ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Authors alone are responsible for opinions expressed in the contribution and for its clearance through
their federal health agency, if required.

MILITARY MEDICINE, 176, 1:7, 2011

Role of Hardiness in the Psychological Well-being

of Canadian Forces Officer Candidates
Alla Skomorovsky, PhD; Kerry A. Sudom, PhD

ABSTRACT Previous research has found that hardiness is associated with greater psychological well-being and lower
levels of stress. This study examined the role of hardiness in the psychological well-being of military officer candidates
undergoing basic training. Although most researchers have conceptualized hardiness as a global psychological construct,
it is possible that military-specific hardiness, which pertains specifically to work experiences in the military environment,
may be a more relevant measure. The role of both general and military-specific hardiness in life satisfaction, health symp-
toms, training satisfaction, and training stress was examined. The results of this study were consistent with those of previ-
ous research, suggesting that military-specific hardiness is an important predictor of psychological well-being of military
personnel. Furthermore, military-specific hardiness served as a better predictor of the psychological well-being of mili-
tary personnel than general hardiness. The implications of the findings and future research suggestions are discussed.

INTRODUCTION cumstances that create personal distress but do not constitute

Knowledge of the individual characteristics that can buffer
individuals against the negative impact of stress, or make them
less prone to developing psychological health problems, would
be valuable especially in the military context because of its
potentially stressful demands.13 Basic training, obligatory for
Canadian Forces (CF) recruits, can be a stressful experience.
Individuals who are not psychologically fit for the military envi-
ronment may not be able to complete the training or may realize
that they are unwilling or unable to accept military demands at
a later stage.3 Stress associated with military demands among
recruits who are not psychologically fit may lead to attrition or to
the development of psychological health problems.2 The ability
to predict psychological well-being from personal characteris-
tics has important practical implications for military organiza-
tions, including reduced costs of selection, reduced attrition,
and increased psychological well-being of military personnel.
Psychological well-being is a key element of mental func-
tioning. It is believed that the quality of psychological well-
being is influenced by a number of antecedent factors, including
negative early life events. Stressful life events, both major
stressors (traumatic events) and more minor stressors (cir-
Defence Research and Development Canada, Department of National
Defence, 101 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1A 0K2, Canada.
a life threat), are linked to multiple health problems, includ-
ing depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).4 For
example, exposure to combat was strongly related to negative
health outcomes among military personnel.5 Despite strong evi-
dence of a link between negative life events and psychological
well-being, research has demonstrated that not all individuals
who experience a negative life event develop a psychological
health problem. In fact, it was found that some military per-
sonnel exposed to war-related stressors had no negative health
consequences.6 Researchers have suggested that there may be
certain individual characteristics that buffer these individuals
against the negative impact of stressful events on psychologi-
cal health, making them more resilient.5
Hardiness and Well-being
The concept of hardiness emerged from an existential the-
ory of personality and was developed by Kobasa in 1979.7,8
Individual hardiness is a constellation of personality charac-
teristics comprising 3 dimensions: (1) commitment (the ability
to feel involved in the activities of life), (2) control (the belief
that one can control or influence events of ones experience),
and (3) challenge (the sense of anticipation of change as an
exciting challenge to further development).7 Hardy individu-
als are more committed than nonhardy ones to what they are

