Early contexts of hope and optimism

Although used as interchangeable concepts by some and as mutually exclusive concepts by others, ^{Reference Bryant and Cvengros5} the term hope precedes optimism. In classical antiquity, hope was the last of the wedding gifts Zeus gave to Epimetheus and his wife, Pandora, really a punishment to the groom and his brother, Prometheus, for giving mortal man fire. When opened by the new bride Pandora, the ills of humanity were unleashed, while hope, blind, fluttered at the lip of the jar. ^{Reference Graves6} Nietzsche interprets hope in this context as ‘the most evil of evils because it prolongs man's torment’. ^{Reference Nietzsche7} In the English language, the word hope found its earliest use in the context of forlorn hope. It derives from the Dutch military expression verloren hoop - referring to lost troops. Hoop was mistaken for hope and ‘the phrase came to mean a body of desperate men who have abandoned all hope for surviving, a desperate enterprise, as in to cherish a forlorn hope’. ^{Reference Liberman8} In Judeo-Christianity, hope is among the ‘greatest of all gifts’, along with faith and charity in 1 Corintheans 13. Hope is defined by some psychologists as ‘the perceived capacity to derive pathways to desired goals, and motivate oneself via agency thinking to use those pathways.’ ^{Reference Snyder9}

The term optimism was not used until 1710 by Leibniz in his work Théodicée to mean the greatest good (derived from optimus in Latin) by suggesting that good will ultimately prevail over evil. In his novel Candide, Voltaire was derisive of the shallowness of an optimistic worldview. According to William James, ‘pessimism leads to weakness, optimism to power.’ ^{Reference James10} Some psychologists today regard optimism as a disposition characterised by positive expectation, ^{Reference Carver and Scheier11} whereas others define it as an explanatory style characterised by a tendency to attribute negative outcomes to external causes, specific and temporary causes and positive outcomes to internal, global and permanent causes. ^{Reference Seligman12} The construct as an explanatory style was given popular force by Martin Seligman, credited as the ‘father of positive psychology’, whose research focus turned from the study of ‘learned helplessness’ in dogs as a model for depression in humans (by demonstrating that dogs who were persistently shocked without the opportunity to escape did not later perceive opportunities to escape, as they had ‘learned’ to be ‘helpless’) to ‘learned optimism’. He observed that some dogs never learned to be helpless and began investigating why some people do not give up after being exposed to repeated stressors. ^{Reference Seligman12}

Optimism and individualism

Optimism is viewed by many as an indication of mental health, associated with higher levels of subjective well-being, better physical health and more success. ^{Reference Forgeard and Seligman13} Some propose optimists provide ‘models of living for others to learn from’, citing findings that link optimism to better subjective well-being, better physical health, persistent educational efforts, higher income and better relationships. ^{Reference Carver, Scheier and Segerstrom14} As much of the evidence is based on correlational research which cannot infer causation, it could be equally argued that better health, education, income and good relationships could be predictive of an optimistic worldview, and not the reverse. Indeed, the same authors concede that ‘a poor childhood socioeconomic circumstance breeds pessimism later in life’. ^{Reference Carver, Scheier and Segerstrom14}

It could be argued that much discourse around optimism may be a function of individualism. By identifying distress as a ‘psychological matter’ rather than locating it in ‘the social and material world with which we are intimately interconnected’, ^{Reference Cromby, Diamond, Kelly, Moloney, Priest and Smail15} key proponents ‘promote positive thinking and to systematically dispel the negative thoughts that affect us all’ ^{Reference Layard16} despite epidemiological evidence that fewer economic and social resources predict higher mental and physical health problems throughout life. ^{Reference Sayer17} It has been further argued that ‘the current official preoccupation with happiness’ may be at best ‘a naïve attempt to improve the world through wishful thinking, and at worst a form of insidious social control, where people are encouraged to look inwards for the sources of their troubles, and in the end to implicitly blame themselves for these ills’. ^{Reference Cromby, Diamond, Kelly, Moloney, Priest and Smail15}

