- Email: [email protected]
Courage as a potential mediator between personality and coping
Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 13–18
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Courage as a potential mediator between personality and coping Paola Magnano a,⁎, Anna Paolillo b, Silvia Platania c, Giuseppe Santisi c a b c
Faculty of Human and Social Sciences, Kore University, Cittadella Universitaria, Plesso di Psicologia, 94100 Enna, Italy Department of Philosophy, Education and Psychology, University of Verona, Lungadige Porta Vittoria 17, 37129 Verona, Italy Department of Education, University of Catania, Via Biblioteca 4, 95124 Catania, Italy
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 6 September 2016 Received in revised form 23 January 2017 Accepted 28 January 2017 Available online 3 February 2017 Keywords: Courage Positive psychology Big Five Coping Strengths
a b s t r a c t Courage is an ancient construct that has historically been regarded as a great virtue because it helps people to face their intrapersonal and interpersonal challenges. However, psychologists have conducted only limited research on the psychology of courage: recently, in the framework of positive psychology, courage has been included in the classification of core character strengths and virtues. Considering that other constructs of positive psychology, in previous research, have been related to personality and coping strategies, the present study investigates the relationship between courage, personality traits, and coping strategies, hypothesising that courage could mediate between personality and coping. The participants were 500 Italian adults, aged 18 to 60 years, paired for gender. The results showed that courage can be considered a mediator between personality and coping, affecting the use of self-directed strategies. Suggestions for the intervention were provided. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Courage as a potential mediator between personality and coping The construct of courage has received little attention from psychological research: using courage as a keyword in PsycInfo, we can find only 416 articles, 324 of which have been published since 2000 (Ginevra & Capozza, 2015). Courage has historically been regarded as a great virtue because it helps people to face their intrapersonal and interpersonal challenges. Over the past centuries, efforts to construct a socially relevant view of courage transported it from the heart of the brave soldier on the battlefield to the experience of daily life and the mind of every person (Lopez, O'Byrne, & Petersen, 2003). Psychological courage, according to Putman's (1997) definition, is strength in facing one's destructive habits. More specifically, Lopez et al. (2003) described psychological courage as “the cognitive process of defining risk, identifying and considering alternative actions, and choosing to act in spite of potential negative consequences in an effort to obtain ‘good’ for self or others” (p. 191). Peterson and Seligman (2001) included courage within the Values in Action classification of strengths, conceptualising it as a core human virtue comprising such strengths as authenticity, enthusiasm, perseverance, and valour. All of these strengths are trait-like, fulfilling, morally valued, and specific to the individual. Rate, Clarke, Lindsay, and Sternberg (2007), through qualitative research, found four dimensions of courage: (a) intentionality of action, (b) presence of personal fear, (c) nobility of purpose, and (d) known substantial personal risk. ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Magnano), [email protected] (A. Paolillo), [email protected] (S. Platania), [email protected] (G. Santisi).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.047 0191-8869/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The presence of fear is also highlighted in other research. For example, Woodard (2004) identified courageous people as those who, despite perceiving a danger or threat beyond which their resources are capable of effectively managing, move forward and act anyway. Gould (2005) underlined that courage allows one to effectively act under conditions of danger, fear, and risk. Finally, using a behavioural approach, Norton and Weiss (2009) stated that courage is distinct from fearlessness in that the courageous individual completes the same act as the fearless individual, despite experiencing fear. All these definitions of courage are characterised by common points: (a) the presence of fear, (b) intentionality and voluntariness in action, and (c) meaningful purpose. 2. Courage and personality Courageous action involves voluntarily pursuing a socially worthy goal despite the accompanying risk and the fear produced by a challenging event. At present, little research exists on the factors that describe the antecedents, enablers, and processes of courageous actions (Schilpzand, Hekman, & Mitchell, 2014). Recent theoretical work on the classification and delineation of core character strengths and virtues has convincingly related most of these attributes to various sets of personality dispositions (Peterson & Seligman, 2003). Clearly, certain traits facilitate or impede the development of specific strengths and virtues (e.g., agreeableness facilitates compassion, conscientiousness facilitates perseverance, and openness fosters creativity); at the same time, the cultivation of these virtues consolidates the same personality dispositions from which these virtues sprang (Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006). Woodard (2004) examined the role that courage plays in the construct
14
P. Magnano et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 13–18
of hardiness as a mediator between hardiness and physical health. Hardiness (Kobasa, 1979) is a personality style or pattern associated with performance under stress. As Maddi (1998) stated, “the more recent concept of hardiness constitutes a sufficient concretization of the concept of courage to have led to relevant research in support of this existential formulation” (p. 9). However, the results of Woodard's (2004) study were not definitive in establishing the relationship between hardiness—as personality disposition—and courage. Hannah, Sweeney, and Lester (2007) suggested that openness to experience and conscientiousness, together with other positive traits and states, moderate the linkages between perceptions of risk, intensity of experienced fear, and courageous behaviour. As Hannah et al. (2007) underlined, openness to experience encompasses an actor's ability to be imaginative, nonconforming, unconventional, and autonomous. Conscientiousness, on the other side, significantly correlates with an actor's sense of duty and with tenacity and persistence (McCrae, Costa, & Busch, 1986). Hannah et al. (2007) proposed that conscientiousness promotes courage in that duty, persistence, and tenacity closely parallel the purpose and action commonalities required for courageous behaviour (Goud, 2005). Finally, emotional stability (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999) may further promote broadening and courage under risk; in fact, low levels of arousal under stress have been shown to be related to courage (O'Connor, Hallam, & Rachman, 1985), suggesting that actors with greater emotional stability (i.e., those with low neuroticism) will tend to be secure, steady, and confident (Judge & Bono, 2001) and less likely to experience or ruminate over fear.
courage. Koerner's (2013) definition of courage—which comes from Gould's (2005) studies—highlighted the intentionality of action in the face of risks, threats, or obstacles in the pursuit of morally worthy goals. Endurance and perseverance are often needed to ensure that the goal is achieved. In Maddi's (2006) statements, the link between courage and coping is more explicit: in fact he underlines how courage represents “the strength to face stressful circumstances directly” (p. 306), being motivated to cope with them by turning them from potential disasters into growth opportunities. Courage is also involved in coping with the stressful circumstances that are imposed on us in unexpected ways. Lopez et al. (2003) indicated that courage may be considered necessary to the coping process, depending on the circumstances, because it is involved in dealing with the challenges and stresses that inevitably accompany life. Finally, a qualitative study conducted by Capozza, Nota, and Soresi (2015) aimed to compare implicit theories of courage with researchers' definitions with a sample of 850 Italians, highlighted that the term most strongly and frequently associated with courage is to cope. In conclusion, researchers have largely investigated the relationship between coping and the constructs of positive psychology, such as positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2001), optimism (Solberg Nes & Segerstrom, 2006; Magnano, Paolillo, Giacominelli, 2015), hope (Alexander & Onwuegbuzie, 2007), and resilience (Leipold & Greve, 2009). At the moment, an investigation of the relationship between coping and courage, which is included in the constructs of positive psychology, is lacking. Therefore, the present study can be considered one of the first to explore this relationship.
