The Effects of Character on the Perceived Stressfulness of Life Events and Subjective Well-Being of Undergraduate Business Students

Abstract

Stress and the associated correlates, such as depression, alcohol abuse, and suicidal ideation, are a global issue among college and university students. We assert that character is a personal resource that students have at their disposal to address personal, social, and environmental challenges they may encounter in their personal and academic lives. The results of a field study involving undergraduate business students show that character, operationalized as a higher order construct consisting of 11 interrelated dimensions, has a direct effect on the subjective well-being of students and an indirect effect through the perceived stressfulness of life events. Our results imply that it is essential for faculty and students at management education institutions to fully appreciate the importance of character for effective functioning and to develop the various character dimensions to address adverse personal, social, and environmental situations in a positive fashion.

Keywords

character stressful life events subjective well-being management education

Stress is becoming increasingly prevalent among students at colleges and universities across the globe (e.g., Garett et al., 2017; Regehr et al., 2013; Varghese et al., 2015; Watkins et al., 2012). Business students are not immune to stress given the high levels of pressure, uncertainty, and need to maintain high performance that are inherent in education contexts (e.g., Flinchbaugh et al., 2012; Jabbar et al., 2018). Stress is associated with a host of adverse emotional, mental, and health-related outcomes including depression, anxiety, and, in extreme cases, suicide (e.g., Beiter et al., 2015; Brownson et al., 2014).

Finding ways to help students cope with stressors during their academic life and beyond is both important and urgent for management education research and practice for at least two reasons. First, research has shown that interventions to reduce stress in students can contribute to an improvement in their subjective well-being (e.g., Heffner & Antaramian, 2016; Regehr et al., 2013; Yusufov et al., 2019). Second, as Bilimoria (1999) articulated, identification of research-supported teaching methods that facilitate student well-being advances the enterprise of management education. For example, subjective-well being among students is related to higher levels of classroom engagement which, in turn, enhances learning outcomes (e.g., Bücker et al., 2018; Reeve, 2012; Regehr et al., 2013).

Yusufov et al. (2019) outlined a nonexhaustive list of stressors that students at higher educational institutions in the United States, Asia, Europe, and Australia may face. These stress inducing life events include (a) academic pressures, family strains, and financial concerns; (b) the transition from adolescence to adulthood; (c) the struggle to solidify identities, attitudes, and values; (d) underpreparation for postsecondary education and a lack of requisite skills to cope with the myriad of stressors; (e) upcoming career decisions; (f) conflict related to racial and ethnic identity; (g) the rising cost of higher education; and (h) balancing school and work. Each of these life events that students may encounter affects the degree and impact of the stress experience, which typically demands a response, adjustment, or adaptation to the stressor.

Given the prevalence of stress among college and university students worldwide and the well-documented adverse outcomes associated with stress, the need to find ways to effectively manage stressful life events is self-evident. The implication for management educators is straightforward. Higher educational institutions, including business schools, are not just places where students acquire the requisite skills for success in the labour market—they are also places where students grow and develop as individuals. For example, by equipping business students with the tools to effectively address stressful situations, management educators not only help enhance students’ engagement and performance in the classroom but also help develop future managers who are able to thrive in uncertain business environments. Therefore, academic institutions have begun to implement interventions to strengthen students’ personal resources, such as their willpower and optimism, through processes like counseling services and support groups (e.g., Flinchbaugh et al., 2012; González-López et al., 2019).

Extant research on stress suggests that personal resources can help individuals deal with a myriad of life events that are perceived as stressful. The notion of personal resources is captured by two stress coping models: the job demands–resources model (e.g., Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007) and the conservation of resources model (e.g., Hobfoll, 2002; Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001). Both models suggest that job and personal resources are important determinants of an individual’s adaptability to a specific environment. Furthermore, an increase in personal resources contributes to beliefs of personal mastery and helps individuals deal more effectively with stressful events which, in turn, prevents individuals from experiencing negative outcomes such as emotional exhaustion (e.g., Hobfoll et al., 2003; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). However, the role of personal resources as determinants of adaptability has been underdeveloped and, as a result, there have been calls for a more robust integration of personal resources into stress coping models (e.g., Huang et al., 2016; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009).

Bakker and Demerouti (2017) explained that personal resources refer to “the beliefs people hold regarding how much control they have over their environment” (p. 275). Our work expands the composition of personal resources to encompass character and examines its effect on subjective well-being. Subjective well-being is an evaluation that individuals make about the quality of their lives and is defined by emotional well-being (e.g., perceived happiness and life satisfaction) and positive functioning (e.g., perceived personal growth, purpose in life, and positive relations with others; e.g., Keyes & Magyar-Moe, 2003). Specifically, we investigate whether character determines how undergraduate business students perceive personal, social, and environmental challenges and the impact that the perceived stressfulness of such life events might have on subjective well-being. Consistent with Bakker and Demerouti (2017), we expected that character helps protect students from evaluating stressful life events in a negative fashion and enhances their subjective well-being.

Our study is unique in that we integrate two distinct yet related literatures—character and coping with stressors—and in doing so, we hope to achieve the following objectives. First, we advance the literature on stress by highlighting the role of personal resources in how individuals perceive stressful life events. Our study responds to the need to develop a more thorough understanding of personal resources individuals may employ when faced with challenging situations in their personal or academic lives. Second, we augment stress coping models by bringing into focus the role of character as a personal resource that affects subjective well-being.

We place our work in the study of virtuous character, henceforth character, which reflects the habits of cognition, emotion, volition, and behavior that represent human excellence and produce personal and social betterment (e.g., Arthur et al., 2019; Bright et al., 2006; Fowers, 2008; Newstead et al., 2019). In particular, our study is aligned with Crossan et al. (2017) who conceptualized character as an amalgam of virtues, traits, and values that enable excellence.

Virtues are contextually appropriate behaviors that are widely considered as emblematic of good citizenship or leadership in that they contribute to the common good. For example, demonstrating care for others and actively promoting their physical and mental well-being is a behavior associated with the virtue of humanity. A few of the virtuous behaviors reflect the activation of traits. These traits predispose individuals to behave in certain virtuous ways, if not overridden by contextual variables such as peer pressure or reward systems. For example, behaviors that help individuals bounce back from academic hardships reflect the trait of resiliency. However, character is not simply a set of desirable traits; it encompasses only traits that are virtuous (e.g., Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Wright & Huang, 2008). Last, a few of the virtuous behaviors are illustrative of values, such as fairness and honesty. For example, instructors who provide timely and unbiased feedback to their students demonstrate the virtue of justice. Character, in short, is a habit of being—a set of observable behaviors—anchored in a set of virtues, traits, and values that offer an ethic of individual excellence, continual moral development, and striving toward a common good (e.g., Crossan et al., 2017; Newstead et al., 2018). Furthermore, the development of virtues is a life-long process through deliberate practice.

We posit that character influences how undergraduate business students perceive personal, social, and environmental challenges that may arise in their personal and academic lives. Our assertion is that students who have well-developed character are better equipped to handle the stressors in their environment. For example, individuals who are confident, optimistic, resilient, reflective, and composed may believe they are capable of handling unforeseen events more so than individuals who lack these elements of character. Thus, as a personal resource, character is expected to facilitate the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors associated with confidence, resilience, optimism, and patience to handle stressful life events, which, in turn, enhances subjective well-being.

Hence, the purpose of our study is to examine both the effect of character on the subjective well-being of undergraduate business students as well as the indirect effect of character on subjective well-being through the perceived stressfulness of life events. We believe this is an important question that has significant implications for management education institutions. Colleges and universities play a critical role in helping students learn function effectively in societies through personal growth and development—of which building character has traditionally been an important part (e.g., Brooks et al., 2019; Carr, 2017). The development of character in students is a compelling means to help them build an integrated self that can serve to guide their decisions and subsequent actions, and it mitigates the myriad challenges students will face as they go on to serve organizations and communities.

