Hardiness and Coping Strategies.pdf

7/27/2019 Hardiness and Coping Strategies.pdf

1/18

Journal of Behavioral Medicine, Vol. 23, No. 3, 2000

The Relationship of Hardiness, Coping Strategies,and Perceived Stress to Symptoms of Illness

Mike Soderstrom,1 Christyn Dolbier,1 Jenn Leiferman,1

and Mary Steinhardt1,

2

Accepted for publication: January 12, 2000

We proposed a conceptual model based on research supporting the relation-ship between symptoms of illness and the determinants of hardiness, copingstrategies, and perceived stress. In this model, hardiness, avoidance coping, andapproach coping have paths to perceived stress, perceived stress has a path to

symptoms of illness, and hardiness also has a path to symptoms of illness. Weexamined the goodness of fit of this model using path analysis and tested its

stability, as well as the presence of gender effects, in corporate (N = 110) anduniversity (N=271) samples. The proposed model was a good fit for the data inthe corporate sample, and no gender effects were found. The proposad modelwas not a good fit for the data in the university sample, therefore we added two

paths that have received some support in the research: from approach copingto symptoms of illness and from avoidance coping to symptoms of illness.This model was a good fit for the data in the university sample, however, the

path from approach coping to symptoms of illness had a critical ratio


2/18

312 Soderstrom, Dolbier, Leiferman, and Steinhardt

INTRODUCTION

It is well documented that psychological stress is associated with a vari-

ety of physical and mental health illnesses (Dohrenwend and Dohrenwend,1974, 1981; Sapolsky, 1994). However, the magnitude of these correlations ismoderate (Rabkin and Struening, 1976), suggesting that stress accounts foronly a portion of the variance in illness. Such data have led researchers toconclude that stress does not inevitably lead to illness (Wiebe and McCallum,1986). As a result, research has focused on identifying those factors that havedirect, indirect or modifying effects on illness.

Although there has been an abundance of research over the past twodecades focused on hardiness, coping strategies, perceived stress, and ill-

ness, the nature of the relationships among these variables remains inconclu-sive. Much research indicates that a hardy personality (Kobasa et al., 1982a)and approach-oriented coping behaviors (Williams et al., 1992) moderate orbuffer the effect of stress on health. However, other research indicates thata hardy personality is not a moderating variable in the relationship betweenstress and illness, but rather hardiness has a direct effect on illness indepen-dent of its effect on stress (Orr and Westman, 1990). Simultaneously, it hasbeen proposed that coping strategies mediate the relationship between har-diness and health (Gentry and Kobasa, 1984; Williams et al., 1992). Research

has yet to examine concurrently the direct, indirect, and modifying effects ofhardiness, coping strategies, and perceived stress on symptoms of illness.

Hardiness

The hardiness concept was originally developed by Kobasa (1979). Theconcept emerged from an existential theory of personality (Kobasa andMaddi, 1977) and is defined as a personality characteristic describing an in-dividual with three closely related tendencies: challenge, commitment, andcontrol. The term challenge reflects an outlook on life that enables an indi-vidual to perceive change as an opportunity for growth rather than a threatto ones sense of security or survival. Change rather than stability is seen asthe normative mode of life. Individuals strong in commitment believe in thetruth and value of who they are and what they are doing. They have a senseof meaning and purpose in work and relationships and are deeply involvedrather than alienated out of fear, uncertainty, or boredom. The term controlreflects a belief that one can influence the course of life events within rea-sonable limits. Hardy individuals have an internal sense of personal mastery,confronting problems with confidence in their ability to implement effectivesolutions, rather than feeling powerless, lacking self-confidence and initiative,and manipulating others.


3/18

Hardiness, Coping, Stress, and Illness 313

It was originally hypothesized that a hardy personality improves healthby buffering or moderating the effects of stress. Some studies support thisoriginal hypothesis (Kobasa et al., 1982a; Rhodewalt and Zone, 1989); how-

ever, other research has found hardiness to have a direct effect on health in-dependent of stress (Banks and Gannon, 1988; Kobasa, 1979; Kobasa et al.,1981, 1982a, 1983, 1985; Kobasa and Puccetti, 1983; Nowack and Hanson,1983; Pollock, 1986; Wiebe and McCallum, 1986). Comprehensive analysesof this research base have found that the buffering effect of hardiness onstress is weaker than its direct effects on health (see reviews by Funk, 1992;Gentry and Kobasa, 1984; Hull et al., 1987; and Orr and Westman, 1990).

Still other studies revealed that hardiness has an indirect effect onhealth through improved health practices (Wiebe and McCallum, 1986) and

approach-oriented coping strategies (Williams et al., 1992). High-hardy indi-viduals engage in behaviors positively associated with health and greater ap-proach or problem-focused coping strategies, whereas low-hardy individualsengage in behaviors negatively associated with health and greater avoidanceor emotion-focused coping strategies. These studies suggest that health prac-tices and coping strategies mediate the stressillness relationship differentlyfor high-hardy and low-hardy individuals.

