Optimism Versus Pessimism as Predictors of Physical Health: A Comprehensive Reanalysis of Dispositional Optimism Research
[COMPLETE ARTICLE READ IN FULL AT SOURCE, including the publication-bias and limitations sections, from a copy hosted at a university server; the typeset journal version was not read] Scheier, M. F., Swanson, J. D., Barlow, M. A., Greenhouse, J. B., Wrosch, C., & Tindle, H. A., for the Optimism/Pessimism Meta-Analytic Consortium (2020). 'Optimism Versus Pessimism as Predictors of Physical Health: A Comprehensive Reanalysis of Dispositional Optimism Research.' American Psychologist, advance online publication 24 September 2020. doi:10.1037/amp0000666. THE STRONGEST SINGLE FINDING IN THE FILE, AND IT COMES FROM THE INSTRUMENT'S OWN AUTHOR. Design: because subscale numbers cannot be extracted from published papers, the authors wrote to the original authors of 61 samples and asked them to reanalyse their own data with optimism and pessimism separated, then pooled what came back, N = 221,133. Result, verbatim from the abstract: 'Meta-analytic analysis of data in which optimism and pessimism were combined into an overall index (the typical procedure) revealed a significant positive association with an aggregated measure of physical health outcomes (r = .026, p < .001), as did meta-analytic analyses with the absence of pessimism (r = .029, p < .001) and the presence of optimism (r = .011, p < .018) separately. The effect size for pessimism was significantly larger than the effect size for optimism (Z = -2.403, p < .02). Thus, the absence of pessimism was more strongly related to positive health outcomes than was the presence of optimism.' Three things from the body. ONE, the optimism effect is fragile: their sensitivity analyses 'revealed two studies that, when removed, caused the effect size for the optimism scale to become nonsignificant', while the combined scale and the pessimism subscale depended on no single study. TWO, publication bias was present: 'Egger's regression was significant for the overall scale (Intercept = .47, SE = .21, p < .04) and for the pessimism subscale (Intercept = .53, SE = .20, p < .02), but not for the optimism subscale', and trim-and-fill left the primary conclusions unchanged. THREE, the samples are narrow and they say so: 'over 90% of the overall sample were White and women. Additionally, over 90% of the studies were conducted in the United States', with heterogeneity around I-squared of 60 to 62 per cent for the primary analyses. They bound their own claim, noting the outcomes were all physical health and that it is important not to extrapolate to other outcomes. Greenhouse co-authored the 2009 meta-analysis this paper reanalyses; Tindle is last author on the Progovac mammography study.
[COMPLETE ARTICLE READ IN FULL AT SOURCE, including the publication-bias and limitations sections, from a copy hosted at a university server; the typeset journal version was not read] Scheier, M. F., Swanson, J. D., Barlow, M. A., Greenhouse, J. B., Wrosch, C., & Tindle, H. A., for the Optimism/Pessimism Meta-Analytic Consortium (2020). 'Optimism Versus Pessimism as Predictors of Physical Health: A Comprehensive Reanalysis of Dispositional Optimism Research.' American Psychologist, advance online publication 24 September 2020. doi:10.1037/amp0000666. THE STRONGEST SINGLE FINDING IN THE FILE, AND IT COMES FROM THE INSTRUMENT'S OWN AUTHOR. Design: because subscale numbers cannot be extracted from published papers, the authors wrote to the original authors of 61 samples and asked them to reanalyse their own data with optimism and pessimism separated, then pooled what came back, N = 221,133. Result, verbatim from the abstract: 'Meta-analytic analysis of data in which optimism and pessimism were combined into an overall index (the typical procedure) revealed a significant positive association with an aggregated measure of physical health outcomes (r = .026, p < .001), as did meta-analytic analyses with the absence of pessimism (r = .029, p < .001) and the presence of optimism (r = .011, p < .018) separately. The effect size for pessimism was significantly larger than the effect size for optimism (Z = -2.403, p < .02). Thus, the absence of pessimism was more strongly related to positive health outcomes than was the presence of optimism.' Three things from the body. ONE, the optimism effect is fragile: their sensitivity analyses 'revealed two studies that, when removed, caused the effect size for the optimism scale to become nonsignificant', while the combined scale and the pessimism subscale depended on no single study. TWO, publication bias was present: 'Egger's regression was significant for the overall scale (Intercept = .47, SE = .21, p < .04) and for the pessimism subscale (Intercept = .53, SE = .20, p < .02), but not for the optimism subscale', and trim-and-fill left the primary conclusions unchanged. THREE, the samples are narrow and they say so: 'over 90% of the overall sample were White and women. Additionally, over 90% of the studies were conducted in the United States', with heterogeneity around I-squared of 60 to 62 per cent for the primary analyses. They bound their own claim, noting the outcomes were all physical health and that it is important not to extrapolate to other outcomes. Greenhouse co-authored the 2009 meta-analysis this paper reanalyses; Tindle is last author on the Progovac mammography study.
Written from the cOMPLETE ARTICLE READ IN FULL AT SOURCE, including the publication-bias and limitations sections, from a copy hosted at a university server; the typeset journal version was not read.
What our sources record
Recorded when this source was checked, figures included, with page references and quotation marks removed.
Scheier, M. F., Swanson, J. D., Barlow, M. A., Greenhouse, J. B., Wrosch, C., & Tindle, H. A. (2020). Optimism Versus Pessimism as Predictors of Physical Health: A Comprehensive Reanalysis of Dispositional Optimism Research. American Psychologist. doi:10.1037/amp0000666