MASTER THESIS

Optimism and Well-Being

in Times of COVID-19

Marie Lehnert

Faculty: Behavioral Management and Social Sciences

Department: Positive Clinical Psychology and Technology - 201300102

1st Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Gerben Westerhof

2nd Supervisor: Dr. Lonneke I. M. Lenferink

20.08.2021
 1

Abstract

Introduction: During the COVID-19 pandemic people encounter COVID-19-related life

changes which might influence their well-being. A decrease in well-being could be protected

by psychological resources such as optimism. The present study explored the stability of

optimism between 2019 and 2020. It was expected that optimistic people experienced more

well-being in 2020 and less when optimism decreased. Moreover, it was hypothesized that

governmental recommendations were perceived as effective by optimists and less effective by

people whose optimism decreased. Further, the perceived effectiveness of governmental

recommendations was expected to mediate the relation of optimism and well-being.

Methods: Data from 2019 and 2020 came from the Dutch Longitudinal Internet Studies for the

Social Sciences (LISS panel) with overall 6,817 participants and from two assembled studies

regarding well-being and regarding the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak. Optimism was

measured via the Life Orientation Test Revised, well-being with the Mental Health Continuum

Short Form Revised, and the perceived effectiveness of the recommendations by using a

questionnaire regarding the COVID-19 outbreak. T-tests for independent and paired samples,

Pearson and Spearman correlations, and simple mediation analyses were conducted.

Results: Optimism did not change between 2019 and 2020. Optimism in 2019 correlated

positively with overall well-being in 2020, with each dimension and with the perceived

effectiveness of the recommendations. An optimism change was neither related to well-being

nor to the perceived effectiveness of the recommendations. The perceived effectiveness of the

recommendations did not mediate between optimism or optimism change and well-being.

Conclusion: The present study displayed support for stable dispositional optimism in adverse

times. It replicated the protective effect of optimism on well-being and showed that optimists

perceived the COVID-19 recommendations as more effective. Future research could expand

the findings by studying further timepoints and distinctive mediating factors.

 2

Introduction

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first documented in Wuhan, China in

December 2019 whereupon a pandemic evolved. To control the spread of the virus,

governmental regulations were implemented such as social distancing, lockdowns, wearing

face masks and working from home (RIVM, 2021). The recommendations and the disease itself

foster physiological, psychological, social, and economic impacts on people in various life areas

(RKI, 2021). Multiple stressors concerning the governmental recommendations such as

financial uncertainty, boredom or frustration were identified as risk factors to well-being

(Brooks et al., 2020). However, still mentally healthy and flourishing people were identified

during the COVID-19 pandemic (Gloster et al., 2020). Repeatedly, higher well-being was found

in optimistic people during adverse times (e.g., Scheier & Carver, 1992). Thus, optimism as a

psychological resource might act as protective factor for well-being during the COVID-19

pandemic, as well (Pellerin & Raufaste, 2020). However, there is still an ongoing debate

whether optimism is even stable in times of adversity (Carver et al., 2010). Therefore, the

present study focused on optimism, as a psychological resource. It examined the relation of

optimism and its change during the pandemic to well-being. Further, the connection of the

perceived effectiveness of the COVID-19 recommendations to optimism and to the relation

between optimism and well-being was studied.

Well-Being

Prior research has predominately focused on negative properties of mental health

including mental illness, languishing and pathology (e.g., Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).

However, researching well-being next to pathology is valuable to comprehend the occurrence

of mental health (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Subsequent research headed towards

the consideration that reducing mental illness does not necessarily increase mental health

(Keyes, 2002). Hence, the definition of mental health emphasizes well-being instead merely the
 3

absence of mental illness and includes people’s effective functioning and coping in stressful

situations (WHO, 2005).

Well-being is divided into two distinct parts: hedonia and eudaimonia (Ryff, 1989).

Hedonic well-being, also known as emotional well-being, refers to the presence of positive

affect and satisfaction in life (Keyes, 2005). Eudaimonia describes the manifestation of one’s

true self by generating competencies, a purpose in life and qualities. Psychological well-being

was introduced and covered the aspects of eudaimonia (Keyes, 2005; Ryff & Keyes, 1995).

Moreover, a social factor of well-being was advocated and added social well-being to the

concept (Keyes, 1998). Well-being developed into a multidimensional construct (mental well-

being) consisting of three dimensions with several sub-dimensions (see figure 1).

Figure 1

The Construct of Mental Well-Being With its Sub-Dimensions According to Keyes (2005)

Mental Well-Being

Hedonic Well-Being Eudaimonic Well-Being

Emotional Social Psychological

Well-Being Well-Being Well-Being
Social Acceptance Autonomy
Positive Affect
Environmental
Satisfaction in Life Social Actualization Mastery

Personal Growth
Social Coherence
Positive Relations
Social Contribution
Purpose in Life
Social Integration Self-Acceptance

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people’s mental well-being could depend on

individual characteristics. While some people were languishing in their mental health (e.g.,

Gloster et al., 2020), other experienced positive effects like increased rest and social
 4

connectedness during COVID-19 lockdowns (Gijzen et al., 2020). Especially, people with high

optimism levels experienced more well-being (e.g., Arslan et al., 2021; Pellerin & Raufaste,

2020; Reizer et al., 2021). Thus, the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on well-

being might be buffered by psychological resources like optimism.

Optimism

Optimism refers to the expectancy of something good happening to oneself (Carver et

al., 2010) regardless which means led to the outcome (Carver & Scheier, 2014). Two popular

perspectives describe the nature of optimism either as a learnable (Peterson & Seligman, 1984)

or as a dispositional construct (Aspinwall & Brunhart, 1996; Carver et al., 2010; Scheier &

Carver, 1992; Segerstrom et al., 2006). According to the first perspective, an optimistic view

can be learned from interpretations of past events. It is expressed via a person’s explanation for

the occurrence of situations (Peterson & Seligman, 1984). Optimists explain negative outcomes

with unstable, external and specific causes, and positive ones with stable, internal and global

causes (Peterson & Avila, 1995). The threshold is lowered to change negative events into

positive ones (Carver et al., 2010). Dispositional optimism is incorporated into the Expectancy-

Value-Theories (Austin & Vancouver, 1996) as a combination of positive expectations

(confidence) and goal values. A dispositional amount of optimism influences to which degree

people feel confident to reach future goals. In this case, optimism is seen as a stable trait, as

long as no major life changes occur, such as illnesses or external threats (Carver et al., 2010).

Below, a closer look will be taken at the beneficial aspects of being optimistic. During

illness-related times of adversity such as breast cancer treatment, optimistic patients showed

more illness acceptance, positivity (Carver et al., 1993), and assurance to beat cancer which led

to a higher life quality (Schou et al., 2005). In General, higher optimism is connected to positive

relationships (Carver & Scheier, 2014), better mental health and well-being (Aspinwall &

Brunhart, 1996; Carver et al., 2010; Scheier & Carver, 1992). Other positive effects like positive
 5

emotions, life satisfaction, happiness and closer relationships (Carver et al., 2010; Scheier &

Carver, 1992) are related to mental well-being (Keyes, 2002). Higher optimism was found to

be accompanied by more psychological and subjective well-being (Alarcon et al., 2013) as well

as by more hedonic (e.g., Dunn, 2017) and eudaimonic well-being (e.g., Falkenstein, 2018).

In conclusion, it is still unclear how optimism responds to times of adversity. On the

one hand, optimism could remain stable due to its learned or dispositional properties. On the

other hand, optimism might change when the situation is perceived as adverse. Hence, the

impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and governmental recommendations could be individual.

Changes in optimism might influence well-being levels as well. If optimists perceive the

governmental recommendations as effective, they could experience more environmental

mastery, and thus, more well-being.

COVID-19

To stop the spread of COVID-19, governmental recommendations were implemented

such as lockdowns and quarantines (RIVM, 2021). Whether people adhere to the

recommendations might be related to how they perceive them (e.g., Antonides & van Leeuwen,

2020). Individual or sociodemographic variables such as age, socio-economic status or

education could influence people’s perception of the pandemic and lead to individual

experiences (e.g., Constandt et al., 2020; Poelman et al., 2021).

Contradicting well-being experiences were found during the COVID-19 pandemic. On

the one hand, the negative psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic mediated between

negative COVID-19 related aspects such as perceived stigmatization and lower hedonic and

eudaimonic well-being (Paleari et al., 2021). On the other hand, no changes in self-reported

mental health were found and as the pandemic persisted, a regain of preliminary well-being

levels (Gijzen et al., 2020). Positive experiences during lockdown were based on greater rest,

intensified connection to others (Gijzen et al., 2020), and positive effects from being outdoors
 6

(Lades et al., 2020). Internationally, 10% of people experienced stress or symptoms of mental

illnesses like depression and were languishing in their mental health during the COVID-19

pandemic. In parallel, 40% were flourishing and 50% had moderate mental health (Gloster et

al., 2020). Compared to 2016 before the pandemic, similar levels of flourishing people in the

Netherlands (36.5%) were found, fewer languishing people (1.6%) and more with moderate

mental health (61.9%; Schotanus-Dijkstra et al., 2016). In summary, for some individuals, well-

being still seems possible in times of COVID-19. However, it is difficult to determine the extent

of the COVID-19 pandemic. Varying results among the literature occur, perhaps, due to

individual experiences or the novelty of the situation.

