Psychological resilience of military personnel in combat conditions

The relevance of the study is conditioned by the need to preserve the psychological resilience of military personnel in conditions of prolonged exposure to combat stress, uncertainty, a high level of responsibility, and constant threat to life. The comprehensive study of not only the general personal resource of psychological hardiness, but also the specific ways in which it is manifested in military-professional activities and the strategies used to cope with stressful situations, is of particular importance. The purpose of the study was to empirically investigate the specifics of psychological resilience of military personnel in combat conditions, to determine the features of general personal and military-professional hardiness, and to characterise coping strategies for overcoming stress. The empirical study was conducted in 2025 at one of the units of the National Guard of Ukraine. The sample consisted of 32 servicemen aged from 22 to 47 years. The O. Kokun Military-Professional Hardiness Questionnaire, S.R. Maddi’s Hardiness Test, and E. Heim’s Coping Strategies Assessment were used. Data processing was carried out using methods of descriptive statistics, level, comparative, and content analysis. The average group indicator of military-professional hardiness was 62.63 points and corresponded to an average level, however, significant intra-group heterogeneity was found: 25% of servicemen had a low level, 12.5% had a below-average level, 18.75% each had an average and above-average level, and 25% had a high level. The overall hardiness indicator was 97.19 points; in 93.75% of respondents, it corresponded to at least an average level, with no low levels detected. The average scores for engagement (42.69 points), control (36.31 points), and risk-taking (18.38 points) exceeded the respective normative values of 37.64, 29.17, and 13.91 points. The most prominent feature of the hardiness structure was risk-taking: above-average and high levels of this component were found in a combined 50% of respondents. In the structure of coping behaviour, adaptive strategies predominated (57.8%), with a share of relatively adaptive strategies at 26.7% and maladaptive ones at 15.5%. In the emotional domain, optimism predominated (86.87%); the most prevalent cognitive strategies were finding meaning (33.33%) and maintaining self-control (26.67%), while the most common behavioural strategies were distraction (40%) and cooperation (33.33%). The established distinction between the more stable general personality resource of resilience and the significantly more heterogeneous military-professional hardiness attests to the expediency of their differentiated assessment