This article was downloaded by: [Ms Adriana Baban]

On: 13 November 2012, At: 12:13

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Psychology & Health

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpsh20

Comparative and dispositional optimism

as separate and interactive predictors
a

Andrew L. Geers , Justin A. Wellman & Stephanie L. Fowler

a

Department of Psychology, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA

Department of Psychology, Hartwick College, Oneonta, NY, USA

Accepted author version posted online: 28 Jun 2012.Version of
record first published: 24 Jul 2012.

To cite this article: Andrew L. Geers, Justin A. Wellman & Stephanie L. Fowler (2013): Comparative
and dispositional optimism as separate and interactive predictors, Psychology & Health, 28:1, 30-48
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2012.707200

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Psychology & Health

Vol. 28, No. 1, January 2013, 3048

Comparative and dispositional optimism as

separate and interactive predictors
Andrew L. Geersa*, Justin A. Wellmanb and Stephanie L. Fowlera
a

Department of Psychology, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA;

b
Department of Psychology, Hartwick College, Oneonta, NY, USA

Downloaded by [Ms Adriana Baban] at 12:13 13 November 2012

(Received 25 August 2011; final version received 22 June 2012)

Comparative optimism and dispositional optimism are typically studied
separately and little is known regarding their unique and combined
predictive abilities. We examined how these two types of optimism predict
cognitive and affective reactions following unpleasant dental health
feedback (Studies 1 and 2) and neutral feedback (Study 2). In Study 1,
dispositional optimism and a measure of dental health comparative
optimism interacted to predict appraisals of dental health feedback.
In Study 2, dispositional optimism and dental health comparative optimism
interacted to predict appraisals of new dental health information following
negative dental health feedback but not following neutral feedback.
Individuals scoring high in dispositional optimism and low in dental health
comparative optimism were more interested in and receptive to the dental
health feedback than those scoring high in both types of optimism. Finally,
greater dental health comparative optimism was associated with less
negative affect following the dental health feedback, whereas dispositional
optimism was associated with greater positive affect under all conditions.
The results indicate that comparative and dispositional optimism are
unique as well as interactive predictors.
Keywords: comparative optimism; dispositional optimism; perceived risk;
dental health

Introduction
Considerable research has independently examined comparative optimism and
dispositional optimism. To date, relatively few studies have explored these two
forms of optimism within the same sample (Klein & Zajac, 2009). In this study,
we measured both comparative and dispositional optimism and explored their
independent and interactive relationships in the prediction of health-relevant
criterion variables.

*Corresponding author. Email: andrew.geers@utoledo.edu

ISSN 08870446 print/ISSN 14768321 online
2013 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2012.707200
http://www.tandfonline.com

Psychology & Health

31

Dispositional optimism

Downloaded by [Ms Adriana Baban] at 12:13 13 November 2012

Dispositional optimism is a generalised positive outcome expectancy (Carver &

Scheier, 2002). High dispositional optimism has been associated with both superior
physical and mental health (Carver & Scheier, 2002; Carver, Scheier, & Segerstrom,
2010) and the link between dispositional optimism and health is sometimes
accounted for by the active health promotion and protective activities of dispositional optimists (Carver et al., 2010). These results are consistent with Carver and
Scheiers (1998) model of self-regulation which proposes that when individuals
encounter adversity, they assess the probability of successfully overcoming the
problem. As dispositional optimists are confident they will obtain desirable
outcomes, they actively approach problems and take constructive steps to improve
their situation.

Comparative optimism
In addition to dispositional optimism, health researchers frequently assess perceptions of future risk by having participants indicate their chances of experiencing
positive or negative events in comparison to similar others. Research has revealed
a tendency for individuals to perceive themselves as low in comparative risk
for aversive future events, referred to as comparative optimism (Harris, Griffin, &
Murray, 2008; Shepperd, Helweg-Larsen, & Ortega, 2003). Comparative optimism is
not always exhibited and in some situations individuals are accurate in their
perceptions of comparative risk and sometimes even display a tendency towards
pessimism (Blanton, Axsom, McClive, & Price, 2001; Lipkus, Klein, Skinner, &
Rimmer, 2005). Perceptions of comparative risk vary by topic domain (e.g. risk
for dental problems, lung cancer; Nezlek & Zebrowski, 2001) and are influenced by
many factors such as event frequency (Harris et al., 2008). Even though it can
fluctuate due to situational factors, comparative optimism in a particular domain
remains fairly consistent across several months (Shepperd et al., 2003).
Although tests of this relationship have yielded inconsistent findings (Klein &
Cooper, 2008), studies suggest that comparative optimism is at times a barrier to
protective health behaviour (Dillard et al., 2011; Wiebe & Black, 1997). Comparative
optimism appears to relate to health behaviour, in part, by its relationship with
negative affect (e.g. fear and worry). Research indicates that being comparatively
optimistic in risk perceptions is associated with decreased feelings of negative affect
and this may reduce the engagement of health problems (e.g. Dillard et al., 2011;
Dillard, Ferrer, Ubel, & Fagerlin, 2012; Janssen, van Osch, de Vries, & Lechner,
2011; Vastfjall, Peters, & Slovic, 2008; Weinstein et al., 2007).

Comparative and dispositional optimism

Evidence supports the view that comparative and dispositional optimism represent
different types of positive expectancies. First, measures of perceived comparative
risk and dispositional optimism are typically modest or non-significantly correlated
(Davidson & Prkachin, 1997; de Ridder, Fournier, & Bensing, 2004). This
weak association has been found with multiple dispositional optimism scales
and numerous risk domains, including heart attacks, tsunami disasters and
academic grades (e.g. Geers, 2000; Luo & Isaacowitz, 2007; Vastfjall et al., 2008).

Downloaded by [Ms Adriana Baban] at 12:13 13 November 2012

32

A.L. Geers et al.

