Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 1982 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1982, Vol. 42, No. 1, 168-177 0022-3514/82/4201-0168100.75

Hardiness and Health: A Prospective Study

Suzanne C. Kobasa, Salvatore R. Maddi, and Stephen Kahn
University of Chicago

Utilizing a prospective design, this study tested the hypothesis that hardiness—
commitment, control, and challenge—functions to decrease the effect of stressful
life events in producing illness symptoms. Subjects were middle- and upper-level
managers who filled out questionnaires covering a period of 5 years. Results
support the hypothesis by showing main effects on illness for both stressful life
events and hardiness and an interaction effect for these independent variables.
Implications for coping with stress are discussed.

By now it seems likely that any blanket
conclusion about the debilitating effects of
stressful life events is an overgeneralization.
The correlation between stressful events and
illness is typically only .30, and the standard
deviation of both distributions is often eight
times the mean (cf. Rabkin & Struening,
1976). As Kobasa (1979) has demonstrated,
many persons are not becoming ill despite
quite stressful lives. The emphasis in "stress
and illness" research has understandably
begun to shift toward study of "resistance
resources" (Antonovsky, 1979) that can neu-
tralize the otherwise debilitating effects of
stressful life events. A plausible list of such
resources includes constitutional strengths
(e.g., little history of family illness), social
supports (e.g., social contacts and status cen-
trality), health practices (e.g., jogging), and
personality dispositions.
How might these resistance resources op-
erate in keeping the person healthy during
the encounter with stress? In one model
(e.g., Selye, 1956) constitutional strengths
are important because the physical break-
down probably occurs in "weak" organs and
bodily systems once there has been adapta-
tional exhaustion in the face of stressors. A
more recent model provides an immunolog-
ical approach (e.g., Oettgen, 1977) to the
question of how physical and biological
The research reported here has been supported in
whole by National Institute of Mental Health Grant
MH 28839.
We are grateful for the assistance given by Robert
R. J. Bilker, Jr., Sheila Courington, Caren Gotlieb,
Marlin Hoover, James Kennedy, Linda Moore, Mark
Puccetti, and Tim Strauman.
168
agents might function as stress-resistance
resources. Immunopotentiating and immu-
nosuppressing mechanisms constitute inher-
ent strength and weakness, respectively, that
underlie individual differences in the body's
response to various noxious agents. Also rel-
evant to the physiological or biological ap-
proach to stress resistance are health prac-
tices that, if successful in protecting and
strengthening organs and bodily systems,
should delay the onset of symptoms. Mc-
Caul, Solomon, and Holmes (1979), for ex-
ample, find the physiological strategy of
paced respiration to be effective in reducing
arousal and subjective anxiety of subjects
placed in a threatening condition.
A number of studies have documented the
beneficial effects of social support in reduc-
ing the likelihood of illness in times of stress
(cf. Cobb, 1976). The illness-provoking ca-
pacity of a variety of stresses, including preg-
nancy, surgery, job loss, and work overload,
has been found to be successfully mitigated
by social supports. For Antonovsky (1979),
social supports, or what he calls interper-
sonal-relational resources, constitute "the
most substantiated and promising field of
relevant research" (p. 114). In support of
the illness-reducing power of social support,
he cites findings like the drop in death rate
observed immediately before important
communal ceremonies (e.g., Yom Kippur).
Although there is a sense of assurance
(e.g., Katz & Kahn, 1978) that social sup-
ports work to keep persons healthy under
stress, there is no consensus about what so-
cial supports are. They have been concep-
tualized in all of the following ways: receiv-
 HARDINESS AND HEALTH
ing direct assistance from some others,
affirmation of one's beliefs and practices
from a group, being liked by significant oth-
ers, and knowing a lot of people who all know
each other. For Antonovsky, commitment
subsumes all of the social support findings.
All of these conceptualizations take a psy-
chological, as well as interpersonal, ap-
proach to stress resistance.
Also operating at a psychological level,
personality dispositions have both cognitive
appraisal and action aspects. At the cogni-
tive appraisal level, personality dispositions
constitute bases for experiencing stimuli in
a particular fashion and as having a partic-
ular meaning. At the action level, given the
particular perceptions that have occurred,
personality dispositions energize a particular
set of activities experienced as appropriate.
This formulation of personality dispositions
integrates the classical positions of Allport
(1937) and Murray (1938) with the recent
interactional emphasis of Mischel (1973).
This integration is achieved by bringing to-
gether the notions of personality and coping.
Some investigators (e.g., Lazarus, 1966)
consider that the cognitive appraisal and re-
lated actions, which are often called coping,
are exclusively determined by the specifics
of the events to be dealt with. The position
taken here is that personality dispositions
can also influence coping processes and that
this may be the mechanism whereby person-
ality exercises a buffering effect on stressful
events.
What particular personality dispositions
mitigate the otherwise debilitating effects of
stressful life events? Specifically, they are
those that have the cognitive appraisal effect
of rendering the events as not so meaning-
less, overwhelming, and undesirable, after
all, and the action effect of instigating cop-
ing activities that involve interacting with
and thereby transforming the events into a
less stressful form rather than avoiding them
(Lazarus, 1966). Persons with personality
