Journal of Educational Psychology Copyright 2002 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

2002, Vol. 94, No. 4, 820 – 826 0022-0663/02/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0022-0663.94.4.820

Hope and Academic Success in College

C. R. Snyder, Hal S. Shorey, Jennifer Cheavens, Kimberley Mann Pulvers,
Virgil H. Adams III, and Cynthia Wiklund
University of Kansas

A cognitive, motivational theory is introduced to the educational research community. Hope theory
integrates the conceptualization of goals, along with the strategies to achieve those goals (pathways), and
the motivation to pursue those goals (agency). In a 6-year longitudinal study, individual differences in
hope, as measured by the Hope Scale (C. R. Snyder et al., 1991) scores of entering college freshmen,
predicted better overall grade point averages even after controlling for variance related to entrance
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

examination scores. High- relative to the low-hope students also were more likely to have graduated and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

not to have been dismissed over this 6-year period. Hopeful thinking in college academics is discussed,
along with the contributions of hope theory for educational research and practice.

Contrary to popular belief, intelligence and ability are not the solving capabilities, perceptions of control, optimism, positive
only determinants of students’ classroom successes (Dweck, affectivity, and positive outcome expectancies (Snyder et al.,
1999). Even talented young people may fail to achieve at levels 1991). Accordingly, hope enables students to approach problems
that are consistent with their academic potentials, they may lower with a focus on success, thereby increasing the probability that
their academic expectations (Diener & Dweck, 1978, 1980), and they will attain their goals (Conti, 2000).
they may either not go to college or, if they do, drop out prior to Although the agency and pathways components of hope are
graduating (Hanson, 1994). These students come to be what Han- reciprocal, additive, and positively related, they are not synony-
son (1994) has called “lost talent,” and they are at a distinct mous (Snyder et al., 1991). Both are necessary for hopeful think-
disadvantage in today’s difficult job market. Therefore, it is im- ing. Agentic thinking reflects the cognitive momentum that trans-
portant to understand the factors that keep students on track and in lates into a “can do” attitude relating to people’s confidence in
pursuit of their educational goals. their abilities to attain valued goals. Whereas some researchers
Extensive research has been aimed at finding those factors that have found that the motivational component represented by agency
promote or inhibit academic achievement. These efforts have is more important to adjustment than is identifying specific path-
targeted motivational constructs such as self-efficacy (Bandura, ways to attain goals (Cramer & Dyrkacz, 1998), other researchers
1982), optimism (Scheier & Carver, 1985), and goal theory— argue that “in the absence of the strategies to be implemented,
along with related helpless or mastery orientations (Covington, goal-directed motivation is useless” (Irving, Snyder, & Crowson,
2000). Although these constructs have contributed significantly to 1998, p. 197). Success at challenging tasks, particularly in the
our understanding of academic performances, each elucidates only academic domain, often requires being able to generate multiple
a part of the motivation story. In this latter regard, our present pathways to goals. As will be discussed in reference to goal theory,
purpose is to introduce hope theory (Snyder et al., 1991) as a new the ability to generate multiple pathways can help students when
motivational model for use in educational research. they encounter impediments in their academic goal pursuits.
Hope is defined as “the process of thinking about one’s goals, Goal theory postulates a causal relationship between a person’s
along with the motivation to move toward those goals (agency), goal orientation and behavioral responses in academic settings
and the ways to achieve those goals (pathways)” (Snyder, 1995, p. (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Accordingly, there are two different
355). As such, hope is not an emotion but rather a dynamic types of goals that students typically pursue: learning goals and
cognitive motivational system (Snyder et al., 1991). In this sense, performance goals. These goals, in turn, set up adaptive or mal-
emotions follow cognitions in the process of goal pursuits (Snyder, adaptive achievement patterns reflecting either a mastery or a
2000). Also, hope can be measured as a cross-situational construct helpless orientation (Dweck, 1999). Mastery-oriented qualities are
that correlates positively with self-esteem, perceived problem- proposed to result from learning goals. Learning goals reflect a
desire to learn new skills and to master new tasks. Students who
choose this type of goal are actively engaged in their own learning,
including assessing the demands of various assignments, planning
C. R. Snyder, Hal S. Shorey, Jennifer Cheavens, Kimberley Mann the strategies they will use to meet those demands, and monitoring
Pulvers, Virgil H. Adams III, and Cynthia Wiklund, Department of Psy- their progress at staying on track (Covington, 2000).
chology, University of Kansas.
In contrast to those with mastery orientations, those who exhibit
This article was presented, in part, at the American Psychological
Association Convention, Boston, August 1999.
a helpless response when confronted with challenges are interested
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to C. R. primarily in performance goals or low-effort goals that enable
Snyder, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, 1415 Jayhawk them to look good and be assured of success (Dweck & Leggett,
Boulevard, 340 Fraser Hall, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-2462. E-mail: 1988). Those who choose performance goals are more likely to
[email protected] take easy rather than more difficult classes in which the potential

