Salim (2016)
Salim (2016)
Diss, C., Salim, J., and Wadey, R. (2016). Examining the rela-
tionship between hardiness and perceived stress-related growth
in a sport injury context. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 19:
10-17
Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individ-
ual authors and/or other copyright owners. For more information on Open-
Research Archives data policy on reuse of materials please consult http://
research.stmarys.ac.uk/policies.html
http://research.stmarys.ac.uk/
HARDINESS AND PERCEIVED STRESS-RELATED GROWTH 1
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HARDINESS AND PERCEIVED STRESS-RELATED GROWTH 2
1 Abstract
2 This study examined the relationship between hardiness, coping and perceived stress-related
3 growth (SRG) in a sport injury context. Due to the exploratory nature of the study, a cross-
4 sectional design was employed, whereby 206 previously injured athletes (148 male, 58
5 female, Mage = 22.23 years) who had recently returned to sport completed three
8 bootstrapping procedure were used to analyze the data. Findings revealed a significant
9 positive relationship between hardiness and perceived SRG (r = .36; p < .05). Two coping
10 strategies were found to mediate this relationship (i.e., emotional support and positive
11 reframing). That is, the reason why athletes higher in hardiness had higher SRG scores is
12 because they reported greater use of their social support for emotional reasons (e.g., moral
13 support, sympathy or understanding) and were able to construe their injury in positive terms.
14 These findings support some of the central tenets of Joseph and Linleys (2005) organismic
15 valuing theory and provides implications for professional practice. Future researchers should
19
21 related growth
22
23
24
25
HARDINESS AND PERCEIVED STRESS-RELATED GROWTH 3
3 There has been a shift in the psychology of sport injury literature, from the dominant
4 focus on the negative consequences following injury, to a more inclusive approach that
5 accounts for positive subjective experiences, positive individual traits, and positive resources
6 in the environment (Crawford, Gayman, & Tracey, 2014; Podlog & Eklund, 2006; Wadey,
7 Clark, Podlog, & McCullough, 2013). This shift is encouraging in that Wadey, Evans, Evans,
8 and Mitchell (2011) suggested that to provide a more balanced, complete understanding of
9 the sport injury experience, not only do both positive and negative consequences need to be
10 explored, but also how they interact with one another. Indeed, although previous research has
11 provided important insights into the stressors (e.g., incapacitation and rehabilitation
12 setbacks), negatively-toned responses (e.g., grief and depression), and suboptimal outcomes
13 (e.g., not returning to ones pre-injury level of functioning) experienced by injured athletes,
14 more recently researchers have conducted studies that complement this body of literature by
15 exploring desirable concepts such as personal growth, dispositional optimism, and self-
16 determination (e.g., Podlog, Dimmock, & Miller, 2011; Tracey, 2011; Wadey, Evans,
17 Hanton, & Neil, 2012a). For example, Podlog et al. (2011) used the self-determination theory
18 to guide interventions for injured athletes returning to competitive sport that aim to promote
20 relatedness, and autonomy in order to minimize negative responses and maximize positive
21 outcomes. We feel this more inclusive approach has the potential to provide valuable insights
22 for practitioners who aim to buffer injured athletes against negative consequences, as well as
24 One positive subjective experience that is gaining increased research attention in sport
25 and exercise psychology generally, and the psychology of sport injury specifically among
HARDINESS AND PERCEIVED STRESS-RELATED GROWTH 4
2 stressful or traumatic experience. By growth, we mean perceived positive changes that propel
3 the individual to a higher level of functioning than that which existed prior to the stressor (cf.
