Content uploaded by Matthew W Gallagher
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Matthew W Gallagher on Jan 21, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [University of Texas Libraries]
On: 05 August 2013, At: 11:38
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated to
furthering research and promoting good practice
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpos20
Positive expectancies and mental health: Identifying
the unique contributions of hope and optimism
Matthew W. Gallagher a & Shane J. Lopez b
a Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Kansas, USA
b Clifton Strengths Institute & Gallup, Omaha, NE, USA
Published online: 05 Nov 2009.
To cite this article: Matthew W. Gallagher & Shane J. Lopez (2009) Positive expectancies and mental health: Identifying
the unique contributions of hope and optimism, The Journal of Positive Psychology: Dedicated to furthering research and
promoting good practice, 4:6, 548-556, DOI: 10.1080/17439760903157166
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760903157166
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Journal of Positive Psychology
Vol. 4, No. 6, November 2009, 548–556
Positive expectancies and mental health: Identifying the unique contributions
of hope and optimism
Matthew W. Gallagher
a
*and Shane J. Lopez
b
a
Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Kansas, USA;
b
Clifton Strengths Institute & Gallup, Omaha, NE, USA
(Received 27 October 2008; final version received 31 May 2009)
Contemporary theories of hope and optimism provide two explanations for how positive expectancies can
shape human behavior and promote well-being. Scheier and Carver’s theory of optimism focuses on
generalized expectations of positive outcomes, whereas Snyder’s hope theory focuses on how evaluations of
personal agency can facilitate goal attainment. Although the theoretical distinctions between these constructs
have previously been articulated, few studies have jointly examined the two constructs in order to determine
unique effects, and some have questioned whether the constructs are truly distinct. This study therefore
examines whether hope and optimism (1) are distinct latent constructs, (2) have unique effects on
components of flourishing mental health, and (3) differentially relate to the components of flourishing mental
health. Confirmatory factor analysis results and a bootstrapped structural equation model indicate that hope
and optimism are distinct latent constructs that each uniquely predict a moderate proportion of variance of
the components of well-being.
Keywords: hope; optimism; well-being; flourishing; SEM; bootstrap, agency
Introduction
Interest in the individual difference and psychological
factors that can promote well-being has increased in
recent years as research examining the characteristics
and structure of well-being has begun to clarify the
nature of positive mental health (Gallagher, Lopez, &
Preacher, 2009; Keyes, 2005, 2007). Positive expectan-
cies for the future, commonly conceptualized as hope
and optimism in both popular media and psychological
literature, have received a great deal of attention as
potential mechanisms by which one may achieve
positive mental health. Although hope and optimism
are often used interchangeably in common speech,
current research suggests that hope and optimism are
distinct constructs and that hope and optimism may
provide two distinct mechanisms by which positive
expectancies can shape human behavior and produce
positive outcomes (Bryant & Cvengros, 2004; Rand,
2009; Snyder, 2002; Snyder, Sympson, Michael, &
Cheavens, 2001).
Positive expectancies: hope and optimism
Snyder’s (2002) theory of hope
1
and Scheier and
Carver’s (1985) theory of optimism share the underly-
ing perspective that virtually all human behavior can
be understood in terms of goal pursuits. The two
theories also both suggest that dispositional positive
expectancies are critical in understanding and explain-
ing how individuals pursue and achieve goals (Carver
& Scheier, 1998, 2002a; Snyder, 2002). The theories
diverge, however, in the roles they assign to personal
agency and pathways thinking (Carver & Scheier,
2002b; Snyder, 2002).
Optimism
2
focuses on more generalized expectan-
cies (e.g., I will achieve my goal) and places less
emphasis on how or why the goal is attained (Carver &
Scheier, 2002b). Hope theory places a greater emphasis
on the presence of personal agency
3
related to goals
(the ‘will’) and the identification of strategies to achieve
those goals (the ‘ways’) (Rand & Cheavens, 2009;
Snyder, 2002; Snyder et al., 1991). Hope theory
therefore suggests that in addition to endorsing such
statements as ‘I will achieve my goal,’ a high hope
individual would endorse statements similar to ‘I have
a plan for how I am going to achieve this goal’ and ‘I
am motivated and confident in my ability to use this
plan to achieve this goal.’
This difference in the importance placed on per-
sonal agency provides the foundation for understand-
ing how hope and optimism may independently and
differentially contribute to positive outcomes. In
situations or goal pursuits where individuals believe
that the outcome primarily depends upon their own
behavior (i.e. internal locus of control; Rotter, 1966),
*Corresponding author. Email: mwg@ku.edu
ISSN 1743–9760 print/ISSN 1743–9779 online
ß2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17439760903157166
http://www.informaworld.com
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 11:38 05 August 2013
the positive expectancies related to personal agency
that are emphasized in hope theory are likely to be
more relevant and have more of an impact on
functioning. For example, if an individual is concerned
about performing well on an academic exam, the
ability to identify a concrete plan for success (i.e.
pathways thinking) and having the motivation to
implement this plan (i.e. agency thinking) may be
more adaptive than just believing that things will
somehow turn out well (i.e. optimism).
