Psikhologicheskie Issledovaniya • ISSN 2075-7999
peer-reviewed • open access journal


Odintsova M.A. Subjective and objective factors of victimization in Russians and Byelorussians [Full text]

Full text in Russian: Одинцова М.А. Субъективные и объективные факторы виктимизации россиян и белорусов
University of Russian Academy of Education, Moscow, Russia

About author
Suggested citation

Objective factors of victimization in Russians and Byelorussians (characteristics of historical development and ethno-cultural situation, peculiarities of social, political and economic life in both countries) are considered. The results of empirical study of subjective factors of victimization (total of 428 inhabitants of Moscow and Minsk) are presented. Psychological features influencing adaptation ability – the type of the victimhood role, the meaning of life value system, vitality, the features of motivational sphere and the development of strategies of overcoming behavior – were investigated. The comparative analysis of system manifestations of victimhood in Russians and Byelorussians was performed.

Keywords: victim, victimization, subjective factors of victimization, objective factors of victimization


[English translation is provided by the author of the article.]


Experts from various areas of scientific knowledge were engaged in the questions of objective and subjective victimization factors (process of transformation of a person or a group of people to victims under adverse conditions of socialization [Mudrik, 2000]). The given theme became especially important during “the epoch of changes” [Kozyrev, 2008; Miller, 2006; Mudrik, 2000; Rivman, 2002]. Disintegration of the Soviet Union, confrontations, accidents, crises and many other shocks of the reorganization period possess destructive influence and promote victimization of big groups of people [Rivman, 2002; Mudrik, 2000; Hiroto, Seligman, 2001]. Along with it massive migration from former republics, aggravation of numerous ethnic conflicts with display of xenophobia, Russo phobia and many other situations are related to objective victimization factors of the post-Soviet territory people [Miller, 2006; Mudrik, 2000; Surguladze, 2010]. The given adverse conditions serve as an original indicator of people’s victimization and reveal potential victims.

Subjective victimization factors are almost inaudible, more latent that is why more labor-consuming for studying. Features of mentality of these or those people, individually-psychological features of people influencing the ability to adaptation under various conditions of ability to live (vital capacity, vitally important orientations, a locus of control, features of temperament, the formed level of these or those overcoming strategies of behavior, features of motivational and valuable sphere and many other things) are related to them. Victimization as D.Rivman fairly specifies which unites dynamics (realization of victimization) and statics (the realized victimization) shows a certain materialization of subjective (personal) and objective (situational) victimized potentialities. Its comprehension promotes the fullest and adequate analysis of victimization process of whole groups of people [Rivman, 2002, p. 80].

However, at present the majority of researches are mainly directed to the search of objective reasons of victimization missing the major psychological component of the given process. Questions of objective and subjective victimization factors of ethnic groups are poorly studied. Comparative researches of victimization and its reasons generating with Byelorussians and Russians are not revealed though there is a set of unconfirmed by empirical way unsubstantiated “strokes to a portrait” of these two peoples.

First, it is connected with the fact that in science as before while working out victimization problems the accent is displaced towards the criminal and extreme situations which generate potential victims of crimes and accidents. People were interested in the questions of psychology of the given problem even since E.Krepelin (1900) [Krepelin, 2007]. K.Jung (1914) [Jung, 1994], A.Adler (1926) [Adler, 1997], L.Vygotsky [Vygotsky, 2003], and many others insisted on the psychological problem of a victim. Modern experts constantly write about it in the field of victim logy, criminology [Rivman, 2002; et al] choking with a lack of psychological workings out.

Secondly, the specificity problem of victimization display and reasons generating it in various economic, political and cultural conditions was until recently “closed” for discussions in wide scientific circles.

Thirdly, for psychologists the victimization research of Byelorussians and Russians is a deadlock problem owing to excessive affinity of a genotype, culture, language and generality of historic development of these peoples.

Nevertheless, favorable preconditions for research of objective and subjective victimization factors of Byelorussians and Russians have been appeared by this time.

