Stress and Health
Stress and Health 23: 285–294 (2007)
Published online 30 July 2007 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/smi.1147
Received 28 November 2006; Accepted 22 March 2007
Optimism, self-efficacy and
information processing of
threat- and well-being-related
stimuli
Evangelos C. Karademas,*,† Konstantinos Kafetsios and Georgios D. Sideridis
Department of Psychology, University of Crete
Summary
The purpose of this study was to examine whether information bias associated with dispositional
optimism and generalized self-efficacy can account for the link between general expectations and
well-being. A modified Stroop task was used in this study. Our hypothesis was that individuals
with high self-efficacy expectations or dispositional optimism would show greater bias towards
well-being-related stimuli, whereas individuals with low self-efficacy or optimism would exhibit
bias towards threat-related stimuli. A secondary hypothesis was that both self-efficacy and optimism would act as mediators of the latency, perceived distress relationship. One hundred and two
undergraduate students participated in the study. After controlling for daily mood, the results
showed that individuals high in optimism and self-efficacy showed greater informational bias
towards well-being-related stimuli. The low self-efficacy group exhibited greater bias towards
threat-related stimuli. Also, consistent with our hypothesis, optimism and self-efficacy mediated
the relationship between the Stroop colour-naming latencies and perceived distress. These findings suggest that associations, which refer to automatic processes, may form an additional way
through which expectations are related to functioning. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd.
Key Words
self-efficacy; optimism; information processing; well-being; threat
Stimuli
There are two general classes of expectations,
which are seminal for psychological well-being
and functioning: self-efficacy and optimism. The
* Correspondence to: Evangelos C. Karademas,
Department of Psychology, University of Crete, 74100,
Gallos, Rethymnon, Greece.
†
E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
first refers to an assessment of personal abilities
to overcome taxing situations in the future
(Bandura, 1977), whereas the latter refers to positive expectancies even in the face of obstacles
(Scheier & Carver, 1985). Between self-efficacy
and optimism there are noteworthy similarities,
as well as significant differences. Both are evaluations about the future, although self-efficacy
seems to be an antecedent of optimistic appraisal
(a strong sense of self-efficacy facilitates optimistic appraisals; Bandura, 1997). On the other
hand, optimism may reflect a more benign assess-
E. C. Karademas, K. Kafetsios and G. D. Sideridis
ment of the environment rather than of the
personal capabilities (Carver & Scheier, 1998).
Therefore, the joint examination of both types of
expectations is important in order to delimit their
contribution and interrelationships.
Optimism, self-efficacy and health/well-being
A voluminous literature documents the associations of dispositional optimism and generalized
self-efficacy with various aspects of health, wellbeing and functioning. High self-efficacy expectations have been related to subjective well-being,
positive emotions and good physical condition, in
the general population (Bandura, 1997; Creed,
Muller, & Patton, 2003; Lent et al., 2005), and
better adaptation in chronic patients (Kuijer & de
Ridder, 2003). On the contrary, low self-efficacy
has been related to anxiety and depression
(Kashdan & Roberts, 2004), low subjective wellbeing (Barlow, Wright, & Cullen, 2002; Caprara,
2002) and troubled psychological functioning
(e.g. Gallagher, Parle, & Cairns, 2002). A recent
cross-cultural study revealed that general selfefficacy is positively associated with optimism,
self-regulation and self-esteem and inversely associated with depression and anxiety (Luszczynska,
Gutiérrez-Doña, & Schwarzer, 2005).
In the same vein, many studies have shown that
optimism is significantly associated with several
aspects of well-being. For example, optimism is
negatively related to anxiety and depressive
symptomatology (Shnek, Irvine, Stewart, &
Abbey, 2001; Vickers & Vogeltanz, 2000), while
it is positively related to subjective well-being,
functioning and positive affective state (e.g.
Carver et al., 2005; Eid & Diener, 2004). It is also
strongly related to the physical and psychological
functioning of patients suffering from various
medical conditions (Carver et al., 1993; Fournier,
de Ridder, & Bensing, 2002). Recently, Giltay,
Geleijnse, Zitman, Hoekstra, and Schouten
(2004) provided evidence for dispositional optimism having a protective role for all-cause mortality in old age.
However, a question remains regarding the specific pathways through which optimism and selfefficacy are associated with health functioning
and well-being. Research has shown that both are
strongly associated with behaviours, thoughts
and emotions. High self-efficacy, for example, has
been related to more positive thinking, higher
self-esteem, higher goals and more positive emo286
Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
tions (Bandura, 1997; Locke & Latham, 1990;
Schwarzer, 1992). Optimists also seem to employ
more problem-focused coping strategies and
more effective ways of emotional regulation
(Taylor & Armor, 1996). Moreover, optimism
mediates the relationship between perceptions
about the world and the self and well-being
(Karademas, 2006), whereas there is evidence
that self-efficacy functions as a mediator between
personality characteristics and adaptation
(Major, Richards, Cooper, Cozzarelli, & Zubek,
1998). Thus, self-efficacy and optimism may be
related to enhanced outcomes through regulating
behaviour and emotions or through mediating
other underlying cognitive structures and
processes.
