THESlS

IG STAT UNIVERSITY LIBRARIE

‘Illllll lllllllll lll lllillllllll “

3 1293 01571 1496

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

Examining the Relationship

Between Hopelessness and Depression

presented by

Mark Hudson Wagner

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Doctoral degree in PsycholoqL

DW'

Major professor

Date f/T/?7

MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
Unlverslty

 

 

 

PLACE ll RETURN BOX to romovo this chockout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES rotum on or before date duo.

  
 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

202 U?
:=-————J

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l:l__l
l-
l l l

MSU Is An Afﬁrmative ActloNEquol Opponunlty Inotltuion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
HOPELESSNESS AND DEPRESSION

By

Mark Hudson Wagner

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial ﬁilﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1 997

ABSTRACT

EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
HOPELESSNESS AND DEPRESSION

By

Mark Hudson Wagner

The Hopelessness Theory of Depression (H'ID; Abramson, Metalsky & Alloy,
1989) postulates that hopelessness is a sufﬁcient but not necessary cause of depression.
The causal asymmetry in this relationship implies a curvilinear relationship, with
depression increasing at a positively accelerated rate with increases in hopelessness. The
hypothesis that such a curvilinear relationship exists is examined using curvilinear
regression analyses where Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, Ward, Mendelson,
Mock & Erbaugh, 1961) scores are predicted using each of ﬁve hopelessness measures.
These include the Hopelessness Scale (HS; Beck, Weissman, Lester, & Trexler, 1974) and
four pilot measures: the Modiﬁed Hopelessness Scale (MHS; i.e., a Likert scale adapted
HS); and the Outlook Questionnaire (0Q) measures of OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction, OQ-
Hopelessness and OQ-Weighted Hopelessness — each a successive approximation of
hopelessness as conceptualized by HTD.

Uniform support for the curvilinean'ty hypothesis is found across measures of
hopelessness in the main samples (i.e., unselected for demographic variables) and the
female subsarnples. In the main samples, curvilinear interpretations of the data (i.e.,
corresponding to the quadratic steps of the analyses) account for increments in BDI

variance (beyond that accounted for by linear interpretations) ranging from 1.7%

(p < .001) when predicting with the HS to 6.1% (p < .001) when predicting with OQ-
Expected Dissatisfaction. Similarly, among females, curvilinear interpretations account for
unique increments in BDI variance ranging from 2.6% (p < .001) when predicting with the
MHS to 8.5% (p < .001) when predicting with OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction. Among
males, curvilinear interpretations do not account for unique increments in BDI variance
when predicting with the HS, MHS or OQ-Weighted Hopelessness, and otherwise
account for 1.4 and 1.7% (p < .05) when predicting with OQ-Hopelessness and OQ-
Expected Dissatisfaction respectively. Support for the curvilinearity hypothesis is
strongest among participants reporting severe depression histories, except when predicting
with the MHS, when support is strongest among participants reporting no history of
depression. Support for the curvilinearity hypothesis is viewed as consistent with, but not
conﬁrming of the HTD postulate about the relationship between hopelessness and
depression. Areas of mixed support for the curvilinearity hypothesis, the relative
performance of the hopelessness measures, and directions for ﬁrture research are

discussed.

For Christine

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My most sincere love and appreciation to my wife Christine for her love, support
and understanding while I completed this project, and to our children, James Morgan and
Megan Marie, for the magic they bring to my life. My love and gratitude also to my
parents, Charles and Elizabeth Wagner, and to Kenneth and Joan Konen for their love,
support and encouragement. Thank you also to Bill and Jean, Chuck and Terry, Pete and
Laurie, Steve and Kathy, and Chris, because I value family and you are all the reason why.

Thank you to my committee: to Dr. Dozier W. Thornton, for his guidance,
patience and support; to Dr. John R. Hurley, for his patience, support and valuable
observations; and to Dr. Norman Abeles and Dr. Bertram P. Karon for their special
support in the completion of this project. Thank you also to Dr. Mark Rilling and Dr.
Michael Lindell, for their support both early on in this project, and after events in their
lives required their resignation ﬁ'om my committee. Thank you also to Dr. Arnold D. Well
and Dr. Marian L. MacDonald at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, for their
support, advise and consultation on statistical matters.

Special thanks to David Rosenberg for the kind of caring and support that only the
closest of friends and someone who has already been there can give. Also, warmest thanks

to Riva Rosenberg and Marc and Becky Bailie for their special support and ﬁ'iendship.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ................................................... 1
The Hopelessness Theory of Depression ........................... 1
Research on the Hopelessness Theory of Depression .................. 6
Hopelessness and Depression ................................... 11

Conceptualization and Presentation of Hypotheses Regarding the
Expected Characteristics of the Relationship Between Hopelessness
and Depression ............................................. 13

Hypotheses Regarding the Relationship Between Hopelessness
and Depression .......................................... 17

Issues of Concern Regarding the Measurement of Hopelessness in
Research on HTD, and Corresponding Proposals for Alternative

Measures of Hopelessness ..................................... 19
Operational Properties of the Hopelessness Scale ................. 22
The Outlook Questionnaire .............................. 25
Discriminative Properties of the Hopelessness Scale ............... 31
The Modiﬁed Hopelessness Scale. ......................... 34

Conceptualization and Presentation of Hypotheses Regarding
Alternative Measures of Hopelessness for Research on the

Hopelessness Theory of Depression .............................. 35
Evaluating the Modiﬁed Hopelessness Scale ..................... 35
Evaluating the Outlook Questionnaire ......................... 37

Method ...................................................... 39

Participants ................................................ 39
Measures .................................................. 40
Procedure ................................................. 44
Statistical Method ........................................... 45
Results ...................................................... 48
Descriptive Data ............................................ 48

Analyses of Variance of Research Variable Means Across

Demographic Subsamples ..................................... 48
Hypothesis Testing with the Hopelessness Scale ............. - ....... 53
Hypothesis Testing with the Modiﬁed Hopelessness Scale ............. 55
Hypothesis Testing with Outlook Questionnaire ..................... 60
Hypothesis Testing with OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction ............. 60
Hypothesis Testing with OQ-Hopelessness ...................... 62
Hypothesis Testing with OQ-Weighted Hopelessness .............. 65
Follow-up Analyses Within Demographically Deﬁned Subgroups ........ 74
Discussion .................................................... 81

History of Depression and the Relationship Between Hopelessness
and Depression ............................................. 82

Gender and the Relationship Between Hopelessness and Depression ..... 87

Different Operationalizations of Hopelessness, and Their Implications

for the Relationship Between Hopelessness and Depression ............ 93
Practical Implications ......................................... 98
Summary ................................................. 100

vii

Appendices

Appendix A: Summary of Research Hypotheses .................... 102
Appendix B: The Hope Index .................................. 103
Appendix C: The Expected Balance Scale ........................ 104
Appendix D: The Beck Depression Inventory ...................... 105
Appendix E: The Hopelessness Scale ............................ 108
Appendix F: The Modiﬁed Hopelessness Scale ..................... 110
Appendix G: The Outlook Questionnaire ......................... 112
Appendix H: Demographic Information Questions .................. 116
Appendix I: Research Consent Statement ......................... 117
Appendix J: Participant Debrieﬁng Form ......................... 118

Appendix K: Individual Tests of Hypothesis One Using Each Measure
of Hopelessness Across Demographic Subsamples of Gender and

History of Depression/intervention (Tables K1 to K25) .............. 119
List of References ............................................. 133
Footnotes ................................................... 142

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for the Dependent and Independent
Variables ..................................................... 49

Table 2: Response Frequencies for Items on the Demographic
Questionnaire ................................................. 50

Table 3: Between Groups Differences in Mean Scores for the Dependent
and Independent Variables Across Response Options on Selected
Demographic Variables .......................................... 52

Table 4: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression (BDI)
on Hopelessness (HS)for the Main Research Sample .................... 54

Table 5: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression (BDI)
on Hopelessness (MI-IS)for the Main Research Sample .................. 58

Table 6: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression (BDI)
on Hopelessness (OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction)for the Main Research
Sample ...................................................... 61

Table 7: Results of Multiple Regression of Depression (BDI) on
OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction Scores after Controlling for Hopelessness
Scale (HS) Scores .............................................. 64

Table 8: Results of Multiple Regression of Depression (BDI) on
OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction Scores after Controlling for Modiﬁed
Hopelessness Scale (MHS) Scores .................................. 64

Table 9: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression (BDI)
on Hopelessness (OQ-Hopelessness)for the Main Research Sample ......... 66

Table 10: Results of Multiple Regression of Depression (BDI) on

OQ-Hopelessness Scores after Controlling for Hopelessness Scale
(HS) Scores ................................................... 68

ix

Table 11: Results of Multiple Regression of Depression (BDI) on
OQ-Hopelessness Scores aﬁer Controlling for Modiﬁed Hopelessness
Scale (MHS) Scores ............................................ 68

Table 12: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (OQ-Weighted Hopelessness)for the Main
Research Sample ............................................... 70

Table 13: Results of Multiple Regression of Depression (BDI) on
OQ-Weighted Hopelessness Scores after Controlling for Hopelessness
Scale (HS) Scores .............................................. 75

Table 14: Results of Multiple Regression of Depression (BDI) on
OQ-Weighted Hopelessness Scores after Controlling for Modiﬁed
Hopelessness Scale (MHS) Scores .................................. 75

Table 15: Between Groups Differences in Mean Scores for the Dependent

and Independent Variables Across Response Options on the Demographic
Variables of Gender and the Re-coded Interpretation of Subjects' Reported
Histories of Depression/Intervention ................................ 77

Table 16: Abbreviated Results of Individual Tests of Hypothesis One That

Were Conducted Using Each Measure of Hopelessness Within Each of the
Demographic Subsamples for the Variables of Gender and History of
Depression/Intervention .......................................... 78

Table 17: Mean Sum Scores for Positive and Negative Outcomes on the
Component Scales of the Outlook Questionnaire Across the Demographic
Variables of Gender and the Re-coded Interpretation of Subject's History

of Depression/Intervention ........................................ 85

Table K1: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (HS) for the Female Sub-sample ................ 120

Table K2: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (MHS) for the Female Sub-sample .............. 120

Table K3: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction) for the Female
Sub-sample .................................................. 121

Table K4: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (OQ-Hopelessness) for the Female Sub-sample ..... 121

Table K5: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (OQ-Weighted Hopelessness) for the Female
Sub-sample .................................................. 122

Table K6: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (HS) for the Male Sub-sample .................. 122

Table K7: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (MHS) for the Male Sub-sample ................ 123

Table K8: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction) for the Male
Sub-sample .................................................. 123

Table K9: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (OQ-Hopelessness) for the Male Sub-sample ....... 124

Table K10: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (OQ-Weighted Hopelessness) for the Male
Sub-sample .................................................. 124

Table K11: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (HS) for the Never Depressed Sub-sample ........ 125

Table K12: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (MHS) for the Never Depressed Sub-sample ....... 125

Table K13: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction) for the Never
Depressed Sub-sample .......................................... 126

Table K14: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (OQ-Hopelessness) for the Never Depressed
Sub-sample .................................................. 126

Table K15: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (OQ-Weighted Hopelessness) for the Never
Depressed Sub-sample .......................................... 127

Table K16: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (HS) for the History of Depression with No
Treatment Sub—sample .......................................... 127

Table K17: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (MHS) for the History of Depression with No

Treatment Sub—sarnple .........................................

Table K18: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction) for the History of

Depression with No Treatment Sub-sample .........................

Table K19: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (OQ-Hopelessness) for the History of Depression

with No Treatment Sub-sample ..................................

Table K20: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (OQ-Weighted Hopelessness) for the History of

Depression with No Treatment Sub-sample .........................

Table K21: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (HS) for the History of Depression with

Psychological Counseling and/or Medication Sub-sample ...............

Table K22: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (MI-IS) for the History of Depression with

Psychological Counseling and/or Medication Sub-sample ...............

Table K23: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction) for the History of

Depression with Psychological Counseling and/or Medication Sub-sample . . .

Table K24: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (OQ-Hopelessness) for the History of Depression

with Psychological Counseling and/or Medication Sub-sample ...........

Table K25: Results of Hierarchical Curvilinear Regression of Depression
(BDI) on Hopelessness (OQ-Weighted Hopelessness) for the History of

Depression with Psychological Counseling and/or Medication Sub-sample . . .

. 128

. 128

. 129

. 129

. 130

. 130

131

. 132

132

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The Hopelessness Theory of Depression ....................... 3

Figure 2: Final Items Selected for Use in the Outlook Questionnaire And
Their Categorization by Item Content ............................... 28

Figure 3: Linear and Quadratic Regression Lines Predicting Beck
Depression Inventory Scores from Hopelessness Scale Scores for the
Main Sample .................................................. 56

Figure 4: Linear and Quadratic Regression Lines Predicting Beck
Depression Inventory Scores from Modiﬁed Hopelessness Scale Scores for
the Main Sample ............................................... 59

Figure 5: Linear and Quadratic Regression Lines Predicting Beck
Depression Inventory Scores from Outlook Questionnaire-Expected
Dissatisfaction Scores for the Main Sample ........................... 63

Figure 6: Linear and Quadratic Regression Lines Predicting Beck
Depression Inventory Scores from Outlook Questionnaire-Hopelessness
Scores for the Main Sample ....................................... 67

Figure 7: Linear and Quadratic Regression Lines Predicting Beck
Depression Inventory Scores ﬁ'om Outlook Questionnaire-Weighted
Hopelessness Scores for the Main Sample ............................ 71

Figure 8: Linear and Cubic Regression Lines Predicting Beck
Depression Inventory Scores from Outlook Questionnaire-Weighted
Hopelessness Scores for the Main Sample ............................ 72

Figure 9: Quadratic and Cubic Regression Lines Predicting Beck

Depression Inventory Scores from Outlook Questionnaire-Weighted
Hopelessness Scores for the Main Sample ............................ 73

xiii

Introduction

The Hopelessness Theory of Depression‘ (HTD; Abrarnson, Metalsky & Alloy,
1989) states that hopelessness is a suﬂicient, but not a necessary cause of depression. In
so stating, the theory speciﬁcally allows for causes of depression that are wholly
independent of hopelessness and which therefore may produce depression even in its
absence. At the same time, the theory maintains that hopelessness will always cause
depression. While there is a great deal of research that has focused on-other aspects of
HTD (the theory is summarized below), this hypothesized relationship between
hopelessness and depression remains largely unexarnined.

This study examines and characterizes the relationship between concomitant levels
of hopelessness and depression, and considers the corresponding implications for HTD. In
order to place the focus of this study into perspective with the ﬁrll breadth of HTD, a
summary of the ﬁrll etiological postulates of the theory is presented, as well as a brief
overview of research on the theory in general. Then, to provide a more general research
perspective, a summary of HTD independent research on the relationship between
hopelessness and depression is also presented. Drawing ﬁ'om these perspectives, the
conceptualization of the research hypotheses is then presented.

W
The Hopelessness Theory of Depression (HTD) hypothesizes that within the

general heterogeneous disorder of depression (Depue & Monroe, 1978, Kerry & Orrne,

2

1975; see Haslam & Beck, 1994 for an alternate view) there is an etiologically deﬁned
subtype of depression, which the theory labels hopelessness depression. HTD suggests
that hopelessness - deﬁned as "an expectation that highly desired outcomes will not occur
or that highly aversive outcomes will occur coupled with an expectation that no response
in one's repertoire will change the likelihood of occurrence of these outcomes" (Abramson
et al., 1989; p. 359) — is a proximal and suﬁicient cause of hopelessness depression.

HTD conceptually divides the etiological processes that lead to the onset of
hopelessness depression into a diathesis—stress component and a causal mediation
component (see Figure 1). The diathesis-stress component speciﬁes three depressogenic
cognitive styles (i.e., diatheses, or predispositions), each of which represents a
vulnerability to making some type of depressogenic inference in response to experiencing a
negative life event (i.e., a stress). The diathesis—stress relationships in this component are
interactive, such that an individual's likelihood of making actual depressogenic inferences
is increased only when there is a co-occurrence of at least one of the depressogenic
cognitive styles and a negative life event. Therefore, neither the presence of a
depressogenic cognitive style in the absence of the experience of a negative life event, nor
the experience of a negative life event in the absence of a depressogenic cognitive style, is
expected to increase the likelihood of making actual depressogenic inferences. However,
Abramson et al. (1989; p. 362) suggest viewing the elements of the diathesis-stress
relationship as ﬁtting a titration model (cf. Zubin & Spring, 1977), such that "the less
negative a person's cognitive style, the more negative an event needs to be in order to

interact with that style."

