Content uploaded by Jody Worley
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jody Worley on Jul 10, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Locus of Hope: External Hope in Parents/Guardians
as an Antecedent of Adolescents’Internal Hope
and Life Satisfaction
Ricky T. Munoz
1,2
&Kathleen A. Quinton
1
&
Jody A. Worley
3
&Chan M. Hellman
1,2
Accepted: 30 May 2018
#Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract While hope has been frequently referenced as a protective factor associated
with resilience, limited research exists examining hope’s origins. To expand the
research base on the origins of hope among adolescents, we conducted 2 studies to
test Bernardo’s locus of hope theory, along with Snyder’s theory that hope originates
from attentive caregivers. Two cross sectional studies were performed with 2 indepen-
dent samples collected from adolescents residing in the South Central United States
(Study 1: N′=556;Study2: N′= 578). Covariance based structural equation modeling
(CB-SEM) was used to test an apriorimodel of external locus of hope in parents/
guardians as an antecedent of life satisfaction mediated by children’s internal hope. The
results of both studies indicate that the proposed theoretical model provided good fit to
the observed data. The study concludes with a discussion of the implications of the
results, particularly the potential importance of parenting approaches that involve
parents/guardians acting as external agents promoting their adolescents’goals.
Keywords Locus of Hope .Hope .Life Satisfaction
Theyoung...arefullofpassion,whichexcludesfear,andofhope,which
inspires confidence.
Aristotle, Rhetoric Book II
Child Ind Res
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-018-9566-z
*Ricky T. Munoz
rmunoz@ou.edu
1
Anne and Henry Zarrow School of Social Work, University of Oklahoma-Tulsa, 4502 East 41st St,
Tulsa, OK 74135, USA
2
Hope Research Center, University of Oklahoma-Tulsa, 4502 East 41st St, Tulsa, OK 74135, USA
3
Human Relations, University of Oklahoma-Tulsa, 4502 East 41st St, Tulsa, OK 74135, USA
As noted by Aristotle above, hope has long been recognized as an important
psychological strength associated with optimal functioning. (Friere 1992), in Pedagogy
of Hope, contended that hope is also essential for those striving to overcome obstacles,
stating, BThere is no change without the dream, as there is no dream without hope.^(p.
91). Among adolescents, research supports this theorized importance of hope, as hope
has been linked to multiple other variables associated with psychological wellbeing
(Jiang et al. 2013;Jovanović2013; Wong and Lim 2009;Jovanović2013;Marques
et al. 2009; Ciarrochi et al. 2007). Nevertheless, despite the long-standing recognition
of the value of hope to resilience and psychological wellbeing, little empirical research
exists that explores the origins of hope.
Toward the end of developing a better understanding of the origins of hope, we tested,
in 2 independent studies, Snyder’s theory (Snyder 1994) that effective caregiving is a
potential driver of hopeful thinking among adolescents. The studies also employed
Bernardo’s(2010) locus of hope theory, which suggests that hope can either be in oneself
(internal hope), or in others (external hope). Combining the theories of both Snyder and
Bernardo, we hypothesized that adolescents’external hope in their parents/guardians
would serve as an antecedent of adolescents’internal hope in themselves, leading to an
increased sense of psychological wellbeing. If the data supported the combined theories,
such a result would suggest the value of future research into parenting approaches that
assist parents/guardians to be external agents of hope for their children.
1 Hope Theory
Since the 1980s, a dominant paradigm of prevention research with adolescents has
centered on cataloging the protective factors associated with resilience (McCoy and
Bowen 2015). Hope has been studied as one of such protective factors among
adolescents across cultures (McCoy and Bowen 2015; Kirmani et al. 2015;Kim
et al. 2005). In fact, using the well-known hope theory of C.R. Snyder (1994),
hope has been shown among adolescents to positively correlate with multiple other
variables associated with positive psychological wellbeing, including life satisfac-
tion (Jiang et al. 2013;Jovanović2013; Wong and Lim 2009)positiveaffect,
self-efficacy, and self-esteem (Jovanović2013; Marques et al. 2009; Ciarrochi et al.
2007). Hope has also been positively associated with task achievement among
adolescents (Adelabu 2008) and other character strengths among children exposed
to domestic violence (Hellman and Gwinn 2017).
Snyder (1994) describes hope as a multidimensional cognitive state consisting of 1.)
hope agency, which is the appraisal of one’s capability and determination to achieve a
goal (i.e., BIcan,^BI’mready,^and BI’ve got what it takes^); and 2.) hope pathways
thinking (Snyder 1994), which is the mental process of identifying viable routes to
goals (i.e., BI have a solid plan to achieve my goal^). According to Snyder (1994), total
hope is the iterative combination of both agency and pathways thinking.
A defining characteristic of Snyder’s hope theory is the importance Snyder places on
personal agency to hope. For example, the wording of the items of Snyder’s Children’s
Hope Scale (Snyder et al. 1996) illustrates the centrality of personal agency to hope
(e.g., BI think the things I have done in the past will help me in the future^and BIcan
think of many ways to get the things in life that are most important to me.^). Such items
R. T. Munoz et al.
suggest that hope consists largely of a respondent’s perceptions of his/her own personal
agency to bring about desired ends.
The centrality of personal agency to Snyder’s conceptualization of hope is also
evident in discussions by Snyder (Snyder et al. 1991) on the similarities between hope
and self-efficacy (Bandura 1977/1986). While theory and associated empirical research
supports hope and self-efficacy as unique cognitive sets (Munoz et al. 2016;Magaletta
and Oliver 1999), Snyder’s discussion of the similarities between hope and self-efficacy
(Snyder et al. 1991) is an implicit recognition of the centrality of personal agency to
Snyder’s conceptualization of hope.
