Defensive pessimism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Defensive pessimism is a cognitive strategy identified by Nancy Cantor and her students in the mid-1980s.[1] Individuals use defensive pessimism as a strategy to prepare for anxiety provoking events or performances. When implementing defensive pessimism, individuals set low expectations for their performance, regardless of how well they have done in the past. Defensive pessimists then think through specific negative events and setbacks that could adversely influence their goal pursuits. By envisioning possible negative outcomes, defensive pessimists can take action to avoid or prepare for them.[2] Using this strategy, defensive pessimists can advantageously harness anxiety that might otherwise harm their performance.[3]

Defensive pessimism is utilized in a variety of domains, and public speaking provides a good example of the process involved in this strategy. Defensive pessimists could alleviate their anxiety over public speaking by imagining possible obstacles such as forgetting the speech, being thirsty, or staining their shirts before the event. Because defensive pessimists have thought of these problems, they can appropriately prepare to face the challenges ahead. The speaker could, for instance, create note cards with cues about the speech, place a cup of water on the podium to alleviate thirst, and bring a bleach pen to remove shirt stains. These preventative actions both reduce anxiety and promote superior performance.

Strategy Effectiveness[edit]

Though defensive pessimists are less satisfied with their performances and rate themselves higher in "need for improvement," they do not actually perform worse than people with a more optimistic strategy. Norem and Cantor (1986) investigated whether encouraging defensive pessimists, and thereby interfering with their typical negative thinking, would result in worse performances. Participants in the study were in either encouragement or non-encouragement scenarios as they prepared to complete anagram and puzzle tasks. In the encouragement condition, the defensive pessimists were told that, based on their GPA, they should expect to do well. Defensive pessimists performed worse when encouraged than the defensive pessimists whose strategy was not manipulated.[3] Defensive pessimism is an adaptive strategy for those who struggle with anxiety: their performance decreases if they are unable to appropriately manage and counteract their anxiety.[4]

Key Components[edit]

Prefactual Thinking[edit]

Prefactual thinking is an essential component of defensive pessimism.

Prefactual thinking, synonymous with anticipation, describes a cognitive strategy in which people imagine possible outcomes of a future scenario. The imagined outcomes are either positive/desirable, negative/undesirable, or neutral. Prefactual thinking can be advantageous because it allows the individual to prepare for possible outcomes of a scenario.

For defensive pessimists, prefactual thinking offers the primary and critical method to alleviate anxiety.[1] Usually, this prefactual thinking is paired with a pessimistic outlook, resulting in negative/undesirable imagined scenarios. In regards to the earlier example, the public speaking defensive pessimist anticipates forgetting the speech or becoming thirsty as opposed to giving an amazing speech and receiving a standing ovation.

Anxiety[edit]

As defensive pessimism is motivated by a need to manage anxiety, it is unsurprisingly also correlated with trait anxiety and neuroticism.[1] Negative mood states promote defensive pessimists’ goal attainment strategy by facilitating their generation of setbacks and negative outcomes that could arise during goal pursuit. When defensive pessimists are encouraged into positive or even just neutral mood states, they perform worse on experimental tasks than when in a negative mood state. They are more anxious because they are prevented from properly implementing their preferred cognitive strategy for goal attainment.[5]

Defensive Pessimism and Self-esteem[edit]

Defensive pessimism is generally related to lower self-esteem since the strategy involves self-critique, pessimism, and discounting previous successful performances. Indeed, Norem and Burdzovic Andreas (2006) found that, compared to optimists, defensive pessimists had lower self-esteem entering college. At the end of four years of college however, the self-esteem of the defensive pessimists had increased to nearly equal levels as optimists. The self-esteem of optimists had not changed, and the self-esteem of pessimists who did not employ defensive pessimism had fallen slightly by the end of college.[6] While defensive pessimism may have implications for self-esteem, it appears that these effects lessen over time.

