The Hope Construct, Will, and Ways:

Their Relations with Self-Efficacy, Optimism,

and General Well-Being
Ä

Philip R. Magaletta and J. M. Oliver

St. Louis University

This investigation (N 5 204) examined (a) the relations between the hope
construct (Snyder, Harris et al., 1991; Snyder, Irving, & Anderson, 1991)
and its two essential components, “will” and “ways,” and the related con-
structs of self-efficacy and optimism; and (b) the ability of hope, self-
efficacy, and optimism to predict general well-being. Maximum-likelihood
factor analysis recovered will, ways, self-efficacy, and optimism as gener-
ally distinct and independent entities. Results of multiple regression analy-
ses predicting well-being indicated that (a) hope taken as a whole predicts
unique variance independent of self-efficacy and optimism, (b) will pre-
dicts unique variance independent of self-efficacy, and (c) ways predicts
unique variance independent of optimism. Overall, findings suggest that
will, ways, self-efficacy, and optimism are related but not identical con-
structs. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Clin Psychol 55: 539–551,
1999.

According to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, we use “hope” in everyday

speech to refer to “1) trust or reliance; 2) desire accompanied with expectation of obtain-
ing what is desired or belief that it is obtainable” (Merriam, 1971, p. 1089). The concept
of hope has been interwoven with the Western psyche since classical antiquity in both its
secular and sacred traditions. According to the pagan Greek myth, Hope was the last and
only good spirit to escape from Pandora’s box. St. Paul exalted hope as one of the three

J.M. Oliver, Department of Psychology, and Philip R. Magaletta, Department of Psychology are now with
United States Penitentiary, Allentown, PA.
This reports a doctoral dissertation conducted by the second author under the supervision of the first author in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the doctoral degree in Clinical Psychology at St. Louis University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to J.M. Oliver, Department of Psychology, St. Louis
University, 221 N. Grand Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63103.

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 55(5), 539–551 (1999)

© 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0021-9762/99/050539-13
540 Journal of Clinical Psychology, May 1999

most fundamental Christian virtues (Corinthians I 13:13); he also felt it necessary to

exhort his followers to hope (Romans 8:34–35, 12:12, 15:12–13). Dante identified the
absence of hope with hell (The Inferno, canto iii, line 9); Pope wryly noted hope’s peren-
nial, and perennially frustrating, nature (Essay on Man, Epistle 1, 1733–34).
Constructs related to hope began to be introduced into the psychological and psychi-
atric literature in the 1950s. An early stream of literature highlighted the role of hope in
human adaptation. French (1952) and Menninger (1959) noted the significance of hope in
initiating therapeutic change, willingness to learn, and a sense of well-being. Dufrane and
LeClair (1984), Frank (1968), and Lazarus (1980) articulated the critical role of hope in
instigating therapeutic change and other types of action. Correspondingly, it was noted
that hopelessness or lack of hope introduced significant risk not only of mental disorders
generally but of depression, sociopathy, and suicidal behaviors specifically (Beck, Rush,
Shaw, & Emery, 1979; Erickson, Post, & Paige, 1975; Frank, 1968; Hanna, 1991; Melges
& Bowlby, 1969). Hope was also emphasized as a moderator of stress on physical health
outcomes (Chan, 1977; Gottschalk, 1985) and as a contributor to cancer patients’ psy-
chosocial adaptation (Good, Good, Schaffer, & Lind, 1990; Snyder, Harris et al., 1991).
The influence of hope on psychological and spiritual development was also observed
(May, 1991; Merton, 1961; Miller & Powers, 1988).
A large psychological literature developed regarding expectancies, which share with
hope an emphasis on the significance of psychological anticipation of the future. The
term expectancies was used to refer to beliefs that desired outcomes would occur, either
due to one’s own efforts or to other factors not under one’s control (Boone, Roessler, &
Cooper, 1978; Erickson et al., 1975; Gottschalk, 1974; McGee, 1984; Obayuwana et al.,
1982). Expectancies were central constructs in theories of motivation (McClelland, Atkin-
son, Clark, & Lowell, 1953; Stotland, 1969; Weiner, 1992), social learning (Bandura,
1977a, 1977b, 1986, 1989; Maddux, Sherer, & Rogers, 1982; Rotter, 1966), and goal-
setting (Lee, Locke, & Latham, 1989; Pervin, 1989).
Bandura (1997a, 1997b, 1982, 1986) originated a large stream of literature regarding
expectancies. In the tradition of social learning theorists, Bandura differentiated between
expectancies of self-efficacy (one’s belief in one’s ability to perform a specific behavior)
and expectancies of outcome (one’s belief that a specific behavior will produce a desired
outcome). Bandura has characterized expectancies of efficacy, or self-efficacy, as a stron-
ger predictor of behavior than outcome expectancies. Indeed, Bandura characterized self-
efficacy as the strongest predictor of behavior.
Bandura (1989) construed self-efficacy as specific to particular situations. Others
(Maddux et al., 1982) modified Bandura’s concept of self-efficacy somewhat, generaliz-
ing self-efficacy from a situation- and time-specific expectancy to a dispositional expec-
tancy about the self ’s ability to perform effectively behaviors that are likely to lead to
desired outcomes.
Scheier and Carver (1985, 1992, 1993) developed another construct similar to hope,
that of optimism. Scheier and Carver (1985) defined optimism as a generalized expec-
tancy that one will experience good outcomes in life. Their definition makes no distinc-
tion regarding the agency through which outcomes occur, whether through the individual’s
efforts, the efforts of others, or outside forces. According to Scheier and Carver (1992),
optimism leads to persistence in goal-directed striving. Parallel to Bandura’s character-
ization of self-efficacy, Sheier and Carver (1992) have characterized optimism as the
most powerful predictor of behavior. There would appear to be a contradiction between
Scheier and Carver’s (1985) definition of optimism, which broadens its focus to out-
comes regardless of how they occur, and their postulate that optimism is the mechanism
that leads the individual to persist in goal-directed striving.
 Hope, Will, and Ways 541