While Snyder’s theory of hope has led to empirical insights into the importance of
hope to overall wellbeing, Snyder’s emphasis on personal agency within his concep-
tualization of hope does create some difficulty for his theory in explaining situations in
which one appears to have hope despite low assessments of personal agency. For
instance, Briones (2009) conducted a qualitative study of chronically ill adolescents
and found frequent references were made to external agents, such as parents, siblings,
or even God, as sources of hope. Such a study supports that individuals often speak of
the presence of hope even in conditions of low personal agency. Others have also
theorized that hope does not necessarily depend on assessments of high personal
agency (Aspinwall and Leaf 2002).
2 External Locus of Hope
In response to such critiques of Snyder’s hope theory, Bernardo 2010/2015)proposed
loci of hope dimensions, suggesting hope can reside both internally, based on appraisals
of one’s own ability to bring about desired ends, and/or externally, based on appraisals
of the presence of helpful external agents with the ability to bring about desired ends. In
order to measure individual differences in the proposed external dimensions of hope,
Bernardo (2010) developed the Locus of Hope Scale (LOHS).
Bernardo (2010) developed the LOHS by modifying the Snyder’s Adult Disposi-
tional Hope Scale (ADHS; Snyder et al. 1991) to include items designed to capture
Bernardo’s theorized external dimensions of hope. An example of how the ADHS was
modified to capture external hope in parents is the alteration of the ADHS item BIcan
think of many ways to get out of a problem^to BMy parents find many ways to help me
solve my problems.^Bernardo (2010) modified the ADHS to capture hope across 3
theorized external dimensions that included external hope-parents, external hope-peers,
and external hope-spiritual. The original items of Snyder’sADHSwereretainedin
Bernardo’s LOHS and referenced as the Binternal^dimension of hope.
AconfirmatoryfactoranalysisbyBernardo(2010) of the LOHS, among a sample of
Filipino participants, indicated that the proposed external hope dimensions performed as
unique psychological states. A subsequent regression analysis indicated that Bernardo’s
(2010) external dimensions of hope accounted for unique variance over internal hope on
various dependent variables associated with psychological wellbeing. Such empirical
results support Bernardo’s theory of the existence of external loci of hope.
Du and King (2013) further explored locus of hope theory in a sample of individuals
also drawn from Southeast Asia, using the LOHS to evaluate whether the multiple loci
of hope dimensions accounted for unique variance of the dependent variables of
Locus of Hope: External Hope in Parents/Guardians as an Antecedent...
psychological adjustment and functioning. Results again indicated that locus of hope
dimensions predicted unique variance on of the multiple dependent variables used in
the study. The Du & King study (Du and King 2013) provided additional empirical
support for Bernardo’s(2010) theory of the existence of external dimensions of hope.
Du and King (2013)andBernardo(2010) both theorized that the results of their
respective studies may be partially attributable to the norms of the cultures from which
their samples were drawn. Both authors suggest that the collectivist cultures of Southeast
Asia may have influenced participants’views of hope, particularly the perspective that
external agents can be sources of hope independent of perceptions of personal agency.
The initial studies into locus of hope noted above suggest that hope can include
appraisals of not only an individual’s personal agency to realize desired ends, but also
appraisals of external agents’ability to facilitate those same ends. However, because the
initial samples used to test locus of hope were drawn from what Bernardo (2010)and
Du and King (2013) describe as collectivist cultures, a question remains as to the
stability of the external dimensions of locus of hope within samples from countries with
a more individualistic cultural tradition such as the United States.
3 The Origins of Hope
Although Snyder’s hope theory (hereinafter referenced, per Bernardo (2010), as internal
hope) was born in the individualistic culture of the United States, and centers on the
importance of personal agency to internal hope, Snyder’s writings on internal hope’s
origins suggest that he recognizes internal hope has external influences. For example,
Snyder states that an individual’s internal hope arises in a context of others who Bteach^
hope (Snyder 2000). For Snyder, internal hope development is heavily influenced by
childhood experiences, with a supportive environment being important to internal hope
development.
A hope inducing environment includes supportive caregivers that transmit instructions
on hopeful thinking (see Snyder 1994, for a review). According to (Snyder 2000), BIt
comes as no surprise, therefore, that adults who are high in hope recount establishing a
close bond to a caregiver –a caregiver who spent precious time with them.^(p. 12). In
being actively engaged with children, caregivers play significant roles in showing children
the Bway^to their goals by serving as mentors, nurturers, and fortifiers. In doing so, such
caregivers are thought to serve as Binstructors^of agency and pathways thinking
(Rodriguez-Hanley and Snyder 2000). Snyder also notes that the effective hope instilling
caregiver does not dictate goals to his/her children; rather, the effective hope instilling
caregiver guides and facilitates the children’s subjectively chosen goals (Snyder 1994).
Accordingly, a child’s hope development is a matter of the quality of time that a caregiver
spends with the child facilitating the child’s goals (Snyder 1994).
Initial research supports Snyder’s theory of the origins of hope, with data indicating
adolescents’hope is associated with parental attachment (Jiang et al. 2013)and
responsive parenting styles (Heaven and Ciarrochi 2008). Thus, sharing commonalities
with Bernardo, it appears that Snyder also contemplates that hope has external influ-
ences, particularly early childhood caregivers who instill hope by serving as external
agents of their children’s goals. Snyder’s references to caregivers as drivers of hope also
suggests that the external dimensions of hope advanced by Bernardo (2010)may
R. T. Munoz et al.
operate not only in collectivist cultures such as those of Southeast Asia, but also in
individualistic cultures such as the United States.
4 Life Satisfaction
To examine the potential contributions of external hope in parents/guardians to internal
hope, life satisfaction was selected for inclusion as the final consequent of a 3-variable
path model. Life satisfaction was chosen for inclusion in the model because of life
satisfaction’s established role as a measure of psychological wellbeing (Diener et al.
