The Efficacy of an Outdoor Adventure Education Curriculum ...€¦ · Adventure Education Curriculum on Selected Aspects of Positive Psychological Development ... Psychological Development,

Journal of Experiential Education • 2006, Volume 29, No. 2 pp. 187–209

The Efficacy of an OutdoorAdventure Education Curriculumon Selected Aspects of PositivePsychological Development

Michael Sheard and Jim Golby

To date, little empirical research has been conducted to support the claimthat outdoor adventure education (OAE) develops desirable psychologicalcharacteristics in participants. This study examined the effects of an OAEfoundation degree curriculum on positive psychological development.Fifty-two students (26 OAE students, 26 controls on an unrelated course),aged 16-39 years, completed a battery of positive psychological question-naires (at the start of their respective courses and 3 months later) measur-ing hardiness, mental toughness, self-esteem, self-efficacy, dispositionaloptimism, and positive affectivity. OAE curriculum activities includedrock-climbing, navigation training, countryside leadership, gill-scram-bling, and open canoeing. Control students were enrolled on a classroom-based travel and tourism college course. Inferential multivariate statisticsrevealed non-significant (p > .05, partial η2 = .38) improvements bythe OAE group across several psychological constructs. Significant effects (p < .05, partial η2 = .15) for the cohort were revealed for total hardiness. No significant gender differences were reported. The non-significant over-all effect is interpreted in terms of sample size, OAE activities, and meas-ured personality styles. The implications of these results are discussed rel-ative to previous findings and in terms of psychological theory.

Keywords: Outdoor Adventure Education, Curriculum, PsychologicalDevelopment, Positive Psychology, Hardiness

188 Journal of Experiential Education

Michael Sheard, Ph.D., is a Senior Lecturer in Sport and Exercise Psychologyand Head of Research Methods in Sport & Exercise at the University of Teesside,in Middlesburough, England. E-mail: [email protected]

Jim Golby, Ph.D., is a colleague in the same department and is Head of Researchand Enterprise in Sport & Exercise. Both authors are involved in teaching sportand exercise psychology and research methods. E-mail: [email protected]

Their research interests cover the psychology of outdoor adventure education,coaching, and leadership. Other research programmes include the psychology ofelite athletic performance, personality and academic achievement, psychometricassessment, and the effects of the HPA axis on psychological functioning, exer-cise, and obesity.

Outdoor adventure education (OAE) involves direct and purpose-ful exposure to adventurous activities in an effort to facilitateboth intra- and interpersonal growth (Meyer & Wenger, 1998).

There is a widespread cultural assumption that controlled exposure tochallenge can be potentially beneficial (Miles & Priest, 1990; Watts,Webster, Morley, & Cohen, 1992). For example, OAE has gained anenduring reputation for developing desirable personality characteristicsin participants that reflect the currency of constructs belonging to thepositive psychology movement. Such experiences as rock climbing,canoeing, orienteering, and camping have long been suggested to fosterqualities such as initiative, perseverance, determination, self-restraint,co-operation, and resourcefulness (Celebi & Ozen, 2004; Luckner &Nadler, 1997; Schoel, Prouty, & Radcliffe, 1988). However, to date it hasbeen noted (Baldwin, Persing, & Magnuson, 2004; Hatch & McCarthy,2005) that claims of these activities’ utility rely largely on anecdotal evi-dence, because little empirical research has been conducted to examinetheir efficacy. This is somewhat surprising, especially given the espous-al of outdoor adventure activities by those involved in, for example, cor-porate development (Aubrey & McCleod, 1994), and the increased levelsin outdoor adventure activities for the purpose of self-improvement

2006, Volume 29, No. 2 189

(Anderson, Schleien, McAvoy, Lais, & Seligmann, 1997; Watts, Cohen, &Toplis, 1994).

The notion of OAE assisting in the development of desirable positive psychological characteristics is intuitively appealing, both toeducationalists and to OAE participants. This is particularly emphasizedif the theoretical rationale for such an investigation adopts a “neo-Hahnian approach,” that is, that adventure experiences build characteror have certain therapeutic effects associated with personal characteris-tics (Brookes, 2003). This approach represents a development-by-chal-lenge philosophy and provides an underlying justification for OAE(Neill & Dias, 2001). Though a general and a research-based literatureexist on the effects of Outward Bound and outdoor adventure courses(e.g., Bronson, Gibson, Kichar, & Priest, 1992; Cason & Gillis, 1994;Hattie, Marsh, Neill, & Richards, 1997; McKenzie, 2000; Neill & Dias,2001), little supporting evidence is available on the specific effects of anOAE syllabus upon a variety of psychological constructs. Indeed, whilepeople have participated in OAE programs as a method of enhancingperformance, reports of these experiences have been largely anecdotal.In order to accurately assess the psychological impact of such programs,and to consider OAE as an effective intervention technique, a systemat-ic and rigorous examination is needed (Neill, 2003).

There has been a rapid expansion in the provision of OAE pro-grams (Hattie et al., 1997; Raiola & O’Keefe, 1999). The claim of theirproponents is that this mode of education can be used as an effectivemedium for participants to recognize and to understand their own weak-nesses, strengths, and personal resources (Nadler, 1993; Taniguchi &Freeman, 2004). Indeed many such programs are organized on thisassumption (Watts et al., 1992). Moreover, these skills are deemed to betransferable (Priest & Gass, 1997). Given that many such programs haveexplicit educational aims described as character building (e.g., psycho-logical development) (Cason & Gillis, 1994), it is worth asking abouttheir effectiveness when delivered in this context.

This is particularly relevant given the equivocal findings of theeffectiveness of OAE programs within the extant literature. For example,the somewhat negative conclusion of Hattie et al.’s (1997) seminal meta-analysis of OAE experiences is that it appears that only some OAE pro-grams, and indeed only some activities within these programs are effec-tive, and then on only some outcomes. Moreover, the authors concluded


that where there was some attempt at evaluation beyond anecdotal evi-dence, the analyses were rarely more than correlational. A number ofquestions exist also about the quality of dependent variables used in previous studies, and there have been few control studies (Gillis &Thomsen, 1996). Further, a recent review of the OAE literature indicatedthat the current understanding of how OAE outcomes are achieved is basedlargely on theory, rather than on empirical research (McKenzie, 2000).

Similarly, Badger, Sadler-Smith, and Michie (1997), in their evalua-tion of outdoor management development, found that commitment toOAE approaches was driven through anecdote and by belief in its effec-tiveness, rather than evidence. Clearly, there is a need for systematicresearch to gather empirical evidence in order to support the claims thatOAE programs have a major enduring impact on the lives, in general, andthe psychological development, in particular, of participants. Evidencesuggests that the experiences provided by OAE programs contribute toimprovements in psychosocial function (e.g., elevated self-esteem andself-confidence, enhanced locus of control, improved conflict resolutionand problem-solving skills, increased group cohesion; cf. Cason & Gillis,1994; Hans, 2000; Hattie et al., 1997; Neill & Richards, 1998).

