Abstract
Background
Enhancing and maintaining well-being is of great importance for university students to improve their future lives. Therefore, determining the factors that promote well-being is essential. This study aimed to examine the mediating roles of optimism and pessimism in the association between future anxiety and well-being after controlling gender, age, faculty, and department.
Methods
1024 undergraduate students participated in the study. The mean age of students was 20.27 years (SD = 2.02). Preliminary analyses were conducted to determine descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, normality, and correlation coefficients between study variables. Mediation analyses were performed to investigate the mediating roles of optimism and pessimism in the association between future anxiety and well-being.
Results
The results of the study showed that future anxiety was positively associated with pessimism, and negatively associated with optimism, positive emotions, engagement, positive relationships, meaning and accomplishment. Optimism had a positive relationship with the constructs of well-being model, and pessimism had a negative relationship with the pillars of well-being. Optimism and pessimism served as mediators in the link between future anxiety and well-being.
Conclusion
The findings of this study indicate that students who are anxious about the future are less optimistic and more pessimistic, which in turn leads to lower well-being. The current study suggests that future-oriented thinking and individual strengths, including optimism, should be incorporated into the mental health management of university administrations to promote the well-being of university students.
Keywords: Future anxiety, Optimism, Pessimism, Well-being, University students
Introduction
As human life expectancies continue to rise, there has been growing interest in understanding how it is possible for individuals to live better lives, and theories and studies on well-being have also gained momentum. Seligman [1]’s theory of well-being posits that there are five distinct dimensions of well-being. The dimensions of positive emotions (P), engagement (E), positive relationships (R), meaning (M) and accomplishment (A) form the acronym PERMA. Positive emotions are associated with good feelings such as pleasure, hope, comfort, happiness, and warmth. Engagement is about intense attention that uses all the cognitive and emotional resources that generate thoughts and feelings. Relationships refer to having close interpersonal relationships, that is, the feeling of being cared for by others, being connected to others, and being secure in these connections. Meaning is related to a purpose in life derived from something you believe is greater than the self. Accomplishment is associated with pursuing success, achievement, winning, and mastery for its own sake. Increasing positive emotions, engagement, positive relationships, meaning and accomplishment support well-being [1]. In addition, Seligman [1] and Butler and Kern [2] stated that the concepts of well-being and flourishing are interrelated and are often used interchangeably. Accordingly, these terms have also been used interchangeably in this study.
The pillars of PERMA model led to greater well-being and resilience, and fewer symptoms of mental illness [3]. PERMA well-being variables, especially positive emotions, engagement, and meaning in life, were potential mechanisms reducing psychological distress [4]. These flourishing aspects have a positive impact on individuals and are considered as a protective factor against mental ill-health. In addition, the PERMA model-based psychological intervention programs improved quality of life [5] and psychological well-being [6]. The structures of the PERMA model supported healthy youth development [7]. Therefore, promoting and maintaining individual well-being is essential for individuals.
Future anxiety refers to a state in which an individual feels tension, uncertainty, and anxiety about the possibility of negative changes in the future. People who suffer from future anxiety perceive future events as frightening and as leading to negative changes [8]. Future anxiety stems from attitudes toward the future in which negative cognitive and emotional processes preponderate, and fear is much stronger than hope [9]. In the literature, there are studies regarding the adverse consequences of experiencing future anxiety. For example, individuals with greater future anxiety were more intolerant of uncertainty, which increased anxiety levels and exacerbated psychological distress [10]. Negative thoughts about the future undermined individuals’ mental well-being [11]. Future anxiety harmed the health-related quality of life [12]. Worry about the future led to low well-being and multiple health complaints, including headaches, stomach aches and feeling dizzy [13]. Anxiety about natural disasters such as earthquakes negatively affected well-being [14]. These studies demonstrate the inverse relationship between future anxiety and well-being in many ways. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the factors mediating this relationship.
Mediating roles of optimism and pessimism
Optimism and pessimism are personality traits that have effects on various aspects of human experience. Optimism refers to positive expectations about future outcomes, while pessimism refers to negative expectations [15]. Optimistic individuals had high life satisfaction, but pessimistic individuals suffered from psychological distress [16]. While highly optimistic individuals had higher psychological well-being and subjective well-being and better physical and mental health, the opposite was true for highly pessimistic individuals [17–19]. High future anxiety led to greater pessimism in predicting how future solutions would be found to the problems encountered [9], and pessimism had a negative association with the well-being of individuals [20]. Optimism was also beneficial in many life domains, including goal-pursuing behavior, developing social networks and relationships, and emotional well-being [21] which are related with the PERMA well-being model.
In Expectancy-Value Theory, Carver and Scheier [22] posit that human behavior is essentially directed toward the pursuit of goals, which include three key elements: goal importance, expectancy of goal attainment, and psychological engagement and motivation to achieve the goal. In situations where possible obstacles and adversities must be eliminated, the motivation to continue engaging in goal-oriented behavior is related to the perceived importance and value of the goal and the subjective expectation that this goal can be achieved. Optimists expect positive outcomes because they are confident that their goals can be achieved despite these possible obstacles and adversities. Pessimists give up achieving their goals because they lack confidence and expect negative outcomes [23]. In addition, in challenging situations, optimistic individuals adapt better, but pessimistic individuals perceive the situation as more difficult and requiring more effort [24]. Having high levels of optimism and low levels of pessimism (hereafter referred to as ‘high optimism - low pessimism’) has beneficial effects through both reducing the impact of negative events and increasing positive events [21]. Therefore, I supposed that these two personality traits may mediate the negative effects of future anxiety on well-being.
