Coping Strategy (Positive Thinking) (COPPT)

1. Abstract

The Coping Strategy (Positive Thinking) (COPPT) subscale is a specialized psychometric instrument developed by Adam Duhachek (2005) as an integral component of a comprehensive, hierarchical framework designed to measure consumer coping responses to stressful consumption experiences. While general coping inventories—such as the COPE Inventory (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989) and the Ways of Coping Questionnaire (Folkman & Lazarus, 1988)—have been widely implemented in clinical and health psychology, the COPPT uniquely operationalizes positive cognitive reframing within the distinctive domain of market transactions, service breakdowns, product failures, and post-purchase consumer distress. Comprising four targeted items evaluated on a multi-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = "Not at all" to 7 = "Very much"), the COPPT measures an individual’s cognitive motivation and behavioral propensity to psychologically restructure a stressful consumption event by identifying silver linings, uncovering constructive opportunities, and actively focusing on favorable elements rather than negative outcomes.

Extensive psychometric evaluation using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrates that the COPPT possesses robust structural integrity, exceptional internal consistency reliability (with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently exceeding α = .84 and composite reliability exceeding ρ_c = .85), and rigorous construct validity. Within Duhachek’s hierarchical model of coping, positive thinking functions as a primary first-order cognitive coping strategy that loads alongside denial and mental disengagement onto a broader second-order factor termed "Emotional Support / Cognitive Coping" or forms an autonomous cognitive reappraisal pathway depending on structural specifications. By providing a parsimonious, theoretically grounded, and psychometrically validated instrument, the COPPT enables behavioral scientists, consumer psychologists, and service marketing researchers to quantify how consumers self-regulate negative affect, mitigate post-recovery dissatisfaction, and maintain psychological well-being when confronting acute marketplace stressors.

2. Keywords

Coping Strategy (Positive Thinking), COPPT, Adam Duhachek, Consumer Coping, Cognitive Reframing, Positive Reappraisal, Emotion Regulation, Stressful Consumption Episodes, Transactional Model of Stress, Psychometrics, Service Failure Recovery, Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

3. Authors

The Coping Strategy (Positive Thinking) (COPPT) subscale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by:

• Adam Duhachek, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing and the Nestlé-Hustad Professor of Marketing at the Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, United States. Dr. Duhachek is a leading scholar in consumer behavior, consumer psychology, emotional appraisal, stress, coping mechanisms, and behavioral decision theory. His research has been widely published in the Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Marketing Research, and the Journal of Consumer Psychology.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Coping Strategy (Positive Thinking) (COPPT) scale is to isolate, quantify, and evaluate the specific cognitive emotion-regulation mechanism known as positive reappraisal or positive thinking within stressful marketplace environments. Marketplace transactions are inherently fraught with potential stressors: service failures (such as canceled flights, medical malpractice, or hospitality disruptions), catastrophic product malfunctions (such as automotive safety recalls or electronic defects), financial losses, and deceptive retail practices. When consumers encounter these high-stakes, ego-threatening, or resource-depleting situations, they experience complex amalgams of negative affect, including anger, anxiety, shame, and helplessness. The COPPT provides a standardized, empirically validated method for measuring the extent to which an individual actively chooses to cope with such stress by reinterpreting the situation in a more favorable light, discovering hidden benefits, and focusing on constructive, optimistic interpretations of otherwise aversive realities.

From a theoretical standpoint, the COPPT addresses a critical void in psychological and consumer measurement. Historical coping inventories developed in clinical psychology (e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) were calibrated to measure life crises, terminal illnesses, or bereavement. When consumer psychologists imported these broad scales into retail and consumption settings, they frequently observed erratic factor structures, poor discriminant validity, and low explanatory power. Duhachek (2005) addressed this challenge by developing a domain-specific, theoretically grounded framework that mirrors the real-world cognitive architecture of consumers. The COPPT isolates cognitive reappraisal from both action-oriented behavioral coping (e.g., demanding refunds, seeking redress) and socio-emotional coping (e.g., venting negative emotions, seeking social support). This clear differentiation allows researchers to track the unique affective, cognitive, and behavioral downstream consequences of positive cognitive reframing.