Alternatively, in situations or goal pursuits where
individuals believe that the outcome primarily depends
upon the behavior of others or external circumstances
(i.e. external locus of control), the generalized positive
expectancies that are emphasized in optimism theory
are likely to be more relevant and have more of an
impact on functioning. For example, if an individual
is concerned about the safety of flying home for the
holidays, the belief that airline pilots and crews are
competent and will fly the plane safely (i.e. optimism)
is likely to be more helpful than the belief that the
individual could personally figure out a plan for
landing the plane (i.e. pathways thinking) and success-
fully execute such a plan (i.e. agency thinking) in the
event of a catastrophe. Actual or perceived control
therefore likely moderates the relative impact that hope
or optimism beliefs have in a given situation. Optimal
functioning would therefore result from the presence of
high levels of both hope and optimism, as this would
help individuals to maintain positive expectancies
regardless of the degree of control they may have
over a given outcome. Empirical evidence to date
supports this notion that both hope and optimism
contribute to positive outcomes.
Positive expectancies and well-being
Both Snyder’s theory of hope and Carver and Scheier’s
theory of optimism have been extensively studied in
recent decades. Previous research has demonstrated
associations between hope, optimism and well-being in
numerous populations and studies (Carver & Scheier,
2002a; Snyder, 2002). Most of this previous research
has independently examined the effects of either hope
or optimism. There are, however, three notable
exceptions.
In a sample of 204 undergraduates, Magaletta and
Oliver (1999) determined that hope and optimism are
distinct latent constructs that uniquely predict a
general measure of well-being. Similarly, in a sample
of 351 undergraduates, Bryant and Cvengros (2004)
used structural equation modeling to evaluate the
distinctiveness of hope and optimism and determined
that hope and optimism have differential effects on
coping strategies and general self-efficacy. A more
recent study found that, although the facets of hope
and optimism were both correlated with life satisfac-
tion, only the agency subscale of hope consistently
predicted a unique amount of variance (Bailey, Eng,
Frisch, & Snyder, 2007). Although these studies have
consistently demonstrated that hope and optimism
are both associated with well-being, this research has
focused on only a limited range of the factors that are
currently believed to represent well-being and flourish-
ing mental health.
The structure of well-being
Recent conceptualizations of well-being have identified
three related, but distinct domains of well-being that
have developed from the hedonic and eudaimonic
philosophical traditions (Keyes, 2005; Ryan & Deci,
2001). Hedonic well-being (also known as subjective
well-being) is defined as the frequent experience of
pleasant emotions and moods, the infrequent experi-
ence of negative emotions and moods, and high levels
of self-avowed life satisfaction (Diener, 1984). The
eudaimonic approach to well-being, exemplified by
Ryff’s (1989) model of psychological well-being,
focuses on how individuals strive to function fully
and realize their unique abilities (Waterman, 1993).
Ryff’s model identifies six related, but distinct facets
of eudaimonic well-being: autonomy, environmental
mastery, personal growth, positive relations with
others, purpose in life, and self-acceptance.
Keyes’ (1998) model of social well-being extends
the eudaimonic tradition to the interpersonal realm
and focuses on the social tasks encountered by adults
in their social lives. Keyes’ theory of social well-being
identifies five facets of social well-being: social
acceptance, social actualization, social coherence,
social contribution, and social integration. Together,
these five factors represent whether individuals are
flourishing within their social environment. Recent
empirical work has demonstrated that when each of
the components of hedonic, eudaimonic, and social
well-being are reliably measured, the 14 factors of
well-being can be integrated into a hierarchical model
of well-being that encompasses the breadth of these
varied traditions (Gallagher et al., 2009).
The present study
The present study had three goals. First, we sought
to determine whether hope and optimism are distinct
latent constructs, as suggested by Snyder (2002) and
Carver and Scheier (2002a, 2002b). Despite previous
research suggesting that the two constructs are distinct
(Magaletta & Oliver, 1999), some researchers question
whether hope and optimism are distinct constructs or
whether they are simply two names for the same
underlying latent construct (Aspinwall & Leaf, 2002;
The Journal of Positive Psychology 549
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 11:38 05 August 2013
Tennen, Affleck, & Tennen, 2002). We used confirma-
tory factor analysis to explore whether hope and
optimism are best conceptualized as distinct latent
constructs. Our hypothesis was that hope and opti-
mism would be highly related but distinct latent
constructs that each represent a unique aspect of how
individuals maintain positive expectancies for the
future.
