Cognitive Styles in the Structure of Intellectual and Personal Resources of Young People

The main goal of this research was to examine how the style of students’ intellectual and personal development varies depending on their level of experience in their parental family relationships. The paper explores the features of personal and intellectual resources in relation to the experience of parental family relationships. Particular attention is given to cognitive styles, which are seen as a way of assessing and evaluating information. These styles not only determine a person’s intellectual activity but also impact their overall life activities. This research combines both theoretical and empirical approaches. The theoretical analysis, along with comparative and factor analysis based on the principal component method, allowed us to identify the structural correlations between style and other intellectual and personal features of young people, considering their experience of parental family relationships. Three groups of respondents were selected for the study: students with positive experiences of parental family relationships, students with negative experiences, and students with mixed experiences. By examining the factor structures, we uncovered patterns in the style features of the students’ intellectual and personal structures based on their varying experiences with their parental family relationships. The results of this study are novel and contribute to our understanding of cognitive styles in the structure of students’ intellectual and personal resources. They also highlight potential areas for future research in this field.

Когнитивные стили в структуре интеллектуально-личностных ресурсов молодых людей

 Кибальченко И.А.^*, Эксакусто Т.В.**

^* Кафедра психологии и безопасности жизнедеятельности Федерального государственного образовательного автономного учреждения высшего образования «Южный федеральный университет», г. Таганрог, Российская Федерация, ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7730-7172

^** Кафедра психологии и безопасности жизнедеятельности Федерального государственного образовательного автономного учреждения высшего образования «Южный федеральный университет», г. Таганрог, Российская Федерация, ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6862-2063

Абстракт: Основная цель исследования состояла в изучении стилевых особенностей интеллектуально-личностных структур студентов с разным опытом отношений в родительской семье. В статье проводится анализ характеристик личностных и интеллектуальных ресурсов с точки зрения опыта отношений в родительской семье, где особое внимание уделяется когнитивным стилям как способу оценивания информации, который определяет не только интеллектуальную деятельность человека, но и жизнедеятельность в целом. Методология исследования носит теоретический и эмпирический характер. Теоретический, сравнительный и факторный (на основе метода главных компонент) анализы позволили определить структурные взаимосвязи стилевых и других интеллектуальных и личностных характеристик молодых людей с учетом их опыта отношений в родительской семье. В процессе изучения опыта отношений в родительской семье были выделены три группы респондентов: студенты с благоприятным опытом отношений в родительской семье; студенты с неблагоприятным опытом отношений в родительской семье; студенты с противоречивым опытом отношений в родительской семье. При изучении факторных структур закономерно определились стилевые особенности интеллектуально-личностных структур студентов с разным опытом отношений в родительской семье. Полученные результаты исследования отличаются новизной, дополняют научные факты о когнитивных стилях в структуре интеллектуально-личностных ресурсов студентов и открывают перспективы исследования.

Ключевые слова: когнитивные стили, опыт отношений в родительской семье, структуры взаимосвязей, интеллектуальные и личностные ресурсы

Introduction

Today, there are high expectations for young people as the main driving force behind society’s development. To succeed in life, young people need more than just psychological stability, resilience, hardiness, and the ability to tackle a wide range of tasks effectively. They also need to be able to develop themselves and improve continuously. Therefore, there is a great demand for studying young people’s resources and identifying their intellectual and personal features. We need to understand what personal traits and abilities they possess that meet the requirements and expectations of both society and the state. The intellectual-personal resource is now becoming an important area of study as an integrated system that serves as one of the foundations of the overall model of personal resources.

It is important to highlight the development of both intellectual and personal features during the process of human development, which allows us to analyse it in the context of the family as a source of personality formation. The authors suggest that the experience of relationships within the family plays a crucial role in shaping and organizing the connection between a person’s intellectual abilities and personal traits. This, in turn, enhances their success and efficiency. The integration and development of a person’s intellectual abilities and personal traits are determined by the relationship between parents and children, the emotional atmosphere within the family, and the appropriate style of parenting. A balanced family environment, characterized by emotionally close relationships, fair distribution of family roles, and mutual respect for individual and family values, is likely to promote the effective integration of intellectual and personal resources. On the other hand, an imbalanced family dynamic, such as emotionally distant relationships, limited parental influence, or a skewed distribution of family roles, can lead to distortions in intellectual and personal development. This can hinder the integration of these components within an individual’s personal resource structure. Therefore, the experience gained in a nuclear family with a positive emotional climate and harmonious relationships between parents and children is likely to effectively integrate a person’s intellectual and personal resources. This integration contributes to their success in various aspects of life, including education, social interactions, and personal growth. It also equips them with the ability to navigate and overcome different situations, as well as the drive to pursue self-development. In summary, the experience in parental family relations (PFR) influences how individuals conceptualize and categorize their integrated intellectual and personal resources in various life situations.

The theoretical analysis of studies has revealed that the concept of the experience of parental relationships can be understood as an integrated and existential phenomenon. It represents the complex web of connections between all family members, encompassing various aspects such as focus, modality, depth, distance, intensity, and more. These relationships are built on knowledge, experiences, and values gained through cognitive, communicative, and interactive family situations.

The experiences we have in our families can be categorized in different ways: favourable, unfavourable, positive, or negative (Saporovskaya, et al., 2009; Tkachenko, 2012). Most researchers agree that the nature and quality of our family relationships play a crucial role in shaping our personal development (Varga, 2001; Druzhinin, 2005; Tkachenko, 2008). These relationships influence our mental and psychological well-being, our ability to cope with stress (Mallers, et al., 2010), our self-efficacy and life satisfaction (Erdner & Wright 2018; Pierce, et al., 2018), and our overall psychological well-being (Ryff & Keyes, 1995). Furthermore, some studies (A. A. Bodalev, K. A. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya, E. B. Starovoitenko, and others) suggest that there is a connection between positive family relationships and our ability to develop and improve ourselves.

Most research focuses on the experiences of adults in their parental family, using them as a source of information about their childhood relationships with their parents. We believe this approach is reasonable because it allows us to assess the quality of child-parent relationships based on well-established and «focused» experiences from childhood. Generally, adults’ retrospective analysis of their childhood and relationships with their parents is influenced by the experiences they gain in other social institutions during socialization and through self-reflection. These experiences are then stored in autobiographical memory and interpreted and categorized through autobiographical thinking. This process involves forming mental representations that can influence individual development goals.

Nowadays, there is a lot of empirical evidence that shows how the experience of relationships in the parental family affects various aspects of human development during adolescence and early adulthood. These include life choices, attitudes towards future relationships, social adjustment, emotional well-being, and more. However, there are few studies exploring the connection between the experience of child-parent relationships and cognitive abilities.

