- Email: [email protected]
The relationships between daily optimism, daily pessimism, and affect differ in young and old age
Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 1294–1299
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
The relationships between daily optimism, daily pessimism, and affect differ in young and old age Yuval Palgi a,⇑, Amit Shrira b, Menachem Ben-Ezra c, Sara Cohen-Fridel d, Ehud Bodner e a
Department of Gerontology, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Israel Department of Psychology, Tel Aviv University, Israel c School of Social Work, Ariel University Center of Samaria, Israel d School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Israel e The Interdisciplinary Department of Social Sciences, Bar-Ilan University, Israel b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 30 October 2010 Received in revised form 19 February 2011 Accepted 25 February 2011
Keywords: Optimism Pessimism Positive affect Negative affect Young adults Old age
a b s t r a c t This study examined whether daily optimism and pessimism differently relate to each other among young adults (n = 96, mean age = 27) and old people (n = 95, mean age = 72), and whether they differently interact with each other in promoting adaptive emotional experience in these age groups. Findings show that daily optimism and pessimism were less strongly related to each other among old people. Moreover, a combination of high daily optimism – low daily pessimism was found as most emotionally beneficial for young people. In contrast combinations in which both daily optimism and pessimism were either low or high were most emotionally beneficial for old people. To conclude, in late-life daily optimism and pessimism are less interdependent as they interact in more diversified ways to maintain an emotionally adaptive experience. These adaptive interactions (e.g., low–low or high–high daily optimism and pessimism) may either reflect an attempt to preserve the functional status quo or may signal a highly complex mental organization. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Optimism and pessimism, respectively reflecting the extent to which individuals hold generalized favorable and unfavorable expectancies for their future, are important concomitants of functioning (Carver, Scheier, & Segerstrom, 2010; Rasmussen, Scheier, & Greenhouse, 2009). Although optimism and pessimism are usually considered as dependent (i.e., when one of them is high the other is necessarily low, and vice versa), the relationship between the two constructs may change to relatively independent. To date, few studies have examined the conditions that affect their interrelations (e.g., Herzberg, Glaesmer, & Hoyer, 2006). Moreover, few works assessed how optimism and pessimism interact in associating with functional concomitants (e.g., Benyamini, 2005). The current study aimed to examine whether the relationship between daily optimism and daily pessimism differs between young and old people, and if so, in what manner. The study also examined whether different combinations of daily optimism and daily pessimism are emotionally adaptive (i.e., associated with high positive affect and low negative affect) in young and old age. As aforementioned, optimism and pessimism are generally thought to represent opposite ends of the same continuum. How⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +972 77 9400866; fax: +972 77 9400867. E-mail address: [email protected] (Y. Palgi). 0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.030
ever, contrasting evaluations may be more dynamic than intuitively presumed, and under certain conditions, people may hold complex appraisals that do not fit with the bipolar view (Cacioppo & Berntson, 1994; Reich, Zautra, & Davis, 2003; Shmotkin, 2005). Moreover, there are even reasons to assume that the optimism– pessimism relationship vary across the lifespan. According to the socio-emotional selectivity theory (Charles & Carstensen, 2009), the aging process includes adaptational mental reorganization that involves the ability to contain inconsistent cognitive and emotional evaluations, including more elaborated expectations regarding the future. Similarly, Lomranz’s (1998) ‘aintegration’ theory suggests that as people get older, they improve their ability to bear contradictions and inherent inconsistencies. Corroborating these views, several lifespan studies found that whereas the correlation between optimism and pessimism tend to be extremely dependent during early life, it becomes relatively independent in late-life (Herzberg et al., 2006; Mroczek, Spiro, Aldwin, Ozer, & Bossé, 1993). Nevertheless, these studies did not examine optimism and pessimism in both young and old age. The current study aimed to expand the existing evidence by examining whether optimism and pessimism reported on a daily basis differently relate to each other among young and old people. Daily optimism and daily pessimism as measured in the current study respectively refer to favorable and unfavorable expectancies
1295
Y. Palgi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 1294–1299
for the next day. These expectancies may be more relevant to late-life functioning, as previous studies have shown that old people have difficulty to rate their expectations for the distant future (Palgi & Shmotkin, 2010) and better relate to the close future (Lennings, 2000). Not only that the relationship between optimism and pessimism may change as a function of age, theories also allude that the advantageousness of different optimism–pessimism combinations should differ from early to late life. First, there is a shift from a gain-achieving and growth-related orientation in young age (Busseri, Choma, & Sadava, 2009; Lachman, Röcke, Rosnick, & Ryff, 2008), into a maintenance-related and prevention-of-loss orientation in old age (Baltes, 1997; Ebner, Freund, & Baltes, 2006; Palgi & Shmotkin, 2010). Therefore, the high optimism–low pessimism combination should be most adaptive in young age as it catalyzes goal pursuit. However, as old people are relatively more motivated to maintain their current functional status, low expectation, either for favorable or unfavorable developments, may be adaptive in late life. That is, the low optimism–low pessimism combination may be more adaptive among old people. Moreover, as greater mental complexity is related to better resilience in old age (Charles & Carstensen, 2009; Lomranz, 1998; Ong & Bergeman, 2004), or in situations of declining health (Reich et al., 2003), there is also a basis to presume that the dialectical high optimism–high pessimism combination would be most adaptive in old age. Accordingly, Benyamini (2005) found that old patients who suffer from arthritis and reported both high optimism and pessimism also used better pain-coping strategies than those with other optimism–pessimism combinations. As previous studies focused on old age (Benyamini, 2005), it is still unknown whether beneficial optimism–pessimism combinations differ from early to late-life. Therefore, the current study directly compared young and old people. In the current study, positive and negative affect – the extent to which individuals generally feel positive and negative emotions respectively (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) – were the outcome measures. Positive and negative affect are amongst the major markers of healthy functioning (Keyes, 2005). Previous studies found optimism, pessimism, and affect to be discriminable from each other (Lucas, Diener, & Suh, 1996), and moderately correlated (Benyamini & Roziner, 2008; Chang & Sanna, 2001). Based on the above literature, we hypothesized the following: (1) the inverted relationship between daily optimism and pessimism would be stronger among young than among old people; (2) the high daily optimism–low daily pessimism combination would be related to the highest positive affect and lowest negative affect among young people, yet combinations of both low or both high daily optimism and pessimism would be related to the highest positive affect and lowest negative affect among old people.
1. Method 1.1. Participants A convenience sample of 191 participants divided into two groups: young (n = 96) and old (n = 95). The mean age of the young group was 27.83 (SD = 4.70, range 20–40) and the mean age of the old group was 72.92 (SD = 6.98, range 62–89). Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the background characteristics of the study groups. The two groups differed on all background demographics, except for gender. The young group reported more years of education, had a lower percentage of married participants, a higher percentage of Israeli-born, and reported a higher level of subjective health in comparison to the old group.