Character

Many character scholars anchor their discussion of character in virtuous character (e.g., Arthur et al., 2019; Crossan et al., 2017; Crossan, Mazutis, & Seijts, 2013; Hannah & Avolio, 2011; Newstead et al., 2019). Foundational to this stream of research is the cross-national and cross-cultural work of Christopher Peterson and Martin Seligman. In 2004, Peterson and Seligman published their book, Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification, in which they explored whether there are stable, interindividual differences that promote meaningful and flourishing communities. They postulated that character strengths and virtues are the components of a positive, good character.

Peterson and Seligman identified 24 character strengths and clustered them within six virtues: courage, humanity, justice, temperance, transcendence, and wisdom. They explained that character strengths represent different routes to the superordinate virtues. For example, the virtue of courage is comprised of four character strengths: bravery, honesty, perseverance, and zest. Character strengths are expressed through habitual actions which can be developed (e.g., through deliberate practice or an intense or crucible experience; e.g., Byrne et al., 2018; Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Wright, 2015). The activation of character strengths contributes to a fulfilling life, leading to increased subjective well-being and happiness (e.g., Kristjánsson, 2016; Lounsbury et al., 2009; Newstead et al., 2019, 2020; Park et al., 2004; Peterson et al., 2007; Schutte & Malouff, 2019; Weber et al., 2013).

Research on, and the development of, character has recently attracted considerable attention from management educators (e.g., Byrne et al., 2018; Comer & Schwartz, 2020; Crossan, Mazutis, Seijts, & Gandz, 2013; Dufresne & Offstein, 2012). We believe this is because character education is seen as an important way to develop student competencies, such as promoting ethical behavior and maintaining favorable interpersonal relationships through collaboration, respect, and patience (e.g., C. K. Cheung & Lee, 2010; Comer & Schwartz, 2020). In fact, of the hundreds of C-suite leaders and board directors we have spoken with over the past 10 years, none would likely disagree with the idea that character is an indispensable component of human excellence.

However, Seijts et al. (2017) reported that many leaders and human resource executives in the public, private, and not-for-profit sectors had difficulty in fully embracing Peterson and Seligman’s (2004) classification of virtues and character strengths. First, the classification does not include key virtues and character strengths that organizational leaders deemed important to produce personal and social betterment. For example, the classification does not include accountability and drive, nor does it address being decisive and adaptable. Second, leaders found it difficult to relate to some of the language used by Peterson and Seligman. For example, love, spirituality, and zest are often difficult to place in an organizational context.

To address the need for an assessment instrument of character that would enable practitioners and management educators to attend to issues of character in educational (and other) settings, Crossan et al. (2017) conducted qualitative and quantitative research involving over 2,500 leaders in the public, private, and not-for-profit sectors. Crossan et al.’s engaged scholarship approach led to the development and validation of the character framework (see Figure 1) that we used in our study. The framework shows 11 character dimensions and 61 character elements that were widely considered by leaders to be emblematic of good leadership. The framework builds significantly on the work of Peterson and Seligman (2004) yet differs from their classification in an important way.

Figure 1.

Framework of character.

Crossan et al. (2017) operationalize character as a network of interconnected virtues, or what they refer to as character dimensions, which mutually inform each other. Hence, instead of studying a collection of character dimensions in isolation, as is very common in the virtues and character strengths literature, Crossan et al. posit that strength of character is revealed not only in the strength of each dimension but also in their connectedness. The interconnectedness among dimensions is an essential underpinning of the framework since a character dimension that might appear to be inherently virtuous may in fact operate as a vice when not connected to other dimensions. For example, an excess of determination and confidence in students may be interpreted as arrogance or insensitivity in the absence of empathy and compassion. This operationalization of character is consistent with the idea that every virtue may become a vice if not correctly applied in a specific situation (e.g., Arthur et al., 2019; Crossan et al., 2017; Gillham et al., 2011).

A limitation of the existing body of research on character is that studies do not reflect the holistic perspective that character presents but rather examines the dimensions and elements of character in isolation. A unique contribution of our study is that we go beyond the current literature by treating character as a higher order construct consisting of 11 dimensions.

Character and Subjective Well-Being

Empirical studies have repeatedly shown positive and significant relationships between dimensions and elements of character and subjective well-being among individuals in a host of countries (e.g., Niemiec, 2013; Park, 2004; Park & Peterson, 2006; Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

For example, using a longitudinal design, Gillham et al. (2011) explored whether adolescents’ character strengths at the beginning of high school predict subjective well-being—including depression, happiness, and life satisfaction—through the end of 10th grade. Their results showed that character strengths directed toward others such as forgiveness, kindness, and teamwork predicted fewer symptoms of depression; moreover, gratitude, curiosity, and love of learning predicted greater life satisfaction.

Intervention studies further support the relationship between character strengths and subjective well-being. For example, Seligman et al. (2005) conducted a 1-week intervention over the internet comparing several exercises that activated character strengths (e.g., writing down three blessings every day) with a placebo activity (e.g., journaling every night about early memories). The researchers followed their adult participants for six months and found that individuals in the treatment group had greater increases in subjective well-being as compared with individuals in the placebo group. Studies that focused on the deliberate practice of character strengths among students reported similar findings (e.g., Lyubomirsky et al., 2011; Nelson et al., 2014; Schutte & Malouff, 2019).

Typically, researchers explore the effect of character on a specific outcome, such as subjective well-being, by looking at a correlation between a character strength and an outcome, or by aggregating a limited set of character strengths into a single construct (e.g., transcendence or intellectual strengths) and then running a series of regression analyses using strengths as predictors (see, e.g., Gillham et al., 2011). Our objective was to go above and beyond prior studies to examine the effect of character, operationalized as a higher order construct consisting of 11 interrelated dimensions and supporting elements that Crossan et al. (2017) identified, on the subjective well-being of undergraduate business students. Hence, based on research that has linked virtues and character strengths to positive outcomes, we formulated the following exploratory hypothesis regarding the holistic perspective that character presents:

Hypothesis 1: There is a positive and significant relationship between the higher order construct of character and subjective well-being among undergraduate business students.

Character and the Perceived Stressfulness of Life Events

Hobfoll (1989) considers personal resources, such as a sense of optimism and resiliency, an important determinant of adaptation to personal, social, and environmental challenges. Xanthopoulou et al. (2007) explained that personal resources “determine the way people comprehend the environment, formulate it, and react to it” (p. 124) as well as stimulate personal growth and development. Therefore, personal resources are directly related to adaptability; that is, people with highly developed personal resources perceive potentially stressful events in less threatening terms, which increases the propensity that they actively deal with the circumstances they face. For example, in their study on the economic crisis, job insecurity, and the household, Mäkikangas et al. (2004) found that high personal resilience among Finnish employees at Time 1 reduced mental distress one year later at Time 2. In contrast, individuals who are ill-equipped with personal resources are more vulnerable to adverse outcomes; that is, they are less able to organize and execute the activities required to address the stressor.

We argue that character strengths determine how individuals deal with adverse situations and challenges that demand a response, adjustment, or adaptation. Character strengths manifest in feelings (e.g., I am grateful for . . . ), thoughts (e.g., I have the self-confidence to . . . ), and behaviors (e.g., I engage in . . . ) that help individuals actively address adverse situations in a productive fashion (e.g., Harzer & Ruch, 2015; Newstead et al., 2019). Put differently, character strengths such as optimism, curiosity, gratitude, hope, open-mindedness, determination, and self-control should be directly related to the ways in which students perceive and respond to adverse situations. The easier it is for individuals to activate the behaviors associated with the character dimensions, the greater the potential personal resource, and hence, the stronger the impact on the perceived stressfulness of life events. Our second hypothesis was therefore as follows:

Hypothesis 2: There is a negative and significant relationship between the higher order construct of character and the perceived stressfulness of life events among undergraduate business students.

