Content uploaded by Matthew W Gallagher
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Matthew W Gallagher on Nov 07, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Optimism Is Universal: Exploring the
Presence and Benefits of Optimism in
a Representative Sample of the World
Matthew W. Gallagher,1Shane J. Lopez,2,3 and
Sarah D. Pressman4
1Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders, Boston University
2Gallup/Clifton Strengths Institute
3University of Kansas
4University of California, Irvine
Abstract
Current theories of optimism suggest that the tendency to maintain positive expectations for the future is an adaptive
psychological resource associated with improved well-being and physical health,but the majority of previous optimism research
has been conducted in industrialized nations. The present study examined (a) whether optimism is universal, (b) what
demographic factors predict optimism,and (c) whether optimism is consistently associated with improved subjective well-being
and perceived health worldwide.The present study used representative samples of 142 countries that together represent 95%
of the world’s population.The total sample of 150,048 individuals had a mean age of 38.28 (SD =16.85) and approximately equal
sex distribution (51.2% female). The relationships between optimism, subjective well-being, and perceived health were
examined using hierarchical linear modeling. Results indicated that most individuals and most countries worldwide are
optimistic and that higher levels of optimism are associated with improved subjective well-being and perceived health
worldwide.The present study provides compelling evidence that optimism is a universal phenomenon and that the associations
between optimism and improved psychological functioning are not limited to industrialized nations.
The capacity to maintain an optimistic orientation toward the
future has been proposed to be one of the defining features of
the human species (Tiger, 1979). The potential benefits of
optimism have been a popular research topic in psychology,
and there is now extensive research examining whether an
optimistic orientation toward the future is adaptive (Carver,
Scheier, Miller, & Fulford, 2009; Carver, Scheier, &
Segerstrom, 2010). However, the majority of previous opti-
mism research has been conducted in industrialized nations.
The present study extends this previous work by examining the
origins and benefits of optimism using representative samples
from 142 countries that together represent 95% of the world’s
population. In addition to examining worldwide variations in
individual levels of optimism, we examine whether the asso-
ciations between optimism and improved psychological func-
tioning are consistent worldwide.
Is Optimism Adaptive?
Whether positive thoughts about the future are adaptive is an
issue that has been debated for centuries (Peterson, 2000).
From classic characters of fiction such as Voltaire’s (1759)
Pangloss, to psychiatrists and psychologists such as Freud
(1928), who argued that optimism is widespread but illusory,
many have proposed that positive expectations for the future
are damaging delusions. On the contrary, historical figures
such as Martin Luther, who said that “everything that is done
in the world is done by hope,” or 20th-century self-help author
Norman Vincent Peale (1952), who advocated for “the power
of positive thinking,” have argued positive expectations and
thoughts about the future are, in fact, adaptive.
Recent theories of optimism within psychology have gen-
erally sided with the latter perspective, that positive thoughts
about the future provide benefits (Taylor & Brown, 1988). One
of the most widely studied models within psychology for
describing how and why positive expectancies for the future
may confer benefits is Scheier and Carver’s (1985) theory of
optimism. This theory defines optimism as a stable individual
difference that reflects the general perception that future posi-
tive outcomes will be common and future negative outcomes
will be rare. This theory differs from related theories such as
self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) and hope (Snyder, 2002) in that
optimism, as conceptualized by Scheier and Carver (1985),
emphasizes globalized positive and negative expectations and
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Matthew
W. Gallagher, Center for Anxiety and Related Disorders, Boston University,
648 Beacon Street, 6th Floor, Boston, MA 02215. Email: mwg@bu.edu.
Journal of Personality 81:5, October 2013
© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
DOI: 10.1111/jopy.12026
does not focus on personal agency as the primary determinant
of positive outcomes as self-efficacy and hope theory do.
However, current theories of optimism are similar to self-
efficacy and hope in emphasizing beliefs about future out-
comes more so than current or past outcomes.
The dispositional tendency to maintain optimistic expecta-
tions for the future is proposed to be associated with a
wide variety of adaptive outcomes (Carver et al., 2010). For
example, decades of research and meta-analyses have demon-
strated that higher levels of optimism are linked to improved
psychological health (Andersson, 1996; Carver et al., 2010;
Scheier & Carver, 1992). One psychological outcome that has
commonly been examined in relation to optimism is subjective
well-being, defined as the presence of high levels of positive
emotions and life satisfaction and low levels of negative emo-
tions (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999). Previous research
has demonstrated that optimism predicts higher levels of sub-
jective well-being in college students (Aspinwall & Taylor,
1992; Gallagher & Lopez, 2009), as well as middle-aged and
older adults (Isaacowitz, 2005). Multiple prospective studies
also have been conducted in which optimism predicted
improved subjective well-being across time (Scheier & Carver,
1992). The consistent finding throughout the majority of pre-
vious research is that individuals who are more optimistic
report improved subjective well-being.
Physical health is another important outcome that is com-
monly examined in relation to optimism, as higher levels of
optimism are believed to promote improved physical health by
increasing the use of more adaptive coping techniques (Carver
et al., 2009). Research has shown that optimistic individuals
generally report higher levels of physical health, and multiple
prospective longitudinal studies have demonstrated that opti-
mism predicts subsequent health outcomes (Giltay, Geleijnse,
Zitman, Hoekstra, & Schouten, 2004; Matthews, Räikkönnen,
Sutton-Tyrrell, & Kuller, 2004; Scheier & Carver, 1992;
Segerstrom, Taylor, Kemeny, & Fahey, 1998). A recent meta-
analytic review of the optimism and physical health literature
indicated that higher levels of optimism are associated with a
wide range of health outcomes, although the effects were
larger for subjective measures of health than for objective
measures of health (Rasmussen, Scheier, & Greenhouse,
2009). It therefore appears that higher levels of optimism are
also an important predictor of improved physical health.