Optimism and Well-Being in Times of COVID-19

Why do some people experience well-being in times of COVID-19 and others do not?

Protective factors for distinctive well-being dimensions (Delle Fave et al., 2016; Keyes, 2002)

were identified. Overall, well-being levels in 2020 decreased due to aspects of the COVID-19

pandemic like lockdowns but could individually be protected by psychological resources

including optimism (Pellerin & Raufaste, 2020).

The reason why optimism protects well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic has not

been researched yet. In the following, possible explanations are introduced. Consistent with the

Expectancy-Value Theory (Austin & Vancouver, 1996), optimistic people might expect that

governmental recommendations aim to control the virus spread and positively influence the

future. According to Learnable Optimism (Peterson & Seligman, 1984), optimists could

perceive the COVID-19 situation as a short-term, external situation, that only effects them in

specific areas. Optimists use more frequently Positive Illusions (Taylor & Brown, 1988, 1994).

Hence, they believe to have more control in adverse situations. These perspectives include

attitudes that could support well-being in times of adversity. According to the Model of

Appraisal and Coping Process (Folkman & Greer, 2000) optimists use proactive and approach-
 7

focused coping styles (Aspinwall & Brunhart, 1996; Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997; Lazarus &

Folkman, 1984; Scheier & Carver, 1992; Solberg Nes & Segerstrom, 2006) to resolve stressful

events which lead to positive emotions and well-being (Folkman & Greer, 2000). Perceiving

the COVID-19 recommendation as effective could serve as emotion-focused coping technique

and could explain higher well-being in optimistic people. However, the COVID-19 pandemic

could also have different or severe impacts on well-being and optimism. It is the first pandemic

after the influenza pandemic in 2009 and COVID-19 is more infectious and fatal than influenza

(RKI, 2020). Since optimism changes when people experience altering resources (Segerstrom,

2007), the protective effect on well-being might not occur during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The following research questions have been studied for the present thesis:

1. Is optimism stable between 2019 and 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Due to contradicting findings throughout the literature and the novelty of the COVID-19

pandemic, no expectations about the stability of optimism were made in the present study. On

the one hand, optimism could be a stable trait even in times of adversity. On the other hand, the

COVID-19 pandemic could be perceived as majorly adverse and lead to changes in optimism.

2. Are optimism levels in 2019, before the pandemic, and their change during the pandemic

related to well-being?

Hypothesis 1a: People who were more optimistic in 2019, before the pandemic, experienced

more overall well-being and more emotional, psychological and social well-being in 2020.

Hypothesis 1b: People whose optimism decreased between 2019 and 2020 experienced less

overall well-being and less emotional, psychological and social well-being in 2020.

3. Which role plays the perceived effectiveness of the COVID-19 recommendations?

Hypothesis 2a: People with more optimism in 2019, before the pandemic, perceive the COVID-

19 recommendations during the pandemic as effective.

 8

Hypothesis 2b: People whose optimism decreased between 2019 and 2020 perceive the

COVID-19 recommendations during the pandemic as less effective.

Hypothesis 3a: The perceived effectiveness of the COVID-19 recommendations mediates

between the relation of optimism in 2019 with well-being and with each well-being dimension

in 2020.

Hypothesis 3b: The perceived effectiveness of the COVID-19 recommendations mediates

between the relation of optimism change in 2019 and 2020 with well-being and with each well-

being dimension in 2020.

Methods

Procedure

The data in the present study was selected from the Dutch Longitudinal Internet Studies

for the Social Sciences (LISS panel) which are administered by CentERdata (Tilburg

University, the Netherlands). Since 2008 about 6,817 participants were asked to fill out online

questionnaires each month every year. The core study in the LISS panel explores the following

modules: Health, Religion and Ethnicity, Social Integration and Leisure, Family and

Household, Work and Schooling, Personality, Politics and Values, as well as Economic

Situations like Assets, Income and Housing. Additionally, other assembled studies and

background variables of the participants were conducted. In the core study, 5,000 households,

randomly drawn from the population register by Statistics Netherlands, are participating. The

randomized sample and easy accessibility of the participation in the study make the sample a

good representation of the Dutch population.

The data used in the present study regarding optimism was drawn from the personality

module between May and June 2019 and between May and June 2020. Data was also selected

from two separately assembled studies that researched further themes and included partially the
 9

participants of the LISS panel. The first study (“COVID-19 study”), by Gaudecker, van Rooij

and Mastrogiacomo, identified the effects of the outbreak of COVID-19 in March 2020. The

second study (“well-being study”), by Westerhof and ten Klooster (2020), assessed well-being

and mental health in May 2020. Moreover, three background variables from May 2020 were

included in the analyses. These were gender, age and highest education with diploma.

Participants

Participation in the LISS study is optional and random samples were drawn from the

LISS participants for the assembled studies. Thus, inevitably the sample size in the present

study varied. To mitigate, a sample size reduction was done later. Overall, in the personality

module, 5,859 people replied completely to the questionnaires from 2020 and 5,021 from 2019.

In the COVID-19 study, 5,453 participants responded sufficiently and in the well-being study

2,719 people. In the latter, participants were divided into four groups, each filled in different

versions of the questionnaire. Group 1 and 4 had versions with revised items and group 1 and

3 with revised response formats. The present study used the version of group 3, in which 727

participants filled in a questionnaire with original items and revised response format.

Due to different assessment times, not every participant took part in every study. But

the present study analyzed longitudinal data, and thus, a data set without missing data was

needed to compare the two assessment times. Accordingly, the sample for the present study

was adapted and only participants were included in the analyses who completed all analyzed

items. The final sample consisted of 487 participants (246 female, 241 male) with a mean age

of 53 years. The reduction of the sample size might result in a selection bias which would have

systematically influenced the results. Therefore, the mean values of sociodemographic

variables, optimism in 2019 and 2020, well-being and its dimensions in 2020 as well as the

perceived effectiveness of the COVID-19 recommendations were compared to the parameter

values of the initial sample size. The sample from the personality module in 2020 was used as
 10

a base rate sample size. A t-test for independent samples and a Χ2-test compared the values of

participants who completely filled in the questionnaires (final sample) with those with missing

data. The participants in the final sample were significantly younger and experienced less

psychological well-being than participants missing in the final sample (see table 1). Since the

other variables showed no significant deviations and for pragmatic reasons, all following

analyses were based on the reduced sample size.

Table 1

Results of the T-Test for Independent Samples and Χ2-Test to Compare the Variables

Between the Final Sample With Those Missing in the Final Sample

Final sample Missing in final Base rate

sample sample
n 487 5372 5,859a
Gender, n 4344 4831
Female 246 2354 2600
Male 241 1990 2231
Χ2(df)b 2.24(1)
Highest education with diplomac, n 5365 5852
Primary School 18 218 236
VMBO 97 1001 1098
HAVO/VWO 61 545 606
MBO 112 1287 1399
HBO 111 1407 1518
University 69 699 768
Other/ not yet started /- completed 19 208 227
Χ2(df)d 6.28(8)
Age
n 487 4344 4831
M (SD) 52.87 (19.48) 55.04(18.32) 54.82(18.45)
t(df)e 2.34(586.52)*

Optimism 2019
n 487 3883 4370
M (SD) 14.41 (3.87) 14.77(3.61) 14.73 (3.64)
t(df) e 1.94(596.68)
Optimism 2020
n 487 5372 5859
M (SD) 14.54 (3.68) 14.69(3.62) 14.67 (3.63)
t(df) .87(5857)
 11

Overall well-being 2020

n 487 218 705
M (SD) 2.81 (.74) 2.92(.77) 2.85 (.75)
t(df) 1.82(703)
Emotional well-being
M (SD) 3.33 (.96) 3.35(.92) 3.34 (.95)
t(df) .18(703)
Social well-being
M (SD) 2.35 (.81) 2.43(.91) 2.37 (.84)
t(df) 1.19(703)
Psychological well-being
M (SD) 2.94 (.84) 3.12(.84) 3.00 (.84)
t(df) 2.68(703)**
Recommendationsf
n 487 4563 5050
M (SD) 4.31 (.58) 4.36(.56) 4.36 (.56)
t(df) 1.89(5048)

Note. n = sample size; M = mean value; SD = standard deviations; df = degrees of freedom.

*
p < .05; ** p < .01. a: n of the Personality module 2020. n varies among the variables, due
to different samples and studies.; b: with continuity correction. c: from May 2020. d:
Pearson Χ2. e: significant Levene-test, thus, adjusted df’s were used. f: perceived
effectiveness of the recommendations.

