A new approach to assessing optimism: The development of a German version

of the Positive and Negative Expectancies Questionnaire (PANEQ-G)

Peter Fritz Titzmann

Department of Psychology, Friedrich-Schiller-University, Jena, Germany

Derek Roger

Department of Psychology and Health Sciences,

University of York, Heslington, York, UK

Daniel Thor Olason

Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Science,

University of Iceland, Iceland

Veronica Greco

Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Titzmann, P., Roger, D., Olason, D., & Greco, V. (2004). A New Approach to Assessing Optimism: The Development of a German Version of the Positive and Negative Expectancies Questionnaire (PANEQ-G). Current Psychology: A Journal For Diverse Perspectives On Diverse Psychological Issues, 23(2), 97-110. doi:10.1007/BF02903071 The final version can be found at http://www.springer.com/psychology/journal/12144 Address for correspondence: Peter Fritz Titzmann, Department of Developmental Psychology, Friedrich – Schiller - University Jena, Am Steiger 3/ 1 D – 07743 Jena Germany Tel: +49 (0)3641 945220 FAX: +49 (0)3641 945202 Email: peter.titzmann@uni-jena.de

2

ABSTRACT

This study describes the construction and validation of a German version of the

Positive and Negative Expectancies Scale, PANEQ-G, which is based on the

original English version of the PANEQ. The German version showed the same

factor structure as the original, comprising the three subscales of Negative

Affectivity/ Pessimism, Positive Affectivity/ Optimism and Fighting Spirit. The

reliability data for the new scale were acceptable, and the factor structure was

confirmed by means of a confirmatory factor analysis in an independent sample.

As expected, concurrent validation uncovered substantial correlations of the three

established scales. Negative Affectivity/ Pessimism was related to Neuroticism

and Positive Affectivity/ Optimism was related to Extraversion. Fighting Spirit, the

third scale, was related to Self-efficacy and Conscientiousness. The PANEQ-G

provides a reliable and valid instrument that can be used in conjunction with the

original PANEQ for cross-cultural studies on Optimism and Pessimism. It also

offers a new, third, component ‘Fighting Spirit’ that can enrich research in this

area.

Key words: Optimism, Pessimism, Fighting Spirit, expectancies, PANEQ-G,

3

INTRODUCTION

The construction of the Positive and Negative Expectancies Questionnaire

(PANEQ, Olason & Roger, 2001) arose from concerns about psychometric

shortcomings in previous measures of optimism. The most commonly used scale

is the Life Orientation Test (LOT) developed by Scheier & Carver (1985). Using

this scale, it was found that optimism was related to measures of coping (e.g.

Scheier, Weintraub & Carver, 1986; Fontaine, Manstead & Wagner, 1993), self-

reported physical and psychological well-being (Scheier and Carver, 1985; 1987;

1992) and physiological reactivity (Shepperd, Maroto & Pbert, 1996; Segerstrom

et al., 1998). Scheier et al. (1989) also showed that optimism was associated with

faster and more stable recovery from a coronary artery bypass surgery, as well as

a higher quality of life at follow up.

According to Scheier and Carver (1985), optimists have the general belief that

“good rather than bad things will happen to them”, while pessimists hold the

opposite belief and tend to anticipate bad outcomes. According to this model,

optimism and pessimism were thus understood as representing extreme values of

a unidimensional construct, and the LOT accordingly included items for both

optimism and pessimism. However, more recent studies have failed to confirm

this unidimensional view (Marshall et al., 1992; Mook et. al., 1992, Chang,

D´Zurilla & Maydeu-Olivares, 1994; Robinson-Whelen et al., 1997), and have

argued on the basis of factor analyses for two factors that are empirically

distinguishable (Lai, 1994; Robinson-Whelen et al., 1997). Furthermore, optimism

and pessimism are differentially correlated with coping behaviors (Long &

4

Sangster, 1993; Hart & Hittner, 1995; Chang, 1998) and with personality variables

(Marshall et al., 1992; Williams, 1992), and have variable explanatory functions in

regression analyses (Chang, Maydeu-Olivares & D´Zurilla, 1997).