Table 1 Background characteristics of the study groups. Variable Age M SD Range Gender (%) Woman Man Years of education M SD Marital status (%) Not marrieda Married Place of birth (%) Israel Other countries Self-rated health M SD
Young (n = 96)
Old (n = 95)
27.83 4.70 20–40
72.92 6.98 62–89
51.0 49.0
49.5 50.5
14.39 1.98
12.06 4.00
55.2 44.8
28.7 71.3
88.5 11.5
33.0 67.0
2.49 0.60
1.44 0.71
Difference test t(188) = 52.35***
v2(1, N = 191) = 0.05 t(186) = 5.07***
v2(1, N = 190) = 13.67*** v2(1, N = 190) = 61.96*** t(187) = 10.96***
Note: Total N = 191. a Includes the categories of never married, divorced, and widowed. ⁄ p < .05. ⁄⁄ p < .01. *** p < .001.
1.2. Measures Background characteristics included age, gender, years of education, marital status (dichotomized into currently married and unmarried), place of birth (dichotomized into Israeli-born vs. born in other countries), and self-rated health (see Benyamini and Idler, 1999) assessed by the question: ‘‘How do you rate your general health?’’ on which respondents answered on a four-point scale: ‘‘very poor’’ (1), ‘‘poor’’ (2), ‘‘good’’ (3), and ‘‘very good’’ (4). Daily optimism and pessimism were measured by the Hebrew version of the revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994). We used the six scored items (without the filler items): three for optimism, and three for pessimism. Across 14 successive days respondents indicate the extent to which they agree with each of the items on a 5-point scale ranged from 1 (‘‘strongly disagree’’) to 5 (‘‘strongly agree’’) when referring to the next day (items were rephrased to refer to the next day). Alpha coefficient was .88 and .86 for daily optimism and pessimism, respectively. Positive and negative affect were measured with the Hebrew version of the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE; Diener et al., 2010). This scale which has several advantages over classic positive and negative scales (for more details see Diener et al., 2010) includes 12-item, six items measuring positive experiences (e.g., contented, Joyful) and six items measuring negative experiences (e.g., sad, angry). Each item was scored on a scale ranging from 1 (‘‘very rarely or never’’) to 5 (‘‘very often or always’’). At the end of the study, the participants were asked to fill their feelings in regard to the last two weeks in which they completed the daily measures of optimism and pessimism. A mean score was computed for the positive items (Cronbach’s a = .80) and for the negative ones (Cronbach’s a = .78). The Hebrew adaptation of this scale was agreed upon by three judges after examining a translation from English into Hebrew as well as an independent reverse translation and its reliability coefficients resembled those reported by Diener et al. (2010). 1.3. Procedure Young group participants’ were located by research students at the Campus of an Israeli university. Old group participants were
1296
Y. Palgi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 1294–1299
located in the community in an activity day center. The research assistants performed a short phone call each evening reminding participants to complete the daily measure. For 14 successive days the participants rated their optimism and pessimism level while referring to the next day. The total number of days participants were in the study ranged from 7 to 14 (M = 13.86, SD = 0.65). The total number of days in the study for all participants was 2674 (191 participants X 14 days). The total number of days of data the participants provided was 2648 (99% complete). At the end of the 14 days period the research assistants re-approached the participants, and provided them with the SPANE and with a short background inventory. The study was approved by Bar-Ilan University Institutional Review Board and all the participants were guaranteed complete anonymity.
In this model, c00 represents the grand mean of the person-level means (b0js) from the day-level model, u0j represents the error of b0j, and the variance of u0j constitutes the person-level residual variance. c10 represents the average within-person relationship between optimism and pessimism, and u1j represents the error of b1j. Following recommendations by Raudenbush and Bryk (2002), all day-level variables (i.e., optimism and pessimism) were centered on individuals’ means, and all person-level variables (e.g., covariates) were centered on group means. Among young participants, daily pessimism tended to be lower on days when optimism was higher, c10 = .56, p < .0001. Thus, for every unit increase in daily optimism, mean daily pessimism decreased .56 units. The Dpseudo-R2 (Snijders & Bosker, 1999) for this model was .36, indicating that the inclusion of daily optimism
2. Results 2.1. Assessment of study variables Daily optimism and pessimism were negatively correlated in the young and old groups (r = .73 and .54, p < .0001, respectively). Positive and negative affect were negatively correlated in the young and the old groups (r = .53 and .45, p < .0001, respectively). Daily optimism was positively correlated with positive affect (ryoung = .60; rold = .46, p < .0001), and negatively correlated with negative affect (ryoung = .42; rold = .22, p < .0001; p < .05, respectively). Daily pessimism was negatively correlated with positive affect (ryoung = .43; rold = .46, p < .0001), and positively correlated with negative affect (ryoung = .50; rold = .14, p < .0001; ns, respectively). Additionally, a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) compared the two age groups on daily optimism, daily pessimism, positive affect and negative affect while education, marital status, place of birth, and self-rated health served as covariates. No significant differences were found between the young (M = 2.99, SD = 0.56) and the old age (M = 2.99, SD = 0.58) groups on daily optimism level; F(1,179) = 3.34, ns; as well as on daily pessimism level (young: M = 1.19, SD = 0.65; old: M = 1.29, SD = 0.52); F(1,179) = 0.20, ns. Similarly, no significant differences were found between the young (M = 3.93, SD = 0.52) and the old age (M = 3.84, SD = 0.61) groups on positive affect level; F(1,179) = 0.60, ns, as well as on negative affect level (young: M = 2.29, SD = 0.63; old: M = 2.22, SD = 0.66); F(1,179) = 2.53, ns. 2.1.1. Hypothesis 1: The relationship between daily optimism and pessimism in young and old age The first hypothesis predicted that in line with previous studies, the relationship between daily optimism and pessimism would be stronger (a stronger negative association) among the young than among the old participants. To test this hypothesis, we ran a separate multilevel model for young and old participants. The day-level (within-person or level 1) model was parameterized as
PESij ¼ b0j þ b1j ðOPTÞ þ r ij In this model, b0j, is a random coefficient representing the intercept of daily pessimism (PES) for person j (across the i days for which each person provided data); b1j(OPT) is a random coefficient, a slope, representing the day-level (within-person) relationship between optimism and pessimism for person j; and rij represents the error associated with each measure of pessimism, and the variance of rij constitutes the day-level residual (or error) variance. The person-level (between-person or level 2) model was as follows
b0j ¼ c00 þ u0j b1j ¼ c10 þ u1j
Fig. 1. The Relationship between daily optimism and daily pessimism in the young and old groups.
