This article was downloaded by: [Harvard College]On: 08 May 2013, At: 21:18Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated tofurthering research and promoting good practicePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpos20

Hardiness training facilitates performance in collegeSalvatore R. Maddi a , Richard H. Harvey b , Deborah M. Khoshaba a , Mostafa Fazel a &Nephthys Resurreccion aa University of California, Irvine, CA, USAb San Francisco State University, CA, USAPublished online: 05 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Salvatore R. Maddi , Richard H. Harvey , Deborah M. Khoshaba , Mostafa Fazel & Nephthys Resurreccion(2009): Hardiness training facilitates performance in college, The Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated to furtheringresearch and promoting good practice, 4:6, 566-577

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760903157133

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

The Journal of Positive PsychologyVol. 4, No. 6, November 2009, 566–577

Hardiness training facilitates performance in college

Salvatore R. Maddia*, Richard H. Harveyb, Deborah M. Khoshabaa, Mostafa Fazela

and Nephthys Resurrecciona

aUniversity of California, Irvine, CA, USA; bSan Francisco State University, CA, USA

(Received 29 July 2009; final version received 1 October 2009)

In 25 years of research and practice, hardiness has emerged as a pattern of attitudes and skills that is apathway to resilience under stressful circumstances. As such, it is important to determine whether hardinesscan be trained, and if such training improves performance and health. The few relevant studies available thusfar have suggested this training effectiveness among working adults and students. Furthering this theme, thepresent study involves a large sample of undergraduate students, comparing those who experienced hardinesstraining as a regular credit course, with those who went through other courses taught by the same teachers.At the beginning of the courses, these two groups did not differ in demographics, hardiness levels, or grade-point-average (GPA). At the end of the courses, the Hardiness Training Group showed higher levels ofhardiness, and GPA than did the Comparison Group. This improvement in GPA for the Hardiness TrainingGroup persisted over the following 2-year period, even controlling for GPA and hardiness level prior to thetraining, and the grade received in the training. These results suggest the importance of hardiness training infacilitating a major indicator of excellent performance in college life.

Keywords: hardiness assessment; hardiness training; grade-point-average

Introduction

During the last 25 years, personality hardiness hasemerged as a pattern of attitudes and skills that helpsin turning stressful circumstances from potentialdisasters into growth opportunities (cf., Maddi, 1994,2002). This indication that hardiness is a pathway toresilience (Bonanno, 2004) has spurred an emphasis onhardiness training, which evidence has shown canenhance performance and health under stress (Maddi,1987; Maddi, Kahn, & Maddi, 1998). The studypresented here continues the evaluation of hardinesstraining effectiveness.

The importance of personality hardiness emergedfrom a longitudinal study of managers at Illinois BellTelephone (IBT) that began 6 years in anticipation of,and continued 6 years after the federal deregulation ofthe telephone industry (Maddi & Kobasa, 1984). Thisgovernmental attempt to increase competition to speeddevelopment of the telecommunications industry dra-matically disrupted IBT, imposing major stresses on itsemployees, whether they lost their jobs or had to try toadjust to entirely new circumstances. In each year ofthe study, the managers were evaluated as to psycho-logical, performance, and health characteristics, in anattempt to determine who would be resilient underthese disruptive changes. In the 6 years following thederegulation, two-thirds of the sample was severely

undermined in performance and health, whereas theother third not only survived, but also thrived.Evaluating the psychological differences between the

undermined two-thirds and the facilitated one-thirdthat existed in the 6 years before the deregulation ledto the identification of personality hardiness (Kobasa,

1979; Maddi & Kobasa, 1984).Hardiness emerged as a pattern of attitudes and

skills that, together, facilitate resilience under pressureby turning stressful circumstances from potentialdisasters into opportunities to grow in wisdom and

performance (Kobasa, Maddi, & Kahn, 1982; Maddi& Kobasa, 1984). These results were conceptualizedthrough existential psychology (Frankl, 1963; Maddi,1986, 1988). This view emphasizes that life is by its

nature a changing, stressful phenomenon. In order toturn these stressful changes to advantage, one mustchoose to pursue their implications, rather than shrink

away from them by insisting on the past, i.e. what isalready known. As learning by pursuing changes isanxiety-provoking (due to the uncertainty involved),one needs to develop the courage to face stresses

openly, and struggle to do the hard work of turningthem to advantage. Conceptually, one learns hardyattitudes and skills through a developmental process

that emphasizes and supports the (1) recognition thatthe upside of the inherent stressfulness of living is being

*Corresponding author. Email: srmaddi@uci.edu

ISSN 1743–9760 print/ISSN 1743–9779 online

� 2009 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/17439760903157133

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Col

lege

] at

21:

18 0

8 M

ay 2

013

able to grow in wisdom through one’s interactions, and(2) learning the courage and skills that facilitate thisprocess of turning stressful changes to advantage.

Specifically, existential courage inheres in the hardyattitudes, i.e., the 3Cs of commitment, control, andchallenge. Strong commitment refers to the belief that,no matter how bad things get, it is most meaningful tostay involved with the events and people in one’s life,rather than retreat into isolation and alienation. Strongcontrol is the belief that, no matter how bad things get,it is worth continuing to try to have an effect onoutcomes, rather than retreating into powerlessnessand passivity. Strong challenge is the belief thatstressful changes are normal in life, and provide anopportunity to learn more, rather than being aninappropriate violation of one’s right to easy comfortand security. Together, the 3Cs amount to theexistential courage and motivation to carry out thehard work involved in the hardy skills whereby one canmaster stresses (Maddi, 2002, 2004). This hard work(Maddi, 2002; Maddi & Khoshaba, 2002) requiresproblem-solving coping (rather than denial and avoid-ance), socially-supportive interactions (giving and get-ting assistance and encouragement, rather thandestructive competition or stultifying overprotection),and effective self-care (relaxation, nutrition, and exer-cise that optimizes organismic arousal).

