1. Assessing Cognitive and Emotional Features of Real-Life Hoping
Patricia Bruininks, Adrienne Crowell, & Devin Howington
Department of Psychology, Hendrix College, Conway, AR
Results
Introduction
Discussion
Summary of Differences
Unlike Study 1 and past research, self-reported hope was predicted by the HM, AHS, and PA in Study 2.
Unlike Study 1 and past research, Study 2 did not show the relationship between ratings of importance and hope.
Hope and optimism were both highly related to likelihood in Study 2, while in Study 1 hope was only moderately related to likelihood.
Both studies found that change in hope corresponded to change in likelihood; however, Study 2 also found change in personal control related to change In hope.
Methodological Issues
Hoped-for outcomes in Study 2 appeared to be representative of more day-to-day concerns (i.e., less objectively important).
Participants in Study 2 rarely wrote about the same hope more than once; therefore, the number of repeated hopes was limited.
Research on the wording of the affective questions has shown differences in hope ratings over time. It is important to consider which form of the word is used, i.e., hopeful, hoping, or experiencing hope (Howington et al., 2006)
Future Research
We are currently conducting a third diary study with a few changes:
Participants attend a training session
Participants are asked to write about a long-term (important) hope, but are also able to write about other hopes as well (up to 3 per day).
Participants rate how hopeful they are as well as how much they are hoping.
What is the balance between providing enough instruction and assessing real-life hoping with ecological validity?
Past Research
Bruininks & Malle (2005) found that the anticipatory states of hope and optimism have distinct qualities.
Hoped-for outcomes were rated as more important, less likely to occur, and afford less personal control than those for which one was optimistic.
The Hopefulness Measure (HM; Bruininks, 2002) has been shown to better predict self-reported hope than the Adult Hope Scale (AHS; Snyder et al., 1991) and the Life Orientation Test (LOT-R; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994).
Study 1
The HM was the only measure to significantly predict hope.
Hope was strongly correlated with the importance of the outcome and amount of time thinking about the outcome; it was moderately correlated with likelihood.
Optimism was strongly correlated with both importance and likelihood of the outcome.
Method
Real-Life Hoping
2 studies were designed to assess hoping in a real-life setting in order to determine whether the distinctions between hope and optimism could be replicated outside of the laboratory.
In both studies, participants wrote about their hoped-for outcomes, rating their hope, fear, optimism and worry as well as the appraisals of importance, likelihood, and personal control of the outcome over a 4-week period.
Participants also completed the HM, AHS, LOT-R and the Positive Affectivity Negative Affectivity Scale (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988).
The change in both hope and optimism from one entry to the next was correlated with the change in likelihood.
Study 2
Diary Study 1
24 undergraduate students submitted on-line journal entries using Educator software.
Participants were instructed to write about an important hoped-for outcome that would not be realized before the end of the 4-week period.
The adjective form of the affective states (hopeful, fearful, optimistic, worried) were presented in the questionnaire (see Howington, Crowell, & Bruininks, 2006).
Hope was predicted by the HM, AHS, and the positive affective questions of the PANAS.
Hope was strongly correlated with the likelihood of the outcome.
Optimism was moderately negatively correlated with importance, strongly correlated with likelihood, and negatively correlated with thinking.
Diary Study 2
49 undergraduate students submitted their hoped-for outcomes on a web page designed specifically for the study.
Participants were able to write about any outcome with no specific instructions. They were also able to write about more than one hoped-for outcome per day.
The noun form of the affective states were presented (i.e., how much hope/fear/worry/optimism are you experiencing)
References
Bruininks, P., & Malle, B. F. (2005). Distinguishing hope from optimism and related affective states. Motivation
and Emotion, 29(4),
Howington, D. E., Crowell, A. L., & Bruininks, P. (2007, January). Hoping is different from hope: Unique
experiential features in the measurement of emotion. Poster to be presented at the annual meeting of the
Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Memphis, TN.
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait
anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the life orientation test. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 67,
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L.M., Sigmon, S. T., et al. (1991). The will and the
ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 60,
Watson, D., Clark, L., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and
negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1070.
Change in hope was highly correlated with likelihood and moderately correlated with personal control. Change in optimism was only highly correlated with likelihood.