dispositions of this sort possess a valuable
aid in avoiding illness-provoking biological
states such as adaptational exhaustion (cf.
Selye, 1956) or depressed immunological
surveillance (cf. Schwartz, 1975). They
should be able to remain healthy while ex-
periencing events that would be debilitating
169
for others without those personality dispo-
sitions.
Personality Dispositions of Hardiness
Integrating various theoretical and em-
pirical leads, Kobasa (1979) proposed that
hardiness is a constellation of personality
characteristics that function as a resistance
resource in the encounter with stressful life
events. The personality dispositions of har-
diness are commitment, control, and chal-
lenge.
The commitment disposition is expressed
as a tendency to involve oneself in (rather
than experience alienation from) whatever
one is doing or encounters (Maddi, Hoover,
& Kobasa, in press). Relevant to cognitive
appraisal, committed persons have a gener-
alized sense of purpose that allows them to
identify with and find meaningful the events,
things, and persons of their environment.
Relevant to action, they are invested enough
in themselves and their relationship to the
social context that they cannot easily give
up under pressure. In short, committed per-
sons' relationships to themselves and to the
environment involve activeness and ap-
proach rather than passivity and avoidance.
The control disposition is expressed as a
tendency to feel and act as if one is influ-
ential (rather than helpless) in the face of
the varied contingencies of life (Averill,
1973; Phares, 1976; Seligman, 1975). This
does not imply the naive expectation of com-
plete determination of events and outcomes
but rather implies the perception of oneself
as having a definite influence through the
exercise of imagination, knowledge, skill,
and choice. Control enhances stress resis-
tance perceptually by increasing the likeli-
hood that events will be experienced as a
natural outgrowth of one's actions and,
therefore, not as foreign, unexpected, and
overwhelming experiences. In terms of cop-
ing, a sense of control leads to actions aimed
at transforming events into something con-
sistent with an ongoing life plan and is, thus,
less jarring. In line with Averill's model of
stress resistance, control also appears re-
sponsible for the development of a broad and
varied repertory of responses to stress, which
170 S. KOBASA, S. MADDI, AND S. KAHN
can be drawn on even in the most threatening
of circumstances.
The challenge disposition is expressed as
the belief that change rather than stability
is normal in life and that the anticipation of
changes are interesting incentives to growth
rather than threats to security (Berlyne,
1964; Csikzentmihalyi, 1975; Maddi, Propst,
& Feldinger, 1965). Challenge mitigates the
stressfulness of events on the perceptual side
by coloring events as stimulating rather than
threatening, specifically because they are
changes requiring readjustment. In coping
behaviors, challenge will lead to attempts to
transform oneself and thereby grow rather
than conserve and protect what one can of
the former existence. By fostering openness
and flexibility, challenge should also allow
the integration and effective appraisal of
even exceedingly incongruent events (cf.
Moss, 1973).
For all these reasons, commitment, chal-
lenge, and control should keep persons
healthy despite encounters with events gen-
erally regarded as stressful. In the most com-
prehensive, relevant study, Kobasa (1979)
found support for this hypothesis. Discrim-
inant function analysis revealed that exec-
utives high in stressful events but low in ill-
ness showed greater commitment, control,
and challenge than executives in whom sim-
ilar stressful event levels were associated
with much illness. Additional support for
aspects of the hypothesis is provided by in-
vestigators involved in similar enterprises. In
numerous laboratory studies (e.g., Glass,
Singer, & Friedman, 1969; Lefcourt, 1976;
Weiss, 1971), control emerges as having a
significant mitigating influence on the harm-
ful effects of stressors like shock or aversive
noise. This finding was extended to the field
of stressful life events by Johnson and Sar-
ason (1978). Their college students who
believed in an internal locus of control
had a significantly lower correlation between
stressful life events and illness than did sub-
jects who believed they were externally con-
trolled. A study by Smith, Johnson, and Sar-
ason (1978) demonstrated the effectiveness
of challenge. Only subjects low in sensation
seeking showed a significant relationship be-
tween negative life change and discomfort.
Although the commitment aspect of har-
diness has received little empirical testing
outside the Kobasa study, several interpre-
tations of the literature have employed it as
a post hoc explanation. For Antonovsky
(1979), a fundamental sense of purpose, or
what he calls a "sense of coherence," is theo-
rized to be the most essential and encom-
passing stress-resistance resource. Moss
(1973) organizes his review of the sociolog-
ical and psychological studies of illness
through a model that places at its core the
notion of alienation or lack of commitment.
According to Moss, the failure to feel in-
volved in an environment that provides con-
gruent, effective, and accurate information
renders one vulnerable to disease.
What is needed at this point are longitu-
dinal studies, with data analyses geared to
evaluating the prospective role of hardiness
and its interaction with stressful life events
in subsequent health status. The Kobasa
study, and the others reviewed above, em-
ployed retrospective designs. Hence, the per-
sonality characteristics that were used to
determine whether high stress was asso-
ciated with high or low illness cannot be
given a causal interpretation. The person-
ality data could easily be the result of illness,
stress, or their interaction. A person who is
suffering from symptoms, and perhaps also
from the burden of stressful life events, may
well feel pessimistic enough to fill out per-