1985). As a measure of psychological wellbeing, life satisfaction represents the cogni-
tive appraisal of the overall quality of one’s life (Diener et al. 1985; Pavot & Diener,
1993). In making the life satisfaction determination, an individual compares the state of
his/her life to subjectively chosen benchmarks of success. When such comparisons are
favorable, greater life satisfaction results (Diener et al. 1985; Pavot and Diener 2008).
Research has demonstrated that hope is significantly associated with life satisfaction in
both adult (O'Sullivan 2011) and adolescent samples (Jiang et al. 2013;Ngetal.2014).
5 The Current Studies
Given that locus of hope has been studied largely, if not entirely, within samples drawn
outside of the United States, 2 studies were conducted with adolescents in the US to explore
Bernardo’s(2010) locus of hope theory and Snyder’s(1994) theory that hope can originate
through attentive caregivers. Specifically, the studies were to answer the following
questions:
1.) Do external hope –P/G and internal hope operate as unique psychological states
among adolescents in the United States?; and
2.) If so, does external hope - P/G serve as a driver of internal hope leading to greater
psychological wellbeing as measured by life satisfaction?
For question 2, as noted above, life satisfaction was modeled as the final consequent
of a 3 variable path model because life satisfaction is established as a measure of
psychological wellbeing (Diener et al. 1985; Pavot and Diener 2008).
The hypothesis was that the answer to both questions would be yes, with an
affirmative answer to question number 1 supporting Bernardo’s(2010) locus of hope
theory, and an affirmative answer to question number 2 supporting Snyder’s(1994)
theory that effective caregivers can be antecedents of hope and overall wellbeing.
6 Methods
6.1 Study 1
The study involved a cross-sectional paper and pencil survey administered
across a single public-school district in the South Central United States.
Locus of Hope: External Hope in Parents/Guardians as an Antecedent...
Participants were adolescent females participating in a community event pro-
moting social services available to adolescents living within the district. The
survey was administered as part of a program evaluation of the event. The
survey was administered during a single school day by teachers within the
district. The study was voluntary, anonymous, and took about 15 minutes to
complete. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board
of the institution of which the researchers are affiliated.
6.2 Participants
ThesampleconsistedofanN′= 556. All participants were female with a mean age of
15.6 years (SD = 1.16). The ethnic breakdown of the sample (rounded) was 53% White,
28% American Indian/Alaskan Native, 7% Hispanic, 1% African American, 1% Asian, and
9% other.
6.3 Instruments
External Locus-of-Hope Scale External hope –P/G was measured using
Bernardo’s(2010) LOHS. The LOHS uses a Likert format with higher scores
indicating stronger perceptions of parents as external agents of hope. The
external hope –parents dimension has shown good internal consistency
(α= .82) and has correlated in the expected directions with both a sense of
individualism and collectivism (Bernardo 2010). For this study, the external
hope –parents dimension of the LOHS was slightly modified to capture
external locus of hope in parents and guardians (P/G) to measure the
perceptions of children that may be cared for by a guardian rather than a
parent.
Children’s Hope Scale The Children’s Hope Scale (CHS; Snyder et al. 1996)
was used to measure internal hope The CHS uses a Likert scale with higher
scores indicating greater internal hope. A reliability generalization study has
shown the CHS has demonstrated good internal consistency across samples
(Hellman et al. 2017). The CHS has also demonstrated validity as a measure
of internal hope, with CHS scores correlating positively with children’s percep-
tions of their own competency (Snyder et al. 1996). CHS scores also negatively
correlate with reports of depression (Snyder et al. 1996).
Satisfaction with Life Scale The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al.
1985) was used to capture individual differences in the appraisal of life satisfac-
tion. The SWLS also utilizes a Likert scale with higher scores indicating greater
life satisfaction. The SWLS has been used in hundreds of studies and has
demonstrated good internal consistency (Pavot and Diener 2008; Pavot et al.
1991;Dieneretal.1985) and validity, with SWLS scale scores positively corre-
lating with other variables such as hope (O'Sullivan 2011;Baileyetal.2007),
positive emotions (Gamble and Garling, 2012), and HRQOL (Strine,Chapman,
Balluz, Moriarty, & Mokdad, 2008), and negatively correlating with depression,
anxiety, and hopelessness (Guney et al. 2010).
R. T. Munoz et al.
6.4 Data Analysis
Covariance based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) with maximum likelihood
estimations was used to test the hypotheses of the study. All calculations were
performed using SPSS 19 and the Amos add on (Arbuckle 2010). The study utilized
a multi-step analytic approach consistent with best practices of CB-SEM (James et al.
1982). Each step in the process is discussed in more detail in the sections that follow.
Exploratory Factor Analysis To identify the existence of factors, the study began
with an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on a calibration subsample (n’= 268).
Maximum likelihood factoring was used along with both varimax (orthogonal) and
oblique methods of rotation. A threshold was used to extract factors consisting of at
least 3 items loading > .42 (Comrey & Lee 1992). The threshold of a minimum of 3
items loading > .42 was considered the floor for a Bfair^loading used to identify an
individual factor (Comrey & Lee, 1992). A scree plot was also examined to provide
additional data on the factor structure of the items.
Structural Model Second, using the validation subsample (n’=288)thatconsistedof
the other 50% of the data, a structural equation model was performed to test the
viability of the factors recovered in the EFA along with their structural relationships.
Maximum likelihood estimations and the reference variable approach were used for the
structural analysis. The reference variable approach involves constraining an unstan-
dardized coefficient of a single item on each proposed latent variable to 1, thereby
providing each proposed variable with a unit of measurement (Bollen 1989).
The sequence of the variables tested in the structural model was based on a
priori theory, specifically Bernardo’s(2010) theory that external locus of hope
–P/G is a distinct cognitive set and Snyder’s(1994) contention that supportive
parents/caregivers can be antecedents of hope leading to increases in overall
psychological wellbeing. Overall psychological well-being was represented by
life satisfaction as the final consequent of the model. Per best practices of path
modeling (Hayes 2013), to test the quality of the chosen theories in explaining
the observed model, competing models were tested and evaluated to determine
the goodness of fit of the respective models.