Another psychometric problem inherent in the LOT is the small number of items

included in each subscale: apart from four fillers, the remaining eight items are

split into four each to measure optimism and pessimism. This is unlikely to

represent a sufficiently wide sample of behavior, and Kline (1993) advises to use

no less than ten items per scale. Finally, the LOT has been shown to overlap with

other well-established constructs, such as neuroticism (Smith et al., 1989).

In contrast to the LOT, the PANEQ (Olason & Roger, 2001) contains three

discrete factors: Positive Affectivity/Optimism (PAO), Negative

Affectivity/Pessimism (NAP), and Fighting Spirit (FS). Although the three factors

are moderately intercorrelated, confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the

three-factor structure was preferable to either a two-factor or a one-factor solution,

thus confirming that the structure of optimism-pessimism should not be thought of

as one-dimensional. The three factors have been shown to correlate differentially

and predictably with the LOT itself, the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule

(PANAS; Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988), Generalised Expectancy for Success

Scale Revised (GESS-R; Hale, Fiedler & Cochran, 1992), and the Coping Styles

Questionnaire (CSQ; Roger, Jarvis & Najarian, 1993). Furthermore, the three

PANEQ scales have been shown to be differently related to three measures of

health and well-being (Olason & Roger, 2001) and ‘Fighting Spirit’ has been found

to be predictive of cardiovascular reactivity to stress (Olason & Roger, 1999)

5

The decision to develop a German version of the PANEQ was motivated by a

number of reasons. Firstly, there is a German version of the LOT, but the

available evidence suggested that it shows similar psychometric problems

(Wieland-Eckelmann & Carver, 1990). Secondly, one cannot assume that simple

translations show equivalent results in two different countries. Chang (1996), for

example, has reported such differences in optimism. Therefore a scale should be

tested for equivalence in each setting. Thirdly, apart from the potentially flawed

German translation of the LOT, there is no other German measure of the

optimism/pessimism constellation available yet.

METHODS

STUDY ONE

The first study compared factor structures of the German and English versions of

the PANEQ. All participants completed the PANEQ-G and, in order to provide

concurrent validation and test-retest reliability, a sub-sample of them completed a

follow up questionnaire five months later.

Participants

The sample included 3 subsets: participants from a vocational school in Lübeck,

Germany, undergraduate students from Greifswald University, Germany, and

volunteers from a number of different regions and social backgrounds across

Germany. Apart from the sample from the vocational school, all participants

provided their name and address to take part in the follow up, and these data

6

were collected three to five months later. The subsets were pooled for the

analysis, and comprised a total of 336 (146 females and 178 males, with 12 not

reporting gender). The mean age of the pooled sample was 25.26 (SD 7.72, range

12 - 62). Of the total, 139 received the questionnaire at follow-up, and 111

(79.9%) completed and returned it (63 females and 47 males, with 1 not reporting

gender). The mean age of the follow up sub-sample was 26.98 (SD 8.46, range

14 – 62).

Measures used

The Positive and Negative Expectancies Questionnaire (PANEQ; Olason &

Roger, 2001) was used to develop a German version of it. The scales showed 6-

week test-retest reliabilities between 0.80 and 0.824 and internal consistencies

between 0.75 and 0.90. First the items of the English version were translated into

German and once again translated back into English. The back-translation was

done by a person not involved in scale construction or in the translation from

English into German. The two English versions were compared for discrepancies

which were resolved by improving the German form of the item resulting in the

final set of items of the German version of the Positive and Negative Expectancies

Questionnaire (PANEQ-G).

Measures used for concurrent validation were:

a) The German version of the LOT (Wieland-Eckelmann & Carver, 1990), which is

a translation of the original version developed by Scheier and Carver (1985).

