以集群分析探討樂悲觀雙向度模式與心理適應之關係

Using Cluster analysis to Explore the Relation Between Dual-Axis Model of Optimism/Pessimism and Mental Adjustment

樂觀為正向心理學中重要的正向特質之一。樂觀同時包含預期信念與因應行為，它可為個體帶來較佳的 心理適應。然而過去學界對於樂觀研究大都採取「變項中心取向」（variable-centered approach）派典仍 存有疑慮，例如Asendorpf（2014）認為「變項中心取向」極易忽略個體之獨特性；反之，「個體中心取 向」（person-centered approach）不僅較符合生態效度，同時亦較能展現個體本身各種心理特質與行為特 徵。為此，本研究主張在考量樂悲觀特性時，不僅需納入預期信念與因應行為，同時最好亦能從「個體 中心取向」來加以探究。據此，本研究先以「正、負向預期」和「正、負向因應」雙向度發展出「樂悲 觀雙向度模式量表」，之後再以集群分析法區分不同樂悲觀型態。研究一以問卷調查法，共收集169名 有效樣本，研究結果顯示，本研究發展的「樂悲觀雙向度模式量表」具有良好的信、效度。研究二再以 問卷調查法，共收集639名有效樣本，經集群分析法區分出「功能性樂觀」、「中性樂觀」、「中性悲 觀」、「失能性悲觀」與「自我設限」等五種樂悲觀型態，這五種型態在心理適應指標上呈現不同程度 的差異情形。功能性樂觀與中性樂觀心理適應功能較佳，中性悲觀屬三悲觀集群（亦即，中性悲觀、失 能性悲觀、自我設限）中較適應的集群，失能性悲觀極易出現心理適應之問題，而自我設限則最易出現 拖延行為。

 

Optimism is a crucial feature in Positive Psychology. Optimistic individuals expect good things to happen. In contrast, pessimistic individuals expect bad things to happen. Optimists and pessimists differ in many ways that have varying degrees of impact on their mental adjustment. In the past studies, optimistic and pessimism were regarded as the two extremes of continuous dimension. Researchers critiqued Scheier and Carver’s (1985) theory of optimistic orientations overemphasized individuals’ positive expectancy, neglected adaptive behaviors or damaging behaviors that extend beyond the expected beliefs (Norem & Chang, 2002). In other words, Scheier and Carver (1985) ignored mutual influences between beliefs and behaviors, as well as underestimated the possibility of various outcome behaviors. Accordingly, researchers used a variety of statistical methods to prove that optimism and pessimism should be regarded as two dimensions (Kubzansky, Kubzansky, & Maselko, 2004; Mehrabian & Ljunggren, 1997). Furthermore, Chou and Chen (2017) addressed that different combinations of expectations and coping would demonstrate different functions in mental adjustment. They adopted ""positive/ negative expectations"" as well as ""engagement /disengagement"" as two dimensions based on the variable-centered approach to distinguish optimism/pessimism to ""functional optimism"", ""dysfunctional optimism"", ""functional pessimism"" and ""dysfunctional pessimism"" Furthermore, Chou and Chen (2017) found that each type of optimism /pessimism played different roles in metal adjustment. For examples, functional optimism and dysfunctional optimism positively predicted to satisfaction of life, functional pessimism negatively predicted to satisfaction of life. Functional pessimism was the best predictor to depressed and anxious symptoms. Dysfunctional optimism was the best predictor to procrastination. However, Asendorpf (2014) critiqued the paradigms of optimism studies that have generally adopted the variable-centered approach (Asendorpf, 2014); for example, Asendorpf (2014) addressed that the variable-centered approach might easily neglect the uniqueness of each individual, whereas the person-centered approach could produce trait clusters that meet ecological validity and demonstrate the behavioral characteristics related to an individual’s psychological features. Thus, the study proposed while understanding the characteristics of optimistic and pessimistic traits, researchers should involve expectancy beliefs and behavioral coping as well as adopt the person-centered approach. Accordingly, the study established a scale that reflects positive and negative value of expectancy beliefs and behavioral coping, as well as further explores the differences in their mental adjustment. Study 1 sampled a total of 169 college students (female = 40.8=%, male = 59.2%) and conducted item analysis, exploratory factor analysis, internal consistency, criterion-related validity to examine the reliability and validity of ""Dual-Axis Model of Optimism/Pessimism Scale-I, DAMOPS-I."" The results showed that four subscales of DAMOPS-I have good reliability and validity. Study 2 enlarged the sample variability, the sample size and rewriting some contents of items, which involving a total of 639 college students (female = 54.9%, male = 44.8%). As Study 1, Study 2 conducted item analysis, exploratory factor analysis, internal consistency, criterion-related validity to examine the reliability and validity of ""Dual-Axis Model of Optimism/ Pessimism Scale-II, DAMOPS-II."" The result indicated that the four subscales of DAMOPS-II have good reliability and validity. Furthermore, Study 2 adopted cluster analysis based on two dimensions (i.e., positive/ negative expectancy and positive/negative coping behaviors) to distinguish five clusters, namely Functional Optimism, Medium Optimism, Medium Pessimism, Dysfunctional Pessimism, and Self-Handicapping. The results of Study 2 showed five types of optimism/pessimism have different levels of mental adjustment. Both of ""Functional Optimism"" and ""Medium Optimism"" had a great mental adjustment outcome. ""Medium Pessimism"" showed the greatest outcome within three pessimistic clusters. ""Dysfunctional Pessimism"" showed heightened vulnerability to mental adjustment (e.g., higher levels of depressed and anxious symptoms, lower level of life satisfaction). ""Self-Handicapping"" demonstrated a highest tendency to procrastinate in five clusters.