$2 .52 w c.3322 58582 See Sam?
cemwoaeo he been... «mocmmgoaoz on...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F 059...
n 9.: 563.38 Al N
H ho 520 505226 o5 :o .0 beef. $053.80: 53 .338 Eo_oEam >wv_ ”
68.5 >mE «m5 £98“. 9: .6 £20 _8_mo_o_m_ maﬁa .mmamo EBBEcoo Atll
3an5
SE m_ 3:333
.306 6.2% e. @3266 on: :3 new
5.5.8300 .3 ............. 6023338 6960
833:8 amazon .2 .85 a: 58m 8.2m. $555
..................... «$953.30: gamma: 9: :96 2593230
22:88 9:89. 2 2:3 .mmzmo :3 9.: Scam
umﬁnuoomxmﬁoos. .m E23550 mozmtouomumco
cozmbcoocoo E 35055 .w 550 guano: octet. \
889.3% 82m .5 -
533.99 .2082ng .o n .295 A > / Ammmbm on:
>£ma< .m u H £55
>995 “6 x03 .v “ Eo>o or. 9:80: ” mt. o>=mmoz
090.5 .m < .6 mmocmauomcoo “
Soto. new .N gnome: 3:95
mmmcoamm. Emucag $33280... m 8ch .
ho co=m_._c_ 333mm ._. $3995 326860566
”mEoﬁciw 35858? Em>o at. ozﬁmoc 9839: cmo c222, Ease—ESE
to“. 5:356 mmmcm>=oc=mﬁ new >oco.m_mcoo

533.30 $953.80: .306 63me .mamcomcoo :03 «63 .mcosmagw

 

 

 

 

 

 

4

The three depressogenic cognitive styles proposed by HTD differ primarily with
regard to the type of depressogenic inference that is expected to be drawn ﬁom having
experienced a negative life event. One of these depressogenic cognitive styles involves an
increased vulnerability to concluding that additional negative consequences will follow the
experience of a negative life event. For example, people with this type of cognitive style
might infer from the receipt of a failing grade on a college exam that their preferred career
path is no longer reasonably attainable. Another depressogenic cognitive style involves an
increased vulnerability to inferring negative characteristics about oneselfin response to a
negative life event. People with this type of cognitive style might infer from their failing
exam grade that they are worthless and unlikable.

The ﬁnal depressogenic cognitive style proposed by HTD involves an increased
vulnerability to attributing the experience of a negative life event to global and stable
causes (i.e., a depressogenic attributional style). People with this type of cognitive style
might attribute their receipt of a failing exam grade to being unintelligent, and thereby to
being generally (i.e., globally) and invariably (i.e., with stability) unable to perform at that
level of academic achievement. Rephrased in terms of depressogenic inferences, such an
attribution involves making a depressogenic inference regarding the cause of a negative
life event. HTD states that attributional style may differ for interpersonal and achievement
events, such that there is a speciﬁc vulnerability to depressive reactions to negative life
events within a particular content domain (i.e. interpersonal or achievement oriented) for
people who have a corresponding domain speciﬁc depressogenic attributional style.

Therefore, a negative exam outcome is not expected to elicit actual depressogenic

5

attributions in a person whose depressogenic attributional style is speciﬁc only to events in
the interpersonal domain.

The causal mediation component of HTD delineates an etiological chain of
causal relationships that begins with the co-occurrence of a depressogenic cognitive style
and a negative life event, and culminates with the onset of hopelessness depression.

First, the co-occurrence of the diathesis-stress elements is said to contribute to the
formation of actual depressogenic inferences. This relationship is said to involve only
contributory causation because strong situational information around the occurrence of a
negative life event moderates the activation of a depressogenic attributional style, thereby
interrupting the formation of depressogenic inferences. For example, even a student with a
very depressogenic attributional style who receives a failing grade on an exam is hard
pressed to form a global and stable depressogenic attribution about it if the exam is taken
shortly after receiving some very good but very distracting news, especially if the student
receives excellent grades on two exams taken just before hearing the distracting news.

Second, the occurrence of the formation of actual depressogenic inferences is said
to contribute to the formation of hopelessness. This relationship is also characterized as
involving only contributory causation because HTD suggests that depressogenic
inferences with more moderate qualities may lead to only a relatively circumscribed
pessimism rather than to a more generalized hopelessness. Also, HTD allows for the
possibility that there may be other reliable contributory causes for hopelessness for which
the theory does not account (for examples, see Bonner & Rich, 1991) Therefore, HTD
does not view the formation of depressogenic inferences as necessary for the formation of

hopelessness.

6

Finally, as discussed at the outset of this study, HTD states that the occurrence of
hopelessness is suﬂicient to cause hopelessness depression. However, Abramson et al.
(1989; p.369) state that HTD "is silent about the time lag between the formation of
hopelessness and the onset of the symptoms of hopelessness depression." Therefore, HTD
offers no speciﬁc predictions regarding the course of the process whereby hopelessness
causes hopelessness depression, other than to say that hopelessness precedes depression
and that depression necessarily follows hopelessness. HTD also allows for the possibility
that depression that is caused by hopelessness may be maintained by other psychological
or biological processes even after the precipitating hopelessness has remitted.

The remaining aspect of the etiological model of HTD is the set of symptoms
hypothesized to comprise hopelessness depression (detailed brieﬂy in the symptoms box in
Figure 1). Abramson et al. (1989) Offer a rationale for why each of these symptoms is
expected to be shown in hopelessness depression, and under what conditions certain
variations are expected. However, since hopelessness depression is ultimately deﬁned in
etiological terms, the predicted set of symptoms is essentially sound speculation. That is,
even though the evolution of HTD has involved revisions in both the predicted etiology
and symptoms of hopelessness depression, and even though every aspect of the theory is
still subject to further revision when indicated by compelling research, ultimately, any
veriﬁcation of a characteristic set of symptoms still requires a determination that they are a
reliable product of the etiological processes deﬁned in the theory.

WNW
Because of the marked conceptual and theoretical overlap between HTD and its

earlier representation in the Reformulated Learned Helplessness Theory of Depression

7

(RLHTD; Abramson, Seligrnan & Teasdale, 1978), Abramson, Metalsky & Alloy, (1988)
note that early research on RLHTD tended to focus on elucidating the relationship
between attributional style and depression, and yielded mixed results (for reviews, see
Barnett & Gotlib, 1988; Brewin, 1985; Coyne & Gotlib, 1983; Peterson & Seligrnan,
1984; Peterson, Villanova & Raps, 1985; Riskind & Rholes, 1984; Sweeney, Anderson &
Bailey, 1986 and Zuroﬁ‘, D. C., 1981). However, Abramson, Metalsky et al. (1988)
observe that such studies typically did not address the predicted interactive relationship
between attributional style and negative life events in contributing to the onset of
depression, and therefore conclude that they are not logically relevant to RLHTD or HTD
and can neither lend support nor criticism to these theories.

Among studies that examine the interactive cognitive diathesis-stress hypothesis in
the context of either RLHTD or HTD, some ﬁnd either mixed support (N olen-Hoeksema,
Girgus, & Seligrnan, 1986; Robins & Block, 1989) or no support (Johnson & Miller,
1990), while several have reported generally supportive results (Dixon & Ahrens, 1992;
Follette & Jacobson, 1987; Hilsman & Garber, 1995; Hunsley, 1989; Metalsky,
Halberstadt, & Abramson, 1987; Metalsky & Joiner, 1992; Metalsky, Joiner, Hardin, &
Abramson, 1993; Sacks & Bugental, 1987; Spangler, Sirnons, Monroe and Thase, 1993).

Still, the logical complexity of HTD compels a careful consideration of what can
and cannot be reasonably concluded from such studies. The issue of primary concern is
whether any given study can be viewed as relevant to the hopelessness subtype of
depression per se, as opposed to depression in general. Since the postulates of HTD are
constrained to the hopelessness subtype of depression, inconsistencies between the theory

and other subtypes of depression are not viewed as challenging to the theory. Therefore,

8

research on HTD must account for both hopelessness and non-hopelessness subtypes of
depression in order to have meaningful implications for the theory. In instances when this
involves either the isolation of hopelessness depression or the neat separation of a sample
of depressed individuals into hopelessness and non-hopelessness subtypes, a considerable
methodological challenge must be addressed. That is, since the isolation of hopelessness
depression requires information on, among other things, the base-rate of non-hopelessness
depression (Alloy, Abramson, Metalsky & Hartlage, 1988), and because non-hopelessness
depression can only be deﬁned relative to hopelessness depression, it is virtually
impossible to separate a sample of depressed individuals into hopelessness and non-
hopelessness subtypes. However, Wagner (1991) suggests that this problem can be neatly
circumvented using a prospective research design that controls for all types of depression
at baseline. Such a design, given appropriate controls and measures, provides the
opportunity to focus on the onset of depression after baseline, and whether it occurs in a
manner consistent with the etiological chain proposed by HTD.

Metalsky et al. (1987, 1993) uses a prospective research design to test whether a
content domain speciﬁc depressogenic attributional style (i.e., for achievement outcomes)
interacts with the experience of a domain matching negative event (i.e., college students'
disappointing exam outcomes) to predict residual increases in depressive symptoms over
baseline levels. Both studies report that the content domain speciﬁc diathesis-stress
interaction predicts students enduring but not immediate mood reactions to the receipt of
their exam grades. Hilsman and Garber (1995) reports a similar temporal factor in the
expression of depressive aﬁ‘ect by ﬁfth and sixth grade children as a result of the

interaction of negative cognitions and grade related stress. Hunsley (1989) also discusses

9

such temporal factors in the expression of depressive affect in response to interactive
attributional style and subjective stress.

Still, neither of the Metalsky et al. (1987, 1993) studies formally isolates instances
of hopelessness depression (nor do they claim to). Since baseline levels of depression are
only controlled statistically, the research sample still contains participants who might be
experiencing any manner or subtype of depression. Therefore, the residual changes in
depression that are isolated could be exacerbations of existing depression (of any subtype)
due to the cognitive diathesis-stress interaction. Even if the causal mediation component
of HTD had been fully supported in both of these studies, such an exacerbation of
symptoms would be more accurately labeled a hopelessness aggravation of undeterrninable
subtypes of depression, and could only lend partial support to HTD. Wagner (1991)
modiﬁes the methods of Metalsky et al. (1987) by removing currently depressed
participants ﬁ'om the research sample, thereby eliminating the potential confounds
introduced by existing depressions of undeterrninable subtypes. Wagner (1991) ﬁnds the
same attribution independent, outcome dependent immediate depressive mood response to
negative exam grades seen by Metalsky et al. (1987), but ﬁnds no enduring depressive
mood response of any kind. However, interpretation of these results is limited due to a
possible manipulation failure regarding the experience of a negative life event (i.e., due to
the generous curving of exams grades by instructors blind to the natural manipulation),
and an inconsistency (as compared to Metalsky et al., 1987) in the ﬁinctioning of a
measure of students' subjective evaluations of their exam outcome.

Metalsky et al. (1987) does not address the role of hopelessness in their test of the

causal mediation component, and Metalsky et al. (1993) report support for the mediating

10

role of hopelessness only in the context of an integration of HTD and the Self—Esteem
Theory of Depression (e.g., Brown & Harris, 1978), so neither study directly examines the
causal mediation component of HTD. The attempt by Wagner (1991) to test the role of
hopelessness in the causal mediation component is inconclusive because no enduring
depressive mood response is identiﬁed to predict.

The methodological issues relating to the isolation of hopelessness depression also
have cautionary implications for research that addresses the symptoms of hopelessness
depression. For example, Spangler et al. (1993) offer a non-prospective study that
classiﬁes individuals with hopelessness depression based on the co-occurrence of a domain
speciﬁc cognitive diathesis and a matching domain speciﬁc stress, and then evaluates the
correspondence between the depressive symptoms of those individuals and the
hypothesized symptoms of hopelessness depression. While revealing important
relationships that are interpreted as partially supporting HTD, Spangler et al. (1993)
acknowledge that hopelessness depression may be more accurately identiﬁed through a
more comprehensive consideration of relevant etiological factors. In another study,
Whisman, Miller, Norman & Keitner (1995) also evaluate the correspondence between
hopelessness depression and its hypothesized symptoms (as well as with patient
characteristics and treatment outcome), but operationalize hopelessness depression as the
co-occurrence of hopelessness with depression. While also oﬁ‘ering partial support of
HTD, Whisman et a1. (1995, p.394) acknowledge that their study "did not examine the
causal model proposed by Abramson et al. (1989), which ‘ﬁgures prominently in the

deﬁnition of hopelessness depression' (p.359) in their theory."

11

In sum, when the body of research on HTD is viewed using the most conservative
of research standards, it can be asserted that no instance of hopelessness depression has
yet been logically and empirically identiﬁed, that the diathesis-stress component of the
theory has received incomplete and inconsistent support, that the causal mediation
component of the theory is essentially untested, and that the predicted set of symptoms for
hopelessness depression remains speculative. However, the failure of research to provide
conclusive support for HTD is more a reﬂection of the logical complexity of such a
comprehensive theory and the mammoth methodological challenges that this brings to the
task, than it is a condemnation of the potential validity of the theory.

Hopelessnessandmtessien

There have been several studies conducted involving the relationship between
hopelessness and depression independent of any speciﬁc consideration of HTD, but which
individually or in combination still have relevance to the theory. For example, many
studies done in the context of predicting suicide or parasuicide reveal a strong relationship
between hopelessness and depression. Hopelessness is reported to correlate with both
depression and suicide, to correlate with suicide to a greater extent than does depression,
and is strongly suggested to be the link between depression and suicide (Beck, Kovacs &
Weissman, 1975; Beck, Steer, Beck & Newman, 1993; Beck, Steer, Kovacs & Garrison,
1985; Bedrosian & Beck, 1979; Dyer & Kreitman, 1984; Kashden, Fremouw, Callahan &
Franzen, 1993; Minkoff, Bergman, Beck & Beck, 1973; Schlebusch & Wessels, 1988;
Wetzel, Margulies, Davis & Karam, 1980). Studies predicting suicidal ideation also show
a strong relationship between hopelessness and depression (Prezant & Neirneyer, 1988;

Ranieri, Steer, Lawrence, Rissmiller, Piper & Beck, 1987 ).

 

12

The magnitude and consistency of the relationship between hopelessness and
depression is revealed by a consideration of several studies that report correlations
between participants' scores on the Hopelessness Scale (HS; Beck et al., 1974) and the
Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck, et al., 1961). Examples include HS-BDI
correlations of: r(97) = .68, p < .001 for adolescents in youth organizations (Johnson &
McCutcheon, 1981), r(3l7) = .71, p < .001 for non-psychotic, non-retarded, adult mental
health center clients (Moore & Paolillo, 1984), and r(108) = .66, p < .01 among college
undergraduates (Wagner, 1991). Even when the BDI is scored excluding the
hopelessness/pessimism item and the suicidal ideation item, high correlations with HS
scores are found: r(50) = .65, p < .001 for psychiatric inpatients and r(25) = .79, p < .001
for psychiatric outpatients (Ranieri et al., 1987), and r( 1,794) = .63, p < .001, also for
psychiatric outpatients (Beck et a1, 1993). While exceptions to such high HS-BDI
correlations do exist in the literature (e. g., Johnson & McCutcheon, 1981, observe that
Prociuk, Breen & Lussier, 1976 reported a correlation of r = .35), they are infrequent and
do not seem representative.