1. There are lots of researches in domestic and foreign psychology devoted to the analysis of pedagogical and educational systems of various types of cultures which provoke ability development to be a victim. For example, “wrong education” results in appearance of a large amount of inferiority complexes, detective states of mind [Adler, 1997]; the slavish psychology is formed [Vygotsky 2003; Pavlov, 2001]; infantilism develops [Fromm, 2000; Yung, 1994]. Stigma feelings [Goffman, 1963], compensation installations [Krepelin, 2007], parasitism [Perlz, 1995], the learnt feebleness and passivity [Hiroto, Seligman, 1975] are few things that can be victimization factors.

2. Works of foreign psychologists devoted to the study of mysterious Russian soul became accessible to the analysis [Erikson, 2000]. E.Erikson in his “conceptual traveling notes” as early as in 1950 raised a question about Russian soul as a “swaddled” soul. He considered the tradition of hard swaddling in Russian families in historical and political planes as a part of system which helped to support and prolong Russian combination of slavery with “soul” [Erikson, 2000], thereby underlining ineradicable ability of a Russian person to be a “victim”. There were works of the Belorussian historians and culturologists in which motives of ethnic victimization promoting imposing and fastening of victimization properties to the Belorussian people among which feebleness, detective states of mind, “flabbiness”, narrow-mindedness,  “stupidity”, inferiority, unhappiness, fear and others were accurately designed [Bukhovets, 2009; Dubyanetskii, 1993; Litvin, 2002].

3. In psychology researches of specific characteristics of a Soviet person [Rotenberg, 2000; Fromm, 2000], on the basis of which scientists write about the formed mentality of a victim in a totalitarian control of the state over all aspects of life of the Soviet society are saved up. Ideas of influence of a type of society (modernized or totalitarian) on occurrence of this or that type of a victim have appeared in modern domestic social pedagogics [Mudrik, 2000]. During last decades a set of sociological researches have been carried out which allow revealing sociopolitical and sociocultural development conditions both Byelorussians and Russians [Nikolyuk, 2009; Sikevich, 2007; Sokolova, 2010; Titarenko, 2003; et al], and their influence on development and support of victimization. 

4. Modern psychology shows influence of various situations (from situations of daily occurrence to situations of extreme degree of complexity) on victimized behavior of people [Osukhova, 2005; et al],  that testifies that modern people do not possess certain qualities providing their effective functioning. An example of Chernobyl accident process of formation of a syndrome of “an eternal victim” [Saenko, 1999] with the Slavic people is considered.

5. Interest to the problems of national character of Byelorussians and Russians after reconstruction time [Batraeva, 2010; Bobkov, 2005; Mnatsakanyan, 2006; Naumenko, 2008; Pezeshkian, 1999; Titarenko, 2003; et al],  in which “paradoxicality” [Mnatsakanyan, 2006], multiculturalism [Pezeshkian, 1999],  and “trans culture” [Bobkov, 2005] of mentality of two peoples are underlined has been quickened.

Study objectives

All these have induced us to research a special combination of objective and subjective victimization factors of Byelorussians and Russians. For the decision of the given problem it is necessary:

1. To conduct research of subjective victimization factors of Byelorussians and Russians (the individually-psychological features of people influencing on their ability to adaptation under various conditions of ability to live) to which we ascribe: role type of victimization, hardiness, important for life orientations,  features of motivational requirement spheres, level of the formed of those or other overcoming strategies of behavior.

2. To make the analysis of the accessible scientific workings out which to some extent displaying objective victimization factors of Byelorussians and Russians (micro- and macro- factors to which we ascribe ethno cultural conditions, features of historical development, social, economic and political life of the peoples.

3. Considering that subjective victimization factors are sensitive to various phenomena in public, social, economic and political life of the population of Russia and Belarus, to make the comparative analysis of two research stages which have been carried out through different time intervals and to track possible system displays of those or other victimization parties with Russians and Byelorussians.

Materials and methods

428 persons out of the inhabitants of the two capitals from Moscow and Minsk have taken part in the research. Sample has been balanced on sex, age, education and social status. An age range of the men who have taken part in the research was from 20 till 40 years old (middle age was 27). An age range of women was from 20 till 43 (middle age was 28). The sample structure included students of different specialties, employees, teachers, military men, medical workers, workers, etc. Questionnaires were given as individually as to small groups of students. The procedure duration of the research was from 20 till 30 minutes. The research was carried out from December 2010 till February 2011.