3. Personality and coping 5. Aim of the study The role of personality in coping strategies has been well-studied. In fact, as suggested by Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989), there are two ways to think about how individual differences can influence coping. The first possibility is that people have stable coping styles or dispositions for dealing with the stressful situations that they encounter. The second mode of thinking states that certain personality characteristics may predispose people to cope in certain ways when confronting adversity. Somerfield and McCrae (2000), studying the relationship between Big Five personality traits and coping, found the following correlations: neuroticism with emotion-focused coping, extraversion with social support-seeking, openness with seeking new information and solutions, and conscientiousness with perseverance in personal meaning-seeking. Carver et al. (1989) explored the possible existence of individual differences in preferred coping styles; they assumed that people tend to adopt certain coping tactics as relatively stable preferences. Stable preferences may derive from personality or develop for other reasons. Their findings suggest the possibility that personality traits and coping dispositions both play roles in situational coping. Other studies (e.g., Uehara, Sakado, Sakado, Sato, & Soomeya, 1999) have found that different coping methods are related to personality. Vollrath and Torgersen (2000) underlined that persons high in neuroticism engage in passive and maladaptive ways of coping, whereas persons high in extraversion engage in active coping strategies and seek social support (Somerfield & McCrae, 2000). Moreover, conscientiousness is strongly related to coping; in fact, individuals high in conscientiousness engage in planning and active problem-solving and refrain from passive, maladaptive coping (Jelinek & Morf, 1995). In comparison, the relationships between coping and each of the two remaining factors of the five-factor model, openness to experience and agreeableness, are weaker (Jelinek & Morf, 1995).
Only few systematic investigations have been conducted to determine emotional, cognitive, and situational correlates of courageous action (Hannah et al., 2007). Although the literature that describes the antecedents of courage is very limited, Peterson and Seligman's (2003) classification of the core character strengths and virtues (including courage) related these attributes to different sets of personality. Hannah et al. (2007) suggested that a combination of positive traits and states reduces the level of fear experienced when facing a risk, and, given this reduced level of fear, the same positive constructs promote courageous behaviours despite that fear. The positive emotions facilitate greater adaptability under stress, building personal resources. Considering that coping strategies allow a host of adaptive responses that achieve their intended purpose and maladaptive responses that direct one's energy away from the true source of a threat (Moos & Schaefer, 1993), we hypothesise that courage complements coping strategies in working toward goals. This influences positive coping strategies that are centred on one's own resources—which could change the troubled person's relationship with the environment by acting on the environment or on the person (Lazarus, 1993). This is as opposed to avoidance strategies, which are centred on the absence of responsibility in the stressful situations and which impede adjustment (see Felton, Revenson, & Hinrichsen, 1984). Then, considering that courage is involved in facing one's psychological challenges and that personality characteristics may play a role in coping strategies (Carver et al., 1989), we hypothesise that courage is a mediator of this relationship, playing a role in individuals' choices of coping strategies. Given the extent of support among these links, Fig. 1 serves as the base courage model in our study of coping strategies. We focus on the component of courage defined as “persistence or perseverance despite having fear” (Howard & Alipour, 2014). We assume, then, that the model produces the following answers:
4. Courage and coping The relationship between courage and coping has been investigated directly only in a few studies, but it is present in broader definitions of
1. The personality traits are antecedents of courage because they can promote or impede courageous behaviours that give the necessary push to action.
P. Magnano et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 13–18
15
Fig. 1. The hypothesised model.
2. A person assesses his or her ability to cope with the stressful situations effectively (in a self-directed way) or ineffectively (through self-avoidance), and this may be mediated by the person's resources and then by the successful assessment and courage that drives the person to perform the action. 6. Methods 6.1. Measures 6.1.1. Courage measure The courage measure (Norton & Weiss, 2009) uses a self-reported, 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 7 (always). This measure, in the Howard and Alipour (2014) version, used an operational definition of “persistence or perseverance despite having fear” with a 6-item scale. Sample items are “I act courageously” and “If the thought of something makes me anxious, I usually will avoid it.” Howard and Alipour's work showed adequate reliability coefficients of 0.87; for this sample, the Cronbach's alpha was 0.84
6.1.2. Coping orientation to problems experienced The Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced test (Carver et al., 1989; Italian validation by Sica et al., 2008) is a self-report scale composed of 60 items that evaluate the use of skills and strategies adopted to face stressful and difficult events. This test explores five large, essentially independent dimensions: social support, avoidance strategies, positive attitude, problem-solving, and transcendent orientation. For the scope of this study, the five dimensions are grouped into two typical coping styles: self-directed coping (having a positive attitude and problem-solving) and self-avoidant coping (using avoidance strategies and having a transcendent orientation). The dimension of social support was not considered in this study. The Cronbach's alpha was 0.84. A confirmative factorial analysis with the maximum likelihood extraction method was conducted and revealed that the fit indexes were adequate: χ2(1678) = 3806.06, p b 0.001, CFI = 0.80, SRMR = 0.09, and RMSEA = 0.05.
6.1.3. Big Five Inventory The Big Five Inventory (Rammstedt & John, 2007; Italian adaptation Guido, Peluso, Capestro, & Miglietta, 2015) is a 10-item test designed to assess the Big Five dimensions on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items include “I see myself as a person who tends to be lazy” and “I see myself as a person who is conscientious in work.” The Cronbach's alpha was 0.77. A confirmative factorial analysis using the maximum-likelihood extraction method was
conducted, revealing that the fit indexes were adequate: χ2(28) = 128.32, p b 0.001, CFI = 0.94, SRMR = 0.06, and RMSEA = 0.09. 6.2. Participants Data were collected through convenience sampling. The participants were 500 Italian adults (247 males, 49.40%; 253 females, 50.60%) aged from 18 to 60 years (M = 27.97; SD = 7.52). Half of them have high school graduation, the other have university degree (48% high school, 20% bachelor degree, 20% five-year university degree; 12% post-graduate degree). The participation was completely voluntary. The participants have completed the questionnaires according to the following instructions: “The following questionnaire aims to analyze behaviours and feelings in facing uncertainty or difficulty. You will find a series of statements that describe common situations or behaviours, to which we ask you to indicate on the expected range, how much they correspond to what you do or you feel […]”. With these instructions, presumably the participants responded by anchoring their answers to their implicit and naïve representations of the courage. We administrated the tests individually and anonymously. The data collection was conducted from June 2015 to April 2016 by an online form. The Ethics Commission of University reviewed and approved the survey. 7. Data analysis We analysed the survey data with structural equation modelling. We completed the tests in AMOS 20.0 (Arbuckle, 2011), applying the maximum-likelihood method. First, we used a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the model fit of the measurement model (Byrne, 2001). We then used the structural equation modelling approach to test the mediation model shown in Fig. 1, following James, Mulaik, and Brett's (2006) recommendations and Shrout and Bolger's (2002) logic with regard to expected proximal and distal effects. The indirect effect was tested using a bootstrap estimation approach with 2000 samples and 95% bias-corrected percentile method (Hayes & Scharkow, 2013). We also implemented other well-known analytical tools, such as correlations, using SPSS 20.0. 8. Results 8.1. Descriptive statistics and correlations Mean, standard deviation and correlations are presented in Table 1. As shown in Table 1, the correlation between agreeableness and the dependent variable self-directed coping and that between agreeableness
16
P. Magnano et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 13–18
Table 1 Descriptions and correlations between the studied variables.