More directly relevant to HTD, however, are studies that begin to reveal the
qualitative nature of the relationship between hopelessness and depression. For example,
Nekanda-Trepka, Bishop & Blackburn (1983) ﬁnd that of a sample of 86 primary
depressives -— based on BDI scores of 14 or higher (Beck, 1972) and symptoms meeting
the research diagnostic criteria (Spitzer, Endicott & Robins, 1978) — ll scored less than
six on the HS, indicating instances of depression in the absence of hopelessness. Similarly,
Green (1989) ﬁnds that of 60 individuals diagnosed as clinically depressed, seven score

above 20 on the EDI and below eight on the HS. These studies are consistent with the

13

HTD contention that there are varieties of depression that do not involve hopelessness in
their etiology or course (i.e., the non-hopelessness subtypes of depression). It is worth
noting that the uncontrolled presence of such non-hopelessness depressives in HTD
research samples presents one of the primary confounds in research on the theory.
Weissman, Miller, Norman & Keitner (1995, p.378) observe that "there is a
substantial body of evidence to suggest that elevated hopelessness is speciﬁc to
depression." For example, hopelessness (as a symptom) is found to be signiﬁcantly higher
among depressed psychiatric inpatients as compared to non-depressed psychiatric
inpatients, non-depressed community volunteers (Abramson, Garber, Edwards &
Seligrnan, 1978; Hamilton & Abramson, 1983); and both chronically and acutely
physically ill patients (Greene, O'Mahoney & Rungawamy, 1982). Similarly, hopelessness
is found to be speciﬁc to depression relative to anxiety (Beck, Riskind, Brown & Steer,
1988; Watson, Weber, Assenheirner, Clark, Strauss & McCormick 1995). Such ﬁndings
are consistent with the HTD contention that depression necessarily follows from
hopelessness, in that hopelessness is not expected to be characteristic of any other
psychological malady in the absence of depression. This aspect of HTD is supported more
directly by research which suggesting that hopelessness predicts subsequent depression

(Rholes, Riskind & Neville, 1985).

 

”may it. t‘l'l‘i o r' you 10:’ .3“ out" i‘ -.H .'0,‘ or
It is well established that hopelessness and depression correlate quite highly in
most instances. This high correlation suggests that on a scatter plot of participants' HS and

BDI scores, the pattern of data points are likely to be suggestive of a linear regression line,

14

since greater data scatter away from the regression line lowers the value of r (Pedhazur,
1982)

An important question that is addressed in this study is whether the linear
regression line associated with the simple correlation between hopelessness and depression
provides the best representation of the relationship between these variables. To assume
this requires a corresponding assumption that the scatter of data points away from the
regression line is essentially unsystematic. By way of comparison, systematic diﬁ‘erences in
the scatter of data along a regression line does not affect how representative the line is.
For example, a systematic concentration of data points near the end of the regression line
representing low HS scores and low BDI scores simply indicates that lower scores on both
measures are more common than higher scores on both measures, but does not challenge
any presumption that the relationship between these measures is essentially linear.
Conversely, systematic differences in the scatter of data away from a linear regression line
suggests that a non-linear regression line may offer an improved representation of the
relationship between the two measures.

The postulate of HTD that hopelessness is an unnecessary, but suﬁcient cause of
depression suggests that the relationship between hopelessness and depression is not
precisely linear. More speciﬁcally, since HTD states that depression may be caused and
maintained even in the absence of meaningful levels of hopelessness (e. g., non-
hopelessness depression), the identiﬁcation of individuals with meaningful levels of
depression who also show relatively low levels of hopelessness is expected. However,
since HTD states that hopelessness will necessarily cause depression, instances of

meaningful levels of hopelessness with relatively low levels of depression is comparatively

15

unexpected. Since HTD makes no predictions regarding how quickly hopelessness
depression must follow the onset of hopelessness, a low incidence of higher hopelessness
with lower depression may be accounted for by the theory if the etiological time course is
slow enough for an assessment to capture a few participants in the midst of this process.
However, assuming that the average latency from the onset of hopelessness to the onset of
hopelessness depression is dramatically shorter than the average latency ﬁ'om onset to
remission of non-hopelessness depression, it is expected that the incidence of higher
depression with lower hopelessness is much greater than the incidence of higher
hopelessness with lower depression.

Therefore, if HTD is correct regarding the relationship between hopelessness and
depression, a scatter plot of hopelessness scores and depression scores is expected to
show a greater concentration of data points in the area generally representing lower
hopelessness scores and higher depression scores than in the area generally representing
higher hopelessness scores and lower depression scores. For example — bearing in mind
that the linear regression line on an HS-BDI scatter plot runs from the area representing
low scores on both measures to the area representing high scores on both measures — the
differential concentrations of data points just described are expected to systematically
occur in the relatively off-diagonal regions of the scatter plot (i.e., away from the linear
regression line). Ifthose off-diagonal concentrations are sufﬁciently different, then the
overall pattern of data points are not best represented by a linear regression line. Rather, a
curvilinear regression line provides a better representation of the relationship between HS
and BDI scores, because the arc in the regression line reﬂects the inﬂuence of the

diﬂ‘erential concentrations of off-diagonal data points.

16

More speciﬁcally, to be consistent with the postulates of HTD, the arc in such a
curvilinear regression line must be characterized by having the end of the line associated
with higher levels of hopelessness bend away from the region of the scatter plot generally
representing higher levels of hopelessness with lower levels of depression.
Correspondingly, the end of the line associated with lower levels of hopelessness must
bend toward the region of the scatter plot generally representing lower levels of
hopelessness with higher levels of depression. That is, the curvilinearity of such a
regression line indicates that depression increases in a positively accelerated manner with
increases in hopelessness.

This study employs the statistical method of curvilinear regression analysis
(Pedhazur, 1982) to address the issue of what manner of regression line best represents
the relationship between hopelessness and depression. While this statistical procedure is
explained in more detail in the Methods section, the formulation of the main hypotheses of
this study are presently facilitated by discussing a few aspects of the procedure.
Curvilinear regression analysis begins with testing whether a straight regression line allows
an independent variable to predict a signiﬁcant proportion of the variance of a dependent
variable. It then involves a sequential testing of whether each increment in the number of
bends allowed for in the regression line provides for a signiﬁcant increment in the amount
of dependent variable variance that is predicted by the independent variable. That is, the
procedure tests whether a regression line with one bend is a signiﬁcant improvement over
a straight one, then whether a regression line with two bends is a signiﬁcant improvement
over a line with one bend, and so on. This continues until the point is reached where the

addition of additional bends in the regression line add no signiﬁcant predictive value. The

17

last step to add signiﬁcant predictive power, even if subsequent to a step that did not yield
signiﬁcance, is then viewed as the least complex regression line that best represents the
relationship between the two variables. If a signiﬁcant relationship between two variables
is essentially linear, then curvilinear regression analysis will show that the addition of one
or more bends to the regression line adds no predictive value.

For the purposes of this study, instances where the relationship between
hopelessness and depression is best represented by a curvilinear regression line are
subjected to a qualitative analysis to determine whether any bends correspond to the
postulated of HTD. This is because it is possible that, for example, a regression line with
one bend may best ﬁt the data but may be inconsistent with HTD (i.e., a line that bends
toward lower depression at its high hopelessness end and away ﬁom higher depression at
its low hopelessness end, indicating that depression increases in a negatively accelerated
manner with increases in hopelessness).

o m r“ l“,-.0-t°t‘_i‘o_0[.03311.61‘vuo00“ 1,‘ r... 0'0: or

All of the research hypotheses for this study are presented below (and in Appendix
A). Based upon the preceding theoretical conceptualization and discussion of relevant
statistical procedures, the central hypotheses of this study are Hypotheses One and Two
below — Three through Eight are explained later.

Hypothesis One: There is a curvilinear relationship between
hopelessness and depression.

Hypothesis Two: The nature of this curvilinearity is consistent with
the postulates of HTD in that depression increases in a positively

accelerated manner with increases in hopelessness.

18

Hypothesis Three: Modiﬁed Hopelessness Scale (MHS; described
later) scores will correlate positively with BDI scores. Further, the size of
this correlation will be qualitatively similar to that of the corresponding
correlation between HS and BDI scores.

Hypothesis F our: As compared to the distribution of HS scores, the
distribution of MHS scores will be characterized by: a) a smaller coefﬁcient
of variation, and b) a skewness value that is closer to zero. Further, though
qualitatively, these differences will be of a sumcient size to suggest that
they represent truly meaningful differences.

Hypothesis Five: Scores on each of the three Outlook
Questionnaire (0Q; explained later) measures will correlate positively with
scores on the HS.

Hypothesis Six: Scores on each of the three OQ measures will
correlate positively with scores on the BDI. Further, the size of these
correlations will be qualitatively similar to that of the corresponding
correlation between HS and BDI scores.

Hypothesis Seven: Scores on each of the three OQ measures will
correlate positively with scores on the MHS.

Hypothesis Eight: Scores on each of the 0Q measures will account
for a signiﬁcant portion of the variance in BDI scores beyond that
accounted for by their HS or MHS scores.

For the purposes of testing Hypotheses One and Two, depression is consistently be

operationalized as individual's BDI scores. Hopelessness, however, is operationalized

19
using a variety of measures. The HS ﬁinctions as the primary operationalization of
hopelessness. Even though a secondary focus of this study is to consider some possible
limitations to using the HS for research on HTD, and to propose alternative measures that
may address those limitations, the HS remains the best established and most widely
accepted measure of hopelessness available. However, the alternative measures of
hopelessness being piloted in this study are also used to consider the central hypotheses.
The use of these alternative measures is necessarily qualiﬁed by their being subjected only
to very limited tests of validation (which is consistent with their status as pilot measures).
Therefore, they are viewed as offering only provisional contributions to the understanding
of the relationship between hopelessness and depression.

The considerations which motivating the examination of a number of measures of
hopelessness for use in this study, and the strategy that used in doing so, are presented in
the following sections.

0 or run L‘31-,'I' 1,‘ UN. . ‘Jl‘vlt o 100‘ ‘ ‘ .t i: t 011".
are u: OOHI’ You .-._ -o a- ’lt- ' '_u.-.. ' 0 you" ,t'

Studies involving hopelessness are common in the research literature, but in such
studies, the term "hopelessness" is frequently used as though the construct of hopelessness
is universally understood or agreed upon. That is, in such studies, hopelessness may be
identiﬁed as a variable of interest, and a measure of hopelessness may be identiﬁed as its
operationalization, but usually, little attention is given to what the construct of
hopelessness speciﬁcally consists of. Since in most instances hopelessness is

operationalized using the HS, this practice usually does not hinder the comparability of

such studies. Still, not all researchers and theorists conceptualize hopelessness identically.

20

For example, Melges and Bowlby (1969) suggest that hopelessness is not a unitary

phenomenon. Emphasizing the time frame for desired goals as a factor that varies across

types of hopelessness, they state:

Different types of hopelessness are held to be central to the
psychopathology of depression and sociopathy respectively. The depressed
patient, while deeply concerned about his ﬁrture, has lost the hope he once
had because he has come to believe his plans will no longer achieve his
continuing and long-tenn goals. By contrast, the sociopath has long since
given up hope of reaching such goals, and, instead, habitually seeks only

goals obtainable in the present (Melges & Bowlby, 1969, p. 695)

Offering a formal conceptual analysis of hopelessness, Campbell (1987, p. 20) concludes

that:

The common characteristics identiﬁed among the general usages of the
term were: The attribute of negative expectations for the future; The
attribute of loss of control over ﬁiture outcomes; The attribute of passive
acceptance of the futility of planning to achieve goals; [and] The attribute
of emotional negativism as expressed in despair, despondency and/or

depression.

However, in speciﬁc regard to HTD, Abramson et al. (1989, p. 359) state that:

A proximal sufﬁcient cause of the symptoms of hopelessness depression is
an expectation that highly desired outcomes will not occur or that highly
aversive outcomes will occur coupled with an expectation that no response

in one's repertoire will change the likelihood of occurrence of these

21

outcomes. The common-language term hopelessness captures the two core

elements of this proximal suﬂicient cause: (a) negative expectations about

the occurrence of highly valued outcomes (a negative outcome

expectancy), and (b) expectations of helplessness about changing the

likelihood of occurrence of these outcomes (a helplessness expectancy). . ..

Whereas the term hopelessness sometimes implies negative affect as well as

negative outcome and helplessness expectations, we do not include

negative affect as part of out deﬁnition of hopelessness. Finally, we use the

phrase generalized hopelessness when people exhibit the negative-

outcome/helplessness expectancy about many areas of life. In contrast,
circumscribed pessimism occurs when people exhibit the negative-
outcome/helplessness expectancy about only a limited domain.

Because of the widespread use of the HS to operationalize hopelessness, such
variability in the formal conceptualization of hopelessness has not resulted in numerous
incomparable studies on the subject. Certainly, for many studies, a formal consideration of
the construct of hopelessness is beyond the general scope of the research, and the routine
use of the HS is quite justiﬁable. For example, research on HTD that has failed to account
for speciﬁc relevant postulates is sometimes viewed as not directly relevant to the theory
(e. g., Abramson, Metalsky et al., 1988). Therefore, after a consideration below of the
operational properties of the HS, the measure is then be compared to HTD's deﬁnition of
hopelessness. From this, it is suggested that the HS does not represent a fully accurate
operationalization of hopelessness as deﬁned by HTD, and the Outlook Questionnaire is

proposed as an alternative measure of hopelessness which corresponds more closely to

22

HTD. Similarly, the discriminative properties of the HS is also presented, followed by the
suggestion that the HS may be better suited to research involving relatively severe rather
than moderate levels of hopelessness. Then a modiﬁed version of the HS which is intended
to oﬂ‘er better discrimination at more moderate levels of hopelessness is proposed. Finally,
speciﬁc hypotheses are presented regarding the expected ﬁrnctioning of the alternative
measures of hopelessness as compared to that of the HS and the BD1.
[1 . l E . E l H l S 1

In their original presentation of the HS, Beck et al. (1974, p. 864) state that "the
underlying assumption [in the development of the HS] is that hopelessness can be readily
objectiﬁed by deﬁning it as a system of cognitive schemas whose common denomination is
negative expectations about the future." In constructing the 20 item HS, Beck et al.
(1974) uses nine items from a test focusing on attitudes about the ﬁrture (Heirnberg, 1961)
and 11 items based on "pessimistic statements made by psychiatric patients who were
adjudged by clinicians to appear hopeless... [and] which seemed to reﬂect different facets
of the spectrum of negative attitudes about the future" (Beck et al, 1974, p. 861). While
not identiﬁed as a speciﬁc set of criteria in the construction of the HS, the validity of the
scale is evaluated in part by comparing HS scores to clinicians' ratings of medical
outpatients and suicidal inpatients on the following indices: "Patient believes (a) that he
will never get well, (b) that he will not solve his problems, (0) that the future looks black,
(d) that he has nothing to look forward to, (e) that he will not achieve his goals (Beck et
al., 1974, p. 863).

In their factor analysis of the HS responses of 294 recent suicide attempters, Beck

et al. (1974) identify three factors: feelings about the future (accounting for 41.7% of the

23

HS variance), loss of motivation (6.2%) and ﬁrture expectations (5.6%), and state that
these three factors "tapped affective, motivational, and cognitive aspects, respectively” (p.
864). Hill, Gallagher, Thompson and Ishida (1988) describe a factor analysis of the HS
responses of 120 depressed elderly individuals and identify three factors of similar item
composition to those of Beck et al. (1974), although they label the factors optimism about
the ﬁiture (26.5 %), giving up (9.1%) and future expectations (7.3%) respectively.
Nekanda-Trepka et al. (1983) offer a factor analysis of the HS responses of 88 outpatients
with primary major depression and note that their ﬁve factor solution corresponds
recognizably with the factors identiﬁed by Beck et al. (1974) and Hill et al. (1988). The
diﬂ‘erences they note were that their last three factors need to be collapsed into a single
one, and that rather than the affective factor, the motivational factor accounts for most of
the HS variance (33.4%) in their sample. Given these factor analyses, and reliability
estimates for the HS ranging from alpha = .65 to .94 (Beck et al., 1974; Durham, 1982;
Holden & Fekken, 1988), it seems reasonable to conclude that the HS reliably measures,
in varying proportions, the negativity of individuals' expectations for their future feelings,
motivations and beliefs about the future.2

It is worth noting here that the aﬂ‘ective aspect of the HS does not speciﬁcally
conﬂict with HTD's exclusion of aﬂ‘ect from its deﬁnition of hopelessness. This is because
HTD excludes present aﬂect as a deﬁning quality of hopelessness, emphasizing instead
present expectancies about future outcomes and their controllability. However, the aﬂect
laden items on the HS typically assess expectations regarding ﬁxture affect (e. g., Item 13:
"When I look ahead to the ﬁrture, I expect I will be happier than I am now," Beck et al.,

1974, p.862) rather than present aﬂ‘ect. Translated into terms for HTD, these HS items

24

essentially treat future feelings as one class of future outcomes about which one might
have positive or negative expectations, and do not directly assess present negative affect.

Commenting on the use of the HS to operationalize hopelessness in research on
HTD, Abramson et al. (1989, p.367) state that "the HS is an adequate measure of
hopelessness because it taps generalized hopelessness, as opposed to simply circumscribed
pessimism. In addition, the HS provides an operational deﬁnition of hopelessness that is
distinct from the symptoms of hopelessness depression." Certainly, there is recognizable
overlap between HTD's deﬁnition of hopelessness and the operational characteristics of
the HS (especially in temis of negative outcome expectancies), and therefore one is
justiﬁed in stating that the HS likely has some utility in research on HTD.