MILITARY MEDICINE, Vol. 176, January 2011 7

Downloaded from publications.amsus.org: AMSUS - Association of Military Surgeons of the U.S. IP: 121.054.054.251 on Dec 19, 2016.
Copyright (c) Association of Military Surgeons of the U.S. All rights reserved.
 Role of Hardiness in Psychological Well-being
doing in their lives, they perceive greater internal control over
positive and negative life situations, and they view changes
and difficulties in life as challenges rather than as stressors.9
Hardy individuals value themselves and what they are doing,
have a sense of meaning and purpose in their lives, and believe
they can influence the course of life events within reasonable
limits.8 Finally, hardy individuals have an internal sense of
personal mastery and can confront problems with confidence
in their ability to implement effective solutions.10
Hardiness has been found to be negatively related to both
self-report and objective (blood pressure) measures of stress.11
As well, hardiness has shown a positive association with psy-
chological well-being1215 and has been found to buffer against
the development of anxiety or depression.1619 Hardiness was
associated with lower vulnerability to negative psychologi-
cal changes and with higher levels of positive changes among
prisoners of war, suggesting that hardiness served as both a
protective factor and a resource that promotes the ability to
experience psychological growth following stressful and trau-
matic events.20 Kobasa et al.21 defined hardiness as a set of
personality characteristics that function as a resistance
resource in the encounter with stressful life events. Research-
ers have proposed that hardiness could have either a direct
effect on psychological well-being under stress7,2224 or an
indirect effect on health through improved health practices and
adaptive coping.2526 As well, hardy individuals tend to react to
stressors by the use of social support networks.27 In a sample
of Vietnam veterans, it was found that a large proportion of
the effect of hardiness on PTSD was attributable to functional
social support, indicating that individuals who are high in har-
diness may be more likely and/or able to build and maintain a
social network compared to those who are low in hardiness.28
Some researchers believe that hardy individuals have a more
positive interpretation of events than nonhardy individuals and
concentrate on goal-related behaviours. In support of this argu-
ment, these researchers found that hardiness was associated
with fewer traumatic life events and hassles,19,24,28,29 suggest-
ing that hardy individuals perceive the events as less stress-
ful. Similarly, differences were found in appraisal processes
between hardy and nonhardy individuals, demonstrating that
hardy individuals appraise stressful events less negatively.24 It
was suggested that control allows individuals to deploy more
active efforts to find solutions for negative or stressful situa-
tions and that a higher sense of commitment allows individu-
als to remain mentally present in the situation and confront it.30
Hardiness is viewed as an important protective factor for health,
which is distinct from other recognized buffers.11 Overall,
whether hardiness has a direct or an indirect effect on psycho-
logical health, it is clear that it is an important predictor of psy-
chological well-being and adjustment under stress.17,24,3133
Hardiness and the Military Environment
Hardiness has been linked to health-related outcomes among
managers, health care workers, and athletes.15,3437 Furthermore,
research has demonstrated that hardiness is a strong predictor of
8 MILITARY MEDICINE, Vol. 176, January 2011
Downloaded from publications.amsus.org: AMSUS - Association of Military Surgeons of the U.S. IP: 121.054.054.251 on Dec 19, 2016.
Copyright (c) Association of Military Surgeons of the U.S. All rights reserved.
psychological well-being among military personnel.38 Greater
hardiness was associated with lower stress levels among U.S.
Gulf War and peacekeeping soldiers5,39 and among Israeli officer
candidates.24 As well, hardiness was associated with lower psy-
chiatric symptomatology among military personnel following a
stressor.5,40 The commitment and control dimensions of hardiness
predicted mental health of Israeli recruits at the end of combat
training.30 Similarly, it was found that hardiness was associated
with lower PTSD symptoms among Vietnam veterans41 and buff-
ered the impact of combat exposure on PTSD development.42 In
addition, hardiness was negatively associated with peritraumatic
dissociation in response to a mildly stressful situation and a more
stressful experience (simulated prisoner of war exercise) among
Norwegian Navy officer cadets.38 It was concluded that the
higher the hardiness among military personnel before deploy-
ment, the lower the likelihood that life-threatening stressors in
military operations would lead to depression or PTSD.1
The evidence suggests that taking individual hardiness into
account would be of benefit in identifying individuals who
would be more or less prone to psychological health problems
under stress. Multiple stressors, including but not limited to
deployment experiences, dangerous work environments, train-
ing, and prolonged periods of time away from home and family,
are inherent to the military environment.43 Given that psycho-
logical health problems can have a detrimental effect both on
individual military members and on military organizations
(e.g., in terms of higher attrition rates and poorer military per-
formance),38 an assessment of hardiness among military per-
sonnel would be highly beneficial for military organizations.
General Hardiness vs. Military-specific Hardiness
Previous research has demonstrated that hardiness pre-
dicts psychological well-being in military organizations.30,40
However, most researchers have conceptualized hardiness as
a global psychological construct.44 According to Dolan and
Adler (2006),40 in military organizations, hardiness should
be measured as the degree to which military personnel are
committed to, feel challenged by, and have some sense of
control over their work experiences in the military environ-
ment. These researchers found that military-specific hardiness
played an important role in the psychological well-being of
military personnel. Although they did not examine the role of
both general and military-specific hardiness in psychological
well-being, it is possible that military-specific hardiness might