Measures

Well-Being

In the assembled well-being study, four different versions of the Mental Health

Continuum Short Form (MHC-SF; Keyes, 2002) were used; three revised versions and the

original one. Each questionnaire was filled in by a different group of participants. The present

study used a version with the original items of the MHC-SF by Keyes (2002), with a shortened

inquiry period and revised response format (MHC-SF-R; see Appendix A) by Westerhof and

ten Klooster (2020). The questionnaire measures overall well-being and the three dimensions

emotional, psychological and social well-being. It contains the question “During the past week,

how often did you feel…” and each item represents an ending to the question. The items are

estimated on a 6-point Likert scale from Never (0) to (Almost) always (5). The original MHC-

SF referred to the past month and followed a 6-point Likert scale from Never (0) to Every day

(5). The revised version seemed beneficial for the present study because during the COVID-19
 12

pandemic life changes may happen more frequently and a shorter inquiry period offered a more

detailed insight. To score overall well-being and each dimension separately, mean scores were

calculated ranging from 0-5. Overall well-being consists of the mean score of all 14 items,

emotional well-being of the first three, social well-being of the items 4-8 and psychological

well-being as of item 9.

To examine the construct validity and reliability of the MHC-SF-R an exploratory factor

analysis (EFA) and a reliability analysis were conducted. A principal component analysis

(PCA) with Varimax rotation was used and determined the three-factor structure according to

the mental well-being dimensions (Keyes, 2002). The Kaiser-Guttman criteria with

eigenvalue > 1 (Guttman, 1954; Kaiser, 1960) and a visual examination of the scree-plot

confirmed the structure. The factors explained 63.34% of total variance. Factor 1 was labeled

“Psychological Well-Being”, factor 2 “Emotional Well-Being” and factor 3 “Social Well-

Being”. Because alterations from the theoretical structure were minor, no items were removed.

The well-being variables were computed according to the theoretical structure of the three

dimensions (see Appendix B for the complete results). The internal consistency of all MHC-

SF-R items was excellent with Cronbach’s alpha, α = .90. Emotional well-being had high

reliability with α = .88 as well as psychological well-being with α = .85 and acceptable

reliability for social well-being with α = .78. Reliability is excellent when Cronbach’s alpha is

α > .90, α > .80 is good/high and α > .70 is acceptable (Blanz, 2015).

Optimism

Optimism was measured by the Life Orientation Test Revised (LOT-R) by Scheier,

Carver and Bridges (1994). It consists of ten items that represent statements like “In uncertain

times, I usually expect the best.” or “It’s easy for me to relax.” The evaluation of each item is

made via a 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (0) to strongly agree (4). Items 1, 4, 10

measure optimism and items 3, 7, 9 assess pessimism. For scoring, the sum of the three
 13

optimism items is calculated plus the reversed pessimism items. The rest are filler items and

are not part of the scoring. For the required variables in the present study, each sum score of

optimism 2019 and 2020 was computed, as well as their change score. A score range between

0-13 represents high pessimism or low optimism, a range of 14-18 moderate optimism and a

score between 19-24 represents high optimism and low pessimism (Scheier et al., 1994).

To examine whether a one-factor structure was empirically determinable, a PCA with

Varimax rotation was conducted with a fixed number of one factor. The PCA included all

optimism items and the reversed pessimism items of 2019 and 2020. It resulted in one factor

“Optimism” which explained 41.38% of the total variance. Deviations from the one-factor

structure were minor, thus, it was used in the present study (see Appendix B for the complete

results). Reliability is acceptable for optimism in 2019 with Cronbach’s alpha, α = .78 as well

as for optimism in 2020, α = .76 (Blanz, 2015).

COVID-19

The questionnaire Effects of the Outbreak of COVID-19 developed by the “COVID-19

ImpactLab” explores the influence of the pandemic on people’s social and financial situation

and determines the attitude towards governmental recommendations against COVID-19. For

the present study the ten items of the question “In your opinion, how effective are the following

actions for protecting yourself against the coronavirus?” were of interest. Recommendations

like wearing a face mask, avoiding crowds or washing your hands are rated from not effective

at all (1) to very effective (5). To create a scale that measures the perceived effectiveness of the

COVID recommendations (in the following also referred to as “recommendation variable”), the

mean score of all items was calculated.

Two PCAs with Varimax rotation were conducted (see Appendix B for the complete

results). The first one identified three factors according to the Kaiser-Guttman criteria with

eigenvalue >1 (Guttman, 1954; Kaiser, 1960) which explained 57.61% of total variance and
 14

two factors according to the scree-plot which explained 47.07% of total variance. Having in

mind that the items belong to a single question, on a theoretical basis a one-factor structure was

expected. Four items that were constructed conditionally were removed. A second PCA with

Varimax rotation included only the “unconditional” items. According to the Kaiser-Guttman

criteria and the scree-plot, it resulted in a one-factor structure which explained 52.4% of total

variance. Thus, one factor labeled as “Perceived Effectiveness of the Recommendations” was

worked with. After the reduction, internal consistency was high with Cronbach’s alpha, α = .81

(Blanz, 2015).

Statistical Analysis

For data analysis, the software IBM SPSS Statistics, version 27 was used. Most analyses

used p = .05, only the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test (KS test) used p = .10. The calculated

variables were examined for normal distribution, as it is a requirement for most of the tests

applied in the study. A KS test showed no normal distribution for all variables which could be

a side effect of the large sample size. The larger the sample, the easier small deviations from

normality are significant. Therefore, distributions were reexamined by using histograms (see

Appendix B). Visually, optimism in 2019 and 2020 and overall well-being were normally

distributed. The recommendation variable did not show a normality shape and non-parametric

analyses were subsequently conducted with it.

Descriptive statistics of the calculated variables were assessed and their relation to

sociodemographic variables. The relations to age, gender and highest education were examined

with a t-test for independent samples or Pearson and Spearman correlations.

To answer research question 1, and explore whether optimism is stable over time, the

mean scores of optimism 2019 and optimism 2020 were examined via a paired t-test. The

expected relations of well-being with optimism and with an optimism change in hypotheses

1a/b were analyzed by using Pearson correlations. The expected associations in hypotheses 2a/b
 15

between the recommendation variable and optimism in 2019/optimism change were examined

by using Spearman correlations. All hypotheses were directional and were tested one-sided.

The mediating effect of the perceived effectiveness of the recommendations between optimism

in 2019/optimism change and overall well-being and each of its dimension was expected in

hypotheses 3a/b (see figure 2). They were analyzed via eight simple mediation analyses with

the SPSS PROCESS Macro by Andrew Hayes (2013). All simple mediation analyses

incorporated unstandardized coefficients of the variables and worked with 95%-confidence

intervals based on 10,000 bootstrap samples. The latter were evaluated as significant when

excluding zero. The mediation analyses for hypothesis 3a consisted of optimism in 2019 (X),

the recommendation variable (M) and either overall well-being in 2020 (Y) or each well-being

dimension (Y). For hypothesis 3b, four mediation analyses were conducted with the change

score of optimism (X) and the previous M- and Y-variables. Two simple mediation analyses

with optimism 2019 or optimism change (X), the recommendation variable (M) and overall

well-being in 2020 (Y) incorporated age, gender and education as covariates. Beforehand four

statistical assumptions (Hayes, 2013) were examined according to the suggestions of Kane &

Ashbaugh (2017): Linearity, homoscedasticity, normality of the estimation error and

independence of the estimation error. The first three were examined with scatterplots and QQ-

plots by conducting simple regression analyses, each path of the mediation analyses with

overall well-being (Y) as independent simple regression analysis (see Appendix B).

Figure 2

Model of the Simple Mediation Analyses Based on Andrew Hayes (2013)

Recommen- Recommen-
dations dations b
a b
a

Optimism c' Well-Being Optimism c' Well-Being

2019 c 2020 Change c 2020
 16

Results

Descriptive Analyses

On a descriptive basis, optimism was stable between the assessment in 2019 and the one

in 2020. Optimism levels were just above the threshold to moderate optimism. Regarding well-

being, on average the participants experienced “sometimes” to “regularly” overall, social and

psychological well-being. Only emotional well-being was experienced “regularly” on average.

The COVID-19 recommendations were on average evaluated as “effective” to “(very)

effective”. Table 2 displays the precise mean values and standard deviations.

Table 2

Mean Values (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) of the Variables

Range M SD
Optimism 2019 0-24 14.41 3.87
Optimism 2020 0-24 14.54 3.68
Overall well-being 2020 0-5 2.81 .74
Emotional well-being 3.33 .96
Social well-being 2.35 .81
Psychological well-being 2.94 .84
Recommendation variable 0-5 4.31 .58
Notes. n = 487.

Men and women did not differ significantly in their average level of well-being in 2020,

optimism in 2019 and 2020 and the perceived effectiveness of the recommendations. However,

older age was accompanied by less psychological well-being and greater perceived

effectiveness of the recommendations. A higher educational level was accompanied by more

optimism in 2019 and 2020. The higher the educational level, the greater did the participants

experience overall well-being, social well-being and psychological well-being in 2020. Plus,

with higher education the recommendations were perceived as less effective. In summary, age
 17

could have a confounding effect on the recommendation variable and psychological well-being.