Kobasas initial finding that hardiness was predictive of health outcomeswas based solely on male samples, raising the issue of generalizability of these

findings to women. Studies examining gender differences are inconsistent.Some studies have found that the relationship between hardiness and healthoutcomes seen in male samples is generalizable to female samples (Ganellenand Blaney, 1984; Gentry and Kobasa, 1984; Rhodewalt and Agustsdottir,1984; Rhodewalt and Zone, 1989). However, other studies have shown thatthe predictive nature of hardiness found in males is not generalizable tofemales (Schmied and Lawler, 1986; Shepperd and Kashani, 1991; Wiebe,1991). It has been suggested that these gender differences in hardiness aredue to differences in coping strategies (Wiebe, 1991; Williams etal., 1992). Forinstance, several studies have found that males and females employ differentcoping strategies in the face of stress (Billings and Moos, 1981; Kvam andLyons, 1991; Pearlin and Schooler, 1978), suggesting that the mechanismby which coping influences the hardinessillness relationship is different formales and females.

Coping Strategies

Coping refers to the cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage situa-tions appraised as taxing or exceeding personal resources. Researchers makea common conceptual distinction in the focus of coping strategies. There arethose strategies that are approach-oriented and deal with confronting the


4/18


problem and those that are oriented to avoiding dealing directly with theproblem (Roth and Cohen, 1986, Moos et al., 1990). While their focus is dif-ferent, both approach and avoidance coping use cognitive and behavioral

methods to address the stressful situation and have been likened to transfor-mational and regressive coping, respectively (Gentry and Kobasa, 1984), aswell as problem-focused and emotion-focused coping, respectively (Lazarusand Folkman, 1984). Approach coping strategies are aimed at problem solv-ing or active attempts to resolve the stressor. Avoidance coping strategiesare aimed at avoiding active confrontation of the stressor or reducing emo-tional tension associated with the stressor. Coping strategies that fall underthe approach-oriented domain have been associated with less stress (Pearlinand Schooler, 1978) and illness (Blake and Vandiver, 1988; Olffet al., 1993),

while those falling under the avoidance-oriented domain have been associ-ated with more stress (Pearlin and Schooler, 1978) and illness (Blake andVandiver, 1988; Holahan and Moos, 1985; Kobasa, 1982).

It has been proposed that high-hardy individuals engage in approachcoping styles for the purpose of transforming stressful events into situationsthat seem to be more manageable. In contrast, low-hardy individuals tend toengagein avoidancecopingstylessuch as cognitiveand behavioral disengage-ment and denial to deal with a stressful situation (Gentry and Kobasa, 1984).These coping styles neither transform the situation nor solve the problem

thought to be the source of stress. Several studies show support for a rela-tionship between hardiness and coping strategies, whereby high-hardy indi-viduals use more approach- or problem-focused types of coping strategiesand low-hardy individuals use more avoidance- or emotion-focused copingstrategies (Florian et al., 1995; Williams et al., 1992).

Although based on conceptualizations of traditional sex roles, it is com-monly assumed that men tend to be more analytical and task-oriented in re-sponse to stressful situations, while women respond more emotionally. Thisassumption infers that men are more inclined to use approach-oriented cop-ing strategies aimed at the problem, whereas women use avoidance-orientedcoping strategies aimed at reducing emotional tension. In fact, a pattern ofgender differences in coping strategies consistent with part of this assump-tion has been observed, showing that women appear somewhat more likelyto report using avoidance- or emotion-focused coping strategies, includingventing or expressing emotions, becoming depressed, and avoiding the situa-tion (Billings and Moos, 1981; Fondacaro and Moos, 1989; Kvam and Lyons,1991; Pearlin and Schooler, 1978; Ptacek etal., 1992). In terms of approach- orproblem-focused coping, as of yet there is not a clear pattern of gender differ-ences. Some studies show that men report using more approach- or problem-focused coping (Holahan et al., 1995; Kvam and Lyons, 1991; Ptacek et al.,1992, 1994). Additional research supports these findings, but only in certain


5/18


situations (Folkman and Lazarus, 1980), and still other research has foundthe opposite, with more problem-focused coping in women (Vitaliano et al.,1985) or no differences between men and women (Holahan and Moos, 1985).

Based on the above research, we proposed a conceptual model illustrat-ing the relationships among hardiness, coping strategies, perceived stress,and symptoms of illness. We predicted that hardiness would have a negativerelationship to symptoms of illness independent of perceived stress (Banksand Gannon, 1988; Kobasa, 1979; Kobasa et al., 1981, 1982a,b, 1983, 1985;Kobasa and Puccetti, 1983; Nowack and Hanson, 1983; Pollock, 1986; Wiebeand McCallum, 1986). On the basis of previous research, we also hypothe-sized that perceived stress would demonstrate a positive relationship withsymptoms of illness (Dohrenwend and Dohrenwend, 1974, 1981; Sapolsky,

1994).Inaddition,onthebasisofcopingresearch,wepredictedthatapproachcoping would have a negative relationship to perceived stress and avoidancecoping would have a positive relationship to perceived stress (Pearlin andSchooler, 1978).