820
 HOPE AND COLLEGE ACADEMIC SUCCESS 821

for success is greater (Mueller & Dweck, 1997, as cited in Dweck, eral anxiety and less anxiety relating specifically to test-taking
1999). These students typically do not increase their efforts fol- situations (Snyder, 1999). In contrast, low-hope people experience
lowing failures (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). When confronting ob- more anxiety and are more likely to be sidetracked by self-
stacles, they exhibit decreased problem solving and readily disen- deprecatory, goal-blocking thoughts when taking tests (Snyder,
gage from goals even if they were performing adequately 1999).
previously (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). This helpless response is Other positive psychology constructs such as self-efficacy and
fostered by perceptions that circumstances are beyond one’s con- optimism propose similar patterns of achievement motivation. The
trol, lowered expectations, negative affect, and deteriorating per- agency and pathways components of hope, however, differentiate
formance (Diener & Dweck, 1978, 1980). hope from these other constructs. Each model relates differentially
Although the pursuit of learning or performance goals may lead to the typical efficacy and outcome expectancies that are described
to mastery or helpless-oriented responses, respectively, goal theory in the motivational literature (Bandura, 1982). Although hope
leaves unanswered the question of why students choose one type involves reciprocal action between efficacy expectancies, reflect-
of goal (Covington, 2000). Because hope theory (Snyder, in press) ing personal beliefs that one can achieve goals (agency), and
also posits a motivational system in which the ways that people outcome expectancies, reflecting one or more strategies for achiev-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

appraise and pursue their goals result in helpless- or mastery- ing those goals (pathways), self-efficacy (Bandura, 1982; Sherer et
oriented responses, it may be able to answer this question. Hope al., 1982) emphasizes efficacy expectancies over outcome expec-
theory proposes that goals themselves do not produce behavior, but tancies. In addition, according to Bandura’s (1982) theory, sub-
rather, people’s views of themselves as being agents capable of jective judgments of self-efficacy are task and situation specific,
initiating (agency) and implementing (pathways) actions to pursue whereas hope characterizes a more general cognitive set that
valued personal goals (i.e., going to college) produce the helpless- applies across situations (Snyder et al., 1991). In comparison with
or mastery-oriented responses. self-efficacy (using the scale by Sherer et al., 1982), the Hope
We propose that students’ levels of hope lead them to choose Scale items are factorally distinct, and they produce unique vari-
learning or performance goals. High-hope, and specifically high- ance in predicting well-being (Magaletta & Oliver, 1999).
pathways, thinkers are able to conceive many strategies to reach Although hope and optimism, as contrasted with self-efficacy,
goals and plan contingencies in the event that they are faced with are more stable dispositional constructs, they also differ in impor-
impediments along the way. As such, goal blockages, which could tant ways. Scheier and Carver (1985) defined optimism as a
be perceived as failures, are viewed as challenges to be overcome general outcome expectancy that good things will happen and
and are bypassed by the implementation of alternative pathways developed the Life Orientation Test to reflect this definition
(Snyder, in press). Perceiving the likelihood of positive outcomes, (LOT). Although Scheier and Carver propose that outcome ex-
these students focus on success and, therefore, experience less pectancies, corresponding to hope pathways, are the best predic-
distress and greater positive affect (Snyder et al., 1991). Support- tors of behavior, other researchers have proposed that optimism is
ing our contention that hope pathways may lead to learning goals, related specifically to hope agency and that hope pathways was
goal theorists propose that learning goals favor deep-level, strate- Snyder’s unique contribution above and beyond what is offered by
gic processing, which leads to increased academic achievement optimism (Peterson, 2000). An optimist may believe that things
(Covington, 2000). The model elucidated by Covington (2000), will turn out as he or she wants but does not possess the pathways
however, suggests that goals lead to cognitions, which then lead to necessary to pursue and acquire the goals (Snyder, 1995).
achievement. In hope theory, on the other hand, cognitions come Hope has predicted problem-focused coping and mental health
first and lead to the goals that people choose, which then lead to outcomes after controlling for optimism, whereas optimism failed
achievement. to predict these same outcomes when controlling for hope (Kash-
Goal theorists further propose that performance goals trigger dan et al., 2002; Snyder et al., 1991). Likewise, hope has predicted
superficial, rote-level processing that suppresses achievement subjective well-being even after controlling for the variance due to
(Covington, 2000). Rote-level processing, however, may just be an self-efficacy and optimism (Magaletta & Oliver, 1999). In addi-
indication that people with performance goals are not able to tion, the positive relationship between agency and self-efficacy
develop workable strategies for learning and hence are low-hope suggested that both constructs share a common emphasis on per-
and low-pathways thinkers. Low-hope people may give up when sistence (Magaletta & Oliver, 1999), although agency still made an
encountering barriers to goals simply because they cannot think of independent contribution to predicting well-being beyond that
other pathways to surmount the obstacles. This often results in made by general self-efficacy. Magaletta and Oliver (1999) also
frustration, a loss of confidence, and lowered self-esteem (see used factor analysis to show that pathways and the LOT were
Snyder, 1994). This position was partially supported by goal independent constructs.
researchers who used the Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1991) to Although optimism has been related to choosing achievement
validate a measure of learning- and performance-goal orientations goals, it either predicted very little (Pajares, 2001) or no variance
(Roedel, Schraw, & Plake, 1994). The learning-goal orientation in observed (Stewart, Lam, Betson, Wong, & Wong, 1999) or
was correlated positively with agency and pathways, indicating expected (Stoecker, 1999) college grades. In contrast, Hope Scale
that hope is related to what Roedel et al. (1994, p. 1017) termed a scores have related to higher scores on achievement tests for grade
“concern for improvement and personal mastery.” school children (McDermott & Snyder, 2000; Snyder et al., 1997),
The ability to generate multiple pathways to goals and to solve higher overall grade point averages (GPAs) for junior high (Lopez,
problems relating to academic performance may give students a Bouwkamp, Edwards, & Teramoto Pediotti, 2000) and high school
sense that they have control over their environments. This idea is (Snyder et al., 1991) students, and higher semester and overall
supported by findings that high-hope people experience less gen- GPAs for college students (Chang, 1998; Curry, Maniar, Sondag,
 822 SNYDER ET AL.

