organic deficits by other resources
N. Bernstein: “functional organs” involving both
bodily and mental structures
L. Vygotsky: transformation of socially shared activities
into individual ones
M. Seligman: buffering function of personality strengths

5. 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).

6. 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

7. 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.

8. The base of the study
Moscow State University for Psychology and Education
Institute of the problems of integrative education
Laboratory 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

9. The present study
The 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)

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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 .056
Satisfaction with life .479 .490
Happiness .163 .687
Vitality .021 .884
Meaningfulness of life .001 .971
Hardiness 2.029 .156
Hardy Involvement 2.650 .105
Hardy Control .267 .606
Hardy Risk 3.162 .077
Tolerance for ambiguity 4.550 .004
Mindfulness .669 .414
Self-efficacy .452 .502
Satisfaction with social support .074 .786
Types of the psycho-traumatic situations:
- Accident .069 .793
- Disease 34.422 .000
- heavy loss .206 .650
- Danger .024 .877
Psycho-trauma (sum.) 1.828 .178
Posttraumatic Growth .205 .651
Positive reinterpretation & growth COPE 1.497 .223
Mental disengagement COPE .225 .636
Focus on & venting of emotion COPE .061 .805
Seeking social support—instrumental COPE 1.834 .177
Active coping COPE .250 .618
Denial COPE .757 .385
Religion COPE .502 .479
Humor COPE .030 .862
Behavioral disengagement COPE .002 .969
Restraint coping COPE 5.083 .009
Seeking social support—emotional COPE 2.886 .091
Alcohol-drug COPE .044 .833
Acceptance COPE .109 .741
Suppression of competing activities COPE 9.716 .002
Planning COPE .162 .688

13. Results 1: Does health status make much difference?
9.6
9.8
10
10.2
10.4
10.6
10.8
11
11.2
EstimatedMarginalMeans
Health status
Restraint
coping
8.5
9
9.5
10
10.5
11
EstimatedMarginalMeans
Health status
Suppression of
competing
activities
Note: significant differences p< .01
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
EstimatedMarginalMeans
Health status
Tolerance for
Ambiguity
Most of personality resources are NOT impaired in PD as compared to CH
respondents

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

15. Maladjustment * health status
Hardiness 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.

16. Correlations
Mini-mult scales
L F K HS 1 D 2 HY 3 PD 4 PA 6 PT 7 SE 8 MA 9
Disabled Resources Pearson
corr.
.252 -.050 .216 -.070 -.185 -.054 -.071 -.192 -.286 -.192 -.033
p .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 .034
Notes: ** - 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!!!

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

18. Results 4: Significant differences depending on resources
and maladjustment in the physically disabled
higher in
“strong
resources”
group
higher in “weak
resources”
group
Heath status Group Scales F Sig.
Meaningfulness of life 13,951 ,001
Hardiness 21,195 ,000
Hardy Involvement 12,348 ,001
Hardy Control 13,536 ,001
Hardy Risk 12,451 ,001
Tolerance for ambiguity 22,504 ,000
Psycho-trauma (summ.) 7,083 ,011
Self-efficacy 11,894 ,001
Behavioral disengagement COPE 6,027 ,019
Focus on & venting of emotion COPE 11,110 ,002
Psycho-trauma (summ.) 4,384 ,043
Posttraumatic Growth total 4,640 ,038
Mental disengagement COPE 4,322 ,044
Resources *
Maladjustment
Posttraumatic Growth total
7,542 ,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

19. 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

20. Summary of results
1. 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.

21. Thank you for your
attention
dmleont@gmail.com