Psychological Hardiness in Learning and Quality of College Life of Business Students: Evidence from Vietnam

J Happiness Stud (2012) 13:1091–1103
DOI 10.1007/s10902-011-9308-0
RESEARCH PAPER

Psychological Hardiness in Learning and Quality
of College Life of Business Students: Evidence
from Vietnam
Tho D. Nguyen • Clifford J. Shultz II • M. Daniel Westbrook

Published online: 20 November 2011
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract Vietnam’s continuing economic transformation has sharply increased the
demand for highly-qualified business graduates. Vietnamese universities have responded to
this increase in demand by improving the quality of their programs and raising their
performance standards. The degree to which high-quality competitive programs increase
students’ satisfaction with their educational experience is determined by their psychological hardiness in learning, their learning motivation, and their assessments of the
functional value of business education. This study gathered survey data from a convenience sample of 1,024 business students in Vietnam, then validated measures of four
constructs: Quality of College Life, psychological hardiness in learning, learning motivation, and perceived functional value of business education. The relationships among the
constructs were estimated by Structural Equation Modeling. The results demonstrate that
psychological hardiness in learning and learning motivation have statistically significant
positive impacts on students’ perceived Quality of College Life. The impacts are significantly stronger for students with higher assessments of the functional value of a business
education. These findings suggest that universities could enhance the Quality of College
Life and academic performance by offering programs to cultivate students’ psychological
hardiness in learning and their learning motivation, and by providing them with objective
information about the functional value of business careers.
T. D. Nguyen (&)
UEH-UWS DBA Program, A208, University of Economics, HCM City, 59C Nguyen Dinh Chieu,
District 3, HCM City, Vietnam
e-mail: ;
T. D. Nguyen

University of Western Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
C. J. Shultz II
Loyola University Chicago, Maguire Hall, Pearson St., Chicago, IL 60611, USA
e-mail:
M. D. Westbrook
Georgetown University School of Foreign Service in Qatar, P.O. Box 23689, Doha, Qatar
e-mail:

123


1092

T. D. Nguyen et al.

Keywords Quality of college life Á Learning motivation Á Psychological hardiness
in learning Á Vietnam

1 Introduction
Vietnam’s movement toward a market-oriented economy and accession to the World Trade
Organization (WTO) have created several opportunities and challenges. Opportunities
include new markets for goods and services exports, access to imported raw materials and
technologies, and more opportunities for international business co-operation. However, a
more open market leads to more vigorous competition and to imposition of stricter business standards such as product quality and safety (Nguyen and Nguyen 2010). Among
several challenges, lack of knowledge about business management is perhaps one of the
most pressing for Vietnam. Thus, a crucial role of Vietnamese universities is to provide
qualified business graduates for the Vietnamese labor market (Nguyen 2009). Understanding the labor market’s need for competent graduates, Vietnamese universities are
striving to improve the quality of their programs. In so doing, universities put more
pressure on Vietnamese students. Students now have more assignments and examinations
to complete during their study time and performance standards are rising.

While raising objective standards is important for improving educational outcomes, the
literature on psychological hardiness, learning motivation, and quality of college life
suggests strategies for stimulating students to enhance their learning performance in a more
competitive environment. In this paper we use data on Vietnamese business students to
estimate a model relating psychological hardiness in learning to students’ perceptions of
quality of college life. The results for Vietnamese students are consistent with previous
literature and with our hypotheses: psychological hardiness in learning is positively related
to perceived quality of college life, is mediated by learning motivation, and is moderated
by students’ perceptions of the functional value of business education. These results guide
our recommendations on how Vietnamese universities can enhance students’ abilities to
make the most of their educational opportunities.
Cole et al. (2004) document the relationship between student psychological hardiness
and learning motivation and Tharenou (2001) finds a relationship between learning
motivation and learning outcomes. In addition, Rowold (2007) shows that higher learning
motivation improves the ability to apply knowledge and skills to one’s work environment.
Maddi (2002) argues that psychological hardiness, by enhancing individuals’ abilities to
turn challenges into ‘‘developmentally provocative’’ opportunities, contributes to overall
quality of life. Sirgy et al. (2007) develop and validate a measure of the Quality of College
Life (QCL) that pertains specifically to the university experience.
We document the roles that psychological hardiness in learning, learning motivation,
and functional value of business education play in determining the QCL of Vietnamese
business students. Based on our results we advocate that the universities complement their
higher performance standards with efforts to enhance QCL by offering training to enhance
learning motivation and hardiness in learning, and by offering information on the functional value of business education. We expect that improvements in these determinants of
QCL will enable students to rise to the challenge posed by higher standards. The remainder
of the paper presents our literature review and hypotheses, methodology, results, and
discussion and conclusions.