The Perceived Stressfulness of Life Events and Subjective Well-Being

The negative relationship between the perceived stressfulness of life events and physical and mental well-being has been well-established (e.g., Beasley et al., 2003; Clements & Turpin, 1996; Stoliker & Lafreniere, 2015; Thoits, 2010). For example, Linden (1984) found that Canadian college and university students who scored high on the life events scale also indicated more frequent reports of minor illnesses, seeking psychological help, and academic failure. Similarly, using a sample of undergraduate students at three universities in the United States, McCarthy et al. (2006) reported that perceptions of negative life events and evaluations of one’s coping resources jointly predicted subjective distress, which in turn affected depression and anxiety. Hence, consistent with prior studies, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 3: There is a negative and significant relationship between the perceived stressfulness of life events and subjective well-being among undergraduate business students.

The Perceived Stressfulness of Life Events as a Mediator

There are several routes or mechanisms through which character may enhance subjective well-being. We explore the role of the perceived stressfulness of life events as a mediator. The search for mediators is important because it facilitates a deeper understanding of the underlying processes by which character affects subjective well-being and, therefore, has implications for interventions to enhance subjective well-being.

Support for the mediating role of the perceived stressfulness of life events can be found in a study by Weber et al. (2013). They examined the relationship among character strengths and subjective well-being in Israeli adolescents who had been living under stressful environmental conditions. Their research was inspired by Park (2004), who conceptualized character strengths as protective factors “which would enable a positive youth development even under demanding conditions” (Weber et al., 2013, p. 322). Such protective forces to deal with personal, social, or environmental challenges or stressful life events are akin to a personal resource, consistent with both the job demands–resources and conservation of resources models. Weber et al. found that character strengths—perspective, leadership, humor, social intelligence, and bravery—were associated with perceptions of personal efficacy to master challenges, which, in turn, led to higher subjective well-being.

Individuals with well-developed character strengths tend to perceive adverse situations as challenges, perhaps even opportunities, not necessarily as threatening or discomforting (e.g., Avey et al., 2012; Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). This is because character strengths such as self-regulation, hope, creativity, gratitude, and perseverance help facilitate the confidence and deployment of behaviors required to master the challenges that confront individuals. For example, Koeske and Kirk (1995) found that mental health professionals with an internal locus of control—associated with behaviors such as being reflective, taking ownership, being determined, and continuous learning—were more likely than those with an external locus of control to approach work stressors with a problem-solving focus. Individuals with an internal locus of control reported higher subjective well-being and job satisfaction and more favorable attitudes toward clients than did their counterparts with an external locus of control. Xanthopoulou et al. (2013) reported that the relationship between emotional demands and work engagement among Dutch employees in an electronics company was negative when self-efficacy—akin to tenaciousness, resiliency, confidence, optimism, and vigour—was low. Their results also revealed that this personal resource was particularly beneficial for work engagement when employees faced high levels of emotional demands in their jobs.

We hypothesize that the perceived stressfulness of life events is a mediator of the relationship between character and subjective well-being among undergraduate business students. When business students believe they are able to effectively attend to adverse events in their personal and academic lives through the activation of the dimensions of character, they are more likely to view their subjective well-being more positively. In contrast, those who have fewer personal resources in the form of character dimensions available to address personal, social, or environmental challenges may perceive the situation as threatening or discomforting, which in turn will negatively affect their subjective well-being.¹ We therefore formulated our fourth hypothesis as follows:

Hypothesis 4: The relationship between the high-order construct of character and subjective well-being is mediated by the perceived stressfulness of life events among undergraduate business students.

The confirmation of character as a personal resource may empower university administrators, program directors, faculty, and students to see the development of character as a way to actively address the personal, social, and environmental challenges students face in their personal and professional lives. It is in this context that we tested the hypotheses we formulated regarding character. Our hypotheses are summarized in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Model for the effect of character on subjective well-being through the perceived stressfulness of life events.

Method

Participants

Our final sample consisted of 139 undergraduate business students from a Canadian university. The students were enrolled in their third year of undergraduate studies and the first year of a business program. We chose undergraduate students because, as previously discussed, they frequently experience stress both in their personal (e.g., establishing new relationships, financial problems, or breaking up with a partner) and academic (e.g., low marks, switching programs, or job search) lives. The sample consisted of 76 (55%) men and 63 (45%) women. This distribution is an accurate reflection of the gender composition in the business program. The average age of the students was 20.38 years (SD = 0.69).

The students were recruited through an email invitation sent to the entire cohort of 607 students. Two reminders were sent encouraging students to participate in the study. Participation in the study, which consisted of two separate online surveys, was voluntary and anonymous. Students were informed that if they completed both surveys, they would be entered into a random draw to win one of forty $25 gift certificates as a gesture of thanks for their time.

Materials and Procedure

Our design involved a split administration self-report survey. This design enabled us to prevent some of the common biases associated with cross-sectional designs such as response bias and common method bias (e.g., Podsakoff et al., 2012). In the first survey, students were asked to self-assess their character using the scale developed and validated by Crossan et al. (2014). The survey, which took about 20 minutes to complete, consisted of a series of items describing virtuous behaviors related to character. The second survey included validated measures of the perceived stressfulness of life events (Clements & Turpin, 1996) and measures of subjective well-being (Keyes & Magyar-Moe, 2003). This survey took about 15 minutes to complete. The surveys were administered 2 weeks apart. Since the surveys were anonymous, we matched the responses from the online surveys through a unique code that was given to the students on the first survey.

Of the 471 students who completed the first survey, 182 also completed the second survey. We were able to connect 149 response sets. After deleting cases with missing values, our sample size was 139. The overall effective response rate was thus 23%.

Measures

Character

The character assessment asks individuals to rate the likelihood of demonstrating 61 specific behaviors. These behaviors can be classified into 11 dimensions of character: transcendence, drive, collaboration, humanity, humility, integrity, temperance, justice, accountability, courage, and judgment (see Table 1 for a description of the character dimensions). Sample items included “Displays resolve and stays committed to see things through” and “Demonstrates care for others and actively promotes their well-being.” We used a shortened 33-item version of the assessment because of time constraints (see Le Ber et al., 2018). Each character dimension was queried with three items. The scale scores ranged from 1 (extremely unlikely) to 5 (extremely likely); the midpoint was 3 (unsure).

Table 1.

Definitions for Dimensions of Character.

Judgment	Makes sound decisions in a timely manner based on relevant information and critical analysis of facts. Appreciates the broader context when reaching decisions. Shows flexibility when confronted with new information or situations. Has an implicit sense of the best way to proceed. Sees into the heart of challenging issues. Reasons effectively in uncertain or ambiguous situations.
Accountability	Willingly accepts responsibility for decisions and actions. Is willing to step up and take ownership of challenging issues. Reliably delivers on expectations. Can be counted on in tough situations.
Collaboration	Values and actively supports development and maintenance of positive relationships among people. Encourages open dialog and does not react defensively when challenged. Is able to connect with others at a fundamental level, in a way that fosters the productive sharing of ideas. Recognizes that what happens to someone, somewhere, can affect all.
Courage	Does the right thing even though it may be unpopular, actively discouraged, or result in a negative outcome. Shows an unrelenting determination, confidence, and perseverance in confronting difficult situations. Rebounds quickly from setbacks.
Drive	Strives for excellence. Has a strong desire to succeed. Tackles problems with a sense of urgency. Approaches challenges with energy and passion.
Humanity	Demonstrates genuine concern and care for others. Appreciates and identifies with others’ values, feelings, and beliefs. Has a capacity to forgive and not hold grudges. Understands that people are fallible and offers opportunities for individuals to learn from their mistakes.
Humility	Allows accomplishments to be a testament of abilities without needing to highlight them to others. Acknowledges limitations. Understands the importance of thoughtful examination of one’s own opinions and ideas. Embraces opportunities for personal growth and development. Does not consider oneself to be more important than others. Is respectful of others. Understands and appreciates others’ strengths and contributions.
Integrity	Holds oneself to a high moral standard and behaves consistently with ethical standards, even in difficult situations. Is seen by others as behaving in a way that is consistent with personal values and beliefs. Behaves consistently with organizational policies and practices.
Justice	Strives to ensure that individuals are treated fairly and that consequences (positive or negative) are commensurate with contributions. Remains objective and keeps personal biases to a minimum when making decisions. Provides others with the opportunity to voice their opinions on processes and procedures. Provides timely, specific, and candid explanations for decisions. Seeks to redress wrongdoings inside and outside the organization.
Temperance	Conducts oneself in a calm, composed manner. Maintains the ability to think clearly and responds reasonably in tense situations. Completes work and solves problems in a thoughtful, careful manner. Resists excesses and stays grounded.
Transcendence	Draws inspiration from excellence or appreciation of beauty in such areas as sports, music, arts, and design. Sees possibility where others do not. Has an expansive view of things both in terms of taking into account the long term and broad factors. Demonstrates a sense of purpose in life.

