A review of the causes and consequences of optimism (summary)

Seeing the glass half full: A review of the causes and consequences of optimism

Forgeard, M., & Seligman, M. (2012). Seeing the glass half full: A review of the causes and consequences of optimism. Pratiques Psychologiques, 18(2), 107-120.

The psychological trait of optimism influences how individuals perceive themselves and their environment, how they process incoming information, as well as how they decide to act based on this information. Pessimists often behave in ways that are geared towards worst-case scenarios, while optimists tend to trust that the future will be favourable. According to past research, optimism and pessimism appear to have a particularly important effect on how individuals deal with challenging and stressful events. Even so, many people dismiss the effect of optimism, calling optimists naïve or in denial. This is because pessimism and its realistic view of the world seem appealing and rational when contrasted with the popular notion that optimism equates with foolishness, naiveté or denial; however, research shows that the way in which psychologists think of optimism does not involve forced enthusiasm or denial of the truth

What is Optimism?

Anthropologist Lionel Tiger defines optimism as “a mood or attitude associated with an expectation about the social or material future – one which the evaluator regards as socially desirable, to his [or her] advantage, or for his [or her] pleasure”. This means that optimism is a cognitive, affective and motivational construct - optimists both think and feel positively about the future.

The two ways in which researchers have operationalized optimism are the optimistic explanatory style approach, and the dispositional optimism approach

Optimistic Explanatory Style

This approach, developed by Seligman et al., is inspired by the observation that most (but not all) animals and humans give up when exposed to uncontrollable stressors and remain helpless when the situation becomes controllable. This behaviour is otherwise known as "learned helplessness." Helpless is associated with a pessimistic explanatory style; pessimists believe that negatives events are always present ("things will never change in the future"), have a global effect ("this negative event has ruined my entire life"), and is the fault of their own. Pessimists also often do not take credit for good events, attributing their occurrence to luck. Additionally, they perceive positive events as short-lived (“I just performed well today but who knows what will happen tomorrow”), and only affect one aspect of their lives (“I may be good at this but I’m otherwise pretty stupid”).

The optimistic explanatory style is therefore the opposite. Optimists do acknowledge negative events, but see them as specific (“other things are still going well”) and unstable (“things will get better soon”). They think negative events in a constructive, non-fatalistic manner and trust in their ability to deal with stressful problems.

The main instruments used to assess optimistic explanatory style are the Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ) and Content Analysis of Verbatim Explanations (CAVE), which ask people (through open-ended questions that are eventually coded) how events are caused. In both methods, the extent to which people think that bad events are caused by temporary and local causes determines how optimistic they are (and vice versa for good events).

Dispositional Optimism

This perspective is based on an expectancy-value model of goal pursuit, which proposes that individuals pursue goals that are most important to them (value), as well as goals they feel confident in attaining (expectancy). According to Carver et al, optimism and pessimism are “broad, generalized versions of confidence and doubt […] pertaining to life, rather than to just a specific context”. Contrary to the "optimistic explanatory style" approach, researchers ask participants directly, whether they expect events in the future to be favourable or unfavourable.

Dispositional optimism is usually assessed using self-reports, such as the Revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R), which asks participants to respond to statements such as “I hardly ever expect things to go my way” on a 5-point scale from "strongly agree," to "strongly disagree," or the Optimism & Pessimism Scale, which computes two separate scores (optimism and pessimism) for an individual. Results of the development and validation of this scale suggested that optimism and pessimism do not constitute the two ends of the same bipolar spectrum, but are rather two independent constructs that are moderately to strongly correlated. Therefore, while both scales measure optimism and pessimism, they do so by completely different methods and are not interchangeable.

Benefits of Optimism

Optimism and Subjective Well-Being

Studies in college students has found that optimism is linked to fewer symptoms of depression, higher levels of well-being, lower attrition rates, and larger perceptions of social support. Additionally, optimism in adolescence was found to be the best predictor of life satisfaction in middle age (compared to teacher ratings, parental education, household income, or intelligence). Furthermore, some studies have shown that people who score high on the optimism scale also tend to handle stressful situations, such as childbirth, cancer treatment, and unsuccessful in vitro fertilization, better than those who scored lower in optimism. This can be explained by the tendency of optimists to cope by dealing with problems directly, actively trying to solve them instead of denying them. Pessimists, on the other hand, tend to use avoidance coping strategies.

