Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Military Psychology logoLink to Military Psychology
. 2025 Jan 22;38(1):83–94. doi: 10.1080/08995605.2025.2453784

Spirituality is associated with psychological hardiness in U.S. army soldiers and civilians

Bryan Hedrick a,✉, Kristin J Heaton b, Brian A Moore c,d, Jason L Judkins b
PMCID: PMC12778879  PMID: 39841122

ABSTRACT

As the Army continues to adapt to evolving mission demands and global threats, those who execute the mission – both soldiers and Department of the Army (DA) civilians – must also adapt to changing occupational demands and requirements. Occupational stress within the military community is a threat to health and wellbeing that impacts not only individual soldiers and civilian personnel, but also units, families, and the broader military community. Hardiness is an operational requirement for military success, spirituality might be a means to positively impact soldier and DA Civilian hardiness. This study sought to understand the relationship between spirituality and hardiness within the Army, which included data collected from U.S. Army soldiers (N = 313) and DA Civilians (N = 276). We hypothesized that increased individual spirituality have a direct relationship with the positive aspects of hardiness and an inverse relationship with the negative aspects of hardiness as defined by the dual process model of hardiness. Employing regression analysis, empirical support was found to support our hypotheses for relationships between spirituality and hardiness variables, with increased spirituality relating to increased positive hardiness and decreased negative hardiness traits. Military leaders can use that knowledge to develop and test targeted interventions that may help to increase positive hardiness and decrease negative hardiness in the Army. Further, Holistic Health and Fitness programming may benefit from improved psychological function by incorporating training that integrates hardiness and spirituality concepts.

KEYWORDS: Army, hardiness, spirituality, spiritual fitness, readiness

Introduction

Since the start of the combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2001, the U.S. Army has undergone considerable change in terms of soldier health and well-being, including how it invests in combat development, technological advancements and integration, life-saving measures, and combat casualty care (Vogt et al., 2022). As the Army continues to adapt to evolving mission demands and global threats, those who execute the mission – both soldiers and Department of the Army (DA) civilians – must also adapt to changing occupational demands and requirements. Occupational stress within the military community is a threat to health and wellbeing that impacts not only individual soldiers and civilian personnel, but also units, families, and the broader military community. Even with the cessation of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, rates of suicide (Dempsey et al., 2023), behavioral health issues (Judkins et al., 2020; Russell et al., 2022), and sexual harassment, assault, and domestic violence (Collette et al., 2022) have remained elevated relative to the general population. The need for solutions to bolster protective factors against occupational stress in individuals and teams across the military is critical to enhancing the health and wellbeing of the individual soldier and overall mission success.

Programs such as the Army’s Holistic Health and Fitness (H2F) have been implemented to support and enhance resilience of military service members in an effort to mitigate the adverse effects of occupational stress (Feng, 2024). Specifically, the H2F program seeks to build individual readiness across five key domains, including physical, spiritual, mental, nutritional, and sleep (U.S. Department of the Army, 2020). While the physical, mental, nutritional, and sleep domains are supported by a range of validated measures, techniques and training solutions, the spirituality domain is less developed. Spirituality itself is an often overlooked and misunderstood construct that is frequently confused with religiosity, or the extent to which one engages in the practices and customs of a particular religion. In contrast, spirituality reflects one’s core values and beliefs, sense of meaning and purpose, and the need to connect with something larger than and outside of oneself (transcendence) (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000, FM 7-22, 2020, 10-1; Milliman et al., 2003). As such, spirituality can be considered separate and distinct from religious affiliation (Koenig et al., 2012). Within the H2F framework, spirituality enables people to overcome hardship and adversity and is “inclusive and vitally necessary to all personnel no matter their background, philosophy, or religion” (FM 7-22, 2020, 10-1).

Spirituality shares common features with the construction of psychological hardiness, which considers the need for individuals to pursue their purpose and meaning within dynamic environments and situations (Maddi, 2004) and provides the requisite courage and protection for individuals to perform optimally during stressful situations (Bartone et al., 2013). Psychological hardiness is comprised of both positive and negative traits. Individuals demonstrating positive hardiness are able to respond to stressful experiences with commitment (a belief that one is part of something desirable [vs. the negative trait alienation]), control (a belief that one has influence over a situation [vs. the negative trait powerlessness]), and challenge (the belief that change and uncertainty are opportunities to excel [vs. the negative trait rigidity]; Bartone et al., 2022; Kobasa, 1979; Skomorovsky & Sudom, 2011). The construct of hardiness has been well-studied within the military and has been shown to be a protective factor against stress for performance and coping. For example, hardiness is positively associated with performance and retention of cadets in the U.S. Military Academy (Matthews et al., 2012; Maddi et al., 2017), admission into Norwegian military officer schools (Hystad et al., 2011), graduation from U.S. Army Special Forces Training Course (Bartone et al., 2008). Hardiness also has been positively associated with supervisor-rated performance of Army recruiters (Bartone & Bowles, 2020) and a high level of performance during a self-defense exercise (Lo Bue et al., 2016). Moreover, high levels of hardiness have been associated with decreased posttraumatic symptoms in U.S. Army medics (Pitts et al., 2016), well-being in Canadian Forces (Skomorovsky & Sudom, 2011), decreased alcohol abuse in Norwegian military defense personnel (Bartone et al., 2012) and protective against the negative effects from combat, deployment, and time in service (Adler & Dolan, 2006; Bartone, 1999; Escolas et al., 2013). As noted, psychological hardiness has typically been characterized as a positive psychological trait. More recently, Sinclair and colleagues proposed a dual process model that characterizes hardiness’ positive and negative dimensions as distinct constructs that can be assessed separately (Sinclair & Oliver, 2004; Sinclair & Tetrick, 2000). Recent research using this model has demonstrated that Army trainees self-reporting high levels of positive dimension hardiness had 20–30% lower odds of reporting a musculoskeletal injury during basic combat training (BCT), while those trainees reporting high levels of negative dimension hardiness had 30–40% higher odds of reporting an injury during BCT (Heaton et al., 2022).

Considering spirituality and hardiness, several overlaps are evident within the relevant literature, yet the effect of spirituality on hardiness is largely unexplored within the military context. The effect of spirituality on hardiness is better defined within the medical sector. A study of patients with brain tumors found that spirituality was determined as the primary predictor of psychological hardiness (Baksi et al., 2021). Bakhshi et al. (2023) reported that spiritual therapy and 8-weeks of spiritual skills training increased psychological hardiness and decreased psychological distress in a group of ninth-grade male students from Iran. One study did incorporate military members, though it sought to understand the relationship between hardiness and religiousness, which is a derivative of spirituality. The study surveyed 60 senior officers within a senior service college and found that religiousness and hardiness share aspects of spirituality (r = 0.23–0.39). However, hardiness had a more significant positive relationship with transformational coping (i.e., social support) and a negative relationship with anger and depression (Maddi et al., 2006) than religiousness. The positive effect of spirituality on hardiness in the medical field leads to a necessity to determine if the same holds in the military context.

