Salvatore R. Maddi
Department of Psychological Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
Some psychologists consider resilience to emphasize how people can remain the same despite the imposition on them of stressful circumstances. One conclusion from this position is that it is helpful to avoid stressors. In contrast, personality hardiness emphasizes resilience as the process of change, growth, and development that is provoked by dealing with rather than avoiding stressful circumstances (e.g., Maddi, 2002; Maddi & Khoshaba, 2005).
In this regard, an assumption behind personality hardiness is that life is by its nature changing and stressful, so involving oneself in this process helps one grow and develop toward greater fulfillment. This assumption derives from the existential position (Kierkegaard, 1954) that everything we do in life is the result of making decisions. As life is an ongoing process of change, each decision with which we are faced involves choosing the unknown future or the familiar past. Although choosing the future is developmentally best, it brings anxiety because the outcome cannot be predicted in advance. But if we decide to avoid anxiety by choosing the past (i.e., what we already know and are doing), we encounter the existential guilt of missed opportunity, boredom, and emptiness of living.
Based on this dilemma, the hardiness approach assumes that, in one's ongoing life, the best way to establish a pattern of choosing the future, rather than the past, is to develop the personality pattern of hardiness. Hardiness is considered a pattern of attitudes and strategies that help one do the hard work of choosing the future rather than the past (Maddi, 2002). The more than 40 years of research, consulting, and counseling that emerged from this conceptualization has solidified this position. Early on, Maddi's (1965) work involved showing that people who express more interest in change are also likely to be more creative in their work. But in specifying the personality characteristics involved more completely and the particular effects of stressors on functioning, it seemed important to carry out a relevant experiment, rather than just doing correlational research.
In the 1070s, Maddi was a consultant for Illinois Bell Telephone (IBT). At that time, the US telephone industry was a federally regulated monopoly, whose member companies only had to provide cheap and reliable telephone service and did not have to worry about their bottom lines. But it became clear that this situation had to change, as the beginning of the Internet was opening up the field and encouraging international competition. The US government made clear that the telephone industry would need to be deregulated in order to motivate competition for greater possibilities and income in the newly developing circumstances.
With the help of IBT decision makers, Maddi and his research team in 1974 began yearly testing of 450 managers in a longitudinal research study to determine the effects of the deregulation on them. Each yearly testing included not only the set of relevant questionnaires but also interviews. Also available were yearly job performance evaluations done by the company. Six years into the study (in 1980), the federal deregulation occurred, and its effects are still regarded as a major disruption on the industry and its companies. Indeed, in the year following the deregulation, nearly half of the managers in our sample were terminated. As to the research study, we continued to test the managers, whether they continued or were terminated, with the questionnaires, interviews, and job evaluations each year for the following 6 years. The study is still regarded as a classical natural experiment.
The study results showed that, in the 6 years following the deregulation of the telephone industry, nearly two‐thirds of the sample fell apart in various ways. They showed clear signs of major anxiety, depression, and anger, undermining performance at work. These signs included violence, data loss, inability to make decisions, and decision‐making avoidance. And in home life, they also showed signs of being undermined, such as divorces, substance abuse, and even suicides.
In contrast, the other third of the sample not only survived but also thrived following the deregulation. At work, they either rose up in the ranks, or if they were among those terminated, they found significant jobs in other organizations or even started their own companies. In all this, they were able to give and get social support with their significant others (at work or at home) and were able to grow and develop by dealing effectively with the stress of deregulation.
Of particular importance in developing hardiness assessment was the comparison of managers who reacted resiliently to the deregulation with those who did not (Maddi & Kobasa, 1984). In the 6 years before this upheaval, the managers who reacted well to the deregulation were much stronger than the others in the attitudes of commitment, control, and challenge. No matter how bad things might get, they wanted to stay involved with people and contexts (commitment), continue to struggle to have an influence on their outcomes (control), and learn how to grow and develop by trying to deal effectively with stressors (challenge). In contrast, the managers who fell apart under the deregulation had even before it showed definite signs of playing it safe by avoiding stressors and, if unsuccessful in this avoidance, by sinking into alienation and powerlessness. These results led to conceptualizing hardiness as the attitudes (the three Cs of commitment, control, and challenge) and strategies (problem solving rather than avoidance coping, socially supportive rather conflict‐laden interactions, and beneficial rather than overindulgent self‐care) associated with resilience. It appeared that hardy attitudes provided the courage and motivation to be able to do the hard work of hardy strategies that turned stressors into growth advantages. All of this is quite consistent with the existential view, well summarized by Nietzsche (1968, Nietzsche’s Twilight of the Idols, p. 254) as “whatever doesn't kill me makes me stronger.”