The study explores the experience of relationships, so it’s important to consider cognitive features within the context of metacognitive experience. One of these features is cognitive styles, which play a crucial role in controlling intellectual activity (Gardner, 1993; Witkin, 1977). Cognitive styles are highly generalized features that combine indicators from both the cognitive and personal spheres (Kholodnaya, 2012). Various studies have shown that despite the close relationship between styles and cognitive functions such as learning, problem-solving, and creativity, styles also reflect fundamental personality traits (Volkova, Rusalov, 2016). In other words, cognitive styles serve as an example of how special properties and features intersect between intellectual and personal traits.

Cognitive styles are individual ways of processing information that are stable and unique to each person. They describe how a person thinks and how they perceive, analyse, structure, categorize, and evaluate reality based on their personal experiences and differences. M. A. Kholodnaya (2019) defines cognitive styles as the specific nature of a person’s mindset and acquired experience. These styles are characterized by different ratios of productive and procedural aspects, which can influence the efficiency of cognitive activity. As a result, they determine how people respond to various life situations (Rusalov, Volkova, 2020). Cognitive styles can be seen as a special case of an individual style of cognitive activity and the process of building a personal picture of the world, according to E. S. Alyoshina, O. S. Deineka, and M. A. Kholodnaya.

Cognitive styles play a crucial role in how we assess situations (Pavlova, Kornilova, 2019; Khazova, 2014; Azeska, et al., 2017). When we evaluate a situation in terms of how we can resolve or overcome it, we simultaneously assess our own capabilities. We form an idea of whether we have enough resources to tackle the situation, whether we can mobilize them effectively (Khazova, 2014, p. 99). Cognitive appraisals of a variety of situations play a central role in determining our responses to different circumstances. This, in turn, affects how we perceive events and acts as an important link between events and outcomes (Oliver & Brough, 2002; Kevereski, et al., 2016). Our cognitive styles, such as field-dependence/field-independence, flexibility/rigidity of cognitive control, analyticity/syntheticity, and reflexivity/impulsivity, largely determine the evaluation process. These styles influence our ability to make realistic predictions (Khazova, 2014; Kholodnaya & Khazova, 2017), our capacity for independent decision-making, and our level of subjective control.

In this case, studies of cognitive styles offer insights into how styles influence various aspects of life in different situations. These include professional self-determination and formation, sports achievements, entrepreneurial activity, adaptation to different conditions, conflict resolution, and more. One such study, conducted by Gervais and Cossette in 2007, found that the success of intra-organizational cooperation depends on the cognitive maps and style of employees, as well as the style of activity organization (Gervais & Cossette, 2007). This highlights the importance of considering cognitive styles in various professional settings. Another study, by Dodzina in 2021, revealed that matching students’ cognitive styles with their preferred learning activities, such as analytical or synthetic tasks, can lead to improved academic success (Dodzina, 2021). This emphasizes the significance of tailoring educational approaches to individual cognitive preferences. Moreover, Buzhinskaya’s research in 2022 demonstrated that the efficiency of teamwork is closely tied to the effective allocation of roles within the team. This allocation, in turn, is influenced by the unique cognitive styles of each team member (Buzhinskaya, et al., 2022). This finding underscores the importance of understanding and leveraging cognitive diversity in team dynamics.

Cognitive styles play a crucial role in how we perceive and evaluate situations and events. These styles are closely linked to various intellectual and personal factors, such as tolerance for uncertainty, creativity, linguistic thinking, and self-regulation. They also influence our approach to stress, anxiety, and manipulation. The cognitive-stylistic strategies we use to evaluate ourselves and the world around us can significantly impact our basic beliefs and psychological well-being. The authors of the article identified certain cognitive styles that are strong predictors of psychological well-being, including field-dependence and tolerance for unrealistic experiences. These styles influence personal growth, goal setting, self-acceptance, and overall psychological well-being. Other stable predictors of young people’s basic beliefs include flexibility, abstract conceptualization, field-dependence, and feedback rigidity. On the other hand, field-dependence can be seen as a resource when used flexibly, allowing for effective involuntary intellectual control. This finding aligns with the work of M.A. Kholodnaya (2019) and M.A. Padun (2009). The inclusion of reflexivity and impulsivity in the identified models of influence, despite their low frequency of occurrence, reflects a tendency towards transition from impulsivity to reflexivity in the process of cognitive assessment of psychological well-being and basic beliefs.

Thus, empirical evidence supports the importance of studying young people’s cognitive styles. However, the question of what predicts these features remains unanswered.

The main hypothesis of this study is that students who have different experiences of relationships with their parents will exhibit varying features in their intellectual-personal structures. Furthermore, the structural relationships between the features of cognitive styles and other aspects of intellectual-personal resources will differ based on various criteria, such as integrity, the number of factors involved, the nature of the interrelations, and the content of key and other factors.

The goal of this research is to explore the features of students’ intellectual-personal structures based on their experiences of relationships with their parents.

Method

2.1. Samples

A total of 822 (504 males and 318 females) engineering, economics, and IT students aged 18 to 26 years (mean age: 20.2 years) took part in the study. The research was carried out on a voluntary and free basis in compliance with generally accepted ethical standards.

The experience of relationships in the parental family was assessed according to the results of the BIV questionnaire (Biographisches Inventarzur Diagnosevon Verhaltenstorungen). The study participant sample was divided into 3 groups:

• respondents with positive experience of relationships in the parental family (BIV) (452 people, 55%);
• respondents with negative PFR (320 people, 39%);
• respondents with contradictory PFR (52 people, 6 %) (two scales were at opposite levels).

Thus, more people with positive family experiences were identified, which shows that in adulthood most people perceive their childhood family experiences as positive. The profile of cognitive styles, which are components of metacognitive experience and characterize the way information is processed by individuals, shows that most respondents have high or medium levels of the following styles:

Field-independence: This refers to a person’s ability to use their own knowledge and experience independently of others’ opinions. The group with positive child-parent relationships had the lowest number of respondents with a low level of field-independence. There were statistically significant differences in the proportion of low level of field-independence between this group and the group with contradictory child-parent relationships (φ*amp = 2.638, p≤0.01).

Narrow range of equivalence: This indicates high sensitivity to details and a tendency to clearly define boundaries and have precise standards for performance evaluation. High values were more common in the group with contradictory child-parent relationships.

Flexibility of cognitive control: This refers to the ease with which individuals can switch between different personal-cognitive functions during their activities. The respondents with contradictory child-parent relationships had slightly higher scores for flexibility of cognitive control (at the level of p≤0.05).

Reflexivity: This is the ability to thoroughly review facts step by step, use more thoughtful and balanced problem-solving strategies, and make decisions at a slower pace.

Abstract conceptualization: This involves working within more distant temporal, spatial, and semantic contexts rather than being directly connected to reality. It also includes the ability to easily establish various kinds of connections and relationships between the objects of activity and choose unconventional problem-solving techniques.

Tolerance to unrealistic experiences: This refers to the ability to make original decisions and be open to new experiences.