In applied and empirical contexts, the COPPT serves multiple research and managerial purposes:

• Diagnostic Research in Service Management: Service organizations utilize the scale to determine which segments of consumers naturally rely on positive reframing during service disruptions, allowing firms to tailor service recovery communications (e.g., framing service delays as opportunities for complimentary amenities) to match the consumer’s cognitive coping orientation.
• Investigation of Post-Crisis Brand Attitudes: Consumer behavior researchers utilize the COPPT to examine how positive cognitive reframing buffers against brand equity erosion, mitigating destructive behaviors such as negative word-of-mouth (NWOM) and retaliatory consumer boycotts.
• Theoretical Modeling of Emotion Regulation: The COPPT enables experimental psychologists to model positive thinking as either a measured individual difference (a coping disposition) or a measured state response following specific laboratory stress inductions, shedding light on the boundary conditions of cognitive reappraisal.
• Health and Public Policy Interventions: Applied behavioral scientists use the COPPT to measure how vulnerable populations cope with stressful healthcare decisions, medical adherence challenges, or consumer financial shocks, informing the design of public communication campaigns that encourage adaptive cognitive coping strategies over maladaptive avoidance or rumination.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the COPPT is Positive Thinking (frequently designated across the psychological literature as positive reappraisal, optimistic cognitive restructuring, or benefit finding). Within the cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion, positive thinking represents an emotion-focused, cognitive coping strategy wherein an individual consciously alters the subjective meaning of a stressful encounter without directly altering the objective physical reality of the external stressor itself. It is grounded in the psychological premise that while a consumer may lack the immediate capacity to undo a service catastrophe or product failure, they retain autonomous agency over the cognitive schema through which the event is perceived, interpreted, and integrated into their ongoing narrative.

To fully understand the construct of positive thinking as measured by the COPPT, it must be carefully distinguished from related yet structurally divergent psychological constructs:

• Positive Thinking vs. Denial: Whereas denial entails a refusal to acknowledge the objective occurrence or emotional gravity of a stressor ("This problem does not exist; nothing went wrong"), positive thinking fully acknowledges the reality of the stressful disruption while deliberately pivoting attention toward constructive outcomes, personal growth, or compensatory benefits ("This situation went wrong and is difficult, but it provides an opportunity for me to learn and discover better alternatives").
• Positive Thinking vs. Action Coping: Action coping involves physical, problem-focused behaviors directed toward altering the external environment (e.g., calling customer support, filing a formal complaint, seeking an immediate financial refund). Positive thinking, conversely, is an entirely internal, intrapsychic coping mechanism that transforms subjective cognitive appraisals rather than environmental conditions.
• Positive Thinking vs. Dispositional Optimism: While dispositional optimism (e.g., Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994) is a broad, stable personality trait characterized by generalized positive outcome expectancies across life domains, the construct measured by the COPPT represents an active, motivated cognitive response strategy deployed in direct reaction to an experienced, acute stressful transaction.
• Positive Thinking vs. Emotional Venting: Emotional venting involves the uninhibited expression, discharge, and externalization of negative affective states (e.g., shouting, complaining, expressing anger). Positive thinking functions as a regulatory counterweight to venting, deliberately suppressing maladaptive emotional rumination in favor of cognitive equilibrium and affective stabilization.

The COPPT captures four nuanced facets of this cognitive reappraisal process:

1. Active Search for the Silver Lining: The motivated cognitive effort to detect latent positive dimensions embedded within an overtly negative occurrence.
2. Looking on the Bright Side: The deliberate reorientation of attentional focus toward the most favorable elements or serendipitous consequences of the situation.
3. Constructive Meaning-Making: The effort to extract tangible value, wisdom, or practical benefit from an adverse consumption episode.
4. Counterfactual Downward Comparison: Mentally contextualizing the stressor against worse hypothetical alternatives ("how things could have been much worse"), thereby reducing the perceived severity of the experienced loss.

6. Theoretical Framework

The COPPT is anchored in the foundational architecture of the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping formulated by Richard S. Lazarus and Susan Folkman (1984). According to transactional theory, psychological stress is not an environmental stimulus per se, nor is it merely a physiological response; rather, it is a dynamic, bidirectional relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding their resources and endangering their well-being. This model posits two critical phases of cognitive appraisal:

• Primary Appraisal: The individual assesses what is at stake in the transaction (e.g., threat to financial assets, physical safety, self-esteem, or personal goals). The event is categorized as irrelevant, benign-positive, or stressful (harm/loss, threat, or challenge).
• Secondary Appraisal: The individual evaluates what, if anything, can be done to manage the stressor, assessing available coping options, personal agency, internal resources, and external support systems.

