THE PHENOMENON OF INTEGRATION-DISINTEGRATION IN THE DIMENSIONS OF DIALECTICS OF MODERN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Lukomskaya Svetlana Alexeevna, Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Senior Researcher of the Laboratory of Methodology and Theory of Psychology Institute of Psychology named after G. S. Kostyuk National Academy of Educational Science of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine
Аннотация
This article is devoted to the analysis of the phenomenon of integrationdisintegration in the dimensions of the dialectics of modern psychological science. It has been established that integration, integration processes are and certainly
should be the main phenomenon of modern social development. In modern
scientific literature, there are different directions and approaches to understanding
the essence of integration processes. For the most part, integration is viewed
as an objective, multifaceted, most complex phenomenon; as a process rich in
contradictions, searches, significant financial, economic, social, legal, political
and other experiments. The article analyzes the results of an empirical study of
the possibilities of applying the resource approach to the study of personality in
a situation of oncological disease. The origins of the concept of «resource», the
peculiarities of its use in psychology are determined, the resource approach to
psychological diagnostics and assistance to people in difficult life situations is
outlined. We suggest that the problems of helping this target group are not so much
in integrating the split between existentialism and biology, but in promoting our
own ability to dialectically maintain the identity and coherence of the personality,
despite its psychological and physical characteristics.
Библиографические ссылки
Водопьянова Н.Е. Активная жизненная позиция личности и профессиональная адаптация в условиях социально-экономического кризиса. Психологические проблемы самореализации личности. Санкт-Петербург:
СПБГУ, 1998. Вып.2. С. 144–155.
Маклаков А. Г. Личностный адаптационный потенциал: его мобилизация и прогнозирование в экстремальных условиях. Психологический журнал. 2001. Т. 22 (№ 6). С. 16-24.
Bowles S. V., Pollock L. D., Moore M. Total force fitness: The military family fitness model. Military Medicine. 2015. Vol. 180(3). P. 246-258.
Brown I. D., Poulton E. C. Measuring the spare ‘mental capacity’ of car drivers by a subsidiary task. Ergonomics. 1961. Vol. 4(1). P. 35-40.
Hobfoll S. E., Watson P., Bell C. C., Bryant R. A. Five essential elements of immediate and mid–term mass trauma intervention: Empirical evidence. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes. 2007. Vol. 70(4). P. 283-315.
Richardson G. E. The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of clinical psychology. 2002. Vol. 58(3). P. 307-321.
Staats A. W. Paradigmatic behaviorism, unified theory, unified theory construction methods, and the Zeitgeist of separatism. American Psychologist. 1981. Vol. 36(3). P. 239-248
Tedeschi R. G., Calhoun L.G. The posttraumatic growth inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 1996. Vol. 9. P. 455–471.
Vivat B., Young T. E., Winstanley J. The international phase 4 validation study of the EORTC QLQ‐SWB 32: A stand‐alone measure of spiritual well‐being for people receiving palliative care for cancer. European journal of cancer care. 2017. Vol. 26(6). P. 12-29.
Ulrich R. S., Simons R. F., Losito B. D., Fiorito E., Miles M. A., Zelson M. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of environmental psychology. 1991. Vol. 11(3). P. 201-230.
Yanchar S. C., Slife B. D. Pursuing unity in a fragmented psychology: Problems and prospects. Review of General Psychology. 1997. Vol. 1(3). P. 235-255.