123

Psychological Hardiness in Learning and Quality of College Life

1093

2 Literature Review and Hypotheses
This study examines the relationships between the QCL, psychological hardiness in
learning, and learning motivation of business students in Vietnam. A conceptual model is
depicted in Fig. 1. In this model, psychological hardiness in learning has both direct and
indirect (mediated by learning motivation) impacts on QCL. The model also shows the
moderating roles of functional value of business education perceived by students on the
impacts of both psychological hardiness in learning and learning motivation on quality of
college life.

2.1 Quality of College Life
Life satisfaction, subjective well-being, and quality of life are concepts that have attracted
many researchers in the past several years (e.g., Cummins 2010; Cummins and Nistico
2002; Sirgy et al. 2007). Quality of life is a multidimensional concept that has been
measured in a variety of ways (Vaez et al. 2004; Zullig et al. 2009). It can be defined in
terms of overall life satisfaction (e.g., Vaez et al. 2004; Verbrugge and Asconi 1987) or it
can focus on particular aspects of life. In this paper, we follow Sirgy et al. (2007) in
exploring Quality of College Life (QCL), which is defined as students’ satisfaction with
their educational experience during the time they study and live at university. Research on
QCL can be divided into two main streams: research on factors affecting QCL and research
on measuring it (Posadzki et al. 2009; Sirgy et al. 2007; Zullig et al. 2009). Our paper
contributes to the first stream of research; we examine factors that affect QCL of Vietnamese business students.
A number of studies explore the factors affecting quality of college life in the developed
world. For example, Vaez et al. (2004) examine the relationship between health status and
quality of college life and discover that the quality of life for university students is lower
than that of their working peers. Research conducted by Cha (2003) indicates that there is a

positive relationship between quality of college life and personal factors such as optimism,
self-esteem, etc. Chow (2005) showed that socio-economic status, experience in learning,
living conditions, and other factors have positive relationships with students’ well-being.
During their years at university students are called upon to develop their cognitive and
creative abilities; they develop knowledge and skills that will admit them to their chosen

Learning
motivation

H3

H1

Psychological
hardiness in
learning

Quality of
college of life

H2
H4

H5

Functional value of
business education

Fig. 1 Conceptual model

123


1094

T. D. Nguyen et al.

professions. Given the high stakes involved, this experience can be very stressful. Maddi
(2002) argues that people who possess psychological hardiness find stressful challenges
‘‘developmentally provocative’’ and tend to respond to such challenges as opportunities.
They also enjoy higher levels of health and life satisfaction. If we apply Maddi’s argument
to university students, we expect those who exhibit psychological hardiness in learning will
achieve academic success and will also enjoy a high QCL. Moreover, we believe that the
impact of psychological hardiness in learning may be moderated by students’ inherent
learning motivation and by their perceptions of the payoff that business education will
provide in their professional lives to come. Indeed, the perception of the functional value of
the business education may also moderate students’ learning motivation.
2.2 Learning Motivation
The concept of motivation is used ‘‘to explain what gets people going, keeps them going,
and helps them finish tasks’’ (Pintrich 2003, 104). Motivation helps to establish and
increase the quality of cognitive engagement, leading to success (Blumenfeld et al. 2006).
There are several models of motivation, in which the following three components are
almost always present: expectancy, value, and affect. Expectancy refers to one’s beliefs
about one’s ability or skills to perform the task. Value is used to express one’s beliefs about
the importance, interest, and utility of the task. The affective component is used to describe
one’s feelings about the self or emotional reactions to the task (Pintrich 2003).
Research has shown that in business education differences in ability and motivation to
learn affect students’ learning performance and professors’ teaching effectiveness (e.g.,
Cole et al. 2004; Diseth et al. 2010; Noe 1986). Following Noe (1986), we define learning
motivation as the willingness to attend and learn the material presented in a university

