Optimism

- DEFINITION
Martin Seligman defines optimism as a form of positive thinking that includes the belief that
you are responsible for your own happiness and that more good things will continue to
happen to you in the future. People vary in their degree of optimism/pessimism and these
differences are potentially important to a wide assortment of life activities and choices.

Two main approaches to the measurement of optimism have been taken and these are
based on distinct conceptualisations of optimism (Peterson, 2000a). At one extreme
optimism has been conceptualised as a broad personality trait characterised by general
optimistic expectations (Scheier and Carver, 1985) while at the other it has been
construed as an explanatory style (Seligman, 1998), that is, researchers have made a
distinction between optimistic explanatory style and dispositional optimism.

- Dispositional optimism
In their seminal article published in Health Psychology, psychologists Michael Scheier and
Charles Carver (1985, p. 219) presented their new definition of optimism, which they
described as the stable tendency “[to] believe that good rather than bad things will happen.”
Scheier and Carver assumed that, when a goal was of sufficient value, then the individual
would produce an expectancy about attaining that goal. Pessimism is an opposite
expectation—that the future will have more bad than good outcomes. As a general
expectation, applicable to many areas of life, optimists are confident that they can achieve
their goals, while pessimists doubt their ability.

To evaluate dispositional optimism, Scheier and Carver (1985) have developed a brief
self-report Life Orientation Test (LOT), and subsequently revised this instrument (Scheier et
al., 1994). The type of optimism evaluated by the LOT is a personality trait characterised by
favourable personal future expectations. On the whole, the LOT-R has produced robust
predictive relationships with a variety of outcome markers (for reviews, see Carver &
Scheier, 1999, 2002; Carver, Scheier, Miller, & Fulford, 2009). For example, optimists as
compared to pessimists fare better in the following situations:
- Starting college
- Performing in work situations and vocational identity
- Enduring a missile attack or other traumatic event in war
- Caring for Alzheimer’s patients and cancer patients
- Undergoing coronary bypass surgeries and bone marrow transplants
- Coping with cancer
- AIDS and chronic pain
- Coping in general
- Dealing with health issues in later life”

Scheier and Carver view optimism in the context of self-regulated actions aimed at the
achieve-ment of personal goals. In their self-regulation model, expectations and confidence
become impor-tant when people face challenges and obstacles to goal achievement. Faced
with difficulties, optimists believe they can overcome them and therefore persevere in their
efforts. Pessimists, on the other hand, have less confidence and positive expecta- tions and
are likely to become passive or give up their efforts.
The consensus is that there is a genetic basis to optimism as defined by Scheier and Carver
(see also Plomin et al., 1992). Likewise, borrowing from Erikson’s (1963, 1982) theory of
development, Carver and Scheier (1999) suggest that their form of optimism stems from
early childhood experiences that foster trust and secure attachments to parental figures
(Bowlby, 1988). Parents have a role in the development of optimism on the “nurture side” of
things. “ Various types of childhood experiences may lead a child to develop less optimism
for the future. Some researchers have noted that children born to parents who live in a lower
socioeconomic status may be exposed to more stress and a greater amount of negative
emotional states due to this; exposure to socioeconomic difficulties in childhood predicts
lower adult optimism as well (Heinonen et al., 2006). Sadly, children in these cases may
expect the worst throughout life because they’ve often been right; this lower level of
optimism appears to be somewhat stable throughout life, even if socioecomic status
becomes higher in adulthood (Heinonen et al., 2006; Pedrotti, 2013a).In a study asking
college students why they scored high on a scale of dispositional optimism, participants
credited factors such as belief in a higher power, feelings that the world was just, personal
privileges and benefits in life, and feelings of hope as major reasons with regard to why they
were optimistic overall (Sohl, Moyer, Lukin, & Knapp-Oliver, 2011). Many of these types of
factors might find their origin in positive childhood experiences and beneficial parenting
practices, thus giving a bit more evidence for a positive childhood leading to the
development of optimism.

- Optimism as explanatory style/ Learned optimism

One reason optimists do better involves how they explain why bad things happen. Certain
types of explanations soften the blow of disappointments and protect our self-image and
positive view of life. Other types contribute to a negative self-image and a more depressing
view of life. Seligman and his colleagues have conceptualized optimism and pessimism in
terms of explanatory style, defined as people’s characteristic way of explaining negative
events (Peterson, 2000; Reivich & Gillham, 2003; Seligman,1990). Originally focused on the
thinking patterns of depressed individuals (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978), studies
of explanatory style evolved to describe the differences between optimistic and pessimistic
interpretations of bad life events (Peterson & Villanova, 1988). The explanation that
pessimists give for a particular setback or misfortune points to causes that are stable, global,
and internal. Stable causes are those that are enduring and unlikely to change in the future.
Global refers to general causes that affect almost everything about a person’s life, and
internal causes are those stemming from the traits and beliefs of the individual rather than
external circumstances.