However, a four-point Likert-scale was used instead of the original five-point, to

7

avoid regression to the mean. The reported consistency () is .85, but no test-

retest-reliability was reported.

b) The General Self-Efficacy (Allgemeine Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung)

(Jerusalem & Schwarzer, 1999), a revised ten-item scale based on an earlier

version (Schwarzer, 1994) but with a few improvements in the formulation of

the items. The consistency () is reported to be between .78 and .79. The test-

retest reliability (rtt) is between .64 and .78 (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1999).

c) The Hopelessness Scale (Skalen zur Erfassung von Hoffnugslosigkeit)

(Krampen, 1994) is a 20-item adaptation of the Hopelessness scale developed

by Beck et al. (1974). The reliability () of the scale was between .81 and .94

and the test-retest coefficient (rtt) between .83 and .90.

d) The NEO-FFI (Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1993) is the German adaptation of the

original NEO-PI (Costa & McCrae, 1992). It contains 60 items loading on five

factors: Neuroticism ( = .85; rtt= .80), Extraversion ( = .80; rtt = .81),

Openness ( = .71; rtt = .76), Agreeableness ( = .71; rtt = .65) and

Conscientiousness ( = .85; rtt = .81).

e) The PANAS (Krohne et al., 1996) is a two-dimensional measure of both state

and trait positive and negative affect. Only the trait index was used in this

study. Reported alpha reliability was .86 for the negative affectivity scale and

.84 for the positive affectivity scale. The test-retest reliability (rtt) is .54 for

negative affect and .66 for positive affect.

Data analysis

Exploratory factor analysis, was used to investigate the factorial structure of both

the German version of the LOT and the new PANEQ-G, based on principal-axis

8

rotations to both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Direct Oblimin) final solutions.

Bivariate correlations, partial correlations, and alpha reliability analyses were also

computed, all using the SPSS (2000) package.

Results

Factor-analysis of the LOT resulted in factors that could unambiguously be

labelled Optimism and Pessimism. The subscales had alpha reliabilities of 0.69

and 0.76, respectively. The correlation of -.525 between the scales was

significant but modest, accounting for just 28% of the common variance, which

does not suggest a unidimensional construct, but rather two related constructs.

The PANEQ-G items were rotated to a three-factor orthogonal solution. The first

factor comprised 26 items (sample items: Nr. 39: “I am often tense for no

particular reason”/ “Ich bin oft ohne ersichtlichen Grund angespannt”; Nr. 40: “I

often feel a bit down”/ “Ich fühle mich oft etwas niedergeschlagen”). The second

factor comprised 12 items (sample items: Nr. 24: “I don’t need much to feel

delighted”/ “Es ist leicht, mich zu begeistern”; Nr. 20: “I am very curious about life”/

“Ich bin sehr neugierig auf das Leben”). The third factor consisted of 10 items

(sample items: Nr. 47: “I am a fighter”/ “Ich bin ein Kämpfer”; Nr. 13: “I am a

determined person”/ “Ich bin ein entschlossener Mensch”).

The three factors clearly replicated the original solution based on the English

sample reported by Olason and Roger (2001), and the factors were accordingly

labelled Negative Affectivity/Pessimism (NAP), Positive Affectivity/Optimism

(PAO) and Fighting Spirit (FS). Four Items (25, 31, 44, 46) did not reach the

9

criterion loading of .30, but were retained on the relevant factors of the scale for

ease of comparison with the original questionnaire. The structure was confirmed

by an oblique rotation, and separate analysis of each factor indicated that each

one comprised a single factor (a full listing of items and loadings appears in the

Appendix).

The correlations between the factors were -.436 for NAP and PAO, -.393 for NAP

and FS, and .429 for PAO and FS. When the effects for the third variable were

partialled out the correlations were reduced to: -.322 for NAP and PAO (10%

shared variance), -.254 for NAP and FS (6,5% shared variance), and .311 for

PAO and FS (9.6% shared variance).

Reliability

Alpha coefficients were computed for each scale separately, and retest reliability

was based on the 5-month inter-test interval between first and second

administration of the scale to the volunteer sub-sample. The results are shown in

Table 1.

--------------------------

Table 1 about here

--------------------------

Concurrent Validation

The concurrent validation compared the PANEQ-G with the questionnaires

described earlier, and Table 2 shows the correlations and partial correlations.

10

--------------------------

Table 2 about here

--------------------------

As expected, the Table shows that Negative Affectivity/Pessimism was strongly

correlated with Neuroticism and moderately with Negative Affectivity and

Hopelessness. Even after controlling for the other two variables of the PANEQ-G,

shared variance between NAP and Neuroticism remained high (56% compared to

64% without controlling). The high correlations between this scale and

Hopelessness and PANAS Negative Affectivity were also unsurprising. NAP also

correlated negatively with PANAS Positive Affectivity, although the correlation

decreases after controlling for PAO and FS. Positive Affectivity is thus linked

closely to both PAO and FS and appears to link the three constructs of the

PANEQ.

