STRUCTURE OF PERSONALITY COPING STRATEGIES ACCORDING TO THE METHODOLOGY SACS BY S. HOBFALL: THE RATIO OF ACTIVE AND PASSIVE BEHAVIOR PATTERNS IN EARLY YOUTH

Abstract

The article presents the results of an empirical study of stress coping strategies (coping behavior) using S. Hobfall's multidimensional SACS (Strategic Approach to Coping Scale) model, conducted at a vocational education institution. Based on the analysis of 40 respondents, the structure and dominant trends in the choice of behavior models in situations of psychological stress were determined.

The structure and dominant trends in the choice of behavior models in situations of psychological stress were determined. The general profile of the study group was defined as a “socially cautious” type of adaptation, based on a combination of strong social orientation and a predominance of passive adaptation strategies.

The scientific novelty lies in the identification of conflicting adaptation profiles, among which the destructive types stand out: “social manipulator,” “hidden tension,” and “risky activist.” The problem of assertiveness deficit is analyzed as a factor that hinders the constructive protection of one's own boundaries and causes a transition to avoidance or indirect influence strategies.

The practical significance of this work lies in substantiating the need to implement programs for the development of confident behavior, which will allow a transition from a passive, expectant position to an active and open solution of life problems.

  The overall profile of the sample is defined as a “socially cautious” type of adaptation. The main characteristics of this type are the dominance of the “Cautious Action” strategy, which indicates the respondents' tendency to carefully weigh risks before making any decisions. Combined with the “Avoidance” indicator, this forms a stable wait-and-see position of the group in stressful conditions. The strength of the sample is its high social orientation: the indicators “Establishing social contact” and “Seeking social support” are consistently high, acting as a kind of “buffer” that keeps destructive tendencies (aggression and antisocial behavior) within normal limits.

The scientific novelty of the study lies in the identification of conflicting coping profiles, which cover 40% of respondents. Although 60% of the sample demonstrates a balanced behavior model, a significant part of the group is prone to specific accentuations. Three destructive types were analyzed:

1. “Social manipulator”—individuals with a high level of social contact who prefer indirect actions. They use social skills to achieve goals “through others,” avoiding direct responsibility, which becomes a compensatory mechanism for a lack of subjectivity in adolescence.
2. “Hidden tension” — the most risky profile, based on a combination of high aggression and avoidance. This passive-aggressive model leads to rapid psychological burnout and the emergence of psychosomatic disorders.
3. “Risky activist” — a destructive profile where high impulsivity is combined with antisocial behavior and an almost complete lack of caution.

A critical problem in the sample is a lack of assertiveness. The indicator of confident behavior (10.75%) is significantly lower than manipulative and cautious strategies. In particular, 25% of respondents have a critically low level of assertiveness (less than 9%), which prevents them from constructively defending their boundaries and provokes a shift to avoidance or indirect influence strategies.

The study highlights a significant gap between individual indicators.

The conclusions emphasize the need to implement assertiveness development programs, which will shift the focus from “workarounds” and passive waiting to active and open resolution of life problems. The results of the study are of practical importance for psychologists and human resource management specialists in the formation of team interaction strategies.