Table 2 Hierarchical multiple regressions predicting positive and negative affect by daily optimism, daily pessimism, age and their interactions.
Step 1 Educationa Marital statusb Place of birthc Self-rated health Step 2 Age groupd Daily optimism Daily pessimism Step 3 Age group X Daily optimism Age group X Daily pessimism Daily optimism X Daily pessimism Step 4 Age group X Daily optimism X Daily pessimism
Positive affect
Negative affect
DR2 = 0.102** 0.10 0.13* 0.06 0.35*** DR2 = 0.261*** 0.00 0.36*** 0.22** DR2 = 0.029* 0.58* 0.65** 0.02 DR2 = 0.016* 0.41*
DR2 = 0.042 0.07 0.17* 0.03 0.04 DR2 = 0.129*** 0.13 0.16 0.23* DR2 = 0.041* 0.07 0.57* 0.04 DR2 = 0.053** 0.75**
R2 = 0.408*** F(11,173) = 10.82
R2 = 0.265*** F(11,173) = 5.68
Note: All continuous independent variables were standardized. a Coded as 1 = secondary education (up to 12 years) and 2 = higher education. b Coded as 1 = not married and 2 = married. c Coded as 1 = Israel and 2 = other countries. d Coded as 1 = young and 2 = old. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Y. Palgi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 1294–1299
explained 36% of within-person variance in pessimism. Among old participants, daily pessimism and optimism were less strongly related, c10 = .40, p < .0001, Dpseudo-R2 = .14. The estimators did not change much after adding the covariates (education, marital status, place of birth, and self-rated health) to the model (estimator was .58 and .41 for young and old participants respectively). Finally, an interaction model examined whether the relationship between daily optimism and pessimism significantly differed between the study groups. The interaction term (Group X Daily optimism) was significant: estimator = .16, p = .008, and estimator = .18,
1297
p = .002, without and with the covariates, respectively. Fig. 1 presents this interaction. 2.1.2. Hypothesis 2a: Predicting positive affect by daily optimism and pessimism in young and old age The second hypothesis suggested that high daily optimism combined with low daily pessimism would be the most emotionally adaptive (i.e., would be related to high positive affect and low negative affect) in young age while combinations of both low or both high daily optimism and pessimism would be the most
Fig. 2. The three-way interaction between daily optimism, daily pessimism (standardized scores) and age group on positive and negative affect.
1298
Y. Palgi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 1294–1299
emotionally adaptive in old age. Following this hypothesis a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was preformed. Positive affect was regressed on background characteristics (education, marital status, place of birth, and self-rated health) in Step 1, on the group variable (young vs. old), daily optimism and pessimism (the average scores of the daily optimism and pessimism ratings) in Step 2, on their respective two-way interactions (Age group X Daily optimism, Age group X Daily pessimism, and Daily optimism X Daily pessimism) in Step 3, and on their 3-way interaction (Age group X Daily optimism X Daily pessimism) in Step 4. All continuous independent variables were standardized and interaction terms were calculated by multiplying the standardized scores. Table 2 presents the results of this analysis. As predicted, the Age group X Daily optimism X Daily pessimism interaction significantly predicted positive affect (b = .41, p < .05, DR2 = .016). Fig. 2a,b presents this interaction for the young and old groups, when daily pessimism was divided into two levels: those below or at the median and those above the median. It can be seen that among young participants there was a stronger positive association between daily optimism and positive affect among those who reported low daily pessimism (b = .64, p < .0001 and b = .36, p < .05 for low and high pessimism respectively). This trend resulted in the highest positive affect among those who reported a combination of high daily optimism and low daily pessimism. On the other hand, among old participants there was a stronger positive association between daily optimism and positive affect among those who reported high daily pessimism (b = .24, ns and b = .28, p = .056 for low and high pessimism respectively). Thus, a combination of high daily optimism intertwined with high daily pessimism was as emotionally beneficial as the combination of high daily optimism and low daily pessimism. 2.1.3. Hypothesis 2b: Predicting negative affect by daily optimism and pessimism in young and old age Similarly to the regression predicting positive affect, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was preformed predicting negative affect. Table 2 presents the results of this analysis. The Age group X Daily optimism X Daily pessimism interaction significantly predicted negative affect (b = .75, p < .01, DR2 = .053). Fig. 2c,d presents this interaction for the young and old groups, when daily pessimism was divided into two groups: those below or at the median and those above the median. It can be seen that among young participants there was a stronger negative association between daily optimism and negative affect among those who reported low daily pessimism (b = .38, p < .05 and b = .05, ns for low and high pessimism respectively). This trend resulted in the lowest negative affect among those who reported a combination of high daily optimism and low daily pessimism. On the other hand, among old participants there was a stronger negative association between daily optimism and negative affect among those who reported high daily pessimism (b = .07, ns and b = .33, p < .05 for low and high pessimism respectively). Thus, negative affect was lowest among those with a combination of high daily optimism intertwined with high daily pessimism. Negative affect was also low when both daily optimism and pessimism were low. 3. Discussion This study examined whether daily optimism and pessimism differently relate to each other, and whether different optimism– pessimism combinations relate to positive and negative affect among young and old people. The findings suggest that daily optimism and pessimism are less strongly related to each other among old people. Moreover, a combination of high daily optimism – low
daily pessimism was found as most emotionally beneficial for young people. In contrast, combinations in which both daily optimism and pessimism were low or high were most emotionally beneficial for old people. We now turn to discuss our findings in more detail. Our first hypothesis was supported, replicating previous findings (Herzberg et al., 2006; Mroczek et al., 1993). The negative association between daily optimism and pessimism was weaker among old people. This finding may reflect a tendency towards higher mental complexity among community-dwelling old people (Lomranz, 1998). It also accords with findings indicating a higher emotional complexity (noted by a weaker relationship between positive and negative affect) among old people relative to young people (Charles & Carstensen, 2009). Late-life mental complexity may signal a more mature, dialectical conception of the self and the world in which opposite evaluations are less mutually exclusive. Our second hypothesis was also supported. There were threeway interactions between age group, daily optimism, and daily pessimism in predicting positive and negative affect. These interactions showed that high daily optimism combined with low daily pessimism was the most emotionally favorable for young people. Different combinations in which both daily optimism and daily pessimism were either low or high were found the most emotionally favorable for old people. Among old people, the high daily optimism–low daily pessimism combination was as emotionally favorable as, or even less emotionally favorable than, combinations in which both evaluations were either low or high. As mentioned earlier, on the one hand, the high daily optimism–low daily pessimism combination is crucial for gain pursuit in early life (Busseri, Choma, & Sadava, 2009; Lachman et al., 2008), and therefore, it is not surprising to find it as the most emotional advantageous among young people. On the other hand, a favorable emotional experience in late-life is related to the low–low and high–high combinations of daily optimism and daily pessimism. These combinations respectively reflect the desire to maintain the functional status quo, and the ability to sustain a high mental complexity, two conditions considered as highly adaptive in old age (Baltes, 1997; Charles & Carstensen, 2009; Ebner et al., 2006; Lomranz, 1998). Most old participants, who reported low daily optimism and low daily pessimism, were above the mid score in the positive and negative affect scales. Therefore, their deflated expectancies should not be regarded as reflecting an overall numbness that also includes a deflated emotional experience (i.e., low positive affect combined with low negative affect; e.g., Shmotkin, 2005). Additionally, old participants with a low–low combination of daily optimism and pessimism reported lower positive affect (but a relatively similar negative affect level) compared to their high daily optimism–low daily pessimism counterparts. Yet we do believe that the shift seen in the adaptiveness of the latter combination from the young group to the old one may represents an important developmental change, as this combination was the least emotionally adaptive among young people. According to the aforementioned, it is possible that a low–low combination of daily optimism and pessimism is more emotionally adaptive in old age, as it reflects an acknowledgement that the resources left are limited and that one should strive towards preservation and optimization of available resources (Baltes, 1997; Ebner et al., 2006). The ability to preserve a complex mental organization is especially beneficial in late-life, as it is related to resilience in the face of age-related adversity, such as physical illness, functional decline, and interpersonal losses (Benyamini, 2005; Ong & Bergeman, 2004). Accounting for dialectical expectancies may best serve old people, as such dialectic continues a positive outlook on the future while keeping in mind probable future hardships.