Compared to Pessimism[edit]

Unlike pessimism, defensive pessimism is not an internal, global, and stable attribution style, but rather a cognitive strategy utilized within the context of certain goals.[1] Pessimism involves rumination about possible negative outcomes of a situation without proactive behavior to counteract these outcomes. Defensive pessimism, on the other hand, utilizes the foresight of negative situations in order to prepare against them. The negative possible outcomes of a situation often motivate defensive pessimists to work harder for success. Since defensive pessimists are anxious, but not certain, that negative situations will arise, they still feel that they can control their outcomes .[7] For example, a defensive pessimist would not avoid all job interviews for fear of failing one. Instead, a defensive pessimist would anticipate possible challenges that could come in an upcoming job interview – dress code, stubborn interviewers, and tough questions – and prepare rigorously to face them. Defensive pessimism is not a reaction to stressful events nor does it entail ruminating on events of the past, and should therefore be distinguished from trait pessimism or a more general negative outlook. Instead, defensive pessimists are able to stop using this strategy once it is no longer adaptive (does not serve a preparatory role).[7]

Compared to Other Cognitive Strategies[edit]

Self-Handicapping[edit]

Elliot and Church (2003) determined that people adopt defensive pessimism or self-handicapping strategies for the same reason: to deal with anxiety provoking situations. Self-handicapping is a cognitive strategy in which people construct obstacles to their own success to keep failure from damaging their self-esteem. The difference between self-handicapping and defensive pessimism lies in the motivation behind the strategies. Beyond managing anxiety, defensive pessimism is further motivated by a desire for high achievement. Self-handicappers, however, feel no such need. Elliot and Church found that the self-handicapping strategy undermined goal achievement while defensive pessimism aided achievement. People who self-handicapped were high in avoidance motivation and low in approach motivation. They wanted to avoid anxiety, but were not motivated to approach success. Defensive pessimists, on the other hand, were motivated to approach success and goal attainment while simultaneously avoiding the anxiety associated with performance.[8]

Strategic Optimism[edit]

In research, defensive pessimism is frequently contrasted with strategic optimism, another cognitive strategy. When facing performance situations, strategic optimists feel that they will end well. Therefore, though they plan ahead, they plan only minimally because they do not have any anxiety to face. While defensive pessimists set low expectations, feel anxious, and rehearse possible negative outcomes of situations, strategic optimists set high expectations, feel calm, and do not reflect on the situation any more than absolutely necessary.[9] Strategic optimists start out with different motivations and obstacles: unlike defensive pessimists, strategic optimists do not have any anxiety to surmount. In spite of their differences in motivation, strategic optimists and defensive pessimists have similar objective performance outcomes.[2] For both strategic optimists and defensive pessimists, their respective cognitive strategies are adaptive and promote success.

See also[edit]

Further reading[edit]

Norem, J. (2001). The Positive Power of Negative Thinking. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d Norem, J.K. (2001). Defensive pessimism, optimism, and pessimism. In Chang, Edward (Ed). Optimism & pessimism: Implication for theory, research, and practice (pp. 77-100). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
  2. ^ a b Norem, J. K. (2008). Defensive pessimism, anxiety, and the complexity of evaluating self-regulation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 121-134.
  3. ^ a b Norem. J. K., & Cantor, N. (1986) Defensive pessimism: Harnessing anxiety as motivation. Journal of Personality and Psychology, 51, 1208-1217.
  4. ^ Norem, J. (2001). The Positive Power of Negative Thinking. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books
  5. ^ del Valle, C. H. & Mateos, P. M. (2008). Dispositional pessimism, defensive pessimism and optimism: The effect of induced mood on prefactual and counterfactual thinking and performance. Cognition and Emotion, 22(8). 1600-1612.
  6. ^ Norem, J. K., & Burdzovic Andreas, J. (2006). Understanding journeys: Individual growth analysis as a tool for studying individual differences in change over time. In A. D. Ong & M. van Dulmen (Eds.), Handbook of Methods in Positive Psychology (pp. 1036-1058). London: Oxford University Press.
  7. ^ a b Norem, J. K. (2008). Defensive pessimism as a positive self-critical tool. In Chang, Edward (Ed). Self-criticism and self enhancement: Theory and research and clinical implications (pp. 89-104). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
  8. ^ Elliot, A.J., Church, M.A. (2003). A Motivational Analysis of Defensive Pessimism and Self-Handicapping. Journal of Personality, 71(3), 369-396.
  9. ^ Spencer, S.M. & Norem, J.K. (1996). Reflection and distraction: Defensive pessimism, strategic optimism, and performance. Personal Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 354-365.