Ross R. Vickers

Distinguishing optimism from pessimism: Relations to fundamental dimensions of mood and personality.

Contrary to unidimensional conceptions of optimism and pessimism, factor analysis of 2 widely used instruments revealed that optimism and pessimism are empirically differentiable, but related, constructs. Moreover, consistent with expectations, optimism and pessimism were differentially linked with fundamental dimensions of mood and personality. Pessimism was principally associated with neuroticism and negative affect. Optimism was primarily associated with extraversion and positive affect. Findings are discussed with reference to current conceptual and measurement models of optimism and pessimism and their relations to broad dimensions of mood and personality

The Five-Factor Model of Personality as a Framework for Personality-Health Research

The NEO Five Factor Personality Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1989) and representative personality scales drawn from health psychology were administered to 2 samples of male military recruits (Ns = 296 and 502). Factor analysis of health-related personality scales revealed 3 conceptually meaningful domains. Examination of these domains and their constituent scales, with reference to the 5-factor model of personality, permits 3 general conclusions. First, most health-relevant dimensions and scales appear to be complex mixtures of broad personality domains. Second, variation in many health-related personality instruments is explained to a significant degree by the 5-factor model. Third, 2 of the 5 personality domains (i.e., conscientiousness and openness) appear to be substantially neglected in health psychology research.

Demonstration of replicable dimensions of health behaviors

Health behaviors are known to be multidimensional, but the precise number of dimensions involved and their behavioral content have not been clearly established. Using convergence of factor analyses of 40 health behaviors across two samples as the criterion for identifying both the number and content of health behavior dimensions, the present study showed that individual differences in health behavior can be conceptualized in terms of a hierarchical model. At the most general level, health behaviors formed two broad categories or dimensions, preventive behavior and risk taking behavior. Preventive behavior included two empirically distinct subsets of behaviors, wellness maintenance behaviors and accident control behaviors. Risk taking behavior included subsets comprised of traffic-related risk taking and risk taking through exposure to hazardous substances. This hierarchical model is consistent with important theoretical distinctions in health behavior research, can accommodate the findings of prior studies, and should provide a useful framework for formulating research questions regarding antecedents and consequences of individual differences in health behaviors. Brief scales are proposed for use as reference measures in future studies of health behaviors.

Type A Behavior Pattern and Coping and Defense

&NA; The relationship of coping and defense to Type A behavior pattern (TABP), as measured by the Structured Interview and the Jenkins Activity Survey (JAS), was investigated to understand the dynamics of TABP and psychological factors associated with coronary heart disease (CHD) risk. It was hypothesized that global TABP and its component “speed and impatience” would be related to the use of defense mechanisms, while the TABP attribute “job involvement” would be related to high coping. The interview measure of global TABP was not related to coping and defense. For the JAS, “Job involvement” was related to high coping scores and low defense scores, “speed and impatience” was related to high defensiveness, and “hard driving” was related to low coping scores. One implication is that TABP may be associated with increased CHD risk only when combined with low coping skills and high defenses. The JAS findings imply that increased coronary risk may be associated with poor coping skills. Future studies should examine multifactorial interaction of personality variables that may contribute to CHD risk.

Association between Levenson's Dimensions of Locus of Control and Measures of Coping and Defense Mechanisms

Theoretically, locus of control may be related to coping and defense style. Because little is known about specific relationships, scores on Levensons Chance, Powerful Others, and Internal control scales were correlated with 20 coping and defense measures for a sample of 2648 Marine Corps recruits. The findings suggested that the relationship of locus of control with coping and defense could be described in terms of two integrated personality styles. The external style combines external control orientations with low coping skills and externalizing defenses, e.g., displacement. The internal style combines internal control with minimizing, reversing defenses, and more extensive coping. These styles received some support from prior research and may help explain the association between better over-all adjustment and internality. These tentative style formulations can provide a basis for more detailed investigations of control and coping and defense.

Effects of Response Style on Polarity and Validity of Two-Dimensional Mood Models

Unipolar and bipolar two-dimensional models have been proposed to represent mood. This study showed that a given data set will produce both a unipolar model and a bipolar model when a response-style adjustment is employed. The two models provided mathematically equivalent descriptions of a single-factor space and were equally valid for describing mood differences between successful and unsuccessful military recruits and between recruits in different basic training platoons. Both models discriminated between these groups as well as a six-factor model. The findings confirmed the existence of a reliable two-dimensional representation of self-reported mood but indicated that any choice between unipolar and bipolar models must be based on criteria other than the structure of self-reported mood. Further comparisons to mote complex mood models are needed to determine whether two dimensions adequately represent self-reported mood when a wider range of situational factors and behavioral correlates are considered. If so, a simple, reliable, consensual model for mood would be available to researchers interested in studying mood determinants and effects.