Copyright 1995 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

1995, Vol. 68, No. 4, 687-695

Does Hardiness Contribute to Mental Health During a Stressful Real-

Life Situation? The Roles of Appraisal and Coping
Victor Florian, Mario Mikulincer, and Orit Taubman
Bar-Ilan University

Israeli recruits (N=276) completed questionnaires on hardiness, mental health, cognitive appraisal,
and ways of coping at the beginning and end of a demanding, 4-month combat training period.
Path analysis revealed that 2 components of hardiness—commitment and control measured at the
beginning of the training—predicted mental health at the end of the training through the mediation
of appraisal and coping variables. Commitment improved mental health by reducing the appraisal
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

of threat and the use of emotion-focused strategies and by increasing secondary appraisal. Control
improved mental health by reducing the appraisal of threat and by increasing secondary appraisal
and the use of problem-solving and support-seeking strategies.

In recent years, personality theorists and researchers have
paid considerable attention to the construct of hardiness as an
inner resource that may moderate the effects of stress on physi-
cal and mental health (e.g., Gentry & Kobasa, 1984; Suls &
Rittenhouse, 1987; Westman, 1990). We examined the contri-
bution of hardiness to changes in mental health of individuals
facing a well-defined real-life stressful situation. In addition, we
assessed the role played by two possible mediators of the hardi-
ness-mental health relationship: the appraisal of the stressful
situation and the ways of coping with it.
Basing their definition on existential personality theory, Ko-
basa, Maddi, and Kahn (1982) defined the construct of hardi-
ness as "a constellation of personality characteristics that func-
tion as a resistance resource in the encounter with stressful life
events" (p. 169). This personality variable is composed of three
basic, interrelated hypothetical elements: commitment, con-
trol, and challenge. Hardy persons are easily committed to what
they are doing in their lives, believe they have some control over
the causes and solutions of life problems, and view changes in
life and adaptive demands as challenges and opportunities for
growth rather than as threats.
There is extensive evidence suggesting that hardiness is posi-
tively related to physical and mental health and that it mitigates
negative health outcomes of stress (Kobasa, 1979a, 1979b; Ko-
basa, Maddi, & Courington, 1981; Kobasa etal., 1982; Kobasa,
Maddi, & Puccetti, 1982; Kobasa, Maddi, & Zola, 1983; Ko-
basa & Puccetti, 1983; Maddi & Kobasa, 1984). Significant in-
verse correlations have also been found between hardiness and
measures of anxiety and depression (Allred & Smith, 1989;
Drory & Florian, 1991; Funk & Houston, 1987; Rhodewalt &
Zone, 1989). In their reviews, Blaney and Ganellen (1990),
Victor Florian, Mario Mikulincer, and Orit Taubman, Department
of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.
We want to acknowledge Aron Weller for his fruitful comments on an
earlier draft of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Victor
Florian, Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan
52900, Israel. E-mail may be sent via Bitnet to F41338@barilan.
687
Hull, Van Treuren, and Virnelli (1987), and Orr and Westman
(1990) have concluded that hardiness is positively related to
well-being and adjustment.
According to Kobasa (1979a), the effects of hardiness on
mental health are mediated by appraisal and coping mecha-
nisms (see Figure 1). Kobasa (1982) and Kobasa et al. (1981)
have claimed that hardiness is associated with a tendency to
perceive potentially stressful events in less threatening terms. In
support of this view,findingsshow that hardy persons experi-
ence events in a way similar to that of less hardy persons but
appraise the events as less stressful and remain optimistic about
their ability to cope with them (Allred & Smith, 1989; Pagana,
1990; Rhodewalt & Zone, 1989; Westman, 1990;Wiebe, 1991).
It seems that hardiness alters two appraisal components: It re-
duces the appraisal of threat and increases the expectations of
successful coping.
Hardiness has also been shown to be associated with the
choice of coping strategies for dealing with stressful events. Ko-
basa (1982) and Gentry and Kobasa (1984) have suggested that
hardy persons may prefer to rely on active, transformational
coping, which transforms stress into a benign experience by
means of problem-focused strategies. In contrast, persons low
in hardiness may prefer to use regressive coping strategies such
as cognitive and behavioral withdrawal and denial, which nei-
ther transform the situation nor solve the problem and may
even enhance emotional problems and maladjustment. Previ-
ousfindingshave generally been consistent with the hypothesis
that hardy persons use more problem-focused coping and less
emotion-focused coping strategies than do less hardy persons
(Kobasa & Puccetti, 1983; Schlosser & Sheeley, 1985; West-
man, 1990; Williams, Wiebe, & Smith, 1992). Blaney and Ga-
nellen (1990) reported an inverse relationship between hardi-
ness and the use of behavioral withdrawal.
Although research has provided some support for the model
proposed by Kobasa (1979a), Funk (1992) noted that most
previous research actually failed to empirically test the pro-
posed causal paths. He recommended assessing hardiness the-
ory in real-life stressful situations, employing longitudinal de-
signs in which hardiness and mental health are measured at
 688 V. FLORIAN, M. MIKULINCER, AND Q TAUBMAN
ENCOUNTER WITH STRESS
COGNITIVE
APPRAISAL \ the training.
PSYCHOLOGICAL
WELL-BEING
HARDINESS
PSYCHOLOGICAL
/ DISTRESS
COPING / component measures of appraisal and coping (Folkman & Laz-
STRATEGIES
Figure 1. Kobasa's mediational model.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
different points in time, measuring appraisal and coping vari-
ables, and using structural equations to analyze the proposed
causal paths. Beyond these empirical matters, Hull et al. (1987)
raised basic theoretical doubts about the validity of the hardi-
ness concept itself and its measurement. In the present study,
we adopted Funk's suggestions and attempted to empirically ex-
amine most of the previous criticisms in order to provide a bet-
ter understanding of the relationship between hardiness and
mental health.
Present Study
On the basis of Funk's (1992) recommendations, we exam-
ined an existing real-life stressful situation—a demanding, 4-
month combat training period—and assessed hardiness ap-
praisal, coping strategies at the beginning of the training, and
mental health at both the beginning and end of the training pe-