Y. Palgi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 1294–1299
The findings of the current study should be interpreted while accounting for the study limitations. First, due to our crosssectional design, age-related and cohort-related effects cannot be separated. Lifetime adversity, which is generally more frequent in the historical circumstances of old people, may be positively related to cognitive and emotional complexity (e.g., Lomranz, 1998). It remains to be established whether the high expectancy complexity found here for the old participants reflects age-related or cohort-related effects (or a combination of these two). Second, physical illness, disability, and cognitive functioning were not controlled for, and therefore might have contributed to age-related effects. Still, self-rated health – a major marker of physical functioning (Benyamini & Idler, 1999) – was controlled for. Finally, our measure of affect, the SPANE, is relatively new and was administered only at one time point, raising the need to replicate our findings with other, more frequently used measures of affect (e.g., Watson et al., 1988), preferably administered on a daily basis. Still, the SPANE captures positive and negative feelings regardless of their arousal level or cultural ubiquity (Diener et al., 2010), and therefore is especially appropriate when examining age-related differences. To sum, our study showed that while the daily expectancy framework is relatively interdependent in young age, it is more dialectical in old age. It further found that a general daily optimistic outlook (i.e., high daily optimism and low daily pessimism) is related to the most favorable emotional experience in young age. Contrary, either a deflated daily expectancy framework (i.e., low– low daily optimism and pessimism) or an inflated one (i.e., high– high daily optimism and pessimism) is emotionally favorable as the general daily optimistic outlook, or even more so in old age. Future studies should further examine the mechanisms and conditions that promote emotionally-beneficial combinations of expectancies in young and old age. Acknowledgment The research leading to this paper was conducted while Dr. Palgi was a post doctoral fellow at Bar-Ilan University. Dr. Palgi wishes to thank Dr. Ehud Bodner & Prof. Liat Ayalon for their assistance and help during this period. References Baltes, P. B. (1997). On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny: Selection, optimization, and compensation as foundation of developmental theory. American Psychologist, 52, 366–380. Benyamini, Y. (2005). Can high optimism and high pessimism co-exist? Findings from arthritis patients coping with pain. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1463–1473. Benyamini, Y., & Idler, E. L. (1999). Community studies reporting association between self-rated health and mortality. Research on Aging, 21, 392–401.
1299
Benyamini, Y., & Roziner, I. (2008). The predictive validity of optimism and affectivity in a longitudinal study of older adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 853–864. Busseri, M. A., Choma, B. L., & Sadava, S. W. (2009). Functional or fantasy? Examining the implications of subjective temporal perspective ‘trajectories’ for life satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 295–308. Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space. A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 401–423. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2010). Optimism. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 879–889. Chang, E. C., & Sanna, L. J. (2001). Optimism, pessimism, and positive and negative affectivity in middle-aged adults: A test of a cognitive-affective model of psychological adjustment. Psychology and Aging, 16, 524–531. Charles, S. T., & Carstensen, L. L. (2009). Social and emotional aging. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 383–409. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S., et al. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97, 143–156. Ebner, N. C., Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (2006). Developmental changes in personal goal orientation from young to late adulthood: From striving for gains to maintenance and prevention of losses. Psychology and Aging, 21, 664–678. Herzberg, P. Y., Glaesmer, H., & Hoyer, J. (2006). Separating optimism and pessimism: A robust psychometric analysis of the Revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R). Psychological Assessment, 18, 433–438. Keyes, C. L. M. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 539–548. Lachman, M. E., Röcke, C., Rosnick, C., & Ryff, C. D. (2008). Realism and illusion in Americans’ temporal views of their life satisfaction. Psychological Science, 19, 889–897. Lennings, C. J. (2000). Optimism, satisfaction and time perspective in the elderly. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 51, 167–181. Lomranz, J. (1998). An image of aging and the concept of integration: Personality, coping, and mental health implications. In J. Lomranz (Ed.), Handbook of aging and mental health: An integrative approach (pp. 217–250). New York: Plenum. Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616–628. Mroczek, D. K., Spiro, A., Aldwin, C. M., Ozer, D. J., & Bossé, R. (1993). Construct validation of optimism and pessimism in older men: Findings form the normative ageing study. Health Psychology, 12, 406–409. Ong, A. D., & Bergeman, C. S. (2004). The complexity of emotions in later life. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 59B, P117–P122. Palgi, Y., & Shmotkin, D. (2010). The predicament of time near the end of life: Time perspective trajectories of life satisfaction among the old-old. Aging and Mental Health, 14, 577–586. Rasmussen, H. N., Scheier, M. F., & Greenhouse, J. B. (2009). Optimism and physical health: A meta-analytic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 37, 239–256. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Reich, J. W., Zautra, A. J., & Davis, M. (2003). Dimensions of affect relationships: Models and their integrative implications. Review of General Psychology, 7, 66–83. Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A re-evaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063–1078. Shmotkin, D. (2005). Happiness in face of adversity: Reformulating the dynamic and modular bases of subjective well-being. Review of General Psychology, 9, 291–325. Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London, England: Sage. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
The relationships between daily optimism, daily pessimism, and affect differ in young and old age Yuval Palgi a,⇑, Amit Shrira b, Menachem Ben-Ezra c, Sara Cohen-Fridel d, Ehud Bodner e a
Department of Gerontology, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Israel Department of Psychology, Tel Aviv University, Israel c School of Social Work, Ariel University Center of Samaria, Israel d School of Education, Bar-Ilan University, Israel e The Interdisciplinary Department of Social Sciences, Bar-Ilan University, Israel b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 30 October 2010 Received in revised form 19 February 2011 Accepted 25 February 2011
Keywords: Optimism Pessimism Positive affect Negative affect Young adults Old age
