Frontiers in psychology · 2026
The effect of optimism, pessimism, and jealousy on emotional regulation in athletes.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Aydoğan Mehmet, Şahinler Yunus, Atasoy Taner
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to examine the distinct associations of optimism and pessimism with emotion regulation in athletes and to test whether jealousy mediates each association.
METHODS: The sample comprised 628 athletes from the Ataşehir and Bakırköy districts of Istanbul (mean age = 25.73). Data were collected using the Athlete Emotion Regulation Scale (AERS), the Athlete Optimism and Pessimism Scale (AOPS), and the Jealousy Scale for Athletes (JSA). Because AOPS is a two-factor instrument, optimism and pessimism were treated as separate subscale scores rather than combined into a single predictor. Two parallel mediation analyses were specified with Hayes PROCESS Model 4, with optimism or pessimism as the predictor (X), jealousy as the mediator (M), and emotion regulation as the outcome (Y).
RESULTS: In the optimism model, optimism negatively predicted jealousy (B = -0.52, p < 0.001) and positively predicted emotion regulation after controlling for jealousy (B = 2.20, p < 0.001); the indirect effect through jealousy was negative and significant (B = -0.70, bootstrap 95% CI [-0.8232, -0.5982]). In the pessimism model, pessimism positively predicted jealousy (B = 1.50, p < 0.001) and showed a negative direct association with emotion regulation (B = -2.06, p < 0.001); the indirect effect through jealousy was approximately B = 5.27 and was reported as significant based on 5,000 bootstrap samples (the 95% bootstrap confidence interval excluded zero).
DISCUSSION: These findings indicate that optimism and pessimism follow distinct pathways and should not be interpreted as a single combined psychological construct.
METHODS: The sample comprised 628 athletes from the Ataşehir and Bakırköy districts of Istanbul (mean age = 25.73). Data were collected using the Athlete Emotion Regulation Scale (AERS), the Athlete Optimism and Pessimism Scale (AOPS), and the Jealousy Scale for Athletes (JSA). Because AOPS is a two-factor instrument, optimism and pessimism were treated as separate subscale scores rather than combined into a single predictor. Two parallel mediation analyses were specified with Hayes PROCESS Model 4, with optimism or pessimism as the predictor (X), jealousy as the mediator (M), and emotion regulation as the outcome (Y).
RESULTS: In the optimism model, optimism negatively predicted jealousy (B = -0.52, p < 0.001) and positively predicted emotion regulation after controlling for jealousy (B = 2.20, p < 0.001); the indirect effect through jealousy was negative and significant (B = -0.70, bootstrap 95% CI [-0.8232, -0.5982]). In the pessimism model, pessimism positively predicted jealousy (B = 1.50, p < 0.001) and showed a negative direct association with emotion regulation (B = -2.06, p < 0.001); the indirect effect through jealousy was approximately B = 5.27 and was reported as significant based on 5,000 bootstrap samples (the 95% bootstrap confidence interval excluded zero).
DISCUSSION: These findings indicate that optimism and pessimism follow distinct pathways and should not be interpreted as a single combined psychological construct.