How Academic Hardiness Related to Coping Styles - Case Study Example

How Academic Hardiness Relates with Coping Styles Name: Instructor: Course: Date Abstract The aim of this study was to examine, in a sample of university students, the association between academic hardiness and coping style. The study focused on different coping strategies and examined them against academic hardiness. There was statistical significance (positive correlation) between academic hardiness and forms of transformational coping namely positive reinterpretation and growth, active coping, emotional support and planning. There was also seen a strongly negative relationship between academic hardiness and forms of regressive coping which were mental disengagement, denial, and behavioral disengagement. Generally, there was also statistical significance showing a positive correlation in the relationship between academic hardiness and transformational coping and a negative one seen between academic hardiness and regressive coping. This significance proves that academic hardiness is directly related to transformational as opposed to regressive coping. INTRODUCTION Hardiness as expressed in coping patterns Maddi and Hightower (1999) did a study on coping patterns to examine how they are influenced. They observed that there are two main dispositions which influence the manner in which people relate with their surroundings; these are optimism and hardiness. It was theorized that optimism is characterize by a general expectation of positive outcomes regardless of the current interruptions. The hardiness theory (Kobasa, 1979) (derived from existential psychology) on the other hand put forth that there are three main assumptions made by people as they go about interacting with their environments; these assumptions are concerned with control, commitment, and challenge. In the control assumption much like with the optimism theory, people assume/believe that they can make a positive influence on outcomes if they just put in the right amount of effort. Those within this assumption are not likely to feel powerless. People with strong commitment believe that they are able to find benefit in whatever situation they are navigating-good/bad, important/unimportant, and interesting or otherwise. These persons are not likely to experience denial or feeling of disengagement. Persons strong in challenge hold the belief that life is best lived when they retrieve meaningful lessons from their experiences whether they be positive or negative thus growing in wisdom. This is the least likely group to feel entitled to a life resembling a smooth ride full of security and comfort. The optimism theory therefore gives weight to a general expectation of successful outcomes and the move to control their realization. The hardiness theory, in contrast, puts stress on the value of learning from ones experiences (positive or negative) whether one perceives them as successful or otherwise- there is always a lesson to be learned. Research Findings; Study One In order to conduct this experiment, Maddi and Hightower (1999) did three separate studies in which they tested for the differences between hardiness and optimism and how they relate to two different coping styles namely transformational coping and regressive coping. The former offers true relief from stressors through the creation of solutions to the problems posed therein. The latter takes either an escapist or a long suffering path through hardship in the face of stressors. They put forth the theory that transformational coping and regressive coping is clearer when it comes to hardiness than it is in optimism. This meant that they would use hardiness as the standard by which they would compare the two methods of coping. For the first study, a class of undergrads aged between 17 and 35 served as the participants for the study with 241 of them taking part. They were asked to complete questionnaires from which the variables (at the time of completion, these variables were unknown to the participants) were derived. The study required the participants to fill out three questionnaires for three different tests: the (LOT) Life Orientation Test (containing 8 items) which measures optimism, the (PVS) Personal Views Survey (containing 45 items) which measures hardiness, and the COPE test (containing 53 items) which measures 15 different coping forms and classifies them into two main groups (that is, either transformational or regressive coping). They then compared and contrasted the coping strategies associated with optimism with those associated with hardiness. The results were the analyzed and were found to be as shown in table 1 below. Table 1: Intercorrelations of commitment, control, challenge, and total hardiness (Maddi & Hightower, 1999) Measure 1 2 3 4 Commitment .67 .34 .84 Control .30 .81 Challenge .72 Total hardiness All ps < .001 As the table above shows, correlation patterns among the three components (commitment, control, and challenge) and their relationship to the total hardiness scores warranted the combination of the individual scores to form a total score. A positive relationship was also found between hardiness and optimism. Regarding the forms of transformational coping (Acceptance; Restraint; Planning; Active coping; Use of emotional social support; Positive reinterpretation and growth; Use of instrumental social support; and Suppression of competing activities) optimism shows a direct relationship to the growth scale and positive interpretation. Hardiness, on the other hand, shows a direct relation with planning, active coping, and use of instrumental