Charles Snyder (Snyder, Harris et al., 1991; Snyder, Irving, & Anderson, 1991) devel-
oped the construct of hope and introduced the construct into the psychology literature
using that term. Like other psychologists who theorized about expectancies, Snyder and
his colleagues (Snyder, Harris et al., 1991; Snyder, Irving et al., 1991) appear to have
defined hope somewhat in the tradition of Webster’s second definition of hope: “desire
accompanied with expectation of obtaining what is desired or belief that it is obtainable”
(Merriam, 1971, p. 1089). Central to Snyder’s concept of hope, however, is that hope is
not monolithic but has two components that are interrelated but of which both are essen-
tial. According to Snyder, Harris et al. (1991), “there are two major, interrelated elements
of hope . . . hope is fueled by the perception of successful agency related to goals. The
agency component refers to a sense of successful determination in meeting goals in the
past, present, and future” (pp. 570–571). Snyder termed the sense of agency will. Again,
following Snyder, Harris et al. (1991), “hope is influenced by the perceived availability
of successful pathways related to goals. The pathways component refers to a sense of
being able to generate successful plans to meet goals (pp. 570–571). Snyder termed the
sense of available pathways ways. Thus, integral to Snyder’s definition of hope is its
bifaceted nature, with its dual components of will and ways. Snyder often referred to
hope as a process, the bidirectional iteration of will and ways.
It would appear, then, that self-efficacy, optimism, and hope are related but not iden-
tical constructs. All are related by the central core of expectancies. All are also related in
that they are conceptualized as cognitive sets that (a) pertain to the individual’s outcomes
or goals; (b) pertain to the future; and (c) are powerful, if not the strongest, determinants
of behavior. It is interesting to compare self-efficacy, optimism, and hope in the termi-
nology of expectancies. Hope is unique among self-efficacy and optimism in that it includes
components of expectancies about both self-efficacy and outcomes. Self-efficacy would
appear to parallel the will component of hope in that both pertain to expectancies about
self-efficacy. Optimism would appear to parallel the ways component of hope in that both
pertain to expectancies about outcomes. Optimism and hope diverge in that optimism
includes expectancies about outcomes obtained through others and forces outside the
self, whereas the ways component of hope pertains uniquely to outcomes obtained by
the self.
Those who have developed the constructs of self-efficacy, optimism, and hope have
also developed operationalizations of these constructs. Regarding self-efficacy, Sherer
and his colleagues have construed expectancies as dispositional rather than situational
(Sherer, Maddux, & Rogers, 1982) and operationalized dispositional self-efficacy in the
Self-Efficacy Scale (SES; Sherer, Maddux, Mercandante et al., 1982). Scheier and Carver
(1985) operationalized the construct of optimism in the Life Orientation Test (LOT).
Snyder, Harris et al. (1991) have operationalized Snyder’s construct of hope as the
Hope Scale. A critical feature of the Hope Scale is that it assesses both elements of
Snyder’s bifaceted construct of hope: the dual components of will and ways. Repeated
factor analyses of the Hope Scale in independent samples have recovered these two
components (Snyder, Harris et al., 1991).
Snyder, Harris et al. (1991) have demonstrated that the Hope Scale has both conver-
gent and discriminant validity. Hope overlaps with but is distinct from optimism, expec-
tations of success, the wish to exert personal control, self-esteem, problem-solving ability,
coping ability, mental health, and both positive and negative affect (Holloren & Snyder,
1990; Sigmon & Snyder, 1990a, 1990b; Snyder, Harris et al., 1991). Hope is also nega-
tively related to but also distinct from hopelessness, depression, and negative affect (state
and trait anxiety). The Hope Scale appears to be relatively uninfluenced by social desir-
ability and essentially independent of self-focused attention affect (Holloren & Snyder,
542 Journal of Clinical Psychology, May 1999