a b s t r a c t This study examined whether daily optimism and pessimism differently relate to each other among young adults (n = 96, mean age = 27) and old people (n = 95, mean age = 72), and whether they differently interact with each other in promoting adaptive emotional experience in these age groups. Findings show that daily optimism and pessimism were less strongly related to each other among old people. Moreover, a combination of high daily optimism – low daily pessimism was found as most emotionally beneficial for young people. In contrast combinations in which both daily optimism and pessimism were either low or high were most emotionally beneficial for old people. To conclude, in late-life daily optimism and pessimism are less interdependent as they interact in more diversified ways to maintain an emotionally adaptive experience. These adaptive interactions (e.g., low–low or high–high daily optimism and pessimism) may either reflect an attempt to preserve the functional status quo or may signal a highly complex mental organization. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Optimism and pessimism, respectively reflecting the extent to which individuals hold generalized favorable and unfavorable expectancies for their future, are important concomitants of functioning (Carver, Scheier, & Segerstrom, 2010; Rasmussen, Scheier, & Greenhouse, 2009). Although optimism and pessimism are usually considered as dependent (i.e., when one of them is high the other is necessarily low, and vice versa), the relationship between the two constructs may change to relatively independent. To date, few studies have examined the conditions that affect their interrelations (e.g., Herzberg, Glaesmer, & Hoyer, 2006). Moreover, few works assessed how optimism and pessimism interact in associating with functional concomitants (e.g., Benyamini, 2005). The current study aimed to examine whether the relationship between daily optimism and daily pessimism differs between young and old people, and if so, in what manner. The study also examined whether different combinations of daily optimism and daily pessimism are emotionally adaptive (i.e., associated with high positive affect and low negative affect) in young and old age. As aforementioned, optimism and pessimism are generally thought to represent opposite ends of the same continuum. How⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +972 77 9400866; fax: +972 77 9400867. E-mail address: [email protected] (Y. Palgi). 0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.030
ever, contrasting evaluations may be more dynamic than intuitively presumed, and under certain conditions, people may hold complex appraisals that do not fit with the bipolar view (Cacioppo & Berntson, 1994; Reich, Zautra, & Davis, 2003; Shmotkin, 2005). Moreover, there are even reasons to assume that the optimism– pessimism relationship vary across the lifespan. According to the socio-emotional selectivity theory (Charles & Carstensen, 2009), the aging process includes adaptational mental reorganization that involves the ability to contain inconsistent cognitive and emotional evaluations, including more elaborated expectations regarding the future. Similarly, Lomranz’s (1998) ‘aintegration’ theory suggests that as people get older, they improve their ability to bear contradictions and inherent inconsistencies. Corroborating these views, several lifespan studies found that whereas the correlation between optimism and pessimism tend to be extremely dependent during early life, it becomes relatively independent in late-life (Herzberg et al., 2006; Mroczek, Spiro, Aldwin, Ozer, & Bossé, 1993). Nevertheless, these studies did not examine optimism and pessimism in both young and old age. The current study aimed to expand the existing evidence by examining whether optimism and pessimism reported on a daily basis differently relate to each other among young and old people. Daily optimism and daily pessimism as measured in the current study respectively refer to favorable and unfavorable expectancies
1295
Y. Palgi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 1294–1299
for the next day. These expectancies may be more relevant to late-life functioning, as previous studies have shown that old people have difficulty to rate their expectations for the distant future (Palgi & Shmotkin, 2010) and better relate to the close future (Lennings, 2000). Not only that the relationship between optimism and pessimism may change as a function of age, theories also allude that the advantageousness of different optimism–pessimism combinations should differ from early to late life. First, there is a shift from a gain-achieving and growth-related orientation in young age (Busseri, Choma, & Sadava, 2009; Lachman, Röcke, Rosnick, & Ryff, 2008), into a maintenance-related and prevention-of-loss orientation in old age (Baltes, 1997; Ebner, Freund, & Baltes, 2006; Palgi & Shmotkin, 2010). Therefore, the high optimism–low pessimism combination should be most adaptive in young age as it catalyzes goal pursuit. However, as old people are relatively more motivated to maintain their current functional status, low expectation, either for favorable or unfavorable developments, may be adaptive in late life. That is, the low optimism–low pessimism combination may be more adaptive among old people. Moreover, as greater mental complexity is related to better resilience in old age (Charles & Carstensen, 2009; Lomranz, 1998; Ong & Bergeman, 2004), or in situations of declining health (Reich et al., 2003), there is also a basis to presume that the dialectical high optimism–high pessimism combination would be most adaptive in old age. Accordingly, Benyamini (2005) found that old patients who suffer from arthritis and reported both high optimism and pessimism also used better pain-coping strategies than those with other optimism–pessimism combinations. As previous studies focused on old age (Benyamini, 2005), it is still unknown whether beneficial optimism–pessimism combinations differ from early to late-life. Therefore, the current study directly compared young and old people. In the current study, positive and negative affect – the extent to which individuals generally feel positive and negative emotions respectively (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) – were the outcome measures. Positive and negative affect are amongst the major markers of healthy functioning (Keyes, 2005). Previous studies found optimism, pessimism, and affect to be discriminable from each other (Lucas, Diener, & Suh, 1996), and moderately correlated (Benyamini & Roziner, 2008; Chang & Sanna, 2001). Based on the above literature, we hypothesized the following: (1) the inverted relationship between daily optimism and pessimism would be stronger among young than among old people; (2) the high daily optimism–low daily pessimism combination would be related to the highest positive affect and lowest negative affect among young people, yet combinations of both low or both high daily optimism and pessimism would be related to the highest positive affect and lowest negative affect among old people.
1. Method 1.1. Participants A convenience sample of 191 participants divided into two groups: young (n = 96) and old (n = 95). The mean age of the young group was 27.83 (SD = 4.70, range 20–40) and the mean age of the old group was 72.92 (SD = 6.98, range 62–89). Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the background characteristics of the study groups. The two groups differed on all background demographics, except for gender. The young group reported more years of education, had a lower percentage of married participants, a higher percentage of Israeli-born, and reported a higher level of subjective health in comparison to the old group.