sonality questionnaires in a manner sug-
gesting a settled sense of alienation, pow-
erlessness, or fear of challenge.
In implementing needed longitudinal
studies, emphasis should be put on collecting
data over a reasonably long period of time.
One reason for this is to permit accumula-
tion of substantial amounts of stressful life
events and illness symptoms. Another reason
is to render more convincing prospective
claims for personality and personality/stress
interactions measured prior to illness. This
report is a step toward reaching these cri-
teria.
Method ,
Overview of Procedure
The subject pool for this study was 670 middle- and
upper-level management personnel of a large utility
company. At Time 1, a composite questionnaire was
 HARDINESS AND HEALTH
mailed to all personnel, along with a letter soliciting
cooperation and an informed consent statement. In-
cluded in the questionnaire were measures of stressful
life events and illness symptoms having taken place over
the previous 3'/2 yr. The questionnaire was completed
and returned to the University of Chicago by 86% of
the subject pool. Shortly thereafter, another composite
questionnaire was mailed to 400 subjects selected at
random from the pool of.initial respondents. This ques-
tionnaire contained measures of the personality dispo-
sitions of commitment, challenge, and control and var-
ious demographic characteristics. The questionnaire was
returned by 81% of the,subjects.
The mailings for Times 2 and 3 were separated from
Time 1 and each other by 1-yr. intervals. The question-
naires for both Times 2 and 3 included the same mea-
sures of stressful life events and illness symptoms ad-
ministered at Time 1 but with the instruction to
complete them for the preceding 1 -yr. period. The return
rates for Times 2 and 3 were also quite high (80% and
78%, respectively). Deletion of incomplete protocols
yielded a final sample of 259 subjects.
Measures of Stressful Life Events and
Health/Illness Status
The measure of stress was an adaptation of the fa-
miliar Schedule of Life Events (Holmes & Rahe, 1967).
The original Schedule lists numerous events, with their
stressfulness determined by the method of psychophys-
ical scaling; judges were to determine for each event
how much life readjustment it required on a scale from
0 to 100, in comparison with a standard item, marriage,
which was assigned a score of 50. A large, representative
sample was selected for this task, and the mean of the
judgments was taken as the stressfulness of each event.
Deriving weights by consensus in this fashion constitutes
a kind of cultural expression of stressfulness in that the
meaning of the events shared by a reference group is
being tapped. This measure has consistently shown a
low, positive correlation with measures of illness.
For purposes of this study, certain modifications were
made in the Schedule of Life Events. In criticizing this
test, investigators appear to agree on the problem of
ambiguous items and the need to include items appro-
priate for the population being studied (e.g., Dohren-
wend, Krasnoff, Askenasy, & Dohrenwend, 1978; John-
son & Sarason, 1978), Ambiguous items were deleted
or replaced by less ambiguous versions (e.g., "change
in financial condition" was changed to "improvement
of financial condition" and "worsening of financial con-
dition"). In a pilot study, some management personnel
of the utility company, who were not subsequently used
as subjects, supplemented the Holmes and Rahe list with
15 events typical in their lives. These additions were
assigned weights representing amount of readjustment
required, using the ratio scale judgment procedure of
Holmes and Rahe. Events mentioned frequently and
weighted similarly were added. Some investigators (e.g.,
Johnson & Sarason, 1978) advocate replacement of the
consensus weights for items with idiosyncratic, subjec-
tive weights. Other investigators (e.g., Dohrenwend et
al., 1978) disagree strongly, regarding subjective weights
171
to represent a confusing combination of the results of
environmental input, the stressed individual's person-
ality and other predispositions, and his or her evaluation
of the consequences of the event. We agree with this
latter view, regarding it as more advantageous to de-
termine the effects of culturally defined stressfulness of
events separately from the idiosyncratic effects of per-
sonality dispositions on health and illness.
Symptomatology was measured through the Serious-
ness of Illness Survey (Wyler, Masuda, & Holmes,
1968)-—a self-report checklist of 126 commonly rec-
ognized physical and mental symptoms and diseases. In
the development of this instrument, a general severity
weight for each disorder was obtained by asking a large
sample of physicians and lay persons to rate each of the
disorders. The ratings reflected prognosis, duration,
threat to life, degree of disability, and degree of dis-
comfort. A highly significant mean rank order corre-
lation was found between the medical and lay samples,
and a system of weights was accordingly constructed.
This carefully developed scale of seriousness of illness
has served as a frequent tool in stress and illness studies.
For present purposes, several symptoms of obvious ir-
relevance to the male sample were deleted.
Measures of Personality Dispositions
The personality dispositions of commitment, control,
and challenge were each measured by two scales. In the
case of commitment, the Alienation From Self and Al-
ienation From Work scales of the Alienation Test
(Maddi, Kobasa, & Hoover, 1979) were employed as
negative indicators. High scores on alienation from self
reflect a lack of involvement with one's distinctive skills,
sentiments, and values and a passive attitude toward
personal decision making and goal setting. Sample items
include, "The attempt.to know yourself is a waste of
effort," "Life is empty and has no meaning in it for
me," and "I long for a simple life in which body needs
are the most important things and decisions don't have
to be made." Strong agreement with the 12 items like
these indicate a lack of the self-recognition and fun-