Second, perceived comparative risk items and dispositional optimism items load
separately in factor analyses. For example, Fournier, de Ridder, and Bensing (1999)
found that items measuring dispositional optimism, comparative optimism and
efficacy expectations form distinct dimensions of optimism. Finally, when assessed
in the same sample, dispositional optimism and comparative optimism often differ in
their predictive ability (e.g. de Ridder et al., 2004). For example, in the study by
Fournier et al. (1999), dispositional optimism predicted depression, whereas
comparative optimism predicted physical mobility impairment.
If comparative optimism and dispositional optimism operate independently,
it may be profitable to fully discern how they relate in the prediction of outcome
variables. It is possible that the two sometimes have additive effects and other times
combine multiplicatively in predicting health outcomes. Of the studies that have
assessed these forms of optimism in the same sample, most have not explored
the potential for the two to interact. Testing for interactions may help clarify the
connections between optimism and health behaviour (Klein & Zajac, 2009).
Evidence that comparative and dispositional optimism interact to predict health
variables was provided in two studies by Davidson and Prkachin (1997). In Study 1,
dispositional optimists who perceived themselves as higher in comparative risk
across a variety of health domains (e.g. heart disease, mugging victim) had a greater
increase in exercise behaviour over a six-week period than dispositional optimists
who perceived themselves as lower in comparative risk (i.e. dispositional optimists
with comparative optimism). In Study 2, participants listened to a lecture on
coronary heart disease (CHD) and dispositional optimists, who perceived themselves
as higher in comparative risk, subsequently displayed a greater increase in knowledge
about CHD than dispositional optimists who perceived themselves to be lower
in comparative risk.
The studies reported by Davidson and Prkachin (1997) suggest that comparative
and dispositional optimism can combine multiplicatively to determine health
outcomes. However, in subsequent critiques, researchers have questioned Davidson
and Prkachins method of measuring comparative optimism by combining perceived
comparative risk items over a wide assortment of health domains many of which
were unrelated to the criterion variable under examination (Armor & Taylor, 1998;
Klein & Zajac, 2009). Further, despite these initial promising findings, the interaction
effect observed in this initial set of studies did not emerge in at least one other study
testing for the effect (Radcliffe & Klein, 2002). As a result, if and when comparative
and dispositional optimism combine in the prediction of health criterion variables
remains unclear.
The current studies provide further data on comparative and dispositional
optimism as unique and interactive predictors. This work builds from the theorising
of Davidson and Prkachin (1997), who suggested that comparative and dispositional
optimism interact because they relate to different segments of the appraisal/coping
process. These researchers hypothesised that comparative risk estimates are closely
tied to the detection and appraisal of a self-relevant hazard. This suggests that
high perceived comparative risk should be related to increased concern over risk.
Consistent with the behavioural self-regulation model, dispositional optimism is
considered to be more tied to the assessment of and confidence in ones resources
and abilities to attain favourable outcomes when adversity is encountered. Thus,
adaptive reactions to health threats was theorised to increase when individuals
(1) perceive themselves as higher in relative risk and also (2) believe they can

Psychology & Health

33

Downloaded by [Ms Adriana Baban] at 12:13 13 November 2012

surmount this adversity (high dispositional optimism). From this perspective,

dispositional optimists actively cope with salient problems; but, when they do not
perceive themselves to be at high risk, they focus on the positives (Karademas,
Kafetsios, & Sideridis, 2007) and do not benefit fully from their active coping
tendency (Schwarzer, 1994).
The present research
Two studies examined the predictive abilities of comparative and dispositional
optimism. Unlike Davidson and Prkachin (1997) who aggregated comparative risk
items across a variety of unrelated health domains, we used comparative risk items
pertaining to a unified topic (dental health) that directly related to our criterion
variables. Also, we tested for this interaction effect in a context that we anticipated
would increase the likelihood of comparative and dispositional optimism to interact.
Specifically, we presented participants with negative health feedback. We expected
that this negative health feedback would make the topic self-relevant and raise
momentary awareness of the potential adverse outcome. Thus, we hypothesised that
individuals perceiving themselves as high in comparative risk and also believing they
can overcome adversity (high dispositional optimism) would be more interested in
risk reduction and appraise the feedback as a more serious threat than individuals
high in both forms of optimism.
In the present studies we used dental health as the domain for testing our
hypotheses because pilot testing revealed it to be relevant to our student participants
and because dental health plays a key role in cardiovascular disease and mortality
(DeStefano, Kahn, Williamson, & Russell, 1993). In Study 1, participants received
negative dental health feedback and then were given the opportunity to evaluate
the feedback. In Study 2, participants were given negative dental health feedback or
neutral feedback and then evaluated new dental hygiene information.
We also measured affective states in both studies. We theorised that if
comparative optimism is more closely tied to the detection and appraisal of a selfrelevant hazard than dispositional optimism (Davidson & Prkachin, 1997), then
comparative optimism would be correlated with less negative affect following
the presentation of the unpleasant health feedback. As dispositional optimism is
expected to relate more to resource and ability appraisals than threat detection,
we predicted that it would not be as closely tied to negative affect after the feedback.
We also measured positive affect, and based on prior research (see Carver et al.,
2010), expected dispositional optimism (and perhaps comparative optimism) to be
associated with positive affect.
Finally, as described below, our study design allowed us to obtain self-reported
dental health behaviour. Health behaviour is sometimes related to optimism
(Dillard et al., 2011) and thus these prior behaviours could underlie any
Optimism  Optimism interaction effect we observe. As such, for each study we
conducted analyses to assess whether participants health behaviour was useful
in accounting for the predicted Optimism  Optimism interactions.

Study 1
Participants were prescreened for dispositional optimism and comparative optimism
(i.e. perceptions of comparative risk) in the domain of dental health. In the subsequent

34

A.L. Geers et al.

Downloaded by [Ms Adriana Baban] at 12:13 13 November 2012

sessions, participants were presented with negative dental health feedback. We

expected that individuals scoring high in dispositional optimism and high in perceived
comparative risk would report the feedback as a more serious threat than individuals
scoring high in dispositional optimism and low in perceived comparative risk. Further,
we predicted that negative affect would be positively associated with high perceived
comparative risk but unrelated to dispositional optimism.

