Questions to reflect on
- Why do I so quickly think, after a setback, that things will never work out again?
- Why does one problem sometimes feel like everything is going wrong all at once?
- Why do I so quickly blame myself when something goes wrong?
- Why can a new setback sometimes feel like proof that “this is just how it always goes” for me?
- Can I learn to see problems as less permanent and less all-encompassing?
- Does thinking optimistically mean I have to ignore negative facts?
- What is the difference between realistic optimism and fooling myself?
- Can the way I think about setbacks change, even if I’ve thought this way for years?
- What is learned optimism?
Learned optimism is not simply about positive thinking.
It also does not mean telling yourself:
Everything will be okay.
It is mainly about how you explain why something happens, especially when you experience a setback.
The concept became especially well known through the work of the American psychologist Martin Seligman.
Seligman built on research into learned helplessness: the phenomenon where people or animals, after repeated experiences of little control, can come to expect that their actions won’t make any difference anyway.
Later, attention shifted in part to the question:
why does one person respond to a setback with “this will never work out,” while another thinks “this is hard, but maybe something can still change”?
An important part of that became the explanatory style: the way someone assigns causes and meaning to events.
Three ways a setback can grow bigger
Within the model of learned optimism, three dimensions are mainly distinguished.
After a setback, thoughts can, for example, go in this direction:
PERMANENT
“This will always be this way.”
PERVASIVE
“This means everything is going wrong.”
PERSONAL
“This proves there is something
wrong with me.”For example:
You are turned down for a job.
A pessimistic explanation might be:
Permanent:
I’ll never find a good job.
Pervasive:
My whole life is going wrong.
Personal:
Nobody wants me because I’m not good enough.
Learned optimism does not mean you automatically have to believe the opposite.
It means you ask yourself:
are these conclusions actually true?
From permanent to changeable
A problem can be serious right now without necessarily lasting forever.
Instead of:
This will always be this way.
you can ask yourself:
Do I really know that this is permanent?
Maybe a situation is temporary.
Maybe it can change.
Maybe you simply don’t yet know how it will develop.
That does not mean you should tell yourself:
Everything will be fixed next week.
You are not replacing negative certainty with positive certainty.
You are simply leaving room for what you do not yet know.
“This will always be this way”
does not become:
“Everything will definitely be okay”
but:
“I don’t yet know
how this will develop.”From pervasive to specific
A problem in one area can sometimes start to feel like proof that your whole life is a failure.
For example, your relationship falls apart and you think:
Everything is ruined.
But maybe you still have: a good relationship with your children, a friend who cares about you, a home, work, talents, health in certain areas, or opportunities that have nothing to do with this relationship.
That does not make the sadness smaller.
You are simply distinguishing between:
“This part of my life hurts terribly.”
and:
“My whole life is ruined.”
Those are not the same statement.
From fully personal to multiple causes
When something goes wrong, people often look for a cause. Some people almost automatically look for that cause in themselves:
It’s my fault.
But events often have multiple causes. In a rejected job application, for example, it may have played a role that:
another candidate had more experience; there were very many applicants; the employer was looking for a specific profile; your interview could have been better; there was already an internal candidate; your presentation may have played a role; chance played a part.
Sometimes you really did do something wrong.
Learned optimism does not mean denying that. It means preventing:
“I could have handled this better”
from automatically turning into:
“I’m worthless.”
Learned optimism does not mean you absolve yourself
This is an important nuance. Sometimes a problem lies partly or largely with you. Maybe you: failed to keep an appointment, didn’t study enough, hurt someone, ignored a warning, or made the wrong judgment call.
Realistic optimism does not then say:
I can’t help it.
Instead, it may say:
“My behavior contributed to this. That means I can change something.”
That can even be more hopeful than:
“That’s just the way I am.”
Because behavior can often change more easily than a judgment about your whole personality.
Why can our brains draw such big conclusions?