Table 1 Background characteristics of the study groups. Variable Age M SD Range Gender (%) Woman Man Years of education M SD Marital status (%) Not marrieda Married Place of birth (%) Israel Other countries Self-rated health M SD
Young (n = 96)
Old (n = 95)
27.83 4.70 20–40
72.92 6.98 62–89
51.0 49.0
49.5 50.5
14.39 1.98
12.06 4.00
55.2 44.8
28.7 71.3
88.5 11.5
33.0 67.0
2.49 0.60
1.44 0.71
Difference test t(188) = 52.35***
v2(1, N = 191) = 0.05 t(186) = 5.07***
v2(1, N = 190) = 13.67*** v2(1, N = 190) = 61.96*** t(187) = 10.96***
Note: Total N = 191. a Includes the categories of never married, divorced, and widowed. ⁄ p < .05. ⁄⁄ p < .01. *** p < .001.
1.2. Measures Background characteristics included age, gender, years of education, marital status (dichotomized into currently married and unmarried), place of birth (dichotomized into Israeli-born vs. born in other countries), and self-rated health (see Benyamini and Idler, 1999) assessed by the question: ‘‘How do you rate your general health?’’ on which respondents answered on a four-point scale: ‘‘very poor’’ (1), ‘‘poor’’ (2), ‘‘good’’ (3), and ‘‘very good’’ (4). Daily optimism and pessimism were measured by the Hebrew version of the revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994). We used the six scored items (without the filler items): three for optimism, and three for pessimism. Across 14 successive days respondents indicate the extent to which they agree with each of the items on a 5-point scale ranged from 1 (‘‘strongly disagree’’) to 5 (‘‘strongly agree’’) when referring to the next day (items were rephrased to refer to the next day). Alpha coefficient was .88 and .86 for daily optimism and pessimism, respectively. Positive and negative affect were measured with the Hebrew version of the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE; Diener et al., 2010). This scale which has several advantages over classic positive and negative scales (for more details see Diener et al., 2010) includes 12-item, six items measuring positive experiences (e.g., contented, Joyful) and six items measuring negative experiences (e.g., sad, angry). Each item was scored on a scale ranging from 1 (‘‘very rarely or never’’) to 5 (‘‘very often or always’’). At the end of the study, the participants were asked to fill their feelings in regard to the last two weeks in which they completed the daily measures of optimism and pessimism. A mean score was computed for the positive items (Cronbach’s a = .80) and for the negative ones (Cronbach’s a = .78). The Hebrew adaptation of this scale was agreed upon by three judges after examining a translation from English into Hebrew as well as an independent reverse translation and its reliability coefficients resembled those reported by Diener et al. (2010). 1.3. Procedure Young group participants’ were located by research students at the Campus of an Israeli university. Old group participants were
1296
Y. Palgi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 1294–1299
located in the community in an activity day center. The research assistants performed a short phone call each evening reminding participants to complete the daily measure. For 14 successive days the participants rated their optimism and pessimism level while referring to the next day. The total number of days participants were in the study ranged from 7 to 14 (M = 13.86, SD = 0.65). The total number of days in the study for all participants was 2674 (191 participants X 14 days). The total number of days of data the participants provided was 2648 (99% complete). At the end of the 14 days period the research assistants re-approached the participants, and provided them with the SPANE and with a short background inventory. The study was approved by Bar-Ilan University Institutional Review Board and all the participants were guaranteed complete anonymity.
In this model, c00 represents the grand mean of the person-level means (b0js) from the day-level model, u0j represents the error of b0j, and the variance of u0j constitutes the person-level residual variance. c10 represents the average within-person relationship between optimism and pessimism, and u1j represents the error of b1j. Following recommendations by Raudenbush and Bryk (2002), all day-level variables (i.e., optimism and pessimism) were centered on individuals’ means, and all person-level variables (e.g., covariates) were centered on group means. Among young participants, daily pessimism tended to be lower on days when optimism was higher, c10 = .56, p < .0001. Thus, for every unit increase in daily optimism, mean daily pessimism decreased .56 units. The Dpseudo-R2 (Snijders & Bosker, 1999) for this model was .36, indicating that the inclusion of daily optimism
2. Results 2.1. Assessment of study variables Daily optimism and pessimism were negatively correlated in the young and old groups (r = .73 and .54, p < .0001, respectively). Positive and negative affect were negatively correlated in the young and the old groups (r = .53 and .45, p < .0001, respectively). Daily optimism was positively correlated with positive affect (ryoung = .60; rold = .46, p < .0001), and negatively correlated with negative affect (ryoung = .42; rold = .22, p < .0001; p < .05, respectively). Daily pessimism was negatively correlated with positive affect (ryoung = .43; rold = .46, p < .0001), and positively correlated with negative affect (ryoung = .50; rold = .14, p < .0001; ns, respectively). Additionally, a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) compared the two age groups on daily optimism, daily pessimism, positive affect and negative affect while education, marital status, place of birth, and self-rated health served as covariates. No significant differences were found between the young (M = 2.99, SD = 0.56) and the old age (M = 2.99, SD = 0.58) groups on daily optimism level; F(1,179) = 3.34, ns; as well as on daily pessimism level (young: M = 1.19, SD = 0.65; old: M = 1.29, SD = 0.52); F(1,179) = 0.20, ns. Similarly, no significant differences were found between the young (M = 3.93, SD = 0.52) and the old age (M = 3.84, SD = 0.61) groups on positive affect level; F(1,179) = 0.60, ns, as well as on negative affect level (young: M = 2.29, SD = 0.63; old: M = 2.22, SD = 0.66); F(1,179) = 2.53, ns. 2.1.1. Hypothesis 1: The relationship between daily optimism and pessimism in young and old age The first hypothesis predicted that in line with previous studies, the relationship between daily optimism and pessimism would be stronger (a stronger negative association) among the young than among the old participants. To test this hypothesis, we ran a separate multilevel model for young and old participants. The day-level (within-person or level 1) model was parameterized as
PESij ¼ b0j þ b1j ðOPTÞ þ r ij In this model, b0j, is a random coefficient representing the intercept of daily pessimism (PES) for person j (across the i days for which each person provided data); b1j(OPT) is a random coefficient, a slope, representing the day-level (within-person) relationship between optimism and pessimism for person j; and rij represents the error associated with each measure of pessimism, and the variance of rij constitutes the day-level residual (or error) variance. The person-level (between-person or level 2) model was as follows
b0j ¼ c00 þ u0j b1j ¼ c10 þ u1j
Fig. 1. The Relationship between daily optimism and daily pessimism in the young and old groups.
