Social acceptance of comparative optimism and realism

Studies of optimism and realism (the accuracy of people's outlook on the future) seek to understand the respective effects of these elements on social approbation. Two experiments examined how comparative optimism (vs. pessimism) and realism (vs. unrealism) interacted to influence the targets' social acceptance based on their perceptions about the future. The results showed that realism, or accuracy of prediction, increased the positive social effects of a comparatively optimistic outlook on the future. In contrast, targets who exhibited comparative pessimism were more socially acceptable when their predictions were unrealistic rather than realistic. This phenomenon was examined by also considering the polarity of the events about which judgments were expressed. These results contribute to the body of research about the relationship between optimism and pessimism and the relationship between optimism and realism.     

What is unrealistic optimism?

Here we consider the nature of unrealistic optimism and other related positive illusions. We are interested in whether cognitive states that are unrealistically optimistic are belief states, whether they are false, and whether they are epistemically irrational. We also ask to what extent unrealistically optimistic cognitive states are fixed. Based on the classic and recent empirical literature on unrealistic optimism, we offer some preliminary answers to these questions, thereby laying the foundations for answering further questions about unrealistic optimism, such as whether it has biological, psychological, or epistemic benefits.     

Unrealistic Optimism and Positive-Negative Asymmetry: A Conceptual and Cross-cultural Study of Interrelationships between Optimism,Pessimism, and Realism

Using a variant of Weinstein's (1980) technique for the measurement of unrealistic optimism, subjects were classified as optimistic, realistic, or pessimistic about their chances of being confronted in the future with problems such as divorce, nervous breakdown, etc. On the basis of previous theory and research on cognition and affect, it was hypothesized that, across problems, subjects would alternate optimism with realism rather than with pessimism. Cross-cultural data obtained from 19 samples of Belgian, Moroccan, and Polish subjects not only confirmed the hypothesis but also showed high agreement about the nature of the problems that were selectively associated with optimism, realism and pessimism.     

A pessimistic view of optimistic belief updating

Received academic wisdom holds that human judgment is characterized by unrealistic optimism, the tendency to underestimate the likelihood of negative events and overestimate the likelihood of positive events. With recent questions being raised over the degree to which the majority of this research genuinely demonstrates optimism, attention to possible mechanisms generating such a bias becomes ever more important. New studies have now claimed that unrealistic optimism emerges as a result of biased belief updating with distinctive neural correlates in the brain. On a behavioral level, these studies suggest that, for negative events, desirable information is incorporated into personal risk estimates to a greater degree than undesirable information (resulting in a more optimistic outlook). However, using task analyses, simulations, and experiments we demonstrate that this pattern of results is a statistical artifact. In contrast with previous work, we examined participants’ use of new information with reference to the normative, Bayesian standard. Simulations reveal the fundamental difficulties that would need to be overcome by any robust test of optimistic updating. No such test presently exists, so that the best one can presently do is perform analyses with a number of techniques, all of which have important weaknesses. Applying these analyses to five experiments shows no evidence of optimistic updating. These results clarify the difficulties involved in studying human ‘bias’ and cast additional doubt over the status of optimism as a fundamental characteristic of healthy cognition.     

What do people think about when answering questionnaires to assess unrealistic optimism about skin cancer? A think aloud study

There is little information concerning what people think about when completing questionnaires that assess perceptions of risk, and even less for questionnaires assessing unrealistic optimism. The thoughts of 40 participants who displayed unrealistic optimism about risks of skin cancer were elicited using think aloud methods, when completing both direct and indirect ratings of unrealistic optimism. The most common thoughts overall concerned exposure to the sun, and features such as skin colouring. Thoughts concerning prevalence, reasons for risky behaviour and admissions of ignorance were more common for indirect measures of unrealistic optimism than for direct measures. The direct unrealistic optimism measures yielded more optimistic ratings for those participants who did not mention symptoms or signs of skin damage, and those who mentioned thoughts about prevalence. Participants seem to be drawing upon different sources of information when completing superficially similar direct and indirect measures of unrealistic optimism, which may explain why these measures are usually only modestly associated. People do not seem to think about numerical probabilities when estimating risk, but instead appear to focus on issues such as exposure to risk, and concrete bodily symptoms and signs. This may at least partially explain why attempts to influence behaviour by providing probabilistic information are generally unsuccessful.     