To research subjective victimization factors of Byelorussians and Russians the following techniques have been used: a questionnaire “Role type of Victimization” by M.Odintsova [Odintsova, 2010]; a hardiness test by D.Leontiev, E.Rasskazova [Leontiev, Rasskazova, 2006]; vitally important orientations test by D.Leontiev [Leontiev, 2006]; the method of study of motivationally emotional sphere of a person by V.Mil'man [Mil'man, 2005] and a questionnaire “Types of behavior and reactions in stressful situations’ by T.Kryukova [Kryukova, 2005].

Statistical methods in software package Statistica 8.0 were used to process the results.

Results and discussion

The carried out comparative analysis of the received data has allowed us to pick out significant distinctions in two samples of the examinees (Byelorussians and Russians) in scales of role victimization. Role victimization is a predisposition of an individual owing to specific subjective and adverse objective factors, to produce this or that type of behavior of a victim expressed in a position or the status of a victim and also in his dynamic embodiment: a game or a social role of a victim [Odintsova, 2010].

The comparative analysis of the data has shown that a game role of a victim as an analysis unit of free, situational, mutually advantageous and easily accepted by members of interpersonal interaction of role relations which agree with internal features of a victimized individual (infantilism, manipulation, feebleness, etc.) having in its basis latent motivation and harmoniously blending with a played situation is in a great degree expressed in behavior of Byelorussians than Russians (t = 1,67, p = 0, 04). These results are coordinated with the data received by us in the research carried out in 2009 (N = 525) in which also authentic distinctions by t-criterion by Student on significance value 0.002 have been revealed.

Byelorussians more often than Russians resort to identification with a victim that leads to adopting personal senses of the last one. It means that the game role of a victim motivates Byelorussians to use external resources to protect internal problem. The basic characteristics of a game role of a victim are infantilism, fear of responsibility, “taking” compensation installations, abilities to manipulate, feebleness, etc. It is necessary to note special plasticity and ingenuity of a game role of a victim allowing “successfully enough” to adapt under any conditions. However such adaptation focused on conservative and regressive strategy creates only illusion of its success.

Besides our research has shown that a position of a victim as an embodiment of a game role of the victim, a firm formation characterized by a set of fixed compensation installations which with increase of durability of a game role are exposed to gradual destruction; it is also more brightly expressed with Byelorussians unlike Russians (t = 1,64, p = 0,05). All characteristics peculiar to the people with a game role of a victim remain, they are fixed, pointed and get accented and expressional character. It is peculiar to Byelorussians in a greater degree than to Russians to show their sufferings and misfortunes, to complain, accuse others, to consider that life is unfair to them but for all that to remain passive and helpless observers of events.

Thus the analysis of the results by the method “A type of role victimization” has shown that the position of a victim and its dynamic embodiment (a game role of a victim) is in a greater degree expressed in behavior of Byelorussians. These results are fully consistent with the data of sociological researches of the Byelorussians colleagues [Sokolova, 2010; Titarenko, 2003; Fabrikant, 2008]. So, according to G.Sokolova (2010) the majority of Byelorussians are aimed at paternalistic expectations of help, privileges, indemnifications, dependence, idleness,  at best they search forms of the ability to live allowing the minimum expenses to support the reached level [Sokolova, 2010, с. 40]. Public and political life causes indifference in the majority of Byelorussians most of them prefer “a position of a critical and estimating observer” [Fabrikant, 2008, с. 260]. Indifference as a national feature of Byelorussians is underlined by the majority of modern researchers [Bobkov, 2005; Sokolova, 2010; Titarenko, 2003],  and it is considered to be one of components of victimization.