To facilitate an empirical investigation of spirituality and its role in enhancing resiliency and aiding recovery from traumatic experiences (Hufford et al., 2010; Koenig, 2023), a number of definitions and corresponding measures of spirituality have been developed. Within the military context, spirituality has been characterized in terms of spiritual readiness, and performance (Alexander et al., 2020; Koenig, 2023; Milliman et al., 2003), all of which are independent constructs, not designed to measure together. Each facet examines a unique facet of the overall concept of spirituality. The concepts of spiritual readiness (SR) and spiritual performance (SP) have been operationalized by USSOCOM’s Human Performance and Wellness program in terms of spiritual beliefs (core beliefs, values, and awareness) and measurable behaviors (healthy living, decision-making, and interpersonal interactions), respectively. Within this framework, spiritual readiness reflects both one’s personal connection to a higher power or transcendence (“vertical spirituality”) and one’s altruism toward others (“horizontal spirituality;” Alexander et al., 2020) and is measured using the USSOCOM Spiritual Fitness Scale (Alexander et al., 2020). While limited research has been conducted to validate this model, initial research shows that higher levels of self-reported spiritual readiness correlate with higher levels of human flourishing (Koenig, 2023). Further, spiritual performance is defined within this framework as the effectiveness of the spiritual core (one’s core beliefs, values, sense of meaning and purpose, self-awareness, and sense of transcendence) in influencing an individual’s inner strength, relationships, ethical decision-making, and resilience, to produce an increase in overall human performance. Each of these spiritual definitions are distinct elements for measuring different aspects of spirituality within a human performance paradigm. See Table 1 for spirituality definitions.

Table 1.

Spiritual definitions.

Spirituality An individual’s sense of inner life (core values/beliefs), sense of meaning and purpose, and sense of connection with others (Ashmos & Duchon, 2000; Fry, 2023; Milliman et al., 2003)
Spiritual readiness (SR) One’s personal connection to a higher power or transcendence (“vertical spirituality”) and one’s altruism toward others (“horizontal spirituality;” Alexander et al., 2020)
Spiritual performance (SP) The effectiveness of the spiritual core (one’s core beliefs, values, sense of meaning and purpose, self-awareness, and sense of transcendence) in influencing an individual’s inner strength, relationships, ethical decision-making, and resilience to produce an increase in overall human performance.
Open in a new tab

Until recently, there has existed a lack of fidelity in assessments derived to measure spiritual performance (Koenig, 2023; Worthington & Deuster, 2018). In this study, the association of each individual spirituality construct and hardiness was examined within a broad military context, specifically that of soldiers and DA civilians. The distinct spirituality constructs were examined for each population using existing measures to determine spiritual readiness and spiritual performance. We hypothesized that an increase in each individual spirituality construct (readiness and performance), as measured independently by each of the two spirituality measures, when adjusting for age, sex, education level, and marital status, would have a direct relationship with the positive aspects of hardiness and an inverse relationship with the negative aspects of hardiness as defined by the dual process model of hardiness.

Methods

Data collection procedures

The present study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Soldier Center, Combat Capabilities Development Command. Data were collected as part of a more extensive study to validate a new spiritual performance instrument, the Spiritual Performance Matrix. Individuals were invited to participate via an e-mail sent to all military and civilian personnel at a large military research facility. Those outside the Department of the Army (contractors, for example) or under 18 years of age were excluded from participating. Individuals meeting inclusion criteria were provided a link to an electronic consent document and survey instrument (administered via Qualtrics, Seattle, WA). The survey included an information sheet describing the study, followed by the measures of spirituality and hardiness. Upon consent, participants completed the battery of assessments on their personal devices. No personally identifiable information was collected from the participants to protect anonymity. Additionally, participants were given an information sheet which included information regarding the study, confidentiality, and data security. After downloading the data from Qualtrics, participants were assigned an identification number solely for data cleaning and organization.

Participants

For this study, the participants were limited to soldiers from the active, National Guard, and Reserve components and DA Civilians due to constraints on collecting data from DA contractors and dependents. Furthermore, the unique stressors inherent within the military community are not shouldered by the soldier population alone; DA Civilians also bear a portion of that weight. As such, the population for this study is better representative of the total force. This study sought to understand the relationship between spirituality on hardiness across various Army components, including active-duty and National Guard Soldiers (N = 313) and DA Civilians (N = 276) for a total of N = 589. The active-duty soldier sample (N = 268) consisted of infantry, logistics, medical, and special operations personnel. The National Guard sample (N = 42) included infantry and logistics personnel from the Massachusetts National Guard. The DA Civilian sample were predominately scientists, engineers, and logistics personnel at an Army research laboratory. While the Army Reserve component was not well sampled (N = 3), it is reasonable to assume responses by National Guardsmen may not be significantly different. For this study, all Soldiers were grouped together for analysis due to the smaller participants for National Guard and Reserve components. For the military sample, participants were primarily male (81.2%) between 18 and 24 years old (26.8%) with a bachelor’s degree (22.7%) and married (58.8%). For DA Civilian sample, participants were evenly split male and female (49.3%) between 54 and 59 years old (22.5%) with a bachelor’s degree (39.1%) and married (69.6%). See Table 2 for full demographic data.

Table 2.

Demographics.

  Total (N = 589)
 Military (n = 313)
 DA Civilian (n = 276)
  # (%)
Age
 18–25 95 (16.13) 84 (26.84) 11 (4.00)
 26–32 94 (16.00) 59 (18.85) 35 (12.68)
 33–39 109 (18.51) 75 (23.96) 34 (12.32)
 40–46 110 (18.68) 69 (22.05) 41 (14.86)
 47–53 61 (10.36) 16 (5.11) 45 (16.30)
 54–59 71 (12.05) 9 (0.32) 62 (22.46)
 60+ 49 (8.32) 0 (0.00) 48 (17.39)
Sex
 Male 390 (66.21) 254 (81.15) 136 (49.28)
 Female 192 (32.60) 56 (17.89) 136 (49.28)
 Prefer not to answer 7 (1.19) 3 (0.96) 4 (1.45)
Education level
 High school/GED 63 (10.70) 59 (18.85) 4 (1.45)
 Some college 84 (14.26) 61 (19.49) 23 (8.33)
 Associates degree 41 (6.96) 29 (9.27) 12 (4.35)
 Bachelors degree 179 (30.39) 71 (22.68) 108 (39.13)
 Masters degree 163 (27.67) 67 (21.41) 96 (35.78)
 Doctoral degree 56 (9.51) 25 (7.99) 31 (11.23)
 Prefer not to answer 3 (0.51) 1 (0.32) 2 (0.73)
Marital Status
 Never married 148 (25.13) 96 (30.67) 52 (18.84)
 Married 376 (63.84) 184 (58.79) 192 (69.57)
 Divorced 48 (8.15) 22 (7.03) 26 (9.42)
 Separated 6 (1.02) 5 (1.60) 1 (0.37)
 Widowed 3 (0.51) 2 (0.5) 1 (0.37)
 Prefer not to answer
 8 (1.36)
 4 (1.28)
 4 (1.45)
 