1. Extraversion 2. Agreeableness 3. Conscientiousness 4. Emotional stability 5. Openness 6. Courage 7. Self-directed coping 8. Self-avoidant coping⁎⁎⁎
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6.43 6.43 4.54 6.12 7.04 28.9 65.15 46.8
1.92 1.81 1.78 2.11 1.86 7.00 9.55 7.9
1 0.20⁎⁎ –0.25⁎⁎ 0.12⁎⁎ 0.13⁎⁎ 0.21⁎⁎ 0.17⁎⁎ –0.16⁎⁎
1 –0.10⁎ 0.18⁎⁎ 0.07 0.02 0.04 –0.16⁎⁎
1 –0.09⁎ –0.16⁎⁎ –0.25⁎⁎ –0.33⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎
1 0.05 0.21⁎⁎ 0.19⁎⁎ –0.23⁎⁎
1 0.12⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎ –0.07
6
7
1 0.42⁎⁎ –0.28⁎⁎
1 –0.22⁎⁎
⁎ p b 0.05. ⁎⁎ p b 0.01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.
and the mediator (courage) were not significant. In addition, the correlations between extraversion and both coping styles and between openness and both coping styles were not significant. Therefore, we had to modify the hypothesised model, as showed in Fig. 1. Indicators were also checked for normal distribution, computing skewness and kurtosis and considering normally distributed all the items with values into the range − 1/+1. Responses were approximately normally distributed, with skewness ranging from −0.38 to 0.34 and kurtosis values ranging from −0.61 to −0.20. 8.2. CFA of the measures All the variables studied were measured from the same source, and therefore common-method bias may have occurred. We conducted a CFA according to Harman's single-factor test to diagnose the extent to which common-method variance was a problem. A comparison between the hypothesised model and a model with one factor (with all items loading on a unique factor) revealed that the former provided a better fit for the data in all the CFA fit measures (e.g., 6-factor model: χ2(136) = 526.83, p b 0.001, CFI = 0.84, GFI = 0.90, SRMR = 0.07, RMSEA = 0.08, and AIC = 634.83; 1-factor model: χ2(154) = 2202.25, p b 0.001, CFI = 0.16, GFI = 0.59, SRMR = not possible to estimate, RMSEA = 0.16, and AIC = 2274.29). The differences were significant according to a comparison of the models' χ2 values and degrees of freedom: Δχ2(154) = 1675.42 (p b 0.001). According to these results, we found no evidence for common-method bias in the data. 8.3. Structural model We first compared the model shown in Fig. 1 (which we will refer to as Model 1) with a version of that model that includes a direct path from emotional stability to self-directed coping (Model 2). These models were significantly different, Δχ2(1) = 4.09 (p b 0.05), indicating that the addition of this path for partial mediation did significantly improve
the model. Therefore, we retained Model 2, the partially mediated version, as the preferred model. Next, we ran a series of comparisons by adding a direct path from each personality factor to each coping style (self-directed coping and self-avoidant coping). The final model is presented in Fig. 2. As shown in Fig. 2, we retained a model reflecting a fully mediated relationship between extraversion and self-directed coping as well as a partially mediated relationship among emotional stability, openness, conscientiousness, and self-directed coping. We also retained a model reflecting a partially mediated relationship for emotional stability, conscientiousness, and self-avoidant coping. The path from extraversion to courage was significant (β = 0.13, p b 0.01), as was the path from courage to self-directed coping (β = 0.32, p b 0.001). Moreover, the indirect effect was also significant (β = 0.04, p b 0.01, SE = 0.016, 95% CI = 0.013, 0.075), confirming the full mediation of courage in the relationship between extraversion and self-directed coping. With regard to conscientiousness and emotional stability, the results confirmed a partial mediation of courage in the relationships with selfdirected coping; specifically, the path from conscientiousness to courage was significant (β = −0.20, p b 0.001), as was the path from conscientiousness to self-directed coping (β = −0.22, p b 0.001). At the same time, the path from emotional stability to courage was significant (β = 0.17, p b 0.001), as was the path from emotional stability to self-directed coping (β = 0.10, p b 0.05). Moreover, the indirect effects were both significant (β = −0.06, p b 0.001, SE = 0.016, 95% CI = −0.099, −0.033 for conscientiousness; β = 0.06, p b 0.001, SE = 0.015, 95% CI = 0.026, 0.086, for emotional stability) (see Table 2). With regard to openness, the hypothesis that courage would mediate the relationship between openness and self-directed coping did not receive any support, as openness did not significantly predict courage (β = 0.07, p N 0.05). The relationship between conscientiousness and self-avoidance coping did receive support, as conscientiousness predicted self-avoidant coping (β = 0.16, p b 0.001), and the indirect effect through courage
Fig. 2. The final model.
P. Magnano et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 13–18
17
Table 2 Effects of personality traits on coping through courage. Paths
Indirect effect
Direct effect
Total effect
Extraversion—courage—self-directed coping Conscientiousness—courage—self-directed coping Emotional stability—courage—self-directed coping Openness—courage—self-directed coping Conscientiousness—courage—self-avoidant coping Emotional stability—courage—self-avoidant coping
0.04⁎⁎ –0.06⁎⁎⁎ 0.06⁎⁎⁎ 0.02 0.04⁎⁎ –0.03⁎⁎⁎
0.32⁎⁎⁎ –0.22⁎⁎⁎ 0.10⁎ 0.15⁎⁎⁎ 0.16⁎⁎ –0.18⁎⁎⁎
0.04⁎⁎ –0.28⁎⁎⁎ 0.15⁎⁎⁎ 0.17⁎⁎⁎ 0.20⁎ –0.21⁎⁎⁎
⁎ p b 0.05. ⁎⁎ p b 0.01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.
was significant (β = 0.04, p b 0.001, SE = 0.012, 95% CI = 0.012, 0.059). The result for emotional stability indicated that emotional stability predicts both courage (β = 0.17, p b 0.001) and self-avoidant coping (β = − 0.18, p b 0.001); the indirect effect was also significant (β = −0.03, p b 0.001, SE = 0.010, 95% CI = −0.054, −0.010). 9. Discussion This study presented some important results. As we hypothesised, courage can be considered a mediator between personality and coping strategies. More specifically, analysing the influence of courage on self-directed coping, this relationship mediates the influence of personality traits on coping strategies, centred on the self. First, the relationship between extraversion and self-directed coping is fully mediated by courage; although, in previous studies, extraversion's role in coping was not clear (because this dimension was related to both effective and ineffective strategies), the results of this study seem to clarify the way in which extraversion affects coping strategies. Considering that this personality trait might be linked both with a tendency to appraise events as challenging or controllable and with a reliance on problem-focused coping strategies, it acts on coping by activating courage, which includes the intention of effectively acting under conditions of fear. The second observation relates to the relationship between emotional stability, openness, conscientiousness, and self-directed coping, which is partially mediated by courage. Courage includes (a) the dimension of persistence or perseverance (i.e., typical characteristics of conscientiousness), (b) the component of emotional stability that allows action despite a perceived danger by controlling the feeling of fear, and (c) the unconventional action (linked with openness) that runs counter to what most people would consider safe behaviour. Thus, these personality traits affect the way in which courage drives coping strategies toward stressful or risky situations. We found courage to have a significant influence on self-avoidant coping. We also found a partial mediation between emotional stability and self-avoidant coping, but all the effects that conscientiousness has on avoidance coping can be explicated through courage. Thus, actors with the inability to manage emotions in stressful or risky situations (e.g., those with low emotional stability or high neuroticism) will tend to be insecure and will be more likely to experience or ruminate over fear, consequently choosing ineffective coping strategies (such as avoidance). Finally, the mediating role that courage plays in the influence conscientiousness has on avoidance strategies can be explained by considering the component of responsibility, which is one important dimension of conscientiousness. Responsibility is related to a sense of duty and to caution in situations perceived as risky, in which avoidance seems to be the less risky (or more acceptable) behaviour. 10. Conclusions and limitations The research presented has some limitations that lead to suggestions for future works. First, the cross-sectional nature of the study does not
allow the monitoring of how changes in coping strategies increase levels of courage. Moreover, we cannot consider the study's sample to be representative, as we used a convenience sample. Despite these limitations, however, the results lead to important suggestions about future research and interventions. Notwithstanding the scarce attention that the topic has received in the psychological literature, courage is linked with many psychological dimensions, and it affects human behaviour in various ways. At the present, most of the psychological research has considered courage only through a theoretical reflection, which limits empirical studies to specific typologies of samples such as clinical studies (i.e., Schmidt & Koselka, 2000). The research presented is an attempt to deepen, through empirical study, the role that courage plays in some of the most useful behavioural dimensions, such as the coping strategies. In a risky society (as defined by Beck, 1998), risk, uncertainty and frequent changes are prominent characteristics of contemporary society. Thus, individuals must cope with an unstable world by developing new psychological resources that can help them to sustain and manage the world's increasing unpredictability and uncertainty. Courage can be one of these psychological resources; in the framework of positive psychology, it is considered one of the individual strengths—together with optimism, resilience, hope, perseverance—that help individuals to face difficulties related to life transitions (e.g., leaving home, becoming unemployed, getting divorced). Hannah et al. (2007) depicted the courageous mind-set, theoretically linking the construct of courage with positive personality traits and describing which personality characteristics can present in courageous persons. We have found that courage mediates the role that positive personality traits have on coping strategies, thus influencing the choice of effective or ineffective strategies. These results have important implications for both educational and therapeutic interventions. Developing and implementing courage among the other positive psychological resources could be useful, for example, to adolescents, whose vision of the future is characterised by concern, fear, risk, uncertainty, and obstacles—and who perceive the future as threatening and insecure. These negative perceptions could drive their choices and planning behaviours toward the use of self-avoidant rather than self-directed strategies. In a difficult world, the easier choice may be to avoid difficulties rather than to face with them or modify the situation.