Participants and design

One-hundred and forty-one students (49 male, 92 female) participated in return for
partial course credit (M age 19, SD 1.32). Dispositional optimism and perceived
comparative risk scores were recorded as part of a mass screening survey earlier
in the semester. More than 500 individuals completed the screening survey and each
had an opportunity to sign up for this study.

Optimism measures
Dispositional optimism
The Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994) was
used to assess dispositional optimism. This scale contains six items (plus four fillers)
rated on a five-point scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).
To calculate optimism scores, the three negatively worded items (e.g. I hardly ever
expect things to go my way) were reversed scored and averaged with the three
positively worded items (e.g. Im always optimistic about my future) to create a
summary score ( 0.75). As positively and negatively worded optimism items
sometimes yield divergent findings (Geers, 2000), we also analysed them separately.
In this study the positively and negatively worded LOT-R items produced similar
results and we thus confine our presentation to overall LOT-R scores.
Comparative optimism
Four perceived comparative risk items were used to assess comparative optimism in the
dental health domain (e.g. Compared to other undergraduate students of the same sex
and age as you, what are the chances that you will have a decayed tooth extracted this
year?). The perceived comparative risk items asked participants to estimate (1) the
outcome of their next check-up at the dentist, (2) their chances of having a decayed
tooth extracted this year, (3) their chances of having a serious problem with their teeth
in the next five years and (4) their chances of having to spend over $3000 on dental bills
over the next five years. Responses to the first item, regarding dental check-ups, were
made on a five-point scale ranging from 0 (much worse) to 4 (much better). Responses to
the other three items were made on a five-point scale ranging from 0 (much below
average chances) to 4 (much better than average chances). The first item was reversed
scored and then all four items were averaged ( 0.75) to create a measure in which
higher numbers equated to higher perceived comparative risk in the dental health
domain (lower comparative optimism). The comparative risk scores (M 0.88,
SD 0.80) in this study were significantly lower than the scale midpoint, indicating
that the sample displayed comparative optimism in their dental health risk, t
(140) 16.53, d 1.39, p 5 0.001.

Psychology & Health

35

Downloaded by [Ms Adriana Baban] at 12:13 13 November 2012

Procedure
Upon arrival, all participants were told that they would be completing a computerised survey pertaining to student activities and everyday routines. The survey
consisted of 30 questions covering a variety of topics, including study habits, diet,
internet usage and caffeine intake. To support the subsequent dental health
feedback, we embedded six dental hygiene items into the survey, assessing how
often participants brush their teeth, floss their teeth, use mouthwash, drink milk,
buy a new toothbrush, and have their teeth cleaned. To make sure that participants
did not know if they were scoring relatively high or low on the items, all questions
used a free-response format.
When the lifestyle questionnaire was complete, participants were informed that
the computer program would immediately review their responses and present any
notable findings. The computer then displayed a message screen indicating that the
responses were being analysed and this screen was followed by a feedback screen
that remained visible for 30 seconds. All participants received false feedback stating
that they were at higher risk for dental health problems and that they should
consider this feedback as an indication of poor dental hygiene.

Main outcome measures

Affect measure
To assess affective states, participants completed the state version of the Positive and
Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) after the
feedback. The PANAS contains 10 descriptors of positive affect (e.g. proud) and 10
descriptors of negative affect (e.g. distressed), rated on five-point scales (1 very
slightly or not at all, to 5 extremely). The positive and negative items were averaged
separately to create a positive affect index (PANAS-P,  0.87) and a negative affect
index (PANAS-N,  0.82), respectively.
Dental health feedback measures
Participants rated how stressful, challenging, reliable and accurate they found the
dental health feedback on seven-point scales (1 not at all, 7 very much).
Responses to the accuracy and reliability items were significantly correlated
(r 0.52, p 5 0.001) and were averaged to create a feedback credibility index.
Similarly, the challenging and stressful items were correlated (r 0.47, p 5 0.001)
and were averaged to create a feedback threat index. There were no other significant
correlations between the four items (rs 5 0.14, ps 4 0.10).
At the end of both Study 1 and 2, participants were thanked and fully debriefed.

Results
Correlations
The means, standard deviations and correlations of the Study 1 measures
are displayed in Table 1. Consistent with past research (Armor & Taylor, 1998),
perceived comparative risk and dispositional optimism were not highly correlated,
r  0.11, p 0.20.

36

A.L. Geers et al.

Table 1. Correlations and descriptive statistics for variables in Study 1 and Study 2.
Study variables

Downloaded by [Ms Adriana Baban] at 12:13 13 November 2012

Study 1
1. Dispositional optimism
2. Comparative risk
3. Negative affect
4. Positive affect
5. Feedback credibility
6. Feedback threat
Study 2
1. Dispositional optimism
2. Comparative risk
3. Negative affect
4. Positive affect
5. Dental hygiene importance
6. Self-control importance

0.11

0.07
0.17*

0.15
0.02
0.12

0.09
0.16
0.10
0.18*

0.12

0.10
0.16

0.25*
0.01
0.22*

0.00
0.11
0.02
0.26**

SD

0.05
0.10
0.06
0.06
0.08

2.38
0.88
1.67
3.09
4.26
3.31

0.65
0.80
0.57
0.78
1.27
1.54

0.10
0.14
0.07
0.31**
0.53***

2.40
1.53
1.54
2.83
4.79
4.20

0.52
0.89
0.58
0.81
1.37
1.35

Note: *p 5 0.05; **p 5 0.01; ***p 5 0.001.