The factor PAO cannot be explained by any other single scale. The strongest

correlation is with Extraversion, sharing about 39% of the variance. This is just

slightly reduced after controlling for the other two factors of the PANEQ-G, but

26% of unique variance remains. Other constructs associated in expected ways

with PAO are Openness to Experience and Agreeableness from the NEO, and as

expected, the Positive Affectivity scale of the PANAS (29% shared variance

without controlling for the remaining factors).

11

Fighting Spirit correlates with Self-efficacy, Conscientiousness and Positive

Affectivity, but the results also suggest that FS is in fact a broader construct that

mediates between Conscientiousness and Self-efficacy. Figure 1 shows

correlations and partial correlations between these three constructs. The

correlations between FS and both Self-efficacy and Conscientiousness are

sustained after controlling for the third variable, but the correlation between

Conscientiousness and Self-efficacy was no longer significant after controlling for

FS.

--------------------------

Figure 1 about here

--------------------------

The correlations between the PANEQ-G scales and the LOT-G were, as

expected, quite substantial and ,moreover, in the expected direction. Correlations

were negative with NAP (36% shared variance) and positive with PAO and FS

(30% and 20% shared variance respectively). The correlations were even higher

than in the original English sample (Olason & Roger, 2001).

Gender Differences

Males scored significantly lower on NAP and PAO but significantly higher on FS

than females (Table 3). The calculation of effect sizes for the differences showed

small to moderate effects (NAP: d = 0.4; PAO: d = 0.3; FS. d = 0.3).

-------------------------

12

Table 3 about here

-------------------------

STUDY 2

The second study was conducted in order to determine whether the factor

structure of the PANEQ-G derived from Explanatory analysis can be confirmed in

an independent sample using a confirmatory factor analysis approach. This

method also offers an opportunity to compare the suggested three factor solution

with a two factor model (optimism vs. pessimism) and a one factor model

(optimism as a unidimensional construct).

Participants

The sample comprised 371 students attending vocational schools in Flensburg. Of

these, 99 were female and 261 were male (11 did not report gender), with an

overall mean age of 23.83 (SD 6.01, range 17 - 59).

Data collection and analysis

All participants completed the PANEQ-G anonymously. The responses were

subjected to confirmatory factor analysis based on the Maximum Likelihood (ML)

method (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Ullman, 1996), testing two different models: a

three-factor and a two-factor model. The items were grouped into parcels

following the procedure recommended by a number of researchers (for example,

Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Floyd and Widaman, 1995; Yuan, Bentler & Kano,

13

1997). The fit indices used were Chi-square, the Nonnormed Fit Index (NNFI), the

Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Standardised Root Mean Squared Residual

(SRMR) and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA).

For the NAP scale, five parcels were formed with 5 to 6 items each, while three

parcels each were used containing 3 to 4 items for PAO and FS. The items were

randomly assigned, and the alpha coefficients for the parcels ranged from .505 to

.742 for NAP, from .388 to .625 for PAO and from .443 to .707 for FS.

To compare the three-factor solution to more parsimonious two and one factor

solutions corresponding models were built. To test the two-factor solution parcels

of FS and PAO were assigned to one single factor as was also done in the

English sample (Olason & Roger; 2001). For the one factor solution all parcels

were assigned to one single factor.

Results

The findings for all models are shown in Table 4. For the two-factor solution, only

one index reached an acceptable fit, and no index was acceptable in the one-

factor solution. The three-factor model clearly represented the data better.

--------------------------

Table 4 about here

--------------------------

14

The Chi-square was significant in all cases, but that is to be expected with large

samples and is not taken to indicate a poor fit in CFA. A separate analysis based

on items rather than parcels also confirmed the appropriateness of using parcels

for confirmatory factor analysis (see also Floyd & Widaman, 1995), but also

showed that the three factor model represented the data batter than the two- or

one-factor model.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Recent research has outlined a number of problems in the measurement of

optimism using the LOT, including its dimensionality (Marshall et al., 1992; Mook

et. al., 1992, Chang, D´Zurilla & Maydeu-Olivares, 1994; Lai, 1994; Robinson-

Whelen et al., 1997), the small number of items and the confounding by other

constructs such as neuroticism (Smith et al., 1989). These problems suggested

the need for a new approach, and led to the construction of the PANEQ (Olason &

Roger, 2001). This scale comprises the three correlated but empirically

discriminable dimensions of Negative Affectivity/Pessimism (NAP), Positive

Affectivity/Optimism (PAO) and Fighting Spirit (FS).