However, HTD deﬁnes hopelessness not just in terms of negative outcome
expectancies, but also in terms of helplessness expectancies, which are directly related to
one's belief about whether one can control or change the likelihood of expected outcomes.
Yet only one item out of 20 on the HS directly addresses the issue of personal control
over future outcomes (i.e., item 2: "I might as well give up because I can‘t make things
better for myself," Beck et al., 1974, p.862).

Therefore, the HS seems not to oﬁ‘er an adequate operationalization of the helplessness
expectancy component of HTD's deﬁnition of hopelessness.

Further, HTD speciﬁes a direct correspondence between helplessness expectancies
and negative outcome expectancies. That is, they are linked so that helplessness
expectancy consists of the expectation that "no response in one‘s repertoire will change
the likelihood of occurrence of these [italics added] outcomes" (i.e., the valued outcomes

about which one holds negative outcome expectations; Abramson et al., 1989, p.359). The

25

HS makes no provisions for operationalizing helplessness expectancies in direct
correspondence with speciﬁc negative outcome expectancies, especially given its
extremely limited treatment of helplessness expectancies in general. Therefore, the HS also
seems not to offer an adequate operationalization of HTD's stated correspondence
between negative outcome and helplessness expectancies.

These discrepancies between the operational properties of the HS and HTD's
deﬁnition of hopelessness suggest that the HS may ﬁrnction as a relatively inaccurate
operationalization of the HTD deﬁnition of hopelessness. In an effort to address this
possible limitation of the HS, the following section proposes the Outlook Questionnaire as
an alternative measure of hopelessness that corresponds more closely to HTD.

Ihsﬂrtlmkﬂuestinnnaim.

The Outlook Questionnaire (0Q) is intended to represent a pilot effort to
operationalize hopelessness in a manner that is consistent with HTD. The task of
constructing the OQ consisted of selecting a pool of potentially important outcomes about
which people might have meaningful future expectations, and then establishing a means for
assessing individuals' expectations about those outcomes in a manner guided by the logic
of HTD.

Two existing measures which offered starting points for the development of the
0Q are the Hope Index (HI; Staats, 1989; see Appendix B) and the Expected Balance
Scale (EBS; Stats, 1987; see Appendix C). The HI and EBS are each intended as
measures of hope, but because of the range of response each oﬂ‘ers, they can be viewed as

measures of a hopefulness-hopelessness continuum.

26

The HI offers a list of ﬁequently hoped for circumstances and asks people to rate
the degree to which they want, and the degree to which they expect each circumstance to
occur within a given time ﬂame. The H] is divided into a hope for self scale (with items
consisting of circumstances that bear on individuals) and a hope for others scale (with
more global or communal items). Since hopelessness for self is the main concern of this
study, the hope for others scale was not considered for inclusion on the 0Q.

The items on the hope for self scale do not include any speciﬁc affective content
(with the exception of the item "to be happy"), and instead consist largely of goal
attainment types of circumstances (e.g., "to have money," and "to be competent"). Yet
factor analyses on the HS suggest that expectations regarding ﬁrture feelings (i.e.,
anticipated affective outcomes) can play a large role in hopelessness (Beck et al., 1974,
Hill et al., 1988). In order to add an aﬂ‘ective component to the list of potential outcomes
on the 0Q, and thus broaden the spectrum of expectations assessed, items ﬁ'om the EBS
(which measures expectations for positive and negative feelings) were reworded to match
the HI item format.

Having broadened the range of expectations on the OQ, another goal was to
balance the distribution of types of expectations on the scale. It seemed that the items
under consideration for the 0Q represented a variety of appropriate content domains. The
aﬂ‘ectively oriented items could be divided into positive or negative affect items. These
could be further divided into items involving feelings about personal achievement,
interpersonal achievement, and general feelings outside of any particular achievement
context. Similarly, the items without aﬂ‘ective content could be divided into personal or

interpersonal goal achievement categories. In order to achieve item balance (in terms of

27

frequency) across these categories, some items were deleted, others were reworded, and
some were created to ﬁll under-represented categories. The result of this process yielded
the ﬁnal list of 30 potential outcomes that would be used for item construction on the 0Q.
These 30 outcomes, broken down by content categorization, are displayed in Figure 2.

The next task in developing the 0Q was to establish a means, based on the logic of
HTD, for assessing individual's expectations about each of the outcomes identiﬁed for use
on the OQ. For perspective, the HI operationalizes hope (and by extension, hopelessness
as the inverse of hope) as the interaction between expectations and wants regarding ﬁrture
circumstances (Stats, 1989). This requires obtaining want scores (respondents rate on a 0
to 5 scale how much they want an outcome to occur) and expectation scores (respondents
rate on a 0 to 5 scale how much they expect each outcome to occur) and multiplying them
to get the hope score for each item. These scores are summed across items to get a total
hope score. An issue of concern with this method is that a situation of no expectancy
(score of zero) and no want (score of zero) yields the same hopelessness score (zero) as a
situation of no expectancy (score of zero) and very much want (score of ﬁve).

The estimation of degree of want and degree of expectancy for a future outcome is
related to the negative outcome expectancy component of hopelessness as deﬁned by
HTD. However, HTD describes this component as "an expectation that highly desired
outcomes will not occur or that highly aversive outcomes will occur," (Abramson et al.,
1989, p. 359) which suggests that the discrepancy between want and expectation for an
event is of salient interest when measuring the negativity of expectations. For example,
using diﬂ‘erence scores (i.e., the absolute value of the difference between want and

expectancy scores) yields higher numbers for greater negativity of expectation, no matter

28

To have an exclusive relationship (boyfriend, girlfriend, spouse)
0 To great along with my family

- invited to a social event or party

0 To disappoint or let down someone close to me

0 To have fewer friends than I would like

0 To be rejected in love or romance

P ' ' i m ' P l

0 To do well in school

0 To have good health

0 To have enough money

0 To do poorly on an exam or on a job evaluation

0 To have too little time for my hobbies or leisure activities

0 To put oﬁ‘ doing something I think I should do

 

. . . . . l - ‘-
0 To feel conﬁ air about my future

0 To feel pleased about havmg accomplished something
0 To feel competent or skillfu

 
   

L To feel leased with the ﬁ'iends l have
0 To feel oved by someone important to me
0 To feel popular

To feel particularly excited or interested in something
To feel really happy
To feel full of energy

 
   

. '. . ' r . ‘
0 To feel like a . '

0 To feel umnotivated or uninspired
0 To feel overwhelmed

 
   

0 To feel annoyed with someone close to me
0 To feel rejected

0 To feel lonely or remote from other people
0 To feel depressed or very sad

0 To feel like crying

- To feel worried or anxious

Figure 2

Final Items Selected for Use in the Outlook Questionnaire
And Their Categorization by Item Content

29

whether this is due to expecting an unwanted event or not expecting a wanted event.
Similarly, lower scores reﬂect lower negativity of expectation, no matter whether this is
due to expecting a wanted event or not expecting an unwanted event. Therefore, for the
0Q, an individual's expected satisfaction vs. dissatisfaction for an item is deﬁned as the
absolute value of the diﬂ‘erence between want and expectancy scores, with higher scores
indicating greater expectation for dissatisfaction. Such expected dissatisfaction will serve
as the OQ operationalization of the negative outcome expectancy element of hopelessness
as deﬁned by HTD. An expected dissatisfaction score can be calculated for each outcome,
and these scores can be summed to represent an estimate of general expected
dissatisfaction (OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction)

In order to address the helplessness expectancy component of the HTD deﬁnition
of hopelessness (regarding one's belief about whether one can control or change the
likelihood of expected outcomes), the 0Q also includes an evaluation of individuals'
perceived control by asking respondents to estimate the degree of their expected control
over each outcome on the OQ. Expected uncontrollability (calculated as the inverse score
of the estimate of expected control) will serve as the OQ operationalization of the
helplessness expectancy element of hopelessness as deﬁned by HTD.

The aspects of the OQ just described are intended as separate means for estimating
individuals' negative outcome expectancies (reﬂected by the OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction
score) and their hopelessness expectancies (reﬂected by the OQ-Expected
Uncontrollability score). Given that HTD deﬁnes hopelessness as involving corresponding
negative outcome and helplessness expectations, the OQ operationalizes hopelessness as

the interaction of these two estimates as determined outcome by outcome. That is, a

30

separate hopelessness estimate (based on the product of the OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction
and OQ-Expected Uncontrollability scores for each outcome) are calculated for each
outcome on the 0Q.3 These individual estimates of hopelessness expectations can then be
summed to obtain an estimate of general hopelessness (OQ-Hopelessness).

Abramson et al. (1989) explain that the degree of importance a person attaches to
a negative event moderates the development of hopelessness. Therefore, high degrees of
expected dissatisfaction and expected uncontrollability for a subjectively unimportant
circumstance is not expected to impact on one's thoughts or emotions. That is, if someone
does not care whether an event happens, the inevitability and uncontrollability of the event
is unlikely to aﬂ‘ect whether they become suicidal, depressed or even sad. In order to
account for the moderating inﬂuence of subjective importance on hopelessness, the 0Q
also asks respondents how much they care whether each outcome actually occurs. This
information is used to obtain a weighted hopelessness estimate (based on the product of
subjective importance and hopelessness scores) for each outcome on the OQ. These values
can be summed to obtain an estimate of weighted general hopelessness (OQ-Weighted
Hopelessness). For the sake of precision, it is worth noting that the subjective importance
of ﬁiture outcomes is not explicitly stated as a component of HTD's deﬁnition of
hopelessness, however its relevance is clearly implied by HTD's statement about its
moderating role.

Therefore, for each of the 30 outcomes on the OQ, participants estimate their
degree of want, degree of expectancy, degree of perceived control, and degree of
subjective importance on a ﬁve-point scale (i.e., 0 to 4; reduced from the O to 5 scale used

on the HI to allow respondents an option at the mid-point of the scale). Given these

31

estimates, the 0Q provides for the logical operationalization of the HTD constructs of
negative outcome expectancy, helplessness expectancy, and hopelessness — as well as an
estimate of hopelessness that is weighted by subjective importance.

The ﬁnal aspect of the OQ to consider is the relevant future time ﬁ'ame for which
expectations are to be measured. For perspective, the HI stipulates the length of the future
time frame respondents should consider when estimating their expectations and wishes
(e. g., To what extent would you want this in the next year?) On the HI, shorter time
frames (i.e., in the next few weeks, in one year) yield comparable hope for self scores, but
that a longer time frame (i.e., in ﬁve years) yields signiﬁcantly higher hope for self scores.

Since this suggests that there is some latitude within the range of shorter time ﬁames, a
time frame of "in the next four months" is used on the 0Q for this study. Four months
represents more than one academic term but less than two, which the author speculated
would be a meaningful time frame of interest to undergraduate students.
11""E'Elllln5l

The discriminative power of the HS seems to vary according to the severity of the
psychological disturbance (especially aﬂ‘ective disturbance) of the population to which it is
applied, with the scale showing less discriminative capability with populations that show
less severe disturbances. The following exploration of this observation is not intended to
suggest that this quality of the HS makes it a weaker measure, but rather to suggest that
the scale's proven utility with more severely symptomatic populations may come at the
expense of it having less utility with less symptomatic populations. Because these less
symptomatic populations still have utility for research on depression (including research on

HTD), this possible limitation of the HS suggests that an alternative measure of

32

hopelessness that has greater discriminative properties at lower levels of psychopathology
is desirable.

More speciﬁcally, regarding individuals with more severe psychological
disturbances, Durham (1982) reports mean HS scores of 6.6 (SD = 4.9) for forensic
psychiatric patients and 6.0 (SD = 4.7) for general psychiatric patients; Hill et al. (1988)
report mean HS scores of 11.9 (SD = 4.5) for the depressed elderly and Beck et al.
(1975) report mean HS scores of 9.0 (SD = 6.1) for suicide attempters. Beck, et al.,
(1985) reports that among a sample of patients hospitalized for suicidal ideation, mean HS
scores were 13.3 (SD = 4.4) for those who committed suicide during a 5-10 year follow
up period and 8.9 (SD = 6.1) for those who did not commit suicide. Further, Beck et al.
(1985, p. 561) founds that when using a cutoﬂ‘ score of 10 or higher on the HS to
retrospectively predict eventual suicide within that same sample, "the number of true
positives was 10 out of 86 cases (11.6%), and the number of false positives was 76 out of
86 cases (88.4%). Below the cutoff point were only one false negative (1.3%) and 78 true
negatives (98.7%)." Providing a clearer representation of the discriminative power of the
HS in a psychiatric sample, Durham (1982) reports that the 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th and
95th percentiles in the distribution of HS scores are represented by scores of 2, 5, 10, 13,
and 15 respectively. This distribution spans across most of the zero to 20 point range of
the HS.

In comparison, Durham (1982) reports that in a sample of college students, the
25th, 50th, 75th, 90th and 95th percentiles in the distribution of HS scores are represented
by scores of 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 respectively. This distribution shows a concentration of 75%

of the sample within less that 25% of the scoring range of the measure (i.e., scoring

33

between zero and 4). Similarly, in a study of the test-retest reliability of the HS, Holden
and Fekken (1988) report mean HS scores for college students of 2.7 (SD = 2.6) and 2.5
(SD = 2.7), with mean scores for males of3.6 (SD = 3.8) and 3.5 (SD = 3.9), and mean
scores for females of 2.3 (SD = 1.8) and 2.1 (SD = 1.9). Bonner and Rich (1988) report
that in a sample of 186 college students, 22% scored 0 on the HS, 47% scored 1-5, 27%
scored 6-10, and 4% scored 11 or greater. As an estimate of the level of hopelessness in
the general population, Greene (1981) reports that for a random sample from the electoral
lists of Dublin, Ireland, the mean HS score was 4.5 (SD = 3.1) with a modal score of 4
and a range of0-17.

These data suggest that the HS demonstrates a greater discriminative power
among more seriously depressed or suicidal samples than in less symptomatic samples
(i.e., not typically suicidal) such as among college student populations or the general
population. That is, in the less symptomatic populations, 50% of the individuals are
typically constrained within a range of only a few points on the scale. With allowances
made for measurement error, this renders a large portion of the less symptomatic
population indistinguishable with regard to respective levels of hopelessness as measured
on the HS. However, such generally less symptomatic populations still prove to be of
utility in research on depression. For example, with speciﬁc regard to HTD, studies on
college students' depressive reactions to negative exam outcomes (e.g., Metalsky et al.,
1987, 1992, 1993; Wagner, 1991) show their value in examining the etiological chain
proposed by HTD. Such less symptomatic samples are useful for testing and reﬁning
theories like HTD, and can then guide research that may be conducted with more severely

symptomatic samples.

34

Given the valid and practical use of relatively less symptomatic samples in research
on HTD, it seems there is utility in having a version of the HS that has greater
discriminative power within the moderate to lower ranges of level of hopelessness. The
following section proposes the Modiﬁed Hopelessness Scale as an alternative to the HS
that is intended to show that property.

We.

In order to increase the discriminative power of the HS within the moderate to
lower ranges of level of hopelessness, the Modiﬁed Hopelessness Scale (MHS) was
developed to use the same 20 questionnaire items, but with a ﬁve-point Likert scale
response format rather than the HS's dichotomous true-false response format.

Rasmussen (1989) discusses research (i.e., Ciccetti, Showalter & Tyrer, 1985;
Cohen, 1983; Jenkins & Taber, 1977; and Lunney, 1970) that shows the advantages of
multiple point Likert scale data over dichotomous scale data, and makes the following
observations. First, the reliability of a scale increases as the number of points in the scale
increases from two to seven, but little to no reliability is gained by making the scale larger
than seven. Second, while the number of scale points in correlational research has little or
no effect on Type I error rates, it has a considerable effect on Type II error rates with
smaller scales causing a reduction in power. Rasmussen (1989, p. 167) states that "using a
2-point scale for one variable would result in a reduction of 67.4% for variance accounted
for by r2." This is primarily due to the increasing amount of information that is lost in the
nonreversible transformation of data from a continuous distribution to a progressively

smaller Likert scale or ultimately dichotomous scale distribution. Third, with regard to the

35
effects of scale size on power, "a 5-point scale is not that different from its continuous
parent population" (Rasmussen, 1989; p. 170).