References Alexander, E. S., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). Academic procrastination and the role of hope as a coping strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(7), 1301–1310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.008. Arbuckle, J. L. (2011). [computer program] IBM SPSS Amos 20.0. New York: IBM. Beck, U. (1998). World risk society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Byrne, B. N. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Rahwah. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. In KJChapman, R.Davis, D.Toy, & LWright (Eds.), (2004). Academic integrity in the business school environment: I'll get by with a little help from my friends. Journal of Marketing Education, 26(3), 236–249. Capozza, D., Nota, L., & Soresi, S. (2015). Courage: A psychological perspective. (Paper presented at “Working day on courage”, Padova University, june 19).
18
P. Magnano et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 13–18
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267–283 (Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2926629). Felton, B. J., Revenson, T. A., & Hinrichsen, G. A. (1984). Stress and coping in the explanation of psychological adjustment among chronically ill adults. Social Science and Medicine, 18(10), 889–898. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218. Ginevra, M. C., & Capozza, D. (2015). Il coraggio: Dalle definizioni ad alcune considerazioni per le attività di counselling. In L. Nota, & S. Soresi (Eds.), Il counselling del futuro (pp. 115–126). Padova: Cleup. Gould, N. H. (2005). Courage: Its nature and development. Journal of Humanistic Counseling Education and Development, 44(1), 102–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j. 2164-490X.2005.tb00060.x. Guido, G., Peluso, A., Capestro, M., & Miglietta, M. (2015). An Italian version of the 10-item Big Five Inventory: An application to hedonic and utilitarian shopping values. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 135–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. 2014.11. Hannah, S. T., Sweeney, P. J., & Lester, P. B. (2007). Toward a courageous mindset: The subjective act and experience of courage. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(2), 129–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760701228854. Hayes, A. F., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis. Psychological Science, 24(10), 1918–1927. Howard, M. C., & Alipour, K. K. (2014). Does the courage measure really measure courage? A theoretical and empirical evaluation. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(5), 449–459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.910828. James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (2006). A tale of two methods. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 233–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428105285144. Jelinek, J., & Morf, M. E. (1995). Accounting for variance shared by measures of personality and stress-related variables: A canonical correlation analysis. Psychological Reports, 76(3), 959–962. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.76.3.959. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—Self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—With job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.80. Judge, T. A., Higgins, C., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big Five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–652. Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Personality and resistance to illness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 7, 413–423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00894383. Koerner, M. M. (2013). Courage as identity work: Accounts of workplace courage. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 63–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010. 0641. Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Why we should think of stress as a subset of emotion? In L. Goldberger, & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and empirical aspects (pp. 21–39) (2nd ed.). New York: The Free Press. Leipold, B., & Greve, W. (2009). Resilience: A conceptual bridge between coping and development. European Psychologist, 14(1), 40–50. Lopez, S. J., O'Byrne, K. K., & Petersen, S. (2003). Profiling courage. In S. J. Lopez, & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 185–197). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. Maddi, S. R. (1998). Creating meaning through making decisions. In T. P. Wong, & P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human quest for meaning (pp. 9–26). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Maddi, S. R., & Thomas, J. C. (2006). Hardiness: The courage to be resilient. In J. C. Thomas, D. L. Segal, & M. Hersen (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of personality and
psychopathology. Personality and everyday functioning. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Magnano, P., Paolillo, A., & Giacominelli, B. (2015). Dispositional optimism as a correlate of decision-making styles in adolescence. SAGE Open, 5(2). http://dx.doi.org/10. 1177/2158244015592002. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & Busch, C. M. (1986). Evaluating comprehensiveness in personality systems: The California Q-Set and the five factor model. Journal of Personality, 54(2), 430–446. Moos, R. H., & Schaefer, J. A. (1993). Coping resources and processes: Current concepts and measures. In L. Goldberger, & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects. 2. (pp. 234–257). New York: Free Press. Norton, P. J., & Weiss, B. J. (2009). The role of courage on behavioral approach in a feareliciting situation: A proof-of-concept pilot study. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 23(2), 212–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2008.07.002. O'Connor, K., Hallam, R., & Rachman, S. (1985). Fearlessness and courage: A replication experiment. British Journal of Psychology, 76, 187–197. Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.psych.57.102904.190127. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2001). Positive psychology questionnaires. (Retrieved August 25, 2003, from http:l/www.positivepsvchology.or~ppquestionnaires.html). Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Character strengths before and after September 11. Psychological Science, 14, 381–384. Putman, D. (1997). Psychological courage. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology, 4, 1–11. Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001. Rate, C. R., Clarke, J. A., Lindsay, D. R., & Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Implicit theories of courage. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(2), 80–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 17439760701228755. Schilpzand, P., Hekman, D., & Mitchell, T. (2014). An inductively-generated typology and process model of workplace courage. (Leeds-Faculty.Colorado.Edu, (January 2015), 0–26. Doi: 10.1287/orsc.2014.0928). Schmidt, N. B., & Koselka, M. (2000). Gender differences in patients with panic disorder: Evaluating cognitive mediation of phobic avoidance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24(5), 533–550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005562011960. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X.7.4.422. Sica, C., Magni, C., Ghisi, M., Altoè, G., Sighinolfi, C., Chiri, L. R., & Franceschini, S. (2008). Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced-Nuova Versione Italiana (COPE-NVI): uno strumento per la misura degli stili di coping. Psicoterapia cognitiva e comportamentale, 14(1), 27. Solberg Nes, L., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2006). Dispositional optimism and coping: A metaanalytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 235–251. http://dx. doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_3. Somerfield, M. R., & McCrae, R. (2000). Stress and coping research: Methodological challenges, theoretical advances, and clinical applications. American Psychologist, 55(6), 620–625. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.620. Uehara, T., Sakado, K., Sakado, M., Sato, T., & Someya, T. (1999). Relationship between stress coping and personality in patients with major depressive disorder. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 68(1), 26–30. Vollrath, M., & Torgersen, S. (2000). Personality types and coping. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(2), 367–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S01918869(99)00199-3. Woodard, C. (2004). Hardiness and the concept of courage. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56(3), 173–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.56.3.0.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Courage as a potential mediator between personality and coping Paola Magnano a,⁎, Anna Paolillo b, Silvia Platania c, Giuseppe Santisi c a b c
