The International Journal of Indian Psychology

ISSN 2348-5396 (e) | ISSN: 2349-3429 (p)

Volume 3, Issue 2, No.6, DIP: 18.01.100/20160302
ISBN: 978-1-329-91038-6
http://www.ijip.in | January - March, 2016

Hardiness and Psychological Distress among University Students

Studying In Madhya Pradesh

Jaya Jotwani 1*

ABSTRACT

Mental health has become an increasingly important concern in our society with more and more
psychological disorders affecting the younger population. Moreover, the prevalence and
seriousness of psychological disorder have been found to be on the rise among university
students and their level of mental distress has also been found to be higher compared to the
general population. Therefore, mental health of the student population deserves our special
attention because not only the university students have to deal with the academic demands and
heavy workloads associated with pursuing a higher education but they also have to face a wide
myriad of personal, academic and social challenges in this critical and often transitional period of
ones life. This co-relational study examines the relationship between hardiness and psychosocial
distress among 100 university students studying in Madhya Pradesh. The sample was selected on
purposive basis. These dimensions with reference to demographic factors are included for
analyses and their relationships with the levels of psychological distress measured by Kessler
Psychological Distress Scale (K10) (2003) and hardiness measured by Bartones Dispositional
Resilience Scale (DRS-15) (1993) are investigated. In addition, possible domicile and gender
differences in the pattern of associations are explored. The data were compiled using self-
administered questionnaires, and the collected data were processed and interpreted using
comparative statistics and correlation analyses. The results indicate that there is a significant
negative correlation between hardiness and psychological distress among university students.
Furthermore, students belonging to rural areas showed higher levels of psychological distress
than urban students In contrast, there is no significant difference in the levels of hardiness as well
as in psychological distress between male and female university students.

Keywords: Hardiness, Psychological Distress.

Hardiness: An event may be stressful for someone and for another may not. Some people have
resistance against stress and this resistance against stress is known as hardiness. Therefore, the

1
Research Scholar, Department of Psychology, Barkatullah University, Bhopal, M.P.
*Responding Author
2016 I J Jotwani; licensee IJIP. This is an Open Access Research distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any Medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
 Hardiness and Psychological Distress among University Students Studying In Madhya Pradesh

level of hardiness varies across people. To be described as hardy means to be strong and tolerant
of stressful situations. According to the Oxford Dictionary, "Hardiness is the ability to endure
difficult conditions". While as "English Collins Dictionary" states Hardiness as "the condition or
quality of being hardy, robust or bold".

The construct of hardiness was first introduced by Kobasa (1979), who defined it as a resistance
resource in the encounter with stressful situations. Maddi and Kobasa (1984), believe that the
foundation of an individuals ability to successfully cope with stress and remain healthy is
personality style, which they termed "Hardiness". Psychologically "hardy" individuals have a
different view of themselves and of the world. Moreover, according to Kobasa (1979), Hardiness
is defined in terms of more specific dimensions of control, commitment and challenge
characteristics that may influence both cognitive appraisal and behavior in response to stressful
events. Higher control reflects the belief that persons can exert an influence on their
surroundings, such persons feel that they have the power to turn an unfortunate situation into an
advantageous one. Higher commitment is defined in terms of an individual's full engagement in
activities and strongly committed people have a sense of purpose and self understanding,
allowing them to uncover meaning in which they are and value in, such persons seem to perform
in cheerful and effortless manner. Highly challenged individuals believe that change rather than
stability characterizes life. Such persons anticipate change as affording them an opportunity for
further development.

Psychological Distress: Many people around the globe experience severe stressors like war,
earthquakes, or terrorist acts, and adversities such as poverty and family disruption which in
most cases have negative effects on subsequent developmental pathways. However, not all
individuals become as heavily affected by stressors as expected and show competence, thriving,
and other positive outcomes instead of malfunction and problem behaviors.