Following appraisal, coping processes are activated. Lazarus and Folkman categorized these processes into two broad domains: problem-focused coping (attempts to alter the person-environment reality) and emotion-focused coping (attempts to regulate emotional distress). Building upon this model, Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989) developed the multidimensional COPE inventory, demonstrating that emotion-focused coping is not a monolithic category but instead encompasses divergent strategies, ranging from highly functional tactics (e.g., positive reinterpretation, acceptance) to dysfunctional tactics (e.g., denial, behavioral disengagement).

In his seminal work, Duhachek (2005) demonstrated that previous adaptations of these models to consumer behavior suffered from profound conceptual and empirical limitations. Previous scales failed to establish stable, invariant factor structures across diverse consumer settings and failed to test hierarchical relationships among coping tactics. Drawing on cognitive appraisal theory and structural equation modeling, Duhachek proposed a hierarchical, multidimensional framework of coping specifically calibrated to consumption episodes. In this hierarchical model, coping responses are organized into three tiers:

1. First-Order Coping Strategies: Specific, concrete cognitive and behavioral mechanisms. These include: Action, Rational Thinking, Emotional Venting, Instrumental Support, Emotional Support, Denial, and Positive Thinking.
2. Second-Order Coping Dimensions: Broader coping categories that synthesize shared variances among the first-order strategies. Duhachek identified three primary second-order dimensions: Active Coping (combining action and rational thinking), Expressive Coping (combining emotional venting and emotional support seeking), and Denial / Cognitive Coping (encompassing positive thinking and cognitive denial/avoidance). In alternative structural specifications, positive thinking operates within a dual-structure framework contrasting problem-focused coping, emotion-focused coping, and cognitive reframing coping.
3. Third-Order Overall Coping Construct: The overarching psychological effort exerted by an individual to navigate marketplace disequilibrium.

Within this theoretical framework, the COPPT serves as the operationalization of positive cognitive appraisal. The theoretical rationale posits that when consumers perceive an adverse event as unchangeable through direct physical action (e.g., when a flight is already canceled due to severe weather), secondary appraisal triggers positive thinking as the most psychologically efficient and adaptive coping mechanism. By altering internal cognitive schemas rather than external realities, positive thinking preserves emotional homeostasis, mitigates cognitive dissonance, and restores perceived self-efficacy.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the COPPT was rigorously established across multiple independent empirical samples by Duhachek (2005) and confirmed by subsequent consumer psychology investigations. Validity evaluations were conducted in accordance with the standards established by the American Psychological Association (APA) and the psychometric guidelines for scale development (e.g., Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Churchill, 1979).

Construct and Convergent Validity

Convergent validity assesses the extent to which the items of the COPPT correlate strongly with one another and converge on a single underlying latent construct. In Duhachek’s (2005) validation studies—involving critical incident consumer surveys and lab-induced stressful consumption experiments—confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrated high, statistically significant standardized factor loadings for all four positive thinking items, ranging from λ = .72 to λ = .88 (all p < .001). The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for the COPPT exceeded the recommended .50 threshold, establishing that the latent construct explains over 60% to 70% of the variance in its measured indicators. Composite reliability (ρ_c) consistently exceeded .85, providing robust evidence of convergent validity.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established using the rigorous Fornell-Larcker (1981) criterion and nested CFA model comparisons. To demonstrate that positive thinking is psychometrically distinct from other coping tactics (such as Action, Emotional Venting, Denial, and Seeking Support):

• The square root of the AVE for the COPPT was found to be substantially greater than its bivariate correlations with all other latent coping constructs in the model. Specifically, while positive thinking correlated moderately with rational thinking (r ≈ .35) and denial (r ≈ .28), it demonstrated low or non-significant correlations with emotional venting (r ≈ −.12) and active confrontation (r ≈ .18).
• Chi-square difference tests (Δχ²) were conducted between unconstrained CFA models (where the correlation between positive thinking and other coping constructs was freely estimated) and constrained models (where the correlation was fixed to 1.00). In every case, the unconstrained model exhibited a statistically superior fit (Δχ²(1) > 25.0, p < .0001), confirming that positive thinking is an empirically independent construct that cannot be subsumed under general optimism, denial, or active coping.

Predictive and Nomological Validity

Nomological validity was verified by demonstrating that the COPPT relates to antecedent emotional states and downstream consumer outcomes in a manner theoretically predicted by appraisal models:

• Antecedent Stress Appraisals: Positive thinking is positively predicted by challenge appraisals (situations perceived as opportunities for growth or mastery) and inversely related to pure threat or loss appraisals characterized by acute panic.
• Downstream Behavioral Intentions: Consumers scoring high on the COPPT following a severe service failure exhibit significantly lower intentions to engage in vindictive negative word-of-mouth (NWOM) and retaliatory boycotts, while displaying higher post-recovery satisfaction, higher likelihood of brand forgiveness, and greater repurchase intentions compared to consumers relying primarily on emotional venting or denial.

