2 - CORRELATION BETWEEN HARDINESS AND THE SENSE OF COHERENCE

Transcription

1 ROMANIAN JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY VOL. 7, ISSUE 4 DOI: /rjeap.2016.v7i4.a2 2 - CORRELATION BETWEEN HARDINESS AND THE SENSE OF COHERENCE STELIANA RIZEANU a, DAN VASILIU** b a Hyperion University of Bucharest b Ion Creangă Pedagogical State University, Chișinau Abstract The concept of hardiness as an individual variable regarding stress resistance, was introduced by Kobasa (1979). Hardiness was defined as a personality trait manifesting on the cognitive, emotional and behavioral levels. The concept represents attitudes and convictions about the world. The sense of coherence, as developed by Aaron Antonovsky (1979) stands as a cognitive characteristic, meaning the way a person perceives, judges and interprets the world. The author has established eight types of predictions, regarding the evolution of the sense of coherence depending on the way understanding, control and purpose factors correlate. The research is aimed to show the important correlations between the two constructs. A number of 357 participants with ages between 18 and 80, selected from different social categories completed the Dispositional Resilience Scale (DRS-15) and the Sense of Coherence Scale (SOC13) adapted for the Romanian population. Using a bidirectional correlation study we found a significantly positive correlation between the hardiness and the sense of coherence. A deterioration of the resistance to stress was observed and an impairment of coping mechanisms along with a qualitative decrease of perception of environment and the erroneous interpretation of extrinsic and intrinsic stimuli. Cuvinte cheie: robustețe, sensul coerenței, coping, stres. Keywords: hardiness, sense of coherence, coping, stres. Corresponding author.: *Steliana Rizeanu, address: stelianarizeanu@yahoo.com ** Dan Vasiliu, address: danvasiliu@danvasliu.ro

2 1. INTRODUCTION Coping strategies used in a specific context, form depending on the experience accumulated by the individual and the resources he is conscious of. These strategies may generate, if perception is distorted, different emotional states, confusional states and a high level of anxiety. Dave Clarke (1995) published a study with regard to stress vulnerability in correlation with age, gender, locus of control, sturdiness and personality. The research was conducted on 283 students from Massey University, Albany. Keyvan and Imamipour (2015) conducted a study which highlighted the influence of personality factors in relation with conditions of good or bad health of athletes HARDINESS The concept of hardiness was initially introduced by Suzanne C. Kobasa in The model refers to stress resistance and the difference it makes between the good or bad health of an individual. Persons with high robustness perform better in conditions of stress. Robustness as a personality trait is comprised of: commitment, control and challenge. These constitute resources for stress resistance. The hardiness construct was elaborated taking into account the results of a seven year study. The relation between the stress levels and disease was observed in over 900 participants. The results of the study have shown that some of the participants remain in good health despite the fact that they were subjected to intense stress. The cause was determined by those certain particularities of personality as defined by the robustness concept THE SENSE OF COHERENCE The sense of coherence is defined by Antonovsky as a global orientation that expresses the measure in which someone has an omnipresent, lasting and dynamic sense of confidence according to witch (1) the stimuli that flow during the course of life of the internal and external environments of the person are structured, predictable and explicable; (2) resources are available to the person for satisfying the demands presented by stimuli; (3) the demands are challenges worthy of investment and commitment (Antonovsky, 1987). The persons that present this trait develop a better resistance to stress, being able to better handle and cope with challenges. The sense of coherence presents three factors: understanding, control and purpose. Antonovsky (1987) proposes the next eight predictions regarding the relations between factors (table 1): 10

3 Table 1. Predictions regarding the relations between factors Sense of coherence components Type Understanding Control Purpose Prediction 1 Grown Grown Grown Stable type 2 Low Grown Grown Rare type 3 Grown Low Grown Growth trend 4 Low Low Grown Growth trend 5 Grown Grown Low Downward trend 6 Grown Low Low Downward trend 7 Low Grown Low Rare type 8 Low Low Low Stable type The types one and eight appear as stable in an adaptive or maladaptive sense. Types two and seven are considered rare because of the reduced possibility of a low comprehension along with a high sense of control or the other way around. The others are unstable and suggest a tendency of change, be it positive or negative, generated by the purpose component. 2. OBJECTIVE AND HYPOTHESES 2.1. OBJECTIVE The research s target was to highlight the correlations between the results of measuring robustness, as a factor regarding stress resistance, predictor of the efficiency of the decision making process and coping in unusual circumstances and the sense of coherence, ie the strength of dealing with challenges by understanding stimuli, the sense of control in relation with the situation and the fact that it is perceived as a goal. The results can be used in building training programs for people involved in high risk situations or overexposed to stress HYPOTHESES The working hypothesis: there are significant correlations between the values measured in robustness, global and factorial and sense of coherence. 3. METHOD 3.1. PARTICIPANTS Data from 357 participants was collected, 164 male (46%) and 193 female (54%) from Bucharest and 12 other counties in Romania. The participants were selected from different social categories with ages between 18 and 80. They were 11

