Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Military Psychology logoLink to Military Psychology
. 2023 Jun 16;36(5):516–524. doi: 10.1080/08995605.2023.2220643

Sex differences in hardiness, coping, and health in new West Point cadets

Paul T Bartone a,b,✉, Rosellen Roche c,d
PMCID: PMC11407421  PMID: 37326426

ABSTRACT

The U.S. Military Academy at West Point places young men and women in a highly demanding world of extreme mental and physical challenges. As such, it provides an excellent natural laboratory in which to study how people respond and adapt to highly stressful conditions. The present study explores the role of personality hardiness and coping as stress resilience resources in new (freshmen) cadets at West Point, while also considering sex differences. Using survey methods, N = 234 cadets were assessed during their first year at West Point. Measures included personality hardiness, coping strategies, health symptoms, and number of hospitalizations for all causes. Results show that female cadets are higher in hardiness and emotion-focused coping, as well as somewhat higher in symptoms reports. For the total group, hardiness is linked to better health, both in terms of symptoms reports and hospitalizations. Multiple regression results indicate symptoms are predicted by lower hardiness, higher avoidance coping, and female sex. Conditional process path analysis reveals that the effect of hardiness on symptoms is mediated by emotion-focused coping, and that emotion-focused coping can have both positive and negative effects. This study confirms hardiness is an important stress resilience resource for both men and women in the highly stressful first year at West Point. These findings lend further support to a growing body of evidence that hardiness influences health in part via the coping strategies that people choose to apply in dealing with stressful situations.

KEYWORDS: Hardiness, coping, health, symptoms, sex differences, West Point cadets, stress

What is the public significance of this article?—This study finds that hardiness is an important resiliency resource for military officers in training, helping to maintain good health despite high stress levels. Women officer cadets are higher in hardiness and emotion focused coping than men, suggesting these are especially important stress resiliency factors for military women. Training programs can be enhanced by including techniques to increase hardiness and positive aspects of emotion-focused coping, such as peer-support.

The U.S. Military Academy at West Point immerses officer cadets in a world of extreme physical and mental challenges. As such it provides an excellent natural laboratory in which to study how young people respond and adapt to highly stressful conditions. Considering the highly stressful and ambiguous operational environments which cadets will enter as junior Army officers, it is important to identify potential stress resiliency factors for cadets and young officers. The present study explores the role of personality hardiness as a stress-resistance resource in Army officer cadets.

Previous research has shown that personality hardiness can provide a buffer against the ill-effects of stress (Bartone et al., 1989; Kobasa, 1979). Conceptually, hardiness involves a high sense of commitment to life and work, a strong belief in one’s ability to control events and influence outcomes, and greater openness to change and challenges in life (Maddi & Kobasa, 1984). Persons high in hardiness are more resilient when exposed to a range of environmental stressors, remaining healthy and performing well despite high stress levels. Those low in hardiness, on the other hand, tend to become ill and suffer performance breakdowns under stress.

Multiple studies have documented a link between hardiness and physical health problems (Bartone et al., 2016; Contrada, 1989; Kobasa et al., 1983), as well as mental health ones (Bartone et al., 2022; Escolas et al., 2013; Maddi & Khoshaba, 1994). A few recent studies have begun investigating potential pathways of influence, with results indicating that coping strategies may act as mediators in the relationship between hardiness and health outcomes (Bartone & Homish, 2020; Bartone et al., 2017). Previous research with cadets also found that female cadets report higher levels of hardiness than the men, and that hardiness was related to military performance for female cadets (Bartone & Snook, 2000). While other studies have also suggested that women working in stressful jobs tend to show higher hardiness than men in those same jobs (Coetzee & Harry, 2015), the shortage of women in some of the most challenging and stressful jobs at the highest levels continues to be an issue for female recognition, as well as for researchers attempting to gauge women’s performance and reactions within male-dominated work and service environments (Babic & Hansez, 2021; Hamlin, 2021; Roche et al., 2021).

The present research will evaluate the association of hardiness to health, as well as potential sex differences in hardiness and health indicators among freshman cadets. Also, we explore the role of different coping strategies as mediators in how hardiness may influence health symptoms in the stressful environment of West Point.

