Life Orientation Test – Revised (LOT-R)

1. Abstract

The Life Orientation Test – Revised (LOT-R) is an internationally recognized, 10-item self-report psychometric instrument engineered to evaluate individual differences in dispositional optimism versus dispositional pessimism. Originally conceptualized and refined by psychologists Michael F. Scheier, Charles S. Carver, and Michael W. Bridges in 1994, the scale serves as an empirical revision of the seminal 1985 Life Orientation Test (LOT). The primary impetus for its development was the necessity to eliminate construct overlap with general neuroticism, negative affectivity, and trait anxiety, thereby isolating a cleaner measure of generalized outcome expectancies. The instrument is comprised of 10 items scored along a 5-point Likert response continuum: three items assess positive generalized expectations (optimism), three items assess negative generalized expectations (pessimism), and four non-scored filler items are embedded to disguise the underlying conceptual thrust and attenuate acquiescence bias.

Extensive psychometric investigations have established that the LOT-R possesses robust psychometric properties across diverse clinical, non-clinical, occupational, and cross-cultural cohorts. Internal consistency estimates typically yield a Cronbach’s alpha ranging between .70 and .82 across broad populations, while test-retest reliability over intervals spanning several months to over two years consistently ranges from .56 to .79, corroborating the theoretical postulate of optimism as a stable personality trait. Structural validity has been extensively scrutinized within both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) paradigms, fueling an enduring psychometric debate regarding whether dispositional optimism operates as a bipolar unidimensional spectrum or as two functionally separable, correlated dimensions: optimism and pessimism. Cross-disciplinary research in behavioral medicine, health psychology, cardiology, psycho-oncology, and clinical neuroscience has leveraged the LOT-R to establish profound predictive links between generalized positive expectations, proactive coping mechanisms, immune function, cardiovascular longevity, and resilient recovery trajectories following major medical stressors.

2. Keywords

Life Orientation Test – Revised, LOT-R, dispositional optimism, dispositional pessimism, self-regulation theory, outcome expectancies, health psychology, psychological resilience, psychometrics, confirmatory factor analysis, coping strategies, subjective well-being

3. Authors

The Life Orientation Test – Revised was developed by a team of prominent personality, social, and health psychologists:

• Michael F. Scheier, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. Dr. Scheier is a seminal figure in behavioral medicine and health psychology, renowned for his foundational work on the self-regulatory model of behavior and the physiological mechanisms through which optimism alters physical health trajectories.
• Charles S. Carver, Ph.D. (1947–2019): Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, United States. Dr. Carver made profound, paradigm-shifting contributions to personality theory, social psychology, coping dynamics, and cybernetic models of self-regulation.
• Michael W. Bridges, Ph.D.: Psychological researcher affiliated with the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University during the development and empirical validation of the revised inventory, contributing extensively to the psychometric differentiation of optimism from trait anxiety and neuroticism.

Institutional origins of the instrument center upon the Department of Psychology at Carnegie Mellon University and the Department of Psychology at the University of Miami. Corresponding inquiries regarding historical research archives are typically routed through Carnegie Mellon University’s Department of Psychology.

4. Purpose

The primary psychometric purpose of the LOT-R is to measure dispositional optimism, defined within contemporary personality literature as a generalized, stable tendency to anticipate that good rather than bad outcomes will manifest in life across diverse situational domains. Scheier and Carver recognized that human action is intrinsically goal-directed and governed by feedback control processes; thus, individuals operate based on subjective confidence or doubt regarding their ability to attain important goals. The LOT-R was engineered to capture these foundational generalized expectancies rather than domain-specific efficacy beliefs, serving as a rapid, reliable, and standardized metric for clinical, epidemiological, and experimental investigations.

Rationale for Revision of the Original LOT

The precursor instrument, the original Life Orientation Test (Scheier & Carver, 1985), consisted of 12 items (four positive, four negative, and four fillers). While the original LOT transformed empirical inquiry into positive expectancies, it was subjected to critical psychometric scrutiny in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Notably, critics such as David L. Smith and colleagues argued that the LOT failed to display adequate discriminant validity from neuroticism (emotional instability) and general negative affectivity. Item analyses indicated that several original statements shared substantial semantic variance with trait anxiety, depressive dysphoria, and emotional distress rather than tapping pure cognitive outcome expectancies.