Second, we sought to determine whether hope and
optimism independently predict multiple components
of positive mental health. Although existing research
consistently demonstrates that hope and optimism are
associated with well-being, there has been great vari-
ability in how well-being has been operationalized and
how comprehensively it is measured (rarely are multi-
ple measures of well-being used). Previous research has
generally focused on exploring how hope and optimism
relate to hedonic well-being and has not adequately
examined how these positive expectancies for the
future may reflect or promote eudaimonic and social
well-being. In addition, few studies have examined
hope and optimism together and it remains unclear
whether hope and optimism have unique or indepen-
dent effects on well-being. We therefore examined the
unique effects of hope and optimism on the six facets
of eudaimonic well-being (Ryff, 1989), the five facets of
social well-being (Keyes, 1998), and the three facets
of hedonic well-being (Diener, 1984) using structural
equation modeling. Our hypothesis was that hope and
optimism would both be associated with each of the 14
facets of well-being as we believe that positive
perceptions of personal agency (i.e. hope) and general-
ized positive expectancies (i.e. optimism) are both
important contributors to positive psychological
functioning.
Third, we examined whether hope and optimism
differentially relate to the aspects of well-being. The
theories of hope and optimism emphasize different
aspects of how individuals pursue their goals and it is
possible that certain aspects of well-being are more
dependent on the perceptions of personal agency
emphasized within hope theory whereas other aspects
of well-being are more dependent on the more
generalized positive expectancies emphasized in opti-
mism theory. We therefore examined the comparative
magnitude of the effects of hope and optimism on the
components of well-being in order to determine
whether hope and optimism have differential effects
on certain components of well-being.
Our hypothesis was that hope and optimism would
contribute equally to the prediction of hedonic well-
being as hope and optimism should both facilitate goal
achievement and the components of hedonic well-being
(positive and negative affect, life satisfaction) reflect
the extent to which individuals perceive themselves to
be making progress towards or meeting their goals
(Brunstein, 1993; Emmons, 1986; Snyder, 2002).
Similarly, we hypothesized that hope and optimism
would equally contribute to the prediction of social
well-being. Optimal social functioning inevitably
depends upon both behaviors within one’s control
and outside of one’s control. Thus, it is likely that
positive expectancies regarding one’s own actions (i.e.
hope) and other’s actions (i.e. optimism) would both
be important. Finally, we hypothesized that hope and
optimism would differentially relate to the components
of eudaimonic well-being. The primary theoretical
distinction between the theories of hope and optimism
is the relative emphasis placed on the importance of
personal agency. Given that many of the components
of eudaimonic well-being emphasize the role of the
individual in pursuing and achieving goals (e.g.
autonomy, environmental mastery), we hypothesized
that hope, with its relative emphasis on personal
agency, would exhibit stronger effects on the compo-
nents of eudaimonic well-being than optimism.
Methods
Participants
A total of 591 undergraduates (239 males, 352 females)
at a large Midwestern university participated in this
study in exchange for psychology course credit. The
participants
4
ranged in age from 18–45 with a mean
age of 18.94. Roughly half of participants (46.9%)
were 18 years old. The sample was primarily Caucasian
(87.8%), with the remaining participants describing
themselves as Asian (5.4%), Hispanic (1.9%), African
American (1.4%), and other (3.6%). Participants
completed all measures through a secure website. The
scales and the items within each scale were presented
in a random order to minimize fatigue effects.
Measures
Revised Snyder Hope Scale (RHS). The Revised
Snyder Hope Scale (Shorey et al., 2009) is an 18-item
measure designed to assess the three facets of Snyder’s
(2002) cognitive theory of hope: pathways, agency, and
goals. Six items tap each of the three components with
a balance between positively and negatively worded
items. Negatively worded items were reverse coded
prior to computing means for the agency, goals, and
pathways subscales. The alpha reliability of the total
scale, and the agency, pathways, and goals subscales of
the RHS were 0.91, 0.82, 0.79, and 0.80, respectively.
Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R). The LOT-R
(Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994) was designed to
assess general expectations for future positive out-
comes (optimism). It contains 10 items: three items that
assess positive expectations, three items that assess the
absence of negative expectations, and four filler items.
550 M.W. Gallagher and S.J. Lopez
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 11:38 05 August 2013
Participants responded to the items by indicating their
level of agreement on a five-point Likert scale. The
negatively worded items were reverse coded prior to
computing means of the three optimism items and the
three pessimism items. The alpha reliability for the
LOT-R in the present study was 0.85.
Eudaimonic well-being. A 42-item version of Ryff’s
(1989) scales was used to assess the six facets of
eudaimonic well-being. Each of the six factors was
assessed using seven items in which participants
indicated their level of agreement on a seven-point
Likert scale. Negatively worded items were reverse-
coded prior to all analyses. Alpha reliabilities for the
six scales ranged from 0.72 to 0.86 in this sample.
Social well-being. Social well-being was measured using
the scales developed by Keyes (1998) to measure the
five factors in his model of social well-being. Each scale
contains six or seven items and participants indicated
their level of agreement using a seven point Likert
scale. Alpha reliabilities for the five scales ranged from
0.66 to 0.87 in this sample.