Nevertheless, despite the majority of research on optimism
suggesting that optimistic expectations for the future are gen-
erally adaptive (Carver et al., 2009; Taylor & Brown, 1988),
there remains considerable debate about whether optimism is
always adaptive. Popular publications such as Bright-Sided:
How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has
Undermined America (Ehrenreich, 2009) have argued that
there may be a considerable downside to overemphasizing the
benefits of optimistic thinking, and there is limited research
demonstrating both that defensive pessimism may be adaptive
in certain circumstances (Norem & Chang, 2002) and that
optimism may be maladaptive in certain circumstances (Chang
& Sanna, 2003; Segerstrom, 2006). Although studies demon-
strating maladaptive consequences appear to be the exception
(Carver et al., 2009), they nevertheless indicate that there are
likely some circumstances where optimism may not be adap-
tive and that additional research is needed to better understand
the settings in which optimistic expectations for the future are
associated with improved psychological functioning. Given
that the vast majority of previous research examining the ben-
efits of optimism for psychological and physical health has
been conducted in wealthy, industrialized nations, it remains
unclear whether optimism is also adaptive in countries where
future economic opportunities are severely limited or where
life expectancies are significantly lower than in Western
countries.
Is Optimism Universal?
Another important, yet unresolved issue is whether optimism
is a universal human resource that is present worldwide or that
merely reflects Western ideals, or the benefit of living in a
developed, wealthy country. One of the first attempts to
examine the universality of optimism compared trends in opti-
mism from 1976 to 1987 in 31 countries using a single ques-
tion in which participants were asked whether they expected
the next year to be better or worse than the current year
(Michalos, 1988). In this study, individuals who expected the
next year to be better than the current one were classified as
optimistic, and the results indicated that most individuals and
most countries were not optimistic about the future. In con-
trast, a cross-cultural examination of character strengths in 54
nations revealed that the rank order of optimistic expectations
among the 24 character strengths examined was generally
consistent across the countries examined (Park, Peterson, &
Seligman, 2006). More recently, a meta-analysis of levels of
optimism in more than 89,000 individuals in 22 countries
classified individuals as optimistic or not based on whether
individuals scored above the midpoint when using the percent
of the maximum score on the Life Orientation Test (Scheier &
Carver, 1985) or the Revised Life Orientation Test (Scheier,
Carver, & Bridges, 1994). The conclusions from this meta-
analysis were that “individuals are on average quite optimistic”
(Fischer & Chalmers, 2008, p. 380) and that the populations of
most countries are optimistic. These conflicting findings make
it difficult to determine whether optimism is, in fact, universal.
Additionally, these studies often use convenience samples
(e.g., student populations), draw participants from wealthier
countries in North America or Europe, and use varying
methods of assessing optimism (Fischer & Chalmers, 2008),
limiting the generalizability and representativeness of past
findings.
The effect of cultural and demographic variables on opti-
mism levels also remains uncertain due to conflicting findings
in previous research, as well as an overreliance on college
student and college-educated samples. For example, a com-
parison of levels of optimism between Caucasian and Asian
Gallagher, Lopez, & Pressman430
American students found cultural differences such that Asian
American students were more pessimistic than Caucasian stu-
dents (Chang, 1996), but other studies have found no effects of
culture on optimism when comparing Indian and Canadian
students (Sinha, Wilson, & Watson, 2000). Previous studies
examining the influence of demographic variables on opti-
mism have also been limited by a lack of diversity in terms of
rarely sampling individuals from countries with lower gross
domestic product (GDP) per capita or populations with lower
rates of education. These previous studies have generally not
used representative samples of countries and cultures, which
prevents us from determining whether these findings can be
generalized.
Thus, the current state of research remains inconclusive
regarding whether optimism is a universal human resource or
rather reflects a benefit of living in wealthy, industrialized
countries. The extent to which the benefits of optimism (e.g.,
improved subjective well-being and physical health) are uni-
versal also remains unclear due to the preponderance of studies
of the benefits of optimism having been conducted in wealthy
North American or European countries. There is evidence that
GDP per capita of countries may moderate the influence of
positive and negative emotions on individuals’ physical health
(Pressman, Gallagher, & Lopez, in press), but the role of
country characteristics in moderating the effects of optimism
on physical health or subjective well-being has not been
adequately examined in previous research.
The Present Study
The goal of the present study was to improve our understand-
ing of optimism and its benefits by going beyond past conve-
nience sampling techniques, broadening the scope to the
entire planet, and using a consistent method of assessing
optimism worldwide. We were specifically interested in (a)
examining whether levels of optimism would be consistent
worldwide across a diverse range of countries that includes
both wealthy countries and poorer countries in which opti-
mism has not previously been studied, (b) considering the
effects that demographic variables (age, gender, education,
and household income) have on optimism, (c) determining
whether optimism is associated with improved subjective
well-being and perceived physical health in a large and rep-
resentative sample of the world, and (d) determining whether
country characteristics (GDP per capita and life expectancy)
moderated the relationships between optimism, physical
health, and subjective well-being. Our hypotheses were that
optimism is a universal human characteristic such that high
levels of optimism would be found consistently across a range
of extremely diverse countries, that demographic variables
would have minimal effects on levels of optimism, and that
optimism would be associated with more positive levels of
perceived physical health and each of the three components of
subjective well-being.
METHOD
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 150,048 individuals who participated in the
first wave of the Gallup World Poll. The Gallup World Poll
was initiated in 2005 and annually surveys representative
samples of approximately 1,000 individuals from 142 coun-
tries around the world, providing a representative sample
of more than 95% of the world’s population.1Participants
ranged from 15 to 99, with a mean age of 38.28 (SD =16.85);
sex distribution was approximately equal (51.2% female). The
vast majority of participants (89.3%) had a high school edu-
cation or less. The median household income was 7,500 inter-
national dollars.2
Measures
Cantril’s Self-Anchoring Striving Scale. Expectations for
the future and current evaluations of life satisfaction were
measured using Cantril’s (1965) Self-Anchoring Striving
Scale. This scale asks participants to “Please imagine a ladder
with steps numbered from zero at the bottom to 10 at the top.
The top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you
and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life
for you. On which step of the ladder would you say you
personally feel you stand at this time? On which step do you
think you will stand about five years from now?” For the
present study, responses to the current ladder item were con-
sidered to be an indicator of life satisfaction.