The identified features of cognitive styles serve as the basis for studying how they correlate with other features of young people’s intellectual and personal resources (IPR), considering their experiences of relationships in their parental family.

2.2. Measures

The following techniques were used to diagnose cognitive styles and other intellectual and personal resource variables:

• Questionnaire, that contains a number of questions about the family structure (complete/incomplete, presence/absence/number of siblings), reasons for family incompleteness (divorce, death of parent(s), deprivation of parental rights and transfer of the child to guardians/ orphanage, birth of a child out of wedlock). Some questions focused on the degree of involvement of parents and other relatives in the child’s upbringing (Exacusto, Vakulenko 2014);
• BIV questionnaire was used to evaluate the degree of well-being of the family experience in a quantitative way, and results of two scales (Fam & Erzien) were interpreted;
• The formulation of problems (Kholodnaya, 2012);
• Ideal computer (Kholodnaya, 2012);
• Cognitive composition of the concept (Kholodnaya, 2012);
• Involuntary and arbitrary categorization (Kholodnaya, 2012);
• Basic Beliefs Scale (Janoff-Bulman, 1989);
• Personal Views Survey, PVS III-R (Maddi, et al., 2006: adapted by D. A. Leontiev and E. I. Rasskazova, 2006);
• The shortened version of the cognitive styles of individuality questionnaire (CPS-Q) (Volkova, Rusalov, Dudnikova, 2022);
• Reflexivity Questionnaire (Karpov, 2003);
• The questionnaire “Motivation to Success” (T. Ehlers);
• The questionnaire “Ways of coping behavior” (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988);
• Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking “Unusual uses task” (Torrance, 1972; adopted by E.E. Tunick, 1998);
• Scales of psychological well-being (Ryff & Keyes, 1995).

2.3. Procedures

The research design can be defined as deductive-correlational, which applied both comparative and factor analyses (IBM SPSS Statistics Subscription TrialforMacOS) to identify groups and examine multivariate relationships of young people’s cognitive style features and features of intellectual-personal resources with different experiences of parental family relationships.

Results

3.1. Factor analysis

The empirical data of our study were subjected to factor analysis (principal component method as a kind of exploratory factor analysis). The results are presented in Table 1 (76 variables of intellectual and personal resources).

The study obtained the features of structural correlations of the cognitive style features with Intellectual and Personality Resources features in students with different experiences of parental family relationships. Factor structures are not presented due to its unwieldiness: 76 rows and 21 columns.

3.2.1. Features of students’ cognitive styles structural and Intellectual and Personality Resources in students with positive parental family relationship experience.

The inverted matrix of the Intellectual and Personality Resources’ structure components, obtained through factorization of variables, revealed 21 factors. The total variance is 81.365%, indicating the significance of the factor structure.

However, the identified structure is incomplete, as indicated by 9 variables (11.84%) that were excluded from the general structure:

• Social status (SOZLAG)
• Acceptance of responsibility
• Coincidence (R)
• Degree of luck or coincidence (L)
• Specific conceptualization
• Intolerance to unrealistic experience
• Type of experience structure
• Cognitive position variable: Number of questions («Ideal Computer» technique)

Additionally, one of the characterizing unproductive cognitive styles (CS), «Impulsiveness» was found to be excluded from the structure.

Four variables out of 76, representing 3.9%, exhibit a negative trend in the structure:

• Extraversion (E): -.079
• Escape/Avoidance: -0.50
• Subjectivized: -0.77
• Factual: -0.73

These last three variables provide the theoretically supported conditions for the development of Intellectual and Personality Resources.

Criterion factor 1 with the loading of 11.6 % includes the productive cognitive style «Field-Independence» (0.51) in correlation with the variables: Self Strength (ICHSTK) (0.69), Neuroticism (N) (0.72), Mental Constituency (PSYKON) (0.78), Commitment (0.87), Control (0. 90), Challenge (0.81), Hardiness (sum) (0.94), Escape/Avoidance (-0.50), Problem Solving Planning (0.62), Level of Motivation (0.55), Self-Value (0.800), Beliefs about self-worth ((SW +SC +L) /3) (0.55).

The analysis of the first factor showed that, in addition to personality traits, it also includes a variable related to the cognitive style of how students work with information. Students with positive experiences in their relationships with their parents are characterized by using control strategies that help minimize distractions while processing information. They also tend to have a high level of attention and concentration.

The foundation of the intellectual and personal development of students with positive relationships with their parents is based on their own sense of self-worth. This sense of self-worth reflects an average level of self-confidence and the ability to achieve their goals. Additionally, their resources are based on their ability to respect and accept their own personal qualities. Furthermore, their mental health plays a crucial role in their development. They possess a relatively high level of mental well-being, which allows them to adapt to stressful situations and maintain emotional balance.

The indicators that reflect students’ hardiness were included in the first factor. These students are engaged in their lives, actively participating in various activities, and enjoying everything that happens around them. They tend to take control of situations and try to influence events, ultimately achieving success. Additionally, they are willing to take risks, believing that any experience contributes to their personal growth. In general, it can be said that these students are quite successful in overcoming life’s challenges («hardiness»), mainly through problem-solving planning. This involves a goal-oriented analysis of the situation and potential outcomes, developing strategies for solving problems, and planning their actions that consider objective conditions, past experiences, and available resources. Students with a positive experience of child-parent relationships are characterized by a relatively high level of motivation. This includes a strong desire to achieve success, a commitment to self-improvement, and a willingness to perform tasks well and in the best possible time.

The first factor involved a coping strategy called escape/avoidance, which was marked with a negative sign. It can be assumed that the more these factors are present in the structure of intellectual and personal resources, the less students with positive experiences in their relationships with their parents use maladaptive avoidance strategies to cope with stress. These strategies include denial of the problem, daydreaming, unrealistic expectations, distraction, and more.

Factor 2 (loading 8.3%) variables include: Positive Relationships with Others (0.817), Autonomy (0.858), Managing the Environment (0.845), Personal Growth (0.855), Purpose in Life (0.874), Self-Acceptance (0.895), and Psychological Well-Being (0.99).

The second factor consists of variables that show individual aspects of psychological well-being and its overall level. In fact, this factor highlights the significance of psychological well-being in the overall intellectual and personal resources of students with positive relationships with their parents. A content analysis of these variables reveals that respondents generally have a good level of autonomy and independence. This indicates that students can resist external influences that might make them think or act in a certain way. Additionally, they tend to have relatively positive and trusting interpersonal relationships and the ability to compromise to maintain them. Thus, students tend to take control of their environment and strive for authority. They also seek to influence and guide the actions of others. Students have a positive self-image, are aware of their strengths and weaknesses, and look back on their past with optimism.