program. The measurement of learning motivation often focuses on individuals’ selfperceptions of efficacy, which are well-suited for predicting how well those individuals
will perform (Cole et al. 2004).
While ability to learn defines what students can do, motivation to learn guides the
decision-making process shaping the direction, focus, and level of effort that students
apply to their learning activities (Cole et al. 2004). Learning motivation enhances educational accomplishment because students with high motivation to learn develop more
effective strategies for learning and exhibit greater commitment to knowledge and skill
accumulation (Blumenfeld et al. 2006; Nguyen and Nguyen 2010). Therefore, the level of
satisfaction with their universities also improves. This relationship is described by our first
hypothesis.
H1 Learning motivation has a positive impact on students’ assessments of QCL.
2.3 Psychological Hardiness in Learning
Stress can generate psychological problems and can affect peoples’ effectiveness at
working and studying. To overcome challenges introduced by stress, people need to be
psychologically hardy. Psychological hardiness is a concept used to describe people’s
commitment, control, and challenge in their lives (Maddi 2002; Britt et al. 2001). Commitment refers to a ‘‘tendency to involve oneself in (rather than experience alienation from)
whatever one is doing or encounters’’. Control is defined as a ‘‘tendency to feel and act as if
one is influential (rather than helpless) in the face of the varied contingencies of life’’.
Challenge is described as a ‘‘belief that change rather than stability is normal in life and

123


Psychological Hardiness in Learning and Quality of College Life

1095

that the anticipation of changes are interesting incentives to growth rather than threats to
security’’ (Kobasa et al. 1982, 169).
Research in education indicates that study at university is one of many causes of stress
(e.g., Cole et al. 2004; Furr et al. 2001). During their lives at university, students not only

have to focus on completing educational activities such as readings, assignments, projects,
and examinations, but they also have to manage personal matters such as finances, part
time jobs, and social activities. Psychological hardiness in learning plays an important role
in the learning process. Students with high levels of psychological hardiness in learning
will spend their time and effort in studying. They feel and act as if they are influential and
welcome changes occurring during their lives at university.
Research shows that psychological hardiness assists people in enhancing their health
and performance when coping with stressful conditions (Maddi 1999). Highly hardy
attitudes also help people to convert stressful events into common problems to be solved
(Bartone et al. 2009; Maddi 1999; Sezgin 2009) or opportunities for growth and development (Kobasa and Puccetti 1983), thus improving performance and quality of life
(Bartone et al. 2009; Wiebe and McCallum 1986). Similarly, during their university lives,
students often experience stressful circumstances. Students with high psychological hardiness in learning will be able to control stress in their learning process. This capability
helps them transform the stress caused by learning into more fun or enjoyable university
lives, developing and maintaining their motivation to do what they need to do. When
students have capabilities to overcome the pressure of learning in class, they will
acknowledge the role of their professors and classmates in learning. These relationships are
embodied in the following hypotheses.
H2 Psychological hardiness in learning has a positive impact on QCL.
H3 Psychological hardiness in learning has a positive impact on learning motivation.

2.4 Functional value of a business education
Value is the key to human exchanges (e.g., Sandstrom et al. 2008). People exchange
something of value in return for something they value more. Several conceptualizations of
value are found in the literature, such as functional value, emotional value, and social value
(see Ledden et al. 2007 for a review). Students studying in universities exchange money,
time, and entertainment for the contemporaneous pleasure of learning, and also for higher
expected future earnings and a more satisfying future professional life. This study focuses
on the functional value perceived by business students when studying at university.
Functional value refers to students’ expectation that the business education at their chosen
university will enhance their future employment or career goals and advancement (LeBlanc and Nguyen 1999; Ledden et al. 2007).