This set of predictions is shown graphically in Fig. 1 as a nonreciprocalpath model. The purpose of this study was to examine the goodness of fit ofthe proposed model using path analysis and test its stability in two differentsamples. These were convenience samples of corporate employees and uni-versity students. Additionally, because some research indicates that gendermay be a differentiating variable, we also examined whether or not the pro-posed model differed by gender. This study extends earlier research in that

Fig. 1. Model 1 for the corporate sample.


6/18


it examines the constructs of hardiness, coping strategies, perceived stress,and symptoms of illness concurrently.

METHODS

Subjects

Corporate Sample

Data for the corporate sample were collected from full-time employeesof 3M in Austin, Texas. The overall subject pool included a convenience sam-ple of employees (N= 110) with a mean age of 42.4 8.5 years who were

members of 3Ms employee wellness program. 3M has approximately 1900employees located in Austin, 1200 of whom are members of the wellnessprogram. All subjects were assured that their decision regarding whether ornot to participate would have no effect on their relationship with 3M or theuniversity.

University Sample

Data for the university sample were collected from students enrolled in

undergraduate introductory psychology classes at The University of Texasat Austin. Two hundred seventy students with a mean age of 19.2 3.0 yearsvolunteered to participate. All subjects were assured that their decision re-garding whether or not to participate would have no effect on their grade inthe class or their relationship with the university.

Procedures

The study involved a cross-sectional research design using survey data.Both corporate and university subjects completed a questionnaire in smallgroups of approximately 1520 individuals in quiet classroom conditions.Study procedures were approved by The University of Texas InstitutionalReview Board, and data were collected and recorded so as to protect theanonymity of subjects.

Instrumentation

Hardiness

Bartone et al.s (1989) 30-item dispositional resilience scale was se-lected as a measure of hardiness because it represents one of the best third


7/18


generation measures of hardiness (Funk, 1992), assessing each of the closelyrelated tendencies of challenge, commitment, and control. The internal con-sistency of the hardiness scale was = .81 for the corporate sample and

= .78 for the university sample. For both samples, the internal consistencyof the composite measure of hardiness was higher than for each of the threesubscales, thus supporting the use of the composite measure.

Coping Strategies

Coping strategies were assessed using the dispositional version of theCoping Orientations to Problems Experienced (COPE) scale (Carver et al.,

1989), which measures a broad range of cognitive and behavioral copingstrategies that individuals typically use in stressful life situations. The totalscale contains 53 items and measures 14 subscales of coping styles. For ourpurposes, 8 of the 14 subscales of the COPE were used to measure approachand avoidance coping strategies. Each subscale contained four items.

Four subscales were combined to assess approach coping strategies: ac-tive coping, planning, positive reinterpretation and growth, and suppressionof competing activities. Active coping measures behavioral attempts to takeaction to deal directly with the problem (I take direct action to get around

the problem). Planning assesses cognitive attempts to come up with actionstrategies (I think hard about what steps to take). Positive reinterpretationand growth measures cognitive attempts to construe the problem in positiveterms while accepting the reality of the situation (I try to grow as a personas a result of the experience). While some researchers regard this type ofcoping as emotion-focused (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), others classify it asan approach-oriented coping strategy whose value exceeds merely reducingdistress (Holahan et al., 1997; Moos et al., 1990; Carver et al., 1989). Suppres-sion of competing activities assesses cognitive and behavioral attempts toavoid becoming distracted by other events in order to deal with the problem(I keep myself from getting distracted by other thoughts or activities). Theinternal consistency of approach coping was = .89 for the corporate sampleand = .87 for the university sample.

Four subscales were also combined to assess avoidance coping strategies:denial, behavioral disengagement, mental disengagement, and focus on andventing of emotions. Denial measures cognitive attempts to refuse to believethat the problem exists (I pretend that it hasnt really happened). Behav-ioral disengagement assesses behavioral attempts to reduce ones effort todeal with the problem (I just give up trying to reach my goal). Mentaldisengagement measures behavioral attempts to distract the person fromthinking about the problem (I turn to work or other substitute activities to


8/18


take my mind off things). Focus on and venting of emotions assesses be-havioral attempts to focus on the distress associated with the problem and toventilate those feelings (I get upset and let my emotions out). The internal

consistency of avoidance coping was = .79 for the corporate sample and = .80 for the university sample.

Perceived Stress

Perceived stress was defined as the degree to which situations in oneslife during the past month were perceived as stressful, as measured by the14-item Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen et al., 1983). The scale has shown to

be a good predictor of stress in that it correlates highly with symptomatogicalmeasures and life event scores (Cohen et al., 1983). The internal consistencyof the perceived stress scale was = .89 for the corporate sample and = .86for the university sample.