Note. Description of character dimensions.

Source. Adapted from Crossan et al. (2017).

Averaging the 33 items into a single character measure is not consistent with the ontology of character as a higher order construct. Thus, we used structural equation modeling to assess whether the 11 character dimensions load on a higher order factor—character—and then explore whether character is related to perceived stressfulness of life events and subjective well-being. This approach ensures consistency between our theoretical definition and operationalization of character.

Perceived Stressfulness of Life Events

The life events scale for students has been developed specifically to assess the relationship between life event stress and well-being among student populations (Clements & Turpin, 1996, 2000). The life events scale is a checklist measure and consists of 36 life events commonly reported as stressful by students. Each life event is considered to require personal adjustment. These life events largely correspond with the nonexhaustive list of stressors that undergraduate students may face in their personal and academic lives as identified by Yusufov et al. (2019).

The items were put in random order. The life event “death of a parent” was listed first and assigned the arbitrary and maximum value of 100, consistent with prior studies (e.g., Clements & Turpin, 1996; Lightsey & Hulsey, 2002). Participants then assigned values to each of the remaining 35 life events that they felt required an equal or lesser degree of readjustment as compared with death of a parent. Sample items included “Getting an unjustified low mark on a test” and “Finding a part-time job.” Scale scores could range from 0 to 100. We calculated the overall life events scale scores by multiplying the occurrence of a specific life event (0 = No; 1 = Yes) with the perceived stressfulness (0-100) of each event. The score for each of the 36 life events were added to obtain the overall life events score.

Studies have provided evidence for the utility of this approach in predicting physical and mental well-being—including physical disease, psychological problems, and substance abuse—in undergraduate students (e.g., Clements & Turpin, 2000; Lightsey & Hulsey, 2002; Linden, 1984; McCarthy et al., 2006).

Subjective Well-Being

We used the 14-item mental health continuum (MHC-SF) developed by Keyes and Magyar-Moe (2003) to assess self-reported well-being. The MHC-SF has a three-factor structure: emotional, psychological, and social well-being (e.g., Keyes, 2002; Keyes et al., 2008). The scale measures the degree of (a) emotional well-being; (b) social well-being; and (c) psychological well-being. Emotional well-being is equivalent to satisfaction with life and positive affect. Social and psychological well-being relate to how well individuals see themselves functioning in life. A sample item was, “During the past month, how often did you feel that you had something important to contribute to society?” The scale scores ranged from 1 (never) to 5 (frequently, if not always); the midpoint of the scale was 3 (sometimes).

Analytical Approach

Our analytical approach consisted of three steps. For each step, we followed Kline’s (2013) recommendations for the construction of structural equation models. For all analyses, we used Mplus 7.2, which provides a robust estimator that addresses potential nonnormal distribution of our measures, and a reduced N/parameter ratio, the weighted least squares means and variance adjusted (Moshagen & Musch, 2014). Structural equation modeling does not allow for the replacement of missing values at the item level. The statistical software retained only those cases without any missing information, therefore reducing our sample size to 126.

First, we constructed five alternative measurement models (Models A1 to A5, see Table 2 for a description of each model and the goodness-of-fit indicators), taking root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.05 and comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.90 as cutoff points and fixing one parameter per latent construct to the value of 1.0 to identify the model (G. W. Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). To deal with potential multicollinearity issues in the correlation matrix of the latent constructs (see Models A1, A3), we modeled the shared variance among the character and subjective well-being dimensions into higher order constructs, even if this procedure reduced the overall fit of the models (see Models A2, A5).

Table 2.

Summary of Structural Equation Models and Goodness-of-Fit Indicators.

Model	N Factors	Description	χ²	df	χ²/df ratio	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	WRMR
A1	15^a	11 Character dimensions; perceived stressfulness of life events; 3 subjective well-being dimensions	1077.17*	898	1.20	0.04	0.93	0.92	0.95
A2	16	11 Character dimensions + 1 higher order construct (character); perceived stressfulness of life events; 3 subjective well-being dimensions	1327.92*	1014	1.30	0.05	0.88	0.87	1.16
A3	16^a	11 Character dimensions; perceived stressfulness of life events; 3 subjective well-being dimensions + 1 higher order construct (subjective well-being)	1133.99*	955	1.19	0.03	0.93	0.92	0.96
A4	3	Character; perceived stressfulness of life events; subjective well-being	1487.26*	1032	1.44	0.06	0.83	0.82	1.31
A5	17	11 Character dimensions + 1 higher order construct (character); perceived stressfulness of life events; 3 subjective well-being dimensions + 1 higher order construct (subjective well-being)	1332.62*	1018	1.30	0.05	0.88	0.87	1.17

Note. The estimator used was a weighted least squares means and variance adjusted (WLSMV) with a Delta parametrization and convergence limit of 50000 interactions. df = degrees of freedom; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; WRMR = weighted root mean square residual.

The latent variable covariance matrix (psi [ψ]) was not a positive definite in this model due to a collinearity issue between Judgment and Drive (ψ Jud − Dri = 1.07). Following Kline’s (2013) recommendation, we added a higher order construct that captures the shared variance among the character dimensions; after such addition, the ψ-matrix was no longer a positive definite and the model estimation ended normally.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Second, we constructed a more nuanced structural equation model (Model B) based on the most theoretically sound and best fitting measurement model (Model A5). Model B only includes the significant parameters detected in Model A5. Model B was used to assess the effects of character on subjective well-being as mediated by the perceived stressfulness of life events. This analytical approach allows for testing the effect of the shared variance among the 11 character dimensions and also isolates the specific contribution of a given character dimension (the nonshared variance) on subjective well-being and the perceived stressfulness of life events. Third, we used the Mplus INDIRECT command to determine whether the indirect effect of character on subjective well-being as mediated by the perceived stressfulness of life events is statistically significant.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations, as well as the intercorrelations, of the variables measured.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17
Jud	4.15	0.45	[.70]
Tra	4.23	0.49	.33**	[.56]
Dri	4.23	0.52	.53**	.43**	[.64]
Col	4.21	0.67	.28**	.29**	.34**	[.77]
Hua	4.16	0.54	.23**	.32**	.26**	.50**	[.61]
Hum	4.28	0.50	.38**	.47**	.49**	.45**	.51**	[.58]
Int	4.29	0.51	.31**	.32**	.40**	.28**	.34**	.43**	[.61]
Tem	3.54	0.94	.20*	.19**	.30**	.12	.31**	.18**	.24**	[.85]
Jus	4.10	0.48	.18*	.26**	.29**	.34**	.43**	.36**	.59**	.28**	[.64]
Acc	4.12	0.54	.34**	.33**	.35**	.10	.22*	.24**	.29**	.21*	.31**	[.72]
Cou	4.19	0.34	.32**	.25**	.39**	.02	.11	.18*	.22**	.41**	.24**	.42**	[.78]
Cha	4.13	0.34	.56**	.59**	.61**	.56**	.66**	.67**	.64**	.61**	.64**	.55**	.54**	[.95]
EWB	3.73	0.81	.12	.13	.33**	.01	−.09	.08	.16	.18*	.02	.01	.13	.13	[.89]
SWB	3.33	0.76	.22*	.10	.25**	.06	.01	.05	−.03	.12	−.08	.06	.21*	.12	.58**	[.80]
PWB	3.78	0.73	.19*	.14	.37**	.13	−.02	.13	.20*	.18*	.06	.11	.35**	.25**	.66**	.60**	[.88]
WB	3.63	0.65	.21*	.14	.38**	.09	.03	.11	.14	.19*	.01	.08	.29**	.21*	.83**	.83**	.91**	[.89]
PSLE	318.85	240.50	−.18*	−.11	−.21*	−.02	−.02	−.03	−.14	−.22*	−.11	−.09	−.11	−.18*	−.27**	−.12	−.21*	−.22*	—
BG	0.45	0.50	.04	.06	.04	−.22**	−.09	−.23**	−.01	.18*	−.03	.04	.13	−.01	−.09	−.02	−.12	−.10	−.10