 Mean (SD)
Spiritual performance 4.76 (1.43) 4.79 (1.58) 4.73 (1.44)
Spiritual readiness 4.02 (0.61) 3.96 (0.65) 4.10 (0.54)
Negative hardiness dimension 28.43 (7.13) 29.34 (7.75) 27.41 (6.22)
 Alienation 8.03 (3.71) 8.51 (4.00) 7.50 (3.27)
 Powerlessness 7.12 (3.06) 7.59 (3.49) 6.59 (2.39)
 Rigidity 13.28 (2.92) 13.24 (3.00) 13.30 (2.83)
Positive hardiness dimension 45.99 (6.57) 45.78 (67.03) 46.24 (6.01)
 Commitment 15.15 (2.93) 14.88 (2.58) 15.46 (2.12)
 Control 15.75 (2.57) 15.64 (2.74) 15.88 (2.36)
 Challenge 15.10 (2.81) 15.28 (2.91) 14.90 (2.69)
Open in a new tab

Tables may not equal 100% due to rounding. No data was missing from the data set.

Measures of spirituality and psychological hardiness

The Spiritual Performance Matrix (SPM; Hedrick, 2023), a newer instrument, was explicitly developed within the Army’s Holistic Health and Fitness context to measure spiritual performance. The SPM was validated for use within the military as part of this study. The SPM comprises ten questions aligned against two sub-scales – inward belief (IB) and outward behavior (OB) – and utilizes a seven-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree). A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to determine the validity and reliability of the two-factor model, which was found to provide good fit to the data, χ2 [34] = 147.48, p < .001, CFI = 0.997, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.04. All items loaded onto their respective factors >.400, (IB = 0.67–0.91; OB = 0.77–0.88). Convergent validity for the SPM was determined by ensuring standardized factor loadings >0.4 and the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of each factor >0.5 (Cheung et al., 2023). The SPM demonstrated acceptable AVE; IB AVE = 0.66, OB AVE = 0.68. Convergent validity was also assessed by determining correlations with similar instruments measuring spiritual fitness aspects. Discriminant validity was determined through three methods: (1) no cross-loaded items, (2) correlation between factors was <0.9, r = .85 (Garson, 2002), and (3) heterotrait-monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) <0.85, HTMT = 0.82 (Cheung et al., 2023). The SPM considered only factors loading >0.4; no factors cross-loaded onto more than one factor. Finally, each subscale demonstrated strong internal reliability (IB α = 0.88, OB α = 0.82). Thus, the SPM is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring spiritual performance. Example items include: “My spiritual/core beliefs give meaning and explain ‘why’ when negative things occur” and “My spiritual/core beliefs are a key influence in my daily life and decision-making.” The SPM is scored by averaging the items on each subscale and then averaging the subscales. Higher scores indicate greater levels of spiritual performance. Cronbach’s alpha for the present sample was α = 0.91.

The SOCOM Spiritual Fitness Scale (SFS) measures spiritual readiness using 18 items (Alexander et al., 2020). The SFS consists of three factors: Personal Connection to a Higher Power (PCHP), Pursuing Meaning, Purpose, and Value (PMPV), and Service and Sacrifice for the Greater Good (SSGG). This study only used the PMPV and SSGG factors to calculate the spiritual readiness score since the PCHP is an optional factor, designed for only individuals identifying as theists – individuals who believe in a god, typically of the Judeo-Christian belief system. As a result, approximately 19.6% did not complete the PCHP factor. Excluding the PCHP factor is consistent with scoring overall spiritual readiness for non-theists and does not alter the results (Alexander et al., 2020). The instrument uses a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree). Sample items include: “I strongly believe in humanity and the power of people,” “Human value and respect should be the greatest social value,” and “I can find meaning and purpose in my everyday experiences.” The SFS provides an overall spiritual score by averaging each factor’s items individually and then averaging the factors together. Higher scores reflect higher levels of spiritual readiness. Cronbach’s alpha for this study was α = 0.89.

The Dispositional Resilience Scale-II-Military version (DRS-II-M; Sinclair & Oliver, 2003) was used to measure hardiness. The DRS-II-M is designed with 24 items arranged into six subscales that align against two dimensions of hardiness (positive hardiness: commitment, control, and challenge; negative hardiness: alienation, powerlessness, and rigidity). The DRS-II scores along a five-point Likert scale (1 = Definitely False, 5 = Definitely True). Sample items include: “My successes are because of my effort and ability” and “I often feel helpless.” The subscales are scored by adding associated items. Negative and positive DRS scores are obtained by adding the three associated subscale totals. Higher positive hardiness scores and lower negative hardiness scores are considered psychologically healthy. Cronbach’s alpha for this study was α = 0.83 for positive hardiness and α = 0.81 for negative hardiness.

Data analytic plan

Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) were calculated for each demographic variable (Age, Sex, Marital Status, and Education Level), independent variable (SR, SP), and dependent variable (positive hardiness, commitment, control, challenge, negative hardiness, alienation, powerlessness, and rigidity). Positive hardiness, as a dependent variable, was calculated by averaging its subdimensions (commitment, control, and challenge) and the dependent variable negative hardiness was calculated by averaging its subdimensions (alienation, powerlessness, and rigidity). A Kendall’s Tau-b correlation coefficient was used to explore the relationship between the spirituality constructs and psychological hardiness due to the non-normality of the data (Shapiro-Wilks = 0.992, p = .003). The associations between each spirituality construct (SR, SP, respectively) and each psychological hardiness-dependent variable were modeled using an ordinary least squares (OLS) linear regression, adjusted for age, sex, marital status, and education level, for both military and civilian populations. This analysis resulted in 32 regression models (see Tables 5 and 6). This study checked multicollinearity to ensure collinearity did not invalidate the regression line (Shrestha, 2020) and ran a Durbin–Watson test to verify that the correlations between the residuals did not invalidate the regression test (Turner, 2020). Q-Q plots and residual histograms were analyzed to ensure linearity and normality of the residuals (McCabe & King, 2023; Shrestha, 2020). All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 28.0 (IBM Corporation). Hypothesis tests were two-sided and assessed at p < .05 level of significance.

Table 5.

OLS linear regression models for spiritual performance (SP), and each dependent variable.