Since the IBT project, much research has been doneon hardiness (cf., Maddi, 2002). Early hardinessattitudes research was confronted with measurementproblems (cf., Funk, 1992). In particular, the firsthardiness attitudes measure that was developed onworking adults (Kobasa et al., 1982), when used withundergraduate samples, sometimes showed insufficientintercorrelations of the 3Cs to warrant consideringa total score (Funk & Houston, 1987; Hull, VanTreuren, & Virnelli, 1987). Later hardiness attitudesmeasures, including the one used in the present study,seem to have corrected this measurement problem(e.g., Maddi, 1997; Sinclair & Tetrick, 2000). Anotherproblem is that the first hardiness measure, which washeavily loaded with negatively worded items, appearedfrom its correlates that it might be getting at little morethan negative affectivity (Hull et al., 1987). Laterhardiness attitudes measures have balanced negativelywith positively worded items. Although these latermeasures still correlate negatively with indices ofnegative affectivity, the magnitudes are lower, andmany findings showing their construct validity asmeasures of existential courage are available (e.g.,Maddi, 2002, 2004). Further, Maddi and Khoshaba(1994) have shown that the pattern of relationshipsbetween the hardiness attitudes measure used in thepresent studies and the Minnesota MultiphasicPersonality Inventory (MMPI) clinical scales persistsafter negative affectivity has been controlled. Thatstudy further shows that although the hardiness

measure is negatively correlated with neuroticism onthe NEO-FFI, it is also positively correlated with allfour of the other factors of the five-factor model. Thus,recent hardiness measures are not likely to be assessingonly negative affectivity.

Since the completion of the IBT project, there havebeen many studies of the role of hardiness attitudes invarious aspects of functioning. As expected, evidencehas shown (Maddi, 1994, 1997; Sinclair & Tetrick,2000) that commitment, control, and challenge areinterrelated, but not redundant with each other. As toconstruct validity, participants in an experiential sam-pling study (Maddi, 1999) were paged at random andasked to comment on the nature of their ongoingactivities. Results showed a positive relationshipbetween hardiness attitudes measured before theexperiment began and (1) involvement with othersand ongoing activities (commitment), (2) the sense thatparticipants had chosen and had influence over theactivities (control), and (3) the positive process oflearning from the circumstances (challenge). There isalso evidence of the expected relationship between thehardiness attitudes and skills, suggesting that theformer is the courage and motivation to carry outthe hard work of the latter (cf. Maddi & Khoshaba,2002). Positive relationships have been found betweenthe hardy attitudes and (1) problem-solving (ratherthan denial and avoidance) coping (e.g., Maddi, 1999;Maddi et al., 2006; Maddi & Hightower, 1999), (2)socially-supportive (rather than competitive or over-protective) interactions with others (e.g., Maddi &Kobasa, 1984; Maddi et al., 2006), and (3) facilitative(rather than undermining) self-care (e.g., Allred &Smith, 1989; Contrada, 1989; Khoshaba & Maddi,2001; Maddi, Wadhwa, & Haier, 1996; Weibe &McCallum, 1986).

There are also accumulated findings indicating thathardiness renders positivity and resiliency to peopleexperiencing stressful changes. For example, hardinessshows a buffering effect between stresses and bothstrain responses and illness symptoms (e.g., Bartone,Ursano, Wright, & Ingraham, 1989; Harvey, 2005;Kobasa et al., 1982; Kuo & Tsai, 1986). Under stress,hardiness also has an enhancing effect on performance.For example, positive relationships have been foundbetween hardiness and subsequent (1) basketball per-formance in varsity players (Maddi & Hess, 1992), (2)success rates in intentionally stressful officer training,and firefighter training programs (e.g., Florian,Milkulincer, & Taubman, 1995; Maddi, Harvey,Resurreccion, Giatras, & Raganold, 2007; Westman,1990), (3) retention rate, grade-point-average, andinnovativeness in college students (Lifton, Seay, &Bushke, 2000; Maddi et al., 2006), (4) leadership inofficer training school students (Bartone & Snook,1999), (5) speed of recovery of baseline functioningfollowing the disruption of culture shock (Atella, 1989;

The Journal of Positive Psychology 567

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Col

lege

] at

21:

18 0

8 M

ay 2

013

Kuo & Tsai, 1986), and (6) protection against posttraumatic stress and depression disorders when mili-tary personnel encounter life threats while servingabroad (Bartone, 1999). In some of the studiesmentioned, hardiness was actually a more powerfulpredictor of the subsequent behavior than were otherfactors. For example, Lifton et al. (2000) found thathardiness is a better predictor of retention in collegethan were either SAT scores or high school academicachievement rank. Also, Bartone and Snook (1999)found that, in a cohort of West Point cadets, hardinesswas the best predictor of leadership behavior over the 4years of training than were any other availablemeasures. The construct-validational studies exempli-fied above provoke interest in whether empiricalsupport can be found for the position that hardinessattitudes and skills can be taught as a way ofimproving health and performance under stressfulconditions. Preliminary findings indicating the valueof trying hardiness training concerned the IBTmanagers (Khoshaba & Maddi, 1999), and foundthat those high in hardiness remembered having had adifficult early life in which they were identified as theirfamily’s hope, and as having accepted that role.

Spurred by these findings, a specific hardinesstraining approach has been developed over the years.An early form of the approach was developed andtested at IBT (Maddi, 1987). Utilizing weekly groupsessions, hardiness trainers helped managers to engagein problem-solving coping with each of their specificstressors in turn, and use the feedback from theirefforts to deepen their hardy attitudes. Guided by thetrainer, the group members provided social supportand encouragement to their peers in this process. Thisfirst evaluation of training effectiveness compared thehardiness training group to a waiting list of managerstrying to get into the program. In this comparison, thehardiness training group showed a greater increase inhardiness attitudes, job satisfaction, and feelings ofsocial support, while decreasing in anxiety, depression,suspiciousness, and blood pressure than did their peersin the waiting-list control group. These findingspersisted in a follow-up testing 6 months later. Asecond study with IBT managers (Maddi, Kahn, &Maddi, 1988) compared the effectiveness of hardinesstraining to a standard relaxation procedure, and asocial-support placebo procedure. All trainers con-ducted all three procedures and showed no differencesin competence. Results showed that managers in thehardiness training group showed a greater increase inhardiness attitudes and job satisfaction, and a greaterdecrease in anxiety, depression, and suspiciousnessthan did managers in either of the other two groups.

By now, there is a more complete training pro-cedure that utilizes the HardiTraining workbookor internet program (Khoshaba & Maddi, 2001),and involves a pattern of group sessions guided by

a trainer. This training procedure includes narrativeson hardiness, inspirational examples, exercises, andperiodic checkpoints. Its emphasis is on exercising anddeveloping the hardy skills of coping, social support,and self-care, and using the feedback obtained throughthese efforts to deepen the hardy attitudes of commit-ment, control, and challenge.

