Hardiness, Perseverative Cognition, Anxiety, and Health-Related Outcomes: A Case for and Against Psychological Hardiness
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigates the utility of psychological hardiness as well as the differences between rumination and worry. Undergraduate students completed questionnaires assessing hardiness, worry, rumination, mindfulness, neuroticism, anxiety, somatization, coping, and health. Correlations and partial correlations controlling for neuroticism were examined. Hardiness was negatively correlated with neuroticism, rumination, worry, and anxiety and positively correlated with mindfulness, coping, and health. When neuroticism was statistically controlled, the relationships between hardiness and rumination, health, and coping became nonsignificant, and the relationships between hardiness and worry, mindfulness, and anxiety, although attenuated, remained significant. Rumination and worry were positively correlated, but when neuroticism was statistically controlled, this relationship became nonsignificant. The results suggest that hardiness is better conceptualized as a personality style that contributes to psychological well-being. Furthermore, our findings suggest that rumination and worry are distinct cognitive processes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it