be a superior predictor of psychological well-being in the mil-
itary in comparison to general hardiness.
Aim
The first goal of this study was to examine the role of hardi-
ness, both military- and nonmilitary-specific, in the psycho-
logical well-being of officer candidates. Based on previous
literature, it was expected that hardiness would significantly
predict psychological well-being in such a way that greater
hardiness would be associated with better psychological
well-being (life satisfaction and health symptoms) of officer
 Role of Hardiness in Psychological Well-being
candidates. It was also hypothesized that military-specific har-
diness could serve as a better predictor of psychological well-
being than nonmilitary-specific hardiness. In addition, the role
of hardiness in satisfaction with basic training and in percep-
tions of training stress among officer candidates was exam-
ined. It was hypothesized that individuals high in hardiness
would report greater satisfaction with their training and that
they would perceive training as less stressful.
METHODS
Participants and Procedure
Questionnaires were administered to 200 officer candidates
undergoing basic training in St-Jean, Quebec. The administra-
tion took place in the winter of 2009. Out of those who pro-
vided their gender information, there were 154 (77.0%) males
and 37 (18.5%) females. The participants were informed that
the data would be anonymous and would have no impact on
their military careers.
Measures
Life Satisfaction Scale
Life satisfaction was assessed with the Satisfaction with Life
Scale.45 The Satisfaction with Life Scale is a 5-item mea-
sure that asks respondents to rate their global life satisfaction
(e.g., I am satisfied with my life). The responses ranged
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree), with higher
scores indicating greater satisfaction with life. The items were
summed to obtain an overall life satisfaction score (Cronbachs
alpha = 0.75).
Psychological Health Symptoms
The 12-item abbreviated version of the General Health
Questionnaire46 was used to measure psychological health
symptoms. This measure asks whether participants have
recently experienced events such as loss of sleep because
of worry or they have the ability to concentrate on whatever
they are doing. One item assessing loneliness was added
to the scale. Responses were rated on a 4-point scale rang-
ing from 1 (not at all) to 4 (much more than usual). Ratings
on some items were recoded so that high scores indicated
more positive psychological well-being, and the mean rating
across all 13 items was used as the overall scale score. The
reliability coefficient was considerably lower than that in pre-
vious research (Cronbachs alpha = 0.54), suggesting greater
variations in health symptoms among officer candidates.
However, given that the reliability for the scale was moder-
ate and no deleted item yielded a better overall reliability, all
13 items were used in further analyses.
Training Satisfaction and Stress Perception
Training satisfaction was assessed using the Job Satisfaction
Scale.47 The items that assess job satisfaction were reworded
to assess satisfaction with military recruit training. Satisfaction
MILITARY MEDICINE, Vol. 176, January 2011
Downloaded from publications.amsus.org: AMSUS - Association of Military Surgeons of the U.S. IP: 121.054.054.251 on Dec 19, 2016.
Copyright (c) Association of Military Surgeons of the U.S. All rights reserved.
was measured using 3 widely recognized dimensions: degree
of satisfaction with the work itself, degree of satisfaction with
coworkers, and degree of satisfaction with supervision. The sat-
isfaction items asked the following questions: All in all, how
satisfied are you with the training you have just finished?; All
in all, how satisfied are you with the other military personnel
you were on the training with?; and All in all, how satis-
fied are you with the supervision? Ratings were made on a
5-point scale ranging from 1 (very unsatisfied) to 5 (very satis-
fied). The theoretical and empirical justification for combining
these 3 facet measures of job satisfaction has been widely doc-
umented.47,48 The scores for the 3 questions were averaged to
obtain a score for overall training satisfaction (Cronbachs alpha
= 0.64). An additional question was added to assess the extent
to which the training was stressful for the individual: All in all,
how stressful has the training you have just completed been for
you? The rating for this question was made on a 5-point scale
ranging from 1 (not stressful at all) to 5 (very stressful).
General Hardiness and Military-specific Hardiness
The military-specific hardiness scale was adapted from an
18-item scale developed to assess personality differences
among U.S. Army soldiers.40 This scale consists of 3 military-
specific subscales: commitment, challenge, and control. In the
adapted version of the scale for the CF, military-specific com-
mitment is composed of 7 items and reflects a strong identity
with the military and commitment to CF missions (Cronbachs
alpha = 0.79). Military-specific challenge includes 5 items
and reflects the degree to which the individual exerts personal
resources in response to occupational demands (Cronbachs
alpha = 0.74). Finally, military-specific control includes
6 items and reflects perception of control and personal influ-
ence over training performance (Cronbachs alpha = 0.71).
The items were reworded to make the statements more rel-
evant for basic training. In addition to the 3 subscales, an addi-
tional subscale was added, which included 6 items to assess
individual differences in commitment, challenge, and control
in general life (Cronbachs alpha = 0.72).
RESULTS
This study examined the predictive validity of both military-
specific hardiness and general hardiness with the psychologi-
cal well-being of recruits, as well as the predictive ability of
hardiness for perceptions of basic training. For these purposes,
4 multiple regression analyses were conducted, wherein the
domains of psychological well-being and perceptions of
training (life satisfaction, health symptoms, training satisfac-
tion, and training stress) were regressed onto the 3 factors of
military-specific hardiness and onto the general hardiness
entered together.
Life Satisfaction
Overall, hardiness significantly predicted training satisfac-
tion, R2 = 0.124, F(4, 192) = 5.93, p < 0.001 (Table I), explain
ing 12.4% of the variance. All 4 domains (3 domains of
9
 Role of Hardiness in Psychological Well-being