Accuracy, error, and bias in predictions for real versus hypothetical events

Participants made predictions about performance on tasks that they did or did not expect to complete. In three experiments, participants in task-unexpected conditions were unrealistically optimistic: They overestimated how well they would perform, often by a large margin, and their predictions were not correlated with their performance. By contrast, participants assigned to task-expected conditions made predictions that were not only less optimistic but strikingly accurate. Consistent with predictions from construal level theory, data from a fourth experiment suggest that it is the uncertainty associated with hypothetical tasks, and not a lack of cognitive processing, that frees people to make optimistic prediction errors. Unrealistic optimism, when it occurs, may be truly unrealistic; however, it may be less ubiquitous than has been previously suggested.     

In Defense of “Denial”: Difficulty Knowing When Beliefs Are Unrealistic and Whether Unrealistic Beliefs Are Bad

Bioethicists often draw sharp distinctions between hope and states like denial, self-deception, and unrealistic optimism. But what, exactly, is the difference between hope and its more suspect cousins? One common way of drawing the distinction focuses on accuracy of belief about the desired outcome: Hope, though perhaps sometimes misplaced, does not involve inaccuracy in the way that these other states do. Because inaccurate beliefs are thought to compromise informed decision making, bioethicists have considered these states to be ones where intervention is needed either to correct the person’s mental state or to persuade the person to behave differently, or even to deny the person certain options (e.g., another round of chemotherapy). In this article, we argue that it is difficult to determine whether a patient is really in denial, self-deceived, or unrealistically optimistic. Moreover, even when we are confident that beliefs are unrealistic, they are not always as harmful as critics contend. As a result, we need to be more permissive in our approach to patients who we believe are unrealistically optimistic, in denial, or self-deceived—that is, unless patients significantly misunderstand their situation and thus make decisions that are clearly bad for them (especially in light of their own values and goals), we should not intervene by trying to change their mental states or persuade them to behave differently, or by paternalistically denying them certain options (e.g., a risky procedure).     

Seeing the glass half full: A review of the causes and consequences of optimism

During the past few decades, the psychological trait of optimism has garnered an increasing amount of interest from scientists, and numerous studies have now shown that optimism is associated with important benefits. The present review summarizes the main findings from this body of research. We begin by describing the two main ways in which researchers have defined and operationalized optimism, as “optimistic explanatory style” and as “dispositional optimism”. Second, we provide an overview of the various studies documenting the benefits of optimism. Optimism indeed appears to be associated with higher levels of subjective well-being, better health, and more success. In addition, we describe some of the ongoing controversies in this area of research. Third, we summarize what researchers currently know about the causes of optimism, and how optimism can be fostered in adults as well as in youth. Finally, the present review highlights the adaptive nature of optimism, while recognizing that being optimistic under all circumstances may not always be best. Cultivating flexible and realistic optimism may therefore be most advantageous. We conclude by pointing out important areas of research for the future. These include continuing the search for the biological and brain substrates of optimism, and investigating the psychological and physiological benefits of adopting a flexible (as opposed to rigid) optimistic outlook on life.     

Anxiety and unrealistic optimism

Substantial evidence suggest that people tend to be unrealistically optimistic that positive events will happen to them and that negative events will not. However, recent research indicates that under certain conditions they may be unrealistically pessimistic. Variations in the levels of optimism and pessimism experienced towards events are generally given cognitive explanations. A relation between optimism and pessimism and anxiety, a variable related to emotion as well as cognition, was investigated in the present study. An inverse correlation was found between how anxious female students in England felt about certain negative events and how unrealistically optimistic they were about the occurrence of those events. It was concluded that the degree of anxiety experienced toward a negative event may affect the level of unrealistic optimism or pessimism toward it.     