4 instructed to check, for every item on the scales, only one option and were told that all choices were correct INSTRUMENTS Robustness was evaluated with the Dispositional Resilience Scale (DRS-15), as elaborated by Paul T. Bartone (2007), calibrated for the population of Romania by Vasiliu, Marinescu, Marinescu and Sirbu (2015). The sense of coherence was evaluated with the Scale SOC13, with 13 items, as elaborated by A. Antonovsky (1987) and calibrated for the population of Romania by Vasiliu, Marinescu, Marinescu and Rizeanu (2015) PROCEDURE The participants in the study were instructed on completing the scales and the questionnaires for evaluating the constructs under analysis (robustness and locus of control) were applied. A bidirectional correlation study was used to verify the hypotheses. For determining significant correlations (the Pearson correlation coefficient) the p=0.05 significance threshold was chosen EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN The participants were tested and evaluated using two instruments: RDS15 and SOC13. We used a non-experimental correlational design. R O O 1 O 2 Where: O represents the instruction phase of the participants: O1 robustness testing and O2 sense of coherence testing. 4. RESULTS The data was subjected to statistical processing. From the descriptive analysis, according to table 2, resulted the possibility of realizing an inferential analysis. 12

5 Table 2. Results of descriptive analysis N=357 MinimumMaximum Mean Std. Variance Deviation Skewness Kurtosis Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Std. Statistic Error Error Error Hardiness/Control ,07,124 2,348 5,512 -,816,129,614,257 Hardiness/Commitment ,80,124 2,345 5,500 -,732,129,994,257 Hardiness/Challenge ,04,143 2,710 7,344 -,084,129 -,342,257 Hardiness/ ,90,297 5,613 31,501 -,346,129,070,257 Coherence/Understanding ,72,309 5,832 34,016 -,553,129 -,104,257 Coherence/Control ,85,241 4,547 20,676 -,322,129 -,385,257 Coherence/Purpose ,76,222 4,191 17,561 -,878,129 1,175,257 Coherence ,32,662 12, ,383 -,450,129,023,257 The diagram of dispersion for the relation between robustness and sense of coherence shows no substantial evidence of any curvilinear relation or unwanted influence of aberrant values (fig.1). We concluded that we are able to use the Pearson correlations for determining the bonds between the measured variables. Fig. 1. The diagram of dispersion There are significant positive correlations between the scoring obtained on factors of robustness control, commitment and challenge, global score and the scoring obtained for sense of coherence understanding, control, purpose and global score according to Image 3. The results are statistically significant and the statistic strength is between medium (d=0.52) and high (d=3.86) which shows the effect is not random, we find it between 97%-99% of cases and has practical importance. 13

6 Table 3. Correlation between hardiness and coherence Variabile Hardiness/Control 1 2. Hardiness/ Commitment 3. Hardiness/Challenge 4. Hardiness/ 5. Coherence/Understanding *p <.05, **p < Coherence/ Control 7. Coherence/ Purpose 8. Coherence,523 ** 1,000,314 **,254 ** 1,000,000,791 **,759 **,722 ** 1,000,000,000,474 **,369 **,240 **,466 ** 1,000,000,000,000,573 **,383 **,307 **,547 **,694 ** 1,000,000,000,000,000,619 **,377 **,414 **,616 **,503 **,595 ** 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,637 **,438 **,363 **,623 **,888 **,887 **,786 ** 1,000,000,000,000,000,000, CONCLUSIONS The results of the research have shown that along with the decrease in stress resistance, the diminishing of the sense of coherence, meaning the way the world and self are perceived, appears at the same time (significantly positive correlation). The degradation of the sense of coherence: the capacity of understanding a situation and the sense attributed to it (understanding factor), the ability of perceiving the necessary resources for coping with stressful events (control factor) and perceiving a necessary or desired finality (purpose factor) leads to the evolution on the scale of prediction from type one to type eight, diminishing the chances that the person will present any recovery without psychological assistance. 14

7 REFERENCES Antonovsky, A. (1987). Unravelling the mystery of health: How people manage stress and stay well. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Antonovsky, A. (1993). The structure and properties of the Sense of Coherence scale. Social Science & Medicine, 36, Bartone, P.T. (2007). Test-retest reliability of the Dispositional Resilience Scale-15, a brief hardiness scale. Psychological Reports, 101, Clarke, D. (1995). Vulnerability to stress as a function of age, sex, locus of control, hardiness and Type A personality. Social Behavior and Personality, volume 23, issue 3, pp: Eriksson, M, Lindström, B. (2005). Validity of Antonovsky's sense of coherence scale: a systematic review. J. Epidemiol Community Health Jun;59(6): Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health Inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (1). Keyvan, S.A., Imamipour, S. (2015). Comparison of Locus of Control and Hardiness in Professional and Novice Female Taekwondo Players. Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences, 5(4S)12-17, Vasiliu, D., Marinescu, D.A., Marinescu, G., Rizeanu, S. (2015). Evaluarea Sensului Corerenței.. Proprietăți psihometrice pentru Sense of Coherence Scale SOC13. Revista de studii psihologice nr. 2, Universitatea Hyperion. Vasiliu, D., Marinescu, D.A., Marinescu, G., Sîrbu, M. (2015). Evaluarea Robusteții. Proprietăți psihometrice pentru Dispositional Resilience Scale DRS-15. Revista de studii psihologice nr. 2, Universitatea Hyperion. 15