& Sandstedt, 1999; Curry, Snyder, Cook, Ruby, & Rehm, 1997). Coping (Folkman & Lazarus, 1985) as the criterion variable. The
In one study, Hope Scale scores significantly predicted college Hope Scale scores significantly augmented the predictions from
students’ final grades in their introductory psychology courses, and both anxiety indices (Holleran & Snyder, 1990). Finally, in pre-
they did so even when removing the variance related to the first of dicting the probability of attaining 6-month goals, Hope Scale
three exams in those courses (Snyder et al., 1991). In these scores have reliably augmented the predictions related to positive
previous studies, it also should be noted that hope’s predictive and negative affect, positive and negative life stress, optimism, and
power remained significant when controlling for intelligence (chil- locus of control (Snyder et al., 1991).
dren’s studies) and prior grades and self-esteem (high school and
college studies). Lastly, Hope Scale scores have correlated posi- Present Study
tively with perceived scholastic competence (Onwuegbuzie &
Daley, 1999) and greater academic satisfaction (Chang, 1998). To expand the literature generated by previous cross-sectional
studies relating hope to academic achievement, and to assess
hope’s ability to predict long-term academic outcomes, the present
Measuring Hope study focused on students’ performances over their college careers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Specifically, we measured students’ trait hope levels on entering

