Logotherapeutic Tools for Restoring Identity in Work with the Experience of Captivity
Olena Sek, Logotherapist, doctoral student
V. I. Vernadsky Taurida National University
33 John McCain Street, Kyiv, Ukraine
Abstract. This article examines the logotherapeutic approach as a method for restoring identity in people who have experienced captivity or other forms of forced isolation. Drawing on Viktor Frankl’s concepts of the noetic dimension, freedom, responsibility toward life, and meaning, the author analyses how a spiritual orientation becomes a factor in inner resilience under extreme conditions.
The article considers the integration of Logotherapy with Ukrainian experiences of reintegration after captivity, particularly through the concept of a “core of resilience,” understood as a practical expression of the noetic level of human existence. It describes principal logotherapeutic tools, including dereflection, paradoxical intention, and meaning reconstruction, as means of transforming suffering into an experience of meaning and restoring the wholeness of the Self. The author concludes that, in recovery after captivity, Logotherapy is both a psychotherapeutic method and a meaning-oriented model of human resilience, enabling people to rediscover freedom through responsibility and restore identity through meaning.
Keywords: Logotherapy, identity restoration, noetic dimension, resilience, meaning, self-transcendence, post-isolation recovery.
Introduction. The loss of freedom is an ordeal that touches the deepest layers of human identity. Captivity, occupation, or any other form of forced isolation restricts physical space and disrupts the familiar structure of the Self, creating a division between who a person was and who they are capable of remaining. After release, the task is not simply physical recovery but, above all, reconsidering one’s existence and returning to oneself through the restoration of meaning, dignity, and agency. This is the essence of the logotherapeutic approach—a method that, in Viktor Frankl’s account, helps people find meaning in life even when they have been deprived of everything except the capacity to take an attitude toward their own fate [6, p. 87].
Relevance of the topic. The Russian–Ukrainian war has, tragically, made captivity a widespread experience. Thousands of service members and civilians have endured forced isolation, torture, uncertainty, and loss of agency. Their return is not only a humanitarian or medical matter but also an existential event in which the restoration of dignity and meaning is at stake.
Experience shows that conventional psychotherapeutic approaches cannot always encompass the depth at which meaning is lost as a foundation of identity. Here, Logotherapy assumes particular significance because it addresses the person’s spiritual core—the noetic dimension [4], [5], [20]. Viktor Frankl observed that, even under inhuman conditions, a person retains the last human freedom: the choice of one’s attitude toward any circumstances [6, p. 87]. This freedom is the starting point for restoring the Self.
Ukrainian researchers confirm that, in post-traumatic states, people often experience not only emotional or behavioural disturbances but also an existential crisis: a loss of meaning in life, grounding in values, and moral wholeness [19]. M. Nesprava, Ye. Denysov, and H. Putiatin [19] argue that Logotherapy helps people overcome the consequences of psychological trauma through a reconstruction of the person’s spiritual orientation and values, restoring conscience, responsibility, and the capacity to choose. Thus, Logotherapy becomes both a form of therapy and a process of restoring meaning that returns people to their identity.
Theoretical background and context. Founded by Viktor Frankl in the mid-twentieth century, Logotherapy is an approach within existential analysis based on a three-dimensional understanding of the human being: somatic, psychological, and spiritual. Central to this approach is the noetic dimension: the capacity for choice, responsibility, the search for meaning, and self-transcendence [4], [6]. In The Doctor and the Soul, Frankl emphasizes that the essence of the human being lies in the capacity to go beyond oneself, and that a person is authentic, or becomes themselves, to the extent that they realize this self-transcendence [4, p. 112]. This concerns a fundamental logotherapeutic idea: going beyond oneself is an ontological human capacity rather than a heroic act. The capacity to move beyond one’s own pain and find meaning in suffering makes it possible to preserve identity even under conditions of unfreedom.
A practical continuation of these ideas can be traced in the writings of Edith Eger, a student of Viktor Frankl and a concentration camp survivor. She emphasizes that the past cannot be changed, but one can always decide who to become afterward [2, p. 97]. Her experience confirms that the search for meaning is simultaneously an act of survival and an act of identity restoration.
Contemporary authors deepen this understanding. Timo Purjo [20] describes the noetic dimension as an autonomous sphere of personal wholeness that remains intact even during profound psychological disturbances. S. Hanaba argues that Logotherapy with traumatized people supports psychological recovery and, above all, the restoration of an orientation toward meaning, without which reintegration remains superficial [10].