The goodness of fit of all models was evaluated using multiple criteria. The
Confirmatory Fit Index (CFI) was used with a value of .90 considered to be the
minimum for model fit, with .95 and above considered to be superior fit (Bentler
1992; Hu and Bentler 1999). For the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual
(SRMR), a score of ≤.08 was considered a good fit, while for the Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA), scores ≤.08 indicated reasonable fit (Browne and
Cudeck 1993; MacCallum et al. 1996). The χ
2
with a threshold of p> .05 was also
considered to indicate a good fit, although it is well known that the χ
2
is sensitive to
sample size and frequently exhibits a p> .05 even in the case of good fit according to
other indices (Kline 2005).
Nested models The quality of the proposed model in explaining the observed data was
evaluated through the comparison of Bnested^models. A nested model in CB-SEM is a
model with freely estimated parameters that are a subset of another model (Bollen 1989).
Locus of Hope: External Hope in Parents/Guardians as an Antecedent...
To compare the quality of nested structural models to explain the data, as additional
paths are added between variables, the resulting Δχ
2
changes are evaluated to determine
if the addition of these parameters significantly improve model fit. If the Δχ
2
is
statistically significant, the path is retained in the model (Kline 2005). If the Δχ
2
is
not significant, then the parameter is excluded from the final model based on the
principle of parsimony (Kline 2005).
Missing data The original data set consisted of an N= 556 initiated responses. How-
ever, only an N= 501 had complete data on all the variables of interest. Research
suggests that if less than 5% of the data is missing, the missing data will have no effect
on the analysis regardless whether the data is missing at random or for systematic
reasons (Schafer 1999). Because missing data included 10.8% of the total sample,
separate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted using external hope –P/G,
internal hope, and life satisfaction as dependent variables. The ANOVAs were used to
determine if there were significant differences on the 3 variables between the groups
missing data from those who had complete data sets. No significant differences were
found, suggesting that the data was missing at random (MAR) (Rubin 1976).
To cope with the missing responses, full information maximum likelihood (FIML)
analysis was used to estimate missing values. FIML was chosen because simulation
studies indicate that FIML produces smaller errors in estimating population parameters
than other methods of handling missing data, such as listwise or pairwise deletion,
mean replacement, and other imputation approaches (Enders and Bandalos 2001;
Graham 2009).
Power analysis To determine model power, the MacCallum et al. (1996) estimation
tables were used. According to MacCallum et al. (1996), for a model of df of 20 and a
sample size of 500, overall power is .855, exceeding the accepted power threshold of
.80 (Cohen 1988). For the first study, the df of the model was 24 and the sample size
was 501, indicating the study’s model was sufficiently powerful to reliably identify
parameters. For the second study, the df was also 24 and sample size was 575, also
sufficiently powerful to identify parameters.
Bootstrapping In addition to goodness of fit indices, mediation testing was also used
to evaluate the theorized sequence of the variables. Mediation testing examines
how large an indirect effect an exogenous variable exerts on an endogenous
variable transmitted through a mediating variable (Hayes 2013). Per best practices
in CB-SEM path modeling (Danner et al. 2015), the statistical significance of the
model’s indirect effects was tested using bias corrected (BCa) bootstrap resampling
(Efron and Tibshirani 1986). With bootstrapping, subsamples are randomly drawn,
with replacement, from the original data. Each subsample is then used to estimate
indirect effects of the proposed model. This process is repeated many of times,
with an N= 5000 often referenced as the minimum number of resamples to execute
(Hair et al. 2014). The estimated indirect effects from the bootstrapped subsamples
allow for the derivation of standard errors that are used to establish a 95%
confidence interval (CI) of the Btrue^indirect effects found in the population.
When the CI of the indirect effects generated by bootstrapping contains the
number 0, the parameter is not considered significant.
R. T. Munoz et al.
Squared multiple correlations In additional to assessing the overall fit of the model,
we also examined the power of the model to account for the variance of the model’s
respective endogenous variables. This was done by assessing the squared multiple
correlations (R
2
) of the respective endogenous variables.
6.5 Testing of CB-SEM Normality Assumptions
Before the CFA and structural models were tested, the normality assumptions necessary
for CB-SEM were assessed. Scores on all measures met the standard criteria of
univariate normality with the skewness for all measures falling below 3 and kurtosis
below 4 (Kline 2005).
7Results
7.1 Study 1
Per best practices of CB-SEM, the measurement quality of the proposed latent variables
was assessed first. Once the measurement model was established, the structural rela-
tionships of the variables were tested (James et al. 1982). The results of the testing of
the measurement model are reported first.
Exploratory factor analysis In step 1, per best practices of structural equation
modeling (Bowen and Guo 2012), the data set was randomly divided into approxi-
mately 2 equal subsamples for running a calibration EFA on the first half of the data
with the second half of the data used as a validation subsample for a CFA/structural
analysis. For the EFA on the first subsample (n’= 268), a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)
test verified the sampling adequacy for the EFA. Results indicating a KMO = .945,
considered Bmeritorious^for EFA under the heuristics of Kaiser (1974). Bartlett’stest
of sphericity χ
2
(171) = 4824.8, p= .000 was also significant, further supporting that
the correlations between items were sufficient for an EFA.
Results of an orthogonal (varimax) and an oblique rotation were similar, and based on
the view that orthogonal rotations are permissible in exploratory research (Kim and
Mueller 1978), the orthogonal varimax rotation was reported because it offered a slightly
simpler factor structure (Nunnally 1978).