damental sense of purpose associated with the commit-
ted person. High scores on alienation from work indicate
a lack of personal investment in that area of life in-
volving a socially productive occupation. To the extent
that these items depict work as linking the individual
to society, they portray a general sense of meaningless-
ness, apathy, and detachment. Sample items include:
"I find it difficult to imagine enthusiasm concerning
work," "I find it hard to believe people who actually
feel that the work they perform is of value to society,"
and "I wonder why I work at all." High ratings of
agreement with the 12 items of this scale signal an ab-
sence of that engagement and accountability definitive
of commitment. Across various adult samples, the alien-
ation from self and alienation from work scales have
shown an average internal consistency (coefficient a)
of .85 and .79, respectively (Maddi et al., 1979). As to
stability, the scales respectively show correlations of .77
and .70, over two administrations separated by a 3-week
period (Maddi et al., 1979). Consistent with their roots
in existential psychology, these scales show construct
validity in negative relationships with such variables as
172 S. KOBASA, S. MADDI, AND S. KAHN
empathy, endurance, achievement motivation, purpose-
in-life, and role consistency (Maddi et al., 1979). Also,
there are positive relationships between alienation from
work and leisure activities and between alienation from
self and TV watching (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975).
The disposition of control was measured negatively
by the External Locus of Control Scale (Rotter, See-
man, & Liverant, 1962) and the Powerlessness Scale
of the Alienation Test (Maddi et al., 1979). The familiar
Locus of Control Scale consists of items presented in
a forced choice format. Considerable research has
shown that this scale is a reliable and valid index of
belief in whether one is controlled by external forces
(e.g., Phares, 1976). Although newer, the powerlessness
measure shows average internal consistency of .88 over
several adult samples and a stability correlation of .71
over a 3-wk. period (Maddi et al., 1979). Relevant to
construct validity, powerlessness shows a negative cor-
relation with dominance and positive correlations with
trait anxiety, external locus of control, and conformism
(Maddi et al., 1979).
The challenge disposition was measured negatively
by the Security Scale of the California Life Goals Eval-
uation Schedule (Hahn, 1966) and by the Cognitive
Structure Scale of the Personality Research Form
(Jackson, 1974). Both scales have been used widely with
normal adult samples and are reliable and valid. The
Security Scale measures the degree to which safety, sta-
bility, and predictability are deemed important. Persons
high on this scale are unlikely to perceive changes as
stimulating challenges to growth. The Cognitive Struc-
ture Scale appears to emphasize inflexibility of cognitive
categories and intolerance of ambiguity, which may,
therefore, render change threatening.
Demographic Characteristics
Included in the initial questionnaire were items in-
dexing age, education, job level, length of time in job
level, religion, ethnicity, marital status, and various
other demographic considerations.
Results
Characteristics of the Final Sample
The final sample of 259 subjects on whom
all data were available from the three testing
sessions was predominantly Protestant, white,
married, without close ethnic ties, and ex-
clusively male. The sample ranged in age
from 32 to 65, with a mean of 48; in job
level from middle managers to officers; and
in length of time at job level from less than
1 year to more than 20 years, with the ma-
jority having spent 6 to 10 years at current
job level. On these various characteristics,
the final sample closely resembled the initial
pool of all the management personnel of the
utility company.
Characteristics of Stress and Illness
The subjects who returned the question-
naire sent at Time 1 had a correlation be-
tween stressful life events and illness of .24
(p < .025). This finding is quite consistent
with others in the literature, as are the large
standard deviations of the two distributions.
Such results suggest sizable individual dif-
ferences in the degree to which stressful life
events are associated with illness symptoms.
In the final sample of 259, the correlation
between stressful life events and illness
across the 5 years for which data are avail-
able is .23, suggesting that this group is rep-
resentative of the initial pool.
The mean yearly score of 157 on the
stressful life events measure marks these ex-
ecutives as comparable to other groups re-
ported on in the literature. This mean stress
score corresponds to the occurrence of sev-
eral significant events, such as job transfer
and illness of family member, in the space
of 1 year.
It also appears that stressful life events
increased over the period of data collection,
as can be seen in Figure 1. The increase is
quite apparent over the first 3 years and is
somewhat obscured due to increased vari-
ability over the last 2 years. The results are
similar for illness symptoms. The two peaks
in the stress curve coincide with the insti-
tution of major policy changes by the com-
pany, namely, job evaluations (just how well
is each manager doing), accompanied by sal-
ary adjustments. It is surprising that the
curve should dip so much immediately fol-
lowing the peaks. Perhaps restraint on the
part of the individuals and the organization
following especially stressful times produces
a period of relative placidity. It is certainly
true that not only individual managers but
the utility company as a whole was very con-
cerned about the possible adverse effects of
job evaluation and salary changes on the in-
stitution.
Intercorrelations of Personality Measures
Table 1 shows the intercorrelations among
the six scales presumed to measure hardi-
ness. With the exception of those involving
cognitive structure, all correlations are sub-
 HARDINESS AND HEALTH 173