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

A useful step in the evolution of a new theory is to develop and

validate an individual differences scale reflecting the theory struc- college, GPA at the end of their first and second semesters, and
ture. Translated into more than 20 languages to date, the adult cumulative GPA and graduation status at the end of a 6-year
dispositional Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1991) has four agency, period. It was predicted that higher Hope Scale scores would relate
four pathways, and four distracter items. Respondents are asked to reliably to (a) higher GPAs, (b) higher likelihood of graduating,
complete these items on an 8-point Likert-type scale in terms of and (c) lower dismissal or dropout rates.
how they generally perceive themselves in goal pursuits across
situational contexts. The dispositional Hope Scale is a stable, Method
trait-like measure that assesses a person’s global level of hope, and
it is designed for use with older children or adults. Participants
The Hope Scale has received considerable construct, concurrent, Participants were 213 newly admitted college freshmen with a mean age
and discriminant validational support (see Snyder, Sympson, Mi- of 18.17 years (SD ⫽ 0.44, range of 18 to 21 years). These participants
chael, & Cheavens, 2000). In terms of construct validity, higher were divided into three groups according to their levels of hope: 70
hope people, as measured by the Hope Scale, actually produce high-hope participants (33 men, 37 women), with a mean hope score
more routes to their goals, and they have more mental agency to of 58.76 (SD ⫽ 1.83, range of 56 to 63); 71 medium-hope participants (34
apply to those routes (Kahle & Snyder, 2001; Snyder et al., 1991). men, 37 women), with a mean hope score of 51.93 (SD ⫽ 1.07, range of 49
to 53); and 72 low-hope participants (35 men, 37 women), with a mean
Likewise, in regard to discriminant validity, Hope Scale scores
hope score of 40.76 (SD ⫽ 3.87, range 27 to 46).
have not correlated reliably with IQ and self-consciousness.
Turning to concurrent validity, the Hope Scale has correlated
positively with several scales designed to measure similar con- Materials
cepts, including optimism (LOT; Scheier & Carver, 1985), Gen- The Hope Scale. Four items assess agency and four items assess
eralized Expectancy for Success Scale (Fibel & Hale, 1978), pathways using an 8-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (definitely
problem solving (Problem Solving Inventory; Heppner & Petersen, false) to 8 (definitely true). There are four filler items. Separate yet related
1982), self-efficacy (using the scale of Sherer et al., 1982; Magal- agency and pathways factors consistently emerge (correlations of .40 to
etta & Oliver, 1999), and self-esteem scale scores (Rosenberg, .50) along with an overarching hope factor (Babyak, Snyder, & Yoshinobu,
1965). Furthermore, Hope Scale scores have correlated negatively 1993). The scale has been found to be both temporally stable (test⫺retests
over several weeks of .85) and internally reliable (alphas of .74 to .88).
with measures of negative affectivity (Positive and Negative Af-
Alpha reliabilities in the present study were .86 for the overall Hope Scale,
fect Schedule; PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), anxiety .81 for the agency component, and .74 for pathways component.
(State-Trait Anxiety Inventory; Spielberger, Gorsuch, & Luchene, GPA. GPA was measured on a 4-point scale, with F ⫽ 0, D ⫽ 1,
1970), depression (Beck Depression Inventory; Beck, Ward, Men- C ⫽ 2, B ⫽ 3, and A ⫽ 4. The grade and graduation status data were
delsohn, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961), and hopelessness (Beck Hope- obtained from the registrar’s office 6 years after the students entered
lessness Scale; Beck, Weissman, Lester, & Trexler, 1974). college.
Discriminant utility has been assessed by examining the Hope Graduation status. Graduation status was coded into four categories:
Scale’s unique predictive variance in comparison with theoreti- dismissed because of poor grades, withdrew in good standing, still enrolled
cally related predictor variables. First, Hope Scale scores signifi- in school, and graduated. Six years was chosen as the cutoff time because
cantly augmented the prediction of several criterion variables we wanted to have a time period during which most of the students could
have graduated. The average time to graduation at this educational insti-
beyond self-esteem. Second, when both the PANAS (Watson et
tution is less than 5 years, with a standard deviation of about 2 years.
al., 1988) and the Hope Scale were entered into a regression American College Testing (ACT) scores. ACT scores were obtained
equation with the planning subscale of the COPE (Carver, Scheier, from the registrar.
& Weintrab, 1989) as the criterion variable, the Hope Scale ac-
counted for unique variance (Sigmon & Snyder, 1990). Third,
Procedure
regression analyses were performed with the State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory (Trait form; Spielberger et al., 1970), the Taylor Man- In the mass screening procedures for their introductory psychol-
ifest Anxiety Scale (Taylor, 1954), and the Hope Scale as predictor ogy courses at a Midwestern state university, 808 students com-
variables, and problem-focused coping from the revised Ways of pleted the Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1991) 1 week after the
 HOPE AND COLLEGE ACADEMIC SUCCESS 823

beginning of the fall semester. Only beginning college freshmen (SD ⫽ 0.71), and 2.80 (SD ⫽ 0.65), respectively, with the low and
were recruited. Hope Scale scores were separated by gender and high groups being different at .05.
arrayed from lowest to highest scores. Participants for the high- Hope Scale scores and cumulative GPA were significantly,
hope group were selected starting at the top of the distribution and positively correlated, r(211) ⫽ .21, p ⬍ .01. A partial correlation
moving downward until sufficient numbers were obtained. Simi- between Hope Scale scores and GPA remained significant after
larly, participants for the low-hope group were selected going from removing shared ACT variance, r(191) ⫽ .13, p ⫽ .04.
the bottom of the scores upward. For the medium-hope students,
those close to the overall mean (⫹/⫺ 1 to 2 points) were recruited. Graduation Status Analyses
We chose to create groups of hope as opposed to using hope as a
continuous variable for the purpose of clarity in presenting our The relationship between Hope Scale scores and graduation
results. Further, because this is a preliminary longitudinal test of status was examined using a two-way contingency table. Disposi-
hope’s predictive power, we viewed this as a more stringent test tional hope had two levels (low or high), and academic status had
than the continuous variable approach. four levels. The actual numbers in the 2 (hope level: low;
The 213 selected students were contacted by telephone and high) ⫻ 4 (academic status: dismissed because of poor grades;
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

withdrew in good standing; still in school; and graduated) matrix

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

asked to participate in a study about “academic success in college.”