In addition to this theoretical support, many studies have proven the mediating role of optimism and pessimism. High coronavirus stress was associated with lower optimism and higher pessimism, which was related to a higher possibility of experiencing depression [25]. Individuals with high level of concern reported lower optimism and higher pessimism, which was related to poor physical and mental health [26]. In stressful situations, individuals’ low spirituality was associated with higher pessimism, which gave them time to think negatively about themselves, and this was related to reduced psychological well-being [27]. Individuals with a high level of stress reported lower optimism and hope, which was associated with less subjective well-being [28].
University years are a period that offers students many opportunities when well-being is built. For example, students with better well-being tended to be more engaged academically, and well-being was a potentially positive resource for them [29]. A systematic review study found that PERMA well-being contributes to innovative work behaviors, such as leadership styles, corporate citizenship behaviors, job characteristics, job design, organizational support, personality, trust, and justice [30], which are characteristics that today’s college students need to have in their future work lives. However, students’ anxiety about the future may prevent them from achieving these opportunities and undermine their well-being. Therefore, the current study aimed to examine the relationship between future anxiety and constructs of well-being. Understanding in detail how this anxiety affects students’ well-being levels through the components of the PERMA model is critical for developing individual and societal interventions. Optimism and pessimism are fundamental cognitive frameworks that determine how individuals perceive the future. These two variables may be key to understanding individuals’ coping mechanisms against future anxiety and to explain in detail the impact of this anxiety on well-being, which can provide guidance for educators and mental health practitioners to promote well-being in educational and social settings.
Present study
The Expectancy-Value Theory proposes that the fundamental factors that determine individuals’ behavior and motivation are the expectation of succeeding at a particular task (expectancy) and the perceived value of that success (value) [31]. Optimists who perceive desired outcomes as attainable continue to strive to achieve them. Pessimists who perceive outcomes as sufficiently unattainable withdraw their efforts and move away from the goals they set [32]. This theory can provide a powerful framework for understanding perceptions of the future (e.g., optimism or pessimism) and the effects of these perceptions on individuals’ well-being. Anxiety about the future can negatively affect individuals’ expectations about the future and the value they attribute to these expectations, leading to pessimism. On the other hand, optimism fosters positive expectations about the future and the value of positive outcomes. In this context, optimism and pessimism may serve as mediating mechanisms that shape the impact of individuals’ concerns about the future on multidimensional well-being.
In addition, the above-mentioned studies separately address the relationships between future anxiety, optimism, pessimism and PERMA well-being. However, there is no study examining the mediating effect of these two personality traits on this relationship. To address this gap, I investigated the mediating roles of optimism and pessimism in the relationship between future anxiety and PERMA well-being model. Gender, age, faculty, and department were included as covariates in the study since they may influence the study variables (see “Participants” section). I proposed the following hypotheses:
H1: Future anxiety will have a positive association with pessimism, and a negative association with optimism, positive emotions, engagement, positive relationships, meaning and accomplishment.
H2: Optimism will be positively related to positive emotions, engagement, positive relationships, meaning and accomplishment, and pessimism will be negatively related to positive emotions, engagement, positive relationships, meaning and accomplishment.
H3: Optimism and pessimism will mediate the association between future anxiety and positive emotions, engagement, positive relationships, meaning and accomplishment.
The conceptual model is illustrated in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
The mediation model with standardized coefficients
Method
Participants
The present study was conducted with 1024 undergraduate students. The age range of the participants varies between 18 and 35, with a mean age of 20.27 (SD = 2.02). 65.7% of the participants (n = 673) were female and 34.3% participants (n = 351) were male. 447 students (43.7%) were enrolled in the Faculty of Science and Letters, 213 students (20.8%) in the Faculty of Education, and 364 students (35.5%) in the Faculty of Health Sciences. 236 students were studying in the Nursing department, followed by the Guidance and Psychological Counseling (n = 213), Psychology (n = 134), Nutrition and Dietetics (n = 128), History (n = 98), Turkish Language and Literature (n = 93), Mathematics (n = 44), Sociology (n = 42), and Molecular Biology and Genetics (n = 36) departments. Among them, 44.4% of the students (n = 455) were freshmen, 27.6% (n = 283) were sophomores, 13.2% (n = 135) were juniors, and 14.8% (n = 151) were senior students. The majority of the participants had middle income (n = 767), 208 participants had low income, and 49 students had high income.
When the effect of gender on study variables was examined, it was determined that future anxiety was higher in female students compared to male students (p < .05). Considering the relationship between age and study variables, a significant positive correlation was found with future anxiety. When the effect of faculty on the study variables was investigated, it was found that there were significant differences in future anxiety, optimism, pessimism, and the PERMA well-being constructs except for accomplishment (p < .05). Considering the effect of faculty on the study variables, it was found that there were significant differences in future anxiety, optimism, pessimism, positive emotions and positive relationships (p < .05).