140 400 In forming a composite hardiness score,

Illness z scores were computed for the five remain-
£ 120 r_ Stressful 360
ing measures. As the challenge component
tt> Life Events of hardiness was indexed by only one scale
UJ (security), its scores were doubled. This
_o 100 320 weighted security score was added to the
other four scores.
£
e
80 280 |
•S i—* Personality, Stress, and Demographic
S 60 240 8- Characteristics
O
ft <D
Table 2 shows the relationships of various
S.
O
40 200 "* demographic characteristics with stressful
<u life events and personality dispositions. In
" 20 160
all but one instance, the demographic vari-
ables show no relationship with the person-
i i i i i i i i
ality dispositions. Although this may per-
1-6 7-12 1-6 7-I2 t-6 7-12 1-6 7-I2 1-6 7-I2 1-6
120 haps be due to the relative homogeneity of
I972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 the sample with regard to demographics, the
Time results obtained do indicate that whatever
Figure 1. Stressful life events and illness over time.
effects of personality dispositions there may
be on illness, they cannot readily be ex-
plained away as merely reflective of demo-
stantial and highly significant in the ex- graphic considerations. The one exception
pected direction. A principal-components to the general picture of absence of rela-
factor analysis was performed on the six tionship is a modest correlation between
scales. As one might expect, a first factor amount of time a person spends at various
(accounting for 46.5% of the variance) job levels in the organization and his alien-
emerges that can be interpreted as General ation from work. This finding is also re-
Hardiness. The loadings of the various scales flected in the one modest correlation of the
on this factor appear in the last row of Table composite measure of hardiness and demo-
1. Once again, it is apparent that cognitive graphic characteristics. Stressful life events
structure does not share common variance show a modest relationship with both age
with the other scales. Indeed, it defines the and time at job level. In general, these re-
only other factor that emerges (18.5% of the lationships are too small to suggest that har-
variance). Since there is no empirical indi- diness and stressful life events are merely
cation that it measures hardiness, the cog- reflections of demographic characteristics.
nitive structure scale was dropped from fur- In addition, the correlation of .07 (p < .10)
ther consideration. between stressful life events and the hardi-