The factor 3 (loading 7.6%) included six cognitive style variables: Field Dependence (0.969), Wide Range of Equivalence (0.97), Flexible Style (0.55), Rigidity Style (0.972), Reflexivity Style (0.97), and Abstract Conceptualization (0.75). This factor combines style features in a rather contradictory way. On the one hand, students have well-developed cognitive abilities related to their information processing style. They are reflexive, meaning they carefully prepare for decision-making. They are flexible, which means they easily change the way they process information. They also have a high level of differentiation and integration of concepts within their individual conceptual system. On the other hand, they exhibit rigidity and field dependence, which means they struggle to minimize interference during information processing. Additionally, they have a small number of categories in their conceptual experience.

The emergence of this style can be observed in factors 7, 16, and 18.

Factor 7, with a loading of 3.3%, includes the following variables: Number of categorization groups (0.512); Sum of scores for all categorization groups (0.927); Conceptualization style (analyticity/syntheticity) (0.835). The relationship between categorical ability and conceptualization style is 0.21, indicating a transition to conceptual abilities (Kholodnaya, Khazova, 2017). This can be seen as a condition for developing conceptual abilities.

Factor 16, with a load of 2.3%, showed a positive correlation between the style variable «Tolerance to unrealistic experiences» (0.68) and the level of reflexivity (0.55). Based on the studies by E.V. Volkova, N.N. Volkova, A.N. Gusev, V.M. Rusalov, and M.A. Kholodnaya, this correlation can be considered at the potential level, as tolerance to uncertainty plays a significant role in assessing the probabilistic outcomes of decision-making (Volkova, Gusev, 2018).

Factor 18, with a load of 2.1%, revealed a correlation between the cognitive style «Narrow range of equivalence» (0.542), which is a sign of negativism, and the variable «Search for social support» (0.615).

The remaining factors, such as factor 4, factor 5, and factor 6, do not contain style features. To conclude, let us briefly summarize the content of the factors that show signs of instability and have low loadings.

Factor 8 with loading of 3.2%: This factor includes the variables Problem Complexity (0.913) and Level of conceptual experience (0.924). Both conceptual experience variables are highly developed, with scores of 1.88.

Factor 9 with loading of 2.9%: This factor includes the variables Concept attributes — Number (0.583), Modalities — total (0.773), and Modalities productive (+) (0.761). The factor reflects signs of conceptual abilities.

Factor 10 with loading of 2.9%: This factor includes the variables Justice of the world (J) (0.56), Controllability of the world (C) (0.838), and Degree of self-control (SC) (0.547).

Factor 11 with loading of 2.9%: This factor includes the variables Level of categorical generalization (0.849) and Degree of meaning complexity (0.882). A relationship was found between the average level of categorical generalization and the average level of semantic connections.

Factor 12 with loading of 2.9%: This factor includes the variables Distancing (0.79), Self-control (0.63), and Positive reappraisal (0.56).

Factor 13 with loading of 2.8%: This factor creates instability in the structure because it includes only one variable — Extraversion (E) with a value of -0.79.

Unstable factor 14 with a loading of 2.6%: This factor also creates instability in the structure for the same reason. It includes only one variable — Degree of generalization of image (0.83).

Unstable factor 15 with loading of 2.5%: This factor includes only one variable — Confrontation (0.80).

Factor 17, with a loading of 2.1%, includes two variables: the number of problems (0.847) and concept categories (0.634). This factor reflects the theoretically grounded relationship between conceptual experience and categorical abilities.

Factor 19, which is unstable and has a loading of 2.1%, includes only one variable: the Categorization Factor (0.78).

Unstable factors 20 and 21, which have a loading of 2%, each include one variable:

• Concept Categories (Categorization Score) (0.803): this reflects the students’ ability to categorize different types of concepts, including unrelated ones.
• Conceptual Synthesis: this reflects the students’ ability to establish semantic connections between diverse concepts.

3.2.2. Features of cognitive styles and their relationships with other aspects of intellectual and personal resources in students with negative experiences in their parental family

The factor analysis of variables that describe the intellectual and personal resources of students who have had negative experiences in their parental family revealed an incomplete structure consisting of 22 factors, which together explain 86.96% of the total variance.

The factor structure analysis resulted in the removal of 36 variables, which is approximately 47.3% of the total. Among these variables, the following style features stand out:

• Narrow range of equivalence;
• Wide range of equivalence;
• Flexibility (style);
• Rigidity (style);
• Impulsiveness (style);
• Field dependence;
• Intolerance to unrealistic experience;
• Conceptualization style (analyticity/syntheticity).

Additionally, the variables that were dropped include:

• Social status (SOZLAG);
• Confrontation;
• Self-control;
• Seeking social support;
• Acceptance of responsibility;
• Level of motivation;
• Positive relationships with others;
• Controlling the environment;
• Fairness of the world (J);
• Controllability of the world (C);
• Randomness (R);
• Degree of self-control (SC);
• Degree of luck or luckiness (L);
• Beliefs about one’s own worth;
• Degree of generalization of image;
• Type of experience structure;
• Subjective questions;
• Factual questions;
• Modalities (total);
• Modalities productive (+);
• Complexity of problems;
• Level of conceptual experience;
• Concept categories (Categorization Score);
• Level of categorical generalization;
• Conceptual synthesis (Score);
• Degree of meaning complexity;
• Number of categorization groups;
• Sum of scores for all categorization groups.

The following variables seemed to have a negative influence: Neuroticism (N) (-0.511), Distancing (-0.641), Escape/Avoidance (-0.630), Reflexivity Level (-0.508), Cognitive Position (mixed) (-0.512) and Positive Reappraisal (-0.559).

Analysing the content of these identified factors, we found the following results.

The first factor, with a loading of 14.011%, includes: Reflexivity (style) (0.633) and Tolerance for unrealistic experiences (style) (0.682); Abstract Conceptualization (0.604); Power of Self (0.533); Mental Constitution (PSYKON) (0. 555); Commitment (0.812); Control (0.873); Challenge (0.718); Self-Worth (SW) (0.583); Hardiness (sum) (0.680). The variables that are reversed and have a negative impact on this factor are:  Distancing (-0.641) and Escape/avoidance (-0.630).

The analysis of intellectual variables that reflect the cognitive style of information processing reveals that individuals in this group tend to make decisions in uncertain situations, where it is necessary to choose the right option from a range of alternatives. They employ effective methods for solving problems and successfully apply the strategies they have learned for being active in new environments. These individuals are characterized by abstract thinking, as they establish intricate connections within the system of personal constructs they use to interpret, predict, and evaluate reality. They demonstrate hardiness and resilience in the face of diverse experiences and impressions, including those that may be inconsistent or even contrary to their current understanding.