Measures
Dark future scale
Zaleski, Sobol-Kwapinska [8] developed and validated a short version of the scale. Yıldırım, Kaynar [33] conducted the validity and reliability studies of the scale in Turkish culture. The scale has a one-dimensional structure consisting of 5 items. Each item is rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (decidedly false) to 6 (decidedly true). The sample item of the scale is “I am afraid that in the future my life will change for the worse”. Higher scores demonstrate greater levels of future anxiety. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.79 [33]. In the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was calculated as 0.78.
Optimism and pessimism questionnaire
Arslan and Yıldırım [25] developed the scale to measure students’ optimism and pessimism. The scale has a two-dimensional structure consisting of 12 items. The sub-dimensions are optimism and pessimism. Each item is scored on 5-point Likert type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The sample item of the scale is “I believe tomorrow will be better than today”. Higher scores indicate higher optimism and pessimism. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.86 for optimism and 0.88 for pessimism [25]. In the current study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated as 0.81 and 0.77, respectively.
The PERMA-Profiler
Butler and Kern [2] developed the scale to assess the PERMA model of flourishing. Demirci, Ekşi [34] conducted the validity and reliability studies of the scale in Turkish culture. The scale has a five-dimensional structure consisting of 23 items. The sub-dimensions are positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning, and accomplishment and consist of 15 items. 8 of the 23 items are additional items. These filler items include four additional domains: general well-being, physical health, negative emotion, and loneliness. Butler and Kern [2] included these items to avoid the problem of response tendencies created by not including reverse-scored items and to demonstrate their recognition of the importance of considering both positive and negative elements of the mental health spectrum. Each item is scored on 11-point Likert type scale, ranging from 0 (extremely low levels) to 10 (extremely high levels). The sample items of the scale are “How often do you feel joyful?” and “How satisfied are you with your personal relationships?”. Higher scores demonstrate higher levels of well-being. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.81 for positive emotions, 0.61 for engagement, 0.61 for relationships, 0.77 for meaning and 0.70 for accomplishment [34]. In the current study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated as 0.78, 0.73, 0.70, 0.82 and 0.78, respectively.
Procedure
This study was conducted at a local university in the province of Agri in eastern Türkiye. Data was collected through an online survey designed using Google Forms. This study utilized a convenience sampling method. A survey link was sent to WhatsApp student groups. Participants were assured of confidentiality and anonymity of responses. Participants completed the survey voluntarily after providing online informed consent by clicking on the link provided. Participation in the study was voluntary, and participants were not offered any compensation for participation. Necessary ethical permission was obtained from Agri Ibrahim Cecen University Ethics Committee, and the Declaration of Helsinki guidelines were followed.
Data analyses
Before examining the hypothetical mediation model, preliminary analyses such as descriptive statistics, normality, and correlation coefficients between study variables were conducted. Normality was evaluated based on kurtosis and skewness values. Pearson product moment correlation analysis was performed to investigate the relationships among the study variables. To determine covariates, independent samples t-test was conducted to examine gender differences in the study variables. Pearson product moment correlation analysis was performed to determine the relationships between these variables and age. One-way ANOVA analysis was used to determine the effects of faculty and department. The hypothetical mediation model was tested to examine the mediating roles of optimism and pessimism in the relationship between future anxiety and well-being. Future anxiety was assigned as the independent variable, PERMA well-being constructs as the dependent variables, optimism and pessimism as the mediator variables and gender, age, faculty and department as the covariates. Mediation analyses were performed using Hayes’ PROCESS-Macro v4.2 (Model 4). Mediation model results were interpreted based on unstandardized path estimates (β) and squared multiple correlations (R2). For indirect effects, the bootstrap method using 5.000 replicate samples was used to calculate 95% confidence intervals (CI) [35]. Both preliminary and mediation analyses were performed with SPSS version 27.
Results
Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis
Table 1 Presents descriptive statistics and correlations. Skewness values between 0.38 and − 0.36 and kurtosis values between − 0.01 and − 0.46 showed that the normality assumption was met [36]. Future anxiety had a positive association with pessimism (r = .28, p < .001), and a negative association with optimism (r = − .38, p < .001), positive emotions (r = − .41, p < .001), engagement (r = − .28, p < .001), positive relationships (r = − .32, p < .001), meaning (r = − .31, p < .001) and accomplishment (r = − .29, p < .001). Optimism had a positive association with positive emotions (r = .54, p < .001), engagement (r = .48, p < .001), positive relationships (r = .46, p < .001), meaning (r = .53, p < .001) and accomplishment (r = .49, p < .001), and pessimism had a negative association with positive emotions (r = − .45, p < .001), engagement (r = − .41, p < .001), positive relationships (r = − .37, p < .001), meaning (r = − .37, p < .001) and accomplishment (r = − .38, p < .001).