Positive Affect (PA). PA was measured with a series of three
items that asked whether individuals had experienced specific
positive emotions (laughter, enjoyment, and love) during the
previous day. Participants’ responses were coded as either 0
(no)or1(yes), and an overall PA score was computed by
averaging the responses to the three items.
Negative Affect (NA). NA was measured with a series of five
items that asked whether individuals had experienced specific
negative emotions (worry, sadness, boredom, depression, and
anger) during the previous day. Participants’ responses were
coded as either 0 (no)or1(yes), and an overall NA score was
computed by averaging the responses to the five items.
Perceived Physical Health. Perceived physical health was
measured with a series of three items that asked participants
whether they were satisfied or dissatisfied with their personal
health, whether they have any health problems that prevent
them from doing any of the things people their age can nor-
mally do, and whether they experienced physical pain yester-
day. An overall physical health problems score was computed
by averaging the responses to the three items. Participants’
responses were coded so that higher scores indicated more
positive perceptions of physical health.
Optimism Is Universal 431
Quantifying Optimism
For the present study, we defined optimism in terms of indi-
viduals’ expectations for the future, an approach that is con-
sistent with current theories of optimism (Carver et al., 2009)
that emphasize the expectation of positive future outcomes as
the core aspect of optimism. Responses to the future ladder
question were therefore used as our primary measure of opti-
mism both in terms of examining worldwide variations in
optimism and in analyses examining the relationships between
optimism, subjective well-being, and perceived physical
health. We primarily used the future ladder question as a con-
tinuous indicator of optimism, but also classified individuals
based on whether they were at the midpoint of the scale (5) or
above in order to also present results using a similar method as
the recent meta-analysis of worldwide levels of optimism
(Fischer & Chalmers, 2008). Although there are limitations in
interpreting outcomes based on a single item, the future ladder
item provides a face-valid measure of the extent to which
individuals had positive (i.e., optimistic) or negative (i.e., pes-
simistic) expectations for the future.
As a secondary measure of optimism, we also examined
whether individuals’ expectations for the future were higher,
lower, or equal to their current evaluations of life satisfaction.
Due to the sequence in which the two ladder items were admin-
istered, it is possible that an anchoring bias was introduced
such that some individuals provided responses to the future
ladder question based on an implicit relative comparison to
their response to the current ladder question.3The difference
score between the future and current ladder items was there-
fore included as a secondary measure of optimism to provide
additional information about how individuals’ expectations for
the future indicate that they expect their life to improve relative
to their current life satisfaction. These difference scores were
also used to determine the proportion of individuals within
each country for whom the future ladder rating was higher,
lower, or equal to their current ladder rating.
Analytic Plan
The universality of optimism and the relationships between
optimism, well-being, and perceived physical health were
examined using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM;
Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002), which is ideally suited for the
analysis of nested data structures such as the Gallup World
Poll. We began by examining a series of null models in order to
determine the extent to which optimism, the components of
subjective well-being (PA, NA, and life satisfaction), and per-
ceived physical health varied within and between countries.
We then used buildup procedures to examine the extent
to which demographic variables influenced optimism and
whether optimism had a fixed effect on positive affect, negative
affect, life satisfaction, and perceived physical health. Finally,
we examined whether the relationship between optimism and
the four outcomes varied between countries. HLM analyses
were conducted using the PRELIS program within the
LISREL software package (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2006). Sam-
pling weights were used in all models to ensure that the
samples reflected representative populations of each country
examined. Preliminary HLM analysis indicated that 87.7% of
the variability in individual levels of optimism was due to
differences between individuals and that 12.3% of the vari-
ability in levels of optimism was due to differences between
countries.
RESULTS
Optimism Around the World
We began by examining the extent to which optimistic expec-
tations for the future varied around the world. The mean
response for the future ladder item across all countries was
6.70 (median =7, mode =8, SD =2.32). The vast majority
(84.0%) of individuals indicated that they expected their future
life to be at the midpoint of the scale (5) or above. Country-
level means for the future ladder and current ladder ratings can
be seen in Table 1. The countries with the five highest mean
expectations for the future were Ireland (M=8.44), Brazil
(M=8.34), Denmark (M=8.32), New Zealand (M =8.31),
and the United States (M=8.18). The countries with the five
lowest mean expectations for the future were Zimbabwe
(M=4.59), Egypt (M=5.10), Haiti (M=5.11), Bulgaria
(M=5.13), and Lebanon (M=5.30). A map of the world con-
taining the country-level means of the future ladder responses
(sorted into quintiles) of the 142 countries surveyed can be
seen in Figure 1. All but one (Zimbabwe) of the 142 countries
surveyed had a mean level above the midpoint on the future
ladder scale. These results indicate that the populations of most
countries have optimistic expectations for the future.
Demographics and Optimism
We next examined the effects of the demographic variables on
optimism. Results indicated that age (B=-.0295, SE =.0014,
Z=20.73, p<.001), gender (B=.1348, SE =.0209, Z=6.46,
p<.001), education (B=.1232, SE =.0336, Z=3.66,
p<.001), and household income (B=.1211, SE =.0070,
Z=17.21, p<.001) all had significant effects on optimism. A
comparison of the Wald Zstatistics indicates that age was the
strongest demographic predictor of optimism, with younger
individuals reporting greater optimism. These results indicate
that young, female, highly educated, and affluent individuals
are on average the most optimistic individuals worldwide.