Method

The research was approved by the Office of Institutional Research and Associate Dean for Academic Research, U.S. Military Academy. A survey instrument was used to assess hardiness, symptoms, illness behaviors, and coping for freshman cadets at West Point. All participants (N = 234) volunteered for the research as part of their Introductory Psychology (PL100) course. Surveys were administered approximately mid-way through the fall and spring semesters. Female cadets comprised about 17% of the student body at the time of the study. Females were over-sampled for this study in order to provide more balanced comparison groups. This sampling strategy resulted in N = 72 females (31%) and N = 162 (69%) males for this study. Measurement instruments are described below:

Hardiness

The DRS-15 – Dispositional Resilience Scale provided the measure of hardiness (Bartone, 1995; Bartone et al., 1989). This scale assesses the three primary hardiness facets of commitment, control, and challenge, with items scored on a Likert scale of 1 (not at all true) to 4 (completely true). The three-week test-retest reliability coefficient for this measure is reported at .78 (Bartone, 2007). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the DRS-15 hardiness scale is .70 in the present sample.

Coping

Coping was measured with a slightly modified version of the 30-item CSQ – Coping Style Questionnaire (Joseph et al., 1992), which yields scores on three subscales: Task-focused coping, Emotion-focused coping, and Avoidant coping. In an effort to make this scale more appropriate for a college population, several items were added and results subjected to Principal Components factor analysis with Varimax rotation. Items loading over .30 were retained, resulting in the following three coping scales:

Task focused contains 10 items. Sample items include “I try to come up with a strategy about what to do”; “I focus on dealing with the problem”; and “I make an action plan.” Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this scale is .77.

Emotion-focused contains 10 items. Sample items include “I talk to someone about how I feel”; “I try to get emotional support from my friends”; and “I get upset and let my feelings out.” Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is .80.

Avoidance contains 10 items, for example: “I go on as if nothing has happened”; “I make jokes about it;” and “I learn to live with it.” Cronbach’s alpha is .68.

Symptoms

A self-report symptoms checklist was included to measure physical and mental health complaints. The original 20-item scale was reported by Bartone et al. (1989). For the present study, five items were added to cover additional common health issues (back pain, allergies, urinary tract infections, joint injury, eating problems). Cronbach’s alpha is .85 in the present sample.

Hospitalizations

Respondents reported how many times they had been hospitalized in the current academic year for any reason. Answers were given on a 5-point scale as follows: 1 = None; 2 = One or two times; 3 = Three to five times; 4 = Six to Ten times; 5 = Eleven or more.

Data analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS v.28 (IBM Corp, 2021). Initially, means, standard deviations and bivariate (Pearson) correlations were examined among all study variables. Independent samples t-tests were computed to identify any significant sex differences on hardiness, coping strategies, and symptoms. Next, standardized linear multiple regressions were performed, predicting symptoms reports and then hospitalizations with hardiness and coping strategies, while controlling for sex. In the final step, conditional PROCESS analysis (Hayes, 2022) was applied to test for potential mediating effects of various coping strategies in the relation between hardiness and symptoms, with sex entered as a covariate. Conditional PROCESS analysis is believed superior to previous methods for testing mediation in several ways (eg., Baron & Kenny, 1986), providing more accurate results and including effect sizes (Hayes & Rockwood, 2020). For the present analyses, simple mediation was tested using Hayes’ model = 4, providing estimates of total and direct effects of hardiness on symptoms, as well as the indirect effect of hardiness on symptoms through the various coping strategies. We used 95% bootstrap confidence intervals for the indirect effects using 1,000 bootstrap samples. The program provides standardized model coefficients and standardized direct, indirect and total effects for hardiness. Significance of effects is determined when confidence intervals are the same sign, and do not straddle zero. Also, the program provides traditional probability estimates for significance of effects (Hayes, 2022). The same procedures were applied to test for possible mediating effects of coping variables in the hardiness to hospitalizations relation.

Results

Means, standard deviations and inter-correlations among the study variables are presented in Table 1. For ease of reference, scale reliability coefficients are listed in the diagonal.

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations among the study variables.

  Mean (N) S.D. Sex Hardiness Task- focused Emotion- Avoidance Symptoms Hospitalizations
Sex 1.31
(234)		 .46 __            
Hardiness 43.23
(234)		 4.67 .128* .70          
Task-focused 27.22
(233)		 4.77 .054 .399*** .77        
Emotion-focused 23.01
(233)		 5.33 .215*** .199** .298*** .80      
Avoidance 24.92
(233)		 4.28 .048 .127* .318 .272*** .68    
Symptoms 39.85
(233)		 7.77 .203** −.222*** −.137* .182** .237*** .85  
Hospitalizations 1.12
(233)		 .351 .036 −.236*** −.062 .036 .027 .243*** __
Open in a new tab

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Pairwise deletion for missing data.