Affect measure
To determine how these two forms of optimism relate to negative affectivity in
Study 1, we submitted PANAS-N scores to a hierarchical regression analysis. In this
analysis, perceived comparative risk scores (standardised) and dispositional optimism scores (standardised) were included as predictors in the first step of the
regression equation. Participant sex was included as a control variable. The
interaction between perceived comparative risk and dispositional optimism was
added into the equation on the second step. The first step of this regression analysis
(R2 0.03) yielded a significant main effect of perceived comparative risk,  0.17,
t (137) 2.01, p 0.04, but no effect on dispositional optimism ( 0.06, p 0.52).
These results indicate that perceiving oneself as comparatively high at risk was
related to greater negative affect. When the interaction between the two forms
of optimism was added on the second step of the model (DR2 5 0.001), it was not a
significant predictor of negative affect ( 0.01, p 0.90).
To examine the relationship of optimism to positive affectivity, PANAS-P scores
were entered into the same hierarchical regression model used for the PANAS-N.
On the first step of this analysis (R2 0.05), high dispositional optimism was
associated with greater positive affect,  0.17, t (137) 1.95, p 0.05, whereas
perceived comparative risk scores was not ( 0.02, p 0.78). On the second step
of the analysis (DR2 0.006), the interaction between perceived comparative risk and
dispositional optimism ( 0.08, p 0.38) did not predict positive affect.
Dental feedback credibility
We hypothesised that individuals scoring high in dispositional optimism and
perceiving themselves as comparatively high at risk would be more receptive to the
negative dental feedback than individuals scoring high in dispositional optimism and
perceiving themselves as comparatively low at risk (i.e. comparatively optimistic).
To examine this hypothesis, we first submitted participants scores on the feedback
credibility index to a hierarchical regression analysis with the same predictors used

37

Psychology & Health

Table 2. Hierarchical regression analyses with feedback credibility and feedback threat as
criterion variables in Study 1.

Downloaded by [Ms Adriana Baban] at 12:13 13 November 2012

Model

SE

Feedback credibility
Step 1
Dispositional optimism
Comparative risk
Sex
Step 2
Dispositional optimism  comparative risk

0.06
0.15
0.03

0.11
0.11
0.10

0.76
1.74t
0.43

0.25

0.12

2.86*

Feedback Threat
Step 1
Dispositional optimism
Comparative risk
Gender
Step 2
Dispositional optimism  comparative risk

0.04
0.10
0.07

0.14
0.13
0.13

0.20

0.15

df

DR2

137

0.03

1.48

136

0.06

8.19**

137

0.02

0.79

136

0.04

5.17*

0.56
1.21
0.87
2.28*

Note: tp 5 0.10; *p 5 0.05; **p 5 0.01.

to analyse the PANAS data. The regression equation yielded only a significant
interaction between perceived comparative risk scores and dispositional optimism
scores,  0.25, t (136) 2.86, p 0.005 (Table 2). A plot of the regression lines
derived from this analysis are presented in the top panel of Figure 1. To discern the
nature of this interaction, simple slope tests were conducted with comparisons
made at 1 and 1 standard deviations from the mean. When centred high on
dispositional optimism, the more participants perceived themselves as comparatively
high at risk, the more they rated the feedback as credible,  0.45, p 0.001. When
centred low on dispositional optimism, perceived comparative risk and feedback
credibility were not significantly related ( 0.08, p 0.48).
Dental feedback threat
We then tested whether the two types of optimism combined to predict how
threatening participants considered the feedback. To do so, we ran a hierarchical
regression analysis with the same set of predictor variables used in our previously
described analyses this time with the threat index serving as the criterion
variable (Table 2). The second step of this regression produced a significant
interaction between perceived comparative risk and dispositional optimism,  0.20,
t (136) 2.28, p 0.02 (Figure 1, bottom panel). Simple slope tests showed that
when centred high on dispositional optimism, high perceived comparative risk
was related to ratings of greater feedback threat,  0.35, p 0.01. When centred
low on dispositional optimism, this relationship was not significant ( 0.10,
p 0.42).
Analyses controlling for self-reported dental behaviour
Recall that at the beginning of the study session, participants reported on their dental
health behaviour (e.g. flossing teeth). To assess whether participants prior dental

38

A.L. Geers et al.

6

Message credibility

High PCR

Low PCR

3
-1 SD

+1 SD

-1 SD

+1 SD

Message threat

Downloaded by [Ms Adriana Baban] at 12:13 13 November 2012

2
Dispositional optimism

Figure 1. Predicted values for dental feedback credibility (top) and dental feedback threat
(bottom) as a function of Perceived Comparative Risk (PCR) and Dispositional Optimism in
Study 1. Higher numbers indicate greater feedback credibility and feedback threat,
respectively.

health behaviour could account for the optimism interaction effects observed in
Study 1, we re-ran the dental feedback credibility and dental feedback threat
analyses, this time, controlling for responses to these six items on the first step of the
regression models. When we analysed the dental feedback credibility measure, five
of the dental health behaviour items were not significant predictors (ps 4 0.15), with
the sixth item (mouthwash usage) serving as a marginally significant predictor
of dental feedback credibility scores,  0.17, t (130) 1.88, p 0.06. Importantly,
the analysis produced the same significant interaction between perceived comparative risk scores and dispositional optimism scores reported earlier,  0.23,
t (129) 2.66, p 0.009. Moreover, to test our specific predictions, we conducted our
two simple slope tests controlling for these six dental health behaviour items.
The results of the simple slope tests did not change; when we centred high on
dispositional optimism, the more participants perceived themselves as comparatively
high at risk, the greater they rated the credibility of the feedback,  0.43, p 0.002.
When centred low on dispositional optimism, perceived comparative risk scores and
feedback credibility ratings were still not significantly related ( 0.08, p 0.50).
Next, we analysed the dental feedback threat measure with the six dental health
behaviour items on the first step of the regression model. Three of the dental health
behaviour items were not significant predictors (ps 4 0.45), whereas three (flossing,

Psychology & Health

39

Downloaded by [Ms Adriana Baban] at 12:13 13 November 2012

 0.19, p 0.04; milk drank,  0.18, p 0.03; and new toothbrushes purchased,
 0.23, ps 0.02) served as significant predictors of dental feedback threat.
Importantly, this analysis produced the same significant interaction between
perceived comparative risk scores and dispositional optimism scores reported
earlier,  0.20, t (129) 2.31, p 0.02. The results of the simple slope analyses
did not change after controlling for these six items. Specifically, when centred high
on dispositional optimism, the more participants perceived themselves at comparatively higher risk, the more threatening they rated the feedback,  0.38, p 0.006.
When centred low on dispositional optimism, perceived comparative risk and threat
ratings were still not significantly related ( 0.07, p 0.55).
Finally, none of the six dental health behaviour items were significantly
correlated with dispositional optimism or perceived dental comparative risk
(rs 5 0.10, ps 4 0.20).