1990; Sigmon & Snyder, 1990a, 1990b). Taken together, these relations suggest that the
Hope Scale measures a construct that is similar to ones to which hope is conceptually
related, yet remains unique.
As previously noted, a central aspect of Snyder’s (Snyder, Harris et al., 1991) defi-
nition of hope is that, in Snyder’s view, hope has two facets that complement and sustain
each other: will and ways. At a conceptual level, this dual aspect of hope is fundamental
to the construct. However, in testing the convergent and discriminant validity of the Hope
Scale as the operationalization of this construct, Snyder has consistently used the total
score—a single, summarizing score—to represent the scale. It is of interest to learn,
therefore, whether each of the components of the scale, Will and Ways, has independent
status empirically.
This study set out to examine the relations among hope, self-efficacy, optimism, and
a fourth construct to which the first three should be related conceptually: well-being.
Because of the many common features of the constructs of hope, self-efficacy, and opti-
mism, the first purpose of this study was to seek the structure underlying their operation-
alizations when the unit of analysis selected was individual items comprising each measure.
Of interest was whether it was possible to recover the three constructs as fairly distinct
entities. It also was of interest to ascertain whether the Will and Ways components of the
Hope Scale could be recovered as separate and distinct entities when placed in the larger
context of items designed to reflect self-efficacy and optimism. The second purpose of
the study was to learn whether the Hope Scale makes a significant and unique contribu-
tion beyond that of self-efficacy and optimism to predicting a construct to which all three
should be related conceptually, namely, well-being. The Hope Scale has been related to
positive mental health; however, we selected general well-being as not only broad and
inclusive, but unique to the present study. We wished to learn whether the Hope Scale,
self-efficacy as measured by the SES, and optimism as measured by the LOT made
independent contributions to predicting general well-being. Finally, we wished to learn
whether each of the components of the Hope Scale, the Will and Ways subscales, made
separate and independent contributions to doing so.

METHOD
Participants
Participants were 204 students recruited from psychology classes at a midsize Catholic
university in the Midwest. Seven percent of participants were ages 17–18; 24%, 28%,
37%, and 3% were ages 19, 20, 21–25, and 26–50, respectively. Men comprised 26.5%
of the participants; 73.5% were women. Eighty-three percent described themselves as
Caucasian, 6%, 4%, 3%, and 3% were Asian, African-American, Hispanic, and other,
respectively. Regarding academic achievement, 4% indicated that they had a cumulative
grade-point average (GPA) of 3.5– 4.0, and 5%, 19%, 39%, and 36% indicated cumula-
tive GPA’s of 3.0–3.4, 2.5–2.9, 2.0–2.4, and 1.5–1.9, respectively. Regarding religious
affiliation, 62% described themselves as Catholic, and 27.5%, .5%, and 10% described
themselves as Protestants, Jewish, and “none,” respectively. The typical participant was
a Caucasian Catholic woman age 20 years 6 months in her sophomore or junior year with
a cumulative GPA of 2.0.

Measures
The Hope Scale. The Hope Scale (Snyder, Harris et al., 1991) was designed to measure
Snyder’s construct of hope and therefore to assess both will and ways. The Hope Scale
 Hope, Will, and Ways 543

consists of 12 items to which participants indicate their responses on a 4-point Likert

scale ranging from 1 (definitely false) to 4 (definitely true). Four items are designed to
assess will and comprise the Will subscale; four items are designed to assess ways and
comprise the Ways subscale; four items are unrelated filler items. Total scores on Wills,
Ways, and the Hope Scale therefore range from 4–16, 4–16, and 8–32, respectively. The
adequacy of the Will and the Ways subscales has been tested primarily through factor
analysis in multiple independent samples using oblique rotation of the factors extracted.
These factor analyses demonstrated repeatedly that Will and Ways could be recovered as
coherent dimensions that are intercorrelated to a low moderate degree.
Regarding reliability, the eight items relating to hope have been found to have rela-
tively high internal consistency reliability; Cronbach’s alpha for these items ranged from
.74 to .78 across multiple independent samples (Snyder, Harris et al., 1991). Test-retest
correlations ranged from .73 to .82 across 8- to 10-week intervals (Snyder, Harris et al.,
1991). Convergent and discriminant validity have been discussed previously in this article.

The Self-Efficacy Scale (SES). The Self-Efficacy Scale (Sherer, Maddux, Mercandante
et al., 1982) was designed to assess perceived self-efficacy, or one’s general expectancies
regarding his or her ability to perform behaviors. The SES consists of 30 items to which
the participant responds on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5
(agree strongly). Like the Hope Scale, the SES was developed largely through factor
analysis in repeated studies designed to identify major components of the scale and to
eliminate items that did not contribute to the major components. Factor analysis estab-
lished that the scale measures (a) general self-efficacy (17 items) and (b) social self-
efficacy (six items); the scale includes an additional seven filler items (Sherer, Maddux,
Mercandante et al., 1982). Of the 23 substantive items, 14 are reverse-scored. For this
study, we selected the 17 items pertaining to general self-efficacy.
Concerning reliability, internal consistency reliability has been measured as .86 for
the general self-efficacy subscale and .71 for the social self-efficacy subscale (Sherer,
Maddux, Mercandante et al., 1982). Concerning construct validity, the SES has been
found to have moderate and positive correlations with self-esteem, locus of control, per-
sonal adjustment, and social desirability, as well as positive relations with self-reported
previous success in vocational, educational, and military arenas (Scherer & Adams, 1983;
Sherer et al., 1982).