The LOT had been translated into German and our assumption that many of the

shortcomings in the English version would apply to this scale as well were justified

by the evidence presented in this study. In view of the importance of cross-cultural

studies in establishing the validity of psychological constructs, it was felt that a

German version of the PANEQ could make a significant contribution to the

understanding of optimism-pessimism.

15

A factor analysis of the translated version (PANEQ-G) resulted in a replication of

the three scales reported for the English version (Olason & Roger, 2001):

Negative Affectivity/Pessimism (NAP), Positive Affectivity/Optimism (PAO), and

Fighting Spirit (FS). The three scales in the PANEQ-G showed high internal

consistency and retest-reliability, and the structure was confirmed using a

confirmatory factor analysis on a separate sample.

The concurrent validation of the scales showed high correlations between NAP

and Neuroticism, between PAO and Extraversion/Positive Affectivity, and between

Fighting Spirit and Selfefficacy/Conscientiousness. All correlations were found in

the expected direction thereby proving the validity of the scales. However, the

validation of the scales also showed a particularly high correlation between NAP

and Neuroticism, and indeed, NAP might usefully be thought of as a facet or proxy

of Neuroticism.

The correlations between the PANEQ-G and the LOT-G indicate that the new

scale does measure optimism and pessimism exemplified by the LOT, but offers

much more than the original scale by Scheier & Carver (1985). Interestingly, in the

German sample, the LOT was more highly correlated with the scales of the

PANEQ-G than in the English sample (NAP: r = -.495; FS: r = .250; PAO: r = .332;

Olason & Roger, 2001).

An important feature of the present series of studies is that it has used a factorial

approach to establishing a cross-cultural scale. This approach avoids the

problems of simply translating and back-translating scales and assuming their

16

equivalence. The English and German versions of the PANEQ were in this case

clearly replicated, but other comparable studies have shown that the factorial

approach can produce counter-intuitive and highly informative results (see for

example Roger, Garcia de la Banda, Lee & Olason, 2001). The new PANEQ-G

provides an opportunity to extend the construct validation of the optimism-

pessimism constellation, particularly the addition of the Fighting Spirit dimension.

A useful avenue for future research would be to examine the role of the PANEQ

scales in physiological and emotional responsivity to stressful situations, already

established for this dimension of the original scale (Olason & Roger, 1999;

Olason, 2000; Olason & Roger, 2001), but it is very likely that these results can

also be replicated.

References

Anderson, J. G., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in Practice: A review and recommended two-step Approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.

Beck, A. T., Weissman, A., Lester, D., & Trexler, L. (1974) The measurement of

pessimism: The hopelessness scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 861-865.

Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). NEO-Fünf-Faktoren Inventar (NEO-FFI)

nach Costa & McCrae. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Chang, E. C. (1996). Evidence for the cultural specificity of pessimism in Asians

vs. Caucasians: a test of the general negativity hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 21, 819-822.

Chang, E. C. (1998). Distinguishing between optimism and pessimism: a second

look at the optimism-neuroticism hypothesis. In R. R. Hoffman, M. F. Sherrick and J. S. Warm (Eds.) Viewing psychology as the whole: The integrative science of William N. Dember (pp. 415-432). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

17

Chang, E. C., D´Zurilla, T. J., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (1994). Assessing dimensionality of optimism and pessimism using a multimeasure approach. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 18, 143-160.

Chang, E. C., Maydeu-Olivares, A., & D´Zurilla, T. J. (1997). Optimism and

pessimism as partially independent constructs: relationship to positive and negative affectivity and psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 00, 1-8.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R. Professional Manual. Revised

NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Fontaine, K. R., Manstead, A. S. R., & Wagner, H. (1993). Optimism, perceived

control over stress, and coping. European Journal of Personality, 7, 267-281. Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and

refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7, 286-299.

