This article, entitled "the problem with optimism," discusses one of my favorite theories of psychological motivation and goal pursuit--Gabrielle Oettingen's theory of "mental contrasting with implementation intentions" (or MCII). (The popular press article might be paywalled, so try your college library for the full piece.)
The journalist introduces the topic by talking about how to cope with distress--perhaps distress about a personal health problem, or distress about current events. One strategy might be to just "look on the bright side:"
Many therapists are trained to identify the exaggerated emotional responses and distortions of reality that beset their patients, and to help them understand that things are not as bad as they imagine. But when the situation really is as dire as a patient believes, soothing reassurance that one’s distress is misplaced would be malpractice.
The article continues:
Optimism relaxes us, robbing us of the drive to take action. But angst, like a smoke detector, is a powerful motivating force—one that can impel people to help bring about the very changes they need to feel better. Worrying about missing an important deadline at work might, for example, rouse you to work faster or cancel other plans that would delay your task.
Here's a description of a study from Oettingen's lab that supported this theory:
Research suggests that you’re less likely to take such action if you insist on pretending that things will be fine. For example, in a pioneering study published in 2011, college students who were instructed to imagine that the following week would be terrific felt significantly less motivated and energetic—and were academically less productive—than their peers who were told to visualize all the problems that might take place during the coming week. In difficult times, inappropriate optimism can disarm and relax us—and substitute for actions that could actually bring about that sunny imagined future.
The study above was a simple experiment.
a) What were the two groups (the two levels of the independent variable?)
b) What were the dependent variables? (I counted about about three of them).
c) This was an experimental design. Classify its two main variables:
Variable name |
Levels of this variable |
Is this manipulated or measured? |
Is the variable an IV or DV? |
For the IV: was it manipulated as independent groups or within groups? |
d) Assuming they randomly assigned students to the two groups, which type of design was it: posttest only? Pretest-posttest? Repeated measures? Or concurrent measures? Explain your answer.
e) Using your answers to the table, sketch a graph depicting the results of the study (remember to put the DV on the y-axis)
Now read more about the theory:
.... a technique called mental contrasting, co-developed by the psychologist Gabriele Oettingen, who led the study on college students. The idea is to visualize an attainable goal (such as getting involved in local politics or running a mile), then think about all the obstacles that might get in your way (such as failing to find people who share your political vision, or shin splints). Mental contrasting has been shown to help people improve their relationships and recover from chronic pain, possibly because it undercuts the complacency brought about by unrealistic optimism.
e) Dig a little deeper into mental contrasting theory by choosing one of these follow-up ideas:
1. Try the WOOP app, which walks you through a mental contrasting practice.
2. Click on one of the links in the paragraph above (Even better....) to read one of the two empirical articles linked there. You can read exactly how Oettingen studied mental contrasting in people's close relationships and chronic pain.