Optimism,Agency, and Success

Does optimism lead to success? Friends of optimism argue that positive beliefs about ourselves and our future contribute to our fitness and mental health, and are correlated with good functioning, productivity, resilience, and pro-social behaviour. Sceptics, instead, claim that when we are optimistic we fail to react constructively to negative feedback, and put ourselves at risk because we underestimate threats. Thus, it is controversial whether optimistic beliefs are conducive to success, intended as the fulfilment of our goals in a given domain. According to the traditional view, optimistic beliefs lead to success when they do not involve any distortion of reality, and according to the trade-off view, they lead to success when they involve a distortion of reality, but a small one. Based on the literature about positive illusions in the perception of romantic partners and in the assessment of future health prospects, I suggest that optimistic beliefs lead to goal attainment when they support agency by contributing to the sense that we are competent and efficacious agents and that our goals are both desirable and attainable.     

How optimists face skin cancer information: Risk assessment,attention, memory,and behavior

The purpose of the present study was to investigate how optimists process health-related information. Sixty-five young adults (ages 18–35) reported skin cancer-related knowledge and behaviors, and read slides of information on skin and skin cancer. Visual attention to the slides was recorded using eye tracking, and their memory for the information was measured. Additionally, participants’ self-reported skin cancer-relevant behavior was assessed prospectively in the months following the lab component of the study. Results show that individuals low in dispositional optimism or high in health-related optimism paid more attention when they were at high objective risk of developing skin cancer; and individuals high in dispositional optimism or high in health-related optimism were more likely to perform adaptive, health-promoting behaviors. In addition, optimistic beliefs were found not to be related with unrealistic optimism. Dispositional and health-related optimism therefore appear to predict health-related cognition and behavior in distinct ways.     

Is luck on my side? Optimism,pessimism, and ambiguity aversion

The influences of optimism and pessimism on ambiguity aversion were investigated in two tasks that manipulated the presence or absence of a potentially competitive experimenter. A total of 112 participants chose which option—ambiguous or known-risk—they preferred in the two slightly differing Ellsberg urns tasks. Optimism was measured using the Extended Life Orientation Test (ELOT). Highly optimistic people showed significantly less ambiguity aversion than less optimistic people when information was given that the number of balls was randomly determined. This pattern was present but less pronounced in the condition when the composition of the ambiguous urn could be interpreted as being influenced (rigged) by the experimenter. Pessimism was uninfluential. Perceptions of the situation, especially the degree of trust in the experimenter, were significantly influenced by the participants' optimism. People who do not have highly optimistic personalities tend to shy away from choosing ambiguous options. When ambiguity is clear, and trust issues are removed, people's optimistic outlook influences their degree of ambiguity aversion and thus their decisions.     

追寻生命的意义：积极心理学视野下的乐观主义价值

乐观是当前西方积极心理学的核心概念和研究热点,有关乐观主义的价值问题凸显出了积极和消极的乐观主义两种对立的解释取向。事实上,乐观往往与悲观并行存在,乐观主义能否促进健康关键取决于对危机源刺激的过程性判断。有限度的现实乐观能够赋予个体独特的生命意义和价值,有助于个体在乐观与现实之间寻求到心理和谐和平衡的支点。当前的乐观研究已汇成了一股强劲的乐观主义潮流,必将成为心理世界发展新的生长点。     

My Child Is Better Than Average: The Extension and Restriction of Unrealistic Optimism1

The purpose of the current study was to determine whether parents make unrealistic evaluations of children and what factors predict these evaluations. Parents of 5‐ and 6‐year‐olds rated their child's risk for various positive and negative outcomes, temperament, and health and behavior problems. Parents also completed an adult attachment measure. Parents appeared to give relatively little consideration to realistic constraints when predicting their child's future. Parents scoring higher on attachment avoidance were less optimistic that their child would attain positive outcomes and avoid negative outcomes, consistent with the view that optimism is a motivated phenomenon. Greater child internalizing behaviors also were associated with less parental optimism for positive outcomes. Findings have implications for the delivery of health messages to parents.     