4 Carver, 1998). Taken together, the research that has been conducted thus far across the
5 discipline of sport and exercise psychology can be considered at a macro-, meso- and micro-
6 level. A macro-level perspective considers the effect demanding stimuli have over an
7 individuals career (e.g., Connaughton, Wadey, Hanton, & Jones, 2008; Day, 2013; Galli &
8 Reel, 2012). A meso-level perspective is concerned with a more finite time period; for
9 example, Burke and Sabistons (2012) investigation of breast cancer survivors perceived
10 growth after scaling Mt. Kilimanjaro. Finally, a micro-level perspective explores a specific
11 snap-shot of an individuals experiences at any one given moment in time, which has been
12 the approach typically taken to explore positive changes experienced by injured athletes once
13 they have returned to sport (e.g., Udry, Gould, Bridges, & Beck, 1997; Wadey, Clark,
14 Podlog, & McCullough, 2012). However, although the application of perceived growth is
15 gaining research attention following various conditions and across different contexts, one
16 issue surrounding this concept is that researchers continue to refer to this concept with a
19 not trivial, Wadey et al. (2012) recently recommended that researchers should justify the
20 terms they employ. For this study, we use the term perceived stress-related growth (SRG) for
21 two reasons: (a) we are interested in perceptions of growth rather than veridical growth; and
22 (b) we are examining a stressful event (e.g., sport injury) rather than a traumatic
24 One of the first studies that aimed to observe perceived SRG following sport injury
25 was by Eileen Udry and her colleagues who conducted a program of research with injured
HARDINESS AND PERCEIVED STRESS-RELATED GROWTH 5
1 U.S. elite skiers who had suffered season-ending injuries. Udry et al. (1997) found three
2 dimensions of perceived SRG (a) personal growth, (b) psychologically based performance
5 developing aspects related to non-skiing life (e.g., developed different sides of self), and
6 learned better time management (e.g., learned to meet deadlines). Psychologically based
8 enhanced motivation (e.g., learned whole new work ethic), and realistic expectations (e.g.,
10 technically better (e.g., learnt to ski smarter) and physical health improvements (e.g., got
11 stronger than ever before). Altogether, 81 raw data themes were identified. Considering that
12 many of these positive changes have been reported in other fields of research to be associated
13 with heightened sporting performance, improved subjective well-being, and reduced risk of
14 (re)injury occurrence (cf. Connaughton et al., 2008; Williams & Andersen, 1998), it is clear
15 that this concept may have important practical implications in terms of enabling injured
17 Since Udry et al.s (1997) study, a number of subsequent studies have gone to on
18 directly examine perceived growth following injury (e.g., Smith & Sparkes, 2005; Tracey,
19 2011; Wadey et al., 2013; Wadey et al., 2011) or reported it as a serendipitous finding (e.g.,
20 Bianco, Malo, & Orlick, 1999; Ford & Gordon, 1999; Hurley, Moran, & Guerin, 2007;
21 Podlog & Eklund, 2006, 2009; Podlog, Wadey, Stark, Lochbaum, Hannon, & Newton, 2013;
22 San Jose, 2003). Collectively, the aforementioned body of research has shown that male and
23 female athletes, from team and individual sports, across various levels of competition, and
24 with different types of injuries have transformed their injury from a potentially debilitating
25 experience into an opportunity for growth and development. However, one interesting finding
HARDINESS AND PERCEIVED STRESS-RELATED GROWTH 6
1 to emerge from previous research is that while some injured athletes perceive growth, others
2 do not. Indeed, Udry et al. (1997) reported, One skier was unable to identify any benefits
3 associated with being injured (p. 244). Consequently, they recommended that future
4 researchers should identify the personal and situational factors that can affect growth and
5 explain the mechanisms through which they operate. This recommendation aligns with the
6 Integrated Model of Psychological Response to Sport Injury and Rehabilitation which was
7 first published by Wiese-Bjornstal, Smith, Shaffer, and Morrey in 1995 and revised in 1998.
8 The integrated model posits that both pre-and post-injury variables affect how an athlete will
9 respond to and rehabilitate from injury. Pre-injury factors comprise of personality (e.g.,
10 hardiness), history of stressors (e.g., daily hassles), coping resources (e.g., psychological
11 skills), and interventions (e.g., stress management). After an athlete has incurred an injury,
12 personal factors (e.g., personality) and situational factors (e.g., type of sport) are suggested to
13 moderate cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses to injury, which in turn affect
14 recovery outcomes, such as returning to a higher level of functioning (e.g., perceived SRG).
15 Although this model does not explain how these pre- and post-injury factors might affect
16 perceived SRG, it does have the potential to provide a comprehensive understanding of when
18 One personal disposition that has been conceptualized to transform stress into an
19 opportunity for growth and development is the personality trait of hardiness. Kobasa (1979)
20 observed that those individuals who experienced adversity and were able to cope effectively
21 possessed three resilient attitudes that conceptualize hardiness: commitment, control, and
23 (rather than experience alienation from) whatever one is doing or encounters (Kobasa,
24 Maddi, & Kahn, 1982, p. 169); control is a, tendency to feel and act as if one is influential
25 (rather than helpless) in the face of the varied contingencies of life (Kobasa et al., 1982, p.
