آیا خوشبینی و بدبینی روابط مختلف با ابعاد شخصیتی دارند؟ بررسی مجدد

Abstract The classic, well-cited study by Marshall et al. (1992) demonstrated that optimism correlates stronger with extraversion than does pessimism and pessimism correlates stronger with neuroticism than does optimism, and these results lent support to their claim that optimism and pessimism are two separate constructs. However, we argued that their results are likely the outcome of scale artefact caused by item valence (or item favorability). In an empirical study (N = 1016), we evaluated the correlation of optimism scores and pessimism scores with the most common measure of optimism – Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R). As expected, when item valence effect was not controlled, we replicated the finding by Marshall et al. (1992) that optimism and pessimism show differential correlations with extraversion and neuroticism. After item valence was controlled such pattern of relationships was greatly reduced. Suggestions for future research to resolve the dimensionality debate for optimism–pessimism are discussed.

. Introduction Drawing an accurate conclusion regarding the dimensionality of a construct has substantive implications for future research and practice. One important example is the construct of optimism. Some researchers believed that optimism is an unidimensional construct, with optimism at one pole of the dimension and pessimism at the other; others argued that optimism and pessimism are distinct constructs. This debate has continued for two decades but has yet to reach a firm conclusion. As the original authors of the scales recently stated, “It [the answer to the dimensionality of optimism] remains an important clinical as well as theoretical question, in that some have argued that interventions should be targeted to address optimistic as well as pessimistic cognition” (Carver, Scheier, & Segerstrom, 2010, p. 3). In addition, if optimism is two-dimensional, academic researchers will need to treat optimism scores and pessimism scores separately when examining their potential relationships with other variables. In contrast, if optimism is unidimensional, such efforts would be futile. The argument for its bi-dimensionality comes from an early study correlating optimism and pessimism with personality (Marshall, Wortman, Kusulas, Hervig, & Vickers, 1992). The purpose of the current study is to re-examine these correlations. We argue that past research concerning the distinct correlations for optimism and pessimism on personality can simply be the result of scale artefact. More specifically, we argue that the valence of optimism and pessimism items influence how the scale scores correlate with other constructs. Before we elaborate on our explanation, we will first review briefly the debate regarding the dimensionality of optimism.

5. Conclusion Carver et al. (2010) recently called for more research effort to examine the dimensionality of optimism because of the important theoretical and practical implications of this question. Based on the theory by Kam and Meyer (2011), the current paper has made substantive contribution to this line of research. The pronounced finding by Marshall et al. (1992) that optimism and pessimism correlate differently with other personality variables is likely due to the artefact caused by valence. In addition, valence has probably affected the results of some of the other correlational analyses on optimism and pessimism, and we caution readers to beware of these effects. Finally, we made recommendations for future research on testing the dimensionality of optimism–pessimism and other constructs. We hope that these recommendations will help the field to settle the debate regarding the dimensionality of optimism.