CHAPTER
3
Measures of Hope and Optimism: Assessing
Positive Expectations of the Future
Fred B. Bryant and Patrick R. Harrison
Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
Individual differences in expectations of the future are a basic ingredient of many theoretical frameworks in
psychology, including models of depression ( Beck, 1967 ), subjective well-being ( Bryant & Veroff, 1984 ), and gen-
eralized outcome expectancies ( Rotter, 1954 ). In this chapter, we consider two distinct, yet highly related types of
future perceptions, which together form part of the conceptual bedrock of modern positive psychology: namely,
hope and optimism. We begin by reviewing dominant theoretical perspectives on hope and optimism and expli-
cate the meaning of each term, including the conceptual uniqueness and overlap of hope and optimism. We then
examine and evaluate the most popular ways of measuring hope and optimism in the empirical literature, includ-
ing global versus domain-specific instruments.
Previous theorists and researchers have often blurred conceptual distinctions between hope and optimism.
Although separate lines of work have evolved for each construct, the two terms have frequently been used inter-
changeably in the literature, with optimists sometimes said to be ‘hopeful’ toward the future (e.g., Affleck &
Tennen, 1996 ) and pessimists said to exhibit ‘hopelessness’ (e.g., Beck et al., 1974). Although hope and optimism
share a great deal of conceptual ground in common, they each also possess unique features that distinguish them
from each other. Theorists and researchers must be careful to explicate and define each of these constructs clearly
and precisely.
Concerning conceptual commonalities, both hope and optimism assume that whereas contextual information
is important, stable trait-like beliefs also influence people’s cognitions and behaviors in pursuit of goals ( Rand,
2009). Both hope and optimism are viewed as positive future-focused correlates of subjective adjustment that
reflect adaptive orientations to uncertainty ( Bryant & Cvengros, 2004; Magaletta & Oliver, 1999 ). Reflecting this
conceptual overlap, some researchers (e.g., Carvajal, Clair, Nash, & Evans 1998 ) have used optimism and hope as
dual indicators of a single global dimension reflecting future orientation. However, more recent evidence
suggests that ‘the reduction of hope and optimism to a single positive expectancies factor is not tenable’
(Gallagher & Lopez, 2009 , p. 552).
Prevailing theoretical models of hope and optimism carefully distinguish these two constructs as reflecting
unique aspects of future-oriented perceptions. Indeed, in An Essay on Man (1733/2006) Alexander Pope wrote,
‘hope springs eternal’ (p. 13) /C0note, however, that he did not suggest that optimism springs eternal. Although
hope’s agency component necessarily implies a sense of personal responsibility for goal attainment, optimism
implies no such personal attribution: ‘A person may hold favorable expectancies for a number of reasons /C0
personal ability, because the person is lucky, or because he is favored by others. The result in any case should be
an optimistic outlook /C0expectations that good things will happen’ ( Scheier & Carver, 1985 , p. 223).
Whereas optimists possess a generalized expectation that they will reach their goals, they may lack the self-
efficacy to implement these plans. Thus, ‘a lack of agency in pursuit of a goal gives rise to the likelihood of pessi-
mism about reaching that goal; whereas an absence of pathways towards a goal but a continued commitment for
it (i.e., agency) does not necessarily promote such pessimism’ ( Peleg, Barak, Harel, Rochberg, & Hoofien 2009 ,
47Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00003-6 ©2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.