People are constantly trying to understand why things happen. That helps us predict what may happen in the future. But our explanations are not always purely objective records of facts. Experiences, expectations, mood, upbringing, and repetition can influence the way we interpret events. When someone has often experienced or expected situations to end badly, a new setback can quickly feel like confirmation:
See? This always happens to me.
A pattern can then easily develop:
SETBACK
↓
old expectation
↓
“see, I told you so”
↓
general conclusion
↓
less hope / less action
↓
less chance of
new experiencesOne event can thus quietly start to seem like proof for a much bigger conclusion.
But an explanatory style is not fixed character
An explanatory style can become quite familiar and automatic. Still, that does not mean someone has to keep thinking in exactly the same way forever. You can learn to distinguish between:
what actually happened
and:
what you conclude from it.
For example:
FACT
“I was turned down
for this job.”
INTERPRETATION
“No one will ever
hire me.”The first you know. The second is a prediction. That distinction is precisely what creates room to examine a thought again.
An example from everyday life
You apply for a job you really want. You get rejected. Your first thought is:
See? Nobody wants me. I’ll never get a good job.
That may feel completely logical. But in reality, all you know is:
This employer did not hire me for this position.
You may not yet know: why, how strong the other candidates were, whether you came close to being selected, or whether another employer will be interested. A more realistic thought might therefore be:
This application didn’t work out. That’s incredibly disappointing. I still don’t know exactly why. Maybe someone else was a better fit, maybe I can improve something, and a future application could go differently.
The rejection is still real. The disappointment is still real. What disappears is only the unproven conclusion:
“So my future is decided.”
Optimism is not the same as wishful thinking
This distinction is important.
Wishful thinking:
It’ll definitely be fine.
There does not have to be any evidence for that.
Unrealistic optimism:
Nothing serious will happen to me.
That can be risky too.
Realistic optimism:
This is hard. I don’t know how it will turn out. But this one event does not prove that it will always stay this way, and I can look into where I still have influence.
PESSIMISTIC CERTAINTY
“It will never work out.”
WISHFUL THINKING
“It will definitely work out.”
REALISTIC OPTIMISM
“I don’t know yet.
What are the facts,
possibilities, and things
I can influence?”That last one comes closest to what is meant by learned optimism.
Optimism does not mean every problem can be solved
Some situations cannot be undone. A loved one can die. An illness can be chronic. A relationship can be over for good. A family member may choose to have no more contact. Then:
This is temporary
would not necessarily be realistic.
Learned optimism therefore does not mean that you must describe every situation as temporary at all costs. For example, you could think:
“This loss is permanent, but the current intensity of my grief does not have to stay the same forever.”
Or:
“I cannot change this event, but other parts of my life can still develop.”
So optimism is not necessarily about changing the event. Sometimes it is about the possibility that your life can still change around that event.
Is learned optimism a diagnosis?
No.
Learned optimism is not a psychiatric diagnosis.
It is a psychological concept and a way of looking at explanatory styles and expectations. Someone who regularly uses pessimistic explanations does not automatically have a mental disorder. Nor is a pessimistic assessment automatically wrong. Sometimes it is a serious situation. Sometimes the risk is high. Sometimes a person is truly responsible. The central question is not:
“Am I thinking positively?”
but:
“Does my conclusion fit the available facts?”
The relationship with learned helplessness
Learned optimism is closely linked to the older concept of learned helplessness. With learned helplessness, after repeated experiences of little control, someone may come to expect:
“What I do doesn’t make any difference anyway.”
That can lead to less initiative. Learned optimism asks again:
Is there really nowhere I can have any influence?
Maybe you can’t change the whole situation. But maybe you can influence one part of it.
“I can’t do anything about this”
can sometimes become:
“I can’t change everything,
but I can change this one part.”That small difference can be important.
How can this happen within close-knit or highly structured groups?