TABLE I. Multiple Regression Analyses of the Predictive TABLE III. Multiple Regression Analyses of the Predictive
Validity of Military-specific Hardiness and General Hardiness Validity of Military-specific Hardiness and General Hardiness with
with Life Satisfaction of Recruits Training Satisfaction of Recruits

Pearson r b R2 Pearson r b R2
Hardiness 0.124** Hardiness 0.245***
Military-specific Hardiness Military-specific Hardiness
Commitment 0.32** 0.22* Commitment 0.46*** 0.39***
Challenge 0.18* 0.06 Challenge 0.31*** 0.05
Control 0.21* 0.03 Control 0.40*** 0.19*
General Hardiness 0.31** 0.19* General Hardiness 0.23** 0.11
*
p < 0.05. **p < 0.001. *
p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

TABLE II. Multiple Regression Analyses of the Predictive TABLE IV. Multiple Regression Analyses of the Predictive
Validity of Military-specific Hardiness and General Hardiness Validity of Military-specific Hardiness and General Hardiness with
with Health Symptoms of Recruits Training Stress of Recruits

Pearson r b R2 Pearson r b R2
Hardiness 0.221** Hardiness 0.051*
Military-specific Hardiness Military-specific Hardiness
Commitment 0.36** 0.20* Commitment 0.11 0.03
Challenge 0.17* 0.13 Challenge 0.21** 0.23*
Control 0.44** 0.36** Control 0.00 0.12
General Hardiness 0.25** 0.05 General Hardiness 0.10 0.02
*
p < 0.05. **p < 0.001. *
p < 0.05.