Table 2 Hierarchical multiple regressions predicting positive and negative affect by daily optimism, daily pessimism, age and their interactions.
Step 1 Educationa Marital statusb Place of birthc Self-rated health Step 2 Age groupd Daily optimism Daily pessimism Step 3 Age group X Daily optimism Age group X Daily pessimism Daily optimism X Daily pessimism Step 4 Age group X Daily optimism X Daily pessimism
Positive affect
Negative affect
DR2 = 0.102** 0.10 0.13* 0.06 0.35*** DR2 = 0.261*** 0.00 0.36*** 0.22** DR2 = 0.029* 0.58* 0.65** 0.02 DR2 = 0.016* 0.41*
DR2 = 0.042 0.07 0.17* 0.03 0.04 DR2 = 0.129*** 0.13 0.16 0.23* DR2 = 0.041* 0.07 0.57* 0.04 DR2 = 0.053** 0.75**
R2 = 0.408*** F(11,173) = 10.82
R2 = 0.265*** F(11,173) = 5.68
Note: All continuous independent variables were standardized. a Coded as 1 = secondary education (up to 12 years) and 2 = higher education. b Coded as 1 = not married and 2 = married. c Coded as 1 = Israel and 2 = other countries. d Coded as 1 = young and 2 = old. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Y. Palgi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 1294–1299
explained 36% of within-person variance in pessimism. Among old participants, daily pessimism and optimism were less strongly related, c10 = .40, p < .0001, Dpseudo-R2 = .14. The estimators did not change much after adding the covariates (education, marital status, place of birth, and self-rated health) to the model (estimator was .58 and .41 for young and old participants respectively). Finally, an interaction model examined whether the relationship between daily optimism and pessimism significantly differed between the study groups. The interaction term (Group X Daily optimism) was significant: estimator = .16, p = .008, and estimator = .18,
1297
p = .002, without and with the covariates, respectively. Fig. 1 presents this interaction. 2.1.2. Hypothesis 2a: Predicting positive affect by daily optimism and pessimism in young and old age The second hypothesis suggested that high daily optimism combined with low daily pessimism would be the most emotionally adaptive (i.e., would be related to high positive affect and low negative affect) in young age while combinations of both low or both high daily optimism and pessimism would be the most
Fig. 2. The three-way interaction between daily optimism, daily pessimism (standardized scores) and age group on positive and negative affect.
1298
Y. Palgi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 1294–1299
emotionally adaptive in old age. Following this hypothesis a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was preformed. Positive affect was regressed on background characteristics (education, marital status, place of birth, and self-rated health) in Step 1, on the group variable (young vs. old), daily optimism and pessimism (the average scores of the daily optimism and pessimism ratings) in Step 2, on their respective two-way interactions (Age group X Daily optimism, Age group X Daily pessimism, and Daily optimism X Daily pessimism) in Step 3, and on their 3-way interaction (Age group X Daily optimism X Daily pessimism) in Step 4. All continuous independent variables were standardized and interaction terms were calculated by multiplying the standardized scores. Table 2 presents the results of this analysis. As predicted, the Age group X Daily optimism X Daily pessimism interaction significantly predicted positive affect (b = .41, p < .05, DR2 = .016). Fig. 2a,b presents this interaction for the young and old groups, when daily pessimism was divided into two levels: those below or at the median and those above the median. It can be seen that among young participants there was a stronger positive association between daily optimism and positive affect among those who reported low daily pessimism (b = .64, p < .0001 and b = .36, p < .05 for low and high pessimism respectively). This trend resulted in the highest positive affect among those who reported a combination of high daily optimism and low daily pessimism. On the other hand, among old participants there was a stronger positive association between daily optimism and positive affect among those who reported high daily pessimism (b = .24, ns and b = .28, p = .056 for low and high pessimism respectively). Thus, a combination of high daily optimism intertwined with high daily pessimism was as emotionally beneficial as the combination of high daily optimism and low daily pessimism. 2.1.3. Hypothesis 2b: Predicting negative affect by daily optimism and pessimism in young and old age Similarly to the regression predicting positive affect, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was preformed predicting negative affect. Table 2 presents the results of this analysis. The Age group X Daily optimism X Daily pessimism interaction significantly predicted negative affect (b = .75, p < .01, DR2 = .053). Fig. 2c,d presents this interaction for the young and old groups, when daily pessimism was divided into two groups: those below or at the median and those above the median. It can be seen that among young participants there was a stronger negative association between daily optimism and negative affect among those who reported low daily pessimism (b = .38, p < .05 and b = .05, ns for low and high pessimism respectively). This trend resulted in the lowest negative affect among those who reported a combination of high daily optimism and low daily pessimism. On the other hand, among old participants there was a stronger negative association between daily optimism and negative affect among those who reported high daily pessimism (b = .07, ns and b = .33, p < .05 for low and high pessimism respectively). Thus, negative affect was lowest among those with a combination of high daily optimism intertwined with high daily pessimism. Negative affect was also low when both daily optimism and pessimism were low. 3. Discussion This study examined whether daily optimism and pessimism differently relate to each other, and whether different optimism– pessimism combinations relate to positive and negative affect among young and old people. The findings suggest that daily optimism and pessimism are less strongly related to each other among old people. Moreover, a combination of high daily optimism – low
daily pessimism was found as most emotionally beneficial for young people. In contrast, combinations in which both daily optimism and pessimism were low or high were most emotionally beneficial for old people. We now turn to discuss our findings in more detail. Our first hypothesis was supported, replicating previous findings (Herzberg et al., 2006; Mroczek et al., 1993). The negative association between daily optimism and pessimism was weaker among old people. This finding may reflect a tendency towards higher mental complexity among community-dwelling old people (Lomranz, 1998). It also accords with findings indicating a higher emotional complexity (noted by a weaker relationship between positive and negative affect) among old people relative to young people (Charles & Carstensen, 2009). Late-life mental complexity may signal a more mature, dialectical conception of the self and the world in which opposite evaluations are less mutually exclusive. Our second hypothesis was also supported. There were threeway interactions between age group, daily optimism, and daily pessimism in predicting positive and negative affect. These interactions showed that high daily optimism combined with low daily pessimism was the most emotionally favorable for young people. Different combinations in which both daily optimism and daily pessimism were either low or high were found the most emotionally favorable for old people. Among old people, the high daily optimism–low daily pessimism combination was as emotionally favorable as, or even less emotionally favorable than, combinations in which both evaluations were either low or high. As mentioned earlier, on the one hand, the high daily optimism–low daily pessimism combination is crucial for gain pursuit in early life (Busseri, Choma, & Sadava, 2009; Lachman et al., 2008), and therefore, it is not surprising to find it as the most emotional advantageous among young people. On the other hand, a favorable emotional experience in late-life is related to the low–low and high–high combinations of daily optimism and daily pessimism. These combinations respectively reflect the desire to maintain the functional status quo, and the ability to sustain a high mental complexity, two conditions considered as highly adaptive in old age (Baltes, 1997; Charles & Carstensen, 2009; Ebner et al., 2006; Lomranz, 1998). Most old participants, who reported low daily optimism and low daily pessimism, were above the mid score in the positive and negative affect scales. Therefore, their deflated expectancies should not be regarded as reflecting an overall numbness that also includes a deflated emotional experience (i.e., low positive affect combined with low negative affect; e.g., Shmotkin, 2005). Additionally, old participants with a low–low combination of daily optimism and pessimism reported lower positive affect (but a relatively similar negative affect level) compared to their high daily optimism–low daily pessimism counterparts. Yet we do believe that the shift seen in the adaptiveness of the latter combination from the young group to the old one may represents an important developmental change, as this combination was the least emotionally adaptive among young people. According to the aforementioned, it is possible that a low–low combination of daily optimism and pessimism is more emotionally adaptive in old age, as it reflects an acknowledgement that the resources left are limited and that one should strive towards preservation and optimization of available resources (Baltes, 1997; Ebner et al., 2006). The ability to preserve a complex mental organization is especially beneficial in late-life, as it is related to resilience in the face of age-related adversity, such as physical illness, functional decline, and interpersonal losses (Benyamini, 2005; Ong & Bergeman, 2004). Accounting for dialectical expectancies may best serve old people, as such dialectic continues a positive outlook on the future while keeping in mind probable future hardships.
