The Role of Resilience and Hardiness in Mental Health of
Transcript Of The Role of Resilience and Hardiness in Mental Health of
Bulletin of Environment, Pharmacology and Life Sciences Bull. Env. Pharmacol. Life Sci., Vol 4 [2] January 2015: 37-43 ©2014 Academy for Environment and Life Sciences, India Online ISSN 2277-1808 Journal’s URL:http://www.bepls.com CODEN: BEPLAD Global Impact Factor 0.533 Universal Impact Factor 0.9804
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The Role of Resilience and Hardiness in Mental Health of Athletes and Non- athletes
Mohammadreza Karamipour, Masoud Hejazi , Zahra Beheshti Yekta Department of Education, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, iran Department of Psychology, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, iran Department of Psychology, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, iran
*Corresponding author: D.R. Mohammadreza karamipour
ABSTRACT Based on theories of personality, the research considers the role of resilience and hardiness in mental health of athletes and non- athletes and compares the two groups. 300 men and women (n = 150 athletes and 150 non- athletes) who were selected by convenience sampling, were subjected. The Connor- Davidson Resilience Scale (CD- RIS), Ahvaz Hardiness Inventory (AHI ) and General Mental Health Questionnaire (GHQ) were employed to evaluate resilience, hardiness and mental health respectively. The data was analyzed through T- tests, Pearson correlation, multiple regression analysis, and multivariate analysis of variance. Two groups (athletes and non- athletes) differed significantly in resilience, hardiness and mental health. In addition, the results showed that there was a significant relationship between mental health and resilience and hardiness in both groups. It is more indicative in the research that resilience in company with hardiness could increase mental health of athletes and non- athletes. The findings revealed the importance and essentiality of hardiness and resilience in predicting mental health of the athletes and non- athletes. The research results indicated that the athletes had a higher rate of resilience, hardiness and mental health than those of the non- athlete group. Keywords: Resilience, Mental toughness, Mental health, Athlete and Non- athlete
Received 10.09.2014
Revised 01.11.2014
Accepted 28.12.2014
INTRODUCTION Mental health is the essential prerequisite. It is critical to improve the quality of human life . Undoubtedly, mental health plays a key role in ensuring the dynamism and efficiency of any community. Mental health is linked with the internal enabling features or internal sources of power. Despite the adverse conditions and negative events, benefiting from these internal resources increases people's ability of adaptive development to maintain their mental health. On the one hand, exercise plays an important role in mental health so that the slogan for World Health Day in 2002 was "Move for Health ". On the other hand, the application of psychology in sport has been specifically emphasized. Now, psychologists know very well that human mind is directly affected by physical condition of his body and mutually, his body and limbs actions are affected by his mental ambiance [1]. Hardiness and resilience are among the variables that can modulate the stress and adjust the adverse effects of life. In other words, resilience is the optimistic adaptation in response to adverse life circumstances [2]. A resilient person processes a bad situation more optimistically and perceives capabilities in him to deal with it. Certainly, the resilience is not steadiness against damage or threatening conditions and it is not passiveness in the face of dangerous conditions; rather, it is active and constructive participation in the environment. It is, also, the ability to balance one's bio-psychological life in dangerous condition. It can shield a person against the danger and the consequences of exposure to risk factors [3]. Resilience can be said to be a successful adaptation which is appeared in the battleground of sufferings and depilating stresses [4]. Early theories on the resilience emphasized on the characteristics associated with positive outcomes in the face of life's calamity and adversity. Later, these types of researches considered the external protective factors, such as efficient schools and relationships with supportive adults, to be effective in resilience recovery. Current theories regard resilience as multidimensional construction combined of natural variables [5]. Hardiness is another psychological construct
BEPLS Vol 4 [2] January 2015
37 | P a g e
©2015 AELS, INDIA
Karamipour et al
that may be predicative of mental health in people. Hardiness is a personality structure comprising the three related general dispositions of commitment, control, and challenge [8]. Believing in change, transformation, dynamism of life and the attitude that every event is not necessarily a threat to human health and safety, result in cognitive flexibility and tolerance to stressful events as well as ambiguous situations . Resilient people are fiercely committed to what they do and devote themselves to their goal. They feel they have got the mastery of the situations and they are the determinant. They consider the challenges and life changes as opportunities for progression and advancement but not limits or threat [6]. Hardiness acts as a shield against stress in various situations of life [6, 7]. Hardiness reduces the risk of stress- related physical illness, mental illness and functional- behavioral weakness through the activation of transformational coping strategies (active, determinative) instead of returning coping strategies (denial, avoidance). Studies showed that there is a positive relationship between the hardiness and physical health. Hardiness is a source of internal strength, which reduces the negative effects of stress [6]. Furthermore, resilience and hardiness showed significant negative correlation with anxiety and depression, suggesting that hard and resilient people can deal with variety of adverse effects [9]. The studies by Maddi and Hess [7] showed that athletes interpret the competitions to be less stressful and see them as manageable, challenging and ideal situations [10]. Studies are indicative of the fact that resilience and hardiness has a relationship with mental health in athletes non- athletes. Due to the above and based on theories of resilience and hardiness, it seems that athletes use more effective coping strategies in dealing with stressful situations – the strategies which reduce the risk of stress- related physical and mental illness as well as the behavioral and performance weakness and improves psychological wellbeing and mental health of the athletes. According what is said, the research is aimed to study the role of resilience and hardiness in mental health of athletes and non- athletes. Therefore, the following hypotheses were formulated and it was tried to test them through suitable statistical methods:
1) There is difference between athletes and non- athletes regarding resilience, hardiness and mental health.
2) Resilience and hardiness has a relationship with the mental health of the athletes and nonathletes.
