Ass~ssaiEST Copyright 0 199G by Psycliological Assessment

1996, Volume 3, Nunibcr 2, 115-133 Resources, Inc. All rights reserved.

EGO-STRENGTH, HARDINESS, SELF-ESTEEM,

ACY, 0PTIMISM, AND MALADJUSTMENT:
SELF-EFFIC
HEALTH-RELATED PERSONALITY CONSTRUCTS
AND THE “BIGFIVE” MODELOF PERSONALITY
Larry C. Bernard
Steven Hutchison
Alexander Lavin
Pamela Pennington
Loyola Marymount University

Six personality measures used in health psychology; the NEO Five-Factor Inventory
(NEO-FFI) criterion measures of stress, self-reported health status, and coping; and a
measure of social desirability were administered to samples of college students and adult
community volunteers (AT = 589) in a series of four confirmatory and exploratory factor
analytic studies. The hypothesis that the six independently developed personality mea-
sures of ego-strength, hardiness, self-esteem, self-efficacy, optimism, and maladjustment
would share common variance and that a hierarchical factor model with a single, higher-
order Health Proneness factor loading two lower-order factors-Self-Confidence and
Adjustment-would account for the covariance in these measures was tested against sin-
gle and three-factor models and confirmed. The factor model was examined with respect
to general personality as represented in the “Big Five” hlodel. Adjustment was related
negatively to NEO-FFI Neuroticism and positively to NEO-FFI Conscientiousness and
Agreeableness, whereas Self-Confidence was related to NEO-FFI Extraversion. None of
these relationships is extensive, nor does any one account for more than 40% of the vari-
ance. Evidence of the validity of Self-Confidenceand Adjustment was found in their mod-
erate relationships to measures of stress, health status, and coping, and in their weak rela-
tionships to social desirability and negative affectivity.

Psychologists have been interested in the i-elation-
ship between personality and physical health ‘for
more than 50 years (e.g., Alexander, 1950; French
& Alexander, 1941). Thirty years ago, the relation-
ship b e t w e e n ego-strength and physiological
responses received much study (e.g., see Dahlstrom,
Correspondence concerning this article should b e
addressed to Larry C. Bernard, Psychology Department,
Loyola Xlarymount University, Loyola Boulevard at \Vest
80th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90045.
\\‘elsh, & D a h l s t r o m , 1975). More recently,
Kobasa’s (1979) proposed construct of psychologi-
cal hardiness renewed interest in the relationship
between personality, stress, a n d health (Suls &
Rittenhouse, 1990) and Bandura’s (1977) concept
of self-efficacy prompted research into health
bchavior (O’Leary, 1985). At the same time, the
Big Five Model-a general taxonomy of “normal”
p e r s o n a l i t y - a l s o received m u c h a t t e n t i o n
(Goldberg, 1990, 1992).