The EFA recovered 3 factors, with all items demonstrating factor loadings > .60 on
their proposed factors. The first factor represented only items from the external hope –
P/G scale, accounting for 56.8% of total variance. The second factor consisted of the
items of the CHS (Snyder et al. 1996), accounting for 12.9% of variance. One item of
the SWLS cross loaded with the items from CHS, with cross loading defined as an item
with less than a .20 difference in a loading on one factor compared to a loading on a
second factor (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994). The cross-loading item was from the
SWLS scale (BIn most ways my life is close to my ideal.^), with the item loading with
both the SWLS items on one factor and with the CHS items on a second factor. The
third and final factor consisted of items from the SWLS scale, accounting for 5.5% of
additional variance. An examination of the scree plot also suggested that 3 factors were
Locus of Hope: External Hope in Parents/Guardians as an Antecedent...
identifiable above the point of inflexion. Consequently, the results of the EFA suggest
that external hope - P/G as measured by Bernardo’s LOHS, internal hope as measured
by the CHS, and life satisfaction as measure by the SWLS scale, operated as 3 distinct
factors in the calibration sample. The 3 factors accounted for 75.2% of the total
variance among the items. Table 1contains the full EFA results.
The internal consistency of the 3 recovered factors was also computed, with the
Cronbach alphas of the items of the 3 factors meeting reliability thresholds, with the
external hope –P/G items exhibiting an α= .959, internal hope items exhibiting an
Tab l e 1 An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) Using maximum likelihood factoring and a varimax rotation
(n’= 268)
Scale Item Factor
IIIIII
External Hope –P/G My parents/guardians find many ways to help me solve my
problems.
.901 .188 .182
External Hope –P/G Even when I am discouraged, I know my parents/guardians have
ways to help me solve my problems.
.895 .196 .179
External Hope –P/G My parents/guardians have helped me meet the goals that I have set
for myself.
.873 .180 .231
External Hope –P/G My parents/guardians have lots of ways of helping me attain my
goals.
.841 .280 .188
External Hope –P/G I am confident that my parents/guardians will support me in the
goals that are important to me.
.757 .135 .187
External Hope –P/G My parents/guardians work with me in pursuing my goals. .712 .306 .323
External Hope –P/G I have been successful in life so far because of the support of my
parents/guardians.
.653 .318 .412
External Hope –P/G My parents/guardians usually help me in different ways when I get
into difficult situations.
.631 .402 .340
Internal Hope When I have a problem, I can come up with lots of ways to solve it. .146 .770 .220
Internal Hope Even when others want to quit, I know I can find ways to solve the
problem.
.285 .741 .261
Internal Hope I am doing just as well as other kids my age. .196 .727 .195
Internal Hope I can think of many ways to get the things in life that are most
important to me.
.279 .711 .297
Internal Hope I think the things I have done in the past will help me in the future. .241 .693 .338
Internal Hope I think I am doing pretty well. .195 .683 .369
Life Satisfaction I am satisfied with life. .292 .347 .722
Life Satisfaction So far I have gotten the important things I want in life. .271 .274 .712
Life Satisfaction The conditions of my life are excellent. .285 .420 .681
Life Satisfaction If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing. .271 .274 .575
Life Satisfaction In most ways my life is close to my ideal. .267 .533 .542
Percentage of
Va ri a n c e
Explained
56.8 12.9 5.5
The cross loading item is in bold, identified by < .20 difference between an item’s loading on one factor
compared to the same item’s loading on a second factor (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994)
R. T. Munoz et al.
α= .917, and the SWLS scale exhibiting an α= .902. The zero order correlations of the
summated scores for the respective factors indicated external hope –P/G scores
correlated in the expected directions with internal hope (r= .573) and life satisfaction
(r= .638). Internal hope scores also correlated positively with life satisfaction
(r=.738).
Confirmatory factor analysis A CFA was subsequently performed on the validation
subsample (n’= 288) to test the validity of the recovered factors from the EFA.
Consistent with both hope theory (Snyder et al. 1991) and locus of hope theory
(Bernardo 2010), both CFA models loaded aggregate scores for the agency and
pathways dimensions of internal hope and external hope –P/G on single underlying
factor, respectively. Such parceling is justifiable in cases where theory supports the
usage of aggregate sum totals to represent established dimensions of a higher order
factor (see Little et al. 2002 for a comprehensive discussion of parceling). In this case,
the aggregate scores of the agency and pathways subscales were modeled to represent
the 2 dimensions of the higher order factor of hope. Regarding the items of the SWLS
scale, parceling was not employed because the 5 items of the scale capture a single,
unidimensional construct (Diener et al. 1985).
The CFA model with external hope-P/G, internal hope, and life satisfaction as
distinct factors produced good fit (Χ
2
=60.4, p> .05; RMSEA = .073 [90% CI: .05,
.096]; SRMR = .031; CFI = .984). Moreover, the standardized factor loadings of each
item of the model were statistically significant relative to each item’shypothesized
factor. Finally, all item loadings were robust, with all items exhibiting loadings >.60.
Thus, the CFA results confirmed the EFA results, suggesting the adequate measurement
of external hope –P/G, internal hope, and life satisfaction as distinct factors.
Structural model Armed with CFA results supporting the adequate measurement of
external hope - P/G, internal hope, and life satisfaction, the structural parameters of the
model were then tested to evaluate the quality of the proposed theoretical relationship
between the variables.
To determine the quality of the theorized model in explaining the data, multiple
models were evaluated to identify the model that best explained the data. Model 1
contained an Bindirect effect^only type of mediation (Zhao et al. 2010), with external
hope –P/G as the antecedent of life satisfaction mediated by internal hope. Model 2
was identical to Model 1 regarding the order of variables, except that Model 2 tested
Bcomplimentary^mediation (Zhao et al. 2010). Testing complimentary mediation
involved adding a direct path from external internal hope –P/G to life satisfaction.
Model 3 was substantially different from both Model 1 and 2, with Model 3 reversing
the order of the variables. For Model 3, internal hope was modeled as the antecedent of
life satisfaction with external hope –P/G as the mediator. While Model 3 was not
theorized, Model 3 was tested to generate comparison data to evaluate the quality of the
theorized model.