Sex is coded: male = 1, female = 2.

Cronbach’s alphas for the scales are shown in the diagonal.

As can be seen, hardiness is positively correlated with coping styles of task-focused, emotion-focused, and avoidance coping. Higher hardiness scores are linked to lower symptoms and fewer hospitalizations. Task-focused coping is also associated with fewer symptoms, while emotion-focused and avoidance coping are related to more symptoms. The women cadets tend to be significantly higher in hardiness and emotion-focused coping, while at the same time reporting more health symptoms than the men.

Results of the t-tests confirm these sex differences. Female cadets are significantly higher than men in hardiness and emotion-focused coping. Despite being higher hardiness, female cadets also report more health symptoms (Table 2). No sex differences were seen in the number of hospitalizations.

Table 2.

T-test contrasts showing sex differences among the study variables (significant contrasts in bold).

  Male
 Female
        
  M SD M SD df t p Hedges’ g1
Hardiness
N		 42.833
162 		4.681 44.125
72 		4.540 232 −1.96 .05 .28
Task-focused
N 		27.049
161 		4.688 27.611
72 		4.966 231 −.829 ns -
Emotion-focused
N		 22.248
161 		5.304 24.722
72 		5.01 231 −3.34 .001 .47
Avoidance
N 		24.783
161 		4.138 25.222
72 		4.588 231 −.724 ns -
Symptoms
N		 38.80
161 		7.808 42.21
72 		7.197 231 −3.152 .002 .45
Hospitalizations
N 		1.112
161		 .335 1.139
72		 .386 231 −.543 ns -
Open in a new tab

1Hedges’ g is an indicator of effect size that corrects for unequal sample sizes (Hedges & Olkin, 1985).

Linear regression results show hardiness and task-focused coping enter as negative predictors of symptoms. Also, emotion-focused and avoidance coping are both positive predictors of symptoms, as is sex (women are higher). Complete results are summarized in Table 3. With the same regression model predicting hospitalizations, only hardiness emerges a significant predictor (Beta = −.247, p < .001; Overall model F(6,226) = 2.825, p < .01; R2 = .07).

Table 3.

Hierarchical regression model predicting health symptoms in West Point freshmen cadets.

Model Predictor Beta t p R R2 R2 change Sig. R2 change
1 Sex .203 3.152 .002 .203 .041 .041 .002
2 Sex .194 3.205 .002        
  Hardiness –.240 −3.700 .000        
  Task-focused −.189 −2.771 .006        
  Emotion-focused .170 2.643 .009        
  Avoidance .273 4.306 .000        
          .463 .214 .173 .000
Open in a new tab

N = 232; Model 1, overall F (231,1) = 9.932, p < .01; Model 2, overall F (226,6) = 12.488, p < .001.

Conditional PROCESS analysis was used to explore the potential role of coping strategies as mediators in the relation between hardiness and symptoms, followed by hardiness and hospitalizations. Of the three coping strategies, only emotion-focused coping showed significant indirect (mediating) effects for hardiness on symptoms (Table 4). Sex was a significant covariate in all models predicting symptoms. None of the coping strategies were significant mediators for hardiness on hospitalizations, and the covariate sex was also not significant.

Table 4.

PROCESS regression results for mediation model, hardiness, emotion-focused coping, and symptoms.

Variable B SE t p< LLCI ULCI
Direct and Total Effects
Hardy (X) → Emotion-focused (M) (a path) .1991 .0729 3.599 .001 .0555 .3427
Emot-focused (M) → Symptoms (Y) (b path) .2863 .0930 3.078 .002 .1030 .4696
Hardy (X) → Symptoms (Y) controlling for Emotion-focused (M) (direct effect c’ path) −.4756 .1044 −4.554 .001 −.6814 −.2699
Total effect −4186 .1047 −3.999 .001 −.6249 −.2124
Sex (covariate, X→Y)
 3.3049
 1.0575
 3.125
 .002
 1.2213
 5.3885
Indirect Effect of Hardiness (X) on Symptoms (Y)
 
 Effect
 SE
 LLCI
 ULCI
Emotion-focused coping (M) .057 .0308 .0070 .1253
Open in a new tab

N = 233. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. Bootstrap sample size = 1,000. LLCI = lower limit confidence interval 95%; ULCI = upper limit confidence interval 95% (bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals). Sex, 1 = male, 2 = female.