Faculty of Human and Social Sciences, Kore University, Cittadella Universitaria, Plesso di Psicologia, 94100 Enna, Italy Department of Philosophy, Education and Psychology, University of Verona, Lungadige Porta Vittoria 17, 37129 Verona, Italy Department of Education, University of Catania, Via Biblioteca 4, 95124 Catania, Italy
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 6 September 2016 Received in revised form 23 January 2017 Accepted 28 January 2017 Available online 3 February 2017 Keywords: Courage Positive psychology Big Five Coping Strengths
a b s t r a c t Courage is an ancient construct that has historically been regarded as a great virtue because it helps people to face their intrapersonal and interpersonal challenges. However, psychologists have conducted only limited research on the psychology of courage: recently, in the framework of positive psychology, courage has been included in the classification of core character strengths and virtues. Considering that other constructs of positive psychology, in previous research, have been related to personality and coping strategies, the present study investigates the relationship between courage, personality traits, and coping strategies, hypothesising that courage could mediate between personality and coping. The participants were 500 Italian adults, aged 18 to 60 years, paired for gender. The results showed that courage can be considered a mediator between personality and coping, affecting the use of self-directed strategies. Suggestions for the intervention were provided. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Courage as a potential mediator between personality and coping The construct of courage has received little attention from psychological research: using courage as a keyword in PsycInfo, we can find only 416 articles, 324 of which have been published since 2000 (Ginevra & Capozza, 2015). Courage has historically been regarded as a great virtue because it helps people to face their intrapersonal and interpersonal challenges. Over the past centuries, efforts to construct a socially relevant view of courage transported it from the heart of the brave soldier on the battlefield to the experience of daily life and the mind of every person (Lopez, O'Byrne, & Petersen, 2003). Psychological courage, according to Putman's (1997) definition, is strength in facing one's destructive habits. More specifically, Lopez et al. (2003) described psychological courage as “the cognitive process of defining risk, identifying and considering alternative actions, and choosing to act in spite of potential negative consequences in an effort to obtain ‘good’ for self or others” (p. 191). Peterson and Seligman (2001) included courage within the Values in Action classification of strengths, conceptualising it as a core human virtue comprising such strengths as authenticity, enthusiasm, perseverance, and valour. All of these strengths are trait-like, fulfilling, morally valued, and specific to the individual. Rate, Clarke, Lindsay, and Sternberg (2007), through qualitative research, found four dimensions of courage: (a) intentionality of action, (b) presence of personal fear, (c) nobility of purpose, and (d) known substantial personal risk. ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Magnano), [email protected] (A. Paolillo), [email protected] (S. Platania), [email protected] (G. Santisi).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.047 0191-8869/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
The presence of fear is also highlighted in other research. For example, Woodard (2004) identified courageous people as those who, despite perceiving a danger or threat beyond which their resources are capable of effectively managing, move forward and act anyway. Gould (2005) underlined that courage allows one to effectively act under conditions of danger, fear, and risk. Finally, using a behavioural approach, Norton and Weiss (2009) stated that courage is distinct from fearlessness in that the courageous individual completes the same act as the fearless individual, despite experiencing fear. All these definitions of courage are characterised by common points: (a) the presence of fear, (b) intentionality and voluntariness in action, and (c) meaningful purpose. 2. Courage and personality Courageous action involves voluntarily pursuing a socially worthy goal despite the accompanying risk and the fear produced by a challenging event. At present, little research exists on the factors that describe the antecedents, enablers, and processes of courageous actions (Schilpzand, Hekman, & Mitchell, 2014). Recent theoretical work on the classification and delineation of core character strengths and virtues has convincingly related most of these attributes to various sets of personality dispositions (Peterson & Seligman, 2003). Clearly, certain traits facilitate or impede the development of specific strengths and virtues (e.g., agreeableness facilitates compassion, conscientiousness facilitates perseverance, and openness fosters creativity); at the same time, the cultivation of these virtues consolidates the same personality dispositions from which these virtues sprang (Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006). Woodard (2004) examined the role that courage plays in the construct
14
P. Magnano et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 13–18
of hardiness as a mediator between hardiness and physical health. Hardiness (Kobasa, 1979) is a personality style or pattern associated with performance under stress. As Maddi (1998) stated, “the more recent concept of hardiness constitutes a sufficient concretization of the concept of courage to have led to relevant research in support of this existential formulation” (p. 9). However, the results of Woodard's (2004) study were not definitive in establishing the relationship between hardiness—as personality disposition—and courage. Hannah, Sweeney, and Lester (2007) suggested that openness to experience and conscientiousness, together with other positive traits and states, moderate the linkages between perceptions of risk, intensity of experienced fear, and courageous behaviour. As Hannah et al. (2007) underlined, openness to experience encompasses an actor's ability to be imaginative, nonconforming, unconventional, and autonomous. Conscientiousness, on the other side, significantly correlates with an actor's sense of duty and with tenacity and persistence (McCrae, Costa, & Busch, 1986). Hannah et al. (2007) proposed that conscientiousness promotes courage in that duty, persistence, and tenacity closely parallel the purpose and action commonalities required for courageous behaviour (Goud, 2005). Finally, emotional stability (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999) may further promote broadening and courage under risk; in fact, low levels of arousal under stress have been shown to be related to courage (O'Connor, Hallam, & Rachman, 1985), suggesting that actors with greater emotional stability (i.e., those with low neuroticism) will tend to be secure, steady, and confident (Judge & Bono, 2001) and less likely to experience or ruminate over fear.
courage. Koerner's (2013) definition of courage—which comes from Gould's (2005) studies—highlighted the intentionality of action in the face of risks, threats, or obstacles in the pursuit of morally worthy goals. Endurance and perseverance are often needed to ensure that the goal is achieved. In Maddi's (2006) statements, the link between courage and coping is more explicit: in fact he underlines how courage represents “the strength to face stressful circumstances directly” (p. 306), being motivated to cope with them by turning them from potential disasters into growth opportunities. Courage is also involved in coping with the stressful circumstances that are imposed on us in unexpected ways. Lopez et al. (2003) indicated that courage may be considered necessary to the coping process, depending on the circumstances, because it is involved in dealing with the challenges and stresses that inevitably accompany life. Finally, a qualitative study conducted by Capozza, Nota, and Soresi (2015) aimed to compare implicit theories of courage with researchers' definitions with a sample of 850 Italians, highlighted that the term most strongly and frequently associated with courage is to cope. In conclusion, researchers have largely investigated the relationship between coping and the constructs of positive psychology, such as positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2001), optimism (Solberg Nes & Segerstrom, 2006; Magnano, Paolillo, Giacominelli, 2015), hope (Alexander & Onwuegbuzie, 2007), and resilience (Leipold & Greve, 2009). At the moment, an investigation of the relationship between coping and courage, which is included in the constructs of positive psychology, is lacking. Therefore, the present study can be considered one of the first to explore this relationship.