They also were informed that they would be asked for permission are shown in Table 1. Dispositional hope and graduation status
to access ACT entrance scores and their GPAs for their entire time were significantly related, Pearson ␹2(6, N ⫽ 213) ⫽ 14.92, p ⫽
at the university. Participants who agreed were scheduled for a .02, Cramer’s V ⫽ .19.
subsequent meeting in groups of approximately 20 with a 25-year- Follow-up comparisons were conducted on the differences
old female experimenter. At that time, they were given an in- among these proportions for the low- and high-hope groups. The
formed consent sheet that repeated the study purposes. Holm’s sequential Bonferroni method was used to control for Type
I error at the .05 level across the comparisons. The only significant
(.05) differences between the low- and high-hope groups were on
Results graduation (40.27% vs. 56.52%, respectively) and dismissal rates
(25.00% vs. 7.10%, respectively). We also were interested in how
Descriptive Data
these graduation and dismissal rates compared with those of the
The mean GPA was 2.67 (SD ⫽ 0.74) or C⫹, with a range entire cohort of 3,287 students who entered in the same fall
of 0.0 (F) to 4.0 (A). The mean composite ACT score was 22.88 semester as did our research participants. Although the dismissal
(SD ⫽ 4.12, range of 12 to 34). At the end of 6 years, 29 students rates were not available, the overall graduation rate for this cohort
had been dismissed from the university because of poor grades after 6 years was 53.80%, which appears to approximate
(13.6%), 58 had withdrawn in good academic standing (27.2%), 24 the 56.50% of the high-hope group; moreover, it is 13 percentage
were still enrolled in the university as undergraduates (11.3%), and points higher than that attained by the low-hope students (40.27%).
102 had graduated (47.9%). There were no significant gender
differences in any analyses. Reported GPA of 0.0 corresponded to Discussion
students who performed very poorly in all of their classes and not
As expected, Hope Scale scores provided reliable predictions
to students who enrolled but did not attend classes.
about college students’ academic performances over the course of
their undergraduate careers. All three hypotheses were supported,
GPA Analyses with higher Hope Scale scores reliably predicting higher cumula-
tive GPAs, a higher likelihood of graduating from college, and a
A one-way analysis of variance using dispositional hope as the
lower likelihood of being dismissed because of poor grades.
independent variable (three levels) and cumulative GPA as the
These and other findings indicating that hope is a reliable
dependent variable was significant, F(2, 210) ⫽ 5.51, p ⬍ .01,
academic predictor may portend the educational usefulness of this
with an eta squared of .05. This effect size translates to a Cohen’s
construct. Although similar to other constructs, hope offers advan-
d of .23, where .10 reflects a small effect size and .25 represents a
tages over these other methods for conceptualizing academic mo-
medium effect size (Cohen, 1988). The low-, medium-, and high-
hope groups’ mean GPAs were 2.44 (SD ⫽ 0.81), 2.72 (SD ⫽
0.71), and 2.85 (SD ⫽ 0.65), respectively; only the high- and Table 1
low-hope groups were different at .05 (using Tukey’s honestly Number of Persons Per Cell in the 2 (Dispositional Hope
significant difference test). Level) ⫻ 4 (Academic Status) Matrix
To ascertain when the dispositional hope and GPA relationships
were established, we examined the GPAs at the end of the first Hope level
semester. There was a significant dispositional hope effect, F(2,
Academic status Low High
210) ⫽ 4.75, p ⫽ .01, and mean GPAs for the low-, medium-, and
high-hope groups were 2.40 (SD ⫽ 0.81), 2.71 (SD ⫽ 0.71), Dismissed because of poor grades 18a 5b
and 2.77 (SD ⫽ 0.65), respectively, with the low- and high-hope Withdrew in good standing 17 21
groups being significantly different at .05. Using cumulative GPAs Still enrolled 8 5
Graduated 29c 39d
at the end of the second semester, there was a significant effect of
dispositional hope, F(2, 189) ⫽ 5.25, p ⬍ .01. Mean GPAs for the Note. Values within a row with different subscripts differ significantly at
low-, medium-, and high-hope groups were 2.37 (SD ⫽ 0.81), 2.54 p ⬍ .05.
 824 SNYDER ET AL.