Value reinforces human beliefs that guide their behavior in their everyday lives (Kahle
1989). Students who perceive that studying at their university will give them higher value
for their work and lives in the future will be more positive in their attitudes and behavior
toward university life. These students tend to see the pressure of learning as useful
experience for their future lives. Thus, for these students, learning at a university is
interesting and worthwhile. In other words, it appears that functional value of business
education will strengthen the impacts of both learning motivation and psychological
hardiness in learning on quality of college life. These relationships lead us to our fourth
and fifth hypotheses.

123


1096

T. D. Nguyen et al.

H4 The impact of learning motivation on QCL is stronger for students who perceive
higher functional value of their business education.
H5 The impact of psychological hardiness in learning on QCL is stronger for students
who perceive higher functional value of their business education.

3 Methodology
3.1 Design and Pilot Study
The research comprised two phases, a pilot study and a main survey, and was undertaken in
Ho Chi Minh City, the principal business centre of Vietnam. Although most of the measures of constructs are available in the literature, it is important to ensure they are
appropriate for the context of this study (a transition market) by examining how students
describe their learning motivation, quality of college life, and psychological hardiness in
learning. Thus, we began with a pilot study. The questionnaire was initially prepared in
English. It was then translated into Vietnamese by an academic fluent in both languages

because English is not well-understood by all students in this market. Back-translation
ensured the reliability of the translation.
The pilot study consisted of two steps: qualitative and quantitative. First, we conducted
a series of in-depth interviews with six business students at the Faculty of Business
Administration, University of Economics, Ho Chi Minh City, purposefully selected on the
basis of their academic quality (Coyne 1997). The sole purpose of this phase of the pilot
study was to formulate questionnaires in Vietnamese that could support our objective of
relating psychological hardiness in learning and learning motivation to students’ perceptions of the quality of college life.
Preliminary validation of the measures incorporated into the questionnaire was
accomplished in the quantitative phase of the pilot study, in which we asked a convenience
sample of 126 business students also at the Faculty of Business Administration, University
of Economics, Ho Chi Minh City to complete the draft questionnaires. This convenience
sample consisted of students in upper-level courses; we enlisted them by visiting a
selection of classes and inviting all students to participate. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of
reliability and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were used to arrive at preliminary
assessments of the scales, as described below.
3.2 Measurement
Four constructs were examined: quality of college life (QCL), psychological hardiness in
learning, learning motivation, and functional value of business education. QCL was
measured by three items (from Q1 to Q3; Appendix 1—Table 3), each one of which was
intended to reflect student perception of QCL (Sirgy et al. 2007). While QCL could be
decomposed into various components like students’ satisfaction with the faculty, facilities,
student services, relationships with classmates, and extracurricular activities, we focus on
the overall QCL construct. Psychological hardiness in learning was measured by six items
(from P1 to P6; Appendix 1—Table 3) and learning motivation was measured by five items
(from L1 to L5; Appendix 1—Table 3). These scales were adapted from Cole et al. (2006,
2004a, b). Finally, functional value of business education was measured by four items
(from V1 to V4; Appendix 1—Table 3; Ledden et al. 2007). Each item was measured on a

123

Psychological Hardiness in Learning and Quality of College Life

1097

seven-point Likert scale, anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree). The
measures were refined via Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of reliability and EFA, using the
data collected from 126 business students in the quantitative pilot study. The results
indicated that all scales satisfied the requirement for reliability: all Cronbach alphas of the
scales were higher than 0.80. Note that one item (P5) measuring psychological hardiness
(when necessary I am willing to study extra hard) was deleted due to its low item-total
correlation (\0.30). The EFA results (principal components with varimax rotation) also
indicate that all the scales satisfied the requirement for factor loadings ([0.50), total
variance extracted ([50%) and the number of factors extracted. Accordingly, these measures were used in the main survey.
3.3 Main Survey
The main survey was undertaken with the cooperation of a convenience sample of 1,024
undergraduate students at five selected universities in Ho Chi Minh City and Binh Duong:
the University of Economics, Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City Open University, Ho
Chi Minh City University of Technology, Ton Duc Thang University, and Binh Duong
University. With permission of the universities, we visited a selection of upper-level
classes and invited all of the students to complete the questionnaires. When the questionnaires were collected, we checked them and asked respondents to fill in any missing
values. The sample was comprised of 622 (60.8%) female students and 402 (39.3%) male
students. There were 605 (59.1%) students studying in public universities and 419 (40.9%)
students studying in private universities. Composite reliability (qc), average variance
extracted (qvc), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to validate the measurement models and structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to test the conceptual
model and hypotheses.