HARDINESS AND PERCEIVED STRESS-RELATED GROWTH 7
1 169); and challenge is the, belief that change rather than stability is normal in life and that
2 the anticipation of changes are interesting incentives to growth rather than threats to security
3 (Kobasa et al., 1982, p. 169-170). Maddi (2002) suggested that these attitudes provide the
4 courage and motivation to use the hardiness actions that transform stressful situations from
5 potential disasters into health and performance advantages. These actions cluster around three
6 behaviors and cognitions: (a) social support, (b) positive health practices, and (c)
8 in hardiness is suggested to take a number of progressive steps to address not only the
9 stressful event but also the strain it arouses (i.e., integration of problem- and emotion-focused
10 coping). These steps involve broadening ones perspective to lower strain responses,
11 increasing ones understanding of the stressful event and its aftermath to devise a plan-of-
12 action, and implementing the plan-of-action to resolve and learn from the experience rather
14 The few researchers who have explored the effect of hardiness in the context of sport
15 injury have revealed that it can facilitate athletes recovery. In 1990, Grove, Stewart, and
16 Gordon found that hardiness was negatively related to mood disturbance following injury,
17 and Ford, Eklund, and Gordon (2000) observed a negative association with time-loss from
18 injury (i.e., those higher in hardiness returned to sport sooner than their counterparts). Despite
19 these preliminary isolated studies, only recently has hardiness been explored systematically.
20 Wadey, Evans, Hanton, and Neil (2012a, 2012b) examined hardiness throughout the sport
21 injury process (i.e., the prediction of, and response to, sport injury). In terms of responses to
22 injury, the authors were interested in examining the effect hardiness has on injured athletes
23 psychological responses and coping strategies over time. Post-injury findings revealed those
25 Specifically, they coped with their injury in three progressive phases: (a) re-evaluated their
HARDINESS AND PERCEIVED STRESS-RELATED GROWTH 8
1 injury and own thoughts (e.g., imagined how their injury could be worse), which lowered
2 their strain responses and enabled problem-focused coping; (b) increased their understanding
3 of their injury and the recovery process, which allowed them to form a realistic, yet
4 progressive rehabilitation program; and (c) executed the program to resolve and transform
5 their experience from a potentially debilitating encounter into an opportunity for growth and
6 development. Although this program of research did find athletes higher in hardiness to
7 report that they had experienced perceived growth, it is important to acknowledge that this
8 was not the central aim of these studies. In terms of the relationship hardiness and perceived
9 growth therefore, the findings are tentative and descriptive rather than explanatory.
10 Taken together, two main themes can be synthesized from the research that has
11 explored perceived growth in a sport injury context to-date. First, the majority of athletes
12 perceive they gain positive changes following their injury experiences, whether these changes
13 reflect actual growth is another research question altogether. However, one issue with this
14 theme is that all the research that has been conducted to-date has used qualitative inquiry;
15 therefore, some scholars would suggest that this body of literature is limited in terms of its
16 generalizability. Second, not all injured athletes perceive growth (cf. Udry et al., 1997),
17 which suggestsin line with Wiese-Bjornstal et al.s (1998) integrated modelthat future
18 researchers need to explore the personal and situational factors that may affect perceived
19 growth and explain how these factors operate. With these themes in mind, the aim of this
20 study is to conduct a quantitative study that explores the direct and indirect relationship
21 between hardiness and perceived SRG. Based on previous research (Wadey et al., 2012b) and
22 consistent with the integrated model (Wiese-Bjornstal et al., 1998), the following hypotheses
23 for this study were established: (a) hardiness will have a positive relationship with perceived
24 SRG; and (b) coping will mediate this relationship, specifically, those higher in hardiness will
HARDINESS AND PERCEIVED STRESS-RELATED GROWTH 9
1 more likely report greater SRG because they use more problem- and emotion-focused coping
2 strategies.
3 Method
4 Participants
5 The sample comprised of 148 males and 58 females (N=206) with a mean age of
6 22.23 years (SD = 6.50). The participants represented 10 team and 23 individual sports from
8 their current level. Each participant had been injured through sport within two years prior to
9 the outset of the study, with a variety of injuries, including fractures, dislocations, strains, or
10 sprains of different body parts. The time loss from training and/or competition ranged from
12 Measures
14 Ingraham, 1989) was used to measure hardiness and its subcomponents: commitment, control
15 and challenge. The DRS contains 45 statements about general life (e.g., Most days, life is
16 really interesting and exciting for me and Planning ahead can help avoid most future
17 problems) 15 items for each subcomponent. Each participant was asked to indicate the
18 truthfulness for each statement on a 4-point Likert scale anchored at 0 (not at all true) and 3
19 (completely true). Scores for each subcomponent range from 0 to 45. The composite
20 hardiness scored ranges from 0 to 135. Cronbachs alpha coefficients of .74 for hardiness
21 composite, .78 for commitment, .69 for control, and .68 for challenge were found in this
22 study.