Optimism and Health

Many studies have shown that optimism is associated with a slower progression of disease. For example, optimists show a slower rate of development of atherosclerosis and AIDS. Additionally, Optimism is associated with better cardiovascular functioning and reduced cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, optimism predicts a faster recovery from coronary bypass surgery, and a reduced likelihood of needing another hospitalization later on. One study even found that the most optimistic participants were almost half as likely to die of all causes during the study than the least optimistic participants (controlling for other major risk factors such as age, blood pressure, weight, or smoking), particularly when it pertains cardiovascular mortality.

While many studies show a correlation between optimism and positive health outcomes, controversies remain as some studies have found optimism to either have no effect or negative effects. Optimism may have its most beneficial effects during the developing stages of a disease, but have less of an impact in advanced stages – reflecting the idea that “if a crane falls on you, optimism is not of much use” (Seligman, 2011).

These mixed study results can be explained by a lack of distinction between realistic and unrealistic optimism. Depending on the circumstances, one can have an optimistic and realistic view of the future (if there are good reasons to think that the future will bode well). Alternatively, one can have an optimistic but unrealistic view of the future, if one believes that things will go well even when there are no reasons to believe this. Smokers, for example, tend to hold the unrealistic belief that they are at a lower risk of developing lung cancer than other smokers, which may demotivate them from trying to quit. Thus, The distinction between realistic and unrealistic optimism therefore appears to be a crucial one in order to understand the health-promoting or health-endangering properties of optimism.

Optimism and Success

Research has also found that optimists may also be more successful than average, especially in jobs where one frequently encounters failure. Results of one study conducted in an insurance company revealed that more optimistic salesmen sold more life insurance than less optimistic ones, and were half as likely to quit). Similar results were found in new students at West Point, the famous American army training school; those who persevered in spite of the grueling training and discipline of West Point tended to be the more optimistic students, whereas those who quit tended to be more pessimistic. However, one study emphasised the importance of distinguishing between realistic and unrealistic optimism, as unrealistic optimism may be detrimental to success: for example, unmitigated and unwarranted optimism may lead business executives and entrepreneurs to make bad decisions.

Having said that, one study found that unrealistic optimism may also sometimes serve a strategic purpose, as individuals purposely tend to make unrealistically optimistic predictions when foreseeing obstacles in goal pursuit ('counteractive optimism'), which helps them maintain adequate levels of motivation and self-efficacy and eventually leads to better performance by leading people to strive for higher standards and by increasing task persistence.

One of the most fascinating effects of optimism is that other people may like optimists better than pessimists, which is particularly applicable in politics. In fact, one study found that between 1900 and 1984, the more optimistic candidate (as determined by coding speeches) has won the American presidential elections 18 out of 22 times. However, this may have more to do with preferring people who are more similar to yourself; in particular, one study found that optimistic men are more likely to associate with other men sharing their optimistic disposition.

Determinants of Optimism

Optimism can be influenced by:

1. Genetics – shown by twin studies, but might also be indirect because genetics influence other characteristics, such as intelligence, which may also influence optimism.

2. Environmental influences - parents, teacher and media.

3. Socioeconomic status - may be explained by tendency for individuals born into certain families to be exposed to more stress and experience negative emotional states at a young age.

Although optimism and pessimism are relatively stable personality traits, cognitive therapy can be a good tool to transform pessimists to optimists. This is done through helping individuals adopt more accurate and constructive explanations for good and bad events, as individuals suffering from depression and pessimism often display highly distorted and inaccurate interpretations of the situations they find themselves in.

Another method, developed by Seligman and colleagues, is a 12-session curriculum to help adolescents become more optimistic (the “Penn Resiliency Program”). Using cartoons and role-plays, adolescents learn to recognize the link between thoughts and feelings, and to adopt more constructive beliefs when they are faced with difficult situations. The program also introduces social problem-solving skills: how to be more confident, relaxed, and organized, and how to make better decisions. At each lesson, students learn concepts and skills relevant to resilience, and practice them with hypothetical examples.