Hedonic well-being. The three components of hedonic
well-being were measured using the Positive and
Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) and the
Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS). The trait version
of the PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) was
used to assess general emotional experience. The
PANAS contains 10 items which assess positive affect
and ten items which assess negative affect. Alpha
reliabilities for the positive and negative affect scales
were 0.89 and 0.88, respectively. The Subjective
Happiness Scale (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999) is a
four item measure designed to assess general subjective
evaluations of happiness. Participants respond to each
of the items using seven-point Likert scales. The alpha
reliability for the Subjective Happiness Scale was 0.87
in this sample.
Analytic procedures
We utilized Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to
analyze the relationships between positive expectancies
and well-being. SEM provides a flexible statistical
framework in which the associations between many
variable can be examined while controlling for mea-
surement error that often affects traditional statistical
techniques. All models were analyzed using LISREL
8.80 and maximum likelihood estimation procedures.
The variance-covariance matrix was used for all
models and the scale for all latent constructs was
established by specifying the latent variance to equal
1.0. Measurement and structural models were evalu-
ated for goodness of fit using several common fit
indices: the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA; Steiger & Lind, 1980) and its 90% confi-
dence interval (90% CI), the standardized root mean
residual (SRMR; Jo
¨reskog & So
¨rbom, 1996), the non-
normed fit index (NNFI; Bentler & Bonett, 1980), and
the comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990).
Sixteen latent constructs were examined: hope,
optimism, the six facets of eudaimonic well-being, the
five facets of social well-being, and the three facets of
hedonic well-being. Correlations between and means
and standard deviations of these measures can be
found in Table 1. We found no gender differences in
levels of hope or optimism. The latent construct of
hope was specified using the agency, goals, and
pathways subscale totals of the Snyder Hope Scale
(Shorey et al., 2009) as the three manifest indicators
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations between manifest constructs.
12345678910111213141516
1. Autonomy 1
2. Environmental mastery 0.40 1
3. Personal growth 0.41 0.44 1
4. Positive relations 0.40 0.60 0.50 1
5. Purpose in life 0.40 0.68 0.60 0.60 1
6. Self acceptance 0.43 0.72 0.50 0.68 0.69 1
7. Social acceptance 0.12 0.42 0.32 0.52 0.42 0.45 1
8. Social actualization 0.18 0.46 0.42 0.49 0.52 0.51 0.58 1
9. Social coherence 0.38 0.38 0.47 0.36 0.44 0.41 0.36 0.42 1
10. Social contribution 0.35 0.55 0.52 0.49 0.66 0.59 0.44 0.57 0.53 1
11. Social integration 0.26 0.59 0.41 0.64 0.61 0.63 0.56 0.64 0.44 0.73 1
12. Positive affect 0.35 0.54 0.39 0.44 0.55 0.54 0.30 0.37 0.23 0.53 0.51 1
13. Negative affect 0.29 0.51 0.30 0.39 0.41 0.51 0.30 0.27 0.27 0.31 0.34 0.31 1
14. Life satisfaction 0.32 0.60 0.40 0.60 0.54 0.69 0.45 0.42 0.29 0.45 0.52 0.57 0.52 1
15. Hope 0.45 0.63 0.58 0.51 0.74 0.61 0.31 0.45 0.43 0.64 0.53 0.62 0.38 0.50 1
16. Optimism 0.31 0.60 0.40 0.53 0.56 0.70 0.45 0.45 0.35 0.51 0.54 0.49 0.47 0.62 0.53 1
Mean 4.16 4.25 4.67 4.45 4.69 4.47 3.71 4.48 4.45 4.50 4.36 3.61 2.01 5.16 6.14 3.54
Std. Dev. 0.78 0.80 0.71 0.80 0.80 0.92 0.82 0.75 0.69 0.80 0.85 0.68 0.70 10.18 0.93 0.84
All correlations significant at p50.005.
The Journal of Positive Psychology 551
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 11:38 05 August 2013
of hope. The latent construct of optimism was specified
using the optimism and pessimism (reverse-coded)
subscale totals of the LOT-R (Scheier et al., 1994) as
the two manifest indicators of optimism. Thirteen of
the latent constructs of well-being (all but subjective
happiness) were specified using three parcels as man-
ifest indicators of each construct. Parceling is a
technique in which individual items are aggregated
in order to create parcels that demonstrate superior
psychometric properties (i.e. higher reliability, reduced
chance of distributional violations; Little,
Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). Parcels for
each of these 13 constructs were created by aggregating
2–3 items from the respective scales. The latent
construct of subjective happiness was specified using
the four items of the SHS (Lyubomirsky & Lepper,
1999) as the four manifest indicators.
These 16 latent constructs were used to specify
three models. The first model tested the hypothesis
that hope and optimism are distinct latent constructs.
The second model tested the alternative hypothesis
that hope and optimism are a single latent construct.