23 Perceived SRG. The Stress-Related Growth Scale (SRGS; Park, Cohen, & Murch,
24 1996) was used to assess perceived SRG. SRGS is a 50-item one-dimensional questionnaire
1 following a stressful event (e.g., I developed new relationships with helpful others and I
2 learned that I was stronger than I thought I was). To ascertain athletes perceptions of
3 stress-related growth, the original stem was modified from Rate how much you experienced
4 each item below as a result of this years most stressful event to Rate how much you
5 experienced each item below as a result of your injury. Participants were asked to rate each
6 item from 0 (not at all), 1 (somewhat) or 2 (a great deal). Park et al. observed the SRGS to
7 have content, criterion and construct validity. In the validation sample, Cronbachs alpha was
8 .94 and two-week test-retest reliability was .81. A Cronbachs alpha of .96 was found in this
9 study.
10 Coping. Brief COPE (Carver, 1997) was used to assess coping. The questionnaire
11 was a situation-specific version, which asked the participants to reflect on the coping
12 strategies they used throughout their sport injury experience. This scale consists of 14
13 subscales and 28 items (2 items for each subscale), which are rated from 1 (I did not do this
14 at all) to 4 (I did this a lot). However, in line with the second hypothesis, only problem- and
15 emotion-focused coping scales were used in this study (cf. Carver, 1997). Cronbachs alpha
16 coefficients of .70 for instrumental support, .61 for venting, .71 for emotional support, .68 for
17 positive reframing, .72 for planning, and .60 for acceptance were found in this study. Active
18 coping was removed from the analysis as it showed a low Cronbachs alpha (.34). Research
19 has suggested that measures with only a few items per sub-scale with a Cronbachs alpha
21 Procedure
23 and sports clubs across the United Kingdom. Institutions were contacted by phone and email
24 to discuss the nature of the study, and whether they would be willing to provide access to
25 potential participants. It was explained that the participants needed to fit the following
HARDINESS AND PERCEIVED STRESS-RELATED GROWTH 11
1 criteria: (a) experienced an injury through sport (i.e., injuries sustained in training or
2 competition) rather than outside of sport (e.g., everyday accidents). This criterion helped to
3 define and delimit the nature of our sample, especially considering our interest in perceived
4 SRG following sport injury; (b) been out of training and/or competition for a minimum of
5 four weeks due to injury to ensure athletes incurred a serious injury. This criterion was
6 introduced so that all the participants had the potential to experience growth (cf. Joseph &
7 Linley, 2006). Minor scrapes and bruises that may require certain modifications (e.g.,
8 strapping or protective garments) for training and competition purposes were not classified as
9 injuries in this study; and (c) returned to sport in the previous two-years (i.e., 24 months).
10 This criterion was introduced to minimize recall biases (cf. Ptacek, Smith, Espe, & Rafferty,
12 All Universities and sports clubs who were contacted agreed to take part in the study.
13 A suitable time and place to administer the questionnaires was discussed. Those who agreed
14 to participate and met the selection criteria provided written informed consent in line with the
15 Universitys Ethics Committee; participation was entirely voluntary (i.e., participants were
16 not compensated in anyway). Participants filled out a demographic sheet which included
17 information about when they returned to training and/or competition, time loss whilst injured,
18 and the type and location of their injury. The DRS, SRGS, and Brief COPE were completed
19 which included standardized instructions based upon the recommendations of Bartone et al.
20 (1989), Park et al. (1996), and Carver et al. (1989). All questionnaires were counterbalanced
22 Data analysis
23 Data was analyzed using SPSS 19.0 and involved four stages. First, the data was
24 entered and then screened to check for accuracy and statistical assumptions. Second,
25 demographic variables were analyzed for their potential confounding effects. Specifically,
HARDINESS AND PERCEIVED STRESS-RELATED GROWTH 12
2 between certain demographic variables (i.e., age, time loss, time since returning back to
3 sport) and perceived SRG. Three independent-samples t-tests and a one-way ANOVA were
4 conducted to examine the differences between sex, sport type (i.e., team vs. individual),
5 injury type (i.e., upper vs. lower body injuries) and competition level (i.e., recreational, club,
7 correlations were used to identify the direct effect of hardiness and its subcomponents on
8 perceived growth (i.e., Hypothesis 1). Finally, Preacher and Hayess (2008) bootstrapping
9 procedure was used to examine if coping mediated the relationship between hardiness and
11 samples are taken multiple times from an existing dataset to create an empirical
12 approximation of the sampling distribution. Confidence intervals are then generated based on
13 this sampling distribution to test the indirect effects associated with mediational models. If
14 the computed confidence intervals do not include 0, this indicates that the variable is a
15 significant mediator in the proposed model (for a detailed discussion, see Preacher & Hayes,
16 2008). Bootstrapping is a particularly useful technique when testing models with multiple
17 mediators as it allows for the assessment of the direction and magnitude of various indirect
19 mediator when controlling for other possible mediators, while also testing for the combined
21 study was performed using Preacher and Hayess (2008) MEDIATE macro; 95% confidence
23 Results
1 The means, standard deviations, and correlations for the studys variables are
2 presented in Table 1. The mean score for hardiness (M = 55.94; SD = 12.86) was generally
3 lower compared to previous findings in other contexts (e.g., McCalister, Dolber, Webster,
4 Mallon, & Steinhardt, 2006; Steinhardt, Dolber, Gottlieb, & McCalister, 2003). A possible
5 explanation for this finding is that athletes high in hardiness are less likely to get injured
6 through sport via psychosocial mechanisms (Wadey et al., 2012). The mean perceived SRG
7 score in this study (M = 43.48; SD = 21.95) was also found to be lower compared to Park et
8 al.s (1996) study (M = 52.87; SD = 21.40). A potential reason for this difference is the
9 stressors being examined. For example, Park et al. explored perceived SRG following events
10 such as the death of a significant other, which would typically be considered to be more
11 stressful than sports-related injuries (cf. Holmes & Rahe, 1967). Indeed, Joseph and Linley
12 (2005) suggested that the greater the severity of the event, the more likely an individual is to
13 perceive growth. In terms of coping, strategies assessed were reportedly used a moderate
14 amount, which is consistent with previous research that has observed injured athletes to
15 report using both to use both problem-and emotion-focused coping strategies throughout their
16 recovery (e.g., Gould, Udry, Bridges, & Beck, 1997; Wadey et al., 2011).