Informational biases and health/well-being
The vast majority of the studies on this topic have
utilized self-report measures that involve conscious (and sometimes biased) reflections of the
states that are studied (Segerstrom, 2001). Several
everyday thoughts and behaviours, however, are
also guided by automatic cognitive processes
(Bargh & Chartrand, 1999). For example, informational biases (i.e. more attention devoted to
certain stimuli) play a significant role in mediating the generation of behaviours and emotional
reactions, as shown in previous research (e.g.
Clark, 1988; MacLeod, Rutherford, Campbell,
Ebsworthy, & Holker, 2002). There is a growing
literature demonstrating the existence of informational biases associated with threatening or
related stimuli in a diversity of situations. Informational biases have been identified, for example,
in emotional disorders (Coles & Heimberg, 2002;
Williams, Mathews, & MacLeod, 1996), eating
disorders (Dobson & Dozois, 2004), posttraumatic stress disorder (Buckley, Blanchard, &
Neill, 2000) as well as in situations related to
physical threats (Erblich, Montgomery, Cloitre,
Valdimarsdottir, & Bovbjerg, 2003) and physical
health (Williams, Wasserman, & Lotto, 2003). In
all these cases, research showed that a health condition of concern is associated with impaired
information processing functioning. Such information biases are thought to be the outcome of
an activation of cognitive structures, which are
related to stimuli of concern (Beck & Clark,
1997; Beck, Emery, & Greenberg, 1985; Bower,
1981). Also, research with positive and negative
stimuli has shown that their relevance to specific
Stress and Health 23: 285–294 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/smi
Expectations and information processing
cognitive schemas is probably what accounts
for the biases in information processing, at least
in non-clinical populations (Williams et al.,
1996).
Besides distressing situations, optimism and
self-efficacy expectations can also generate
information processing biases. For example,
Segerstrom (2001) has shown that optimism is
associated with a greater informational bias for
positive stimuli in relation to negative stimuli.
Tafarodi, Marshall, and Milne (2003) have found
that the two aspects of self-esteem, self-liking and
self-competence, which is a concept related to
self-efficacy, are associated with selective memory
for negative information. Individuals low in selfesteem display more bias towards inadequacyrelated stimuli. Also, Smith et al. (2006) recently
showed that common informational biases
to negative information are attenuated or even
eliminated when positive constructs are made
available.
The possible information processing biases
generated by optimism and self-efficacy could initiate a more frequent activation of certain expectation-related schemas. Carver and Scheier
(1998), and Bandura (1997) have already suggested that optimism and self-efficacy, respectively, keep schemas of personal abilities or
success easily accessible. In this way, as a person
pays more attention to a certain class of stimuli,
related thoughts and emotions are more frequently raised, whilst underlying constructs associated with these particular stimuli are more
frequently accessed (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999).
This sets in motion a loop of corresponding
thoughts, emotions and other reactions, which
may lead to more informational biases, intensification of reactions and so on. In other words, the
possible information processing biases generated
by optimism and self-efficacy, and the related activation of relevant constructs could produce a
more positive outlook for life and the future,
more adaptive behaviours and better health.
The present study
The purpose of the present study was to examine
whether generalized self-efficacy and dispositional optimism are associated with informational biases towards health and personal
control-related stimuli (referred to as ‘well-being
stimuli’), and general and personal-threat-related
stimuli (referred to as ‘threat stimuli’). We conCopyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
sider these two types of stimuli important, since
both optimism and efficacy expectations concern
the effective coping with life threats, as well as
the promotion of well-being and personal control
(Bandura, 1977, 1997; Scheier & Carver, 1985,
2001).
The most commonly used method to assess
informational biases to specific stimuli is the emotional Stroop task (MacLeod, 1991), which has
been developed as a modification of the original
Stroop procedure (Stroop, 1935). During this
task, individuals are asked to name the colour of
a word presented to them as quickly and as accurately as possible, while ignoring the meaning of
the word. They are expected to delay or make
more errors in colour-naming of the words
related to their source of concern compared with
neutral words (referred to as the ‘interference
effect’). Interference is used as an indicator of
attentional and informational bias towards a particular set of words. As Mogg and Bradley (1998,
p. 817) properly put it: ‘Output from the Valence
Evaluation System feeds into a Goal Engagement
system, which in turn determines the allocation
of resources for cognitive processing and action’.