Finally, the third model examined the effects of hope
and optimism on the 14 facets of well-being. Due to the
large number of parameters to be estimated in the
structural equation model examining the unique effects
of hope and optimism on well-being, we used boot-
strapping to provide more stable estimates of the
latent effects of positive expectancies on well-being.
Bootstrapping is a resampling technique that allows
for the calculation of confidence intervals for statistics
such as latent regression parameters. We used PRELIS
to create 1000 random resamplings of our data and
used LISREL to analyze the proposed models with
each of these resampled data sets. We then entered the
output from these analyses into SPSS in order to
calculate the mean, standard deviation, and confidence
intervals of the latent regression parameters of the
positive expectancies on each of the components of
well-being.
Results
Hope and optimism as oblique latent constructs
We first examined our hypothesis that hope and
optimism are distinct constructs by specifying a
confirmatory factor analysis model with hope and
optimism as oblique latent constructs (Figure 1). This
two-factor model demonstrated excellent fit (
2
(4,
n¼591) ¼18.92, p50.001; NNFI ¼0.98; CFI ¼0.99;
RMSEA ¼0.08; SRMR ¼0.03) and indicated that the
latent constructs of hope and optimism were correlated
at r¼0.66. An alternative model was examined next to
determine whether a single latent construct of positive
expectancies would provide a more parsimonious
representation of the data. The three indicators of
hope and the two indicators of optimism were specified
as five manifest indicators of a single positive
expectancies latent construct. This model demon-
strated poor fit (
2
(5, n¼591) ¼173.12, p50.001;
NNFI ¼0.79; CFI ¼0.89; RMSEA ¼0.24;
SRMR ¼0.09) and nested model comparisons (
2
(1) ¼154.20, p50.001) indicated that the reduction
of hope and optimism to a single latent construct was
not tenable. Our hypothesis that hope and optimism
are correlated but distinct latent constructs was there-
fore supported.
Unique effects of hope and optimism on well-being
After we found support for our hypothesis that hope
and optimism are distinct latent constructs, we used
structural equation modeling to examine whether hope
and optimism have unique effects on the 14 compo-
nents of well-being. A model was specified in which
hope and optimism were each specified as predictors of
.66
1*
Pessimism (R)OptimismPathwaysGoalsAgency
.93 .77 .76
Hope
1* Optimism
.83 .78
.39.32.43.40.14
Figure 1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis with hope and optimism specified as oblique factors. Completely standardized solution.
Model fit:
2
(4, n¼591) ¼18.92, p50.001; NNFI ¼0.98; CFI ¼0.99; RMSEA ¼0.08; SRMR ¼0.03.
552 M.W. Gallagher and S.J. Lopez
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 11:38 05 August 2013
the 14 components of well-being. This model demon-
strated excellent fit (
2
(960, n¼591) ¼2300.70;
NNFI ¼0.98; CFI ¼0.98; RMSEA ¼0.053, RMSEA
90% CI ¼0.050–0.054; SRMR ¼0.044). The means,
standard deviations, confidence intervals, and comple-
tely standardized results of this model can be found
in Table 2. Hope had a unique effect on 12 of the 14
components of well-being (all but negative affect and
social coherence), and optimism had a unique effect on
12 of the 14 components of well-being (all but
autonomy and personal growth). Together hope and
optimism accounted for a moderate to high proportion
of variance of each of the 14 components of well-being
(R
2
ranging from 0.29 for autonomy to 0.80 for
purpose in life). These results therefore demonstrate
that hope and optimism are both important predictors
of the various components of well-being.
Differential effects of hope and optimism on
well-being
We next examined whether hope and optimism
differentially predicted the various aspects of well-
being. We compared the confidence intervals of the
latent regression effects, as well as the magnitude of the
completely standardized latent regression parameters.
Results indicated that optimism was more strongly
associated with the components of hedonic well-being.
Optimism had a statistically significant effect (i.e. the
95% confidence interval of Bdid not include 0) on
each of the three components of hedonic well-being
(average completely standardized effect of B¼0.464),
whereas hope had a statistically significant effect on
two of the three components of hedonic well-being
(average completely standardized effect of B¼0.265).
Optimism was also more strongly associated with the
components of social well-being, although the differ-
ences were small. Optimism had a statistically signif-
icant effect on each of the five components of social
well-being (average completely standardized effect of
B¼0.359), whereas hope had a statistically significant
effect on four of the five components of social well-
being (average completely standardized effect of
B¼0.324). Finally, our results indicated that hope
was more strongly associated with the components of
eudaimonic well-being. Hope had a statistically signif-
icant effect on each of the six components of
eudaimonic well-being (average completely standar-
dized effect of B¼0.487), whereas optimism had a
statistically significant effect on four of the six
components of hedonic well-being (average completely
standardized effect of B¼0.342). These results there-
fore suggest that hope and optimism may differentially
relate to the components of flourishing mental health.