military-specific hardiness and general hardiness) were sig-
nificantly correlated with life satisfaction. However, commit-
ment and general hardiness were the only unique predictors of
life satisfaction. Specifically, greater commitment and hardi-
ness were significantly and positively correlated with life sat-
isfaction scores.
Health Symptoms
Overall, hardiness significantly predicted health symptoms,
R2 = .221, F(4, 191) = 13.51, p < 0.001 (Table II), explaining
22.1% of the variance. All 4 domains (3 domains of military-
specific hardiness and general hardiness) were significantly
correlated with health of the recruits. However, 2 military-
specific hardiness domains, commitment and control, but
not general hardiness, served as unique predictors of health.
Specifically, greater commitment and perception of control
were significantly and positively correlated with better health
scores.
Training Satisfaction
Overall, hardiness significantly predicted training satisfaction,
R2 = .245, F(4, 192) = 15.58, p < 0.001 (Table III), explain-
ing 24.5% of variance in this psychological domain. All
4 domains (3 domains of military-specific hardiness and gen-
eral hardiness) were significantly correlated with life sat-
isfaction. However, 2 military-specific hardiness domains,
commitment and control, but not general hardiness, served as
unique predictors of training satisfaction. Specifically, greater
commitment and perception of control were significantly and
positively correlated with training satisfaction scores.
Hardiness and Training Stress
Overall, hardiness significantly predicted training stress,
R2 = .051, F(4, 191) = 2.57, p < 0.05 (Table IV). However,
the proportion of variance explained was small, suggesting
that military-specific hardiness was not a good predictor of
training stress. Challenge was the only domain of hardiness
that was significantly associated with training stress. In addi-
tion, challenge served as a unique predictor of training stress.
Specifically, greater challenge was significantly and positively
associated with training stress.
DISCUSSION
This study found that hardiness played an important role in the
psychological well-being of recruits. Although general har-
diness served as a unique predictor of only life satisfaction,
military-specific hardiness consistently predicted variance in
psychological well-being and perceptions of basic training.
The commitment subscale of military-specific hardiness served
as a unique predictor of life satisfaction, health symptoms,
and training satisfaction. In addition, the control subscale of
military-specific hardiness served as a unique predictor of
life satisfaction and health symptoms. Individuals who value
what they are doing, have a sense of meaning and purpose in
their lives, and believe they can influence the course of life
events within reasonable limits8 seem to have better psycho-
logical well-being than others. Finally, the challenge subscale
of military-specific hardiness served as a unique predictor of
training stress. Individuals who are higher in this domain of har-
diness have a more positive approach and tend to perceive events
as challenging rather than stressful. This attitude motivates