The optimist explains bad things in such a manner as

(1) to account for the role of other people and environments in producing bad outcomes
(i.e., an external attribution)
(2) to interpret the bad event as not likely to happen again (i.e., a variable attribution)
(3) to constrain the bad outcome to just one performance area and not others (i.e., a
specific attribution).

Thus, the optimistic student who has received a poor grade in a high school class would say,
(1) “It was a poorly worded exam” (external attribution), (2) “I have done better on previous
exams” (variable attribution), and (3) “I am doing better in other areas of my life such as my
relationships and sports achievements” (specific attribution). Conversely, the pessimistic
student who has received a poor grade would say, (1) “I screwed up” (internal attribution), (2)
“I have done lousy on previous exams” (stable attribution), and (3) “I also am not doing well
in other areas of my life” (global attribution).

Seligman’s theory implicitly places great emphasis upon negative outcomes in determining
one’s attributional explanations. Seligman’s theory uses an excuse-like process of
“distancing” from bad things that have happened in the past, rather than the more usual
notion of optimism involving the connection to positive outcomes desired in the future. Within
the learned optimism perspective, therefore, the optimistic goal-directed cognitions are
aimed at distancing the person from negative outcomes of high importance.

Optimism and pessimism conceptualised in this way may be measured with the Attributional
Style Questionnaire (ASQ), (Dykema et al., 1996; Peterson et al., 1982;
Peterson and Villanova, 1988) and the Content Analysis of Verbal Explanations (CAVE),
(Peterson et al., 1992). With the ASQ, respondents are given a series of hypothetical events
which have positive and negative outcomes. They are asked to indicate what they think
would be the one major cause of each of these positive and negative events if the situations
happened to them. They then are invited to rate these causes on three multipoint scales to
indicate the degree to which the causes are perceived as: (1) internal or external; (2) stable
or transient; and (3) global or specific. Ratings are combined to give indices of optimism and
pessimism. With the CAVE, explanations for positive and negative events are abstracted
from diaries, interview transcripts, newspaper quotations, or indeed any documents and
rated by experts using: the internal or external; stable or transient; and global or specific
rating scales of the ASQ. Ratings are combined to give indices of optimism and pessimism.
In addition to the ASQ and the CAVE, a children's version of the ASQ has also been
developed (Seligman et al., 1984; Seligman, 1998). A Relationship Attribution Measure
(RAM) has been developed to evaluate optimism within marriage (Finchman and Bradbury,
1992; Fincham, 2000). The Leeds Attributional Coding System provides a way of coding
optimistic explanations for events from transcripts of marital and family therapy (Stratton et
al., 1986).

Seligman and colleagues (Abramson et al., 2000; Gillham, 2000; Seligman, 1991, 1995,
1998b) carefully described the developmental roots of the optimistic explanatory style. To
begin, there appears to be some genetic component of explanatory style, with learned
optimism scores more highly correlated for monozygotic than dizygotic twins (Schulman,
Keith, & Seligman, 1993).Additionally, learned optimism appears to have roots in the
environment (or learning).Television watching is yet another potential source of pessimism.
American

Learned optimistic rather than pessimistic explanatory style associated with the following:
- Better academic performances (Beard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2010; Peterson & Barrett, 1987;
Seligman, 1998b)
- Superior athletic performances (Seligman, Nolen-Hoeksema, Thornton, & Thornton,
1990)
- More productive work records (Seligman & Schulman, 1986)
- Greater satisfaction in interpersonal relationships (Fincham, 2000)
- More effective coping with life stressors (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2000)
 - Less vulnerability to depression (Abramson et al., 2000)Superior physical health
(Peterson, 2000)Greater life satisfaction (Szcześniak & Soares, 2011)”

- How optimism works

Optimism and Motivation

Optimism fuels motivation, encouraging action even when facing challenges. Optimists
persist through setbacks by interpreting them as temporary and specific, avoiding negative
emotions that undermine confidence and effective coping (Carver & Scheier, 2002).

Optimism and Coping

Optimists use active strategies like problem-solving and stress management (Aspinwall &
Taylor, 1992). They adapt their coping style, tackling controllable stressors head-on and
using emotion-focused coping, such as acceptance and stress reduction, for uncontrollable
situations (Ness & Segerstrom, 2006).