Highest education might be a confounder for all variables besides emotional well-being.

Table 3

Gender, age and Highest Education in Relation With Optimism in 2019 and 2020, Overall

Well-Being (WB) in 2020, Emotional Well-Being (EWB), Social Well-Being (SWB),

Psychological Well-Being (WB) and the Recommendation Variable (Recommendations)

M Optimism Optimism WBc EWB SWB PWBd Recommen-

(SD) 2019 2020 dations
Gendera .49 .17 -.30 .31 -.43 -.45 -1.94
Ageb 52.87 .02 -.04 -.09 .02 -.06 -.14*** .14***
(19.48)
Educationb 4.01 .13*** .18*** .14*** .07 .12*** .14*** -.11*
(1.60)
Note. n = 487. * p < .05; ***p < .001; df = 485; a: t-test with independent samples in the row.
b: Pearson correlation in the row, Spearman correlation with recommendation variable. c:
df = 469.38 with continuity correction. d: df = 462.83 with continuity correction.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Research Question 1: Is Optimism Stable Between 2019 and 2020, During the COVID-19

Pandemic?

In the paired t-test the comparison of average optimism levels in 2019 and optimism in

2020 was not significant (t(486) = -1.11, p = .266). To answer research question 1, no changes

in optimism were found between 2019 and 2020.

Research Question 2: Are Optimism Levels in 2019, Before the Pandemic, and Their

Change During the Pandemic Related to Well-Being?

Optimism in 2019 significantly correlated with overall well-being and each of its

dimensions in 2020 (see table 4). With higher optimism, more well-being was experienced. All
 18

correlations were positive and hypothesis 1a was confirmed. The Pearson correlation between

well-being and the optimism change in 2019 and 2020 was not significant. Hypothesis 1b was

rejected because changes in optimism were not related to well-being in 2020 and its dimensions.

Research Question 3: Which Role Plays the Perceived Effectiveness of the

Recommendations?

The positive Spearman correlation between optimism 2019 and the recommendation

variable was significant and confirmed hypothesis 2a. People with greater optimism in 2019

perceived the recommendations as more effective. In contrast, the change in optimism between

2019 and 2020 was not related to the perceived effectiveness of the recommendations. Thus,

hypothesis 2b was rejected.

Table 4

Pearson and Spearman Correlation Results Between Optimism and the Change Score With

the Recommendation Variable and With Well-Being and its Dimensions

Optimism 2019 Change Score

r r
Overall Well-Being 2020 .47*** .03
Emotional well-being .46*** -.01
Psychological well-being .45*** .02
Social well-being .30*** .07

ρ ρ
Recommendation variablea .09* -.05
Note. * p < .05; ***p < .001; df = 485; a: Spearman correlations in this row.

Regarding the statistical assumptions for mediation analyses (Hayes, 2013), scatterplots

(see Appendix B) indicated linear relationships and homoscedasticity between most variables.

Additionally, Q-Q plots (see Appendix B) showed normal distribution of the estimation errors
 19

for most variables. Only the relation between the change score and well-being (path b, change

score - overall well-being mediation) was non-linear, heteroscedastic and non-parametric. Also,

the relation between optimism in 2019 and the recommendation variable (path a, optimism -

overall well-being mediation) indicated heteroscedasticity and non-parametric distribution.

Independence of estimation errors could be suggested for the mediation analyses with optimism

2019 since all variables were conducted separately. The optimism change between 2019 and

2020 might be non-independent as it is a variable computed from two assessment points. In

conclusion, the assumptions (Hayes, 2013) seemed to be fulfilled sufficiently for the mediation

analyses with overall well-being in 2020. The majority of relations showed linearity, normality

and homoscedasticity. Independence is difficult to determine since data was drawn from

external study conductions. Violations from the assumptions were considered in the discussion.

For hypothesis 3a, the first simple mediation analysis (see figure 3) showed that

optimism in 2019 is neither related to the perceived effectiveness of the recommendations nor

is the perceived effectiveness subsequently connected to overall well-being in 2020. However,

people who had more optimism in 2019, experienced significantly more overall well-being with

the mediator excluded. But the effect could not be explained by the mediator. The relation

between optimism 2019 and overall well-being is not mediated by the perceived effectiveness

of the recommendations. Regarding the mediation analyses that included the well-being

dimensions in 2020, higher optimism in 2019 was accompanied by greater emotional well-

being with the mediator included. Though, the relation was not mediated by the perceived

effectiveness of the recommendations. The same effects were observed for psychological well-

being and social well-being (see table 5 or Appendix B). Regarding hypothesis 3b, no path of

the conducted simple mediation analyses (see figure 3) was significant. A change in optimism

between 2019 and 2020 was not related to the perceived effectiveness of the recommendations.

Neither the recommendation variable nor the optimism change was related to overall well-being

in 2020 and each of its dimensions. The mediator did not add to the explanations of the results.
 20

In the end, no relation between an optimism change and well-being in 2020 or its dimensions

was found, as well as no mediating effect by the recommendation variable (see Appendix B).

Figure 3

Results of the Simple Mediation Analyses With Overall Well-Being, Based on Andrew Hayes (2013)

Recommen-
Recommen-
dations
dations
a = .0120 b = -.0041 a = -.0162 b = .0475

Optimism (c’ = .0887***) Overall Optimism c’ = .0105 Overall

2019 *** Well-Being Change (c = .0097) Well-Being
(c = .0886 )
2020 2020

Table 5

Unstandardized Coefficients of the Mediation Analyses Between Optimism in 2019 and the

Dimensions of Well-Being in 2020

Emotional Well-Being Social Well-Being Psychological Well-Being

a path .01
b path .05 -.05 .01
c path .11*** .06*** .10***
c’ path .11*** .06*** .10***
ab path .00 -.00 .00
95%-CI[-.00, .00] 95%-CI[-.00, .00] 95%-CI[-.00, .00]
Note. *** p < .001.

Having in mind, that some of the variables were related to sociodemographic variables,

two simple mediation analyses were conducted, adding age, gender and highest education as

covariates. The possible mediating effect of the recommendation variable between optimism

2019 (X) or the optimism change in 2019 and 2020 (X) on overall well-being in 2020 (Y) was
 21

examined. The results of the mediation with optimism 2019 showed that more optimism is

accompanied by higher well-being independent of the mediator (c’ = .09***), even after

including the covariates age, gender and education. With lower educational levels, the

recommendations were perceived as more effective. Age and gender were related to the

recommendation variable and age also to well-being (see table 6). No other paths were

significant and no mediating effect was found.

The second mediation with covariates and the optimism change indicated that age and

gender were related to the perceived effectiveness of the recommendations. Additionally,

higher well-being was accompanied by a higher educational level (see table 6). But all paths

turned out non-significant and no mediating effect of the recommendation variable was found.

Table 6

Unstandardized Coefficients of the Mediation Analyses Which Included the Covariates

Recommendationsa Well-Being in 2020

Optimism in 2019
Age .00** -.00*
Gender .11* .03
Education -.03* .03
Optimism change
Age .00** -.00
Gender .11* .02
Education -.03 .06**
Note. * p < .05; **p < .01. a: recommendation variable.

In conclusion, optimism was significantly related to overall well-being and each

dimension with and without the mediator, but no mediating effects of the recommendation

variable were found. Regarding the optimism change, no results were significant. Thus,

hypotheses 3a and 3b were rejected. Age, gender and highest education were individually
 22

related to well-being and the perceived effectiveness of the recommendations, though the

correlations were small. Integrating the sociodemographic variables did not change the previous

mediation analysis results between optimism in 2019/optimism change and overall well-being

in 2020. Thus, age, gender and highest education did not confound the relation between

optimism in 2019/ optimism change and well-being in 2020.

Discussion

The respective study provides insights into the relation of optimism and well-being

during the COVID-19 pandemic and their connection to the perceived effectiveness of

governmental COVID-19 recommendations. Regarding research question 1, the examination

of the stability of optimism showed that people who were optimistic before the pandemic did

not lose their optimism during it. It was expected in the hypotheses 1a/b that optimism in 2019

and an optimism change between 2019 and 2020 were related to well-being in 2020 and its

dimensions. Indeed, people with more optimism in 2019 experienced greater overall, emotional,

psychological, and social well-being in 2020. A change in optimism was neither related to well-

being nor to its dimensions. Thus, hypothesis 1a was confirmed and hypothesis 1b was rejected.

In the hypotheses 2a/b it was expected that optimism in 2019 and an optimism change were

related to the recommendation variable. Hypothesis 2a was confirmed since more optimism in

2019 was accompanied by perceiving the COVID-19 recommendations as more effective.