METHOD The outline of the research was ex-post facto research (correlation, causal-comparative) in which, two groups of subjects (150 athletes and 150 non- athletes) were studied. Statistical population included athletes and non- athletes. Sampling method of the research was convenience sampling method. In the research, 300 subjects aged between 14 and 50 years participated in the study. Sampling was conducted for athletes in clubs and in Physical Training Organization of Iran. The study made use of ConnorDavidson inventories, Ahvaz Hardiness Inventory (AHI) and General Health Questionnaire. The questionnaires were provided to athletes and non- athletes. After describing the purpose of the study, they were asked to fill out the questionnaires. Data collection instruments Resilience inventories (CD- RIS): The scale was developed by Connor and Davidson (2003) going through the research literature of resilience circuit from 1991 to 1979. Psychometric properties of the scale were administered to the subjects in the 6 groups including community sample, primary care outpatients, general psychiatric outpatients, clinical trial of generalized anxiety disorder, and two clinical trials of PTSD. The developers of the scale believed that it soundly distinguishes those with greater resilience from those with lesser resilience in clinical and non- clinical groups and can be used in clinical and research situation. The scale comprises of 25 items, each being ranged in Likert scale from zero (completely false) to five (always true). Each test is scored by the sum of the values obtained out of the question. Therefore, a minimum and a maximum score a person can take in the test is 25 and 125 respectively. The scores are ranged from 0 to 100 with higher scores reflecting greater resilience. The results of factor analysis suggest that CD- RISC contains five factors taking account of perceived personal competence, confidence in personal instincts / tolerance of negative emotion, positive acceptance of change and safe relationships, control and spiritual effects. Connor and Davidson have concluded Cronbach's alpha coefficient to resilience scale at 0.89. Moreover, retest reliability coefficient of the method in a 4- week interval was 0.87. The scale was standardized by Mohammadi in Iran [11]. He used Cronbach's alpha to determine the reliability of Connor- Davidson Resilience Scale and reported the reliability coefficient at 0.89. The scores of Connor- Davidson Resilience Scale had significant positive correlation with kobasa's Hardiness scale. they have significant negative correlation with Perceived Stress Scale and Sheehan stress vulnerability scale. These results are indicative of the concurrent validity of the scale.
BEPLS Vol 4 [2] January 2015
38 | P a g e
©2015 AELS, INDIA
Karamipour et al
To determine the validity of this scale, first, correlation of each expression with total score of the category was calculated and then, factor analysis was employed. Correlation coefficient of each score with total score, except for item 3, was measured between 0.41 and 0.64. Subsequently, the scale statements were factor analyzed using principal component analysis. Before extraction of the factors, based on the correlation matrix, two indexes (KMO) and Bartlett's test of sphere city were calculated. KMO Value was 0.87 and the chi- square value in Bartlett test was 5556.28, both showing adequacy of evidence for factor analysis. Ahvaz Hardiness Inventory (AHI): This questionnaire was developed and validated in Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz by Kiamarthy, Najjarian and Mehrabizadeh- honarmand to assess psychological hardiness. The questionnaire contains 27 items. Every item has four options say "never", "rarely", "sometimes" and "often". Except for statements of 6, 21, 17, 13, 10, and 7, which are graded inversely for their negative loadings, values 0, 1, 2 and 3 are considered to score each item. Range of scores in this questionnaire is from 0 to 81, high scores indicating greater psychological hardiness in person.. Coefficients obtained at 0.65, 0.67 and 0.62 respectively and all the coefficients were significant at p < 0.001. In addition, concurrent validity was calculated for the construct definition of "psychological hardiness", in which, the validity of the results was satisfactory. General Health Questionnaire (GHQ): General Health Questionnaire was developed by Goldberg and Hiller (1979) . Based on self- reporting method, The questionnaire is an ideal screening device for identifying people with psychiatric disorders . The self-administered questionnaire focuses on two major areas: The inability to carry out normal functions, and the appearance of new and distressing phenomena. General Health Questionnaire can be considered as a set of questions consisting of the lowest levels of the common symptoms of the sickness in psychiatric disorders. So, it can discriminate psychiatric patients as a general category from those who consider themselves healthy . Therefore, it is not the purpose of this questionnaire to achieve a specific diagnosis of mental illness hierarchy. Rather, its main purpose is to create a distinction between mental illness and mental health. The questionnaire consists of four subscales: 1) somatic symptoms (physical symptoms), 2) anxiety and insomnia, 3 ) social dysfunction and 4 ) severe depression. The total score is the sum of the scores obtained. The existence of four subscales has been proven based on the statistical analysis (factor analysis) of the responses. 1) Subscale A considers about how people feel about their health status and their fatigue and take account of corporal symptoms. This subscale evaluates physical sensory perceptions often associated with emotional arousal. Items of this scale were marked with the letter A in the questionnaire. Numbers 1 to 7 are related to this scale. 2) Subscale B involves those which are associated with anxiety and insomnia. Seven items related to this scale (8 to 14) were marked with the letter B in this questionnaire. 3) The third subscale (C ) measures the scope of a person's ability against the professional challenges and everyday life problems and reveals their feelings about how to deal with common life situations. Seven items related to this subscale (15 to 21) in the questionnaire have been distinguished with the letter C. 4) Subscale D contains substances linked with severe depression and suicidal tendencies. Seven items distinctive of the scale are marked with the letter D in the questionnaire. The total score of an individual is obtained by the sum of four subscale scores. Scoring of the General Health Questionnaire is conventionally done in two ways: Goldberg scoring method (0- 0- 1- 1) that assigns a score of 0 for responses 1 and 2 and a score of 1 for responses 3 and 4 . In this case, the maximum score of a subject would be 28. Each scale construes any score exceeding the value of 6, and totally the scores above 22, as achieving casernes. The other way is Likert scoring method (0- 1- 2-3 ) , which assigns, from right to left, a score of 0 for response 1, a score of 1 for response 2, a score of 2 for response 3 and a score of 3 for response 4. In this procedure, the maximum score of a subject will be 84.
FINDINGS Table (1) shows statistical characteristics of subjects in accordance with their scores of resilience, hardiness and mental health in athletes and non- athletes.
Table 1. Mean and standard deviation of resilience, hardiness and mental health
Athletes
Non- athletes
Variable
Mean
SD
Variable
Mean
S D
resilience
72 / 85
11 / 54
resilience
47 / 69
16 / 04
Hardiness
54 / 41
10 / 12
Hardiness
39 / 01
12 / 35
Mental health 13 / 24
8 / 08
Mental health
27 / 50
12 / 64
BEPLS Vol 4 [2] January 2015
39 | P a g e
©2015 AELS, INDIA
Karamipour et al
Table 2 . The results of the multivariate analysis of variance comparing the resilience and mental health in
athletes and non- athletes
Sources of Index
Sum
of Degrees of Mean square Abundanc Significance
variation
squares
freedom
e
level
Effect
Resilience 46039.412
46039. 412 235. 825
Group
56420.698 1
159. 227
0. 000
Error
489
Effect
Mental
15236.813 1
15236. 813
Group
health
33577.373
112. 676
135. 227 0. 000
Error
489
In Table ( 2) the results of multivariate variance analysis on comparing resilience and mental health
showed that since the value of F is equal to 84/ 235 with the freedom degree of (1 and 289) , it is
significant as to item resilience at the alpha level of 0.05 . Therefore, we can conclude that there is a
significant difference between resilience of athletes and that of non- athletes. Comparing the mean of two
groups (Table 1) showed that resilience mean of athletes was greater than that of non- athletes. The
results of multivariate analysis of variance on mental health also showed that since F-value is equal to
135 / 227 ,with the freedom degree of (1 and 289), it is significant as to item mental health at the alpha
level of 0.01. Thus, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference between mental health of
athletes and that of non- athletes. Comparing the mean of the two groups (Table 1) indicated that mental
health mean of athletes was greater than that of non- athletes.