Given that this profile mirrors the student and online conve-
nience samples often used to study the causes or effects of
optimism, our results raise concerns about whether such
student samples that tend to have high levels of optimism are
representative, and consequently, whether results from such
samples are generalizable. It should be noted, however, that the
Gallagher, Lopez, & Pressman432
Ta b l e 1 Means of Future Ladder, Current Ladder, the Difference Score of the Future and Current Ladders, and Percentages of Individuals for
Whom the Future Ladder Was Less Than, Equal to, or Greater Than Current Ladder for 142 Countries
Country n
Future Ladder
Mean
Current Ladder
Mean
Ladder
Difference Mean
%
Future <Current
%
Future =Current
%
Future >Current
Afghanistan 1196 5.78 4.05 1.71 5.94 7.78 86.29
Albania 981 6.27 4.64 1.63 2.14 11.62 86.24
Algeria 1070 7.46 5.80 1.67 7.66 18.79 73.55
Angola 1000 6.49 4.17 2.29 2.30 4.50 93.20
Argentina 1000 7.24 6.07 1.16 10.70 24.60 64.70
Armenia 1000 6.24 4.89 1.36 5.70 18.30 76.00
Australia 1205 7.94 7.28 0.67 13.70 37.21 49.09
Austria 1001 7.53 7.18 0.37 17.28 43.16 39.56
Azerbaijan 1000 5.88 4.60 1.24 5.90 17.80 76.30
Bangladesh 1200 6.69 4.60 2.08 3.25 6.83 89.92
Belarus 1114 6.61 5.59 1.02 9.69 23.43 66.88
Belgium 1022 7.53 7.19 0.35 15.48 49.56 34.97
Belize 502 7.36 6.44 0.93 10.96 29.28 59.76
Benin 1000 6.65 3.33 3.33 1.60 2.00 96.40
Bolivia 1000 6.99 5.61 1.37 10.00 18.00 72.00
Bosnia Herzegovina 2002 6.15 4.91 1.24 7.74 22.98 69.28
Botswana 1000 6.68 4.74 1.93 7.70 8.80 83.50
Brazil 1038 8.34 6.31 2.04 7.14 17.36 75.51
Bulgaria 1003 5.13 3.86 1.25 8.28 27.12 64.61
Burkina Faso 1000 5.51 3.86 1.64 4.60 6.59 88.81
Burundi 1000 6.33 4.18 2.16 4.20 4.00 91.79
Cambodia 1000 5.54 4.16 1.38 2.00 16.00 82.00
Cameroon 1000 5.83 4.29 1.52 15.32 9.51 75.18
Canada 1010 8.18 7.48 0.70 11.29 40.20 48.51
Central Africa Republic 1000 6.80 4.37 2.42 2.10 2.80 95.10
Chad 1000 6.32 4.14 2.17 6.00 4.80 89.20
Chile 1023 6.83 5.70 1.13 13.69 25.42 60.90
China 4238 6.77 4.88 1.89 2.08 8.66 89.26
Colombia 1000 8.15 6.14 2.01 7.60 18.30 74.10
Congo Kinshasa 1000 6.51 4.23 2.28 4.00 6.50 89.50
Costa Rica 1002 8.11 7.40 0.73 16.37 31.14 52.50
Croatia 1000 6.32 5.81 0.50 20.20 34.90 44.90
Cuba 1000 6.96 5.42 1.53 10.59 16.58 72.83
Cyprus 1000 6.73 6.24 0.49 21.50 26.50 52.00
Czech Republic 1072 6.91 6.49 0.43 16.70 40.21 43.10
Denmark 1009 8.32 7.83 0.50 10.02 50.69 39.29
Dominican Republic 1000 7.29 5.29 1.98 13.69 13.49 72.83
Ecuador 1061 6.26 5.00 1.26 15.08 15.55 69.37
Egypt 1105 5.10 4.64 0.45 25.34 30.77 43.89
El Salvador 1001 5.37 5.29 0.08 34.53 20.06 45.41
Estonia 1001 6.10 5.33 0.76 12.30 28.30 59.40
Ethiopia 1000 6.06 4.38 1.66 1.90 6.61 91.49
Finland 1010 7.82 7.65 0.17 19.41 45.35 35.25
France 1220 7.36 6.57 0.79 12.79 33.85 53.36
Georgia 1080 5.97 4.16 1.79 6.49 15.11 78.41
Germany 1221 6.61 6.41 0.20 25.47 37.02 37.51
Ghana 1000 7.38 4.96 2.42 5.31 3.70 90.99
Greece 1000 6.93 6.64 0.31 21.50 34.30 44.20
Guatemala 1000 6.87 6.31 0.56 25.50 21.30 53.20
Guinea 1000 7.33 4.32 3.01 2.40 4.20 93.39
Guyana 501 7.55 5.99 1.56 15.60 10.60 73.80
Haiti 505 5.11 3.76 1.33 20.20 8.71 71.09
Honduras 1000 5.73 5.09 0.63 28.60 18.20 53.20
Hong Kong 800 6.06 5.51 0.53 19.00 28.88 52.13
Hungary 1010 5.30 4.96 0.33 26.73 29.90 43.37
India 3186 6.65 5.02 1.64 1.79 8.19 90.02
(Continued)
Optimism Is Universal 433
Ta b l e 1 (Cont.)
