系統性樂悲觀之建構及其在身心適應之功能

The Construction and Function of Systematic Optimism/Pessimism in Mental Adjustment

過去普遍認為樂觀可為個體帶來較佳的身心適應，且亦能採取較主動的因應方式。然而過去學界對於「樂觀有利於個體身心適應」及「悲觀不利於個體身心適應」的觀點仍存有疑慮，例如Schwarzer（1994）認為「防衛性樂觀」可能會為個體帶來身心的損害。Cantor 等人（1987）則認為「防衛性悲觀」雖會預期負面的結果，卻會採取行動避免負向結果，是一種可為個體帶來正面效益的悲觀型態。本研究認為，在思考樂觀或悲觀之特性時，不僅需考量正負向預期，亦需考量個體的因應型態為何。據此，本研究旨在以「正、負向預期」和「投入、脫離因應方式」兩向度，將樂觀與悲觀區分為「功能性樂觀」、「失能性樂觀」、「功能性悲觀」和「失能性悲觀」等四種型態，發展出「系統性樂悲觀量表」，並探討其特性及在身心適應中所扮演的功能。本研究以134 名大學生為對象，以問卷調查法蒐集資料。研究結果顯示，本研究發展的「系統性樂悲觀量表」具有良好的信、效度，且不同的樂悲觀型態在不同的心理健康或行為指標上，扮演著不同的功能。其中，功能性樂觀最能預測生活滿意度；功能性悲觀最能預測憂鬱與焦慮症狀；失能性樂觀則最能預測拖延習慣。綜合上述，本研究結果有助於釐清了過去學界對於「樂觀有利於個體身心適應」及「悲觀不利於個體身心適應」觀點的疑慮。

Optimists are individuals who expect good things to happen to them; pessimists are individuals who expect bad things to happen to them. Optimists and pessimists differ in several ways that have varying degrees of impact on their lives and adaptations. They differ in how they perceive stressed they encounter,and they differ in the manner with which they cope with life’s difficulties. Past research generally considered optimism a character that brings individuals better physical and mental health, and more active coping strategies. For example, optimists differ from pessimists in the subjective well-being they enjoy when experiencing various kinds of adversity and difficulties. Optimists usually perceive lower stress and have better physical and mental health than pessimists (Chang & Farrehi, 2001; Iwanaga, Yokoyama,& Seiwa, 2004). Optimists also have lower degree of depressed and anxious levels while encounter life’s difficulties. Besides, optimists more adopted active and proactive coping strategies than pessimists (Brissette,Scheier, & Carver, 2002). In other words, optimists are faster to accept the reality of a challenge to their current lives. They appear to engage in more focused, active coping when such efforts are likely to be productive. They are less likely to show signs of disengagement or giving up pursuit of their goals (Carver & Scheier, 2003). There is also evidence that optimism was related to better physical and mental health outcomes in certain circumstances (Carver & Scheier, 2001; Wrosch & Scheier, 2003). However,researchers still doubt about the perspectives of “whether optimism is beneficial to mental adjustment”(Norem & Chang, 2002) and “whether pessimism is not beneficial to mental adjustment” (Schwarzer,1994; Wallston, 1994). For example, Schwarzer (1994) indicated that “defensive optimism” might bring individuals physical and psychological harms. Cantor et al. (1987) considered “defensive pessimism” as contributing to negative expectations, yet bring action to avoid potential risk. This study suggested that elucidating characters of optimism and pessimism should include the positive/negative expectations and the types of coping simultaneously. Different combinations of expectations and coping would demonstrate different working mechanisms in mental adjustment. However, past researchers although provide different concepts of optimism/pessimism (e.g., defensive optimism and defensive pessimism), lack of measuring tools to tackle with these concepts. Therefore, the goal of the study adopted “positive/negative expectations” as well as “engagement /disengagement” as two dimensions to distinguish optimism and pessimism to “functional optimism”, ”dysfunctional optimism”, “functional pessimism” and “dysfunctional pessimism.” This study further investigated the functions of mental adjustment with these four optimistic and pessimistic types. The data was collected from a total of 134 college students (Female =60.4%; Male = 39.6%) and the researchers of this study conducted item analysis, exploratory/confirmatory factor analysis, internal consistency, criterion-related validity to examine the scale’s reliability and validity. The results showed four optimistic and pessimistic types (i.e., functional optimism, dysfunctional optimism, functional pessimism, “dysfunctional pessimism) have good reliability and validity. In addition, the study found that each type played different roles in metal adjustment. In the hierarchical analysis, functional optimism and dysfunctional optimism positively predicted to satisfaction of life,functional pessimism negatively predicted to satisfaction of life. Among them, functional optimism was the best predictor to satisfaction of life. Functional optimism positively predicted to depressed symptoms,functional pessimism negatively predicted to depressed symptoms. Among them, functional pessimism was the best predictor to depressed symptoms. Functional pessimism was the only and positive predictor to anxious symptoms. Dysfunctional optimism was the only and positive predictor to procrastination. In summary, the results of the study helps to clarify the issues of “optimism is beneficial to mental adjustment”and “pessimism is not beneficial to mental adjustment.”