These observations suggest that a ﬁve to seven-point Likert scale is an optimal
response format for a questionnaire that taps information from a continuous distribution,
like degree of agreement. However, the information discussed by Rasmussen (1989) is
based on simulations such as Monte Carlo studies, and does not take into account such
phenomena as participants who may show response sets or who are extreme responders.
Therefore, in order to minimize the amount of error that may be introduced by such
responders and maximize the beneﬁts of offering a Likert scale response format, the MHS
uses a ﬁve-point Likert scale response format. Similarly, in order to reduce error due to
varied interpretation of the ﬁve-point response format, each point on the scale is explicitly
labeled (i.e., Almost always true, Oﬁen true, Sometimes true, Rarely true, Never true).

or ‘or.-.. «.01...- o ' ' 'r ._ i I 7, 1001‘ ‘ {'H. cr° .3 ‘1» °
U‘t.‘l._‘ 0 UUI" 0' 0 i'.a_._1,01l’100‘l' I' ,I'OIO .'0'101

Since the alternative measures of hopelessness proposed in this study (i.e., the
MHS and the 0Q) are only being piloted here, they are subjected to rather limited
validation procedures, and any results based on their use is qualiﬁed accordingly. The HS,
on the other hand, is the primary operationalization of hopelessness for this study.
WWW

Since the item content of the MHS is identical to that of the HS, except that the
dichotomous response format of the HS is expanded to a ﬁve-point Likert scale on the

MHS, each participant in this study completed only one or the other of the two scales.

While this prevents any direct comparison between the HS and the MHS, a high

36

correlation between the MHS and the BDI is consistent with (though not conclusive
evidence for) the general integrity of the HS being preserved in the MHS. Therefore it is
hypothesized that:

Hypothesis Three: MHS scores will correlate positively with BDI

scores. Further, the size of this correlation will be qualitatively similar to

that of the corresponding correlation between HS and BDI scores.

An issue of particular relevance to evaluating the MHS is whether the scale's
expanded response format results in improved discriminative power at the moderate to
lower range of level of hopelessness, as compared to the HS. A qualitative comparison of
the coefﬁcient of variation (Guilford, 193 6) and the skew for the distribution of scores for
each measure yields relevant information.

The coefﬁcient of variation for a distribution is deﬁned as the standard deviation
divided by the mean, multiplied by 100 - indicating the percentage of the mean that is
equal to the standard deviation. It is a measure of relative variability and is used to
compare the variability of measures that use different scales of measurement, so long as
each scale has an absolute zero point and equal units throughout. For example, to the
degree that the MHS shows a smaller coeﬁicient of variation than the HS, it indicates that
the MHS shows a greater number of standard deviations within the range between a score
of zero and the mean score for the measure than does the HS. This would suggest that the
MHS shows a greater capacity to distinguish meaningfuﬂy between scores within that zero
to mean value range of scores than does the HS.

Similarly, since HS scores from relatively less symptomatic samples typically show

a mean of about four or less (out of 20), about half of the participants in these samples

37

must have their HS scores represented within the narrow zero to four or less point range.
Therefore, the corresponding ﬁ'equency distributions of HS scores in these samples are
necessarily strongly positively skewed (i.e., skewed to the right). In contrast, as the MHS
effectively spreads out the distribution of scores within the moderate to lower levels of
hopelessness, the frequency distribution of MHS scores is expected to be less skewed,
which is indicated by a skewness value that is closer to zero. Therefore, it is hypothesized
that:
Hypothesis F our: As compared to the distribution of HS scores, the

distribution of MHS scores will be characterized by: a) a smaller coeﬂicient

of variation, and b) a skewness value that is closer to zero. Further, though

qualitatively, these diﬁ‘erences will be of a sufﬁcient size to suggest that

they represent truly meaningﬁrl differences.

The OQ provides three measures (i.e., OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction, OQ-
Hopelessness, and OQ-Weighted Hopelessness) which represent a succession of closer
approximations to an appropriate measure of hopelessness as conceptualized by HTD.
Because each successive approximation incorporates another variable into its estimate of
hopelessness, the more reﬁned OQ scores are also more vulnerable to the negative effects
of accumulated assessment error. Therefore, each of the hypotheses intended to evaluate
the 0Q is tested three times - once for each of the three 0Q measures — in order to
provide an opportunity to consider whether there is a point of diminishing return regarding

increases in the conceptual accuracy vs. accumulated assessment error.

38

Each of the CO measures is examined using both direct and indirect means to
show whether they function in a manner similar to the HS. Regarding a direct comparison,
it is hypothesized that:

Hypothesis Five: Scores on each of the three OQ measures will

correlate positively with scores on the HS.

As an indirect comparison of these measures (since the HS correlates highly with the BDI)
it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis Six: Scores on each of the three 0Q measures will

correlate positively with scores on the BDI. Further, the size of these

correlations will be qualitatively similar to that of the corresponding

correlation between HS and BDI scores.

Similarly, given limited validity for the MHS, it is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis Seven: Scores on each of the three 0Q measures will

correlate positively with scores on the MHS.

Finally, in order to show whether any of the OQ measures tap into an aspect of depression
that is not accounted for by the HS or the MHS, a multiple regression analysis is done to
reveal whether each 0Q measure accounts for a signiﬁcant portion of BDI variance after
the variance accounted for by the HS (or MHS) is already been partialed out. Therefore, it
is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis Eight: Scores on each of the OQ measures will account
for a signiﬁcant portion of the variance in BDI scores beyond that

accounted for by their HS or MHS scores.

Method
Banisinams

The participants for this study were 845 college students enrolled in one of ﬁve
undergraduate introductory psychology courses at Michigan State University in the Fall of
1992. Of 856 students who originally participated in the study, 11 were removed from the
research sample due to invalid data (i.e., evident transcription error or erroneous
responding).

Participants who had incomplete data within only a single measure (i.e., skipped a
measure, or leﬁ more than one item blank on a measure), were removed from the research
sample only for analyses involving the spoiled measure. Similarly, some participants were
excluded ﬁom analyses involving demographic variables if they did not provide the data
required for demographic group assignment. Participation in the study was voluntary,
although it did partially ﬁrlﬁll a course requirement to gain formal exposure to the research
process.

Since all participants completed the Outlook Questionnaire (0Q), but completed
only one or the other of the Hopelessness Scale (HS) or the Modiﬁed Hopelessness Scale
(MHS), sample sizes for tests involving the HS or the MHS necessarily involve about half
of the ﬁrll participant sample. Since the halved samples corresponding to the HS and the
MHS are still random samples of the same population ﬁom which the ﬁill sample was

drawn, comparisons between tests involving 0Q measures and those involving the HS or

39

4O

MHS when each is unselected for demographic variables are wholly appropriate.
Therefore, for clarity, the term "main sample" will be used to refer to portions of the hill
sample that are unselected for demographic variables, regardless of their size.
Measures

The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck et al., 1961; see Appendix D) will be
used to estimate participants’ level of depressive aﬁect. BDI scores are calculated by
summing the values (ranging from zero to three) associated with the single items endorsed
(out of four options) for each of 21 questions on the scale. This yields a score that can
range from zero to 63, with higher scores indicating higher levels of depression. Regarding
degrees of depressive aﬁ‘ect associated with BDI scores, Kendall, Hollon, Beck, Harnmen
and Ingram (1987) state:

Large sample psychometrics for the BDI typically evidence a skewed

distribution with a mean in the area of 4 to 6. The range of scores ﬁ'om O to

9 may be viewed as normal... Mild levels of depression are associated with

BDI scores of 10 to 20, with 10 to 17 suggesting dysphoria and greater

than 17 more closely associated with depressive states. Scores of 20 to 30

reﬂect moderate depression, and scores greater that 30 reﬂect severe

depression (p. 295).
Beck et al. (1961) reported the internal split-half reliability of the BDI as .86 rising to .93
with a Spearman-Brown correction. They also reported the correlation between BDI
scores and clinicians' ratings of depth of depression to be .65 (n = 226) and .67 (n = 183).

For this study, a reliability (Alpha) of .85 was found for the BDI.

41

The Beck Hopelessness Scale (HS, Beck et al.,1974; see Appendix E) was used to
measure students' degrees of hopelessness. HS scores are calculated by assigning a value
of one to items with a negative valence (i.e., items 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18 and
20) that are endorsed as true, and to items with a positive valence (i.e., items 1, 3, 5, 6, 8,
10, 13, 15 and 19) that are endorsed as false, and then summing across items. This yields a
score that can range from zero to 20, with higher scores indicating higher levels of
hopelessness. Beck et al. (1974) reported a reliability coemcient (Alpha) of .93 for the
HS. They also reported that the HS correlated .74 with clinical ratings of hopelessness and
.62 with attempted suicide. For this study, a reliability (Alpha) of .86 was found for the
HS.

The Modiﬁed Beck Hopelessness Scale (MHS, see Appendix F) was conditionally
used to measure students' degrees of hopelessness. The development of the MHS is
described on pages 34-35. The MHS is scored in a manner closely corresponding to that
for the HS since the only diﬁ‘erence between the scales is the range of response. Therefore,
for items with a negative valence (i.e., items 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 20),
values are assigned to responses according to the following coding scale: Almost always
true = 4, Often true = 3, Sometimes true = 2, Rarely true = l, and Never true = O. For
items with a positive valence (i.e., items 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15 and 19), values are
assigned to responses according to the following coding scale: Almost always true = 0,
Chen true = 1, Sometimes true = 2, Rarely true = 3, and Never true = 4. Values are
summed across items, yielding a score that can range from zero to 80, with higher scores

indicating higher levels of hopelessness. This study presents a preliminary and limited

42

evaluation of the validity of the MHS. For this study, a reliability (Alpha) of .91 was found
for the HS.

Three measures from the Outlook Questionnaire (0Q, see Appendix G) were also
conditionally used in this study to measure relative approximations of students' degrees of
hopelessness as deﬁned by the Hopelessness Theory of Depression (HT D; Abrarnson, et
al., 1989). The development of the OQ was described above (see pp. 25-31).

The OQ consists of 120 items that are divided into four 30 item scales (i.e., the
Want, Expect, Control and Care Scales). The Want Scale (items 1-30) asks "to what
extent do you WANT each of 30 different possible future outcomes. The Expect Scale
(items 31-60) asks "to what extent do you EXPECT" to obtain each of the same 30 ﬁxture
outcomes. The Control Scale (items 61 -90) asks "how much CQNIRQL do you have
over" obtaining the same 30 outcomes. The Care Scale (items 91-120) asks "how much do
you 9m whether you actually" obtain each of the outcomes. Therefore, the outcome
content of the four scales correspond directly, such that items 1, 31, 61 and 91 are
matched in outcome content across the four scales, as are items 2, 32, 62 and 92, and so
on. The degree to which a participant endorses that they want, expect, can control, or care
bout the outcome described for each item is expressed on a ﬁve-point Likert scale with
endpoints labeled "not at all" and "very much." Values are assigned for all four scales

according to the following coding scale:

Not at all Very much

Response Option: 1 2 3 4 5

Assigned Value: 0 1 2 3 4

43

In accordance with the logic of the development of the 0Q, the values for the
three 0Q measures are calculated in the following manner.

Calculating an OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction score requires the following steps.
First, a separate estimate of expected dissatisfaction is made for each of the 30 outcome
sets on the 0Q by taking the absolute value of the difference between corresponding Want
Scale values and Expect Scale values. The resulting estimates can range in value from 0 to
4, and are summed across the 30 outcome sets to get a single OQ-Expected
Dissatisfaction value that can range from 0-120.

Calculating an OQ-Hopelessness score requires the following steps. First, an
estimate of uncontrollability is calculated for each of the 30 outcome sets by reverse
scoring the corresponding Control Scale value (i.e., 0 = 4, 1 = 3, 2 = 2, 3 = 1, 4 = 0).
Then, within each outcome set, the estimate of expected dissatisfaction is multiplied by the
corresponding estimate of uncontrollability to obtain an outcome set speciﬁc estimate of
hopelessness. The square root is taken of each of the resulting values to transform them
back to a 0—4 point scoring range. The transformed estimates of hopelessness are then
summed across the 30 outcome sets to get a single OQ-Hopelessness value that can range
from 0-120

Calculating an OQ-Weighted Hopelessness score requires the following steps.
First, within each outcome set, the estimate of hopelessness is multiplied by the
corresponding estimate of subjective importance (i.e., the Care Scale value) to obtain an
outcome set speciﬁc estimate of weighted hopelessness. The square root is taken for each

of the resulting values to transform them back to a 0-4 point scoring range for each

44

outcome set. The resulting estimates are then summed across the 30 outcome sets to get a
single OQ-Weighted Hopelessness value that can range ﬁom 0-120.

This study presents a preliminary and limited evaluation of the validity of each of
the three measures on the OQ. For this study, a reliability (Alpha) of .92 was found for
OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction, a reliability (Alpha) of .93 was found for OQ-Hopelessness,
and a reliability (Alpha) of .93 was found for OQ-Weighted Hopelessness.

A one page questionnaire with ten demographic information items and six items
assessing present feelings (see Appendix H) was also administered to participants in this
study. However, the items assessing present feelings were not considered in this study, as
they were designed to be compared to other measures derivable from the 0Q that were
not used in this study (see footnote 3).

Procedure

Students from ﬁve undergraduate introductory psychology courses who had a
course requirement to gain exposure to the research process were recruited for
participation in this study. The study was titled The Mood Study in order to honestly
portray the general issues being researched without suggesting the speciﬁc issues and
hypotheses being addressed in the study. The data were collected within a four day span
from November 9-12, 1992. In order to minimize the likelihood of participants having any
speciﬁc familiarity with the study, only one opportunity to participate was offered to the
students from each course, for a total of ﬁve data collection sessions.

Each participant's participation involved completing a single questionnaire packet
at a single sitting in a large lecture hall. There were two versions of the questionnaire

packet, differing only in whether they included the HS or the MHS (due to the identical

45

item content of the two measures, no questionnaire packets contained both of the
measures). So each questionnaire packet contained, in order, a one page Research
Consent Statement (see Appendix I), the BDI, either the HS or the MHS, the OQ, and the
one page demographic information questionnaire.

The two versions of the questionnaire packet were stacked alternately before being
distributed to participants in order to minimize the chances of any systematic bias due to
any distribution patterns. Participants recorded their responses on forms to be scored by
computer. To protect conﬁdentiality and anonymity, participants were instructed not to
make any personally identifying marks on any of their materials. When ﬁnished,
participants carried their materials ﬁom their seat and handed them in to a research
assistant, from whom they then received a debrieﬁng information sheet (see Appendix J).

S . . l l l l l

The general rationale for using curvilinear regression analysis to investigate the
nature of the relationship between hopelessness and depression is explained in the
Introduction section above (see pp. 16-17). This section is intended to offer more explicit
detail about the mathematical basis for this statistical method.

Pedhazur (1982) offers a thorough consideration of curvilinear regression analysis,
also called polynomial regression analysis. Pedhazur (1982) explains that the number of
bends in a regression line is determined by the highest power to which the independent
variable is raised in a polynomial regression equation. For example, "a ﬁrst-degree
polynomial, like [ Y '] = a + bX, describes a straight line" (Pedhazur, 1982; p. 405), using
the symbols: Y ' = predicted value of the dependent variable, X = value of the independent

variable, a = an estimate of the mean value of the population for the dependent variable

46

when the value of X is zero, and b = an estimate of the regression coefﬁcient in the
population, or in this case, the slope of the linear regression line. Further:

A second-degree polynomial [like Y ' = a + b ,X + ngz] describes a single

bend in a regression curve, and is referred to as a quadratic equation. A

third-degree polynomial [like Y ' = a + b ,X + b X + b ,X’] has two bends

and is referred to as a cubic equation... One of the goals of scientiﬁc

research, however, is parsimony. Our interest is not in the predictive power

of the highest-degree polynomial equation possible, but rather in the

highest-degree polynomial equation necessary to describe a set of data.