Country n
Future Ladder
Mean
Current Ladder
Mean
Ladder
Difference Mean
%
Future <Current
%
Future =Current
%
Future >Current
Indonesia 1050 6.59 4.81 1.77 6.28 17.70 76.02
Iran 1040 6.35 5.13 1.23 15.58 14.52 69.90
Iraq 990 5.39 4.60 0.80 13.64 26.77 59.60
Ireland 1001 8.44 7.56 0.88 8.99 35.36 55.64
Israel 1001 7.56 6.82 0.74 16.48 24.68 58.84
Italy 1008 7.05 6.56 0.49 17.46 39.38 43.15
Jamaica 543 8.01 6.20 1.81 2.76 16.57 80.66
Japan 750 5.58 5.72 -0.14 37.07 36.53 26.40
Jordan 1016 6.26 5.60 0.66 23.43 23.03 53.54
Kazakhstan 1000 7.45 5.71 1.74 2.90 15.90 81.20
Kenya 1000 6.33 4.55 1.78 6.90 7.20 85.90
Kosovo 1046 6.96 5.11 1.85 9.56 13.77 76.67
Kuwait 1000 7.49 6.07 1.42 13.30 12.30 74.40
Kyrgyzstan 1000 6.66 4.70 1.96 3.00 8.30 88.70
Laos 1000 6.89 5.36 1.53 0.60 3.50 95.90
Latvia 1017 5.74 4.67 1.06 8.46 26.35 65.19
Lebanon 1000 5.30 4.60 0.68 27.90 19.00 53.10
Liberia 1000 7.47 3.81 3.65 1.10 2.50 96.40
Lithuania 1007 6.64 5.77 0.87 9.83 26.32 63.85
Macedonia 1042 5.54 4.50 1.04 11.23 27.16 61.61
Madagascar 1000 5.67 3.98 1.69 5.70 7.60 86.70
Malawi 1000 7.41 4.89 2.52 5.59 4.70 89.71
Malaysia 1233 7.46 6.23 1.23 6.24 16.95 76.80
Mali 1000 5.96 4.11 1.85 11.10 9.80 79.10
Mauritania 1000 6.65 4.17 2.48 1.60 5.90 92.50
Mexico 999 7.39 6.53 0.86 16.10 22.90 61.00
Moldova 1000 5.95 4.77 1.19 9.99 20.48 69.53
Mongolia 1000 6.93 4.63 2.29 2.60 6.00 91.40
Montenegro 834 6.47 5.18 1.28 11.39 21.94 66.67
Morocco 1042 6.63 5.41 1.23 6.71 18.50 74.78
Mozambique 1000 6.98 4.83 2.14 2.20 6.10 91.70
Myanmar 1047 7.57 5.32 2.25 1.05 10.12 88.83
Namibia 1000 6.67 4.89 1.78 5.30 5.40 89.30
Nepal 1000 6.54 4.75 1.79 2.90 11.10 86.00
Netherlands 1000 7.73 7.45 0.30 13.20 55.80 31.00
New Zealand 750 8.31 7.60 0.72 11.07 35.73 53.20
Nicaragua 1000 6.26 4.95 1.30 16.30 19.00 64.70
Niger 1000 6.40 4.24 2.16 2.70 9.01 88.29
Nigeria 1000 7.77 4.95 2.81 4.90 1.70 93.40
Norway 1001 7.89 7.40 0.50 11.49 47.25 41.26
Pakistan 1502 6.67 5.67 1.04 12.87 22.73 64.40
Palestine 1000 5.67 4.15 1.51 20.00 14.00 66.00
Panama 1000 7.73 6.88 0.86 20.78 21.88 57.34
Paraguay 1000 5.81 5.27 0.55 24.28 22.98 52.75
Peru 1000 6.84 5.21 1.63 10.70 15.70 73.60
Philippines 1000 6.08 4.59 1.47 12.51 16.72 70.77
Poland 1000 6.82 5.88 0.95 11.80 28.30 59.90
Portugal 1007 5.93 5.39 0.53 21.83 23.81 54.37
Puerto Rico 500 7.69 6.59 1.10 19.60 27.40 53.00
Romania 1000 6.13 5.37 0.76 12.90 28.70 58.40
Russia 2019 6.64 5.62 1.01 9.91 27.59 62.51
Rwanda 1504 5.82 4.22 1.60 6.12 8.38 85.51
Saudi Arabia 1150 7.57 6.80 0.79 12.34 22.33 65.33
Senegal 1000 7.06 4.68 2.37 7.99 2.80 89.21
Serbia 1556 6.09 4.76 1.33 8.16 22.48 69.36
Sierra Leone 1000 6.46 3.00 3.46 5.59 2.80 91.61
Singapore 1003 7.38 6.73 0.64 11.67 30.41 57.93
(Continued)
Gallagher, Lopez, & Pressman434
effects of these demographic variables are modest. Together,
the demographic variables accounted for 11.47% of the vari-
ance in individual levels of optimism.
Optimism and Subjective Well-Being
The associations between optimism, PA, NA, and life satisfac-
tion (i.e., current ladder) were examined next. We began by
examining the associations between optimism as measured
by the future ladder and the three components of subjective
well-being at the individual (n=150,048) and country level
(n=142). At the country level, there were moderate to large
associations between optimism and positive affect (r=.49),
negative affect (r=-.36), and life satisfaction (r=.74). At the
individual level, the associations between optimism and posi-
tive affect (r=.23), negative affect (r=-.18), and life satis-
faction (r=.64) were smaller in magnitude.
We then examined the associations between optimism and
the components of subjective well-being using HLM. Nine
models were specified, three for each outcome. One model
examined the fixed effect of optimism on the outcome. A
second model examined the fixed effect of optimism while
including the demographic characteristics as covariates. The
third model for each outcome examined whether the effect of
optimism on the outcome varied between countries while con-
trolling for the individual-level demographic covariates. The
results of each of these three models for the three outcomes can
be seen in Table 2. Effect sizes (ESr) are presented for the
random effect of optimism on each of the outcomes.4
The results indicated that optimism had a statistically sig-
nificant association with PA, NA, and life satisfaction. An
examination of the residual Level 1 variances indicated that
optimism had the strongest relationship with life satisfaction
and a more robust association with PA than with NA. Our
findings suggest that optimism may have a greater influence on
the positive aspects of subjective well-being. However, the
magnitude of the association between optimism and life satis-
faction is likely inflated by the similarities in the two ladder
questions used to measure these constructs.
The associations between optimism and the components of
subjective well-being declined but remained statistically sig-
nificant after including all of the demographic covariates.
These results suggest that although demographic variables
are important predictors of levels of optimism as previously
Ta b l e 1 (Cont.)