115

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 7, 2015

 Bernard, Hutchison, Lavin, and Pcnnington
Health psychology is the most popular area of
clinical research in doctoral programs (Sayette &
hlayne, 1990), and when research accelerates in
any field, it usually results in the proliferation of
new constructs and measures. At times like these,
it behooves us to take a close look at this prolifera-
tion of new measures and consider issues of con-
vergent and discriminant validity-to evaluate the
new constructs, their related measures, their inter-
relationships, and their associations with general
dimensions of personality. If not, we risk con-
stantly “reinventing the wheel.”
First, we reviewed the literature and found several
personality constructs that have been used in
health psychology research and have a putative
relationship to health status. Ego-strength is the
older of these constructs; two other constructs-
hardiness and self-efficacy-have been proposed
more recently. The. literature review also sug-
gested three additional personality constructs-
self-esteem, optimism, and maladjustment-that
may be related to the first three.
Health-Related Constructs
Ego-Streiigtli
Barron’s (1953) Ego-Strength (Es)scale on the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
(MMPI; Hathaway 8r hlcKinley, 1967) was one of
t h e first personality measures used to study
health-related phenomena. Es has been described
as “adaptational capacity” and “situational con-
trol” (Dahlstrom et al., 1975, p. 94), both compo-
nents of “coping,” which is believed to mediate
stress, and psychological and physical health (e.g.,
Cohen & Lazarus, 1973; Folkman B Lazarus,
1988; Lazarus & Folkman 1989). Es is negatively
related to maladjustment (Dahlstrom et al., 1975)
and positively related to intravenous glucose toler-
ance (Pfaehler B Roessler, 1965), recovery from
mononucleosis (Greenfield, Roessler, & Crosley,
1959), and the ability to cope with a variety of
stressors (Alexander, Roessler, & Greenfield,
1963; Greenfield, Roessler, B Crosley, 1959;
Roessler, Alexander, B Greenfield, 1963; Roessler,
Burch, & Childers, 1966; Roessler, Burch, &
Mefferd, 1967; Roessler & Collins, 1970; Roessler,
Greenfield, B Alexander, 1964).
116
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 7, 2015
Hard iness
Psychological hardiness (H) (Gentry & Kobasa,
1984; Kobasa, 1979) is also theorized to reflect
adaptational capacity and general coping ability,
which may buffer the effects of stress on health
(Iiobasa, hladdi, S: Courington, 198 1; Kobasa,
hiaddi, Puccetti, & Zola, 1985). Like Es, hardiness
is negatively related to maladjustment (Bernard 8r
Belinsky, 1992; Funk & Houston, 1987) and neu-
roticism (Funk, 1992) and positively related to self-
esteem (Bernard & Belinsky, 1992).
Self-Efficacj
Self-efficacy (S-Ef) is a cognitive mechanism that
is also presumed to be related to a sense of control
and may reduce stress-induced autonomic arousal
(Bandura, 1977, 1982, 1986). Self-efficacy is
related to some of the same stress-induced physio-
logical responses as Es: catecholamine secretion,
autonomic arousal, and pain tolerance (Bandura
Cioffi, Taylor, & Brouillard, 1988; Bandura, Taylor,
Williams, Meford, & Barchas, 1985; Loring,
Schoor, 8r Holman, 1985). In people 65 to 75
years of age, self-efficacy is positively related to
psychological and physical health for men and to
psychological health for women and, like hardi-
ness and Es, it is negatively related to maladjust-
ment (Holahan, Holahan, & Belk, 1984).
Additional Constructs ’
Self Esteem
Self-esteem would seem to reflect ego-strength,
hardiness, and self-efficacy. As measured by the
Global Self-Esteem (GSE) scale of the Multidi-
mensional Self-Esteem Inventory (O’Brien &
Epstein, 1989), self-esteem is positively related to
hardiness (Bernard & Belinsky, 1992) a n d ES
(O’Brien B Epstein, 1989). High self-esteem is
associated iv i t h chi 1d re n’ s h e a1t h b e h av i o r s
(Dielman, Campanelli, Shope, 22 Butchart, 1987)
and low self-esteem is associated with percep-
tion of ill health in adults, especially females
(Antonucci & Jackson, 1983).
Optimistn
The Generalized Expectancy for Success scale
(GES; Fibel 8r Hale, 1978) is a measure of opti-
mistic disposition, which is positively correlated
 Health-RelatedConstructs
with self-esteem in children (Fischer & Leitenberg,
1986) and adults (hlearns, 1989). There is a mod-
est relationship between optimism and problem-
focused coping (Scheier, Ileintraub, & Carver,
1986). Optimism is also negatively related to col-
lege students’ reports of prospective health prob-
lems (Scheier 8r Carver, 1985) and to self-reported
physical symptoms and positively related to speed
of recovery from coronary artery bypass surgery
(Scheier & Carver, 1987).
Mnladjustment
The College hfaladjustment Scale (Aft; Iueinmuntz,
1961) has frequently been used as a covariate in
health psychology research (see Funk, 1992). Aft is
positively related to neuroticism (Funk &: Houston,
1987) and negatively related to hardiness (Bernard
&: Belinsky, 1992; Funk & Houston, 1987), ego-
strength (Dahlstrom et al., 1975), and self-efficacy
(Holahan et al., 1984).
Research Hypothesis and Rationale
Our literature review led us to suspect that these
six constructs were interrelated and that measures
of them might share common variance. We car-
ried out a series of studies to investigate two
hypotheses: First, that measures of ego-strength,
hardiness, self-efficacy, self-esteem, optimism, and
maladjustment all would be intercorrelated, and
second, that a single latent factor could be
extracted from their covariance. These hypotheses
need further explanation. Careful evaluation of
the theoretical constructs of each of these mea-
sures and their interrelationships found in the lit-
erature review suggested that there might be two
covariance groupings: (a) a Self-confidence factor
that would load nieasures of self-esteem, opti-
mism, and self-efficacy;and (b) an Adjustment fac-
tor that would load measures of maladjustment,
ego-strength, and hardiness. We set out to confirm
this factor model in several samples, to relate it to
general dimensions of personality in the Big Five
hlodel, and to address its convergent and discrimi-
nant validity.
Our review had revealed a lack of such integrative
studies. Most measures used in health psychology
have undergone some degree of construct valida-
tion, primarily consisting of bivariate correlations
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 7, 2015
with individual criteria, but there have been few
attempts to look at shared variance among several
measures. Such attempts could have implications
for the validity of the original measures and could
possibly reveal underlying health-related con-
structs. These underlying constructs could be
helpful for understanding t h e relationship
between personality and health.
In addition, Funk (1992) reviewed psychological
hardiness and concluded that it is correlated with
neurotic ism. The term “neu ro t icism” was used
because of its relationship with somatic com-
plaints (Allred & Smith, 1989). Neuroticism is a
dimension of normal personality (Eysenck &
Eysenck, 1968; Costa & McCrae 1985), one of the
Big Five personality factors, and has been identi-
fied with negative affectivity in general and low
self-esteem, depression, and anxiety, in particular
(Costa 8: McCrae, 1985; hlcCrae, 1990). Similarly,
\Vatson and Pennebaker (1989) contend that the
observed relationship between personality mea-
sures-in particular, hardiness-and health is due
to neuroticism, or “negative affectivity.” If correct,
this would seriously challenge the construct valid-
ity of ego-strength, hardiness, and self-efficacyand
necessitate a rethinking of t h e relationship
between personality and health.
This factor model would have iniplications for
understanding the relationship between personal-
ity and health. Ego-strength, hardiness, self-
esteem, optimism, and maladjustment were con-
ceived as separate domains of personality and self-
efficacy as a behavioral self-evaluation,hence the
necessity of evaluating the model in relation to
general personality such as that represented in the
Big Five Model. The Big Five hlodel also incorpo-
rates neuroticism, which allows for an assessment
of the role of negative affectivity. Neuroticism has
often been treated as a nuisance variable in health
studies (Funk, 1992), but it may be important in
its own right. For example, individuals who are
high in neuroticism might be “disease prone”
(Friedman & Booth-Kewley, 1987) and vulnerable
to stress (hfcCrae, 1990). However, if neuroticism
were highly correlated with Health Proneness, the
factor model would be redundant.
117
 Bernard, Hutchison, Lavin, and Pennington
From the outset, we were mindful of Carlson’s
(1984) suggestion that subjects in personality
research be diverse, particularly that they include
nonstudents, so we conducted this series of stud-
ies using both college and noncollege samples.
The first in this series of studies was conducted to
test: (a) whether, as we had come to suspect, the
Es, Hardiness, Self-Efficacy, Global Self-Esteem,
Generalized Expectancy of Success, and scales
are intercorrelated; and (b) whether tlie hierarchi-
cal model would fit the data.
Study 1
hle t hod
Part icipa 11ts
The first sample ( N =134) consisted of 92 under-
graduate students at a private parochial university
located in a large urban area who received partial
course credit for their participation (approxi-
mately 65% of whom were Catholic) and 42
recruited noncollege volunteers ages 30 to 50
years. Mean ages of the college, noncollege, and
combined samples were 19 years (SD= 4 years), 41
years (SD= 8 years), and 26 years (SD= 12 years),
respectively. Approximately one third of t h e
sample irere male, and approximately one third
were minorities.
Procedure
Subjects received survey packets containing all of
the measures in random order. A cover letter
explaining t h e purpose of t h e study and an
informed consent form were attached to the out-
side. Subjects were assured that their responses
would be kept confidential.
Measures
The following measures were administered:
1. Ego-Strength was measured by the 52-item
revised version of the Es scale from t h e
bliiinesota Alultipliasic Personality Inventory-2
(MMPI-2; Hathaway & hlcI<inley, 1989). Es
measures overall psychological adjustment
and the ability to cope with problems and
stresses (Graham, 1990). Internal consistency
was reported as .60 for males and .65 for
females in the RlAlPI-2 normative samples
(Graham, 1990).
118
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 7, 2015
2. Hardiness was measured by the revised 50-
item Hardiness scale (S.C.O. Kobasa, per-
sonal communication, February 14, 1989).
This “t h i rd-gen er a t i o n ” hardiness s cale i s
considered to be an improvement over earlier
versions (Funk, 1992). Internal consistency
has been reported as .88 (S.C.O. Kobasa, per-
sonal communication, February 14, 1989)
and .83 (Bernard & Belinsky, 1992). This ver-
sion permits calculation of separate scores
on three subscales, which are combined to
yield a single score o n Hardiness (H):
Commitment (approaching life with a sense
of meaning), Control (perceiving one can
influence events), and Challenge (viewing
change as an opportunity for growth instead
of a threat). Although, in the first- and second-
generation versions of this scale, combining
subscale scores was questionable on psycho-
metric grounds, combining them in this
third-generation version is acceptable (Funk,
1992).
3. General Self-Efficacy \vas measured by a spe-
cially constructed instrument. Self-efficacy
(S-Ef) is a cognitive mechanism that is also
presumed to be related to a sense of control
(Bandura, 1977, 1982, 1986). Perceived self-
efficacy is a judgment about one’s capability
to perform tasks in a limited domain. Self-
efficacy scales are usually constructed to
measure selfjudgments of efficaciousness
within a specific domain of interest following
“microanalytic methodology” (A. Bandura,
personal communication, November 1990;
Bandura & Adams, 1977; for examples, see
Bandura et al., 1988; Major et al., 1990). Our
objective was to measure a general tendency
to perceive oneself as efficacious, so the
usual measurement procedure was modified.
Separate scales that tap self-efficacy in three
domains were constructed. The doni?’ins were
intended to be viewed by subjects as having mod-
erately high value (i.e,, importance) in their lives.
Therefore, two versions were designed, one for
the college and one for the noncollege samples.
The three college domains, representative items,
and total number of items [in brackets] were the
 Health-Related Constructs

following: Acadeniic/scAool performance, “Attending expectancy held by an individual that in most