In Hardy Coping (Khoshaba & Maddi, 2001),trainees are involved in problem solving regarding eachongoing stressful circumstance in their lives. They aretaught Situational Reconstruction, an imaginative pro-cedure designed to develop a broader perspective anddeeper understanding of the stressful circumstance,which then facilitates developing an action plan thatcan make a decisive difference, and carrying it out. IfSituational Reconstruction does not facilitate thesesteps, then the trainee learns to consider whether he/she is suppressing strong negative emotions raised bythe stressor in a way that is stifling imagination. Tocheck out this possibility, the trainee is taught toengage in Focusing (Gendlin, 1978), a procedure forreflecting on signs of emotional upset in one’s body(e.g., chest tension, stomach upset). If emotionalinsights are obtained through focusing, this will freeup the imagination necessary for obtaining broaderperspective and deeper understanding, which thenpermits planning and taking decisive actions to solvethe stressful problem. If neither SituationalReconstruction nor Focusing works, the trainee ispermitted to conclude that he/she has encountered anunchangeable situation. The training emphasis thenshifts to Compensatory Self-Improvement, throughwhich the trainee protects hardiness by avoiding self-pity and bitterness through the process of performingSituational Reconstruction and, if needed, Focusing,on a related stressor. Trainees are also taught how touse the feedback they get from their efforts at problem-solving coping to deepen their hardy attitudes ofcommitment, control, and challenge.

In the Social Support component of HardiTraining(Khoshaba & Maddi, 2001), the trainee evaluates andimproves as necessary the effectiveness of his/herinteraction network with significant others. Exercisesteach trainees how to pinpoint existing conflicts withsignificant others, and then their task becomes toresolve the interactional problems. In resolving con-flicts, they learn ways of improving communicationand listening approaches. In replacing the conflictswith a mutual pattern of giving and getting assistanceand encouragement, rather than falling into destructivecompetition or stultifying overprotection, hardycoping is helpful. In this supportive interactionprocess, trainees are also taught how to use thefeedback from their efforts to deepen their hardyattitudes of commitment, control, and challenge.

The final aspect of HardiTraining is effective self-care (Khoshaba & Maddi, 2001), which emphasizes

568 S.R. Maddi et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Col

lege

] at

21:

18 0

8 M

ay 2

013

maintaining organismic arousal at an optimal level forcarrying out problem-solving coping and socially-supportive interactions, while avoiding health pro-blems. Exercises help trainees (1) identify whether theirarousal is too high or too low, and (2) take thenecessary relaxation, nutritional, and exercise steps torectify these problems. Once again, as trainees engagein these self-care steps, they are shown how to use thefeedback they receive to deepen their hardy attitudesof commitment, control, and challenge.

Recently, a study evaluated the effectiveness ofHardiTraining on the academic performance of high-risk undergraduates (Maddi et al., 2002). In this study,two counselors offered hardiness training as a semestercredit course to small (approximately 20 student),freshmen classes. The effectiveness of hardiness train-ing was compared to another semester credit courseemphasizing other facilitative procedures, such as time-management and study skills. Results showed that,by comparison with the control course, the hardinesstraining course led to greater increases in hardinessattitudes and skills, and to higher grade-point-average(GPA) 6 months later.

The studies concerning hardiness-training haveprovoked the present approach, in an attempt togeneralize, replicate, and further the previous findings.The present study also involves (1) undergraduatestudents, but does not restrict participation to high-risk freshmen, (2) shorter (quarter, rather thansemester) courses, (3) a different format involvingmuch larger enrollments (100 to 150 students) andteam-teaching, (4) measurement of GPA over a longerperiod of time following the course, and (5) control ofseveral factors that could be influencing subsequentGPA. The general expectation is that HardiTrainingwill produce a greater increase in (1) hardinessattitudes and skills, and (2) GPA, than will thecomparison courses. Considering GPA appears justifi-able, as it is a major sign of performance effectivenessfor undergraduate students.

Method

Participants and groups

The Hardiness Training Group consisted of 349undergraduates at the University of California, Irvine,each of whom registered for and completed the one-quarter (i.e., 11-week) course entitled ‘The HardinessApproach to Stress Management.’ The ComparisonGroup consisted of 378 undergraduates at the sameuniversity, each of whom registered for and completedone of the one-quarter courses entitled ‘HealthPsychology,’ ‘Personality,’ ‘Clinical Psychology,’ or‘Existential Psychology.’ The Hardiness course wasoffered three times in the same year. And, the coursesused for the Comparison Group were offered in the

same academic quarters as were the Hardiness courses.This procedure minimizes the possibility that differ-ences between the Hardiness Training and ComparisonGroups could simply be reflecting differences in ongo-ing life events.

Within each group, participants ranged as to thelength of time they had been at the university, andin their demographics. But, as shown in Table 1, anddiscussed in the Results section, there were no signif-icant differences between the two groups. All partici-pants completed the same questionnaire survey at thebeginning and at the end of the course in which theywere enrolled. In addition, they all gave permission fortheir grade-point-average (GPA) to be known to theresearchers.

Format and content of the courses

As to format, all of the courses relevant to this studyinvolved an enrollment limit of 150, and provided twolectures a week for the entire class, supplemented byone discussion section per week for subgroups of about20 students each. In all of the Hardiness Training andComparison courses, the lectures were given by thesame teachers, and the discussion sections by the sameteaching assistants. All courses also involved a mid-quarter and final examination using questionnaireitems, supplemented by submission of short exercisepapers required at various times during the classes.

Although the Hardiness Training and ComparisonGroups were quite similar as to format, they differedconsiderably as to content. The courses comprising theComparison Group involved the standard academicteaching approach, emphasizing communication of thecorpus of theory and findings in the particular field,and utilizing standard textbooks consistent with thatapproach. In contrast, the hardiness training coursetaught the students not only the conceptualization andresearch support of hardiness, but also how to utilizeparticular techniques and develop particular attitudesthat would facilitate turning the stressful circumstancesof their lives from potential disasters into growthopportunities instead. The text for this course was theHardiTraining workbook (Khoshaba & Maddi, 2001)developed for training people to increase in hardiness.More specifically, the HardiTraining workbookfocuses on increasing five domains of functioning: (1)hardy coping with stressful circumstances by buildingperspective, understanding, and taking resultingactions to resolve the problem, (2) hardy social supportby interacting in a manner that decreases conflictsthrough a pattern of mutual assistance and encourage-ment, (3) hardy relaxation by practicing breathing,imagining, meditating, and various muscle awarenesstechniques, (4) hardy eating by following nutritionalprinciples of balance and moderation, and (5) hardy

The Journal of Positive Psychology 569

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Col

lege

] at

21:

18 0

8 M

ay 2

013

physical activity by exercising according to principlesof progression and specificity. Students in the courselearn methods for coping with the stress of college, aswell as other life domains.

