Objective. Analysis of the family resilience as its systemic characteristics from the standpoint of the organizational theory of A.A. Bogdanov. Background. The growing uncertainty of the existence of a person and a family makes such a quality as resilience in demand. The approach to the family as a system and practical work with it from the perspective of studying its resilience presupposes an emphasis not on the weakness and dysfunctionality of the family, but on those potential and real possibilities that are inherent in it. The family resilience as its systemic characteristic, depends on the balance of risk and protective factors, in the quality of which the family’s resources are considered. Family resourses are indicators of the family resilience. The resources of the nuclear family, contributing to the formation and maintenance of its resilience in wide temporal, social and cultural contexts, are gradually uniting individual resources. The process of forming the resource capacity of the family is not only their accumulation, but also the synthesis and grouping of the resources of the whole family as a system. Methodology. Organizational theory A.A. Bogdanov. Conclusions. Organizational theory A.A. Bogdanova, being a general scientific approach to the study of any system, makes it possible to analyze the family resilience as its systemic characteristics from the standpoint of the interaction of multidirectional activities mediated by differences in the understanding of family values, communication needs and organizational patterns. The joint coordinated activity of family members, leading to an increase in family resilience, is achieved with the help of certain resources.

Introduction. The article analyses resilience of university students. The high degree of uncertainty of the present and future, associated with the characteristics of the life stage of graduate students, is complicated by the fact that this age period is associated with crises in choosing a profession. It is shown that the relationship between youth resilience and the development of their life trajectory has been little studied. The relevance of such studies is high and has theoretical and practical significance. Research hypothesis: the level of students’  resilience is associated with an optimistic/pessimistic vision of their professional future in Russia, self-identification, reflecting belonging to a country, region, city, migration/emigration intentions.Aim. The study aims to analyse the relationship of youth resilience with their attitude to the prospects of their future profession, migration/emigration intentions, and social identity.Methodology, methods and techniques. The methodological framework of research is based on the systematic approach that offers system-wide ideas about the structural and functional structure of the space of research objects; the theory of ecological systems by U. Bronfenbrenner, which allows to identify significant relationships between the indicators of youth resilience in interaction with the outside world. Students’ resilience was assessed by the 28-item Child and Youth Resilience Measure (Child and Youth Resilience Measure-28), which allows scoring three indicators of resilience: “Individual resources”; “Family support”; “Context”. The calculation of the integral resilience score is provided. The authors developed the questionnaire to study the social identity of young people, their attitude to the prospects of their future profession and migration/emigration intentions. The study involved university senior students, MA level students (N = 993, average age M = 21.49, SD = 2.274).Results. 1. In resilience of students, individual resources are leading; family resources and score of general resilience are moderate; students give a low rating to contextual resources. 2. Students with high resilience are more optimistic about the opportunities for professional growth and a decent life in Russia, in contrast to students with low resilience. 3. Social identity differs between high and low resilience groups. Higher indicators of self-identification as Russians are demonstrated by students with high resilience, they also have less pronounced cosmopolitanism and emigration plans. 4. A low assessment of the physical and psychological support of family, friends, and dissatisfaction with home/family/friends is noted among respondents with low resilience, which also demonstrates a pessimistic vision of the future in Russia, higher emigration intentions, and lower indicators of self-identification as a Russian citizen. 5. Data from the study of the general sample show regional differences in the migration/ emigration plans of young people.Scientific novelty. The empirical possibilities of the systems approach and the theory of ecological systems by U. Bronfenbrenner to the study of student youth resilience have been tested. The relationships between young people resilience and their attitude to the prospects of the profession, migration/emigration intentions, and social identity are revealed. The targets of influence on increasing students’ resilience during their studies at the university are determined. Practical significance. The results of the present study can be used for individual support of students and in the preparation of university curricula.

No abstract

Статья посвящена изучению взаимосвязей между дифференциальным типом рефлексии (системная, интроспекция и квазирефлексия) и компонентами жизнеспособности человека в разных возрастных группах. В качестве компонентов жизнеспособности рассматриваются: эмоциональный интеллект и формально - динамические характеристики. Гипотезы исследования: 1. В разных возрастных группах различается выраженность средних показателей индивидуальной, семейной и контекстуальной жизнеспособности и дифференциального типа рефлексии; 2. Системная рефлексия является ресурсом индивидуальной жизнеспособности человека; 3. Интроекция и квазирефлексия являются факторами риска для индивидуальной жизнеспособности и отрицательно связаны с ней; 4. В разных возрастных группах различается характер взаимосвязей компонентов жизнеспособности и дифференциального типа рефлексии. Общая выборка исследования составила 143 человека. Все респонденты были разделены на 3 группы: 1 группа 18-25 лет; 2 группа 26-45; 3 группа 46-65 лет. В статье проводится сравнительный анализ групп №1 и 3. Методики исследования: Тест жизнеспособности взрослых CYRM-28; Опросник «Дифференциальный тип рефлексии» (Д.А. Леонтьев, Е.М. Лаптева, Е.Н. Осин, А.Ж. Салихова); Опросник эмоционального интеллекта «ЭМИН» (Люсин, 2006); Методика изучения структуры темперамента Я. Стреляу (PTS). В результате исследования: 1. Не было получено значимых различий в степени выраженности индивидуальной жизнеспособности и системной рефлексии между двумя группами. У респондентов старшей группы по сравнению с младшей группой выше показатели семейной, контекстуальной и общей жизнеспособности и ниже - интроекции и квазирефлексии; 2. Системная рефлексия является ресурсом индивидуальной жизнеспособности в группе респондентов 18-25 лет; В обеих группах интроспекция и квазирефлексия являются фактором риска для жизнеспособности; 4. В разных возрастных группах различается характер взаимосвязей компонентов жизнеспособности и дифференциального типа рефлексии The article is devoted to the study of the relationship between the differential type of reflection (systemic, introspection and quasi-reflection) and the components of human resilience in different age groups. The components of resilience are considered: emotional intelligence and formally dynamic characteristics. Research hypotheses: 1. In different age groups, the severity of the average indicators of individual, family and contextual resilience and the differential type of reflection differs; 2. Systemic reflection is a resource of individual human resilience; 3. Introjection and quasi-reflection are risk factors for individual resilience and are negatively associated with it; 4. In different age groups, the nature of the relationship between the components of resilience and the differential type of reflection differs. The total sample of the study was 143 respondents. All respondents were divided into 3 groups: 1 group 18-25 years old; 2 group 26-45; 3 group 46-65 years old. Research methods: CYRM-28; Questionnaire "Differential type of reflection" (Leontiev, Lapteva, Osin, Salikhova, 2009); Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire "EMIN" (Lyusin, 2006); Methodology for studying the structure of temperament J. Strelyau (PTS). As a result of the research: 1. There were no significant differences in the severity of individual vitality and systemic reflection between the two groups. The respondents of the older group, in comparison with the younger group, have higher indicators of family, contextual and general vitality and lower indicators of introjection and quasi-reflection; 2. Systemic reflection is a resource of individual vitality in the group of respondents aged 18-25; 3. In both groups, introspection and quasi-reflection are a risk factor for vitality; 4. In different age groups, the nature of the relationship between the components of vitality and the differential type of reflection is different.

No abstract