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics and correlations
| Variables | M | SD | Skewness | Kurtosis | Correlation | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |||||
| 1. Future Anxiety | 19.03 | 5.49 | − .24 | − .39 | - | |||||||
| 2. Optimism | 19.79 | 4.95 | − .19 | − .46 | − .38** | - | ||||||
| 3. Pessimism | 15.66 | 4.79 | .38 | − .06 | .28** | − .43** | - | |||||
| 4. Positive Emotions | 16.69 | 5.09 | − .15 | − .14 | − .41** | .54** | − .45** | - | ||||
| 5. Engagement | 18.34 | 5.60 | − .35 | − .28 | − .28** | .48** | − .41** | .64** | - | |||
| 6. Positive Relationships | 17.37 | 5.57 | − .30 | − .27 | − .32** | .46** | − .37** | .64** | .63** | - | ||
| 7. Meaning | 17.97 | 5.71 | − .35 | − .01 | − .31** | .53** | − .37** | .62** | .57** | .63** | - | |
| 8. Accomplishment | 18.42 | 5.61 | − .36 | − .11 | − .29** | .49** | − .38** | .62** | .59** | .62** | .67** | - |
Notes: M = mean, SD = standard deviations, **p < 0.001
Model testing
Table 2 presents the results of the mediation analyses. After controlling gender, age, faculty and department, the findings showed that future anxiety significantly predicted optimism (β = − 0.36, p < .001), pessimism (β = 0.27, p < .001), positive emotions (β = − 0.20, p < .001), engagement (β = − 0.10, p < .001), positive relationships (β = − 0.16, p < .001), meaning (β = − 0.14, p < .001) and accomplishment (β = − 0.11, p < .001). Optimism significantly predicted positive emotions (β = 0.36, p < .001), engagement (β = 0.38, p < .001), positive relationships (β = 0.36, p < .001), meaning (β = 0.47, p < .001) and accomplishment (β = 0.41, p < .001). Pessimism significantly predicted positive emotions (β = − 0.26, p < .001), engagement (β = − 0.27, p < .001), positive relationships (β = − 0.21, p < .001), meaning (β = − 0.19, p < .001) and accomplishment (β = − 0.23, p < .001). Future anxiety, optimism and pessimism explained 39% of the variance in positive emotions, 29% of the variance in engagement, 27% of the variance in positive relationships, 32% of the variance in meaning and 29% of the variance in accomplishment.
Table 2.
Unstandardized coefficients for the mediation model
| Consequent | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antecedent | M1 (Optimism) | M2 (Pessimism) | Y1 (Positive Emotions) | Y2 (Engagement) | Y3 (Positive Relationships) | Y4 (Meaning) | Y5 (Accomplishment) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Coeff. | SE | t | p | Coeff. | SE | t | p | Coeff. | SE | t | p | Coeff. | SE | t | p | Coeff. | SE | t | p | Coeff. | SE | t | p | Coeff. | SE | t | p | ||||||
| X (Future Anxiety) | a1 | − .36 | .02 | -13.28 | .00 | a2 | .27 | .02 | 9.75 | .00 | c’ | − .20 | .02 | -7.59 | .00 | − .10 | .03 | -3.17 | .00 | − .16 | .03 | -5.20 | .00 | − .14 | .03 | -4.60 | .00 | − .11 | .03 | -3.58 | .00 | ||
| M1 (Optimism) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | b1 | .36 | .02 | 12.45 | .00 | .38 | .03 | 11.08 | .00 | .36 | .03 | 10.50 | .00 | .47 | .03 | 13.70 | .00 | .41 | .03 | 12.02 | .00 | ||||
| M2 (Pessimism) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | b2 | − .26 | .02 | -8.93 | .00 | − .27 | .03 | -7.95 | .00 | − .21 | .03 | -6.25 | .00 | − .19 | .03 | -5.62 | .00 | − .23 | .03 | -6.80 | .00 | ||||
| Gender | − .23 | .30 | − .77 | .43 | .41 | .30 | 1.35 | .17 | .02 | .26 | .10 | .91 | − .27 | .31 | − .88 | .37 | − .18 | .31 | − .57 | .56 | .19 | .31 | .63 | .52 | .40 | .31 | 1.30 | .19 | |||||
| Age | .01 | .07 | .03 | .97 | .01 | .07 | .16 | .86 | .09 | .06 | 1.58 | .11 | − .06 | .07 | − .89 | .36 | .11 | .07 | 1.61 | .10 | .16 | .07 | 2.22 | .02 | .12 | .07 | 1.72 | .08 | |||||
| Faculty | .44 | .29 | 1.50 | .13 | .06 | .29 | .22 | .82 | .50 | .25 | 1.94 | .05 | .41 | .30 | 1.35 | .17 | .33 | .31 | 1.06 | .28 | .35 | .30 | 1.14 | .25 | .26 | .30 | .86 | .38 | |||||
| Department | − .24 | .10 | -2.38 | .01 | .12 | .10 | 1.18 | .23 | − .19 | .08 | -2.13 | .03 | − .20 | .10 | -1.91 | .05 | − .16 | .10 | -1.57 | .11 | − .26 | .10 | -2.49 | .01 | − .18 | .10 | -1.71 | .08 | |||||
| Constant | iM1 | 27.66 | 1.59 | 17.34 | .00 | iM2 | 8.84 | 1.60 | 5.51 | .00 | iy | 15.52 | 1.67 | 9.28 | .00 | 19.04 | 1.99 | 9.57 | .00 | 14.82 | 2.00 | 7.39 | .00 | 11.67 | 1.98 | 5.88 | .00 | 13.39 | 1.99 | 6.72 | .00 | ||