Tab le 2contains the fit indices of the 3 tested models. The data indicated that Model
1, with the indirect effect only type of mediation, was a good fit. However, Model 2,
with an additional path containing an direct effect from external hope –P/G to life
satisfaction generated a significantly better fit compared to Model 1 (Δχ
2
(1) = 18.4;
p< .001). Model 3, with internal hope as the initial exogenous variable, performed
Locus of Hope: External Hope in Parents/Guardians as an Antecedent...
poorly, with the model failing to produce a good fit. Thus, based on the results of
testing the various models, we concluded that Model 2, containing complimentary
mediation, was the model that best explained the observed data.
To further validate the results of the initial maximum likelihood estimations,
bootstrapping was used to test the significance of the direct and indirect effects of the
model. The results of bootstrapping also supported complimentary mediation, with
both the direct effect of external hope –P/G on life satisfaction (β=.223,p=.002;BCa
95% CI [.089, .352]) and the indirect effect of external hope in parents/guardians on life
satisfaction through internal hope (β=.451, p= > .001; BCa 95% CI [.348, .581]
exhibiting statistical significance. Regarding the effect size (Alwin and Hauser 1975)
of the mediation of internal hope on the relationship between internal hope P/G and life
satisfaction, results indicated that internal hope accounted for 67% of the total effect
(e.g., indirect effect/total effect).
Finally, an examination of the squared multiple correlations of Model 2 indicated
that external hope in P/G was a robust positive predictor of both respondents’internal
hope (R
2
= .402) and the final consequent of life satisfaction (R
2
= .758). (See Fig. 1for
all the empirical values of the model.)
8 Methods
8.1 Study 2
Study 2 involved testing the empirical stability of the model developed and tested in
study1.Incomparisontostudy1,study 2 involved the participation of male
adolescents rather than female adolescents. While theory does not suggest the relation-
ships between the selected variables should differ according to gender, replication
studies always have value in providing more evidence of the generalizability of
statistical models. The hypothesis for Study 2 was that the model tested in model 1,
Tab l e 2 Goodness of fit indices for the alternative models of study 1 (n’= 288)
χ2dfpχ2/df CFI SRMR RMSEA
(90% CI)
Model 1 (Indirect Effect Only Mediation Model) .09
External Hope –P/G > Internal
Hope > Life Satisfaction
78.9 25 > .001 3.15 .98 .05 (.06–.11)
Model 2 (Complimentary Mediation Model) .07
External Hope –P/G > Internal
Hope > Life Satisfaction
60.4 24 > .001 2.52 .98 .03 (.05–.10)
Δχ
2
form Model 1 to Model 2, df = 1 18.5 1 > .001
Model 3 (Non-Theorized Comparison Model) .16
Internal Hope > External
Hope (P/G)> Life Satisfaction
208.4 25 > .001 8.34 .92 .14 (.14–.18)
CFI, Confirmatory Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; RMSEA, Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation
R. T. Munoz et al.
which included external hope in P/G as an antecedent of life satisfaction mediated by
internal hope, would continue to exhibit good fit with the observed data.
8.2 Participants
Participants of study 2 included an independent sample of male adolescents
whoalsoparticipatedinthesamecommunity service program as the students
of study 1. All procedures remained the same for study 2. However, the male
students participated in the program a year later than the all-female sample of
Study1.Study2consistedofaN′= 576. All participants were male with a
mean age of 15.7 years (SD = 1.21). The ethnic breakdown of the sample of
study 2 (rounded) was 50% White, 17% American Indian/Alaskan Native, 5%
Hispanic, 2% African American, 1% Asian, and 1% other.
8.3 Missing Data
Missing data was handled in the same fashion in Study 2 as Study 1. ANOVAs
were again used to determine if there were significant differences on the 3
variables between the groups missing data from those who had complete data
sets. As was the case in study 1, no significant differences were found between
groups. This again suggests that the missing data was missing at random
(MAR) (Rubin 1976). To increase the power of the study, as was the case in
study 1, missing data was again estimated using FIML (Enders and Bandalos
2001;Graham2009).
Fig. 1 Standardized Values (n’= 288)
Locus of Hope: External Hope in Parents/Guardians as an Antecedent...
8.4 Data Analysis
Structural Model Using the same criteria for evaluating goodness of fit, the model of
external locus of hope in parents/guardians as an antecedent of life satisfaction medi-
ated by internal hope as developed and tested in study 1 was again tested in study 2.
Covariance based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) was again used to evaluate
the goodness of fit of a path model of the 3 latent variables in the theorized order (see
above for a description of the theoretical model). Maximum likelihood estimations
were used to test the fit of the theorized model. The quality of the fit of the model was
evaluated using the same fit criteria used in evaluating the model of study l. Further-
more, prior to reporting the results, the normality assumptions required by CB-SEM
were again tested and met.
Measures As was the case in the first study, the instruments used in the study were the
1.) External Locus of Hope Scale in P/G; 2.) the Children’s Hope Scale; and 3.) the
Satisfaction with Life Scale. The psychometrics of each scale is noted earlier in this
manuscript.
9Results
The results of the CB-SEM testing of the model established in study 1 indicated
the model again provided good fit to the data (Χ
2
= 116.41, p> .05;
RMSEA = .08 [90% CI: .067, .097]; SRMR = .033; CFI = .98). Bootstrapping
was again used to further test the statistical significance of the direct and
indirect effects of the model, again suggesting complimentary mediation (Zhao
et al. 2010). The results indicated that both the direct effect of external hope –P/
G on life satisfaction (β= .283, p= < .001; BCa 95% CI [.150, .403]) and the
indirect effect of external hope in parents/guardians on life satisfaction via
internal hope were statistically significant (β= .421, p= < .001; BCa 95% CI
[.323, .539]). The indirect effect of internal hope on the relationship between
external hope –P/G and life satisfaction accounted for 72% of the total effects of
the model (Alwin and Hauser 1975). Furthermore, as in study 1, the model
indicated that external hope in P/G was a robust positive predictor of both
respondents’internal hope (R
2
= .528) and the final consequent of life
satisfaction (R
2
= .655).