class regularly,” “Keeping up with readings” [141; situations he/she will be able to attain
Piijs ica 1 f i t n ess/a t ii 1et ic p e r - or iii a rice , “Agi1ity ,” desired goals” (Fibel lk Hale, 1978, p. 924).
“Physical speed/quickness” [141; and Dating per- This echoes self-efficacy, suggesting a rela-
formance: “Introducing myself to someone,” tionship with it, although apparently this has
“Expressing affection” [20]. The three noncollege not been investigated. Each scale item com-
domains, representative items, and total number pletes the stem “In the future I expect that I
of items [in brackets] were the following: Il’ork per- will...”with a belief in some future success or
forinance, “Start work on time,” “Finish assign- failure that is endorsed in a Likert-type for-
ments ahead of time” [ 161; Physical fitness/athletic mat ranging from 1 (higlilj itnprobable) to 5
performance: same items as for students [14]; and (11 igl2 8 probable). Six-week test-retest reliability
Relationship performance, “Having pleasing sexual was reported as .89 for males and .SO for
relations,” “Able to compromise,” “Agreeing on females (Fibel 8c Hale, 1978).
future plans” [181.’ Subjects self-rated their confi-
6. i\faladjtistinent was measured by the College
dence in performing each task in a domain by
hialadjustment scale ( M t ) from the hihIPI-2.
recording a number on a scale ranging from 0
Alt consists of 41 items that distinguish
(Highl-y tiiicertain [cannot do at all]) to 100 (Co~n-
between college students who receive psycho-
pletely certain [can do it]). Perceived general self-
logical treatment and those who do not, and
efficacy was determined by summing across items
it is considered a valid method of identifying
for all three domains and dividing by the total
existing emotional problems (Kleinmuntz,
number of items.
1961). Graham (1990) does not recommend
In order to determine to what extent subjects val- its use with noncollege samples, but it has
ued the three domains, they were asked to indicate been used in studies of hardiness in adults
the value they placed on each using a scale ranging (e.g., Funk 8c Houston, 1987; Hull, Van
from 0 (Low value in m y life) to 100 (High value in Treuren, & Virnelli, 1987). Therefore, it Ivas
~njlye). The average of the students’ value ratings used here. However, at a minimum, internal
across the three domains was ’77.1 (SD = 12.3), and consistency would have to be demonstrated
the nonstudents’ average was 82.3 (SD = 12.7). for the noncollege sample as well as a pattern
These ratings indicate that the domains selected of intercorrelations with the other measures
were valued moderately highly by both students similar to that of the college sample. To
and nonstudents. maintain consistency with the other measures
and aid in interpretation, illt was reverse-
4. Self-Esteem was measured by the 10-item
scored in some of the analyses.
Global Self-Esteem (GSE) scale of t h e
hl u 1ti d imen s io nal Sel f-Est e e m Inventory Results
(O’Brien 8c Epstein, 1989). GSE is conceptu-
Internal Consistency (Reliability) and Zero-Order
alized as the highest level of self-evaluation,
Ziitercorrelations
involving feelings of significance as a person,
Table 1 presents t h e internal consistency
self-confidence, pleasure from past experi-
(Cronbach’s coefficient a) of each scale for the
ences, and expectancy of future successes.
college, noncollege, a n d combined samples
The scale has an internal consistency of .90,
(except for Self-Efficacy, which could not be com-
and it correlates 3 1 and 3’7, respectively,
bined because the scales had different items) and
with the Rosenberg (1965) and Eagly (1967)
the zero-order intercorrelations for the combined
self-esteem scales.
samples (there were no significant differences,
5. Opimism was measured by Fibel and Hale’s
(1978) 30-item Generalized Expectancy of
‘About 30% of the noncollege participants were not in a
Success (GES) scale. The GES scale is a mea- relationship and, therefore, used the same Dating domain
sure of optimism which is defined as “the items as the college sample.

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 7, 2015

 Bernard, Hutchison, Lavin, and Pennington

Table 1
Internal Coiuistenc). (Coeflcieizt a)and Zero-Order Intercorrelations

Sample a Scale r
Students Nonstudents Combined
Scale (92 = 92) ( n = 42) (Ar= 134) S-Ef I.3 GSE GES Aft
H 83 91 87 2ja* 45*** 37**" 24% -58"**
S-Ef 90 94 - 26** 468g:F 25** -30""
ES 69 66 70 41*w 4 0 -59w*
~ ~
GSE 89 90 89 4 9 ~ " -52""~
GES 88 94 92 -31""
Aft 83 84 85
Note. Decimals are omitted. Combined a \\-as not computed for Self-Efficacy, because the lengths of the college and noncollege versions
were not identical. H = Hardiness scale; S-Ef = Self-Efficacy scale; Ex = Ego-Strength scale; GSE = Global Self-Esteem scale; GES =
Generalized Fkpectancy of Success scale; Aft = College hlaladjustmentscale.
*I < .01. **/I
< .001. ***I< .0001.

/I > .05, between the college and noncollege sam-
ples). All of the scales had sufficiently good inter-
nal consistency to proceed with further analyses.
Each of the intercorrelations was a one-tailed test
of a separate hypothesis in which the direction of
the correlation was predicted. All 15 intercorrela-
tion coefficients are significant (at least p < .01).
Eight are .40 or larger, and the remaining 7 range
from .25 to .37. The proportion of variance
accounted for between any two scales ranges from
5% to 34%. This is not exceptionally large, but it
does support the hypothesis that all of the scales
are interrelated; of course, the size of the correla-
tion coefficients is restricted by the lowest value of
the scales' pairwise reliabilities. The use of Aft in a
noncollege population was questionable, but its
internal consistency and its intercorrelations with
the other scales in the noncollege subsample were
similar to those in the college subsample, support-
ing the use of illt in the subsequent analyses.
Factor AnaZysis
A confirqatory factor analysis was conducted
using LISREL VII (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1981).
The hypothesized two-factor hierarchical model
was tested with the Global Self-Esteem (GSE), Self-
Efficacy (S-Ef), and Generalized Expectancy of
Success (GES) scales predicted to load on a Self-
confidence factor and the Ego-Strength (Es),
Hardiness (H), and College Maladjustment (nlt)
scales predicted to load on an Adjustment factor.
There were no restrictions placed on the correla-
tion between factors so that, if the model fit, Self-
Confidence and Adjustment could load on the
predicted higher-order factor.
The results of this analysis are shbnn in Table 2.
This model adequately captured the covariance in
the data. The goodness-of-fit index was equal to
.98 (adjusted goodness-of-fit index = .92) and the
associated Chi-square test was not significant, x2
(8, N = 134) = 7.64, /I = .47. Self-confidence and
Adjustment were both highly correlated with the
higher-order factor (r = .86 and .80, respectively),
suggesting that each represents a different aspect
of the same general construct we have labeled
Health Proneness.
A second confirmatory analysis was performed in
order to compare this two-factor, hierarchical
model to a single-factor model. The goodness-of-
fit index for the single-factor model was equal to
-93 (adjusted goodness-of-fit index = .83), and the
associated Chi-square test was significant, (9, x2
N = 134) = 31.29, /I < .0001, indicating that a large
proportion of covariance remained unexplained by
the single-factor model, and suggesting that the
two-factor hierarchical model fit the data better.

120

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 7, 2015

 Health-RelatedConstructs

Table 2 Study 2
Hierarchical Factor iZlodel Loadings
hlethod
Higher-order factor
Factor Health Proneness Participants
A new sample (AT= 264) was obtained. It consisted
Adjustment 89 of noncollege volunteers ages 30 to 50 years (n =
Self-Confidence 87 92) and students ( n = 172) at a large urban state
Lower-order factors university who participated in return for partial
course credit. Approximately 66% of the sample
Scale Adjustment Self-Confidence
were female; 47% were European American, 22%
nrt -83 were Asian American, and 20% were Latin
ES 66 American; 29% were high school graduates, 59%
H 64 had attended some college, and 13% were college
GSE 80 graduates. Mean age was 42 years (SD = 8) in the
GES 51 noncollege sample and 20 years (SD = 3) in the
S-Ef 47 college sample.

