A FACTORIAL MODEL OF GENDER DIFFERENCES IN STRESS REACTIVITY UNDER CONDITIONS OF SOCIAL INSTABILITY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/3041-2005/2026-2.1Keywords:
stress reactivity, gender differentiation, factor analysis, coping strategies, social instability, adaptation, self-regulation, mental health, personality, stressAbstract
The article presents the results of a theoretical and empirical study of gender differentiation in stress reactivity under conditions of social instability. The relevance of the issue is determined by the increasing intensity and prolonged nature of stress exposure in the contemporary social environment, accompanied by transformations in role expectations and normative behavioral patterns. The theoretical framework of the study is grounded in the transactional model of stress, coping theory, and contemporary gender psychology, which allow stress reactivity to be conceptualized as a multidimensional process shaped by sociocultural determinants. The aim of the study was to construct a factor model of gender differentiation in stress reactivity and to identify latent components underlying the organization of adaptive mechanisms in men and women. The sample consisted of 52 young adults aged 18–24. The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10), a personality trait assessment method, and the BASIC Ph coping model were employed. Data were analyzed using principal component analysis with varimax rotation Three factors were identified, accounting for 68.4% of the total variance: emotional-reactive, regulatory-resource, and socio-expressive profiles. The findings indicate that in women, the system-forming component is the emotionalaffective factor integrated with social support, whereas in men, the dominant component is the cognitive-regulatory block associated with self-control and resource mobilization. The results demonstrate that gender functions not as a direct determinant of stress intensity but as a moderator of the structural organization of coping mechanisms. The practical implications lie in the development of gender-sensitive psychological support programs in contexts of social instability
References
Вельдбрехт О. О., Тавровецька Н. І. Шкала сприйнятого стресу (PSS-10): адаптація та апробація в умовах. Журнал сучасної психології. 2022. Вип. 2. С. 16–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26661/2310-4368/2022-2-2
Власова Т., Грабовська І., Галицька Ю. Актуальний гендер: міжнародний і український контекст : монографія. Київ : Міленіум, 2018. 132 с.
Щотка О. П. Гендерна психологія : навч. посіб. Ніжин : Видавець ПП Лисенко М. М., 2019. 358 с.
Bem S. L. Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review. 1981. Vol. 88/ № 4. P. 354–364.
Carver C. S., Scheier M. F., Weintraub J. K. Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1989. Vol. 56. № 2. P. 267–283.
Cohen S., Wills T. A. Stress, Social Support, and the Buffering Hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin. 1985. Vol. 98 (2). P. 310–357.
Eagly A. H., Wood W. The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist. 1999. Vol. 54. № 6. P. 408–423.
Endler N. S., Parker J. D. A. Multidimensional assessment of coping: A critical evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1990. Vol. 58. № 5. P. 844–854.
Folkman S., Moskowitz J. T. Coping: Pitfalls and promise. Annual Review of Psychology. 2004. Vol. 55. P. 745–774. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141456
Lazarus R. S., Folkman S. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer, 1984. 445 p.
Selye H. The Stress of Life. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. 324 p.
Tamres L. K., Janicki D., Helgeson V. S. Sex differences in coping behavior: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2002. Vol. 6. № 1. P. 2–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0601_1
Taylor S. E., Klein L. C., Lewis B. P., Gruenewald T. L., Gurung R. A. R., Updegraff J. A. Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review. 2000. Vol. 107. No. 3. P. 411–429. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.107.3.41