The emotional Stroop task and the interference
effect have been consistently demonstrated to be
valid and reliable measures of processing biases
(Coles & Heimberg, 2002; Williams et al., 1996).
With the use of a modified Stroop task, this
study examined the association between generalized self-efficacy expectations and dispositional
optimism, and the information processing of specific stimuli. Our first hypothesis was that individuals with higher optimism and self-efficacy
expectations will show informational biases
towards well-being-related stimuli, whereas
persons with lower expectations will exhibit
biases towards threat-related stimuli. Our second
hypothesis was that self-efficacy and optimism
would mediate the relationship between the
activation of underlying schemata and current
psychological functioning, with the Stroop
colour-naming latencies serving as indicators of
the activation, and perceived distress serving as
an indicator of current functioning. It may seem
odd that self-efficacy and optimism are assumed
to be predicted from word latencies, and not the
opposite way. However, if latencies do reflect the
underlying activation of cognitive schemata, it is
possible that expectations are based on some of
those schemata. Thus, it was a main purpose of
the present study to examine whether variability
in efficacy beliefs and perceptions of optimism
Stress and Health 23: 285–294 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/smi
287
E. C. Karademas, K. Kafetsios and G. D. Sideridis
could be explained by cognitive interference to
threat and well-being-related stimuli.
Method
Participants
One hundred and four psychology students participated in the study. Students were recruited
through announcements in the class and received
extra credit for their participation. Two participants were dropped from the analyses because of
outlying values in the Stroop task (z > 3.0). Thus,
102 students comprised the final sample [80
females and 22 males; mean age = 20.51 years,
standard deviation (SD) = 5.22].
Measures
Optimism. Dispositional
optimism
was
assessed with the Life Orientation Test—Revised
(Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994). It consists of
10 items of which six measure optimism and the
remaining four are fillers (Cronbach a = 0.79).
Self-efficacy. Generalized self-efficacy expectations were measured with the General Perceived
Self-Efficacy scale (Schwarzer & Jerusalem,
1995). The scale consists of 10 items (Cronbach
a = 0.87) and assesses one’s perceived ability to
cope with stressful situations.
Perceived distress. Perceived distress, as an
indicator of current functioning, was measured
with the 10-item Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen,
Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983). It measures the
degree to which situations in one’s life are
appraised as demanding and stressful (Cronbach
a = 0.88).
Mood. Daily mood was included in the analyses as a covariate of self-efficacy and optimism, in
order to control for the possible involvement of
current affective state in the cognitive processes
of attention (Bower, 1994). Mood was assessed
with the Positive and Negative Affectivity Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988).
The same-day instruction set was used (Cronbach
a = 0.90 and 0.88, for the PANAS, respectively).
The Stroop task. The Genov Modified Stroop
task (GMST), developed by Genov, Shay, and
Boone (2002) was implemented in the present
288
Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
study. The GMST is a recent computerized
version of the emotional Stroop paradigm,
demonstrated to be valid in previous Stroop
studies (e.g. Kirsh, Olczak, & Mounts, 2005). It
presents words in the centre of a circular twentycolour palette. The words appear in one of the
colours in the middle of the colour circle. After
the word is presented, the respondent has to select
the correct colour from the palette by using a
mouse. Subsequently, the respondent has to click
on a small circle in the centre of the screen to initiate the presentation of the next word. The software accurately records participants’ reaction
time (in seconds) between the presentation of the
word and the selection of corresponding colour.
It also records the actual colour selected by the
respondent. Each time the GMST is run, words
are presented in a different, random order. Each
word is presented only once.
Participants were asked to correctly select the
colours of words deriving from three lists developed for the purposes of the present study. The
first list, the ‘well-being’-related stimuli, consisted
of personal-healthiness- (e.g. longevity, happiness) and personal-control-related words (e.g.
potency, control). The second list, the ‘threat’related stimuli, consisted of general (e.g. disasters,
danger) and personal threat words (e.g. pain,
disease). The third list consisted of neutral words
(e.g. tree, couch). Each list consisted of 10 words
(see Appendix). Initially, analyses of variance
were performed to demonstrate equivalence of
the word lists in terms of word length, number of
syllables and frequency of usage in the Greek language (as appeared in the Hellenic National
Corpus of the Greek Institute for Language
and
Speech
Processing;
http://hnc.ilsp.gr/
statistics.asp). No significant differences between
word lists regarding length, F(2, 29) = 2.11, p >
0.05, number of syllables, F(2, 29) = 1.50, p >
0.05, or frequency of usage (per million occurrences), F(2, 29) = 0.74, p > 0.05, were identified.
These results are shown in Table I.
Procedures
Participants were individually tested in a psychology lab containing a PC with the computerized application. Firstly, they were administered
the daily mood scales. Then, they were seated in
front of the screen and were instructed that words
written in different colours would be presented
on the screen and they should indicate as rapidly
Stress and Health 23: 285–294 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/smi
Expectations and information processing
Table I. Word list characteristics.