Within religious, social, political, and other close-knit groups, clear explanations for right and wrong, success and setbacks can provide a lot of certainty. As a result, events can quickly take on a fixed meaning. That does not necessarily have to be negative. A religious explanation can give someone hope, comfort, and meaning, for example. But fixed patterns of explanation can also keep operating when someone starts to doubt or leaves a group. A difficult period can, for example, trigger thoughts such as:
Maybe this is happening because I made the wrong choice.
Maybe this is my own fault.
Maybe this proves that things will end badly for me.
A former Jehovah’s Witness, for example, may think after a series of setbacks:
“Maybe this is happening because I left Jehovah.”
Someone who still believes may see the same events as proof that returning is the solution. But the event itself does not automatically prove which religious explanation is correct. Another question can therefore be:
What actually happened, and what meaning am I then giving to that event?
It works the other way around too
Learned optimism is not about replacing a religious explanation by automatically taking the opposite explanation. A former member can also start thinking too broadly. For example:
Everything in that community was bad.
Every active Witness is unhappy.
Every setback a Witness experiences proves that the system is harmful.
Here too, the same applies: one experience does not automatically prove a universal conclusion. Critical thinking therefore means asking the same questions on all sides.
Not every pattern comes from religion
A pessimistic explanatory style can arise from all kinds of experiences.
Think of:
upbringing;
perfectionism;
bullying;
repeated rejection;
long-term stress;
loss;
little sense of control;
difficult relationships;
disappointments;
anxiety or low mood;
personality and temperament.
That is why it is usually too simple to say afterwards:
“This is caused by one thing.”
Especially in an article about explanatory style, it is important not to draw that conclusion too quickly either.
Words that can warn you
Pay attention to words like:
always
never
everything
no one
everyone
These words are not automatically wrong. Sometimes they are literally correct.
But they can be a signal that you are jumping from one event to a much bigger conclusion. For example:
I’ve had three job rejections.
can quietly become:
No one wants me.
That is a much bigger statement.
Five questions that can help
When you notice a setback becoming very large in your mind, you can examine five things.
1. Is this really permanent?
Do I know this will always stay this way, or does it just feel that way?
2. Is this really all-encompassing?
Does this affect my whole life or mainly one important part?
3. Is this completely personal?
Is it only because of me, or are multiple factors involved?
4. What do I know and what am I predicting?
Which parts are facts and which parts are expectations?
5. What do I still have influence over?
Maybe not everything, but is there one concrete next step?
From thinking to acting
Simply formulating a different thought is not always enough. New experiences can be important. If you think:
I’m never going to get a job anyway
a small step could be:
sending one new application,
asking for feedback,
having your CV reviewed,
or practicing a conversation.
Not because that proves everything will work out.
But because you give yourself new information.
Maybe it turns out:
“My prediction was not the only possible outcome.”
What if your thought is largely correct?
That can happen too. Maybe the chance of something is truly small. Maybe you’ve already tried many times to change something. Maybe you have little influence. Then optimism does not have to mean:
“It will work out in the end.”
It can also mean:
“This possibility is limited. What other direction is still possible?”
Realistic optimism therefore always remains tied to reality.
Learned optimism and self-image
An important pitfall arises when events turn into statements about identity. For example:
Event:
I made a mistake.
Identity:
I’m a failure.
Or:
Event:
This person does not want a relationship with me.
Identity:
I’m not worthy of being loved.
Learned optimism can help separate those two again.
WHAT I DID
is not automatically the same as
WHO I AMYou can take responsibility for behavior without making your entire identity collapse into it.
When is optimism not helpful?
Optimism becomes unhelpful when it causes someone to:
ignore real dangers;
minimize medical complaints;
fail to face financial problems;
keep waiting without taking action;
excuse other people’s harmful behavior;
believe that a positive attitude alone is enough.
Then optimism turns into denial or wishful thinking.
A realistic approach therefore always requires two things:
HOPE
and
FACTSCan you really learn this?