In response, Scheier, Carver, and Bridges (1994) developed the revised inventory by systematically eliminating items that conflated positive or negative expectancies with direct affective states, emotional vulnerability, or neurotic distress. For instance, original items such as “I rarely count on good things happening to me” were scrutinized alongside overtly affective items like “I always look on the bright side of things” or statements touching upon locus of control. The result was a condensed, refined 6-item scored instrument (supplemented by four filler items) designed to preserve conceptual purity, decouple expectancies from emotional volatility, and deliver a more psychometrically defensible index of dispositional optimism.

Clinical and Empirical Applications

The applications of the LOT-R span diverse scientific disciplines:

• Behavioral Medicine and Epidemiology: The LOT-R is extensively employed in prospective longitudinal studies to examine cardiovascular disease progression, surgical recovery (e.g., coronary artery bypass graft recovery), endocrine markers (e.g., cortisol slopes), and systemic inflammation. Research consistently demonstrates that high LOT-R scores predict lower systemic inflammatory markers (such as interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein) and reduced mortality risk.
• Psycho-Oncology: In oncology settings, the LOT-R serves as a diagnostic baseline metric to identify cancer patients at heightened risk for psychological decompensation, prolonged illness-related despair, or maladaptive coping during chemotherapy, radiation, or palliative interventions.
• Clinical and Counseling Psychology: Psychotherapists and cognitive-behavioral researchers utilize the instrument to track changes in cognitive schemata, assessing how interventions (e.g., Cognitive Behavioral Therapy or Acceptance and Commitment Therapy) shift a patient’s trajectory from pervasive defeatist pessimism toward realistic, flexible optimism.
• Organizational Psychology and Human Performance: In organizational, educational, and athletic contexts, the LOT-R assesses leadership potential, resilience in high-attrition professions, burn-out vulnerability, and academic perseverance amid structural adversity.

5. Psychological Construct

At the center of the LOT-R is the psychological construct of dispositional optimism. Within the conceptual architecture formulated by Carver and Scheier, dispositional optimism is not synonymous with mere subjective cheerfulness, positive affect, or naive Pollyannaism. Rather, it represents a global, stable, trait-like cognitive expectancy regarding future events across all spheres of life.

Dispositional Optimism (Positive Generalized Expectancy)

The optimism dimension reflects an individual’s enduring cognitive conviction that favorable conditions will predominate, even when confronted with ambiguity, hardship, or severe life crises. A person exhibiting high dispositional optimism operates under the premise that difficulties are transient, solvable, or manageable through concerted effort or adaptive coping. When confronting an obstacle (e.g., a serious medical diagnosis, career disruption, or personal bereavement), the high-optimism individual maintains an active orientation toward problem resolution because they believe that positive outcomes are attainable. Prototypical items capturing this orientation include: “In uncertain times, I usually expect the best” and “Overall, I expect more good things to happen to me than bad.” This construct operates as an internal resource that sustains motivation, proactive behavioral engagement, and psychological equilibrium.

Dispositional Pessimism (Negative Generalized Expectancy)

Conversely, dispositional pessimism represents an enduring cognitive posture characterized by the expectation that adverse, painful, or catastrophic outcomes are fundamentally inevitable. Individuals high in pessimism operate under the persistent anticipation that despite personal efforts, circumstances will fail or deteriorate. Prototypical items reflecting this construct include: “If something can go wrong for me, it will” and “I hardly ever expect things to go my way.” Psychometrically, this dimension reflects profound vulnerability to psychological helplessness, heightened sensitivity to threat cues, and a propensity toward premature cognitive and behavioral disengagement.