In the Ukrainian context, these patterns of meaning become particularly acute. Ihor Kozlovskyi defines dignity as “a person’s truthfulness toward themselves even in unfreedom” [15]. Free in Captivity, a book of dialogues with Ihor Kozlovskyi compiled by Anna Hruver, describes how awareness of meaning in suffering enables people released from isolation to preserve their humanity rather than dissolve into the experience of violence. We conclude that the logotherapeutic perspective brings together a universal spiritual principle and Ukraine’s concrete sociocultural reality, where the struggle for meaning becomes a form of resistance to dehumanization.
Research aim and objectives. The article aims to reveal the potential of logotherapeutic tools in restoring identity among people who have experienced captivity or other forms of forced isolation.
To achieve this aim, the following objectives were identified:
To analyse the theoretical foundations of Logotherapy in the context of the person’s spiritual and meaning-oriented dimension;
To identify the principal logotherapeutic techniques used in work with the experience of captivity, including dereflection and paradoxical intention;
To outline mechanisms of meaning reconstruction in identity during reintegration and post-isolation support.
Methods and approach. The study is based on a phenomenological and hermeneutic analysis of the works of Viktor Frankl, his successors—including Elisabeth Lukas, Edith Eger, and Timo Purjo—and contemporary Ukrainian authors. A comparative analytical method is used to compare the logotherapeutic approach with other models of psychological rehabilitation following trauma. The principal methodological concept is meaning reconstruction: restoring the wholeness of the Self through awareness of the meaning of one’s own experience. Within this context, Logotherapy is considered both a form of psychotherapy and a path of existential renewal grounded in the person’s own spiritual activity.
Main Discussion
Logotherapy as a path to the restoration of meaning. Logotherapy is one of the few psychological approaches centred on meaning as a basic condition of human existence, rather than on symptoms, conflict, or adaptation. Viktor Frankl maintained that the striving for meaning is as primary as the striving for pleasure or power, and that its frustration becomes a source of the deepest forms of suffering [5, p. 33]. For a person who has experienced captivity, this frustration acquires existential urgency: the world loses its foundations, the future its contours, and the past appears destroyed. In work with the experience of captivity, the logotherapeutic process seeks to rebuild a bridge between inner freedom and external reality and to find a direction of meaning that enables the person to be themselves again.
Meaning as a source of identity. Viktor Frankl described the human being as one who “decides at every moment who they are” [4, p. 112]. Identity, in this context, is a dynamic act of choice rather than a fixed collection of traits. Losing meaning in captivity disrupts this act: when freedom of choice is taken away externally, inner freedom may remain the only point of support. One of Frankl’s best-known passages states that everything can be taken from a person except the last human freedom: choosing one’s attitude in any circumstances and choosing one’s own way [6, p. 86]. This “last, remaining freedom” is the core of Logotherapy. For someone who has lost control over their body, space, and time, attitude becomes the last form of action, and meaning the only possession that cannot be taken away. Logotherapy thus restores agency through meaning, rather than merely seeking meaning.
As Timo Purjo [20] observes, the structure of the person contains a noetic level that provides “inner human autonomy in the face of the chaos of circumstances.” This is the spiritual plane on which it remains possible to say “yes” to life even when life has lost its logic. At this level, a renewed identity takes shape through the restoration of a connection between meaning, freedom, and responsibility.
Suffering as a space for meaning. For Viktor Frankl, meaning is not confined to positive experience; on the contrary, it is often discovered in suffering. If life has any meaning at all, suffering must also have meaning. Suffering is an ineradicable part of life, as are fate and death [6, p. 67]. This statement carries particular weight in the context of captivity, where suffering is the environment of existence rather than an incidental event. If suffering cannot be eliminated, the Logotherapist should help the person give it meaning, incorporating the experience of pain into the story of their own Self without allowing it to destroy identity. Edith Eger, one of Frankl’s best-known students, observes that we cannot choose to rid ourselves of our pain, but we can choose how to carry it—as a burden or as a teacher [2, p. 104]. Her position demonstrates the practical side of logotherapeutic philosophy: meaning does not remove suffering but transforms it into a source of strength. Inner dignity—the foundation for restoring the Self—emerges at the moment of accepting the unavoidable.