17 Demographic Analyses
18 Two-hundred and six participants completed data entry for all study variables. Only
19 four participants were removed from the data analysis because of incomplete data. Before
20 proceeding to the main analysis, the relationships and differences between the demographic
21 variables and dependent variable were assessed. Findings revealed no significant relationship
22 between perceived SRG and age (r = -.292, p > .05) or time loss (r = .266, p > .05). A
23 significant relationship was found for time since returning back (r = .298, p <. 05),
24 identifying that those athletes who had returned to sport for a longer period of time
25 experienced more growth. No significant differences were found for sex (t [204] = -.402, p >
HARDINESS AND PERCEIVED STRESS-RELATED GROWTH 14
1 .05) or competitive level (F [7, 198] = 1.79, p >.05). However, a significant difference was
2 found between sport type and perceived SRG. Findings revealed that those with lower limb
3 injuries experienced more growth than those with upper limb injuries (t [81.9] = -3.55, p <
4 .05). Additionally, there was a significant difference for team and individual sports (t [120] =
5 .2.08, p < .05). This finding suggests that those who participated in team sports experienced
6 more perceived SRG than those in individual sports, which is perhaps consistent with Joseph
7 and Linley (2006) who suggest the need for a supportive environment to promote growth. As
9 Main Analysis
10 Coefficients reveal hardiness (r = .36, p < .05), commitment (r = .33, p < .05), control
11 (r = .27, p < .05), and challenge (r = .30, p < .05) had a significant positive relationship with
12 perceived SRG. These findings suggest that those higher in hardiness are more likely to
13 experience growth following sport injury. Follow-up multiple mediator models (Figures 1-4)
14 indicate that coping mediated the relationship between hardiness and perceived SRG. The
15 multiple mediator model was found to be significant, F (8,197) = 11.60, p <.001, and
16 accounted for 32% of the variance (Adj. R2 = .29). Controlling for sport type, findings
17 indicated significant confidence intervals [CI] for emotional support and positive reframing
18 mediating the relationship between hardiness (CI = .03, .18; .03, .18), control (CI = .11, .50;
19 .04, .45), and commitment (CI = .08, .42; .09, .44) and perceived SRG. Although emotional
20 support was found to mediate the relationship between challenge and perceived SRG (CI =
21 .01, .39), positive reframing was found to be non-significant (-.07, .36). All other coping
22 strategies (i.e., instrumental support, venting, planning and acceptance) were found to be non-
23 significant.
24 Discussion
HARDINESS AND PERCEIVED STRESS-RELATED GROWTH 15
1 The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between hardiness, coping
2 and perceived SRG following sport injury. The results support the first hypothesis, finding a
3 significant positive relationship between hardiness and perceived SRG. This finding supports
4 a key element of the conceptualization of hardiness (i.e., using adversity to ones advantage).
5 Indeed, Maddi (2006) purported, Hardiness is a combination of attitudes that provide the
6 courage and motivation to do the hard, strategic work of turning stressful circumstances from
7 potential disasters into growth opportunities (p. 160). This result also supports Wiese-
8 Bjornstal et al.s (1998) integrated model, which suggests that personal variables can affect
9 recovery outcomes (e.g., perceived SRG). However, although this model has the potential to
10 provide a comprehensive understanding of when and for whom an injury will lead to
11 perceived SRG, it fails to explain how or why this occurs. Indeed, the integrated model is not
12 a theory, and therefore cannot explain the mechanisms by which some athletes high and low
13 in certain dispositions such as hardiness perceive SRG and others do not. With the absence of
14 a context-specific theory to explain the underlying processes that lead to perceived SRG, this
15 study set out to explore the mediators of this relationship based upon hardiness research.
