Stasiowski,
Sheryl (4/08) Optimism and hardiness: Influence on coping and psychological
distress (Joan Duncan, Ph.D.; Barry Ritzler, Ph.D.; Philip Wong, Ph.D.)
This study sought to explore the influence
that optimism and hardiness have on coping strategies and psychological
distress. Participants included 41 volunteers who moved to Ecuador to teach
English as a Second Language. They completed the same measures three times over
a 6-8 month period. Hypotheses posited that those with higher levels of
optimism and hardiness would report lower levels of psychological distress.
Results of multiple regression analyses showed that lower levels of
psychological distress were related to higher levels of optimism for the second
assessment, but more strongly related to higher levels of hardiness for the
second assessment. As was predicted, levels of hardiness decreased over time.
Upon further analyses, the hardiness subscales of commitment and challenge
decreased over time, with lower levels of commitment relating to higher levels
of psychological distress. As was hypothesized, the psychological distress of
volunteers increased significantly from the first to the second assessment.
These levels of psychological distress continued to remain elevated. The use of
escape-avoidance coping strategies increased with each assessment and, as was
hypothesized, the use of this coping strategy related to higher levels of
psychological distress. Additional analyses showed a significant increase in
the use of confrontive coping from the second to the third assessment and this
coping strategy was related to higher levels of hostility.
In conclusion, the results showed that
those with higher levels of optimism and hardiness reported lower levels of
psychological distress, however, the relationship that optimism and hardiness
had with psychological distress differed depending on the time of assessment.
Having higher levels of optimism appeared to be more advantageous (i.e.,
related to lower levels of psychological distress) when there were less
stressors present and when the experience and environment were new. In
contrast, having higher levels of hardiness appeared to be more advantageous
(i.e., related to lower levels of psychological distress) when more stressors
were present and the volunteers had been interacting with the new environment
for a few months. Coping strategies did not emerge as having strong relationships
with optimism and hardiness but the use of certain coping strategies (i.e.,
escape-avoidance and confrontive coping) were related to higher levels of
psychological distress. Based on the results of the present study future
longitudinal research should assess hardiness at different points, rather than
at only at the initial assessment, in order to understand how hardiness levels
might change in relation to experiences. It is also recommended that research
examine the hardiness subscales individually, as this study demonstrated that
they help to explain fluctuations in hardiness.