Country n
Future Ladder
Mean
Current Ladder
Mean
Ladder
Difference Mean
%
Future <Current
%
Future =Current
%
Future >Current
Slovakia 1018 5.86 5.26 0.59 17.47 29.24 53.29
Slovenia 1009 6.20 5.81 0.38 24.48 30.53 45.00
South Africa 1000 6.84 5.21 1.63 3.00 9.20 87.80
South Korea 1000 6.69 5.77 0.92 15.60 25.30 59.10
Spain 1009 7.60 7.25 0.40 16.55 37.76 45.69
Sri Lanka 1000 6.36 4.43 1.92 4.30 11.00 84.70
Sudan 1000 6.94 4.65 2.29 1.60 6.90 91.50
Sweden 1000 7.95 7.51 0.45 14.00 42.90 43.10
Switzerland 1000 7.78 7.47 0.31 17.40 47.30 35.30
Taiwan 1002 6.40 6.17 0.21 24.95 33.63 41.42
Tajikistan 1000 6.22 4.43 1.78 2.20 6.90 90.90
Tanzania 1000 5.76 4.32 1.43 7.40 14.80 77.80
Thailand 1006 7.02 5.78 1.24 10.83 21.87 67.30
Togo 1000 6.37 3.20 3.17 2.10 3.10 94.80
Trinidad and Tobago 508 7.40 5.83 1.56 14.57 16.93 68.50
Tunisia 912 6.82 5.36 1.46 4.28 17.54 78.18
Turkey 1001 6.33 5.62 0.71 16.08 29.77 54.15
Uganda 1000 6.07 4.46 1.61 5.40 8.60 86.00
Ukraine 1074 5.86 5.17 0.69 18.25 27.19 54.56
United Arab Emirates 1013 7.91 6.73 1.19 14.02 15.30 70.68
United Kingdom 1204 7.69 6.80 0.89 10.38 35.80 53.82
United States 1225 8.18 7.51 0.67 12.73 36.41 50.86
Uruguay 1004 6.68 5.69 1.00 11.85 26.49 61.65
Uzbekistan 1000 7.17 5.23 1.93 3.80 13.70 82.50
Venezuela 1000 8.17 6.52 1.64 11.20 16.60 72.20
Vietnam 1016 6.66 5.46 1.21 1.87 18.60 79.53
Yemen 1000 5.76 4.48 1.26 19.68 10.99 69.33
Zambia 1000 5.76 4.00 1.76 12.00 8.70 79.30
Zimbabwe 1000 4.59 3.17 1.42 31.60 8.50 59.90
Worldwide 150048 6.70 5.37 1.34 10.91 19.64 69.45
Optimism Is Universal 435
demonstrated, the associations between optimism and the
components of subjective well-being reflect more than just
demographic influences. Finally, the test of random effects
examined whether the relationships between optimism and
the components of well-being varied between countries. The
results indicated that there was a random effect of optimism on
NA and life satisfaction but not on PA. This indicates that the
relationship between optimism and PA is consistent across the
world such that more individuals with higher levels of opti-
mism also report experiencing greater PA. The finding of
random effects in the NA and life satisfaction models indicates
that the relationship between optimism and these components
of well-being varies between countries. Worldwide, higher
levels of optimism were associated with lower levels of NA
and greater life satisfaction, but the strength of these associa-
tions varied between countries.
Optimism and Perceived Physical Health
We next examined whether optimism is associated with
improved perceptions of physical health worldwide. As with
the examination of the associations between optimism and the
components of subjective well-being, we used buildup model
procedures to examine the fixed effect of optimism on physical
health, the fixed effect of optimism while including demo-
graphic covariates, and the random effect of optimism. The
Least Optimistic
Less Optimistic
Average
More Optimistic
Most Optimistic
Not Surveyed
Figure 1 Mean levels of future expectations in 142 countries organized into quintiles.
Ta b l e 2 Effects of Optimistic Future Expectancies on Subjective Well-Being and Perceived Physical Health in HLM Analyses
Outcome
Fixed Effect
Fixed Effect Random Effect
With Covariates With Covariates
BSEBSEBSEtSE ESr
Positive affect .0304 .0012 .0231 .0011 .0231 .0011 .0000 .0002 .132
Negative affect -.0211 .0008 -.0179 .0008 -.0170 .0008 .0007 .0001 -.123
Life satisfaction .5393 .0101 .5024 .0105 .5219 .0106 .1252 .0061 .553
Perceived health .0317 .0013 .0188 .0009 .0181 .0009 .0002 .0001 .124
Note. HLM =hierarchical linear modeling. p<.0001 for all effects greater than .0001.
Gallagher, Lopez, & Pressman436
results of these analyses can be seen in Table 2. Results indi-
cated a statistically significant association between optimism
and perceived physical health, and that this association varied
between countries. The magnitude and direction of the asso-
ciation between optimism and physical health are consistent
with previous meta-analyses (Rasmussen et al., 2009), which
suggests that there is a small but positive association between
higher levels of optimism and improved perceptions of physi-
cal health.
Examining Country Characteristics as
Potential Moderators
After determining that the effect of optimism on negative
affect, life satisfaction, and perceived health varied between
countries, we conducted a series of additional analyses to
determine whether certain country-level characteristics might
help to explain the extent to which the effects of optimism on
NA and life satisfaction varied between countries. Specifically,
the wealth of countries (as measured by GDP per capita) and
life expectancy rates were considered as two potential factors
that may influence the effects of optimism on the perceived
health and well-being outcomes. Estimates of GDP per capita
and life expectancy rates for each country were obtained from
the United Nations Human Development Indices. The moder-
ating effects of GDP and life expectancy were tested using
HLM analyses in which cross-level interactions were specified
to determine whether the effects of optimism on NA, life
satisfaction, and perceived health varied as a function of a
country’s wealth or life expectancy. There was no evidence
that GDP or life expectancy moderated the effects of optimism
on NA, life satisfaction, or perceived health. It therefore
appears that a country’s wealth and average life expectancy are
not the key factors in explaining the degree to which an opti-
mistic orientation is associated with the experience of negative
emotions, reported life satisfaction, or perceived physical
health.
Contrasting Future Expectations with Current
Life Evaluations
We next examined worldwide variations in optimism by com-
paring expectations for the future with current ratings of life
satisfaction. The difference score between the future and
current ladder items was calculated for each individual as a
secondary measure of optimism that reflects the extent to
which individuals expected their future life satisfaction to be
greater than, equal to, or less than their current life satisfaction
as measured by the current ladder item. These difference
scores could therefore range from -10 to 10, with 0 indicating
that individuals expect their future life to be of a similar quality
to their present life. Country-level means for the difference
score and the proportions of individuals for whom future
expectations were higher than, lower than, or equal to their
current ratings within each country are also presented in
Table 1. Individually, the average difference score between
the future and current ladder ratings was 1.34 (SD =1.90;
median =1.0; mode =1.0). Worldwide, 10.91% of individuals
expected their life in 5 years to be worse than their current life,
19.64% expected their life in 5 years to be as good as their
current life, and 69.45% expected their life in 5 years to be
better than their current life. In 120 of the 142 countries sur-
veyed, over 50% of the population expected their life in 5 years
to be greater than their current life. All but one (Japan) of the
142 countries reported a higher average expectation for the
future than current rating of life satisfaction. Together, these
results demonstrate that most individuals and most countries
worldwide are optimistic when considering relative differences
between expectations for the future and current ratings of life
satisfaction.