The idea behind learned optimism is that explanatory styles are not completely fixed.
People can learn to recognize their automatic conclusions, examine evidence for and against them, and formulate alternative explanations.
That is similar to techniques also used in cognitive behavioral therapy.
That does not mean everyone can easily become optimistic by saying a few sentences to themselves.
Long-standing patterns can be stubborn.
Circumstances, mental health, and real problems also play a role.
But the thought:
“My first explanation does not have to be my best explanation automatically”
can be practiced.
A simple exercise
When something goes wrong, write down four lines:
1. WHAT HAPPENED?
Just the facts.
2. WHAT DID I THINK RIGHT AWAY?
My automatic explanation.
3. WHAT DON'T I KNOW?
Uncertainties and other
possible explanations.
4. WHAT CAN I DO NOW?
One concrete step.For example:
FACT
My girlfriend
still hasn't replied.
AUTOMATIC THOUGHT
She doesn't want anything
to do with me anymore.
WHAT DON'T I KNOW?
Why she isn't responding.
POSSIBLE STEP
Wait and get in touch
calmly later.The point is not to automatically choose a positive explanation.
The point is to keep multiple possibilities open as long as the facts allow it.
Questions to reflect on
- What negative prediction do I make regularly?
- Do I use words like “always,” “never,” “everything,” “nobody,” or “everyone” in doing so?
- Is my conclusion a fact or an expectation?
- Do I quietly turn one problem into a judgment about my whole life?
- Do I turn one mistake into a judgment about who I am as a person?
- Do I assume a problem is permanent while I still can’t know that?
- Do I assume one problem automatically determines other areas of my life?
- Do I blame myself completely while there may be several causes?
- What other explanation also fits the facts?
- What do I still not know?
- Where do I truly have no influence?
- Where might I still have a little influence?
- Am I trying to think realistically, or am I mainly trying to reassure myself?
- What conclusion would I draw if the same thing happened to someone else?
- What could still change?
Summary
Learned optimism does not mean believing that everything will eventually work out.
It is about the way we explain setbacks. A pessimistic explanatory style can easily view an event as: permanent – this will always be this way;
pervasive – this causes everything to go wrong; completely personal – this proves there is something wrong with me. Learned optimism then asks: Is that really true?
Maybe a situation can change rather than being permanent.
Maybe a problem affects one important area of life, not your whole life.
Maybe you had some influence on what happened, but there were other causes too. Sometimes a problem really is permanent or serious. In that case, realistic optimism does not need to deny reality. It can mean asking what can still change despite that reality.
The difference from wishful thinking is important:
WISHFUL THINKING
“Everything will be fine.”
LEARNED OPTIMISM
“I don’t know exactly
how this will turn out.
Which conclusion is
supported by the facts?
And where do I still have
influence?”So you do not simply replace negative thoughts with positive ones. You learn to examine them. That does not automatically make the problem disappear. But the thought:
“This will always stay this way, ruin everything, and prove that there is something wrong with me”
no longer has to be accepted as truth without examination.
Sources and further reading
Martin E.P. Seligman – Learned Optimism, 1990. A well-known work in which Seligman describes how optimistic and pessimistic explanatory styles can develop and how people can learn to examine them.
Lyn Y. Abramson, Martin E.P. Seligman & John D. Teasdale – Learned Helplessness in Humans: Critique and Reformulation, 1978, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49–59. An influential scientific article linking learned helplessness to the way people explain the causes of events.
Gregory Buchanan & Martin E.P. Seligman (eds.) – Explanatory Style, 1995. Scientific background on explanatory styles and the interpretation of positive and negative events.
Christopher Peterson, Amy Semmel, Carl von Baeyer, Lyn Abramson, Gerald Metalsky & Martin Seligman – The Attributional Style Questionnaire, 1982. Research into measuring differences in the way people explain the causes of positive and negative events.