riod. The 4-month combat training is a natural, continuously
stressful situation to which most Israeli young men are regularly
exposed. Serving in the army requires radical changes in behav-
ior for the conscript to adjust to the new conditions during a
relatively short period of time. The young men are stripped of
their personal identities and forced to obey orders even when
these orders conflict with their personal inclinations. These de-
mands are exacerbated during the initial 4 months of army ser-
vice, particularly for soldiers who undergo combat training.
These soldiers are exposed to a great deal of both physical and
psychological stress produced by events such as long periods of
physical exercise and relatively short periods of sleep.
The longitudinal design of this study provided the
opportunity to examine how hardiness assessed at the begin-
ning of the training (Time 1) contributed to changes in men-
tal health during the training period. These changes might
reflect the different levels of stress to which soldiers are ex-
posed at the beginning and end of the training program. At
Time 1, the stress comes from the encounter with a new real-
ity: The recruits are required to function under a very tight
timetable, to rapidly learn new rules of behavior and disci-
pline, and to collaborate with other strangers. A host of addi-
tional new stressors accumulate during the 4-month training,
reaching a peak by the end of the training (Time 2). These
stressors include a long-standing separation from home, ex-
hausting physical exercises, cumulative sleep deprivation,
high demands for efficient and accurate performance, high
pressure for teamwork and achievements, and ambiguity
about what will happen (placement options) after the end of
The assessment of appraisal and coping variables allowed us
to test Kobasa's (1979a) ideas using structural equations,
which provided the goodness of fit of the model depicted in Fig-
ure 1 to the actual data. Moreover, because we employed multi-
arus, 1980, 1985), we were able to clarify more precisely what
particular appraisal component (e.g., threat or challenge) and
coping strategy (e.g., problem solving or distancing) mediate
the relationship between hardiness and mental health.
The current study also attempted to examine major criti-
cisms of the impact of hardiness on mental health. In their in-
vestigation, Hull et al. (1987) criticized the conceptualization
of hardiness as a three-component constellation with each com-
ponent contributing equally to mental health. Whereas com-
mitment and control were found to positively contribute to var-
ious indicators of hardiness, the challenge component had low
correlations with the two other hardiness components and with
different health outcomes (Hull et al., 1987). On this basis, Hull
et al. suggested that the challenge component should be elimi-
nated from the hardiness concept. This conclusion, however,
seems to be premature (Orr & Westman, 1990) because the
above findings were based on past measures of hardiness that
were not congruent with its theoretical definition. In the present
study, we attempted to deal with Hull et al.'s criticism and to
examine the relative contribution of each one of the hardiness
components by using a recently developed, valid measure—the
third-generation Hardiness scale (Maddi, 1987).
None of the previous studies, including those conducted by
Kobasa and her colleagues (1979a), attempted to clarify
whether commitment, control, and challenge are related to
mental health through the same or different appraisal and cop-
ing mechanisms. Our design attempted to deal with this ques-
tion and to clarify the particular mediational paths connecting
each hardiness component to mental health.
Another major criticism of Kobasa's (1979a) model is that
lack of hardiness may be more parsimoniously identifiable as
one aspect of psychological distress or neuroticism rather than
as a set of predispositions that influence mental health (Funk,
1992; Funk & Houston, 1987; Swindle, Heller, & Lakey, 1988).
This argument is based on the fact that studies using the original
Hardiness scale have found that the relationship between har-
diness and health outcomes disappears when measures of nega-
tive affect are partialed out (Funk & Houston, 1987; Rhodewalt
& Zone, 1989). However, recent studies have found that al-
though measures of hardiness and neuroticism are highly cor-
related, they tap distinct constructs (Kravetz, Drory, & Florian,
1993; Wiebe, Williams, & Smith, 1990; Williams et al., 1992).
In light of this criticism, we dealt with the potential overlap
between hardiness and negative affect by assessing distress at
two different points in time. We hypothesized that if lack of
hardiness is merely a component of distress, the contribution of
hardiness at Time 1 to distress at Time 2 would disappear when
the distress measure at Time 1 is partialed out. However, if har-
diness acts as a stress-resistance resource, the effect of hardiness
 HARDINESS AND MENTAL HEALTH
at Time 1 on distress at Time 2 would still be significant after
controlling for distress at Time 1.
Method
Participants
A total of 276 men participated in the present study. All of the partic-
ipants were 18 years old and were at the beginning of their compulsory
service in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). They were undergoing 4
months of intensive basic combat training in two of the highly demand-
ing infantry units of the IDF. By the rigorous standards of IDF screen-
ing, all of the participants were judged to be healthy, met combat unit
criteria, and revealed high levels of motivation for serving in the army.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
All of the participants were single. Most of them (73%) resided in urban
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
areas, and most of them had completed high school (92%).
Instruments and Procedure
After obtaining permission to carry out this study from the appropri-
ate military authorities, we approached the participants on their mili-
tary bases, briefly explained the purpose of the study, and solicited their
voluntary participation. Only a handful of participants refused to par-
ticipate in the study. Participants were asked to use their identification
numbers so that questionnaires from different occasions could be com-
bined for analysis. Participants were assured that their responses would
not be disclosed to the military authorities and would not influence
their future in the army. All of the questionnaires, randomly ordered,
were completed on a group basis. During thefirstweek of combat train-
ing (Time 1), participants completed scales measuring hardiness, ap-
praisal, coping, and mental health. Four months later, 1 week before