tivation. Because hope offers unique predictive ability beyond as diagnostic feedback to search for other feasible approaches
optimism and self-efficacy in regard to several criterion relevant to (Snyder, 1996).
the academic domain, it may offer a more complete explanation of Another asset of high-hope students involves their high levels of
the underlying motivational processes. In addition, the hope con- motivation. Because of their previous successful educational goal
struct directly explains the patterns of behavior predicted by goal attainments, high-hope students are likely to be filled with a sense
theory, along with its learning and performance goals, and its of agency and the anticipation of future school successes. Further-
mastery-versus-helpless orientations. As such, hope fills a void in more, when extra effort is needed to accomplish a particular goal
the goal theory literature as to why people choose one type of goal in one of their classes, the high-hope students have reservoirs of
over another (Covington, 2000). determination. Likewise, when they encounter educational imped-
High-hope students can conceptualize their goals clearly, iments, they are facile at channeling their energies to their new
whereas low-hope students are more ambiguous and uncertain paths. All of these energy production and sustenance characteris-
about their goals (Snyder, 1994, in press). High-hope students, tics of high-hope students are reinforced by internal, agentic self-
therefore, are likely to establish goals based on their own previous talk statements such as “I will get this done!” and “Keep going!”
(Snyder, Lapointe, Crowson, & Early, 1998).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

performances; they set “stretch” (or learning) goals wherein they

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

establish slightly more difficult study and performance standards Given that the dispositional hope relationship with GPAs was
(Snyder, Feldman, Taylor, Schroeder, & Adams, 2000). Because established by students’ very first semester, the collegiate aca-
they are attuned to their own goals and are in control of how they demic advantages of higher hope and disadvantages of lower hope
will pursue them, these students are intrinsically motivated and are immediate; moreover, they are maintained at the end of the
perform well academically (Conti, 2000). According to Snyder (in second semester and consistently thereafter. Also, the low-hope
press), this increased performance results because goals built on students graduated at an overall 40.27% rate as compared with
internal, self-standards are more energizing than those based on the 53.80% for their entire class cohort of 3,287 students. The
external standards. High-hope students also are likely to establish high-hope students, in comparison, graduated at 56.50%. Together,
concrete markers on which they can track their progress. More- these findings indicate that the low- relative to the high-hope
over, they are better than their low-hope college counterparts at students immediately do more poorly and are far less likely to
graduate. Accordingly, low-hope students are prime targets for
breaking assignments into small steps that are sequenced toward a
hope-inducing programs at the start of college.
larger or long-term goal. The low-hope student, on the other hand,
This latter suggestion leads to the next question: Can we teach
is oblivious to internal goals and is very attuned to what other
hopeful thinking to students? Whereas other interventions aimed at
people are doing academically; hence, the low-hope student adopts
teaching metacognitive skills or self-regulated learning focus spe-
performance goals. In addition, the low-hope student establishes
cifically on the academic domain, teaching hopeful thinking has
“all at once goals” that are too big, overwhelming, and anxiety
the potential to improve the students’ goal pursuits in all areas of
producing.
their lives, thereby leading to more positive emotions, greater
High-hope students also benefit by staying very focused on their
psychological adjustment, and more social support. Interventions
goals. Their thinking is “on task,” and they attend to the appro-
for successfully raising hope in clinical settings (Klausner et al.,
priate cues in specific learning and testing environments (Snyder,
1998; Snyder, Ilardi, et al., 2000; Snyder, Michael, & Cheavens,
1994, in press). The high- as compared with low-hope students, 1999; Worthington et al., 1997) already have been developed.
therefore, are far less likely to become distracted by self- Likewise, these approaches have been applied in junior high class-
deprecatory thinking and counterproductive negative emotions. In rooms (Lopez, Floyd, Ulven, & Snyder, 2000) as well as on
this regard, we have found that low-hope students have difficulty college campuses (Curry et al., 1999). Future research is warranted
with the input of information (i.e., studying) because of their on raising the hope levels of academically at-risk low-hope stu-
distracting, task-irrelevant thoughts and detrimental negative feel- dents who are entering college.
ings (Onwuegbuzie, 1998; Snyder, 1999). Compounding their One final area for the future application of hope theory involves
problems, even if low-hope students have learned the information, the “other side” of the academic dyad—the instructor. We (Mc-
they have difficulty focusing on the test questions and therefore are Dermott & Snyder, 2000; Snyder, 1999) have hypothesized that an
unable to demonstrate their knowledge. Instead, early in the ex- important part of a teacher’s role is to encourage students in the
amination process, low-hope students begin to think of how poorly pursuit of classroom goals. This can be accomplished through
they are going to do (Michael, 2000). Conversely, the high-hope modeling and direct reinforcement of students’ efforts. Related to
student sees tests, in general, and specific examinations, in partic- this hypothesis, Culver (1992) found that teachers’ Hope Scale
ular, as challenges to be conquered (Anderson, 1988). scores correlated reliably (r ⫽ .49) with their scores on a measure
High-hope students also find multiple pathways to reach their of the degree to which they encourage their students. In this regard,
goals and willingly try new approaches (Tierney, 1995). Low-hope our view is that teachers and students have shared roles in keeping
students, on the other hand, stick with one approach and do not try hope alive. Whether it is happening in the theaters of students’
other avenues when stymied (Michael, 2000; Snyder, 1999). In- minds or the lecture halls of our universities, hope may be a lesson
stead of using problem-focused thought, the low-hope students worth learning.
often use counterproductive avoidance and disengagement think-
ing (Snyder & Pulvers, 2001). Reinforced in the short term by their References
avoidance thoughts, low-hope students continue their passivity. Anderson, J. R. (1988). The role of hope in appraisal, goal-setting, ex-
Unfortunately, they do not learn from past experiences. High-hope pectancy, and coping. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
students, however, use information about not reaching their goals Kansas, Lawrence.
 HOPE AND COLLEGE ACADEMIC SUCCESS 825