There was no relation between a change in optimism and the recommendation variable, thus,

hypothesis 2b was rejected. In the hypotheses 3a/b, it was expected that the perceived

effectiveness of the recommendation mediated the relations between optimism 2019 or an

optimism change and well-being. In contrast, the recommendation variable did not serve as a

mediator, and hypotheses 3a/b were rejected. Checking for possible confounding effects of

sociodemographic variables did not change the mediation results.

 23

The present study found moderate optimism levels for Dutch citizens during the

pandemic in 2020. The optimism levels were nearly identical to the ones in 2019, before the

pandemic and similar to those found for Dutch citizens in 2016 (Alleva et al., 2016). For well-

being, moderate levels were found in 2020 which reflected a decrease in well-being compared

to studies with Dutch citizens from years before the pandemic (e.g., Lamers et al., 2011;

Schotanus-Dijkstra et al., 2016). The COVID-19 recommendations were on average perceived

as effective in the present study in 2020. On the contrary, one year later Dutch citizens perceived

most COVID-19 recommendations as less effective (Georgieva et al., 2021).

The examination of differences in optimism in 2019 and 2020 did not indicate that

optimism changes in times of adversity. This supports the trait-like stability of optimism and is

consistent with dispositional optimism, found in other studies (e.g., Carver et al., 2010). There

might be several explanations for the occurrence of stable optimism in times of adversity. First,

optimists expect that difficulties in the present will alter in the future (Chang et al., 2013). This

attitude could keep their positive prospects during adverse times. Second, the COVID-19

pandemic did not impact all people negatively and, thus, was not a situation that was adverse

enough to change dispositional optimism in people. Even though optimism was assessed in

2020 during a lockdown period, the pandemic was still emerging, and restaurants and shops

were open in the Netherlands. Some people even saw it as a time of rest (Gijzen et al., 2020)

and optimism and well-being levels were identified as moderate in 2020. In 2021 the pandemic

persisted for more than a year and governmental measures increased or got more severe. The

development of the COVID-19 pandemic could have the potency to change optimism. Third,

optimism did not show changes in the present study because the research interval could have

been too short. In general, optimism levels vary throughout a person’s life, independent of the

valence of events (Chopik et al., 2020). Thus, optimism levels may fluctuate eventually, but it

may need more time. In 2021, a year after the present study, higher optimism levels for Dutch
 24

and Belgian citizens were found (Vos et al., 2021). Perhaps optimism does not decrease as the

COVID-19 pandemic persists, as previously expected.

The positive relation of optimism and well-being found in the present study replicated

the findings of prior research (e.g., Scheier et al., 1992; Carver et al., 2010), which underlines

their robustness. Since people with more optimism in 2019 experienced higher well-being

during the COVID-19 pandemic, optimism might have indeed acted as a protective

psychological resource for well-being (e.g., Arslan et al., 2020). If so, it could be expected that

well-being stays stable throughout the pandemic due to the existence of dispositional optimism.

Since the present study found no alterations in optimism between 2019 and 2020, the

change score of optimism was neither related to well-being nor to the perceived effectiveness

of the recommendations. Perhaps, individually a change occurred but not on average. Optimism

might have decreased for some people and increased for others but these changes were not

related to well-being or the recommendation variable. Optimism change might depend on

individual characteristics such as altering resources or personal circumstances which would

support the dispositional nature of optimism (Carver et al., 2010).

The present results also show that higher optimism is related to a greater perceived

effectiveness of the recommendations. This could follow the Expectancy-Value Theory (Austin

& Vancouver, 1996), according to which optimists could expect to reach the best possible future

outcome and the goal of stopping the spread of COVID-19. They would perceive the

recommendations as effective to have the confidence of reaching their goal. According to the

postulations in the Model of Mental Health (Taylor & Brown, 1988), optimists could also

perceive the recommendations as effective by using Positive Illusions and feel more control

over the COVID-19 pandemic. Optimists have the skill of projecting positive pre-experiencing

into picturing their future. They create detailed mental images about their positive expectations

(Blackwell et al., 2013) which could alter their perception towards the recommendations, too.
 25

It is beyond the scope of the study to determine explanations for the relation of optimism

and well-being because it was not mediated by the recommendation variable. Even after

controlling for confounding effects the mediation results of the study did not change. This

supports their robustness. Therefore, there is no support for the assumption that perceiving the

recommendations as effective served as an emotion-focused coping technique. Coping is

strongly related to well-being (e.g., Cooper et al., 2017), thus, the connection would have been

expected in the present study. Perhaps, optimists experienced higher well-being for other

reasons and not for their perception of the recommendations. Still, the flexible approach-

focused coping style of optimists (Aspinwall & Brunhart, 1996; Aspinwall & Taylor, 1997;

Scheier & Carver, 1992; Solberg Nes & Segerstrom, 2006) could be a reason why optimists

experienced more well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Active coping could appear in

other forms than the perception of the COVID-19 recommendations. For instance, situational

acceptance or investment in personal growth (Scheier & Carver, 1992) as coping techniques

might increase well-being since both are parts of psychological well-being. More factors that

might have generated the relation of optimism and well-being could have been Positive

Illusions because of greater control perception (Taylor & Brown, 1988, 1994) which could lead

to more environmental mastery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Adherence to the COVID-19

recommendations might also have a mediating effect. Optimists show more socially desirable

behavior (Jovančević & Milićević, 2020) which could represent more adherence and could

result in greater social contribution or social acceptance.

Perceived effectiveness of the recommendations was not related to well-being. The

missing relation and moderate well-being levels might indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic

did not impact well-being as expected. In previous years higher well-being levels were found

(e.g., Lamers et al., 2011; Schotanus-Dijkstra et al., 2016) which would imply some effect of

the pandemic on well-being. But the present study offered no indications that well-being levels

are low in times of COVID-19. The moderate optimism levels in 2020 and the positive relation
 26

between optimism and well-being would support this assumption. Thus, the restrictions from

the COVID-19 recommendations might not have a strong impact on people's well-being. It

might even be debatable if the pandemic itself had a specific influence on people's optimism or

well-being. Perhaps, the pandemic had more impact on distress and ill-being. After all, most

COVID-19-related studies set their research foci on these topics (e.g., Bartoszek et al., 2020;

Xiong et al., 2020). But increasing distress does not necessarily indicate decreasing well-being

(Keyes, 2002) which is also shown by the present findings.

Limitations and Strengths

The present study contains several limitations and strengths which apply to the

following aspects: research objectives, sample, instruments, data access and statistics. First,

psychological resources such as efficacy or gratitude were also identified as protective factors

for well-being (Pellerin & Raufaste, 2020) but were not considered in the present study. By

focusing on optimism alone, further insights into well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic

are unaccounted for. However, the specific research focus is simultaneously a great strength of

the present study. A longitudinal examination of optimism was possible due to the data from

the LISS panel. It offered a unique and innovative insight into the effects of optimism on multi-

dimensional well-being and the perception of the COVID-19 recommendations.

Second, the initial sample size was reduced immensely after selecting only participants

who completely filled out all questionnaires. This fostered selection biases and might have

decreased the validity of the present results. The limitation was balanced out by comparing the

means of the variables between the final sample and those missing in the sample. The final

sample was still representative regarding several sociodemographic variables of Dutch citizens.

The sample reduction gave the opportunity to work with a complete sample and enabled

longitudinal analyses with the same participants.

 27

Third, self-reported instruments were used which could decrease the validity of the

results. For instance, participants might have answered questions regarding the COVID-19

recommendations according to social desirability. But a well-validated instrument was used to

measure optimism and an optimized version of the MHC-SF to measure well-being. They also

enabled the assessment of frequent governmental changes during the pandemic by surveying

the experiences of the past couple of weeks. The condensed inquiry periods gave a precise view

of the perception of the participants’ daily life.

Fourth, by working with the LISS panel, merely information that was assessed in this

regard could be incorporated into the present study. It confined the liberty to analyze

information of matter and pragmatic choices needed to be made. For instance, the perception

of the effectiveness of the COVID-19 recommendations could have been too complex to

measure quantitatively but no other assessment took place in the LISS panel. However,

limitations for the present study were minor and working with the LISS panel represented a

great strength by providing a wide database and a large, representative sample.

Fifth, the statistical assumptions (Hayes, 2013) were not completely fulfilled, especially

for the recommendation variable and the optimism change. Deviations could have influenced

the mediation results by leading to a decrease of power and an altered confidence interval width.

The limitation was considered by adjusting alterations from normality with bootstrapping.

Potential influences of heteroscedasticity were minimized by working with heteroscedastic

consistent standard error estimators. Moreover, the confirmation of the assumptions is not

obligatory (Hayes, 2013).

Lastly, a great strength of the present study was the examination of possible

confounding effects of sociodemographic variables. Small relations were found between

individual sociodemographic variables and optimism, well-being and the recommendation

variable. After integrating the sociodemographic variables into the mediation analyses, the

mediation results did not change. The possible influence of age, gender and highest education
 28

may not have been high and the monitoring for possible confounders increased the robustness

of the present results by leading to consistent outcomes.