10 MILITARY MEDICINE, Vol. 176, January 2011

Downloaded from publications.amsus.org: AMSUS - Association of Military Surgeons of the U.S. IP: 121.054.054.251 on Dec 19, 2016.
Copyright (c) Association of Military Surgeons of the U.S. All rights reserved.
 Role of Hardiness in Psychological Well-being
these individuals to address the changes in life in positive ways
and view them as new opportunities for learning.
Military-specific hardiness was found to be a better pre-
dictor of psychological well-being and training perceptions of
recruits than general hardiness. In addition, the commitment
domain of military-specific hardiness was the most consistent
predictor of psychological well-being of military personnel.
Individuals who reported higher scores on commitment were
consistently found to have better psychological well-being,
in terms of greater life satisfaction and fewer health symp-
toms, as well as greater satisfaction with training. This find-
ing is consistent with the hypothesis of this study and with
the suggestion of previous researchers that military-specific
hardiness would be a better predictor of psychological well-
being among military personnel than general hardiness.40
Future research examining hardiness among military person-
nel should, therefore, focus on military-specific hardiness.
Hardiness is especially relevant to military occupations
because of the inherently stressful demands on military per-
sonnel.1 The concept of hardiness is relevant for both the selec-
tion and the training of military personnel. Using an assessment
of military-specific hardiness among applicants would likely
reduce attrition rates associated with stressful military training
and reduce psychological health problems among military per-
sonnel, especially following deployment. In addition, it would
be beneficial to provide hardiness training to every recruit before
the basic training. It has been noted in previous research that
psychological hardiness can be learned.49,50 Empirical data have
demonstrated that a training program can increase the level of
individual hardiness.51 Specifically, previous research has dem-
onstrated that several sessions of hardiness training may not only
increase hardiness but also reduce attrition and improve perfor-
mance and psychological well-being among both adolescents
and working adults.49,52,53 In addition, providing coping training
(e.g., improving problem-solving skills) may assist individuals
by enhancing the perceptions of control. If such training was
given early in the military career of a soldier, it may decrease
the likelihood of psychological health problems, including
depression and PTSD, following other military stressors such as
deployment.
LIMITATIONS
First, it is important to note that methodological constraints of
the current study may negatively impact the generalizability of
the results. In an ideal research situation, all applicants to the CF
would be hired and assessed with hardiness measures. In this
study, given that hardiness data were available only for individ-
uals who passed the Canadian Forces Aptitude Test and struc-
tured interview, the individuals were partly preselected on both
cognitive abilities and some aspects of personality. In addition,
this study included only officer candidates. Given that previ-
ous research54 has demonstrated some significant differences in
both personality and psychological well-being between officer
and non-commissioned member candidates, the results of this
study cannot be generalized to non-commissioned members.
MILITARY MEDICINE, Vol. 176, January 2011
Downloaded from publications.amsus.org: AMSUS - Association of Military Surgeons of the U.S. IP: 121.054.054.251 on Dec 19, 2016.
Copyright (c) Association of Military Surgeons of the U.S. All rights reserved.
Second, it is important to note that hardiness was measured
while the recruits were undergoing basic training. It is possible
that levels of hardiness may be altered by the experience of
basic training itself, with its high level of structure and empha-
sis on compliance with rules. Although limited information
is available on the longitudinal stability of the hardiness con-
struct, it is possible that it may change in response to stres-
sors such as basic training. Studies that have demonstrated an
increase in hardiness following a training program49,52,53 suggest
that, unlike a static trait, hardiness may be amenable to change.
Therefore, for future research, it would be of benefit to examine
hardiness data in recruits before they commence basic training
to obtain baseline levels before beginning the training.
Third, because of the low number of females in this study, a
gender comparison of hardiness and psychological well-being
was not possible. Gender differences were previously found on
hardiness scales, in which hardiness buffered the impacts of life
stressors for men but not for women,55,56 suggesting that hardi-
ness is expressed differently in men and women. In addition,
research has demonstrated that women report higher scores on