| R2 = .15 | R2 = .08 | R2 = .39 | R2 = .29 | R2 = .27 | R2 = .32 | R2 = .29 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| F = 37.51; p < .001 | F = 19.57; p < .001 | F = 94.83; p < .001 | F = 60.03; p < .001 | F = 55.34; p < .001 | F = 70.19; p < .001 | F = 60.65; p < .001 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notes: X = independent variable, M = mediator variable, Y = dependent variable, Coeff. = unstandardized coefficient, SE = standard error
Table 3 presents indirect, direct and total effects. Future anxiety had a direct effect on positive emotions (effect = − 0.20, [-0.25, − 0.14]), and an indirect effect on positive emotions through optimism (effect = − 0.13, [-0.16, − 0.10]) and pessimism (effect = − 0.07, [-0.09, − 0.04]). Future anxiety had a direct effect on engagement (effect = − 0.10, [-0.16, − 0.03]), and an indirect effect on engagement through optimism (effect = − 0.14, [-0.18, − 0.10]) and pessimism (effect = − 0.07, [-0.10, − 0.05]). Future anxiety had a direct effect on positive relationships (effect = − 0.16, [-0.22, − 0.10]), and an indirect effect on positive relationships through optimism (effect = − 0.13, [-0.17, − 0.10]) and pessimism (effect = − 0.06, [-0.08, − 0.03]). Future anxiety had a direct effect on meaning (effect = − 0.14, [-0.20, − 0.08]), and an indirect effect on meaning through optimism (effect = − 0.17, [-0.22, − 0.13]) and pessimism (effect = − 0.05, [-0.07, − 0.03]). Future anxiety had a direct effect on accomplishment (effect = − 0.11, [-0.17, − 0.04]), and an indirect effect on accomplishment through optimism (effect = − 0.15, [-0.19, − 0.11]) and pessimism (effect = − 0.06, [-0.09, − 0.04]).
Table 3.
Indirect, direct, and total effects
| Path 1 | Effect | SE | BootLLCI | BootULCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Future Anxiety –> Optimism –> Positive Emotions | − .13 | .01 | − .16 | − .10 |
| Future Anxiety –> Pessimism –> Positive Emotions | − .07 | .01 | − .09 | − .04 |
| Total indirect effect | − .20 | .01 | − .24 | − .17 |
| Direct effect | − .20 | .02 | − .25 | − .14 |
| Total effect | − .40 | .02 | − .46 | − .35 |
| Path 2 | ||||
| Future Anxiety –> Optimism –> Engagement | − .14 | .01 | − .18 | − .10 |
| Future Anxiety –> Pessimism –> Engagement | − .07 | .01 | − .10 | − .05 |
| Total indirect effect | − .21 | .02 | − .25 | − .17 |
| Direct effect | − .10 | .03 | − .16 | − .03 |
| Total effect | − .31 | .03 | − .38 | − .25 |
| Path 3 | ||||
| Future Anxiety –> Optimism –> Positive Relationships | − .13 | .01 | − .17 | − .10 |
| Future Anxiety –> Pessimism –> Positive Relationships | − .06 | .01 | − .08 | − .03 |
| Total indirect effect | − .19 | .01 | − .23 | − .15 |
| Direct effect | − .16 | .03 | − .22 | − .10 |
| Total effect | − .35 | .03 | − .42 | − .29 |
| Path 4 | ||||
| Future Anxiety –> Optimism –> Meaning | − .17 | .02 | − .22 | − .13 |
| Future Anxiety –> Pessimism –> Meaning | − .05 | .01 | − .07 | − .03 |
| Total indirect effect | − .22 | .02 | − .27 | − .18 |
| Direct effect | − .14 | .03 | − .20 | − .08 |
| Total effect | − .37 | .03 | − .43 | − .30 |
| Path 5 | ||||
| Future Anxiety –> Optimism –> Accomplishment | − .15 | .01 | − .19 | − .11 |
| Future Anxiety –> Pessimism –> Accomplishment | − .06 | .01 | − .09 | − .04 |
| Total indirect effect | − .21 | .02 | − .25 | − .17 |
| Direct effect | − .11 | .03 | − .17 | − .04 |
| Total effect | − .32 | .03 | − .39 | − .26 |
Note: Number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals: 5,000
In sum, correlation analysis results indicated the positive correlation between future anxiety and pessimism, and the negative correlations between future anxiety and optimism and PERMA well-being. The findings also demonstrated that as the level of optimism increased, well-being improved, wherein an increase in pessimism was associated with a decline in well-being. After controlling gender, age, faculty and department, the results of the parallel mediation analysis revealed that future anxiety had a significant predictive effect on optimism, pessimism, and PERMA well-being, while optimism and pessimism had a significant predictive effect on PERMA well-being. It was also determined that optimism and pessimism acted as parallel mediators in the effect of future anxiety on PERMA well-being.