It is possible to explain the more expressed level of victimization among Byelorussians due to socio political reasons. So, for example, I.Bibo [Bibo, 2004]; A.Miller [Miller 2006], V.Surguladze [Surguladze, 2010],  and others hold the opinion that development of “victimized syndrome of the small nation” [Surguladze, 2010, с. 85] can be promoted by long life in an environment of stronger and active people, absence of own statehood identity and national advantage. I.Litvin considers that Russian science occupies an important place in the system of training inferiority complex with Byelorussians which represented Byelorussians as “stupid and backward bast shoes” and Belarus as “one of the poor and backward edges of imperial Russia» [Litvin, 2002].

The system of suppression, remained only in Belarus only aggravates the situation. Numerous researches proved that any suppression interferes with the constructive solution of behavioral problems and realization of normal requirements of people [Hiroto, Seligman, 1975; Tsiring, 2003; Fromm, 2000]. In a society where the impossibility of overcoming the overwhelming system for a long time is created, feebleness of the whole social groups is created too. Feebleness of Byelorussians is the phenomenon which is joined the Belorussian culture as an essential element, becomes their national feature. The majority of Byelorussians reconcile with their destiny, passively submit to it and they do not even try to search a way out. Sociological polls about those or other social, economic and political problems only confirm it [Nikolyuk, 2009; Sokolova, 2010; Titarenko, 2003].  However as Yu.Chernyavskaya writes, people’s defects are continuation of their advantages [Chernyavskaya, 2000]. Some indifference to events, absence of conflict and passivity of Byelorussians find their continuation in high tolerance and their historically developed high adaptability to changes of living conditions [Titarenko, 2003].

The game role of a victim which has become a way of life of Byelorussians really promotes the adaptation carrying a little conservative and even progressive character. There is a stagnation of personal resources, the behavior is characterized by inactivity, indifference, avoidance but it allows the people to “survive” under any conditions. Probably the similar temporary way of adaptation is justified for the developed and uneasy situation in Belarus and it is quite convenient for these surprisingly peaceful and adaptive people. Such way helps to avoid disorganization, instability, unsteadiness, inconsistency and disorders in their life organization.

For more exact analysis of the subjective reasons of psychological victimization of Byelorussians and Russians we have made the comparative analysis under the hardiness test [Leontiev, Rasskazova, 2006], which has shown that Russians are in greater degree involved in daily events and open to experience, than Byelorussians (t = –1,64, p = 0,05). Obvious distinctions between Byelorussians and Russians found out on the scale of risk acceptance (t = –2,32, p = 0,01). As a whole under the hardiness test Byelorussians have shown lower points than Russians. Authentic distinctions by t-criterion by Student on a significance value 0,02  have been received. The aspiration to comfort and safety, dreams of measured quiet life, etc. probably in a greater degree is peculiar to Byelorussians. It is possible that the given requirements (comfort, safety, etc.) do not find the satisfaction in real life of modern Byelorussians; probably it is connected with their national character. It is shown in the researches [Sikevich, 2007; Ksenzov, 2010], that Byelorussians are notable for their calmness, conservatism, and peaceful disposition; the mood on the compromise is peculiar to them, they reject such qualities as aspiration to risk, conflict and heightened emotionality. The list of national qualities of Byelorussians continues O.Batraeva [Batraeva, 2010],  asserting that judiciousness of Byelorussians does not allow them to risk. Russians in a greater degree than Byelorussians are involved in interaction with the world around, endure participation with vital events, positively estimate themselves; they are interested in daily life, ready to risk even if the success is not provided. It is proved by the researches of colleagues which have shown that a modern Russian has become absolutely different; he is an absolute contrast to a person about whom I.Pavlov, E.Erikson, classics of Russian literature (M.Gor'kii, F.Dostoevskii, I.Chekhov) and researchers of the first reorganization decade once wrote [Burno, 1999; Pezeshkian, 1999].

In search of a Russian national character a group of scientists conducted a large-scale research in 2009. The authors [Allik, et al, 2009] collected a picture of a modern Russian almost from four thousand parts and drew the following conclusion. A typical Russian is a person who seldom feels depression or feeling of inferiority. It is a strong-willed, hasty in speech and in decision making, dominating person. The most “convex” [Allik, et al, 2009, с. 14] as the researchers write, characteristic of a typical Russian which distinguishes him from other nations is openness that has proved to be true and in our research (according to the involvement scale of the hardiness test Russians have got higher points than Byelorussians).