Note. Raykov composite reliabilities are shown on the diagonal. Jud = Judgment; Tra = Transcendence; Col = Collaboration; Hua = Humanity; Hum = Humility; Int = Integrity; Jus = Justice; Acc = Accountability; Dri = Drive; Cou = Courage; Tem = Temperance; Cha = Character (higher order construct); WB = Subjective Well-Being (higher order construct); PSLE = Perceived Stressfulness of Life Events; PWB = Psychological Well-Being; EWB = Emotional Well-Being; SWB = Social Well-Being; BG = Gender.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

The overall mean for character as reported by the students suggests that they believe it is likely they can engage in the various behaviors that reflect the 11 character dimensions (4.13 out of 5.00). The three highest rated character dimensions were integrity, drive, and humility; the three lowest rated dimensions were accountability, justice, and temperance.

The five life events that students reported as occurring most often were family get-togethers, getting an unjustified low mark on a test, vacation with parents, switch in program within the same college or university, and finding a part-time job. The five life events that students reported as occurring least often were getting kicked out of college or university, pregnancy, failing a number of courses, jail term, and death of a parent. The five life events that were rated as most stressful were death of a parent, death of a best or very good friend, jail term, getting kicked out of college or university, and major car accident. The average score for the life events scale for students was 318.85 (SD = 240.50).

The means for emotional, social, and psychological well-being were all above the midpoint of the scale and indicates that, overall, the students were in positive mental health.

Measurement Model

Table 2 shows a summary of the different measurement models (A1-A5) and goodness-of-fit indices for our structural equation models. All items in Models A1 to A5 loaded significantly on their respective latent constructs with the exception of one item of the subjective well-being scale, which was subsequently excluded from our analyses.

The more nuanced structural equation model derived from Model A5, Model B, showed a just acceptable fit to our data, Satorra-Bentler’s (S-B) scaled χ²(1015) = 1322.38^***; RMSEA = 0.05; χ²/df ratio = 1.30; CFI = 0.88; TLI = 0.88; and weighted root mean square residual (WRMR) = 1.15). The CFI and TLI values were slightly below the .90 cutoff value; however, it is known that goodness-of-fit indices tend to decrease as the number of latent constructs modeled increases (Kenny & McCoach, 2003).

Given the relatively low number of items in relation to the number of parameters in the model, it is advisable to use item parceling to improve the fit of our model. Hence, we followed the recommendations by Little et al. (2002) to aggregate the three items for each character dimension and then to respecify the structural equation model, having the aggregated dimensions as indicators loading onto a single latent construct, namely, character. The respecified model fit our data better than prior models, S-B scaled χ²(291) = 408.60^***; RMSEA = 0.06; χ²/df ratio = 1.40; CFI = 0.94; TLI = 0.93; and WRMR = 0.95. The parceling procedure allowed us to achieve an N/parameter ratio of 6.25, which surpasses the established threshold of N/parameter = 5 (see Little et al., 2002).

Figure 3 shows results for the structural equation model for the effect of character on subjective well-being through the perceived stressfulness of life events.

Figure 3.

Structural equation model for the effect of character on subjective well-being through the perceived stressfulness of life events.

The results indicate that character was a positive and significant predictor of subjective well-being, β = .21, (.10), t = 2.02, p < .05. Hypothesis 1 was supported. The relationship between character and perceived stressfulness of life events was negative and significant, β = −.22, (.07), t = −2.93, p < .01. Hypothesis 2 was therefore supported. And, consistent with Hypothesis 3, the relationship between the perceived stressfulness of life events and subjective well-being was negative and significant, β = −.21, (.09), t = −2.27, p < .05.

The results also provide support for Hypothesis 4. Character had a positive indirect effect on subjective well-being through the perceived stressfulness of life events, β = .05 (.02), t = 1.97, p < .05. Our results reveal partial mediation because character still predicted subjective well-being even after perceived stressfulness of life events was included in the model.

Post Hoc Analysis

Our main focus was on assessing the effects of character on the perceived stressfulness of life events and subjective well-being. However, a detailed observation of the modification indices provided by the statistical software suggested the inclusion of two additional paths would improve the fit of our model. More precisely, including direct paths from courage, β = .25 (.08), t = 3.17, p < .01, and drive, β = .24 (.09); t = 2.65, p < .01, to psychological well-being significantly improved the fit of our model.

Discussion

The results of our structural equation model show that character as a higher order construct has both a direct and positive effect on the subjective well-being of undergraduate business students and an indirect effect through the perceived stressfulness of life events. Furthermore, the relationships between courage and psychological well-being, as well as drive and psychological well-being were positive and significant.

We had no a priori hypotheses regarding the specific and independent effects of the dimensions of character on the perceived stressfulness of life events and subjective well-being. In hindsight, however, it is easy to envision that elements such as resiliency, tenaciousness, and determination (as part of courage) as well as vigor, passion, and striving for excellence (as part of drive) contribute to psychological well-being. For example, the character elements associated with courage help individuals persist when they confront challenges and contribute to problem-solving coping as part of personal mastery, which, in turn, facilitates feelings of positive functioning in life (e.g., Maddi, 2006; Mäkikangas et al., 2004). Furthermore, in Crossan et al.’s (2017) character framework, the notion of drive captures how individuals apply and direct energy toward the pursuit of both mastery and performance goals. Extant research has shown that the successful pursuit of meaningful goals plays an important role in the development of psychological well-being (e.g., Wiese, 2007). Prior studies have found that elements of drive such as vigor (Bray & Born, 2004), passion (Vallerand, 2012), and the pursuit of excellence (Martínez-Martí & Ruch, 2017) are connected to higher levels of psychological well-being.

Our study contributes to the ongoing conversation about the importance of developing character in business students enrolled in academic programs (e.g., Crossan, Mazutis, Seijts, & Gandz, 2013; Hartman, 2006). Our results offer several theoretical and practical contributions to the management education literature.

Theoretical Contributions

There are relatively few empirical studies in the management education literature that focus on the nature of character and why it matters to individual functioning, including, but not limited to, subjective well-being, prosocial behaviors, social skills, and academic achievement of business students. Therefore, a programmatic research approach to develop a better understanding of the correlates and consequences of character in higher educational institutions is important. This is because a more robust understanding of character may help individuals—administrators, program directors, and faculty—raise awareness of the importance of the construct, ensure it is brought to the forefront of management education, and initiate evidence-based practices to enhance the subjective well-being and subsequent performance of students through character-based education. Hence, our study contributes to the accumulating body of knowledge on character. In particular, the results we obtained provide further validation of the character framework developed by Crossan et al. (2017).