Students who have experienced negative relationships with their parents often exhibit certain features. They tend to have strong self-confidence and believe in their abilities. They are confident in their ability to achieve their goals. However, they may have an average or slightly low self-esteem. These students also tend to have average mental health levels. They may also have a moderate to high tendency to experience physical responses to stress. The core of their personal hardiness lies in their ability to bounce back from challenges. This hardiness is reflected in various aspects of their lives. One important aspect of their hardiness is their ability to control their lives and influence events around them. This control is often average, with a slight tendency towards being low. This means that they may feel a sense of helplessness and find it difficult to regulate what happens to them. As a result, their overall level of hardiness tends to be low, indicating their limited ability to cope with life’s challenges and adapt to them effectively.

It’s interesting to note that the variables that were negatively correlated with the first factor were coping strategies for dealing with stressful situations. In other words, the more students with negative family relationships developed intellectual and personal traits (as measured by the first factor), the less they used maladaptive strategies to handle difficult life situations. These strategies include avoidance (denying the problem, daydreaming, unrealistic expectations, distraction, etc.) and detachment (subjectively minimizing the problem’s significance through intellectual techniques like rationalization, shifting attention, distancing oneself, humor, devaluing, etc.).

Factor 2 (loading 9.0%) includes the following variables:

• Concept Traits (Number) (0.525)
• Number of Questions (Ideal Computer) (0.692)
• Number of Creative Solutions (0.768)
• Flexibility (Creativity) (0.724)
• Originality (0.646)
• Fluency (0.736)
• Categorization Factor (0.566).

It includes the factors of intellectual resources, which show how students with difficult or negative relationships with their parents have certain features. These students have creative thinking, which is evident in the variety of ideas and strategies they offer to solve problems. They can also move from one aspect of a problem to another, but their awareness and intellectual potential are limited. These students have average intellectual activity and can make judgments that differ from what is commonly known. They are able to generate many ideas, not always productive ones, and demonstrate a good mental outlook. This is shown by the number of attributes they associate with the concept of «Success» and the questions they ask about the «Ideal Computer».

The type of cognitive position — closed, mixed, or open — was found to be inversely related to the variable included in the second factor. This means that students who have diverse relationships with their parents tend to have an open cognitive position. Interestingly, the more they exhibit traits such as fluency, originality, and flexibility, the less pronounced their open cognitive position becomes.

Factor 3 (loading 8.7%) includes the following variables:

• Problem Solving Planning (0.525);
• Autonomy (0.677);
• Personal Growth (0.666);
• Purpose in Life (0.649);
• Psychological Well-Being (0.745).

The intellectual and personal qualities of students who have had negative experiences in their parental family relationships are crucial for their personal development, independence, and responsibility. However, it’s important to note that the analysis of these qualities in the group under investigation reveals some concerning aspects. The students in this group often struggle with understanding their aspirations and life prospects. They may have a low focus on achieving their goals, which can hinder their personal growth and sense of self-actualization. Additionally, they may exhibit a reduced interest in life, contributing to their overall psychological well-being being relatively low, at the lower boundary of the average level. Despite these challenges, the students also demonstrate certain positive qualities. They exhibit autonomy, independence, and the ability to resist external influences, allowing them to act in a way that goes against their personal perceptions and desires. Their self-assessment can utilize an adaptive strategy for problem-solving, involving a purposeful analysis of the situation and possible behaviours within it. This approach helps them plan their actions based on objective conditions and available resources.

Factor 4 (6% loading) involves the following variables:

• Self-acceptance (0.529);
• World’s Beneficence (0.621);
• Kindness of People (0.540);
• General attitude towards the world around us (0.643).

All the variables considered in this factor allow us to say that intellectual and personal resources shape how people view themselves, the world, and others. This reflects the core category of human attitudes. These attitudes are manifested in various ways: dissatisfaction with oneself and disappointment in past events; anxiety about personal qualities; belief in the relative goodness of people and the benevolence of the world towards individuals, following the principle that there is better than evil in the world. Therefore, we observe a multifaceted nature of attitudes. People may reject themselves while simultaneously believing in the goodness and justice of the world around them. This could be attributed to low self-esteem rooted in parental family experiences and hope for a positive future. It could also be seen as a form of compensatory fantasizing.

Factor 5 (loading 5.1%) includes the following variables: Categorical Abilities (0.586); Objectivized questions (0.589); Neuroticism (N) (-0.511).

Factor 6 (loading 4.6%) includes the following variables: Field- Independence (0.563); Level of Reflexivity (-0.508); Positive Reappraisal (-0.559).

Factor 7 (loading 4%) includes the following variables: Social Engagement (SOZAKT) (0.617), Extraversion (E) (0.604).

Factors 8 to 22 (loadings ranging from 4.4 to 1.3%) do not include any variables with significant weights. This is in line with the Varimax results, as indicated by the convergence value of 0.000.

3.2.3 Features of the relationships between cognitive styles and other aspects of intellectual and personal resources in students who had contradictory experiences in their parental family

The rotated matrix of components of the structure of intellectual and personal resources among students with contradictory experiences of relationships in their parental family was obtained through the process of factoring the variables that describe intellectual and personal resources. This matrix consists of six factors.

The extracted structure is complete, and no variables have been excluded. The total variance amounts to 100%, which highlights the importance of the factor structure. In the overall structure of intellectual and personal resources among students who have had contradictory experiences in their parental family, 20 variables out of a total of 76, or 26.32%, have a negative orientation. This could indicate the complexity and ambivalence of these students’ experiences.

This is particularly true because of the opposite directions of conceptual experience, cognitive position, self-worth (SW), self-control (SC), benevolence (BP), self-acceptance, and responsibility in relation to other variables, intellectual and personal resources.

The first factor with 25.188 % loading includes style indicators (Reflexivity (style) (0.858), Conceptualization Style (analyticity/syntheticity) (0.902)) and variables such as Neuroticism (N) (0.627), Mental Constitution (0.553), Distancing (0.751), Positive Relationships with Others (0 .686), Environment Management (0. 938), Personal Growth (0.875), Purpose in Life (0.805), Psychological Well-Being (0.890), Type of Experience Structure (0.692), Objectified Questions (0.720), Number of Questions (Ideal Computer) (0.812), Sum of scores for all categorization groups (0.966), Categorization Quotient (0.936), Number of Creative Solutions (0.715), Flexibility (0.724), Originality (0.769).

Five out of 23 variables, or 21.74%, have a reverse direction. These include two style features: Wide Range of Equivalence (0.675) and Specific Conceptualization (0.842). Additionally, there are variables such as Escape/Avoidance (0.558), Degree of Luck (L) (0.665), and Number of Problems (0.753), which are inversely related to other variables in this factor.

The analysis of the variables included in the first factor revealed that the following features serve as the foundation for the intellectual and personal resources among students who have had diverse experiences in their parental family relationships.