ending the training (Time 2), participants completed the mental health
measure. The Time 2 measurement was timed to coincide with a period
considered to be one of the most stressful experiences of the entire com-
bat training period.
Third-generation Hardiness scale. At Time 1, participants com-
pleted the most recent version of the Hardiness scale—the third-gener-
ation Hardiness scale (Personal View Scale, Maddi, 1987)—which in-
cludes both positive and negative items. This self-report questionnaire
is composed of 50 items, measuring the hardiness construct as a com-
posite of three moderately interrelated components: commitment, con-
trol, and challenge. Participants indicated how they felt about each
item, using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all true) to 3
(completely true). Previous studies have demonstrated adequate in-
ternal consistency for the total scale and the three hardiness subscales
(Drory & Florian, 1991; Maddi, 1987; Okun, Zautra, & Robinson,
1988; Parkes & Rendall, 1988; Williams et al., 1992). In the present
study, we found the Hebrew version of this scale (Drory & Florian,
1991) to also be internally consistent. Cronbach's alphas were .81 for
the total 50 items, .78 for the commitment items, .84 for the control
items, and .75 for the challenge items. On this basis, we computed a
total score, and commitment, control, and challenge scores by averaging
relevant items. Higher scores reflect greater hardiness.
Mental Health Inventory (MHI, Veil & Ware, 1983). At both Time
1 and Time 2, participants completed the MHI. This scale is a multidi-
mensional general questionnaire consisting of 38 items, each answered
on afive-or six-choice response scale, ranging from complete confir-
mation to complete rejection of the applicability of the question to the
participant's life over the past 2 weeks (e.g., 1 = All of the time to 6 =
None of the time). These items were constructed from items contained
under the heading "General Well-being" of the Rand Health Insurance
study (Veit & Ware, 1983) of adult health status measures. Cross-vali-
dation and combined sites analyses led Veit and Ware (1983) to con-
clude that the best interpretation of the MHI is a hierarchical factor
689
model composed of a general underlying mental health factor and a
higher order factor structure denned by two bipolar factors: psychologi-
cal well-being and psychological distress. Fourteen items describing pos-
itive states clustered together to form a measure of psychological well-
being, and 24 items describing negative states clustered together to de-
fine psychological distress. Although these two factors were negatively
correlated, factor analyses conducted in previous studies supported the
practice of scoring them separately (Florian & Drory, 1990; Veit &
Ware, 1983).
For the present study, we used a Hebrew version of the MHI that was
prepared by Florian and Drory (1990). Florian and Drory validated
the two-factor structure of this version using a representative Israeli
sample. In the present study, factor analyses with varimax rotation con-
ducted on the 38 MHI items replicated the same two factors. In both
Time 1 and Time 2, these two main factors explained 50% and 59%
of the variance, respectively. Cronbach alphas also indicated adequate
internal consistency for the two factors at the two points of time (.91
and .92 for positive state items and .94 and .96 for negative state items).
The test-retest reliabilities for a 4-month period were also adequate (.91
for positive state items and .90 for negative state items). On this basis,
we computed two total scores by averaging the items that loaded high
on each factor. Higher scores reflect higher psychological well-being and
higher psychological distress. Significant inverse correlations were
found between these two scores at the two points of time (r = -.45 for
Time 1 and r = -.56 for Time 2).
Ways of Coping Checklist. At Time 1, participants completed a 44-
item scale that is a Hebrew translation (Solomon, Mikulincer, &
Avitzur, 1988) of a shortened version of Folkman and Lazarus's (1980)
Ways of Coping Checklist (Parkes, 1984). This 44-item self-report mea-
sure refers to the broad range of cognitive and behavioral strategies peo-
ple use to deal with stressful events. In the present study, participants
were asked to think about current problems and obstacles related to
their military training and to indicate on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = not
used to 4 = used a great deal) the extent to which they tended to act in
the way described by each item when confronted with the specific de-
mands of the training.
Previous factor analyses of the questionnaire have produced a variety
of results (e.g., Folkman & Lazarus, 1980, 1985; Solomon etal., 1988).
For the current sample, a factor analysis followed by varimax rotation
yielded four main factors (eigenvalue > 1) that explained 58% of the
variance. Factor 1 explained 26% of the variance and included problem-
focused coping items (loading > .40), such as "I try to analyze the situ-
ation in order to understand it better." Factor 2 explained 14% of the
variance and included a variety of emotion-focused strategies, such as
"I wish I could change how I feel" or "I criticize myself." Factor 3 ex-
plained 10% of the variance and included support-seeking items, such
as "I talk to someone to find out more about the situation." Factor 4
explained 8% of the variance and included distancing coping items,
such as "I try to forget the whole thing."
Cronbach alphas for the items loading high on each factor ranged
from .59 to .74, implying moderate internal consistency. Therefore, four
coping scores (problem-focused, emotion-focused, support-seeking,
and distancing) were calculated by averaging the items that loaded high
on a factor. Higher scores reflect a higher reliance on a particular type
of coping strategy.
Cognitive appraisal. At Time 1, participants completed a Hebrew
version of Folkman and Lazarus's (1985) appraisal scale, which was
specially adapted to the context of military training. This self-report
scale includes 18 items tapping participants' appraisal of the threats and
challenges imposed by the military training ("primary appraisal") and
their estimation of their ability to cope with this training ("secondary
appraisal"). Participants indicated the extent to which they appraised
the training in the way described by an item on a 5-point scale (1 =
not at all to 5 = very much). A factor analysis with varimax rotation
 690 V. FLORIAN, M. MIKULINCER, AND O. TAUBMAN
conducted at Time 1 yielded three main factors (eigenvalue > 1) that
explained 53% of the variance. Factor 1 explained 27% of the variance
and included six items (loading > .4) that tapped the extent to which
the military training was perceived as a challenge. Factor 2 explained