In the mediation model, the influence of hardiness on symptoms is negative, indicating that higher hardiness is associated with fewer health symptoms. On the other hand, the effect of emotion-focused coping on symptoms is positive, meaning that emotion-focused coping is linked to increased symptoms. In the model hardiness is also associated with more emotion-focused coping. Since the (positive) indirect (mediation) effect is in the opposite direction as the (negative) direct effect, this indicates what is known as inconsistent mediation (MacKinnon et al., 2007). This suggests that emotion-focused may be acting to some degree as a suppressor variable in the hardiness – symptoms relation (MacKinnon et al., 2000). We tested this by running two simple regressions predicting symptoms, first with hardiness alone, and then with the coping variable added in. In the case of suppression, the independent effect of hardiness should increase rather than decrease when emotion-focused coping is added to the model. Results show that this is the case. With hardiness alone predicting symptoms, Beta = −.225 (t = −3.518, p < .001). When emotion-focused coping is added to the model, the hardiness effect increases to Beta = −.28 (t = −4.384, p < .001).

Also as discussed by MacKinnon et al. (2000, pp. 4–5), in the case of inconsistent mediation models, the direct effect (in our case the influence of hardiness on symptoms while controlling for coping) should be larger than the total effect (effect of hardiness alone on symptoms). This indeed is the case in the PROCESS analysis for emotion-focused coping, where the hardiness direct effect = −.474 vs. the hardiness total effect = −.419.

Discussion

This study contributes to the literature on stress, health and coping in several ways. First, perpetuity we’ve identified significant sex differences in hardiness, coping and health in new West Point cadets, with female cadets higher in the resiliency resource of hardiness, while also higher in emotion-focused coping and symptoms. The West Point environment is a highly stressful one, especially for new cadets. Their lives are highly regimented, with seemingly endless demands to perform physically, academically, and in military training activities. New cadets are also subject to nearly constant criticism and correction by their upperclassmen supervisors. Although the worst forms of hazing were banned at the military academies in the early 1990s (Dodge, 1991), it is still accepted practice that new cadets are harangued and yelled at by their cadet superiors as part of the socialization process (“What new Army cadets go through,” 2018). Women cadets face an especially tough time, having to integrate and perform in a traditionally all-male environment (Lewis, 2019). When women were first accepted into West Point in 1979, there was widespread resistance from cadets, graduates and much of the faculty (Janda, 2002; Priest et al., 1978). While the situation has improved over the years along with an increase in the percentage of women at West Point, women cadets still face unusually difficult conditions, as evidenced by recent increases in sexual assaults and harassment (Baldor, 2022).

The present finding showing higher hardiness levels in female cadets is consistent with earlier studies (Bartone & Snook, 2000), and is suggestive of a self-selection factor. Women who choose to attend West Point are likely higher in hardiness to begin with, which may partly account for their willingness to take on the challenge of being a West Point cadet. At the same time, our findings show female cadets have more health problems as indexed by higher symptoms reports. This may be due to excessive physical demands placed on women’s bodies by the West Point training regimen. Although some adjustments have been made to the physical training program and standards to accommodate women, by and large they are still subject to the same performance standards as men. For example, an early study of coeducation at West Point found that due to the “one-sided physical training program,” women cadets dropped out of group runs more frequently, and experienced more physical injuries than the men (Priest et al., 1978). In another early study of new cadets in basic training, women cadets showed 2.5 times more injuries than men, and nearly four times the rate of injuries resulting in hospitalization, with most of these due to stress fractures (Bijur et al., 1997). However, in the present study we find no sex differences in the number of hospitalizations among these new cadets.

Considering that the higher injury rates in female cadets noted in earlier studies were mainly due to poorer pre-admission physical conditioning (Bijur et al., 1997), it may be that women in later West Point classes such as the present one are in better physical conditioning upon entry, and so are less likely to suffer orthopedic injuries during training. Some support for this idea comes from a recent meta-analysis examining injury rates in male and female military personnel. Looking across 25 relevant studies, the authors found that after adjusting for differences in average fitness levels, previous higher injury rates among females disappeared (Schram et al., 2022).