Babyak, M. A., Snyder, C. R., & Yoshinobu, L. (1993). Psychometric dation of the Hope Scale. Unpublished manuscript, University of Kan-
properties of the Hope Scale: A confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of sas, Lawrence.
Research in Personality, 27, 154 –169. Irving, L. M., Snyder, C. R., & Crowson, J. J., Jr. (1998). Hope and the
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanisms in human agency. American negotiation of cancer facts by college women. Journal of Personal-
Psychologist, 37, 122–147. ity, 66, 195–214.
Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelsohn, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). Kahle, K., & Snyder, C. R. (2001, October). Still hopeful after all these
An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychia- years: Charting goal-directed thinking in older adults. Paper presented
try, 4, 53– 63. at the Festschrift in honor of Rue Cromwell, University of Kansas,
Beck, A. T., Weissman, A., Lester, D., & Trexler, L. (1974). The mea- Lawrence.
surement of pessimism: The Hopelessness Scale. Journal of Consulting Kashdan, T. B., Pelham, W. E., Lang, A. R., Hoza, B., Jacob, R. G.,
and Clinical Psychology, 42, 861– 865. Jennings, J. R., et al. (2000). Hope and optimism as human strengths in
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintrab, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping parents of children with externalizing disorders: Stress is in the eye of
strategies: A theoretically based approach. Journal of Personality and the beholder. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 21, 441– 468.
Social Psychology, 56, 267–283. Klausner, E. J., Clarkin, J. F., Spielman, L., Pupo, C., Abrams, R., &
Chang, E. C. (1998). Hope, problem-solving ability, and coping in a Alexopoulas, G. S. (1998). Late-life depression and functional disability:
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

college student population: Some implications for theory and practice. The role of goal-focused group psychotherapy. International Journal of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54, 953–962. Geriatric Psychiatry, 13, 707–716.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences Lopez, S. J., Bouwkamp, J., Edwards, L. M., & Teramoto Pediotti, J.
(Rev. ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. (2000, October). Making hope happen via brief interventions. Paper
Conti, R. (2000). College goals: Do self-determined and carefully consid- presented at the Second Positive Psychology Summit, Washington, DC.
ered goals predict intrinsic motivation, academic performance, and ad- Lopez, S. J., Floyd, R. K., Ulven, J. C., & Snyder, C. R. (2000). Hope
justment during the first semester? Social Psychology of Education, 4, therapy: Helping clients build a house of hope. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.),
189 –211. Handbook of hope: Theory, measures, and applications (pp. 123–150).
Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achieve- San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
ment: An integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 171– Magaletta, P. R., & Oliver, J. M. (1999). The hope construct, will and
200. ways: Their relative relations with self-efficacy, optimism, and general
Cramer, K. M., & Dyrkacz, L. (1998). Differential prediction of malad- well-being. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 539 –551.
justment scores with the Snyder Hope subscales. Psychological Re- McDermott, D., & Snyder, C. R. (2000). The great big book of hope.
ports, 83, 1035–1041. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.
Culver, N. F. (1992). A validation of the Encouragement Scale—Teacher Michael, S. T. (2000). Hope conquers fear: Overcoming anxiety and panic
Form. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens. attacks. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Handbook of hope: Theory, measures,
Curry, L. A., Maniar, S. D., Sondag, K. A., & Sandstedt, S. (1999). An and applications (pp. 355–378). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
optimal performance academic course for university students and Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (1998). Role of hope in predicting anxiety about
student athletes. Unpublished manuscript, University of Montana, statistics. Psychological Reports, 82, 1315–1320.
Missoula. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Daley, C. E. (1999). Relation of hope to self-
Curry, L. A., Snyder, C. R., Cook, D. L., Ruby, B. C., & Rehm, M. (1997). perception. Perceptual and Motor Skill, 88, 535–540.
Role of hope in academic and sport achievement. Journal of Personality Pajares, F. (2001). Toward a positive psychology of academic motivation.
and Social Psychology, 73, 1257–1267. Journal of Educational Research, 95, 27–35.
Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55,
Continuous changes in performance, strategy, and achievement cogni- 44 –55.
tions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- Roedel, T. D., Schraw, G., & Plake, B. S. (1994). Validation of a measure
ogy, 36, 451– 462. of learning and performance goal orientations. Educational and Psycho-
Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1980). An analysis of learned helplessness: logical Measurement, 54, 1013–1021.
II. The processing of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:
chology, 39, 940 –952. Princeton University Press.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health:
and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social– cognitive approach to Health Psychology, 4, 219 –247.
motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256 –273. Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B.,
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation & Rogers, R. (1982). The Self-Efficacy Scale: Construction and valida-
and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, tion. Psychological Reports, 51, 663– 671.
5–12. Sigmon, S. T., & Snyder, C. R. (1990). Positive and negative affect as a
Fibel, B., & Hale, W. D. (1978). The Generalized Expectancy for Success counter-explanation for the relationship between hope and coping strat-
Scale—A new measure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol- egies. Unpublished manuscript, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
ogy, 46, 924 –931. Snyder, C. R. (1994). The psychology of hope: You can get there from here.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: New York: Free Press.
Study of emotion and coping during three stages of college examination. Snyder, C. R. (1995). Conceptualizing, measuring, and nurturing hope.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 150 –170. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 355–360.
Hanson, S. L. (1994). Lost talent: Unrealized educational aspirations and Snyder, C. R. (1996). To hope, to lose, and hope again. Journal of Personal
expectations among U.S. youths. Sociology of Education, 64, 263–277. and Interpersonal Loss, 1, 3–16.
Heppner, P. P., & Petersen, C. H. (1982). The development and implica- Snyder, C. R. (1999). Hope, goal blocking thoughts, and test-related
tions of a personal problem-solving inventory. Journal of Counseling anxieties. Psychological Reports, 84, 206 –208.
Psychology, 29, 66 –75. Snyder, C. R. (Ed.). (2000). Handbook of hope: Theory, measures, and
Holleran, S., & Snyder, C. R. (1990). Discriminant and convergent vali- applications. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
 826 SNYDER ET AL.