3. Personality and coping 5. Aim of the study The role of personality in coping strategies has been well-studied. In fact, as suggested by Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989), there are two ways to think about how individual differences can influence coping. The first possibility is that people have stable coping styles or dispositions for dealing with the stressful situations that they encounter. The second mode of thinking states that certain personality characteristics may predispose people to cope in certain ways when confronting adversity. Somerfield and McCrae (2000), studying the relationship between Big Five personality traits and coping, found the following correlations: neuroticism with emotion-focused coping, extraversion with social support-seeking, openness with seeking new information and solutions, and conscientiousness with perseverance in personal meaning-seeking. Carver et al. (1989) explored the possible existence of individual differences in preferred coping styles; they assumed that people tend to adopt certain coping tactics as relatively stable preferences. Stable preferences may derive from personality or develop for other reasons. Their findings suggest the possibility that personality traits and coping dispositions both play roles in situational coping. Other studies (e.g., Uehara, Sakado, Sakado, Sato, & Soomeya, 1999) have found that different coping methods are related to personality. Vollrath and Torgersen (2000) underlined that persons high in neuroticism engage in passive and maladaptive ways of coping, whereas persons high in extraversion engage in active coping strategies and seek social support (Somerfield & McCrae, 2000). Moreover, conscientiousness is strongly related to coping; in fact, individuals high in conscientiousness engage in planning and active problem-solving and refrain from passive, maladaptive coping (Jelinek & Morf, 1995). In comparison, the relationships between coping and each of the two remaining factors of the five-factor model, openness to experience and agreeableness, are weaker (Jelinek & Morf, 1995).
Only few systematic investigations have been conducted to determine emotional, cognitive, and situational correlates of courageous action (Hannah et al., 2007). Although the literature that describes the antecedents of courage is very limited, Peterson and Seligman's (2003) classification of the core character strengths and virtues (including courage) related these attributes to different sets of personality. Hannah et al. (2007) suggested that a combination of positive traits and states reduces the level of fear experienced when facing a risk, and, given this reduced level of fear, the same positive constructs promote courageous behaviours despite that fear. The positive emotions facilitate greater adaptability under stress, building personal resources. Considering that coping strategies allow a host of adaptive responses that achieve their intended purpose and maladaptive responses that direct one's energy away from the true source of a threat (Moos & Schaefer, 1993), we hypothesise that courage complements coping strategies in working toward goals. This influences positive coping strategies that are centred on one's own resources—which could change the troubled person's relationship with the environment by acting on the environment or on the person (Lazarus, 1993). This is as opposed to avoidance strategies, which are centred on the absence of responsibility in the stressful situations and which impede adjustment (see Felton, Revenson, & Hinrichsen, 1984). Then, considering that courage is involved in facing one's psychological challenges and that personality characteristics may play a role in coping strategies (Carver et al., 1989), we hypothesise that courage is a mediator of this relationship, playing a role in individuals' choices of coping strategies. Given the extent of support among these links, Fig. 1 serves as the base courage model in our study of coping strategies. We focus on the component of courage defined as “persistence or perseverance despite having fear” (Howard & Alipour, 2014). We assume, then, that the model produces the following answers:
4. Courage and coping The relationship between courage and coping has been investigated directly only in a few studies, but it is present in broader definitions of
1. The personality traits are antecedents of courage because they can promote or impede courageous behaviours that give the necessary push to action.
P. Magnano et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 13–18
15
Fig. 1. The hypothesised model.
2. A person assesses his or her ability to cope with the stressful situations effectively (in a self-directed way) or ineffectively (through self-avoidance), and this may be mediated by the person's resources and then by the successful assessment and courage that drives the person to perform the action. 6. Methods 6.1. Measures 6.1.1. Courage measure The courage measure (Norton & Weiss, 2009) uses a self-reported, 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 7 (always). This measure, in the Howard and Alipour (2014) version, used an operational definition of “persistence or perseverance despite having fear” with a 6-item scale. Sample items are “I act courageously” and “If the thought of something makes me anxious, I usually will avoid it.” Howard and Alipour's work showed adequate reliability coefficients of 0.87; for this sample, the Cronbach's alpha was 0.84
6.1.2. Coping orientation to problems experienced The Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced test (Carver et al., 1989; Italian validation by Sica et al., 2008) is a self-report scale composed of 60 items that evaluate the use of skills and strategies adopted to face stressful and difficult events. This test explores five large, essentially independent dimensions: social support, avoidance strategies, positive attitude, problem-solving, and transcendent orientation. For the scope of this study, the five dimensions are grouped into two typical coping styles: self-directed coping (having a positive attitude and problem-solving) and self-avoidant coping (using avoidance strategies and having a transcendent orientation). The dimension of social support was not considered in this study. The Cronbach's alpha was 0.84. A confirmative factorial analysis with the maximum likelihood extraction method was conducted and revealed that the fit indexes were adequate: χ2(1678) = 3806.06, p b 0.001, CFI = 0.80, SRMR = 0.09, and RMSEA = 0.05.
6.1.3. Big Five Inventory The Big Five Inventory (Rammstedt & John, 2007; Italian adaptation Guido, Peluso, Capestro, & Miglietta, 2015) is a 10-item test designed to assess the Big Five dimensions on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items include “I see myself as a person who tends to be lazy” and “I see myself as a person who is conscientious in work.” The Cronbach's alpha was 0.77. A confirmative factorial analysis using the maximum-likelihood extraction method was
conducted, revealing that the fit indexes were adequate: χ2(28) = 128.32, p b 0.001, CFI = 0.94, SRMR = 0.06, and RMSEA = 0.09. 6.2. Participants Data were collected through convenience sampling. The participants were 500 Italian adults (247 males, 49.40%; 253 females, 50.60%) aged from 18 to 60 years (M = 27.97; SD = 7.52). Half of them have high school graduation, the other have university degree (48% high school, 20% bachelor degree, 20% five-year university degree; 12% post-graduate degree). The participation was completely voluntary. The participants have completed the questionnaires according to the following instructions: “The following questionnaire aims to analyze behaviours and feelings in facing uncertainty or difficulty. You will find a series of statements that describe common situations or behaviours, to which we ask you to indicate on the expected range, how much they correspond to what you do or you feel […]”. With these instructions, presumably the participants responded by anchoring their answers to their implicit and naïve representations of the courage. We administrated the tests individually and anonymously. The data collection was conducted from June 2015 to April 2016 by an online form. The Ethics Commission of University reviewed and approved the survey. 7. Data analysis We analysed the survey data with structural equation modelling. We completed the tests in AMOS 20.0 (Arbuckle, 2011), applying the maximum-likelihood method. First, we used a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the model fit of the measurement model (Byrne, 2001). We then used the structural equation modelling approach to test the mediation model shown in Fig. 1, following James, Mulaik, and Brett's (2006) recommendations and Shrout and Bolger's (2002) logic with regard to expected proximal and distal effects. The indirect effect was tested using a bootstrap estimation approach with 2000 samples and 95% bias-corrected percentile method (Hayes & Scharkow, 2013). We also implemented other well-known analytical tools, such as correlations, using SPSS 20.0. 8. Results 8.1. Descriptive statistics and correlations Mean, standard deviation and correlations are presented in Table 1. As shown in Table 1, the correlation between agreeableness and the dependent variable self-directed coping and that between agreeableness
16
P. Magnano et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 13–18
Table 1 Descriptions and correlations between the studied variables.