It has long been recognized that women tend to report more health symptoms than men, although the reasons for this remain somewhat unclear (Mechanic, 1978, 1995). One argument is that women are better than men at recognizing nonspecific, diffuse feelings of distress as indicators of a potential health problem (Kessler et al., 1981). Related to this, a study of community-living adults found that in self reports of health, men tend to focus more on serious, life-threatening diseases, while women are more global in their judgments and include non-life-threatening health problems in their appraisals (Benyamini et al., 2000). A Dutch study also found that women’s self-reports of physical symptoms were more influenced by negative mood states, as compared with men (Gijsbers van Wijk et al., 1999).

In the case of West Point cadets, all of these factors may help to explain the higher symptoms reports in women. Not only are female cadets better at recognizing the range of health problems, but the increased stress and related negative affect (eg, anxiety, depression) associated with living in a male-centric environment may also serve to raise their awareness of physical problems. In contrast, male cadets may be under-reporting health problems, in part due to social influences on health perceptions (Mechanic, 1995). For example, in the military culture a high value is placed on continuing to perform one’s duties despite physical discomforts and ailments, a dynamic which is captured in the oft-repeated phrase “no pain, no gain.” While women operating in the military environment would not be immune to this cultural influence, it appears they are more balanced when it comes to recognizing and reporting health symptoms.

In the present sample, female cadets also appear to rely somewhat more than men do on emotion-focused coping. This is also consistent with previous research (Matud, 2004; O’Rourke et al., 2022). And while emotion-focused coping can be associated with negative outcomes, research has also shown that emotion-focused coping can be positive and adaptive in certain contexts (Austenfeld & Stanton, 2004), and, among female military personnel when they have support networks where they can communicate with other female military servicewomen (Roche et al., 2020). This may indeed be the case in the West Point environment, where the tight control exercised by the institution over cadets’ lives greatly reduces individual freedom and the opportunity for task-focused or problem directed coping.

This study also found that hardiness is most strongly correlated with task-focused coping (r = .38, p < .001), and somewhat less strongly with emotion-focused and avoidance coping (Table 1). This is in line with earlier research showing that hardiness is associated with more transformational or problem-focused coping (Maddi & Hightower, 1999; Maddi & Kobasa, 1984), and less avoidance coping (Bartone et al., 2017; Kobasa, 1982). Also consistent with earlier research, the present results show that avoidance and emotion-focused coping predict more health symptoms, while hardiness and task-focused coping predict fewer symptoms (Table 3). Female sex is also linked to more symptoms reports, but not to hospitalizations. This suggests that while new female cadets may have greater difficulty with the physical training demands and experience more health problems and injuries as a result (Priest et al., 1978), they may be avoiding treatment and hospitalization in an attempt to conform to male-dominated “no complaint” West Point cadet culture (Lewis, 2019), and not appear to be inferior or somehow not as strong as the men.

Coping mediators

In the PROCESS analyses, task-focused coping does not emerge as a mediator in the hardiness – symptoms relation despite significant associations of both hardiness and task-focused coping to symptoms in the linear regression model. This is somewhat surprising, since addressing stressful situations and problems directly is thought to be one of the key ways in which high hardy persons render stress less damaging, and even potentially growth-inducing (Stein & Bartone, 2020). However, this presumes the stressful situations being confronted are amenable to resolution through the person’s own actions. But the bulk of stressors experienced by new West Point cadets are “givens” or facts in existential terms (Sartre, 1956), outside the control or influence of the individual (Maddi, 1980). All cadets, and new cadets in particular must conform to rigid time schedules and standards of dress and behavior. If a cadet feels stressed at having to be up at 0500 in the morning, doing physical training (PT) every day, or being harshly reprimanded for having a piece of clothing out of place, there is not much he or she can do about it other than accept and go along. In this tightly controlled environment, task-focused coping would not be very effective in dealing with such unchangeable stressors.

Avoidance coping likewise did not show evidence of mediation. This is a somewhat surprising considering previous research in this area showing that avoidance coping mediates the hardiness – health relation (Bartone & Homish, 2020; Bartone et al., 2017; Escolas et al., 2013; Thomassen et al., 2018). Once again, the daily lives of new West Point cadets are so rigidly controlled and regimented that there is little opportunity to engage in avoidance coping behaviors such as sleeping more, watching TV, or drinking alcohol. Those new cadets who are more inclined to avoidance coping (and low in hardiness) may be among the 5–10% of those who drop out during the first summer of intensive, highly stressful field training known as “Beast Barracks.” Other than resigning or being kicked out, there just isn’t much opportunity at West Point to engage in avoidance coping.

