Peter Wagogo

 Impact of Optimism on Relationships Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Impact of Optimism on Relationships Introduction Optimism, a positive outlook on life and future events, has emerged as a significant psychological trait influencing interpersonal relationships and overall well-being. This research project explores the effects of optimism on relationships, examining its role in fostering healthy interactions, emotional stability, and long-term relational satisfaction. Previous studies have underscored optimism’s potential to shape favorable expectancies, ultimately contributing to more resilient and satisfying connections between individuals (Assad, Donnellan, & Conger, 2007). This study examines the impact of optimism on relationships by investigating whether the impact of optimism on relationships differs by gender. Srivastava and Angelo (2009) emphasized that optimism brings about positive outcomes in relationships by encouraging favorable expectancies. Optimistic individuals are more likely to pursue their relationship goals flexibly and persistently, fostering constructive interactions with their partners. The study highlights that optimism correlates with traits like secure attachment and reduced fear of negative evaluation, suggesting multiple pathways to positive relational outcomes. Furthermore, therapeutic approaches that revise irrational or pessimistic beliefs can help individuals cultivate optimism, enabling them to experience the relational benefits enjoyed by natural optimists. Koga et al. (2022) expanded on the broader implications of optimism, linking it to physical and emotional well-being. A longitudinal study of over 159,000 postmenopausal women revealed that optimism is associated with a 5.4% longer lifespan and a 10% greater likelihood of living beyond 90 years. These findings suggest that optimism positively affects life expectancy across diverse racial and ethnic categories, with its influence extending beyond demographic or lifestyle factors. While not directly focused on relationships, this study underscores optimism’s far-reaching benefits, which likely extend to fostering healthier, more enduring bonds. Additionally, the findings align with questions in the developed questionnaire, which investigates participants' perceptions of optimism’s impact on stress, interpersonal interactions, and psychological health. By analyzing these responses, the study seeks to contribute to the growing literature on how optimism facilitates trust, resilience, and emotional intimacy in relationships, ultimately offering practical insights for personal development and relational success. Methodology Participants The study involved 30 participants, evenly divided by gender, with 15 females and 15 males. The respondents were aged between 18 and 50 years, ensuring a diverse representation of age groups within this range. All participants were students at the university where the research was conducted, providing a convenient sample for the study. Materials Data were collected using a questionnaire specifically designed for this research. The questionnaire comprised seven items addressing key aspects of optimism and its impact on relationships. The response format varied depending on the question, with Likert scales ranging from 5-point, 7-point, and 9-point options. These scales allowed participants to rate their opinions and indicate their level of agreement, disagreement, or neutrality regarding the statements. The questions aimed to measure attitudes toward optimism, perceived interpersonal acceptance or rejection, and agreement with statements about optimism's psychological and relational effects (see Appendix I). Procedure Data collection was conducted through direct communication with the participants. I approached students on campus and explained the purpose of the study, emphasizing its voluntary nature. Interested individuals were asked to participate by completing the questionnaire. The participants provided their responses in a private setting to ensure honesty and confidentiality. After completing the questionnaire, the responses were collected and securely stored for analysis. The straightforward approach facilitated efficient data collection while maintaining ethical standards of informed consent and participant confidentiality. Results Table 1 Descriptive Statistics Statistic Female Male Mean- Median 24 23 Mode 30 24 Standard Deviation- Kurtosis -1.074 -0.844 Skewness - Minimum 16 15 Maximum 30 32 The average score for females is 23.867, slightly higher than the average score for males. The average score for males is 23.200 (See Table 1). This suggests that females scored marginally higher on the measure being assessed. The median score for females is 24, indicating that half of the female participants scored above 24 and half below it. The median score for males is 23, showing a slightly lower central tendency compared to females. The most frequent score for females is 30, suggesting that a relatively high score appeared most often among female participants. The most frequent score for males is 24, which is lower than that of females, showing a different distribution of scores. The standard deviation for female score is 4.984, indicating moderate variability in female scores around the mean. The standard deviation for male score is 5.267, slightly higher than that of females, suggesting that male scores are more spread out around their mean. Kurtosis for female score is -1.074, indicating a platykurtic distribution (flatter than a normal curve), meaning the data have lighter tails and less extreme values. Kurtosis for male score is -0.844, also platykurtic but slightly less so than for females, indicating a flatter distribution with a similar spread. Skewness for female score is -0.404, showing a slight negative skew, meaning that scores are marginally more concentrated on the higher end. On the other hand, the skewness of female scores is 0.205, indicating a slight positive skew, meaning scores are marginally more concentrated on the lower end. Female scores range from 16 (minimum) to 30 (maximum) whereas male scores range from 15 (minimum) to 32 (maximum). Males have a slightly broader range of scores than females, with a higher maximum value. All in all, females exhibit a slightly higher average score and central tendency, with less variability compared to males. Both distributions are