A critical analysis of the Hardiness Scale's validity and utility.

Funk, Steven C.; Houston, B. Kent

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.572

Cited by 170 publications

(170 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

158

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This measure is a shortened version of the Dispositional Resilience Scale (DRS; Bartone et al, 1989) identified by Funk (1992) in his review of hardiness theory and research as the best available tool for assessing hardiness. Also using the DRS hardiness measure, Sinclair and Tetrick (2000) found that hardiness operates independently of neuroticism (Funk & Houston, 1987), and that the theoretical structure of three facets (commitment, control, and challenge) nested beneath a superordinate hardiness construct is supported by confirmatory factor analysis.…”

Section: Research Supporting the Hardy Leader Influence Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 93%

Resilience Under Military Operational Stress: Can Leaders Influence Hardiness?

Bartone

2006

Military Psychology

315

246

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although many people suffer physical and mental health decrements following exposure to stress, many others show remarkable resilience, remaining healthy despite high stress levels. If the factors that account for resilience can be clearly identified and understood, perhaps resilience can be enhanced even for those most vulnerable to stress. One potential pathway to resilience is personality hardiness, a characteristic sense that life is meaningful, we choose our own futures, and change is interesting and valuable. This article applies this hardiness concept to the context of military operational stress, and argues that highly effective leaders can increase hardy, resilient responses to stressful circumstances within their units. I discuss the nature of stress in modern military operations, and briefly review relevant hardiness theory and research. Three sets of considerations lead to the proposition that hardy leaders can indeed increase hardy cognitions and behaviors in groups. These considerations concern (a) the likely underlying mechanisms of hardiness, which have to do with how experiences get interpreted and made sense of; (b) relevant theoretical positions on leader social influence, including transformational leadership and path-goal leader theory; and (c) several empirical studies that have shown indirect support for a hardy leader influence process. A case vignette is provided to illustrate how leaders might increase hardy cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors within their organizations during highly stressful operations. This potential for leaders to boost hardiness as a pathway to resiliency in groups under stress merits further active investigation.Military operations across the entire range of conflict expose military personnel (and increasingly, contract workers) to a multitude of stressors. These stressors can lead to a variety of negative health consequences, both physical and mental, for MILITARY PSYCHOLOGY, 2006, 18(Suppl.), S131-S148

show abstract

Section: Research Supporting the Hardy Leader Influence Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 93%

Resilience Under Military Operational Stress: Can Leaders Influence Hardiness?

Bartone

2006

Military Psychology

315

246

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, this measure and several others derived from it contained only negatively worded items, and so was really measuring non-hardiness. This increased the potential for measurement confounding with negative factors like neuroticism and depression [49]. In addition, many studies failed to find the three core hardiness factors of commitment, control and challenge.…”

Section: Measuring Psychological Hardinessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social and organizational influences on psychological hardiness: How leaders can increase stress resilience

Bartone

2012

Secur Inform

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Today's security forces must operate in environments of increasing complexity, uncertainty and change, a fact that has led to increased stress levels along with the challenge to adapt. For many people, such stressful conditions can lead to a range of health problems and performance decrements. But others remain healthy, showing resilience under stress. What accounts for such resilience? This paper focuses on psychological hardiness, a set of mental qualities that has been found to distinguish resilient from non-resilient people. Those high in psychological hardiness show greater commitment -the abiding sense that life is meaningful and worth living; control -the belief that one chooses and can influence his/her own future; and challenge -a perspective on change in life as something that is interesting and exciting. This paper begins with a brief discussion of the major stress sources in modern military and security operations, and the broad range of factors that can influence resilience in organizations. Next the concept of psychological hardiness is described, including theoretical background, representative research findings, and biological underpinnings. Finally, some strategies are suggested for how psychological hardiness can be built up in organizations, primarily through leader actions and policies. By focusing more attention on increasing psychological hardiness, security organizations can realize enhanced health and performance in the workforce, while also preventing many stress-related problems.

show abstract

“…The rationale for the latter analysis was that the unique predictive validity of the SRS needed to be determined after controlling for the effects of other potential explanatory variables. Conducting such an analysis was important because measures that, in the past, have been touted as making a novel contribution, have later been shown to correlate so strongly with one or more other explanatory variable so that their unique contribution has been cast in doubt (Funk & Houston, 1987). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Attention Control in Goal Pursuit: A Component of Dispositional Self-Regulation

Diehl¹,

Semegon²,

Schwarzer³

2006

Journal of Personality Assessment

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the psychometric properties of the Self-Regulation Scale (SRS; Schwarzer, Diehl, & Schmitz, 1999), a measure of attention control in goal pursuit, in 2 independent studies. Study 1 included young adults (N = 443), whereas Study 2 included young, middle-aged, and older adults (N = 330). In both studies, the SRS showed good internal consistency. In Study 1, the SRS also showed satisfactory test-retest reliability over a 6-week period. We found support for the criterion validity of the SRS in terms of positive correlations with measures of general and domain-specific self-efficacy, proactive coping, and positive affect and in terms of negative correlations with depressive symptoms and negative affect. Hierarchical regression analyses showed that attention control accounted for unique portions of variance in relevant outcome variables above and beyond measures of self-efficacy and proactive coping.Individuals' ability to regulate their thoughts, feelings, and overt actions contributes to psychological health and well-being (Carver & Scheier, 1999). Self-regulatory behavior is complex and involves both dispositional as well as situational components (Carver, 2004). The research we present here focused on a measure to assess one component of dispositional selfregulation, namely, attention control in goal-directed behavior. Attention control is defined as a person's ability to focus his or her attention on a given task, to control and regulate external and internal distractions, and to work toward a desired goal or outcome. As such, attention control is the opposite of impulsive behavior and represents a personality variable that is an integral part of most complex actions and a dispositional component of self-regulation. THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDTraditionally there have been two major theoretical approaches to the study of self-regulatory behavior. The process approach emphasizes that self-regulatory actions are processes that extend over time and are linked to individuals' goals. Karoly (1993) described this approach when he proposed the following definition:Self-regulation refers to those processes, internal and/or transactional, that enable an individual to guide his/her goal-directed activities over time and across changing circumstances (contexts). Regulation implies modulation of thought, affect, behavior, or attention via deliberate or automated use of specific mechanisms and supportive metaskills. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptInherent in process approaches is the notion that self-regulatory behavior is sequential in nature and includes subcomponents such as planning, directing and maintaining attention, evaluation of actions, correction of behavior, and termination of actions (Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996;Carver & Scheier, 1999;Karoly, 1993;Schwarzer, 2001).The other major theoretical approach is rooted in the tradition of personality psychology and conceptualizes self-regulation as an individual difference variable. Advocates of this approach poi...

show abstract

A critical analysis of the Hardiness Scale's validity and utility.

Cited by 170 publications

References 32 publications

Resilience Under Military Operational Stress: Can Leaders Influence Hardiness?

Resilience Under Military Operational Stress: Can Leaders Influence Hardiness?

Social and organizational influences on psychological hardiness: How leaders can increase stress resilience

Assessing Attention Control in Goal Pursuit: A Component of Dispositional Self-Regulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About