A plethora of outcome measures has been used to evaluate OAEprograms. Psychological measures have included mood states (Fry &Heubeck, 1998), self-concept, and locus of control (Cason & Gillis, 1994),while Hattie et al. (1997) identified 40 major outcomes, most of which(i.e., 28) were placed into one of three categories, namely, leadership,self-concept, or personality (12 further outcomes were divided betweenacademic, interpersonal, and adventuresome subdomains). This catego-rization reflects positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi,2000), a growing movement seeking to understand and facilitate person-al growth and development, psychological wellness, and optimal func-tioning (Linley & Joseph, 2004). Because the focus was on a positive psy-chological approach, a broad range of measures was implemented.Positive psychology is a constellation of personality styles (e.g., mentaltoughness, hardiness, dispositional optimism), positive self-concept(e.g., self-esteem, self-efficacy), and positive emotions and moods (e.g.,positive affectivity). The challenging outdoor environment is conduciveto affording demonstrations of those positive psychological characteris-tics intuitively requisite to successful fulfillment of OAE program learn-ing outcomes. As previous OAE research has identified improvements inleadership (Stoltz, 1992), self-concept (Ewert, 1989), self-esteem (Kolb,1988), and personality (Drebing, Willis, & Genet, 1987), the presentstudy sought to extend these findings using psychometrically acceptablemeasures of the previously stated positive psychological constructs.

2006, Volume 29, No. 2 191

Individuals high in mental toughness are disciplined thinkers whorespond to pressure in ways that enable them to remain relaxed, calm,and energized because they have the ability to increase their flow of pos-itive energy in crisis and adversity (Loehr, 1986). According to Loehr, theattributes of mental toughness include: (a) self-confidence (i.e., knowingthat one can perform well and be successful); (b) negative energy control(i.e., handling emotions such as fear, anger, and frustration, and copingwith externally determined events); (c) attention control (i.e., remainingfully focused on the task at hand); (d) visualization and imagery control(i.e., thinking positively in pictures); (e) motivation (i.e., willing to per-severe); (f) positive energy (i.e., having fun and enjoyment); and (g) atti-tude control (i.e., unyielding). As such, mental toughness appears to cor-respond with the character building claims of OAE proponents.

Hardiness is a personality characteristic encompassing three inter-related component styles (commitment, control, and challenge), whichfacilitates the management of stressful circumstances by turning theminto growth-inducing rather than debilitating experiences (Kobasa,1979). A high level of commitment reflects a tendency to involve oneselfin whatever one is doing rather than withdraw. This is seen as the bestway to turn whatever one is experiencing into something that seemsinteresting and important. People strong in levels of control tend to feeland act as if they are influential, rather than seeing themselves as pow-erless in the face of circumstances. Those strong in the challenge traitbelieve that life is changeable and view this as an opportunity ratherthan a threat (Maddi, Khoshaba, Persico, Lu, Harvey, & Bleecker, 2002).Previous research not related to OAE has demonstrated the benefits ofhigh levels of hardiness for many different categories of people, includ-ing business managers (Maddi, Kahn, & Maddi, 1998), military person-nel (Bartone, 1999), and sportspeople (Golby & Sheard, 2004). Therefore,hardiness might be deemed to be expressive of those qualities requisiteto successful fulfillment of an OAE curriculum’s learning outcomes.

Dispositional optimism has been shown to influence physical andpsychological well-being in a variety of areas (Schneider, 2001). It is arelatively stable personality style characterized by a general tendency toexpect things to go one’s way. Optimistic individuals generally believethat good rather than bad things will happen to them in the future(Scheier & Carver, 1985). It has been argued that optimistic people, in theface of difficulties, continue to pursue their valued goals and regulatethemselves using effective coping strategies (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges,1994). Such people generally tend to cope with stressful events by usingactive and problem-focused coping strategies. In contrast, individualswho hold negative outcome expectations for their future (i.e., pes-simistic individuals) are more likely to expect bad things to happen in


their lives, withdraw more easily, become passive, and finally give up onachieving their goals. Faced with stressful events, pessimists adoptdenial and avoidance coping strategies (Scheier & Carver, 1985). In thecontext of the present study, it was believed that activities within anOAE curriculum would afford participants several opportunities to dis-play adaptive coping strategies and thus impact upon their levels of dis-positional optimism.

Research suggests that young people (e.g., of college age) are morelikely to show good adjustment if they have an easy temperament and ahigh level of self-esteem (Carr, 2004). Self-esteem refers to an individual’sfeelings of his/her worthiness and competence (Muris, Meesters, & Fijen,2003) and has been described as an evaluative aspect of the self-systemthat is related to the image of an ideal self that all individuals have(Harter, 1999). As such, people with high levels of self-esteem are con-cerned mainly with enhancing their views of themselves and seek oppor-tunities to excel and stand out (Carr, 2004). Such people are more likelyto view a stressful situation, such as a potentially demanding OAE task,as challenging rather than as a threat (Mäkikangas & Kinnunen, 2003). Bycontrast, individuals lacking in self-esteem have been shown to experi-ence greater negative stress and to use more withdrawal and passive formsof coping to manage stressful events (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992).

Self-efficacy develops from mastery experiences in which goals areachieved through perseverance and overcoming obstacles, and fromobserving others succeed through sustained effort (Carr, 2004). Therefore,by knowing one’s limitation boundaries, realistic goals can be successful-ly accomplished which, in turn, establish new goals leading to furthersuccess and developing mental toughness. Self-efficacy has been found tobe a significant predictor of superior performance (Judge & Bono, 2001).People with high levels of self-efficacy set challenging goals, expect theirefforts to produce good results, ascribe failure to controllable factors (e.g.,insufficient effort, inadequate strategies, or unfavorable circumstances)rather than uncontrollable factors (e.g., lack of ability), view obstacles assurmountable, and are motivated to persist in their efforts (Bandura,1997). Self-efficacy may be enhanced if people are persuaded that theycan succeed and are then given manageable challenges (e.g., activitieswithin the context of an OAE curriculum). As such, self-efficacy shouldbe expressive of involvement in OAE activities.

Affect is considered to constitute emotional experience (Watson,2005), and can be defined along the dimension of valence (positive-neg-ative). Affective reactions involve fairly basic cognition and reveal pref-erences about states that individuals value more than others (Batson,Shaw, & Olsen, 1992). A change to a more valued state is associated withpositive affectivity, while a change to a less valued state is associated

2006, Volume 29, No. 2 193

with negative affectivity. Positive affectivity and negative affectivity areassumed to be orthogonal constructs with empirically separable dimen-sions (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Individuals high on positiveaffectivity tend to be energetic, enthusiastic, and enjoy life, while thosescoring low are characterized as listless, lethargic, and apathetic (Watsonet al., 1988). High negative affectivity is associated with anxiety, fear,and anger, while people low on this dimension typically report feelingplacid, calm, and contented (Watson et al., 1988). As previous researchhas elucidated positive affectivity’s association with helping behaviorand care in decision-making (Staw & Barsade, 1993) and negative affec-tivity’s link to poor coping and trait anxiety (Zeidner, 1994), the presentstudy sought to expand on these findings by examining how affectivityrelated to OAE-related outcome variables.