Discussion
Our results provide three important contributions to
the understanding of how hope and optimism relate to
one another and to well-being. First, the results of our
confirmatory factor analysis of the latent structure of
hope and optimism provide further support for the
hypothesis that hope and optimism are related, but
distinct latent constructs that each represent a manner
in which individuals maintain and express positive
expectancies. The overlap between the constructs is
demonstrated by the latent correlation between hope
and optimism of 0.66 (Figure 1), which indicates that
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, Confidence Intervals of, and Completely Standardized latent regression effects of hope
and optimism on well-being.
Optimism Hope
BSD 95% CI BBSD 95% CI B
Eudaimonic well-being
Autonomy 0.082 0.097 0.110 : 0.276 0.069 0.591 0.097 0.407 : 0.797 0.493
Environmental mastery 1.080 0.220 0.753 : 1.678 0.515 0.916 0.179 0.604 : 1.332 0.442
Personal growth 0.136 0.124 0.114 : 0.392 0.092 1.110 0.173 0.819 : 1.469 0.702
Positive relations 0.673 0.112 0.475 : 0.909 0.471 0.417 0.094 0.232 : 0.606 0.298
Purpose in life 0.524 0.139 0.263 : 0.794 0.229 1.695 0.272 1.251 : 2.310 0.729
Self-acceptance 1.409 0.312 1.044 : 2.138 0.676 0.523 0.127 0.279 : 0.773 0.256
Social well-being
Social coherence 0.649 0.108 0.456 : 0.869 0.540 0.004 0.086 0.170 : 0.162 0.005
Social integration 0.474 0.102 0.276 : 0.678 0.375 0.370 0.094 0.193 : 0.562 0.290
Social contribution 0.250 0.106 0.058 : 0.462 0.201 0.490 0.105 0.296 : 0.720 0.407
Social acceptance 0.383 0.105 0.182 : 0.595 0.243 0.943 0.128 0.715 : 1.226 0.593
Social actualization 0.617 0.109 0.411 : 0.842 0.438 0.452 0.086 0.288 : 0.617 0.327
Hedonic well-being
Positive affect 0.337 0.085 0.169 : 0.513 0.238 0.776 0.094 0.594 : 0.972 0.538
Negative affect 0.612 0.101 0.816 : 0.422 0.492 0.147 0.087 0.319 : 0.034 0.122
Life satisfaction 1.033 0.146 0.766 : 1.337 0.663 0.207 0.095 0.011 : 0.383 0.136
The Journal of Positive Psychology 553
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 11:38 05 August 2013
roughly 44% of the latent variance of these constructs
is shared. However, the results of the confirmatory
factor analysis demonstrate that the reduction of hope
and optimism to a single positive expectancies factor
is not tenable. These findings therefore build upon
previous research that demonstrate the distinctions
between hope and optimism (Bryant & Cvengros,
2004) and provide an empirical basis for examining the
unique effects of hope and optimism on well-being.
The second contribution of these findings stems
from the results of the bootstrapped structural equa-
tion models, which examined the unique effects of hope
and optimism on the components of eudaimonic (Ryff,
1989), social (Keyes, 1998), and hedonic well-being
(Diener, 1984). Hope and optimism each demonstrated
unique effects on the majority of the 14 components of
well-being. Hope had a significant effect on 12 of the
14 well-being components (all but negative affect and
social coherence), and optimism had a significant effect
on 12 of the 14 well-being components (all but
autonomy and personal growth). The magnitude of
effects that hope and optimism had on the 14 well-
being constructs is particularly noteworthy. Hope and
optimism together accounted for between 29% and
80% of the variance of the well-being factors (51.14%
on average). These results suggest that hope and
optimism are important indicators and potential path-
ways to positive mental health.
The third contribution stems from the examination
of the differential effects of hope and optimism on the
components of well-being. As expected, hope and
optimism appeared to contribute similarly to the
components of social well-being. Our results also
supported our hypothesis that hope is more related
to the facets of eudaimonic well-being than optimism.
Hope uniquely contributed to the prediction of all six
facets of eudaimonic well-being, whereas optimism
only uniquely contributed to the prediction of four of
these facets. Contrary to our expectations, however,
optimism exhibited more robust effects on the indica-
tors of hedonic well-being than hope. These results
therefore suggest that generalized positive expectancies
(i.e. optimism) and positive expectancies regarding
personal agency (i.e. hope) may be equally important
for maintaining social aspects of well-being, that
optimism may be more important for maintaining the
pleasurable aspects of well-being, and that hope may
be more important for maintaining the purposeful
aspects of well-being.