These individuals exhibit average (with a tendency towards low) levels of emotional stability and composure, indicating a tendency to respond adaptively to various situations with emotional reactions. They also demonstrate an average predisposition to experiencing somatic disorders and a low propensity to experiencing physical reactions to stress. The factors that determine the structure of their intellectual and personal resources are their relationships with others. These relationships are characterized by a certain level of isolation, low openness, and trust. However, on the other hand, the respondents show a strong desire to control their environment and manage their relationships. This indicates that they may have difficulties in their relationships with others and may experience some ambivalence in their interpersonal interactions. The variables included in the first factor reveal the average level of personal development among the respondents. They are open to new experiences and aspire to fulfil their potential. However, at the same time, they also exhibit a very low sense of purpose in life, a lack of direction, and poorly formed or unformed goals and intentions. The structure of the intellectual and personal resources of students who have experienced diverse relationships within their families also includes a variable that indicates the average level of their psychological well-being. These students tend to distance themselves from difficult and stressful situations. They do this by subjectively reducing the significance of the problem and the level of emotional involvement in it, overcoming negative experiences related to the problem. It is important to note that this strategy involves the use of intellectual techniques such as rationalization, switching attention, humour, and others. In other words, these students try to evaluate situations rationally, without being overwhelmed by strong emotional feelings. Their intellectual capabilities are characterized by a well-developed ability to make decisions under conditions of uncertainty. When faced with multiple alternatives, they carefully weigh all the available options and strive to gather as much information as possible before making a decision. They are characterized by using object-structured images, such as concrete-symbolic and object-detailed images of success with elements of generalization. These students have a well-developed ability to switch between ideas, produce ideas that differ from the conventional views, and think in a synthetic way. We can say that students with contradictory family relationships have a relatively high level of cognitive potential and a tendency towards creative abilities. The more these personal and intellectual features are developed in students, the less likely they are to avoid complex and stressful situations by retreating into fantasy. They also tend to rely less on luck and chance when creating their life strategy. Furthermore, they are less inclined to be concrete in building a system of personal constructs for interpreting and evaluating reality, showing cognitive simplicity. Overall, we can say that the variables presented in the first factor reflect the ambivalence of personal features, which corresponds to the contradictory experiences of parental family relationships, and the high cognitive level of development of students who have experienced such relationships.

The second and subsequent factors in the structure of intellectual and personal resources of students who have experienced diverse relationships in their parental family are consistently related to style variables. These style variables are arranged in a sequence that is contradictory:  Flexibility; Impulsiveness; Narrow range of equivalence; Abstract conceptualization; Tolerance to unrealistic experiences; Rigidity and Intolerance to unrealistic experiences; Field-dependence and Field-independence.

These factors are:

The factor 2 (19.148%) includes the following variables: Self-Strength (0.679); Commitment (0.881); Control (0.828); Hardiness (0.847); Benevolence of the World (BW) (0.653); Justice of the World (J) (0.734); Ability to Control the World (C) (0.921); General Attitude toward the favorability of the world (0.636); Flexibility (style) (0.652); Concept attributes (Quantity) (0.835); Modalities (total) (0.994); Modalities productive (+) (0.956); Number of categorization groups (0.714). Out of the 16 variables, three have a reverse direction: Acceptance of Responsibility (-0.680); Randomness (-0.700); Degree of generalization of image (-0.583); Power of Self and Acceptance of Responsibility, Degree of Generalization of Image and Conceptual Attributes are in contradiction. Moreover, taking responsibility and being open to chance (R) create two opposite forces in the structure of intellectual and personal resources. These facts highlight a common trend in the structure of intellectual and personal resources among students who have had diverse experiences in their parental family relationships.

Factor 3 (17.124%) includes the following variables: Social Position (0.647); Autonomy (0.864); Social Engagement (0.647); Self-value belief (-0.821); Impulsiveness (Style) (0.626); Subjective Issues (0.790); Factual Questions (0.866); Cognitive Stance (Mixed) (-0.607); Concept Categories (Categorization Score) (0.821); Conceptual Synthesis (0.958); Degree of Meaning Complexity (0.946). Two out of the 11 variables, or 18.18%, are contradictorily directed. These are: Social Activity; Belief about Own Value; Cognitive Position (Mixed) with Conceptual Synthesis; Concept Categories; Degree of Complexity of Meaning Connections. These variables highlight the general tendency in the structure of intellectual and personal resources among students with contradictory experiences of relationships in their parental family.

Factor 4 (14.046%) includes the following variables: Self-acceptance (-0.867); Self-worth (SW) (-0.798); Degree of self-control (SC) (-0.842); Narrow range of equivalence (0.845); Abstract conceptualization (0.769); Tolerance for unrealistic experience (0.538); Categorical issues (0.535). Three out of seven variables, which is 42.86%, are oppositely directed. This factor forms a set of variables that oppose each other, such as Self-acceptance and Self-worth (SW). In theory, this can reduce the intellectual efficiency of students who have had contradictory experiences in their parental family relationships.

Factor 5, which accounts for 13.665%, includes various variables. These include Extraversion (0.749), Confrontation (0.833), Self-control (0.875), Seeking social support (0.578), Problem-solving planning (0.796), Motivation level (0.582), Kindness of people (BP) (-0.616), Rigidity (style) (-0.598), Intolerance of unrealistic experiences (0.879), and Level of categorical generalization (0.587). Two out of ten variables, representing 18.18%, are oppositely directed. Variables such as Rigidity and Level of categorical generalization contribute to the overall stable picture of ambivalence in the structure of intellectual and personal resources among students who have experienced contradictory relationships in their parental family.

Factor 6, which accounts for 10.759% of the variance, is of interest because it represents a factor of continuity in the structure of students’ intellectual and personal resources. These students have had varying experiences in their parental families. This factor includes several variables:  Reflexivity Level (0.913); Field Dependence (-0.798); Field Independence (-0.693); Complexity of Problems (-0.766); Conceptual Experience Level (-0.766); Positive Reassessment (0.694); Concept Categories (number) (0.766). Four out of the seven variables in this factor have opposite directions, accounting for 57.14% of the variance. This indicates that there are contradictions within the factor, specifically in the following areas: Level of Reflexivity; Field Dependence and Semi-Dependence; Complexity of Problems; Level of Conceptual Experience; Concept Categories. These contradictions highlight the complexity of the intellectual and personal resources of students who have had diverse experiences in their parental families.

The analysis of this factor, which was found to be the least significant in the structure of the intellectual and personal resources of students who had diverse experiences in their parental families, revealed some interesting findings.

The level of personal reflexivity in these students, as compared to the cognitive style of reflexivity included in the first factor, was found to be relatively average. Additionally, positive reappraisal was identified as a coping strategy that holds less significance for the structure of these students’ intellectual and personal resources. In other words, students in this group tend to have an insufficient level of self-control over their behaviour in real-life situations. They also struggle with understanding themselves and their abilities, analysing what is happening around them. When faced with stressful or complex situations, they may be inclined to engage in philosophical contemplation, rethinking, and occasionally overoptimistic assessment of problematic circumstances, leading to an underestimation of the true difficulty of the situation. The more these features are present in students, the less likely they are to exhibit field-dependent and field-independent cognitive styles. These styles influence how information is processed, including the use of controlling strategies for attention, and reducing interference. Additionally, the level of influence that their conceptual experience has on their perception and analysis of existing situations decreases.