The Life Orientation Test (LOT). The LOT (Scheier & Carver, 1985) was designed to
measure dispositional optimism, or the generalized expectancy that one will experience
positive outcomes in life. The LOT consists of 12 items to which the participant responds
on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Of the
12 items, 4 are worded positively, toward optimism; 4 are worded negatively, toward
pessimism; and 4 are unrelated filler items. Scores on the LOT range from 8– 40. Like the
Hope Scale and the SES, the LOT has been developed through factor analysis. Factor
analysis has demonstrated that when the negative items are not rescored prior to analysis,
the four items worded positively, toward optimism, and the four items worded negatively,
toward pessimism, cohere into separate factors that are independent and differentially
related to fundamental dimensions of personality and mood (Marshall, Wortman, Kasu-
lus, Hervig, & Vickers, 1992; Scheier & Carver, 1993, 1995). For use as a measure of
optimism, the items worded negatively, toward pessimism, are rescored toward opti-
mism, and filler items are omitted.
Regarding reliability, the LOT has been found to possess internal consistency relia-
bility as measured by Cronbach’s alpha of .76 (Scheier & Carver, 1985). Test-retest reli-
544 Journal of Clinical Psychology, May 1999

ablities of .76 and .72 have been reported across 4- and 13-week intervals, respectively.
Convergent validity for the LOT has been demonstrated in a moderate positive corre-
lation with self-esteem and moderate negative correlations with perceived stress and
depression.

The General Well-Being Questionnaire (GWBQ). The GWBQ (Wheeler, 1980, 1991)
was designed as a broad-band measure of positive health, both mental and physical. The
GWBQ consists of 143 items to which participants indicate their responses on a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Scores on the
GWBQ therefore range from 143–715.
Like the Hope Scale, the SES, and the LOT, the GWBQ has been developed largely
through factor analysis. Factor analysis has consistently revealed seven higher-order fac-
tors: Attitudes, Beliefs, Behaviors, Situations, Emotions, Physical Complaints, and Recent
Events. Attitudes represent attitudes relevant to health and well-being, in particular locus
of control. Beliefs represent ethical and spiritual beliefs and broad values that might
dictate goals, such as achievement and developing community with others. Behaviors
represent health-related behaviors. Situations represent environmental forces and presses,
such as work and social settings. Emotions represent subjective aspects of feeling stress.
Physical complaints represent symptoms of physiological and immune dysfunction. Recent
events represent recent stressors.
Concerning reliability, internal consistency of the GWBQ as measured by Cron-
bach’s alpha has been found to be .92 (Wheeler, 1980). Test-retest reliability across 6-week
intervals has been reported to range from .61 to .93 (Wheeler, 1980). Concerning con-
struct validity, the GWBQ has been found to correlate moderately and positively with job
satisfaction and with both state and trait anxiety (Wheeler, 1980).
We scrutinized the GWBQ for overlap in item content with the Hope Scale, the SES,
and the LOT. Using stringent criteria for similarity, a maximum of nine items of the
GWBQ could be considered to overlap in content with any of the other three scales.
Because these nine items represent only 6% of the total GWBQ, it seems unlikely that
relations among the four scales are attributable to overlap in item content.

RESULTS
Table 1 presents both means and standard deviations of all psychological measures and
zero-order correlations among psychological measures. Means and standard deviations
of measures are shown on the diagonal. As indicated in Table 1, Will and Ways were
positively, significantly, and moderately correlated, sharing about 30% of their variance.
Will and Ways were highly correlated with Hope. Will, Ways, Hope, the SES, the LOT,
and the GWBQ were all positively, significantly, and moderately intercorrelated. Ways
was somewhat less correlated with the SES, LOT, and the GWBQ, averaging about .40;
the GWBQ was correlated more highly with Hope, the SES, and the LOT, averaging
about .60.
Factor analysis using items as the level of analysis was conducted to discern the
structure underlying the Hope Scale in both its main components of Will and Ways sub-
scales, the SES, and the LOT. We applied a maximum likelihood approach to factor
analysis, specifying (a) four factors to represent the Will and Ways dimensions of the
Hope Scale, the SES, and the LOT; and (b) a minimum eigenvalue of 1.0. We used both
orthogonal and oblique methods of rotation. Results of both methods of rotation were
very similar; we report results of orthogonal rotation. Table 2 presents loadings of items
of Will, Ways, the Hope Scale, the SES, and the LOT that loaded . .30 on the four factors
 Hope, Will, and Ways 545

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Psychological Measures; Zero-Order Correlations