18% of the variance and included five items that tapped the extent to
which the military training was perceived as a threat. Factor 3 added
8% to the explained variance, and its four items reflected participants'
appraisal of their abilities to cope with the military training. These three
factors showed appropriate internal consistency, ranging from .70 to
.83. On this basis, three scores were computed by averaging items that
loaded on a factor. Higher scores reflect higher appraisals of threat and
challenge and higher secondary appraisal.
Results
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Preliminary A nalyses
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
The first step of analysis tested whether the three hardiness
components should be combined into a composite score. In ac-
cordance with Funk's (1992) proposal, we examined (a) the
empirical correlations among the three hardiness components
and (b) whether the hardiness composite score was more
strongly related to outcome measures (distress and well-being
at Time 1 and Time 2) than to any one of the three hardiness
components. Although the three hardiness components were
significantly intercorrelated (p < .01), the correlation between
control and commitment was higher (r = .55) than the corre-
lations between challenge and the two other components (r =
.33 for commitment and r = .27 for control). In addition, the
use of the hardiness score did not offer any advantage in ex-
plaining the variance of mental health measures over commit-
ment alone. Pearson correlations between the mental health
measures and the hardiness composite score (r = —.53 for dis-
tress at Time 1, r = .40 for well-being at Time 1, r = -.35 for
distress at Time 2, and r = .24 for well-being at Time 2) were
not higher than the correlations between these measures and
commitment (r = -.55 for distress at Time 1, r = .44 for well-
being at Time 1, r = —.32 for distress at Time 2, and r = .23 for
well-being at Time 2). Such results, according to Funk (1992),
indicate that it would be more advantageous to study the hardi-
ness components separately. On this basis, we decided to carry
out the main analyses of the data using only the three hardiness
components scores.
Structural Analyses
The overall goodness of fit of the mediational model is pre-
sented in the beginning of this article (see Figure 1) using the
LISREL VII program (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1984). This analy-
sis was based on Pearson correlations among the three sets of
measures: (a) three hardiness components measured at time
1, (b) three appraisal and four, coping factors measured at Time
1, and (c) distress and well-being measured at both Time 1 and
Time 2.
In all of the reported structural analyses, we concurrently an-
alyzed the mediational variables of appraisal and coping. As
presented in Figure 1, we attached no causal or sequential or-
dering to these variables beyond and above their mediating po-
sition between hardiness and mental health. At first sight, this
concurrent analysis of appraisal and coping seems to be incon-
gruent with the notion that appraisal predicts coping (Lazarus
& Lounier, 1978). That is, people exposed to a stressful situa-
tion mayfirstappraise the situation, and such an appraisal may
influence the choice of coping strategies. However, Lazarus and
Folkman (1984) observed that appraisal and coping may have
reciprocal influences. That is, the reliance on particular coping
strategies may influence the appraisal of a stressful situation,
which, in turn, may alter the subsequent use of coping strategies
and so forth. Moreover, the expansion of our structural model
and the inclusion of a causal sequence between appraisal and
coping—either appraisal before coping or coping before ap-
praisal—reduced rather than increased the goodness of fit be-
tween the model and the data. On this basis, we decided to ana-
lyze appraisal and coping variables concurrently rather than
sequentially.
Initially, we examined the cross-sectional associations of the
variables at Time 1 (see Pearson correlations in Table 1). This
analysis served as a test for Funk's (1992) hypothesis of the har-
diness-neuroticism confounding. If hardiness and mental
health are related by a direct and simple path beyond the po-
tential mediation of appraisal and coping, then Funk's hypoth-
esis may be supported, and further analyses should control for
this confounding effect. The results of the LISREL analysis in-
dicated inadequate fit between the mediational model pre-
sented in Figure 1 and the set of cross-sectional data: There was
a significant difference between the model's implied corre-
lations and the data correlation matrix (x 2 = 13.44, df= 9,p<
.05), and the goodness offit(.96) and the adjusted goodness of
fit (.90) were relatively low, indicating poor fit.
An examination of the change parameters proposed by the
LISREL program suggested the addition of a direct path going
from commitment to psychological distress. A new LISREL
analysis performed on the mediational model plus the suggested
direct path (see Figure 2) indicated adequate fit between the
model and the set of cross-sectional data: There was a nonsig-
nificant difference between the model's implied correlations
and the data correlation matrix (x 2 = 8.62, df= 8, ns), and the
goodness of fit (.99) and the adjusted goodness offit(.95) were
relatively high. These results reveal the existence of a simple
path linking commitment to distress that was not mediated by
appraisal and coping mechanisms, which may be viewed as a
partial sign of the hardiness-neuroticism confounding.
In the next steps of the analyses, we examined the longitudi-
nal path going from hardiness at Time 1 to mental health at
Time 2 by means of the mediation of appraisal and coping vari-
ables (as measured in Time 1). Because hardiness components
and mental health measures were cross-sectionally correlated at
Time 1, it was important to control for this association when
predicting mental health at Time 2. Without such a control, any
significant association between hardiness at Time 1 and mental
health at Time 2 could be attributed to the fact that hardiness
partially reflects the individual's mental health status at Time
1. In order to overcome this possible confounding effect, we
adopted a two-stage analytic approach. First, separate regres-
sion analyses were conducted on each one of the mental health
factors (distress and well-being) at Time 2 as predicted by the
corresponding mental health factor at Time 1. Second, the re-
siduals of the above regressions (the part of the variance of men-
tal health factors at Time 2 that were not associated with mental
health at Time 1) were used as the dependent variables in the
 HARDINESS AND MENTAL HEALTH 691