Unrealistic optimism about future life events: a cautionary note

A robust finding in social psychology is that people judge negative events as less likely to happen to themselves than to the average person, a behavior interpreted as showing that people are "unrealistically optimistic" in their judgments of risk concerning future life events. However, we demonstrate how unbiased responses can result in data patterns commonly interpreted as indicative of optimism for purely statistical reasons. Specifically, we show how extant data from unrealistic optimism studies investigating people's comparative risk judgments are plagued by the statistical consequences of sampling constraints and the response scales used, in combination with the comparative rarity of truly negative events. We conclude that the presence of such statistical artifacts raises questions over the very existence of an optimistic bias about risk and implies that to the extent that such a bias exists, we know considerably less about its magnitude, mechanisms, and moderators than previously assumed.     

To treat a psychopath

Some people are now quite optimistic about the possibility of treating psychopathy with drugs that directly modulate brain function. I argue that this optimism is misplaced. Psychopathy is a global disorder in an individual’s worldview, including his social and moral outlook. Because of the unity of this Weltanschauung, it is unlikely to be treatable in a piecemeal fashion. Recent neuroscientific methods do not give us much hope that we can replace, in a wholesale manner, problematic views of the world with more socially desirable ones. There are, therefore, principled reasons that psychopathy is so singularly treatment resistant.     

Unrealistic Pessimism

Abstract

Various data suggest that individuals tend to be unrealistically optimistic about the future. People believe that negative events are less likely to happen to them than to others. The present study examined if the optimistic bias could be demonstrated if a threat is not (as it has been researched up to the present) potential, incidental, and familiar, but real, common, and unfamiliar. The present research was conducted after the explosion at the atomic power station in Chernobyl, and it was concerned with the perception of threat to one's own and to others' health due to consequences of radiation. The female subjects believed that their own chance of experiencing such health problems were better than the chances of others. Thus, in these specific conditions, unrealistic optimism was not only reduced but the reverse effect was obtained: unrealistic pessimism.     

Gender differences in unrealistic optimism about marriage and divorce: are men more optimistic and women more realistic?

Two studies (n = 497) examine gender differences in "unrealistic optimism" in beliefs of marriage using a Taiwanese population. Unrealistic optimism is defined as the beliefs that positive (negative) events are more (less) likely to happen to one's self versus others. Although the bias is robust, it has been shown to be lower among people with an interdependent orientation, specifically those from a collectivist culture (e.g., Taiwan). We find that the unrealistic optimism bias is stronger (Study 1) and more resilient to change when base rates are provided (Study 2) for men as compared to women. Results are consistent with the interpretation that men have a less relationally interdependent self-construal than women. Theoretical implications for unrealistic optimism, cross-cultural psychology, as well as gender differences are discussed.     

Concurrently examining unrealistic absolute and comparative optimism: Temporal shifts,individual‐difference and event‐specific correlates,and behavioural outcomes

Researchers have spent considerable effort examining unrealistic absolute optimism and unrealistic comparative optimism, yet there is a lack of research exploring them concurrently. This longitudinal study repeatedly assessed unrealistic absolute and comparative optimism within a performance context over several months to identify the degree to which they shift as a function of proximity to performance and performance feedback, their associations with global individual difference and event‐specific factors, and their link to subsequent behavioural outcomes. Results showed similar shifts in unrealistic absolute and comparative optimism based on proximity to performance and performance feedback. Moreover, increases in both types of unrealistic optimism were associated with better subsequent performance beyond the effect of prior performance. However, several differences were found between the two forms of unrealistic optimism in their associations with global individual difference factors and event‐specific factors, highlighting the distinctiveness of the two constructs.