psychological well-being than men.57 Therefore, future research
should examine potential significant differences in hardiness
and in the paths between personality and psychological well-
being and hardiness among men and women in the CF.
CONCLUSIONS
The main goal of this study was to examine the role of har-
diness in the psychological well-being and training percep-
tions among officer candidates undergoing basic training. The
results have implications for the selection of recruits and for
the training systems. Psychological health problems in high-
stress military jobs are costly to both the individual and the
organization. Taking individual characteristics into account at
the recruitment stage would be a useful approach for selecting
psychologically fit applicants and enhancing the psychologi-
cal well-being of current CF members.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Laura McRae for collecting the data used for this report.
The authors also thank Defence Research and Development Canada,
Department of National Defence, Ottawa, Canada, for funding this work.
REFERENCES
1. Maddi SR: Relevance of hardiness assessment and training to the mili-
tary context. Mil Psychol 2007; 19: 6170.
2. Fiedler ER, Oltmanns TF, Turkheimer E: Traits associated with person-
ality disorders and adjustment to military life: predictive validity of self
and peer reports. Mil Med 2004; 169: 20711.
3. Scholtz DC: The Validity of Psychological Screening Measures Across
the Performance Domain in the Canadian Forces. Sponsor Research
Report 2003-03. Ottawa, ON, Canada, Director Human Resources
Research and Evaluation, National Defence Headquarters, 2003.
4. Engelhard IM, van den Hout MA: Preexisting neuroticism, subjective
stressor severity, and posttraumatic stress in soldiers deployed to Iraq.
Can J Psychiatry 2007; 52: 5059.
5. Bartone PT: Hardiness protects against war-related stress in Army reserve
forces. Consult Psychol J Pract Res 1999; 51: 7282.
11
 Role of Hardiness in Psychological Well-being
6. Rundell JR, Ursano RJ: Psychiatric responses to war trauma. In: Emotional
Aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, pp 4381. Edited by Ursano RJ,
Norwood AE. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Press, 1996.
7. Kobasa SC: Stressful life events, personality, and health: an inquiry into
hardiness. J Pers Soc Psychol 1979; 37: 111.
8. Kobasa SC, Maddi SR: Existential personality theory. In: Current Personality
Theories, pp 24376. Edited by Corsini RJ. Itasca, IL, F. E. Peacock, 1977.
9. Bartone PT: Hardiness as a resiliency factor for United States forces
in the Gulf War. In: Posttraumatic Stress Intervention: Challenges,
Issues, and Perspectives, pp 11533. Edited by Violanti JM, Paton D,
Danning C. Springfield, IL, Charles C Thomas, 2000.
10. Soderstrom M, Dolbier C, Leiferman J, Steinhardt M: The relationship of
hardiness, coping strategies, and perceived stress to symptoms of illness.
J Behav Med 2000; 23: 31128.
11. Maddi SR: The personality construct of hardiness: I. Effects on experi-
encing, coping and strain. Consult Psychol J Pract Res 1999; 51: 8394.
12. Kobasa SC, Maddi SR, Puccetti MC: Personality and exercise as buffers
in the stressillness relationship. J Behav Med 1982; 5: 391404.
13. Kobasa SC, Maddi SR, Zola MA: Type A and hardiness. J Behav Med
1983; 6: 4151.
14. Kobasa SC, Puccetti MC: Personality and social resources in stress resis-
tance. J Pers Soc Psychol 1983; 45: 83950.
15. Maddi SR, Kobasa SC: The Hardy Executive: Health under Stress.
Homewood, IL, Dow Jones-Irwin, 1984.
16. Alfred KD, Smith TW: The hardy personality: cognitive and physiologi-
cal responses to evaluate threat. J Pers Soc Psychol 1989; 56: 25766.
17. Drory Y, Florian V: Long-term psychosocial adjustment to coronary
artery disease. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1991; 72: 32631.
18. Funk SC, Houston BK: A critical analysis of the hardiness scales valid-
ity and utility. J Pers Soc Psychol 1987; 53: 5728.
19. Rhodewalt F, Zone JB: Appraisal of life change, depression, and illness
in hardy and nonhardy women. J Pers Soc Psychol 1989; 56: 818.
20. Waysman M, Schwarzwald J, Solomon Z: Hardiness: an examination of
its relationship with positive and negative long term changes following
trauma. J Trauma Stress 2001; 14: 53148.
21. Kobasa SC, Maddi SR, Kahn S: Hardiness and health: a prospective
study. J Pers Soc Psychol 1982; 42: 16877.
22. Genry WD, Kobasa SC: Social and psychological resources mediat-
ing stressillness relationships in humans. In: Handbook of Behavioural
Medicine, pp 4572. Edited by Gentry WD. New York, NY, Guilford
Press, 1984.
23. Suls J, Rittenhouse JD: Personality and health: an introduction. J Pers
1987; 55: 15567.
24. Westman M: The relationship between stress and performance: the mod-
erating effect of hardiness. Hum Perform 1990; 3: 14155.
25. Wiebe DJ, McCallum DM: Health practices and hardiness as mediators
in the stressillness relationship. Health Psychol 1986; 5: 4358.
26. Williams PG, Wiebe DJ, Smith TW: Coping processes as mediators of the