Conclusions

The analysis revealed that the structure of intellectual and personal resources among students with positive experiences in their parental families is incomplete and unstable. However, it does reflect positive trends in the interrelationships between the features of cognitive styles and other aspects of intellectual and personal resources, considering their family background.

Variables such as «Randomness», «Degree of luck», and «Impulsiveness» among others, are more indicative of a good potential for developing subjectivity and intellectual abilities. This suggests that students may have a strong foundation for growth in these areas. However, there is also a tendency towards avoiding responsibility and autonomy in challenging life situations (the coping strategy «Acceptance of responsibility»). This tendency could be linked to the support they have traditionally received in their parental families, creating a sense of a constant «safety cushion» provided by close family members.

In the group of students who had negative experiences in their parental families, there are individuals with significant potential. This potential includes intellectual abilities such as reflexivity and tolerance for unrealistic experiences. However, this potential may not be fully utilized due to the instability of their intellectual and personal resources. In other words, despite having a wide range of cognitive abilities and personality traits, individuals who had negative experiences in their parental families may either actively use these abilities to become successful members of society or leave them unused, feeling helpless, insecure, and defenceless.

In the group of students who have had diverse experiences in their parental families, despite having a complete and stable structure of relationships, ambivalence, and inconsistency are observed in their intellectual and personal features.

The structural relationships between the features of cognitive styles and other aspects of intellectual and personal resources confirm the hypothesis about how cognitive styles influence the intellectual and personal structures of students with various experiences in their parental families. This opens new avenues for research into the psychological mechanisms that shape youth development in the context of family and other social institutions. This perspective aligns with the understanding of individual differences in cognitive styles.

Competing interests: The authors state that the study was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be interpreted as a potential conflict of interest.

CRediT author statement:

Kibalchenko I.A. Eksakusto T.V. have read and approved the final version and are responsible for all aspects of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments: The authors express their gratitude to N. E. Volkova for her assistance in preparing the manuscript