Polynomial regression analysis is carried out as an ordinary multiple

regression analysis, except that powered vectors are included and the

analysis is done hierarchically. That is, the analysis is carried out in a series

of steps, beginning with the ﬁrst-degree polynomial and followed by

successively higher-degree polynomials. At each step, the proportion of

variance of the dependent variable incremented by a higher-degree

polynomial is tested for statistical signiﬁcance (Pedhazur, 1982; pp. 405-

406)

Cohen and Cohen (1983) note that there are instances where, for example, a cubic
regression equation can account for a signiﬁcant and ﬁrnctionally meaningful increment in
dependent variable variance in a data set where the lower order quadratic regression has
not accounted for a signiﬁcant increment in dependent variable variance. Because of such
possibilities, they caution against making a blanket assumption that a non-signiﬁcant lower

order polynomial equation indicates that a higher order polynomial equation cannot be

47

signiﬁcant and meaningﬁrl. As is apparent in the Results section, the data set for this study
seems clearly not to be vulnerable to such an exception. First, Cohen and Cohen (1983)
note that linear and quadratic regression lines are adequate for most behavioral science
data, and that only rarely are higher order than cubic regression lines indicated. Since all of
the curvilinear regression analyses done in this study tested at least the linear, quadratic
and cubic regression equations (in instances when both the quadratic and cubic equations
were not signiﬁcant, the cubic is not reported), the probability is very low that a higher
order regression equation will be meaningful, much less signiﬁcant. Second, data sets that
are vulnerable to such exceptional curvilinear regression analysis results typically show a
visually discemable pattern that reveals the problem of ﬁtting a simple line to it. For
example, a data set that essentially takes the form of one or more ﬁrll cycles of a sine wave
can have a signiﬁcant linear regression line that runs through the middle of the wave, but a
quadratic regression line (which is limited to a single bend) can add little to the predictive
power of the straight line — and both the linear and quadratic regression line are poor
representations of the data. A higher order regression equation is necessary to capture the
cycling in the data. However, visual inspection of a scatter plot of the data for this study
clearly indicates that no such cycling is apparent (nor would it be expected to be.)
Therefore, analyses of the data according to the recommendations of Pedhazur (1982)
seems wholly appropriate.

For the purposes of conducting curvilinear regression analyses in this study,
depression (as operationalized by the BDI) will be designated the dependent variable, and
each of the measures of hopelessness will be designated as separate independent variables

that will be used in independent tests.

Results

Because signiﬁcant relationships were found between certain demographic
variables and the research variables (i.e., dependent and independent variables), relevant
descriptive data and analyses of variance will be presented before data pertaining to the
testing of speciﬁc hypotheses.

22mm

Means and Standard Deviations for the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck et
al., 1961), the Hopelessness Scale (HS; Beck et a., 1974), the Modiﬁed Hopelessness
Scale (MHS) and the three measures of interest from the Outlook Questionnaire (0Q; i.e.,
OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction, OQ-Hopelessness and OQ- Weighted Hopelessness) are
shown in Table 1. Response frequencies for the demographic items are shown in Table 2.

utl ' o 1.21'0,.u"-..1 1J1.'U.'v._l ‘ o .‘HOUaH - 1.". :

Analyses of variance were conducted to determine whether the means for each of
the research variables diﬁered signiﬁcantly across demographically deﬁned subgroups of
the research sample (i.e., subgroups determined by each participant's response on each of
the ten demographic variables). Of the ten demographic variables, four showed no
signiﬁcant relationship to any of the research variables. They were the variables regarding
students' class in college, ﬁrll or part time student status, whether students had received
medical treatment in the last year, and whether their parents were living or either had died

in the last ﬁve years.

48

49

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for the Dependent and Independent Variables

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BDI HS MHS OQ-ED. OQ-H OQ-W.H.
Mean 8.49 3.60 23.20 38.78 30.42 36.68
SD 6.78 3.74 11.33 18.42 18.07 21.36
n 841 413 426 842 840 834

 

 

BDI = Beck Depression Inventory, HS = Hopelessness Scale, MHS = Modiﬁed Hopelessness
Scale, OQ-ED. = OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction, OQ-H = OQ-Hopelessness, 0Q-W.H. =
OQ-Weighted Hopelessness, SD = Standard Deviation, n = number.

50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2
Response Frequencies for Items on the Demographic
Questionnaire
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION QUESTIONS AND RESPONSE OPTIONS (Total n)
Note: Some subjects did not complete all of these items. Frequencies
What is your gender? (835)
Female 576
Male 259
What is your age? (836)
19 years old or younger 548
20-25 years old 277
25-30 years old 4
30-40 years old 5
Over 40 years old 2
What is your relationship status? (836)
Single and never married 815
Married 15
Divorced, separated or widowed 6
Remarried 0
What is your class in college? (836)
Freshman 394
Sophomore 193
Junior 155
Senior 89
Graduate Student 5
Which applies to you? (836)
Full time student 821
Part time student 15
Which applies to you? (836)
Work full time 30
Work part time 376
Not working currently 430
Have you received any medical treatment in the last year? (837)
Yes 538
No 299
Have you ever received psychological counseling? (832)
Yes 174
No 658
Have you ever been depressed? (837)
No 167
Yes, and received psychological counseling 82
Yes, and received medication 5
Yes, and received psych. counseling and meds. 18
Yes, but received no treatment 565
.Are both of your parents living? (832)
Yes 780
No, and one or both parents died in the past 5 years 26
No, but neither parent died in the past 5 years 26

 

 

 

51

Table 3 shows the abbreviated results of the analyses of variance for the means of
the research variables across the response options of the remaining six demographic
variables. Participants' gender and history of depression/intervention show a variety of
powerful and interesting relationships with the research variables. With regard to gender,
females scored higher than males on the BDI and the three OQ measures. Conversely,
males scored higher than females on the HS. Of particular note, however, is that no
signiﬁcant difference was found between the scores of males and females on the MHS,
even though the MHS and HS differ only in terms of range of response options.

Every research measure showed a signiﬁcant between-groups. difference in mean
scores across participants' histories of depression/intervention. Participants who reported
never having been depressed showed the lowest scores on all of the research measures
except for the HS, where only four participants treated with medication alone had a
slightly lower mean score. The MHS was unique in showing a comparatively low mean
score for participants who had been depressed and had received psychological counseling
as their only intervention. In contrast, the BDI, HS and the three OQ measures showed
their highest mean scores for that subgroup, with similarly high mean scores for the
subgroup that reported having been depressed with intervention by both psychological
counseling and medication.

Because of the signiﬁcant and relevant relationships found between the research
variables and the demographic variables of gender and history of depression/intervention,
these two demographic variables were used to partition the research sample for follow-up
analyses of the central hypotheses of this study. Although each of the four remaining

demographic variables addressed in Table 3 showed a signiﬁcant relationship to at least

Table 3
Between Groups Differences in Mean Scores for the Dependent and Independent Variables

Across Response Options on Selected Demographic Variables

52

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mNh mNbva mmmm mmm mm HVFN
me NVN NNhN me N0 m am
a mmN mmm m mv mam ma m
x
3 A A ‘\ A A A
' -“ ovm mummmm A. bmmm omN oo oavh
001:: 0.. mooooom HOOIOIOO. o...
0 H” omo ouvmvm c ombm oam om ®®NP
mg omm gﬁmmmﬂ v onm ovm oN vmvm
mmm mmhva memm 0mm mm Hvbv
mmm mvm MMNN mnm mo w H0
C mmN mmN m WV mam ma m
:t:
5 a
O .2 OHO mamvnm A. vmvo omH Ob wavm
mmOoQMooooom (\oooOooOo 00-.
Ha, oNr~ OHmNt—im r: HMHQ 0mm ON mt—rmt—r
2: oMN -MNmmN v- -Nmm -MN oN mmmm
V v \IV V v
mmm mmwva WOWO Nvm mm Nvmm
mmm mvn mmmm mnm mm m Ho
C mmN mmN m MV ®H® mH m
D
[’1 Am A A ‘\ A A
' 'c ovv omomvo A. nnmm omo om VOFO
ammo..qr.....u) QoooOooOo oooo
O ”m oom ommmmN : bmmm omp oo mHmo
$2 -vm ommvmv v ommm ovm om vvvv
V V V v v
WNW NNO vv Hamm
NmN va va Nm v m
c VNH NQHVQ v m v N
vv
m
g Am ‘\ "\ A
'C‘. been A QHC‘DQ A O\I\P~t Ot‘ VOONN
Om 00 U) V. col 0) 00 O. .00 o
H” @MN C NMMN c mmm om mnov
m: ~NN v -NNM v .NN oH NVMN
\' \v V
mwm PHQ ma vam
Obm mm omH om v F
c vNH oovNo v m v N
vv
9
Am A A A A
as are m mean. t can on sets
30 9mv 5 9mmm 5 va ,N maem
V2 V v V V
vmm vmbva Hmm VF NmmN
mmm MVP mmm mm m Ho
C mmN mmN mam ma m
B
m A”, A A A A
- m m mvm A A om o F H
as can ore--- g g o-ﬁ on -e-e
H o o MNH OH N H
mm ,mh .thHN V V .Hb .m Hmﬁm
V2 v V V
x
- B
oo'O '0 (\o
0 mm H m D -
N DH 3 o m m U
E-rH \ -- t: g1 tn .. a)
C (H -U mmmﬂ m g..z
m an Q0 DEEX w m uxx
n o WEUOH BHHH m HBBw-
0 u w mmu (uuo . m 3 x
00.4 [.000 EH'AH E9 3 x [I] ' ' 'E“
attire mvai-l (DH MU (Dr-NJ E-r Q s>lU>a
MEH minim B>H>E HHU m mmwmo
one «oomo> HOMHQ xzmo omo moomzmz
2&2 WHNNMO zzam mmmz WWZ g2»
m 0 O m
o d 3 m m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OQ-E.D.=OQ-

MHS=Modi fied Hopelessness Scale,

OQ-Hopelessness, OQ-W.H.=OQ-Weighted Hopelessness, ns=not significant.

Hopelessness Scale,
Italics indicate non-significant results of potential interest.

IB=

Beck Depression Inventory,

Expected Dissatisfaction, OQ-H

URLs:

BDI=

53

one research variable, they were not used in such follow-up analyses for the following
reasons.

Participants' history of psychological counseling was not used in follow-up
analyses because those individuals who had received counseling for depression could be
discerned from the history of depression/intervention item, and those who received
counseling for other reasons were of less direct relevance to the central curvilinearity
hypotheses of this study (i.e., Hypotheses One and Two).

Participants' age group was not used in follow-up analyses because: a) the trend in
research variable mean scores was mixed across subgroups, b) the limits of the age groups
were inadvertently deﬁned in an overlapping manner, and c) the total representation in the
three older of the ﬁve age groups was less than 1.5 % of the total research sample.
Similarly, participants' marital status was not used in follow-up analyses because of
extremely disproportionate group representation across subgroups.

Finally, participants' work status also was not used in follow-up analyses because
OQ-Weighted Hopelessness was the only research variable that showed a relationship to
it, and therefore its contribution to the general understanding of the relationship between
hopelessness and depression was likely to be limited.

Regarding Hypothesis One, that there is a curvilinear relationship between
hopelessness and depression, as tested using the HS to operationalize hopelessness, Table
4 shows the results of a hierarchical curvilinear regression of ED] scores on HS scores for
the main research sample. The HS correlated r(410) = .63, p < .000 with the BDI, equal to

the R = .63, F(1, 408) = 273.04, p = .000 values in Step 1 of the equation in Table 4,

54

 

 

 

 

 

mov.m mam. m~.o ooo. mas. use. mmm m
pov.~ Hoo. mo.mH 5H0. was. was. Nmm N
mov.a ooo. vo.m>m Hos. Hos. mmm. mm H
up A» «m 2H mmem mom mm m mammazm onacaom swam
mwzmmo mm zH m>He<qozpo onmmmmomm quzozwqom
mom m mwzmmo so ezmzomzcu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oHQEMm coumwmmm dam: on» “Ouﬁmmv mmemmoHomom co AHQmV coﬂmmmuaoo we

coﬂmmwumom ummcﬂaﬂ>usv Hmoﬂnoumumﬂm Mo muaSmwm

a magma

 

55

accounting for 40% of the variance in BDI scores (i.e., 100 times the R"). The quadratic
equation for the HS (i.e., with the addition of HS2 to the polynomial equation in Step 2 of
the regression analysis) accounted for an additional 1.7% of the variance in BDI scores
(i.e., 100 times the change in R2 for the step), F(2, 407) = 12.06, p = .001. The cubic
equation for the HS (i.e., with the addition of HS3 to the polynomial equation in Step 3 of .
the regression analysis) did not account for a signiﬁcant increment in BDI variance. This
indicates that the quadratic regression line best represents the relationship between BDI
scores and HS scores, and therefore supports Hypothesis One. The regression coeﬂicient
for the quadratic component of the regression equation (i.e., corresponding to b 2 from the
equation Y ' = a + b ,X + b2)? described on p. 46) was .040. The positive value of this
coefficient indicates a positive rate of acceleration in BDI scores as HS scores increase,
indicating support for Hypothesis Two, that the nature of this curvilinearity is consistent
with the postulates of HTD in that depression increases in a positively accelerated manner
with increases in hopelessness. The plot in Figure 3 shows a comparison of the linear and
quadratic regression lines for the relationship between BDI scores and HS scores. Along
the Y axis are the predicted values for the BDI based on the linear and quadratic
regression equations, and these values are plotted along the range of corresponding HS
values across the X axis. Visual inspection of Figure 3 conﬁrms that the curvilinearity of
the quadratic regression line depicts a positive rate of acceleration in predicted BDI scores
as HS scores increase.
H 1.1. dllllﬁlHl 5]
Participants' MHS scores correlated r(425) = .57, p = .000 with their BDI scores,

which is arguably comparable in size to the correlation between HS and BDI scores of

56

 

Linear ,’

- - - Quadratic ’

Predicted Beck Depression Inventory Scores

 

 

0 1 if f . r . . .
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Hopelessness Scale Scores

Figure 3
Linear and Quadratic Regression Lines Predicting Beck Depression Inventory
Scores from Hopelessness Scale Scores for the Main Sample

min=410

57

r(410) = .63, p = .000, indicating support for Hypothesis Three, that MHS scores will
correlate positively with BDI scores and that the size of this correlation will be
qualitatively similar to that of the corresponding correlation between HS and BDI scores.
The MHS was characterized by a coefﬁcient of variance of 48.9, which is less than half of
the coefﬁcient of variance of 104.0 for the HS, and a skew of .57, which less than a third
of the skewness of 1.8 for the HS, indicating support for Hypothesis Four, that as
compared to the distribution of HS scores, the distribution of MHS scores will be
characterized by: a) a smaller coefﬁcient of variation, and b) a skewness value that is
closer to zero, and though qualitatively, that these differences will be of a sufﬁcient size to
suggest that they represent truly meaningful differences.

Given support for Hypotheses Three and Four, the MHS was used to
operationalize hopelessness for independent tests of Hypotheses One and Two. Regarding
Hypothesis One, Table 5 shows that the MHS accounted for 33% of the BDI variance
F(1, 423) = 207.81, p = .000. The quadratic polynomial for the MHS accounted for an
additional 2.5% of the BDI variance, F(2, 421) = 16.37, p = .000. The cubic polynomial
for the MHS did not account for a signiﬁcant increment in BDI variance. This indicates
that the quadratic regression line best represents the relationship between BDI and MHS
scores, and therefore supports Hypothesis One. The regression coeﬁicient for the
quadratic component of the regression equation was .006. This positive coefﬁcient value
and visual inspection of the linear and quadratic regression lines plotted in Figure 4
indicate a positive rate of acceleration in BDI scores as MHS scores increase, indicating

support for Hypothesis Two.

58

 

 

 

 

 

HNvtm mNH. Hm.N voo. wmm. wmm. mmmz m
NNv.N ooo. rm.ma mNo. vmm. mmm. Nmmz N
mmvta ooo. Hm.h0N mNm. mNm. «hm. mmE H
MU Q mm ZH mmem mom NM m Qmmmezm ZOHHdbom mMHm
m02¢mu mm ZH m>HH<ADZDU ZOHmmmmomm AdHEOZWAOm
mow m moz<mo mo BZMZOmEOU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

maaamm noncommm cﬂmz map Houﬁmmzv

mmmcmmwammom co AHQmV coﬂmmwummo wo
coﬁmmwuoom umoCHHH>uso Hmoﬂnoumumﬁm mo muasmwm
m magma

 

 

59

454

 

40 .4. Linear ,
I - - - Quadratic ,

Predicted Beck Depression Inventory Scores

 

 

o - .
' o 10 20 30 4o 50 60 7o 80

Modiﬁed Hopelessness Scale Scores

Figure 4
Linear and Quadratic Regression Lines Predicting Beck Depression Inventory
Scores from Modified Hopelessness Scale Scores for the Main Sample

Note. n = 425

60

H 1.1. .131]: ..