The Dimensionality Debate: Bipolar Unidimensional vs. Bidimensional Construct

A central theoretical and empirical debate in personality assessment concerns whether optimism and pessimism represent diametrically opposed poles of a single continuous spectrum (unidimensional model) or two functionally distinct, partially independent constructs (bidimensional model):

• The Unidimensional Hypothesis: Advanced originally by Scheier and Carver, this perspective posits that optimism and pessimism are opposite ends of a single continuum. In this framework, a single aggregated score (ranging from 0 to 24) is computed by reverse-scoring the pessimistic statements and summing them with the optimistic statements. An individual who is high in optimism is inherently low in pessimism, and vice versa. Support for this model stems from high negative correlations between latent factors and parsimony in theoretical modeling.
• The Bidimensional Hypothesis: Numerous psychometricians (e.g., Chang, Maydeu-Olivares, Dember, and Robinson-Whelen) argue that optimism and pessimism are separate dimensions that correlate moderately (typically between r = -.35 and r = -.55), but display distinct nomological networks. Under the bidimensional model, an absence of pessimism does not inherently equate to the presence of optimism. Furthermore, research consistently illustrates that the pessimism subscale is often a stronger predictor of psychological distress, depressive symptoms, neurotic distress, and negative health outcomes than the optimism subscale, whereas the optimism subscale more robustly predicts proactive health behaviors, positive well-being, life satisfaction, and post-traumatic growth.

Coping Mechanisms and Behavioral Manifestations

The construct of dispositional optimism directly governs behavioral coping trajectories:

• Optimists systematically deploy problem-focused coping (taking direct steps to eliminate or minimize a stressor), positive reinterpretation (extracting constructive meaning from adverse events), and acceptance of unchangeable realities. They seek informational support, construct realistic action plans, and maintain behavioral perseverance.
• Pessimists consistently gravitate toward avoidant coping, denial, cognitive distancing, wishful thinking, and overt behavioral disengagement. Because they anticipate eventual failure, investing psychological resources into problem resolution is perceived as futile, leading to learned helplessness and elevated systemic physiological stress.

6. Theoretical Framework

The foundational theoretical underpinning of the LOT-R is rooted in Carver and Scheier’s Self-Regulatory Model of Behavior, an integrative cybernetic theory synthesizing cognitive psychology, cybernetics, and motivational principles.

The Cybernetic Feedback Loop and Self-Regulation

Carver and Scheier’s model posits that all human behavior is organized around hierarchical, goal-directed feedback loops, analogous to a negative feedback servomechanism (thermostat model). The individual continuously monitors their current psychological or physical state, compares that state against a reference value or internalized goal, and executes behavioral adjustments to reduce discrepancies between their current state and the targeted objective. This feedback loop operates across varying strata of abstraction:

1. System Concepts: Abstract idealized representations of the self (e.g., being a successful professional or a moral person).
2. Principles: General guiding heuristics or values that govern behavior across contexts (e.g., conscientiousness, fairness).
3. Programs: Concrete, contextualized action sequences executed in daily living to fulfill principles and system concepts.

The Role of Outcome Expectancies

Within this self-regulatory feedback architecture, obstacles and impediments inevitably arise during the pursuit of goals. When an individual encounters a disruption, a disruption interrupt occurs, causing the feedback loop to pause and triggering an outcome expectancy assessment. The individual evaluates the likelihood that the desired outcome can still be reached despite the barrier:

• If the outcome expectancy is favorable (i.e., confidence/optimism prevails), the person renews their commitment, channels additional cognitive and physical effort, and persists in the face of hardship. The cybernetic loop remains intact, and problem-solving continues.
• If the outcome expectancy is unfavorable (i.e., doubt/pessimism prevails), the individual experiences a psychological impulse toward disengagement. When actual physical escape from the stressor is impossible, mental disengagement ensues through denial, distraction, substance misuse, or catastrophic ruminations. This psychological surrender degrades performance and exacerbates psychological morbidity.

Because dispositional optimism reflects generalized expectancies that transcend specific environments, it acts as a global modulator of the self-regulatory system. In unfamiliar or highly ambiguous situations where domain-specific self-efficacy (as conceptualized by Albert Bandura) is undeveloped, generalized dispositional expectancies dominate behavioral regulation.