Table 1
Intercorrelations of Measures of Commitment, Control, and Challenge (N = 259)
Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6

l. External locus of control 1.00 .48*** .17*** -.04 .38*** .45***

2. Powerlessness 1.00 .29*** .02 .66*** .74***
3. Security 1.00 .15** .20*** .31***
4. Cognitive structure 1.00 -.02 -.06
5. Alienation from self 1.00 .53***
6. Alienation from work 1.00
First factor loading .67 .89 .44 -.01 .78 .85

p < .005.
174 S. KOBASA, S. MADDI, AND S. KAHN
Table 2
Correlations of Demographic Variables with Stressful Life Events and Personality Dispositions
fN = 259)
Independent variables Age
External locus of control .12
Powerlessness .02
Security .06
Alienation from self -.07
Alienation from work .05
Hardiness composite .08
Stressful life events -.20**
* p < .05.
**p<. 01.
ness composite shows that these variables are
independent of each other.
Contribution of Hardiness to Health
In evaluating the role of hardiness in
health status, we performed a pair of two-
way analyses of covariance. In both, the de-
pendent variable was illness summed over
Times 2 and 3, and the covariate was illness
at Time 1. The analyses differed as to which
time periods were used to estimate the in-
dependent variable of stressful life events.
The other independent variable, the com-
posite measure of hardiness, derived from
Time 1 and was the same in both analyses.
The distributions of independent variables
were split at the median to produce high and
low groups.
In these analyses the time lag is one basis
for a prospective presumption. But time lag
alone is not enough. Even if stressful events
and personality at Time 1 were related to
illness at Times 2 and 3, being sure about
the direction of influence would be compli-
cated by any relationship between these pre-
sumed independent variables and illness at
Time 1. Some investigators have employed
cross-lagged panel correlations in attempt-
ing to solve this problem, but recent evalu-
ations of this procedure (Rogosa, 1980)
show it to be unjustifiable. Hence, it was
decided to use the covariance analysis men-
tioned above, which had the effect of con-
trolling for prior illness, rendering the de-
Demographic characteristics
Time at
Education Job level level
.02 .09 .11
.04 .04 .12
.04 -.07 .04
.01 -.07 . .07
-.02 -.06 .17*
-.02 -.05 .14*
-.01 -.08 -.11*
pendent variable to be illness change from
Time 1 to Times 2 and 3.
In the first covariance analysis, the esti-
mate of stressful life events was the sum of
scores from Times 2 and 3. Thus, in this
analysis, stress and illness are concurrent,
and hardiness is prior in time. Table 3 sum-
marizes these findings. Consistent with prior
studies, stressful life events are associated
with increases in symptomatology. But har-
diness decreases the likelihood of symptom
onset. The significant (and predicted) inter-
action shows that to remain healthy, it is
especially important to be hardy if one is
experiencing intensely stressful life events.
In the second covariance analysis, the es-
timate of stressful life events was from Time
One and therefore has a prospective rather
than concurrent status (similar to hardi-
ness), with regard to the illness estimate.
Table 4 shows the same pattern of results
as in the previous analysis except that the
stressful life events main effect no longer
reaches statistical significance. Nonetheless,
the predicted hardiness main effect and the
interaction with stressful life events are still
significant.
Discussion
The significant main effect due to hardi-
ness in the analyses of covariance suggests
that this tendency toward commitment, con-
trol, and challenge functions prospectively
 HARDINESS AND HEALTH 175

Table 3
Analysis of Covariance on Illness Using a Prospective Estimate of Hardiness and a Concurrent
Estimate of Stressful Life Events with Prior Illness Controlled

Classification M df
High stressful life events
Low hardiness 1254.20 64
High hardiness 552.89 65
Low stressful life events
Low hardiness 387.29 - 65
High hardiness 368.34 65
Covariate: Prior illness 65.71 1 .00
Main effect: Stressful life events 13.17 1 .00
Main effect: Hardiness 5.35 1 .02
Interaction: Stress and hardiness 7.84 1 .00

as a resistance resource. Further, the pre- status than do personality characteristics.