    95% CI
Dependent Variable (Y) B SE t R2 p Lower Upper
Military              
 PHD 0.71 0.27 2.68 0.14 .008 0.19 1.23
  COM 0.56 0.09 6.70 0.31 <.001 0.41 0.76
  CON −0.47 0.10 −4.57 0.13 <.001 −0.68 −0.27
  CHL 0.48 0.11 4.49 0.17 <.001 0.27 0.70
 NHD −0.67 0.27 −2.46 0.26 .015 −1.21 −0.13
  ALN −0.54 0.14 −3.90 0.28 <.001 −0.81 −0.27
  PWL −0.42 0.12 −3.494 0.29 <.001 −0.65 −0.18
  RIG* 0.29 0.12 2.49 0.09 .013 0.61 0.52
Civilian              
 PHD 0.61 0.25 2.39 0.16 .018 0.11 1.10
  COM 0.30 0.09 3.46 0.22 <.001 0.13 0.47
  CON* −0.30 0.10 −2.88 0.10 .004 −0.50 −0.09
  CHL 0.44 0.11 3.88 0.16 <.001 0.22 0.67
 NHD −0.67 0.26 −2.60 0.19 .010 −1.18 −0.16
  ALN −0.58 0.13 −4.32 0.15 <.001 −0.84 −0.31
  PWL −0.35 0.10 −3.57 0.18 <.001 −0.55 −0.16
  RIG* 0.26 0.13 2.08 0.08 .038 0.01 0.51
Open in a new tab

*Overall regression model was not significant, SPM = Spiritual Performance Matrix, NHD = negative hardiness dimension, ALN = alienation, PWL = powerlessness, RIG = rigidity, PHD = positive hardiness dimension, COM = commitment, CON = control, CHL = challenge; All regression models adjusted for Age, Sex, Marital Status, and Education Level.

Table 6.

OLS linear regression models for spiritual readiness (SR) and each dependent variable.

    95% CI
Dependent Variable (Y) B SE t R2 p Lower Upper
Military              
 PHD 6.01 0.54 11.198 0.38 <.001 4.96 7.07
  COM 2.14 0.19 11.52 0.45 <.001 1.77 2.50
  CON* 0.60 0.25 2.37 0.09 .018 0.10 1.10
  CHL 2.31 0.23 10.14 0.35 <.001 1.87 2.76
 NHD −3.75 0.62 −6.05 0.32 <.001 −4.97 −2.53
  ALN −2.40 0.31 −7.76 0.37 <.001 −3.01 −1.79
  PWL −2.13 0.26 −8.08 0.40 <.001 −2.65 −1.61
  RIG* 0.78 0.28 2.81 0.09 .005 0.24 1.33
Civilian              
 PHD 5.98 0.59 10.16 0.39 <.001 4.82 7.14
  COM 1.60 0.22 7.35 0.33 <.001 1.17 2.03
  CON 1.02 0.28 3.67 0.12 <.001 0.47 1.57
  CHL 2.58 0.28 9.37 0.34 <.001 2.03 3.12
 NHD −4.91 0.64 −7.63 0.32 <.001 −6.17 −3.64
  ALN −3.12 0.32 −9.69 0.38 <.001 −3.75 −2.49
  PWL −1.99 0.25 −8.03 0.32 <.001 −2.48 −1.50
  RIG* 0.20 0.34 0.92 0.05 .591 −0.47 0.88
Open in a new tab

*Overall regression model was not significant, SFS = Spiritual Fitness Scale, NHD = negative hardiness dimension, ALN = alienation, PWL = powerlessness, RIG = rigidity, PHD = positive hardiness dimension, COM = commitment, CON = control, CHL = challenge; All regression models adjusted for Age, Sex, Marital Status, and Education Level.

Results

Associations across measures of spirituality

Considering the different aspects of spirituality used within the military context, it was necessary to explore the associations across the spiritual variables and determine convergent validity for the measures. The two spirituality constructs, spiritual performance and readiness (measured by the SPM and SFS, respectively), had moderate to high correlationsn for both the military and DA civilian contexts (τb = 0.44 and τb = 0.50, respectively. Thus, the two spirituality constructs displayed high correlations, indicating the spiritual constructs are measuring similar, yet distinct facets of spirituality as a whole. See Tables 3 and 4 for full results.

Table 3.

Kendall’s Tau-b correlation matrix for military personnel (N = 313).

  SP SR NHD ALN PWL RIG PHD COM CON CHL AGE SEX ED MAR
SP 1                          
SR 0.44** 1                        
NHD −0.21** −0.30** 1                      
ALN −0.25** −0.34** 0.72** 1                    
PWL −0.23** −0.36** 0.71** 0.68** 1                  
RIG 0.08 0.10* 0.28** −0.01 −0.01 1                
PHD 0.11** 0.38** −0.35** −0.39** −0.44** 0.07 1              
COM 0.30** 0.43** −0.35** −0.41** −0.42** 0.09* 0.54** 1            
CON −0.18* 0.11** −0.11** −0.12** −0.19** 0.06 0.52** 0.16** 1          
CHL 0.21** 0.37** −0.34** −0.37** −0.41** 0.05 0.72** 0.44** 0.30** 1        
AGE 0.19** 0.19** −0.29** −0.27** −0.29** −0.09* 0.13** 0.20** 0.03 0.13** 1      
SEX −0.07 0.04 0.00 0.00 −0.02 0.01 −0.02 −0.00 0.01 −0.07 −0.01 1    
ED 0.26** −0.24** 0.31** −0.32** −0.35** 0.02 0.14** 0.26** −0.03 0.15** 0.56** 0.05 1  
MAR 0.13* 0.14** −0.17** −0.14** −0.21** 0.01 0.10* 0.12* 0.03 0.12 0.43** 0.08 0.31** 1
Open in a new tab

*significant at the 0.05 level, **significant at the 0.01 level; SP = spiritual performance, SF = spiritual fitness, SR = spiritual readiness, NHD = negative hardiness dimension, ALN = alienation, PWL = powerlessness, RIG = rigidity, PHD = positive hardiness dimension, COM = commitment, CON = control, CHL = challenge, ED = education level, MAR = marital status.

Table 4.

Kendall’s Tau-b correlation matrix for civilian personnel (N = 276).