Historically, males have been more involved in OAE activities(Henderson, Bialeschki, Shaw, & Freysinger, 1989). However, women’sparticipation and visibility in these activities has increased (Bly, 2001;Nolan & Priest, 1993). Further there are many such programs now specif-ically devoted to females only (Little, 2002; McDermott, 2004). Althoughit has been suggested that males and females often have different expec-tations regarding experiences in the natural environment (Estes & Ewert,1988; Humberstone, 1989), most OAE studies have found few gender dif-ferences in terms of the effects of OAE activities (Burdsal & Force, 1983;Marsh, Richards, & Barnes, 1986a, 1986b). It appears that the effects onmales and females are similarly positive.

Few studies have assessed the effects of age on OAE outcomes.Relative to students, Hattie et al. (1997) reported that secondary studentshad similar effects to university students, and that a likely moderator ofany age effect would be motivational reasons for participation.Therefore, given this lack of age-related empirical evidence, this studysought to examine the effects of an OAE curriculum on mental toughnessand key correlate positive psychological attributes of students in sepa-rate cohorts.

The outcome of desirable psychological development is, and hasbeen, promoted by providers of OAE (Celebi & Ozen, 2004; Luckner &Nadler, 1997; Schoel et al., 1988), and that self-improvement may evenbe brought about by involvement in such activities (Anderson et al.,1997; Watts et al., 1994). However, as Brookes (2003) states: “It is onething to believe that you have developed improved character traits; it isanother for these claims to be verified” (p. 55). The use of adventureexperiences for educational goals has grown (Priest & Gass, 1997).Adhering to Hamilton’s (1980) framework for evaluating experientialeducation programs, the present study employed a methodology reflect-ing the fourth level of the proposed hierarchy, that is, accumulating evi-


dence that the measured effects can be attributed to the properties of aprogram. Therefore, this study sought to examine empirically, using psy-chometrically acceptable measurements, the psychological efficacy ofOAE within the context of an educational curriculum.

Method

Participants

Initial contact was made with the college executing the OAE foun-dation degree curriculum. Seventy students (mean age = 17.23 years; SD = 2.99; range = 16-39) volunteered their names and all were subse-quently invited to participate in the study. Forty-one students wereenrolled in a two-year OAE foundation degree course and 29 studentswere in an unrelated two-year travel and tourism foundation degreecourse. Students from Year 1 (n = 26) and Year 2 (n = 15) of the OAEcourse formed the treatment group (n = 41). The control group (n = 29)was comprised of students drawn from Year 1 (n = 19) and Year 2 (n = 10)of the travel and tourism course. Of the sample, 29 were male (27 in thetreatment group; 2 in the control group) and 41 were female (14 in thetreatment group; 27 in the control group). Participants were allocated togroups according to the course being studied, thus representing a con-venience sample (Cramer & Howitt, 2004).

Fifty-two of the original 70 students (74%) completed the experi-ment (mean age = 17.31 years; SD = 3.19; range = 16-39). Students fromYear 1 (n = 14) and Year 2 (n = 12) of the OAE course formed the treat-ment group (n = 26). The control group (n = 26) was comprised of stu-dents drawn from Year 1 (n = 16) and Year 2 (n = 10) of the travel andtourism course. Of the sample, 17 were male (16 in the treatment group;1 in the control group) and 35 were female (10 in the treatment group;25 in the control group). All participants were naïve to the researchhypotheses and all gave their consent to participate. Adhering to BritishPsychological Society guidelines (2000), confidentiality regarding indi-vidual information was assured.

Instrumentation

A demographic questionnaire obtained descriptions of the partici-pant sample including age, gender, course being studied, and coursecohort. Within the OAE course group, only participants enrolled in the sec-ond year of their OAE course had previous outdoor adventure experience.Six positive psychological measures were chosen for this study based ontheir satisfactory psychometric characteristics and their relevance to per-ceived beneficial psychological outcomes of OAE participation.

Mental toughness. The 42-item Psychological Performance

2006, Volume 29, No. 2 195

Inventory (PPI) (Loehr, 1986) yields an overall mental toughness score,as well as for seven 6-item subscale scores, namely: self-confidence; neg-ative energy control; attention control; visualization and imagery con-trol; motivation; positive energy; and attitude control. Possible subscalescores range from a low of 6 to a desirable high of 30, and total scoresfrom 42 to 210. Scores were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale anchoredby “almost always” and “almost never.” Studies have found the PPI tohave acceptable construct validity and alpha reliability of 0.96 (Golby,Sheard, & Lavallee, 2003; Golby & Sheard, 2004).

Hardiness. The 18-item Personal Views Survey (PVS III-R) (Maddi& Khoshaba, 2001) yields an overall hardiness score, as well as three 6-item subscale scores: (a) commitment; (b) control; and (c) challenge.Scores were recorded on a 4-point Likert scale anchored by “not at alltrue” and “very true.” Overall hardiness norms range from 19 to 49, withan average of 38-41. The PVS III-R has reported reliabilities ranging from0.80 to 0.88 (Maddi & Khoshaba, 2001; Maddi et al., 2002).

Dispositional optimism. The 12-item Life Orientation Test (LOT)(Scheier & Carver, 1985) is an 8-item self-report measure (plus four filleritems). The scale, which provides a measure of global expectations thatmore good things than bad will happen in the future, has four positive-ly worded items and four negatively worded items. Participants wereasked to indicate their agreement with items on a 4-point Likert scaleanchored by “I agree a lot” and “I disagree a lot.” Possible scores rangefrom a low score of 0 to a desirable high of 32. Alpha reliabilities rang-ing from 0.73 (Mäkikangas & Kinnunen, 2003) to 0.86 (Greenberger,Chen, Dmitrieva, & Farruggia, 2003) have been reported for this scale.

Self-esteem. Rosenberg’s (1965) 10-item Self-Esteem Scale (RSES)was used to measure self-esteem. The scale, which measures the self-acceptance aspect of self-esteem (Crandall, 1973), has five positivelyworded items and five negatively worded items. Participants were askedto indicate their agreement with items on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree)to 4 (strongly agree). The RSES is reverse-scored; possible scores rangefrom a high score of 40 to a desirable 10. It is one of the most widely usedmeasures of self-esteem (Robins, Tracy, Trzesniewski, Potter, & Gosling,2001). It has been used with adolescent participants in adventure pro-grams (Kaly & Heesacker, 2003), and with students (Pulford, Johnson, &Awaida, 2005). Studies have found the RSES to have acceptable psycho-metric properties, including a Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.88(Greenberger et al., 2003; Mäkikangas & Kinnunen, 2003).

Self-efficacy. The 10-item Generalised Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES;Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1993) was used to assess self-efficacy.Participants were asked to indicate their agreement with items on a scaleof 1 (not at all true) to 4 (exactly true). Possible scores range from a low


score of 10 to a desirable high of 40. The scale has demonstrated accept-able psychometric properties, including alpha reliabilities ranging from0.76 to 0.90 (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1993, 1995).