16 The second hypothesis was only partially supported, with the findings revealing that
17 certain emotion-focused coping strategies (i.e., positive reframing and emotional support) and
18 not problem-focused coping strategies (e.g., active coping and planning) mediated the
19 relationship between hardiness and perceived SRG. This finding is in contrast with the
21 transform a potentially debilitating situation into an opportunity for growth (Maddi, 2002).
22 However, a potential explanation for this finding is that we only assessed one criterion
23 variable in this study. For example, it might be that problem-focused coping strategies help
1 focused coping strategies help them to transform them into opportunities for growth and
2 development.
3 One theory that explains how emotion-focused coping strategies can facilitate
4 perceived SRG is the organismic valuing theory (OVT; Joseph and Linley, 2006). This theory
5 proposes that encountering a stressful event can shatter a persons assumptive world. When
6 this shattering effect occurs, the theory suggests that there is a need to integrate the new
7 stress-related information (i.e., completion tendency). The person then goes through a series
8 of oscillating phases of intrusion and avoidance as this new information is processed in one
9 of two ways. Either this information is assimilated within existing models of the world, or
11 direction. The theory holds that individuals have an innate tendency to modify existing
13 organismic valuing process). However, the organismic valuing process is challenging and
14 requires a supportive social environment that facilitates satisfaction of the basic human needs
16 needs, the OVT process will be thwarted and the information will be accommodated in a
17 negative direction. Overall, the theory posits three outcomes that result from the way the
20 SRG. Relating the OVT back to the present study, it is clear that the theory places a lot of
21 significance of the way individuals regulate the oscillating phases of intrusion and avoidance
22 and mobilize the resources available to them. It may be that the athletes higher in hardiness in
23 this study positively reframed their injury from mobilizing their support network, which in
24 turn lowered distressing affective responses and enabled them to positive accommodation the
25 stress-related information. Future research should further explore the applicability of the
HARDINESS AND PERCEIVED STRESS-RELATED GROWTH 17
1 OVT in the context of sport injury. In terms of practical application, the findings emphasize
2 that practitioners who work with injured athletes may not only have an important role in
3 preventing and/or repairing the negative consequences of injury, but also in terms of enabling
4 them to experience perceived growth. Furthermore, practitioners should be aware that certain
5 athletes are less likely to experience perceived SRG than others and therefore may require
6 greater assistance to meet this outcome. Although it is too early to be certain of how best to
7 facilitate perceived growth, the present findings would suggest practitioners need to challenge
8 injured athletes to (re)appraise the significance of their injury in more adaptive ways, raise
9 their awareness of their social support networks, and encourage them to mobilize their
10 support. They should also work with athletes social support networks to provide them with
11 the skills and strategies to create an ideal environment for injured athletes to disclose their
12 emotions to enable them to positively reframe their injury and optimize the likelihood of
13 experiencing growth . Indeed, researchers have started to observe the efficacy and
15 contexts (Hudson & Day, 2012; Stanton & Danoff-Burg, 2002; Ullrich & Lutgendorf, 2002).
16 For example, Hudson and Day (2012) explored written emotional disclosure with sixteen
17 athletes who had encountered a stressor. Research findings identified that through written
18 emotional disclosure, the athletes were able to reappraise their stressor, which then lead to a
19 number of perceived positive outcomes (e.g., increased passion or motivation for their sport).
20 As with all research, this study had a number of strengths and limitations. The main
21 strength was that it was the first study to explore perceived SRG in a sport injury context
22 using a cross-sectional design, which provides a more generalizable set of findings than
23 previous qualitative findings. Another strength of this study is that we have an excellent
24 sample size, and composition of sample pool with regard to the timing and severity of injury.
25 Some previous studies have reported including minor injuries (i.e., one-day away from
HARDINESS AND PERCEIVED STRESS-RELATED GROWTH 18
1 training or competition) and those that date back over 10 years to increase their sample size;
2 however, these have obvious limitations (e.g., memory recall). Finally, the current study also
3 observed not only whom is more likely to experience growth (i.e., those higher in hardiness)
4 but also how (i.e., using emotional support and positive reframing). These findings, therefore,
5 have important theoretical and applied implications. From a theoretical perspective, these
6 findings have extended Wiese-Bjornstal et al.s integrated model (1998) and identified the
7 potential application of the Joseph and Linleys (2005) OVT in the context of sport injury. In
8 terms of limitations of this study, shared method variance is one due to both the predictor and
9 criterion variables being assessed solely through self-report. When assessing psychological
11 athletes self-report (e.g., informant report, biological indices, and behavioral markers).