relatively flat (platykurtic), but females show a slight negative skew while males exhibit a slight positive skew. The range of scores for males is broader, which could indicate greater diversity in responses. Table 2 Frequency Distribution Classes Frequency Female Frequency Male 6 to 7 0 0 8 to 9 0 0 10 to 11 0 0 12 to 13 0 0 14 to 15 0 1 16 to 17 3 1 18 to 19 1 2 20 to 21 0 2 22 to 23 2 2 24 to 25 2 2 26 to 27 3 2 28 to 29 1 0 30 to 31 3 2 Figure 1 Frequency Polygon for Female Scores Figure 2 Frequency Polygon for Male Scores The frequency of scores starts at 0 for lower class intervals (6 to 13) and begins to rise at the 16–17 interval, reaching a peak of 3 at the 16–17 and 26–27 intervals (see Table 2 and Figure 1). Another high point occurs at the 30–31 interval, with a frequency of 3. The female frequency polygon would have a sharp rise from 16–17 to 26–27, a dip at 28–29, and a subsequent rise at 30–31. The frequency polygon for females demonstrates more variation, with three distinct peaks (16–17, 26–27, and 30–31) and lower frequencies in the middle intervals (18–19, 22–23). This suggests a more clustered concentration of scores at certain intervals. The male scores show a gradual increase starting from 14–15 (frequency = 1) and peak at multiple intervals: 18–19, 20–21, 22–23, 24–25, and 26–27 (frequency = 2), see Table 2 and Figure 2. Unlike females, the male frequency polygon would be flatter and more evenly distributed, with frequencies consistently at 2 from 18–19 to 26–27, and a slight dip at 28–29 (frequency = 0). The male polygon is more consistent, with frequencies spread more evenly across intervals, though it drops to zero at 28–29. This indicates a more uniform distribution of scores across the intervals. Table 3 Independent Sample t-test t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances   Female Male Mean 23.867 23.2 Variance- Observations 15 15 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0   df 28   t Stat-   P(T<=t) one-tail-   t Critical one-tail-   P(T<=t) two-tail-   t Critical two-tail-   We fail to reject the null hypothesis of insignificant difference in mean at 5 % because the p-value 0.724 (two-tailed test) is greater than 0.05. This confirms lack of significant difference in mean of score for males and females. Hence, the impact of optimism on relationships does not differ by gender. Discussion The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the impact of optimism on relationships and highlight the absence of significant differences based on gender. The descriptive statistics reveal that the mean optimism scores for females (23.867) and males (23.200) were quite similar, with only a minimal difference. This similarity was further confirmed by the independent samples t-test, which found no significant difference between the groups (t (28) = 0.356, p > 0.05). The lack of statistical significance suggests that optimism influences relationships in a comparable manner for both genders, aligning with the hypothesis that optimism is a universal trait with similar effects across diverse populations. The frequency distributions and frequency polygons for both genders revealed a normal distribution of scores, with most participants scoring in the mid-to-high range of optimism. This distribution indicates that both females and males tend to exhibit moderate to high levels of optimism, consistent with findings by Srivastava and Angelo (2009), who emphasized that optimism promotes favorable expectancies and positive relationship outcomes. Additionally, Tang Koga et al. (2022) research on optimism's association with longer lifespans and well-being indirectly supports the notion that optimism can foster healthier interpersonal interactions, regardless of demographic variables like gender. These results also align with previous research suggesting that optimism correlates with lower levels of stress, anxiety, and negative interpersonal interactions. The findings from the Likert scale questionnaire further reinforce these points, with both male and female participants agreeing that optimism is associated with reduced stress and better emotional regulation in relationships. In conclusion, this study indicates that the impact of optimism on relationships does not differ significantly by gender. Optimism appears to function as a key factor in promoting positive interpersonal dynamics and relationship satisfaction universally. Future research could explore additional variables, such as cultural or contextual influences, to further elucidate the mechanisms through which optimism benefits relationships. References Assad, K. K., Donnellan, M. B., & Conger, R. D. (2007). Optimism: An enduring resource for romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 285-297. Koga, H. et al. (2022). Optimism lengthens life, study finds. Health. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/06/optimism-lengthens-life-study-finds/ Srivastava, S., & Angelo, K. M. (2009). Optimism, effects on relationships. In H. T. Reis and S. K. Sprecher (Eds.), Encyclopedia of human relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Appendix I: Questionnaire Q1. What is your gender? 1 Male 2 Female Q2. How can you rate your acceptance by other people on a scale of 1 to 9? (1 = Strongly Unaccepted, 9 = Strongly Accepted- Q3. How can you rate your rejection by other people on a scale of 1 to 9? (1 = Weakly Rejected, 9 = Strongly Rejected- Q4. Rate your agreement with the statement: “Optimists tend to have somewhat higher levels of extraversion and self-esteem” on a scale of 1 to 7: 1 (Strongly Disagree) 2 (Disagree) 3 (Somewhat Disagree) 4 (Neutral) 5 (Somewhat Agree) 6 (Agree) 7 (Strongly Agree) Q5. Rate your agreement with the statement: “Optimists tend to have lower levels of neuroticism, stress, anxiety, and hopelessness” on a scale of 1 to 7: 1 (Strongly Disagree) 2 (Disagree) 3 (Somewhat Disagree) 4 (Neutral) 5 (Somewhat Agree) 6 (Agree) 7 (Strongly Agree) Q6. Rate your agreement with the statement: “Optimism is correlated with lower depression, fewer mood disturbances, and fewer negative interpersonal interactions” on a scale of 1 to 5: 1 (Strongly Disagree) 2 (Disagree) 3 (Neutral) 4 (Agree) 5 (Strongly Agree) Q7. Rate your agreement with the statement: “Optimism negatively affects stress during major life transitions” on a scale of 1 to 5: 1 (Strongly Disagree) 2 (Disagree) 3 (Neutral) 4 (Agree) 5 (Strongly Agree)