Beliefs about Positive and Negative Events
People differ greatly in the way in which they think about life events. For example, the same stressful life event may be interpreted as a challenge
by person A and as a threat by person B. Likewise, a person may believe that a positive life event is nothing more than a coincidence unrelated to personal efforts while another person believes to be personally responsible for the event. Here, we discuss different ways in which people think about positive and negative life events and the ways in which their thinking style influences their well-being.
APPRAISAL THEORY
According to the cognitive appraisal theory of emotions (e.g., [1]), interpretations (appraisals) of events, rather than events themselves, cause emotions. When an event takes place, people tend to analyse the meaning of the event. They appraise the event based on their current needs, goals, assumptions, and abilities. Two people can experience different emotions when facing the same event because they appraise the event differently [2,3]. Consider, for example, the end of a romantic relationship (see Fig. 9.1). Person A appraises this event as a great loss, resulting in feelings of sadness. Person B appraises the same event as something for which he was responsible, causing feelings of guilt. Person C considers the breakup as an opportunity to explore other partners. Due to this appraisal, this person may experience a sense of relief. These examples illustrate that it is not the event but rather its appraisal that causes an emotion.
Fig. 9.1 An example showing that appraisals of events, rather than events themselves, cause emotions
Whenever the appraisal of an event changes, the emotional experience changes as well. As more appraisals are made, the emotional experience becomes more complex. First, additional appraisals can generate new emotions in response to the same situations. The emotion of “sadness” that was caused by appraising an event as a great loss may be accompanied by the emotion of “guilt” when the person later evaluates the situation as a personal mistake. Second, additional appraisals can alter the initial emotion. For example, as a person’s appraisal of his or her ability to solve a problematic situation increases, his or her emotional experience may change from fear to hope. In sum, the appraisal is a dynamic process that can generate a wide range of emotions over time.
Appraisal theory also predicts that all events which generate the same appraisal pattern evoke the same emotion. In other words, interpretation rather than the nature of the situation generates emotions. Hence, different situations that are interpreted in the same way are likely to generate the same emotion. For example, when getting fired, not being invited to a party, and not getting promoted at work are appraised as unfair, they are all likely to result in the same emotion, namely anger (see Fig. 9.2).
Fig. 9.2 An example showing that different situations that are appraised in the same way will likely generate the same emotion.
APPRAISAL STYLES THAT FOSTER RESILIENCE
Appraisal theory is particularly relevant in the context of resilience, the ability to bounce back from adversity. The ability to cognitively re-appraise stressful experiences as less threatening is essential to deal with trauma in a resilient way [4,6]. In the following sections, we describe different forms of appraisal that are associated with resiliency.
CHALLENGE APPRAISAL
Two important types of appraisals that have received considerable attention in the stress and coping literature are those involving threat versus challenge [7,8]. When an individual appraises an event as a threat, he or she believes that the danger of the event is greater than his or her ability to deal with the event. In other words, threat appraisal involves the belief that one is unable to manage the perceived danger of an event. In contrast, when events are appraised as challenges, the individual believes that the danger does not exceed his or her resources or abilities to cope with the event. Moreover, the individual believes that he or she might gain in some way from the event (i.e., positive incentives or avoidance of harm). In other words, challenge appraisal reflects a positive outlook on one’s believed ability to influence the world.
Consider, for instance, being assigned a new role at work. Person A appraises this event as a threat. She believes that the new role will not require her to use her skills enough and fears that she may fail at this new role. Person B perceives the new role as a challenge. This person appraises the new role as an opportunity to learn new skills and develop herself.
Past research has consistently demonstrated a link between challenge/threat appraisal and resilience. For instance, in a series of experiments, Tugade and Fredrickson [9] measured participants’ trait level of resilience. Additionally, stress was induced by informing participants that they had to prepare a speech that would be delivered in front of a camera. In experiment 1, directly after receiving this information, participants’ cognitive appraisal of this news was assessed by asking a question such as, “How threatening do you think it will be to complete the speech task?” The results showed that more resilient participants appraised the stressful speech task as less threatening compared to less resilient participants. In the second experiment, the same information about the upcoming speech preparation was used. However, this time, cognitive appraisals were manipulated by randomly assigning participants to hear an instruction that emphasised ideals related to either challenge or threat. Moreover, participants’ cardiovascular reactions were measured throughout the experiment. The results showed that among participants with low resilience, those who were exposed to the challenge appraisal experienced faster cardio-vascular recovery from the arousal caused by the task compared to those who appraised the task as a threat. These findings demonstrate the effect of the appraisal on the effects of stressful events and highlight the potential for changing people’s appraisal.
BENEFIT-FINDING
Another form of appraisal that has been repeatedly linked to resilience is benefit-finding. Benefit-finding is often viewed as a “selective evaluation” [10]. According to Taylor et al., “Selective evaluation processes minimise victimisation by focusing on… beneficial qualities of the situation” (p. 26). When people apply benefit-finding, they appraise a past stressful event in terms of the positive effects that emerged from the event, for example, “I learned valuable lessons about the importance of taking care of myself,” “I learned a lot about myself,” “I never knew I was this strong,” and “More than ever, I appreciate the people I love.” Benefit finding is a form of appraisal that is assumed to help people restore assumptions and beliefs about themselves as worthy and relatively safe and their world as orderly, predictable, meaningful, and benevolent or at least benign. It is important to note that benefit-finding does not mean one holds an exclusively positive view of the past event; it means that one is able to see both the positive that resulted from the event along with the negative.
