Optimism

Introduction

In this entry, we review approaches to the measurement of optimism and the closely related construct of hope. Emphasis is placed on existing measures, but we also discuss assessment issues to be addressed in future research.

Etymological History of Optimism and Hope

The term optimism and its ostensible cousin pessimism are relatively recent arrivals on the historical scene (Siçinski, 1972). In the 1700s, Leibniz characterized optimism as a mode of thinking, and Voltaire popularized the term in his 1759 novel Candide, which was critical of the apparent shallowness of optimism. Pessimism appeared a century later, independently introduced by Schopenhauer and Coleridge.

In their original forms, optimism and pessimism were not symmetric. Optimism as discussed by Leibniz was cognitive, reflecting a judgement that good would predominate over evil, even if goodness entailed suffering. In contrast, pessimism as discussed by Schopenhauer was emotional: the pessimistic individual was one for whom suffering would outweigh happiness. Note that someone can be optimistic in the cognitive-Leibniz sense yet pessimistic in the emotional-Schopenhauer sense.

The term hope shares with optimism and pessimism an orientation towards future events and experiences but has a much longer history. Along with faith and charity, hope was a chief virtue in Judaeo-Christian discourse. Hope referred to positive expectations about matters with a reasonable likelihood of coming to pass. Over time, hope (and hopelessness) became entwined with optimism (and pessimism). The connotations of each concept spilled over into the others.

Contemporary approaches to hope and optimism thus share three features. First, both refer to a future-minded stance blending thought and feeling. This stance is a belief that in the future, good events and associated positive feelings will be more likely than bad events and associated negative feelings. Second, akin to their original meanings, hope and optimism are somewhat grounded in reality – they are illusions perhaps, but not delusions. Third, optimism and hope entail beliefs about agency: the individual can act to make good events more likely and bad events less likely.

Psychological Approaches to Optimism and Hope

Some writers – usually social philosophers – treat hope and optimism as features of general human nature to be praised or decried. In contrast, others – usually research-minded psychologists in the personality or clinical tradition – regard hope and optimism as characteristics that people possess to varying degrees. Three research streams define this latter approach. Each line of work has an associated self-report measure, has focused on the consequences of the individual difference as opposed to the antecedents, and has spawned a large literature demonstrating that hope and optimism (or at least the absence of their opposites) are associated with desirable outcomes like positive mood and good morale, perseverance, effective problem solving, popularity, good health, long life, freedom from trauma, and success in academic, athletic, military, occupational, and political domains.

First, Scheier and Carver (1985) studied a personality variable they identify as dispositional optimism: the global expectation that good things will be plentiful and bad things scarce in the future. Scheier and Carver's perspective is that all realms of human behaviour entail the identification and adoption of goals and the regulation of actions visà-vis these goals. In this self-regulatory model, optimism refers to how people perceive impediments to their goals. In the face of difficulties, do [Page 647]people believe that goals will be achieved? If so, they are optimistic – if not, they are pessimistic. Optimism leads to efforts to attain the goal, whereas pessimism leads to giving up.

...