The Influence of Dispositional Optimism and Pessimism on Task Engagement

for Spatial and Temporal Discrimination

J.L. Szalma, J.M. Ross, & P.A. HancockUniversity of Central Florida

Trinity of StressStress Signature(Deterministic)

Compensatory Processes(Nomothetic)

Goal-Directed Behavior

(Idiographic)

Hancock & Warm (1989)

Maximal

Minimal

Hypostress

PS

YC

HO

LOG

ICA

L A

DA

PTA

BIL

ITY

NO

RM

AT

IVE

ZO

NE

Dynamic Instability

Hyperstress

(AT

TE

NT

ION

AL

RE

SO

UR

CE

CA

PA

CIT

Y)

Physiological Zone of Maximal Adaptability

Psychological Zone of Maximal Adaptability

Maximal

Minimal

Dynamic Instability

PH

YS

IOL

OG

ICA

L A

DA

PTA

BIL

ITY

COMFORT ZONE

STRESS LEVEL

Maximal Adaptability Model

Hancock and Warm (1989)

• Recognition of task as a proximal stressor • Two fundamental task dimensions.

– Information structure – often expressed spatially.– Information rate – the temporal characteristics of

the task.

Hancock & Warm (1989)

Distortion of Space-Time Under Stress

StressPerceived Time

Sidereal Time

Hancock & Weaver (in press)

What is the Common Mechanism?

• One Possibility: Common Resource Capacity

• Narrowing occurs as a result of diminishing resources

Role of Individual Differences

Individual Differences in Stress Response

Goal-Directed Behavior

(Idiographic)

Dispositional Optimimsm/Pessimism

Performance Impairment in Pessimistic Swimmers (Seligman, Nolen-Hoeksema, Thornton, & Thornton, 1990)

Pessimistic candidates do more poorly in elections (Zullow, 1995)

Insurance agent productivity (Seligman & Schulman, 1986)

Pessimism and AttentionPerformance impairment (sometimes; Helton, Dember, Warm, &

Matthews, 1999)

Increased Stress Symptoms (Helton et al., 1999; Szalma, 2002)

Maladaptive coping strategies (Scheier & Carver, 1987; Szalma, 2002)

Effects may depend on task characteristics (Thropp, Szalma, Ross & Hancock, 2003)

Relation of Pessimism to stress and performance in attention is generally stronger than that associated with optimism (when measured as distinct constructs)

Traits and Resource Sharing

Hypotheses

1. Individuals high in pessimism (low on optimism) would exhibit greater stress symptoms than those low in pessimism (high in optimism)

2. These effects should be greater under more demanding task conditions: combination of spatial and temporal characteristics

3. Trait effects should be greater when an external stressor is applied (white noise)

Experimental Procedure

• Participants– 46 Undergraduates (23 Males, 23 Females)

• 2 (noise) by 3 (task) mixed design with repeated measures on the second factor.

Experimental Procedure

• Noise: 85 dBA intermittent white noise

• Conjunctive DiscriminationTasks:

– Spatial Dominant: Spatial + Luminance discrimination

– Temporal Dominant: Temporal + Luminance discrimination

– Combined: Spatial + Temporal discrimination

OPIPre-

DSSQPost-DSSQ

Post-DSSQ

Post-DSSQ

Instructions Task 1 Task 2 Task 3

• Optimism/Pessimism Inventory (OPI): Pessimism/Optimism measured as partially independent constructs (Dember, Martin, Hummer, Howe, & Melton, 1989)

Pre-DSSQ: -Pre-Task Engagement, Pre-Task Worry, Pre-Task Distress

Post-DSSQ: -Post-task Engagement, Post-task Worry, Post-task Distress

-Task-focused, Emotion-focused, Avoidant Coping

Start End

Questionnaires and Procedure

Spatial-Dominant Task Stimulus

TARGET

Temporal-Dominant Task Stimulus

TARGET

Combined Task Stimulus

TARGET

Results: Performance

• Optimism and pessimism did not predict performance (Hits, FA, d’, c)

• Neither trait interacted with noise to influence performance or stress

Results: Pessimism and Stress

• Pessimism predicted greater post-task Distress, but only in the spatial-dominant condition (R2 = .11, p<.05)

• This effect was not significant when the pre-state was entered first into the regression (∆R2 = .01, p>.05)

Optimism and Distress

• Optimism predicted less post-task Distress in all three tasks (R2 = .08 --.11, p<.05 in each case)

• These effects were not significant when the pre-state was entered first into the regression (∆R2 < .01, p>.05)

Optimism and Task Engagement: Spatial-Dominant Task

• Optimism did not predict changes in post Task Engagement in tasks with a spatial component, (R2 <.02, p>.05 in each case)

• In the spatial task, optimism predicted greater post Task Engagement after the pre-state was entered first (R2 =.35; ∆R2 = .08, p<.05)

Optimism and Task Engagement: Temporal-Dominant Task

• Optimism predicted decreased post Task Engagement in the temporal-dominant task (R2 =.09, p<.05)

• This effect was not significant when the pre-task state was entered first (∆R2 <.01, p>.05)

Post-Task Engagement as a Function of Optimism

TE = -0.05Opt + 2.44R2 = 0.09

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72

Optimism

Po

st-t

ask

En

ga

ge

men

tSpatial-Dominant Task

Optimism and Worry

• Optimism predicted increased post task Worry, but only in the temporal-dominant task (R2 =.1, p<.05)

• This effect was not significant when the pre-task state was entered first (∆R2 =.04, p=.07)

Conclusions

• Optimism may exert a greater influence on stress response than previous experiments indicated

• This effect is task dependent• Effects vary across dimensions of stress-state• White noise did not interact with either trait• Effects of optimism/pessimism on stress state

was not exacerbated by the combination of spatial/temporal demands

• The stress-trait relation varied depending on task dimension emphasized (spatial, temporal)

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by a Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI) program grant from the Army Research Office, Dr. Elmar Schmeisser, Technical Monitor (Grant# DAAD19-01-1-0621). The research was facilitated by a DARPA-funded program under Grant NBCH1030012, CMDR Dylan Schmorrow, Technical Monitor. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the US Government.