A’ok Decimals are omitted. The LISREL model constrains rari- Meastires and Procediire
ables not predicted to load o n a factor to zero, so there are n o The same procedure and the same six personality
cross-factor loadings. S-Ef = General Self-Efficacyscale; 23 = Ego-
Strength scale; GSE = Global Self-Esteem scale; GES = measures used in Study 1 were used in this study;
Generalized Expectancy o f Success scale; 1\11 = College there were two additional measures:
Maladjustment scale; H = Hardiness scale.
1. The NEO Five-Factor Iizventory (NEO-FFI),
Form S, (Costa 8c hlcCrae, 1989) was used to
Discussion represent the Big Five factor structure of
The results of Study 1 provided initial support for personality (Goldberg, 1990, 1992), which
both hypotheses. The six personality measures appears to correspond closely to earlier mod-
were intercorrelated, and the hierarchical model els of personality (Digman, 1990). The NEO-
seemed to explain their covariance . However FFI contains scales that assess Neuroticism
promising, several issues remained. First, the fac- (N), Extraversion (E), Openness (0),Agree-
tor model would need to be cross-validated in a ableness (A), and Conscientiousness (C).
broader sample. Second, if it survived cross- 2. Social Desirability was measured by t h e
validation, it would be necessary to explore the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability (SD)
relationship between Self-confidence, Adjust- Scale (Crowne 8c hlarlowe, 1964), which was
ment, and general personality factors-something designed to identify individuals who describe
that has not been done with respect to the six themselves in favorable, socially acceptable
lower-order measures. If Self-confidence and terms, with approximately half of the items
Adjustment were closely related to Neuroticism, designed to be culturally acceptable, but
they would be redundant domains of personality probably untrue, and the other half designed
and unlikely to add any discriminant power to be undesirable, but true. Internal consis-
beyond it. Third, given the socially desirable value tency has been estimated at .88 (KR-20) for
placed on ego-strength, hardiness, self-efficacy, this scale (Crowne 8c hlarlowe, 1964).
self-esteem, and optimism and the undesirable
value placed on maladjustment, it would’also be Results
necessary to determine the relationship of Self- Descriptive Statistics and Reliability
Confidence and Adjustment to social desirability. Scale means, standard deviations, reliability coeffi-
We addressed these issues in Study 2. cients (Cronbach’s coefficient a), and zero-order

121

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 7, 2015

 Bernard, Hutchison, Lavin, and Pennington
intercorrelations are shown in Table 3. There were
no significant differences ( p > .05) between the
college and noncollege samples. The pattern of
intercorrelations among the Es,H, Art, GSE, S-Ef,
and GES scales was the same as that found in
Study 1. Two additional results are worth noting.
First, there were significant moderate zero-order
correlations between Neuroticism (N) and all six
measures from Study 1. Among the other NEO-
FFI scales, although the relationships were rather
small, Extraversion (E) and Openness (0)had few
significant correlations with the six measures,
whereas Agreeableness (A) and Conscientiousness
(C) were significantly correlated with many of
them.
The second result worth noting was the significant
moderate correlations between social desirability
and all of the six measures from Study 1. Social
desirability was also correlated with Neuroticism,
Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness on the
NEO-FFI. This cautions that social desirability
responding may inflate scores on all of t h e
affected measures.
Confirntatory Factor Aiiabsis
The factor model specified in Study 1 was again
tested using LISREL VII. The Es, Hardiness, and
Mt scales loaded on the Adjustment factor (at .66,
.64, and -.83, respectively), whereas the Self-
Esteem, Self-Efficacy,and Generalized Expectancy
of Success scales loaded on the Self-Confidence
factor (at .SO, .47,and 3 1 , respectively). Self-
Confidence and Adjustment loaded .87 and .89,
respectively, on the single higher-order factor,
Health Proneness. All indexes suggested a n
adequate fit of the model to the data, x2 (5, N =
264) = 7.64, p = .18; goodness-of-fit index = -98;
adjusted goodness-of-fit index = .92; root mean
square residual = .03).
Exploratory Factor Atialjxis
A second objective for Study 2 was to investigate
the relationship of these factors to the NEO-FFI
personality factors and to social desirability. If a
confirmatory approach were used, the additional
number of variables in Study 2 could be a source
of problems, because many more competing
122
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 7, 2015
models would have to be tested, and because the
number of subjects would have to be increased for
this additional testing. Under these conditions,
because a maximum likelihood approach is known
to be sensitive to sample size, it might produce too
many common factors (Kim 8c hlueller, 1978;
Tabachnick 8c Fidell, 1989), which would increase
the probability of identifying an inappropriate
model by chance alone. Therefore, instead of
another confirmatory analysis, we performed
three oblique exploratory factor analyses involving
the NEO-FFI factors and social desirability with
the following three variable subsets: (a) the six
individual measures (Es,H, S-Ef, GSE, GES, and
Aft); (b) the Self-confidence and Adjustment fac-
tors; and (c) the higher-order Health Proneness
factor.
Principal components analysis indicated that the
data could be described with two factors for each
of the analyses. All three of the subsequent analy-
ses produced consistent findings and accounted
for similar proportions of the total variance in the
data (given in parentheses): (a) the six individual
measures from Study 1 (56.3%), which provided a
baseline of total variance accounted for; (b) the
Health Proneness factor (55.9%);and (c) the Self-
Confidence and Adjustment factors (55.3%).
The results of the factor analyses with Health
Proneness and the Self-confidence and Adjust-
ment factors are shown in Table 4. Two clear,
moderately correlated factors emerged in each
analysis with the NEO-FFI scales. On Factor 2,
Health Proneness had a moderate loading with
only NEO-FFI Extraversion, perhaps reflecting the
general social involvement of people prone to
healthy b ehav io r s . IVhen Self-Co n f id e nce and
Adjustment were entered with the NEO-FFI scales,
the former also moderately loaded on Factor 2
with Extraversion, whereas the latter moderately
loaded on Factor 1 with a negative loading of
Neuroticism and positive loadings of Conscientious-
ness and Agreeableness. This suggests that Self-
Confidence reflects general social involvement,
whereas Adjustment reflects relaxed emotional
stability, organized goal-directedness, and a trust-
ing and warm interpersonal orientation.
Table 3
Means, Slandard Deviations, Internal Consistency (CronDach's a) and Zero-Order Interconelalions

Scales NEO-FFI scales

Scale M SD a H S-Ef GSE GES MI SD N E 0 A C
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 7, 2015
 Bernard, Hutchison, Lavin, and Pennington

Table 4
Exploratov Factor Analjses of the Health Proneness, SelJ-Confidence,and Adjiutinent
Factors of the Hierarchical Model With tile Big Five Personalitj Factors

Oblimin rotated
factor loadings
Factor Scales 1 2
Single higher- NEO-FFI Conscientiousness 84 -20
order factor: NEO-FFI Neuroticism -57 -18
Health Proneness Health Proneness 21 60
NEO-FFI Extraversion 27 52
NEO-FFI Openness -07 30
NEO-FFI Acreeableness 29 12
Eigenvalue 2.26 1.10
% of variance 37.7 18.3
r = .34

Lower-order factors: NEO-FFI Neuroticisin -8 1 03

Adjustment and Adjustment 75 23
Self-Confidence NEO-FFI Conscientiousness 58 -07
NEO-FFI Agreeableness 37 04
Self-confidence -08 64
NEO-FFI Extraversion 22 53
NEO-FFI Openness 01 .23
Eigenvalue 2.73 1.14
% of variance 39.1 16.3
r = .48
Note. Decimals are omitted; loadings > .35 are in bold face. The College hlaladjustment (Ail) scale
was reverse-scored before Adjustment Factor scores were calculated.