More important, however, our results suggest that character, operationalized as a higher order construct consisting of 11 interrelated dimensions, should be considered a personal resource to undergraduate business students that helps alleviate the perceived stress associated with personal, social, and environmental challenges and to promote their subjective well-being. Our study is unique in its contribution in that no prior studies have looked at the holistic perspective that character presents and the process by which character affects the subjective well-being of undergraduate business students.

Furthermore, our study shows that character not only complements but also strengthens stress coping models. For example, the conservation of resources model (e.g., Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll et al., 2018) helps explain the results we obtained in the present study. A basic tenet of the conservation of resources model is that individuals strive to retain, guard, and build resources—personal characteristics or otherwise—that help protect against stress and enhance positive well-being. The model implies that surpluses in personal resources serve as an aid in actively addressing potential stressful situations and, therefore, contribute to positive well-being, whereas individuals who are ill-equipped with personal resources are particularly vulnerable to perceiving situations as stressful. Character as a personal resource not only helps support a positive sense of self (e.g., through integrity, temperance, and transcendence) but also facilitates a view that one is able to work through potentially stressful circumstances (e.g., through collaboration, courage, and drive). Or, put differently, the likelihood that individuals perceive a life event as stressful decreases as their strength of character increases. Character, therefore, is not simply something that is nice to have but rather something that is highly desirable because of the role character plays in addressing stressors and facilitating subjective well-being.

Practical Contributions

There are at least two practical implications from our results. First, there is compelling data that indicates that undergraduate students across the globe are at heightened risk of stress and mental health problems (e.g., Andrews & Wilding, 2004; Eisenberg et al., 2013; Varghese et al., 2015; Watkins et al., 2012). There have been numerous initiatives to break the silence around mental health and to support well-being programs on campuses (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2012; Regehr et al., 2013). For example, universities have begun to offer services that help students proactively address personal and academic challenges that may affect their well-being. Academic programs have also begun to rethink the qualities that educators need to develop in students as they step into a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous environment.

Crossan, Mazutis, and Seijts (2013) argued that individuals with well-developed character are better equipped to manage situational pressures (see also Caza et al., 2004; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Furthermore, they see character as both a personal resource and a coping mechanism—a self-control strategy that facilitates the maintenance of behaviors that are deemed desirable, such as optimism, resiliency, forgiveness, and being grateful. Our results indicate that the character dimensions and their supporting elements that Crossan et al. (2017) identified affect the perception of life events and subjective well-being. The occurrence and timing of life events that may trigger stress are often beyond a student’s control. However, character affects how students perceive those events and adjust to adverse situations. We therefore believe it is essential for management educators and business students to fully appreciate the importance of character to human functioning and to engage in the development of character to help students avoid succumbing to personal, social, and environmental challenges.

Second, character can be developed through deliberate practice in management education (e.g., Byrne et al., 2018; Comer & Schwartz, 2020; Crossan, Mazutis, Seijts, & Gandz, 2013; Newstead et al., 2020). However, management education dominantly focuses on developing leadership competencies—imparting core knowledge, often in a functional paradigm to equip students for their professions (e.g., Crossan, Mazutis, Seijts, & Gandz, 2013; Kuechler & Stedham, 2018). In fact, many educators would not consider it their role or responsibility to contribute to the development of character in their students. But whether we teach finance, marketing, or leadership, we have the opportunity—indeed, some would say the obligation—to help students become managers, leaders, and citizens of good character. Today, management educators around the world need to ask how we can change the way we educate individuals to better equip them for the various roles they will play in making a positive difference in the world. Therefore, a key consideration for institutions in management education (e.g., business schools and professional associations) is how they can embed character development in their teachings and developmental activities for students.

Examples of possible interventions that provide students with opportunities to develop the various character dimensions and elements include transformative or stretch experiences embedded in course design (e.g., confident and open-minded), role-playing (e.g., considerate and composed), simulations (e.g., takes ownership and reflective), goal setting (e.g., inspired and vigorous), mentoring (e.g., candid and transparent), and reflexive conversations (e.g., critical thinker and adaptable). For example, Comer and Schwartz (2020) introduced a series of Mussar-inspired exercises to help students develop their character. They teach students about the malleability of character and the importance of character in organizations. Students are encouraged to identify dimensions and elements of character they wish to work on, set goals to enhance these aspects of character through a series of exercises, monitor progress, and make incremental adjustments for continuous improvement. Comer and Schwartz explain that their approach to the cultivation of character involves purposeful self-awareness, aspiration, assessment, and adjustment.

Over a century ago, most university administrators and faculty members would have said that building an integrated self was the most important task. Today, however, we seem to have forgotten about the importance of character building in academic institutions and, in particular, business schools. Instead, we focus primarily, if not only, on competencies, essentially turning the curricula of business schools into vocational training (e.g., Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Crossan, Mazutis, Seijts, & Gandz, 2013).

Strengths, Limitations, and Areas for Future Research

Our study has several strengths. First, we studied a population for whom perceived stressfulness of life events and subjective well-being is highly salient. Second, we examined undergraduate students in a single business program. Any other approach would have introduced a myriad of contextual variables to our design, potentially attenuating any relationships among character, perceived stressfulness of life events, and subjective well-being. Third, we used a split administration self-report survey. We collected data from the students at two different points in time, thereby reducing priming effects. This approach also allowed us to examine the perceived stressfulness of life events as a mediator of the relationship between character and subjective well-being because the measure of character preceded the completion of the life events scale. Fourth, the study was anonymous, with no identifying information collected. This was done to maximize candor and the accuracy of self-reports. Fifth, we used character as a high-order construct, consistent with the ontology of character, rather than focusing on a single dimension or element of character. To our best knowledge, we are the first to empirically relate the Crossan et al. (2017) model of interconnected character dimensions to perceptions of stress and subjective well-being. Sixth, even though the overall results indicated that the business students were in good mental health, we still obtained significant results that have important implications for university administrators, program directors, and faculty. For example, our results may help address a foundational question: How can educational institutions build a culture of well-being that fosters engagement in the classroom, learning, and excellence?

Our study also has several limitations, which offer opportunities for future research. First, we only collected a single-source, self-rating measure of character, perceived stressfulness of life events, and subjective well-being. We did not manipulate any variables nor did we collect measures over time. Consequently, we cannot establish causal relationships or examine reciprocal and dynamic effects between the variables we measured. For example, it is highly plausible that, over time, character and the perceived stressfulness of life events are reciprocally related. Specifically, life events and so-called crucibles may help strengthen character (e.g., Bennis & Thomas, 2002; Byrne et al., 2018; Peterson et al., 2008). For example, actively involving undergraduate business students on a Dean’s Search Committee offers many opportunities to further develop students’ sense of justice, accountability, collaboration, and judgment.

Second, we did not measure the specific routes or mechanisms (e.g., problem-solving approaches, building friendships and social support networks, and demonstrating hope) through which character affected the perceived stressfulness of life events and subjective well-being. Future studies involving undergraduate business students would benefit from longitudinal and intervention designs that include multiple measures of variables to assess causality and tease apart the specific routes through which character and its dimensions help students work through stressful life events in their personal and academic lives.

Third, we used self-reported assessments of character. Future studies should include reports of peers to validate these self-assessments. The use of self-assessments is common although not ideal because measurement may be affected by memory biases. For example, future studies using a longitudinal design would be better suited to assess character and the subjective well-being of undergraduate business students over stressful periods of time and for specific events that emerge in a higher educational context (e.g., a poorly performing study group, the exam period, or the job search process).

Fourth, even though the results of our study reveal that character is associated with perceived stressfulness of life events and subjective well-being, the effect sizes, using Cohen’s guidelines, were small to moderate in magnitude. However, given the seriousness of the emotional, physiological, psychological, and social outcomes associated with stressful life events, the relationships we explored in our study are never trivial for students and the people surrounding them. Any personal resource that students may develop to buffer the perceived stressfulness of life events or enhance their subjective well-being is an asset. Character strengths are malleable and responsive to training and development. Hence, our results should bolster the design of intervention studies intended to further develop character in undergraduate business students. This raises two questions that warrant further discussion and exploration: First, what is the role of management educators in developing character in students? Second, what kind of learning activities help develop character and promote subjective well-being?