Word list
Word length
M
Threat
Well-being
Neutral
6.60
8.10
7.00
No. of syllables
SD
0.97
1.85
2.05
M
2.90
3.70
3.40
SD
0.57
1.06
1.40
Word frequency
(per million)
M
SD
5.40
2.64
4.43
6.88
2.59
5.03
Note: All characteristics refer to the original Greek words used in this study.
and as accurately as possible the correct colour in
which the word was written. When the students
consented that they understood the procedure,
they were administered a practice list of five irrelevant words in order to familiarize with the task
and reduce unfamiliarity effects that could
emerge and impact the first trials. Following the
warm-up trials and after all questions were
answered and the procedure were explained in
detail, administration of the four word lists
began. At the end of the activity, participants
were asked to fill out a set of questionnaires,
assessing the remaining self-reported scales (see
‘Measures’ section above).
Results
Self-efficacy, optimism and informational
biases
A repeated-measures analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was performed, with word list being
the within-subjects factor, optimism and self-efficacy expectations (low/high using median split
procedures) the between-subjects independent
variables and daily mood a covariate. The results
of the ANOVA revealed no main affect for word
list, F(2, 192) = 0.37, p > 0.10. Also, no main
effect emerged for self-efficacy [i.e. between the
high efficacy (M = 18.55) and low efficacy groups
(M = 19.05), F(1, 96] = 0.67, p > 0.10, using the
Bonferroni correction]. Similarly, no main effect
was evident for optimism [Mhigh optimism = 19.09,
Mlow optimism = 18.51; F(1, 96) = 0.92, p > 0.10,
using the Bonferroni correction]. Most importantly, however, there was a significant selfefficacy × word list interaction, F(2, 192) = 10.04,
p < 0.01, as well as a significant optimism × word
list interaction, F(2, 192) = 6.20, p < 0.01.
Post hoc analyses of these interactions showed
that: (a) high optimism and high self-efficacy indiCopyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
viduals displayed a greater interference for wellbeing- versus threat-related and neutral words; (b)
low self-efficacy individuals exhibited longer colournaming latencies for threat-related versus neutral
words [Fs > 3.31, ps < 0.02, see Figure 1 (colournaming latencies are presented per list)]; (c) low
optimism individuals were no different from high
optimists across comparisons (F < 0.29, p > 0.10).
Examining the mediating role of self-efficacy
and optimism on stress using structural
equation modelling
In order to examine our second hypothesis that
optimism and self-efficacy mediate the relationship between colour-naming latencies and perceived stress, a structural equation model was fit
to the data using LISREL 8.54 (Joreskog &
Sorbom, 1996). According to the model tested,
perceived stress was assumed to be predicted by
self-efficacy and optimism. Well-being and threat
colour-naming latencies were assumed to predict
both self-efficacy and optimism, whereas optimism was also predicted by self-efficacy. The
intercorrelations of all variables included in the
analysis are presented in Table II.
Our model provided a good fit to the data. The
chi-square was not significant [χ2 (2) = 2.01, p =
0.37]. Also, statistical indices were indicative of
excellent fit (adjusted goodness of fit index
(AGFI) = 0.96, normed fit index (NFI) = 0.98,
comparative fit index (CFI) = 1.00, root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.01).
All paths were statistically significant (p < 0.05),
except paths from threat latencies to optimism,
and well-being latencies to self-efficacy. Figure 2
displays the standardized estimates of the model.
Non-significant estimates are not presented.
Results showed that perceived stress is negatively
predicted by optimism, which is positively predicted by well-being colour-naming latencies, as
Stress and Health 23: 285–294 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/smi
289
E. C. Karademas, K. Kafetsios and G. D. Sideridis
21.31
20.01
19.71
19.21
19.18
18.82
18.61
18.58
18.14
17.94
17.74
17.34
Threat
Low SE
W ell-being
Neutral
Low optimism
High SE
High optimism
Figure 1. Mean Stroop colour-naming times (per list) for the high self-efficacy (SE) group, low self-efficacy
(SE) group, high optimism group and the low optimism group. This figure is available in colour online at www.
interscience.wiley.com/journal/smi
Table II. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of colour-naming latencies, optimism, self-efficacy, and
perceived stress.
Variable
Mean
SD
1
2
3
4
5
Threat latency
Well-being latency
Optimism
Self-efficacy
Perceived stress
18.37
19.15
20.95
28.73
27.48
3.82
3.40
5.06
5.04
6.53
—
0.43**
0.08
−0.22*
−0.01
—
0.26*
−0.10
−0.16
—
0.38**
−0.44**
—
−0.45**
—
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
well as by self-efficacy, which is negatively predicted by threat-related latencies. Optimism was
also positively predicted by self-efficacy.