Discussion
Enhancing and maintaining well-being is essential for university students to their better future lives. This study is the first to examine in detail whether optimism and pessimism mediate the effects of future anxiety on the PERMA model, a multidimensional flourishing model of positive psychology. The findings of the present study showed that future anxiety had a positive relationship with pessimism, and a negative relationship with optimism and the pillars of well-being. Students who were anxious about their future reported higher pessimism and lower optimism and well-being. Consisted with this result, future anxiety was negatively associated with optimism, and positively associated with pessimism [37]. A study covering a fairly large sample determined that students had high levels of future anxiety and were disturbed by not being able to achieve their desired future goals, which is associated with the accomplishment dimension of PERMA well-being model [38]. On the other hand, high future orientation was associated with high resilience and, consequently, few symptoms of negative emotions [39]. These results emphasize that experiencing future anxiety, characterized by a persistent state of worry about potential negative events, may reinforce individuals’ negative thought patterns, increase tendencies toward pessimism, perpetuate anxiety, and diminish the levels of optimism. Future-related anxiety may suppress positive emotions, hinder individuals’ ability to focus, weaken their social ties, overshadow efforts to find meaning in life, and reduce motivation toward future goals.
The results of the current study found that optimism was positively related to positive emotions, engagement, positive relationships, meaning and accomplishment, and pessimism was negatively related to all five pillars of well-being in the PERMA model. Optimistic students scored higher well-being levels, while pessimistic students scored lower well-being levels. Previous research includes robust support for the relationship between optimism/pessimism and well-being. Optimism had a positive relationship with each pillar of PERMA [40]. Optimistic students felt positive emotions, were more engaged in their daily activities, had more effective relationships, had a better sense of direction in life, and accomplished their goals more often [41]. Optimists had greater career success, better social connections and greater engagement in pursuit of desired goals [42]. Optimism was associated with more engagement coping and less avoidance coping in stressful situations [43]. However, pessimism harmed the well-being of individuals [17]. These findings indicate that optimists may focus more on positive emotions, have a more positive outlook, have a sense of purpose and meaning in their lives, have intrinsic motivation, and be more determined and perseverant in achieving their goals, while the opposite is true for pessimists.
This study also demonstrated that optimism and pessimism mediated the association between future anxiety and positive emotions, engagement, positive relationships, meaning and accomplishment after controlling gender, age, faculty and department. Students who experienced high future anxiety reported low optimism and high pessimism scores, which was significantly associated with decreased well-being. Similarly, the associations between sense of coherence and subjective well-being and psychological well-being were mediated by optimism [44]. Greater religious and existential well-being were related to more optimism, and less pessimism, which was associated with fewer depressive symptoms [45]. These results indicate that high optimism - low pessimism may lessen the adverse impact of future anxiety on well-being. One possible explanation for these results is that optimists who suffer from anxiety about the future may be able to cope with the negative outcomes of this anxiety and achieve their goals because they are determined and persistent. This may have contributed positively to their level of well-being. However, pessimists may not be able to cope with these adversities and this may have reduced their level of well-being.
This study provides theoretical implications contributing to our understanding of how future anxiety is associated with PERMA well-being among university students. The results indicated that lower optimism and higher pessimism may be underlying factors through which future anxiety decreases students’ well-being. This study findings supported the assumptions of prominent theory such as Expectancy-Value Theory and explanations regarding the mediating role of optimism and pessimism. The personal future, the area of planning, goal setting and their realization, has a positive motivational meaning. This positive perspective on future events promotes well-being and healthy behaviors. However, people may be uncertain whether their goals will be achieved, whether and to what extent the future world cognitively represented now will merge with the real one, and this can lead to the development of negative attitudes. This negative perspective is characterized by feelings of anxiety, fear and worry, and can have a negative impact on physical and mental health and well-being [9]. On the other hand, Segerstrom, Carver [23] described the mechanism of optimism, pessimism and well-being associations. Optimists are confident and persistent, whereas pessimists are doubtful and hesitant. Optimists have higher well-being than pessimists in many areas. Optimists and pessimists exhibit different behaviors. Confident people keep trying even in difficult times. Doubtful people try to escape with wishful thinking or temporary distractions that do not solve the problem and may even stop trying. Therefore, optimism may have reduced the adverse effect of future anxiety on well-being, while pessimism may have increased this effect.
The results of this study offer practical contributions in addition to the theoretical contribution mentioned above. The results revealed that future anxiety had a negative impact on well-being through decreased optimism and increased pessimism. Optimism can function as a buffer against the impact of future anxiety on students’ flourishing while pessimism functioned adversely. High optimism – low pessimism may be key factors to minimize the adverse consequences of future anxiety on well-being. The findings of the study can provide a guide for educators and professionals in the field of psychology. The results emphasize the need for university students to cope with future anxiety and pessimism to promote their well-being. In this regard, intervention programs with an increased focus on nurturing well-being among university students that address future-oriented thinking and individual strengths, including optimism, should be provided. Psychological counselors, psychologists, and mental health professionals can help students cope with future anxiety through practices such as thought reframing or positive thinking techniques. They can focus on helping pessimistic students gain self-awareness and develop optimistic perspectives. To reduce students’ uncertainty about the future, university instructors and practitioners can help them set short-, medium-, and long-term goals for their majors and maintain optimistic perspectives.
The results of the study should be interpreted with some limitations. The cross-sectional nature of the study limits causal and directional explanations of the results. The directionality of the results can be assessed with longitudinal research designs. Collecting data through online surveys limits the underrepresentation of individuals with limited internet access. Therefore, future studies should implement both online and face-to-face data collection to address this limitation. The data were based on self-reported measures, which may be prone to bias. Researchers may use different assessment techniques to examine relationships among study variables in future studies.