Recommendations for Future Research

Further research should integrate additional mediators such as coping styles or

adherence to the recommendations to explain the relation of optimism and well-being. It would

be interesting to examine other psychological resources which protect well-being during the

COVID-19 pandemic. After gaining detailed results from the Netherlands, an international

replication of the present study could present insights into the experience of the COVID-19

pandemic in other nations. Diverse sociodemographic or cultural aspects and different

governmental measures could result in advanced understandings. A follow-up study of

optimism levels in 2021 could explore the stability of optimism in a persistent adverse situation.

The perceived effectiveness of the recommendations could be measured qualitatively, by

participants expressing their experience in their own words. Moreover, further research could

correct the simple mediation analyses of the present study for multiple or multivariate mediation

analyses. Hereby, combined insights regarding several mediators or the relations of the well-

being dimensions with each other might be found.

Conclusion

The present study offered interesting insights into optimism and well-being in times of

COVID-19. It inserted robust support for the established relation between well-being and

optimism and proposed evidence for the stable, dispositional nature of optimism. It further

presented the positive attitude of optimists towards the effectiveness of the COVID-19

recommendations. Therefore, the study offered a meaningful base in an innovative and

prevailing topic. Actively using the results by responding to individual levels of optimism may

lead to more adherence to the recommendations or an increase in well-being. For instance,

 29

future governmental measures could be implemented or advertised by responding to different

optimism levels to increase their perceived effectiveness. Likewise, people who work in social

sectors such as hospitals or schools could encourage constructive future expectations during the

pandemic according to individual optimism levels.

 30

References

Alarcon, G. M., Bowling, N. A., & Khazon, S. (2013). Great expectations: A meta-analytic

examination of optimism and hope. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(7), 821–827.

Alleva, J. M., Martijn, C., Veldhuis, J., & Tylka, T. L. (2016). A Dutch translation and validation of

the Body Appreciation Scale-2: An investigation with female university students in the

Netherlands. Body Image, 19, 44–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2016.08.008

Antonides, G., & van Leeuwen, E. (2020). Covid-19 crisis in the Netherlands: “Only together we

can control Corona.” Mind & Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-020-00257-x

Arslan, G., & Yıldırım, M. (2021). Coronavirus stress, meaningful living, optimism, and depressive

symptoms: A study of moderated mediation model. Australian Journal of Psychology, 1–12.

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ykvzn

Aspinwall, L. G., & Brunhart, S. M. (1996). Distinguishing optimism from denial: Optimistic beliefs

predict attention to health threats. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(10), 993-

1003.

Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1997). A stitch in time: self-regulation and proactive

coping. Psychological Bulletin, 121(3), 417.

Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and

content. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 338–375. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1037/0033-

2909.120.3.338

Bartoszek, A., Walkowiak, D., Bartoszek, A., & Kardas, G. (2020). Mental Well-Being (depression,

loneliness, insomnia, daily life fatigue) during COVID-19 related home-confinement—A study

from Poland. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(20),

7417. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17207417

Blackwell, S. E., Rius-Ottenheim, N., Schulte-van Maaren, Y. W., Carlier, I. V., Middelkoop, V. D.,

Zitman, F. G., Spinhoven, P., Holmes, E. A. & Giltay, E. J. (2013). Optimism and mental
 31

imagery: A possible cognitive marker to promote well-being?. Psychiatry Research, 206(1),

56-61.

Blanz, M. (2015). Forschungsmethoden und Statistik für die Soziale Arbeit: Grundlagen und

Anwendungen (2nd ed.). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Brooks, S. K., Webster, R. K., Smith, L. E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S., Greenberg, N., & Rubin, G.

J. (2020). The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: Rapid review of the

evidence. The lancet, 395(10227), 912-920.

Carver, C., Pozo, C., Harris, S., Noriega, V., Scheier, M., Robinson, D., Ketcham, A., Moffat, F., &

Clark, K. (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.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.375

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2010). Optimism. Clinical Psychology Review,

30(7), 879–889.

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

Chang, E. C., Yu, E. A., Lee, J. Y., Hirsch, J. K., Kupfermann, Y., & Kahle, E. R. (2013). An

examination of optimism/pessimism and suicide risk in primary care patients: Does belief in a

changeable future make a difference?. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 37(4), 796-804.

Chopik, W. J., Oh, J., Kim, E. S., Schwaba, T., Krämer, M. D., Richter, D., & Smith, J. (2020).

Changes in optimism and pessimism in response to life events: Evidence from three large panel

studies. Journal of Research in Personality, 88, 103985.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.103985

Constandt, B., Thibaut, E., De Bosscher, V., Scheerder, J., Ricour, M., & Willem, A. (2020).

Exercising in times of lockdown: An analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on levels and patterns

of exercise among adults in Belgium. International Journal of Environmental Research and

Public Health, 17(11), 4144. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17114144

 32

Cooper, C., & Quick, J. C. (2017). The handbook of stress and health: A guide to research and

practice. John Wiley & Sons.

De Bruijne, M. (2020). Effects of the outbreak of COVID-19 (Wave 1). Tilburg: CentErData.

Retrieved from https://www.dataarchive.lissdata.nl/study_units/view/1065.

Delle Fave, A., Brdar, I., Wissing, M. P., Araujo, U., Castro Solano, A., Freire, T., del Rocío

Hernández-Pozo, M., Jose, P., Martos, T., Nafstad, H. E., Nakamura, J., Singh, K. & Soosai-

Nathan, L. (2016). Lay definitions of happiness across nations: The primacy of inner harmony

and relational connectedness. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 30.

Dunn, D. S. (2017). Positive psychology: Established and emerging issues. Routledge.

Falkenstein, A. R. (2018). Focusing on future forecasts: A comprehensive examination of

performance expectations. In ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (2117975613).

https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/focusing-on-future-forecasts-

comprehensive/docview/2117975613/se-2?accountid=106781

Folkman, S., & Greer, S. (2000). Promoting psychological well-being in the face of serious illness:

When theory, research and practice inform each other. Psycho-Oncology, 9(1), 11–19.

Georgieva, I., Lantta, T., Lickiewicz, J., Pekara, J., Wikman, S., Loseviča, M., Raveesh, B. N.,

Mihai, A., & Lepping, P. (2021). Perceived Effectiveness, Restrictiveness, and Compliance

with Containment Measures against the Covid-19 Pandemic: An International Comparative

Study in 11 Countries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,

18(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073806

Gijzen, M., Shields-Zeeman, L., Kleinjan, M., Kroon, H., van der Roest, H., Bolier, L., Smit, F., &

de Beurs, D. (2020). The bittersweet effects of COVID-19 on mental health: Results of an

online survey among a sample of the Dutch population [Preprint]. Open Science Framework.

https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/7jsng

Gloster, A. T., Lamnisos, D., Lubenko, J., Presti, G., Squatrito, V., Constantinou, M., Nicolaou, C.,

Papacostas, S., Aydın, G., Chong, Y. Y., Chien, W. T., Cheng, H. Y., Ruiz, F. J., Garcia-Martin,
 33

M. B., Obando-Posada, D. P., Segura-Vargas, M. A., Vasiliou, V. S., McHugh, L., Höfer, S.,

Baban, A., Dias Neto, D., da Silva, A. N., Monestes, J.-L., Alvarez-Galvez, J., Paez-Blarrina,

M., Montesinos, F., Valdivia-Salas, S., Ori, D., Kleszcz, B., Lappalainen, R., Ivanović, I.,

Gosar, D., Dionne, F., Merwin, R. M., Kassianos, A. P. & Karekla, M. (2020). Impact of

COVID-19 pandemic on mental health: An international study. PLOS ONE, 15(12), e0244809.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244809

Guttman, L. (1954). Some necessary conditions for common-factor analysis. Psychometrika, 19(2),

149–161.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Methodology in the social sciences. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and

conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

Jovančević, A., & Milićević, N. (2020). Optimism-pessimism, conspiracy theories and general trust

as factors contributing to COVID-19 related behavior – A cross-cultural study. Personality and

Individual Differences, 167, 110216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110216

Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151. doi:10.1177/001316446002000116

Kane, L., & Ashbaugh, A. R. (2017). Simple and parallel mediation: A tutorial exploring anxiety

sensitivity, sensation seeking, and gender. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 13(3),

148-165.

Keyes, C. L. M. (1998). Social well-being. Social psychology quarterly, 121-140.

Keyes C. L. M. (2002). The Mental Health Continuum: From Languishing to Flourishing in Life.

Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43(2), 207–222. JSTOR.

https://doi.org/10.2307/3090197

Keyes, C. L. M. (2005). Mental illness and/or mental health? Investigating axioms of the complete

state model of health. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 539-548.
 34

Lades, L. K., Laffan, K., Daly, M., & Delaney, L. (2020). Daily emotional well-being during the

COVID-19 pandemic. British Journal of Health Psychology, 25(4), 902–911.

https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12450

Lamers, S. M., Westerhof, G. J., Bohlmeijer, E. T., ten Klooster, P. M., & Keyes, C. L. (2011).

