In the most cited psychological theory of stress and coping by R. Lazarus the concept of “cognitive appraisal” includes evaluation of “threat”, “loss”, “challenge”, “control”, as well as the analysis of the possibilities of coping. The approach is based on separation of cognitive appraisal and emotion. The article presents a different point of view, the theoretical foundations of which are world image concept by A.N. Leontiev, the principle of unity of the cognitive and emotional components of the appraisal, and the categorization as the basis of evaluation. The processes of formation and the structure of the image of a difficult situation are described on the basis of the works by A.N. Leontiev and his followers. Perception creates a sensual image of the situation; cognition creates a meaning, which is linked with understanding of the situation. Reflection represents in one’s conscious a personal meaning, understood as the ratio between the motive and the goal. In the course of categorization the situation is classified as difficult on the basis of certain features (criteria). Based on the theoretical analysis and empirical data, the author shows that the results of evaluations are: a) the significance of the situation; b) matching the events with motives and personal meaning; c) the definition of success of the activities in relation to the goal; d) assessment of accountability, clarity, predictability of the situation, and its impact on the future life; e) the comparison of one’s capabilities with the conditions; f) level of the situation difficulty.

The aim of the article is to introduce the concept of personality and character which is based on the activity theory approach by A.N. Leontiev. The introductory part of the work gives a short history of characterology whose analysis reveals apparent uncertainty in understanding the subject matters of character psychology and personality psychology. They are directly (character) or indirectly (personality) confined to a person’s psychic individuality. However, the specific content of this individuality appears to be so broad and various that characterology starts losing its clear contours while personality does not find any generally accepted definition. In the framework of the developed concept, personality is regarded as a structure of life meanings while character is seen as an instrumental level which accepts life meanings for performance and implements them in human actions. Nonidentity of the two studied formations is shown: they are different in terms of content, function in human psychics, units of structure, general construction and genesis. Some examples are given based on the data of ethnic psychology. They show how a sense formation which is the same for different nations is realized through unequal characterological techniques. On the other hand, a few sense formations can be expressed by a single action or stereotype. In conclusion problems of correlation between personality and character and the source of their generation are discussed.