10 Discussion
The data from both studies was consistent with Bernardo’s theory (Bernardo
2010/2015) that hope has external dimensions, adding empirical support to the rela-
tively new theory of locus of hope. This result was particularly informative as to the
generalizability of locus of hope across cultures, as research to date on locus of hope
has utilized samples from outside the United States. Moreover, the data was also
consistent with Snyder’s(1994) suggestions that parents/guardians can serve as
R. T. Munoz et al.
external drivers of internal hope among adolescents, particularly when those adoles-
cents perceive the parent/guardian is interested in helping the adolescent achieve the
adolescent’s goals. This conclusion aligns with other recent research that suggests that a
relationship with a supportive mentor is associated with increases in hope among adoles-
cents (Sulimani-Aiden et al. 2018). The results also support and extend a study by Jiang
et al. (2013) that suggests a secure attachment to parent/guardian is important to children’s
hope and life satisfaction. The current study adds to such research by illuminating a
potential mechanism of secure attachments within a child; secure attachment may come
from the perception of a child that his/her parents/guardians are committed to exercising
agency toward their children’s goals. While more research is needed to test this theory, the
current data suggests such a linkage. If future results support the linkage, the result may
have important implications for parents/guardians interested in instilling hope and
wellbeing in their children.
10.1 Potential Limitations
Despite the quality of the results, the study contains important limitations that should be
noted. First, given that the results of both studies supported complementary mediation
(Zhao et al. 2010), this suggests that other mediators, beyond internal hope, are
important to the relationship between external hope - P/G and adolescents’life satis-
faction. Further research is needed to identity these additional mediators. Second,
regarding generalizability, given that data was collected from samples of adolescents
taken from a single geographic region in the United States, uncertainty remains as to
the Btrue^parent population from which the sample was drawn. While theory does not
suggest geography, race/ethnicity, or national origin would moderate the relationships
between the chosen variables in the path model, more research from diverse samples is
needed to test this assumption. Third, it is important to be cognizant that due to the
close temporal association of cross-sectional data, results of the testing of directional
relationships using cross sectional should always be considered suggestive. Neverthe-
less, it should also be noted that both the testing of a CB-SEM model based on apriori
theory and the evaluation of indirect effects using bootstrapping, both done here, are
considered Bbest practices^for testing directional theories using cross-sectional data
(Danner et al. 2015; Hayes 2013).
10.2 Conclusions
While potential limitations mean the results should only be considered suggestive, the
data supports the theory that external locus of hope is a cognitive set that extends
beyond individuals of the collectivist cultures of Southeast Asia. Specifically, the
results suggest that external locus of hope - P/G is also present in a sample drawn
from the individualistic culture of the United States. Such a result calls for further
research into locus of hope (Bernardo 2010/2015) across more cultures to further
determine the stability of locus of hope across the human population.
The results of this study also suggest a need for further investigation into the
importance of the quality of parenting/guardianship to wellbeing among adolescents.
In fact, the results suggest that parents/guardians that actively advance their adoles-
cent’s goals are more likely to generate greater internal hope and life satisfaction within
Locus of Hope: External Hope in Parents/Guardians as an Antecedent...
those adolescents. Moreover, although research indicates that children spend less time
with parents/guardians as the children age (Larson and Verma 1999), results of the
current study suggest professionals working with the parents/guardians of adolescents
should communicate to those parents/guardians their continued importance to their
adolescent’s internal hope and life satisfaction. If future research supports the theories
examined in this study, such data may have value in shaping future interventions, which
may include treatment modalities that help parents/guardians be more effective external
agents of their children’shopes.
References
Adelabu, D. H. (2008). Future time perspective, hope, and ethnic identity among African American adoles-
cents. Urban Education, 43(3), 347–360.
Alwin, D. F., & Hauser, R. M. (1975). The decomposition of effects in path analysis. American Sociological
Review, 40,37–47.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2010). AMOS 19 [Computer software]. Chicago: SPSS.
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, 276–321.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1304_02.
Bailey, T. C., Eng, W., Frisch, M. B.,& Snyder, C. R. (2007). Hope and optimismas related to life satisfaction.
The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(3), 168–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760701409546.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychology Review, 84(2),
191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall.
Bentler, P. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the Bulletin. Psychological
Bulletin, 112, 400–404.
Bernardo, A. B. I. (2010). Extending hope theory: Internal and external locus of trait hope. Personality and
Individual Differences, 49, 944–949.
Bernardo, A. B. I. (2015). Hope in early adolescence: Measuring internal and external locus-of-hope. Child
Indicators Research, 8(3), 699–715.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley & Sons.
Bowen, N.K. & Guo, S. (2012). Structural equation modeling. New York: Oxford Press.
Briones, Z. M. M. (2009). Courage and hope in adolescents in end-stage renal disease. Paper presented at the
Convention of the Psychological Association of the Philippines, Dumaguete, Philippines.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long
(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park: Sage.
Ciarrochi, J., Heaven, P. C. L., & Davies, F. (2007). The impact of hope, self-esteem, and attributional style on
adolescents’school grades and emotional well-being: A longitudinal study. JournalofResearchin
Personality, 41, 1161–1178.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.), New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Comrey, A. & Lee, H. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Danner, D., Hagemann, D., & Fiedler, K. (2015). Mediation analysis with structural equation models:
Combining theory, design, and statistics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45,460–481.
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 49,71–75.
Du, H., & King, R. B. (2013). Placing hope in self and others: Exploring the relationships among self-
construals, locus of hope, and adjustment. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(3), 332–337.
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (1986). Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other
measures of statistical accuracy. Statistical Science, 1,54–75.
Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood of
missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8
(3), 430–457.
R. T. Munoz et al.
Freire, P. (1992). Pedagogia da Esperanca –Um reecontro com a Pedagogia do Oprimido. [The Pedagogy of
Hope –Reliving the Pedagogy of the Oppressed]. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
Gamble, A., & Garling, T., (2012). The relationships between life satisfaction, happiness, and current mood.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(1), 31–45.
Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology,
60,549–576.
Guney, S., Kalafat, T., & Boysan, M. (2010). Dimensions of mental health: Life satisfaction, anxiety and
depression: A preventive mental health study in Ankara University students population. Procedia-Social
and Behavioral Sciences,(2(2), 1210–1213.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis.NewYork:The
Guilford Press.
Heaven, P., & Ciarrochi, J. (2008). Parental styles, gender and the development of hope and self-esteem.
European Journal of Personality, 22(8), 707–724.
Hellman, C. M., & Gwinn, C. (2017). Camp HOPE as an intervention for children exposed to domestic
violence: A program evaluation of hope and strength of character. Child and Adolescent Social Work
Journal, 34(3), 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-016-0460-6.
Hellman, C.M., Munoz, R.T., Worley, J.A., Feeley, J.A. & Gillert, J.E. (2017). A Reliability generalization on
the children’s hope scale. Child Indicators Research. Advance online publication: https://doi.org/10.1007
/s12187-017-9467-6.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6,1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080
/10705519909540118.
James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: Assumptions, models and data.Beverly
Hills: Sage.
Jiang, X., Huebner, E. S., & Hills, K. J. (2013). Parent attachment and early adolescents’life satisfaction: The
mediating effect of hope. Psychology in the Schools, 50(4), 340–352.
Jovanović, V. (2013). Evaluation of the children’s hope scale in Serbian adolescents: Dimensionality,
measurement invariance across gender, convergent and incremental validity. Child Indicators Research,
6, 797–811.
Kaiser, H.F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39,31–36.
Kim, J. O., & Mueller, C. W. (1978). Introduction to factor analysis: What it is and how to do it. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Kim, T. H., Min Le, S., Yu, K., Lee, S., & Puig, A. (2005). Hope and the meaning of life as influences on Korean
adolescents' resilience: Implications for counselors. Asian Pacific Education Review, 6(2), 143–152.
Kirmani, M. N., Sharma, P., Anas, M., & Sanam, R. (2015). Hope, resilience, and subjective well-being
among college going adolescent girls. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(1),
262–270.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Larson, R. W., & Verma, S. (1999). How children and adolescents spend time across the world: Work, play,
and developmental opportunities. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 701–736.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., & Shehar, G. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question,
weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151–173.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugwara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample
size for covariance structure modeling. Psymacchological Methods, 1,130–149.
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.
Marques, S. C., Lopez, S. J., & Pais-Ribeiro, J. L. (2009). BBuilding hope for the future^: A program to foster
strengths in middle-school students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12, 139–152.
McCoy, H., & Bowen, E. A. (2015). Hope in the social environment: Factors affecting future aspirations and
school self-efficacy for youth in urban environments. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 32(2),
131–141.
Munoz, R.T., Hellman, C.M. & Brunk, K. (2016). The relationship between hope and life satisfaction among
survivors of intimate partner violence: The enhancing effect of self-efficacy. Applied Quality of Life
Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-016-9501-8.
Ng, E. C. W., Chan, C. C. H., & Lai, M. K. (2014). Hope and life satisfaction among underprivileged children
in Hong Kong: The mediating role of perceived community support. Journal of Community Psychology,
42(3), 352–364.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory,NewYork.InMcGraw Hill.
Locus of Hope: External Hope in Parents/Guardians as an Antecedent...
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
O'Sullivan, G. (2011). The relationship between hope, eustress, self-efficacy, and life satisfaction among
undergraduates. Social Indicators Research, 101(1), 155–172.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment 5(2),
164–172.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (2008). The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction.
Journal of Positive Psychology, 3,137–152.
Pavot, W. G., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Further validation of the Satisfaction with Life
Scale: Evidence for the cross-method convergence of well-being measures. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 57,149–161.
Rodriguez-Hanley, A., & Snyder, C. R. (2000). The demise of hope: On losing positive thinking. In C. R. Snyder
(Ed.), Handbook of hope: theory, measures, and applications (pp. 39–54). San Diego: Academic Press.
Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference with missing data. Biometrika, 63,581–592.
Schafer, J. L. (1999). Multiple imputation: A primer. Statistical Methods in Medicine, 8(1), 3–15.
Snyder, C. R. (1994). The psychology of hope. New York: The Free Press.
Snyder, C. R. (2000). Hypothesis: there is hope. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Handbook of hope: theory, measures,
and applications (pp. 3–18). San Diego: Academic Press.
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., & Sigmon, S. T. (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., Hoza, B., Pelham, W. E., Rapoff, M., Ware, L., Danovsky, M., Highberger, L., Ribinstein, H., &
Stahl, K. J. (1996). The development and validation of the children’shopescale.Journal of Pediatric
Psychology, 22(3), 399–421.
Strine, T.W., Chapman, D.P., Balluz, L.S., Moriarity, D.G., & Mokdad, A.H. (2008). The associations between
life satisfaction and health-related quality of life, chronic illness, and health behaviors among U.S.
community-dwelling adults. Journal of Community Health, 33(1), 40–50.
Sulimani-Aiden, Y., Melkman, E., & Hellman, C. M. (2018). Nurturing the hope of youth in care: the
contribution of mentoring. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Advanced online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000320.
Wong, S. S., & Lim, T. (2009). Hope versus optimism in Singaporean adolescents: Contributions to depression
in life satisfaction. Personality an Individual Differences, 46, 648–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2009.01.009.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about
mediatio n analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37,197–206.
R. T. Munoz et al.
A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Child Indicators Research
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
