“Like ‘love’, ‘hope’ is one of those ridiculously disproportionate words that by all rights should be a lot longer” (Turn Coat, Jim Butcher)
Abstract
In psychology, the concepts of hope and optimism are often treated interchangeably or not clearly delineated from each other. We argue that hope and optimism are conceptually different, and that empirical instances of apparent convergence are a matter of language pragmatics, not semantic equivalence. To test this, the present research used a forced choice methodology. In two studies, including 333 voters in the 2016 US presidential election and 145 Australian football supporters, independent ratings of hope and optimism were rated similarly at high levels of likelihood. However, when forced to choose, participants were more likely to select optimism rather than hope when success was likely. In contrast, when success was less than likely (yet possible) participants were more likely to indicate they felt hope rather than optimism, in particular when they were highly invested in the outcome. The findings highlight the distinctive nature of hope.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Notes
- 1.
The study ran on October 27, one day before then FBI Director Comey announced re-opening an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, which has been argued to have detrimentally impacted Clinton’s standing in the polls.
- 2.
Predictions taken from www.fivethirtyeight.com.
- 3.
Although the moderate group’s likelihood ratings (M = 68.13, SD = 18.12) were situated between the Trump (M = 53.02, SD = 21.03) and Clinton groups (M = 78.98, SD = 12.57), closer inspection showed no significant difference between Trump supporters in the moderate group and the other Trump supporters, Mdiff = 0.16, t(97.64) = .05, p =.961, d = .01, nor between the Clinton supporters in the moderate group and the other Clinton supporters, Mdiff = 3.38, t(128.56) = 1.76, p =.097, d = .25. Additionally, a significant difference between Trump and Clinton supporters in the moderate group, Mdiff = 22.41, t(109) = 7.54, p <.001, d = 1.52, suggests that providing alternate odds did not influence likelihood perceptions.
- 4.
A one-way ANOVA showed a significant difference between personal investment ratings, Brown-Forsythe F(2, 121.25) 3.21, p = .044, with Games-Howell post hoc analyses showing no significant difference between low and high likelihood conditions, Mdiff = 0.01, p = .999, CI95% = [-0.68, 0.69], nor between the moderate and the high likelihood conditions, Mdiff = 0.56, p = .095, CI95% = [-0.08, 1.20], however, the moderate condition rated investment significantly higher than in the low likelihood condition, Mdiff = 0.57, p = .034, CI95% = [0.03, 1.11]. As the personal investment measure has items from before (personal significance) and after (desire) the likelihood manipulation a mixed-model ANOVA was run to ensure the manipulation did not have any unintended effect on desire. There was a significant main effect of likelihood on both personal significance and desire, F(2, 142) = 3.40, p =.036, ηp2 = .046, however, there was no interaction between condition level and ratings of personal significance and desire, F(2, 142) = 0.60, p =.549, ηp2 = .008. This suggests the small differences in personal significance and desire were ‘accidental’, despite random allocation.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.
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(4), 276–288.
Averill, J. R., Catlin, G., & Chon, K. K. (1990). Rules of hope. New York: Springer.
Bruininks, P., & Malle, B. F. (2005). Distinguishing hope from optimism and related affective states. Motivation and Emotion, 29(4), 327–355.
Bury, S. M., Wenzel, M., & Woodyatt, L. (2016). Giving hope a sporting chance: Hope as distinct from optimism when events are possible but not probable. Motivation and Emotion, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-016-9560-z.
Bury, S. M., Wenzel, M., & Woodyatt, L. (2018). Hopeful action against the odds: Hope as a motivator of action against climate change. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2010). Optimism. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 879–889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.01.006.
Cohen-Chen, S., Crisp, R. J., & Halperin, E. (2017). A new appraisal-based framework underlying hope in conflict resolution. Emotion Review, 9, 208–214.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146.
Gallagher, M. W., & Lopez, S. J. (Eds.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of hope. New York: Oxford University Press.
Greenaway, K. H., Cichocka, A., van Veelen, R., Likki, T., & Branscombe, N. R. (2016). Feeling hopeful inspires support for social change. Political Psychology, 37(1), 89–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12225.
Korner, I. N. (1970). Hope as a method of coping. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34(2), 134–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029004.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Hope: An emotion and a vital coping resource against despair. Social Research, 66(2), 653–678.
Miceli, M., & Castelfranchi, C. (2010). Hope the power of wish and possibility. Theory & Psychology, 20(2), 251–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354309354393.
Nelissen, R. M. (2017). The motivational properties of hope in goal striving. Cognition and Emotion, 31(2), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2015.1095165.
Pettit, P. (2004). Hope and its place in mind. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 592, 152–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716203261798.
Smith, N., & Leiserowitz, A. (2014). The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. Risk Analysis, 34(5), 937–948. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12140.
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 570–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.4.570.
Wenzel, M., Anvari, F., de Vel-Palumbo, M., & Bury, S. M. (2017). Collective apology, hope, and forgiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 75–87.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author information
Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This research received ethics approval from Flinders University Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee, and all procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Research involving Human and animal rights
This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bury, S.M., Wenzel, M. & Woodyatt, L. Confusing hope and optimism when prospects are good: A matter of language pragmatics or conceptual equivalence?. Motiv Emot 43, 483–492 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9746-7
Published:
Issue Date:
Keywords
- Hope
- Optimism
- Possibility
- Personal investment