Critical evaluation of hardiness theory: Gender differences, perception of life events, and neuroticism

Women are entering the workforce in increasing numbers and, as a result, are faced with greater life stress. Personality characteristics such as hardiness have been explored to better understand how people withstand the potentially negative impact of life stress. Hardiness research has recently been strongly criticized for a number of conceptual and methodological limitations. Multiple regression was used in the present study to address three commonly voiced concerns: the presence of possible gender differences, the impact of neuroticism on physical illness, and the relevance of perceived life stress (i.e. severity) as opposed to the simple frequency of life stressors and their effect on physical illness in a sample of adult employees (91 males and 85 females). Kobasa's original hardiness research paradigm (i.e. models based on frequency scores for men) was not supported in this study. The model based on the perceived severity of life events and self-reported in health identified a hardiness buffering effect for men after controlling for the effects of neuroticism. For women, however, only neuroticism was predictive of both the frequency and severity of illness. Treatment interventions and the conceptualization of personality characteristics associated with positive adjustment are discussed.