Measures of hardiness, academic achievement, anddemographics

Administered in the first and last lecture of each coursewas the HardiSurvey III-R (Maddi & Khoshaba,2001). This is a questionnaire composed of 65,4-point Likert items that assess the hardiness attitudes(18 items, consisting of 6 items for each of commit-ment, control, and challenge, respectively), along withscales of stress (12 items), strain (11 items), hardy(problem-solving) coping (6 items), regressive (denialand avoidance) coping (6 items), family social support(6 items), and school social support (6 items). Becausethe unified hardiness construct is derived from theinteraction of the commitment, control, and challengeattitudes, they are combined in all analyses in thisreport. In this study, the correlations of the commit-ment, control, and challenge sub-scales with totalhardiness attitudes were 0.855, 0.789, and 0.790,respectively. Also, the inter-correlations of the sub-scales were 0.574 for commitment and control, 0.498for commitment and challenge, and 0.523 for challengeand control. These results are similar to those ofprevious studies.

Furthermore, the scale scores for stress, strain, andregressive coping are combined into a vulnerabilityindex, and those for hardy attitudes, hardy coping,family support, and school support form a resilienceindex. Norms for these various scores are based onapproximately 4000 test protocols on people varying inage, gender, school and work characteristics, and other

demographic factors (Maddi & Khoshaba, 2001). Inthe past, the HardiSurvey III-R scale scores haveshown adequate internal consistency (e.g., Maddi &Khoshaba, 2001). In this study, the Cronbach Alphareliability estimates computed for the scale scores onthe pre-training testing are: Hardiness (0.79), Stress(0.61), Strain (0.88), Regressive Coping (0.70), HardyCoping (0.76), Hardy School Support (0.67), andHardy Family Support (0.73). All seem consistentwith previous estimates. Also at acceptable levels werethe relevant pre-training Spearman-Brown coefficientson the scale scores, which are: Hardiness (0.93), Stress(0.78), Strain (0.81), Regressive Coping (0.70), HardyCoping (0.76), Hardy School Support (0.77), andHardy Family Support (0.80). Included along withthe pre-training HardiSurvey III-R were demographicquestions concerning gender, race, ethnicity, andamount of time at college.

Here are examples of positively and negativelyworded items from the various scales of theHardiSurvey III-R. The Hardy Attitudes scale includes‘By working hard, you can always achieve your goals,’and ‘Most of what happens in life is just meant to be.’The Hardy Coping scale includes ‘When I experience astressful event or problem, I try to come up with astrategy about what to do,’ and ‘When I experiencea stressful event or problem, I daydream about otherthings.’ The Hardy School Support scale includes ‘Atschool, I feel like I am really part of a team,’ and ‘Atschool, I have to be careful what I say.’ And, the HardyFamily Support scale includes ‘My family gives mehelp in finding solutions to my problems,’ and ‘I haveto be careful what I say at home.’

GPA data was obtained for participants in theHardiness Training and Comparison Groups forvarious time points. The first time point was theGPA for all academic quarters just prior to the courses

Table 1. Demographic similarities of the Hardiness Training (N¼ 349) and Comparison (N¼ 378) Groups.

Demographic Hardiness group Comparison group t p level

Mean age 22.27 21.68 �1.74 nsSexFemale 282 (80.80%) 294 (77.80%) 0.58 nsMale 66 (18.90%) 78 (20.60%) 0.58 ns

Race/ethnicityCaucasian 88 (25.20%) 116 (30.70%) 1.73 nsAsian 157 (45.00%) 147 (38.90%) �1.74 nsHispanic 56 (16.00%) 54 (14.30%) �0.66 nsAfrican American 7 (2.00%) 11 (2.90%) 0.78 nsMiddle Eastern 17 (4.90%) 21 (5.60%) 0.41 nsOther 19 (5.40%) 24 (6.30%) 0.52 ns

College statusFreshman 170 (48.70%) 199 (52.60%) 1.06 nsTransfer student 178 (51.00%) 178 (47.10%) �1.05 nsOther 1 (0.003%) 1 (0.003%) �0.06 ns

570 S.R. Maddi et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Col

lege

] at

21:

18 0

8 M

ay 2

013

constituting this study. And, the second time pointadded to the GPA the grades obtained at the conclu-sion of the quarter in which the Hardiness Trainingor Comparison courses were taken. It should be notedthat the grade students obtained in the HardinessTraining Course was deleted from their GPA, to insurethat there was no inadvertent contribution to GPA onthe part of teachers in that course. The third time pointadded to the GPA anywhere from 6 months to 2 yearsof coursework beyond the quarter in which theHardiness Training or Comparison courses weretaken, depending on time of graduation. For thosestill enrolled, the GPA was anywhere from 6 to 24months after the relevant course had been completed.When this third time point GPA data was obtained,it became apparent that 14 participants (4%) in theComparison Group, and 6 (2%) participants in theHardiness Training Group had withdrawn from, ornot been retained by UCI, sometime after completingthe relevant course. Hence, GPAs were obtained forthese participants at the time of their leaving.

Results

Demographic comparisons between the HardinessTraining and Comparison Groups prior to coursework appear in Table 1. At the start of the coursesrelevant to this study, there were no significantdifferences between the two groups in age, sex, race/ethnicity, years of time at the college, or transferstatus. In addition, the pattern of demographics andtransfer status in both groups is similar to that of thestudent body at large at the University of California,Irvine.

Because the study occurred over several academicquarters, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) wasconducted comparing the effects of time for betweenquarters on relevant measures (e.g., hardiness attitudesand GPA). As shown in Table 2, this analysis showedno significant differences in hardiness attitudes or GPA

between the Training and Comparison Groups at the

beginning of any quarter, controlling for age, sex,

ethnicity, year in college, and transfer status.

Moreover, there were no major disasters that affected

the region (e.g., terrorist attack, hurricane, earth-

quake), or changes in institutional policy (e.g., shifts

in grading policy that could affect grade inflation)

during the period of this study. Finding that the

Training and Comparison Groups were matched at the

beginning of each quarter, the data from these groups

were pooled across quarters.