  SP SR NHD ALN PWL RIG PHD COM CON CHL AGE SEX ED MAR
SP 1                          
SR 0.42** 1                        
NHD −0.14** −0.30** 1                      
ALN −0.20** −0.37** 0.70** 1                    
PWL −0.16** −0.33** 0.61** 0.61** 1                  
RIG 0.06 −0.01 0.40** 0.08 0.02 1                
PHD 0.11* 0.38** −0.37** −0.41** −0.45** −0.02 1              
COM 0.21** 0.32** −0.35** −0.18** −0.41** 0.01 0.55** 1            
CON −0.10* 0.19** −0.18** −0.33** −0.26** −0.00 0.55** 0.20** 1          
CHL 0.16** 0.37** −0.31** −0.17** −0.36** −0.03 0.70** 0.40** 0.29** 1        
AGE 0.18** 0.18** −0.17** −0.17** −0.13** −0.06 0.12** 0.19** 0.07 0.07 1      
SEX −0.01 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.10 −0.03 −0.07 −0.06 −0.07 −0.08 −0.14** 1    
ED −0.06 −0.01 0.02 0.02 −0.04 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.05 1  
MAR 0.10* 0.11* −0.18** −0.17** −0.13* −0.11* 0.09 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.31** −0.04 0.05 1
Open in a new tab

*significant at the 0.05 level, **significant at the 0.01 level; SP = spiritual performance, SF = spiritual fitness, SR = spiritual readiness, NHD = negative hardiness dimension, ALN = alienation, PWL = powerlessness, RIG = rigidity, PHD = positive hardiness dimension, COM = commitment, CON = control, CHL = challenge, ED = education level, MAR = marital status.

Associations between measures of spirituality and hardiness

The analysis included exploring correlations between the spirituality variables and hardiness variables using Kendall’s Tau-b due to the non-parametric nature of the data. Analysis of the military sample indicated spiritual performance had low to moderate negative correlations with the negative hardiness dimension and subcomponents (τb = −0.21 to −0.25, except for rigidity, [τb = −0.08]) and low to moderate positive correlations with the positive hardiness dimension and subcomponents (τb = 0.11–0.30, except for control [τb = −0.18]). Spiritual readiness had high negative correlations with the negative hardiness dimension and all the subcomponents (τb = −0.30 to −0.358), except for rigidity (τb = 0.10). Spiritual readiness had high positive correlations with the positive hardiness dimension and all the subcomponents (τb = 0.37–0.43), except for control (τb = 0.11). See Table 3 for full results for the military sample.

Analysis of the DA Civilian sample yielded similar results as the military sample, indicating spiritual performance had low to moderate negative correlations with the negative hardiness dimension and subcomponents (τb = −0.14 to −0.20, except for rigidity, [τb = −0.06]) and low to moderate positive correlations with the positive hardiness dimension and subcomponents (τb = 0.11–0.21, except for control [τb = −0.10]). Spiritual readiness had high negative correlations with the negative hardiness dimension and all the subcomponents (τb = −0.30 to −0.37), except for rigidity (τb = 0.01). Spiritual readiness had high positive correlations with the positive hardiness dimension and all the subcomponents (τb = 0.32–0.38), except for control (τb = 0.19). See Table 4 for full results for the DA Civilian sample.

In military population using the OLS model, the analysis found a significant regression model between spiritual performance (SP) and the positive and negative hardiness variables. The results indicate that a one-point increase in SP score was associated with a 0.71 point increase in positive hardiness. Regarding positive hardiness sub-components, a one-point increase in SP score was associated with a 0.56 increase in commitment, a −0.47 decrease in control, and a 0.48 increase in challenge. A one-point increase in SP score was associated with a −0.67 point decrease in negative hardiness, −0.54 decrease in alienation, −0.42 decrease in powerlessness, and a 0.29 increase in rigidity. Similarly, in DA Civilians, that a one-point increase in SP score was associated with a 0.61 point increase in positive hardiness. Regarding positive hardiness sub-components, a one-point increase in SP score was associated with a 0.30 increase in commitment, a 0.44 increase in challenge, and a −0.47 decrease in control. A one-point increase in SP score was associated with a −0.67 point decrease in negative hardiness, −0.58 decrease in alienation, a −0.35 decrease in powerlessness, and a 0.26 increase in rigidity. Each regression equation also demonstrated satisfactory Durbin-Watson statistics and did not show signs of multicollinearity. See Table 5 for full results.

For spiritual readiness (SR), a significant regression model was found for military personnel, with each of the positive and negative hardiness variables with a one-point increase in SR score was associated with a 6.01 point increase in positive hardiness, 2.14 increase in commitment, 2.31 increase in challenge, and a 0.60 increase in control. A one-point increase in SR score was associated with −3.75 point decrease in negative hardiness, −2.40 decrease in alienation, a −2.13 decrease in powerlessness, and a 0.78 increase in rigidity. Similarly, in DA Civilians, a one-point increase in SR score was associated with a 5.98 point increase in positive hardiness. Regarding positive hardiness sub-components, a one-point increase in SR score was associated with a 1.60 increase in commitment, a 1.02 increase in control, and a 2.58 increase in challenge. A one-point increase in SR score was associated with a −4.91 point decrease in negative hardiness, −3.12 decrease in alienation, and a −1.99 decrease in powerlessness. The models did not reveal a significant model between SR and rigidity (p = .591). Each regression equation also demonstrated satisfactory Durbin–Watson statistics and did not show signs of multicollinearity. See Table 6 for full results.

Discussion

This study found that higher levels of individual spirituality had a direct relationship with the positive aspects of hardiness and an inverse relationship with the negative aspects of hardiness across nearly every spiritual construct. Similar trends emerged for the two spiritual constructs – spiritual performance and readiness. This study found a direct relationship between lower self-reported spirituality and higher self-reported negative hardiness scores, demonstrating the potential opportunity for spirituality-based interventions to enhance hardiness levels. While spirituality promotes positive hardiness from a proactive perspective, spirituality may also be impactful in a reactive way with negative hardiness behaviors due to the inverse relationship of higher levels of spirituality. This study demonstrates that there is a relationship between spirituality and hardiness, and we can use that knowledge to develop and test targeted interventions that may help to increase positive hardiness and decrease negative hardiness in military personnel and DA Civilians.

Two findings are worth noting. First, while rigidity is considered a negative aspect of hardiness, and we would presume it should have a negative relationship with spirituality, this study found rigidity had no significant relationship to any of the spiritual constructs in either population. Rigidity reflects an individual’s flexibility and openness to change, with higher scores indicating less flexibility and more resistance to change (Sinclar & Oliver, 2003). It may be possible that participants perceive the values of spirituality as rigid and not offering significant room for flexibility. So, as their spirituality levels increase, they may be less flexible and willing to change their beliefs during adverse events. Additionally, individuals might conflate spirituality with religiosity, which is known to correlate with rigidity in research examining religious-based prejudices (Shen et al., 2013), interfaith conflicts (Hansen & Ryder, 2016), and fundamentalism (Yelderman, 2018). This is not to imply that religiosity is inherently negative but instead involves perhaps more clearly defined rules, practices, and requirements that must be adhered to. Instead, spirituality’s focus on depth and sincerity of belief might explain the unanticipated relationship. Further research is necessary to explore the relationship between spirituality and rigidity. An Acceptance and Commitment Therapy/Training (ACT)-based approach focused on examining psychological flexibility – or willingness to engage with stressors may provide an alternate lens for future research and intervention development related to rigidity and elements of psychological hardiness (Evans et al., 2023; Peterson et al., 2024).