12 Another limitation of this study is its cross-sectional design. Although such designs are
14 provide causal associations. Prospective, longitudinal pre-to-post injury studies would also be
15 more desirable than cross-sectional designs in order to better understand the relationship
16 between hardiness and growth. A final limitation to this study is that it lacks depth in terms of
17 the coping strategies used and the perceived growth experienced by athletes both high and
18 low in hardiness.
19 There are several avenues for future research. First, future researchers should explore
20 in greater depth the terms used to describe positive life change in the context of sport injury
21 (e.g., post-traumatic growth, stress-related growth) and how they are distinguished (e.g.,
22 trauma vs. stress). Researchers should also further examine the relationship between
23 hardiness and growth, using prospective and experimental methodological designs. These
24 research designs will determine whether hardiness is truly a predictor of growth and not, for
25 example, an outcome of the recovery process. Following this, future research could attempt to
HARDINESS AND PERCEIVED STRESS-RELATED GROWTH 19
1 enhance the interpretability and meaningfulness of the present findings. For example, in
2 terms of emotional support, it would be interesting to explore how those athletes high in
3 hardiness use this coping strategy: Who do they disclose their emotions to? What was said?
4 When and where did the exchange(s) occur? How did it lead to perceived growth? Answers
5 to these questions will have important insights in the structure, timing and content of
6 interventions. To derive these insights, future researchers should employ methodologies (e.g.,
8 diaries or interviews) that enable injured athletes to tell their stories in their own words. As
9 well as exploring adaptive strategies used by athletes high in hardiness, future researchers
10 should also consider their counterparts (i.e., athletes low in hardiness), thereby identifying
11 what not to do. By examining adaptive and maladaptive strategies, these will help to provide
12 a more complete, balanced understanding for scholars and practitioners. This approach is
13 very much in line with the wider positive psychology agenda (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi,
14 2000). Indeed, While Accentuating the Positive, Dont Eliminate the Negative or Mr. In-
15 Between (Tennen & Affleck, 2003, p. 163). Finally, it would also be of interest to explore
16 why does perceived growth matter? What are its consequences? How does this concept affect
17 subjective well-being and sporting performance? Does making an injured athlete more
18 physical and mentally stronger than prior to his or her injury make them less prone to
19 reinjury? And by making them less prone to injury does this have economic implications for
21 Some individuals are even stronger after their traumatic event than before. These
22 people cost the [health] care even less, by being less prone to relapse, maybe even less
24 growth], and if we can teach the skill to others, the benefits to the nations health care
1 References
2 Bartone, P. T., Ursano, R. J., Wright, K. M., & Ingraham, L. H. (1989). The impact of a
3 military air disaster on the health of assistance workers. The Journal of Nervous and
5 Bianco, T., Malo, S., & Orlick, T. (1999). Sport injury and illness: Elite skiers describe their
6 experiences. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70, 157-169. doi:
7 10.1080/02701367.1999.10608033
8 Burke, S. M., & Sabiston, C. M. (2012). Fostering growth in the survivorship experience:
9 Investigating breast cancer survivors lived experiences scaling Mt. Kilimanjaro from
11 doi:10.1177/1359105310367530
12 Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocols too long: Consider the
14 doi:10.1207/s15327558ijbm0401_6
15 Carver, C. S. (1998). Resilience and thriving: Issues, models, and linkages. Journal of Social
17 Connaughton, D., Wadey, R., Hanton, S., & Jones, G. (2008). The development and
23 Ford, I. W., Eklund, R. C., & Gordon, S. (2000). An examination of psychosocial variables
24 moderating the relationship between life stress and injury time-loss among athletes of
HARDINESS AND PERCEIVED STRESS-RELATED GROWTH 21
2 40268
3 Ford, I. W., & Gordon, S. (1999). Coping with sport injury: Resource loss and the role of
5 doi:10.1080/10811449908409733
6 Galli, N., & Reel, J. J. (2012). Can good come from bad? An examination of adversarial
9 Gould, D., Udry, E., Bridges, D., & Beck, L. (1997). Coping with season-ending injuries. The
11 Grove, J. R., Stewart, R. M., & Gordon, S. (1990). Emotional reactions of athletes to knee
14 Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of
16 Hudson, J., & Day, M. (2012). Athletes' experiences of expressive writing about sports
18 10.1016/j.bbr.2011.03.031.
19 Hurley, O., Moran, A., & Guerin, S. (2007). Exploring athletes experience of their injuries:
22 Joseph, S., & Linley, P. A. (2005). Positive adjustment to threatening events: An organismic
24 280. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.3.262
HARDINESS AND PERCEIVED STRESS-RELATED GROWTH 22
1 Joseph, S., & Linley, P, A. (2006). Growth following adversity: Theoretical perspectives and
3 10.1016/j.cpr.2005.12.006
4 Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardiness.