Self-transcendence and the reconstruction of the Self. Viktor Frankl believed that people cannot realize themselves without going beyond themselves: the more they forget themselves by devoting themselves to a cause they can serve or another person they can love, the more human they become and the more fully they actualize themselves [5, p. 133]. This principle of self-transcendence acquires particular significance in reintegration after captivity and post-isolation support. Survival based solely on self-preservation does not give a person meaning, whereas an outward orientation toward another person, a cause, or an idea makes it possible to see oneself as a bearer of meaning rather than as a victim. In logotherapeutic practice, this idea appears in the key question: “For what—or for whom—should I continue living?” This question restores a meaningful responsibility for the future. In this respect, Logotherapy becomes both a therapy for a post-traumatic condition and a practice of existential healing directed toward transforming pain into a guidepost.
As S. Hanaba [10] notes, the logotherapeutic approach enables a person traumatized by violence to regain self-control and find a new level of spiritual existence. This noetic dimension is the “inner territory” that no external force can enslave.
Identity restoration in the Ukrainian context. For the Ukrainian experience of captivity, Logotherapy offers a practical model for making sense of loss rather than an abstract philosophy. Ihor Kozlovskyi [15] understands dignity as “a person’s truthfulness toward themselves even in unfreedom,” while Free in Captivity, a book of dialogues with him compiled by Anna Hruver [11], emphasizes that the released person’s journey begins with the return of meaning to their existence, rather than with physical release from captivity. M. Nesprava and colleagues [19] argue that the logotherapeutic perspective helps people released from captivity integrate traumatic experience into their life narrative without losing the wholeness of the Self. This involves incorporating the past meaningfully rather than denying it, so that suffering becomes a marker of inner resilience rather than a sign of powerlessness. In this context, the Logotherapist acts as a witness to human choice rather than as a “therapist of pain.” They help the person formulate an answer concerning why they continue to live, rather than teaching them to forget what they have experienced. Suffering ceases to be suffering when it finds meaning—for example, the meaning of sacrifice [6, p. 113]. This idea provides a theoretical and moral guidepost for Ukrainian psychological recovery programmes after captivity: identity is created anew through meaning rather than simply returned.
Logotherapy is not a practice of spiritual growth through suffering. It opens a path from reaction to choice, from trauma to meaning, and from powerlessness to responsibility. By working with meaning, with one’s attitude toward loss, and with the person’s noetic dimension, Logotherapy becomes a path toward restoring identity after the destruction caused by captivity. Rather than offering to help someone forget, it helps them incorporate the experience into the structure of the Self, so that the past becomes a source for the future rather than determining it.
The principle of self-transcendence reveals the essence of the noetic dimension: people become themselves when they move beyond their own boundaries—toward meaning, another person, and the future—rather than when they remain focused on themselves. Captivity, with its hopelessness and depersonalization, radically challenges the capacity to act. Yet even in this state, what Frankl called the last human freedom remains: the capacity “to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances” [6, p. 86]. This freedom does not abolish suffering but changes its meaning. It moves people from being objects of action to being subjects who choose.
The noetic dimension as a space of resilience grounded in meaning. Unlike the psychological level, which can be traumatized, the noetic dimension remains intact. It enables people to recognize that, even when they have been deprived of everything, meaning does not disappear: it awaits discovery. Timo Purjo describes this level as an inner horizon where spirituality and responsibility intertwine in the experience of freedom [20]. During forced isolation, this horizon narrows but does not disappear; the possibility of saying “yes” to life remains within it. It is from this dimension that resilience emerges as a spiritual stance rather than as a psychological function. Here, we are speaking of the capacity to remain faithful to one’s own meaning: spiritual recovery begins when a person once again senses what makes enduring pain worthwhile, rather than only when pain disappears.
For Viktor Frankl, freedom was never an end in itself. It acquires value only in conjunction with responsibility. Freedom risks degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibility [6, p. 134]. This idea is particularly important for understanding post-isolation experience. The return of freedom after unfreedom is always accompanied by a crisis: how is freedom to be used after a long period without choice? The logotherapeutic approach helps people both to experience freedom and to take responsibility for it—for their own attitude, their future, and those around them. This freedom is compatible with discipline and faithfulness; it restores a sense of participation in life. Edith Eger observed that freedom is the capacity to choose one’s response to restriction, rather than the opposite of restriction [3, p. 41]. For a person who has experienced captivity, this becomes a practical guide: freedom is a daily affirmation of one’s humanity through action, rather than a state.
