1. Optimism is Weakly and Not Significantly Related to Decision Making
Neshat Yazdani & Karen L. Siedlecki, Ph.D.
Fordham University · Bronx, NY
Introduction
Methods
Discussion
The optimism bias is a cognitive bias that has been shown to influence decision-making in specific situations.
This unrealistic optimism about the likelihood of achieving a positive outcome combined with the underestimation of the chances of an unfavorable outcome may lead to risky decision making in ambiguous situations (Bracha & Brown, 2012).
While the optimism bias only applies to specific decisions (situational optimism), optimism as a personality trait is considered to be stable (dispositional optimism).
Hypothesized that people who are optimistic will be more likely to take risks because their optimism leads them to incorrectly assess the probability of a favorable outcome.
The Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) was administered as the measure of decision-making. The IGT measures risk-taking behavior as well as sensitivity to reward and loss by assessing participants’ responses to dealing with the same type of uncertainty that exists in real-world risk decisions (α = .84 for current study).
Participants made 100 card selections that were then divided into five blocks of 20 cards to determine the learning curve. Each block was scored by subtracting the number of disadvantageous choices from the advantageous ones ([C+D] – [A+B]; Lin, Song, Chen, Lee, & Chiu, 2013)
Optimism measures and the IGT are weakly and not significantly related to each other.
However, the pattern of correlations is consistent with the hypothesis: 22 out of 33 correlations (73.33%) were in the direction hypothesized.
Current study may have been underpowered to detect these small effects.
Consistent with previous research, the ASQ stability subscale was found to be significantly correlated with both the optimism and pessimism items.
The globality subscale, however, was only correlated with the pessimism items.
Inconsistent with previous research, we found that optimism and pessimism were not significantly correlated with trait hope.
Generally, the results suggests that dispositional optimism does not influence decision making, even though situational optimism does.
Results
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics
Variable M SD
Range
Optimism Measures
LOT-R Optimism
3.27
0.68
1.67 – 4.67
LOT-R Pessimism
2.70
0.81
1.00 – 4.67
ASQ Globality
4.17
1.35
1.82 – 6.73
ASQ Stability
4.44
1.09
2.08 – 7.00
Hope Pathway
24.48
3.66
15.00 – 31.00
Hope Agency
25.44
3.52
16.00 – 32.00
IGT
Block 1
-1.93
3.98
– 10.00
Block 2
2.59
5.85
– 20.00
Block 3
4.16
7.62
– 20.00
Block 4
1.90
9.04
– 20.00
Block 5
2.90
9.32
Objectives
To explore the relationships between optimism, attributional style, and hope.
Determine whether there is a relationship between optimism related traits and decision-making behavior.
Methods
Limitations & Future Directions
Participants included 61 individuals recruited at an urban university in the New York City area through flyers posted around campus as well as an online posting.
This sample was composed of 44 females (72.1%), 16 males (26.2%) and one participants who did not report a gender (1.6%). Participants were primarily White (68.9%) and had some college education but no degree (49.2%).
Participants completed several measures of optimism and measures associated with optimism:
1) The Life Orientation Test – Revised (LOT–R; Schier et al.,1994): Measure of optimism and pessimism; includes two subscales that measure optimism and pessimism.
Ex. “In uncertain times, I usually expect the best”
2) Attributional Style Questionnaire (ASQ; Dykema et al., 1996): Measure of explanatory style; composed of two subscales, globality and stability.
[How likely is it that the cause of this situation will continue to affect you? Is the cause of this situation something that just affects this specific situation or does it affect other areas of your life?]
Ex. “You have trouble sleeping”
3) Trait Hope Scale (The Future Scale; Snyder et al., 1994): Measure of the personality trait of hope; includes a subscale for pathway thinking and agency thinking.
Ex. “My past experiences have prepared me well for my future”
IGT performance is known to be influenced by age, so a wider age range might yield different results.
The IGT is only one of many possible measures of decision making.
Future studies should focus on the relationship between optimism and hope, as the results of this study conflict with previous findings.
Taking a broader perspective on the factors that influence decision making may help us to understand the mechanisms that predict risky decision making.
Correlational pattern suggests that additional research should be conducted to examine whether a small relationship exists- perhaps with a different or additional measures of decision-making.
Participants were moderately optimistic (M = 3.27, SD = 0.68) and less pessimistic (M = 2.70, SD = 0.81).
Correlation between optimism and pessimism supports the idea that optimism is a bidimensional construct.
Results support the use of the ASQ as a measure of optimism, but it is clear that optimism and attributional style are distinct constructs.
Neither of the Hope Scale subscales were found to be related to optimism.
No significant relationships were found between the six subscales and IGT performance.
References
Table 2. Correlations
Bracha, A., & Brown, D. J. (2012). Affective decision making: A theory of optimism bias. Games and Economic Behavior, 75(1), doi: /j.geb
Dykema, J., Bergbower, K., Doctora, J., & Peterson, C. (1996). An attributional style questionnaire for general use. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 14, 100–108.
Lin, C.-H., Song, T.-J., Chen, Y.-Y., Lee, W.-K., & Chiu, Y.-C. (2013). Reexamining the validity and reliability of the clinical version of the Iowa Gambling Task: Evidence from a normal subject group. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(1), doi: /fpsyg
Schier, 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,
Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Babyak, M. A., Higgins, R. L., & Ybasco, F. (1994). Development and validations of the State of Hope Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1–26.
Variable 1 2 3 4 5
1. LOT-R Optimism
2. LOT-R Pessimism
-0.68**
3. ASQ Globality
0.12
-0.32*
4. ASQ Stability
.032**
-0.47**
0.40**
5. Hope Pathway
0.03
0.18
-0.06
-0.16
6. Hope Agency
0.15
-0.33**
-0.11
0.58**
Note: * p < .05 ; ** p < .01.