In conclusion, during university years, young people’s expectations for the future can have an impact on many areas, from their academic success to their life plans and even their well-being. Therefore, it is necessary and important to determine the factors that contribute to well-being. The results of the current study indicated that future anxiety was positively associated with pessimism, and negatively associated with optimism and the constructs of PERMA well-being model. Optimism had a positive relationship, and pessimism had a negative relationship with the pillars of well-being. The most important finding of this study was the mediating role of optimism/pessimism in the link between future anxiety and well-being after controlling gender, age, faculty, and department. In the case of future anxiety, individuals may become less optimistic and more pessimistic, which can negatively impact well-being indicators such as positive emotion, engagement with valued activities, fostering positive relationships, cultivating purpose and meaning in life, and pursuit of valued accomplishments. Thus, universities should provide well-being-enhancing practices on their campuses, focusing on the promotion of student well-being and holistic environment approaches.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks all the students who participated in the research.
Author contributions
GGÖ: Conceptualization, Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Software.
Funding
The author declares no funding.
Data availability
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to the confidentiality guaranteed to the participants but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Agri Ibrahim Cecen University in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration 2013 (Ethic Code: E-116021). This is a statement to confirm that all methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. The researcher considered the ethics of conducting research throughout the research process. Before the data collection, all participants were informed of the research objectives, data collection method, and the right of acceptance to participate or refuse in the research. Consent to participate in the study was provided via the first page of the online survey.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Seligman ME, Flourish. A visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Simon and Schuster; 2011.
- 2.Butler J, Kern ML. The PERMA-Profiler: a brief multidimensional measure of flourishing. Int J Wellbeing. 2016;6(3). 10.5502/ijw.v6i3.526.
- 3.Turner J, Roberts R, Proeve M, Chen J. Relationship between PERMA and children’s wellbeing, resilience and mental health: a scoping review. Int J Wellbeing. 2023;13(2). 10.5502/ijw.v13i2.2515.
- 4.Sun Q, Zhao X, Gao Y, et al. Mediating role of PERMA wellbeing in the relationship between insomnia and psychological distress among nursing college students. Behav Sci. 2023;13(9):764. 10.3390/bs13090764. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Fang H, Zeng Y, Liu Y, Zhu C. The effect of the PERMA model-based positive psychological intervention on the quality of life of patients with breast cancer. Heliyon. 2023;9(6). 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17251. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 6.Sedeh SD, Aghaei A. The effectiveness of PERMA model education on university students’ well-being. J Educ Health Promotion. 2024;13(1):338. 10.4103/jehp.jehp_840_23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Leontopoulou S. Measuring well-being in emerging adults: exploring the PERMA framework for positive youth development. Psychology: J Hellenic Psychol Soc. 2020;25(1):72–93. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Zaleski Z, Sobol-Kwapinska M, Przepiorka A, Meisner M. Development and validation of the Dark Future scale. Time Soc. 2019;28(1):107–23. 10.1177/0961463X16678257. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Zaleski Z. Future anxiety: Concept, measurement, and preliminary research. Pers Indiv Differ. 1996;21(2):165–74. 10.1016/0191-8869(96)00070-0. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Regnoli GM, Tiano G, De Rosa B. Serial mediation models of future anxiety and Italian young adults psychological distress: the role of intolerance of uncertainty and non-pathological worry. Eur J Invest Health Psychol Educ. 2024;14(6):1834–52. 10.3390/ejihpe14060121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Paredes MR, Apaolaza V, Fernandez-Robin C, et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on subjective mental well-being: the interplay of perceived threat, future anxiety and resilience. Pers Indiv Differ. 2021;170:110455. 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110455. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Kästner A, Lücker P, Hannich A, et al. COVID-19-related future anxiety is associated with the health-related quality of life in school-aged children and adolescents—A cross-sectional study. Front Public Health. 2022;10:1003876. 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1003876. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Dadaczynski K, Okan O, Messer M, Rathmann K. University students’ sense of coherence, future worries and mental health: findings from the German COVID-HL-survey. Health Promot Int. 2022;37(1):daab070. 10.1093/heapro/daab070. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Çabuk FU. The relationship between earthquake anxiety and the well-being of mothers with preschool children after the February 6 earthquake in Turkey. Int J Eurasian Educ Cult. 2023;8(22):1251–67. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Scheier MF, Carver CS. Optimism, coping, and health: assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychol. 1985;4(3):219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Zou R, Hong X, Wei G, et al. Differential effects of optimism and pessimism on adolescents’ subjective well-being: mediating roles of reappraisal and acceptance. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(12):7067. 10.3390/ijerph19127067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Cnen T-W, Chiu Y-C, Hsu Y. Perception of social support provided by coaches, optimism/pessimism, and psychological well-being: gender differences and mediating effect models. Int J Sports Sci Coaching. 2021;16(2):272–80. 10.1177/1747954120968649. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Piper A. Optimism, pessimism and life satisfaction: an empirical investigation. Int Rev Econ. 2022;69(2):177–208. 10.1007/s12232-022-00390-8. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Fernández-Abascal EG, Martin-Diaz MD, Molina VB. Different conceptualizations of optimism/pessimism and their relationship with physical and mental health and health-related behaviors. J Depress Anxiety Disorders. 2018;2(1):41–54. 10.36959/362/472. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Augusto-Landa JM, Pulido-Martos M, Lopez-Zafra E. Does perceived emotional intelligence and optimism/pessimism predict psychological well-being? J Happiness Stud. 2011;12:463–74. 10.1007/s10902-010-9209-7. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Bouchard LC, Carver CS, Mens MG, Scheier MF. Optimism, health, and well-being. Positive psychology: Routledge; 2017. pp. 112–30. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Carver CS, Scheier MF. Attention and self-regulation: a control-theory approach to human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media; 2012.
