User:Amber12

Any suggestions of how to cut down on the word count are welcome, I still need to cut things out :)

Optimism as human nature
One approach to optimism regards it as an inherent aspect of human nature. Freud was amount the earliest writers on optimism, describing it negatively as a widespread neurosis that prevents us from facing the cold hard facts of reality (Peterson, 2000). Freud’s ideas gained popularity from the 1930s, with many theorists adopting the idea that unhealthy psychological functioning was the result of an inaccurate perception of reality (Peterson, 2000)(Click for more information on 'Reality testing'). The thinking on optimism has shifted since this time, due to a large body of research finding not only that most people hold overly positive evaluations of themselves, but that this is particularly characteristic of psychologically healthy individuals (Peterson, 2000). Most of us we tend to remember positive personality information better than negative personality information, take responsibility for more positive events than negative events, and judge positive attributes to be considerably more characteristic of ourselves than negative attributes (Taylor & Brown, 1988). This is referred to as the Optimistic bias - (See more on the Optimism bias). Taylor and Brown (1988) found that the only individuals who do not show this positivity are those who are depressed or anxious.

Although the majority of us show this optimistic bias, researchers distinguish between realistic and unrealistic optimism. If there is sufficient reason to think that good things will happen in the future, we can have an optimistic and realistic outlook (Forgeard & Seligman, 2012). Yet, we can also have an optimistic yet unrealistic view of the future, if we believe things will go well even when evidence suggest otherwise (Forgeard & Seligman, 2012). For example, most people underestimate their risks when asked to estimate the likelihood that they will someday experience an illness or injury (Peterson, 2000). When Dillard, McCaul and Klein (2006) evaluated the perceived-risk of 943 smokers, most held the unrealistic belief that they are at a lower risk of developing lung cancer than other similar smokers. They were also less likely to plan on quitting and more likely to believe that a greater number of lung cancer patients are cured. Similarly, Baunlan and Siegel (1987; as cited by Weinstein, 1989) found that few gay men who engaged in high-risk sex rated their risk of contracting AIDS as high. As we will see, unrealistic optimism can have serious consequences for one’s health and success.

Dispositional Optimism
Psychologists who are interested in individual differences consider optimism as a characteristic people possess to varying degrees. This is compatible with the human-nature approach to optimism; our human nature provides a baseline of optimism, of which we can show more or less (Forgeard & Seligman, 2012). The dispositional optimism approach defines optimism as a personality trait whereby one has a generalised expectancy for positive outcomes in the future (Carver, Scheier & Segerstrom, 2010). This approach to optimism first arose in relation to self-regulatory theory, which views all of human behaviour as revolving around the identification and attainment of goals (Peterson, 2000) (See more on Self-regulation theory). Scheier and Carver (1986) found that optimists continue to believe their goals can be achieved in the face of difficulties, which leads them to continue their efforts by applying various coping strategies. This research led to a more modern 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) (Carver, Scheier & Segerstrom, 2010). According to Scheier and Carver (1992), optimism and pessimism are broad, generalized versions of confidence and doubt relating to life, rather than to just a specific context.

Dispositional optimism is often assessed using self-report questionnaires such as the revised version of the Life Orientation Test (LOT-R) and the Optimism & Pessimism Scale (Dember et al., 1989; as cited by Peterson, 2000). The LOT-R is designed to assess whether respondents generally expect outcomes in their lives to be positive or negative - (Click here and take the LOT-R yourself!) (Peterson, 2000). The Optimism & Pessimism Scale is similar, yet provides independent scores for optimism and pessimism under the view that they are not two traits constituting the two ends of the same spectrum, but are two independent constructs which are moderately to strongly related (Forgeard & Seligman, 2012). As we will see, the debate of whether pessimism and optimism are bi-polar opposites is still an important discussion in the literature.

Optimism as attributional style
Another way in which optimism has been conceptualized and measured is using the attributional style approach, developed by Seligman and colleagues (1995; as cited by Peterson, 2000). From this perspective, optimism is considered in terms of how we explain the causes of good and bad events. It was inspired the phenomenon of “learned helplessness” - Seligman’s finding that most people become helpless when consistently exposed to uncontrollable negative events, and that they tend to continue acting helpeless even the negative events become controllable (Read more on learned helplessness). Seligman went on to investigate why some individuals never become helpless by examining how people make judgements about the causes of situations they encounter, referred to as a person’s attributional or explanatory style (Read more on Explanatory styles). Every attribution we make, from winning at cards to being fired from a job, varies along several dimensions: Researchers have shown that the way people explain events can develop into lifelong explanatory styles (haines-Ref). Seligman found that the degree of optimism or pessimism in people’s explanatory styles has a large influence on motivation, mood, and performance ability. (Read more on how attributions effect motivation, and emotion)
 * Internal vs external locus of control: we can see events as either caused by our own actions, or caused by uncontrollable environmental factors
 * Stability vs instability: we can see these factors as either stable and consistent over time, or unstable and varying; and
 * Specific vs. global: we can see these causal factors as either limited to one context, or applying across a range of situations.

Individuals with optimistic attributional styles tend to see failure as the result of external causes (“I failed the maths test because it was unfair”) and of events that are specific (“this one setback won’t affect my other subject scores”) and unstable or modifiable (“I will try harder next time”). In contrast, individuals with pessimistic attributional styles tend to see failure as generated by internal, stable and global causes (“I failed because I am stupid – I will never get any better and it will affect everything I attempt”). The explanations are reversed when it comes to success; optimists take full internal-stable-global credit for success, while pessimists attribute their success to external-unstable-specific factors. Because pessimisists believe themselves doomed to fail, they tend to perform worse on objective measures of talent (text book – psych n life).

test
hfidobfsjkd
 * red
 * green
 * blue

bghis
 * 1) Numbered list item1
 * 2) Numbered list item2
 * 3) Numbered list item3

links
Go back to Motivation and emotion

Go to googlllle

test
hello hello --Amber12 (discuss • contribs) 01:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)hello hello