dicted interactions in both analyses indicate
that hardiness has its greatest health-pre-
serving effect when stressful life events
mount. Less clear in this study is the pro-
spective status of stressful life events on ill-
ness. Whereas a concurrent estimate of
stressful life events was related to illness in-
crease, a prospective estimate showed a
weaker trend that did not reach conventional'
significance levels.
These results might raise doubts as to
whether stressful life events have a causal
influence on health status. Although several
reports (e.g., Dohrenwend & Dohrenwend,
1974) showed a relationship between stress-
ful life events and future illness, studies, such
as the present one, in which prior illness level
was controlled are rare. But from a concep-
tual viewpoint, stressful life events should
have a more time-limited effect on health
Events tend to come to an end, whereas per-
sonality should remain rather stable. In the
present study, the prospective estimate of
stressful events might in some cases have
involved events occurring as much as 5 years
before the period used to estimate illness
symptoms—too long a time to demonstrate
a strong prospective effect of stressful life
events.
With the present clear demonstration that
hardiness functions as a resistance resource
in buffering the effects of stressful events,
it becomes relevant to ask further research
questions. How does hardiness develop and
what is its role with regard to other resis-
tance resources?
To understand the role of hardiness in
connection with other resistance resources,
it is first necessary to determine if there is
a difference between hardiness and resis-

Table 4
Analysis of Covariance on Illness Using a Prospective Estimate of, Both Hardiness and Stressful
Life Events Controlling for Prior Illness