Symptoms of Illness

Psychosomatic symptoms of illness were measured by the SymptomsChecklist (Bartone et al., 1989), which includes 20 items measuring the ex-

tent to which subjects had experienced various physical and psychologicalsymptoms over the past few weeks, such as the commoncold or flu, headaches,upset stomach, and feeling nervous or tense. The internal consistency of thesymptoms checklist was = .89 for the corporate sample and = .82 forthe university sample.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics including means and standard deviations were cal-culated for men, women, and total sample on all variables for both the cor-porate and university subjects. Gender differences among variables wereexamined using Hotellings multivariate tests of significance with follow-upunivariate tests. One analysis was conducted on the variables hardiness, ap-proach coping, avoidance coping, perceived stress, and symptoms of illness.A second analysis was conducted using the subscales of hardiness, approachcoping, and avoidance coping. In addition, Pearson correlation coefficientswere calculated to examine the relationships among all variables for eachsample.

To test the proposed conceptual model, path analysis was used in boththe corporate and the university samples to examine therelationship betweensymptoms of illness and the set of determinants including perceived stress,


9/18


hardiness, and approach and avoidance coping. Gender differences wereexamined by comparing a multiple-group or less restricted model, where thepath coefficients for men and women were allowed to be different, to the

more restricted single-group model, where the path coefficients for men andwomen were forced to be the same.

Goodness-of-fit indices were examined using the chi-square test, thenormed fit index (NFI), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the TuckerLewis index (TLI). The chi-square statistic provides a test of the null hypoth-esis that the reproduced covariance matrix has the specified model structure(i.e., that the model fits the data). The NFI ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 rep-resents the goodness of fit associated with a null model (one specifying thatall the variables are uncorrelated) and 1 represents the goodness of fit as-

sociated with a saturated model (a model with 0 degrees of freedom thatperfectly reproduces the original covariance matrix). The CFI and TLI aresimilar to the NFI. Values over .95 on the NFI, CFI, and TLI indicate a goodfit between model and data (Schumacker and Lomax, 1996).

RESULTS

Mean scores and standard deviations for men, women, and total sam-

ple for all variables in the corporate and university subjects are shown inTables I and II, respectively. Several mean differences between males and

Table I. Means and Standard Deviations for Hardiness, Coping Strategies, Perceived Stress, andSymptoms of Illness in the Corporate Sample

Women Men Total(N= 70) (N= 40) (N= 110)

Hardiness 60.5 9.0 63.8 8.0 61.7 8.8Challenge 18.0 3.5 18.9 2.6 18.3 3.2

Commitment 21.2 4.4 22.6 3.9 21.7 4.3Control 21.2 3.7 21.9 4.1 21.5 3.6

Approach coping 48.7 8.4 49.4 5.6 49.0 7.5Active 12.4 2.3 12.8 1.6 12.5 2.1Planning 12.9 2.7 13.4 1.8 13.1 2.4Positive reinterpretation and growth 12.7 2.7 12.5 2.1 12.6 2.5Suppression of competing activities 10.7 2.3 10.8 2.0 10.8 2.2

Avoidance coping 32.1 6.6 28.1 6.0 30.4 6.8Denial 6.0 2.6 5.6 1.8 5.9 2.3Behavioral disengagement 7.0 2.3 6.3 2.3 6.7 2.3Mental disengagement 8.6 2.4 8.0 2.4 8.4 2.4Focus on and venting of emotions 10.3 2.7 7.8 2.5 9.4 2.9

Perceived stress 24.5 8.6 19.5 7.3 22.7 8.5Symptoms of illness 12.5 9.1 8.2 6.3 11.0 8.4

p < .01, two-tailed.


10/18


Table II. Means and Standard Deviations for Hardiness, Coping Strategies, Perceived Stress,and Symptoms of Illness in the University Sample

Women Men Total

(N= 168) (N= 102) (N= 270)

Hardiness 58.8 9.0 57.9 8.3 58.5 8.7Challenge 17.5 4.1 17.3 3.9 17.4 4.0Commitment 21.1 3.9 20.3 4.4 20.8 4.1Control 20.4 3.5 20.3 3.2 20.4 3.4

Approach coping 47.2 7.4 45.3 7.3 46.5 7.4Active 11.6 2.3 11.2 2.2 11.4 2.2Planning 12.6 2.5 11.9 2.7 12.5 2.6Positive reinterpretation and growth 12.4 2.5 11.5 2.4 12.1 2.5Suppression of competing activities 10.6 2.3 10.2 2.3 10.5 2.2

Avoidance coping 32.0 6.7 29.8 6.8 31.2 6.8

Denial 5.7 2.0 5.8 2.0 5.7 2.0Behavioral disengagement 6.2 2.2 6.6 2.6 6.4 2.4Mental disengagement 9.2 2.4 9.6 2.4 9.3 2.5Focus on and venting of emotions 10.6 3.3 8.0 2.7 9.7 3.3

Perceived stress 26.0 8.3 24.8 7.6 25.5 8.0Symptoms of illness 15.4 7.6 12.5 6.8 14.3 7.4

p < .05, two-tailed.p < .01, two-tailed.