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Ian O. Ihnatowycz Institute for Leadership at the Ivey Business School for the funding that has supported much of our research on character.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Gerard H. Seijts

Lucas Monzani

Hayden J. R. Woodley

Notes

References

Andrews

Wilding

J. M.

(2004). The relation of depression and anxiety to life-stress and achievement in students. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 509-521. https://doi.org/10.1348/0007126042369802

Arthur

Earl

S. R.

Thompson

A. P.

Ward

J. W.

(2019). The value of character-based judgement in the professional domain. Journal of Business Ethics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04269-7

Avey

J. B.

Luthans

Hannah

S. T.

Sweetman

Peterson

(2012). Impact of employees’ character strengths of wisdom on stress and creative performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(2), 165-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00157.x

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273-285. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056

Beasley

Thompson

Davidson

(2003). Resilience in response to life stress: The effects of coping style and cognitive hardiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(1), 77-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00027-2

Beiter

Nash

McCrady

Rhoades

Linscomb

Clarahan

Sammut

(2015). The prevalence and correlates of depression, anxiety, and stress in a sample of college students. Journal of Affective Disorders, 173(March), 90-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.10.054

Bennis

W. G.

O’Toole

(2005, May). How business schools have lost their way. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2005/05/how-business-schools-lost-their-way

Bennis

W. G.

Thomas

R. J.

(2002, September). Crucibles of leadership. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2002/09/crucibles-of-leadership

Bilimoria

(1999). The Journal of Management Education’s sections: Editorial mission and guidelines. Journal of Management Education, 23(4), 334-337. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299902300402

10.

Bray

S. R.

Born

H. A.

(2004). Transition to university and vigorous physical activity: Implications for health and psychological well-being. Journal of American College Health, 52(4), 181-188. https://doi.org/10.3200/JACH.52.4.181-188

11.

Bright

D. S.

Cameron

K. S.

Caza

(2006). The amplifying and buffering effects of virtuousness in downsized organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(3), 249-269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-5904-4

12.

Brooks

Brant

Lamb

(2019). How can universities cultivate leaders of character? Insights from a leadership and character development program at the University of Oxford. International Journal of Ethics Education, 4(2), 167-182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40889-019-00075-x

13.

Brownson

Becker

Shadick

Jaggars

Nitkin-Kaner

(2014). Suicidal behavior and help seeking among diverse college students. Journal of College Counseling, 17(2), 116-130. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2014.00052.x

14.

Bücker

Nuraydin

Simonsmeier

B. A.

Schneider

Luhmann

(2018). Subjective well-being and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 74(June), 83-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.02.007

15.

Byrne

Crossan

Seijts

(2018). The development of leader character through crucible moments. Journal of Management Education, 42(2), 265-293. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562917717292

16.

Carr

(2017). Virtue and character in higher education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 65(1), 109-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071005.2016.1224806

17.

Caza

Barker

B. A.

Cameron

K. S.

(2004). Ethics and ethos: The buffering and amplifying effects of ethical behavior and virtuousness. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(2), 169-178. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000035909.05560.0e

18.

Cheung

C. K.

Lee

T. Y.

(2010). Improving social competence through character education. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33(3), 255-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.08.006

19.

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

20.

Clements

Turpin

(1996). The life events scale for students: Validation for use with British samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 20(6), 747-751. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(96)00005-0

21.

Clements

Turpin

(2000). Life event exposure, physiological reactivity, and psychological strain. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 23(1), 73-94. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005472320986

22.

Comer

D. R.

Schwartz

(2020). Adapting Mussar to develop management students’ character. Journal of Management Education, 44(2), 196-246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562919871083

23.

Crossan

M. M.

Byrne

Seijts

G. H.

Reno

Monzani

Gandz

(2017). Toward a framework of leader character in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 54(7), 986-1018. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12254

24.

Crossan

M. M.

Mazutis

Seijts

G. H.

(2013). In search of virtue: The role of virtues, values and character strengths in ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(4), 567-581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1680-8

25.

Crossan

M. M.

Mazutis

Seijts

G. H.

Gandz

(2013). Developing leadership character in business programs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(2), 285-305. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0024a

26.

Crossan

M. M.

Seijts

G. H.

Gandz

(2014). Leader character insight assessment. Sigma Assessment Systems.

27.

Dufresne

R. L.

Offstein

E. H.

(2012). Holistic and intentional student character development process: Learning from West Point. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(4), 570-590. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0023

28.

Eisenberg

Hunt

Speer

(2012). Help seeking for mental health on college campuses: Review of evidence and next steps for research and practice. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 20(4), 222-232. https://doi.org/10.3109/10673229.2012.712839

29.

Eisenberg

Hunt

Speer

(2013). Mental health in American colleges and universities: Variation across student subgroups and across campuses. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 201(1), 60-67. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0b013e31827ab077

30.

Flinchbaugh

C. L.

Moore

E. W. G.

Chang

Y. K.

May

D. R

. (2012). Student well-being interventions: The effects of stress management techniques and gratitude journaling in the management education classroom. Journal of Management Education, 36(2), 191-219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562911430062

31.

Fowers

B. J.

(2008). From continence to virtue: Recovering goodness, character unity, and character types for positive psychology. Theory & Psychology, 18(5), 629-653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354308093399

32.

Garett

Liu

Young

(2017). A longitudinal analysis of stress among incoming college freshmen. Journal of American College Health, 65(5), 331-338. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2017.1312413

33.

Gillham

Adams-Deutsch

Werner

Reivich

Coulter-Heindl

Linkins

Winder

Peterson

Park

Abenavoli

Contero

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2011). Character strengths predict subjective well-being during adolescence. Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(1), 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2010.536773

34.

González-López

M. J.

Pérez-López

M. C.

Rodríguez-Ariza

(2019). Clearing the hurdles in the entrepreneurial race: The role of resilience in entrepreneurship education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 18(3), 457-483. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2016.0377

35.

Hannah

S. T.

Avolio

B. J.

(2011). The locus of leader character. Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 979-983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.016

36.

Hartman

E. M.

(2006). Can we teach character? An Aristotelian answer. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(1), 68-81. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2006.20388386

37.

Harzer

Ruch

(2015). The relationships of character strengths with coping, work-related stress, and job satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 165. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00165

38.

Heffner

A. L.

Antaramian

S. P.

(2016). The role of life satisfaction in predicting student engagement and achievement. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(4), 1681-1701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-015-9665-1

39.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513

40.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6(4), 307-324. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307

41.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Halbesleben

Neveu

J. P.

Westman

(2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5, 103-128. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104640

42.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Johnson

R. J.

Ennis

Jackson

A. P.

(2003). Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 632-643. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.632

43.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Shirom

(2001). Conservation of resources theory: Applications to stress and management in the workplace. In Golembiewski

R. T.

(Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 57-81). CRC Press.

44.

Huang

Wang

You

(2016). The job demands-resources model and job burnout: The mediating role of personal resources. Current Psychology, 35(4), 562-569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9321-2

45.

Jabbar

Analoui

Kong

Mirza

(2018). Consumerisation in UK higher education business schools: Higher fees, greater stress and debatable outcomes. Higher Education, 76(1), 85-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0196-z

46.

Kenny

D. A.

McCoach

D. B.

(2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10(3), 333-3511. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM1003_1

47.

Keyes

C. L. M.

(2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43(2), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090197

48.

Keyes

C. L. M.

Magyar-Moe

J. L.

(2003). The measurement and utility of adult subjective well-being. In Lopez

S. J.

Snyder

C. R.

(Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 411-426). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10612-026

49.