Discussion
In Study 1, comparative optimism and dispositional optimism yielded both separate
and interactive effects. First, as predicted, high comparative optimism was related to
less negative affect, whereas dispositional optimism did not relate to negative affect.
High dispositional optimism predicted greater positive affect, whereas comparative
optimism did not relate to positive affect. Importantly, the two forms of optimism
combined multiplicatively to predict evaluations of feedback credibility and threat.
Individuals scoring high in dispositional optimism and low in comparative optimism
found the feedback more credible and displayed greater concern about the dental
feedback than those high in both forms of optimism. Finally, subsidiary analyses
controlling for self-reported dental health behaviours did not alter these results.

Study 2
Study 2 was designed similarly to Study 1, however, we switched dependent variables
from appraisals of the dental feedback to appraisals of the importance of new dental
hygiene information displayed after the feedback. Prior research finds that, as with
evaluations of feedback, individuals sometimes appraise the importance of other
evidence (e.g. research results, smoking risks, intelligence tests) based on their
motivation and coping needs (Ditto & Lopez, 1992; Kunda, 1990; Wiebe, & Black,
1997). As such, we anticipated that this new dependent measure would yield effects
similar to those found in Study 1. Further, in Study 2 half of the participants received
the dental feedback used in Study 1, whereas the remaining participants received
neutral feedback. We selected a neutral feedback condition with no connection to
health to determine how these two forms of optimism relate in two very different
and ecologically valid situations: When individuals are faced with unpleasant health
feedback and when individuals are not focusing on their health. We predicted
that individuals scoring high in dispositional optimism and perceiving themselves at
comparatively higher risk would rate new dental hygiene information as more
important than individuals scoring high in both forms of optimism and that this
difference would occur primarily in the dental feedback condition.
Manipulating feedback also allowed us to address an ambiguity in the affect
findings from Study 1. Specifically, without a neutral feedback condition, it is

40

A.L. Geers et al.

unclear if the correlations between comparative optimism and negative affect and
between dispositional optimism and positive affect are in response to the dental
feedback. Consistent with Study 1, we anticipated that perceiving oneself as at
comparatively high risk would be associated with increased negative affect after
the dental feedback. A neutral feedback condition allows us to determine if this
relationship would hold in the absence of dental feedback.

Downloaded by [Ms Adriana Baban] at 12:13 13 November 2012

Participants and design

A total of 103 students (50 males, 53 females) participated in return for course credit
(M age 19). Two additional participants were run but are not included as they did
not follow the computerised instructions. Participants were randomly assigned to
either the dental feedback condition or the neutral feedback condition. Perceived
dental health comparative risk and dispositional optimism were again recorded as
part of a pre-screening survey. More than 500 individuals completed the screening
survey and each had an opportunity to attend this study.

Optimism measures
Dispositional optimism
We used the LOT-R to assess dispositional optimism ( 0.73).
Comparative optimism
Comparative optimism was measured with the same four perceived comparative risk
items used in Study 1. Responses in Study 2 were made on 17 scales rather than on
04 scales, with higher numbers again equating to greater perceived comparative
risk. Internal consistency was acceptable, but lower than in Study 1 ( 0.68).
Similar to Study 1, comparative risk scores were significantly lower than the scale
midpoint (M 1.53, SD 0.89), indicating that our sample of participants displayed
comparative optimism in their dental health risk, t (102) 16.80, d 1.65,
p 5 0.001. Finally, the scores on both the dispositional and comparative optimism
measures did not differ between the two feedback conditions (ps 4 0.5).

Procedure
The procedure of Study 2 was the same as Study 1 until participants encountered
the feedback manipulation. At this point, half of the participants received the false
dental feedback administered in Study 1, whereas the other half received false neutral
feedback about their level of self-control. The self-control feedback informed
participants that they were average on the dimension of self-control. Self-control
was then defined and participants read that college students face many situations
(e.g. social life) that can deter them from academic goals and other goals and that
high self-control sometimes aids goal progress and other times hinders it. Pilot
testing revealed this feedback was perceived as affectively neutral by undergraduate
participants and it did not have any pre-existing association with dental health or
overall health.

Psychology & Health

41

Main outcome measures

Downloaded by [Ms Adriana Baban] at 12:13 13 November 2012

Affect reactions
Positive and negative affect were measured with the state version of the PANAS
(PANAS-P,  0.87; PANAS-N,  0.86).
Information importance
After the feedback manipulation, participants evaluated the importance of eight new
informational statements said to be derived from prior research. These statements
were randomly ordered and presented individually. Four of the statements concerned
dental hygiene (e.g. When brushing your teeth, you should use light pressure and
soft bristled tooth brushes to protect the enamel on your teeth), whereas the other
four statements concerned self-control (e.g., To exhibit self-control, try to limit your
exposure to a certain act or situation in the interest of not becoming overly consumed
by it). Participants rated the importance of each statement on a seven-point scale
(1 not important, 7 very important). Evaluations were averaged to form dental
importance ( 0.87) and self-control importance ( 0.85) indices.