A Brief History of Stress: Stress, as a concept in modern science, is usually described as having
its roots in the middle of the 19th century when Claude Bernard (1813-1878) introduced the term
milieu intrieur to denote the dynamic internal environment necessary for living organisms
(Chrousos &Gold, 1992; Goldstein & Kopin, 2007; Le Moal, 2007). In the beginning of the 20th
century, Walter Cannon (1871-1945), in his studies on the sympathetic-adrenal system, coined
the term homeostasis for the maintenance of physiological variables, as well as the principle of
negative feedback for its regulation. Cannon introduced the fight or flight reaction as the
catecholamine response to a wide variety of harmful stimuli, and demonstrated the role of
catecholamines in the control of homeostasis. In the 1930s Hans Selye (1907-1982) studied the
pituitary-adrenocortical system and popularized the concept of stress, a term he transferred
from mechanics to physiology. He defined stress as the non-specific response of the body to any
demand placed upon it. And stressors according to Wheaton is Conditions of threat, demands,

The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 52

 Hardiness and Psychological Distress among University Students Studying In Madhya Pradesh

or structural constraints that, by the very fact of their occurrence or existence, call into question
the operating integrity of the organism (Wheaton, 1996).

OBJECTIVES
1) To study hardiness and psychological distress in university students studying in M.P.
2) To study the relationship between hardiness and psychological distress in university
students studying in M.P.
3) To study the significance of difference in hardiness and psychological distress among
university students studying in M.P with reference to their gender, and domicile (rural &
urban).

Hypotheses
1) There is no significant relationship between hardiness and psychological distress among
university students studying in M. P.
2) There is no significance of difference in hardiness among university students with
reference to their gender and domicile.
3) There is no significance of difference in psychological distress among university students
with reference to their gender and domicile.

METHODOLOGY
Design:
A structured questionnaire was distributed to a purposively selected sample of 100 university
students studying in M.P. The sample was compared with reference to some demographic
variables including domicile (rural and urban) and gender. The distribution corresponds to the
distribution on campus with 50% females and 50% males. The questionnaire consisted of
structured questions. The data collected from the sample was analysed by various statistical
techniques such as Mean, SD, Z-test, and Pearson Correlation with the help of SPSS.

The present study is a correlation study which analyzed the data collected in 2015, which
provides baseline information at the beginning of the quality reform. Only the data collected
from the university students studying in M.P. were included in current study.

Sample:
The research consists of 100 university students studying in M.P. (50 males and 50 females),
who were selected by purposive sampling.
Inclusive Criteria: The university students studying in M .P.
Exclusive Criteria: The students of M. P. studying outside of their State.

Statistical Techniques:
For achieving the desired objectives, the collected data will be analysed by using the following
statistical techniques: Descriptive statistics such as Mean, SD etc. shall be used in order to make
raw data tangible. Pearsons product moment correlation shall be used to measure the

The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 53

 Hardiness and Psychological Distress among University Students Studying In Madhya Pradesh

relationship between different variables. t-test shall also be applied to assess the difference
between different variables.

Tool Description:
The following standard tools shall be administered to gather the information from the
participants for the present study:

Psychological Distress Scale (K10): The Kessler psychological distress scale is a simple
measure of psychological distress. The K10 scale involves 10 questions about emotional states
each with a five level response scale. The measure can be used as a brief screen to identify levels
of distress. The tool can be given to patients to complete, or alternatively the questions can be
read to the patients by the practitioner. Each item is scored from one none of the time to five
all of the time. Scores of the 10 items are then summed, yielding a minimum score of 10 and a
maximum score of 50. Low scores indicate low levels of psychological distress and high scores
indicate high levels of psychological distress.

The Dispositional Resilience Scale (DRS-15): Hardiness was measured using the 15-item scale
developed by Bartone (1995) consisting of three dimensions including commitment, control and
challenge. For this instrument participants respond on a 4-point scale indicating the level at
which each of the 15 statements apply to them as follows: 0 (not at all true); 1 (a little true); 2
(quite true); & 3 (completely true). Scores are obtained by reverse coding the appropriate and
summing items for each dimension. The overall hardiness score is obtained by summing all 15
items.