Positive and negative affectivity. The Positive and Negative AffectSchedule (PANAS) (Watson et al., 1988) was used to assess disposition-al affectivity. The PANAS is a 20-item scale, rated on a 5-point Likertscale anchored by “very slightly or not at all” and “extremely.” For thepositive affectivity scale, possible scores range from a low score of 10 toa desirable high of 50. For the negative affectivity scale, possible scoresrange from a high score of 50 to a desirable low of 10. The instrumentasks participants to describe their typical mood, that is, they were askedto “indicate to what extent you generally feel this way, that is, how youfeel on average.” When this long-term instruction is used, both scales areassumed to represent rather stable individual differences in positive andnegative affectivity levels, respectively (Van Yperen, 2003). Studies haveshown the PANAS to have acceptable psychometric properties. Alphareliabilities for the positive affect dimension range from 0.81 (VanYperen, 2003) to 0.85 (Fullana, Caseras, & Torrubia, 2003), and from 0.71(Van Yperen, 2003) to 0.87 (Fullana et al., 2003) for the negative affectdimension.

OAE Foundation Degree Curriculum

The course was based at a college and was nonresidential.Students were taught through workshops, practical outdoor sessions,indoor practical sessions, tutorials, review sessions, presentations, sem-inars, and residential trips. The aims of the curriculum included stu-dents learning the principles and practices of OAE, land-based outdoorskills, land and water leadership outdoor skills, expedition skills, andcompulsory participation in a residential program. Students were trans-ported to locations across the north of England in order to participate inthe organized OAE activities. The following activities formed that part ofthe OAE curriculum during the 3-month experimental period(September–December, 2003): Year 1: September–October: Navigationtraining and countryside leadership (four 7-hour exposures, nonresiden-tial); October–November: 6 weeks rock-climbing (7-hour day, once perweek, nonresidential); December: 3-day residential course. Year 2:September–October: Open canoeing (four 6-hour exposures, nonresi-dential); October–December: 7 weeks gill-scrambling (also known asgorge walking, where participants ascend or descend a stream negotiat-ing steps, waterfall, and pools; 7-hour day, once per week, nonresiden-tial). The only difference between first and second year students wasage. Year 2 OAE course students were exposed in their first year to thoseactivities undertaken in this study by the present Year 1 cohort.

2006, Volume 29, No. 2 197

OAE activities for each of the cohorts were organized and imple-mented separately. College teaching staff and OAE activity trained per-sonnel based at the respective activity locations supervised students atall times. When not engaged in outdoor education activities, OAE courseparticipants were attending classroom-based skills teaching and learningsessions related to their course.

Travel and Tourism Foundation Degree Curriculum

This course was also based at a college and was totally separatefrom the OAE course. Students were taught through lectures, work-shops, and practical sessions. The aims of the curriculum included stu-dents learning the principles of the travel and tourism industry, market-ing, customer service, visitor attractions, and handling air passengers.

Data Analyses

As group means of several positive psychological constructs weresignificantly (p < .05) different prior to intervention, multivariate analy-sis of covariance (MANCOVA) was used to analyze the data, with par-ticipants’ pre-intervention scores entered as the covariate (Ewert &Sibthorp, 2000; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). One of the advantages ofusing MANCOVA over multiple univariate analyses of covariance is thatit controls for the family-wise error rate (Ewert & Sibthorp, 2000;Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). There are numerous examples of multivari-ate (Kelley, Coursey, & Selby, 1997; Oakes, Haslam, Morrison, & Grace,1995) and covariate (Ewert, 1988; Pommier & Witt, 1995) analyses inOAE research. Group (i.e., treatment or control) served as the first inde-pendent variable. Because this study sought to examine the influence ofgender (i.e., male or female) and cohort (i.e., Year 1 or Year 2) on OAE-related positive psychological outcomes, only those participants fromthe OAE treatment group were included in the gender and cohort MAN-COVA analyses. Post-intervention scores on subscale and total scores ofthe six positive psychological inventories served as the dependent vari-ables. As each factor contained only two conditions, when necessary,cell means were examined in the event of a significant difference(Heiman, 2002). The partial eta-squared ( 2) statistic was calculated toestimate the effect size associated with each statistical difference(Heiman, 2002). Alpha was set at 0.05. All statistical analyses were con-ducted using SPSS for Windows v11.5 (SPSS Inc.).

ResultsFifty-two of the original 70 participants (74%) completed the

study. Eighteen participants voluntarily withdrew from their course (15from the OAE course, 3 from the travel and tourism course) and did not


complete the battery of questionnaires at the end of the experimentaltimeframe. Reasons for withdrawal included a wish to enroll in othercourses, voluntary suspension of studies to pursue employment, otherfinancial problems, and familial commitments. Independent t test analy-ses of students’ pre-intervention scores on each of the measured positivepsychological constructs revealed no evidence of response bias (Table 1).MANCOVA tests were conducted on the three factors of interest. No sig-nificant differences were revealed for group, Wilks’ λ = 0.62, F (15, 21) =0.85, p = .63, partial η2 = .38. Analyzing the data from the OAE treat-ment group only, there were no significant differences revealed for gen-der, Wilks’ λ = 0.31, F (15, 10) = 1.49, p = .27, partial η2 = .69, or cohort,Wilks’ λ = 0.56, F (15, 10) = 0.53, p = .87, partial η2 = .44. The results ofthese analyses are presented in Tables 2, 3, and 4, respectively.

Table 1Means, standard deviations, and summary of t values of partici-pants’ pre-experimental positive psychological constructs by completion category (N = 70)

Participant categoryMeasures completed Measures completed

pre- and post-experiment pre-experiment only(n = 52) (n = 18)

(withdrew from course)

Dependent variables M SD M SD t p

Self-confidence 20.83 4.10 21.56 3.99 0.66 .52

Negative energy control 18.27 3.63 19.33 3.34 1.09 .28

Attention control 19.19 3.82 19.22 4.81 0.03 .98

Visualization/imagery control 17.25 4.74 18.67 3.87 1.14 .26

Motivation 21.21 4.09 22.89 3.34 1.57 .12

Positive energy 21.48 4.03 21.39 3.31 0.09 .93

Attitude control 21.04 3.94 21.67 3.60 0.60 .55

Total mental toughness 139.27 22.97 144.72 19.30 0.90 .37

Commitment 13.67 3.43 14.78 2.13 1.28 .21

Control 7.62 2.72 8.33 2.70 0.97 .34

Challenge 11.88 2.08 12.00 1.46 0.22 .83

Total hardiness 33.17 6.77 35.11 4.39 1.13 .26

Dispositional optimism 18.00 5.12 17.17 4.48 0.61 .54

Self-esteem 21.40 4.42 21.22 4.95 0.15 .89

Self-efficacy 28.67 3.79 27.83 3.57 0.82 .41

Positive affect 34.35 5.98 33.83 6.00 0.31 .76

Negative affect 20.88 6.12 19.06 6.03 1.10 .28

2006, Volume 29, No. 2 199

Significant (p < .05) univariate effects for cohort were revealed for totalhardiness. Analysis of cell means showed that students on the secondyear of their OAE course had a higher total hardiness mean than first-year OAE students. All scales were shown to be stable over a 3-monthperiod (test-retest reliability: r = .79, r = .81, r = .82, r = .68, r = .78, r =.72, and r = .65, for the PPI, PVS III-R, RSES, GSES, LOT, PANAS [posi-tive affect], and PANAS [negative affect], respectively).