relationship between hardiness and health. J Behav Med 1992; 15: 23755.
27. Maddi SR: The story of hardiness: twenty years of theorizing, research,
and practice. Consult Psychol J Pract Res 2002; 54: 17385.
28. Banks JK, Gannon LR: The influence of hardiness on the relationship
between stressors and psychosomatic symptomatology. Am J Community
Psychol 1988; 16: 2537.
29. Schlosser MB, Sheeley LA: The hardy personality: female coping with
stress. Paper presented at: 93rd Annual Convention of the American
Psychological Association; 1985; Washington, DC.
30. Florian V, Mikulincer M, Taubman O: Does hardiness contribute to men-
tal health during a stressful real-life situation? The roles of appraisal and
coping. J Pers Soc Psychol 1995; 68: 68795.
31. Blaney PH, Ganellen RJ: Hardiness and social support. In: Social
Support: An Interactional View, pp 297318. Edited by Sarason IG,
Sarason B, Pierce G. New York, NY, Wiley, 1990.
12
Downloaded from publications.amsus.org: AMSUS - Association of Military Surgeons of the U.S. IP: 121.054.054.251 on Dec 19, 2016.
Copyright (c) Association of Military Surgeons of the U.S. All rights reserved.
32. Hull JG, Van Treuren RR, Virnelli S: Hardiness and health: a critique and
alternative approach. J Pers Soc Psychol 1987; 53: 51830.
33. Orr E, Westman M: Hardiness as a stress moderator: a review. In: Learned
Resourcefulness: On Coping Skills, Self-control, and Adaptive Behavior,
pp 6494. Edited by Rosenbaum M. New York, NY, Springer, 1990.
34. Hanton S, Evans L, Neil R: Hardiness and the competitive traits anxiety
response. Anxiety Stress Coping 2003; 16: 16784.
35. Keane A, Ducette J, Adler D: Stress in ICU and non-ICU nurses. Nurs
Res 1985; 34: 2316.
36. Topf J: Personality hardiness, occupational stress, and burnout in critical
care nurses. Res Nurs Health 1989; 12: 17986.
37. Maddi SR, Hess M: Hardiness and basketball performance. Int J Sport
Psychol 1992; 23: 3608.
38. Eid J, Morgan CA: Dissociation, hardiness and performance in military
cadets participating in survival training. Mil Med 2006; 171: 43642.
39. Bartone PT: Stress and hardiness in U.S. peacekeeping soldiers. Paper
presented at: 104th American Psychological Association meeting;
August 1996; Toronto, Canada.
40. Dolan CA, Adler AB: Military hardiness as a buffer of psychological
health on return from deployment. Mil Med 2006; 171: 938.
41. King LA, King DW, Fairbank JA, Keane TM, Adams GA: Resilience
recovery factors in post-traumatic stress disorder among female and
male Vietnam veterans: hardiness, postwar social support, and additional
stressful life events. J Pers Soc Psychol 1998; 74: 42034.
42. Taft CT, Stern AS, King LA, King DW: Modeling physical health and func-
tional health status: the role of combat exposure, posttraumatic stress disor-
der, and personal resource attributes. J Trauma Stress 1999; 12: 323.
43. Bartone PT, Adler AB, Vaitkus MA: Dimensions of psychological stress
in peacekeeping operations. Mil Med 1998; 163: 58793.
44. Pollock SE, Duffy ME: The health-related hardiness scale: development
and psychometric analysis. Nurs Res 1990; 39: 21822.
45. Diener E, Emmons R, Larsen J, Griffin S: The satisfaction with life scale.
J Pers Assess 1985; 49: 715.
46. Banks MH, Clegg CW, Jackson PR, Kemp NJ, Stafford EM, Wall TD:
The use of the general health questionnaire as an indicator of mental
health in occupational settings. J Occup Psychol 1980; 53: 18794.
47. Price JL, Mueller CW: Handbook of Organizational Measurement.
Marshfield, MA, Pitman, 1986.
48. Wright TA, Cropanzano R: Psychological well-being and job satisfaction
as predictors of job performance. J Occup Health Psychol 2000; 5: 8494.
49. Maddi SR, Kahn S, Maddi KL: The effectiveness of hardiness training.
Consult Psychol J Pract Res 1998; 50: 7886.
50. Maddi SR, Khoshaba DM, Pammenter A: The hardy organization: suc-
cess by turning change to advantage. Consult Psychol J Pract Res 1999;
51: 11724.
51. Koshaba DM, Maddi SR: HardiTraining. Newport Beach, CA, Hardiness
Institute, 2001.
52. Maddi SR: Hardiness training at Bell Telephone. In: Health Promotion
Evaluation, pp 12158. Edited by Opatz J. Stevens Point, WI, Natural
Wellness, 1987.
53. Maddi SR, Khoshaba DM, Jensen K, Carter E, Lu JL, Harvey RH: Hardiness
training for high risk undergraduates. NACADA J 2002; 22: 4555.
54. Skomorovsky A: The Role of Personality in Psychological Well-being, Train-
ing Stress, and Voluntary Withdrawal of New CF Recruits. Ottawa, Canada,
DRDC CORA TR, Department of National Defence, 2010 (in press).
55. Benishek LA, Lopez FG: Critical evaluation of hardiness theory: gender
differences, perception of life events, and neuroticism. Work Stress 1997;
11: 3345.
56. Shepperd JA, Kashani JH: The relationships of hardiness, gender, and
stress to health outcomes in adolescents. J Pers 1991; 59: 74768.
57. Wood W, Rhodes N, Whelan M: Sex differences in positive well-being:
a consideration of emotional style and marital status. Psychol Bull 1989;
106: 24964.
MILITARY MEDICINE, Vol. 176, January 2011