Previous examinations of the effects of hope and
optimism on positive mental health have focused on
the components of hedonic well-being (Carver &
Scheier, 2002a; Lucas, Diener, & Suh, 1996; Snyder
et al., 1991, 1996) and have generally only examined
the effects of hope or optimism in isolation. Our results
therefore build upon this previous work in a number of
important ways. By concurrently examining the
effects of hope and optimism, we were able to
demonstrate that the two theories and constructs are
not redundant, and that both constructs uniquely
contribute to the prediction of well-being. By using
structural equation modeling as the analytical frame-
work, we were able to control for measurement error
and, as a result, can more confidently interpret the
effect size results. By examining the unique effects of
hope and optimism on the components of eudaimonic
(Ryff, 1989), social (Keyes, 1998), and hedonic well-
being (Diener, 1984), we have demonstrated that hope
and optimism are each uniquely associated with the full
range of factors which have been proposed to represent
flourishing mental health (Gallagher et al., 2009;
Keyes, 2002, 2005). By examining the differential
effects of hope and optimism we determined that
optimism has more of an effect on hedonic well-being
whereas hope has more of an effect on eudaimonic
well-being. Finally, by using bootstrapping resampling
techniques on a large sample, we provided more precise
estimates of the latent effects of hope and optimism on
well-being.
Limitations
Although the results of the structural equation models
consistently demonstrated that hope and optimism
have unique effects on the various facets of flourishing
mental health (Keyes, 2005), certain limitations of this
study should be noted. The sample was homogenous
both in terms of the age and ethnicity of the
participants. It will therefore be important for future
research to examine the effects of positive expectancies
in the form of hope and optimism in individuals of
different ages, ethnicities, and socioeconomic statuses.
It is also important to remember that Snyder’s theory
of hope and Scheier and Carver’s theory of optimism
represent a Western perspective that emphasizes the
achievement of personal goals (Snyder & Lopez, 2007).
Previous comparisons of the effects of optimism in
Caucasian and Asian Americans have found that
higher levels of pessimism actually predicted improved
problem solving for Asian Americans (Chang, 1996).
Additional research is therefore needed to discern
whether high optimism and high hope are equally
adaptive in other cultures.
Future directions
Further research is also needed to explore the possi-
bility that the comparative influence of hope and
optimism varies by situation. The two theories differ in
the role they assign to personal agency in goal pursuits.
It may be that in certain life areas it is more adaptive to
emphasize the role of personal agency, while in other
arenas it may be more adaptive to hold positive
554 M.W. Gallagher and S.J. Lopez
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 11:38 05 August 2013
expectations but allow for external sources of agency.
Previous theoretical discussions of the differences
between hope and optimism (Snyder, 2002; Snyder
et al., 2001) have noted potential situations in which
this might be the case and our results provide prelim-
inary support for this hypothesis by demonstrating
that hope and optimism are differentially related to
certain aspects of positive mental health. Empirical
tests of the differential effects of hope and optimism in
specific contexts are now needed. We would suggest
that researchers focus on the effects of hope in contexts
more dependent on personal agency and focus on the
effects of optimism in contexts more dependent on
external agency. Similarly, practitioners may want to
consider the extent to which clients endorse an internal
or external locus of control for particular outcomes
when considering whether to focus on developing
clients’ levels of hope or optimism.
One final area of research that is crucial is
longitudinal work examining the unique and shared
effects of hope and optimism across time. Although we
know a good deal about the various positive outcomes
associated with hope and optimism, longitudinal
studies could help researchers determine whether
hope and optimism merely reflect past successes or,
as the theories would suggest, promote future positive
outcomes. Longitudinal research could also advance
our understanding of the particular behaviors or
psychological processes that mediate the relationships
between hope, optimism, and well-being.
Conclusions
Research examining the beneficial effects of hope and
optimism has flourished in the past two decades as
empirical work has consistently demonstrated the
benefits of positive expectancies for the future. The
present study extends this work by demonstrating that
hope and optimism are empirically distinct, that hope
and optimism uniquely contribute to the prediction of
flourishing mental health, and that hope and optimism
differentially relate to the components of well-being.
Although additional experimental and longitudinal
work is needed to precisely identify the mechanisms
by which hope and optimism promote mental health,
these results help provide the basis for examining how
hope and optimism promote flourishing mental health.
Notes
1. Although in the present paper we are focusing exclu-
sively on Snyder’s (2002) conceptualization of hope,
there are a number of alternatives theories of hope that
have been proposed by other researchers (e.g. Herth,
1992; Stotland, 1969).
2. Seligman and colleagues’ theory of attributional style
is also commonly referred to as optimism, but primarily
focuses on causal explanations used to explain bad
outcomes. Although attributional style is likely an
important predictor of mental health and mental illness,
the construct is not necessarily a form of positive
expectancies, and is therefore not the focus of the
present study.
3. In this way, hope theory is similar to self-efficacy
theory (Bandura, 1977, 1997) in that both hope theory
and self-efficacy theory suggests that personal agency is
the primary determinant of goal achievement. The
primary theoretical difference is that self-efficacy
emphasizes domain specific perceptions of agency in
terms of capabilities (e.g. I can do x) whereas hope
emphasizes global perceptions of agency in terms of
both capabilities and outcome (e.g. I can and will do x).
Hope theory also places more emphasis on the gener-
ation of specific pathways or strategies to achieve goals
(Snyder, 2002).