However, to test the validity of the model, we
employed a ‘backward’ evaluation procedure in
which all theoretically important paths were fixed
to zero (one at a time) to test the hypothesis that
the key posited relations were important. Thus,
the model above (the ‘original’ model) was compared to a series of nested models in which the
290
Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
predictive validity of the predictors was examined
using chi-square difference tests. We also tested
an alternative ‘reversed’ model. According to this
model, distress was assumed to be predicted by
well-being- and threat-related colour-naming
latencies, which in turn were predicted by optimism and self-efficacy, respectively. According to
the results (see Table III), all paths were necessary,
whereas all alternative models, except one, and
the ‘reversed’ model did not fit the data.
Stress and Health 23: 285–294 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/smi
Expectations and information processing
Threat color-naming latency
-.06
Self-efficacy
-.33
.42
Perceived stress
D=.71
-.31
Well-being color-naming latency
.27
.08
Optimism
Figure 2. Path analysis between threat and well-being latencies, self-efficacy, optimism and perceived stress, and
β-coefficients.
Note: R2perceived stress = 0.29. D = Disturbance term. Only significant paths are being presented.
Table III. Fit indices for the alternative models and the ‘reversed’ model.
Model
χ2 (df)
p
NFI
CFI
RMSEA
1. Original
2. Paths fixed to zero
Threat latency—SE
WB latency—Optimism
SE—Optimism
Optimism—Stress
SE—Stress
3. ‘Reversed’ model
2.01 (2)
0.37
0.98
1.00
0.01
5.93 (3)
12.64 (3)
20.08 (3)
12.51 (3)
13.49 (3)
43.23 (3)
0.11
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.93
0.85
0.75
0.85
0.84
0.44
0.96
0.88
0.76
0.87
0.85
0.41
0.10
0.15
0.24
0.18
0.19
0.37
χ2 diff
3.92*
10.63**
18.07**
10.50**
11.48**
41.22**
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
NFI: normed fit index; CFI: comparative fit index; SE: self-efficacy; WB: well-being; RMSEA: root mean square of approximation.
Discussion
Dispositional optimism and general self-efficacy
are strongly associated with well-being and adaptation (e.g. Bandura, 1997; Carver et al., 2005;
Giltay et al., 2004; Luszczynska et al., 2005).
This association is achieved through the regulation of behaviour, thoughts and emotions, as well
as through mediating perceptions or traits and
adaptation variables (e.g. Major et al., 1998;
Schwarzer, 1992; Taylor & Armor, 1996).
The present study examined whether self-efficacy expectations and optimism impact the information processing of certain stimuli, as well as
whether this forms a basis for the relationship
between expectations and functioning. The findings provided support for our hypotheses in that
individuals with high optimism or self-efficacy
display more informational biases towards wellbeing (i.e. healthiness and control)-related
stimuli, whereas individuals with low self-efficacy
expectations display greater informational biases
towards threat (personal and general)-related
stimuli. The findings also supported our hypothesis that dispositional optimism and generalized
self-efficacy mediate the relationship between the
Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
activation of underlying constructs, as assessed by
the latencies in colour-naming, and perceived
stress.
In a related study, Segerstrom (2001) reported
that pessimists showed informational biases for
negative stimuli. Individuals who were moderately optimistic showed equal informational
biases towards negative and positive stimuli,
whereas optimists exhibited greater biases for
positive rather than negative stimuli. The present
study further demonstrated that among both
optimists and high self-efficacious individuals,
there was a greater interference (i.e. greater informational bias) for well-being stimuli, whereas in
persons with low self-efficacy there was a greater
interference for threat-related stimuli. No interference emerged for individuals low in optimism.
These results suggest that individuals who are
high on self-efficacy or optimism are more ‘sensitive’ to well-being or control information,
whereas individuals with poorer self-efficacy are
more sensitive to threat-related information.
Previous research has shown that informational biases in several situations (e.g. Erblich
et al., 2003; MacLeod, 1991; Williams et al., 1996)
can shape behaviour or emotional reactions,
Stress and Health 23: 285–294 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/smi
291
E. C. Karademas, K. Kafetsios and G. D. Sideridis
given that they play a central role in the generation and maintenance of emotions (Beck et al.,
1985; MacLeod & Rutherford, 1992), as well as
in the facilitation of decisions and actions (e.g.
Cioffi, 1991). From the moment that optimists
and persons with high self-efficacy expectations
are more preoccupied with well-being stimuli,
they may hold a more positive view of the self and
the world, and they may focus more on the positive aspects of stressful situations. Thus, these
individuals tend to have higher goals and the
motivation to attain them, as well as the ability
to engage appropriate coping strategies in order
to deal with demanding situations. These adaptive behaviours may facilitate adaptation and
well-being (Bandura, 1997; Carver & Scheier,
1998; Hack & Degner, 2004). It is also possible
that more frequent access to positive underlying
constructs, accommodated by the high expectations-related informational biases, attenuates the
attention to negative information. Smith et al.