After isolation, the noetic dimension makes it possible to integrate captivity into the whole structure of life. M. Nesprava and colleagues [19] note that meaning reconstruction plays a decisive role, restoring a sense of the wholeness of the Self through an awareness of the purpose of what has been endured, rather than simply why it happened. For practitioners, this means working with the present as a space of responsible choice rather than only with the past as trauma. Returning to life involves discovering meanings that remained hidden beneath pain: love, dignity, faithfulness, and service. A new identity forms within this field of meaning. The experience of captivity is not erased but becomes meaningful as part of a life story that affirms the capacity to remain human.
For Frankl, the noetic level enables people to remain agents even under conditions of unfreedom. During captivity, when physical and psychological space has been destroyed, the noetic dimension provides inner independence: freedom within unfreedom. In the Ukrainian context, we can speak of a living structure of meanings that keeps people connected with life even under destructive pressure. These meanings are concrete: they appear in faithfulness, love, service, remembrance of comrades, care for family, and identification as a warrior or defender. Such resilience is a spiritual flexibility—the capacity to bend without breaking because the inner framework of meaning remains intact—rather than emotional armour.
In post-isolation support, working with the core of resilience means working with the values a person preserved or discovered during unfreedom. In Edith Eger’s view, freedom is the choice to take responsibility for one’s life regardless of what was done to oneself [3, p. 59]. This perspective accords with a Ukrainian understanding of spiritual courage: living because life has regained meaning, rather than because it has become easier. The restoration of identity after isolation begins with discovering a deep inner support that survived captivity, pain, and loss and remained alive, rather than with rebuilding the past.
Logotherapeutic tools in restoring identity. After release from captivity, people face the task of gathering themselves together again: recovering both their functions and their own Self. Their world is divided between past pain and present survival. The logotherapeutic approach helps them move from reaction to understanding, and from an unconscious struggle for control to a conscious acceptance of responsibility for life. This process uses concrete tools directed toward restoring a position grounded in meaning rather than toward changing emotions.
Dereflection: from fixation on pain to action. Dereflection—from the Latin de, “away from,” and reflectere, “to turn back”—is a method aimed at reducing excessive attention to one’s own suffering or symptoms. Frankl wrote that the more people become preoccupied with themselves, the more they forget their own meaning and the less they understand themselves [5, p. 126]. After captivity, people often remain in a state of constant self-monitoring: “Am I reacting normally?” or “Have I lost my mind?” Such fixation increases anxiety and a sense of disconnection from oneself. Dereflection redirects attention outward toward activity, a value, or another person. This transforms rather than denies pain: pain remains, but ceases to be the centre of attention. In practical work with former captives, dereflection may involve small, manageable actions: resuming bodily routines such as personal care, eating, and movement, joining a community, or volunteering. This accords with Edith Eger’s experience [2], in which action is an antidote to despair. Here lies the first step toward restoring identity: the person again becomes an active agent rather than a passive observer of their pain.
Paradoxical intention: release from fear. The second logotherapeutic tool—paradoxical intention—is based on changing one’s attitude through an ironic awareness. Frankl described it as “the wish turned upside down”: people consciously wish for what they fear, thereby depriving fear of its power over them [5, p. 154]. For people released from captivity, this approach is fairly effective in working with fear of recurrence, images at night, and bodily tension. Paradoxical intention “disarms” rather than denies fear: when someone says, “Yes, I am afraid, and I will even allow myself to be more afraid,” they cease to be held hostage by their fear. In practice, this may involve putting fear into words in a safe space, or transforming symptoms through humour or metaphor: “I am not just flinching—I am doing flinching exercises.” In this sense, paradoxical intention is a moral gesture of freedom rather than simply a technique: acknowledging fear without allowing it to define oneself.
Attitudinal work: shifting from “why?” to “what for?” In Logotherapy, suffering is never denied. It becomes material for spiritual growth if a person changes the question. After captivity, most people seek answers to “why?”: why did I survive when others did not; why did this happen to me? Logotherapy directs attention toward a different question: “What for?” This shift marks a move from trauma toward meaning.
Changing one’s attitude involves actively forming a new system of values rather than becoming reconciled to violence. In that system, captivity becomes part of one’s life story rather than its defining centre. In practice, this is achieved through meaning-focused interviews, narrative practices, and work with symbols and metaphors that enable people to reinterpret their history. M. Nesprava and colleagues [19] note that becoming aware of a new meaning in suffering reduces post-traumatic stress symptoms and increases psychological flexibility. In this way, Logotherapy becomes a practice of identity restoration through meaning, in which the Self once again becomes the author of its life.