Results
Correlations
The correlations, means and standard deviations are displayed in Table 1. As in
Study 1, dispositional optimism and comparative risk scores were not highly
correlated, r 0.12, p 0.24.
Affect measure
We submitted the PANAS-N data to a hierarchical regression in which feedback
condition (dummy coded: neutral feedback condition 0, dental feedback condition 1), perceived comparative risk scores (standardised), and dispositional
optimism scores (standardised) were included in the first step of the regression
equation as predictor variables. Participant sex was also included as a control
variable. All two-way interaction terms were included on a second step of the
equation and the three-way interaction term was added on a third step. The first step
of the model yielded no significant effects (R2 0.04), with participants in the dental
feedback condition (M 1.54) having similar negative affect to participants in the
neutral feedback condition (M 1.55),  0.01, p 0.96. The second step of the
regression model yielded one significant effect (DR2 0.06): Perceived comparative
risk and feedback condition interacted to predict negative affect,  0.31, t (95),
p 0.03 (Figure 2). Consistent with Study 1, simple slope tests revealed that in the
dental feedback condition, as perceived comparative risk increased, negative affect
also increased,  0.34, p 0.01. Perceived comparative risk was not related to
negative affect scores in the neutral feedback condition,  0.06, p 0.64. The
third step of the regression model yielded no significant effects (DR2 0.005).
When PANAS-P scores were submitted to the same hierarchical regression
model, the first step of the model (R2 0.08) yielded no difference between the dental
feedback (M 2.80) and neutral feedback (M 2.86) conditions,  0.04,
p 0.70, and no effect of perceived comparative risk ( 0.03, p 0.77). The main

42

A.L. Geers et al.

2
Neutral

Dental

PANAS-N

1.75
1.5

1.25
1
-1 SD
+1 SD
Perceived comparative risk

Downloaded by [Ms Adriana Baban] at 12:13 13 November 2012

Figure 2. Predicted values for PANAS-N scores as a function of feedback condition and
Perceived Comparative Risk in Study 2. Higher numbers indicate greater negative affect.

effect of dispositional optimism, however, was significant,  0.24, t (98), p 0.02.

Consistent with Study 1, this main effect indicates that high dispositional optimism
was associated with greater positive affect (all other ps 4 0.2). There were no
significant effects in the second (DR2 0.02) or third step of the regression model
(DR2 0.01).
Dental hygiene importance
We hypothesised that individuals with high dispositional optimism and high
perceived comparative risk would evaluate the new dental hygiene information as
more important than individuals responding optimistically on both measures. This
difference was expected to hold largely for participants in the dental feedback
condition. To examine the importance data, we submitted participants ratings on
the importance of the dental hygiene index to a hierarchical regression analysis
with the same set of predictors used to analyse the PANAS scores. As displayed in
Table 3, the first step of the regression yielded a significant effect of participant sex,
with women (M 5.04) rating the dental health information as more important than
men (M 4.53). Participants in the dental feedback condition did not rate the dental
health information (M 4.81) differently than participants in the neutral feedback
condition, (M 4.77),  0.01, p 0.91. The second step of the regression revealed a
two-way interaction between perceived comparative risk scores and feedback
condition,  0.28, t (95) 2, p 0.04, and the third step produced a marginally
significant three-way interaction,  0.24, t (94) 1.73, p 0.08. A plot of the
regression lines are presented at the top of Figure 3. To test our specific predictions,
we conducted simple slope tests at high and low levels of dispositional optimism
(Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1985). Consistent with the findings of Study 1, in the dental
feedback condition, when centred high on dispositional optimism, scores on the
dental importance index increased the more participants perceived themselves as
high in comparative risk,  0.77, p 0.004. When we centred low on dispositional
optimism in the dental feedback condition, this relationship was not significant
( 0.14, p 0.42). Simple slope tests on the perceived comparative risk scores when
centred high and low on dispositional optimism were not significant in the neutral
feedback condition (ps 4 0.53).

43

Psychology & Health

Table 3. Hierarchical regression analysis with dental hygiene importance as the criterion
variable in Study 2.

Dental hygiene importance

Step 1
Dispositional optimism
Comparative risk
Condition
Sex
Step 2
Dispositional optimism  comparative risk
Dispositional optimism  condition
Comparative risk  condition
Step 3
Dispositional optimism  comparative
risk  condition

SE

0.04
0.13
0.01
0.20

0.14
0.14
0.26
0.14

0.09
0.02
0.28

0.15
0.29
0.27

0.24

0.30

df

DR2

98

0.05

1.33

95

0.04

1.54

94

0.03

3.01t

0.40
1.33
0.01
2.01*
0.81
0.18
2.0*
1.73

Note: tp 5 0.10; *p 5 0.05.

Neutral feedback

Dental feedback

Dental importance

7
6

High PCR

Low PCR

5
4
3
2
1 SD

+1 SD

1 SD

+1 SD

1 SD

+1 SD

1 SD

+1 SD

7
Selfcontrol importance

Downloaded by [Ms Adriana Baban] at 12:13 13 November 2012

Model

6
5
4
3
2

Dispositional optimism

Figure 3. Predicted values for the dental importance index (top) and the self-control
importance index (bottom) as a function of feedback condition, Perceived Comparative
Risk (PCR), and Dispositional Optimism in Study 2. Higher numbers indicate higher
importance assigned to the dental information and self-control information, respectively.

44

A.L. Geers et al.

Self-control importance
We submitted the self-control importance data to a hierarchical regression analysis
with the same set of predictors used to analyse the dental importance data (see the
bottom of Figure 3). This analysis yielded no significant effects (ps 4 0.2) on the first
(R2 0.03), second (DR2 0.02) or third (DR2 5 0.001) step of the regression model,
with no differences between feedback conditions (dental health feedback M 4.15;
neutral feedback M 4.24,  0.04, p 0.69).

