Scheier et al. (1994) proposed a ‘minor modification’ (p. 1063) of the LOT, in which these two items and one pes-
simism item (‘Things never work out the way I want them to’) are omitted, and a new optimism item (‘Overall, I
expect more good things to happen to me than bad’) is added, yielding three items assessing optimism and three
items assessing pessimism. Supporting the use of this revised instrument, which is known as the LOT-R, Scheier
et al. (1994) reported relatively stable test /C0retest reliability and further suggested that the original and revised
versions of the instrument are essentially comparable, based on high correlations (‘in the .90s,’ p. 1073) between
total scores on the LOT and LOT-R.
Although Scheier and Carver (1985) originally conceptualized optimism as a global unidimensional trait, other
research indicates that dispositional optimism consists of two separate, but negatively correlated, subtraits reflect-
ing positively-framed optimism and negatively-framed pessimism. To explain discrepancies in outcome expec-
tancies within individuals, for instance, Dember et al. (1989) suggested optimism was bidimensional, consisting
of dispositional levels of both optimism and pessimism. According to Dember and colleagues (1989) , rejection of
pessimism is not equivalent to the endorsement of optimism; nor is the rejection of optimism equivalent to the
endorsement of pessimism. Empirical research suggests this two-factor model is preferable to a one-factor model,
although researchers disagree as to the extent of the correlation between optimism and pessimism.
Using confirmatory factor analysis to investigate the responses of 389 college students to the LOT, for example,
Chang, D’Zurilla, and Maydeu-Olivares (1994) found that a model consisting of correlated dimensions of opti-
mism and pessimism ( r52.54) fit better than did a one-factor ‘total score’ model. Indeed, Scheier and Carver’s
(1985) factor analyses of their own LOT data revealed two correlated ( r52.64) factors, Optimism and
Pessimism, which together fit their data significantly better than a one-factor model. In addition, Bryant and
Cvenrgos (2004) found that a two-factor model with correlated dimensions of Optimism and Pessimism
(r52.63) explained the responses of 351 college students to the LOT better than did a one-factor model.
Additional research with children ( Fischer & Leitenberg, 1986 ), college students ( Bailey, Eng, Frisch, & Snyder
2007), and older adults ( Mroczek et al., 1993; Robinson-Whelen, Kim, MacCallum, & Kiecolt-Glaser 1997 ) sup-
ports a bidimensional, as opposed to unidimensional, model of dispositional optimism. There is also evidence to
support the discriminant validity of this bidimensional structure in predicting mood ( Marshall, Wortman,
Kusulas, Hervig, & Vickers 1992 ) and physical health ( Robinson-Whelen et al., 1997 ).
Several researchers have directly examined the discriminant validity of hope and optimism as assessed by the
SHS and the LOT, respectively. For example, evidence indicates that optimism is more influential on the use of
positive reappraisal as a coping strategy than does hope, whereas hope has a stronger influence on level of gen-
eral self-efficacy than does optimism ( Bryant & Cvengros, 2004 ). Other work has found that hope uniquely influ-
ences college students’ grade expectancies, whereas optimism does not ( Rand, 2009 ); and that hope is a stronger
predictor of life satisfaction than is optimism ( Bailey et al., 2007 ). Moreover, hope and optimism each demon-
strate unique effects in predicting measures of life quality, including mastery, purpose in life, self-acceptance,
social integration, positive affect, and life satisfaction ( Gallagher & Lopez, 2009 ), as well as positive mental and
physical health ( Magaletta & Oliver, 1999 ) and level of depression in reaction to traumatic brain injury ( Peleg
et al., 2009 ).
Comparing the psychometric properties of measures of hope and optimism /C0the Revised Generalized
Expectancy for Success Scale (Hale et al., 1994), the LOT-R, the Hope Scale, and the Hunter Opinions and
Personal Expectations Scale ( Nunn et al., 1996 )/C0Steed (2002) concluded that ‘the LOT and HS are the scales of
choice when assessing hope and/or optimism’ (p. 446). Just as with hope, however, more recent additions to the
optimism measurement literature has focused on context. For example, the Cancer Patient Optimism Scale
(Radwin et al., 2005) and the HIV Treatment Optimism Scale (Van de Ven et al., 2000) have extended general
principles of the LOT-R to assess optimism in specific populations. Below, we describe and evaluate several
important measures of hope and optimism.
Adult Hope Scale (AHS): Children’s Hope Scale (CHS)
(Snyder et al., 1991).
Variable
Snyder et al. (1991) defined hope as ‘a cognitive set that is based on a reciprocally derived sense of successful
(a) agency (goal-directed determination) and (b) pathways (planning of ways to meet goals)’ (p. 571).50 3. MEASURES OF HOPE AND OPTIMISM
II. EMOTIONAL DISPOSITIONS