By a method of important for life orientations [Leontiev, 2006] it is found out as significant distinctions between Byelorussians and Russians only on scale “result’ (t = –2,54, p = 0,005), on the general level ILO (important for life orientations) as the highest level of self-realization of a person (t = –2,58, p = 0,005). Byelorussians in greater degree than Russians are not satisfied with their self-realization and consider life to be insufficiently productive. These data are supplemented with indicators from some scales by V.Mil'man’s methods [Mil'man, 2005]. Requirements for sensation of utility and importance of their activity (t = –2,42, p = 0,007) in our sample are realized in a lesser degree with Byelorussians than with Russians that underlines comprehension of senselessness by them and uselessness in their self-realization. The further analysis by V.Mil'man’s method has shown that aspiration to general (t = –2,09, p = 0,018) and to creative (t = –2,19, p = 0,014) activity is in a less degree peculiar to Byelorussians than to Russians. The motivation of general activity reflecting vigor, aspiration to put energy and abilities on this or that field of activity, endurance, persistence, counteraction are less expressed with Byelorussians than with Russians. Similar conclusions can be made up about motivation of creative activity which reflects aspiration of people to use energy and possibilities in that sphere where it is possible to receive certain creative results. These data are in some degree coordinated with the monitoring data of G.Sokolova (2002–2008). So, value of interesting and substantial work does not become more popular among Byelorussians. It is allocated with only 0,7%. Values of good earnings (86,9%) are still on the first place for Byelorussians. Such values as conformity of work to abilities were catastrophically falling during all period of monitoring (from 73,2% in 2002 to 17,5% in 2007); initiative and relative independence (from 74% in 2002 to 27,9% in 2007) [Sokolova, 2010, с. 38]. Simultaneously with it our research has shown that status-prestigious motivation representing motives for maintenance of ability to live and comfort in social sphere is in greater degree expressed with Byelorussians than with Russians. According to V.Mil'man aspiration of a subject to receive attention from associates, prestige, and position in the society, influence and power is reflected in it [Mil'man, 2005]. We can only assume that with Byelorussians unlike with Russians the given requirements are not realized enough that is why they press their satisfaction. Though the monitoring data of G.Sokolova only partially confirm our assumptions. So, twice more Byelorussians (68%) in comparison with 2002 began to aspire to good working conditions and comfort. Aspiration of Byelorussians to prestige, status work has a little grown but it is not on the first place on importance degree [Sokolova, 2010]. These requirements: “it would be desirable to receive attention from associates”, “to occupy prestigious position in the society’. “to have comfortable conditions”, but at that not to show any initiative and activity, once more confirm the thought about “paradoxicality” [Titarenko, 2003] of consciousness of modern Byelorussians.

Further, the analysis of overcoming stresses behavior strategies of Byelorussians and Russians has been made which has allowed to reveal that Byelorussians more often than Russians in stressful situations resort to such partially adaptive coping-stressful behavioral strategy as avoiding (t = 1,67, p = 0,04). Leaving and derivation from problems are peculiar to them. They prefer not to reflect on difficulties using various forms of derivation and social derivation. Together with it Byelorussians more often than Russians also use such type of nonadaptive coping as coping focused on emotions (t = 2,44, p = 0,007). They more often than Russians at collision with difficult life situations are aligned on sufferings and inclined to plunge into pain and pessimistically to estimate events. These data have completely confirmed the received by us data in the similar research in 2009 in which authentic distinctions in the choice of coping focused on avoiding and coping focused on emotions of Byelorussians and Russians t-criterion of Student on a significant value 0,001 and 0,039 accordingly have been revealed.

Thus the conducted research of combination of objective and subjective victimization factors of Byelorussians and Russians has allowed us to conclude the following.


