Explanatory style in depression and optimism research

Explanatory style in depression and optimism research Compared to a pessimistic explanatory style, an optimistic explanatory style has been associated with high motivation, a large number of coping strategies, increased achievement, physical well-being, and lower levels of depressive symptoms (for a review, see Buchanan & Seligman, 1995). For example, Seligman and Schulman (1986) tested the instrument in the life insurance sector, where sales agents are repeatedly in contact with persons not wishing to buy. The authors found that individuals who sold less life insurance in their first and second year were significantly more likely to attribute negative events to internal, stable and global causes (pessimism). In addition, newly recruited sales agents who had completed the ASQ upon entry into the organization achieved a greater volume of sales and were more likely to stay in the company if they attributed positive outcomes to internal, stable and global causes and negative events to external, unstable, and specific causes (an optimistic explanation style). Optimistic explanation style is also related to higher academic achievement for college students and increased job productivity (see Schulman, 1995, for a review). The advantages of optimism are not found consistently. Follette and Jacobson (1987) measured explanatory style and looked at emotions following a real life stressor – a college examination. They found that contrary to Seligman’s model, participants making internal, stable, and global attributions for poor examination performances did not have 33 more depression, but rather, planned to study more for the next examination (see also research on defensive pessimism, Norem & Cantor, 1986). To explain the advantages of optimistic attributions, some researchers suggest that increased optimism results in unrealistic, constructive, and illusory modes of thinking. For example, in their influential review in 1988, Taylor and Brown concluded that healthy individuals characteristically manifest three “pervasive, enduring, and systematic” (pp. 194) illusions. These illusions are unrealistically positive self-evaluations, exaggerated perceptions of control or mastery, and unrealistic optimism. The conclusions were drawn from results showing that depressed and low self-esteem individuals have more accurate self-perceptions than non-depressed or high self-esteem individuals. They therefore argued that persons who have self-enhancing positive illusions are more likely to be psychologically healthy. Not everyone agrees. According to Norem and Chang (2001), “Though there is voluminous research suggesting the advantages of self-enhancing and optimistically biased self-perceptions, little has been done to examine the potential implications of these tendencies as they influence perception of other people. One wonders whether a pervasive tendency to be optimistic about the self – especially if it is related to self-enhancement and even denial – might lead to ignoring others and their potential contributions. Seldom have we seen much discussion or research into those kinds of potential costs” (pp. 355). Similarly, Peterson (2000) remarked, “…much of the optimism research is curiously asocial” (pp. 50). Finally, Norem and Cantor (1986) found that, “…subjects using an optimistic strategy tended to deny having had any control over their performance when given feedback on negative outcomes, whereas they accepted control for their performance in the success condition” (pp. 1209). Indeed, optimism may be good for individual well-being and health, but even in an individualistic society, can the strategy always be justified? And is an optimistic explanatory style within social situations related to blaming behaviors? In a review paper entitled Blaming others for threatening events, Tennen and Affleck (1990) identified optimism and explanatory style as individual difference variables that may influence a tendency to blame others. “Individuals’ attributional style should also influence other-blame. Those who characteristically find others at fault are more likely to take advantage of the presence of another person to attribute blame…however…none of the 34 studies…measured attributional style or dispositional optimism. Very few have examined any of the situational factors that we predict will elicit other-blame or examined directly how situational factors, personal characteristics, and event-specific appraisals act on each other. Thus, our portrayal of other-blame as a derivative of a situation x person interaction awaits formal empirical test. The available evidence is preliminary yet encouraging” (pp. 223). Blaming has been studied mostly in connection with victimization and the adaptation of the individual to threatening circumstances such as rape, accidents, illnesses, and the death of loved ones. In these contexts, the focus was usually on the adaptiveness of behavioral self-blame – although this finding was not always consistent (Tennen & Affleck, 1990). Interestingly, a relatively consistent finding in these types of studies was that other-blame had a negative relationship to adaptation and was regularly associated with lower self-esteem, more emotional distress, and poorer physical health than self-blame. The review by Tennen and Affleck, however, did not look at the published literature on achievement related attributions or on studies exploring the affective consequences of causal attribution. Thompson and Janigian (1988) suggested that externalizing blame through excuses might be more adaptive in achievement situations where outcomes are ego-relevant than in non-achievement tasks, where one’s view of the world rather than one’s ability is threatened. The literature concerning scapegoating also contends that blaming can have very positive functions for individual psychological well-being (Douglas, 1995). Similarly, Meyer (1988) showed that positive thinking is often defined by what it opposes: Catholics, women, homosexuals, intellectuals, etc. Thus, victim blaming seems to be a general theme in the type of optimistic thinking (Ryan, 1978) heralded in individualistic societies and cultures. Although self-enhancement and external blaming may be advantageous for individual well-being in achievement situations, related research suggests that this strategy may be less effective in social interactions. For example, Colvin, Block, and Funder (1995) found that “…self-enhancement, while aiding one’s self-esteem, is over the long term an ineffective interpersonal strategy with both friends and acquaintances and, therefore, the growth or development of self. A vicious cycle is generated whereby self-enhancement is rigidly and frequently used to maintain positive self-regard but at a continual and cumulative cost of alienating one’s friends and discouraging new acquaintances” (pp. 1161). Research 35 concerning the narcissistic personality type also suggests that these people respond to threats to their self-worth by perceiving themselves more positively than is justified (Robbins & John, 1997) and by denigrating others (Morf & Rhodewalt, 1993). Based upon a review of the literature, Robins and John conclude that, “Compared with low self-esteem individuals, high self-esteem individuals are more likely to describe themselves more positively than they describe the average other, more likely to engage in compensatory self-enhancement following negative feedback, more likely to believe their abilities as unusual and their failings as common, and more likely to derogate sources of negative feedback. Thus the Egoist metaphor seems to capture the self-processes of individuals high in narcissism and in self-esteem” (pp. 666). Given the relationship between optimism, self-esteem, the strategy of attributing negative situations to external factors, and a lack of research concerning this variable in real social situations, one could question if similar processes are occurring here.