Operation Definitions of the Variables

Hardiness: According to Maddi (1990), Hardiness refers to a personality trait that indicates the
manner in which a person might interpret a critical incident, life stress, or traumatic event.
In the present study hardiness means the scores obtained by subjects on the Dispositional
Resilience Scale (DRS-15) developed by Bartone (1995).

Psychological Distress: Psychological distress is an unpleasant subjective state, which takes two
major forms, depression and anxiety. Each is represented by mood and malaise. Mood refers to
feeling and malaise refers to physical symptoms the person experiences. Depression and anxiety
are related forms of distress largely sharing the same social map (Mirowsky & Rose, 2003).

In the present study psychological distress means the scores obtained by subjects on the
psychological distress scale developed by Kessler (2003).

The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 54

 Hardiness and Psychological Distress among University Students Studying In Madhya Pradesh

RESULTS
Table 1: Shows correlation between hardiness and psychological distress among university
students studying in M. P. Correlations
Psychological
Hardiness distress
Hardiness Pearson Correlation 1 -.535**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 100 100
**
Psychological distress Pearson Correlation -.535 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 100 100
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 4.3 shows that the relationship between hardiness and psychological distress among
university students studying in M. P. is significant (N = 100, p = .000 < .01). There is a negative
correlation (r = -.535) which is fair and it is highly significant at the .01 level of significance (2-
tailed). It can be concluded that the university students studying in M. P. who have higher levels
of hardiness are inclined to report lower levels of psychological distress. Hence, our null
hypothesis, there is no significant relationship between hardiness and psychological distress
among university students studying in M. P. is rejected.

Table 2: Showing means difference of hardiness and psychological distress between male and
female subjects.
Gender N Mean SD t Df Sig.
(2-tailed)
Hardiness 50 43.88 4.736
Male 50 43.32 6.258 .505 98 .615NS

Female
Psychological
distress 50 23.44 6.018 .580 98 .563NS
Male 50 22.68 7.046
Female
NS
= No significant difference.

The results presented in the above table reveal the t-value of the mean scores of hardiness and
psychological distress with reference to gender.

There is no significant difference in the levels of hardiness between male and female university
students. The mean level of hardiness in the females was 43.32 (SD=6.258), and the mean for

The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 55

 Hardiness and Psychological Distress among University Students Studying In Madhya Pradesh

males was 43.88 (SD = 4.736); t (98) = .505. Hence, the null hypothesis, there is no significant
difference in hardiness between male and female university students is accepted.

Moreover, no significant difference in psychological distress between male and female sample
was found. The mean level of psychological distress in the females was 22.68 (SD = 7.046), and
the mean for males was 23.44 (SD = 6.018); t (98) = .580. Thus, our null hypothesis, there is
no significant difference in psychological distress between male and female university students
is accepted.

Table 3: Showing means difference of hardiness and psychological distress between rural and
urban subjects.
Domicile N Mean SD t Df Sig.
(2-tailed)
Hardiness. Rural 37 43.03 5.014 -.793
Urban 63 43.94 5.822 98 .430NS
Psychological
distress. 98 .009**
37 25.27 6.077 2.673
Rural
63 21.76 6.483
Urban
** = Significant at 0.01 level of significance.
NS
= No significant difference.

The results presented in the above table reveal the t-value of the mean scores of hardiness and
psychological distress with reference to domicile (rural and urban).

No significant difference in hardiness between rural and urban sample was found. The mean
level of hardiness in the rural university students studying in M.P. was 43.03 (SD = 5.014), and
the mean for urban university students was 43.94 (SD = 5.822); t (98) = -.793. Thus, our null
hypothesis, there is no significant difference in hardiness between rural and urban university
students studying in M.P. is accepted.

In contrast, the sample belonging to rural areas have higher levels of psychological distress (N =
37, M = 25.27, SD = 6.077) than sample of urban areas (N = 63, Mean = 21.76, SD = 6.483); (t =
2.673, df = 98, p< .01, two-tailed). Therefore, there is a significant difference in the levels of
psychological distress between rural and urban university students studying in M.P. Hence, the
null hypothesis, there is no significant difference in psychological distress between rural and
urban university students studying in M.P. is rejected.