social support. Moreover, hardiness and not optimism is negatively related to definitively regressive coping forms particularly mental and behavioral disengagement, and denial. Other forms of regressive coping include humor; substance use/abuse; religious coping; as well as focusing on emotions and emotional venting (Maddi & Hightower, 1999). A Review of Similar Studies Several other papers have since been written based on the principles contained in Maddi and Hightower (1999), most of which have Maddi as their lead author. There has been found to be a relationship between hardiness and religiousness at least on the level that they both make an effort to find meaning in life by one way or another. They also both have a neutralizing effect in part on stressors that help in boosting health, performance, and morale. Using this premise, Maddi, Brow, Khoshaba & Vaitkus (2006) sought to investigate and compare the relationship between each variable and depression, anger, as well as the mechanisms of social support and coping where these relationships exist. To do this, the study employed 53 government and military personnel as participants. Participants were required to meet certain measures of religiousness, and hardiness among other variables on a purely voluntary basis. They ran multiple regressions as well as correlation analyses on the results and found the following: hardiness as compared to religiousness showed a more negative relationship with anger and depression and a more positive relationship with social support and coping. This simply meant that hardiness rather than religiousness has a more protective effect against negative states such as depression and anger, and greater power to enhance coping and provide social support (Maddi, Brow, Khoshaba & Vaitkus, 2006). In the same year, Maddi along with several other associates did another study investigating the relationship between the disposition of hardiness with innovativeness, performance, repression, and authoritarianism (Maddi et al., 2006). They sought to continue with the validation of this construct in two main ways: by debuting a new version of the PVS which was shortened; and through the testing of hypotheses regarding the relationship of hardiness with right-wing authoritarianism, regressive coping, billable hours, and innovative behavior (a measure of consulting effectiveness). The shortened version of the hardiness measure (PVS III-R) contained 18 items as opposed to the original PVS which contained 45 items. For this study, a sample population numbering 1,239 participants was used. The sample was composed of working adults and college students who completed the questionnaires voluntarily either as part of a workshop or as their course work. The results then demonstrated that the shortened PVS III-R was a valid and reliable tool as a measure of hardiness. The results further supported the hypothesis that hardiness has a negative relationship with regressive coping. Moreover, it was found that hardiness has a negative relationship with right-wing authoritarianism and a positive one with billable hours and behavior geared towards innovativeness. A new finding was that hardiness appears to have no relation to socially desirable responding. In the bid to further investigate and prove the validity of the PVS III-R, this tool was once again used in a study to investigate the relationship of hardiness as a personality construct with the constructions of existential meaning in life (Maddi, Khoshaba, Harvey, Fazel & Resurreccion, 2011). This time, 1,141 university students at a school in southern California filled out questionnaires voluntarily for extra credit on their courses. An additional specific questionnaire was completed on the existential meaning of life. The results further showed the validity of the PVS III-R and a negative relation to social responding. As expected, it was proven that hardiness is positively related to the existential meaning in life through the glasses of one’s experiences. Academic Hardiness Benishek, Feldman, Wolf - Shipon, Mecham and Lopez (2005) defined academic hardiness as the tendency of a student to willingly pursue academic course work which challenges them. Students who avoid such challenges, on the other hand, are referred to as having a low academic hardiness. A tool was created to measure academic hardiness and was named the Academic Hardiness Scale (AHS). Although preliminary research showed favorable results where the validity of this measure was concerned, validity was proved to be poor in subsequent studies. A revised measure with improved validity and reliability was then created: the Revised Academic Hardiness Scale (RAHS). These studies aim to measure the links between academic hardiness and good performance (Creed, Conlon & Dhaliwal, 2013). The purpose of the present study was to replicate and extend the findings reported in study 1 by Maddi & Hightower (1999) by examining, in a sample of university students, the association between academic hardiness and coping style. It was hypothesized that academic hardiness will exhibit a strong positive correlation to forms of coping that are transformational and a negative one with coping styles that are definitely regressive. METHOD The sample population for the study was composed of undergraduate university students. One hundred and eighty eight participants took part, 85% (160) of who were females. Their average age was 29.2 years (SD = 9.42). 