Table 3 . Results of independent t-test compared to hardiness in athletes and non- athletes
Group
Count Mean
Standard T
Degree of Significance
deviation
freedom level
Athletes
150
58. 413
10. 1208
14. 878
0.000
Hardiness Non- athletes 150
39. 013
12. 353
298
As the data results of independent T-test shows in able 3, the item hardiness is significant at Alpha level of
0.05 because T value equals to 14.878 and degrees of freedom is 298. Therefore, we can conclude that
there is a significant difference between athletes and non- athletes in hardiness. The comparison of the
mean of the two groups (Table 1) indicated that hardiness mean of athletes was greater than that of non-
athletes.
Table 4. The results of the Pearson correlation matrix regarding the relationship between resilience and
hardiness in athletes and non- athletes
Variable
1
2
3
Resilience
1
Athletes
Hardiness
0. 730 ** 1
Mental health
- 0. 673** - 0. 632 ** 1
Non- athletes
Resilience Hardiness Mental health
1 0. 812** 1 - 0. 670 ** -0 .677** 1
Table (4) : According to table 4, r value equals to - 0.673 athletes and -0.670 non- athletes and that, concerning the relationship between resilience and mental health, r is -0.632 athletes and -0.677 nonathletes. So, the relationship between hardiness and mental health is significant at 0.5. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected and the research hypothesis is confirmed by 95 percent. In other words, the resilience and hardiness of athletes and non- athletes bear a significant relationship and this relationship is negative and reversed. That is to say, as the amount of resilience and hardiness increases in the athletes and non-athletes, their mental health is improved and vice versa.
Table 5. Hierarchical regression analysis
athletes through resilience and hardiness
Athletes
Sum of squares
Model 1 Model 2
Regression 4353. 65
Remaining 5265. 68
Total
9619. 33
Regression 4739. 41
Remaining 4879. 92
Total
9619. 33
of variance predicting mental
Degree of freedom 1 143 144 2 142 144
Mean of squares
4353. 657 36. 823
2369. 708 34. 366
health of
F 118 / 232 68 / 956
athletes and non-
Significance level 0 / 000a
0 / 000b
BEPLS Vol 4 [2] January 2015
40 | P a g e
©2015 AELS, INDIA
Non- athletes Model 1
Model 2
Sum of squares
Regression 10417. 89
Remaining 12761. 61
Total
23179. 50
Regression 11705. 30
Remaining 11474. 44
Total
23179. 50
Karamipour et al
Degree of Mean of squares
freedom
1
10417. 894
144
88. 622
145
2
5852. 542
143
80. 242
145
F 117.554 72. 937
Significance level 0. 000a 0. 000b
Table 6. Hierarchical regression coefficients of the variables predicting mental health of athletes and nonathletes from athletes and non- athletes
β standard T value Sig R R 2
Not standardized coefficients β standard deviation
Variable
Criterion variable Model
Mental health of athletes
1 Dependent Resilience
2 Dependent Resilience Hardiness
1 Dependent Resilience
2 Dependent Resilience Hardiness
47. 87 3 .23 0. 04 - 0. 47 3. 22 50. 60 0. 06 - 0 .32 0. 07 - 0. 23 52. 55 2. 45 - 0. 52 0. 04 56. 53 2. 53 - 0. 27 0.08 - 0. 41 0 .10
-0 . 673
-0 .459 -0. 293 -0.670 -0.342 -0.404
14.821 -10.873 15.690 -5.245 -3.350 21.410 -10.842 22 .270 - 3 .395 - 4 .005
0 .000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 001 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 001 0. 000
0.673a .0702b
0.453
0.670a
0.449
0.711b
0.505
Mental health of nonathletes
Table (5) and (6): The findings of these tables show that the F-value calculated for regression analysis is significant at (P < 0 / 50). Therefore, the studied regression is statistically significant. According to the regression results, firstly, resilience was involved and explained, by itself 45 / 3 percent of the athlete's mental health variance as well as 44 / 9 percent of the non- athlete's mental health variance. Based on standardized beta coefficients, by any unit change in variance, resilience makes a significant difference in mental health in the amount of 0/ 673 (athletes) and 0/ 670 (non- athletes). Secondly, when hardiness is included on the account, variance increased to 49 /3 percent (athletes) and 50/5 percent (non- athletes) meaning that resilience together with hardiness can be more explanative in the improvement of the mental health of the athletes and non- athletes.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The results showed that resilience and hardiness have a significant relationship with mental health in the athletes and non- athletes. This means that resilience, hardiness and mental health of athletes were much than those of non- athletes. The findings also revealed that resilience and hardiness can predict changes related to psychological well-being in athletes and non- athletes. The correlation between variables indicated that as resilience and hardiness increase, the psychological and mental health of athletes and non- athletes increases as well. Resilience in company with hardiness can be more explanative in the improvement of mental health of athletes and non- athletes. According to this explanation, resilience results in positive adaptation through enhanced self-esteem as a mediated mechanism. This positive psychological feature helps the athlete to confidently increase his chances of success by enduring hardship and by positive conformity with grim experiences of contest [5, 12]. As their basic features, which increase their health, resilient people have more social power, develop remarkable problem solving ability, express greater self-determination and display stronger sense of purpose than the ordinary people. By strengthening competence and personal strength, resilience is linked with sporting success and mental health indicators [13]. Proportional to the tolerance of negative emotions, the athletes will be able to increase their probability of success in the action by focusing and guiding the mental forces and optimal use of technical and tactical abilities. it was proven that athletes have more resilience and that, resilient people express greater optimism and have more positive emotions than non- athletes. Therefore, athletes have better mental health and can be more successful in their life because these two factors increase their perseverance when faced with difficult problems of life . Controlling is another component of resilience, which helps individuals to manage stressful situations and not only survive in the trials and tribulations of life but also achieve a new level of balance and positive growth. Controlling causes the athlete to get the mastery of the situations and that he is decisive. Sense of
BEPLS Vol 4 [2] January 2015
41 | P a g e
©2015 AELS, INDIA
Karamipour et al