Discussion of negative affectivity, or (c) the hypothesized

Study 2 cross-validated the factor model reported
in Study 1 in a broader sample, suggesting that the
model is reliable. Although the six original mea-
sures were independently developed and, theoreti-
cally, tap different phenomena, they covary. This
model suggests that this covariance is captured in
the closely related factors of Self-Confidence and
Adjustment. The factors' discriminant validity was
further supported by their rather modest degree
of variance shared with some of the general per-
sonality factors represented in the NEO-FFI scales.
T h e r e are at least three explanations for the
covariance in the six original measures as it is
represented in these two apparently reliable fac-
tors: (a) method variance, (b) a mood disposition
Health Proneness factor.
The fact that the hierarchical model fits these
data, with nonsignificant residual variance, argues
against the existence of a general method factor.
However, in order to test for a method factor, we
conducted another LISREL VII confirmatory fac-
tor analysis specifying a nonhierarchical, three-
factor model. If the covariance in the six original
measures merely reflected method variance, there
should be a general method factor and then, per-
haps, additional factors such as Self-confidence
and Adjustment. This three-factor model did not
fit the data as well as the hierarchical model, x2
(5, N = 264) = 42.755, p < .001; goodness-of-fit
index was .92; adjusted goodness-of-fit index was

124

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 7, 2015

 Health-Related Constructs
.79, indicating that the covariance in the original
sis measures reproduced by the hierarchical model
does not appear to reflect method variance.
The second possible explanation for covariance in
the six original measures has important theoreti-
cal implications for studying the relationship
between personality and health and the putative
role of negative affectivity. A moderate-to-large
loading of NEO-FFI Neuroticism and Health
Proneness should be found if negative affectivity
were related to the common variance in these
health measures. This was not the case. However,
Neuroticism did load negatively on Factor 1 with
Adjustment, so negative affectivity may be related
only to Adjustment and not Self-Confidence. An
indirect way of exploring the relationship of nega-
tive affectivity and Adjustment is by evaluating the
role of social desirability.
Social desirability was, in fact, significantly corre-
lated with Neuroticism in Study 2, as it was with
each of the six original measures. Interestingly, in
Study 2, social desirability did not correlate signif-
icantly with Self-confidence (r = .11; N = 246; p >
.05).It did correlate significantly with Adjustment
( r = -18;N = 246; fi < .Ol), but they share very little
variance. Although this is admittedly an indirect
inference, given the social undesirability of nega-
tive affectivity, this argues against a major influ-
ence of social desirability or negative affectivity
on Self-confidence or Adjustment and supports
the factor's discriminant validity compared to the
original six measures. The possible relationship
between negative affectivity and Adjustment will
be discussed later.
This leaves the third explanation for the covari-
ance in the original six measures captured in Self-
Confidence and Adjustment. The initial literature
review revealed several correlations between the
six measures and some criteria representing the
health-related variables of coping, personal con-
trol, and physiological responsivity. One way to
evaluate the presumed health-relatedness of Self-
Confidence and Adjustment would be to deter-
mine whether they were related to variables repre-
senting stress, health status, and coping. This was
the objective of Study 3.
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 7, 2015
Study 3
hiet ho d
Pa rf icipaii fs
Another sample (N = 191) was obtained. It con-
sisted of noncollege volunteers ( n = 131) ages 30 to
50 years, recruited in the same manner as before
and students (n = 60) at a large state university
who participated in return for partial course
credit. Approximately 56% of the sample were
female; 49.2% were European American, 11.5%
were Asian American, and 18.3% were Latin
American; 13%were high school graduates, 37.7%
had attended some college, and 38.7% were col-
lege graduates. The mean age of the total sample
was 34.6 years (SD = 11.7).
iVenszires and Procedures. The same procedures as
in Study 1 and Study 2 were followed, with the
addition of the following three measures:
1. Stress was measured with the Life Experi-
ences survey (Samson, Johnson, & Siege],
1978), which has been used in prior studies
of health and stress (e.g., Roth, W e b e ,
Fillingim, 8c Shay, 1989; Wiebe & McCallum,
1986). It is a self-report checklist that assesses
the occurrence and impact of various life
experiences. The scale uses a 7-point rating
scale with scores ranging from -3 to -1 (nega-
tive impact), 0 (no impact), and 1 to 3 (positive
impact). Respondents indicate which of the
events have occurred in the past 12 months,
then rate the impact of these events. Two
scores were calculated from this scale: one
derived from the sum of the negative impact
scores and the other derived from the sum of
the positive impact scores.
The second measure of stress was the Daily
Hassles scale (Lazarus 8: Folkman, 1989),
which also has been used i n studies of
somatic health. This is a 117-item self-report
inventory with responses measured on a 4-
point response scale: 0 (Did not o c c w ) , 1
(Somewhat severe), 2 (Afoderutely severe), and 3
(Extremely severe). It was used to assess respon-
dents' perception of the severity of daily
events (irritants) over the past month. A com-
posite scale score was obtained by summing
the responses across all 117 items.
125
 Bernard, Hutchison, Lash, and Pennington
2. Illness was measured by the Seriousness of
Illness scale (IVyler, Alasuda, & Holmes,
1968),a 127-item self-report checklist of com-
monly recognized physical symptoms and dis-
eases. It, too, has been used in prior studies
of health and stress (e.g., Roth et al., 1989).
Subjects were asked to indicate which symp-
toms or illnesses had occurred during the
past month or the past 12 months. Severity
weights (determined in previous studies) for
all endorsed items were summed to yield
total illness scores.
3. Coking was measured by the Ways of Coping
Questionnaire (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988), a
66-item self-report measure, that assesses
situation-specific coping strategies. It uses a
4-point scale, ranging from 0 (Does not a))b
or not used) to 4 (used a great deal) to indicate
the frequency of use of various coping tech-
niques. items are grouped into eight coping
strategies: Confrontive Coping, Distancing,
Self-Controlling, Seeking Social Support,
Accepting Responsibility, Escape-Avoidance,
Planful Problem Solving, a n d Positive
Reappraisal. Separate scores were calculated
by summing those items related to a particu-
lar strategy. Additionally, a composite coping
score was calculated as the sum of the eight
separate coping strategy scores. Although
there a r e concerns about this measure’s
validity (Stone, Greenberg, Kennedy-Moore,
& Newman, 1991), Folkman and Lazarus
(1988) maintain that the assessment of cop-
ing is embryonic and that this is one of the
most widely used instruments.
Results and Discussion
Confirmatory Factor Atialjsis
LISREL VII was used to perform another confir-
matory factor analysis on the six health-related
scales. Results were consistent with those reported
in Studies 1 and 2 for the two-factor, hierarchical
model (goodness-of-fitindex = -95, adjusted good-
ness-of-fit index = .87, root mean square residual =
.05). There was a correlation of .79 between the
factors, with Self-Confidence loading .87 and
126
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 7, 2015
Adjustment loading .91 on the single, higher-
order factor. This time, however, Chi-square was
significant, x2 (8, N = 191) = 31.59, /I < .001, sug-
gesting some degree of misfit to the model.
However, the significance of Chi-square is only
one among several ways to judge the degree of
model fit. Because Chi-square is known to be sen-
sitive to large sample sizes (Boomsma, 1982), and
because the goodness-of-fitindexes and root mean
square residual were quite similar to those in
Studies 1 and 2, we believe that the hierarchical
factor model represents a good fit to the data. In
addition, Byrne (1989) has suggested that, when
comparing two competing models, the difference
in Chi-square can be used as an indicator of
improvement in model fit. IVhen the two-factor,
hierarchical model was compared to a competing
single-factor model, x2
(9, N = 191) = 63.78, f~ <
.001, the difference in Chi-square was significant
(Ax2 = 32.19, p < ,001). The significant change in
Chi-square suggests that the two-factor, hierarchi-
cal model provides a substantially better fit to
the data.
Zero-Order Correlations
Correlations of the Es,Hardiness, Aft, Self-Esteem,
Generalized Expectancy of Success, and Self-
Efficacy scales and the Self-confidence and
Adjustment factors with the measures of stress,
health status, and coping are shown in Table 5.
The Se1f-Co n f i d e n ce and Adjustment factors
reflect the same pattern and extent of relation-
ships with the stress, health status, and coping
scales as the six original measures, which suggests
that the factors are valid replacements for them.
The Self-confidence factor is negatively correlated
with stress (the Daily Hassles and negative Life
Events scales), health status (the Seriousness of
illness scale, past 12 months), and coping (the
\Vays of Coping Escape-Avoidance and Distance
subscales). The Adjustment factor is also nega-
tively correlated with stress (the Daily Hassles and
negative Life Events scales), health status (the
Seriousness of Illness scale, past month and past
12 months), and coping (the \trays of Coping Total
and Escape-Avoidance, Distance, Accepting
 Health-Related Constructs