females were found. Hotellings multivariate overall test of significance forthe variables hardiness, approach coping, avoidance coping, perceived stress,and symptoms of illness was significant for both the corporate [F(5,101) =3.9, p < .01] and the university [F(5,239)= 5.8, p < .01] samples. The univar-iate tests indicated that females used greater avoidance coping strategiesin both the corporate [F(1,105)= 11.8, p < .01] and the university [F(1,243) = 11.3, p < .01] samples. In addition, females reported more symp-toms of illness in both the corporate [F(1,105)= 9.4, p < .01] and the univer-sity [F(1,243)= 13.6, p < .01] samples. Females in the corporate sample alsoreported greater perceived stress [F(1,105)= 12.6, p < .01]. Hotellings mul-tivariate overall test of significance for the subscales of hardiness, approachcoping, and avoidance coping was also significant for both the corporate[F(11,95)= 2.4, p < .01] and the university [F(11,236)= 5.5, p < .01] sam-ples. The univariate tests indicated that females in the university sample usedgreater positive reinterpretation and growth coping strategies [F(1,246) =5.1, p < .05] than males. In addition, females in both the corporate [F(1,105)= 20.1, p < .01] and the university [F(1,246)= 47.1, p < .01] samplesused greater focus on and venting of emotions coping strategies.

Pearson productmoment correlations among the variables are shownin Table III for the corporate and university samples. As expected, higherlevels of hardiness are related to lower levels of perceived stress and fewer


11/18


Table III. Correlations Among Variables in the Corporate and University Samples

Approach Avoidance PerceivedHardiness Challenge Commitment Control coping coping stress

Corporate sample

HardinessChallenge .64

Commitment .89 .39

Control .81 .22 .65

Approach coping .53 .39 .47 .41

Avoidance coping .48 .36 .42 .38 .29

Perceived stress .71 .51 .60 .58 .52 .60

Symptoms of .65 .50 .51 .54 .45 .51 .70

illnessUniversity sample

Hardiness

Challenge .68

Commitment .81 .24

Control .79 .27 .59

Approach coping .46 .17 .46 .43

Avoidance coping .39 .21 .34 .34 .21

Perceived stress .60 .32 .55 .50 .37 .62

Symptoms of .33 .11 .35 .31 .16 .52 .61

illness

p < .05, two-tailed.p < .01, two-tailed.

symptoms of illness for both the corporate and the university samples. Hardi-ness is also associated with more approach coping and less avoidance copingin both samples. Approach coping is related to less perceived stress and fewersymptoms of illness for the corporate and university samples, whereas avoid-ance coping is related to greater stress and more symptoms of illness forboth samples. Finally, greater levels of perceived stress are related to moresymptoms of illness for both samples.

Corporate Sample Model

There was a nonsignificant gender effect with respect to the relation-ship of hardiness, coping strategies, and perceived stress to symptoms ofillness. The multiple-group model, where the path coefficients for men andwomen were allowed to be different, was not significantly different from themore restricted single-group model, where the path coefficients for men andwomen were forced to be the same [ 2(8, N= 110)= 8.77, p= .362]. There-fore, the path model for the corporate sample assessed men and women com-bined. Results of the path analysis supported the proposed model (Model 1),as presented in Fig. 1. Estimation of the model revealed a nonsignificantchi-square value [ 2(2, N= 110)= 2.52, p= .283] and accounted for a large


12/18


Table IV. Goodness-of-Fit Indices for the Final Corporate and University Models

Model 2 df p NFI CFI TLI RFI

CorporateModel 1 2.52 2 .283 .999 1.000 .998 .989

UniversityModel 1 15.14 2 .001 .996 .997 .977 .974Model 2 .62 1 .430 1.000 1.000 1.001 .998Model 3 1.79 2 .409 1.000 1.000 1.000 .997

amount of the variance in both symptoms of illness (R2= .54) and perceived

stress (R2= .

62), indicating that the model fit the data well. All values of thedescriptive goodness-of-fit tests exceeded .95, also indicating a very good fitbetween the model and the data (see Table IV). Path coefficients for theproposed model appear in Table V.

University Sample Model

There also was a nonsignificant gender effect with respect to the rela-

tionship of hardiness, coping strategies, and perceived stress to symptomsof illness for the university sample. The multiple-group model, where thepath coefficients for men and women were allowed to be different, was notsignificantly different from themore restricted single-groupmodel, where the

Table V. Path Coefficients for the Final Corporate and University Modelsa

Predicted Predicting Unstandarized Standarizedvariable variable estimate estimate SE CR

Corporate modelStress Resilience .44 .46 .07 5.95Stress Approach coping .20 .18 .08 2.52Stress Avoidance coping .40 .33 .09 4.78Symptoms of illness Stress .47 .47 .09 5.00Symptoms of illness Resilience .30 .32 .09 3.39

University model

Stress Resilience .44 .46 .07 5.95Stress Approach coping .20 .18 .08 2.52Stress Avoidance coping .40 .33 .09 4.78Symptoms of illness Stress .41 .47 .10 4.02

Symptoms of illness Resilience .29 .32 .09 3.26

a All path coefficients exceeded the absolute critical ratio (unstandardized estimate/standarderror) value of 2.0 and thus are significant beyond the .05 level.


13/18


path coefficients for men and women were forced to be the same [ 2(8, N=270) = 6.75, p= .564]. Therefore, the path model for the university sampleassessed men and women combined. However, results of the path analysis

for the university sample did not support Model 1. Estimation of the modelrevealed a significant chi-square value [ 2(2, N= 270)= 15.14, p= .001], in-dicating that the model did not fit the data well. The path coefficient fromresilience to symptoms of illness was the only path with a CR value less than2.0 (B= .05, = .06, SE= .06, CR= .91), therefore, this path was removed.

Given that Model 1 did not fit the data for the university sample, weadded two paths, from approach coping to symptoms of illness and fromavoidance coping to symptoms of illness. Adding these paths from copingstrategies to symptoms of illness have some support in the literature. Ap-proachcoping hasbeen associated with less illness (BlakeandVandiver, 1988;Olffet al., 1993) while avoidance coping has been associated with more illness(Blake and Vandiver, 1988; Holahan and Moos, 1985; Kobasa, 1982). For thismodel (Model 2), there was a nonsignificant gender effect with respect to therelationship of hardiness, coping strategies, and perceived stress to symptomsof illness. The multiple-group model, where the path coefficients for menand women were allowed to be different, was not significantly different fromthe more restricted single-group model, where the path coefficients for menand women were forced to be the same [ 2(9, N= 270)= 10.64, p= .301].Therefore, Model 2 assessed men and women combined. Results of thisanalysis supported the proposed model. Estimation of the model revealeda nonsignificant chi-square value [ 2(1, N= 270)= .62, p= .430], indicatingthat the model fit the data well. However, the path from approach coping tosymptomsofillness had a CRvalue oflessthan2.0 (B= .06, = .06, SE= .05,CR = 1.09), thus we removed this path and ran the model again. This model(Model 3) is shown in Fig. 2.

There was a nonsignificant gender effect for Model 3 with respect to therelationship of hardiness, coping strategies, and perceived stress to symptomsof illness. The multiple-group model, where the path coefficients for men andwomen were allowed to be different, was not significantly different from themore restricted single-group model, where the path coefficients for men andwomen were forced to be the same [ 2(8, N= 270)= 10.88, p= .209]. There-fore,Model3assessedmenandwomencombined.Thismodelrevealedanon-significant chi-square value [ 2(2, N= 270)= 1.79, p= .409] and accountedfor a large amount of the variance in both symptoms of illness (R2= .40) andperceived stress (R2= .54), indicating that the model fit the data well. Allvalues of the descriptive goodness-of-fit tests exceeded .95, also indicatinga very good fit between the model and the data (see Table IV). Path coeffi-cients for the university model appear in Table V, and all exceeded a valueof 2.0.


14/18


Fig. 2. Model 3 for the university sample.

DISCUSSION

This study examined the relationships of hardiness, coping strategies,and perceived stress to symptoms of illness using corporate and universitysamples. A conceptual model of these relationships was proposed based onthe research and examined using path analysis. We also examined genderdifferences among these relationships.

Comparing the means of men and women in both samples, several gen-der differences among coping strategies were found. Consistent with otherresearch (Billings and Moos, 1981; Fondacarao and Moos, 1989; Kvam andLyons, 1991; Pearlin and Schooler, 1978; Ptacek et al., 1992), women in bothsamples reported more avoidance coping than men, and most distinctly thefocus on and venting of emotion strategy. The finding that women from bothsamples did not have significantly lower approach coping strategies is in-consistent with some of the research that supports men use more approachcoping strategies than women (Holahan et al., 1995; Kvam and Lyons, 1991;Ptacek et al., 1992, 1994). In fact, that university women reported significantlymore of the positive reinterpretation and growth strategy is consistent withresearch in this area that supports the opposite stance, that women use moreapproach coping than men (Vitaliano et al., 1985).

The correlational results for both samples in our study support the re-lationships depicted in the literature. The well-documented relationship be-tween perceived stress and illness was supported (Dohrenwend and


15/18


Dohrenwend, 1981; Sapolsky, 1994). Consistent with the research literature,hardiness and approach coping were inversely related to stress and symp-toms of illness (Blake and Vandiver, 1988; Olffet al., 1993; Orr and Westman,

1990; Wiebe and McCallum, 1986), whereas avoidance coping was directlyrelated to stress and symptoms of illness (Blake and Vandiver, 1988; Holahanand Moos, 1985; Kobasa, 1982; Pearlin and Schooler, 1978). The finding thathardiness was directly related to approach coping and inversely related toavoidance coping is also consistent with other research (Florian et al., 1995;Williams et al., 1992). The relationship between hardiness and symptoms ofillness was also supported, thus supporting the preponderance of researchin this area (Banks and Gannon, 1988; Kobasa, 1979; Kobasa et al., 1981,1982a, b, 1983, 1985; Kobasa and Puccetti, 1983; Nowack and Hanson, 1983;

Pollock, 1986; Wiebe and McCallum, 1986).Consistent with previous research, the path of hardiness to symptoms

of illness was found in the corporate sample (Funk, 1992; Orr and Westman,1990). This path was not, however, found in the university sample. This dis-crepancy may be attributed to the age difference between the corporate(mean age = 42.4) and the university (mean age = 19.2) samples. It seemslogical to assume that the more life experiences one has, the hardier onebecomes. Perhaps the more pronounced hardiness becomes, the more di-rect influence it has on health. For example, Schmied and Lawler (1986)found that hardiness was associated with being older. Thus, the relationshipof hardiness to health outcomes may be influenced by age, with hardinesspredicting health outcomes among older but not younger individuals.