dominating the situation causes the athlete to believe that his efforts will affect the life situations and he can change the course of events and determine the outcome of the match [15]. As a component of resilience, spirituality as a shield can increase a person's resistance to the stress of life on the one hand, and lead to excellence and perfection through positive adaptation on the other. Hard personality of the athletes causes them to devote themselves to the goals of sports and identify the suitable ways to achieve the goal through their commitment to the sport functions. Hardiness, also, causes the athlete to get the mastery of the situations through other component of hardiness say control and that he can be decisive. Championship makes the athlete to welcome stressful and dangerous sport situations instead of avoidance and passive resignation [6]. Furthermore, hardiness is indicative of a person's confidence in his ability to deal with various conditions. It increases independence and self-abidance and enhances performance. It also leads to a better life and improves conformity [14]. Resilient and hard people take use of active way of solving problem (the way that change the stress into a safe experience) to deal with problems. Therefore, in the face of adverse events, resilient and hard people have minimal risk level and alarm. To explain the relationship between mental health and resilience and hardiness, it can be said that since athletes do sport, they develop more low-fat muscle tissue and consequently improve the proportion of High-density lipoprotein (HDL) to Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) commonly referred as good cholesterol and bad cholesterol levels respectively. This in turn reduces the risk of heart disease and protects the body against some types of cancer. In addition, people who exercise regularly, experience less anxiety and depression and feel better. This may be partly due to the release of sedative endocrine substances (enkephalins and endorphins) when mobility and exercise. It leads to a better mood. Resilience and hardiness have a relationship with mental and corporal health and, as an internal resistance, reduce the negative effects of stress. They prevent physical and mental disorders [16]. Kobasa and colleagues [8] stated that people who are under high stress but do not get sick, have a hard- working construct. In general we can say that sports activities can increase psychological resilience and hardiness of an individual. It seems that in sports, there are basis that can help and strengthen resilience and hardiness and pave the way for developing talents and better understanding of human abilities and bring safety, freshness, happiness, and relaxation. These basis control stress and result in happiness and mental health through creating pleasant and favorable environment and reducing muscle strain and eliminating weakness and debility. In other words, we can say that exercise increases an athlete's physical and mental ability and brings about resilience and hardiness. Given the role of exercise in enhancing resilience and hardiness, it is recommended that Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting and educational institutions in cooperation with counselors and psychologists develop programs and plans about the role of the sports in resilience and hardiness as well as in improvement of public health to improve resilience and hardiness. In addition, it is proposed that researches be conducted on the subject by age, sex and education. It is because; resilience, hardiness and mental health are affected by age, sex and education. Moreover, researches are to be done and compared in order to identify factors affecting the relationship between mental health and resilience and hardiness in athletes and non- athletes,
REFERENCES 1. Zahid Babolan, A., Ghasempour, A. and Hassan-zadeh, Sh. ( 2011). The study of the Intermediary Role of
Psychological Hardiness in the Relationship of Forgiveness and humor with athletes' hope. Journal of Motor Behavior and Sport Psychology, 8, 130- 115. 2. Waller , M . A. (2009 ) . Resilience Factor related to substance use. Journal of sociology and social welfare ,103105 . 3. Saidi - Moghadam, M. (2012). The Relationship of academic self-efficacy, achievement motivation and resilience with mental health of students. M. A. Thesis, University of Tehran. 4. Carter, K . (2010). African American caregiver resilience: resources, vulnerabilities, coping and well- being among caregiver of persons with chronic illness . Dissertation abstract international, Washington university , refer to: http : // www. Opean scholarship. Wustl. Edu / etd. 5. Basharat, M. A. Salehi, M., Shah Mohammadi, Kh., Nad -ali, Hussein and Zebardast, Azra. (2008 ). The relationship of Resilience and Hard-working with Mental Health and Sporting Success of Athletes. Contemporary psychology, third round, No. 2. 6. Kobasa, S .C ; Maddi, S .R ;&Kahn,S . (1982) .Hardiness and health: a prospective study. Journal of Personality and social psychology, 42, 168- 177 . 7. Maddi, S . R . and Khoshaba, D . M . (1994) . Hardiness and mental health .Journal of personality assessment , 63 , ( 2 ) , 265- 274 . 8. Kobasa , S.C. (1979) . Stressful life events, personality and health: and inquiry in to hardiness. Journal of personality and social psychology ,37,1-11 .
BEPLS Vol 4 [2] January 2015
42 | P a g e
©2015 AELS, INDIA
Karamipour et al
9. Rahimian- bugar A. Asgharnejad- farid A. A. ( 2008). The Relationship between Mental Health and Psychological Hardiness and Self- resilience in Young and Adult Survivors of Bam Earthquake. psychiatry and clinical psychology in Iran, 14, 70- 62.
10. Golby, J . and Sheard, M . (2004 ) . Mental toughness and hardiness at different level of rugby league. Journal of personality and individual differences, 37, 933- 942 .
11. Mohammadi, M. (2005 ). Factors Affecting the Resilience of People at Risk of Drug Abuse. The letters PhD in clinical psychology, University of Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences.
12. Zolkoski, S . M .( 2012 ). Resilience & Bullock , L . M. in children and youth. Children and youth services review , (34) ,2295 – 2303.
13. Walsh, Froma. (2008). Strengthening the Family Resilience. Translated by Mohsen Dehghani et al (2011), Tehran: Danzheh Publication.
14. Shir- bim, Z., Sorani, M. and Shafi- Abadi, A. (2009 ). The Relationship between Psychological Hardiness and mental health of the students. A journal of thoughts and behavior, age 4, No. 13.
15. Richardson , G . E . (2002 ) . The metatheory of resilience and resilience .journal of clinical psychology ,58 , 307 – 321 .
16. Almedon,A . M. (2005) . Resilience , hardiness , sense of coherence, and posttraumatic growth: all paths leading to “ light at the end of the tunnel. Journal of loss and trauma , ( 10 ), 253- 265.