Y. Palgi et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011) 1294–1299
The findings of the current study should be interpreted while accounting for the study limitations. First, due to our crosssectional design, age-related and cohort-related effects cannot be separated. Lifetime adversity, which is generally more frequent in the historical circumstances of old people, may be positively related to cognitive and emotional complexity (e.g., Lomranz, 1998). It remains to be established whether the high expectancy complexity found here for the old participants reflects age-related or cohort-related effects (or a combination of these two). Second, physical illness, disability, and cognitive functioning were not controlled for, and therefore might have contributed to age-related effects. Still, self-rated health – a major marker of physical functioning (Benyamini & Idler, 1999) – was controlled for. Finally, our measure of affect, the SPANE, is relatively new and was administered only at one time point, raising the need to replicate our findings with other, more frequently used measures of affect (e.g., Watson et al., 1988), preferably administered on a daily basis. Still, the SPANE captures positive and negative feelings regardless of their arousal level or cultural ubiquity (Diener et al., 2010), and therefore is especially appropriate when examining age-related differences. To sum, our study showed that while the daily expectancy framework is relatively interdependent in young age, it is more dialectical in old age. It further found that a general daily optimistic outlook (i.e., high daily optimism and low daily pessimism) is related to the most favorable emotional experience in young age. Contrary, either a deflated daily expectancy framework (i.e., low– low daily optimism and pessimism) or an inflated one (i.e., high– high daily optimism and pessimism) is emotionally favorable as the general daily optimistic outlook, or even more so in old age. Future studies should further examine the mechanisms and conditions that promote emotionally-beneficial combinations of expectancies in young and old age. Acknowledgment The research leading to this paper was conducted while Dr. Palgi was a post doctoral fellow at Bar-Ilan University. Dr. Palgi wishes to thank Dr. Ehud Bodner & Prof. Liat Ayalon for their assistance and help during this period. References Baltes, P. B. (1997). On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny: Selection, optimization, and compensation as foundation of developmental theory. American Psychologist, 52, 366–380. Benyamini, Y. (2005). Can high optimism and high pessimism co-exist? Findings from arthritis patients coping with pain. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1463–1473. Benyamini, Y., & Idler, E. L. (1999). Community studies reporting association between self-rated health and mortality. Research on Aging, 21, 392–401.
1299
Benyamini, Y., & Roziner, I. (2008). The predictive validity of optimism and affectivity in a longitudinal study of older adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 853–864. Busseri, M. A., Choma, B. L., & Sadava, S. W. (2009). Functional or fantasy? Examining the implications of subjective temporal perspective ‘trajectories’ for life satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 295–308. Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space. A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 401–423. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2010). Optimism. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 879–889. Chang, E. C., & Sanna, L. J. (2001). Optimism, pessimism, and positive and negative affectivity in middle-aged adults: A test of a cognitive-affective model of psychological adjustment. Psychology and Aging, 16, 524–531. Charles, S. T., & Carstensen, L. L. (2009). Social and emotional aging. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 383–409. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D. W., Oishi, S., et al. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97, 143–156. Ebner, N. C., Freund, A. M., & Baltes, P. B. (2006). Developmental changes in personal goal orientation from young to late adulthood: From striving for gains to maintenance and prevention of losses. Psychology and Aging, 21, 664–678. Herzberg, P. Y., Glaesmer, H., & Hoyer, J. (2006). Separating optimism and pessimism: A robust psychometric analysis of the Revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R). Psychological Assessment, 18, 433–438. Keyes, C. L. M. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 539–548. Lachman, M. E., Röcke, C., Rosnick, C., & Ryff, C. D. (2008). Realism and illusion in Americans’ temporal views of their life satisfaction. Psychological Science, 19, 889–897. Lennings, C. J. (2000). Optimism, satisfaction and time perspective in the elderly. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 51, 167–181. Lomranz, J. (1998). An image of aging and the concept of integration: Personality, coping, and mental health implications. In J. Lomranz (Ed.), Handbook of aging and mental health: An integrative approach (pp. 217–250). New York: Plenum. Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 616–628. Mroczek, D. K., Spiro, A., Aldwin, C. M., Ozer, D. J., & Bossé, R. (1993). Construct validation of optimism and pessimism in older men: Findings form the normative ageing study. Health Psychology, 12, 406–409. Ong, A. D., & Bergeman, C. S. (2004). The complexity of emotions in later life. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 59B, P117–P122. Palgi, Y., & Shmotkin, D. (2010). The predicament of time near the end of life: Time perspective trajectories of life satisfaction among the old-old. Aging and Mental Health, 14, 577–586. Rasmussen, H. N., Scheier, M. F., & Greenhouse, J. B. (2009). Optimism and physical health: A meta-analytic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 37, 239–256. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Reich, J. W., Zautra, A. J., & Davis, M. (2003). Dimensions of affect relationships: Models and their integrative implications. Review of General Psychology, 7, 66–83. Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A re-evaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063–1078. Shmotkin, D. (2005). Happiness in face of adversity: Reformulating the dynamic and modular bases of subjective well-being. Review of General Psychology, 9, 291–325. Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London, England: Sage. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.