(2006) have shown that this process takes place
when positive constructs are made accessible.
Furthermore, through information biases, optimism and self-efficacy may initiate the activation
of constructs, which are also related to other
factors, such as self-esteem or self-regulation abilities. Thus, they reinforce a constructive overall
perception of the self. Luszczynska et al. (2005)
have already demonstrated that strong relations
among these traits do exist in different cultures,
while Tafarodi et al. (2003) have found that selfcompetence (a concept related to self-efficacy) is
associated with selective memory for negative
information as well.
On the other hand, individuals with low selfefficacy are more preoccupied with threat-related
stimuli. In general, after the identification of a
threat, an elaborative processing of threat-related
material is activated and almost all informational
resources are allocated towards those stimuli
(Beck & Clark, 1997). Several studies have
demonstrated that this happens in several threatening situations (e.g. Buckley et al., 2000; Kindt
& Brosschot, 1997; Williams et al., 1996). The
allocation of great amounts of attention to threatrelated stimuli makes it difficult to disengage
from a fearful perception of the environment or
discontinue stress-related reactions. This process
may assist the employment and perpetuation of
maladaptive behaviours (Beck & Clark, 1997;
Scheier, Weintraub, & Carver, 1986; Williams et
al., 1996). As a consequence, low self-efficacy
perceptions are associated with information bias
292
Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
impairments towards health and functioning. The
opposite is true of high self-efficacious individuals and high optimists. The finding that self-efficacy and optimism mediate the relationship of
underlying structures activation to perceived
stress provides further support to this suggestion.
An interesting pattern emerged in this study
was that only low self-efficacy individuals reacted
strongly to threat-related stimuli (i.e. with greater
interference), whereas both high-efficacy individuals and high optimists reacted markedly towards
well-being stimuli. This finding underlines not
only that self-efficacy and optimism may be
affined constructs, but also that they may have a
different function. In this particular case, persons
with low self-efficacy may allocate more information resources to threatening stimuli because
they may appraise themselves as potentially less
able to confront threats. After all, self-efficacy
refers to the evaluation of personal capabilities in
the face of a problem (Bandura, 1977). On the
contrary, optimists expect a rather positive
outcome when a problem is present (Carver &
Scheier, 1998). Thus, threatening stimuli may not
be that concerning for optimists so as to allocate
great amounts of informational resources to these
stimuli.
The relation between optimism and selfefficacy, and informational biases is probably reciprocal and a change in one parameter generates
an analogous change in the other. Therefore, an
organized modification of existing expectations
by means of systematic intervention can result in
a corresponding adjustment of information
processes. In other words, the strengthening of
self-efficacy judgments and the reinforcement of
optimistic appraisals can be a method for shifting
informational resources to well-being- rather
than threat-related stimuli. Cognitive treatments
have demonstrated such potentials (A.T. Beck,
1993; J.S. Beck, 1995) and can be used for achieving this goal.
Finally, the above conclusions should be considered in relation to a number of limitations of
the study. Firstly, sample size was modest across
some of the comparisons, as groups were split
into low and high based on mean scores. Gender
comparisons could not be tested given the
unequal gender distribution of the participants
and again, the relative small sample sizes. Furthermore, a novel and more difficult task compared to the traditional version of the emotional
Stroop paradigm was employed (e.g. computerized, use of twenty colours instead of 4–5 as
Stress and Health 23: 285–294 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/smi
Expectations and information processing
usually), while anxiety levels were not measured
before the Stroop task (only positive and negative
mood were assessed). However, anxiety might be
responsible in part for the interference observed
regarding threat words. Also there were no personal ratings for the emotionality of the words.
As a result, the degree to which each word
personally affected each participant remains
unknown.
There are a number of research questions stemming from the present study. For example, taskspecific stimuli could be assessed in order to
examine the domain specificity of interference
effects. Would threat-related stimuli related to
health or achievement result in the same interference effects? Would the moderating variables,
such as traits, have the same effect across situations? It is for the future research to give an
answer to these questions.
In summary, the findings of this study demonstrated that generalized self-efficacy and dispositional optimism are associated with biased
information processing towards threat and wellbeing stimuli. Besides the already acknowledged
relationships with emotion, cognition and behaviour that are based on self-reports, associations
that refer to automatic processes, such as those
identified in this study, may form an additional
way through which expectations are related to
health and functioning. The mediating role of
expectations in the reaction latencies—perceived
stress relation provided further relevant evidence.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory
of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
New York: Freeman & Co.
Bargh, J.A., & Chartrand, T.L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54, 462–479.
