International Journal of Human Research and Social Science Studies

The article presents the results of an empirical study of the typology of psychological readiness profiles of psychology Master’s students for decision-making under stressful conditions. In the context of martial law in Ukraine, psychologists face the necessity of making professional decisions under high pressure while working with traumatized populations, which actualizes the problem of purposeful stress resilience development during professional training. Using k-means cluster analysis on a sample of 287 Master’s students in psychology from 6 Ukrainian higher education institutions, three qualitatively distinct readiness profiles were identified: «vulnerable competence» (24.7%), «functional adaptability» (56.4%), and «resilient mastery» (18.8%). The profiles differ statistically significantly across cognitive components (cognitive flexibility, tolerance for uncertainty), emotional-regulatory components (stress resilience, emotion regulation difficulties, psychological distress), motivational-volitional components (professional self-efficacy, coping strategies), and effectiveness of professional decision-making (p < .001). The critical vulnerability of one quarter of students (decision-making effectiveness M=32.1,below the threshold for safe practice) indicates a systemic gap in educational programs. The identified typology substantiates the necessity of a differentiated approach with three training trajectories: an intensive programme for the vulnerable profile (75 hours, VR simulations, biofeedback, individual supervision), a basic program for the adaptive profile (60 hours, cognitive training, group supervision), and an advanced program for the resilient profile (45 hours, mentoring role, complex cases). The practical value lies in creating a diagnostic foundation for personalised educational pathways. The theoretical novelty consists in the transition from a variable-centered to a person-centered approach that considers readiness components as holistic configurations of different types of professionals.

professional readiness, professional decision-making, stressful conditions, cluster analysis, profile typology, stress resilience.

1. Arnsten A. F. T. Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2009. Vol. 10(6). P. 410–422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2648.
2. Arnsten A. F. T. Stress weakens prefrontal networks: Molecular insults to higher cognition. Nature Neuroscience. 2015. Vol. 18(10). P. 1376–1385. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4087.
3. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York : W.H. Freeman and Company, 1997. 604 p.
4. Carleton R. N., Norton M. A., Asmundson G. J. G. Fearing the unknown: A short version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2007. Vol. 21(1). P. 105–117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.014.
5. Carleton R. N., Sharpe D., Asmundson G. J. G. Anxiety sensitivity and intolerance of uncertainty: Requisites of the fundamental fears? Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2016. Vol. 45(10). P. 2307–2316. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2007.04.006.
6. Carver C. S., Scheier M. F., Weintraub J. K. Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2010. Vol. 56(2). P. 267–283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.56.2.267.
7. Connor K. M., Davidson J. R. T. Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety. 2003. Vol. 18(2). P. 76–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/da.10113
8. Gratz K. L., Roemer L. Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 2004. Vol. 26(1). P. 41–54. DOI: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007455.08539.94.
9. Gross J. J., Jazaieri H. Emotion, emotion regulation, and psychopathology: An affective science perspective. Clinical Psychological Science. 2014. Vol. 2(4). P. 387–401. DOI: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/2167702614536164.
10. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979. Vol. 47(2). P. 263–291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185.
11. Lazarus R. S., Folkman S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York : Springer Publishing Company, 1984. 456 p. https://archive.org/details/stressappraisalc0000laza.
12. Lovibond P. F., Lovibond S. H. The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 1995. Vol. 33(3). P. 335–343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-u
13. Martin M. M., Rubin R. B. A new measure of cognitive flexibility. Psychological Reports. 1995. Vol. 76(2). P. 623–626. DOI: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2466/pr0.1995.76.2.623.
14. Simon H. A. A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1955. Vol. 69(1). P. 99–118. DOI: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2307/1884852.