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effectiveness ofan OAE curriculum on selected positive psychological constructs.Multivariate tests yielded non-significant differences. Though the OAEcourse group revealed improvements across several positive psycholog-ical measures, these failed to reach statistical significance. Contrary toexpectations, no significant differences were shown between the OAEcourse and control groups. In addition, male and female OAE course par-ticipants appeared generally consistent across time in measured levels oftheir positive psychological characteristics.

Supporting the findings of previous OAE research (Burdsal &Force, 1983; Humberstone, 1989; Marsh et al., 1986a, 1986b), the pres-ent study found no significant gender differences across the measuredpositive psychological variables. Results suggest that the OAE activitiesexperienced in the 3-month experimental timeframe impacted similarlyon male and female participants. OAE curricula may consider how activ-ities have the potential to impact differently on males and females.

Analysis yielding significant cohort differences emerged for scoreson total hardiness. Year 2 OAE course students significantly improvedtheir mean score on total hardiness. An explanation may be that thesestudents developed an increased ability to perceive difficult situationsas positive opportunities rather than as frustrating problems (Maddi &Khoshaba, 2001). This successful adjustment to their learning environ-ment may be a result of the OAE experiences gained in the first year oftheir course. Year 1 OAE course students’ mean total hardiness scoredecreased. This may be explained by an initial maladjustment to studyin a novel education environment and that these students may be view-ing this transition as threatening rather than a positive opportunity(Maddi et al., 2002). Further, Year 1 OAE course students may need alonger time frame to engage fully with their subject and for this to bereflected in a higher score on this psychological measure.

In summary, situationist explanations add plausibility to claimsthat OAE programs change how individuals behave (Shoda & Mischel,2000). This was not reflected in the findings of the present study.Contrary to hypothesized expectations, activities within an OAE


Tabl

e 2

Mea

ns,

sta

nd

ard

dev

iati

ons,

an

d s

um

ma

ry o

f u

niv

ari

ate

F r

ati

os c

alc

ula

ted

usi

ng

Typ

e II

I su

ms

of s

qu

are

s (G

LM

) of

the

pos

itiv

e p

sych

olog

ica

l co

nst

ruct

s b

y gr

oup

(N

= 5

2) Gro

up

an

d e

xper

imen

tal

stag

eTr

eatm

ent

grou

pC

ontr

ol g

rou

p(n

= 2

6)(n

= 2

6)

Pre

Pos

tP

reP

ost

Dep

end

ent

vari

able

s M

S

D

M

SD

M

S

D

M

SD

F

η2

Sel

f-co

nfi

den

ce

22.3

1 4.

26

22.7

7 3.

96

19.3

5 3.

41

19.7

7 3.

36

0.10

.0

0

Neg

ativ

e en

ergy

con

trol

19.0

4 3.

53

19.5

4 3.

97

17.5

0 3.

64

17.7

3 3.

34

0.07

.0

0

Att

enti

on c

ontr

ol

20.6

2 3.

60

20.6

2 3.

83

17.7

7 3.

54

18.3

1 2.

91

0.38

.0

1

Vis

ual

izat

ion

/im

ager

y co

ntr

ol19

.58

5.16

20.6

24.

1014

.92

2.83

17.0

03.

090.

00.0

0

Mot

ivat

ion

23.5

83.

6522

.62

4.28

18.8

53.

0419

.38

3.99

0.88

.02

Pos

itiv

e en

ergy

23.0

43.

7622

.00

4.13

19.9

23.

7420

.12

3.43

1.26

.04

Att

itu

de

con

trol

22.3

83.

9222

.54

3.78

19.6

93.

5420

.92

3.69

2.05

.06

Tota

l m

enta

l to

ugh

nes

s15

0.54

23.5

315

0.69

24.5

612

8.00

16.0

813

3.23

17.1

31.

00.0

3

Com

mit

men

t14

.54

3.31

14.4

22.

9412

.81

3.38

12.5

83.

050.

48.0

1

Con

trol

8.23

2.39

8.04

2.43

7.00

2.94

7.15

2.33

0.03

.00

Ch

alle

nge

12.6

21.

5812

.31

2.29

11.1

52.

2910

.92

1.88

0.00

.00

Tota

l h

ard

ines

s35

.38

5.95

34.7

76.

7030

.96

6.93

30.6

55.

910.

14.0

0

Dis

pos

itio

nal

op

tim

ism

20.1

54.

2521

.15

6.21

15.8

55.

0815

.73

6.20

1.01

.03

Sel

f-es

teem

19.7

34.

0919

.77

3.98

23.0

84.

1723

.04

4.03

0.01

.00

Sel

f-ef

fica

cy29

.92

3.87

30.4

64.

4927

.42

3.33

27.4

23.

900.

17.0

1

Pos

itiv

e af

fect

36.9

65.

9337

.27

7.55

31.7

34.

8529

.54

7.20

0.10

.00

Neg

ativ

e af

fect

19.0

05.

3917

.69

5.34

22.7

76.

3321

.00

5.61

2.04

.06

2006, Volume 29, No. 2 201

Tabl

e 3

Mea

ns,

sta

nd

ard

dev

iati

ons,

an

d s

um

ma

ry o

f u

niv

ari

ate

F r

ati

os c

alc

ula

ted

usi

ng

Typ

e II

I su

ms

of s

qu

are

s (G

LM

)of

th

e p

osit

ive

psy

chol

ogic

al

con

stru

cts

by

gen

der

(O

AE

cou

rse

pa

rtic

ipa

nts

on

ly)

(N =

26)

Gen

der

an

d e

xper

imen

tal

stag

eM

ales

Fem

ales

(n=

16)

(n=

10)

Pre

Pos

tP

reP

ost

Dep

end

ent

vari

able

s M

S

D

M

SD

M

S

D

M

SD

F

η2

Sel

f-co

nfi

den

ce

2.81

4.

52

23.1

3 3.

93

21.5

0 3.

89

22.2

0 4.

16

0.09

.0

0

Neg

ativ

e en

ergy

con

trol

18.9

4 3.

94

19.8

8 3.

30

19.2

0 2.

94

19.0

05.

01

0.58

.0

2

Att

enti

on c

ontr

ol

21.1

9 3.

85

21.2

5 3.

44

19.7

0 3.

13

19.6

0 4.

38

0.03

.0

0

Vis

ual

izat

ion

/im

ager

y co

ntr

ol20

.69

5.58

21.2

54.

6017

.80

4.02

19.6

03.

100.

69.0

3M

otiv

atio

n24

.13

3.70

23.0

04.

0522

.70

3.56

22.0

04.

780.

11.0

0P

osit

ive

ener

gy23

.63

3.88

22.3

84.

2322

.10

3.54

21.4

04.

120.

24.0

1A

ttit

ud

e co

ntr

ol22

.63

4.35

22.5

64.

