روابط بین خوش بینی، سبک های مقابله ای و آسیب شناسی روانی و نتیجه مشاوره
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|35069||2004||15 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 36, Issue 8, June 2004, Pages 1755–1769
This study had two objectives. The first objective was to evaluate the discriminant validity of optimism by examining the relationships between optimism and coping styles, while controlling for psychopathology. The second objective was to evaluate how well optimism, coping styles, and psychopathology predicted counseling outcome. Participants consisted of 96 college students involved in individual counseling at a university counseling center located in the southeastern United States. Consistent with previous studies, optimism was positively correlated with task-oriented coping and social diversion (social support), and it was negatively correlated with emotion-oriented coping and avoidance (distraction) coping. However, after partially out psychopathology, only the relationship between optimism and task-oriented coping remained statistically different from zero. Both optimism and psychopathology predicted two measures of counseling outcome. In contrast, coping styles were not useful for predicting any of the outcome measures. Results provide limited support for the discriminant validity of optimism in general and the Life Orientation Test in particular.
Optimism and coping have risen to become two of the most widely researched constructs in the behavioral sciences (Peterson, 2000; Somerfield & McCrae, 2000). This popularity may be attributable to the many associations these characteristics share with important outcome variables (e.g., Brissette, Scheier, & Carver, 2002; Carver et al., 1993; Edwards & Trimble, 1992; Endler & Parker, 1999; Endler, Parker, & Butcher, 1993; Janzen, Kelly, & Saklofske, 1992; Livneh, 2000; Lussier, Sabourin, & Turgeon, 1997; Naquin & Gilbert, 1996; Raikkonen, Matthews, Flory, Owens, & Gump, 1999; Scheier & Carver, 1985; Uehara, Sakado, Sakado, Sato, & Someya, 1999). Optimism and coping even share some common correlates. For example, both emotion-oriented coping and lower levels of optimism have been associated with negative affectivity and somatic complaints (e.g., Andersson, 1996; Endler & Parker, 1999; Raikkonen et al., 1999; Scheier & Carver, 1985; Smith, Pope, Rhodewalt, & Poulton, 1989; Vickers & Vogeltanz, 2000). One potential explanation for these shared relationships is that optimism and coping styles interact with one another to produce how an individual responds to a stressful or challenging situation (Scheier, Weintraub, & Carver, 1986). Shedding some light on this hypothesis, numerous investigations have explored the relationships between optimism and various coping styles (Carver et al., 1993; Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989; Fournier, de Ridder, & Bensing, 1999; Grove & Heard, 1997; Harju & Bolen, 1998; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994; Scheier et al., 1986; Strutton & Lumpkin, 1993). In general, these studies have found that higher levels of optimism are associated with a greater use of more active coping strategies (e.g., problem-oriented coping, planning, seeking social support), whereas lower levels of optimism are associated with a greater use of emotion-oriented and avoidance coping strategies (e.g., emotional ventilation, behavioral disengagement). Despite this general conclusion, there are several methodological problems associated with this body of literature. First, many of the aforementioned investigations failed to control for potential third variables, such as neuroticism or psychological distress. This omission is important because several studies have challenged the discriminant validity of optimism (e.g., Boland & Cappeliez, 1997; Smith et al., 1989). As an example, Smith et al. (1989) found that the relationships between optimism and coping styles nearly disappeared after controlling for neuroticism. These authors argued that optimism is basically indistinguishable from the construct of neuroticism. Although a subsequent study offered evidence to counter this criticism (Scheier et al., 1994), the distinctiveness of optimism continues to remain an unresolved issue. Second, most of the previous studies used the total score from the Life Orientation Test (LOT ; Scheier & Carver, 1985) to measure dispositional optimism. Several studies have indicated the LOT really measures two separate constructs (optimism and pessimism), and these two constructs should be considered separately ( Marshall, Wortman, Kusulas, Hervig, & Vickers, 1992; Mroczek, Spiro, Aldwin, Ozer, & Bosse, 1993; Raikkonen et al., 1999; Scheier & Carver, 1985). Third, nearly all of the previous studies used either the COPE or Ways of Coping Checklist (WCCL) to measure participants’ preferred coping styles. Information on the psychometric properties of these instruments raises concerns about their internal characteristics, and consequently, the meaning of scale scores (see Carver et al., 1989; Cook & Heppner, 1997; Endler & Parker, 1990; Lyne & Roger, 2000; Mishel & Sorenson, 1993; Strutton & Lumpkin, 1993; Vitaliano, Russo, Carr, Maiuro, & Becker, 1985). Finally, rather than treating optimism as a continuous variable, several researchers divided participants into groups of optimists and pessimists for the purposes of data analysis ( Harju & Bolen, 1998; Rim, 1990; Strutton & Lumpkin, 1993). This decision was unfortunate because dichotomizing a continuous variable reduces the amount of variance that can be accounted for by that variable and unnecessarily reduces statistical power ( Cohen, 1983). Even if the relationships between optimism and coping styles can be accurately described, it remains unclear how assessment of these characteristics might be helpful to practitioners involved in direct client care. Coyne and Racioppo (2000) have criticized the coping literature for being irrelevant to the needs of practitioners involved in the provision of psychotherapy. This same criticism could also be directed at the optimism literature. Including these constructs into clinical research programs might be a step toward bridging the gap between personality and clinical research. Notwithstanding its potential value as a predictor variable, we located only a single study that specifically evaluated the relationship between optimism and therapy outcome. Strack, Carver, and Blaney (1987) examined the relationship between optimism and completion of a 90-day aftercare program for substance abusers. As predicted, higher levels of optimism were associated with completion of the aftercare program, explaining a moderate amount of variation in the outcome variable. Because the individuals in this sample represented a somewhat unique population (i.e., highly motivated patients willing to complete a 90-day aftercare program), it is uncertain how well this finding might generalize to other clinical populations and treatment settings. Regarding the coping literature, we were unable to locate any studies that examined the relationships between preferred coping styles and treatment outcome. Given their importance in other domains, optimism and coping styles may be informative for understanding the outcome differences exhibited by clients involved in mental health services. The first objective of our study was to reexamine the relationships between optimism and coping styles, attempting to remedy a few of the deficiencies associated with previous studies. First, rather than using the total LOT score to provide an index of dispositional optimism, we decided to use all three potential scores derived from the revised Life Orientation Test (Scheier et al., 1994) to evaluate the discriminative validity of optimism. Second, rather than using neuroticism as a covariate, we used a broader measure of psychopathology. Because our study took place in a clinical setting, we reasoned that a measure of psychopathology would be more relevant than neuroticism given that these inventories are routinely administered in these settings. Third, we decided to measure coping styles using the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS; Endler & Parker, 1999) because of the inventory’s clear-cut factor structure and strong psychometric characteristics (Cook & Heppner, 1997; Endler and Parker, 1994 and Endler and Parker, 1999). We expected that a more parsimonious and straightforward measure of coping might better illuminate the complex relationships between optimism and coping styles. The second objective was to evaluate whether knowledge of optimism, coping styles, or psychopathology would be useful for explaining variance in counseling outcome. We pursued this objective for both theoretical and practical reasons. From a theoretical standpoint, knowledge of these characteristics might be useful for understanding the individual differences exhibited by people in response to counseling. Furthermore, should optimism emerge as a useful predictor of psychotherapy outcome, such a finding would contribute to the discriminant validity of this construct. From a practical standpoint, these constructs might provide clinicians with useful information for understanding and predicting how clients respond to mental health interventions. Clinicians routinely administer assessment inventories that provide information about a client’s initial level of psychopathology (e.g., Piotrowski, 1999), which has been identified as a predictor of treatment outcome (e.g., Luborsky et al., 1993). However, in addition to assessing psychopathology, Harkness and Lilienfeld (1997) recommend that clinicians also assess relevant personality characteristics that might affect the treatment planning process. We wanted to evaluate whether assessment of optimism or coping styles enhanced the prediction of counseling outcome, both alone and in comparison to a measure of psychopathology. If optimism or coping styles enhanced the prediction of treatment outcome, then clinicians might be interested in assessing these constructs as part of the initial assessment protocol.