Training effects on HardiSurvey III-R variables

Table 2 compares the pre-training scores on the

HardiSurvey III-R for the Hardiness Training and

Comparison Groups. As expected, there were no

statistically significant differences, indicating that the

two groups were similar in hardiness attitudes and

skills at the beginning of the courses relevant to this

study.Table 3 compares the pre- to post-training scores

on the HardiSurvey III-R for the Hardiness Group. As

expected, the group shows a significant increase in

Hardy Attitudes, Hardy (problem-solving) Coping,

Hardy School Support, and Total Resilience. The

small, but significant increase in Stress is consistent

with the trainees becoming more open to their stresses,

in order to cope with them better, especially as this

increase occurs along with a significant decrease in

Strain. They are becoming more aware of their stresses,

but not more undermined by them, as they try more

effectively to turn them to advantage.In Table 4, the pre- and post-training scores on the

HardiSurvey III-R are evaluated in the Comparison

Group. The only significant differences show increases

in Strain, and Vulnerability. There is no indication of

advantages from taking the Comparison Courses in

hardiness attitudes or skills.

Table 2. Comparisons of pre-training scores on the HardiSurvey III-R for the Hardiness Training(N¼ 349) and Comparison (N¼ 378) Groups.

Hardiness group Comparison group

Scale Mean SD Mean SD t p

Stress 19.70 5.10 20.10 4.69 1.09 nsStrain 9.38 6.45 8.59 6.18 �1.70 nsRegressive coping 11.01 2.41 10.82 2.39 �1.06 nsHardy attitudes 36.78 6.03 36.29 5.82 �1.10 nsHardy coping 12.83 3.07 12.71 3.06 �0.51 nsHardy school support 10.73 3.13 10.68 2.95 �0.21 nsHardy family support 13.43 3.32 13.31 3.24 �0.50 nsTotal vulnerability 40.09 6.26 39.51 5.94 �1.30 nsTotal resilience 36.98 7.09 36.70 7.22 �0.53 ns

The Journal of Positive Psychology 571

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Col

lege

] at

21:

18 0

8 M

ay 2

013

Training effects on academic achievement

As expected, there were no statistically significantdifferences in GPA among the groups at the start oftraining. Also as expected, the Hardiness TrainingGroup showed significantly higher GPAs both at theend of the training (controlling for the grade obtainedin the Hardiness Training class) and subsequent totraining, than did the Comparison Group. Specifically,of the quarter for the students in the HardinessTraining Group (M¼ 3.01, SD¼ 1.05) and theComparison Group (M¼ 3.07, SD¼ 0.73) yielded at-score (1, 726) of �0.284, which was not statisticallysignificant (p¼ 0.77). But, there was an increase inGPA at the end of the training quarter for theHardiness Training Group (M¼ 3.41, SD¼ 0.53)over the Comparison Group (M¼ 3.23, SD¼ 0.59),and this difference yielded a statistically significantt-score (1, 726) of �7.04 (p¼ 0.001). Most importantfor this study, the GPA at time of graduation (between6 and 24 months after training) was sustained for theHardiness Training Group (M¼ 3.20, SD¼ 0.40) overthe Comparison Group (M¼ 3.10, SD¼ 0.44), witha t-score (1, 726) of �3.34 (p¼ 0.001). As expected,comparing the GPA of the 6 students who withdrewfrom the Hardiness Training Group (M¼ 2.62,

SD¼ 0.55) with the 14 students who withdrew from

the Comparison Group (M¼ 2.53, SD¼ 0.68) yielded

a t-score (1, 20) of �0.270 that was not statistically

significant (p¼ 0.27).To further understand these results, regression

analyses were performed using direct entry of all

variables, and the resulting parameter estimates

comparing GPAs of the Hardiness Training and

Comparison Groups before training, at the end of

training, and at graduation are presented in Table 5.

As expected, there were no differences between the

groups at the start of training, but at the end of

training, and at graduation, the Hardiness Training

Group showed higher GPAs than did the Comparison

Group. In the last two comparisons in this analysis, the

grade received by students in the Hardiness Training

Group was omitted, to control for the possibility that

students were given indiscriminately high grades.Because the students in both the Hardiness

Training and Comparison Groups were primarily

female, regression analyses were also done to deter-

mine whether there were sex differences in GPA before,

at the end of, and at graduation between the Hardiness

Training and Comparison Groups. As can be seen in

Table 5, the pattern of results already found in the

Table 4. Comparison of pre- and post-training scores on the HardiSurvey III-R for the ComparisonGroup (N¼ 378).

Pre-training Post-training

Scale Mean SD Mean SD t p

Stress 20.10 4.69 20.40 4.75 �1.53 nsStrain 8.59 6.18 9.18 6.54 �2.40 0.02Regressive coping 10.82 2.39 10.88 2.42 �0.47 nsHardy attitudes 36.29 5.82 36.45 5.97 �0.80 nsHardy coping 12.71 3.06 12.66 3.35 0.40 nsHardy school support 10.68 2.95 10.74 2.94 �0.46 nsHardy family support 13.31 3.24 13.18 3.15 0.88 nsTotal vulnerability 39.51 5.93 40.47 5.80 �3.19 0.002Total resilience 36.69 7.22 36.61 7.35 0.35 ns

Table 3. Comparison of pre- and post-training scores on the HardiSurvey III-R for the HardinessTraining Group (N¼ 349).

Pre-training Post-training

Scale Mean SD Mean SD t p

Stress 19.70 5.10 20.54 5.03 �3.54 0.001Strain 9.38 6.45 8.53 6.20 2.96 0.003Regressive coping 11.01 2.41 11.03 2.44 �1.43 nsHardy attitudes 36.78 6.03 37.47 6.38 �2.18 0.007Hardy coping 12.83 3.07 13.19 2.92 �2.36 0.02Hardy school support 10.73 3.13 11.21 3.25 �3.12 0.002Hardy family support 13.43 3.32 13.42 3.21 0.06 nsTotal vulnerability 40.09 6.26 40.13 5.70 �0.10 nsTotal resilience 36.98 7.09 37.81 7.09 �2.64 0.009

572 S.R. Maddi et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Col

lege

] at

21:

18 0

8 M

ay 2

013

samples as a whole persisted when male and femalesubjects were evaluated separately.

Although this study emphasizes Hardy Attitudes, itis true that Hardy Coping and Hardy School Supportwere measured as well, and also increased as a functionof Hardiness Training. The correlation of HardyAttitudes to Hardy Coping and Hardy SchoolSupport was 0.483 and 0.482, respectively. This addi-tional data permitted a regression analysis thatcompared the role, at the end of training, of HardyCoping and Hardy School Support to that of HardyAttitudes in GPA at graduation.