Our final analyses were a series of HLM in which the
difference score measure of optimism was examined as a pre-
dictor of PA, NA, and perceived health. These analyses were
conducted using the same buildup procedures as the HLM
analyses, focusing on the future ladder as the predictor of
outcomes. The results of these HLM analyses are presented in
Table 3. Results in the random effects models that include
demographic covariates indicated that optimism as defined by
the difference between future expectations and current life
satisfaction was a significant predictor of positive affect
(B=.0057, SE =.0011, p<.0001) and perceived health
(B=.0043, SE =.0009, p<.0001), but not of negative affect.
These results are consistent with the HLM analyses focusing
on the future ladder as the indicator of optimism in indicating
that optimism, as defined by the difference between future
expectations and current life satisfaction, is more associated
Ta b l e 3 Effects of Optimism as Measured by the Difference Score of the Future and Current Ladders on Positive Affect, Negative Affect, and
Perceived Physical Health in HLM Analyses
Outcome
Fixed Effect
Fixed Effect Random Effect
With Covariates With Covariates
B SE B SE B SE tSE ESr
Positive affect .0070 .0011 .0062 .0011 .0057 .0011 .0004 .0001 .029
Negative affect -.0001 .0010 -.0008 .0010 -.0004 .0010 .0011 .0001 .002
Perceived health .0120 .0012 .0058 .0010 .0043 .0009 .0011 .0001 .024
Note. HLM =hierarchical linear modeling. p<.0001 for all effects greater than .001.
Optimism Is Universal 437
with perceived health and positive aspects of subjective well-
being than negative aspects of subjective well-being.
DISCUSSION
Previous studies have examined the universality of optimism
(e.g., Fischer & Chalmers, 2008; Michalos, 1988; Park et al.,
2006), but the present study is the first to use representative
samples of people in 142 countries representing 95% of the
world’s population, which allows for more definitive conclu-
sions. Our results indicate that individuals of all ages, races,
education levels, and socioeconomic strata across the world
are generally optimistic and that the populations of most coun-
tries are optimistic. The findings that most individuals and
countries are optimistic are maintained both when looking at
expectations for the future and when comparing expectations
for the future with current evaluations of life satisfaction.
As predicted, the effects of country of origin and demo-
graphic variables on optimism are relatively small (with age as
the strongest predictor). Taken together, our results suggest
that the most optimistic people in the world may be young,
economically secure, educated women in Ireland, Brazil,
Denmark, New Zealand, and the United States. Conversely, the
most pessimistic people in the world may be old, poor, unedu-
cated men in Zimbabwe.
Results were generally consistent both when considering
the future ladder as an indicator of optimism and when con-
sidering the difference between the future and current ladder
items. Across both methods, the majority of both individuals
and countries appeared to be optimistic. All but one of the 142
countries surveyed had a higher average future ladder rating
than their current ladder rating. These results suggest that most
individuals and countries worldwide not only have positive
expectations for the future, but they also expect their life to
improve in the future.
The relationship between well-being and optimism is clear,
with the strongest links between optimism and PA and life
satisfaction (with the optimism-NA link being weakest). This
pattern of results was consistent both when using the future
ladder as an indicator of optimism and when using the differ-
ence score between the future and current ladder items as an
indicator of optimism. The association between optimism and
PA is consistent around the world, whereas the magnitude of
the associations between optimism and NA and life satisfac-
tion vary globally. Our findings also provide evidence that the
association between higher levels of optimism and improved
perceived health may be universal as well. Consistent with past
research (Rasmussen et al., 2009), we found a small, positive
association between higher levels of optimism and perceived
health. Together, these findings suggest that optimistic expec-
tations for the future are generally associated with improved
functioning worldwide. Although our findings suggest that the
relationship between optimism, NA, life satisfaction, and per-
ceived health varied worldwide, we did not find any evidence
that GDP or life expectancy was a significant moderator of
the associations between optimism and the outcomes we
examined.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE
DIRECTIONS
The representativeness of our data and the rigor of analyses are
strengths of our study. The primary limit to generalizability
stems from the measures used in our study. Conceptually, the
future ladder is closely aligned with theoretical models of
optimism and the most popular measure of optimism (Life
Orientation Test-Revised; Scheier et al., 1994), which was
used in the most recent analysis of worldwide optimism
(Fischer & Chalmers, 2008), yet it does rely on responses to
only one item, which has numerous psychometric implica-
tions. The sequence in which individuals completed the current
and future ladder items also raises the possibility of an anchor-
ing bias such that some individuals may have been referencing
their response to the current ladder question when responding
to the future ladder question. We included additional analyses
focusing on the difference score between the current and future
ladder ratings as well as the categorical classification of indi-
viduals based on these difference scores, but both approaches
are still limited by the nature of the measurement. The magni-
tude of the association between optimism and life satisfaction
is also likely inflated due to the methodological similarities of
the two ladder questions. It is also possible that the different
survey methods (e.g., telephone vs. face-to-face) used in
different countries and the different cultural tendencies for
acquiescence may have influenced responses due to demand
characteristics or otherwise biased the results. An additional
limitation is the cross-sectional nature of the data, which limits
our ability to demonstrate that optimism causes higher levels
of well-being and does not merely reflect improved well-being.
One of the most interesting aspects of our findings was that,
although the association between optimism and PA was con-
sistent worldwide, the association between optimism and NA,
life satisfaction, and perceived health all significantly varied
between countries. We examined two country characteristics
that could potentially explain why these associations are mod-
erated by country, but we did not find any evidence that GDP
or life expectancy was a significant moderator of the associa-
tions between optimism and the outcomes we examined. Our
ability to identify the country characteristics that moderate the
relationship between optimism and the outcomes we examined
was likely limited by measurement issues. Previous research
has demonstrated that the influence of certain individual pre-
dictors of subjective well-being is moderated by cultural char-
acteristics (Diener & Diener, 2009), so it will be important for
future research to continue to explore the cultural and country
characteristics that may influence the degree to which opti-
mism relates to improved psychological functioning, includ-
ing whether the associations between individual levels of
Gallagher, Lopez, & Pressman438
optimism and well-being may be moderated by country levels
of optimism or well-being.