CITATION OF THIS ARTICLE Mohammadreza K, Masoud H , Zahra B Y. The Role of Resilience and Hardiness in Mental Health of Athletes and Nonathletes. Bull. Env. Pharmacol. Life Sci., Vol 4 [2] January 2015: 37-43
BEPLS Vol 4 [2] January 2015
43 | P a g e
©2015 AELS, INDIA
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The Role of Resilience and Hardiness in Mental Health of Athletes and Non- athletes
Mohammadreza Karamipour, Masoud Hejazi , Zahra Beheshti Yekta Department of Education, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, iran Department of Psychology, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, iran Department of Psychology, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan, iran
*Corresponding author: D.R. Mohammadreza karamipour
ABSTRACT Based on theories of personality, the research considers the role of resilience and hardiness in mental health of athletes and non- athletes and compares the two groups. 300 men and women (n = 150 athletes and 150 non- athletes) who were selected by convenience sampling, were subjected. The Connor- Davidson Resilience Scale (CD- RIS), Ahvaz Hardiness Inventory (AHI ) and General Mental Health Questionnaire (GHQ) were employed to evaluate resilience, hardiness and mental health respectively. The data was analyzed through T- tests, Pearson correlation, multiple regression analysis, and multivariate analysis of variance. Two groups (athletes and non- athletes) differed significantly in resilience, hardiness and mental health. In addition, the results showed that there was a significant relationship between mental health and resilience and hardiness in both groups. It is more indicative in the research that resilience in company with hardiness could increase mental health of athletes and non- athletes. The findings revealed the importance and essentiality of hardiness and resilience in predicting mental health of the athletes and non- athletes. The research results indicated that the athletes had a higher rate of resilience, hardiness and mental health than those of the non- athlete group. Keywords: Resilience, Mental toughness, Mental health, Athlete and Non- athlete
Received 10.09.2014
Revised 01.11.2014
Accepted 28.12.2014
INTRODUCTION Mental health is the essential prerequisite. It is critical to improve the quality of human life . Undoubtedly, mental health plays a key role in ensuring the dynamism and efficiency of any community. Mental health is linked with the internal enabling features or internal sources of power. Despite the adverse conditions and negative events, benefiting from these internal resources increases people's ability of adaptive development to maintain their mental health. On the one hand, exercise plays an important role in mental health so that the slogan for World Health Day in 2002 was "Move for Health ". On the other hand, the application of psychology in sport has been specifically emphasized. Now, psychologists know very well that human mind is directly affected by physical condition of his body and mutually, his body and limbs actions are affected by his mental ambiance [1]. Hardiness and resilience are among the variables that can modulate the stress and adjust the adverse effects of life. In other words, resilience is the optimistic adaptation in response to adverse life circumstances [2]. A resilient person processes a bad situation more optimistically and perceives capabilities in him to deal with it. Certainly, the resilience is not steadiness against damage or threatening conditions and it is not passiveness in the face of dangerous conditions; rather, it is active and constructive participation in the environment. It is, also, the ability to balance one's bio-psychological life in dangerous condition. It can shield a person against the danger and the consequences of exposure to risk factors [3]. Resilience can be said to be a successful adaptation which is appeared in the battleground of sufferings and depilating stresses [4]. Early theories on the resilience emphasized on the characteristics associated with positive outcomes in the face of life's calamity and adversity. Later, these types of researches considered the external protective factors, such as efficient schools and relationships with supportive adults, to be effective in resilience recovery. Current theories regard resilience as multidimensional construction combined of natural variables [5]. Hardiness is another psychological construct
BEPLS Vol 4 [2] January 2015
37 | P a g e
©2015 AELS, INDIA
Karamipour et al
that may be predicative of mental health in people. Hardiness is a personality structure comprising the three related general dispositions of commitment, control, and challenge [8]. Believing in change, transformation, dynamism of life and the attitude that every event is not necessarily a threat to human health and safety, result in cognitive flexibility and tolerance to stressful events as well as ambiguous situations . Resilient people are fiercely committed to what they do and devote themselves to their goal. They feel they have got the mastery of the situations and they are the determinant. They consider the challenges and life changes as opportunities for progression and advancement but not limits or threat [6]. Hardiness acts as a shield against stress in various situations of life [6, 7]. Hardiness reduces the risk of stress- related physical illness, mental illness and functional- behavioral weakness through the activation of transformational coping strategies (active, determinative) instead of returning coping strategies (denial, avoidance). Studies showed that there is a positive relationship between the hardiness and physical health. Hardiness is a source of internal strength, which reduces the negative effects of stress [6]. Furthermore, resilience and hardiness showed significant negative correlation with anxiety and depression, suggesting that hard and resilient people can deal with variety of adverse effects [9]. The studies by Maddi and Hess [7] showed that athletes interpret the competitions to be less stressful and see them as manageable, challenging and ideal situations [10]. Studies are indicative of the fact that resilience and hardiness has a relationship with mental health in athletes non- athletes. Due to the above and based on theories of resilience and hardiness, it seems that athletes use more effective coping strategies in dealing with stressful situations – the strategies which reduce the risk of stress- related physical and mental illness as well as the behavioral and performance weakness and improves psychological wellbeing and mental health of the athletes. According what is said, the research is aimed to study the role of resilience and hardiness in mental health of athletes and non- athletes. Therefore, the following hypotheses were formulated and it was tried to test them through suitable statistical methods:
1) There is difference between athletes and non- athletes regarding resilience, hardiness and mental health.
2) Resilience and hardiness has a relationship with the mental health of the athletes and nonathletes.