Contrasting with Other Theoretical Formulations

The theoretical framework of the LOT-R can be distinguished from other major models of optimism:

• Martin Seligman’s Explanatory Style Model: Seligman conceptualizes optimism within an attributional framework (Attributional Style Questionnaire; ASQ), defining it based on how people explain past events along three causal dimensions: internal vs. external, stable vs. unstable, and global vs. specific. In contrast, Scheier and Carver’s model focuses strictly on *future expectancies* regardless of the perceived causal origin. Carver and Scheier argue that it is the forward-looking expectancy itself, rather than the historical attribution, that directly steers immediate self-regulatory effort.
• Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory: While self-efficacy pertains to personal agency—the conviction that one can personally execute the actions necessary to produce an outcome (“I can do this”)—dispositional optimism covers broader systemic outcomes, encompassing factors outside personal agency, including luck, institutional fairness, social support, and chance (“Good things will happen”). Optimism thus operates as a broader cognitive umbrella under which specific self-efficacy beliefs function.

7. Validity

The LOT-R has been subjected to rigorous construct, predictive, convergent, and discriminant validation across hundreds of peer-reviewed empirical studies worldwide.

Discriminant Validity: Disentangling Optimism from Neuroticism

The central objective of Scheier, Carver, and Bridges’ (1994) revision was to substantiate discriminant validity against neuroticism, trait anxiety, self-esteem, and locus of control. In their seminal validation study involving 4,309 undergraduate students, the authors established that while the LOT-R correlated negatively with neuroticism (ranging from r = -.36 to -.50) and trait anxiety (r = -.42 to -.59), and positively with self-esteem (r = .47 to .54) and self-mastery (r = .40 to .48), the magnitude of these correlations indicated that dispositional optimism shares only 15% to 35% of its variance with these constructs.

Crucially, hierarchical multiple regression analyses conducted by Scheier et al. demonstrated that LOT-R scores predicted psychological and physical health outcomes—such as subjective well-being, somatic symptoms during academic stress, and depressive mood—even after statistically controlling for neuroticism, trait anxiety, self-esteem, and mastery. These empirical findings confirmed that the LOT-R taps an independent cognitive variance that is not redundant with generalized negative affectivity.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity is corroborated by robust associations between the LOT-R and theoretically parallel psychometric instruments:

• Positive correlations with generalized self-efficacy scales (r = .45 to .60), indicating that individuals with positive future expectancies also perceive themselves as capable agents.
• Substantial positive correlations with subjective well-being measures, including the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; r = .40 to .55).
• Negative correlations with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; r = -.40 to -.58) and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), validating its sensitivity to depressive cognitive vulnerabilities.
• Moderate positive correlations with active problem-focused coping subscales on instruments like the COPE Inventory (r = .30 to .45) and inverse correlations with behavioral disengagement (r = -.35 to -.50).

Predictive and Criterion Validity

Predictive validity is demonstrated across medical and clinical literature:

• Cardiovascular Health: In prospective clinical studies involving patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, baseline LOT-R optimism predicted significantly fewer perioperative complications, faster physical recovery rates, and lower rates of re-hospitalization over a 6-month follow-up, controlling for pre-existing medical severity. Furthermore, large-scale epidemiological cohorts (such as the Women’s Health Initiative) have linked high LOT-R scores to a 30% reduction in coronary heart disease-related mortality.
• Oncology Trajectories: In longitudinal assessments of breast and head/neck cancer patients, higher LOT-R scores consistently predict lower baseline distress, superior quality of life maintenance during aggressive treatment regimens, and significantly lower vulnerability to clinical depression 12 months post-diagnosis.
• Immune and Neuroendocrine Function: High LOT-R scores correlate with healthier neuroendocrine profiles, including steeper diurnal cortisol slopes and attenuated inflammatory cytokine spikes under acute laboratory stress challenges.

8. Reliability

The psychometric stability and internal consistency of the LOT-R have been demonstrated across numerous demographic groups, cross-cultural translations, and longitudinal spans.

