1. The Influence of Dispositional Optimism and Pessimism on Task Engagement for Spatial and Temporal Discrimination J.L. Szalma, J.M. Ross, & P.A. Hancock University of Central Florida

2. Trinity of Stress Stress Signature (Deterministic) Compensatory Processes (Nomothetic) Goal-Directed Behavior (Idiographic)

3. Hancock & Warm (1989)

4. Maximal Minimal Hypostress PSYCHOLOGICAL ADAPTABILITY NORMATIVE ZONE Dynamic Instability Hyperstress (ATTENTIONAL RESOURCE CAPACITY) Physiological Zone of Maximal Adaptability Psychological Zone of Maximal Adaptability Maximal Minimal Dynamic Instability PHYSIOLOGICAL ADAPTABILITY COMFORT ZONE STRESS LEVEL

5. Maximal Adaptability Model Hancock and Warm (1989) Recognition of task as a proximal stressor Two fundamental task dimensions. –Information structure – often expressed spatially. –Information rate – the temporal characteristics of the task.

6. Hancock & Warm (1989)

7. Distortion of Space-Time Under StressStress Perceived Time Sidereal Time Hancock & Weaver (in press)

8. What is the Common Mechanism? One Possibility: Common Resource Capacity Narrowing occurs as a result of diminishing resources

9. Role of Individual Differences

10. Individual Differences in Stress Response Goal-Directed Behavior (Idiographic)

11. Dispositional Optimimsm/Pessimism Performance Impairment in Pessimistic Swimmers (Seligman, Nolen-Hoeksema, Thornton, & Thornton, 1990) Pessimistic candidates do more poorly in elections (Zullow, 1995) Insurance agent productivity (Seligman & Schulman, 1986)

12. Pessimism and Attention Performance impairment (sometimes; Helton, Dember, Warm, & Matthews, 1999) Increased Stress Symptoms (Helton et al., 1999; Szalma, 2002) Maladaptive coping strategies (Scheier & Carver, 1987; Szalma, 2002) Effects may depend on task characteristics (Thropp, Szalma, Ross & Hancock, 2003) Relation of Pessimism to stress and performance in attention is generally stronger than that associated with optimism (when measured as distinct constructs)

13. Traits and Resource Sharing

14. Hypotheses 1.Individuals high in pessimism (low on optimism) would exhibit greater stress symptoms than those low in pessimism (high in optimism) 2.These effects should be greater under more demanding task conditions: combination of spatial and temporal characteristics 3.Trait effects should be greater when an external stressor is applied (white noise)

15. Experimental Procedure Participants –46 Undergraduates (23 Males, 23 Females) 2 (noise) by 3 (task) mixed design with repeated measures on the second factor.

16. Experimental Procedure Noise: 85 dBA intermittent white noise Conjunctive DiscriminationTasks: –Spatial Dominant: Spatial + Luminance discrimination –Temporal Dominant: Temporal + Luminance discrimination –Combined: Spatial + Temporal discrimination

17. OPI Pre- DSSQ Post- DSSQ Instructions Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Optimism/Pessimism Inventory (OPI): Pessimism/Optimism measured as partially independent constructs (Dember, Martin, Hummer, Howe, & Melton, 1989) Pre-DSSQ: -Pre-Task Engagement, Pre-Task Worry, Pre-Task Distress Post-DSSQ: -Post-task Engagement, Post-task Worry, Post-task Distress -Task-focused, Emotion-focused, Avoidant Coping StartEnd Questionnaires and Procedure

18. Spatial-Dominant Task Stimulus TARGET

19. Temporal-Dominant Task Stimulus TARGET

20. Combined Task Stimulus TARGET

21. Results: Performance Optimism and pessimism did not predict performance (Hits, FA, d’, c) Neither trait interacted with noise to influence performance or stress

22. Results: Pessimism and Stress Pessimism predicted greater post-task Distress, but only in the spatial-dominant condition (R 2 =.11, p<.05) This effect was not significant when the pre-state was entered first into the regression (∆R 2 =.01, p>.05)

23. Optimism and Distress Optimism predicted less post-task Distress in all three tasks (R 2 =.08 --.11, p<.05 in each case) These effects were not significant when the pre-state was entered first into the regression (∆R 2.05)

24. Optimism and Task Engagement: Spatial-Dominant Task Optimism did not predict changes in post Task Engagement in tasks with a spatial component, (R 2.05 in each case) In the spatial task, optimism predicted greater post Task Engagement after the pre-state was entered first (R 2 =.35; ∆R 2 =.08, p<.05)

25. Optimism and Task Engagement: Temporal-Dominant Task Optimism predicted decreased post Task Engagement in the temporal-dominant task (R 2 =.09, p<.05) This effect was not significant when the pre- task state was entered first (∆R 2.05)

26. Post-Task Engagement as a Function of Optimism TE = -0.05Opt + 2.44 R 2 = 0.09 -2 -1.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 18243036424854606672 Optimism Post-task Engagement Spatial-Dominant Task

27. Optimism and Worry Optimism predicted increased post task Worry, but only in the temporal-dominant task (R 2 =.1, p<.05) This effect was not significant when the pre-task state was entered first (∆R 2 =.04, p=.07)

28. Conclusions Optimism may exert a greater influence on stress response than previous experiments indicated This effect is task dependent Effects vary across dimensions of stress-state White noise did not interact with either trait Effects of optimism/pessimism on stress state was not exacerbated by the combination of spatial/temporal demands The stress-trait relation varied depending on task dimension emphasized (spatial, temporal)

29. Acknowledgement This research was supported by a Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI) program grant from the Army Research Office, Dr. Elmar Schmeisser, Technical Monitor (Grant# DAAD19-01-1-0621). The research was facilitated by a DARPA-funded program under Grant NBCH1030012, CMDR Dylan Schmorrow, Technical Monitor. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the US Government.