Emotion-focused coping was found to mediate the relation of hardiness to health in this sample (Table 4). However, the mediation effect is not straightforward. Results show that hardiness exerts a positive effect on emotion-focused coping, while emotion-focused coping in turn is linked to increased symptoms. Thus, the indirect effect wherein hardiness travels through emotion-focused coping to symptoms is positive. On the other hand, the direct (unmediated) effect of hardiness on symptoms is negative, showing that hardiness is linked to fewer symptoms and better health. This is known as an inconsistent mediation model (MacKinnon et al., 2000) and suggests the mediator may be acting as a suppressor variable. Once again, this can be understood in the context of the West Point environment where personal control over schedules and activities is extremely limited. In this environment, some amount of emotion-focused coping may be adaptive for cadets, as it provides social support and a safe outlet for normal frustrations and negative emotions. But the dominant influence of emotion-focused coping is still negative in terms of health outcomes, leading as it does to increased symptoms. An over-reliance on emotion-focused coping may reflect a lack of inner control, and tendency to be ruled by one’s emotions (items such as “I get upset and let my emotions out”), and seek to avoid difficult situations (“I spend more time with friends).

The inconsistent mediation effect for emotion-focused coping might also reflect the multifaceted influence of social support. The emotion-focused coping scale includes items that tap social support, for example, “I talk to someone about how I feel,” and “I try to get emotional support from my friends.” In the present study, the association between hardiness and emotion-focused coping could be explained by the social support aspect of this coping approach. Previous studies have found that hardiness is associated with greater social support, and that both in turn are valuable stress-resistance resources (Kobasa & Puccetti, 1983; Kobasa et al., 1985). However, this influence of social support on stress-related illness outcomes can sometimes be negative, as Kobasa and Puccetti (1983) found in their research with executives. This can happen for example, if the support one gets provides encouragement to avoid and deny problems rather than face up to them.

Social support has been shown to be a more frequent coping resource for women than for men in many situations (O’Rourke et al., 2022). Other studies have also found that mutual support among female West Point cadets is associated with better adaptation (Huntington-Klein & Rose, 2018a, 2018b). Thus, the social support aspect of emotion-focused coping may account for higher levels of this coping approach in female cadets compared to the men.

Limitations

Several limitation of the present study should be pointed out. All data are based on self-report surveys, which rely on subjects providing veridical answers. Reports of symptoms and hospitalizations rely on memory, which is subject to distortion. Also, respondents may be tempted to underreport health problems in compliance with cultural mores of strength and vitality, and avoidance of stigma attaching to ill health and weakness. As well, the data are cross-sectional in nature, meaning that causal directions can only be implied on theoretical grounds. Future research should include longitudinal data collection where resilience resources and coping strategies are measure in advance of health outcomes.

Although female cadets were over-sampled in an attempt to compensate for the relatively small proportion of women at West Point, we were still left with numerically unbalanced sex groups. Though our female N of 72 was sufficient for the analyses performed, it would be desirable to increase this N in order to enhance power to detect statistical differences that exist.