62.8% (118) of the participants were full-time students, about a third of them (62, or 33.0%) were studying 2 or more units on a full-time basis while 4.3% (8) of them studied only one unit. On the highest education level, 46.3% (87) of the participants had completed secondary school; 37.8% (71) had completed some education post-secondary within a non-university institution; and 16% (30) were already university degree holders. 24.5% (46) of the participants were currently employed on a full-time basis; 50.0% (94) of them worked part-time; and 25.5% (48) was unemployed or not working. In the first two weeks of the semester, the participants completed several questionnaires as part of an online survey program (Qualtrics) one of which was the COPE test (Carver, Scheier & Weintraub, 1989) and their various scores calculated for transformational and regressive coping by summing up the various components attributed to each coping style. A score for Regressive coping was calculated by summing the items for the following scales of the COPE: Mental disengagement; Focus on venting emotions; Denial; Religion; Humour; Behavioural disengagement; and Alcohol and drug use. The other questionnaires completed were based on the RAHS (Benishek, Feldman, Wolf - Shipon, Mecham and Lopez, 2005) questionnaires were filled and used to calculate academic hardiness. This scale assess the commitment (10 items), challenge (5 items), and control (3 items) aspects of academic hardiness. The items were adjusted to suit the Australian context using guidelines proposed by Creed, Conlon, and Dhaaliwal (2013). The students responded to the 18 items (e.g., “I enjoy the challenges of a difficult of a difficult class”) on a 4-point likert scale (1= completely false and 4 = completely true); and the responses for each item were summed to provide an overall score (ranging between 18 and 72) of academic hardiness for each student. RESULTS The results of the study are as shown in table 2 below: Table 2: Intercorrelations of the 15 coping styles and academic hardiness Academic Hardiness p Positive Reinterpretation and Growth .252** .000 Mental Disengagement -.243** .001 Venting -.054 .460 Social Support .091 .215 Active Coping .320** .000 Denial -.229** .002 Religious Coping .017 .818 Humor -.028 .699 Behavioral Disengagement -.370** .000 Restraint .072 .325 Emotional Support .150* .040 Substance use -.075 .304 Acceptance -.070 .343 Suppression of competing activities .083 .259 Planning .318** .000 Table 3: Intercorrelations of transformational coping, regressive coping and academic hardiness Academic Hardiness p Transformational coping .230** .002 Regressive Coping -.235** .001 The association between academic hardiness and coping was assessed using a correlation analysis of academic hardiness and the 15 coping styles assessed in the COPE (Bonferoni’s adjusted alpha of .003, which is .05 divided by 15) as well as academic hardiness and Transformational and Regressive Coping (Bonferoni’s adjusted alpha of .025, which is .05 divided by 2). The results of the study are as shown above in tables 2 and 3. There was statistical significance (positive correlation) between academic hardiness and forms of transformational coping namely positive reinterpretation and growth, active coping, emotional support and planning. There was also seen a strongly negative relationship between academic hardiness and forms of regressive coping which were mental disengagement, denial, and behavioral disengagement as shown in table 2. Generally, there was also statistical significance showing a positive correlation in the relationship between academic hardiness and transformational coping and a negative one seen between academic hardiness and regressive coping as seen in table 3. DISCUSSION Results on the Present study In order to prove the validity of the RAHS, it is important to subject it to the same conditions as the PVS as adjusted for academic purposes. When investigated in relation to coping styles, academic hardiness should exhibit the same relationship exhibited by hardiness (non-academic) to coping styles. This means that academic hardiness should show a positive relationship with transformational coping styles and a more negative one with regressive coping styles (Maddi & Hightower, 1999). The study was necessitated by the above needs and thus was conducted for the same purposes. The results of the study were exactly as expected. There was a clear divide seen in the relationship between academic hardiness and the two coping styles in the directions that were predicted. The results were as clear cut as they were expected to be. Academic hardiness was directly related to forms of coping appearing to be more transformational (that is, positive reinterpretation and growth, active coping, emotional support and planning) and negatively related to those forms of coping which appear to be more regressive (that is, mental disengagement, denial, and behavioral disengagement). This was in keeping with what the study hypothesized: that academic hardiness will exhibit a strong positive correlation to forms of coping that are transformational and negative one with coping styles that are definitely regressive. There is therefore strong evidence for the hypothesis and it is therefore retained. Relation of Present Findings to Previous Studies The study turned out as predicted; that hardiness (in this case, academic) would be positively and negatively related to transformational and regressive coping styles respectively. This was found to be in keeping with the results of study 1 by Maddi and Hightower (1999). There were however two main differences between the present study and study one: the present study sought specifically to assess academic hardiness as opposed to generalized hardiness as was done in study one; and study 1 also had optimism as a variable for its study and sought to examine its relationship with the various coping styles whereas the present study did not. Despite all the differences in the two studies, one thing remains constant across all studies involving whatever kind of hardiness it may be investigating- hardiness always involves effort and activity as opposed to the lack thereof (withdrawal) which is mostly characteristic of regressive types of coping choices. This therefore lends logical (as opposed to just statistical) justification to the constructs of the study and its results. Hardiness as a disposition is linked to higher performance in the case of academics, increased proactiveness, willingness to “get one’s hands dirty”, and less to leaving things to fate and destiny (and other similar concepts) (Sheard, 2009). Transformational coping styles show a proclivity to action, planning, positive interpretation, and seeking instrumental help. Such coping strategies are better stress reducers as they target the offender directly and systematically deal with it rather than the reverse (regressive strategies) which employ a “bury one’s head in the sand” approach. It is therefore no wonder that academic hardiness is directly related to performance as observed in the studies comparing these two variables (Benishek, Feldman, Wolf - Shipon, Mecham & Lopez, 2005; Creed, Conlon & Dhaliwal, 2013). This study thus further proves the validity of the RAHS as a measure of academic hardiness, and provides more evidence for the hardiness theory as well. Limitations and Future Prospects The present study had one glaring limitation: a small sample size. In comparison to the other studies which involved over 1,000 participants each, this study was limited as it had a sample size of 188 (owing to the lack of completion of the 7 questionnaires out of the original 195 participant pool). Being a smaller participant sample size, the results may not be as reliable as they would have been had the population been adjusted to a more similar level as the rest. This study may be applied by learning institutions to develop curricula or learning environments that promote the development and use of transformational coping strategies and the discouragement of regressive forms of coping. In the future, it may be wise to research on the relationship between social backgrounds and coping style in a bid to find out why people choose different coping strategies to diffuse stress. It may also be prudent to find out what conditions encourage which coping styles and why in a bid to perhaps postively influence coping choices to enhance hardiness (Hachaturova, 2013). Conclusion This study sought to examine the association between academic hardiness and coping style. It was hypothesized that academic hardiness will exhibit a strong positive correlation to forms of coping that are transformational and negative one with coping styles that are definitely regressive. The study was based on the constructs of studies done before it on hardiness as put forth by Maddi and Hightower (1999) and others similar to it. It was found that academic hardiness was as predicted by the hypothesis thus the hypothesis was retained. References Allred, K., & Smith, T. (1989). The hardy personality: Cognitive and physiological responses to evaluative threat. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 56(2), 257-266. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.56.2.257 Benishek, L., Feldman, J., Wolf - Shipon, R., Mecham, S., & Lopez, F. (2005). Development and evaluation of the revised academic hardiness scale. Journal Of Career Assessment, 13, 59 - 76. doi:10.1177/1069072704270274 Carver, C., Scheier, M., & Weintraub, J. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 56(2), 267-283. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267 Creed, P., Conlon, E., & Dhaliwal, K. (2013). Revisiting the Academic Hardiness Scale: Revision and Revalidation. Journal Of Career Assessment, 21(4), 537-554. doi:10.1177/1069072712475285 Hachaturova, M. (2013). Hardiness as a Resource of Personality’s Coping Behaviour in Difficult Situations. Academic Journal Of Interdisciplinary Studies. doi:10.5901/ajis.2013.v2n8p225 Kobasa, S. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 37(1), 1-11. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.37.1.1 Maddi, S., & Hightower, M. (1999). Hardiness and optimism as expressed in coping patterns. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice And Research, 51(2), 95-105. doi:10.1037//1061-4087.51.2.95 Maddi, S., Brow, M., Khoshaba, D., & Vaitkus, M. (2006). Relationship of hardiness and religiousness to depression and anger. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice And Research, 58(3), 148-161. doi:10.1037/1065-9293.58.3.148 Maddi, S., Harvey, R., Khoshaba, D., Lu, J., Persico, M., & Brow, M. (2006). The Personality Construct of Hardiness, III: Relationships With Repression, Innovativeness, Authoritarianism, and Performance. Journal Of Personality, 74(2), 575-598. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00385.x Maddi, S., Khoshaba, D., Harvey, R., Fazel, M., & Resurreccion, N. (2011). The Personality Construct of Hardiness, V: Relationships With the Construction of Existential Meaning in Life. Journal Of Humanistic Psychology, 51(3), 369-388. doi:10.1177/0022167810388941 Sheard, M. (2009). Hardiness commitment, gender, and age differentiate university academic performance. British Journal Of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 189-204. doi:10.1348/000709908x304406 Read More