1. Extraversion 2. Agreeableness 3. Conscientiousness 4. Emotional stability 5. Openness 6. Courage 7. Self-directed coping 8. Self-avoidant coping⁎⁎⁎
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6.43 6.43 4.54 6.12 7.04 28.9 65.15 46.8
1.92 1.81 1.78 2.11 1.86 7.00 9.55 7.9
1 0.20⁎⁎ –0.25⁎⁎ 0.12⁎⁎ 0.13⁎⁎ 0.21⁎⁎ 0.17⁎⁎ –0.16⁎⁎
1 –0.10⁎ 0.18⁎⁎ 0.07 0.02 0.04 –0.16⁎⁎
1 –0.09⁎ –0.16⁎⁎ –0.25⁎⁎ –0.33⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎
1 0.05 0.21⁎⁎ 0.19⁎⁎ –0.23⁎⁎
1 0.12⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎ –0.07
6
7
1 0.42⁎⁎ –0.28⁎⁎
1 –0.22⁎⁎
⁎ p b 0.05. ⁎⁎ p b 0.01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.
and the mediator (courage) were not significant. In addition, the correlations between extraversion and both coping styles and between openness and both coping styles were not significant. Therefore, we had to modify the hypothesised model, as showed in Fig. 1. Indicators were also checked for normal distribution, computing skewness and kurtosis and considering normally distributed all the items with values into the range − 1/+1. Responses were approximately normally distributed, with skewness ranging from −0.38 to 0.34 and kurtosis values ranging from −0.61 to −0.20. 8.2. CFA of the measures All the variables studied were measured from the same source, and therefore common-method bias may have occurred. We conducted a CFA according to Harman's single-factor test to diagnose the extent to which common-method variance was a problem. A comparison between the hypothesised model and a model with one factor (with all items loading on a unique factor) revealed that the former provided a better fit for the data in all the CFA fit measures (e.g., 6-factor model: χ2(136) = 526.83, p b 0.001, CFI = 0.84, GFI = 0.90, SRMR = 0.07, RMSEA = 0.08, and AIC = 634.83; 1-factor model: χ2(154) = 2202.25, p b 0.001, CFI = 0.16, GFI = 0.59, SRMR = not possible to estimate, RMSEA = 0.16, and AIC = 2274.29). The differences were significant according to a comparison of the models' χ2 values and degrees of freedom: Δχ2(154) = 1675.42 (p b 0.001). According to these results, we found no evidence for common-method bias in the data. 8.3. Structural model We first compared the model shown in Fig. 1 (which we will refer to as Model 1) with a version of that model that includes a direct path from emotional stability to self-directed coping (Model 2). These models were significantly different, Δχ2(1) = 4.09 (p b 0.05), indicating that the addition of this path for partial mediation did significantly improve
the model. Therefore, we retained Model 2, the partially mediated version, as the preferred model. Next, we ran a series of comparisons by adding a direct path from each personality factor to each coping style (self-directed coping and self-avoidant coping). The final model is presented in Fig. 2. As shown in Fig. 2, we retained a model reflecting a fully mediated relationship between extraversion and self-directed coping as well as a partially mediated relationship among emotional stability, openness, conscientiousness, and self-directed coping. We also retained a model reflecting a partially mediated relationship for emotional stability, conscientiousness, and self-avoidant coping. The path from extraversion to courage was significant (β = 0.13, p b 0.01), as was the path from courage to self-directed coping (β = 0.32, p b 0.001). Moreover, the indirect effect was also significant (β = 0.04, p b 0.01, SE = 0.016, 95% CI = 0.013, 0.075), confirming the full mediation of courage in the relationship between extraversion and self-directed coping. With regard to conscientiousness and emotional stability, the results confirmed a partial mediation of courage in the relationships with selfdirected coping; specifically, the path from conscientiousness to courage was significant (β = −0.20, p b 0.001), as was the path from conscientiousness to self-directed coping (β = −0.22, p b 0.001). At the same time, the path from emotional stability to courage was significant (β = 0.17, p b 0.001), as was the path from emotional stability to self-directed coping (β = 0.10, p b 0.05). Moreover, the indirect effects were both significant (β = −0.06, p b 0.001, SE = 0.016, 95% CI = −0.099, −0.033 for conscientiousness; β = 0.06, p b 0.001, SE = 0.015, 95% CI = 0.026, 0.086, for emotional stability) (see Table 2). With regard to openness, the hypothesis that courage would mediate the relationship between openness and self-directed coping did not receive any support, as openness did not significantly predict courage (β = 0.07, p N 0.05). The relationship between conscientiousness and self-avoidance coping did receive support, as conscientiousness predicted self-avoidant coping (β = 0.16, p b 0.001), and the indirect effect through courage
Fig. 2. The final model.
P. Magnano et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 13–18
17
Table 2 Effects of personality traits on coping through courage. Paths
Indirect effect
Direct effect
Total effect
Extraversion—courage—self-directed coping Conscientiousness—courage—self-directed coping Emotional stability—courage—self-directed coping Openness—courage—self-directed coping Conscientiousness—courage—self-avoidant coping Emotional stability—courage—self-avoidant coping
0.04⁎⁎ –0.06⁎⁎⁎ 0.06⁎⁎⁎ 0.02 0.04⁎⁎ –0.03⁎⁎⁎
0.32⁎⁎⁎ –0.22⁎⁎⁎ 0.10⁎ 0.15⁎⁎⁎ 0.16⁎⁎ –0.18⁎⁎⁎
0.04⁎⁎ –0.28⁎⁎⁎ 0.15⁎⁎⁎ 0.17⁎⁎⁎ 0.20⁎ –0.21⁎⁎⁎
⁎ p b 0.05. ⁎⁎ p b 0.01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.
was significant (β = 0.04, p b 0.001, SE = 0.012, 95% CI = 0.012, 0.059). The result for emotional stability indicated that emotional stability predicts both courage (β = 0.17, p b 0.001) and self-avoidant coping (β = − 0.18, p b 0.001); the indirect effect was also significant (β = −0.03, p b 0.001, SE = 0.010, 95% CI = −0.054, −0.010). 9. Discussion This study presented some important results. As we hypothesised, courage can be considered a mediator between personality and coping strategies. More specifically, analysing the influence of courage on self-directed coping, this relationship mediates the influence of personality traits on coping strategies, centred on the self. First, the relationship between extraversion and self-directed coping is fully mediated by courage; although, in previous studies, extraversion's role in coping was not clear (because this dimension was related to both effective and ineffective strategies), the results of this study seem to clarify the way in which extraversion affects coping strategies. Considering that this personality trait might be linked both with a tendency to appraise events as challenging or controllable and with a reliance on problem-focused coping strategies, it acts on coping by activating courage, which includes the intention of effectively acting under conditions of fear. The second observation relates to the relationship between emotional stability, openness, conscientiousness, and self-directed coping, which is partially mediated by courage. Courage includes (a) the dimension of persistence or perseverance (i.e., typical characteristics of conscientiousness), (b) the component of emotional stability that allows action despite a perceived danger by controlling the feeling of fear, and (c) the unconventional action (linked with openness) that runs counter to what most people would consider safe behaviour. Thus, these personality traits affect the way in which courage drives coping strategies toward stressful or risky situations. We found courage to have a significant influence on self-avoidant coping. We also found a partial mediation between emotional stability and self-avoidant coping, but all the effects that conscientiousness has on avoidance coping can be explicated through courage. Thus, actors with the inability to manage emotions in stressful or risky situations (e.g., those with low emotional stability or high neuroticism) will tend to be insecure and will be more likely to experience or ruminate over fear, consequently choosing ineffective coping strategies (such as avoidance). Finally, the mediating role that courage plays in the influence conscientiousness has on avoidance strategies can be explained by considering the component of responsibility, which is one important dimension of conscientiousness. Responsibility is related to a sense of duty and to caution in situations perceived as risky, in which avoidance seems to be the less risky (or more acceptable) behaviour. 10. Conclusions and limitations The research presented has some limitations that lead to suggestions for future works. First, the cross-sectional nature of the study does not
allow the monitoring of how changes in coping strategies increase levels of courage. Moreover, we cannot consider the study's sample to be representative, as we used a convenience sample. Despite these limitations, however, the results lead to important suggestions about future research and interventions. Notwithstanding the scarce attention that the topic has received in the psychological literature, courage is linked with many psychological dimensions, and it affects human behaviour in various ways. At the present, most of the psychological research has considered courage only through a theoretical reflection, which limits empirical studies to specific typologies of samples such as clinical studies (i.e., Schmidt & Koselka, 2000). The research presented is an attempt to deepen, through empirical study, the role that courage plays in some of the most useful behavioural dimensions, such as the coping strategies. In a risky society (as defined by Beck, 1998), risk, uncertainty and frequent changes are prominent characteristics of contemporary society. Thus, individuals must cope with an unstable world by developing new psychological resources that can help them to sustain and manage the world's increasing unpredictability and uncertainty. Courage can be one of these psychological resources; in the framework of positive psychology, it is considered one of the individual strengths—together with optimism, resilience, hope, perseverance—that help individuals to face difficulties related to life transitions (e.g., leaving home, becoming unemployed, getting divorced). Hannah et al. (2007) depicted the courageous mind-set, theoretically linking the construct of courage with positive personality traits and describing which personality characteristics can present in courageous persons. We have found that courage mediates the role that positive personality traits have on coping strategies, thus influencing the choice of effective or ineffective strategies. These results have important implications for both educational and therapeutic interventions. Developing and implementing courage among the other positive psychological resources could be useful, for example, to adolescents, whose vision of the future is characterised by concern, fear, risk, uncertainty, and obstacles—and who perceive the future as threatening and insecure. These negative perceptions could drive their choices and planning behaviours toward the use of self-avoidant rather than self-directed strategies. In a difficult world, the easier choice may be to avoid difficulties rather than to face with them or modify the situation.