Downloaded by [Ms Adriana Baban] at 12:13 13 November 2012

Analyses controlling for self-reported dental behaviour

To determine the role of prior dental health behaviour in the Optimism  Optimism
interaction observed in Study 2, we re-ran the dental hygiene importance regression
analysis, this time, controlling for responses to the six dental health behaviour items
on the first step of the regression model. In this analysis, five of the dental health
behaviour items were not significant predictors of dental hygiene importance
(ps 4 0.38), with the sixth item (tooth brushing) serving as a significant predictor,
 0.25, t (92) 2.31, p 0.02. With the inclusion of these six control items,
the analysis again produced a significant two-way interaction between perceived
comparative risk scores and feedback condition,  0.33, t (89) 2.38, p 0.02. The
three-way interaction, however, was reduced in significance, from  0.24, p 0.08,
to  0.17, p 0.25. To ascertain whether the inclusion of these six control items
had a direct impact on the key predicted effect in this diffuse three-way interaction,
we again conducted simple slope tests. In the dental feedback condition, when
centred high on dispositional optimism, scores on the dental importance index
continued to increase with comparative risk estimates ( 0.77, p 0.004). Thus,
this primary effect remained unchanged. When centred low on dispositional
optimism in the dental feedback condition, this relationship remained nonsignificant ( 0.15, p 0.41), and the simple slope tests on the perceived
comparative risk scores when centered high and low on dispositional optimism
in the neutral feedback condition were also non-significant (ps 4 0.65). Taken
together, these results suggest that health behaviour did account for some of the
variance between optimism, feedback condition, and dental hygiene importance
scores, but it did not account for the main relationship revealed in both studies.
Finally, simple correlations between the six dental health behaviour items and
the two optimism scales revealed only one significant correlation: Comparative
optimism was significantly correlated (r 0.19, p 0.04) with the number of dental
visits participants had over the past year (other rs 5 0.10, ps 4 0.20).

General discussion
The present research assessed the potential for different forms of optimistic
expectancies to have independent and interactive relationships with criterion
variables. In both studies, dental-health comparative optimism predicted less
negative affect in response to dental health feedback, whereas dispositional optimism
was not related to negative affect. Further, dispositional optimism predicted positive
affect when the dental feedback was and was not present, whereas dental-health
comparative optimism did not predict positive affect under any condition. Critically,
in addition to these independent effects, comparative and dispositional optimism

Downloaded by [Ms Adriana Baban] at 12:13 13 November 2012

Psychology & Health

45

combined to predict evaluations of dental health feedback and new dental hygiene
information. These later findings suggest that, in some situations, the combination
of comparative optimism and dispositional optimism is more critical than their
separate contributions.
Researchers have recently begun to appreciate the potential for optimism
measures to interact in predicting outcome variables (Benyamini & Raz, 2007; Gana
et al., 2010; Luo & Isaacowitz, 2007). Supporting this possibility, we found that after
dental health feedback, dispositional optimists who were also comparatively
optimistic were less interested in risk-related information and found this information
to be less valuable than those dispositional optimists who were not comparatively
optimistic. Moreover, in Study 2 the effect appeared on the dependent measure
specific to dental health and did not emerge on an index regarding self-control.
This later result suggests that the interaction of comparative and dispositional
optimism may be limited to criterion measures that relate to salient health problems.
Importantly, because we assessed comparative optimism with items pertaining to a
unified topic (dental health) that directly related to the criterion variables under
examination, our studies avoid the concerns raised about the measurement of
comparative optimism in earlier studies (Davidson & Prkachin, 1997).
Additionally, we conducted subsidiary analyses controlling for self-reported
dental health behaviour to determine the role of prior dental health behaviour in the
observed Optimism  Optimism effects. Although notably less conclusive in Study 2,
these subsidiary analyses provide preliminary evidence that dental behaviours do not
fully account for the Optimism x Optimism effects observed in Studies 1 and 2.
As Davidson and Prkachin (1997) did not assess health behaviour in their research,
these analyses extend our knowledge on the source of the interactive effects of
dispositional and comparative optimism. However, given the fact that health
behaviour was only self-reported in our studies coupled with the fact that controlling
for dental behaviour in Study 2 did reduce the significance of the three-way
interaction term, we believe that more data are required to fully discern the role of
prior health behaviour in Optimism  Optimism effects.
These results also suggest a possible moderator of the observed Optimism 
Optimism interaction effects. Specifically, we found that comparative and dispositional optimism interacted following dental health feedback but not after non-health
relevant feedback. It is important to note, however, that in this study we examined
a neutral feedback condition with no relation to health. We used this non-health
relevant control condition to determine how these two forms of optimism relate
in two ecologically valid situations: When individuals are directly confronted with
negative health information and when they are not considering their health. It should
be noted that we have not yet examined a situation in which participants were given
more positive dental health feedback and such a condition will be important to
include in future research. At present, it is unclear what will occur in a positive
feedback condition, as several studies find that dispositional optimists engage in
more active coping when in the presence of any health-related information
(Geers et al., 2008).
As noted earlier, the association between comparative optimism and healthprotective behaviour has been modest and inconsistent in prior research. The current
studies raise the prospect that by accounting for multiple forms of optimism
researchers may be in a better position to identify the links between comparative
optimism and health. Thus, the current studies contribute to a growing literature

Downloaded by [Ms Adriana Baban] at 12:13 13 November 2012

46

A.L. Geers et al.

indicating that variables, such as worry, can moderate the relationship between risk
perceptions and outcome variables (Klein, Zajac, & Monin, 2009). More practically,
our findings indicate that when delivering health status information to patients and
when creating health interventions, both comparative and dispositional optimism
could be recorded and used to predict patient interest in and receptivity to health
information.
There are important limitations to the current studies. First, health feedback
is just one of many possible moderating variables that could influence when
comparative and dispositional optimism interact. For example, comparative
optimism is determined by many factors and it may be that the source of ones
comparative optimism is critical to the formation of the interaction effects found
here. Second, we have only found the present effects after brief dental health
feedback. Other contexts, such as long-term coping with chronic illness, seem
unlikely to yield this same interaction effect. Third, many of the effects found
here were small in size some of which were only marginally significant. It remains
to be seen if these modest effects can be amplified in future studies and if they have
implications outside of a laboratory context. Ultimately, more research is needed
to map out when different optimistic expectancies interact as well as to uncover the
variables that serve to mediate and moderate interactive optimism effects.

Acknowledgements
This research was supported by National Institutes of Health grant R03 NS051687.