References

1. Azeska, A., Starc, J., & Kevereski, L. (2017). Styles of decision making and management and dimensions of personality of school principals. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 5 (2), 47-56. doi: https://doi.org/10.5937/IJCRSEE1702047A
2. Buzhinskaya, N. V., Vaseva, E. S., &. Shkabara, I. E. (2022). Cognitive style of a future IT specialist in a teamwork process. Education and Science Journal, 24(4), 79-111. doi 10.17853/1994-5639-2022-4-79-111
3. Dodzina, O. B. (2021). Coherence of cognitive style and style of means of monitoring educational activity as a factor of academic success. Kazan Pedagogical Journal, 2(145), 211-218. [Dodzina, O. B. Soglasovannost’ kognitivnogo stilya i stilya sredstv kontrolya uchebnoy deyatel’nosti kak faktor akademicheskoy uspeshnosti / O. B. Dodzina // Kazanskiy pedagogicheskiy zhurnal. – 2021. – № 2(145). – S. 211-218].
4. Druzhinin, V. N. (2005). Family psychology. St. Petersburg: Peter. [Druzhinin, V. N. Psikhologiya sem’i [Tekst] / V. N. Druzhinin. Sankt- Peterburg: Piter, 2005].
5. Erdner, S. M. & Wright, C. N. (2018). The Relationship Between Family Communication Patterns and the Self-Efficacy of Student-Athletes. Communication and Sport, 6 (3), 368–389. doi: 10.1177/2167479517711450.
6. Exacousto, T. V. & Vakulenko, E. N. (2014). Gender representations of men brought up in single-parent families. Modern problems of science and education, No. 6; URL: http://www.science-education.ru/120-16759. [Eksakusto, T. V. Gendernyye predstavleniya muzhchin, vospityvavshikhsya v nepolnykh sem’yakh [Elektronnyy resurs] / T. V. Eksakusto, Ye. N. Vakulenko // Sovremennyye problemy nauki i obrazovaniya. – 2014. № 6; URL: http://www.science-education.ru/120-16759].
7. Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WAYS) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t06501-000
8. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. Basic Books/Hachette Book Group.
9. Gervais, J. & Cossette, P. (2007). Knowledge management and cognitive maps: A study about interorganizational collaboration. Annals of Telecommunications, 62(7-8), 786-807. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03253290 [Gestion de la connaissance et cartographie cognitive: Une étude sur la collaboration interorganisationnelle. In Annales des télécommunications, 62(7-8), 786-807. Springer-Verlag].
10. Janoff-Bulman, R. (1989). Assumptive worlds and the stress of traumatic events: Applications of the schema construct. Social Cognition, 7, 113–136. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1989.7.2.113
11. Karpov, A. V. (2003). Reflexivity as a mental property and methods for its diagnosis. Psychological Journal, 24(5), 45–57. [Karpov A.V. Refleksivnost’ kak psikhicheskoye svoystvo i metodiki yeyo diagnostiki. Psikhologicheskiy zhurnal. 2003. T. 24. № 5. S. 45–57].
12. Kevereski, L., Kotevska Dimovska, M., & Ristevski, D. (2016). Тhe influence of the emotional inteligence in protection of the mental health in conditions of a psychosocial stress. International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 4 (1), 17-21 doi:10.5937/IJCRSEE1601017K
13. Khazova, S.A. (2014). Mental resources of the subject at different age periods: dis. … Doctor of Psychological Sciences: 19.00.13. Moscow: Institute of Psychology RAS & Kostroma. https://rusneb.ru/catalog/000199_000009_005550721/ [Khazova S.A. Mental’nyye resursy sub’yekta v raznyye vozrastnyye periody: dis. … doktora psikhologicheskikh nauk : 19.00.13 / Khazova Svetlana Abdurakhmanovna; [Mesto zashchity: In-t psikhologii RAN]. – Kostroma, 2014. 540 s.].
14. Kholodnaya, M. A. & Khazova, S. A. (2017). The phenomenon of conceptualization as the basis for the productivity of intellectual activity and coping behavior. Psychological Journal, 38(5), 5-17. [Kholodnaya, M. A., Khazova, S.A. Fenomen kontseptualizatsii kak osnova produktivnosti intellektual’noy deyatel’nosti i sovladayushchego povedeniya (2017) // Psikhologicheskiy zhurnal. T. 38. № 5. S. 5-17].
15. Kholodnaya, M. A. (2012). Psychology of conceptual thinking: From conceptual structures to conceptual abilities. Moscow: Publishing house «Institute of Psychology RAS». [Kholodnaya M.A. Psikhologiya ponyatiynogo myshleniya: Ot kontseptual’nykh struktur k ponyatiynym sposobnostyam / M.A. Kholodnaya. – M.: Izd-vo «Institut psikhologii RAN», 2012. – 288 s.].
16. Kholodnaya, M. A. (2019). Psychology of intelligence. Paradoxes of research: textbook. manual for bachelor’s and master’s degrees / M. A. Kholodnaya. – 3rd ed., revised. and additional – Moscow: Publishing House «Urayt». https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=36500433 [Kholodnaya, M.A. Psikhologiya intellekta. Paradoksy issledovaniya: ucheb. posobiye dlya bakalavriata i magistratury / M. A. Kholodnaya. – 3-ye izd., pererab. i dop. – Moskva: Izdatel’stvo «Yurayt», 2019. – 334 s. – (Seriya: Avtorskiy uchebnik)].
17. Kryukova, T. L., Gushchina, T. V. Saporovskaya, M. V., & Petrova, E. A. (2009). Psychology of intergenerational relations: conflicts and resources. Kostroma: N. A. Nekrasov KSU. [Saporovskaya, M. V. Psikhologiya mezhpokolennykh otnosheniĭ: konflikty i resursy [Tekst] / T. L. Kryukova, T. V. Gushchina, M. V. Saporovskaya, Ye. A. Petrova; otvetstvennyy redaktor M. V. Saporovskaya. – Kostroma: KGU im. N. A. Nekrasova, 2009].
18. Leontyev D.A., Rasskazova E.I. Hardiness survey. Moscow: Smysl, 2006. [Leont’yev D.A., Rasskazova Ye.I. Test zhiznestoykosti. M.: Smysl, 2006].
19. Maddi, S. R., Brow, M., Khoshaba, D. M., & Vaitkus, M. (2006). Personal Views Survey, Third Edition–Revised (PVS III) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t33422-000
20. Mallers, M. H., Charles, S. T., Neupert, S. D., & Almeida, D. M. (2010). Perceptions of childhood relationships with mother and father: daily emotional and stressor experiences in adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 46(6), 1651–1661. doi:10.1037/a0021020.
21. Oliver, J. & Brough, P. (2002). Cognitive appraisal, negative affectivity, and psychological well-being. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 31 (1), 2-7. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29458153_Cognitive_appraisal_negative_affectivity_and_psychological_well-being
22. Padun, M. A. (2009). Cognitive style and depression. Experimental psychology, 2(4), 81–90. [Padun M.A. Kognitivnyy stil’ i depressiya // Eksperimental’naya psikhologiya. 2009. T. 2. № 4. S. 81–90].
23. Pavlova, E. M. & Kornilova, T. V. (2019). The triad «tolerance of uncertainty – emotional intelligence – intuitive style» and self-assessment of creativity in people of creative professions. Psychological and Pedagogical Research, 11(1), 107-117. doi:10.17759/psyedu.2019110109 [Pavlova Ye.M., Kornilova T. V. Triada «tolerantnost’ k neopredelennosti – emotsional’nyy intellekt – int uitivnyy stil’» i samootsenka kreativnosti u lits tvorcheskikh professiy//Psikhologo-pedagogicheskiye issledovaniya, 2019, T. 11, № 1, s. 107-117].
24. Pierce, J., Abbey, A., & Wegner, R. (2018). Mediators of the Association Between Childhood Emotional Maltreatment and Young Adult Men’s Life Satisfaction. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33 (4), 595–616. doi: 10.1177/0886260515609584.
25. Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719
26. Rusalov, V.M. & Volkova, N. E. (2020). Conceptual abilities and personal-cognitive styles. Bulletin of Kostroma State University. Series: Pedagogy. Psychology. Sociokinetics, 26(3), 22-27. doi https://doi.org/10.34216/2073-1426-2020-26-3-22-27. [Rusalov V.M., Volkova N.E. Ponyatiynyye sposobnosti i lichnostno-kognitivnyye stili (2020) // Vestnik Kostromskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Pedagogika. Psikhologiya. Sotsiokinetika. T. 26, № 3. S. 22-27. DOI https://doi.org/10.34216/2073-1426-2020-26-3-22-27].
27. Ryff, C. D. & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol, 69, 719–727.
28. Tkachenko, I. V. (2008). Personal developing family resource: ontology and phenomenology. Moscow: CREDO. [Tkachenko, I. V. Lichnostno razvivayushchiĭ resurs sem’i: ontologiya i fenomenologiya [Tekst] / I. V. Tkachenko. – Moskva: KREDO, 2008 – 278 s.].
29. Tkachenko, I. V. (2012). Family as a resource for personal self-realization/ In: Personal self-realization in the intercultural space: materials of the International scientific-practical conference. Moscow: RUDN Publishing House, p. 96–100. [Tkachenko, I. V. Sem’ya kak resurs samorealizatsii lichnosti [Tekst] / I. V. Tkachenko // Samorealizatsiya lichnosti v mezhkul’turnom prostran- stve: materialy Mezhdunarodnoĭ nauchno-prakticheskoĭ konferentsii. – Moskva: Izd-vo RUDN, 2012. – S. 96–100].
30. Torrance, E. P. (1972). Predictive validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(4), 236–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1972.tb00936.x
31. Tunik, E.E. (1998). Torrance test: E. Torrance test: diagnostics of creativity: manual. Petersburg publishing house «Imaton». [Tunik, Ye.Ye. Test Torrensa: Test Ye.Torrensa: diagnostika kreativnosti : metodicheskoye rukovodstvo].
32. Varga, A. Ya. (2001). Systemic family psychotherapy. Short lecture course. St. Petersburg: Speech [Varga, A. YA. Sistemnaya semeĭnaya psikhoterapiya. Kratkiĭ lektsionnyĭ kurs [Tekst] / A. YA. Varga. – Sankt-Peterburg: Rech’, 2001].
33. Volkova, E. V. & Rusalov, V. M. Cognitive styles, and personality (2016). Personality and Individual differences, Vol. 99, 266–271.
34. Volkova, E.V., Rusalov, V.M., Dudnikova, T.A. (2022). Cognitive and Personal Styles Questionnaire: Validity and Reliability of the CPS-Q Based on a Russian Sample. Natural Systems of Mind, 2(4). doi: 10.38098/nsom_2022_02_04_03
35. Volkova, N. N. & Gusev, A. N. (2018). Cognitive styles and discrimination of the loudness of tonal signals: differential psychological analysis. National psychological journal, 1(29), 106-116. doi: 10.11621/npj.2018.0110 [Volkova N.N., Gusev A.N. Kognitivnyye stili i razlicheniye gromkosti tonal’nykh signalov: differentsial’no-psikhologicheskiy analiz (2018) // Natsional’nyy psikhologicheskiy zhurnal. №1(29). S. 106-116. doi: 10.11621/npj.2018.0110].
36. Witkin, Herman A. (1977). Cognitive Styles in Personal and Cultural Adaptation. Publisher: Clark University Press. https://commons.clarku.edu/heinz-werner-lectures/10