Second, control had a negative relationship with spiritual performance, but it had an anticipated positive relationship with spiritual readiness for both military and DA civilian samples. Control reflects feelings of self-efficacy (i.e., locus of control). Whether one controls their situation (internal locus of control) versus external factors acting upon them out of their control (external locus of control) might be misrepresented when considering spirituality as a variable. Spirituality emphasizes transcendence’s role in creating meaning and purpose (Koenig et al., 2012; Milliman et al., 2003), attributing external factors as mechanisms for events that occur (Wong McDonald & Gorsuch, 2004). For example, within many spiritual concepts, common themes include luck, fate, or the will of God, all of which promote an external locus of control that often contrasts with an individual’s concept of internal control. In a rapid literature review surveying the connection between spirituality and control, Timmins and Martin (2019) research indicated while spirituality was beneficial to overall health, it tended to negate individual internal locus of control, instead favoring an external locus of control framework based on fate, luck, and existential control. Therefore, while greater internal control is considered a positive hardiness trait, it is plausible to assume that those with higher levels of spiritual performance may be focused on the external components of control, leading to a negative relationship.

While spiritual performance had a negative relationship with control, spiritual readiness demonstrated a positive relationship within both samples. Upon further investigation, however, the relationship between the spiritual readiness and spiritual performance might be explained by the strength of correlations observed through Kendall’s Tau-b analysis. Though spiritual performance demonstrated a negative relationship within the military population, the correlation was weak (military, τb = −0.18; civilian τb = −0.10) and the DA civilian regression model overall was not significant. Spiritual readiness also demonstrated a weak correlation in the civilian sample (military, τb = 0.11; civilian τb = 0.19). Furthermore, compared to the effect of spiritual readiness on the other positive hardiness variables (challenge and commitment), spiritual readiness’ impact on control was minimal (B = 0.60). Therefore, while a significant positive relationship does exist, the weak correlation and minimal impact on control in the regression model is not dramatically different from spiritual performance. Additional research is needed to understand the relationship further and provide nuance via qualitative methods.

Previous research has not examined the relationship between spirituality and hardiness within a military context. Higher levels of spirituality and hardiness may provide a competitive advantage to Army personnel operating within the austere, ambiguous, and complex operational environments by working to increase individual resilience. Hardiness has a strong relationship with increased resilience (Nemati, 2019), identified as a critical component within the Army’s H2F program (Koenig, 2023). FM 7-22, Holistic Health and Fitness, also identifies spiritual readiness as a contributor to increased resilience. Additional research within the H2F domain could assist the Army with assigning and aligning spiritual domain-specific H2F assets to promote total force hardiness and resilience. Further, H2F programming may benefit from improved psychological function by incorporating training that integrates hardiness and spirituality concepts.

Finally, this study attempted to examine the total force, making the findings generalizable beyond just soldiers. Spiritual core training is impactful not just for soldier hardiness but can positively impact DA civilians. This study acknowledges that the DA Civilian personnel used were predominately from an Army research facility and may not accurately reflect DA Civilians throughout the total force, however the sample does provide a starting point for future research. Additionally, the total force includes dependents, which, in terms of hardiness and spirituality research, is a critical gap, with no studies found during the literature review exploring this area. Military families experience significant levels of stress due to a lack of extended familial support networks, constant relocation, increased deployments or training exercises, and secondary trauma from the impacts of war (Link & Palinkas, 2013). Developing the hardiness of Army families is paramount to protect from the increased stress of modern warfare. As with Soldiers and DA Civilians, increasing the spirituality of military families could positively increase hardiness. Additional research should explore this relationship with military dependents to give a fuller picture of hardiness within the total force.

Limitations and future study

This study provides insights into the relationship between spirituality and hardiness. However, there were several limitations. First, as a cross-sectional study, it is impossible to determine the causality or directionality of the relationship between spirituality and hardiness. Further research is necessary using longitudinal and qualitative research to better understand the relationship between spirituality and hardiness. Second, response bias may be present since data was collected using self-report measures. However, a positive aspect is because people anonymously self-selected for this study, they might be more apt to talk honestly about their beliefs, yet this raises the possibility this study under-represents those who are not inclined to discuss their spirituality. Additional research is needed to develop objective, observable metrics on hardiness and spirituality.

Third, while this study attempted to capture a generalizable sample from the Army population, the number of National Guard and Reserve components was much smaller than the active duty and DA Civilian samples. This is important to understand as Reservists and National Guard personnel often operate in resource-restricted environments and could benefit from increased psychological hardiness. The resource restriction within the National Guard and Reserve Components comes in two forms – training resources and time to train. First, the National Guard and Reserves are often geographically dispersed, only coming together for training events once a month and for two weeks in the summer. This dispersion creates significant limitations in resourcing Reserve and National Guard soldiers who may live in different cities, counties, or even states away from their duty location.

In comparison, active-duty personnel typically have all the needed resources close to their duty assignment for easier access to support. Second, Reserve and National Guard units have condensed training timelines due to their requirements to maintain equivalent readiness with the active component, though only training one weekend a month and two weeks in the summer. Finding white space on the training calendar to conduct spiritual or hardiness training is much more challenging. Future research is necessary to better understand spirituality and hardiness within the National Guard and Reserve components.

Finally, this study serves as a foundation for further research and collaboration between Army behavioral health professionals and the Chaplain Corps. Pragmatically, more collaboration between the two branches is necessary with calls for increased collaboration within the military (Cooper et al., 2023) and Veterans Affairs (Nieuwsma et al., 2014). This study’s findings furthers the call for increased collaboration between behavioral health and chaplains, especially considering the necessity of hardiness for military operations (Senevirante et al., 2023). Furthermore, both branches benefit from increased Soldier hardiness since behavioral health and the chaplaincy are often overwhelmed with Soldier issues (Cooper et al., 2023; Kazman et al., 2022). LSCO will only increase Soldier challenges; deliberate collaboration between behavioral health and chaplaincy professionals through cooperative, proactive training to build hardiness and collective, reactive care for Soldiers is essential.

Conclusion

As the character of war shifts back to Large Scale Combat Operations with increased hardship for Soldiers and families, the need for hardiness and spirituality has never been greater (Senevirante et al., 2023). Spirituality has the potential to increase hardiness proactively through its positive relationship with challenge and commitment and counter the adverse effects of alienation, powerlessness, and rigidity. This study demonstrated a clear relationship between hardiness and spirituality. The information from this study may offer support for incorporating spiritual fitness and hardiness concepts into training and increasing behavioral health and chaplaincy collaboration.