References Alexander, E. S., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). Academic procrastination and the role of hope as a coping strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(7), 1301–1310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.10.008. Arbuckle, J. L. (2011). [computer program] IBM SPSS Amos 20.0. New York: IBM. Beck, U. (1998). World risk society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Byrne, B. N. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Rahwah. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. In KJChapman, R.Davis, D.Toy, & LWright (Eds.), (2004). Academic integrity in the business school environment: I'll get by with a little help from my friends. Journal of Marketing Education, 26(3), 236–249. Capozza, D., Nota, L., & Soresi, S. (2015). Courage: A psychological perspective. (Paper presented at “Working day on courage”, Padova University, june 19).
18
P. Magnano et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 111 (2017) 13–18
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267–283 (Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2926629). Felton, B. J., Revenson, T. A., & Hinrichsen, G. A. (1984). Stress and coping in the explanation of psychological adjustment among chronically ill adults. Social Science and Medicine, 18(10), 889–898. Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218. Ginevra, M. C., & Capozza, D. (2015). Il coraggio: Dalle definizioni ad alcune considerazioni per le attività di counselling. In L. Nota, & S. Soresi (Eds.), Il counselling del futuro (pp. 115–126). Padova: Cleup. Gould, N. H. (2005). Courage: Its nature and development. Journal of Humanistic Counseling Education and Development, 44(1), 102–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j. 2164-490X.2005.tb00060.x. Guido, G., Peluso, A., Capestro, M., & Miglietta, M. (2015). An Italian version of the 10-item Big Five Inventory: An application to hedonic and utilitarian shopping values. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 135–140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. 2014.11. Hannah, S. T., Sweeney, P. J., & Lester, P. B. (2007). Toward a courageous mindset: The subjective act and experience of courage. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(2), 129–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760701228854. Hayes, A. F., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis. Psychological Science, 24(10), 1918–1927. Howard, M. C., & Alipour, K. K. (2014). Does the courage measure really measure courage? A theoretical and empirical evaluation. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(5), 449–459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.910828. James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (2006). A tale of two methods. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 233–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428105285144. Jelinek, J., & Morf, M. E. (1995). Accounting for variance shared by measures of personality and stress-related variables: A canonical correlation analysis. Psychological Reports, 76(3), 959–962. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1995.76.3.959. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—Self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—With job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.80. Judge, T. A., Higgins, C., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big Five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–652. Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Personality and resistance to illness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 7, 413–423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00894383. Koerner, M. M. (2013). Courage as identity work: Accounts of workplace courage. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 63–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010. 0641. Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Why we should think of stress as a subset of emotion? In L. Goldberger, & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and empirical aspects (pp. 21–39) (2nd ed.). New York: The Free Press. Leipold, B., & Greve, W. (2009). Resilience: A conceptual bridge between coping and development. European Psychologist, 14(1), 40–50. Lopez, S. J., O'Byrne, K. K., & Petersen, S. (2003). Profiling courage. In S. J. Lopez, & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 185–197). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. Maddi, S. R. (1998). Creating meaning through making decisions. In T. P. Wong, & P. S. Fry (Eds.), The human quest for meaning (pp. 9–26). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Maddi, S. R., & Thomas, J. C. (2006). Hardiness: The courage to be resilient. In J. C. Thomas, D. L. Segal, & M. Hersen (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of personality and
psychopathology. Personality and everyday functioning. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Magnano, P., Paolillo, A., & Giacominelli, B. (2015). Dispositional optimism as a correlate of decision-making styles in adolescence. SAGE Open, 5(2). http://dx.doi.org/10. 1177/2158244015592002. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & Busch, C. M. (1986). Evaluating comprehensiveness in personality systems: The California Q-Set and the five factor model. Journal of Personality, 54(2), 430–446. Moos, R. H., & Schaefer, J. A. (1993). Coping resources and processes: Current concepts and measures. In L. Goldberger, & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clinical aspects. 2. (pp. 234–257). New York: Free Press. Norton, P. J., & Weiss, B. J. (2009). The role of courage on behavioral approach in a feareliciting situation: A proof-of-concept pilot study. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 23(2), 212–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2008.07.002. O'Connor, K., Hallam, R., & Rachman, S. (1985). Fearlessness and courage: A replication experiment. British Journal of Psychology, 76, 187–197. Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/ annurev.psych.57.102904.190127. Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2001). Positive psychology questionnaires. (Retrieved August 25, 2003, from http:l/www.positivepsvchology.or~ppquestionnaires.html). Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Character strengths before and after September 11. Psychological Science, 14, 381–384. Putman, D. (1997). Psychological courage. Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology, 4, 1–11. Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001. Rate, C. R., Clarke, J. A., Lindsay, D. R., & Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Implicit theories of courage. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(2), 80–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 17439760701228755. Schilpzand, P., Hekman, D., & Mitchell, T. (2014). An inductively-generated typology and process model of workplace courage. (Leeds-Faculty.Colorado.Edu, (January 2015), 0–26. Doi: 10.1287/orsc.2014.0928). Schmidt, N. B., & Koselka, M. (2000). Gender differences in patients with panic disorder: Evaluating cognitive mediation of phobic avoidance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24(5), 533–550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005562011960. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//1082-989X.7.4.422. Sica, C., Magni, C., Ghisi, M., Altoè, G., Sighinolfi, C., Chiri, L. R., & Franceschini, S. (2008). Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced-Nuova Versione Italiana (COPE-NVI): uno strumento per la misura degli stili di coping. Psicoterapia cognitiva e comportamentale, 14(1), 27. Solberg Nes, L., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2006). Dispositional optimism and coping: A metaanalytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 235–251. http://dx. doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_3. Somerfield, M. R., & McCrae, R. (2000). Stress and coping research: Methodological challenges, theoretical advances, and clinical applications. American Psychologist, 55(6), 620–625. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.620. Uehara, T., Sakado, K., Sakado, M., Sato, T., & Someya, T. (1999). Relationship between stress coping and personality in patients with major depressive disorder. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 68(1), 26–30. Vollrath, M., & Torgersen, S. (2000). Personality types and coping. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(2), 367–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S01918869(99)00199-3. Woodard, C. (2004). Hardiness and the concept of courage. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56(3), 173–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.56.3.0.