Table 1
Pearson Correlations Among Hardiness, Appraisal, Coping, and Mental Health Scores at Time 1

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Hardiness
1. Commitment —
2. Control 55* —
3. Challenge 33* 27* —
Appraisal
4. Threat -44* -39* -20* —
5. Challenge 11 20* 04 -17* —
6. Secondary 46* 40* 22* -49* 23* —
Coping
7. Problem 13 25* 15* -10 24* 15* —
8. Emotion -38* -26* -27* 35* 03 -38* 25* —
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

9. Distancing -21* -14* -17* 12 06 -11 18* 28* —

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

10. Support 05 22* -09 -08 12 05 39* 27* 11 —

Mental health
11. Well-being 44* 38* 10 -39* 14 48* 22* -32* -08 11 —
12. Distress -55* -44* -24* 49* -10 -58* -10 49* 10 -05 -68* —

Note. Decimal points are omitted.

*p<.01.

LISREL analysis testing the hypothesized mediational model.
The correlation matrix that provided the basis for examining
the goodness of fit of the above model is presented in Table 2.
The LISREL analysis using appraisal and coping variables mea-
sured at Time 1 indicated adequate fit between the model and
the set of longitudinal data: There was a nonsignificant difference
between the model's implied correlations and the data correlation
matrix ( x 2 = 4.83, df= 9, ns), and the goodness of fit (.99) and
the adjusted goodness of fit (.98) were relatively high. As can be
seen in Figure 3, commitment and control showed significant di-
rect associations with appraisal and coping variables, whereas the
challenge component did not show any significant relation to these
variables. Specifically, commitment was positively associated with
secondary appraisal and inversely related to threat appraisal and
to the use of distancing and emotion-focused coping. Control was
positively associated with secondary appraisal and challenge ap-
praisal as well as with the use of problem-focused coping and sup-
port-seeking coping, and inversely related to threat appraisal. Di-
rect significant effects were also found between appraisal-coping
variables at Time 1 and mental health at Time 2. The use of dis-

Hardiness Appraisal and Coping Mental Health

Threat
appraisal

Commitment Challenge
appraisal
Psychological
Secondary well-being
Control appraisal

.29 Problem
solving Psychological
distress
Challenge Emotion-
focus
-.18

.31 Distancing

Support
seeking

Figure 2. LISREL results for cross-sectional data at Time 1. Numbers are significant structural path
coefficients (p < .01).
 692 V. FLORIAN, M. MIKULINCER, AND O. TAUBMAN

Table 2
Pearson Correlations Among Hardiness, Appraisal, and Coping at Time 1 and Mental Health Scores at Time 2
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Hardiness"
1. Commitment
2. Control 55*
3. Challenge 33* 27*
Appraisal8
4. Threat -44* -39* -20*
5. Challenge 11 20* 04 -17*
6. Secondary 46* 40* 22* -49* 23*
Coping"
7. Problem 13 25* 15* -10 24* 15*
8. Emotion -38* -26* -27* 35* 03 -38* 25*
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