Also, the IBT data on interviews and questionnaires completed prior to the deregulation permitted a study (Khoshaba & Maddi, 1999) on the early life experiences of managers and the effects of these experiences on performance after the deregulation. Content analyses of the data showed that the managers who thrived after the deregulation had reported remembering a more disruptive, stressful early family life and having been selected by their parents as the hope of the family. They indicated having accepted this role and working hard to justify it. These results are consistent with the assumption that hardiness can be learned rather than being inborn. It also indicates that parents can help their children grow in hardiness by teaching them that life is by its nature stressful, and involving themselves in this process, rather than denying it, is the way to grow and develop toward a better life. In contrast, parents who are overprotective and controlling may be jeopardizing their children's growth toward hardiness.
In the years since the IBT study, there have been many additional research studies and consulting work on the hardiness approach. In this process, our various versions of the hardiness questionnaire have been translated into more than 15 Asian and European languages and are also used in English in numerous countries. There have also been reviews of hardiness research (see Suggested Reading). In the research studies covered in these reviews, it has been shown that the hardy attitudes (the three Cs of commitment, control, and challenge) are positively related to each other and to the hardy strategies of problem‐solving (rather than avoidance) coping, socially supportive (rather than conflict‐laden) interactions, and beneficial (rather than overindulgent) self‐care. This hardiness pattern has been positively associated with enhanced performance, conduct, mood, and health in samples of college and high‐school students and working adults in military, firefighting, sports, and business contexts (e.g., Maddi, 2002). Some specific topics and studies are considered below.
In the process of research and consulting, there has been systematic improvement of hardy attitudes measurement. The original questionnaire for the three Cs of commitment, control, and challenge was 50 items in length. Over the years, the measure has been shortened and improved. The current version (Maddi, 2001) is the 18‐Likert‐item Personal Views Survey, III‐R (third edition, revised). Examples of items are, for commitment, “I often wake up eager to take on life wherever it left off”; for control, “When I make plans, I'm certain I can make them work”; and for challenge, “Changes in routine provoke me to learn.” Cronbach's alpha coefficients for all three Cs range in the.70's and for total hardiness are even higher. The three Cs are positively correlated, and each of them shows a high correlation with the total hardiness score. Also, consistent with hardiness theorizing, Sinclair and Tetrick (2000) have found that factor analysis of the hardiness test items yields the three empirically related first‐order factors of commitment, control, and challenge and that these factors are indeed positively related to the second‐order factor of hardiness. This pattern has supported the conceptually emphasized use of a total hardiness score as necessary. In another study (Maddi & Harvey, 2005), no cross‐cultural or demographic differences were found in hardiness.
By now, there are many especially significant studies on the role of hardiness in various performance, conduct, and health activities. For example, in samples of bus drivers (Bartone, 1989), lawyers (Kobasa, 1982), and nurses (Keane, Ducette, & Adler, 1985), hardiness was found to be positively correlated with measures of performance and satisfaction and negatively correlated with anxiety and depression. There are also similar findings in American employees experiencing the culture shock of work missions abroad (Atella, 1989) and in foreign immigrants to the United States (Kuo & Tsai, 1986). In a study of sports performance (Maddi & Hess, 1992), hardiness levels of male, high‐school varsity basketball players were measured in the summer, and then their performance was obtained in the ensuing season. Hardiness predicted six out of seven indices of performance in the expected direction, even though all the subjects were varsity players.
Also, there have been studies concerning hardiness and military personnel. For example, Bartone (1999) found that soldiers high in hardiness adjusted better to health and life stressors than did those who were low in hardiness. Further, among soldiers returning from operational deployments, there was a positive relationship between hardiness and readjustment to their former lives (Britt, Adler, & Bartone, 2001). Hardiness was also a positive predictor of performance success in soldiers undergoing special forces training among Norwegian Naval Academy cadets (Bartone, Johnsen, Eid, Brun, & Laberg, 2002). Similarly, hardiness was positively correlated with both retention and performance excellence in US Military Academy cadets (Maddi, Matthews, Kelly, Villarreal, & White, 2012).
In addition, studies support a negative relationship between hardiness and conduct problems, such as alcohol and gambling abuse. For example, Maddi, Wadhwa, and Haier (1996) found that among high‐school graduates about to enter college, hardiness had a negative relationship with the reported frequency with which alcohol and drugs were used. In this study, the reported frequency of alcohol and drug use was objectively validated through urine screens. Also found in a sample of college students was a negative relationship between hardiness and gambling (Maddi et al., 2015).
Understandably, questions have arisen as to whether hardiness is little more than yet another personality variable. This concern has led to several empirical studies comparing hardiness and other possible predictors of performance.