Meaning reconstruction: integrating experience into a coherent story. In the logotherapeutic process, it is important both to find meaning and to incorporate it into one’s biography. Frankl believed that living ultimately means taking responsibility for finding the right answer to one’s problems and fulfilling the tasks life continually sets for each person [6, p. 85]. For people released from captivity, such reconstruction means gradually moving from fragmented memories toward a narrative in which violence and humiliation are integrated into a coherent life story rather than erased. This is the gathering of a torn biography around meanings that remained alive even in unfreedom—love for loved ones, a sense of duty, dignity, and faith—rather than “healing through forgetting.” In post-isolation support programmes, meaning reconstruction should be a principal condition for stabilization. It connects logotherapeutic principles with cultural forms of memory: history, religious life, and continuity within families.
In this context, memory becomes a resource rather than a burden because it returns people to their own dignity.
Service as the completion of the circle of meaning. Frankl observed that self-realization cannot be a goal; it is a consequence of serving meaning [5, p. 132]. For many people released from captivity, a turning point in recovery is participation in the lives of others through volunteering, helping comrades, or civic activity. This is the highest level of integrating experience rather than an escape from oneself: the more a person forgets themselves by giving themselves to a cause or another person, the more human they become [5, p. 133]. Psychologically, this is a stage of moving beyond one’s own pain, when lived experience becomes both a tragedy and a source of meaning that sustains others. Service completes the circle of Logotherapy: from the loss of meaning to its realization.
The logotherapeutic tools of dereflection, paradoxical intention, attitudinal work, and meaning reconstruction form a coherent path from reaction to awareness and from a fragmented Self to an integrated identity. They help people transform pain into meaningful experience rather than avoid it, and incorporate the past into the structure of life rather than distance themselves from it. As the practice of Ukrainian specialists shows, work with meaning enables people released from captivity to regain the capacity both to survive and to live—to live as an answer rather than as a consequence. This is the realization of Frankl’s ideas about human spiritual freedom: meaning helps people endure any “what” and transforms even the harshest “what” into a continuation of the human within a person who has experienced profound suffering.
Conclusions. Captivity is both an extreme situation and an existential event that changes the very structure of human existence. It deprives people of control while testing their highest capacity: remaining human under inhuman conditions. In this context, Logotherapy appears both as an approach to psychotherapy and as an anthropological and spiritual frame of reference within which loss, suffering, and a return to oneself can be understood. Frankl demonstrated that, under the worst conditions, people can find meaning and thereby preserve their identity. Remaining freedom becomes the core of spiritual resilience through which people retain their own Self even when powerless. For Frankl, meaning is an inner guidepost that connects people with life even when life has lost its logic, rather than an abstract idea.
The tools discussed in this article—dereflection, paradoxical intention, attitudinal work, and meaning reconstruction—illustrate an approach to recovery after captivity through work with the meaning of lived experience. This work does not replace support directed toward reducing pain and other consequences of trauma. Through dereflection, people reduce their fixation on suffering and begin acting again, regaining their role as agents. Paradoxical intention helps release fear by restoring control through irony and inner distance. Attitudinal work shifts the focus from “why?” to “what for?”, opening a space of responsibility, while meaning reconstruction integrates lived experience into a coherent story of the Self. Each of these tools makes it possible to explore how people respond to events rather than merely undergo them. This responsibility is itself an act of freedom through which identity is restored as the creation of a new connection of meaning between past, present, and future, rather than as a repetition of the past.
In the Ukrainian context, Logotherapy acquires particular significance. Captivity, occupation, deportation, and forced isolation become collective experiences requiring medical and social responses, as well as a society-wide response grounded in meaning. Such a response transforms pain into testimony to life rather than escaping from it. Identity is restored by integrating traumatic experience into the field of existential meaning rather than denying it. Practical applications of Logotherapy in Ukraine show that its tools are both therapeutic and concerned with a person’s outlook on life: they restore dignity and a sense of belonging in the world, and open up a perspective on the future. Contemporary Ukrainian researchers [10], [19], who regard Logotherapy as a key to spiritual reintegration after trauma, support this view.
Logotherapy thus becomes both a component of psychological support and a bridge between the person’s inner and outer worlds, between loss and the continuation of life. It can therefore be understood as a science of survival through meaning, offering a language for experiences beyond familiar psychological categories. Within it, identity is continually created through the choice of attitude, responsibility, and self-transcendence rather than simply given. For those who have endured captivity, this choice means a return both to life and to themselves. The principal conclusion is that people can remain themselves if they retain meaning, because meaning is a form of freedom that no captivity can destroy.