2622

.00

3.30

22.5

03.

060.

29.0

1To

tal

men

tal

tou

ghn

ess

154.

0025

.69

153.

4424

.51

145.

0019

.56

146.

3025

.28

0.09

.00

Com

mit

men

t14

.25

3.61

14.3

13.

0315

.00

2.91

14.6

02.

950.

25.0

1C

ontr

ol8.

001.

908.

002.

568.

603.

108.

102.

330.

32.0

1C

hal

len

ge12

.69

1.66

12.1

92.

2912

.50

1.51

12.5

02.

421.

03.0

4To

tal

har

din

ess

34.9

45.

9234

.50

6.72

36.1

06.

2435

.20

7.01

0.07

.00

Dis

pos

itio

nal

op

tim

ism

20.9

44.

2520

.88

6.21

18.9

04.

1521

.60

6.54

3.01

.11

Sel

f-es

teem

19.5

04.

1219

.88

4.13

20.1

04.

2319

.60

3.95

0.48

.02

Sel

f-ef

fica

cy30

.56

3.78

30.6

34.

9228

.90

3.99

30.2

03.

940.

98.0

4P

osit

ive

affe

ct37

.56

6.82

37.8

18.

3536

.00

4.30

36.4

06.

380.

01.0

0N

egat

ive

affe

ct18

.19

5.42

18.0

64.

9620

.30

5.36

17.1

06.

122.

34.0

9


Tabl

e 4

Mea

ns,

sta

nd

ard

dev

iati

ons,

an

d s

um

ma

ry o

f u

niv

ari

ate

F r

ati

os c

alc

ula

ted

usi

ng

Typ

e II

I su

ms

of s

qu

are

s (G

LM

) of

the

pos

itiv

e p

sych

olog

ica

l co

nst

ruct

s b

y co

hor

t (O

AE

cou

rse

pa

rtic

ipa

nts

on

ly)

(N =

26)

Coh

ort

and

exp

erim

enta

l st

age

Yea

r 1

Yea

r 2

(n=

14)

(n=

12)

Pre

Pos

tP

reP

ost

Dep

end

ent

vari

able

s M

S

D

M

SD

M

S

D

M

SD

F

η2

Sel

f-co

nfi

den

ce

21.9

3 3.

85

22.5

0 4.

35

22.7

5 4.

83

23.0

8 3.

63

0.04

.0

0

Neg

ativ

e en

ergy

con

trol

18.6

4 2.

76

20.0

0 4.

33

19.5

0 4.

34

19.0

0 3.

62

1.68

.0

7A

tten

tion

con

trol

19

.79

3.31

20

.43

3.96

21

.58

3.83

20

.83

3.83

2.

19

.08

V

isu

aliz

atio

n/i

mag

ery

con

trol

18.7

95.

8120

.43

4.62

20.5

04.

3420

.83

3.59

0.81

.03

Mot

ivat

ion

23.0

73.

5221

.86

4.75

24.1

73.

8623

.50

3.66

0.19

.01

Pos

itiv

e en

ergy

22.4

33.

3721

.36

4.38

23.7

54.

2022

.75

3.86

0.00

.00

Att

itu

de

con

trol

21.8

63.

3721

.93

3.91

23.0

04.

5523

.25

3.65

0.03

.00

Tota

l m

enta

l to

ugh

nes

s14

6.50

21.1

114

8.50

27.4

515

5.25

26.2

015

3.25

21.6

00.

42.0

2C

omm

itm

ent

14.2

13.

0913

.57

3.39

14.9

23.

6615

.42

2.02

1.69

.07

Con

trol

8.21

2.75

7.50

2.79

8.25

2.01

8.67

1.83

1.81

.07

Ch

alle

nge

12.0

71.

6911

.36

2.56

13.2

51.

2213

.42

1.31

3.70

.13

Tota

l h

ard

ines

s34

.50

6.67

32.4

37.

9636

.42

5.07

37.5

03.

484.

24*

.15

Dis

pos

itio

nal

op

tim

ism

19.6

43.

9319

.79

7.00

20.7

54.

6922

.75

4.98

1.34

.05

Sel

f-es

teem

20.0

73.

5420

.43

4.15

19.3

34.

7719

.00

3.81

0.31

.01

Sel

f-ef

fica

cy29

.14

4.35

29.4

34.

5430

.83

3.16

31.6

74.

310.

20.0

1P

osit

ive

affe

ct35

.79

5.73

35.0

08.

3938

.33

6.11

39.9

25.

661.

78.0

7N

egat

ive

affe

ct20

.50

4.91

17.6

46.

2217

.25

5.59

17.7

54.

353.

00.1

1N

ote.

* p

< .0

5.

2006, Volume 29, No. 2 203

curriculum, conducted over a 3-month timeframe, failed to significantlyraise participants’ levels of measured positive psychological constructs.This could be explained by the OAE activities employed in this specificcurriculum not being the most amenable to influencing personalitychange. Two alternative explanations also present themselves. First, stu-dents engaged in OAE may benefit psychologically from such activities,but constructs other than those examined in the present study need to beinvestigated. Second, given that the timeframe for this present study was3 months, hypothesized improvements in the psychological constructsmeasured may require longer and more frequent exposure to OAE activ-ities (Cason & Gillis, 1994).

It should be noted that the intervention technique utilized in thisstudy was activities organized within an OAE foundation degree cur-riculum. Whilst the temporal framework of this intervention was lessthan ideal, it does, however, represent the real-world experience ofmany students’ first OAE encounter. Thus, while any findings need care-ful interpretation, the present study was demonstrably high in ecologi-cal validity. The Outward Bound standard course is a 26-day residentialprogram of physical outdoor activities (Hattie et al., 1997; Marsh, 2002).A potential mediating variable is the concentration and intensity of theprogram delivery. Therefore, future research should measure the effectsof a residential OAE program on positive psychological constructs.

Quantitative measures in OAE program evaluation have some-times been restricted by small sample size (Langsner & Anderson, 1987;McDonald & Howe, 1989). However, the exploratory nature of this studyand its adherence to a real world situation has necessitated the use of arelatively small sample. Whilst it is possible to make statistical judg-ments on a sample of this magnitude (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001), futureresearch should confirm or refute findings with a study of increased sta-tistical power.

Future studies investigating the potential psychological benefits ofOAE participation should encompass a broader range of measures.Randomized-control studies might concentrate on how individuals’ lev-els of other constructs contributing to the positive psychology move-ment (e.g., emotional intelligence, happiness, hope, resilience) (Carr,2004; Linley & Joseph, 2004; Snyder & Lopez, 2005) are mediated byOAE participation. Further, such studies may consider a longer experi-mental timeframe (e.g., a full academic year), particularly as this mayafford greater opportunities for appropriate facilitation (Gass, 1993;Nadler & Luckner, 1992) and allow examination of linkages between pro-gram components and outcomes (Goldenberg, Klenosky, O’Leary, &Templin, 2000; Holman, Goldenberg, McAvoy, & Rynders, 2003). To conclude, though few significant differences emerged, this investigation


has made a contribution in answer to the call for more empiricalresearch (Baldwin et al., 2004; Hatch & McCarthy, 2005; Neill, 2003) intothe potential psychological benefits derived from OAE participation.