Evaluating the psychometric properties of the mental health continuum‐short form (MHC‐

SF). Journal of clinical psychology, 67(1), 99-110.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer publishing company.

Marchand, M. (2019). Personality. LISS Core Study Wave 11. Tilburg: CentErData. Retrieved from

https://www.dataarchive.lissdata.nl/study_units/view/813.

Marchand, M. (2020). Personality. LISS Core Study Wave 12. Tilburg: CentErData. Retrieved from

https://www.dataarchive.lissdata.nl/study_units/view/965.

Marchand, M. (2020). The Dutch mental health continuum short form – Revised. Tilburg:

CentErData. Retrieved from https://www.dataarchive.lissdata.nl/study_units/view/1105.

Paleari, F. G., Pivetti, M., Galati, D., & Fincham, F. D. (2021). Hedonic and eudaimonic well‐being

during the covid‐19 lockdown in Italy: The role of stigma and appraisals. British Journal of

Health Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12508

Pellerin, N., & Raufaste, E. (2020). Psychological resources protect well-being during the COVID-

19 pandemic: A longitudinal study during the French lockdown. Frontiers in Psychology, 11,

590276. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.590276

Peterson, C., & Avila, M. E. D. (1995). Optimistic explanatory style and the perception of health

problems. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51(1), 128–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-

4679(199501)51:1<128::AID-JCLP2270510120>3.0.CO;2-1

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (1984). Causal explanations as a risk factor for depression: Theory

and evidence. Psychological Review, 91(3), 347.

Poelman, M. P., Gillebaart, M., Schlinkert, C., Dijkstra, S. C., Derksen, E., Mensink, F., Hermans,

R. C. J., Aardening, P., de Ridder, D., & de Vet, E. (2021). Eating behavior and food purchases
 35

during the COVID-19 lockdown: A cross-sectional study among adults in the Netherlands.

Appetite, 157, 105002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.105002

Reizer, A., Geffen, L., & Koslowsky, M. (2021). Life under the COVID-19 lockdown: On the

relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and psychological distress. Psychological

Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001012

RIVM. (2021, January 27). Coronavirus disease COVID-19. RIVM. Retrieved from

https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus-covid-19/coronavirus-disease-covid-19

RKI (2020, October 08.). Eine höhere Letalität und lange Beatmungsdauer unterscheiden COVID-

19 von schwer verlaufenden Atemwegsinfektionen in Grippewellen. RKI. Retrieved from

https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/EpidBull/Archiv/2020/41/Art_01.html;jsessionid=08F

C6174128E275009D75E19F71DEF25.internet081?nn=2386228

RKI (2021, May 05). Gesundheitliche Langzeitfolgen. RKI. Retrieved from

https://www.rki.de/SharedDocs/FAQ/NCOV2019/FAQ_Liste_Gesundheitliche_Langzeitfolg

en.html#FAQId16065564

Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological

well-being. Journal of personality and social psychology, 57(6), 1069.

Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal

of personality and social psychology, 69(4), 719.

Scheier, M., Carver, C., & Bridges, M. (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, 1063–1078. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-

3514.67.6.1063

Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and physical well-

being: Theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16(2),

201–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01173489
 36

Scherpenzeel, A.C., and Das, M. (2010). “True” Longitudinal and probability-based internet panels:

Evidence from the Netherlands. In Das, M., P. Ester, and L. Kaczmirek (Eds.), Social and

Behavioral Research and the Internet: Advances in Applied Methods and Research Strategies.

(pp. 77-104). Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.

Schotanus-Dijkstra, M., Pieterse, M.E., Drossaert, C.H.C., Westerhof, G., de Graaf, R., ten Have,

M., Walburg, J.A. & Bohlmeijer, E.T. (2016). What Factors are Associated with Flourishing?

Results from a Large Representative National Sample. Journal of Happiness Studies 17, 1351–

1370 (2016). https://doi-org.ezproxy2.utwente.nl/10.1007/s10902-015-9647-3

Schou, I., Ekeberg, Ø., & Ruland, C. M. (2005). The mediating role of appraisal and coping in the

relationship between optimism‐pessimism and quality of life. Psycho‐Oncology: Journal of the

Psychological, Social and Behavioral Dimensions of Cancer, 14(9), 718-727.

Segerstrom, S. C. (2007). Optimism and resources: Effects on each other and on health over 10

years. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(4), 772–786.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.09.004

Segerstrom, S. C., & Nes, L. S. (2006). When goals conflict but people prosper: The case of

dispositional optimism. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(5), 675-693.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American

Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5

Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on

mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193.

Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1994). Positive illusions and well-being revisited: separating fact from

fiction.

Von Gaudecker, H. M., van Rooij, M. & Mastrogiacomo, M. (2020). Effects of the outbreak of

COVID-19. Tilburg: CentERdata.

Vos, L. M. W., Habibović, M., Nyklíček, I., Smeets, T., & Mertens, G. (2021). Optimism,

mindfulness, and resilience as potential protective factors for the mental health consequences
 37

of fear of the coronavirus. Psychiatry Research, 300, 113927.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113927

World Health Organization (WHO). (2005). Promoting mental health: concepts, emerging evidence,

practice: a report of the World Health Organization, Department of Mental Health and

Substance Abuse in collaboration with the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation and the

University of Melbourne. World Health Organization.

Xiong, J., Lipsitz, O., Nasri, F., Lui, L. M. W., Gill, H., Phan, L., Chen-Li, D., Iacobucci, M., Ho,

R., Majeed, A., & McIntyre, R. S. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in

the general population: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 277, 55–64.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.001
 38

Appendix

Appendix A

Figure 1

Question Regarding the Perceived Effectiveness of the Recommendations From the

Questionnaire the “Effects of the COVID-19 Outbreak”

In your opinion, how effective are the following actions for protecting yourself against the
coronavirus?
- Wearing a face mask
- Praying
- Washing your hands with soap or using hand sanitizer frequently
- Seeing a doctor if you feel sick
- Seeing a doctor if you feel healthy, but worry that you were exposed to the virus
- Avoiding public spaces, gatherings, and crowds
- Avoiding contact with people who could be high-risk py20a030 Avoiding hospitals and
clinics
- Avoiding cafes and restaurants
- Avoiding the use of public transportation

Not effective at all Hardly effective Somewhat effective Effective Very effective

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 2

Items and Response Format of the LOT-R by Scheier et al. (1994)

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

- In uncertain times, I usually expect the best.
- It's easy for me to relax.
- If something can go wrong for me, it will.
- I'm always optimistic about my future.
- I enjoy my friends a lot.
- It's important for me to keep busy.
- I hardly ever expect things to go my way.
- I don't get upset too easily.
- I rarely count on good things happening to me.
- Overall, I expect more good things to happen to me than bad.

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4 5
 39

Figure 3

Items and Response Format of the MHC-SF-R by Westerhof & ten Klooster (2020),

Translated Into English

Group 3: MHC-SF with original items and revised response format

The following questions are about feelings that people might have. Please read each statement
carefully and check the number that best represents HOW OFTEN you have experienced or felt this
DURING THE PAST WEEK.

In the past week, how often did you feel …

… that you were happy?
… that you were interested in life?
… that you were satisfied with life?
… that you had something important to contribute to society?
… that you belonged to a community (like a social group, or your neighborhood)?
… that our society is becoming a better place for people?
… that people are basically good?
… that the way our society works makes sense to you?
… that you liked most parts of your personality?
… that you had experiences that challenged you to grow and become a better person?
… that you were good at managing the responsibilities of your daily life?
… that you had warm and trusting relationships with others?
… that you were confident to think or express your own ideas and opinions?
… that your life has a sense of direction or meaning to it?

Never Rarely Sometimes Regularly Often (Almost) always

0 1 2 3 4 5
 40

Appendix B

Table 1

Results of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Adequacy (KMO-Test) and Bartlett Test for

Sphericity for Each Exploratory Factor Analysis

MHC-SF-R Optimism All Selected

2019 & 2020 recommendations Recommendations
KMO-Test .91 .86 .80 .84
2 2 2
Bartlett Test Χ (91) = Χ (66) = Χ (45) = Χ (15) = 913.71***
2

3342.81*** 2292.24*** 1103.70***

Note. *** p < .001.

Table 2

Results of the Exploratory Factor Analysis Including the MHC-SF-R Items With Three-

Factor Varimax Rotation

Factor Communality
1 2 3
Psychological Emotional Social
well-being well-being well-being
1 … happy? .16 .86 .21 .82
2 … interested in life? .32 .76 .19 .71
3 … satisfied? .23 .84 .22 .80
4 … that you had something .06 .36 .68 .60
important to contribute to
society?
5 … that you belonged to a .16 .25 .72 .61
community (like a social group,
your neighborhood, your city)?
6 … that our society is .22 .09 .80 .70
becoming a better place for
people
7 … that people are basically .46 .05 .60 .57
good?
8 … that the way our society .67 -.05 .35 .58
works makes sense to you?
9 …that you liked most parts of .70 .31 .22 .64
your personality?
10 … good at managing the .66 .42 .01 .62
responsibilities of your daily
life?
11 … that you had warm and .62 .48 .14 .63
trusting relationships with
others?
 41

12 … that you have experiences .49 .15 .35 .38

that challenge you to grow and
become a better person?
13 … confident to think or .70 .28 .13 .59
express your own ideas and
opinions?
14 … that your life has a sense .54 .54 .23 .64
of direction or meaning to it?