Internal Consistency

In the original validation study by Scheier, Carver, and Bridges (1994) comprising 2,055 female and 2,254 male college students, the internal consistency for the overall 6-item scale yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .78, demonstrating acceptable reliability for a brief, 6-item scale. When evaluated as separate subscales:

• The Optimism Subscale (Items 1, 4, 10) typically exhibits a Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .65 to .75.
• The Pessimism Subscale (Items 3, 7, 9) typically exhibits a Cronbach’s alpha ranging from .70 to .80.

Across broader clinical, elderly, and community-dwelling adult populations worldwide, Cronbach’s alpha values for the total composite score typically hover between .72 and .84. Although shorter scales inevitably yield somewhat lower alpha coefficients due to the mechanical dependence of alpha on test length (Spearman-Brown formula), the mean inter-item correlations among the scored items consistently fall within the optimal psychometric target range of .25 to .45, denoting coherence without excessive item redundancy.

Test-Retest Reliability

Dispositional optimism is posited to function as an enduring personality trait; therefore, test-retest reliability estimates are critical to its validation. Longitudinal investigations demonstrate remarkable temporal stability:

• In the Scheier et al. (1994) sample, a 4-month retest interval demonstrated a reliability coefficient of r = .68.
• A 12-month retest evaluation yielded stability coefficients ranging from r = .60 to .72.
• Longitudinal studies spanning multiple years (e.g., 24- to 36-month follow-ups during major life transitions such as university entry to graduation, or diagnosis to long-term cancer survivorship) have documented stability coefficients between .56 and .65, confirming that while environmental shifts and traumatic life events exert temporary perturbations on expectations, baseline dispositional optimism remains stable over adulthood.

9. Factor Analysis

The factorial architecture of the LOT-R has been the subject of extensive empirical inquiry, utilizing both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across diverse languages and populations.

Exploratory Factor Analysis Findings

In initial principal components and maximum likelihood exploratory analyses, the six scored items consistently resolve into two correlated dimensions: a positive expectancy factor and a negative expectancy factor. The three positively worded items (Items 1, 4, and 10) load heavily onto the first factor (typically with factor loadings spanning from .64 to .78), while displaying negligible cross-loadings (often below .20) on the second factor. Conversely, the three negatively worded items (Items 3, 7, and 9) load heavily onto the second factor (loadings spanning from .68 to .82), with minimal cross-loadings on the positive factor. Unrotated single-factor solutions typically account for approximately 45% to 50% of the total variance, whereas two-factor orthogonal or oblique rotations account for 60% to 68% of the total variance.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit Indices

To resolve the dimensional structure, extensive CFA studies have contrasted two competing structural models:

• Model 1: Unidimensional Model. All six scored items load directly onto a single latent factor representing Dispositional Optimism (with negatively worded items reverse-coded).
• Model 2: Two-Factor Correlated Model. Items 1, 4, and 10 load onto an “Optimism” latent factor, while Items 3, 7, and 9 load onto a distinct “Pessimism” latent factor, with the two latent factors permitted to covary freely.
• Model 3: Bifactor / Method Effect Model. A single substantive latent trait (Dispositional Optimism) accounts for the common variance across all six items, while an orthogonal method factor captures the shared residual variance attributable to negative item phrasing (reversal method artifact).

Representative structural equation modeling results consistently demonstrate that the Two-Factor Correlated Model and the Bifactor Model provide superior fit compared to the strict Unidimensional Model:

The correlation between the two latent factors (Optimism and Pessimism) in the two-factor model typically ranges between r = -.40 and r = -.55. Methodologists point out that while a two-factor structure fits best statistically, the separation may be partially driven by item directionality effects (method variance introduced by negatively worded statements). Nevertheless, because the two factors exhibit differential criterion validity—with pessimism predicting psychological vulnerability more strongly than optimism—scholars often recommend evaluating both a unified continuous score and separated subscale scores.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The LOT-R is a concise self-report questionnaire designed for rapid administration in individual, group, or online settings.