Among Psychological Measures

Self Life General

Efficacy Orientation Well-Being
Will Ways Hope Scale Test Questionnaire

Will 13.440
1.980 .536*** .863*** .599*** .491*** .628***
Ways — 13.060
— 2.116 .889*** .447*** .475*** .436***
Hope — — 26.504
— — 3.736 .592*** .550*** .602***
Self-Efficacy Scale — — — 65.858 .507*** .631***
— — — 9.826
Life Orientation Test — — — — 29.768 .628***
— — — — 5.400
General Well-Being — — — — — 525.668
Questionnaire — — — — — 45.188

Note.—***p < .001.

extracted, together with eigenvalues of the factors and the proportion of variance accounted
for by each factor.
Overall, the four-factor solution with orthogonal rotation recovered the SES, the
LOT, Will, and Ways as coherent, independent entities. The first and by far the strongest
factor, accounting for almost 30% of the variance, represented 12 of the 17 general self-
efficacy items of the SES. The second, third, and fourth factors were much weaker and
roughly equivalent in strength, with the second factor accounting for about 8% of the
variance and both the third and fourth factors accounting for about 5%. The second factor
represented all eight items of the LOT, with items tapping both optimism and pessimism
loading on a single factor. The third factor represented three of the four items of Will,
together with three of the remaining self-efficacy items of the SES. The third factor,
therefore, represented an amalgam of Will and the SES and apparently tapped a strong
goal-directed orientation. Finally, the fourth factor represented all four Ways items, together
with the remaining Will item. As implied by these findings, two SES items failed to
load . .30 on any of the four factors.
These findings from factor analysis suggest empirical parallels between self-efficacy
as measured by the SES and the Will component of the Hope Scale. The scales share a
common emphasis on persistence. Indeed, Snyder, Harris et al. (1991) defined will in
terms of “successful agency” and “successful determination”; similarly, the factors rep-
resenting the SES emphasize persistence, both cognitive persistence (Factor I, represent-
ing about two-thirds of the SES) and behavioral persistence (Factor III, combining the
remaining portion of the SES and the Will component of the Hope Scale).
For both theoretical and empirical reasons, then, we conceptualized the Will compo-
nent of the Hope Scale as similar to although somewhat independent of the SES. For
theoretical reasons, we conceptualized the Ways component of the Hope Scale as similar
to the LOT, in that both represent outcome expectancies; empirically, however, Ways
appears to be independent of the LOT.
Table 2. Factor Loadings >.30 of Items of the Hope Scale, the Self-Efficacy Scale, and the Life Orientation Test on Factors Extracted by Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis
546

Factor

I II III IV

Self-Efficacy 12 If something looks to difficult to me I will not even bother to try it (reverse scored). .69 — — —
Self-Efficacy 23 Failure just makes me try harder. .61 — — —
Self-Efficacy 22 I avoid trying to learn new things when they look too difficult to me (reverse scored). .60 — — —
Self-Efficacy 29 I give up too easily (reverse scored). .57 — — —
Self-Efficacy 18 When I try to learn something new, I soon give up if I am not initially successful (reverse scored). .56 — — —
Self-Efficacy 11 I avoid facing difficulties (reverse scored). .54 — — —
Self-Efficacy 08 I give up on things before completing them (reverse scored). .52 — .46 —
Self-Efficacy 26 I feel insecure about my ability to do things (reverse scored). .50 .40 — —
Self-Efficacy 04 If I can’t do a job the first time, I keep trying until I can. .48 — — —
Self-Efficacy 27 I am a self-reliant person. .46 — — —
Self-Efficacy 30 I do not seem capable of dealing with most problems that come up in my life (reverse scored). .44 — — —
Self-Efficacy 20 When unexpected problems occur, I don’t handle them well (reverse scored). .36 — — —
Life Orientation Test 08 I hardly ever expect things to go my way (reverse scored). .31 .67 — —
Life Orientation Test 04 I always look on the bright side of things. — .63 — —
Life Orientation Test 12 I rarely count on good things happening to me (reverse scored). — .60 — —
Life Orientation Test 05 I’m always optimistic about my future. — .50 — —
Life Orientation Test 03 If something can go wrong for me it will (reverse scored). — .59 — —
Life Orientation Test 09 Things never work out for me the way I want them to (reverse scored). — .51 — —
Life Orientation Test 11 I’m a believer in the idea that “every cloud has a silver lining.” — .46 — —
Life Orientation Test 01 In uncertain times I usually expect the best. — .45 — —
Hope Scale 12, Will I meet the goals I set for myself. — — .68 —
Self-Efficacy 03 One of my problems is that I can’t get down to work when I should (reverse scored). — — .54 —
Journal of Clinical Psychology, May 1999

Self-Efficacy 16 When I decide to do something, I get right to work on it. — .37 .53 —
Hope Scale 02, Will I energetically pursue my goals. — — .51 —
Self-Efficacy 15 When I have something unpleasant to do I stick to it until I finish it. .38 — .48 —
Hope Scale 10, Will I’ve been pretty successful in my life. — .39 .44 .31
Hope Scale 01, Ways I can think of many ways to get out of a jam. — — — .63
Hope Scale 04, Ways There are lots of ways around any problem. — — — .56
Hope Scale 08, Ways Even when others get discouraged, I know I can find a way to solve the problem. — — .30 .54
Hope Scale 06, Ways I can think of many ways to get the things in life that are most important to me. — — — .38
Hope Scale 90, Will My past experiences have prepared me well for the future. — — — .37
Eigenvalue Before Rotation 9.5 2.5 1.8 1.6
Percent of Variance Explained
Before Rotation 28.7 7.6 5.3 4.8
 Hope, Will, and Ways 547

Three hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the pre-
dictive power of the Hope Scale. In these regression analyses the Hope Scale, the LOT,
and the SES served as predictors, whereas the GWBQ served as the criterion. Results of
these three regression analyses are shown in Table 3.
In the first analysis the SES, construed as an existing measure having conceptual and
empirical similarity to Will, was forced in first. The SES proved to be a strong predictor
of the GWBQ, accounting for about 40% of the variance in the GWBQ. The LOT, con-
strued as an existing measure having conceptual and empirical similarity to Ways, was
forced in second. The LOT was also successful in predicting the GWBQ, accounting for
an additional 13% of the variance. Finally, the Hope Scale, retained in its entirety without
breaking out the components of Will and Ways, was forced in on the third and final step.
The Hope Scale predicted a significant amount of unique variance, although the amount
of additional variance it explained was modest (3%). This regression analysis demon-
strated that Hope taken as a whole has unique predictive power.
In the second and third analyses, the Hope Scale was broken out into its two com-
ponent subscales, Will and Ways. The second analysis was designed primarily to test the
predictive power of Will and secondarily that of the SES, Ways, and the LOT. The SES,
construed as an existing measure most closely related conceptually and empirically to
Will, was forced in first. Identical to the first analysis, the SES predicted about 40% of the
variance of the GWBQ. Will was forced in next, and although less powerful, predicted
about another 10% of the variance. Ways was forced in third, but failed to predict unique
variance. The LOT was forced in last and, like Will, predicted about another 8% of the
variance. In summary, results of the second analysis suggest that Will performs similarly

Table 3. Summary of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting the General Well-Being
Questionnaire by the Will and Ways Components of Hope, the Self-Efficacy Scale, and the Life Orientation Test

Variable B SE B Beta

Equation 1
Self-Efficacy Scale .180 .035 .328****
Life Orientation Test .157 .029 .341****
Hope Scale, Total .188 .055 .220**
Equation 2
Self-Efficacy Scale .157 .035 .285****
Hope Scale, Will .228 .051 .295****
Hope Scale, Ways −.010 .042 −.014
Life Orientation Test .159 .028 .345****
Equation 3
Life Orientation Test .159 .028 .345****
Hope Scale, Ways −.010 .042 −.014
Hope Scale, Will .228 .052 .295****
Self-Efficacy Scale .157 .035 .285****
Hope Scale, Total .188 .055 .220****

Note.—N = 182 for all analyses.

For Equation 1, R 2 = .40 for Step 1; change in R 2 = .13 for Step 2; change in R 2 = .03 for Step 3.
For Equation 2, R 2 = .40 for Step 1; change in R 2 = .10 for Step 2; change in R 2 = .00 for Step 3; change in
R 2 = .08 for Step 4.
For Equation 3, R 2 = .40 for Step 1; change in R 2 = .03 for Step 2; change in R 2 = .11 for Step 3; change in
R 2 = .05 for Step 4.
**p < .01. ****p = .0000.
548 Journal of Clinical Psychology, May 1999

to the SES as hypothesized, but Will is also sufficiently different to predict unique vari-
ance in the GWBQ. Ways were not significant predictors of well-being after variance
accounted for by the SES and Will had been removed.
The third analysis was designed primarily to test the predictive power of Ways and
secondarily that of the LOT, Will, and the SES. The LOT, construed as an existing mea-
sure related conceptually to although empirically independent of Will, was forced in first.
The LOT, like the SES in the first two analyses, was a relatively powerful predictor of the
GWBQ, accounting for about 40% of the variance. Ways was forced in next and was
considerably less powerful, predicting a significant but only modest amount (3%) of
unique variance. Will was forced in third and again proved to be a powerful predictor,
predicting about another 10% of unique variance. The SES was forced in last and pre-
dicted about another 5% of unique variance. In summary, results from the third regression
analysis showed that Ways performed similarly to the LOT, as predicted, but made a
unique, albeit small, contribution to predicting the GWBQ. Will again made a unique
contribution to predicting the GWBQ, as did the SES.

DISCUSSION
Overall, results of this investigation generally support the existence of self-efficacy, opti-
mism, and hope as related but not identical constructs. The degree to which they overlap
and share common variance is shown clearly in their zero-order intercorrelations. The
degree to which they diverge and embody unique variance is shown both in the results of
maximum-likelihood factor analysis and the first multiple regression analysis, in which
all three were used to predict well-being. Maximum-likelihood factor analysis generally
extracted self-efficacy, optimism, will, and ways as four separate and distinct entities.
Multiple regression analysis indicated that self-efficacy, optimism, and hope each made a
significant and unique contribution to the prediction of well-being.
Generally, these results also support will and ways as related but not identical con-
structs. These findings are likewise supported by their zero-order correlation of .54, by
the maximum-likelihood factor analysis, and by the second and third multiple regression
analyses. The second multiple regression analysis demonstrated that despite the fact that
will might roughly be categorized as an expectancy of self-efficacy, will made an inde-
pendent contribution to the prediction of well-being beyond that made by general self-
efficacy. The third multiple regression analysis demonstrated that despite the fact that
ways might roughly be categorized as an outcome expectancy, ways made an indepen-
dent contribution to the prediction of well-being beyond that made by optimism.
The conceptual and empirical distinctness of both will and ways might be further
noted. Despite the fact that will seems closely related to self-efficacy conceptually, items
of the Will subscale generally cohered into a separate factor. The conceptual parallel
between ways and optimism seems less compelling than the conceptual parallel between
will and self-efficacy. At a conceptual level, ways seems quite similar to aspects of prob-
lem solving, in particular problem-solving confidence and generation of alternatives (Nezu
& Ronan, 1985). It might be of interest to examine the degree to which ways, problem-
solving confidence, and generation of alternatives also represent related but not identical
constructs.
At a somewhat finer level of analysis, findings suggested that both the Will and the
Ways components of the Hope Scale might be refined somewhat further. Results of the
maximum-likelihood factor analysis found the third factor, roughly equivalent to Will, to
be intermingled with general self-efficacy items from the SES. They also found the fourth
factor, roughly equivalent to Ways, to have one high loading of a Will item. The third
 Hope, Will, and Ways 549

multiple regression analysis found that although Ways predicted unique variance in well-
being, its contribution was modest. The second multiple regression analysis found that
Ways failed to predict unique variance beyond that explained by self-efficacy and Will.
Overall, then, relative to the Will scale as an operationalization of will, Ways appears to
be somewhat weaker empirically as an operationalization of Snyder, Irving et al.’s (1991)
concept of pathways.
It is interesting to speculate about the relations among hope, self-efficacy, optimism,
and well-being. Hope, self-efficacy, and well-being might all be thought of as cognitive
sets that might reflect a positive orientation toward experience and that might thus con-
tribute to well-being. Generally, the relations among hope, self-efficacy, optimism, and
well-being have not been studied empirically. Although Myers and Diener (1995) have
observed that optimism seems to characterize “happy” people and that optimism is there-
fore likely to contribute to well-being, the relation between hope and well-being appears
never to have been investigated. Conceptually, the major difference between hope and
well-being appears to lie in their temporal orientation, as hope refers to a cognitive set
regarding the future, whereas well-being has always been measured regarding the recent
past. It would be of considerable interest to conduct a prospective longitudinal study in
which hope as measured at the beginning of the interval was used to predict well-being as
measured at the end of the interval. The present study would suggest that hope would
predict well-being prospectively and independently of optimism.
We must acknowledge at least two major limitations of the present study. The first
major limitation may lie in the generalizability of our findings. Our sample was large
enough to provide both very conservative N:k ratios and considerable power for all analy-
ses. However, the sample was one of convenience drawn from a population that may be
distinctive. Although the high proportions of both women and Catholic participants in
this sample are not unrepresentative of this institution, they are not representative of
either the general student population or the general adult population. The second major
limitation is that the general findings must be tempered by the observation that they are
limited to the particular operationalizations used in this study: although optimism and
hope have not to our knowledge been operationalized by measures other than the LOT
and the Hope Scale, respectively, general self-efficacy has at least one other well-known
operationalization (Tipton & Worthington, 1984a, 1984b).
Further research might be directed toward replicating these results in a more repre-
sentative sample. Additionally, it might be helpful to further refine the Ways scale to
increase its predictive power. Finally, as noted earlier, it might be of interest to compare
Ways with aspects of problem-solving, especially problem-solving confidence and gen-
eration of alternatives (Nezu & Ronan, 1985).

REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1977b). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Self-regulation of motivation and action through internal standards and goal
systems. In L.A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social psychology (pp. 19–85).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
550 Journal of Clinical Psychology, May 1999

Beck, A.T., Rush, A.J., Shaw, B.F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive theory of depression. New York:
Guilford Press.
Boone, S.E., Roessler, R.T., & Cooper, P.G. (1978). Hope and manifest anxiety: Motivational
dynamics of acceptance of disability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25, 551–556.
Chan, K.B. (1977). Individual differences in reactions to stress and their personality and situational
determinants: Some implications for community mental health. Social Science and Medicine,
11, 89–103.
Dufrane, K., & Leclair, S.W. (1984). Using hope in the counseling process. Counseling and Values,
29, 32– 41.
Erickson, R.C., Post, R.D., & Paige, A.B. (1975). Hope as a psychiatric variable. Journal of Clin-
ical Psychology, 324–330.
Frank, J. (1968). The role of hope in psychotherapy. International Journal of Psychiatry, 6, 383–
395.
French, T.M. (1952). The Integration of behavior; Vol. 1. Basic postulates. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Good, M.D., Good, B.J., Schaffer, C., & Lind, S.E. (1990). American oncology and the discourse
on hope. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, 14, 59–79.
Gottschalk, L.A. (1974). A hope scale applicable to verbal samples. Archives of General Psychia-
try, 30, 779–785.
Gottschalk, L.A. (1985). Hope and other deterrents to illness. American Journal of Psychotherapy,
39, 515–524.
Hanna, F.J. (1991). Suicide and hope: The common ground. Journal of Mental Health Counseling,
13, 459– 472.
Hollorer, S., & Snyder, C.R. (1990). Discriminant and convergent validation of the hope scale.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Lazarus, A.A. (1980). Toward delineating some causes of change in psychotherapy. Professional
Psychology, 11, 863–870.
Lee, T.W., Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1989). Goal setting theory and job performance. In L.A.
Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social psychology (pp. 291–326). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Maddux, J.E., Sherer, M., & Rogers, R.W. (1982). Self-efficacy expectancy and outcome ex-
pectancy: Their relationship and their effects on behavioral intentions. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 6, 207–211.
Marshall, G.N., Wortman, C.B., Kasulus, J., Hervig, L., & Vickers, R. (1992). Distinguishing opti-
mism from pessimism: Relations to fundamental dimensions of mood and personality. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 1067–1074.
May, G.G. (1991). The awakened heart: Living beyond addiction. San Francisco: Harper Collins.
McClelland, D.C., Atkinson, J.W., Clark, R.A., & Lowell, E.L. (1953). The achievement motive.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
McGee, R.F. (1984). Hope: A factor influencing crisis resolution. Advances in Nursing Science,
July, 34– 44.
Melges, F.T., & Bowlby, J. (1969). Types of hopelessness in psychopathological process. Archives
of General Psychiatry, 20, 690– 699.
Menninger, K. (1959). The academic lecture: Hope. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 116,
481– 491.
Merriam, G. & C. Company. Webster’s third new international dictionary. (1971). Chicago: Ency-
clopaedia Britannica, Inc.
Merton, T. (1961). The new man. New York: Noonday Press.
Miller, J.F., & Powers, M.J. (1988). Development of a measure of hope. Nursing Research, 37,
6–10.
 Hope, Will, and Ways 551

Myers, D.G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6, 10–19.
Nezu, A.M., & Ronan, G.F. (1985). Life stress, current problems, problem solving, and depressive
symptoms: An integrative model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 5, 693– 697.
Obayuwana, A.O., Collins, J.L., Carter, A.L., Rao, M.S., Mathura, C.C., & Wilson, S.B. (1982).
Hope Index Scale: An instrument for the objective assessment of hope. Journal of the National
Medical Association, 74, 761–765.
Pervin, L.A. (1989). Goal concepts in personality and social psychology: A historical introduction.
In L.A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social psychology (pp. 1–17). Hills-
dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal vs. external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs, 80 (Whole no. 609).
Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications
of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology, 4, 219–247.
Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S. (1992). Effects of optimism or psychological and physical well-
being: Theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 201–
228.
Scheier, M.F., & Carver, C.S. (1998). On the power of positive thinking: The benefits of being
optimistic. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 26–30.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J.E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. (1982).
The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663– 671.
Sherer, M., & Adams, C.H. (1983). Construct validation of the self-efficacy scale. Psychological
Reports, 53, 899–902.
Sigmor, S.T., & Snyder, C.R. (1990a). The independent contributions of positive and negative
affect and hope in predicting psychological health. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Kansas, Lawrence.
Snyder, C.R., Harris, C., Anderson, J., Holleran, S., Irving, L., Sigmon, S., Yoshinobu, L., Gibb, J.,
Langelle, C., & Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an
individual difference measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,
570–585.
Snyder, C.R., Irving, L.M., & Anderson J. (1991). Hope and health. In C.R. Snyder & D.R. Forsyth
(Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology (pp. 285–305). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon
Press.
Stotland, E. (1969). The psychology of hope. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tipton, R.M., & Worthington, E.L. (1984a). Self-Efficacy Scale. (Available from Robert M. Tip-
ton, Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, 800 West Franklin Street,
Richmond, VA 23284).
Tipton, R.M., & Worthington, E.L. (1984b). The measurement of generalized self-efficacy: A study
of construct validity. Journal of Personality and Assessment, 48, 545–548.
Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories, and research. London: Sage Pub-
lications.
Wheeler, R.J. (1980). Factors of well-being. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 1593-B.
Wheeler, R.J. (1991). The theoretical and empirical structure of general well-being. Social Indica-
tors Research, 24, 71–79.