6 3514.37.1.1
7 Kobasa, S, C., Maddi, R., & Kahn, S. (1982). Hardiness and health: A prospective study.
9 http://search.ebscohost.com
10 Maddi, S. R. (2002). The story of hardiness: Twenty years of theorizing, research, and
12 doi:10.1037/1061-4087.54.3.173
13 Maddi, S. R. (2006). Hardiness: The courage to grow from stresses. The Journal of Positive
15 McCalister, K. T., Dolber, C. L., Webster, J. A., Mallon, M. W., & Steinhardt, M. A. (2006).
16 Hardiness and support at work as predictors of work stress and job satisfaction.
18 20.3.183
20 Park C. L., Cohen L. H., & Murch R, L. (1996). Assessment and prediction of stress-related
23 return to sport following serious injury. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18, 44-
24 68. doi:10.1080/10413200500471319
HARDINESS AND PERCEIVED STRESS-RELATED GROWTH 23
1 Podlog, L., Dimmock, J., & Miller, J. (2011). A review of return to sport concerns following
4 Podlog, L., & Eklund, R. C. (2009). High level athletes perceptions of success in returning to
6 doi:10.1016/j.psycsport.2009.02.003
7 Podlog, L., Wadey, R., Stark, A., Lochbaum, M., Hannon, J. C., & Newton, M. (2013). An
10 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.12.005
11 Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
14 Ptacek, J. T., Smith, R. E., Espe. K., & Rafferty, B. (1994). Limited correspondence between
15 daily coping reports and retrospective coping recall. Psychological Assessment, 6, 41-
16 49. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.1.41
17 San Jose, A. (2003). Injury of elite athletes: Sport- and gender-related representations.
19 doi:10.1080/1612197X.2003.9671729
22 Smith, R. E., Leffingwell, T. R., & Ptacek, J. T. (1999). Can people remember how they
25 10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.1050
HARDINESS AND PERCEIVED STRESS-RELATED GROWTH 24
1 Smith, B., & Sparkes, A. (2005). Men, sport, spinal cord injury and narratives of hope. Social
3 Sparkes, A. C., & Smith, B. (2009). Judging the quality of quantitative inquiry: Criteriology
5 doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.02.006
6 Stanton, A. L., & Danoff-Burg, S. (2002). Emotional expression, expressive writing, and
7 cancer. In S. J. Lepore & J. M. Smyth (Eds.), The writing cure: How expressive
8 writing promotes health and emotional well-being (pp. 31-51). Washington, DC:
10 Steinhardt, M. A., Dolber, C. L., Gottlieb, N. H., & McCalister, K. T. (2003). The
11 relationship between hardiness, supervisor support, group cohesion, and job stress as
13 doi:10.4278/0890-1171-17.6.382
14 Tennen, H., & Affleck, G. (2003). While accentuating the positive, dont eliminate the
16 10.1080/17439760500373075
20 Udry, E., Gould, S., Bridges, D., & Beck, L. (1997). Down but not out: Athlete responses to
23 Ullrich, P. A., & Lutgendorf, S. L. (2002). Journaling about stressful events: Effects of
1 Wadey, R., Clark, S., Podlog, L., & McCullough, D. (2013). Coaches perceptions of
4 Wadey, R., Evans, L., Evans, K., & Mitchell, I. (2011). Perceived benefits following sport
7 doi:10.1080/104132002010.543119
8 Wadey, R., Evans. L., Hanton, S., & Neil, R. (2012a). An examination of hardiness
9 throughout the sport injury process. British Journal of Health Psychology, 17, 103-
10 128. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8287.2011.02025.x
11 Wadey, R., Evans, L., Hanton, S., & Neil, R. (2012b). An examination of hardiness
12 throughout the sport injury process: A qualitative follow-up study. British Journal of
14 Wiese-Bjornstal, D. M., Smith, A. M., Shaffer, S. M., & Morrey, M. A. (1998). An integrated
Emotional
8. 4.30 1.61 .36** .23** .22** .13 .29** .01 .44** -
support
9. Venting 4.70 1.00 -.03 .13 .11 .11 .12 .12 .15* .09 -
Positive
10. 4.45 1.61 .40** .17* .20** .07 .10* .11 .15* .23** .01 -
reframing
11. Planning 5.22 1.61 .22** .11 .12 .11 .10 .38** .40** .22** .16* .35** -
12. Acceptance 5.81 1.58 .12 -.02 .06 -.03 -.09 .15* .20** .17* .12 .27** .26** -