Exploring the Concept and Experience of Hope – Theoretical and Methodological Foundations

Krafft, Andreas M.; Walker, Andreas

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-78470-0_1

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Averill and his colleagues suggested that the experience of hope may differ with regard to the kind of targets a person may hope for and the kind of actions the person will perform to attain his/her hopes (Averill et al, 1990;Averill & Sundararajan, 2005). In order to explore the several elements of hope and inspired by the work of Averill et al (1990) and Staats and Stassen (1985), three pools of items have been developed to assess (1) the targets of hope in the form of personal wishes, (2) the sources of hope people turn to or count on, and (3) the activities performed to attain the targets people hope-for (Krafft & Walker, 2018).…”

Section: Assessing Hope Across Culturesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction and Research Agenda

Krafft

Guse

Slezáčková

2023

Hope Across Cultures

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This introductory chapter presents the antecedents and the purpose that originated the creation of this book on cross-cultural studies on hope. It sketches the existential and multifaceted nature of hope and points to the array of disciplines that, over many decades and even centuries, have studied the phenomenon of hope from various scientific perspectives and in different contexts. Based on the past focus and the current challenges in psychological research on hope, it pleads for an inter- and transdisciplinary approach to the study of hope in diverse cultural contexts. After briefly introducing a cultural perspective on hope, we present the purpose, development, and research focus of the Hope Barometer international research program. We highlight the necessity to conceptualize hope in a trans-disciplinary and culture-sensitive way and then formulate a number of fundamental research questions that guided the empirical studies reported in this book. Assessing hope across cultures requires the development of measures that, on the one hand, prevent bias in the general conceptualization of hope and, on the other hand, permit the analysis of several elements and dimensions of hope, such as different hope targets, sources, and activities. Hope and its various elements and dimensions are partly rooted in diverse culturally tinted worldviews and values, displaying different correlations and predictors of hope across cultures. A succinct overview of the structure and single chapters of the book aims to show up the overall logic that guided its outline.

show abstract

Section: Assessing Hope Across Culturesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction and Research Agenda

Krafft

Guse

Slezáčková

2023

Hope Across Cultures

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…for our children to be happy) or are aimed at our relationships (e.g. to have a happy marriage) (Howell et al 2015;Krafft and Walker 2018). Third, developing our hopes can be part of a social or even societal process, for example through a dialogue on what we find worthwhile and achievable (Ludema et al 1997;Webb 2007;Scioli et al 2011).…”

Section: Social Hope-the Locus Of Hope Scalementioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring hope: validity of short versions of four popular hope scales

Pleeging

2022

Qual Quant

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Popular hope-instruments differ significantly in how they define hope. Due to their length, these instruments are rarely used in large-scale surveys or combined in interdisciplinary research. This study validates short versions of four hope instruments; the Adult Trait Hope Scale; Herth Hope Index; Locus Of Hope Scale; and spiritual dimension of the Comprehensive Hope Scale. Results show that the short versions function equally well as their longer counterparts. However, all scales show remarkably low correlations with similar concepts such as a single-item-hope-question and expectations. We argue that hope is a multi-dimensional phenomenon and that each of these instrument covers only one part of the experience, meaning that combining these instruments would yield more comprehensive insights. Moreover, cross-cultural comparison indicates that the social LOHS and spiritual CHS are less important in the Netherlands compared to Mexico. These findings suggest that different instruments might be more relevant in different contexts.

show abstract

“…It is rooted in trust experiences and the attachment to other people (family and friends), related to spiritual and religious faith, which goes beyond rational knowledge, and the intimate connection to a benevolent higher power (Dufault and Martocchio 1985;Erikson 1963;Farran et al 1995;Scioli and Biller 2009;Scioli et al 2011). Following these diverse views on hope, Krafft et al (2019;Krafft and Walker 2018a) proposed an alternative approach to assess hope, referred to as perceived hope. Measured by the Perceived Hope Scale (PHS), perceived hope reflects hope as experienced by people, instead of the motivation and expectancy of goal attainment.…”

Section: Alternative Views On Hope and Optimismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinguishing Perceived Hope and Dispositional Optimism: Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Findings beyond Future Expectancies and Cognition

Krafft

Guse

Maree

2020

J well-being assess

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At first glance, hope and optimism appear to be two almost identical concepts. The predominant cognitive theories maintain that both are based on positive future expectancies regarding goal attainment. However, other approaches recommend distinguishing between hope and future expectancies and sustain that the differences between hope and optimism are of a more substantial nature. The present study investigates the distinction between a new short instrument to measure hope as perceived by the general public, and dispositional optimism as measured by the revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R) in a South African sample. After comparing both instruments using confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory structural equation modelling in Mplus, a number of encouraging results emanated from the data. First, the Perceived Hope Scale (PHS) is a unitary and coherent measure of perceived hope. Second, perceived hope, as measured by the PHS, and optimism and pessimism as measured by the LOT-R, are psychometrically distinguished latent dimensions, optimally specified by their indicator variables. Furthermore, perceived hope represents a fundamental construct in the prediction of health outcomes and well-being and is an important antecedent to optimism and dispositional hope. Perceived hope is thus an important additional facet to consider in investigating well-being.

show abstract

Exploring the Concept and Experience of Hope – Theoretical and Methodological Foundations

Cited by 9 publications

References 48 publications

Introduction and Research Agenda

Introduction and Research Agenda

Measuring hope: validity of short versions of four popular hope scales

Distinguishing Perceived Hope and Dispositional Optimism: Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Findings beyond Future Expectancies and Cognition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About