Optimism and Positive Emotions

Optimism promotes positive emotions, which enhance creativity, resilience, and social
support. Fredrickson’s broaden-and-build theory links positive emotions to improved physical
health by boosting the immune system and mitigating the effects of negative emotions.

Optimism and Flexibility

Optimists exhibit flexibility in coping, distinguishing between what they can and cannot
control. They shift strategies accordingly, reducing futile efforts and focusing on emotional
resilience. This ability to adjust ensures effective responses to various life challenges,
maximizing success and well-being.

- Development of optimism
The development of optimism is influenced by parental mental health, role modeling,
and encouragement (Abramson et al., 2000; Seligman, 1998). Optimistic children
typically have non-depressed parents who model an optimistic explanatory style,
attributing successes to internal, stable factors and failures to external, temporary
ones. Families experiencing adversity can still foster optimism if they cope well.
Pessimistic children often come from families with depressed parents who model
pessimism and make critical internal attributions. Optimism is linked to better
physical health, academic and sports performance, and relationship satisfaction.
Optimistic individuals cope better with loss, showing resilience and positive life
changes.

- Neurobiology of optimism
Research suggests that brain structure, particularly the oxytocin system, may
influence an individual's level of optimism (Saphire-Bernstein et al., 2011). Higher
dispositional optimism is linked to a weaker cortisol response upon waking (Endrighi
et al., 2011). Studies also explore unrealistic optimism, where individuals
overestimate their chances of positive outcomes despite evidence to the contrary.
For instance, Sharot et al. (2011) found that individuals maintained overly optimistic
risk assessments even when presented with more accurate data. This "optimism
bias" is associated with lower brain activity in regions responsible for processing risk,
suggesting a neurological basis for optimism (Sharot, 2011).

- Types of Optimism

Hope Theory: Hope theory integrates dispositional optimism and explanatory style, focusing
on positive future expectations and agency. Snyder (1994) defines hope as a combination of
willpower (agency) and waypower (pathways thinking), where agency provides
determination and energy to pursue goals, while waypower ensures confidence in identifying
and adapting routes to achieve those goals. The Hope Scale assesses both components,
with items such as "I energetically pursue my goals" (agency) and "I can think of many ways
to get out of a jam" (pathways). Hope correlates with optimism and adds problem-solving
ability and self-motivation, contributing to better coping strategies and goal achievement.

Defensive Pessimism: Defensive pessimism is a strategy where individuals set low

expectations and anticipate negative outcomes to channel anxiety into productive
preparation, leading to successful performance (Norem & Cantor, 1986). While optimists set
high expectations and avoid excessive planning, defensive pessimists prepare thoroughly by
reflecting on potential failures, reducing anxiety, and enhancing performance confidence.
Though they perform as well as optimists, defensive pessimists may suffer from higher
anxiety and interpersonal challenges due to their persistent worrying. This strategy
emphasizes that there are alternative pathways to success beyond optimism.

Unrealistic Optimism: Unrealistic optimism occurs when individuals overestimate their

likelihood of experiencing positive outcomes while underestimating the risks of negative
events (Weinstein, 1980). This optimism bias can lead to dangerous behaviors, such as
neglecting health precautions or failing to plan for potential problems. While it offers comfort,
it may inhibit preventive action, resulting in higher susceptibility to health issues or life
challenges.

- Attributional retraining

Seligman (1998) developed programmes to shift explanatory styles from pessimism to

optimism, inspired by cognitive therapy models of Beck (1976) and Ellis (1975). Participants
monitor mood-altering situations using the ABC model: Adversity, Beliefs, and Consequent
mood changes. Negative beliefs tied to pessimistic styles (internal, global, stable
attributions) are replaced with optimistic ones (external, specific, transient).

Skills like distraction, distancing, and disputation aid this shift. Distraction stops
pessimistic rumination through techniques like saying "stop" or focusing on external objects.
Distancing involves recognizing beliefs as interpretations, not facts. Disputation replaces
pessimistic thoughts by questioning evidence, exploring alternatives, and evaluating
usefulness.

The ABCDE model (Adversity, Beliefs, Consequences, Disputation, Energisation) integrates

these skills to energize mood through optimistic reframing. For example, "My friend didn’t
call" could shift from self-blame to considering alternative reasons, reducing negative
emotions.

The Penn Optimism Programme applies these principles to children, combining cognitive
and behavioral training to build optimism, reduce depression, and enhance problem-solving
and coping skills.