The West Point environment in which this research was carried out is unusual in some ways, as a male-dominated and highly restricted one in terms of individual freedom of action. This clearly limits the generalizability of our findings. However, many organizations share these same characteristics, to include the Navy, Air Force, Marine and Coast Guard service academies, and also various units within the active and reserve military. Further, many organizations outside the military also share a male-dominated culture and history unwelcoming to women, to include medicine, law, veterinary science, dentistry, academia, and a range of science and engineering occupations (Huntington-Klein & Rose, 2018a). The present findings thus provide some useful leads for investigators interested in understanding adaptation, coping and health in these occupations generally, and for women in particular.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Austenfeld, J. L., & Stanton, A. L. (2004). Coping through emotional approach: A new look at emotion, coping, and health-related outcomes. Journal of Personality, 72(6), 1335–1364. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00299.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Babic, A., & Hansez, I. (2021). The glass ceiling for women managers: Antecedents and consequences for work-family interface and well-being at work. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–17. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.618250 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baldor, L. C. (2022, February 17). Reported sexual assaults increase at U.S. military academies after return to in-person learning. PBS Nation. https://tinyurl.com/bdz4rh4w [Google Scholar]
  4. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bartone, P. T. (1995, July). A short hardiness scale. [Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Society]. https://www.hardiness-resilience.com/docs/aps01totc.pdf
  6. Bartone, P. T. (2007). Test-retest reliability of the dispositional resilience scale-15, a brief hardiness scale. Psychological Reports, 101, 943–944. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bartone, P. T., & Homish, G. G. (2020). Influence of hardiness, avoidance coping, and combat exposure on depression in returning war veterans: A moderated-mediation study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 265, 511–518. 10.1016/j.jad.2020.01.127 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bartone, P. T., Johnsen, B. H., Eid, J., Hystad, S. W., & Laberg, J. C. (2017). Hardiness, avoidance coping, and alcohol consumption in war veterans: A moderated-mediation study. Stress and Health, 33(5), 498–507. 10.1002/smi.2734 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bartone, P. T., McDonald, K., Hansma, B. J., & Solomon, J. (2022). Hardiness moderates the effects of COVID-19 stress on anxiety and depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 317, 236–244. 10.1016/j.jad.2022.08.045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bartone, P. T., & Snook, S. A. (2000, June). Gender differences in predictors of leader performance over time [Paper presentation]. Annual meeting of American Psychological Society, Miami Beach, Florida. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bartone, P. T., Ursano, R. J., Wright, K. M., & Ingraham, L. H. (1989). The impact of a military air disaster on the health of assistance workers: A prospective study. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 177(6), 317–328. 10.1097/00005053-198906000-00001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bartone, P. T., Valdes, J. J., & Sandvik, A. (2016). Psychological hardiness predicts cardiovascular health. Psychology, Health and Medicine, 21(6). 10.1080/13548506.2015.1133265 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Benyamini, Y., Leventhal, E. A., & Leventhal, H. (2000). Gender differences in processing information for making self-assessments of health. Psychosomatic Medicine, 62(3), 354–364. 10.1097/00006842-200005000-00009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Bijur, P. E., Horodyski, M., Egerton, W., Kurzon, M., Lifrak, S., & Friedman, S. (1997). Comparison of injury during cadet basic training by gender. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 151(5), 456–461. 10.1001/archpedi.1997.02170420026004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Coetzee, M., & Harry, N. (2015). Gender and hardiness as predictors of career adaptability: An exploratory study among Black call centre agents. South African Journal of Psychology, 45(1), 81–92. 10.1177/0081246314546346 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Contrada, R. J. (1989). Type a behavior, personality hardiness, and cardiovascular responses to stress. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 57(5), 895–903. 10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.895 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dodge, S. (1991, November). Military academies crack down on hazing of freshmen. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/military-academies-crack-down-on-hazing-of-freshmen/
  18. Escolas, S. M., Pitts, B. L., Safer, M. A., & Bartone, P. T. (2013). The protective value of hardiness on military posttraumatic stress symptoms. Military Psychology, 25(2), 116–123. 10.1037/h0094953 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gijsbers van Wijk, C. M., Huisman, H., & Kolk, A. M. (1999). Gender differences in physical symptoms and illness behavior. A health diary study. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 49(8), 1061–1074. 10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00196-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hamlin, K. (2021, March). Why are there so few women professors: The obstacle to parity is a lack of institutional will. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/why-we-need-more-women-full-professors?bc_nonce=lwbifv0ih3k291a0aax2kn&cid=reg_wall_signup
  21. Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). Guilford. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hayes, A. F., & Rockwood, N. J. (2020). conditional process analysis: Concepts, computation, and advances in the modeling of the contingencies of mechanisms. American Behavioral Scientist, 64, 19–54. 10.1177/0002764219859633 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  24. Huntington-Klein, N., & Rose, E. (2018a). Gender peer effects in a predominantly male environment: Evidence from West Point. AEA Papers & Proceedings, 108, 392–395. 10.1257/pandp.20181114 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Huntington-Klein, N., & Rose, E. (2018b, November 26). A study of West Point shows how women help each other advance. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/11/a-study-of-west-point-shows-how-women-help-each-other-advance