Funding Statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Disclosure statement

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

Data availability statement

The data underlying this article were provided by U.S. Army personnel and Department of Defense agencies under license or by permission via consent forms. The data underlying this article cannot be shared publicly due to government restrictions. Data will only be provided after a formal request is made to the corresponding author and if individual permission is given for its release by the U.S. Army and Department of Defense data owners.

Disclaimer

The opinions or assertions contained herein are the private views of the author(s) and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting the views of the Army or the Department of Defense.

Public interest statement

This study reveals that increased levels of spirituality in military and DA Civilian personnel have a significant relationship with the positive elements of hardiness and an inverse relationship with aspects that negate hardiness. These findings may empower leaders with additional ways to increase soldier and DA cilivian hardiness, offer support for incorporating spirituality and hardiness concepts into training, and increasing behavioral health and chaplaincy collaboration.

References

  1. Adler, A. B., & Dolan, C. A. (2006). Military hardiness as a buffer of psychological health on return from deployment. Military Medicine, 171(2), 93–98. 10.7205/milmed.171.2.93 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexander, D. W., Abulhawa, Z., & Kazman, J. (2020). The SOCOM spiritual fitness scale: Measuring ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ spirituality in the human performance domain. Journal of Pastoral Care & Counseling, 74(4), 269–279. 10.1177/1542305020967317 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ashmos, D. P., & Duchon, D. (2000). Spirituality at work: A conceptualization and measure. Journal of Management Inquiry, 9(2), 134–145. 10.1177/105649260092008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bakhshi, A., Narmigh, L. K., Hosainzehi, H., Tajabadi, N. Z., & Far, M. M. (2023). The effectiveness of spiritual therapy on psychological hardiness and psychological distress of students. Journal of Islamic Life Style, 7, 359–366. [Google Scholar]
  5. Baksi, A., Arda Sürücü, H., & Genç, H. (2021). Psychological hardiness and spirituality in patients with primary brain tumors: A comparative study. Journal of Religion & Health, 60(4), 2799–2809. 10.1007/s10943-021-01238-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bartone, P. T. (1999). Hardiness protects against war-related stress in army reserve forces. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 51(2), 72–82. 10.1037/1061-4087.51.2.72 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bartone, P. T., & Bowles, S. V. (2020). Coping with recruiter stress: Hardiness, performance and well-being in US army recruiters. Military Psychology, 32(5), 390–397. 10.1080/08995605.2020.1780061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bartone, P. T., Hystad, S. W., Eid, J., & Brevik, J. I. (2012). Psychological hardiness and coping style as risk/resilience factors for alcohol abuse. Military Medicine, 177(5), 517–524. 10.7205/milmed-d-11-00200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bartone, P. T., Kelly, D. R., & Matthews, M. D. (2013). Psychological hardiness predictsadaptability in military leaders: A prospective study. International Journal of Selection, 21(2), 200–210. 10.1111/ijsa.12029 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bartone, P. T., McDonald, K., Hansma, B. J., StermacStein, J., Escobar, E. R., Stein, S. J., & Ryznar, R. (2022). Development and validation of an improved hardiness measure. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 39(3), 222–239. 10.1027/1015-5759/a000709 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Bartone, P. T., Roland, R. R., Picano, J. J., & Williams, T. J. (2008). Psychological hardiness predictssuccess in US army special forces candidates. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16(1), 78–81. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00412.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., & Wang, L. C. (2023). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: A review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41(2), 1–39. 10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Collette, T. L., von Esenwein, S. A., Sprague-Jones, J., Moore, K. E., & Sterling, E. (2022). Incidence rates of emotional, sexual, and physical abuse in active-duty military service members, 1997–2015. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 66, 101745. 10.1016/j.avb.2022.101745 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cooper, D. C., Evans, C. A., Chari, S. A., Campbell, M. S., & Hoyt, T. (2023). Military chaplains and mental health clinicians: Overlapping roles and collaborative opportunities. Psychological Services, 20(1), 56. 10.1037/ser0000661 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dempsey, C. L., Benedek, D. M., Zuromski, K. L., Nock, M. K., Brent, D. A., Ao, J., & Ursano, R. J. (2023). Recent stressful experiences and suicide risk: Implications for suicide prevention and intervention in US army soldiers. Psychiatric Research and Clinical Practice, 5(1), 24–36. 10.1176/appi.prcp.20220027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. 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]
  17. Evans, W. R., Meyer, E. C., Moore, B. A., & Peterson, A. L. (2023). Psychological flexibility training to enhance resilience in military personnel. Military Behavioral Health, 12(3), 252–264. 10.1080/21635781.2023.2246900 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Feng, C. Q. (2024, November 13). Needs-based approach to holistic health and fitness. NCO Journal. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives/2024/March/Holistic-Health-and-Fitness/#:~:text=The%20Army’s%20H2F%20field%20manual,of%20physical%20exercise%20and%20nutrition
  19. Garson, G. D. (2002). Guide to writing empirical papers, theses, and dissertations. CRC Press. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hansen, I. G., & Ryder, A. (2016). In search of “religion proper” intrinsic religiosity and coalitional rigidity make opposing predictions of intergroup hostility across religious groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(6), 835–857. 10.1177/0022022116644983 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Heaton, K. J., Judkins, J., Cohen, B., Nguyen, V. T., Walker, L. A., Guerriere, K. I., Bartlett, M., Foulis, S. A., & Hughes, J. M. (2022). Psychological hardiness and grit are associated with musculoskeletal injury in U.S. Army trainees. Military Behavioral Health, 10(4), 429–443. 10.1080/21635781.2022.2067919 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hedrick, B. (2023). Spiritual performance matrix information paper [Manuscript in preparation] Soldier Center study: 23-005. Combat Capabilities Development Command, Department of the Army. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hufford, D., Fritts, M., & Rhodes, J. (2010). Spiritual fitness. Military Medicine, 175(8), 73–87. 10.7205/MILMED-D-10-00075 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hystad, S. W., Eid, J., Laberg, J. C., & Bartone, P. T. (2011). Psychological hardiness predicts admission into Norwegian military officer schools. Military Psychology, 23(4), 381–389. 10.1037/h0094763 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Judkins, J. L., Moore, B. A., Collette, T. L., Hale, W. J., Peterson, A. L., & Morissette, S. B. (2020). Incidence rates of posttraumatic stress disorder over a 17-year period in active duty military service members. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 33(6), 994–1006. 10.1002/jts.22558 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kazman, J. B., Gutierrez, I. A., Schuler, E. R., Alders, E. A., Myatt, C. A., Jeffery, D. D., Deuster, P. A., & Deuster, P. A. (2022). Who sees the chaplain? Characteristics and correlates of behavioral health care-seeking in the military. Journal of Health Care Chaplaincy, 28(1), 1–12. 10.1080/08854726.2020.1723193 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 37(1), 1–11. 10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Koenig, H. G. (2023). “Spiritual readiness” in the U.S. military: A neglected component of warrior readiness. Journal of Religion & Health, 62(3), 1561–1577. 10.1007/s10943-022-01563-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Koenig, H. G., King, D. E., & Carson, V. B. (2012). Handbook of religion and health (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  30. Link, P. E., & Palinkas, L. A. (2013). Long-term trajectories and service needs for military families. Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review, 16(4), 376–393. 10.1007/s10567-013-0145-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lo Bue, S., Kintaert, S., Taverniers, J., Mylle, J., Delahaij, R., & Euwema, M. (2016). Hardiness differentiates military trainees on behavioural persistence and physical performance. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16(4), 354–364. 10.1080/1612197X.2016.1232743 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Maddi, S. R. (2004). Hardiness: An operationalization of existential courage. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 44(3), 279–298. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/0022167804266101 [Google Scholar]
