性格乐观和乐观偏差：与戒烟动机、信心和态度的关系。

Dispositional optimism and optimistic bias: Associations with cessation motivation, confidence, and attitudes.

机构信息

Department of Medicine.

Behavioral Research Program.

出版信息

Health Psychol. 2022 Sep;41(9):621-629. doi: 10.1037/hea0001184. Epub 2022 Jul 28.

DOI:10.1037/hea0001184

PMID:35901400

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9830640/

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To test whether 2 conceptually overlapping constructs, dispositional optimism (generalized positive expectations) and optimistic bias (inaccurately low risk perceptions), may have different implications for smoking treatment engagement.

METHOD

Predominantly Black, low-income Southern Community Cohort study smokers (n = 880) self-reported dispositional optimism and pessimism (Life Orientation Test-Revised subscales: 0 = neutral, 12 = high optimism/pessimism), comparative lung cancer risk (Low/Average/High), and information to calculate objective lung cancer risk (Low/Med/High). Perceived risk was categorized as accurate (perceived = objective), optimistically-biased (perceived < objective), or pessimistically-biased (perceived > objective). One-way ANOVAs tested associations between dispositional optimism/pessimism and perceived risk accuracy. Multivariable logistic regressions tested independent associations of optimism/pessimism and perceived risk accuracy with cessation motivation (Low/High), confidence (Low/High), and precision treatment attitudes (Favorable/Unfavorable), controlling for sociodemographics and nicotine dependence.

RESULTS

Mean dispositional optimism/pessimism scores were 8.41 ( = 2.59) and 5.65 ( = 3.02), respectively. Perceived lung cancer risk was 38% accurate, 27% optimistically-biased, and 35% pessimistically-biased. Accuracy was unrelated to dispositional optimism ((2, 641) = 1.23, = .29), though optimistically-biased (vs. pessimistically-biased) smokers had higher dispositional pessimism ((2, 628) = 3.17, = .043). Dispositional optimism was associated with higher confidence (Adjusted odds ratio [A] = 1.71, 95% CI [1.42, 2.06], < .001) and favorable precision treatment attitudes (A = 1.66, 95% CI [1.37, 2.01], < .001). Optimistically-biased (vs. accurate) risk perception was associated with lower motivation (A = .64, 95% CI [.42, .98], = .041) and less favorable precision treatment attitudes (A = .59, 95% CI [.38, .94], = .029).

CONCLUSIONS

Dispositional optimism and lung cancer risk perception accuracy were unrelated. Dispositional optimism was associated with favorable engagement-related outcomes and optimistically-biased risk perception with unfavorable outcomes, reinforcing the distinctiveness of these constructs and their implications for smoking treatment. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

摘要

目的

检验两个概念上重叠的结构，即特质性乐观（普遍的积极预期）和乐观偏差（不准确的低风险感知），是否对吸烟治疗的参与有不同的影响。

方法

主要是由黑人组成的、收入较低的南方社区队列研究中的吸烟者（n=880）自我报告了特质性乐观和悲观（生活取向测验修订量表的子量表：0=中性，12=高乐观/悲观）、比较肺癌风险（低/中/高）以及计算客观肺癌风险的信息（低/中/高）。感知风险被归类为准确（感知=客观）、乐观偏差（感知<客观）或悲观偏差（感知>客观）。单因素方差分析检验了特质性乐观/悲观与感知风险准确性之间的关联。多变量逻辑回归检验了乐观/悲观与戒烟动机（低/高）、信心（低/高）和精确治疗态度（有利/不利）的独立关联，控制了社会人口统计学和尼古丁依赖。

结果

平均特质性乐观/悲观得分分别为 8.41（=2.59）和 5.65（=3.02）。感知肺癌风险的准确率为 38%，乐观偏差为 27%，悲观偏差为 35%。准确性与特质性乐观无关（（2，641）=1.23，=0.29），但乐观偏差（与悲观偏差相比）的吸烟者具有更高的特质性悲观（（2，628）=3.17，=0.043）。特质性乐观与更高的信心（调整后的优势比[A] = 1.71，95%置信区间[1.42, 2.06]，<0.001）和有利的精确治疗态度（A = 1.66，95%置信区间[1.37, 2.01]，<0.001）有关。乐观偏差（与准确相比）的风险感知与较低的动机（A =0.64，95%置信区间[0.42, 0.98]，=0.041）和不太有利的精确治疗态度（A =0.59，95%置信区间[0.38, 0.94]，=0.029）有关。