1. The analysis of subjective victimization factors of Byelorussians and Russians has shown that the game role of a victim becomes a “favourite” way of adaptation for Byelorussians. Similar adaptation has a little conservative and even regressive character; stagnation of personal resources takes place and aspiration to higher level and quality of life is blocked. Gradually features of Byelorussians’ victimization more accurately appear; fear to risk, avoiding, leaving problems and difficulties, unwillingness to operate, show activity and initiative, dissatisfaction with self-realization and efficiency of life, aspiration to comfort, etc.). Compensation installations expressed in the utilitarian approach to distress become more active; in sensation of especially suffered and helpless; in focusing of mental activity on sufferings; in feebleness, passivity and indifference. At the same time adaptation of Byelorussians through a game role of a victim historically and psychologically is quite defensible because it allows the Byelorussians to ‘survive’ under any conditions, helps to avoid disorganization, instability, unsteadiness, inconsistency in their life.

2. It is possible to carry ethno cultural conditions, features of historical development, social, economic and political life of people to objective victimization factors of Byelorussians and Russians. Objective macro-victimization factors of Byelorussians are historical development of the people. Being considered as one of the most backward edges of imperial Russia, Belarus has had for a long time stigma of inferiority with defective state of mind and in softer variant “long-suffering” [Litvin, 2002]; all this only supports and fixes victimized syndrome in modern Byelorussians. The present a little indulgent and permissive relation to the Belorussian people as to “younger brother” from Russia on the one hand, can be compared with “wrong education” promoting maintenance of inveterate inferiority complex and sharpening of abilities to manipulate stronger and developed environment (“big brother”). On the other hand transformation of “younger brother” into helpless and infantile victim appears mutually advantageous for both parties. So, weak and helpless “victim” in difficult situations as a rule causes sympathy and can apply for inconceivable indemnifications. Thus “big brother” for overcoming the sense of guilt and maintenance of his superiority is compelled to compensate any losses. These sociopolitical collisions are similar to the process reflected in the well-known triangle by E.Bern in which mutually advantageous but not constructive relations between a victim, a savior and an aggressor are visually presented [Bern, 2008]. Besides the system of suppression which has remained only in Belarus, interferes with display of activity, realization of normal requirements of people, forms indifference, passivity, and humility and creates favorable conditions for maintenance a syndrome of “an internal victim” with Byelorussians. Against this background the Chernobyl tragedy which has strengthened in due time the stigma of a victim with Byelorussians seems absolutely a harmless victimization factor.

3. It is possible to carry ethnic consciousness of the people to objective micro-victimization factors of Byelorussians and Russians. The ethnic consciousness as representation about own essence, about the position in the system of interaction with other people, about the role in the history of mankind, including the right to free independent existence and to creation of original ethnic culture is more dim with Byelorussians than with Russians. Russians always considered themselves as the great nation capable to change the world. Pride of an accessory to the Russian nation is supported with the greatest inventions, discoveries, victories, fulfillments of the Russians with the names of which the mankind history dazzles. It is impossible to say the same about Byelorussians. In all without an exception the analyzed sources absence of national consciousness of Byelorussians is designated as one of the basic problems of the Byelorussian nation, it is till now compelled to defend the right to existence [Batraeva, 2010; Bobkov, 2005; Bukhovets, 2009; Dubyanetskii, 1993; Litvin, 2002; Naumenko, 2008; Nosevich, 1998; Titarenko, 2003; Fabrikant, 2008; Chernyavskaya, 2000]. Absence of own language (“trasyanka” which Byelorussians do not want to speak), degradation of national identity, an illegibility of national idea and many other things are connected with historical processes. Formation of Byelorussians occurred exclusively in poly ethnic as Yu.Chernyavskaya writes (poly-cultural, poly-language, poly-professional) society that can’t but affect their national consciousness [Chernyavskaya, 2000]. The Belorussian “denationalized” people deprived of the national identity and national consciousness feel “a lonely and helpless screw” [Litvin, 2002]. Under such situation of dissociation as I.Litvin writes, “the nation potential is close to zero” [Ibid].