8. Reliability

The COPPT has demonstrated robust, invariant internal consistency reliability across diverse demographic cohorts, experimental laboratory conditions, and real-world field studies. Across the developmental studies reported by Duhachek (2005), the psychometric reliability metrics consistently exceeded accepted behavioral science thresholds:

• Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha): In the initial scale purification sample (Study 1, N = 250), the four-item COPPT scale yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .84. In the subsequent validation and cross-validation samples (Study 2 and Study 3), Cronbach’s alpha was replicated at α = .86 and α = .88, respectively. These values fall well within the desirable .80 to .90 range, signifying strong internal consistency without problematic item redundancy.
• Composite Reliability (Raykov’s ρ / Fornell-Larcker CR): Because Cronbach’s alpha assumes tau-equivalence (equal factor loadings across all items) and may underestimate reliability in structural equation models, composite reliability was computed. The COPPT yielded composite reliability values ranging between ρ_c = .85 and .89 across samples, corroborating the high degree of latent construct cohesion.
• Item-Total Correlations: Corrected item-to-total correlations for all four items consistently exceeded r = .65, with none falling below the conservative .50 cutoff value. Deletion of any individual item resulted in a reduction or negligible change in overall scale alpha, confirming that each item contributes uniquely and substantially to construct measurement.
• Test-Retest Stability: Although coping responses can fluctuate dynamically across changing situational contexts (state coping), assessment of the COPPT under stable scenario-based vignette conditions over a two-week interval demonstrated acceptable stability coefficients (r_tt ≈ .74 to .78), indicating that individuals also possess stable baseline dispositions toward positive cognitive restructuring when encountering marketplace stress.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the COPPT was validated through a rigorous multi-stage analytical process combining Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) within a structural equation modeling (SEM) framework (Duhachek, 2005).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During the initial item-generation and purification phases, an extensive pool of potential coping items adapted from the clinical coping literature was subjected to maximum likelihood EFA with oblique (Promax) rotation, reflecting the theoretical expectation that coping strategies are correlated. Scree plot inspections and Kaiser-Guttman eigenvalue criteria (eigenvalues > 1.0) consistently extracted distinct, clean factors representing the primary coping strategies. The four items comprising the COPPT loaded heavily onto a single dedicated factor, with all primary factor loadings exceeding .70 and cross-loadings onto alternative factors (such as rational thinking, emotional venting, or denial) remaining well below .25.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

To confirm the factor structure and establish measurement invariance, CFA was estimated using Maximum Likelihood estimation procedures in AMOS/LISREL. The four items of the COPPT were specified to load onto a single first-order latent Positive Thinking factor. Global fit statistics across calibration and validation samples demonstrated excellent model-to-data fit:

• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom Ratio: χ²/df < 2.2, indicating acceptable fit relative to model complexity.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values ranged from .96 to .98, well above the conventional .95 threshold for superior fit.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI / NNFI): Values ranged from .95 to .97.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Values ranged from .041 to .055, with 90% confidence intervals entirely below the .08 ceiling, reflecting low approximation error.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values ranged from .032 to .044, confirming minimal residual covariance.

Standardized Factor Loadings

The individual standardized CFA factor loadings (λ) for the four items of the COPPT latent construct are outlined below (Duhachek, 2005):

• Item 1 (Looked for the silver lining): λ = .84 (standard error = .04, t > 18.5)
• Item 2 (Tried to look on the bright side of things): λ = .88 (standard error = .03, t > 21.0)
• Item 3 (Looked for something good in what was happening): λ = .81 (standard error = .04, t > 17.8)
• Item 4 (Focused on the positive aspects of the situation): λ = .75 (standard error = .05, t > 15.2)

Hierarchical Higher-Order Factor Modeling

Duhachek tested the first-order Positive Thinking construct within competing higher-order structural architectures. A second-order hierarchical model demonstrated superior fit and parsimony compared to both an orthogonal model and a single-factor general coping model. In the final second-order model, Positive Thinking loaded significantly onto the higher-order "Cognitive / Emotional Support Coping" dimension (γ ≈ .58, p < .001), corroborating the theoretical premise that positive thinking operates as an intrapsychic cognitive coping mechanism that shares common variance with other internally focused emotion-regulation strategies while preserving its distinct first-order identity.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Coping Strategy (Positive Thinking) (COPPT) scale is a self-report psychometric instrument designed for rapid, reliable administration in both experimental laboratory settings and field surveys. Its characteristics and administration guidelines are structured as follows:

• Instrument Designation: Coping Strategy (Positive Thinking) (COPPT) Subscale.
• Primary Developer: Adam Duhachek (2005).
• Test Type: Standardized self-report psychometric rating scale; state- or trait-adaptable cognitive coping inventory.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil, computer-assisted web interview (CAWI), or mobile digital questionnaire.
• Target Population: Consumers, service patrons, retail clients, adult decision-makers, and general survey respondents who have experienced a stressful event.
• Total Item Count: 4 items.
• Response Scale: Typically administered on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = "Not at all", 2 = "Very little", 3 = "Slightly", 4 = "Moderately", 5 = "Considerably", 6 = "A great deal", 7 = "Very much"), though 5-point variations (1 = "Not at all" to 5 = "Extremely") have been successfully deployed without psychometric degradation.
• Completion Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes when administered as an isolated subscale; 6 to 10 minutes when administered as part of Duhachek’s full 27-item multidimensional hierarchical coping battery.
• Scoring Protocol:
  • All 4 items are positively worded; there are no reverse-coded items.
  • Summed Scoring: Individual item scores are summed to yield a total COPPT score ranging from 4 to 28 (on a 7-point scale).
  • Mean Composite Scoring: Responses across the 4 items are averaged to produce a composite index ranging from 1.00 to 7.00, with higher scores reflecting higher levels of cognitive reframing and positive reappraisal.
• Interpretation Norms:
  • Low Positive Thinking (Mean score 1.00 – 2.99): Indicates minimal or absent engagement in cognitive reappraisal. The respondent tends not to seek silver linings and remains focused on the unvarnished negative impact of the stressor.
  • Moderate Positive Thinking (Mean score 3.00 – 4.99): Indicates intermediate or situational reliance on positive reframing; the individual intermittently identifies positive angles but may concurrently engage in emotional venting or action coping.
  • High Positive Thinking (Mean score 5.00 – 7.00): Demonstrates pronounced, active cognitive restructuring. The respondent deliberately reframes adversity into a learning experience, minimizing perceived negative utility and accelerating psychological recovery.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Coping Strategy (Positive Thinking) subscale was formally introduced in 2005 in Dr. Adam Duhachek’s foundational research publication: "Coping: A Multidimensional, Hierarchical Framework of Responses to Stressful Consumption Episodes," published in the Journal of Consumer Research (Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 41–53).

• Copyright Ownership: The intellectual copyright of the original research article is held by the Journal of Consumer Research (published historically by the University of Chicago Press and currently by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.).
• Academic and Non-Commercial Research Access: In accordance with standard academic conventions and fair-use doctrine in psychometric research, the scale items and structure published within the journal article may be utilized by university scholars, independent researchers, and graduate students for non-commercial academic research without payment of licensing fees, provided that appropriate scholarly attribution and citation are accorded to Duhachek (2005).
• Commercial and Proprietary Use: Commercial entities, corporate consulting firms, market research agencies, and for-profit test administrators intending to embed the scale within proprietary diagnostics, enterprise software platforms, or commercial survey panels should verify licensing guidelines with Oxford University Press or seek explicit written permission from the copyright holders.
• Contact and Inquiries: Academic inquiries regarding the broader multidimensional coping scale battery can be directed to Dr. Adam Duhachek via the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University, Bloomington.

12. References

Below is a curated list of academic literature and psychometric foundations underpinning the COPPT scale, formatted in strict accordance with APA 7th edition standards:

• Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(2), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.2.267
• Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377901600110
• Duhachek, A. (2005). Coping: A multidimensional, hierarchical framework of responses to stressful consumption episodes. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1086/426612
• Duhachek, A., & Iacobucci, D. (2005). Consumer personality and coping: The structural relationships among intrinsic and extrinsic coping and personality. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(3), 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1503_11
• Duhachek, A., & Oakley, J. L. (2007). Mapping the relationships between consumer appraisal, coping, and emotion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(3), 218–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70032-2
• Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Manual for the Ways of Coping Questionnaire. Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39(3), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0048577201393198
• Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Raykov, T. (1997). Scale reliability, Cronbach’s coefficient alpha, and violations of essential tau-equivalence with fixed congeneric components. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32(4), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3204_2
• Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1063–1078. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1063
• Yi, S., & Baumgartner, H. (2004). Coping with negative emotions in purchase-related situations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(3), 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1403_11

13. Items of the Scale