**5. Discussion of the results of testing hypothesis H1**

It was found that the level of resourcefulness is a factor of the intensity of positive (F = 31.41; p < 0.000) and negative (F = 7.86; p < 0.001) emotions of the individual. As we can see, the influence on positive emotions is more significant; therefore, individuals who are aware of the possibility of quickly mobilizing their psychological resources in case of difficulties fell positive emotions (interested, excited, enthusiastic, etc.) more intensely and negative emotions less intensely (depressed, upset, hostile, etc.). In particular, the level of resourcefulness is a factor of the level of emotions belonging to the "Negative depression" category (depressed, upset, guilty, scared, ashamed, jittery and afraid). We note that the Ukrainian variant of the PANAS questionnaire has a three-factor structure, which combines one factor corresponding to positive experiences and two factors of negative affect ("Negative depression" and "Negative activation"). The level of resourcefulness is only a factor of the level of experiencing a depressed state and has no significant relationship with the state of intense, activating negative emotions (hostile, irritable and nervous).

The level of resourcefulness is a factor on both the hedonic well-being (F = 8.05; p < 0.001) and the overall level of personal satisfaction (F = 18.90; p < 0.000). People with high resourcefulness often experience happiness, satisfaction and interest in life. The higher person with more vitality evaluates their ability to mobilize resources, the higher one evaluates their achievements in comparison with the results of other people and the more positively one perceives the circumstances of their life and values their relationships with other people. It is interesting to note that the level of resourcefulness is a factor on two of the three indicators that were measured using the "KOSB-3" questionnaire, namely: "General satisfaction with personal life" (F = 22.25; p < 0.000) and "Satisfaction with other people relationships" (F = 8.93; p < 0.000). The level of the "Dissatisfaction with oneself and frustration in life" indicator is not

#### *Development of a Methodology for the Study of Resourcefulness as an Important Indicator… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112119*

related to the ability to mobilize and restore one's own resources. This gives us reason to assume that the experience of frustration, like other activating negative experiences, can also arise in the background of emotional exhaustion and personal devastation as a secondary reaction to one's inability to control the situation and regulate one's condition. It can be considered as an additional factor of self-energization, in addition to the mobilization of resources. If mobilization is based on the volitional mechanism of strengthening intentions and suppression of competing intentions, then this additional mechanism allows to increase the level of self-activation due to the strengthening of negative affects. This mechanism of activation of the personal state was described in the theory of "Arousal Potential," where the arousal level was dependent on a combination of collative variables, affective stimuli, strong external stimuli and the state of need [45]. Moreover, the highest level of activation is achieved precisely when strong negative emotions arise. M. Holodnaya [46], researching the regulative mechanisms of intellectual activity, proved that sensory components of cognitive structures could function as regulators of energy potential. Their absence or excessive expression negatively affects the personal intellectual activity. On the other hand, self-dissatisfaction can be based on deep personal beliefs, on a low level of self-esteem and self-respect, which does not depend on the context, but functions as a permanent emotional background. It is interesting to note that there is a relationship between body dissatisfaction and intrapersonal resources (self-esteem and personal growth initiative) and interpersonal resources (gratitude and social support) [47].

People with a high level of resourcefulness have a higher psychological well-being (F = 10.63; p < 0.000), they are better aware of their life, they wonder more often about the strategies and tactics of behavior, which allows them to avoid automatic reactions in complex, meaningful situations (F = 8.68; p < 0.000). The presence of psychological resources is an important condition for choosing a non-judgemental position with respect to various aspects of one's inner life (F = 7.04; p < 0.001), which involves both avoidance of evaluation and opportunities for manifesting of negative experiences. It also creates an opportunity for the individual to keep the distance and not get stuck in negative emotional states, not to be completely engaged in experience (F = 6.02; p < 0.003). S.E. Hobfoll noted that without adequate resources, people will use "loss-control strategies that have a high cost and poor chance of success" [21].

In addition, we can state that the level of resourcefulness is a factor in almost all aspects of social well-being. An exception is "social acceptance" (р = 0.187) as a social challenge, a dimension of social wellness. The level of resourcefulness is not related to how individuals evaluate other persons, how willing they are to maintain a complex image of others, which combines both positive and negative characteristics of them, how willing they are to trust others. It was established that the level of psychological resources is a factor in the assessment of the quality of relations with society (F = 6.79; p < 0.002), one's own social value (F = 10.05; p < 0.000), prospects for the society development and the power of its potential (F = 5.68; p < 0.005), capacity to make sense of life (F = 10.02; p < 0.000). Individuals who feel power in themselves and have sufficient resources evaluate their effectiveness and responsibility more highly.

## **6. Types of person's resourcefulness**

Results of testing the second hypothesis (H2).