Hale, W. D., Fiedler, L. R., & Cochran, C. D. (1992). The revised generalized

expectancy for success scale: a validity and reliability study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48, 517.

Hart, K. E., & Hittner, J. B. (1995). Optimism and pessimism: Associations to

coping and anger-reactivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 827-839.

Jerusalem, M., & Schwarzer, R. (1999) Allgemeine Selbstwirksamkeit. Internet:

http://www.fu-berlin.de/gesund/skalen/a_swe.htm. Kline, P. (1993). The handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge. Krampen, G. (1994). Skalen zur Erfassung von Hoffnungslosigkeit (H-Skalen).

Handanweisung (57 Seiten) und Verbrauchsmaterial. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Krohne, H. W., Egloff, B., Kohlmann, C. W., & Tausch, A. (1996). PANAS Positive

and Negative Affect Schedule - deutsche Fassung. Diagnostica, 42, 139-156. Lai, J. C. L. (1994).Differential predictive power of the positively versus the

negatively worded items of the Life Orientation Test. Psychological Reports, 75, 1507-1515.

Long, B. C., & Sangster, J. I. (1993). Dispositional optimism/pessimism and

coping strategies: predictors of psychological adjustment of rheumatoid and osteoarthritis patients. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1069-1091.

Marshall, G. N., Wortman, C. B., Kusulas, J. W., Hervig, L. K., & Vickers jr., R. R.

(1992). Distinguishing optimism from pessimism: Relations to fundamental

18

dimensions of mood and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 1067-1074.

Mook, J., Kleijn, W. C., & van der Ploeg, H. M. (1992). Positively and negatively

worded Items in a self-report measure of dispositional optimism. Psychological Reports, 71, 275-278.

Olason, D. T., & Roger, D. (1999). Optimism, pessimism and “fighting spirit”: A

new approach to assessing persistence and adaptation. Paper, presented at the 9th Biennial meeting of the International Society for the study of individual differences, Coast Plaza Hotel, British Columbia, Canada, July 5-9.

Olason, D. T. (2000). Optimism, pessimism and “fighting spirit”: Their role in

moderating the stress response. Unpublished D.Phil dissertation, University of York.

Olason, D., T., & Roger, D. (2001). Optimism, pessimism and „fighting spirit“: A

new approach to assessing expectancy and adaptation. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 755-768.

Robinson-Whelen, S., Kim, C. MacCallum, R. C., & Kiecolt-Glaser; J. K. (1997).

Distinguishing optimism from pessimism in older adults: Is it more important to be optimistic or not to be pessimistic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1345-1353.

Roger, D., Jarvis, G., & Najarian, B. (1993). Detachment and coping: The

construction and validation of a new scale for measuring coping strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 619-626.

Roger, D., Garcia de la Banda, G., Lee, H. S., & Olason, D. (2001) A factor-

analytic study of cross-cultural differences in emotional rumination and emotional inhibition. Personality & Individual Differences 31, 227-238.

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985): Optimism, coping, and health: assessment

and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219-247.

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1987). Dispositional optimism and physical well-

being: The influence of generalized outcome expectancies on health. Journal of Personality, 55, 169-210.

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and

physical well-being: Theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 201-228.

Scheier, M. F., Matthews, K. A., Owens, J., MagovernG. J., Sr., Lefebvre, R. C.,

Abott, R. A., & Carver, C. S. (1989). Dispositional optimism and recovery from coronary artery bypass surgery: The beneficial effects on physical and

19

psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1024-1040.

Scheier, M. F., Weintraub, J. K., & Carver, C. S. (1986). Coping with stress:

divergent strategies of optimism and pessimism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1257-1264.

Schwarzer, R. (1994). Optimistische Kompetenzerwartung: Zur Erfassung einer

personellen Bewältigungsressource. Diagnostica, 40, 105-123. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1999). Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer- und

Schülermerkmalen. Dokumentation der psychometrischen Verfahren im Rahmen der wissenschaftlichen Begleitung des Modellversuchs Selbstwirksame Schulen. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin (ISBN 3-00-003708-X); http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~baessler/skalem.htm.