Interventions that improve optimism

Interventions are used to increase optimism in both clinical and non-clinical populations. Cognitive-behavioural therapy is offered on the NHS to stop ‘negative thought cycles’ based on the presupposition that ‘there are helpful and unhelpful ways of reacting to a situation, often determined by how you think about them’. ³ Such ‘cognitive restructuring tools’ which encourage individuals to ‘challenge unhelpful thoughts’ that threaten self-esteem and therefore mental health are used to prevent mental health problems, to enhance performance and to reduce work-related stress. ^{Reference Palmer and Gyllensten18} Some interventions emphasise the importance of ‘increasing the frequency of positive cognitions and self-statements that foster optimism’ to combat ‘everyday malady’; ^{Reference Riskind, Sarampote and Mercier19} whereas others encourage clients to adopt an ‘as if’ approach to life, to ask clients to ‘pretend that their lives are improved in some way, however small, and to experience their lives anew in the face of these positive changes’. ^{Reference O'Hanlon and Bertolino20} Blackwell et al propose that ‘boosting positive future imagery’ to promote optimism could provide ‘implications for mental health and even physical well-being’. ^{Reference Blackwell, Rius-Ottenheim, Schulte-van Maaren, Carlier, Middelkoop and Zitman21} Further interventions to improve optimism encourage individuals to make external attributions for negative outcomes and internal attributions for positive ones to improve success. ^{Reference Schulman22}

Cognitive biases

However, social psychological research reveals that most individuals already tend to exhibit persistent cognitive biases characterised by biases in probabilistic reasoning and attribution. ^{Reference Taylor, Brown and Baumeister23} The ‘optimism bias’ shows that when asked to make comparative judgements about future life events, individuals consistently expect that positive events are more likely to happen to them (i.e. having a gifted child) and that negative events (i.e. divorced after a few years) are less likely. ^{Reference Weinstein24} The ‘better than average effect’ demonstrates that individuals tend to evaluate themselves more favourably compared with others. ^{Reference Alicke, Klotz, Breitenbecher, Yurak and Vredenburg25} A variety of biases of attribution have also been identified, from the self-serving bias (the tendency to deny responsibility for failure and take credit for success) and the self-centred bias (taking more credit for a jointly produced outcome) to the false consensus effect (the tendency to see one's own behaviour, thoughts and feelings as typical). ^{Reference Fiske and Taylor26} Other self-favouring biases have been identified such as spatial biases (things are better here than there), environmental comparative optimism (things are environmentally safer here than elsewhere) and temporal biases (discounting the importance of a problem the farther away in the future that it seems). ^{Reference Gifford, Scannell, Kormos, Smolova, Biel and Boncu27}

Excessive optimism

Although optimism may serve the function to motivate individuals in the present in the service of future goals, excessive optimism may blind individuals to perceive the inherent risk in their present actions, resulting in consequences that individuals might better permit themselves to anticipate. Optimism is credited with predicting a catalogue of negative outcomes from risk-taking in unprotected sex, ^{Reference Anderson and Galinsky35} underestimating risks in driving, ^{Reference Harre and Sibley36} continued gambling after losses, ^{Reference Gibson and Sanbonmatsu37} engagement in music piracy, ^{Reference Nandedkar and Midha38} to minimising the health consequences of smoking. ^{Reference Williams and Clarke39} Moreover, optimism can create the potential for unmet expectations and heightened negative reactions when such expectations are not realised, including increased physical and psychological symptoms and reduced mental health. ^{Reference Britton, Sliter and Jex40,Reference Chang and Sanna41}

More clarity is needed regarding this concept. What is the purpose of facilitating biases of optimism in a non-clinical population who is likely to have persistent esteem-enhancing biases of attribution and optimism already? If excessive optimism can lead to a catalogue of ills, how are the proposed techniques designed to facilitate optimism conducive to mental health in a non-clinical population? How helpful are such interventions even among individuals with depression who appear to also exhibit persistent cognitive biases of optimism? ^{Reference Moore and Fresco34} By locating the cause of optimal or suboptimal functioning at the individual level, does this minimise wider systemic social and economic influences on mental health?