4. Data from this sample has previously been published
(Gallagher, Lopez, & Preacher, 2009). This previous
article examined the latent structure of well-being and
did not include any examination of the effects of hope
or optimism on well-being.
References
Aspinwall, L.G., & Leaf, S.L. (2002). In search of the unique
aspects of hope: Pinning our hopes on positive emotions,
future-oriented thinking, hard times, and other people.
Psychological Inquiry, 13, 276–288.
Bailey, T.C., Eng, W., Frisch, M.B., & Snyder, C.R. (2007).
Hope and optimism related to life satisfaction. Journal of
Positive Psychology, 2, 168–175.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory
of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.
New York: Freeman.
Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural
equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 28, 97–104.
Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and
goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Psychological. Bulletin, 88, 588–606.
Brunstein, J.C. (1993). Personal goals and subjective well-
being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 65, 1061–1070.
Bryant, F.B., & Cvengros, J.A. (2004). Distinguishing hope
and optimism: Two sides of a coin, or two separate coins?
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 273–302.
Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1998). On the self-regulation
of behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (2002a). Optimism.
In C.R. Snyder, & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive
psychology (pp. 231–243). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (2002b). The hopeful optimist.
Psychological Inquiry, 13, 288–290.
Chang, E.C. (1996). Cultural differences in optimism,
pessimism, and coping: Predictors of subsequent adjust-
ment in Asian American and Caucasian American college
students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 113–123.
Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological
Bulletin, 95, 542–575.
The Journal of Positive Psychology 555
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 11:38 05 August 2013
Emmons, R.A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to
personality and subjective well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1058–1068.
Gallagher, M.W., Lopez, S.J., & Preacher, K.J. (2009). The
hierarchical structure of well-being. Journal of Personality,
77, 1025–1050.
Herth, K. (1992). Abbreviated instrument to measure hope:
Development and psychometric evaluation. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 17, 1251–1259.
Jo
¨reskog, K.G., & So
¨rbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s
reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Keyes, C.L.M. (1998). Social well-being. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 61, 121–140.
Keyes, C.L.M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From
languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 43, 207–222.
Keyes, C.L.M. (2005). Mental health and/or mental illness?
Investigating axioms of the complete state model of health.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 539–548.
Keyes, C.L.M. (2007). Promoting and protecting mental
health as flourishing. American Psychologist, 62, 95–108.
Little, T.D., Cunningham, W.A., Shahar, G., & Widaman,
K.F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the
question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation
Modeling, 9, 151–173.
Lucas, R.E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant
validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 71, 616–628.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. (1999). A measure of
subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct
validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137–155.
Magaletta, P.R., & Oliver, J.M. (1999). The hope construct,
will and ways: Their relative relations with self-efficacy,
optimism, and general well-being. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 55, 539–551.
Rand, K.L. (2009). Hope and optimism: Latent structures
and influences on grade expectancy and academic perfor-
mance. Journal of Personality, 77, 231–260.
Rand, K.L., & Cheavens, J.S. (2009). Hope theory. In C.R.
Snyder & S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychol-
ogy (2nd ed., pp. 323–333). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal
versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological
Monographs, 80, whole no. 69.
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2001). On happiness and human
potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudai-
monic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,
141–166.
Ryff, C.D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it?
Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
1069–1081.
Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and
health: Assessment and implications of generalized out-
come expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219–247.
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.
Shorey, H.S., Little, T., Rand, K., Snyder, C.R.,
Monsson, Y., & Gallagher, M.W. (2009). Validation of
the Revised Snyder Hope Scale (HS-R2): The will, the
ways, and now the goals for positive future outcomes.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Snyder, C.R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind.
Psychological Inquiry, 13, 249–275.
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, 570–585.
Snyder, C.R., & Lopez, S.J. (2007). Positive psychology: The
scientific and practical explorations of human strengths.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Snyder, C.R., Sympson, S.C., Michael, S.T., & Cheavens, J.
(2001). The optimism and hope constructs: Variants on
a positive expectancy theme. In E. Chang (Ed.), Optimism
(pp. 101–126). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Snyder, C.R., Sympson, S.C., Ybasco, F.C., Borders, T.F.,
Babyak, M.A., & Higgins, R.L. (1996). Development and
validation of the State Hope Scale. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70, 321–335.
Steiger, J.H., & Lind, J.C. (1980, May). Statistically-based
tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented
at the annual Spring Meeting of the Psychometric Society
in Iowa City.
Stotland, E. (1969). The psychology of hope. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Tennen, H., Affleck, G., & Tennen, R. (2002). Clipped
feathers: The theory and measurement of hope.
Psychological Inquiry, 13, 311–317.
Waterman, A.S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness:
Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and
hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 64, 678–691.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. (1988).
Development and validation of brief measures of positive
and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
556 M.W. Gallagher and S.J. Lopez
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 11:38 05 August 2013