4 Results
4.1 Measure Validation

As mentioned above, the quality of the measures used in this study was assessed using
composite reliability (qc), average variance extracted (qvc), and CFA. The screening
process showed that the data exhibited slight deviations from normality. Nonetheless, all
univariate kurtoses and skewnesses were in the acceptable range of [-1, 1]. Note that all
the scales were reflective measures. Therefore, the maximum likelihood estimation method
was used to estimate the parameters in the measurement and structural models (Muthen
and Kaplan 1985).
The saturated model (final measurement model) produced an acceptable fit to the data:
v2[113] = 559.23 (p = 0.000); GFI = 0.940; CFI = 0.942; and RMSEA = 0.062. The
factor loadings of all items were high and substantial (the lowest loading was 0.65), and all
were highly significant (p \ 0.001). Appendix 1—Table 3 shows the CFA loadings,
means, SD, composite reliability, and average variance extracted of the scale items.
Furthermore, the average variances extracted of other scales were high (qvc [ 0.50),
except for the scale measuring psychological hardness in learning (qvc = 0.47). These
findings indicate that the scales used in this study were unidimensional and that convergent
validity (within-method) was achieved. The correlations (with standard errors) between
constructs were significantly different from unity (Appendix 2—Table 4), which supports

123


1098

T. D. Nguyen et al.

cross-construct discriminant validity (Steenkamp and van Trijp 1991). Further, all the
scales had high composite reliability (qc C 0.81). In sum, all the scales measuring the
constructs used in this study satisfied the requirement for reliability and validity.
4.2 Structural Models
The SEM results show that the proposed model produced a good fit to the data:

v2[62] = 323.21 (p = 0.000); GFI = 0.954; CFI = 0.949; and, RMSEA = 0.064 (Fig. 2).
In addition, no hypotheses were rejected. Learning motivation had a statistically significant
positive impact on quality of college life (b = 0.17, p \ 0.001). Consistent with
hypotheses H2 and H3, psychological hardiness in learning had statistically significant
positive impacts on both quality of college life (c = 0.38, p \ 0.001) and learning motivation (c = 0.62, p \ 0.001). Table 1 shows the unstandardized estimates of the structural
paths.
4.3 Results of Multi-Group Analysis: Testing the Moderating Effects
To test the moderating effects of functional value of business education perceived by
students on the impacts of both psychological hardiness in learning and learning motivation on quality of college life, the multi-group analysis in SEM was employed. It is noted
that the scale measuring functional value of business education was unidimensional.
Therefore, a summated scale was formed for the measure of this construct. Then, the
median split was applied to divide the sample into two groups: students with low and high
perceptions of functional value of business education. Two stages of analysis were conducted. First, these two samples were used to estimate the paths with no structural paths
constrained (i.e., the path between psychological hardiness in learning and quality of
college life and the path between learning motivation and quality of college life were set to
be free). Next, constraints were imposed for these structural paths for both groups, i.e., they
were set to be equal for both groups. No constraints were set for the measurement models
(partial invariance).
The results of the multi-group analysis reveal that a significant difference was found
between these two models: Dv2 = 7.5, Ddf = 2, p \ 0.05. A closer inspection of the
L1

Fig. 2 Structural results
(standardized estimate)

.69

L2

L3

L4

L5

.73 .74 .66 .73

Learning
.38
motivation
.62*

.17*

Psychological
hardiness in
learning

Quality of .25
college life

.38*

.70 .68 .65 .71 .68
P1

P2

P3

P4

P6

.82 .76
Q1

χ2[62] = 323.21 (p =.000)
GFI =.954; CFI =.949; RMSEA =.064
*p<.001; Squared multiple correlations

123

Q2

.77
Q3


Psychological Hardiness in Learning and Quality of College Life

1099

Table 1 Unstandardized structural paths
Structural path

Estimate (se)

t value

Psychological hardiness in learning ? Learning motivation

0.74 (0.052)

14.16

Psychological hardiness in learning ? Quality of college life

0.48 (0.064)