Table 5
Comelatioils of Self-ConJdence and Adjustment and Their Coinponent Scales with Stress, Health Status, and Coping
Criteria

Adjustment Aft ES H Self-confidence GSE GES S-Ef

Stress
LE negative -16"
LE positive 05
Hassles -43***

Health status
SI past month -16
SI past 12 months -23""

Ways of coping
Confrontive -06 -02 -08 -01
Distance -19" -23""" -14 -14
Self-control -08 -12 -04 -03
Seeking support 05 -02 04 07
Accepting responsibility -15 -20"" -12 -07
Escape -32**:2: -35""" -2gew - 14
Planful 14 11 15 08
Reappraisal 09 06 11 01
Total -09 -14 -07 05
A'ofe. Decirnals are omitted. The Aft scale was reverse-scoredbefore Adjustment Factor scores were calculated to aid in interpretationof the
correlation coefficients. II = Hardiness scale; S-Ef = General Self-Efficacyscale; Er = EgoStrength scale; GSE = Global Self-Esteemscale; GES
= Generalized Expectancy of Success scale; Aft = College Maladjustment scale; LE = Life F-xpericnces scale; SI = Seriousness of Illness scale;
Hassles = Daily Hassles scale.
* p < .OJ. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Responsibility, and Confrontive subscaIes). This
suggests the factors may be correlated with some
health-related phenomena, and provides evidence
of their construct validity.
However, in order to evaluate the divergent valid-
ity of Adjustment, we return to the potential role
of negative affectivity (Watson 8: Pennebaker,
1989). The i W scale, which is construed as a indi-
cator of negative affectivity and is moderately cor-
related with NEO-FFI Neuroticism, is a prominent
component of the Adjustment factor. Funk (1992)
proposed that, rather than eliminating the infIu-
ence of neuroticism, it should be explored in
order to provide a better understanding of the
relationship between stress and illness.
One way to expIore this relationship is to deter-
mine the lower-order factorial structure of Adjust-
ment. By evaluating the relationships among the
individual illt, Es, and Hardiness scale items, the
role of negative affectivity in Adjustment could be
further delineated. This was the goal of Study 4.If
many Hardiness and Es items were confounded
ivith negative affectivity, then there should be one
o r more lower-order factors with item loadings
from all three of the scales comprising Adjust-
ment. However, if most Hardiness and Es items
were not confounded with negative affectivity, then
items from the ilft scale should load on a single fac-
tor, and items from the Hardiness and Es scales
should load on one or more additional factors.