  26. IBM Corp . (2021). IBM SPSS statistics for windows (Version 28.0). [Google Scholar]
  27. Insider Business . (2018, July 14). What new Army cadets go through on their first day at West Point. Business Insider. Retrieved January 12, 2023, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojJupoAyT58
  28. Janda, L. (2002). Stronger than custom: West Point and the admission of women. Praeger Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  29. Joseph, S., Williams, R., & Yule, W. (1992). Crisis support, attributional style, coping style, and post-traumatic symptoms. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(11), 1249–1251. 10.1016/0191-8869(92)90262-N [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kessler, R. C., Brown, R. L., & Broman, C. L. (1981). Sex differences in psychiatric help-seeking: Evidence from four large-scale surveys. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22(1), 49–64. 10.2307/2136367 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), 1–1 1. 10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kobasa, S. C. (1982). Commitment and coping in stress resistance among lawyers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(4), 707–717. 10.1037/0022-3514.42.4.707 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kobasa, S. C., Maddi, S. R., Puccetti, M. C., & Zola, M. A. (1985). Effectiveness of hardiness, exercise and social support as resources against illness. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 29(5), 525–533. 10.1016/0022-3999(85)90086-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kobasa, S. C., Maddi, S. R., & Zola, M. A. (1983). Type A and hardiness. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 6(1), 41–51. 10.1007/BF00845275 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kobasa, S. C., & Puccetti, M. C. (1983). Personality and social resources in stress-resistance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 839–850. 10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.839 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lewis, L. A. (2019). West Point Women: An oral history of the West Point experience and leader identity development [Doctoral dissertation]. Clemson University. All Dissertations. 2337. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/2337 [Google Scholar]
  37. MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 593–614. 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085542 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1(4), 173–181. 10.1023/A:1026595011371 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Maddi, S. R. (1980). Myth and personality. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 145–153. [Google Scholar]
  40. Maddi, S. R., & Hightower, M. (1999). Hardiness and optimism as expressed in coping patterns. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 51(2), 95–105. 10.1037/1061-4087.51.2.95 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Maddi, S. R., & Khoshaba, D. M. (1994). Hardiness and mental health. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63(2), 265–274. 10.1207/s15327752jpa63 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Maddi, S. R., & Kobasa, S. (1984). The hardy executive: Health under stress. Dow Jones-Irwin. [Google Scholar]
  43. Matud, M. P. (2004). Gender differences in stress and coping styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(7), 1401–1415. 10.1016/j.paid.2004.01.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Mechanic, D. (1978). Sex, illness, illness behavior, and the use of health services. Social Science & Medicine. Part B, Medical Anthropology, 12, 207–214. 10.1016/0160-7987(78)90034-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Mechanic, D. (1995). Sociological dimensions of illness behavior. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 41(9), 1207–1216. 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00025-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. O’Rourke, T., Vogel, C., John, D., Pryss, R., Schobel, J., Haug, F., Haug, J., Pieh, C., Nater, U. M., Feneberg, A. C., Reichert, M., & Probst, T. (2022). The impact of coping styles and gender on situational coping: An ecological momentary assessment study with the mHealth application TrackYourStress. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 913125. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.913125 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Priest, R. F., Vitters, A. G., & Prince, H. T. (1978). Coeducation at west point. Armed Forces & Society, 4(4), 589–606. 10.1177/0095327X7800400404 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Roche, R., Manzi, J., & Bard, K. (2020). A double bind for the ties that bind: A pilot study of mental health challenges among female U.S. Army officers and impact on family life. Journal of Veterans Studies, 6(1), 200–210. https://journal-veterans-studies.org/articles/10.21061/jvs.v6i1.164 [Google Scholar]
  49. Roche, R., Trembley, J., Trembly, C., Manzi, J., Thompson, N., & LaPorta, A. (2021). The unseen patriot: Female cultural support team members and combat definition. Journal of Veterans Studies, 7(1), 271–279. https://journal-veterans-studies.org/articles/10.21061/jvs.v7i1.285 [Google Scholar]
  50. Sartre, J. P. (1956). Being & Nothingness (Barnes H. E., Trans., 1st ed.). Philosophical Library. [Google Scholar]
  51. Schram, B., Canetti, E., Orr, R., & Pope, R. (2022). Injury rates in female and male military personnel: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Women’s Health, 22(1), 310. 10.1186/s12905-022-01899-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Stein, S. J., & Bartone, P. T. (2020). Hardiness: Making stress work for you to achieve your life goals. Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  53. Thomassen, Å. G., Hystad, S. W., Johnsen, B. H., Johnsen, G. E., & Bartone, P. T. (2018). The effect of hardiness on PTSD symptoms: A prospective mediational approach. Military Psychology, 30(2), 142–151. 10.1080/08995605.2018.1425065 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from Military Psychology are provided here courtesy of Division of Military Psychology of the American Psychological Association and Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES