امید در مقابل خوش بینی در نوجوانان سنگاپور: کمک به افسردگی و رضایت از زندگی

This study explored the discriminant validity of optimism and hope in accounting for unique variance in depression and life satisfaction for 334 secondary school students from Singapore. Correlational analysis showed that optimism and hope were significantly correlated with each other. Hierarchical multiple regression findings indicated that both optimism and hope significantly predicted depression and life satisfaction even after controlling for hope and optimism, respectively. However, the incremental unique variance accounted for in depression by optimism is 6% more than that accounted for by hope in terms of R2Change values. Simultaneous multiple regression analyses using the subscale scores found that only agency, optimism, and pessimism contributed uniquely to the variance in depression and life satisfaction. Implications and limitations of these findings are discussed.

Snyder (2002) defined hope “as the perceived capacity to derive pathways to desired goals, and motivate oneself via agency thinking to use those pathways” (p. 249). However, the construct of hope overlaps with other similar constructs. The need to distinguish similar constructs from each other could not be understated. Hogan, 1994 and Mayer, 1998, and Tennen and Affleck (1998) have noted the tendency of researchers to rediscover and relabel phenomena. Hence, it is important to test a relatively new but similar construct against a more established construct. One construct that should be distinguished from hope is optimism (Aspinwall and Leaf, 2002 and Tennen et al., 2002). Scheier and Carver (1985) defined dispositional optimism as the “stable tendency to believe that good rather than bad things will happen” (p. 219) – generalized positive outcome expectancies about the future. Conversely, dispositional pessimism refers to generalized negative outcome expectancies about the future. Scheier and Carver (1985) believed that compared to efficacy expectancies, outcome expectancies are better predictors of behavior. In contrast, Snyder et al. (1991) emphasized the importance of the reciprocal action of efficacy expectancies and outcome expectancies, in which both types of expectancies are important and influence each other. Thus, the optimist may believe that things will turn out as he or she wants, but not possess the pathways necessary to pursue and acquire the goals (Snyder, 1995). A second difference between hope and optimism is that optimism focuses more broadly on the expected quality of future outcome in general or dispositional cognitive appraisals of personal outcomes, whereas hope focuses more directly on the personal attainment of specific goals or dispositional beliefs about personal capabilities (Bryant & Cvengros, 2004).