9. Distancing -21* -14* -17* 12 06 -11 18* 28*

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

10. Support 05 22* -09 -08 12 05 39* 27* 11

Mental healthb
(regression residuals)
11. Well-being 07 06 09 -22* 12 02 11 05 08 -04
12. Distress -10 -10 -13 13 09 -03 -07 04 18* 03 -54* —
Note. Decimal points are omitted.
" At Time 1. b At Time 2.
*£><.O1.

tancing coping was positively associated with psychological dis-
tress, whereas threat appraisal was inversely related to psychologi-
cal well-being. In this way, control and commitment positively con-
tributed to well-being by reducing the appraisal of threat, whereas
commitment reduced psychological distress by inhibiting the use
of distancing coping.
Discussion
The present study represents a further attempt to clarify the
potential contribution of hardiness as an individual's resilience
factor to the process of coping and adaptation to stress. More-
over, this study was carefully designed to overcome both con-
ceptual and methodological shortcomings of previous studies.
Basically, ourfindingsprovide support to the hypothesis that at
least some of the components of the hardiness concept posi-
tively contribute to mental health by means of coping and ap-
praisal mechanisms. It is worth noting that this pattern was
identified during a real-life stressful period, using longitudinal
design and path analytical techniques when the hardiness-neu-
roticism confounding was controlled. In this way, the present

Hardiness Appraisal and Coping f Cental Health

at Time 1 at Time 1 at Time 2
(residuals)
Threat
-31 S^ f
appraisal \
2 1
/ / \-17
Commitment

.21^-<
Challenge
appraisal V\ Psychological
well-being
Secondary
\ \ .20 appraisal
Control
\ \- 30
.29 \ -ie\ V Problem
solving Psychological
Challenge
\v
\\\\ Emotion-
focus
Distancing /
y\2o
distress

