Submit your order instructions

Get essay writer assigned

Receive your completed paper

Optimism scale development

This undergraduate lab report, written by our paper writer, delves into the development of an optimism scale, exploring the constructs of optimism and pessimism through various existing measures. It investigates whether these traits are opposites or distinct constructs and introduces a new scale to measure realistic and unrealistic optimism. The lab report utilizes APA citations to anchor its findings in scholarly research, providing a robust analysis of optimism’s psychological implications.

September 17, 2024

* The sample essays are for browsing purposes only and are not to be submitted as original work to avoid issues with plagiarism.

Optimism Scale Development

Student Name

Institution

Course

Instructor

Date

Optimism Scale Development

Generally, positive prospects about the future are defined as optimism, while negative or

hopeless perspectives about the future are defined as pessimism. Both are inevitable in life and

are indicated by research as important parts of learning and psychological balance (Craig et al.,

2021). Craig et al. (2021) suggest that finding a balance, so one does not despair when the future

does not look positive and does not become unrealistic about positive prospects is essential.

However, optimism is an adaptive construct, especially when things do not appear to go in one's

favor. One tends to focus on the positive prospects in a bad situation hence optimism, while

pessimistic-oriented individuals tend to focus on what is wrong in their lives (Schieret al., 2021).

Endurance with the hope for a better future is an important characteristic in optimistic attitudes,

which may not be present in pessimistic individuals. Dejected moods characterize pessimistic

individuals; generally, hopelessness, worries about the future and discouragement. Due to these

factors, prolonged pessimistic attitudes will likely evolve into acute anxiety and stress (Schieret

al., 2021). It is unclear whether pessimism is an adaptive construct or a sign of accepting a bad

situation and maintaining a negative attitude instead of raising one's hopes that better will come

(Schieret al., 2021). Moreover, it is possible that one could be unrealistically pessimistic due to

the continued negative experience so that they fail to notice some of the practical opportunities

or highly likely sources of hope for the future. This then generates three important factors: one

could be realistically optimistic despite enduring challenging situations, or one could be just

hopeless about the future and understandably dejected, or another could be experiencing negative

emotions that they fail to see presentable situations that could generate hope for a better future.

Due to the need for balance between pessimism and optimism in an individual's life, most

empirically developed measures of optimism and pessimism assume that the two are similar and

only work in the opposite direction (Rasmussen et al., 2006). However, studies suggest that

optimism and pessimism could be entirely different constructs, let alone the same construct on

opposite measurement points (Craig et al., 2021). The operational definition of realistic optimism

considers the rational hope that the future will be positive based on practically available

limitations. There is no room for self-deception, and both the positive and potential limitations of

realistic optimism are considered. On the other hand, Schneider (2001) notes that unrealistic

optimism differs from realistic optimism in that the former does not take into consideration the

reality that there could be limitations to the optimism. Dolinski et al. (2021) capture unrealistic

optimism as the state where one considers themselves safer than others in the same environment

despite all individuals facing similar perils and having similar [limited] resources to avoid the

peril. This study brings a new perspective that unrealistic optimism is biased and could be an

individual's way of escaping reality or coping with difficult situations with which there does not

seem to be a way out.

Realistic optimism, on the other hand, is considered fuzzy and counter-intuitive by some

researchers. This is because optimism is usually subjectively biased toward positive feelings,

whereas being realistic is choosing to forego biases and assess one's environment as it is. If there

is any form of positivity when being realistic, it is due to the assessed knowledge that the future

will bring hope with a significant likelihood. If left alone without the important check of being

realistic, according to Schneider (2001), optimism can only lead to "self-deception." Realistic

optimism is built upon the important check of predicting the future from the point of knowledge

rather than personal desired beliefs. Under the illusion of control, Jefferson et al. (2016)

intimated that this is the individual's ability to control external and independent events, while the

perception of being better than average is characterized by viewing oneself as superior to others.

Jefferson et al. (2016) hold that realistic optimism gives space for reasoning and evaluating the

situation. Other studies consider pessimism as a situation when one has despaired due to the

constant consumption of negative information or observing that the environment is hostile to

one's future aspirations. For one to be pessimistic, they are dejected from objectively evaluating

their environments and finding not much that could assure them of a better future. The

characteristic emotions are defined by realistic assessment, leading to one being convinced that

they do not have much to look forward to.