7.51

Learning motivation ? Quality of college life

0.18 (0.051)

3.47

Table 2 Multi-group results (unstandardized estimate)
Structural path

Functional value of business education
Low

Learning motivation ? Quality of college life
Psychological hardiness in learning ? Quality of
college life

High

Est (se)

t value

Est (se)

t value

-0.01 (0.066)

-0.12

0.18 (0.067)

2.62

0.38 (0.099)

3.82

0.44 (0.076)

5.79

Est(se) Estimate(standard error)

structural paths (Table 2) reveals that the effect of learning motivation on quality of
college life in the group of students with a higher level of perceived functional value of
business education (bunstandardized = 0.18, p \ 0.001) was greater than for the group of
students with a lower level of perceived functional value of business education (bunstandardized = -0.01, not significant). Thus, we fail to reject hypothesis H4.

The same results were found for the impact of psychological hardiness in learning on
quality of college life. The impact of psychological hardiness in learning on quality of
college life in the group of students with a higher level of perceived functional value of
business education (cunstandardized = .44, p \ 0.001) was greater than that of the group of
students with a lower level of perceived functional value of business education (cunstandardized = 0.38, p \ 0.001). Thus, hypothesis H5 was not rejected. Note that no improper
solution was found in the saturated model or in any structural model. Heywood cases were
absent; all error-term variances were significant; and all absolute standardized residuals
were less than 2.58.

5 Discussion, Implications and Directions for Future Research
This study examines the direct and indirect effects of psychological hardiness in learning
on business students’ perceptions of Quality of College Life (QCL), where indirect effects
are mediated by learning motivation. It also explores the moderating role of the functional
value of business education perceived by students on the impacts of both learning motivation and psychological hardiness in learning on quality of college life. Psychological
hardiness in learning is a key predictor of business students’ QCL, and it has a strong
postive impact on learning motivation. Learning motivation also plays a role in predicting
QCL. Our results suggest certain ways in which universities might be able to enhance QCL
among Vietnamese business students. In particular, hardiness assessment and training
programs have proved successful in cultivating hardy skills and attitudes (Maddi 2002).
Vietnamese universities could organize such hardiness training programs whether as

123


1100

T. D. Nguyen et al.

regular credit courses or non-credit courses to equip students with hardy attitudes and
skills. These programs could help increase QCL experienced by students and enhance their

learning motivation.
The impacts of both learning motivation and psychological hardiness in learning on
QCL are stronger for students who perceive higher functional value of business education.
Thus, training programs aimed at enhancing students’ perceptions of the functional values
of their studies would also be useful for Vietnamese universities. Here, we think especially
of career fairs at which students could interact with potential employers. Finally, it would
be of substantial interest to regularly evaluate the effectiveness of such programs.
This study has a number of limitations. First, the model was only tested with undergraduate business students in some key universities in Ho Chi Minh City and Binh Duong.
The model should be tested with post-graduate business students as well as business
students at universities in other cities and provinces in Vietnam, such as in Can Tho, Da
Nang, and Hanoi to enhance the generalizability of the results. Second, the model
examined the roles of only two factors, learning motivation and psychological hardiness in
learning, on QCL. There may be other factors that contribute to QCL of business students,
especially the psychological capabilities of students such as optimism, self-efficacy, and
hope that should be considered in future research. Third, the measures of psychological
hardiness and QCL used in this study are global measures. For example, the measure of
psychological hardiness does not break out the commitment, control, and challenge
components. While global scales are easier to administrator and less reactive, they may be
less precise than facet—or specific—scales that decompose the global variables (Kumar
et al. 1993). Future research should use facet scales to measure the three components of
psychological hardiness, and should compare the results with global scales. The same
approach should be undertaken with QCL. Finally, future work could be enhanced by
reliance on a more sophisticated sampling design to ensure the resulting sample is representative of the population of business students in Vietnam.
Acknowledgment This work was supported in part by a grant from the UEH International School of
Business (Grant No. UEH.ISB.11.002) to Tho D Nguyen.