METHOD The outline of the research was ex-post facto research (correlation, causal-comparative) in which, two groups of subjects (150 athletes and 150 non- athletes) were studied. Statistical population included athletes and non- athletes. Sampling method of the research was convenience sampling method. In the research, 300 subjects aged between 14 and 50 years participated in the study. Sampling was conducted for athletes in clubs and in Physical Training Organization of Iran. The study made use of ConnorDavidson inventories, Ahvaz Hardiness Inventory (AHI) and General Health Questionnaire. The questionnaires were provided to athletes and non- athletes. After describing the purpose of the study, they were asked to fill out the questionnaires. Data collection instruments Resilience inventories (CD- RIS): The scale was developed by Connor and Davidson (2003) going through the research literature of resilience circuit from 1991 to 1979. Psychometric properties of the scale were administered to the subjects in the 6 groups including community sample, primary care outpatients, general psychiatric outpatients, clinical trial of generalized anxiety disorder, and two clinical trials of PTSD. The developers of the scale believed that it soundly distinguishes those with greater resilience from those with lesser resilience in clinical and non- clinical groups and can be used in clinical and research situation. The scale comprises of 25 items, each being ranged in Likert scale from zero (completely false) to five (always true). Each test is scored by the sum of the values obtained out of the question. Therefore, a minimum and a maximum score a person can take in the test is 25 and 125 respectively. The scores are ranged from 0 to 100 with higher scores reflecting greater resilience. The results of factor analysis suggest that CD- RISC contains five factors taking account of perceived personal competence, confidence in personal instincts / tolerance of negative emotion, positive acceptance of change and safe relationships, control and spiritual effects. Connor and Davidson have concluded Cronbach's alpha coefficient to resilience scale at 0.89. Moreover, retest reliability coefficient of the method in a 4- week interval was 0.87. The scale was standardized by Mohammadi in Iran [11]. He used Cronbach's alpha to determine the reliability of Connor- Davidson Resilience Scale and reported the reliability coefficient at 0.89. The scores of Connor- Davidson Resilience Scale had significant positive correlation with kobasa's Hardiness scale. they have significant negative correlation with Perceived Stress Scale and Sheehan stress vulnerability scale. These results are indicative of the concurrent validity of the scale.
BEPLS Vol 4 [2] January 2015
38 | P a g e
©2015 AELS, INDIA
Karamipour et al
To determine the validity of this scale, first, correlation of each expression with total score of the category was calculated and then, factor analysis was employed. Correlation coefficient of each score with total score, except for item 3, was measured between 0.41 and 0.64. Subsequently, the scale statements were factor analyzed using principal component analysis. Before extraction of the factors, based on the correlation matrix, two indexes (KMO) and Bartlett's test of sphere city were calculated. KMO Value was 0.87 and the chi- square value in Bartlett test was 5556.28, both showing adequacy of evidence for factor analysis. Ahvaz Hardiness Inventory (AHI): This questionnaire was developed and validated in Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz by Kiamarthy, Najjarian and Mehrabizadeh- honarmand to assess psychological hardiness. The questionnaire contains 27 items. Every item has four options say "never", "rarely", "sometimes" and "often". Except for statements of 6, 21, 17, 13, 10, and 7, which are graded inversely for their negative loadings, values 0, 1, 2 and 3 are considered to score each item. Range of scores in this questionnaire is from 0 to 81, high scores indicating greater psychological hardiness in person.. Coefficients obtained at 0.65, 0.67 and 0.62 respectively and all the coefficients were significant at p < 0.001. In addition, concurrent validity was calculated for the construct definition of "psychological hardiness", in which, the validity of the results was satisfactory. General Health Questionnaire (GHQ): General Health Questionnaire was developed by Goldberg and Hiller (1979) . Based on self- reporting method, The questionnaire is an ideal screening device for identifying people with psychiatric disorders . The self-administered questionnaire focuses on two major areas: The inability to carry out normal functions, and the appearance of new and distressing phenomena. General Health Questionnaire can be considered as a set of questions consisting of the lowest levels of the common symptoms of the sickness in psychiatric disorders. So, it can discriminate psychiatric patients as a general category from those who consider themselves healthy . Therefore, it is not the purpose of this questionnaire to achieve a specific diagnosis of mental illness hierarchy. Rather, its main purpose is to create a distinction between mental illness and mental health. The questionnaire consists of four subscales: 1) somatic symptoms (physical symptoms), 2) anxiety and insomnia, 3 ) social dysfunction and 4 ) severe depression. The total score is the sum of the scores obtained. The existence of four subscales has been proven based on the statistical analysis (factor analysis) of the responses. 1) Subscale A considers about how people feel about their health status and their fatigue and take account of corporal symptoms. This subscale evaluates physical sensory perceptions often associated with emotional arousal. Items of this scale were marked with the letter A in the questionnaire. Numbers 1 to 7 are related to this scale. 2) Subscale B involves those which are associated with anxiety and insomnia. Seven items related to this scale (8 to 14) were marked with the letter B in this questionnaire. 3) The third subscale (C ) measures the scope of a person's ability against the professional challenges and everyday life problems and reveals their feelings about how to deal with common life situations. Seven items related to this subscale (15 to 21) in the questionnaire have been distinguished with the letter C. 4) Subscale D contains substances linked with severe depression and suicidal tendencies. Seven items distinctive of the scale are marked with the letter D in the questionnaire. The total score of an individual is obtained by the sum of four subscale scores. Scoring of the General Health Questionnaire is conventionally done in two ways: Goldberg scoring method (0- 0- 1- 1) that assigns a score of 0 for responses 1 and 2 and a score of 1 for responses 3 and 4 . In this case, the maximum score of a subject would be 28. Each scale construes any score exceeding the value of 6, and totally the scores above 22, as achieving casernes. The other way is Likert scoring method (0- 1- 2-3 ) , which assigns, from right to left, a score of 0 for response 1, a score of 1 for response 2, a score of 2 for response 3 and a score of 3 for response 4. In this procedure, the maximum score of a subject will be 84.
FINDINGS Table (1) shows statistical characteristics of subjects in accordance with their scores of resilience, hardiness and mental health in athletes and non- athletes.
Table 1. Mean and standard deviation of resilience, hardiness and mental health
Athletes
Non- athletes
Variable
Mean
SD
Variable
Mean
S D
resilience
72 / 85
11 / 54
resilience
47 / 69
16 / 04
Hardiness
54 / 41
10 / 12
Hardiness
39 / 01
12 / 35
Mental health 13 / 24
8 / 08
Mental health
27 / 50
12 / 64
BEPLS Vol 4 [2] January 2015
39 | P a g e
©2015 AELS, INDIA
Karamipour et al
Table 2 . The results of the multivariate analysis of variance comparing the resilience and mental health in
athletes and non- athletes
Sources of Index
Sum
of Degrees of Mean square Abundanc Significance
variation
squares
freedom
e
level
Effect
Resilience 46039.412
46039. 412 235. 825
Group
56420.698 1
159. 227
0. 000
Error
489
Effect
Mental
15236.813 1
15236. 813
Group
health
33577.373
112. 676
135. 227 0. 000
Error
489
In Table ( 2) the results of multivariate variance analysis on comparing resilience and mental health
showed that since the value of F is equal to 84/ 235 with the freedom degree of (1 and 289) , it is
significant as to item resilience at the alpha level of 0.05 . Therefore, we can conclude that there is a
significant difference between resilience of athletes and that of non- athletes. Comparing the mean of two
groups (Table 1) showed that resilience mean of athletes was greater than that of non- athletes. The
results of multivariate analysis of variance on mental health also showed that since F-value is equal to
135 / 227 ,with the freedom degree of (1 and 289), it is significant as to item mental health at the alpha
level of 0.01. Thus, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference between mental health of
athletes and that of non- athletes. Comparing the mean of the two groups (Table 1) indicated that mental
health mean of athletes was greater than that of non- athletes.