One other possible predictor that has been proposed is negative affectivity, or neuroticism (e.g., Hull, Van Treuren, & Virnelli, 1987). Maddi and Khoshaba (1994) conducted a relevant study in which hardiness and an accepted measure of negative affectivity were entered into a regression analysis as independent variables in an attempt to predict the clinical scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). With the effects of negative affectivity controlled, hardiness was still a robust negative predictor of the MMPI clinical scales.
Another alternative predictor that might be confounded with hardiness is optimism. To test this possibility, Maddi and Hightower (1999) conducted three related studies that compared the relative influence of hardiness and optimism with transformational and regressive coping. Studying undergraduate students, the first two studies differed in the tests used to assess transformational and regressive coping styles. Nonetheless, the results showed consistently that, by comparison with optimism, hardiness was the better positive predictor of transformational coping and negative predictor of regressive coping. In the third study, the same approach was used in a sample of women who had breast lumps and were arriving at a specialty clinic for diagnosis of whether or not the lumps were cancerous. Under this life‐threatening stressor, optimism showed similar effects on coping as did hardiness, but only hardiness was a negative predictor of regressive coping. Taken together, these three studies show that hardiness is a better predictor of effective coping and that optimism, by comparison, may be laced with naïve complacency.
Another explanatory alternative to hardiness is grit, which is the courage provided by having a definite goal that affects performance under stress and will never be given up (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). By comparison, hardiness is the existential courage to continue to learn from and change under life's stressors (Maddi, 2002). To investigate the relative predicted power of hardiness and grit, a sample of cadets at the US Military Academy were tested for hardiness and grit several weeks before their training began, and then their performance evaluations were followed during the 4 years of this intentionally stressful training. The study results showed that hardiness was a better predictor than grit of cadet retention and performance (Maddi et al., 2012, 2015).
There is a growing need for hardiness assessment and training, due to the increased rate of social, technological, and cultural change being fueled by our transition from industrial to information societies (e.g., Peters, 1988). In an effort to adapt to the pressures of change, companies are continually restructuring (e.g., decentralizing, merging, downsizing, upsizing), which influences the lives of employees. In an attempt to help individuals deal well and grow with these changes, Maddi and Khoshaba have developed hardiness assessment and training procedures that can be used in consultation with individuals and organizations.
As to hardiness assessment, there is now the HardiSurvey III‐R, a valid and reliable 65‐item questionnaire that measures the vulnerability factors of stress, strain, and regressive coping, along with the resilience factors of hardiness attitudes, problem‐solving coping, and supportive social interactions (Maddi & Khoshaba, 2001). The vulnerability and resilience factors of the test taker are compared with each other and with available norms, leading to a wellness ratio. This test can be taken on our website (www.HardinessInstitute.com) and provides a comprehensive report concerning your resilience or vulnerability under stress.
As to hardiness training, there is now a comprehensive workbook (Khoshaba & Maddi, 2008; Maddi & Khoshaba, 2005) that includes instructions, exercises, case studies, and evaluation procedures concerning how to engage in problem‐solving (rather than avoidance) coping, socially supportive (rather than conflict‐laden) interactions, and beneficial (rather than overindulgent) self‐care. Also shown is how to use what is learned through these procedures to deepen your hardy attitudes of commitment, control, and challenge, so that once the training is over, you will have the courage and strategies to do the hard work involved in improving your functioning in everyday living. This workbook can be used by trainees on their own, or with the supervision of a certified hardiness trainer.
There are some studies supporting the effectiveness of the hardiness training procedure. In one study (Maddi, Kahn, & Maddi, 1998), IBT managers who went through hardiness training in the year following the stressful deregulation of the telephone industry improved in their performance and felt less anxious and overwhelmed, despite the huge disruption of the company. In this process, the IBT managers also increased in their hardy attitudes and simultaneously decreased in their self‐reported strain. This beneficial pattern of results was still present at a 6‐month follow‐up test. Further, a recent study (Maddi, Harvey, Khoshaba, Fazel, & Resurreccioin, 2009) showed that undergraduate students who went through a hardiness training course based on the workbook, by comparison with a carefully developed control group, not only increased in hardiness but also in grade‐point average at graduation.
In terms of conceptualization and empirical support, it appears that the hardiness approach has growing validity. This encourages its use in assessment and training to increase the likelihood that individuals and organizations will be able to turn stressful circumstances from potential disasters into growth opportunities instead.
The son of Sicilian immigrants, Salvatore R. Maddi was born in New York in 1933. He received a PhD in clinical psychology with honors from Harvard University in 1960. Having taught at the University of Chicago (1960–1986) and the University of California, Irvine (1986–2015), he has developed the hardiness approach that shows how people can develop the courage, motivation, and capabilities to turn stressful circumstances into growth opportunities. He has won many awards, the latest of which is the 2012 American Psychological Foundation Gold Medal.