Appendix
See Table 3, 4
Table 3 CFA factor loadings of items
Item: When studying in this university

Mean

SD

Loading

t value

Learning motivation: Composite reliability qc = 0.84; Average variance extracted qvc = 0.50
L1. I try to learn the course material as much as possible

4.98

1.56

0.73

L2. I spend a lot of time for my study

4.64

1.41

0.65

–
19.25

L3. Investment in studying the course material is my first priority

5.32

1.55

0.75

21.88

L4. I try all my best to study the course material

4.78

1.34

0.73

21.29

L5. Overall, my learning motivation is very high

5.11

1.37

0.69

20.20

P1. I am able to cope with difficulties in learning at university

4.79

1.36

0.70

P2. I am in control of most things that happen to me at university

4.73

1.33

0.68

18.78

P3. I enjoy the challenge of learning new material in my courses

4.75

1.35

0.65

18.09

Psychological hardiness in learning: qc = 0.81; qvc = 0.47

123

–


Psychological Hardiness in Learning and Quality of College Life

1101

Table 3 continued
Item: When studying in this university
P4. I like courses that are unpredictable
P5. When necessary I am willing to study extra hard (deleted)

Mean
4.48
–

P6. Overall, my psychological hardiness in learning is very high 4.85

SD

Loading

t value
19.54

1.25

0.71

–

–

1.40

0.68

–
18.83

Functional value of business education: qc = 0.86; qvc = 0.61
V1. My degree will allow me to earn a good/better salary

5.08

1.57

0.77

V2. My degree will allow me to achieve my career goals

5.06

1.53

0.82

26.20

–

V3. The knowledge I will have acquired at this university
will enable me to do my future job better

4.83

1.52

0.84

26.76

V4. My degree is a good investment in my future

4.96

1.54

0.69

21.85

4.59

1.47

0.82

Quality of college life: qc = 0.82; qvc = 0.61

Q1. Considering all things, I am fully satisfied with my study
in this university

–

Q2. Studying in this university is a wonderful experience for me 4.50

1.43

0.75

23.77

Q3. Overall, my quality of life in this university is very high

1.49

0.77

24.23

4.42

Table 4 Correlations between constructs
Correlation between

r (se)

1-r

t(1-r)

Learning motivation $ Psychological hardiness in learning

0.62 (0.051)

0.39

7.59

Psychological hardiness in learning $ Quality of college life

0.49 (0.046)

0.51

11.15
11.79

Learning motivation $ Functional value of business education

0.49 (0.043)

0.51

Functional value of business education $ Quality of college life

0.69 (0.048)

0.31

6.49

Learning motivation $ Quality of college life

0.40 (0.043)

0.60

14.01

Functional value of business education $ Psychological hardiness in learning

0.44 (0.043)

0.56

13.02

r (se): correlation (standard error)

References
Bartone, P. T., Eid, J., Johnsen, B. H., Laberg, J. C., & Snook, S. A. (2009). Big five personality factors,
hardiness, and social judgment as predictors of leader performance. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 30(6), 498–521.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Chapter 28: Motivation and cognitive
engagement in learning environment. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning
sciences (pp. 475–488). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Britt, T. W., Adler, A. B., & Barton, P. T. (2001). Deriving benefits from stressful events: The role of
engagement in meaningful work and hardiness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 53–63.

Cha, K. -H. (2003). Subjective well-being among college students. Social Indicators Research, 62(1),
455–477.
Chow, H. P. H. (2005). Life satisfaction among university students in a Canadian prairie city: A multivariate
analysis. Social Indicators Research, 70(2), 139–150.
Cole, M. S., Field, H. S., & Harris, S. G. (2004a). Student learning motivation and psychological hardiness:
Interactive effects on students’ reactions to a management class. Academy of Management Learning
and Education, 3(1), 64–85.
Cole, M. S., Harris, S. G., & Field, H. S. (2004b). Stages of learning motivation: Development and
validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(7), 1421–1456.