Snyder, C. R. (in press). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psycholog- optimism and hope constructs: Variants on a positive expectancy theme.
ical Inquiry. In E. C. Chang (Ed.), Optimism and pessimism (pp. 103–124). Wash-
Snyder, C. R., Feldman, D. B., Taylor, J. D., Schroeder, L. L., & Adams, ington, DC: American Psychological Association.
V., III. (2000). The roles of hopeful thinking in preventing problems and Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Luchene, R. E. (1970). The State-
enhancing strengths. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 15, 262–295. Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Stewart, S. M., Lam, T. H., Betson, C. L., Wong, C. M., & Wong, A. M. P.
Sigmon, S. T., et al. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and (1999). A prospective analysis of stress and academic performance in the
validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of first two years of medical school. Medical Education, 33, 243–250.
Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570 –585. Stoecker, J. A. (1999). Optimism and grade expectancies. Psychological
Snyder, C. R., Hoza, B., Pelham, W. E., Rapoff, M., Ware, L., Danovsky, Reports, 84, 873– 879.
M., et al. (1997). The development and validation of the Children’s Taylor, J. A. (1954). A personality scale of manifest anxiety. Journal of
Hope Scale. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 22, 399 – 421. Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 285–290.
Snyder, C. R., Ilardi, S. S., Cheavens, J., Michael, S. T., Yamhure, L., & Tierney, A. M. (1995). Analysis of a new theory of hope and personality
Sympson, S. (2000). The role of hope in cognitive behavior therapies. as measured by the California Psychological Inventory. Dissertation
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 24, 747–762. Abstracts International, 55(10-B), 4616.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Snyder, C. R., Lapointe, A. B., Crowson, J. J., Jr., & Early, S. (1998). Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Preferences of high- and low-hope people for self-referential input. dation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
Cognition & Emotion, 12, 807– 823. scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Snyder, C. R., Michael, S., & Cheavens, J. (1999). Hope as a psychother- Worthington, E. L., Jr., Hight, T. L., Ripley, J. S., Perrone, K. M., Kurusu,
apeutic foundation for nonspecific factors, placebos, and expectancies. T. A., & Jones, D. R. (1997). Strategic hope-focused relationship-
In M. A. Huble, B. Duncan, & S. Miller (Eds.), Heart and soul of change enrichment counseling with individuals. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
(pp. 179 –200). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. ogy, 44, 381–389.
Snyder, C. R., & Pulvers, K. (2001). Dr. Seuss, the coping machine, and
“Oh, the places you will go.” In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Coping and copers:
Adaptive processes and people (pp. 3–29). New York: Oxford Univer- Received March 16, 2001
sity Press. Revision received January 4, 2002
Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Michael, S. T., & Cheavens, J. (2000). The Accepted January 17, 2002 䡲