We used clustering analysis (tree clustering) to test the second and third hypothesis (H2-H3). We performed clustering using the data obtained from the "Personal


#### **Table 4.**

*Types of persons with different resourcefulness.*

resources" questionnaire (O. Savchenko, S. Sukach). The procedure of plotting trees allowed us to separate five subgroups of the subjects, corresponding to five types of resourcefulness. The first subgroup included 14 persons (20.3% of the total sample), the second – 18 persons (26.1%), the third – 16 persons (23.2%), the fourth – 14 persons (20.3%), the fifth – 7 persons (10.1%). **Table 4** shows the results of the comparison of these five subgroups on indicators of resourcefulness. Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare subgroups results.

## **7. Discussion of the results of testing hypothesis H2**

The most prosperous state is observed in persons of the third subgroup. Individuals of this type, which was called "high resourcefulness," have relatively high values on the indicators "Sufficiency of resources" (Мd = 23.0), "Restoring resource strategies" (Мd = 18.5), "General level of personal resourcefulness" (Мd = 31.0) and low values on the indicator "Emotional exhaustion" (Md = 9.0). These individuals can quite easily increase their psychological resources in an unexpected situation by mobilizing additional efforts [23]. Compared to the results of this subgroup, the individuals

#### *Development of a Methodology for the Study of Resourcefulness as an Important Indicator… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112119*

who formed the first subgroup have significantly lower results on the indicators "Sufficiency of resources" (U = 0; p < 0.000), "General level of personal resourcefulness" (U = 0; p < 0.000) and higher values on the indicator "Emotional exhaustion" (U = 44.0; p < 0.004). There were no differences on "Restoring resource strategies" scale, so individuals of the first subgroup apply recovery strategies after stress quite actively, but this does not help them to normalize their emotional state, to experience themselves as full of resources, assess their condition as sufficient to overcome life's difficulties. This type of personality has been called "ineffective use of strategies." According to the fourth corollary from COR theory's basic principles, people with low psychological resources can take a defensive posture to guard their resources, and they can use ineffective strategies to replenish resources (e.g., denial coping strategy). These means may help preserve some resources in the short term but will bring more negative consequences, as individuals do not understand the situation and the means of overcoming it and are insensitive to the distress escalation [23].

The highest values on the indicator "Emotional exhaustion" were obtained by persons who formed the fifth subgroup. Since the subjects of this subgroup have all other indicators lower, in comparison with all subgroups, especially with the third, second and first, this type of personality was called "high emotional exhaustion." Such individuals underestimate their resources and ability to mobilize them (Md = 11.0), do not use strategies to improve their condition, and restore themselves after stress (Md = 12.0); as a result, they have the relatively lowest level of resourcefulness (Md = 10.0). Such individuals, according to the first corollary from COR theory's basic principles [23], are more vulnerable to the loss of resources than those individuals who assess the level of their psychological resources as sufficient. Moreover, such persons are less adept at restoring and increasing resources. It is much more difficult for them to mobilize additional resources in a situation of resource shortage.

Students who are part of the fourth subgroup have a lower level of the indicator "Sufficiency of resources" (U = 22.0; p < 0.000), when comparing their results with the outcomes of the third subgroup, and at the same time, lower values on the indicator "Emotional exhaustion" (U = 55.0; p < 0.017). These data indicate that these individuals do not experience a lack of resources, and at the same time, they do not value their available resources highly. They do not experience fatigue and loss of control over events in a stressful situation. Perhaps we are talking about stress resistance, when a person does not focus their attention on losses, but focuses more on their acquisition, and advantages. Such individuals do not fall into a resource caravan situation, where the scarcity of resources motivates the individual to add them, and this is even more exhausting and devastating because it does not bring the desired task rewards. This type was called "high-stress resistance."

The last type corresponds to the characteristics of persons who formed the second subgroup. Comparing their results with the data of individuals from the first subgroup, who demonstrate "ineffective use of strategies," these students have lower values on the indicator "Restoring resource strategies" (U = 8.5; p < 0.000) and "Emotional exhaustion" (U = 67.0; p < 0.022). Therefore, despite the fact that the subjects of this subgroup do not experience a lack of resources and emotional exhaustion, they do not try to invest their mental energy in the search for and recovery of resources in order to enrich their pool of resources. Their behavior does not correspond to the second principle of COR theory, namely, "people must invest resources to protect against resource loss, recover from losses, and gain resources" [22]. Such a personal position, which does not orient individuals to the acquisition of resources,

investing efforts in increasing the resource potential, goes up their vulnerability to stressful factors. It happens because this type of personality chooses a style of selfprotection, avoidance in order to reduce the probability of losing resources [21]. Also, it can be assumed that individuals who belong to the type "passivity in the search for resources" experience less well-being.