Barlow, J., Wright, C., & Cullen, L. (2002). A job-seeking selfefficacy scale for people with physical disabilities: Preliminary development and psychometric testing. British Journal
of Guidance and Counselling, 30, 37–53.
Beck, A.T. (1993). Cognitive therapy: Past, present and future.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61,
194–198.
Beck, A.T., & Clark, D.A. (1997). An information processing
model of anxiety: Automatic and strategic processes.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 49–58.
Beck, A., Emery, G., & Greenberg, R.L. (1985). Anxiety disorders and phobias: A cognitive perspective. New York:
Basic Books.
Beck, J.S. (1995). Cognitive therapy: Basics and beyond. New
York: Guilford.
Bower, G. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36, 129–148.
Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bower, G.H. (1994). Some relations between emotion and
memory. In P. Ekman, & R.J. Davidson (Eds), The nature
of emotion. Fundamental questions (pp. 303–305). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Buckley, T.C., Blanchard, E.B., & Neill, W.T. (2000). Information processing and PTSD: A review of the empirical literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 20, 1041–1065.
Caprara, G.V. (2002). Personality psychology: Filling the gap
between basic processes and molar functioning. In von C.
Hofsten, & L. Backman (Eds), Psychology at the turn of
the millennium, Vol. 2: Social, developmental, and clinical
perspectives (pp. 201–224). Florence, KY: Taylor &
Frances.
Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1998). On the self-regulation
of behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carver, C.S., Pozo, C., Harris, S.D., Noriega, V., Scheier, M.F.,
Robinson, D.S., Ketcham, A.S., Moffat, F.L., & Clark, K.C.
(1993). How coping mediates the effect of optimism on distress—A study of women with early-stage breast-cancer.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 375–390.
Carver, C.S., Smith, R.G., Antoni, M.H., Petronis, V.M.,
Weiss, S., & Derhagopian, R.P. (2005). Optimistic personality and psychosocial well-being during treatment predict
psychosocial well-being among long-term survivors of
breast cancer. Health Psychology, 24, 508–516.
Cioffi, D. (1991). Beyond attentional strategies: A cognitiveperceptual model of somatic interpretation. Psychological
Bulletin, 109, 25–41.
Clark, D.M. (1988). A cognitive model of panic attacks. In S.
Rachman, & J.D. Maser (Eds), Panic: Psychological perspectives (pp. 71–89). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global
measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 24, 385–396.
Coles, M.E., & Heimberg, R.G. (2002). Memory biases in the
anxiety disorders: Current status. Clinical Psychology
Review, 22, 587–627.
Creed, P.A., Muller, J., & Patton, W. (2003). Leaving high
school: The influence and consequences for psychological
well-being and career-related confidence. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 295–311.
Dobson, K.S., & Dozois, D.J.A. (2004). Attentional biases in
eating disorders: A meta-analytic review of Stroop performance. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1001–1022.
Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2004). Global judgments of subjective
well-being: Situational variability and long-term stability.
Social Indicators Research, 65, 245–277.
Erblich, J., Montgomery, G.H., Cloitre, M., Valdimarsdottir,
H.B., & Bovbjerg, D.H. (2003). Biased cognitive processing of cancer-related information among women with
family histories of breast cancer: Evidence from a cancer
Stroop task. Health Psychology, 22, 235–244.
Fournier, M., de Ridder, D., & Bensing, J. (2002). How optimism contributes to the adaptation of chronic illness. A
prospective study into the enduring effects of optimism on
adaptation moderated by the controllability of chronic
illness. Personality and Individual Differences, 33,
1163–1183.
Gallagher, J., Parle, M., & Cairns, D. (2002). Appraisal and
psychological distress six months after diagnosis of breast
cancer. British Journal of Health Psychology, 7, 365–376.
Genov, A., Shay, I., & Boone, R.T. (2002). Genov modified
Stroop task (GMST) [Computer software and manual].
Retrieved September 7, 2005, from http://facpub.
stjohns.edu/~booner/GMSTsite/index.htm.
Giltay, E.J., Geleijnse, J.M., Zitman, F.G., Hoekstra, T., &
Schouten, E.G. (2004). Dispositional optimism and allcause and cardiovascular mortality in a prospective cohort
Stress and Health 23: 285–294 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/smi
293
E. C. Karademas, K. Kafetsios and G. D. Sideridis
of elderly Dutch men and women. Archives of General Psychiatry, 61, 1126–1135.
Hack, T.F., & Degner, L.F. (2004). Coping responses following breast cancer diagnosis predict psychological adjustment three years later. Psycho-Oncology, 13, 235–247.
Joreskog, K.G., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8 reference
guide. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Karademas, E.C. (2006). Self-efficacy, social support and wellbeing: The mediating role of optimism. Personality and
Individual Differences, 40, 1281–1290.