127

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 7, 2015

 Bernard, Hutchison, Lavin, and Pennington
Study 4
Method
Pa rticipa11 ts
The respondents from Studies 2 and 3 were com-
bined, yielding a total sample of AT = 455.
Procedtire
Respondents’ scores on the 143 individual items
of the Es, Hardiness, and illt scales were factor
analyzed. Although it would be ideal to have at
least five cases per item, samples of about 300 sub-
jects are considered adequate, depending on such
considerations as the number of predicted factors
and the magnitude of population correlations
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). Because of the small
number of factors predicted in this analysis and
the relatively reliable scale intercorrelations
demonstrated in the prior studies, the subjects-to-
item ratio was judged to be adequate.
Results
A preliminary principal components analysis was
conducted and indicated that three factors should
be retained. A subsequent orthogonal analysis was
restricted to three factors and rotated to varimax
criteria. The eigenvalues and percentage of total
variance (in parentheses) of the three extracted
factors were: 25.03 (17.5%) for Factor 1; 8.94
(6.3%)for Factor 2; and 5.18 (3.6%)for Factor 3.
Factor 1 consisted of loadings ranging from .62 to
.84 for all 41 of the Aft items, with no Hardiness
or ES items loading at > .20. Factor 2 contained
loadings ranging from .32 to -65 for 24 of the 50
Hardiness itenis (representing all three of its sub-
scales), loadings ranging from .32 to .55 for 22 of
the 52 Es items, and loadings ranging from -.21 to
-.35 for 9 of the 41 Aft items. Factor 3 consisted
primarily of loadings ranging from .46 to .84 for 9
items from the Hardiness scale (representing all
three of its subscales)?
We then examined the correlations of Factors 2
and 3 with the stress, health status, and coping
variables from Study 3. Both factors had the same
pattern and extent of relationship with these crite-
rion variables as the Adjustment factor itself.
128
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 7, 2015
Discussion
These results suggest that Adjustment consists of
three lower-order factors. The first is a direct rep-
resentation of the Mt scale, whereas the second
consists of Es and Hardiness items and the third
only of Hardiness items. Interestingly, the second
and third factors, without the Aft scale items, have
the same degree of association with the criterion
measures of stress, health status, and coping as
Adjustment itself. This suggests that the relation-
ship of Adjustment with the health-related crite-
rion variables is ?tot dependent on the Mt items
and probably does not reflect the influence of
negative affectivity.
General Discussion
If‘e began this series of studies by examining six
independently developed health-related constructs
that appeared to be related. We conclude with a
better understanding of the relatiomhip between
personality and physical health. hIeasures of a
variety of constructs related to coping, control,
and health status-ego-strength, hardiness, self-
efficacy, self-esteem, optimism, and maladjust-
ment-were all intercorrelated, and their covari-
ance could be accounted for better by a latent hier-
archical factor model than by the alternative mod-
els tested. This hierarchical model suggests that
the original measures may not be independent. As
predicted, the model consists of a single, higher-
order factor tentatively labeled Health Proneness
because of the original six covarying measures’
relationships with aspects of health. Health
Proneness loads two lower-order factors: Self-
Confidence and Adjustment. Both of these factors
are more parsimonious and may account for more
of the variance in health-related criteria than the
original scales.
We also investigated the convergent and discrimi-
nant validity of Self-confidence and Adjustment.
Self-confidence and Adjustment are related to the
broad personality factors of the Big Five hlodel.
*Six of the Hardiness items with larger loadings on the sec-
ond factor also had loadings ranging from .20 to .24 on the
third factor.
 Health-Related Constructs
Adjustment is related negatively to Neuroticism
and positively to Conscientiousness and Agree-
ableness, whereas Self-confidence is related to
Extraversion. However, these relationships are not
extensive-accounting for not more than 40% of
the variance in Adjustment and Self-Confidence-
which suggests that these factors have specificity
in their own right. This is consistent with the
results of hlarshall, Wortman, Vickers, Kusulas,
and Hervig (1994), who found that the NEO-FFI
factors accounted for less than 30% of the vari-
ance in the health-related personality measures
they investigated. Other evidence for the conver-
gent validity of Self-Confidence and Adjustment
was provided by their correlations with some mea-
sures of stress, health status, and coping.
\Vith regard to divergent validity, although
Adjustment would appear to be vulnerable to a
mood disposition of negative affectivity, this does
not seem to substantially affect its relationship to
measures of stress, health status, and coping.
Finally, in contrast to the six original measures,
neither Self-confidence nor Adjustment were
much affected by socially desirable responding.
There are some limitations of this study. First, we
employed no objective criterion measure of actual
health status or illness. Second, interpreting and
identifying the sources of common variance in fac-
tor analytic data is fraught with difficulty. We
believe that some progress has been made in this
area with respect to these six measures and in
naming their common factors, but further refine-
ment is necessary. In particular, we are somewhat
concerned about the factors with items that
require a consistently negative response. These
items could be rewritten so that they do not risk
tapping an artifactual response set. Third, presum-
ably our samples have been healthy individuals,
which might serve to restrict the variance and,
thus, the degree of relationship that could be
demonstrated between many of the measures that
we investigated. Although this might have pro-
vided a more conservative context in which to test
the hierarchical factor model, a necessary next
step would be to see whether the model fits data
from a sample of people experiencing a greater
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 7, 2015
incidence of illness. The increase in variance
might reveal even stronger associations between
the hierarchical model and health.
References
Alexander, A. A., Roessler, R., k Greenfield, N. S.
(1963). Ego strength and physiological responsivity 111: The
relationship of the Barron Ego-Strength scale to sponta-
neous periodic actil-ity in skin resistance, finger blood vol-
ume, heart rate, and muscle potential. Archives of Geiteral
Ps)ciiiat?y,9, 58-61.
Alexander, F. (1950). Psyhoso~naticmedicine. New York:
Norton.
Allred, K. D., 8.Smith, T. 11’. (1989). The hardy person-
ality: Cognitive and physiological responses to evaluative
threat. Journal of Personalitj and Social PsjcholoD, 56, 257-
266.
Antonucci, T. C., 8; Jackson, J. S. (1983). Physical health
and self-esteem. Fainil~and Cointnunit):Health, G, 1-9.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy:Toward a unifjing the-
ory of behavioral change. Psjchological Rmiew. 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human
agency. American Psjchologist,37, 122-147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and
adion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A., Cioffi, D., Taylor, C. B., k Brouillard, ME.
(1988). Perceived self-efficacy in coping with cognitive stres-
sors and opioid activation. Journal of Personalitj and Social
Psjclzology, 55,479488.
Bandun, A., Taylor, C. B., ii’illiams, S. L., hleford, I. N.,
8.Barchas,J. D. (1985). Catecholamine secretion as a fiinc-
tion of perceived self-efficacy. Journal of Conslilting and
Clinical Psjcholoa, 53,406-414.
Barron, F. (1953). An ego strenfi-thscale which predicts
response to psychotherapy-Jorcrnalvof Coifiulting P.&holos>.,
17,327-333.
Bernard, L. C., k Belinsky, D. (1990, April). Hardiness
and self-Psteem: Independent constructs? Paper presented at the
meeting of the Western Psychological Association, Los
Angeles, CA.
Bernard, L. C., & Belinsky, D. (1992). Hardiness, stress,
and maladjustment: Effects on self-reported retrospective
health problems and prospective health center visits.
Journal ofsocial Behavior and PersonaliQ, 8,97-110.
Boomsma, A. (1982). The robustness of LISREL against
small sample sizes in factor analysis models. In H. Wold
& K. Jiireskog (Eds.), Systetns under indirect observation
(pp. 149-173). New York: Elsevier North-Holland.
Byrne, B. hi. (1989). A primer of LISREL. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Carlson, R. (1984). IVhat’s social about social psycliol-
ow?Where’s the person in personality research?Journal of
Personalitj and Social PsjcIioloB, 47, 1304-1309.
Cohen, F., k Latarus, R. S. (1973). Active coping
processes, coping dispositions, and recovery from surgery.
Psjchosomatic Aledicine, 3.5, 375-389.
129
 Bernard, Hutchison, Lavin, and Pennington
Costa, P. T., Jr., 8: McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO
Personalitj Inventog tnanual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., Jr., 8 hIcCrae, R. R. (1989). A7E0 PvFFi