References
Armor, D.A., & Taylor, S.E. (1998). Situated optimism: Specific outcome expectancies
and self-regulation. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 29, pp. 309379). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Benyamini, Y., & Raz, O. (2007). I can tell you if Ill really lose all that weight: Dispositional
and situation optimism as predictors of weight loss following a group intervention.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 844861.
Blanton, H., Axsom, D., McClive, K.P., & Price, S. (2001). Pessimistic bias in comparative
evaluations: A case of perceived vulnerability to the effects of negative life events.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 16271636.
Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (2002). Optimism. In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopes (Eds.),
The handbook of positive psychology (pp. 231243). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., & Segerstrom, S.C. (2010). Optimism. Clinical Psychology Review,
30, 879889.
Davidson, K., & Prkachin, K. (1997). Optimism and unrealistic optimism have an interacting
impact on health-promoting behavior and knowledge changes. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 23, 617625.
De Ridder, D., Fournier, M., & Bensing, J. (2004). Does optimism affect symptom report
in chronic disease? What are its consequences for self-care behaviour and physical
functioning? Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 56, 341350.
DeStefano, F., Anda, R., Kahn, H.S., Williamson, D., & Russell, C. (1993). Dental disease and
risk for coronary heart disease and mortality. British Medical Journal, 306, 688691.

Downloaded by [Ms Adriana Baban] at 12:13 13 November 2012

Psychology & Health

47

Dillard, A.J., Ferrer, R.A., Ubel, P.A., & Fagerlin, A. (2012). Risk perception measures
associations with behavior intentions, affect, and cognition following colon cancer
screening messages. Health Psychology, 31, 106113.
Dillard, A.J., Ubel, P.A., Smith, D.M., Zikmund-Fisher, B.J., Nair, V., Derry, H.A., . . .
Fagerlin, A. (2011). The distinct role of comparative risk perceptions in a breast cancer
prevention program. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 42, 262268.
Ditto, P.H., & Lopez, D.F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria
for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
63, 568584.
Fournier, M., Ridder, D., & Bensing, J. (1999). Optimism and adaptation to Multiple
Sclerosis: What does optimism mean? Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 22, 303326.
Gana, K., Lourel, M., Trouillet, R., Fort, I., Mezred, D., Blaison, C., . . . Ledrich, J. (2010).
Judgment of riskiness: Impact of personality, naive theories and heuristic thinking among
female students. Psychology & Health, 25, 131147.
Geers, A.L. (2000). Examining the relationship between specific future expectations and
optimism and pessimism. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 24, 2633.
Geers, A.L., Wellman, J.A., Helfer, S.G., Fowler, S.L., & France, C.R. (2008). Dispositional
optimism and thoughts of well-being determine sensitivity to an experimental pain task.
Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 36, 304314.
Harris, P.R., Griggin, D.W., & Murray, S. (2008). Testing the limits of the optimistic biases:
Event and person moderators in a multilevel framework. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 95, 12251237.
Janssen, E., van Osch, L., de Vries, H., & Lechner, L. (2011). Measuring risk perceptions
of skin cancer: Reliability and validity of different operationalizations. British Journal of
Health Psychology, 16, 82112.
Karademas, E.C., Kafetsios, K., & Sideridis, G.D. (2007). Optimism, self-efficacy, and
information processing of threat- and well-being-related stimuli. Stress and Health:
Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 23, 285294.
Klein, W.M.P., & Cooper, K.L. (2008). On the physical health costs of self-enhancement.
In E. Chang (Ed.), Self-criticism and self-enhancement: Theory, research, and clinical
implications (pp. 141158). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Klein, W.M.P., & Zajac, L.E. (2009). Imagining a rosy future: The psychology of optimism.
In K. Markman, W.M.P. Klein, & J. Suhr (Eds.), Handbook of imagination and mental
simulation (pp. 313330). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Klein, W.M.P., Zajac, L.E., & Monin, M.M. (2009). Worry as a moderator of the association
between risk perceptions and quitting intentions in young adult and adult smokers. Annals
of Behavioral Medicine, 38, 256261.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480498.
Lipkus, I.M., Klein, W.M.P., Skinner, C., & Rimmer, B. (2005). Breast cancer risk
perceptions and breast cancer worry: What predicts what? Journal of Risk Research, 8,
439452.
Luo, J., & Isaacowitz, D.M. (2007). How optimists face skin cancer information: Risk
assessment, attention, memory, and behavior. Psychology and Health, 22, 963984.
Nezlek, J., & Zebrowski, B. (2001). Implications of the dimensionality of unrealistic optimism
for the study of perceived health risks. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20,
521537.
Radcliffe, N.M., & Klein, W.M. (2002). Dispositional, unrealistic, and comparative optimism:
Differential relations with the knowledge and processing of risk information and beliefs
about personal risk. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 836846.
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R.L. (1985). Contrast analysis: Focused comparisons in the analysis
of variance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Downloaded by [Ms Adriana Baban] at 12:13 13 November 2012

48

A.L. Geers et al.

Scheier, M.F., Carver, C.S., & Bridges, M.W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from
neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life
Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 10631078.
Schwarzer, R. (1994). Optimism, vulnerability, and self-beliefs as health-related cognitions:
A systematic overview. Psychology and Health, 9, 161180.
Shepperd, J.A., Helweg-Larsen, M., & Ortega, L. (2003). Are comparative risk judgments
consistent across time and events? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,
11691180.
Vastfjall, D., Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (2008). Affect, risk perception and future optimism after
the tsunami disaster. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 6472.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of a brief
measure of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journals of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54, 10631070.
Weinstein, N.D., Kwitel, A., MCCaul, K.D., Magnan, R.E., Gerrard, M., & Gibbons, F.X.
(2007). Risk perceptions: Assessment and relationship to influenza vaccination.
Health Psychology, 26, 146151.
Wiebe, D.J., & Black, D. (1997). Illusional beliefs in the context of risky sexual behavior.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 17271749.