Existing Measures of Optimism

In the Revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R), optimism and pessimism are considered

similar constructs (Vautier et al., 2003). The scale was developed by observing participants'

attitudes and individual perceptions about their futures. Optimism about the future was attributed

to factors ranging from genetic-related factors to societal norms to the cultural environment

accrued over the subjects' lives. The resulting scale consisted of half of the items capturing

pessimistic tendencies and the other half capturing optimistic factors. Smith et al. (1989)

criticized the assumption of opposing sides of the same construct: pessimism and optimism. The

researchers indicated that the traits describing an optimistic viewpoint had elements of

personality traits (neuroticism) that are not differentiable. Despite the test showing high validity

and consistency across cultures, LOT-R, a 10-item scale measuring dispositional optimism, is

suspect of considering optimism and pessimism opposite factors of the same construct.

The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) was developed by Diener et al.,(1985) and

progressively tested for reliability and validity to capture the cognitive component of positivity

and satisfaction with life. While this scale is based on subjective well-being and captures the

affective component of subjective well-being, it does not serve the purpose of measuring

optimism (either realistic optimism or unrealistic optimism) or pessimism as independent

constructs (Diener et al.,1985). However, due to SWLS's ability to capture global cognitive

perspectives of satisfaction, this study suggests that either the RO subscale or UO subscale or

both RO and UO subscales will positively affect the 5-item SWLS.

On the other hand, the Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) captures

to what extent an individual perceives they experience positive or negative moods or both

positive and negative moods (Thomas, 2007). This scale is key in that both positive and negative

affect are considered independent, but both positive and negative affect can show high scores in

the same individual. Positive affect states could include being alert, joy, happiness and optimism

about the future. Negative states include distress, anger, guilt, shame, and anxiety. The

significance of the PANAS is that both states could affect the overall perception of optimism or

pessimism. Thus, the newly developed RO scale or UO or both RO and UO subscales are likely

to have a positive and strong linear correlation with the positive affect subscale of PANAS. On

the other hand, the negative affect subscale of PANAS is likely to have a strong and positive

correlation with the P subscale in the new scale.

Openness under the 'big 5' personality trait is characterized by curiosity, adventure, trying

out new ideas, and generally being curious. Based on this prospect, the RO and UO subscales are

likely to have no association with the openness trait as one of the big 5 personality traits

(Donellan et al., 2006). Moreover, due to the higher scores in self-thought, self-consciousness,

and self-control under the conscientious personality trait, it is unlikely that the UO subscale in

the proposed optimism scale will correlate with conscientiousness. Discriminant validity of the

UO subscale will have a weak correlation with the scores for the conscientiousness subscale of

the 'big 5' personality trait.

The measure of optimism being linked with pessimism is also identified in the Optimism-

Pessimism (OP) scale, which captures optimism as a continuum (low optimism equates to high

pessimism) (Burke et al., 2000). The scale contains 56 items, each answered on a four-point

Likert Scale. A critique of the use of the OP scale is the lack of internal validity in measuring

optimism. Burke et al. (2000), in a sample of 154 volunteer university student participants,

investigated the concurrent validity of LOT-R and the OP scale. The findings showed that LOT-R

tended to measure "trait" optimism while the OP scale tended to measure "state" optimism

(Burke et al., 2000). Both scales also appeared to suggest different measures when participants'

race was accounted for.

Justification for the Proposed Scale

Existing measures of optimism are built on the idea that optimism and pessimism are

similar constructs; hence, it is necessary to measure optimism in isolation and understand its core

dimensions (Smith et al., 1989; Vautier et al., 2003). Second, measuring optimism as an

individual construct means the inevitable classification of whether the optimism is unrealistic or

realistic (Burke et al., 2000). The LOT-R, for instance, is applied in the measure of optimism, yet

analyses by Terrill et al. (2002) suggest that the LOT-R could be manipulated by "faking hope."

Based on this argument, LOT-R fails to distinguish between UO and RO. The proposed scale

attempts to fill this gap of knowledge. On the other hand, the satisfaction with life scale (SWLS)

fails to capture subjective well-being adequately due to the SWLS' characteristic of leaning

towards the affective aspect rather than the cognitive aspect. This analysis holds that RO and

subjective well-being likely have a moderate or strong linear association. Subjective well-being,

however, is limited under the SWLS.