  33. Maddi, S. R., Brow, M., Khoshaba, D. M., & Vaitkus, M. (2006). Relationship of hardiness and religiousness to depression and anger. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58(3), 148–161. 10.1037/1065-9293.58.3.148 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Maddi, S. R., Matthews, M. D., Kelly, D. R., Villarreal, B. J., Gundersen, K. K., & Savino, S. C. (2017). The continuing role of hardiness and grit on performance and retention in west point cadets. Military Psychology, 29(5), 355–358. 10.1037/mil0000145 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Matthews, M. D., Kelly, D. R., White, B., Villarreal, M., & White, M. (2012). The role of hardiness and grit in predicting performance and retention of USMA cadets. Military Psychology, 24(1), 19–28. 10.1080/08995605.2012.639672 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. McCabe, C. J., & King, K. M. (2023). Estimating and visualizing interactions in moderated multiple regression. In Cooper H. (Ed.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Data analysis and research publication (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 111–128). American Psychological Association. 10.1037/0000320-005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Milliman, J., Czaplewski, A., & Ferguson, J. (2003). Workplace spirituality and employee work attitudes: An exploratory empirical assessment. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16, 426–447. 10.1108/09534810310484172 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Nemati, S. (2019). The role of resiliency and psychological hardiness in predicting psychological well-being. Positive Psychology Research, 5(3), 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  39. Nieuwsma, J. A., Jackson, G. L., DeKraai, M. B., Bulling, D. J., Cantrell, W. C., Rhodes, J. E., Meador, K. G., Ethridge, K., Lane, M. E., Tenhula, W. N., Batten, S. V., & Meador, K. G. (2014). Collaborating across the departments of veterans affairs and defense to integrate mental health and chaplaincy services. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 29(S4), 885–894. 10.1007/s11606-014-3032-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Peterson, A. L., Moore, B. A., Evans, W. R., Young McCaughan, S., Blankenship, A. E., Straud, C. L., McLean, C. S., Miller, T. L., Meyer, E. C., & Strong Star Consortium, F. T. (2024). Enhancing resiliency and optimizing readiness in military personnel through psychological flexibility training: Design and methodology of a randomized controlled trial. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14. 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1299532 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Pitts, B. L., Safer, M. A., Russell, D. W., & Castro-Chapman, P. L. (2016). Effects of hardiness and years of military service on posttraumatic stress symptoms in U.S. Army medics. Military Psychology, 28(4), 278–284. 10.1037/mil0000106 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Russell, P. D., Judkins, J. L., Blessing, A., Moore, B. A., & Morissette, S. B. (2022). Incidences of anxiety disorders among active duty service members between 1999 and 2018. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 91(102608), 1–10. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2022.102608 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Senevirante, L., Zeith, A., & Onishi, K. (2023). Reducing the human cost of large-scale military operations. Articles of war. https://www.army.mil/article/274904/adapting_to_the_expected_lsco_conflicts_in_the_21st_century
  44. Shen, M. J., Yelderman, L. A., Haggard, M. C., & Rowatt, W. C. (2013). Disentangling the belief in god and cognitive rigidity/flexibility components of religiosity to predict racial and value-violating prejudice: A post-critical belief scale analysis. Personality & Individual Differences, 54(3), 389–395. 10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Shrestha, N. (2020). Detecting multicollinearity in regression analysis. American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 8(2), 39–42. 10.12691/ajams-8-2-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Sinclair, R. R., & Oliver, C. M. (2003). Development and validation of a short measure of hardiness. Development, 81, 05–0002. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sinclair, R. R., & Oliver, C. M. (2004). Development and validation of a short measure of hardiness. Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA562799.pdf [Google Scholar]
  48. Sinclair, R. R., & Tetrick, L. E. (2000). Implications of item wording for hardiness structure, relation with neuroticism, and stress buffering. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(1), 1–25. 10.1006/jrpe.1999.2265 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Skomorovsky, A., & Sudom, K. A. (2011). Role of hardiness in the psychological well-being of Canadian forces officer candidates. Military Medicine, 176(1), 7–12. 10.7205/milmed-d-10-00325 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Timmins, F., & Martin, C. (2019). Spirituality and locus of control—A rapid literature review. Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 6(2), 83. 10.1037/scp0000192 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Turner, P. (2020). Critical values for the Durbin-Watson test in large samples. Applied Economics Letters, 27(18), 1495–1499. 10.1080/13504851.2019.1691711 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. U.S. Department of the Army. (2020). FM 7-22: Holistic health and fitness. https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN30964-FM_7-22-001-WEB-4.pdf
  53. Vogt, D., Borowski, S., Maguen, S., Blosnich, J. R., Hoffmire, C. A., Bernhard, P. A., Iverson, K. M., & Schneiderman, A. (2022). Strengths and vulnerabilities: Comparing post-9/11 U.S. veterans’ and non-veterans’ perceptions of health and broader well-being. SSM – Population Health, 19, 101201. 10.1016/j.ssmph.2022.101201 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Wong McDonald, A., & Gorsuch, R. L. (2004). A multivariate theory of god concept, religious motivation, locus of control, coping, and spiritual well-being. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 32(4), 318–334. 10.1177/009164710403200404 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Worthington, D., & Deuster, P. A. (2018). Spiritual fitness: An essential component of human performance optimization. Journal of Special Operations Medicine: A Peer Reviewed Journal for SOF Medical Professionals, 18(1), 100–105. 10.55460/2R9F-IEFH [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Yelderman, L. A. (2018). Cognitive rigidity explains the relationship between religious fundamentalism and insanity defence attitudes. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 21(7), 686–697. 10.1080/13674676.2018.1551340 [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 underlying this article were provided by U.S. Army personnel and Department of Defense agencies under license or by permission via consent forms. The data underlying this article cannot be shared publicly due to government restrictions. Data will only be provided after a formal request is made to the corresponding author and if individual permission is given for its release by the U.S. Army and Department of Defense data owners.

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

RESOURCES