Classification M df
High stressful life events
Low hardiness 1060.56 70
High hardiness 513.53 60
Low stressful life events
Low hardiness 528.88 59
High hardiness 415.26 70
Covariate: Prior illness 61.89 .00
Main effect: Stressful life events 2.74 .13
Main effect: Hardiness 4.30 .03
Interaction: Stress and hardiness 3.48 .05
176 S. KOBASA, S. MADDI, AND S. KAHN
tance resources. Consistent with discrimi-
nant validity, hardiness measures should not
be highly related to measures of social sup-
ports and constitutional strengths. If hardi-
ness survives this test, then it will be in-
teresting to determine how hardiness,
constitutional strengths, and social supports
jointly influence health/illness status. At
present, some evidence supports the buffer-
ing effect of each of these resistance re-
sources, but studies have not been done to
evaluate them together.
Of particular interest are possible inter-
actions among the resistance resources. For
example, one might expect an interaction
showing that hardiness is especially effective
in preserving health when constitutional
strengths are low. A possible mechanism for
this might be health practices. As suggested
in the introduction, positive health practices
(e.g., exercise, adequate rest, moderation in
food and substance intake) may function to
offset constitutional predispositions to some
extent. Hardy persons (by virtue of their
generally disciplined and realistic approach)
might engage most conscientiously in posi-
tive health practices. In contrast, persons low
in hardiness might exaggerate constitutional
predispositions by engaging in negative
health practices (e.g., overeating, overdrink-
ing). Such tendencies would eventuate in the
interaction mentioned above.
Another plausible interaction would sug-
gest that social supports are most effective
in preserving health when hardiness is high.
Perhaps hardiness influences the extent of
and manner in which social supports are
utilized in the management of stressful ev-
ents. When confronted with such events,
hardy persons may seek out contact with
others and with social institutions that could
decrease the stressfulness of the events.
Thus, on losing one's job or marriage, a
hardy person might encourage friends to give
and hear frank appraisals of the situation,
with an emphasis on how to learn from and
possibly alter what is happening. Similar in-
teractions with institutions might involve
taking courses or seeking counseling that
could help one to reformulate career and in-
terpersonal patterns. In contrast, persons low
in hardiness might seek social supports less
or concentrate in their social interactions on
blanket reassurances about and distraction
from the stressful events.
Assuming that future research continues
to show hardiness to be a promising resis-
tance resource, it would be especially valu-
able to understand how this personality con-
figuration develops. Existential personality
theory (cf. Kobasa & Maddi, 1977) sug-
gests that persons develop strong tendencies
toward commitment, control, and challenge
if they have experienced in early life consid-
erable breadth and variety of events; stim-
ulation and support for exercising the cog-
nitive capabilities of symbolization,
imagination, and judgment; approval and
admiration for doing things themselves; and
role models who advocate hardiness and
show it in their own functioning. This for-
mulation resembles that offered out of a so-
cial learning framework by Bandura (1977)
for the development of efficacy, an orien-
tation not unlike hardiness. Once research
clarifies how hardiness develops, it will be
possible to devise intervention programs to
help adults who are deficient in this person-
ality configuration to change. Should change
prove possible, they will no longer have to
avoid stressful events for fear that illness will
ensue.
References
Allport, G. W. Personality: A psychological interpre-
tation. New York: Holt, 1937.
Antonovsky, A. Health, stress and coping. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979.
Averill, J. R. Personal control over aversive stimuli and
its relationship to stress. Psychological Bulletin,
1973, 80, 286-303.
Bandura, A. Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 1977, 84, 191-215.
Berlyne, D. E. Novelty. New Society, 1964, 87, 23-24.
Cobb, S. Social support as a moderator of life stress.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 1976, 3, 300-314.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. Beyond boredom and anxiety.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1975.
Dohrenwend, B. S., & Dohrenwend, B. P. (Eds.). Stress-
ful life events: Their nature and effects. New York:
Wiley, 1974.
Dohrenwend, B. S., Krasnoff, L., Askenasy, A. R., &
Dohrenwend, B. P. Exemplification of a method for
scaling life events; The PERI Life-Events Scale. Jour-
nal of Health and Social Behavior, 1978, 19, 205-
229.
Glass, D. C., Singer, J. E., & Friedman, L. N. Psychic
cost of adaptation to an environmental stressor. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 12,
200-210.
 HARDINESS AND HEALTH
Hahn, M. E. California Life Goals Evaluation Sched-
ule. Palo Alto: Western Psychological Services, 1966.
Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. The Social Readjustment
Rating Scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research.
1967, / / , 213-218.
Jackson, D. N. Personality research form manual.
Goshen, New York: Research Psychologists Press,
1974.
Johnson, J. H., & Sarason, I. G. Life stress, depression,
and anxiety: Internal-external control as a moderator
variable. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 1978,
22, 205-208.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. The social psychology of or-
ganizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley, 1978.
Kobasa, S. C. Stressful life events, personality, and
health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 1-11.
Kobasa, S. C., & Maddi, S. R. Existential personality
theory. In R. Corsini (Ed.), Current personality the-
ory. Itasca, 111.: Peacock, 1977.
Lazarus, R. S. Psychological stress and the coping pro-
cess. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966.
Lefcourt, H. M. Locus of control: Current trends in
theory and research. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1976.
Maddi, S. R., Hoover, M., & Kobasa, S. C. Alienation
and exploratory behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1981, in press.
Maddi, S. R., Kobasa, S. C., & Hoover, M. An alien-
ation test. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 1979,
19, 73-76.
Maddi, S. R., Propst, B. S., & Feldinger, I. Three
expressions of the need for variety. Journal of Per-
sonality, 1965, 33, 82-98.
McCaul, K. D., Solomon, S., & Holmes, D. S. Effects
of paced respiration arid expectations on physiological
and psychological responses to threat. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 564-
571.
Mischel, W. Towards a cognitive social learning recon-
177
ceptualization of personality. Psychological Review,
1973, 80, 252-283.
Moss, G. E. Illness, immunity, and social interaction.
New York: Wiley, 1973.
Murray, H. A. Explorations in personality. New York:
Oxford, 1938.
Oettgen, H. T. Immunotherapy of cancer. New England
Journal of Medicine, 1977, 297, 484-491.
Phares, E. J. Locus of control in personality. Morris-
town, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1976.
Rabkin, J. G., & Struening, E. L. Life events, stress
and illness. Science, 1976, 194, 1013-1020.
Rogosa, D. A critique of cross-lagged correlation. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 1980, 88, 245-259.
Rotter, J. B., Seeman, M., & Liverant, S. Internal vs.
external locus of control of reinforcement: A major
variable in behavior theory. In N. F. Washburne
(Ed.), Decisions, values, and groups. New York: Per-
gamon Press, 1962.
Schwartz, R. S. Another look at immunologic surveil-
lance. New England Journal of Medicine, 1975, 293,
181-184.
Seligman, M. E. P. Helplessness. San Francisco: Free-
man, 1975.
Selye, H. The stress of life. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1956.
Smith, R. E., Johnson, J. H., & Sarason, I. G. Life
change, the sensation seeking motive, and psycholog-
ical distress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 1978, 46, 348-349.
Weiss, J, M. Effects of coping behavior in different
warning signal conditions on stress pathology in rats.
Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychol-
ogy, 1971, 77, 1-13.
Wyler, A. R., Masuda, M., & Holmes, T. H. Serious-
ness of Illness Rating Scale. Journal of Psychoso-
matic Research, 1968, //, 363-375.
Received November 17; 1980 •