A growing body of evidence has shown that people may believe that dealing with stressful life events, such as heart attacks [11], cancer [12], rape [13], and bereavement [14], might offer some benefit. In general, research has revealed positive long-term effects of the appraisal of benefits in adversity. For instance, some individuals report a new appreciation of their own strength and resilience, an enhanced sense of purpose, greater spirituality, closer ties with others, and changes in life priorities. Others feel that their relationships are stronger and that they have become more compassionate or altruistic (e.g., [15,16,17])
OPTIMISTIC EXPLANATORY STYLE
The causal attributions made by an individual for an event are an important aspect of the event’s appraisal. Explanatory style refers to the way in which people habitually explain the causes of good and bad events. Simply put, an explanatory style refers to a particular way of answering the question, “Why did this event take place?” There are thee crucial dimensions of explanatory style, permanence, pervasiveness, and personalization. The dimension “permanence” concerns time. This dimension refers to whether the causes of an event are perceived as temporary or permanent. The dimension “pervasiveness” involves the generalizability of an event. Is the event believed to have a specific cause or a universal cause? Finally, the dimension “personalization” is about who we believe is responsible for the event; ourselves (internal) or someone or something externally (external).
According to Seligman [21], pessimists and optimists use different explanatory styles depending on whether the event is positive or negative. In case of positive events, optimistic people attribute the cause of the event to permanent, universal, and internal factors (see Fig. 9.3). Consider a person who is hired for a job for which he applied. When he attributes this event to an internal cause, he believes the cause of the event has something to do with himself. He may believe that he was hired because he is intelligent and highly skilled. When this attribution is permanent, it means that this person believes that the reason for being hired is likely to remain the same over time or across situations: he will remain intelligent. Finally, when the attribution is universal, the person believes that the cause of the situation applies to many situations, not just this one. Thus, he believes that his intelligence will also help him get other jobs or accomplish things in other life domains. In contrast, pessimistic people attribute the cause of a positive event to temporary, specific, and external factors (see Fig. 9.3). Now consider the same example through the lens of a pessimistic person. This person may believe that he was hired because there we not so many other applicants (external attribution). Moreover, this person believes that the reason for being hired is likely to change over time or across situations: it is likely that he may not get a job another time (temporary attribution). Finally, he believes that he was hired because of a specific skill he has that this specific job requires (specific attribution).
Optimists and pessimists also differ in the way they evaluate negative events. When negative events take place, individuals with an optimistic attribution style tend to make temporary, specific, and external attributions of the event. Consider a person who is not hired for a job for which he applied. When this person adopts an optimistic explanatory style, he may believe that he did not get hired because he did not have all the skills relevant for the job (external attribution), that he might get hired somewhere else (temporary attribution), and that not getting hired happened only because of the required skills for this job (specific attribution). Difficulties are temporary setbacks that can be overcome with constructive action. A pessimistic person, on the other hand, tends to attribute the cause of negative events to permanent, universal, and internal factors (see Fig. 9.4). Consider again the person described in the example above. Through the lens of a pessimistic person, not getting hired has something to do with himself, perhaps he was not intelligent enough (internal attribution). Moreover, the person may believe that the reason for not being hired will not change over time or across situations: his lack of intelligence will not change (permanent attribution). Finally, the person believes that the cause of the situation applies to many situations, not just this one. Thus, he believes that his lack of intelligence will mean that nobody will ever hire him because he is not intelligent (permanent attribution). People who adopt such a pessimistic way of evaluating negative events which will be more likely to exhibit learned helplessness [22,23].
Fig. 9.3 Explanatory style of optimists versus pessimists for positive events
Fig. 9.4 Explanatory style of optimists versus pessimists for negative events
Past research findings suggest that an optimistic explanatory style is linked to increased levels of resilience. For example, Segovia, Moore, Linnville, Hoyt, and Hain [24] examined the resilience of the United States’ longest detained American prisoners of war held in Vietnam in the 1960’s through early 1970’s. An optimistic explanatory style had the strongest association with resilience. In fact, optimism was a stronger predictor of resilience compared to a traumatic experience, such as torture or solitary confinement. In another study, members of a swim team received false feedback after their best event [25]. Swimmers were led to believe that they performed worse than they did. The results showed that an optimistic explanatory style was associated with greater resilience and predicted greater performance following this negative feedback. The link between optimism and resilience has also been studied in the context of cancer diagnosis and treatment. In a study by Carver and colleagues [26], the distress of patients who were diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer was measured six times: at the time of diagnosis; the day before surgery; 7-10 days after surgery; and 3, 6, and 12 months later. Optimism was measured at the time of diagnosis and was used to predict distress levels at these six time-points. The results showed that optimism predicted not just lower initial distress, but also resilience to distress during the year following surgery. Although these findings do not provide insight into the causality of optimism and resilience, they do support the notion that an optimistic explanatory style is associated with higher levels of resilience.