CONCLUSIONS
The present study provides compelling evidence that optimism
is a universal phenomenon, that optimism is associated with
improved perceptions of physical health worldwide, and that
optimism is associated with improved subjective well-being
worldwide. Our results therefore suggest that optimism is not
merely a benefit of living in industrialized nations, but reflects
a universal characteristic that is associated with and potentially
may serve to promote improved psychological functioning
worldwide. The extent to which public policy affects indi-
vidual and country optimism and, in turn, promotes well-
being, is a necessary topic for future study.
Notes
1. The Gallup World Poll has been expanded in subsequent years and
now assesses individuals in more than 150 countries that together
represent 98% of the world’s population. More information about
the survey and sampling procedures used for the World Poll can
be obtained at http://www.gallup.com/consulting/worldpoll/24046/
About.aspx.
2. International dollars are a theoretical currency commonly used in
economic studies. International dollars are calculated based on an
individual country’s purchasing power parity exchange rates such that
one international dollar has the equivalent purchasing power of one
U.S. dollar at the time of calculation.
3. We thank an anonymous reviewer for highlighting this important
point.
4. The effect sizes reported in Table 2 for the HLM analyses are
calculated using the following formula: ES t
df t
r=
+
2
2, where the t
values are obtained using the Z-values from the HLM results.
References
Andersson, G. (1996). The benefits of optimism: A meta-analytic
review of the Life Orientation Test. Personality and Individual
Differences,21, 719–725.
Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1992). Modeling cognitive adap-
tation: A longitudinal investigation of the impact of individual
differences and coping on college adjustment and performance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,63, 989–1003.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
Freeman.
Cantril, H. (1965). The pattern of human concern. New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., Miller, C., & Fulford, D. (2009). Opti-
mism. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Handbook of positive
psychology (2nd ed, pp. 303–311). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2010). Optimism.
Clinical Psychology Review,30, 879–889.
Chang, E. C. (1996). Cultural differences in optimism, pessimism,
and coping: Predictors of subsequent adjustment in Asian Ameri-
can and Caucasian American college students. Journal of Coun-
seling Psychology,43, 113–123.
Chang, E. C., & Sanna, L. J. (2003). Optimism, accumulated life
stress, and psychological and physical adjustment: Is it always
adaptive to expect the best? Journal of Social and Clinical Psy-
chology,22, 97–116.
Diener, E., & Diener, M. (2009). Cross-cultural correlates of life
satisfaction and self-esteem. Social Indicators Research Series,
38, 71–91.
Diener, E., Suh, M., Lucas, E., & Smith, H. (1999). Subjective well-
being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin,125,
276–302.
Ehrenreich, B. (2009). Bright-sided: How the relentless promotion of
positive thinking has undermined America. New York: Metropoli-
tan Books.
Fischer, R., & Chalmers, A. (2008). Is optimism universal? A meta-
analytic investigation of optimism levels across 22 nations.
Personality and Individual Differences,45, 378–382.
Freud, S. (1928). The future of an illusion. London: Hogarth.
Gallagher, M. W., & Lopez, S. J. (2009). Positive expectancies and
mental health: Identifying the unique effects of hope and opti-
mism. Journal of Positive Psychology,4, 548–556.
Giltay, E. J., Geleijnse, J. M., Zitman, F. G., Hoekstra, T., & Schouten,
E. G. (2004). Dispositional optimism and all-cause and cardiovas-
cular mortality in a prospective cohort of elderly Dutch men and
women. Archives of General Psychiatry,61, 1126–1135.
Isaacowitz, D. M. (2005). Correlates of well-being in adulthood and
old age: A tale of two optimisms. Journal of Research in Person-
ality,39, 224–244.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.80 for Windows
[Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software
International.
Matthews, K. A., Räikkönnen, K., Sutton-Tyrrell, K., & Kuller, L. H.
(2004). Optimistic attitudes protect against progression of carotid
atherosclerosis in healthy middle-aged women. Psychosomatic
Medicine,66, 640–644.
Michalos, A. (1988). Optimism in thirty countries over a decade.
Social Indicators Research,20, 177–180.
Norem, J. K., & Chang, E. C. (2002). The positive psychology of
negative thinking. Journal of Clinical Psychology,58, 993–
1001.
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Character
strengths in fifty-four nations and the fifty US states. Journal of
Positive Psychology,1, 118–129.
Peale, N. V. (1952). The power of positive thinking. New York:
Prentice-Hall.
Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist,
55, 44–55.
Pressman, S. D., Gallagher, M. W., & Lopez, S. J. (in press). Consid-
ering the role of emotions for global health. Psychological
Science.
Optimism Is Universal 439
Rasmussen, H. N., Scheier, M. F., & Greenhouse, J. B. (2009). Opti-
mism and physical health: A meta-analytic review. Annals of
Behavioral Medicine,37, 239–256.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health:
Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectan-
cies. Health Psychology,4, 219–247.
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, 201–228.
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing
optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and
self-esteem): A re-evaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,67, 1063–1078.
Segerstrom, S. C. (2006). How does optimism suppress immunity?
Evaluation of three affective pathways. Health Psychology,25,
653–657.
Segerstrom, S. C., Taylor, S. E., Kemeny, M. E., & Fahey, J. L.
(1998). Optimism is associated with mood, coping, and immune
change in response to stress. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,74, 1646–1655.
Sinha, B., Wilson, L., & Watson, D. (2000). Stress and coping among
students in India and Canada. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science,32, 218–225.
Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psycho-
logical Inquiry,13, 249–275.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social
psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulle-
tin,103, 193–210.
Tiger, L. (1979). Optimism: The biology of hope. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Voltaire, F. (1759). Candide, ou l’optimisme. Geneva, Switzerland:
Cramer.
Gallagher, Lopez, & Pressman440