.31 \
Support
seeking
Figure 3. LISREL results using appraisal and coping at Time 1. Numbers are significant structural path
coefficients (p < .01).
 HARDINESS AND MENTAL HEALTH
findings seem to provide highly valuable information to the
conceptualization of hardiness as a stress-resistance resource
and to the psychological mechanisms through which it may al-
leviate the deleterious effects of stressful life periods.
Examination of the process by which hardiness contributes
to mental health supported the hypothesized appraisal and cop-
ing mediational mechanisms. First, the analyses revealed that
some of the hardiness components may predispose persons to
appraise the combat training in less threatening terms, to view
themselves as more capable of coping with it, and to rely on
more problem-focused and support-seeking strategies and on
less emotion-focused and distancing coping strategies. Second,
the pattern of appraisals and coping related to higher hardiness
significantly contributed to better mental health outcomes.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Thesefindingsmay be interpreted as supporting a mediational
sequence by which hardiness acts on the individual's appraisal
and coping with a stressful event, which, in turn, affect his or
her mental health. The findings also highlight the importance
of the inclusion of mediating variables in hardiness research as
proposed by Funk (1992).
This mediational sequence was further supported by the
finding that the structural model linking hardiness components
to changes in mental health indirectly provided sufficient good-
ness of fit to the empirical data by means of appraisal and cop-
ing. That is, the direct path going from hardiness to changes in
mental health appeared to have only a marginal contribution.
Moreover, further structural models excluding indirect paths
through appraisal and coping revealed a significant discrepancy
from empirical data and therefore were discarded.
The findings also indicate that in analyzing the hardiness-
mental health association, one should take into consideration
Hull et al.'s (1987) criticism that hardiness components
should be treated as separate entities rather than within a
unified construct. We found evidence that although commit-
ment and control components were significantly related, the
challenge component seemed to tap a different psychological
construct even in the new Hardiness scale. In addition, the
use of a composite hardiness score as suggested by Kobasa
(1979a) did not improve upon the separate contribution of
commitment to mental health.
Hull et al.'s (1987) suggestion was also supported by the fact
that the empirical structural equations depicted differential
contributions of each one of the three hardiness components to
mental health. Whereas commitment and control were found
to significantly predict changes in mental health during the
training period through the mediation of appraisal and coping,
challenge did not make any significant prediction. Most inter-
estingly, commitment and control showed a different media-
tional pattern. On the one hand, commitment improved mental
health mainly by reducing the appraisal of threat and the use of
a variety of emotion-focused strategies and by increasing sec-
ondary appraisal. On the other hand, control improved mental
health by increasing secondary appraisal and the use of prob-
lem-solving and support-seeking strategies.
In interpreting the abovefindings,we would like to offer an
innovative perspective on the ways in which commitment and
control may help individuals successfully deal with stressful life
situations. It seems that during stressful encounters, commit-
ment and control accomplish complementary roles: Whereas
693
commitment allows people to remain involved in the situation,
control leads them to deploy active efforts to find proper solu-
tions to the problematic situation. A person with a high sense of
commitment may feel a strong impetus to mentally "stay" in
the situation and confront its demands and consequences. This
attitude seems to be reflected in the individual's refusal to adopt
escapist maneuvers, like distancing and other emotion-focused
strategies. However, although commitment is a necessary stress-
resistance factor, it is not sufficient to activate those strategies
required to put an end to the stressful situation. Commitment
should be supplemented by a sense of control and mastery,
which reflects the conviction that one can efficiently deal with
the problem and thus may lead people to engage in problem
solving and to look for external sources of support. In our terms,
resilience during stressful periods seems to be determined by
the individual's readiness to confront the situation and to ac-
tively control its consequences.
This line of thinking seems to refine the concept of
transformational coping initially proposed by Kobasa
(1982). The psychological mechanism by which hardy per-
sons transform stressful situations into more benign experi-
ences seems to involve a combination of coping strategies re-
lated to the components of commitment and control. These
strategies allow people to stay in the situation because of their
commitment to their own values and goals and, at the same
time, to manage the consequences of the encounter because
they hold the conviction that they can control it. This ap-
proach to transformational coping should be further ex-
plored because it opens a new perspective on the state of mind
of hardy persons during stressful situations.
Our findings further substantiate Hull et al.'s (1987)
suggestion that the challenge component should be elimi-
nated from the hardiness concept. Even when measured by
the new Hardiness scale, challenge showed no association
with other hardiness components and had no significant
value in the structural model linking hardiness to mental
health. This conclusion should be taken, however, with ex-
treme caution until other and more proper ways of measuring
the challenge component are designed. We would like to pro-
pose a new conceptual approach to construct this kind of
measure. On the basis of Taylor's (1983) theory of cognitive
adaptation, it seems that the challenge component should be
viewed as a particular case of the search for meaning in one's
experiences and life. To perceive a stressful situation as a
challenge, people should first find a meaning and purpose in
that situation that is relevant to their basic values and goals.
Only then can they appraise the potential benefits of the en-
counter and view it as a challenging opportunity for personal
growth, as proposed by Kobasa (1979a). If this line of
thought is correct, then new measures of the challenge com-
ponent should be built around the concept of the search for
meaning.
In regard to the theoretical criticism about a possible hardi-
ness-neuroticism confounding (Funk, 1992), the design of our
study allowed us to examine the validity of this criticism (using
cross-sectional data) and at the same time to conduct longitudi-
nal analyses, which clean the data from this potential confound-
ing. Cross-sectional structural equations indicated that a model
linking hardiness to mental health status only by means of ap-
 694 V. FLORIAN, M. MIKULINCER, AND Q TAUBMAN
praisal and coping had no sufficient goodness of fit to the data.
The analyses also showed that the model fit the data only after
adding a direct path between low commitment and psychologi-
cal distress. It seems to us that this direct path may reflect some
expression of neuroticism inherent in the hardiness construct.
However, the findings also show that this confounding should
not be generalized to the control component of hardiness or to
the positive aspects of mental health (well-being). Future stud-
ies should further explore in more depth the complex nature of
the hardiness-neuroticism confounding.
Even though the above confounding might appear to limit to
some extent our interpretation of thefindings,the longitudinal
design of the present study enables us to still provide an appro-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
priate test of Kobasa's (1979a) mediational model. Findings
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
showed that even after controlling for the hardiness-distress as-
