The students were also asked to compare their own possibilities to those of their parents, their coursemates, their peers with no higher education, their classmates, their peers of the opposite sex and those of the same sex (“How would you estimate the possibilities opening before yourself to those of…”, with a 5-point response scale: “a lot more”, “more”, “nearly equal”, “less”, “a lot less”). Correlational analysis was performed using Spearman correlation coefficient, as it is more suitable to the ordinal scale and the non-normal distributions of some of the items mentioned. Table 1. Spearman correlations between the perception of possibilities and psychometric scales (N=271). Gender differences in the perception of possibilities were examined using t-test. Women were likely to see fewer possibilities than men (t(284)=2.02*) and to estimate their own possibilities more modestly, compared to their coursemates (t(282)=2.46*) and their peers of the opposite sex (t(282)=5.33***), which is indicative of some degree of gender inequality in Russia. Students originating from small towns were also likely to estimate their possibilities compared to those of their coursemates more modestly than students from large cities (t(282)=2.93**). PERCEPTION OF POSSIBILITIES, SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING AND FUTURE TIME PERSPECTIVE Galina Ivanchenko Evgeny Osin Dmitry Leontiev State University – Higher School of Economics, Moscow Moscow State Human consciousness is more than a simple cognition of reality. It masters the distinction not only between the true and the false, but the distinction between the possible and the impossible, or between more or less possible, as well. This specific mechanism of human non-causal regulation that differs from the regulation based on the cognition of facticiyy and necessity has been paid attention by many scholars, from William James to Heinz Heckhausen and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. This idea was particularly developed in existential philosophy and psychology (by Jean-Paul Sartre, Ludwig Binswanger, Viktor Frankl, Mikhail Bakhtin, Salvatore Maddi and others). Necessity always entails certain consequences. With possibility, consequences are never guaranteed. Possibility can only potentially be made true if the subject consciously accepts the responsibility for its carrying out and invests efforts into its realization. In this situation a special human mechanism of self-determined psychological causality is functioning (see Leontiev, 2007; 2009). To be sure, not all humans are equally apt and disposed to consider all the optional possibilities for their own action. Most of us prefer never to leave the firm ground of necessity, which, though often may be fatal, is always perfectly unambiguous. This way people free themselves from the burden of personal choice and accompanying responsibility. We hypothesized that one’s disposition for considering possibilities in one’s life would make a difference in one’s anticipated perspectives for future life upon completion of a professional education. The main aim of the present research was to explore the individual differences in the way undergraduates face the problem of career choice. The sample was comprised of undergraduate students in the final year of their 4- to 6-year course, drwan from several Russian universities in Moscow, Taganrog (south of Russia) and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky (far east of Russia). The students specialized in economics, engineering, teaching, natural sciences, sociology and navigation. The total sample included 289 participants, 132 of them males and 157 females, aged between 20 and 31 (median age 22 years). The questionnaires were handed out to participants who were instructed to complete them whenever convenient. The participants were asked to sign the forms using nicknames of their choice. All the research materials were administered in Russian The questionnaire contained demographic items used to find out the respondents’ age and place of origin. The students were also asked to estimate the number of possibilities they were faced with, and to compare their own possibilities to those of their parents, coursemates, peers with no higher education, classmates (at former school), peers of the opposite sex and those of the same sex. A number of inventories were also administered: ► Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, Griffin / Russian version by Leontiev), a Russian version of the original 5- item scale. ►Subjective Happiness Scale (Lyubomirsky, Lepper / Russian version by Leontiev), a Russian version of the original 4-item scale. ►Purpose in Life test (Crumbaugh & Maholick / Leontiev), a Russian version of the original 20-item instrument. ►Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (Zimbardo & Boyd / Sircova & Mitina), a 54-item instrument with subscales measuring five different aspects of time perspective: Past-Negative, Past-Positive, Present-Hedonistic, Present-Fatalistic and Future. ►Success and Failure Explanatory Style Questionnaire (Gordeeva, Osin, Shevyakhova), a 48-item instrument based on ASQ (Peterson et al.) measuring three parameters of optimistic attributional style (permanence, pervasiveness and controllability) across a set of 24 positive and negative situations. ►Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (Schwarzer / Schwarzer, Jerusalem, & Romek), a Russian version of the original 10-item instrument. ►Personal Dynamism Scale (Leontiev, Osin, & Sapronov), an original Russian 20-item instrument measuring one’s attitude towards change and readiness to accept and enact changes in one’s own life. ►Multiple Stimulus Types Ambiguity Tolerance scale (McLain / Lukovitskaya; Osin), a Russian version of the original 22-item scale, with five subscales: Attitude to Novelty, Attitude to Complex Problems, Attitude to Ambiguous Situations, Ambiguity Preference (a positive component) and Ambiguity Avoidance (a negative component). The students answered a question whether they had encountered a conflict of several attractive career choice options. Two answer options were given, yes (N=101) and no (N=129). Those students who admitted having a conflict of attractive options, exhibited higher happiness (F(1,228)=5.22*), purpose in life (F(1,228)=7.43**), as well as higher ambiguity preference (F(1,228)=5.80*), a more positive attitude towards complex problems (F(1,228)=7.29**), as well as ambiguity tolerance (F(1,228)=5.87*). Another item tapped into the number of possibilities students were confronted with. Four response options were given (the corresponding number of participants, is given in parentheses): “almost none” (N=16), “a few” (N=162), “about ten” (N=22), “a multitude” (N=86). Despite the strongly differing group sizes, a one-way ANOVA was performed, as the homogeneity of variances assumption was not violated. Significant effects of this perception of possibilities variable (see Fig. 1) were found on Personal Dynamism (F(3,228)=10.98***), Satisfaction with Life (F(3,228)=8.02***), Subjective Happiness (F(3,228)=8.11***), Purpose in Life (F(3,228)=11.12***), ZTPI Past- Negative (F(3,228)=4.21**), Past-Positive (F(3,228)=3.60*), Present-Fatalistic (F(3,228)=4.43**), Optimistic Attribution of Successes (F(3,228)=3.53*), Generalized Self-Efficacy (F(3,228)=3.96*), Preference for Ambiguity (F(3,228)=5.80*), Positive Attitude towards Complex Problems (F(3,228)=7.13**), as well as general ambiguity tolerance (F(3,228)=5.86*). Vertical bars denote 95% confidence intervals Figure 1. Plots of means illustrating the association of different variables with perception of possibilities. Scale Number of possibilities faced with Own possibilities compared to… parents course- mates peers, no higher education class- mates Personal Dynamism.28***.17**.20***.18**.21*** Satisfaction with Life.21*** *.20*** Subjective Happiness.30***.10.21***.22***.33*** Purpose in Life.26***.16**.28***.15*.23*** Past-Negative -.15** * -.15* Present-Fatalistic -.20*** *** * Optimism, Successes.19**.06.19**.16**.17** Self-Efficacy.24***.13*.22***.18**.17** Tolerance for Ambiguity.24***.22***.28***.14* The results suggest that individuals who are more open towards different options and are more able to bear the situation of conflict of equally attractive possibilities, benefit in the end in terms of well-being. The perception of possibilities is an important correlate of psychological well-being. People who report seeing more possibilities are happier and more satisfied with life, they feel more purpose in life and experience higher self-efficacy; they are also more optimistic in attributing their successes and hold a less fatalistic attitude towards life. This may result from these individuals’ capacity for a more flexible choice based on a larger number of options, and their higher tolerance for ambiguity might make them immune to the ‘paradox of choice’. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND EMPIRICAL STUDY RESULTS CONCLUSIONS