To test for the possibility of multicollinearitybetween Hardy Attitudes, Hardy Coping, and HardySchool Support, variance inflation factor diagnostictests were performed. None of the collinearity diag-nostic statistics exceeded 1.57. According to Kutner,Nachtsheim, and Neter (2004), only values above 10.00are considered cause for concern. Because the baselineGPA during the course was used to control for the

effects of Hardy Attitudes on GPA at graduation, thebaseline GPA during the course was also included inthe regression model. GPA at graduation was regressedon four predictors: Hardy Attitudes, baseline GPAduring the course, Hardy Coping, and Hardy SchoolSupport. The overall model predictors reflect 53.8% ofthe variance in GPA at graduation (F(4, 723)¼ 251.5,p5 0.001). As expected, Table 6 shows that baselineGPA was a significant predictor of GPA at graduation.Further, between Hardy Attitudes, Hardy Coping, andHardy Social Support, only Hardy Attitudes at the endof the Hardiness Training was associated with a higherGPA at graduation.

To clarify these regression results on HardyAttitudes even further, a Sobel test of mediation(Baron & Kenny, 1986; Sobel, 1982) was performedon the data, in order to determine whether HardyAttitudes post-training mediate the relationshipbetween being in the group undergoing theHardiness Training Course and GPA at graduation

Table 6. Parameter estimates for end-of-training hardy attitudes, hardy coping, hardy school support, and baseline GPA duringclass, predicting GPA at graduation for hardy training (N¼ 349) and comparison (N¼ 378) groups.

Predictor B SE B 95% CI � p

Baseline GPA during classComparison Group vs. 0.598 0.031 0.549, 0.646 0.757 0.001Hardiness Training Group 0.575 0.025 0.515, 0.635 0.678 0.001

Hardy attitudesComparison Group vs. �0.001 0.003 �0.007, 0.004 �0.020 0.605Hardiness Training Group 0.007 0.003 0.001, 0.013 0.108 0.013

Hardy copingComparison Group vs. 0.005 0.005 �0.005, 0.015 0.035 0.330Hardiness Training Group 0.000 0.005 �0.010, 0.011 0.004 0.924

Hardy school supportComparison Group vs. 0.006 0.006 �0.005, 0.017 0.038 0.278Hardiness Training Group �0.006 0.005 �0.016, 0.004 �0.047 0.255

Table 5. Parameter estimates for regression models of GPA before, after, and at graduation for Hardiness Training (N¼ 349)versus Comparison (N¼ 378) Groups.

Comparison Group vs.Hardiness Training Group B SE B 95% CI � R2 adj p

Comparing total groupsGPA before training 0.058 0.042 �0.024, 0.141 0.053 0.001 0.165GPA after training 0.243 0.034 0.175, 0.310 0.224 0.049 0.001GPA at graduation 0.096 0.029 0.040, 0.152 0.110 0.011 0.001

Comparing the males (M) and females (F) in the two groupsGPA before training (M) 0.016 0.048 �0.078, 0.110 0.014 0.002 0.744GPA before training (F) 0.073 0.109 �0.142, 0.289 0.061 0.004 0.501GPA after training (M) 0.191 0.083 0.028, 0.355 0.172 0.029 0.022GPA after training (F) 0.259 0.040 0.181, 0.337 0.238 0.055 0.001GPA at graduation (M) 0.129 0.067 0.004, 0.262 0.144 0.006 0.05GPA at graduation (F) 0.077 0.033 0.011, 0.142 0.088 0.015 0.021

The Journal of Positive Psychology 573

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Col

lege

] at

21:

18 0

8 M

ay 2

013

(6–24 months later). Following the Sobel analysissuggested by Preacher and Hayes (2004), there arefour steps in the mediation analysis, and their resultsare summarized in Table 7. The first step tests thepath between the Hardiness Training Course andGPA, and shows that the direct effect coefficient ofhardiness training on GPA is 0.095, which yields a t-score (1, 726) of 3.39 (p¼ 0.000).

The second step tests the path between theHardiness Training Course and Hardy Attitudespost-training, and shows that the direct effect coeffi-cient of hardiness training on GPA is 0.903 (t 1, 726¼2.26, p¼ 0.023). The third step tests the path betweenHardy Attitudes post-training and GPA, controllingfor the Hardiness Training Course. The resulting directeffect coefficient is 0.010 (t 1, 726¼ 4.69, p¼ 0.000).The fourth step tests the path between the HardinessTraining Course and GPA, controlling for HardyAttitudes post-training, and shows a direct effectcoefficient of 0.085 (t 1, 726¼ 3.07, p¼ 0.002).

From the mediation analysis in Table 7, thegroup differences (Hardiness Training Course vs.Comparison Course) on GPA are partially explainedby the mediating effects of Hardy Attitudes post-training. The interpretation of partial mediationis based on comparing the change in the values ofthe coefficients associated with each of the steps ofthe mediation analysis. For instance, in Step 1, theeffect of the Hardiness Training Course on GPAhas a coefficient of 0.095, and in Step 4, the effectsof the Hardiness Training Course on GPA, control-ling for Hardy Attitudes post-training has a coeffi-cient of 0.085. That Step 4 has the lower coefficientis consistent with the expectation that HardyAttitudes at least partially mediate the relation-ship between the Hardiness Training Courseand GPA.

Discussion

The pattern of results obtained in this study isconsistent with the assumption that the hardinessattitudes and skills can be trained by the proceduresemphasized in the HardiTraining workbook(Khoshaba & Maddi, 2001). Specifically, undergradu-ates who completed the Hardiness Training course,by comparison with similar students who went throughother courses instead, increased in hardiness attitudesand skills. That these students also showed a slightincrease in perceived stress, along with a decrease instrain, is not inconsistent with the expected pattern ofresults in this study. After all, in order to copeeffectively with stresses, one needs to be clearly awareof them, which would increase one’s Stress score. Thatthere was also a decrease in Strain score is consistentwith the effects of hardiness training in increasingcourage and skills to transform stresses into opportu-nities. For trainees, this process continues long afterthe course is over, indeed, throughout life. They aretaught to consider life as a naturally changing, stressfulprocess, and to remain especially aware of ongoing andnew stresses, in order to be able to turn them toadvantage.