References

Anderson, L., Schleien, S. J., McAvoy, L., Lais, G., & Seligmann, D. (1997).Creating positive change through an integrated outdoor adventure program.Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 31, 214–229.

Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1992). Modeling cognitive adaptation: A lon-gitudinal investigation of the impact of individual differences and copingon college adjustment and performance. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 63, 989–1003.

Aubrey A., & McCleod, M. (1994). So…what does rock climbing have to dowith career planning? Women & Therapy, 15, 205–216.

Badger, B., Sadler-Smith, E., & Michie, E. (1997). Outdoor management devel-opment: Use and evaluation. Journal of European Industrial Training, 21,318–325.

Baldwin, C., Persing, J., & Magnuson, D. (2004). The role of theory, research,and evaluation in adventure education. Journal of Experiential Education,26, 167–183.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy. New York: Freeman.

Bartone, P. T. (1999). Hardiness protects against war-related stress in armyreserve forces. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 51,72–82.

Batson, C. D., Shaw, L. L., & Olsen, K. C. (1992). Differentiating affect, moodand emotion. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 294–326.

Bly, L. (2001, February 23). You go, girls! Women-only groups are happily migrating toward adventure travel. USA Today, p. 1D.

British Psychological Society. (2000, November). Code of conduct, ethical principles and guidelines. Leicester, England: Author.

Bronson, J., Gibson, S., Kichar, R., & Priest, S. (1992). Evaluation of team devel-opment in a corporate adventure training program. The Journal ofExperiential Education, 15, 50–53.

Brookes, A. (2003). A critique of neo-Hahnian outdoor education theory. Partone: Challenges to the concept of “character building”. Journal ofAdventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 3, 49–62.

Burdsal, C., & Force, R. C. (1983). An examination of counselor ratings ofbehavior problem youth in an early stage, community-based interventionprogram. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 353-360.

Carr, A. (2004). Positive psychology: The science of happiness and humanstrengths. Hove, England: Brunner-Routledge.

Cason, D., & Gillis, H. L. (1994). A meta-analysis of outdoor adventure pro-gramming with adolescents. The Journal of Experiential Education, 17,40–47.

2006, Volume 29, No. 2 205

Celebi, M., & Ozen, G. (2004, March). University students and adventure edu-cation programmes: A study of meanings and experience of adventure train-ing activities. In W. Krause (Chair), Outdoor and adventure education –developments and programmes. Symposium conducted at the meeting ofthe International Conference on Leisure, Tourism & Sport – Education,Integration, Innovation, Cologne, Germany.

Cramer, D., & Howitt, D. (2004). The Sage dictionary of statistics. London:Sage.

Crandall, R. (1973). The measure of self-esteem and related constructs. In J. P.Robinson & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Measures of social and psychosocial atti-tudes (pp. 45–52). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, Universityof Michigan.

Drebing, C. E., Willis, S. C., & Genet, B. (1987). Anxiety and the OutwardBound process. Journal of Experiential Education, 10, 17–21.

Estes, C., & Ewert, A. (1988). Enhancing mixed-gender programming:Considerations for experiential educators. The Bradford Papers Annual, 3,34–43.

Ewert, A. (1988). The identification and modification of situational fears asso-ciated with outdoor recreation. Journal of Leisure Research, 20, 106–117.

Ewert, A. (1989). Outdoor adventure pursuits: Foundations, models, and theo-ries. Columbus, OH: Publishing Horizons.

Ewert, A., & Sibthorp, J. (2000). Multivariate analysis in experiential education:Exploring the possibilities. Journal of Experiential Education, 23, 108–117.

Fry, S. K., & Heubeck, B. G. (1998). The effects of personality and situationalvariables on mood states during Outward Bound wilderness courses: Anexploration. Personality and Individual Differences, 24, 649–659.

Fullana, M. A., Caseras, X., & Torrubia, R. (2003). Psychometric properties ofthe Personal State Questionnaire in a Catalan sample. Personality andIndividual Differences, 34, 605–611.

Gass, M. A. (1993). The evolution of processing adventure therapy experiences.In M. A. Gass (Ed.), Adventure therapy: Therapeutic applications of adven-ture programming (pp. 219–229). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Gillis, H. L., & Thomsen, D. (1996, January). A research update of adventuretherapy (1992–1995): Challenge activities and ropes courses, wildernessexpeditions, and residential camping programs. Paper presented at theCoalition for Education in the Outdoors Research Symposium, BradfordWoods, Indiana University, Martinsville, IN.

Golby, J., & Sheard, M. (2004). Mental toughness and hardiness at different lev-els of rugby league. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 933–942.

Golby, J., Sheard, M., & Lavallee, D. (2003). A cognitive-behavioural analysis ofmental toughness in national rugby league football teams. Perceptual andMotor Skills, 96, 455–462.

Goldenberg, M. A., Klenosky, D. B., O’Leary, J. T., & Templin, T. J. (2000). Ameans-end investigation of ropes courses experiences. Journal of LeisureResearch, 32, 208–224.

Greenberger, E., Chen, C., Dmitrieva, J., & Farruggia, S. P. (2003). Item-wordingand the dimensionality of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Do they matter?Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1241–1254.


Hamilton, S. F. (1980). Experiential learning programs for youth. AmericanJournal of Education, 88, 179–215.

Hans, T. (2000). A meta-analysis of the effects of adventure programming onlocus of control. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 30, 33–60.

Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective.New York: Guilford.

Hatch, K. D., & McCarthy, C. J. (2005). Exploration of challenge courses’ long-term effects on members of college student organizations. Journal ofExperiential Education, 27, 245–264.

Hattie, J., Marsh, H. W., Neill, J. T., & Richards, G. E. (1997). Adventure educa-tion and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting dif-ference. Review of Educational Research, 67, 43–87.

Heiman, G. W. (2002). Research methods in psychology (3rd ed.). Boston, MA:Houghton Mifflin.

Henderson, K., Bialeschki, M., Shaw, S., & Freysinger, V. (1989). A leisure ofone’s own: A feminist perspective on women’s leisure. State College, PA:Venture.

Holman, T., Goldenberg, M., McAvoy, L., & Rynders, J. (2003). Outcomes-conse-quences-values of an integrated wilderness adventure program. Journal ofExperiential Education, 25, 353.

Humberstone, B. (1989). Macho or multifarious: The image and place of out-door and adventure education in the school curriculum. British Journal ofPhysical Education, 20, 112–114.

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluation traits –self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stabil-ity – with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 86, 80–92.

Kaly, P. W., & Heesacker, M. (2003). Effects of a ship-based adventure programon adolescent self-esteem and ego-identity development. Journal ofExperiential Education, 26, 97–104.

Kelley, M. P., Coursey, R., & Selby, P. (1997). Therapeutic adventure outdoors:A demonstration of benefits for people with illness. PsychiatricRehabilitation Journal, 20, 61–74.

Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiryinto hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1–11.

