Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1995, Vol. 68, No. 4, 687-695 Copyright 1995 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. Does Hardiness Contribute to Mental Health During a Stressful Real- Life Situation? The Roles of Appraisal and Coping Victor Florian, Mario Mikulincer, and Orit Taubman Bar-Ilan University Israeli recruits (N=276) completed questionnaires on hardiness, mental health, cognitive appraisal, and ways of coping at the beginning and end of a demanding, 4-month combat training period. Path analysis revealed that 2 components of hardiness—commitment and control measured at the beginning of the training—predicted mental health at the end of the training through the mediation of appraisal and coping variables. Commitment improved mental health by reducing the appraisal of threat and the use of emotion-focused strategies and by increasing secondary appraisal. Control improved mental health by reducing the appraisal of threat and by increasing secondary appraisal and the use of problem-solving and support-seeking strategies. In recent years, personality theorists and researchers have paid considerable attention to the construct of hardiness as an inner resource that may moderate the effects of stress on physi- cal and mental health (e.g., Gentry & Kobasa, 1984; Suls & Rittenhouse, 1987; Westman, 1990). We examined the contri- bution of hardiness to changes in mental health of individuals facing a well-defined real-life stressful situation. In addition, we assessed the role played by two possible mediators of the hardi- ness-mental health relationship: the appraisal of the stressful situation and the ways of coping with it. Basing their definition on existential personality theory, Ko- basa, Maddi, and Kahn (1982) defined the construct of hardi- ness as "a constellation of personality characteristics that func- tion as a resistance resource in the encounter with stressful life events" (p. 169). This personality variable is composed of three basic, interrelated hypothetical elements: commitment, con- trol, and challenge. Hardy persons are easily committed to what they are doing in their lives, believe they have some control over the causes and solutions of life problems, and view changes in life and adaptive demands as challenges and opportunities for growth rather than as threats. There is extensive evidence suggesting that hardiness is posi- tively related to physical and mental health and that it mitigates negative health outcomes of stress (Kobasa, 1979a, 1979b; Ko- basa, Maddi, & Courington, 1981; Kobasa etal., 1982; Kobasa, Maddi, & Puccetti, 1982; Kobasa, Maddi, & Zola, 1983; Ko- basa & Puccetti, 1983; Maddi & Kobasa, 1984). Significant in- verse correlations have also been found between hardiness and measures of anxiety and depression (Allred & Smith, 1989; Drory & Florian, 1991; Funk & Houston, 1987; Rhodewalt & Zone, 1989). In their reviews, Blaney and Ganellen (1990), Victor Florian, Mario Mikulincer, and Orit Taubman, Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel. We want to acknowledge Aron Weller for his fruitful comments on an earlier draft of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Victor Florian, Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900, Israel. E-mail may be sent via Bitnet to F41338@barilan. Hull, Van Treuren, and Virnelli (1987), and Orr and Westman (1990) have concluded that hardiness is positively related to well-being and adjustment. According to Kobasa (1979a), the effects of hardiness on mental health are mediated by appraisal and coping mecha- nisms (see Figure 1). Kobasa (1982) and Kobasa et al. (1981) have claimed that hardiness is associated with a tendency to perceive potentially stressful events in less threatening terms. In support of this view,findingsshow that hardy persons experi- ence events in a way similar to that of less hardy persons but appraise the events as less stressful and remain optimistic about their ability to cope with them (Allred & Smith, 1989; Pagana, 1990; Rhodewalt & Zone, 1989; Westman, 1990;Wiebe, 1991). It seems that hardiness alters two appraisal components: It re- duces the appraisal of threat and increases the expectations of successful coping. Hardiness has also been shown to be associated with the choice of coping strategies for dealing with stressful events. Ko- basa (1982) and Gentry and Kobasa (1984) have suggested that hardy persons may prefer to rely on active, transformational coping, which transforms stress into a benign experience by means of problem-focused strategies. In contrast, persons low in hardiness may prefer to use regressive coping strategies such as cognitive and behavioral withdrawal and denial, which nei- ther transform the situation nor solve the problem and may even enhance emotional problems and maladjustment. Previ- ousfindingshave generally been consistent with the hypothesis that hardy persons use more problem-focused coping and less emotion-focused coping strategies than do less hardy persons (Kobasa & Puccetti, 1983; Schlosser & Sheeley, 1985; West- man, 1990; Williams, Wiebe, & Smith, 1992). Blaney and Ga- nellen (1990) reported an inverse relationship between hardi- ness and the use of behavioral withdrawal. Although research has provided some support for the model proposed by Kobasa (1979a), Funk (1992) noted that most previous research actually failed to empirically test the pro- posed causal paths. He recommended assessing hardiness the- ory in real-life stressful situations, employing longitudinal de- signs in which hardiness and mental health are measured at 687 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.