In addition, as expected, the undergraduates whocompleted the Hardiness Training course, by compar-ison with demographically similar students who wentthrough other courses instead, showed higher subse-quent GPAs at graduation. This pattern of results issimilar to that obtained in another study of under-graduates where the training may have been moreintense, as they attended a college where the relevantcourses were longer (semester rather than quarter), andsmaller in enrollment (roughly 20 rather than 100).In general, the results of both these studies of under-graduates fit with earlier findings (Maddi, 1987; Maddiet al., 1998) that working adults who underwent

Table 7. Results of a mediation analysis using the Sobel test of the direct and indirect effects of hardiness training and hardinessattitudes post-training on GPA (N¼ 727).

Sobel test of direct and total effectsStep Coefficient SE t p (two-tailed)

1. Hardiness training on GPA 0.0954 0.0281 3.3942 0.00072. Hardiness attitudes post-training on GPA 0.9031 0.3983 2.2674 0.02363. Hardiness attitudes post-training on GPA

controlling for hardiness training0.0107 0.0023 4.6967 0.0000

4. Hardiness training on GPA controlling forhardiness attitudes post-training

0.0857 0.0279 3.0766 0.0022

Sobel test of indirect effect using normal distributionValue SE LL 95 CI UL 95 CI Z p (two-tailed)

Effect 0.0096 0.0048 0.0002 0.0191 2.0054 0.0449

Bootstrap test of indirect effect not using normal distributionMean SE LL 95 CI UL 95 CI Bootstrap resamples

Effect 0.0096 0.0049 0.0006 0.0204 1000

574 S.R. Maddi et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Col

lege

] at

21:

18 0

8 M

ay 2

013

HardiTraining showed similar benefits. The presentstudy adds a control component not present in theseother studies. Namely, an attempt was made todetermine whether the improvement in subsequentGPA was legitimately attributable to HardiTraining,or merely reflected the factors of prior-to-trainingGPA or hardiness levels, or the grade obtained in thetraining course itself. Controlling for these threefactors, there is still a significant effect ofHardiTraining on subsequent GPA.

A more detailed analysis of data in the presentstudy considered the separate relationships of HardyAttitudes, Hardy Coping, and Hardy School Supportat the end of training, to GPA at graduation. Theresults showed that only the positive relationshipbetween Hardy Attitudes and subsequent GPAreached statistical significance. This suggests that it isprimarily the existential courage constituted by HardyAttitudes that facilitates college performance, withproblem-solving coping and social support being lessimportant. After all, it is this existential courage thathelps people recognize stresses accurately, and do whatneeds to be done to turn them to advantage, howeverdifficult this may be. Further research aimed atcomparing the relative importance of hardiness atti-tudes and skills on various performance measures isneeded to gain further understanding of this unex-pected result.

Regarding the present study, one could also arguethat the greater improvement in hardy attitudes andskills in the Hardiness Training Group was merely theresult of students learning the appropriate answers tothe HardiSurvey III-R questionnaire. After all, by thetime these students completed the post-course testing,they knew more about hardiness than they did duringthe pre-course testing. There are three considerationsthat are inconsistent with this possible criticism thatthe jump in hardiness scores from pre- to post-testingin the Hardiness Training Group is invalid as anindicator of actual personality change in hardinessattitudes and skills. First, it should be recognized thatall of the Comparison Courses were (1) taught by sameteachers as the Hardiness-Training Courses, and (2)covered the conceptualization and research concerninghardiness, though without any training efforts. Thiscoverage would have been sufficient to nullifyHardiness and Comparison Group differences on thepost-test questionnaire, if it assessed only knowledge,rather than personality change. Second, previousfindings (Maddi et al., 2006) show that scores on theHardiSurvey III-R are not related to socially-desirableresponding, indicating that the increase in hardinessscores on the post-testing of the Hardiness TrainingGroup is not likely to reflect mere attempts to impressthe testers. Third, the Hardiness Training Group, bycomparison with the Comparison Group, not onlyincreased in hardiness scores on the post-test, but also

in GPA after completion of the course. It does notseem likely that this increase in academic achievementcould have occurred merely through an abstractappreciation of what is means to appear hardy.

Another consideration arises from the pattern ofsocial support changes that took place from pre- topost-course testing. Although the Hardiness TrainingGroup increased in school support, there was nodifference between this group and the ComparisonGroup in family support. This differential result isprobably not a function of poor measurement offamily social support by the HardiSurvey III-R, as asimilar measure has been shown to be valid in otherstudies (Moos, Insel, & Humphrey, 1974). Rather, itshould be recognized that school relationships areprobably less complex, and therefore more easilychangeable over a one-quarter course, than arefamily relationships. By comparison with schoolrelationships, those involving family have probablybeen present longer, are defined more hereditarily,involve larger age differentials, and are more influ-enced by socially-imposed roles. Thus, resolvingconflicts in family relationships and engaging ingiving and getting assistance and encouragementinstead, would take more time. In addition, most ofthe participants in the present study were living oncampus rather than at home, and were consequentlyless immersed daily in family relationships than hadbeen true before they went to college. For thesereasons, the time necessary to improve family relation-ships may have exceeded the post-course testingutilized in this study. Additional study is necessary inorder to determine whether hardiness training willimprove not only school, but family relationships aswell. The results of the present study, along with thoseof a previous study (Maddi et al., 2002), suggest thatgoing through hardiness training may enhance astudent’s subsequent academic achievement by provid-ing him/her with the courage and motivation forturning ongoing stresses from potential disasters intogrowth opportunities.

References

Allred, K.D., & Smith, T.W. (1989). The hardy

personality: Cognitive and physiological responses to

evaluative threat. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 56, 257–266.Atella, M. (1989). Crossing boundaries: Effectiveness and

health among western managers living in China.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-

mediator variable distinction in social psychological

research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considera-

tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,

1173–1182.

The Journal of Positive Psychology 575

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Col

lege

] at

21:

18 0

8 M

ay 2

013

Bartone, P.T. (1999). Hardiness protects against war-related

stress in army reserve forces. Consulting Psychology

Journal, 51, 72–82.Bartone, P.T., & Snook, S.A. (1999). Cognitive and person-

ality factors predict leader development in US Army cadets.

Paper presented at 35th International Applied Military

Psychology Symposium, May, Florence, Italy.Bartone, P.T., Ursano, R.J., Wright, K.M., & Ingraham,

L.H. (1989). The impact of a military air disaster on the

health of assistance workers: A prospective study. Journal

of Nervous and Mental Disease, 177, 317–328.Bonanno, G. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience:

Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive

after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 51,

72–82.

Contrada, R.J. (1989). Type A behavior, personality hardi-

ness, and cardiovascular responses to stress. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 895–903.Florian, V., Milkulincer, M., & Taubman, O. (1995).