Kolb, D. C. (1988). Self-esteem change and mandatory experiential education. Journal of Experiential Education, 11, 31-37.

Langsner, S. J., & Anderson, S. C. (1987). Outdoor challenge education and self-esteem and locus of control of children with behavior disorders. AdaptedPhysical Activity Quarterly, 4, 237–246.

Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004). Applied positive psychology: A new perspec-tive for professional practice. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positivepsychology in practice (pp. 3–12). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Little, D. E. (2002). Women and adventure education: Reconstructing leisureconstraints and adventure experiences to negotiate continuing participa-tion. Journal of Leisure Research, 34, 157–177.

Loehr, J. E. (1986). Mental toughness training for sports: Achieving athleticexcellence. Lexington, MA: Stephen Greene Press.

2006, Volume 29, No. 2 207

Luckner, J. L., & Nadler, R. S. (1997). Processing the experience: Strategies toenhance and generalize learning. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Maddi, S. R., Kahn, S., & Maddi, K. L. (1998). The effectiveness of hardinesstraining. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 50, 78–86.

Maddi, S. R., & Khoshaba, D. M. (2001). Personal Views Survey (3rd ed., rev.).Newport Beach, CA: The Hardiness Institute.

Maddi, S. R., Khoshaba, D. M., Persico, M., Lu, J., Harvey, R., & Bleecker, F.(2002). The personality construct of hardiness. Journal of Research inPersonality, 36, 72–85.

Mäkikangas, A., & Kinnunen, U. (2003). Psychosocial work stressors and well-being: Self-esteem and optimism as moderators in a one-year longitudinalsample. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 537–557.

Marsh, H. W. (2002). A multidimensional physical self-concept: A constructvalidity approach to theory, measurement, and research. The Journal of theHellenic Psychological Society, 9, 459–493.

Marsh, H. W., Richards, G. E., & Barnes, J. (1986a). Multidimensional self-con-cepts: The effect of participation in an Outward Bound program. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 50, 195–204.

Marsh, H. W., Richards, G. E., & Barnes, J. (1986b). Multidimensional self-con-cepts: A long-term follow-up of the effect of participation in an OutwardBound program. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 475–492.

McDermott, L. (2004). Exploring intersections of physicality and female-onlycanoeing experiences. Leisure Studies, 23, 283–301.

McDonald, R. G., & Howe, C. Z. (1989). Challenge/initiative recreation pro-grams as a treatment for low self-concept children. Journal of LeisureResearch, 21, 242–253.

McKenzie, M. D. (2000). How are adventure education program outcomesachieved? A review of the literature. Australian Journal of OutdoorEducation, 5, 19–28.

Meyer, B. B., & Wenger, M. S. (1998). Athletes and adventure education: Anempirical investigation. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 29,243–266.

Miles, J. C., & Priest, S. (Eds.). (1990). Adventure education. State College, PA:Venture.

Muris, P., Meesters, C., & Fijen, P. (2003). The self-perception profile for chil-dren: Further evidence for its factor structure, reliability, and validity.Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1791–1802.

Nadler, R. S. (1993). Therapeutic process of change. In M. A. Gass (Ed.),Adventure therapy: Therapeutic applications of adventure programming(pp. 57–69). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Nadler, R., & Luckner, J. (1992). Processing the adventure experience: Theoryand practice. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Neill, J. T. (2003). Reviewing and benchmarking adventure therapy outcomes:Applications of meta-analysis. Journal of Experiential Education, 25, 316-321.

Neill, J. T., & Dias, K. L. (2001). Adventure education and resilience: The dou-ble-edged sword. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 1,35–42.


Neill, J. T., & Richards, G. E. (1998). Does outdoor education really work? Asummary of recent meta-analyses. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education,3, 2–9.

Nolan, T., & Priest, S. (1993). Outdoor programs for women only? Journal ofAdventure Education and Outdoor Leadership, 10, 14–17.

Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., Morrison, B., & Grace, D. (1995). Becoming an in-group: Reexamining the impact of familiarity on perceptions of grouphomogeneity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 52–60.

Pommier, J. H., & Witt, P. A. (1995). Evaluation of Outward Bound school plusfamily training program for juvenile status offenders. TherapeuticRecreation Journal, 29, 86–103.

Priest, S., & Gass, M. A. (1997). Effective leadership in adventure programming.Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Pulford, B. D., Johnson, A., & Awaida, M. (2005). A cross-cultural study of pre-dictors of self-handicapping in university students. Personality andIndividual Differences, 39, 727–737.

Raiola, E., & O’Keefe, M. (1999). Philosophy in practice: A history of adventureprogramming. In J. C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure education (pp.45–53). State College, PA: Venture.

Robins, R. W., Tracy, J. L., Trzesniewski, K., Potter, J., & Gosling, D. (2001).Personality correlates of self-esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 35,463–482.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:University Press.

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping and health: Assessmentand implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology,4, 219–247.

Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimismfrom neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reeval-uation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 67, 1063-1078.

Schneider, S. L. (2001). In search of realistic optimism. American Psychologist,56, 250–263.

Schoel, J., Prouty, D., & Radcliffe, P. (1988). Islands of healing: A guide toadventure based counseling. Hamilton, MA: Project Adventure, Inc.

Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1993). Measurement of perceived self-efficacy:Psychometric scales for cross-cultural research. Berlin: Freie Universität.

Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In J.Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology:A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor,England: NFER-N.

Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An intro-duction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.

Shoda, Y., & Mischel, W. (2000). Reconciling contextualism with the coreassumptions of personality psychology. European Journal of Personality,14, 407–428.

Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of positive psychology.New York: Oxford University Press.

2006, Volume 29, No. 2 209

Staw, B. M., & Barsade, S. G. (1993). Affect and managerial performance: A testof the sadder-but-wiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypotheses. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 38, 304–331.

Stoltz, P. G. (1992). An examination of leadership development in the greatoutdoors. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 3, 357–372.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.).New York: Harper & Row.

Taniguchi, S., & Freeman, P. A. (2004). Outdoor education and meaningfullearning: Finding the attributes to meaningful learning experiences in anoutdoor education program. Journal of Experiential Education, 26, 210–211.

Van Yperen, N. W. (2003). On the link between different combinations ofNegative Affectivity (NA) and Positive Affectivity (PA) and job performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1873–1881.

Watson, D. (2005). Positive affectivity: The disposition to experience pleasura-ble emotional states. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of posi-tive psychology (pp. 106–119). New York: Oxford University Press.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation ofbrief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

Watts, F. N., Cohen, J., & Toplis, R. (1994). Personality and coping strategies ona stressful expedition. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 647–656.

Watts, F. N., Webster, S. M., Morley, C. J., & Cohen, J. (1992). Expedition stressand personality change. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 337–341.

Zeidner, M. (1994). Personal and contextual determinants of coping and anxi-ety in an evaluative situation: A prospective study. Personality andIndividual Differences, 16, 899–918.

Documents

The Efficacy of an Outdoor Adventure Education Curriculum ...€¦ · Adventure Education Curriculum on Selected Aspects of Positive Psychological Development ... Psychological Development,