Another interesting finding was the addition of the path from avoidancecoping to symptoms of illness in the university sample. This difference mayalso be attributed to the age differences between the two samples. Accordingto the growth and maturity hypothesis, older individuals may have a moreeffective and mature repertoire of coping styles (Diehl et al., 1996; Labouvie-Vief et al., 1987; McCrae, 1982). Therefore, the subjects in the universitysample, being of a young age, may not have developed the more effectivecoping styles characteristic of approach coping.

Several applications for intervention are implied by these findings. Mostimportantly, the finding that the personality trait of hardiness and copingstrategies impact the stressillness relationship suggests that these are nec-essary components of an effective intervention. Due to the negative im-pact of avoidance coping, particularly in the university sample with the ad-ditional path from avoidance coping to symptoms of illness, interventionstargeted for college-aged populations should focus on increasing aware-ness and understanding of the influence these strategies have on health.Finally, interventions targeted at corporate employees should reflect thestronger role hardiness has in the stressillness relationship as illustrated by


16/18


the paths hardiness has to both perceived stress and symptoms of illness in thissample.

The results of the study should be considered in light of several limita-

tions. First, as with all survey data, self-report has inherent limitations. Evenso, the instruments used were previously published and possess adequatepsychometric properties. Second, the use of convenient samples of corporateemployees and university students limits the generalizability of the findings.Further research is necessary using demographically diverse populations tostrengthen the validity of the study findings. Finally, the design of the study iscross-sectional, therefore causation cannot be determined and the possibilitythat some third variable may be accounting for some of the effects cannot bedismissed. The use of a longitudinal design in future research would enable

examination of the effects of targeted interventions on perceived stress andsymptoms of illness.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to 3M Wellness for allowing us to collect data at 3M.Specific appreciation goes to Nancy Cherwitz, Health Management Admin-

istrator, and Rebecca Ryan Swift, Health Management Coordinator.

REFERENCES

Banks, J. K., and Gannon, L. R. (1988). The influence of hardiness on the relationship betweenstressors and psychosomatic symptomatology. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 16: 2537.

Bartone, P. T., Ursano, R. J., Wright, K. M., and Ingraham, L. H. (1989). The impact of a militaryair disaster on the health of assistance workers: A prospective study. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis.177: 317328.

Billings, A. G., and Moos, R. H. (1981). The role of coping responses and social resources inattenuating the stress of life events. J. Behav. Med. 4: 139157.Blake, R. L., and Vandiver, T. A. (1988). The association of health with stressful life changes,

social supports, and coping. Family Pract. Res. J. 7: 205218.Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., and Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theo-

retically based approach. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 56: 267283.Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., and Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress.

J. Health Soc. Behav. 24: 385396.Diehl, M., Coyle, N., and Labouvie-Vief, G. (1996). Age and sex differences in strategies of

coping and defense across the life span. Psychol. Aging 11: 127139.Dohrenwend, B. S., and Dohrenwend, B. P. (eds.) (1974). Stressful Life Events: Their Nature and

Effects, Wiley, New York.

Dohrenwend, B. S., and Dohrenwend, B. P. (1981). Stressful Life Events and Their Contexts,Neale Watson Academic, New York.Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., and Taubman, O. (1995). Does hardiness contribute to mental

health during a stressful real-life situation? The roles of appraisal and coping. J. Person.Soc. Psychol. 68: 687695.


17/18


Folkman, S., and Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged communitysample. J. Health Soc. Behav. 21: 219239.

Fondacaro, M. R., and Moos, R. H. (1989). Life stressors and coping: A longitudinal analysisamong depressed and nondepressed adults. J. Commun. Psychol. 17: 330340.

Funk, S. C. (1992). Hardiness: A review of theory and research. Health Psychol. 11: 335345.Ganellen, R. J., and Blaney, P. H. (1984). Hardiness and social support as moderators of the

effects of life stress. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 47: 156163.Gentry, W. D., and Kobasa, S. C. (1984). Social and psychological resources mediating stress-

illness relationships in humans. In Gentry, W. D. (ed.), Handbook of Behavioral Medicine,Guilford Press, New York.

Holahan, C. J., and Moos, R. H. (1985). Life stress and health: Personality, coping, and familysupport in stress resistance. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 49: 739747.

Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. H., Holahan, C. K., and Brennan, P. L. (1995). Social support, coping,and depressive symptoms in a late-middle-aged sample of patients reporting cardiac illness.Health Psychol. 14: 152163.

Holahan, C. J., Moos, R. H., Holahan, C. K., and Brennan, P. L. (1997). Social context, copingstrategies, and depressive symptoms: An expanded model with cardiac patients. J. Person.Soc. Psychol. 72: 918928.

Hull, J. G., Van Treuren, R. R., and Virnelli, S. (1987). Hardiness and health: A critique andalternative approach. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 53: 168177.

Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardiness.J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 37: 111.

Kobasa, S. C. (1982). Commitment and coping in stress resistance among lawyers.J. Person. Soc.Psychol. 42: 707717.

Kobasa, S. C., and Maddi, S. R. (1977). Existential personality theory. In Corsini, R. J. (ed.),Current Personality Theories, Peacock, Itasca, IL.

Kobasa, S. C., and Puccetti, M. C. (1983). Personality and social resources in stress resistance.J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 45: 839850.

Kobasa, S. C., Maddi, S. R., and Courington, S. (1981). Personality and constitution as mediatorsin the stress-illness relationship. J. Health Soc. Behav. 22: 368378.

Kobasa, S. C., Maddi, S. R., and Kahn, S. (1982a). Hardiness and health: A prospective study.J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 42: 168177.

Kobasa, S. C., Maddi, S. R., and Puccetti, M. C. (1982b). Personality and exercise as buffers inthe stress-illness relationship. J. Behav. Med. 5: 391404.

Kobasa, S. C., Maddi, S. R., and Zola, M. A. (1983). Type A and hardiness. J. Behav. Med. 6:4151.

Kobasa, S. C., Maddi, S. R., Puccetti, M. C., and Zola, M. A. (1985). Effectiveness of hardiness,exercise, and social support as resources against illness. J. Psychosom. Res. 29: 525533.

Kvam, S. H., and Lyons, J. S. (1991). Assessment of coping strategies, social support, and general

health status in individuals with diabetes mellitus. Psychol. Rep. 68: 623632.Labouvie-Vief, G., Hakim-Larson, J., and Hobart, C. J. (1987). Age, ego level, and the life-spandevelopment of coping and defense processes. Psychol. Aging 2: 286293.

Lazarus, R. S., and Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, Springer, New York.McCrae, R. R. (1982). Age differences in the use of coping mechanisms.J. Gerontol. 37: 454460.Moos, R. H., Brennan, P. L., Fondacaro, M. R., and Moos, B. S. (1990). Approach and avoidance

coping responses among older problem and nonproblem drinkers. Psychol. Aging 5: 3140.Nowack, K. M., and Hanson, A. L. (1983). The relationship between stress, job performance,

and burnout in college student resident assistants.J. College Student Personnel24: 545550.Olff, M., Brosschot, J. F., and Godaert, G. (1993). Coping styles and health. Person. Ind. Diff.

15: 8190.Orr, E., and Westman, M. (1990). Does hardiness moderate stress, and how?: A review. In

Rosenbaum, M. (ed.), Learned Resourcefulness: On Coping Skills, Self-Control, and Adap-tive Behavior, Springer, New York.Pearlin, L. I., and Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. J. Health Soc. Behav. 19: 221.Pollock, S. E. (1986). Human responses to chronic illness: Physiological and psychosocial adap-

tation. Nurs. Res. 35: 9095.


18/18


Ptacek, J. T., Smith, R. E., and Zanas, J. (1992). Gender, appraisal, and coping: A longitudinalanalysis. J. Person. 60: 747770.

Ptacek, J. T., Smith, R. E., and Dodge, K. L. (1994). Gender differences in coping with stress:When stressor and appraisals do not differ. Person. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 20: 421430.

Rabkin, J. G., and Struening, E. L. (1976). Life events, stress, and illness. Science 194: 10131020.Rhodewalt, F., and Agustsdottier, S. (1984). On the relationship of hardiness to the type A

behavior pattern: Perception of life events versus coping with life event. J. Res. Person. 18:212223.

Rhodewalt, F., and Zone, J. B. (1989). Appraisal of life change, depression, and illness in hardyand nonhardy women. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 56: 8188.

Roth, S., and Cohen, L. J. (1986). Approach, avoidance, and coping with stress. Am. Psychol.41: 813819.

Sapolsky, R. M. (1994). Why Zebras Dont Get Ulcers, W. H. Freeman, New York.Schmied, L. A., and Lawler, K. A. (1986). Hardiness, type A behavior, and the stress-illness

relation in working women. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 51: 12181223.Schumacker, R. E., and Lomax, R. G. (1996). A Beginners Guide to Structural Equation Mod-

eling, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J.Shepperd, J. A., and Kashani, J. H. (1991). The relationship of hardiness, gender, and stress to

health outcomes in adolescents. J. Person. 59: 747768.Vitaliano, P. P., Russo, J., Carr, J. E., Maiuro, R. D., and Becker, J. (1985). The Ways of Coping

Checklist: Revision and psychometric properties. Multivar. Behav. Res. 20: 326.Wiebe, D. J. (1991). Hardiness and stress moderation: A test of proposed mechanisms.J. Person.

Soc. Psychol. 60: 8999.Wiebe, D. J., and McCallum, D. M. (1986). Health practices and hardiness as mediators in the

stress-illness relationship. Health Psychol. 5: 425438.Williams, P. G., Wiebe, D. J., and Smith, T. W. (1992). Coping processes as mediators of the

relationship between hardiness and health. J. Behav. Med. 15: 237255.

Documents

Hardiness and Coping Strategies.pdf