The former offers true relief from stressors through the creation of solutions to the problems posed therein. The latter takes either an escapist or a long suffering path through hardship in the face of stressors. They put forth the theory that transformational coping and regressive coping is clearer when it comes to hardiness than it is in optimism. This meant that they would use hardiness as the standard by which they would compare the two methods of coping. For the first study, a class of undergrads aged between 17 and 35 served as the participants for the study with 241 of them taking part.

They were asked to complete questionnaires from which the variables (at the time of completion, these variables were unknown to the participants) were derived. The study required the participants to fill out three questionnaires for three different tests: the (LOT) Life Orientation Test (containing 8 items) which measures optimism, the (PVS) Personal Views Survey (containing 45 items) which measures hardiness, and the COPE test (containing 53 items) which measures 15 different coping forms and classifies them into two main groups (that is, either transformational or regressive coping).

They then compared and contrasted the coping strategies associated with optimism with those associated with hardiness. The results were the analyzed and were found to be as shown in table 1 below. Table 1: Intercorrelations of commitment, control, challenge, and total hardiness (Maddi & Hightower, 1999) Measure 1 2 3 4 Commitment .67 .34 .84 Control .30 .81 Challenge .72 Total hardiness All ps < .001 As the table above shows, correlation patterns among the three components (commitment, control, and challenge) and their relationship to the total hardiness scores warranted the combination of the individual scores to form a total score.

A positive relationship was also found between hardiness and optimism. Regarding the forms of transformational coping (Acceptance; Restraint; Planning; Active coping; Use of emotional social support; Positive reinterpretation and growth; Use of instrumental social support; and Suppression of competing activities) optimism shows a direct relationship to the growth scale and positive interpretation. Hardiness, on the other hand, shows a direct relation with planning, active coping, and use of instrumental social support.

Moreover, hardiness and not optimism is negatively related to definitively regressive coping forms particularly mental and behavioral disengagement, and denial. Other forms of regressive coping include humor; substance use/abuse; religious coping; as well as focusing on emotions and emotional venting (Maddi & Hightower, 1999). A Review of Similar Studies Several other papers have since been written based on the principles contained in Maddi and Hightower (1999), most of which have Maddi as their lead author.

There has been found to be a relationship between hardiness and religiousness at least on the level that they both make an effort to find meaning in life by one way or another. They also both have a neutralizing effect in part on stressors that help in boosting health, performance, and morale. Using this premise, Maddi, Brow, Khoshaba & Vaitkus (2006) sought to investigate and compare the relationship between each variable and depression, anger, as well as the mechanisms of social support and coping where these relationships exist.

To do this, the study employed 53 government and military personnel as participants. Participants were required to meet certain measures of religiousness, and hardiness among other variables on a purely voluntary basis. They ran multiple regressions as well as correlation analyses on the results and found the following: hardiness as compared to religiousness showed a more negative relationship with anger and depression and a more positive relationship with social support and coping. This simply meant that hardiness rather than religiousness has a more protective effect against negative states such as depression and anger, and greater power to enhance coping and provide social support (Maddi, Brow, Khoshaba & Vaitkus, 2006).

Read More