4. Considering that subjective victimization factors are sensitive to various phenomena in public, social, economic and political life of the population of Russia and Belarus, we have made comparative analysis of two research stages which have been carried out through different time intervals (2009–2011). Some regularity in displaying of those or other victimization sides are revealed. So, significant distinctions between samples of Byelorussians and Russians received on the scale “a game role of a victim” have been confirmed by repeated research. It is explained by many objective micro- and macro- victimization factors of the small people and considered above (various ethno cultural conditions, features of historical development, distinctions in social, economic and political life of Byelorussians and Russians). Distinctions between Byelorussians and Russians on preferences of coping behavior strategy in stressful situations have been confirmed. Byelorussians more often than Russians resort to coping focused on avoiding and coping focused on emotions. Some distancing and dispassionateness from problems can be connected with national character of Byelorussians and passivity on the one hand and peaceful disposition and tolerance on the other hand. Byelorussians more pessimistically than Russians estimate present events and plunge into their sufferings. “Full of suffering” complex caused historically, in stressful situations becomes aggravated. Other indicators received by carried out techniques have only added characteristics allocated by us and allowed to designate more accurately subjective victimization factors of Byelorussians and Russians.

Translated by T.P.Kobzeva

Cyrillic letters are transliterated according to BSI standards. The titles are given in author’s translation.

Adler A. Inferiority complex. Kiev: Port-Royal, 1997. pp. 57–62. (in Russian)

Allik J.,MõttusR., Realo A., Pullmann H., Trifonova A., McCrae R., Meshcheryakov B. The formation of national character: properties of a person attributed to typical Russian. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya, 2009, No. 1, 2–18. (in Russian)

Batraeva O. Belarus as socio cultural type in the context of east Slavic peoples. Belaruskaya dumka, 2010, No. 2, 102–107. (in Russian)

Bern E.Games people play. People who play games. Moscow: Eksmo, 2008. (in Russian)

Bibo I. Selected works. Moscow: Tri kvadrata, 2004. (in Russian)

Bobkov I. Ethics of a border zone: trans culture as the Byelorussian experience. Perekrestki. Zhurnal issledovanii vostochnoevropeiskogo pogranich'ya, 2005, No. 3/4, 127–137. (in Russian)

Bukhovets O. Historical description of Post-Soviet Belarus. In: Natsional'nye istorii na postsovetskom prostranstve. Moscow: AIRO XXI, 2009. pp. 15–31. (in Russian)

Burno M. The force of week people. Moscow: PRIOR, 1999. (in Russian)

Chernyavskaya Yu. National culture and national traditions. Minsk: Belarus, 2000. (in Russian)

Dubyanetskii E. Gradually lines of slavery disappear. Mentality of Byelorussians: an attempt of historical-psychological analysis. Belaruskaya dumka, 1993, No. 6, 29–34. (in Russian)

Erikson E. Childhood and society. St. Petersburg: Letnii sad, 2000. (in Russian)

Fabrikant M. The narrative analysis of national identity as theoretical construction and an empirical phenomenon. In: Zbornіk navukovykh prats Akademіі paslyadyplomnai adukatsyі. Mіnsk: APA, 2008. pp. 255–268. (in Belarusian)

Fromm E. Can a person prevail? Moscow: AST, 2000. (in Russian)

Goffman E. Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1963.

Hiroto D., Seligman M. Generality of learned helplessness in man. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, Vol. 31(2), 311–327.

Hiroto D., Seligman M. Ethnopolitical warfare: Causes, consequences, and possible solutions. Washington, DC: APA Press, 2001.

Jung С. The problems of soul in our time. Moscow: Progress, 1994. (in Russian)

Kozyrev G. “Victim” as a phenomenon of the sociopolitical conflict. PhD dissertation. Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow, 2008. (in Russian)

Krepelin E. Leading into psychiatric clinic. Moscow: BINOM, 2007. (in Russian)

Kryukova T. Methodology of researches and adaptation of a questionnaire of diagnostics having coping of behavior. Psikhologicheskaya diagnostika, 2005, No. 2, 65–75. (in Russian)

Ksenzov S. Peculiarities of base Institutions of small nations (an example of Belarus). Zhurnal institutsional'nykh issledovanii, 2010, 2(3), 144–152. (in Russian)

Leontiev D., Rasskazova E. Hardiness test. Moscow: Smysl, 2006. (in Russian)

Leontiev D. Test of important for life orientations. Moscow: Smysl, 2000. (in Russian)

