Abstract
Optimism and pessimism are cognitive expectancies regarding future events, whereas counterfactual thinking is the cognitive process of imagining alternatives to events that occurred in the past. The purpose of this study was to conceptualize dispositional optimism and pessimism within the context of norm theory and examine relationships between dispositional optimism and pessimism and counterfactual thinking. Undergraduate students (N = 833) completed measures of counterfactual thinking and optimism and pessimism. After controlling for the effects of positive and negative affect, it was found that downward counterfactual thinking (imagining how things could have been worse) was associated with optimism and that upward styles of counterfactual thinking (imagining how things could have been better) were associated with pessimism. These results suggest that thinking about past events is consistent with expectations about the future.
. Results
Preliminary analyses found no violation of assumptions. Correlations between all variables are displayed in Table 1. Two hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted using the four counterfactual thinking styles to predict optimism and pessimism, while controlling for positive and negative affect. The first hierarchical multiple regression found that the nonreferent downward style (B = .150, β = .188, p < .001, 95% CI [.099, .201]) was the only statistically significant predictor of optimism after controlling for positive and negative affect, F (6, 826) = 43.662, p < .001, R = .491, R2 = .241, adjusted R2 = .235, and R2 change = .032 ( Table 2). A second multiple regression found that the nonreferent upward style (B = .136, β = .177, p < .001, 95% CI [.065, .207]) and the self-referent upward style (B = .077, β = .096, p < .041, 95% CI [.003, .152]) were the only significant predictors of pessimism after controlling for positive and negative affect, F (6, 826) = 29.159, R = .418, R2 = .175, adjusted R2 = .169, R2 change = .069 ( Table 3).
Table 1.
Correlations, mean, and standard deviations for variables.
Nonreferent downward Other referent upward Self-referent upward Nonreferent upward Optimism Pessimism Positive affect Negative affect M (SD)
Nonreferent downward 1 .230⁎⁎ .271⁎⁎ .197⁎⁎ .232⁎⁎ .036 .225⁎⁎ − .005 12.80 (3.330)
Other referent upward – 1 .460⁎⁎ .483⁎⁎ − .120⁎⁎ .242⁎⁎ − .011 .300⁎⁎ 11.64 (3.976)
Self-referent upward – – 1 .715⁎⁎ − .105⁎⁎ .308⁎⁎ − .014 .340⁎⁎ 12.14 (3.494)
Nonreferent upward – – – 1 − .142⁎⁎ .343⁎⁎ − .045 .373⁎⁎ 12.56 (3.678)
Optimism – – – – 1 − .395⁎⁎ .368⁎⁎ − .301⁎⁎ 10.31 (2.651)
Pessimism – – – – – 1 − .146⁎⁎ .301⁎⁎ 8.72 (2.821)
Positive affect – – – – – – 1 − .083⁎ 17.42 (3.40)
Negative affect – – – – – – – 1 12.22 (3.459)
⁎
p < .05.
⁎⁎
p < .01.
Table options
Table 2.
Linear regression for optimism after controlling for affect dependent variable: optimism.
Step 1 Step 2 CI SE
B (β) B (β)
Nonreferent downward .150 (.188)⁎⁎ (.099, .201) .026
Other referent upward − .043 (− .065) (− .090, .004) .024
Self-referent upward − .014 (− .018) (− .081, .053) .034
Nonreferent upward − .023 (− .032) (− .087, .041) .033
Positive affect .269 (.345) .236 (.303) (.222, .317) .024
Negative affect − .209 (− .272) − .182 (− .237) (− .255, − .162) .024
Note: R2 = .241, adjusted R2 = .235, R2Δ = .032.
⁎⁎
p < .001.
Table options
Table 3.
Linear regression for pessimism after controlling for affect dependent variable: pessimism.
Step 1 Step 2 CI SE
B (β) B (β)
Nonreferent downward − .009 (− .011) (− .066, .048) .029
Other referent upward .043 (.061) (− .009, .096) .027
Self-referent upward .077 (.096)⁎ (.003, .152) .038
Nonreferent upward .136 (.177)⁎⁎ (.065, .207) .036
Positive affect − .102 (− .122) − .099 (− .120) (− .155, − .048) .027
Negative affect .237 (.291) .142 (.174) (.185, .290) .027
Note: R2 = .175, Adjusted R2 = .169, R2Δ = .069.
⁎
p < .05.
⁎⁎
p < .001.