Table 3 . Results of independent t-test compared to hardiness in athletes and non- athletes
Group
Count Mean
Standard T
Degree of Significance
deviation
freedom level
Athletes
150
58. 413
10. 1208
14. 878
0.000
Hardiness Non- athletes 150
39. 013
12. 353
298
As the data results of independent T-test shows in able 3, the item hardiness is significant at Alpha level of
0.05 because T value equals to 14.878 and degrees of freedom is 298. Therefore, we can conclude that
there is a significant difference between athletes and non- athletes in hardiness. The comparison of the
mean of the two groups (Table 1) indicated that hardiness mean of athletes was greater than that of non-
athletes.
Table 4. The results of the Pearson correlation matrix regarding the relationship between resilience and
hardiness in athletes and non- athletes
Variable
1
2
3
Resilience
1
Athletes
Hardiness
0. 730 ** 1
Mental health
- 0. 673** - 0. 632 ** 1
Non- athletes
Resilience Hardiness Mental health
1 0. 812** 1 - 0. 670 ** -0 .677** 1
Table (4) : According to table 4, r value equals to - 0.673 athletes and -0.670 non- athletes and that, concerning the relationship between resilience and mental health, r is -0.632 athletes and -0.677 nonathletes. So, the relationship between hardiness and mental health is significant at 0.5. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected and the research hypothesis is confirmed by 95 percent. In other words, the resilience and hardiness of athletes and non- athletes bear a significant relationship and this relationship is negative and reversed. That is to say, as the amount of resilience and hardiness increases in the athletes and non-athletes, their mental health is improved and vice versa.
Table 5. Hierarchical regression analysis
athletes through resilience and hardiness
Athletes
Sum of squares
Model 1 Model 2
Regression 4353. 65
Remaining 5265. 68
Total
9619. 33
Regression 4739. 41
Remaining 4879. 92
Total
9619. 33
of variance predicting mental
Degree of freedom 1 143 144 2 142 144
Mean of squares
4353. 657 36. 823
2369. 708 34. 366
health of
F 118 / 232 68 / 956
athletes and non-
Significance level 0 / 000a
0 / 000b
BEPLS Vol 4 [2] January 2015
40 | P a g e
©2015 AELS, INDIA
Non- athletes Model 1
Model 2
Sum of squares
Regression 10417. 89
Remaining 12761. 61
Total
23179. 50
Regression 11705. 30
Remaining 11474. 44
Total
23179. 50
Karamipour et al
Degree of Mean of squares
freedom
1
10417. 894
144
88. 622
145
2
5852. 542
143
80. 242
145
F 117.554 72. 937
Significance level 0. 000a 0. 000b
Table 6. Hierarchical regression coefficients of the variables predicting mental health of athletes and nonathletes from athletes and non- athletes
β standard T value Sig R R 2
Not standardized coefficients β standard deviation
Variable
Criterion variable Model
Mental health of athletes
1 Dependent Resilience
2 Dependent Resilience Hardiness
1 Dependent Resilience
2 Dependent Resilience Hardiness
47. 87 3 .23 0. 04 - 0. 47 3. 22 50. 60 0. 06 - 0 .32 0. 07 - 0. 23 52. 55 2. 45 - 0. 52 0. 04 56. 53 2. 53 - 0. 27 0.08 - 0. 41 0 .10
-0 . 673
-0 .459 -0. 293 -0.670 -0.342 -0.404
14.821 -10.873 15.690 -5.245 -3.350 21.410 -10.842 22 .270 - 3 .395 - 4 .005
0 .000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 001 0. 000 0. 000 0. 000 0. 001 0. 000
0.673a .0702b
0.453
0.670a
0.449
0.711b
0.505
Mental health of nonathletes
Table (5) and (6): The findings of these tables show that the F-value calculated for regression analysis is significant at (P < 0 / 50). Therefore, the studied regression is statistically significant. According to the regression results, firstly, resilience was involved and explained, by itself 45 / 3 percent of the athlete's mental health variance as well as 44 / 9 percent of the non- athlete's mental health variance. Based on standardized beta coefficients, by any unit change in variance, resilience makes a significant difference in mental health in the amount of 0/ 673 (athletes) and 0/ 670 (non- athletes). Secondly, when hardiness is included on the account, variance increased to 49 /3 percent (athletes) and 50/5 percent (non- athletes) meaning that resilience together with hardiness can be more explanative in the improvement of the mental health of the athletes and non- athletes.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The results showed that resilience and hardiness have a significant relationship with mental health in the athletes and non- athletes. This means that resilience, hardiness and mental health of athletes were much than those of non- athletes. The findings also revealed that resilience and hardiness can predict changes related to psychological well-being in athletes and non- athletes. The correlation between variables indicated that as resilience and hardiness increase, the psychological and mental health of athletes and non- athletes increases as well. Resilience in company with hardiness can be more explanative in the improvement of mental health of athletes and non- athletes. According to this explanation, resilience results in positive adaptation through enhanced self-esteem as a mediated mechanism. This positive psychological feature helps the athlete to confidently increase his chances of success by enduring hardship and by positive conformity with grim experiences of contest [5, 12]. As their basic features, which increase their health, resilient people have more social power, develop remarkable problem solving ability, express greater self-determination and display stronger sense of purpose than the ordinary people. By strengthening competence and personal strength, resilience is linked with sporting success and mental health indicators [13]. Proportional to the tolerance of negative emotions, the athletes will be able to increase their probability of success in the action by focusing and guiding the mental forces and optimal use of technical and tactical abilities. it was proven that athletes have more resilience and that, resilient people express greater optimism and have more positive emotions than non- athletes. Therefore, athletes have better mental health and can be more successful in their life because these two factors increase their perseverance when faced with difficult problems of life . Controlling is another component of resilience, which helps individuals to manage stressful situations and not only survive in the trials and tribulations of life but also achieve a new level of balance and positive growth. Controlling causes the athlete to get the mastery of the situations and that he is decisive. Sense of
BEPLS Vol 4 [2] January 2015
41 | P a g e
©2015 AELS, INDIA
Karamipour et al