Hypothesis about Expected Factor Structure of the New Scale

The core hypotheses for the development of the optimism scale are:

i. This study hypothesizes that the proposed scale for optimism will be

multidimensional, with three core factors, realistic optimism, unrealistic optimism, and

pessimism

ii. To test convergent validity, it was hypothesized that there would be a moderate

positive correlation between the RO subscale of the new optimism measure and the LOT-

R (Scheier et al., 1994).

iii. To test convergent validity, it was hypothesized that there would be a moderate to

a strong positive correlation between the UO subscale of the new optimism measure and

the satisfaction with life measure (Diener et al., 1985).

iv. To test convergent validity, it was hypothesized that there would be a moderate to

a strong, positive correlation between the P subscale of the new optimism measure and

the Negative affect subscale of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Thompson,

2007).

v. To test discriminant validity, it was hypothesized that there would be no

correlation between the RO subscale of the new optimism measure and the Openness

subscale from the Mini-IPIP (Donellan et al., 2006).

vi. To test discriminant validity, it was hypothesized that there would be a weak

correlation between the UO subscale of the new optimism measure and the conscientious

subscale of the Mini-IPIP (Donellan et al., 2006).

vii. To test discriminant validity, it was hypothesized that there would be a weak

correlation between the P subscale of the new optimism measure and the positive affect

subscale of PANAS (Thompson, 2007)

References

Burke, K. L., Joyner, A. B., Czech, D. R., & Wilson, M. J. (2000). An investigation of concurrent

validity between two optimism/pessimism questionnaires: The life orientation test-

revised and the optimism/pessimism scale. Current Psychology, 19(2), 129-136. https://

doi.org/10.1007/s12144-000-1009-5

Craig, H., Freak-Poli, R., Phyo, A. Z. Z., Ryan, J., & Gasevic, D. (2021). The association of

optimism and pessimism and all-cause mortality: A systematic review. Personality and

Individual Differences, 177, 110788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110788

Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale.

Journal of personality assessment, 49(1), 71-75. https://doi.org/10.1207/

s15327752jpa4901_13

Dolinski, D., Kulesza, W., Muniak, P., Dolinska, B., Węgrzyn, R., & Izydorczak, K. (2022).

Media intervention program for reducing unrealistic optimism bias: The link between

unrealistic optimism, well-being, and health. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-

Being, 14(2), 499-518. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12316

Donnellan, M. B., Oswalk, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP scales:

Tiny yet effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological

Assessment, 18(2), 192-203. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192

Jefferson, A., Bortolotti, L., & Kuzmanovic, B. (2017). What is unrealistic

optimism?. Consciousness and cognition, 50, 3-11. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2016.10.005

Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2009). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. In Assessing well-

being (pp. 101-117). Springer, Dordrecht. DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-2354-4_5

Rasmussen, H. N., Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (2006). Self-regulation processes

and health: the importance of optimism and goal adjustment. Journal of

personality, 74(6), 1721-1748. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00426.x

Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from

neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A re-evaluation of the Life

Orientation. Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063-1078. doi:

10.1037//0022-3514.67.6.1063

Schneider, S. L. (2001). In search of realistic optimism: Meaning, knowledge, and warm

fuzziness. American psychologist, 56(3), 250. doi:10.1037//0003-066x.56.3.250

Smith, T. W., Pope, M. K., Rhodewalt, F., & Poulton, J. L. (1989). Optimism, neuroticism,

coping, and symptom reports: an alternative interpretation of the Life Orientation Test.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(4), 640-648.

DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.56.4.640

Terrill, D. R., Friedman, D. G., Gottschalk, L. A., & Haaga, D. A. (2002). Construct validity of

the life orientation test. Journal of Personality Assessment, 79(3), 550-563.

DOI: 10.1207/S15327752JPA7903_09

Thompson, Edmund R. "Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of

the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS)." Journal of cross-cultural psychology

38.2 (2007): 227-242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297301

Vautier, S., Raufaste, E., & Cariou, M. (2003). Dimensionality of the Revised Life Orientation

Test and the status of filler items. International Journal of Psychology, 38(6), 390-400.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590344000222

Weinstein, N. D. (1982). Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems. Journal of

behavioral medicine, 5(4), 441-460. doi: 10.1007/BF00845372

September 17, 2024

24/7 custom essay writing by real academic writers

WPH

Academic level:

Undergraduate 3-4

Type of paper:

Lab report

Discipline:

Statistics

Citation:

APA

Pages:

7 (1925 words)