For the sake of continuity, the hypotheses involving the three OQ measures (i.e.,
Hypotheses Five, Six and Seven, and re-examinations of Hypotheses One and Two; see
Appendix A) will be addressed ﬁrst for OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction, then again for OQ-
Hopelessness, and then ﬁnally for OQ-Weighted Hopelessness.

H liI' .1334: 111° 'E'

Participants' OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction scores correlated r(410) = .50, p=.000)
with their HS scores, indicating support for Hypothesis Five, that scores on each of the
three Outlook Questionnaire measures will correlate positively with scores on the HS.
Further, the correlation between OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction and the BDI was r(83 8) =
.53, p=.000, which is arguably comparable in size to the r(410) = .63, p = .000 correlation
between the HS and the BDI, indicating support for Hypothesis Six, that scores on each of
the three OQ measures will correlate positively with scores on the BDI, and that the size
of these correlations will be qualitatively similar to that of the corresponding correlation
between HS and BDI scores. Finally, the correlation between OQ-Expected
Dissatisfaction and the MHS was r(426) = .56, p = .000, indicating support for Hypothesis
Seven, that scores on each of the three OQ measures will correlate positively with scores
on the MHS.

Having found support for Hypotheses Five, Six and Seven, OQ-Expected
Dissatisfaction was used to operationalize hopelessness for independent tests of
Hypotheses One and Two. Regarding Hypothesis One, Table 6 shows that OQ-Expected
Dissatisfaction accounted for 28% of the BDI variance F (1, 836) = 320.00, p=.000. The

quadratic polynomial for OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction accounted for an additional 6.1%

61

 

 

 

 

 

mcoﬂuomumHuMmmHQ
amm.m mam. He.o ooo. mmm. mmm. emuomnxmuoo m
Ncoﬂuommmwummmﬂa
mmm.~ ooo. pm.os Hmo. mmm. Ham. emuomdxmroo N
coauomwmaummmﬂo
0mm.H ooo. oo.o~m Fem. new. mmm. empomdxmroo H
we Am «m 2H mmem mom mm. m ommmezm onamsom mmpm
mozmmo «m 2H m>HeaADZDo onmmmmumm anzozwqom
mom a mozamu no azmzomzco

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mHQEmm noummwmm can: can nomAcoHuommmHummmHQ vmuommeIOOV mmwcmmmawaom co
AHomv coﬂmmoummo no coammwumom ummcﬁaﬂ>uso amoﬂnoumumﬂm mo muasmom

o wanme

 

62

of the BDI variance F (2, 835) = 76.87, p = .000. The cubic polynomial for OQ-Expected
Dissatisfaction did not account for a signiﬁcant increment in BDI variance. This suggests
that the quadratic regression line best represents the relationship between BDI and OQ-
Expected Dissatisfaction, and therefore supports Hypothesis One. The regression
coeﬂicient for the quadratic component of the regression equation was .003. This positive
coeﬁicient value and visual inspection of the linear and quadratic regression lines plotted
in Figure 5 indicate a positive rate of acceleration in BDI scores as OQ-Expected
Dissatisfaction scores increase, indicating support for Hypothesis Two.

Table 7 shows that OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction accounted for 10.5 % of the
variance in BDI scores beyond that accounted for by HS scores (i.e., 100 times the
corresponding change in R") F (2, 404) = 85.52, p = .000, and Table 8 shows that OQ-
Expected Dissatisfaction accounted for 2.8 % of the variance in BDI scores beyond that
accounted for by MHS scores F (2, 422) = 18.27, p = .000, indicating support for
Hypothesis Eight, that scores on each of the OQ measures will account for a signiﬁcant
portion of the variance in BDI scores beyond that accounted for by their HS or MHS
scores.

11 1.1 . 'lCE-H 1

Participants' OQ-Hopelessness scores correlated r(410) = .51, p = .000 with their
HS scores, indicating support for Hypothesis Five (see Appendix A). Further, the
correlation between OQ-Hopelessness and the BDI was r(83 7) = .49, p = .000, which is
arguably comparable in size to, although slightly smaller than, the r(410) = .63, p = .000

correlation between the HS and the BDI, indicating support for Hypothesis Six. Finally,

63

 

45 f

i /

i /

. . I
40 7 Linear /

/
/
. /

35 .. - - - Quadratic ,

 

Predicted Beck Depression Inventory Scores

 

 

 

Orv%%=%i%i%22‘.i'I%+irr%i¥l
O O O O o O O O O O O O O
‘- N (O V IO (0 7‘ Q 0) O '- N

OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction Scores

Figure 5
Linear and Quadratic Regression Lines Predicting Beck Depression Inventory
Scores from Outlook Questionnaire-Expected Dissatisfaction Scores
for the Main Sample

Note. n = 838

 

coﬁuomumﬂummmﬁa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmv.m ooo. hm.ma mmo. bmm. mmm. pouomQxMIoo N
mmv.a ooo. Hm.>om mmm. mmm. vem. mm: H
up Q «m 2H mmam mom mm m mmem zH mmam
mwzmmo «m 2H m>HH¢ADzDo ommmezm mammHmm>
mom h mwzmmo
monoum Ammzv oamom mmocmmmamaom poﬁuﬂpoz
mom maﬁaaouucoo Mound mouoom coﬂuomumﬂummmﬂo pouoomxmioo
co AHQmV aoﬂmmmuamo Mo coﬂmmouvmm maaﬂuasz mo muasmmm
m magma
coﬂuomumﬂummmﬂo
vov.m ooo. mm.mm moa. «om. can. pouuwaxmioo m
mov.a ooo. Hv.mmm mmm. mmm. Nmm. mm H
up Q «m 2H mmem mom mm m mmem zH mmam
mwzmmo mm zH m>He¢quDo Qmmmezm mqdem¢>
mom m mozmmu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mMHOUW Ammv

mamom mmmcmmmammom

How ocﬂaaonucoo umuwm mouoom coﬂuomumﬂummmﬁa couoomeIOO
do AHQmV :onmmumoo mo coﬂmmouoom maaﬂuadz wo muHSmom

h dance

 

 

65

the correlation between OQ-Hopelessness and the MHS was r(424) = .60, p = .000,
indicating support for Hypothesis Seven.

With support found for Hypotheses Five, Six and Seven, OQ-Hopelessness was
used to operationalize hopelessness for independent tests of Hypotheses One and Two.
Regarding Hypothesis One, Table 9 shows that OQ-Hopelessness accounted for 24% of
the BDI variance F(1, 835) = 264.16, p = .000. The quadratic polynomial for OQ-
Hopelessness accounted for an additional 2.9% of the BDI variance F(2, 834) = 33.26, p
= .000. The cubic polynomial for OQ-Hopelessness did not account for a signiﬁcant
increment in BDI variance. This suggests that the quadratic regression line best represents
the relationship between BDI and OQ-Hopelessness, and therefore supports Hypothesis
One. The regression coeﬂicient for the quadratic component of the regression equation
was .002. This positive coefﬁcient value and visual inspection of the linear and quadratic
regression lines plotted in Figure 6 indicate a positive rate of acceleration in BDI scores as
OQ-Hopelessness scores increase, indicating support for Hypothesis Two.

Table 10 shows that OQ-hopelessness accounted for 6.9% of the variance in BDI
scores beyond that accounted for by HS scores F(2, 404) = 52.97, p = .000, and Table 11
shows that OQ-Hopelessness accounted for 1.4 % of the variance in BDI scores beyond
that accounted for by MHS scores F(2, 421) = 9.04, p = .003, indicating support for
Hypothesis Eight.

H 1.1 . 'IDQ-Ill'l III 1

Participants' OQ-Weighted Hopelessness scores correlated r(409) = .39, p = .000

with their HS scores, indicating support for Hypothesis Five (see Appendix A). Further,

the correlation between OQ-Weighted Hopelessness and the BDI was r(831) = .40,

66

 

 

 

 

 

mmw.m mmm. mN.o ooo. ObN. mam. mmmmcmmmawmomioo m
vmm.N ooo. mN.mm mNo. moN. mam. Nmmmcmmwamaomroo N
mmm.H ooo. 0H.voN ovN. ovN. omv. mmmcmmmawmomloo H
MU mm mm ZH mMHm mom mm m QMMMBZM ZOHeﬂbom mmem
mwzmmo NM ZH m>HBmAD2DU ZOHmmmmwmm AﬂHEOZNAOm
mom h mwzmmo ho HZHZOmZOU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oaaﬁmm coumomom dam: map HomAmmemmmHomomroov mmwcmmmamaom co AHQmV coemmoumoa mo
conmouomm ummcHHH>usu Hmoﬂnonmumﬂm no muHSwwm

m manna

 

67

 

45 l
Linear /
40 di- /

i - - - Quadratic /

Predicted Beck Depression Inventory Scores

 

 

O ' i i ' g ' ‘ ’ ‘ L r ' 1 r
T r f .r l V l l l . t v I

100 .
110 —<
120

O O O
('3 V O IN C G

OQ-Hopelessness Scores
Figure 6
Linear and Quadratic Regression Lines Predicting Beck Depression Inventory
Scores from Outlook Questionnaire-Hopelessness Scores for the Main Sample

Note. n = 837

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

qu.~ moo. ao.m «Ho. mam. 6mm. mmmcmmmHmdomioo m
mmv.H ooo. mm.eom mmm. mmm. sum. mm: H
Hp nu «m 2H mmam mom mm m mmam zH swam
mozmmo «m 2H m>HH¢HDZDo ommmezm mHmmHmm>
mom m mozamo

 

mmuoom Ammzv

mHmom mmemmoHoQom UonHpoz now ocHHHouucou

umumm mwuoom mmmCmmmemomIOO co HHQmV GOHmmonamQ mo conmmHmom oHQHuHsz mo muHSmom

68

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HH mHan
aov.m ooo. em.mm mmo. owe. mam. mmmcmmewdomuoo m
mov.H ooo. mm.o>m Hoe. How. mmo. mm H
Hp AH «m 2H mmem mom mm m mmem zH mmem
mozcmu mm zH m>HHmezao ammmHZm mHmmHmm>
mom a mozamo

 

monoum Ammv

mamum mmmCmmmHoQom How ocHHHouucoo
Hmuum mouoom mmmCmmmHoaomioo co HHQmV aonmmquo uo conmmuoom mHQHuHsz mo muasmmm

OH magma

 

 

69

p = .000, which is noticeably smaller than the r(410) = .63, p = .000 correlation between
the HS and the BDI, but still remains of a sufﬁciently strong and positive value to argue
support for Hypothesis Six. Finally, the correlation between OQ-Weighted Hopelessness
and the MHS was r(4l9) = .54, p = .000, indicating support for Hypothesis Seven.

Since Hypotheses Five, Six and Seven were supported, OQ-Weighted
Hopelessness was used to operationalize hopelessness for independent tests of Hypotheses
One and Two. Regarding Hypothesis One, Table 12 shows that OQ-Weighted
Hopelessness accounted for 16% of the BDI variance F (1, 829) = 158.31, p = .000. The
quadratic polynomial for OQ-Weighted Hopelessness accounted for an additional 2.6% of
the BDI variance F(2, 828) = 25.99, p = .000, and the cubic polynomial accounted for yet
another 0.4% of the BDI variance F(3, 826) = 4.15, p = .042. The fourth-order
polynomial did not account for a signiﬁcant increment in BDI variance. This suggests that
the cubic regression line best represents the relationship between BDI and OQ-Weighted
Hopelessness, and, in a manner slightly different than expected, supports Hypothesis One.

Visual inspection of plots comparing the linear and quadratic regression lines
(Figure 7), the linear and cubic regression lines (Figure 8), and ﬁnally the quadratic and
cubic regression lines (Figure 9) suggest that the cubic regression line is functionally
similar to the quadratic one, so far as they relate to Hypothesis Two. That is, the cubic
regression line appears to be somewhat closely interlaced about the quadratic regression
line, which is of a form that would indicate support Hypothesis Two. Still, taken alone, the
cubic regression line depicts predicted BDI scores increasing with increases in OQ-
Weighted Hopelessness scores, but at a negatively accelerated rate in the lowest ranges of

predicted BDI and OQ-Weighted Hopelessness scores. Then, at or before the point on the

70

 

ammmcmmeonm

 

 

 

 

 

omm.v Hmm. om.o ooo. omH. mmv. coucoHozioo q
mmmmcmonoQom
bmm.m Nvo. mH.w voo. omH. mmv. pouanozioo m
Nmmmcmmonmom
wmm.m ooo. mm.mm mmo. mmH. Hmv. couanozioo N
mmmcmmmHonm
mmm.H ooo. Hm.mmH omH. omH. oov. popconaiOO H
Hp AH mm 2H mmem mom mm. m ommmezm oneébom mmam
mwzmmo mm zH m>HH¢HDzDU onmmmmwmm HﬁHzozwqom
mom m mwzmmo mo ezmzomzoo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mHaamm noummmmm chE on» HomHmmmcmmonQom poucoHozioov mmmCmmoHoQom co
HHamv conmwumwo uo conmoumwm ummcHHH>Hso HmoHcoumuon Ho muHSmom

NH wHQMB

 

71

 

Linear

(a)
O
i
\

- - — Quadratic ,

N
(Tl
i
\
\

N
O
+

\

 
   
 

A
(1|
1

j

 

A
o
l
r

Predicted Beck Depression Inventory Scores
0|
.....____-___. __l_'-.____ ___._.

 

O ‘ r f; r r . r i I . r r r A n
O O O O O O O O O O O O O
‘— N (0 V l0 0 7‘ Q G O 1- N

OQ-Weighted Hopelessness Scores

Figure 7
Linear and Quadratic Regression Lines Predicting Beck Depression Inventory
Scores from Outlook Questionnaire-Weighted Hopelessness Scores
for the Main Sample

Note. n = 831

72

 

 

45 ~—
40 4— Linear .'
35 T ------ Cubic
30 l— , '

I o’
25 J'~ o’

N
o
t
‘5

 

10«L

Predicted Beck Depression Inventory Scores

 

0.%&.%+ie:ilr+++..
066000
0 ONQCD

20

3

4

5

100 ‘-
r

110 l

120 J-

OQ-Weighted Hopelessness Scores

Figure 8
Linear and Cubic Regression Lines Predicting Beck Depression Inventory
Scores from Outlook Questionnaire-Weighted Hopelessness Scores
for the Main Sample

Note. n = 831

73

 

 

45-.
---Quadratic .
m 40 T ,‘
o .
h o
g; 35 i. ------ Cubic
2'
e ' /
5 30 + , /
> I /
c: ,' /
'2 .- ,
.9 25‘“ .' I,
3 xi,
0 0”
h '1’
8201i" 0/
.7
D .,
{5 /
o 15 + ’
m (I
0"
8 .4"
g 101?- (4‘
8 v”
.-.a-“"
h _.;:;_"
a 5.rr~-°""""
0HHiier+He+++i++llliliisl
° 2 a s s s s 2 s s s e a
1- v- 1-

OQ-Weighted Hopelessness Scores

Figure 9
Quadratic and Cubic Regression Lines Predicting Beck Depression Inventory
Scores from Outlook Questionnaire-Weighted Hopelessness Scores
for the Main Sample

Ngte.n=831

74

line where predicted BDI scores reach the threshold for dysphoria (i.e., 10; Kendall et al.,
1987), the line gradually changes over to showing predicted BDI scores increasing at a
positively accelerated rate with increases in hopelessness. Since the portion of the line
corresponding to meaningﬁrl levels of dysphoria and depression are consistent with the
logic of HTD, the OQ-Weighted Hopelessness data will be cautiously viewed as
supporting Hypothesis Two.

Table 13 shows that OQ-hopelessness accounted for 5.5 % of the variance in BDI
scores beyond that accounted for by HS scores F(2, 403) = 40.40, p = .000, but Table 14
shows that OQ-Hopelessness did not account for a signiﬁcant portion of the variance in
BDI scores beyond that accounted for by MHS scores, indicating mixed support for

Hypothesis Eight.

 

The pattern of strong and interesting relationships between the research variables
in this study and two of the demographic variables (i.e., gender, and history of
depression/intervention) suggests that the relationship between h0pelessness and
depression could vary within corresponding demographically deﬁned subgroups of the
research sample. Therefore, while beyond the original scope of this study, it seemed
prudent to re-examine the central hypotheses of this study (i.e., Hypotheses One and Two;
see Appendix A) within such subsamples.