Eigenvalue 6.35 1.40 1.12

% of Total Variance 45.32 10.01 8.02
Total Variance 63.34%
Note. Principal component analysis as extraction method

The Bartlett’s test of Sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy

(KMO) resulted in an adequate relation for the factor analysis. Regarding the results in table 2,

two items did not load on the theoretical determined factors. Item 8 (“… that the way our society

works makes sense to you?”) theoretically belongs to social well-being (.35) but loaded higher

on the factor for psychological well-being (.67). Item 14 (“… that your life has a sense of

direction or meaning to it?”) loaded equally on psychological (.54) and emotional well-being

(.54). Factor loadings > .60 were evaluated as high. In the present EFA, this was the case for

all items besides item 12 (“… that you have experiences that challenge you to grow and become

a better person?”) with the highest loading on psychological well-being (.49).

Table 3

Results of the Exploratory Factor Analysis Including the LOT-R Items (Without Filler

Items) From 2019 and 2020 With a Fixed One-Factor Structure.

Factor Communalitya

1. In uncertain times, I normally 2019 .53 .28

expect the best.
2020 .53 .28

4. I’m always optimistic about my 2019 .67 .45

future.
2020 .65 .42
10. Overall, I expect more good 2019 .63 .40
things to happen to me than bad.
 42

2020 .62 .38

3. If something can go wrong for 2019 .68 .46
me, it will.
2020 .64 .41
7. I hardly ever expect good 2019 .68 .46
things to go my way.
2020 .64 .41
9. I rarely count on good things 2019 .72 .52
happening to me.
2020 .70 .49
Eigenvalue 4.97
% of Total Variance 41.38
Total Variance 41.38%
Note. Principal component analysis as extraction method

The Bartlett Test and the KMO resulted in adequacy. Regarding the results in table 3,

every item had high factor loadings besides item 1 (“In uncertain times, I usually expect the

best”) of 2019 (.53) and 2020 (.53).

Table 4

Results of two Exploratory Factor Analyses Including all Recommendation Items and the

Selected Recommendations With Varimax Rotation

In your opinion, how effective Factors Factor

are the following actions for
protecting yourself against the Communality 1 Communality
coronavirus? 1 2 3
Avoiding cafes and restaurants .85 .01 .01 .72 .84 .71
Avoiding public spaces, .78 .10 .06 .63 .79 .63
gatherings, and crowds
Avoiding the use of public .73 .00 .08 .54 .73 .53
transportation
Avoiding contact with people .72 .03 -.02 .52 .71 .51
who could be high-risk
Avoiding hospitals and clinics .67 .06 -.06 .46 .68 .46
Washing your hands with soap .52 .19 .24 .37 .56 .31
or using hand sanitizer
frequently
Seeing a doctor if you feel -.07 .83 .16 .72
healthy, but worry that you
were exposed to the virus
Seeing a doctor if you feel .26 .81 -.06 .73
sick
Praying -.02 -.02 .75 .56
 43

Wearing a face mask .10 .11 .71 .52

Eigenvalue 3.30 1.41 1.05 3.14

% of Total Variance 33.02 14.05 10.54 52.4
Total Variance 57.61% 52.4%
Note. Principal component analysis as extraction method

The Bartlett Test and the KMO assured adequacy for both EFAs. Four items with small factor

loadings were identified (see table 4): “Wearing a face mask” (.10), “Praying” (-.02), “Seeing

a doctor if you feel sick” (.26) and “Seeing a doctor if you feel healthy but you worry you were

exposed to the virus” (-.07). Each of these items was constructed conditionally which could be

the reason why they form a new factor. Face masks, for instance, were not mandatory at the

time of the study conduction, praying might only be effective for religious people and the last

two items are composed as conditional if-sentences. After removing the conditional items, a

new PCA resulted in one factor with factor loadings >.60, besides the item “Washing your

hands with soap or using hand sanitizer frequently” (.56).

Table 5

Results of the K-S Test

df D p
Optimism 19 487 .06 <.001
Optimism 20 487 .07 <.001
Overall Well-Being 487 .05 .006
Recommendations 487 .13 <.001

Table 6

Unstandardized Coefficients (CE), T-Values and Confidence Intervals (CI) of the Simple

Mediation Analyses with Optimism 2019 as Independent Variable

Mediation CE t(485) p CI
Lower Higher
Well-Being
a path .012 1.83 .068 -.000 .025
b path -.004 -.08 .938 -.107 .099
c path .089 11.85 .000 .074 .103
c’ path .089 11.86 .000 .074 .103
 44

indirect .000 -.002 .001

Emotional WB
a path .012 1.83 .068 -.001 .025
b path .053 .79 .432 -.079 .185
c path .114 11.94 .000 .095 .133
c’ path .113 11.93 .000 .095 .132
indirect .001 -.001 .003
Social WB
a path .012 1.83 .068 -.001 .025
b path -.052 -.79 .428 -.182 .077
c path .064 7.19 .000 .046 .081
c’ path .064 7.23 .000 .047 .082
indirect -.001 -.003 .001
Psychological WB
a path .012 1.83 .068 -.001 .025
b path .008 .13 .898 -.109 .125
c path .097 11.21 .000 .080 .114
c’ path .097 11.24 .000 .080 .114
indirect .000 -.002 .002

Table 7

Unstandardized Coefficients (CE), T-Values and Confidence Intervals (CI) of the Simple

Mediation Analyses with Change Score as Independent Variable

Mediation CE t(485) p CI
Lower Higher
Well-Being
a path -.016 -1.68 .093 -.035 .003
b path .048 .81 .419 -.068 .163
c path .010 .74 .458 -.016 .035
c’ path .010 .79 .425 -.015 .036
indirect -.000 -.004 .001
Emotional WB
a path -.016 -1.68 .093 -.035 .003
b path .114 1.48 .140 -.038 .265
c path -.003 -.19 .847 -.038 .031
c’ path -.001 -.09 .931 -.036 .031
indirect -.002 -.006 .001
Social WB
a path -.016 -1.68 .093 -.035 .003
b path -.010 -.15 .880 -.143 .123
c path .022 1.50 .136 -.007 .052
c’ path .022 1.49 .137 -.007 .052
indirect .000 -.003 .003
 45

Psychological WB
a path -.016 -.168 .093 -.035 .003
b path .062 .95 .344 -.067 .192
c path .006 .40 .689 -.022 .034
c’ path .007 .47 .640 -.022 .035
indirect -.001 -.004 .001

Table 8

Unstandardized Coefficients (CE), T-Values and Confidence Intervals (CI) of the Simple

Mediation Analyses with Integration of Covariates

Mediation CE t(482) p CI
Lower Higher
Optimism –
recommendations
Age .004 2.75 .006 .001 .006
Gender .011 2.05 .041 .004 .210
Education -.032 -1.97 .049 -.065 -.000
Optimism –
Recommendation -
Well-Being
Age -.003 -2.10 .036 -.006 -.000
Gender .303 .497 .620 -.090 .150
Education .030 1.58 .115 -.007 .067
Change Score –
Recommendations
Age .004 2.71 .007 .001 .006
Gender .108 2.07 .039 .005 .211
Education -.027 -1.66 .097 -.059 .005
Change Score –
Recommendations
Well-Being
Age -.003 -1.49 .136 -.006 .001
Gender .023 .37 .744 -.114 .159
Education .060 2.88 .004 .019 .102
 46

Figure 4

Distribution of the Variables with Normal Distribution Curve

Figure 5

Scatterplot and Normal Q-Q Plot of the Standardized Residuals From the Regression of

Optimism 2019 on Well-being

 47

Figure 6

Scatterplot and Normal Q-Q Plot of the Standardized Residuals From the Regression of

Optimism 2019 on Recommendations

Figure 7

Scatterplot and Normal Q-Q Plot of the Standardized Residuals From the Regression of

Recommendations on Well-being

Figure 8

Scatterplot and Normal Q-Q Plot of the Standardized Residuals From the Regression of

Optimism 2019 + Recommendations on Well-Being

 48

Figure 9

Scatterplot and Normal Q-Q Plot of the Standardized Residuals From the Regression of

Change Score on Well-Being

Figure 10

Scatterplot and Normal Q-Q Plot of the Standardized Residuals From the Regression of

Change Score on Recommendations

Figure 11

Scatterplot and Normal Q-Q Plot of the Standardized Residuals From the Regression of

Change Score + Recommendations on Well-Being