Keyes

C. L. M.

Wissing

Potgieter

J. P.

Temane

Kruger

Van Rooy

(2008). Evaluation of the mental health continuum–short form (MHC-SF) in setswana-speaking South Africans. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 15(3), 181-192. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.572

50.

Kline

R. B.

(2013). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In Petscher

Schatsschneider

(Eds.), Applied quantitative analysis in the social sciences (pp. 171-207). Routledge.

51.

Koeske

G. F.

Kirk

S. A.

(1995). Direct and buffering effects of internal locus of control among mental health professionals. Journal of Social Service Research, 20(3-4), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1300/J079v20n03_01

52.

Kristjánsson

(2016). Aristotle, emotions, and education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315567914

53.

Kuechler

Stedham

(2018). Management education and transformational learning: The integration of mindfulness in an MBA course. Journal of Management Education, 42(1), 8-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562917727797

54.

Le Ber

M. J.

Monzani

Yang

. (2018). Equity, diversity, and inclusion in organizations: What impact does leader identity have? Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018(1), Article 15305. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.15305symposium

55.

Lightsey

O. R.

Hulsey

C. D.

(2002). Impulsivity, coping, stress, and problem gambling among university students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49(2), 202-211. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.49.2.202

56.

Linden

(1984). Development and initial validation of a life event scale for students. Canadian Counsellor, 18(3), 106-110. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240236158_Development_and_initial_validation_of_the_Brief_Adolescent_Life_Event_Scale_BALES

57.

Little

T. D.

Cunningham

W. A.

Shahar

Widaman

K. F.

(2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151-173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1

58.

Lounsbury

J. W.

Fisher

L. A.

Levy

J. J.

Welsh

D. P.

(2009). An investigation of character strengths in relation to the academic success of college students. Individual Differences Research, 7(1), 52-69. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236247246_An_Investigation_of_Character_Strengths_in_Relation_to_the_Academic_Success_of_College_Students

59.

Lyubomirsky

Dickerhoof

Boehm

J. K.

Sheldon

K. M.

(2011). Becoming happier takes both a will and a proper way: An experimental longitudinal intervention to boost well-being. Emotion, 11(2), 391-402. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022575

60.

Maddi

S. R.

(2006). Hardiness: The courage to grow from stresses. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(3), 160-168. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760600619609

61.

Mäkikangas

Kinnunen

Feldt

(2004). Self-esteem, dispositional optimism, and health: Evidence from cross-lagged data on employees. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(6), 556-575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.02.001

62.

Martínez-Martí

M. L.

Ruch

(2017). Character strengths predict resilience over and above positive affect, self-efficacy, optimism, social support, self-esteem, and life satisfaction. Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(2), 110-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1163403

63.

McCarthy

C. J.

Fouladi

R. T.

Juncker

B. D.

Matheny

K. B.

(2006). Psychological resources as stress buffers: Their relationship to university students’ anxiety and depression. Journal of College Counseling, 9(2), 99-110. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2006.tb00097.x

64.

Moshagen

Musch

(2014). Sample size requirements of the robust weighted least squares estimator. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 10(2), 60-70. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000068

65.

Nelson

S. K.

Fuller

J. A.

Choi

Lyubomirsky

(2014). Beyond self-protection: Self-affirmation benefits hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(8), 998-1011. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214533389

66.

Newstead

Dawkins

Macklin

Martin

(2019). We don’t need more leaders: We need more good leaders: Advancing a virtues-based approach to leader(ship) development. Leadership Quarterly. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101312

67.

Newstead

Dawkins

Macklin

Martin

(2020). The virtues project: An approach to developing good leaders. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(4), 605-622. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04163-2

68.

Newstead

Macklin

Dawkins

Martin

(2018). What is virtue? Advancing the conceptualization of virtue to inform positive organizational inquiry. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(4), 443-457. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2016.0162

69.

Niemiec

R. M.

(2013). VIA character strengths: Research and practice (The first 10 years). In Knoop

Delle Fave

(Eds.), Well-being and cultures: Cross-cultural advancements in positive psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 11-29). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4611-4_2

70.

Park

(2004). Character strengths and positive youth development. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 40-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716203260079

71.

Park

Peterson

(2006). Character strengths and happiness among young children: Content analysis of parental descriptions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(3), 323-341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-005-3648-6

72.

Park

Peterson

Seligman

M. E.

(2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(5), 603-619. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.5.603.50748

73.

Peterson

Park

Pole

D’Andrea

Seligman

M.E.

(2008). Strengths of character and posttraumatic growth. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 21(2), 214-217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20332

74.

Peterson

Ruch

Beermann

Park

Seligman

M. E.

(2007). Strengths of character, orientations to happiness, and life satisfaction. Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(3), 149-156. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760701228938

75.

Peterson

Seligman

M. E.

(2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. American Psychological Association.

76.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

77.

Reeve

(2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In Christenson

S. L.

Reschly

A. L.

Wylie

(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149-172). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7

78.

Regehr

Glancy

Pitts

(2013). Interventions to reduce stress in university students: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 148(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.11.026

79.

Schutte

N. S.

Malouff

J. M.

(2019). The impact of signature character strengths interventions: A meta-analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(2), 1179-1196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-9990-2

80.

Seijts

Crossan

Carleton

(2017). Embedding leader character into HR practices to achieve sustained excellence. Organizational Dynamics, 46(1), 30-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2017.02.001

81.

Seligman

M. E. P.

Csikszentmihalyi

(2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5

82.

Seligman

M. E. P.

Steen

T. A.

Park

Peterson

(2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60(5), 410-421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.410

83.

Stoliker

B. E.

Lafreniere

K. D.

(2015). The influence of perceived stress, loneliness, and learning burnout on university students’ educational experience. College Student Journal, 49(1), 146-160. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282817514_The_Influence_of_Perceived_Stress_Loneliness_and_Learning_Burnout_on_University_Students’_Educational_Experience

84.

Thoits

P. A.

(2010). Stress and health: Major findings and policy implications. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(1 Suppl.), S41-S53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510383499

85.

Vallerand

R. J.

(2012). The role of passion in sustainable psychological well-being. Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice, 2(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1186/2211-1522-2-1

86.

Varghese

Norman

T. S.

Thavaraj

(2015). Perceived stress and self-efficacy among college students: A global review. International Journal of Human Resource Management and Research, 5(3), 15-24. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2703908

87.

Watkins

D. C.

Hunt

J. B.

Eisenberg

(2012). Increased demand for mental health services on college campuses: Perspectives from administrators. Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice, 11(3), 319-337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325011401468

88.

Weber

Ruch

Littman-Ovadia

Lavy

Gai

(2013). Relationships among higher-order strengths factors, subjective well-being, and general self-efficacy: The case of Israeli adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(3), 322-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.03.006

89.

Wiese

B. S.

(2007). Successful pursuit of personal goals and subjective well-being. In Little

B. R.

Salmela-Aro

Phillips

S. D.

(Eds.), Personal project pursuit: Goals, action, and human flourishing (pp. 301-328). Lawrence Erlbaum.

90.

Wright

T. A.

(2015). Distinguished scholar invited essay: Reflections on the role of character in business education and student leadership development. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(3), 253-264. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051815578950

91.

Wright

T. A.

Huang

C. C.

(2008). Character in organizational research: Past directions and future prospects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(7), 981-987. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.521

92.

Xanthopoulou

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2007). The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(2), 121-141. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.14.2.121

93.

Xanthopoulou

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 235-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.11.003

94.

Xanthopoulou

Bakker

A. B.

Fischbach

(2013). Work engagement among employees facing emotional demands. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12(2), 74-84. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000085

95.

Yusufov

Nicoloro-SantaBarbara

Grey

N. E.

Moyer

Lobel

(2019). Meta-analytic evaluation of stress reduction interventions for undergraduate and graduate students. International Journal of Stress Management, 26(2), 132-145. https://doi.org/10.1037/str0000099