Litvin I. The forgotten world or little-known pages of the Belorussian history. Minsk, 2002. (in Russian)

Miller A. The Romanov Empireand nationalism. Moscow: NLO, 2006. (in Russian)

Milman V. Motivation of creativity and growth. Structure. Diagnostics. Development. Theoretical, experimental and applied research of dialectics of creation and consumption. Moscow: Mireya i Ko, 2005. (in Russian)

Mnatsakanyan M. The paradoxical person in the paradoxical world. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 2006, No. 6, 13–19. (in Russian)

Mudrik A. Social pedagogics. Moscow: Akademiya, 2000. (in Russian)

Naumenko L. Ethnic identity of Byelorussians: maintenance, dynamics, regional and socially-demographic specificity. In: Belarus' i Rossiya: sotsial'naya sfera i sotsiokul'turnaya dinamika. Minsk: IATS, 2008. pp. 111–132. (in Russian)

Nikolyuk S. The Belorussian mirror. Vestnik obshchestvennogo mneniya, 2009, No. 2, 95–102. (in Russian)

Nosevich V. The Byelorussians: formation of ethnos and “national idea”. In: Belorussiya i Rossiya: obshchestva i gosudarstva. Moscow: Prava cheloveka, 1998. pp. 11–30. (in Russian)

Odintsova M. Many-sided policy or a few words about great manipulation. Moscow: Flinta, 2010. (in Russian)

Odintsova M., Semenova E. Overcoming behavior strategies of Byelorussians and Russians. Kul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya, 2011, No. 3, 75–81. (in Russian)

Osukhova N. Psychological help under difficult and extreme situations. Moscow: Akademiya, 2005. (in Russian)

Pavlov I. Reflex of freedom. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2001. (in Russian)

Perls F. Inside and outside a garbage can. St. Petersburg: Peterburg XXI vek, 1995. (in Russian)

Peseschkian N. Therapeutic relations and Russian mentality from trans cultural point of view. In: Pervaya vsemirnaya konferentsiya po pozitivnoi psikhoterapii. Proceedings of the I International Conference, St. Petersburg, 15–19 May 1997. pp. 47–74. (in Russian)

Rivman D. Criminal victimlogy. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2002. (in Russian)

Rotenberg V. An image of “I” and behavior. Jerusalem: Makhanaim, 2000. (in Russian)

Saenko Yu. Post Chernobyl phase of victims: self-rescue, self-rehabilitation, self-defence and self-preservation. Kiev: Inst. sotsiologii NANU, 1999. pp. 473–490. (in Russian)

Sikevich Z.The Russians, the Ukrainians and the Byelorussians: together or separately? Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 2007, No. 9, 59–67. (in Russian)

Sokolova G. The Social and economic situation in Belarus from a cultural trauma position. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 2010, No. 4, 33–41. (in Russian)

Surguladze V. Sides of the Russian consciousness. The Empire, national consciousness, messianism and byzantism of Russia. Moscow: W.Bafing, 2010. (in Russian)

Titarenko L. The paradoxical Byelorussian: contradictions of mass consciousness. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 2003, No. 12, 96–107. (in Russian)

Tsiring D. The learned feebleness and vital events. Vestnik Instituta psikhologii i pedagogiki, 2003, No. 1, 155–159. (in Russian)

Vygotsky L.The fundamentals of defectology. St. Petersburg: Lan', 2003. (in Russian)

White S., McAllister I.Belarus, Ukraine and Russia: the East or the West? Vestnik obshchestvennogo mneniya, 2008, No. 3, 14–26. (in Russian)

Received 29 August 2011. Date of publication: 17 February 2012.

About author

Odintsova Maria A. Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Russian Academy of Education, ul. Krasnobogatyrskaya, 10, 107564 Moscow, Russia.
E-mail: Этот адрес электронной почты защищен от спам-ботов. У вас должен быть включен JavaScript для просмотра.

Suggested citation

Odintsova M.A. Subjective and objective factors of victimization in Russians and Byelorussians. Psikhologicheskie Issledovaniya, 2012, No. 1(21), p. 5. (in Russian, abstr. in English).

Permanent URL:

Back to top >>