dominating the situation causes the athlete to believe that his efforts will affect the life situations and he can change the course of events and determine the outcome of the match [15]. As a component of resilience, spirituality as a shield can increase a person's resistance to the stress of life on the one hand, and lead to excellence and perfection through positive adaptation on the other. Hard personality of the athletes causes them to devote themselves to the goals of sports and identify the suitable ways to achieve the goal through their commitment to the sport functions. Hardiness, also, causes the athlete to get the mastery of the situations through other component of hardiness say control and that he can be decisive. Championship makes the athlete to welcome stressful and dangerous sport situations instead of avoidance and passive resignation [6]. Furthermore, hardiness is indicative of a person's confidence in his ability to deal with various conditions. It increases independence and self-abidance and enhances performance. It also leads to a better life and improves conformity [14]. Resilient and hard people take use of active way of solving problem (the way that change the stress into a safe experience) to deal with problems. Therefore, in the face of adverse events, resilient and hard people have minimal risk level and alarm. To explain the relationship between mental health and resilience and hardiness, it can be said that since athletes do sport, they develop more low-fat muscle tissue and consequently improve the proportion of High-density lipoprotein (HDL) to Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) commonly referred as good cholesterol and bad cholesterol levels respectively. This in turn reduces the risk of heart disease and protects the body against some types of cancer. In addition, people who exercise regularly, experience less anxiety and depression and feel better. This may be partly due to the release of sedative endocrine substances (enkephalins and endorphins) when mobility and exercise. It leads to a better mood. Resilience and hardiness have a relationship with mental and corporal health and, as an internal resistance, reduce the negative effects of stress. They prevent physical and mental disorders [16]. Kobasa and colleagues [8] stated that people who are under high stress but do not get sick, have a hard- working construct. In general we can say that sports activities can increase psychological resilience and hardiness of an individual. It seems that in sports, there are basis that can help and strengthen resilience and hardiness and pave the way for developing talents and better understanding of human abilities and bring safety, freshness, happiness, and relaxation. These basis control stress and result in happiness and mental health through creating pleasant and favorable environment and reducing muscle strain and eliminating weakness and debility. In other words, we can say that exercise increases an athlete's physical and mental ability and brings about resilience and hardiness. Given the role of exercise in enhancing resilience and hardiness, it is recommended that Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting and educational institutions in cooperation with counselors and psychologists develop programs and plans about the role of the sports in resilience and hardiness as well as in improvement of public health to improve resilience and hardiness. In addition, it is proposed that researches be conducted on the subject by age, sex and education. It is because; resilience, hardiness and mental health are affected by age, sex and education. Moreover, researches are to be done and compared in order to identify factors affecting the relationship between mental health and resilience and hardiness in athletes and non- athletes,
REFERENCES 1. Zahid Babolan, A., Ghasempour, A. and Hassan-zadeh, Sh. ( 2011). The study of the Intermediary Role of
Psychological Hardiness in the Relationship of Forgiveness and humor with athletes' hope. Journal of Motor Behavior and Sport Psychology, 8, 130- 115. 2. Waller , M . A. (2009 ) . Resilience Factor related to substance use. Journal of sociology and social welfare ,103105 . 3. Saidi - Moghadam, M. (2012). The Relationship of academic self-efficacy, achievement motivation and resilience with mental health of students. M. A. Thesis, University of Tehran. 4. Carter, K . (2010). African American caregiver resilience: resources, vulnerabilities, coping and well- being among caregiver of persons with chronic illness . Dissertation abstract international, Washington university , refer to: http : // www. Opean scholarship. Wustl. Edu / etd. 5. Basharat, M. A. Salehi, M., Shah Mohammadi, Kh., Nad -ali, Hussein and Zebardast, Azra. (2008 ). The relationship of Resilience and Hard-working with Mental Health and Sporting Success of Athletes. Contemporary psychology, third round, No. 2. 6. Kobasa, S .C ; Maddi, S .R ;&Kahn,S . (1982) .Hardiness and health: a prospective study. Journal of Personality and social psychology, 42, 168- 177 . 7. Maddi, S . R . and Khoshaba, D . M . (1994) . Hardiness and mental health .Journal of personality assessment , 63 , ( 2 ) , 265- 274 . 8. Kobasa , S.C. (1979) . Stressful life events, personality and health: and inquiry in to hardiness. Journal of personality and social psychology ,37,1-11 .
BEPLS Vol 4 [2] January 2015
42 | P a g e
©2015 AELS, INDIA
Karamipour et al
9. Rahimian- bugar A. Asgharnejad- farid A. A. ( 2008). The Relationship between Mental Health and Psychological Hardiness and Self- resilience in Young and Adult Survivors of Bam Earthquake. psychiatry and clinical psychology in Iran, 14, 70- 62.
10. Golby, J . and Sheard, M . (2004 ) . Mental toughness and hardiness at different level of rugby league. Journal of personality and individual differences, 37, 933- 942 .
11. Mohammadi, M. (2005 ). Factors Affecting the Resilience of People at Risk of Drug Abuse. The letters PhD in clinical psychology, University of Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences.
12. Zolkoski, S . M .( 2012 ). Resilience & Bullock , L . M. in children and youth. Children and youth services review , (34) ,2295 – 2303.
13. Walsh, Froma. (2008). Strengthening the Family Resilience. Translated by Mohsen Dehghani et al (2011), Tehran: Danzheh Publication.
14. Shir- bim, Z., Sorani, M. and Shafi- Abadi, A. (2009 ). The Relationship between Psychological Hardiness and mental health of the students. A journal of thoughts and behavior, age 4, No. 13.
15. Richardson , G . E . (2002 ) . The metatheory of resilience and resilience .journal of clinical psychology ,58 , 307 – 321 .
16. Almedon,A . M. (2005) . Resilience , hardiness , sense of coherence, and posttraumatic growth: all paths leading to “ light at the end of the tunnel. Journal of loss and trauma , ( 10 ), 253- 265.
CITATION OF THIS ARTICLE Mohammadreza K, Masoud H , Zahra B Y. The Role of Resilience and Hardiness in Mental Health of Athletes and Nonathletes. Bull. Env. Pharmacol. Life Sci., Vol 4 [2] January 2015: 37-43
BEPLS Vol 4 [2] January 2015
43 | P a g e
©2015 AELS, INDIA