Kashdan, T.B., & Roberts, J.E. (2004). Social anxiety’s impact
on affect, curiosity, and social self-efficacy during a high
self-focus social threat situation. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 28, 119–141.
Kindt, M., & Brosschot, J.F. (1997). Phobia-related cognitive
bias for pictorial and linguistic stimuli. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 644–648.
Kirsh, S.J., Olczak, P.V., & Mounts, J.R.W. (2005). Violent
video games induce an affect processing bias. Media Psychology, 7, 239–250.
Kuijer, R.G., & de Ridder, D. (2003). Discrepancy in illnessrelated goals and quality of life in chronically ill patients:
The role of self-efficacy. Psychology and Health, 18,
313–330.
Lent, R.W., Singley, D., Sheu, H., Gainor, K.A., Brenner, B.R.,
Treistman, D., & Ades, L. (2005). Social cognitive predictors of domain and life satisfaction: Exploring the theoretical precursors of subjective well-being. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 52, 429–442.
Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting
and task performance. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Luszczynska, A., Gutiérrez-Doña, B., & Schwarzer, R. (2005).
General self-efficacy in various domains of human functioning: Evidence from five countries. Interpersonal Journal
of Psychology, 40, 80–89.
MacLeod, C.M. (1991). Half a century of research on the
Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin,
109, 163–203.
MacLeod, C., & Rutherford, E.M. (1992). Anxiety and the
selective processing of emotional information: Mediating
roles of awareness, trait and state variables, and personal
relevance of stimulus materials. Behavioral Research &
Therapy, 30, 479–491.
MacLeod, C., Rutherford, E., Campbell, L., Ebsworthy, G.,
& Holker, L. (2002). Selective attention and emotional vulnerability: Assessing the causal basis of their association
through the experimental manipulation of attentional bias.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 107–123.
Major, B., Richards, C., Cooper, M.L., Cozzarelli, C., &
Zubek, J. (1998). Personal resilience, cognitive appraisals,
and coping: An integrative model of adjustment to abortion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
735–752.
Mogg, K., & Bradley, B.P. (1998). A cognitive-motivational
analysis of anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36,
809–848.
Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and
health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome
expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219–247.
Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S. (2001). Adapting to cancer:
The importance of hope and purpose. In A. Baum, &
B.L. Andersen (Eds), Psychosocial intervention for cancer
(pp. 15–36). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Scheier, M.F., Carver, C.S., & Bridges, M.W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, selfmastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life
294
Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1063–1078.
Scheier, M.F., Weintraub, J.K., & Carver, C.S. (1986). Coping
with stress: Divergent strategies of optimists and pessimists.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1257–1264.
Schwarzer, R. (1992). Self-efficacy in the adoption and maintenance of health behaviors: Theoretical approaches and a new
model. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control
on action (pp. 217–243). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds),
Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and
control beliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON.
Segerstrom, S.C. (2001). Optimism and attentional bias for
negative and positive stimuli. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1334–1343.
Shnek, Z.M., Irvine, J., Stewart, D., & Abbey, S. (2001). Psychological factors and depressive symptoms in ischemic
heart disease. Health Psychology, 20, 141–145.
Smith, N.K., Larsen, J.T., Chartrand, T.L., Cacioppo, J.T.,
Katafiasz, H.A., & Moran, K.E. (2006). Being bad isn’t
always good: Affective context moderates the attention bias
toward negative information. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 90, 210–230.
Stroop, J.R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal
reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.
Tafarodi, R.W., Marshall, T.C., & Milne, A.B. (2003). Selfesteem and memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 29–45.
Taylor, S.E., & Armor, D.A. (1996). Positive illusions and
coping with adversity. Journal of Personality, 64, 873–898.
Vickers, K.S., & Vogeltanz, N.D. (2000). Dispositional optimism as a predictor of depressive symptoms over time. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 259–272.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development
and validation of brief measures of positive and negative
affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Williams, J.M.G., Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (1996). The
emotional Stroop task and psychopathology. Psychological
Bulletin, 120, 3–24.
Williams, P.G., Wasserman, M.S., & Lotto, A.J. (2003). Individual differences in self-assessed health: An informationprocessing investigation of health and illness cognition.
Health Psychology, 22, 3–11.
Appendix
Word lists used in the modified Stroop task.
Well-being words
Threat-related
words
Neutral words
Vigour
Longevity
Control
Happiness
Potency
Fitness
Strength
Ableness
Healthiness
Tranquillity
Danger
Disasters
Menace
Disease
Uncertainty
Disability
Vulnerability
Death
Hospital
Pain
Museum
Tree
World
Pencil
Dog
Couch
Sky
Book
Theatre
Shoes
Note: Translated from Greek.
Stress and Health 23: 285–294 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/smi