• Instrument Name: Life Orientation Test – Revised (LOT-R)
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (typically validated for individuals aged 13 years and older).
• Administration Time: Approximately 2 to 4 minutes.
• Item Count: 10 items total:
  • 6 Target Scored Items: 3 positively worded items measuring optimism (Items 1, 4, 10); 3 negatively worded items measuring pessimism (Items 3, 7, 9).
  • 4 Filler Items: Items 2, 5, 6, and 8 are non-scored filler statements designed to disguise the nature of the test and mitigate response sets.
• Response Format: 5-point Likert scale:
  • 0 = Strongly disagree (or I disagree a lot)
  • 1 = Disagree (or I disagree a little)
  • 2 = Neutral (neither agree nor disagree)
  • 3 = Agree (or I agree a little)
  • 4 = Strongly agree (or I agree a lot)
• Scoring Instructions:
  • Step 1 (Filler Items): Disregard Items 2, 5, 6, and 8. These items are omitted from all calculations.
  • Step 2 (Reverse Coding): Reverse-score the three negatively worded pessimism items (Items 3, 7, and 9) by converting their values as follows: 0 becomes 4, 1 becomes 3, 2 remains 2, 3 becomes 1, and 4 becomes 0.
  • Step 3 (Continuous Unidimensional Scoring): Compute the sum of the three positively phrased items (1, 4, 10) and the three reversed negatively phrased items (3, 7, 9). This yields an overall continuous Dispositional Optimism score ranging from 0 to 24. Higher aggregate scores reflect higher levels of generalized dispositional optimism.
  • Step 4 (Alternative Bidimensional Scoring): If evaluating the two dimensions independently:
    • Optimism Subscale Score: Sum Items 1, 4, and 10 (range: 0 to 12).
    • Pessimism Subscale Score: Sum Items 3, 7, and 9 *without* reverse coding (range: 0 to 12). Higher scores reflect greater dispositional pessimism.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Life Orientation Test – Revised was officially published in 1994 by Michael F. Scheier, Charles S. Carver, and Michael W. Bridges within the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

• Publication Year: 1994.
• Commercial Fee: The LOT-R is an open-access psychometric instrument and is completely free of charge for non-commercial research, academic, and clinical purposes.
• Permissions and Licensing: The authors placed the instrument in the public domain for academic research. Formal written permission is not required from the authors or the American Psychological Association (APA) to administer the LOT-R in non-commercial scientific investigations or clinical assessments, provided that the original validation publication (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994) is formally cited in all associated dissertations, empirical papers, and scientific presentations. Commercial re-distribution, incorporation into proprietary digital software, or fee-generating assessment platforms requires permission from the copyright holder (American Psychological Association).

12. References

Below are primary academic references documenting the development, theoretical framework, and psychometric validation of the LOT-R:

• Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174794
• Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2014). Dispositional optimism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(6), 293–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.02.003
• Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2010). Optimism. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 879–889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.01.006
• Chiesi, F., Galli, S., Primi, C., Innocenti Innocenti, P., & Bonacchi, A. (2013). The Life Orientation Test-Revised: A contribution to the Italian validation using Item Response Theory. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29(4), 282–289. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000158
• Glaesmer, H., Rief, W., Martin, A., Mewes, R., Brähler, E., Zenger, M., & Hinz, A. (2012). Psychometric properties and norm values of the German version of the Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R). Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie, 20(1), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1026/0943-8149/a000058
• Herzberg, P. Y., Glaesmer, H., & Hoyer, J. (2006). Separating optimism and pessimism: A robust psychometric analysis of the Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R) in a representative German sample. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22(4), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.22.4.261
• Rasmussen, H. N., Scheier, M. F., & Greenhouse, J. B. (2009). Optimism and physical health: A meta-analytic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 37(3), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-009-9111-x
• Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4(3), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.4.3.219
• 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
• Segerstrom, S. C., Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2017). Optimism. In M. D. Robinson & M. Eid (Eds.), The happy mind: Cognitive contributions to well-being (pp. 195–212). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58763-9_11

13. Items of the Scale