sociation at Time 1, the commitment and control components
still predicted changes in mental health at Time 2 indirectly by
means of appraisal and coping mechanisms. In general, our
findings clearly differentiate two possible impacts of hardiness
on mental health. One is the action of hardiness as a stress-
resistance resource that probably leads to positive mental health
through the process of appraisal and coping with stress. The
second may reflect the possibility that some aspects of low har-
diness are partial manifestations of negative affect. We recom-
mend that when studying and analyzing the hardiness con-
struct, one should take into consideration the above two im-
pacts and the personal and situational factors that may be
related to each of them.
Overall, our study may be viewed as a further step in under-
standing the complex relationship between hardiness and the
process of coping with and adapting to stress. Future studies
should attempt to replicate ourfindingsin other real-life stress-
ful situations. In addition, they should try to expand the find-
ings by introducing other important factors that may contribute
to the process of coping with stress (e.g., social support) and
examine other types of outcomes, such as physical health and
social functioning.
References
Allred, K. D., & Smith, T. W. (1989). The hardy personality: Cognitive
and physiological responses to evaluative threat. Journal ofPersonal-
ity and Social Psychology, 56, 257-266.
Blaney, P. H., & Ganellen, R. J. (1990). Hardiness and social support.
In I. G. Sarason, B. Sarason, & G. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An
interactional view (pp.297-318). New \brk: Wiley.
Drory, Y., & Florian, V. (1991). Long-term psychosocial adjustment to
coronary artery disease. Archives ofPhysical Medicine and Rehabili-
tation, 72,326-331.
Florian, V., & Drory, Y. (1990). The Mental Health Inventory: Psycho-
metric characteristics and normative data from Israeli population.
Psychologia, 2, 26-35.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a mid-
dle-aged community sample. Journal ofHealth and Social Behavior,
27,219-239.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process:
Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college exami-
nation. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 48, 150-170.
Funk, S. C. (1992). Hardiness: A review of theory and research. Health
Psychology, 11, 335-345.
Funk, S. C, & Houston, B. K. (1987). A critical analysis of the Hardi-
ness scale's validity and utility. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psy-
chology, 53, 572-578.
Gentry, W. D., & Kobasa, S. C. (1984). Social and psychological re-
sources mediating stress-illness relationships in humans. In W. D.
Gentry (Ed.), Handbook of behavioral medicine (pp. 87-116). New
York: Guilford Press.
Hull, J. G., Van Treuren, R. R., & Virnelli, S. (1987). Hardiness and
health: A critique and alternative approach. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 53, 518-530.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1984). LISREL: Analysis of linear
structural relationships method of maximum likelihood (3rd ed.).
Nashville, TN: Scientific Software.
Kobasa, S. C. (1979a). Personality and resistance to illness. American
Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 7, 413-423.
Kobasa, S. C. (1979b). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An
inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
37, 1-11.
Kobasa, S. C. (1982). Commitment and coping in stress resistance
among lawyers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42,
101-1X1.
Kobasa, S. C, Maddi, S. R., & Courington, S. (1981). Personality and
constitution as mediators in the stress-illness relationship. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 22, 368-378.
Kobasa, S. C, Maddi, S. R., & Kahn, S. (1982). Hardiness and health:
A prospective study. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 42,
168-177.
Kobasa, S. C, Maddi, S. R., & Puccetti, M. C. (1982). Personality and
exercise as buffers in the stress-illness relationship. Journal ofBehav-
ioral Medicine, 5, 391-404.
Kobasa, S. C, Maddi, S. R., & Zola, M. A. (1983). Type A and hardi-
ness. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 6, 41-51.
Kobasa, S. C, & Puccetti, M. C. (1983). Personality and social re-
sources in stress resistance. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 45, 839-850.
Kravetz, S., Drory, Y, & Florian, V. (1993). Hardiness and sense of
coherence and their relation to negative affect. European Journal of
Personality, 7, 233-244.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping.
New \brk: Springer.
Lazarus, R. S., & Lounier, R. (1978). Stress-related transaction be-
tween person and environment. In L. A. Pervin, & M. Lewis (Eds.),
Perspectives in international psychology (pp. 287-327). New York:
Academic Press.
Maddi, S. R. (1987). Hardiness training at Bell Telephone. In J. Opatz
(Ed.), Health promotion evaluation (pp. 121-158). Stephens Point,
WI: Natural Wellness.
Maddi, S. R., & Kobasa, S. C. (1984). The hardy executive: Health
under stress. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Okun, M. A., Zautra, A. J., & Robinson, S. E. (1988). Hardiness and
health among women with rheumatoid arthritis. Personality and In-
dividual Differences, 9, 101-107.
Orr, E., & Westman, M. (1990). Hardiness as a stress moderator: A
review. In M. Rosenbaum( Ed.), Learned resourcefulness: On coping
skills, self-control, and adaptive behavior (pp. 64-94). New \brk:
Springer.
Pagana, K. D. (1990). The relationship of hardiness and social support
to student appraisal of stress in an initial clinical nursing situation.
Nursing Education, 29, 255-261.
Parkes, K. R. (1984). Locus of control, cognitive appraisal, and coping
in stressful episodes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
46, 655-668.
Parkes, K. R., & Rendall, D. (1988). The hardy personality and its
relationship to extraversion and neuroticism. Personality and Indi-
vidual Differences, 9, 785-790.
 HARDINESS AND MENTAL HEALTH
Rhodewalt, F, & Zone, J. B. (1989). Appraisal oflife change, depres-
sion, and illness in hardy and nonhardy women. Journal ofPersonal-
ity and Social Psychology, 56, 81-88.
Schlosser, M. B., & Sheeley, L. A. (1985, August). The hardy person-
ality: Female coping with stress. Paper presented at the 93rd Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washing-
ton, DC.
Solomon, Z., Mikulincer, M., & Avitzur, E. (1988). Coping, locus of
control, social support, and combat-related posttraumatic stress dis-
order. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 55, 279-285.
Suls, J., & Rittenhouse, J. D. (1987). Personality and health: An intro-
duction. Journal ofPersonality, 55, 155-167.
Swindle, R. W., Jr., Heller, K., & Lakey, B. (1988). A conceptual reori-
entation to the study of personality and stressful life events. In L. H.
Cohen (Ed.), Life events and psychological functioning: Theoretical
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
and methodological issues (pp. 237-268). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Taylor, S. E. (1983). Adjustment to threatening events: A theory of cog-
nitive adaptation. American Psychologist, 38, 1161-1173.
Veit, C. X, & Ware, J. E. (1983). The structure of psychological stress
695
and well-being in general populations. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 51, 730-742.
Westman, M. (1990). The relationship between stress and perfor-
mance: The moderating effects of hardiness. Human Performance, 3,
141-155.
Wiebe, D. J. (1991). Hardiness and stress moderation: A test of pro-
posed mechanisms. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 60,
89-99.
Wiebe, D. J., Williams, P. G., & Smith, T. W. (1990). Hardiness and
neuroticism: Overlappingconstructs?Poster session presented at the
1 lth annual meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, Chi-
cago, IL.
Williams, P. G., Wiebe, D. J., & Smith, X W. (1992). Coping processes
as mediators of the relationship between hardiness and health.
Journal ofBehavioral Medicine, 15, 237-255.
Received April 29, 1993
Revision received September 6, 1994
Accepted September 7, 1994 •