- 23.Segerstrom S, Carver C, Scheier M. Optimism and Pessimism. The Happy Mind: Cognitive Contributions to Well-Being. 2017;195.
- 24.Puig-Perez S, Villada C, Pulopulos MM, et al. Optimism and pessimism are related to different components of the stress response in healthy older people. Int J Psychophysiol. 2015;98(2):213–21. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2015.09.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Arslan G, Yıldırım M. Coronavirus stress, meaningful living, optimism, and depressive symptoms: a study of moderated mediation model. Australian J Psychol. 2021;73(2):113–24. 10.1080/00049530.2021.1882273. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Bdier D, Veronese G, Mahamid F, Kittaneh H. Environmental concerns, physical and mental health among palestinians: the mediating roles of optimism, pessimism and meaning in life. J Public Health. 2024:1–9. 10.1007/s10389-024-02228-9
- 27.Basileyo AE. Spirituality and psychological well-being: the mediating role pessimism. LPU-Laguna J Multidisciplinary Res. 2019;3(3):26–41. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Genç E, Arslan G. Optimism and dispositional hope to promote college students’ subjective well-being in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. J Posit School Psychol. 2021;5(2):87–96. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Miranda JO, Tulabut OAP, De Ala CL, et al. The PERMA model of well-being and student engagement amid Covid‐19: a two‐wave study among a sample of Filipino university students. Psychol Sch. 2024;1–14. 10.1002/pits.23286.
- 30.Fauziana IN, Sabri MS, Saleh H, et al. PERMA well-being and innovative work behaviour: a systematic literature review. F1000Research. 2023;12. 10.12688/f1000research.141629.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 31.Wigfield A, Eccles JS. Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2000;25(1):68–81. 10.1006/ceps.1999.1015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Scheier MF, Carver CS. Effects of optimism on psychological and physical well-being: theoretical overview and empirical update. Cogn Therapy Res. 1992;16(2):201–28. 10.1007/BF01173489. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Yıldırım M, Kaynar Ö, Arslan G, Chirico F. Fear of COVID-19, resilience, and future anxiety: psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the dark future scale. J Personalized Med. 2023;13(4):597. 10.3390/jpm13040597. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Demirci İ, Ekşi H, Dinçer D, Kardaş S. Beş boyutlu iyi oluş modeli: PERMA Ölçeği Türkçe Formunun geçerlik ve güvenirliği. J Happiness Well-Being. 2017;5(1):60–77. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Hayes AF. Beyond Baron and Kenny: statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monogr. 2009;76(4):408–20. 10.1080/03637750903310360. [Google Scholar]
- 36.Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Ullman JB. Using multivariate statistics: Pearson Boston. MA; 2013.
- 37.Hirsch JK, Walker KL, Chang EC, Lyness JM. Illness burden and symptoms of anxiety in older adults: optimism and pessimism as moderators. Int Psychogeriatr. 2012;24(10):1614–21. 10.1017/S1041610212000762. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Lorini C, Cavallo G, Vettori V, et al. Predictors of well-being, future anxiety, and multiple recurrent health complaints among university students during the COVID-19 pandemic: the role of socioeconomic determinants, sense of coherence, and digital health literacy. An Italian cross-sectional study. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1210327. 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1210327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Servidio R, Scaffidi Abbate C, Costabile A, Boca S, editors. Future orientation and symptoms of anxiety and depression in Italian university students during the COVID-19 pandemic: the role of resilience and the perceived threat of COVID-19. Healthcare: MDPI; 2022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Prasath PR, Mather PC, Bhat CS, James JK. University student well-being during COVID-19: the role of psychological capital and coping strategies. Prof Counselor. 2021;11(1):46–60. 10.15241/prp.11.1.46. [Google Scholar]
- 41.Bazargan-Hejazi P, Shahrzad, Dehghan M, Kaveh, Chou B, Stacy, et al. Hope, optimism, gratitude, and wellbeing among health professional minority college students. J Am Coll Health. 2023;71(4):1125–33. 10.1080/07448481.2021.1922415. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Carver CS, Scheier MF. Dispositional optimism. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014;18(6):293–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Carver CS, Scheier MF. Optimism, coping, and well-being. Handb Stress Health: Guide Res Pract. 2017;400–14. 10.1002/9781118993811.ch24.
- 44.Krok D. The mediating role of optimism in the relations between sense of coherence, subjective and psychological well-being among late adolescents. Pers Indiv Differ. 2015;85:134–9. 10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.006. [Google Scholar]
- 45.Hirsch JK, Nsamenang SA, Chang EC, Kaslow NJ. Spiritual well-being and depressive symptoms in female African American suicide attempters: mediating effects of optimism and pessimism. Psychol Relig Spiritual. 2014;6(4):276. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to the confidentiality guaranteed to the participants but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.