Segerstrom, S. C., Taylor, S. E., Kemeny, M. E., & Fahey, J. L. (1998). Optimism

is associated with mood, coping, and immune change in response to stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1646-1655.

Shepperd, J. A., Maroto, J. J., & Pbert, L. A. (1996). Dispositional optimism as a

predictor of health changes among cardiac patients. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 517-534.

Smith, T. W., Pope, M. K., Rhodewalt, F., & Poulton, J. L. (1989). Optimism,

neuroticism, coping, and symptom reports: An alternative interpretation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 640-648.

SPSS for Windows 10.0.7 [Computer software]. (2000). Chicago, Illinois: SPSS

Inc. Ullman, J. B. (1996). Structural equation modelling. In B. G. Tabachnick & L. S.

Fidell. Using multivariate statistics. (pp 709-811). New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.

Wieland-Eckelmann, R., & Carver, C. S. (1990). Dispositionelle Bewältigungsstile,

Optimismus und Bewältigung: Ein interkultureller Vergleich. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 11, 167-184.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of

brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

Williams, D. G. (1992). Dispositional optimism, neuroticism, and extraversion.

Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 475-477. Yuan, K., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1997). On averaging variables in a

confirmatory factor analysis model. Behaviormetrica, 24, 71-83.

20

TABLE 1

Reliability of the Subscales of the PANEQ-G

NAP PAO FS

consistency ()a .891 .762 .776

consistency ()b .891 .764 .780

test-retest (rtt) .875 .788 .762 a Sample of Study1; b Sample of Study 2

21

TABLE 2

Correlations between the three Scales and other Constructs

NAP PAO FS

Neuroticism (N=335)

(N=331) a

.807**

.748**

-.400**

-.004

-.469**

-.265**

Extraversion (N=335)

(N=331) a

-.350**

-.035

.632**

.511**

.477**

.278**

Openness (N=335)

(N=331) a

.011

.130*

.318**

.389**

-.037

-.166*

Agreeableness (N=335)

(N=331) a

-.299**

-.226**

.324**

.271**

.032

-.181*

Conscientiousness (N=335)

(N=331) a

-.285**

-.132*

.145**

-.168*

.568**

.536**

Hopelessness (N=335)

(N=331) a

.632**

.471**

-.574**

-.350**

-.525**

-.296**

Positive PANAS (N=330)

(N=326) a

-.405**

-.129*

.536**

.345**

.591**

.446**

Negative PANAS (N=329)

(N=325) a

.635**

.553**

-.348**

-.087

-.312**

-.067

LOT-G (N=331)

(N=327) a

-.606**

-.447**

.547**

.333**

.455**

.199**

Selfefficacy (N=331)

(N=327) a

-.561**

-.409**

.395**

.048

.619**

.495** a controlled for the remaining two Scales respectively; * p < 0.01, ** p < 0.001

22

TABLE 3

Gender Comparison of Scalescores and Range

NAP

Mean (SD)

PAO

Mean (SD)

FS

Mean (SD)

Females (N = 146)a 2.18 (.40) 3.15 (.39) 2.81 (.42)

Males (N = 178) b 1.99 (.44) 3.03 (.36) 2.95 (.38)

Total (N = 335) 2.07 (.43) 3.08 (.38) 2.89 (.40)

Range

Females (N = 146) 1.12 - 3.50 2.17 - 4.00 1.70 - 3.89

Males (N = 176) 1.08 - 3.27 1.67 - 3.92 1.40 - 4.00 a mean age females: 24,76 (SD 7.57, range 12 – 59) b mean age males: 25.61 (SD 7.82; range 14 – 62)

23

TABLE 4

Goodness of Fit Values of the proved Models

Model Chi-square NNFI CFI SRMR RMSEA

1-factor

item-based

3208.193***

(1080df)

0.557 0.576 0.083 0,073

(0,070, 0,076)

1-factor

parcel-based

496.26***

(44 df)

0.687 0.749 0.114 0.167

(0.153, 0,180)

2-factor

item-based

2744.21***

(1079df)

0.653 0.668 0.077 0.065

(0.062, 0.067)a

2-factor

parcel-based

199.812***

(43df)