manual stip,bleinent. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Crorvne, D. P., k hlarlowe, D. (1964). The approval
motive: Studies in evahtatiue dependence. New York: IViley.
Dahlstrom, I\’. G., IVelsh, G. S., 8: Dahlstrom, L. E.
(1975). A n i\fiIlPI handbook: 1’01. II. Research a,bplications.
hlinneapolis, h l X University of hlinnesota Press.
Dielman, T. E., Campanelli, P. C., Shope, J. T., 8:
Butchart, A. T. (1987). Susceptibility to peer pressure, self-
esteem, and health locus of control as correlates of adoles-
cent substance abuse. Health Education Quarterb, 14, 207-
221.
Digman, J. hl. (1990). Personality Structure: Emergence
of the Five-Factor hlodel. Annual Xeuim of Psyhology, 41,
441477.
Eagly, A. H. (1967). Involvement as a determinant of
response to favorable and unfavorable information. Journal
of Personalitj and Social Psjchology, 7, 1-15.
Epstein, S. (1983). Aggregation and beyond Some basic
issues in the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personalitj,
51.360-392.
Eysenck, H. J., k Eysenck, S. (1968). i\fantcal for the
Ejsenck Personalitj Inventory. San Diego, CA. Educational
and Industrial Testing Senice.
Fibel, B., 8: Hale, It’. D. (1978). The Generalized
Expectancy for Success S c a l e 4 new measure. Journal of
Corntilting and Clinical Psjchology, 46, 924-931.
Fischer, hl., 8: Leitenberg. H. (1986). Optimism and pes-
simism in elementary school-aged children. Child
Development, 5 7,24 1-248.
Folkman, S., 8: Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Alanital for the
Ways of Coping Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
French, T. hi., k Alexander, F. (1941). Psychogenic fac-
tors in bronchial asthma. Ps~chmomaticMedicine Alonographs,
ATO. 4.
Friedman, H. S., 8c Booth-Kewley, S. (1987). The “dis-
ease-prone personality”: A meta-analytic view of the con-
struct. American Psychologist, 42,539-555.
Funk, S . C. (1992). Hardiness: A review of theory and
research. Health Psyholog, 11, 335-345.
Funk, S. C., 8: Homton, B. K. (1987). A critical analysis
of the hardiness scale’s validity and utility. Journal of
Personality and Social Psyhology, 53,572-578.
Gentry, I\‘. D., 8- Kobasa, S. C. (1984). Social and psy-
chological resources mediating stress-illness relationships in
humans. In IV. D. Gentry (Ed.), Handbook of behavioral niedi-
cine (pp. 87-116). New York Guilford.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “Description of
Personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Jotrrnal of
Personalitj and Social PsycholoB, 59. 1216-1229.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers
of the Big-Five factor structure. Psjchological Assessmenf. 4,
2642.
Graham, J. R. (1990). i\h\fPi-2: Assessing personalify and
psjchopathology. New York Oxford University Press.
130
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 7, 2015
Greenfield, N. S., Roessler, R., 8: Crosley, A. P., Jr.
(1959). Ego strength and length of recovery from infectious
mononucleosis. Joicnial of Neruoza and Afental Disease, 128,
125128.
Hathaway, S. R., 8: XlcKinley, J. C. (1967). The i\liiznesofa
Af tilt iph asic Perso nu 1i f y i n v e n t o r j ma n tia I. New York:
Psychological‘Corporation.
Hathairay, S. R., 8: hlcKinley, J. C. (1989). The Afinnesota
Multiphasic Personalitj inventoq. tnanual-2. hlinneapolis,
XIN: National Computer Systems.
Holahan, C. K.. Holahan, C. J., 8: Belk, S. (1984).
Adjustment in aging: The role of life stress, hassles, and
self-efficacy.Healfh Psjcholog>.,3, 315-328.
Hull, J. G., Van Treuren, R. R., 8: Virnelli, S. (1987).
Hardiness and health: A critique and alternative approach.
Journal of Personalitj and Social Psjchology, 53, 518-530.
Jiireskog, I(. G., S: Sorbom, D. (1981). LISREL VII.
User’s Guide. Chicago: National Educational Resources.
Kim, J-0..8: hlueller, C. I\‘. (1978). Factor analjsis:
Statistical methods and practical issues. Newbury Park, C A
Sage.
Kleinmuntz, B. (1961). The college maladjustment scale
( A f t ) : Norms and predictive validity. Edricational a n d
Psjchological i\leasurement, 21, 1029-1033.
Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life. events, personality,
and health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personalit).
and Social Psjcfiolog, 37, 1-11.
Robasa, S. C., hladdi, S. R., 8: Courington, S. (1981).
Personality and constitution as mediators in the stress-ill-
ness relationship. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22,
368-378.
Kobasa, S. C., hladdi, S. R., Puccetti, hl. C., 8: Zola, XI. A.
(1985). Effectiveness of hardiness, exercise, and social sup-
port as resources against illness. Journal of Psjchosomatic
Research, 29, 525-533.
Lazarus, R. S., 8: Folkman, S. (1989). Afaniral for the
Hassles and Uplijis Scales. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Loring, R., Schoor, S., 8; Holman, H. R. (1985).
Experimental evidence that changes in’ self-efficacy are
associated with changes in arthritis pain. Arthritis and
Xheunatisin, 28 (Suppl.), S29.
hlajor, B., Cozzarelli, C., Sciacchitano, A. hl., Cooper,
hl. Lynne, Testa, hi., 8 hlueller, P. hi. (1990). Perceived
social support, self-efficacy, and adjustment to abortion.
Journal of Personalitj and Social Psychology, 59,452463.
hlarshall, G . N., IVortman, C. B., Vickers, R. R., Jr.,
Kusulas, J. Itr., 8- Hcrvig, L. I<. (1994). The Five-Factor
Xlodel of personality as a framework for personality-health
research.Journal of Personality and Social Psycholos>’,67, 278-
286.
XlcCrae, R. R. (1990). Controlling neuroticism in the
measurement of stress [Special Issue: 11-IV. Advances in
measuring life stress]. Sfress hledicine, 6, 237-241.
hlearns, J. (1989). Aleasuring self-acceptance:
Expectancy for success vs. self-esteem.Journal of Clinical
~ , 90-397.
P s j c f ~ o l o45,3
O’Brien, E. J., 8: Epstein, S. (1989). llfaniial for the
ilitrlfidiinensional Self-Esteem Inventory. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
 Health-Related Constructs
O’Leary, A. (1985). Self-efficacg and health. Behauior
Research and Therakj, 23,437451.
Pfaehler, G. T., 8: Roessler, R. (1965). Ego strength and
intravenous glucose tolerance. Journal of Psyhosotnatic
Research, 8, 431439.
Roessler, R., Alexander, A. A., 8; Greenfield, N. S.
(1963). Ego strength and physiological responsivity I: The
relationship of the Barron Es scale to skin resistance, finger
blood volume, heart rate, and muscle potential responses
to sound. Archives of General Psjcliiatq, 8, 142-154.
Roessler, R., Burch, N. R., 8; Childers, H. E. (1966).
Personality and arousal correlates of specific galvanic skin
responses. Psyho)hjsiology, 3, 115-130.
Roessler, R., Burch, N. R., h hlefferd, R. B., Jr. (1967).
Personality correlates of catecholamine excretion under
stress. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11, 181-185.
Roessler, R., 8. Collins, F. (1970). Personality correlates
of physiological responses to motion pictures. Psjcho-
phjsiology, G, 732-739.
Roessler, R., Greenfield, K . S., 8; Alexander, A. A.
(1964). Ego strength and response stereotypy. Psycho-
phjsiology, I, 142-150.
Rosenberg, hi. (1965). Society and the adolacent self-image.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Roth, D. L., Wiebe, D. J., Fillingim, R. B., & Sliay, K. A.
(1989). Life events, fitness, hardiness, and health: A simul-
taneous analysis of proposed stress-resistance effects.
Journal of Personality and Social Psyholog>, 57, 136-142.
Sarason, I. G., Johnson, J. H., 8; Siegcl, J. XI. (1978).
Assessing the impact of life changes: Development of the
Life Experiences Survey.Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 46,932-946.
Sayette, hI.A., 8; hlayne, T. J. (1990). Survey of current
clinical and research trends in clinical psychology. Ainerican
P~~chologist, 45, 1263-1266.
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Freie Universitaet Berlin on May 7, 2015
Scheier, hi. F., h Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, cop-
ing. and health: Assessment and implications of genenl-
ized outcome expectancies. Health Psjchology,4, 219-247.
Scheier, hl. F., 8; Carver, C. S. (1987). Dispositional opti-
mism and physical well-being: The influence of generalized
outcome expectancies on health. Journal of Personalig, 55,
169-210.
Scheier, X i . F., Weintraub, J. K.,8: Caner, C. S. (1986).
Coping with stress: Divergent strategies of optimists and
pessimists. Journal of Persoiialitj and Social Psjchology, 51,
1257-1264.
Stone, A. A., Greenberg, XI. A., Kennedy-Moore, E., h
Newman, bl. G. (1991). Self-report, situation-specific cop-
ing questionnaires: I\’hat are they measuring? Journal o j
Personality and Social Psjcliology, GI,648-658.
Suls, J., & Rittenhousc, J. D. (1990). Models of linkages
between personality and disease. In H. S. Friedman (Ed.),
Penotialitj and disease (pp. 155-167). New York IViley.
Tabachnick, B. G., 8: Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivari-
a t e s f a f i s f h(2nd ed.). New York: Harper 8; Row.
IVatson, D., 8: Pennebaker, J. I\‘. (1989). Health corn-
plaints, stress, and distress: Exploring the central role of
negative affectivity. Psjchological Review, 96, 234-234.
Wiebe, D. J., 8: hlcCallum, D. hi. (1986). Health prac-
tices and hardiness as mediators in the stress-illness rela-
tionship. Healfh Psjchology, 5,425-438.
Wyler, A. R., hfasuda, Xi., 8; Holmes, T. H. (1968).
Seriousness of Illness Rating Scale. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 11,363-374.
131