References
1. Alshammari, S. M. F. (2022). The effectiveness of Logotherapy in alleviating the identity crisis and promoting the positive life of adolescents with a visual handicap. International Journal of Educational Science and Research, 12(1), 71–84. Retrieved from https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/api/file/viewByFileId/1552747
2. Eger, E. E. (2017). The choice: Embrace the possible. New York, NY: Scribner.
3. Eger, E. E. (2020). The gift: 12 lessons to save your life. London, UK: Rider.
4. Frankl, V. E. (1986). The doctor and the soul: From psychotherapy to Logotherapy. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
5. Frankl, V. E. (1988). The will to meaning: Foundations and applications of Logotherapy. New York, NY: Meridian.
6. Frankl, V. E. (2006). Man’s search for meaning. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
7. Frankl, V. (1990). Likar i dusha: Vstup do logoterapiyi ta ekzystentsiynoho analizu [The doctor and the soul: Introduction to Logotherapy and existential analysis]. Kyiv, Ukraine: Ukrainskyi Tsentr Dukhovnoi Kultury.
8. Frankl, V. (2006). Lyudyna v poshukakh spravzhnoho sensu [Man’s search for meaning]. Kharkiv, Ukraine: Klub Simeinoho Dozvillia.
9. Frankl, V. (2022). Skazaty zhyttyu "Tak"! Psykholoh u kontstabori [Say “Yes” to life! A psychologist in a concentration camp]. Kharkiv, Ukraine: Klub Simeinoho Dozvillia.
10. Ganaba, S. (2021). Mozhlyvosti logoterapiyi u roboti z travmovanymy osobamy [The potential of Logotherapy in working with traumatized individuals]. Psykholohichni Travelogy, 1, 112–130. [in Ukrainian].
11. Kozlovskyi, I. (2025). Vilnyi u poloni [Free in captivity] (A. Hruver, Comp.). Lviv: Vydavnytstvo Staroho Leva. [In Ukrainian].
12. Janeš, L. (2024). Teleological links between Philosophical Counselling and Logotherapy. Interdisciplinary Research in Counseling, Ethics and Philosophy, 4(10). https://doi.org/10.59209/ircep.v4i10.72
13. Kimhi, S., Eshel, Y., Marciano, H., & Adini, B. (2023). Impact of the war in Ukraine on resilience, protective, and vulnerability factors. Frontiers in Public Health, 11, 1053940. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1053940
14. Kıralp, Ş. (2025). The Relevance of Frankl’s Logotherapy for Today and the Future: Religion and “Man’s Search for Meaning”. Religions, 16(4), 490. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16040490
15. Kozlovskyi, I. (2024). Hidnist — tse pravdyvist [Dignity is truthfulness]. Kyiv, Ukraine: Dukh i Litera.
16. Piccirillo, R. A. (2010). Logotherapy and the Holocaust: Uniting human experience in extremity and normality. Inquiries Journal/Student Pulse, 2(09). https://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/289/logotherapy-and-the-holocaust-uniting-human-experience-in-extremity-and-normality
17. Makieiev, V. (2016). 100 dniv polonu, abo Pozyvnyi 911 [100 days of captivity, or Callsign 911]. Kharkiv, Ukraine: Folio.
18. Maurits, R. H., Hatta, M. I., & Suhana, S. (2023). The application of Logotherapy to improve the meaning of life in emerging adults with self-injury. Jurnal Ilmiah Psikologi Terapan, 11(2), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.22219/jipt.v11i2.22875
19. Nesprava, M. V., Denysov, Ye. M., & Putiatin, H. H. (2025). Mozhlyvosti logoterapiyi u podolanni naslidkiv psykholohichnoi travmy [The potential of Logotherapy in overcoming the consequences of psychological trauma]. Ukrainski Medychni Visti, 17(1–2 [102–103]), 57–61. https://doi.org/10.32782/umv-2025.1.8
20. Purjo, T. (2020). Noetic analysis: Understanding the spiritual dimension of Logotherapy. Helsinki, Finland: Existential Psychology Press.
21. “Liudy, yaki perezhyly polon, mayut vnutrishnyu sylu, tse treba povazhaty” — interview with Hanna Mokrousova [People who survived captivity have inner strength, this must be respected]. (2023). Suspilne Dokumentalistyka. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR7IxUe2Buc
22. Ul Haq, A. (2020). Memory, loss, and survival: A study of trauma in Man’s search for meaning. Literaria, 10(1–2), 7–16.