0.889 0.913 0.062 0.099

(0.085, 0.113)a

3-factor

item-based

2555.50***

(1077df)

0.691 0.705 0.077 0.061

(0.058, 0.064)a

3-factor

parcel-based

84.85***

(41df)

0.967 0.976 0.046 0.054

(0.037, 0.070)a

a 90% confidence interval; *** p < 0.001

24

Figure 1: Correlations and Partialcorrelations of Fighting Spirit, Selfefficacy and Conscientiousness; a controlled for the remaining variable

Fighting Spirit

Self- efficacy

Conscien- tiousness

.58 (.46) a

.37 (.04) a

.62 (.53)a

25

Appendix A

Items and Factor loadings

Item Nr.

Factor 1(NAP)

Factor 2 (PAO)

Factor3(FS)

1. Ich bin schnell aufgeregt. .568 3. Ich mache gewöhnlich alles schlechter als

andere. .409

5. Ich muß ständig auf der Hut sein, um mich aufalles vorbereitet zu fühlen.

.406

8. Ich bin schnell ängstlich. .484 9. Ich bin oft ohne besonderen Grund verärgert. .611 11. Nachdem ich etwas beendet habe, fühle ich

mich oft deprimiert.

.369

12. Ich habe Angst, allein zu sein. .436 14. Ich bilde mir oft ein, daß das

Schlimmstmögliche passiert. .490 -.340

16. Ich erwarte nicht, mit meinem Leben klarzukommen.

.352 -.316

17. Ich würde nie an einem Wettbewerb teilnehmen, da ich sicher verlieren würde.

.331

18. Meine Gefühle irritieren mich oft. .548 19. Normalerweise bin ich entspannt. -.567 21. Gewöhnlich bin ich besorgt über das mögliche

Ergebnis meines Tuns. .520

22. Ich bin häufig melancholisch. .562 28. Es muß nicht viel passieren, um bei mir Streß

auszulösen. .495

30. Ich werde schnell ärgerlich. .602 31. Ich habe oft das Gefühl, daß ich die

schlechten Dinge nicht verdiene, die mir passieren.

xa

32. Ich denke oft darüber nach, wie unfair das Leben ist.

.447 -.312

36. Ich befürchte ständig zu versagen. .565 37. Ich bin sehr empfindlich, was mein Aussehen

betrifft. .405

39. Ich bin oft ohne ersichtlichen Grund angespannt.

.692

40. Ich fühle mich oft etwas niedergeschlagen. .655

44. Die Welt ist ein gefährlicher Ort. xa 45. Ich bin oft aus heiterem Himmel ruhelos. .528 46. Ich bin nachtragend. xa 48. Wenn ich morgen eine Prüfung hätte würde

ich erwarten zu versagen. .446

2. Gewöhnlich erwarte ich das Beste. .347

26

4. Normalerweise erwarte ich, alles richtig zu machen, was ich plane.

.497

7. Ich gebe immer mein Bestes. .559 13. Ich bin ein entschlossener Mensch. .601 23. Ich bin ehrgeizig. .567 26. Ich bin ein starker Mensch. .447 29. Ich bin immer auf alles gefaßt. .305 34. Ich glaube, Einfluß auf meine Umgebung zu

haben. .336

38. Immer, wenn ich etwas nicht schaffe, versuch ich es noch einmal.

.442

47. Ich bin ein Kämpfer. .634 6. Ich genieße das Leben gewiß nicht. .349 -.487 10. Ich bin oft so glücklich, daß man mich wieder

„auf den Teppich holen“ muß.

.371

15. Ich bin leicht zu erfreuen. .514 20. Ich bin sehr neugierig auf das Leben. .531 24. Es ist leicht, mich zu begeistern. .537 25. Ich habe eine eher zynische

Lebenseinstellung. xa

27. Andere Menschen finde ich interessant. .429 33. Meistens wendet sich für mich alles zum

Besten. .304

35. Ich lache selten. -.457 41. Ich freue mich darauf, neue Dinge im Leben

zu entdecken. .471

42. Ich freue mich auf fast alle neuen Aufgaben. .406 43. Ich bin ein Mensch, der Glück hat. -.382 .422

xa loading on this factor, but with a loading below 0.30