Discussion
Hardiness is the ability of an individual to combat stress. In contrast, stress is a negative
emotional experience accompanied by predictable biochemical, physiological, cognitive, and
behavioural changes that are directed toward altering the stressful event or accommodating to its
effects (Baum, A., 1990). The main aim of this study was to assess the level of hardiness and

The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 56

 Hardiness and Psychological Distress among University Students Studying In Madhya Pradesh

psychological distress in university students studying in Madhya Pradesh. The first hypothesis of
the study was that there would be no significant relationship between hardiness and
psychological distress among university students studying in Madhya Pradesh. To check this
relationship correlation analysis was used. The result of present study showed that there is a
significant negative correlation between hardiness and psychological distress among university
students. So the result does not support the study hypothesis. This result is consistent with those
of Kenneth, M. N. (1986); Rhodewalt & Agustsdottir (1984); and Shepperd, J. A. & Kshani, J.
H. (1991). There is no single study that produced the opposite results that there is positive
relation between hardiness and psychological distress. The reason may be is that variables,
hardiness and psychological distress are opposite in nature. So these constructs produced
negative results in almost every condition.

First major part of the second hypothesis of the present study was that there would be no
significance of difference in hardiness among university students with reference to their gender.
To check this difference t-test was used. The result of the present study showed that there is no
significant difference in hardiness between male and female university students. So the
hypothesis is accepted. This result is similar with other studies such as Rhodewalt & Agustsdottir
(1984); Soderstrom, M.; Dolbier, C.; Leiferman, J.; and Mary Steinhardt (2000) and Shepperd, J.
A. & Kshani, J. H. (1991). While on the other hand the study conducted by Jagpreet Kaur (2011)
produced the opposite results that there is gender difference in hardiness. The results of these
studies showed that females possess less hardiness as compared to males. This may be attributed
to the differential treatment which is given to the boys and girls in some Indian societies. There
is a preference of male children in Indian context. Hence, the preferential treatment and the
exposure given to the male children as compared to the female counterparts may be responsible
for these results (Verma, R. K. & Ghadially, R., 1985). So these results are different and
contradict to the present study. The reason may be that the populations are different. Jaspreet
Kaurs research was on the population of adolescents while the present study was on the
population of university students. The students at this stage of development share equal rights
and freedom given by their family as well as by their society. Second part of this hypothesis of
the present study was that there would be no significant difference in hardiness among university
students with reference to their domicile (rural & urban). To check this difference t-test was
used. The result of the present study showed that there is no significant difference in hardiness
between rural and urban university students. So the hypothesis is accepted. Not a single study
was found on hardiness with reference to domicile. As for as the population of present study is
concerned, it consists of university students which mean that they are well qualified and have
attained higher self-esteem. This may have boosted the belief of the female and rural students
that they are not the weaker section.

One major part of the third hypothesis of the study was that there would be no significant
difference in psychological distress among university students with reference to their gender. To
check this difference t-test was used. The result of the present study showed that there is no

The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 57

 Hardiness and Psychological Distress among University Students Studying In Madhya Pradesh

significant difference in psychological distress between male and female university students. So
the hypothesis is accepted. This result is similar with other studies such as Robinson,
MacCulloch, & Arentsen (2014); Suarez (2004); Jhanjee (2013); Carroll, Toovey & Gempel
(2006); Stoeckle, Zolo & Davidson (1964); McGarry (2013) and Hains et al. (2014). While on
the other hand the study conducted by Mujeeb & Zubair (2012); Sajeel (2011); Gill, Ahmedi, &
Irfan (2010) and Jabeen (2012) produced the opposite results that there is gender difference in
psychological distress. The results of these studies showed that women experience less resilience
as compared to men. One possible explanation is that there is much difference in environmental
factors in different countries. Secondly, the level of awareness and ability to cope the traumatic
situation is different culturally. Thirdly, the literacy rate also effect the general well being of
individual as it was told that education is a social instrument that guide the future and destiny of
individuals. Fourthly, the equality of gender is a significant factor. In developed cultures the
women are consider equal to men. While on the other hand, in under developing countries the
women emancipation is still a dream. Fifthly, in under developing countries the women are
considering a passive creature to take part in daily affairs. While in developed countries the
women are considering an equal partner in daily life. Last but not least, the ability of resources of
rescue is more in developed countries as compared to under developing countries. So these are
the reasons that are responsible that why the results are different in different countries. There are
may be other reasons that are responsible in this regard. Second part of the third hypothesis of
the present study was that there would be no significant difference in psychological distress
among university students with reference to their domicile. To check this difference t-test was
used. The result of the present study showed that there is no significant difference in
psychological distress between rural and urban university students studying in M.P. So the
hypothesis is accepted. Not a single study was found on psychological distress with reference to
domicile.