123


1102

T. D. Nguyen et al.

Cole, M. S., Bruch, H., & Vogel, B. (2006). Emotion as mediators of the relations between perceived
supervisor support and psychological hardiness on employee cynicism. Journal of Organizational
Behaviour, 27(4), 463–484.
Coyne, I. T. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear
boundaries? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26, 623–630.
Cummins, R. A. (2010). Subjective wellbeing, homeostatically protected mood and depression: A synthesis.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 1–17.
Cummins, R. A., & Nistico, H. (2002). Maintaining life satisfaction: The role of cognitive bias. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 3, 37–69.
Diseth, A., Pallesen, S., Brunborg, G. S., & Larsen, S. (2010). Academic achievement among first semester
undergraduate psychology students: the role of course experience, effort, motives and learning strategies. Higher Education, 59(3), 335–352.
Furr, S. R., Westefeld, J. S., McConnell, G. N., & Jenkins, J. M. (2001). Suicide and depression among
college students: A decade later. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32, 97–100.

Kahle, L. (1989). Using the list of value (LOV) to understand consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
6(3), 5–12.
Kobasa, S. C., & Puccetti, M. C. (1983). Personality and social resources in stress resistance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 839–850.
Kobasa, S. C., Maddi, S. R., & Kahn, S. (1982). Hardiness and health: A prospective study. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 168–177.
Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Conducting interorganizational research using key
informants. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1633–1651.
LeBlanc, G., & Nguyen, N. (1999). Listening to the customer’s voice: Examining perceived service value
among business college students. International Journal of Educational Management, 13(4), 187–198.
Ledden, L., Kalafatis, S. P., & Samouel, P. (2007). The relationship between personal values and perceived
value of education. Journal of Business Research, 60, 965–974.
Maddi, S. R. (1999). Comments on trends in hardiness research and theorizing. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice & Research, 51, 67–71.
Maddi, S. R. (2002). The story of hardiness: Twenty years of theorizing, research and practice. Consulting
Psychology Journal, 54(3), 175–185.
Muthen, B., & Kaplan, D. (1985). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of nonnormal Likert variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38(2), 171–189.
Nguyen, T. D. (2009). Signal quality and service quality: A study of local and international MBA programs
in Vietnam. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(4), 364–376.
Nguyen, T. T. M., & Nguyen, T. D. (2010). Determinants of learning performance of business students in a
transitional market. Quality Assurance in Education, 18(4), 304–316.
Noe, R. A. (1986). Trainees’ attributes and attitudes: Neglected influences on training effectiveness.
Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 736–749.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Motivation and classroom learning. In W. M. Reynolds & G. E. Miller (Eds.),
Handbook of psychology (pp. 103–122). Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.
Posadzki, P., Musonda, P., Debska, G., & Polczyk, R. (2009). Psychosocial conditions of quality of life
among undergraduate students: a cross sectional survey. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 4,
239–258.
Rowold, J. (2007). The impact of personality on training-related aspects of motivation: Test of a longitudinal
model. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 18(1), 9–31.

Sandstrom, S., Edvardsson, B., Kristensson, P., & Magnusson, P. (2008). Value in use through service
experience. Managing Service Quality, 18(2), 112–126.
Sezgin, F. (2009). Relationships between teacher organizational commitment, psychological hardiness and
some demographic variables in Turkish primary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(5),
630–651.
Sirgy, M. J., Grzeskowiak, S., & Rahtz, D. (2007). Quality of college life of students: Developing and
validating a measure of well-being. Social Indicators Research, 80, 343–360.
Steenkamp, J. -B. E. M., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (1991). The use of LISREL in validating marketing
constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8(4), 283–299.
Tharenou, P. (2001). The relationship of training motivation to participation in training and development.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(5), 599–621.
Vaez, M., Kristenson, M., & Laflamme, L. (2004). Perceived quality of life and self-rated health among
first-year university students: A comparison with their working peers. Social Indicators Research,
68(2), 221–234.

123


Psychological Hardiness in Learning and Quality of College Life

1103

Verbrugge, L. M., & Asconi, F. J. (1987). Exploring the iceberg: Common symptoms and how people care
for them. Medical Care, 25, 539–569.
Wiebe, D. J., & McCallum, D. M. (1986). Health practices and hardiness as mediators in the stress-illness
relationship. Health Psychology, 5, 425–438.
Zullig, K. J., Huebner, E. S., & Pun, S. M. (2009). Demographic correlates of domain-based life satisfaction
reports of college students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 229–238.

123