Does hardiness contribute to mental health during a

stressful real life situation? The roles of appraisal and

coping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68,

687–695.Frankl, V.E. (1963). Man’s search for meaning: An introduc-

tion to logotherapy (L. Lasch, Trans.). New York:

Washington Square Press.

Funk, S.C. (1992). Hardiness: A review of theory and

research. Health Psychology, 11, 335–345.Funk, S.C., & Houston, B.K. (1987). A critical analysis of

the hardiness scale. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 53, 572–578.

Gendlin, E. (1978). Focusing, (2nd ed.). New York: Bantam.Harvey, R.H. (2005). Hardiness at work: Psychophysiological

indicators of everyday courage under stress. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine.

Hull, J.G., Van Treuren, R.R., & Virnelli, S. (1987).

Hardiness and health: A critique and alternative approach.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 518–530.Khoshaba, D.M., & Maddi, S.R. (1999). Early experiences

in hardiness development. Consulting Psychology Journal,

51, 106–116.

Khoshaba, D.M., & Maddi, S.R. (2001). HardiTraining.

Irvine, CA: Hardiness Institute.Kobasa, S.C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality and

health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 37, 1–11.

Kobasa, S.C., Maddi, S.R., & Kahn, S. (1982). Hardiness

and health: A prospective study. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 42, 168–177.Kuo, W.H., & Tsai, Y. (1986). Social networking, hardiness,

and immigrants’ mental health. Journal of Health and

Social Behavior, 27, 133–149.Kutner, M.H., Nachtsheim, C.J., & Neter, J. (2004). Applied

linear regression models, (4th ed.). Irwin, TX: McGraw-

Hill.Lifton, D.E., Seay, S., & Bushke, A. (2000). Can student

‘hardiness’ serve as an indicator of likely persistence to

graduation? Baseline results from a longitudinal study.

Academic Exchange Quarterly, Winter, 73–81.Maddi, S.R. (1986). Existential psychotherapy. In J. Garske

& S. Lynn (Eds.), Contemporary psychotherapy.

New York: Merrill Publishers.

Maddi, S.R. (1987). Hardiness training at Illinois

Bell Telephone. In J.P. Opatz (Ed.), Health promotion

evaluation. Stephens Point, WI: National Wellness

Institute.Maddi, S.R. (1988). On the problem of accepting facticity

and pursuing possibility. In S.B. Messer, L.A. Sass &

R.L. Woolfolk (Eds.), Hermeneutics and psychological

theory: Interpretive perspectives on personality, psychother-

apy, and psychopathology. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers

University Press.Maddi, S.R. (1994). The Hardiness Enhancing Lifestyle

Program (HELP) for improving physical, mental, and

social wellness. In C. Hooper (Ed.), Wellness lecture series.

Oakland, CA: University of California/HealthNet.

Maddi, S.R. (1997). Personal Views Survey II: A measure

of dispositional hardiness. In C.P. Valaquett &

R.J. Woods (Eds.), Evaluating stress: A book of resources.

New York: University Press.Maddi, S.R. (1999). The personality construct of hardiness,

I: Effects on experiencing, coping, and strain. Consulting

Psychology Journal, 51, 83–94.

Maddi, S.R. (2002). The story of hardiness: Twenty years of

theorizing, research, and practice. Consulting Psychology

Journal, 54, 173–185.Maddi, S.R. (2004). Hardiness: An operationalization of

existential courage. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 44,

279–298.

Maddi, S.R., Harvey, R.H., Khoshaba, D.M., Lu, J.L.,

Persico, M., & Brow, M. (2006). The personality construct

of hardiness, III: Relationships with repression, Innova-

tiveness, authoritarianism, and performance. Journal of

Personality, 74, 575–598.Maddi, S.R., Harvey, R.H., Resurreccion, R., Giatras, C.D.,

& Raganold, S. (2007). Hardiness as a performance

enhancer in firefighters. International Journal of Fire

Service Leadership and Management, 1, 3–9.Maddi, S.R., & Hess, M. (1992). Hardiness and success in

basketball. International Journal of Sports Psychology, 23,

360–368.Maddi, S.R., & Hightower, M. (1999). Hardiness and

optimism as expressed in coping patterns. Consulting

Psychology Journal, 51, 95–105.

Maddi, S.R., Kahn, S., & Maddi, K.L. (1998). The

effectiveness of hardiness training. Consulting Psychology

Journal, 50, 78–86.Maddi, S.R., & Khoshaba, D.M. (1994). Hardiness and

mental health. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63,

265–274.

Maddi, S.R., & Khoshaba, D.M. (2001). HardiSurvey III-R:

Test development and internet instruction manual. Irvine,

CA: Hardiness Institute.Maddi, S.R., & Khoshaba, D.M. (2002). Hardiness training

for resiliency and leadership. In D. Paton, J.M. Violanti &

L.M. Smith (Eds.), Posttraumatic psychological stress:

Individual, group, and organizational strategies for resil-

iency (pp. 43–58). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Maddi, S.R., Khoshaba, D.M., Jensen, K., Carter, E., Lu,

J.L., & Harvey, R.H. (2002). Hardiness training for high-

risk undergraduates. NACADA Journal, 22, 45–55.Maddi, S.R., & Kobasa, S.C. (1984). The hardy

executive: Health under stress. Homewood, IL: Dow

Jones-Irwin.

576 S.R. Maddi et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Col

lege

] at

21:

18 0

8 M

ay 2

013

Maddi, S.R., Wadhwa, P., & Haier, R.J. (1996).Relationship of hardiness to alcohol and drug use in

adolescents. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse,22, 247–257.

Moos, R.H., Insel, P.M., & Humphrey, B. (1974). Family,work and group environment scales manual. Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists Press.Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2004). SPSS and SAS proceduresfor estimating indirect Effects in simple mediation models.

Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36,717–731.

Sinclair, R.R., & Tetrick, L.E. (2000). Implications of item

wording for hardiness Structure, relation with neuroticism,

and stress buffering. Journal of Research in Personality, 34,1–25.

Sobel, M.E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals forindirect effects in structural equation models.In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982(pp. 290–312). Washington, DC: American Sociological

Association.Weibe, D.J., & McCallum, D.M. (1986). Health practicesand hardiness as mediators in the stress-illness relation-

ship. Health Psychology, 5, 435–438.Westman, M. (1990). The relationship between stress andperformance: The moderating effect of hardiness. Human

Performance, 3, 141–155.

The Journal of Positive Psychology 577

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Col

lege

] at

21:

18 0

8 M

ay 2

013