CONCLUSION
Mental health of the student population deserves our special attention because not only the
university students have to deal with the academic demands and heavy workloads associated
with pursuing a higher education but they also have to face a wide myriad of personal, academic
and social challenges in this critical and often transitional period of ones life. Society and people
develop higher expectations from them as they can contribute what the society needs. The aim of
the present work was to study the hardiness and psychological distress among university
students. From the analysis of the above data it has been found that there is a fair negative
correlation in hardiness and psychological distress as it has been already mentioned in discussion
that the reasons may be because these two variables are opposite in nature. Thus, it can be
concluded that the university students studying in M. P. who have higher levels of hardiness are
inclined to report lower levels of psychological distress and vice versa.

It can also be concluded that at the university level there is no gender difference in the levels of
hardiness and psychological distress. Moreover, the university students do not differ in the levels

The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 58

 Hardiness and Psychological Distress among University Students Studying In Madhya Pradesh

of hardiness with respect to their domicile. The students belonging to rural areas do not differ in
hardiness with the students of urban areas. In contrast, the rural students have higher levels of
psychological distress than those of the students of urban areas.

REFERENCES
Bartone, P. T. (1995). A short hardiness scale. http://www.stormingmedia.us/84/8458/
A845892.html.RefType: Internet communication.
Chrousos, G. P., & Gold, P. W. (1992). The concepts of stress and stress system disorders.
Overview of physical and behavioral homeostasis. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 267(9), 1244-1252.
Goldstein, D. S., & Kopin, I. J. (2007). Evolution of concepts of stress. Stress, 10(2), 109-120.
Jagpreet Kaur (2011). Influence of Gender and School Climate on Psychological Hardiness
among Indian Adolescents. 2011 International Conference on Social Science and
Humanity IPEDR vol.5 IACSIT Press, Singapore.
Kenneth, M. N. (1986). Type A, hardiness and psychological distress. Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, Vol. 9, Issue 6, pp. 537-548.
Kessler RC, Barker PR, Colpe LJ, Epstein JF, Gfroerer JC, Hiripi E, et al. (2003). Screening for
serious mental illness in the general population. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 60 (2), 184-9.
Kobasa, S. C. (1979). "Stressful life events, personality, and health - Inquiry into hardiness".
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 37, pp. 1-11. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.37.1.1. PMID 458548.
Le Moal, M. (2007). Historical approach and evolution of the stress concept: a personal account.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 32 Suppl 1, S3-9.
Maddi, S. R. (1990). Issues and interventions in stress mastery. In H. S. Friedman (Ed),
Personality and disease, (pp. 121-154). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Maddi, S. R., & Kobasa, S. C. (1984). The hardy executive : Health under stress. Homewood,
IL:: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Mike Soderstrom, Christyn Dolbier, Jenn Leiferman, and Mary Steinhardt (2000). The
Relationship of Hardiness, Coping Strategies, and Perceived Stress to Symptoms of
Illness. Accepted for publication: January 12,
Mirowsky J. & Ross C.E. (2003) Social Causes of Psychological Distress, 2nd edn. Aldine
deGruyter, Hawthorne, NY.
Selye, H. (1976). The stress of life (2 ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Verma, R. K. & Ghadially, R. (1985). Mothers sex role attitudes and demands for independence
training in boys and girls. Indian Journal of Social Work, 46, 105-110.

The International Journal of Indian Psychology | 59