The separation of the main research sample by history of depression/intervention
was complicated by the very small number of participants who reported that they had been
treated for depression with medication alone (n = 5) or with medication and psychological

counseling (n = 18). Similarly, even the number of participants who reported being treated

75

 

 

 

mmmcmmoHoaom
oHo.N ooN. oo.H Noo. mom. ooo. omueonzloo N
oHo.H ooo. oN.ooN Hmm. Hmm. mom. mm: H
Ho AH Nm 2H mmam mom Na m mmem zH mmem
mozmmo Nm zH m>HH¢szoo ammmHzm mHmmHmm>
mom m mozamo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

monoom Hmmzv meom mmodmmmHmaom pmHMHcoz you mcHHHouucoo umumm
mouoom mmoCmmmeaom pouanmzioo co HHQmV conmoumwQ mo conmoHdmm mHQHuHsz Ho muHsmom

 

 

 

oH mHan
mmmcmmmHoQom
moo.N ooo. oo.oo moo. one. moo. omononzloo N
ooo.H ooo. oo.ooN Hoe. Hoo. mmo. mm H
Ho AH Nm zH swam moo Nm m mmHm zH mmam
mozmmo Nm zH m>HH¢Hozou ommmazm mHmmHmm>
mom a mozomo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmuoom Ammo meom mmmcmmoHoQom How ocHHHouucoo kuum
wmuoom mmmdmmoHomom poucmHmzioo co HHQmV conmqumQ mo conmmHmmm mHQHuHsz we muHsmmm

MH mHQme

 

 

76

for depression with psychological counseling alone (n = 82) was small in comparison to
those who reported never having been depressed (I: = 167) or having a history of
depression with no treatment (n = 565). While the relative representation of participants in
each of these subgroups is not surprising, the smaller subgroups do not lend as well to
curvilinear regression analyses. Therefore, for the purposes of the follow-up analyses,
participants who reported having been treated for depression with psychological
counseling and/or medication were combined into a single group (n = 105).

Given this re-categorization of the history of depression/intervention variable,
another set of analyses of variance was conducted to determine whether the means of the
research variables still varied signiﬁcantly across the new categories. Table 15 shows the
abbreviated results of those tests (as well as a reiteration of the corresponding analyses for
gender, from Table 3). In order to allow for a test of linearity in the variation of research
variable means along a progression of presumably more serious depression histories, the
categories were sequentially coded in the order of: never depressed, history of depression
with no treatment, and history of depression treated with medication and/or psychological
counseling. In every instance, the means for each research variable were found to differ
between groups, and the progressive linearity of the diﬁ‘erences between the means was
supported.

Table 16 shows an abbreviated representation of the results of the individual tests
of Hypothesis One (see Appendix A) that were conducted using each of the measures of
hopelessness within each of the demographic subsamples for the variables of gender and
history of depression/intervention (see Appendix K for full representations of these

analyses). For convenience, the abbreviated results of the corresponding tests done with

77

.umououGH HMHucouom no muHsmou ucmoHuHconrcoc oumoHch moHHMUH uquz
.ucmonHcmHm uocum: .mmocmmoHoaom pounmwozioou.m.3ioo .mmocmmonaomiooumioo .COHuomumHummmHo Umuoomxm
IOOH.Q.MIOO .onom mmocmmoHoQO voHuHUOZMmmZ .onom mmocmmoHoQomumm .>uouco>cH COHmmoquQ xuomnHom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hooo.o Hooo.o Hooo.o Hooo.o Hooo.o Hooo.o HHuHummcHH ".on_
NoH H.mo NoH N.oo voH o.mo Hm N.mN om o.m moH N.NH “x9 oqu .mo»
Nom o.oo oom m.Ho mom o.oo ooN N.oN moN o.o Nom o.o "x9 0: nqu .mm»
moH o.oN ooH o.NN ooH o.oo so o.oH Ho H.N ooH m.m oz
mNo iooo.o moo Aooo.o moo Aooo.o 4N4 Aooo.o ooo iooo.v omo Aooo.v Nomommmooo om>m
omN o.oo omN o.oN omN «.mo oNH o.NN ooH m.o mmN m.o mHmz
Nom o.oo mom H.No oom v.oo mom v.MN ooN m.m mom o.o mHmemo
oNo Hooo.o moo Hooo.o moo Hooo.o owe Homo.o moo HmHo.o voo Amoo.o .mmozmo
name: name: memo: name: name: mcmoz
: H.ono : H.ono a H.ono c H.0Hmo a H.ono : ..ono
.m.s-oo oloo .o.o-oo mm: mm Hoo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

concotooctcoamoaoa .Ho ootoHoE votoqom .3835 .Ho :oHHoHoHEBE paused 2: Ba 8950 .Ho one—pots» oqueonoD
2: so 2230 cocoomom $83.4 oo_noto> Hooccoqooﬁ o5 Enocoaoa 2: How ooooom :82 E moocoooha 8:05 aooaoom

mannﬂH

78

Hoo.qu.I

Hove"...

move".

.ucmonHGon uocum: .nmocmnoHomom vougmﬁoaloou=3roo .nmocnmoHoQomioonmioo .GOHuummmHummmHo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CoHuco>kucH\conmouQmm mo >HoumHm cam Hopcow Ho moHQwHum>

pouoonMIoouleoo .meom mmmcmmeomom pmHMHUoZummz .onum wmoCmmoHoaomum: .zuou:w>:H COHmmoquo xuomnHom
owoo. mamoo. mavoo. avoo. omEIOO m
NOH tarmac. mmm amoo. me m:Hoo. me mShoo. Ohm 444mmo. Hmm 4¢+®No. NISIOO N
assoNN. +4¢HHH. saimHH. *ithH. stsmmH. aiaOOH. THEIOO H
«PNO. mcooo. mCHOO. mrHHoo. mcooo. HEIOO m
NOH +aHmo. How aamHo. bmH m:HHO. PmN iVHo. mnm aaammo. hmm +4¢mNo. NmIOO N
+aimmN. aiiNmH. «itMON. iiaHMN. {##wMN. titOVN. THIOO H
+HNO. mCHOO. m:Hoo. mCNOO. mCooo. mCHoo. onlOO m
VOH ##imMH. me 44ammo. wwH imNo. th ahHo. vrm 4+4mwo. wmm asiHmo. NomIOO N
iastm. iitNMN. iiiNmH. ##imVN. +44va. iiith. DMIOO H
4MHO. mCmNO. mCHOO. m:voo. mmmz M
Hm owmo. mmN ithNo. vm iiowo. mNH mQHOO. me saawNo. va +¢4mNo. Nmmz N
isioov. iiimom. iiiOFN. iiamHN. iiaNmm. afommm. mm: H
mcHHo. mcooo. mcooo. mm: m
vm 44mmo. OPN mCHoo. Hm mCHOO. NMH mCHOO. VPN isaHvo. OHv «abHo. Nmm N
aaahHw. aiime. satchH. isaomm. 4*.«MNV. 444Hov. mm H
C Nm ZH C Nm ZH G Nm ZH c Nm 2H C Nm 2H C Nm ZH H<HZOZ
mwz<mu m02<m0 w02<mu HOZ€EU moz¢mu MUZ¢SU INHOm mmBm
.XB Dm2\%mm BZWZBﬁEB OZ MHmz/Nm
IZOHmmmmme IZOmewmmMQ QMmmmmme MH<Z MH(me mumdmmmm
m0 MmOBmHm m0 MmOBmHm mm>mz ZHdZ

can now moHQEmmnsm oHanuwoﬁwo can no comm cquHz mmocmmoHoaom uo wHSmmwz comm

mcHwD pmuusccoo ones Dose oco meonuom>m Ho wumoa HmspH>Hch Mo muHsmom cwDMH>ounn<
mH wHQMH

79

the main research sample are also included in Table 16. For each curvilinear regression
analysis conducted, Table 16 provides the following information: a) the measure of
hopelessness that served as the independent variable on which BDI scores were regressed,
b) the highest power to which the independent variable was raised (i.e., degree of
polynomial) in each step of the analysis, c) the incremental change in R" (i.e., 1/100tll of the
increment in the percent of BDI variance accounted for) achieved at each step in the
analysis, d) the degree of signiﬁcance associated with each step, and e) the number of
participants involved in each analysis.

In Table 16, for every instance where the quadratic regression line (i.e.
corresponding to Step 2) was found to account for a signiﬁcant increment in the BDI
variance, the regression coefﬁcient and visual inspection of the regression line was
consistent with support for Hypothesis Two (see Appendix A). Similarly, for every
instance where the cubic regression line (i.e. corresponding to Step 3) was found to
account for a signiﬁcant increment in the BDI variance, the extra curve in the line did not
substantially detract from interpreting the line as generally representing depression as
increasing at an accelerated rate with increases in hopelessness.

Analyses using the HS to operationalize hopelessness supported Hypotheses One
and Two for females and those with a history of depression with treatment, but not for
males, those who were never depressed and those with a history of depression without
treatment. Analyses using the MHS to operationalize hopelessness supported Hypotheses
One and Two for all but the subsamples representing males and those with a history of
depression with treatment. Analyses using OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction as the

independent variable supported Hypotheses One and Two across all tests, and analyses

80

using OQ-Hopelessness supported Hypotheses One and Two for all subsamples except for
those who were never depressed. Analyses using OQ-Weighted Hopelessness supported
Hypotheses One and Two for all subsamples except for males and those who were never

depressed.

Discussion

When considered relative to the main research sample, the results of this study
provide strong support for the general hypothesis that the relationship between
concomitant levels of hopelessness and depression is curvilinear with level of depression
increasing at a positively accelerated rate with respect to corresponding increases in the
level of hopelessness. Restated, such curvilinearity simultaneously indicates that level of
hopelessness increases at a negatively accelerated rate with respect to corresponding
increases in the level of depression. These relative trends directly reﬂect the causal
asymmetry of the postulate of the Hopelessness Theory of Depression (HTD) that
hopelessness is a sufﬁcient, but not a necessary cause of depression.

That is, since HTD represents hopelessness as an unnecessary cause of depression,
it allows for depression in either the presence or absence of hopelessness. Conversely,
since HTD represents hopelessness as a sufficient cause of depression, it allows for
hopelessness only in the presence of depression — except for during an unspeciﬁed period
of latency from the onset of hopelessness to the onset of hopelessness depression. The
directly derivable condition that greater levels of hopelessness would be progressively less
likely to be associated with relatively lower levels of depression is wholly consistent with
the presently demonstrated curvilinear relationship between hopelessness and depression.

Therefore, the corresponding results of this study are consistent with, though not

81

82

speciﬁcally conﬁrming of, the postulate of the Hopelessness Theory of Depression (HT D)
that hopelessness is a sumcient, but not a necessary cause of depression.

When tested using the main research sample, HTD-consistent curvilinearity in the
relationship between hopelessness and depression was supported across all ﬁve
Operationalizations of hopelessness (i.e., scores on the HS, MHS, OQ-Expected
Dissatisfaction, OQ-Hopelessness and OQ-Weighted Hopelessness).However, when the
research sample was divided based on the demographic variables of gender or history of
depression/intervention, some inconsistencies in the support for HTD-consistent
curvilinearity were revealed. Further, these inconsistencies varied across measures of
hopelessness. In order to give systematic attention to each facet of these inconsistencies,
they will be considered from the perspectives of history of depression/intervention, gender,
and type of measure of hopelessness, respectively.

1.. u 0,..910‘ 01-11I,"\',-OII0:’h°-i‘IIOI" I‘ no hm' or

All analyses using the re-coded interpretation of the demographic variable of

history of depressionfrntervention are based on the assumption that there is a meaningful
progression in the severity of participants' histories of depression from the reporting of no
history of depression, to reporting of a history of depression with no treatment, to
reporting of a history of depression treated with psychological counseling and/or
medication. This assumption is supported by the ﬁnding that mean scores on the BDI and
on all ﬁve measures of hopelessness show signiﬁcant between groups differences that are
characterized by increments that directly correspond with the progression across

subgroups of severity of history of depression (see Table 15).

83

In that context, tests for HTD-consistent curvilinearity in the relationship between
hopelessness and depression seem to be most strongly supported in the subgroup with the
most severe history of depression (see Table 16). Such curvilinearity was supported across
every measure of hopelessness except for the MHS (and in that instance, the MHS might
have supported curvilinearity as well given a larger number of participants since the
increment in BDI variance accounted for by the non-signiﬁcant quadratic step in the
curvilinear regression analysis was still 3.3%). Further, for the four measures of
hopelessness that supported HTD-consistent curvilinearity in the history of depression
with treatment subsample, the increment in BDI variance accounted for by quadratic step
of the curvilinear regression analysis was greater in that subsample than in the main sample
or any other subsample (ranging from a 5.8% increment accounted for by the HS, to a
13.9% increment accounted for by OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction).

Similar, although more moderate results were found in subsample reporting a
history of depression without treatment. HTD-consistent curvilinearity in the relationship
between hopelessness and depression was supported across all measures of hopelessness
except for the HS. Within this subsample, and excepting the test using the HS, the
quadratic step of the curvilinear regression analysis accounted for signiﬁcant increments in
BDI variance ranging ﬁom 0.9% in the case of OQ-Weighted Hopelessness to 3.8% in the
case of OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction.

In the subsample reporting no history of depression, HTD-consistent curvilinearity
in the relationship between hopelessness and depression was supported only when
hopelessness was operationalized using the MHS or OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction.

Therefore, while results varied across Operationalizations of hopelessness, there is an

84

apparent trend for HTD-consistent curvilinearity in the relationship between hopelessness
and depression to be most strongly associated with individuals reporting a more severe
history of depression.

Some insight into the foundation of this relationship can be gained by looking at
differences among these subgroups on the component scales of the OQ (i.e., the Want,
Expect, Control and Care scales). Table 17 shows that the three subgroups deﬁned by
history of depression/intervention show no between group diﬁ‘erences in the degree to
which participants want positive outcomes to occur, or in the degree to which they want
negative outcomes to occur.‘ Similarly, there are no between group differences in the
degree to which participants care whether positive outcomes occur, or in the degree to
which they care whether negative outcomes occur. There are however, signiﬁcant and
systematic between group differences indicating that as participants' histories of depression
become more severe, they are less likely to expect positive outcomes to occur, more likely
to expect negative outcomes to occur, and less likely to expect to be able to control the
occurrence of positive and negative outcomes.

While this study did not assess whether participants' expectations for control were
realistic, the results seem consistent with the ﬁndings of Alloy and Clements (1992), that
students who were more susceptible to believing they had control in situations where they
actually did not were less vulnerable to negative affect, discouragement and depressive
symptoms following stressﬁll experiences. Similarly, Dixon, Heppner and Rudd (1994)
found that participant's appraisals of their own global problem-solving abilities had an
indirect effect through hopelessness on the prediction of suicidal ideation. Also, Haaga,

Fine, Terrill, Stewart and Beck (1995) found that viewing problems as manageable

85

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.COHumoHpoﬁ uo\pcm mcwHomcsoo HmommoHonommm nqu ucoﬁumoua u x9 .uonﬁdc u c
H<\zo H<\zo Hooo.o Hooo.o HHuHummcHH ".mHmH
moH o.oo moH o.oo moH m.Nm moH o.oo "x9 nqu .mo»
Nom o.om Nom o.ov «mm m.mo «mm m.oo "as o: nqu mow
ooH o.oo moH o.om ooH o.om ooH o.oo oz
moo Hon.o Nmo Homo.o ooo Hooo.o ooo Hooo.o Noummmmmmo mm>u
omN o.mo omN o.oo omN N.mo omN H.No mHmz
mom o.oo mom o.om mom m.mm mom N.oo oHano
mmo Hooo.o Nmo Hooo.o ooo HHmm.o ooo Hooo.o “mmozmo
meow: meow: mcmoz mcmoz
a l.onoc c A.oHoo : H.ono : H.ono
moﬁoo so moEoouso moﬁoo so mmﬁoouso
o>Hum oz o>HUHmom 0>Hum oz o>HuHmom
"mmuoom mm<o ”mouoom mm<u "omuooo Homezoo "monoum Homazoo
How mﬁdm coax How mEdm :moz you mEdm cam: now mﬁdm coo:
Hooo._ Hooo.o H<\zo Haxzo HHuHummcHH ”.mHmo
moH H.oN moH H.om moH o.o moH o.om "x9 nqu mm»
mom o.oN mom m.No mom H.o omm o.om "as on moH: .mm»
moH o.HN omH m.mo omH o.o ooH m.om oz
ooo looo.o ooo Hooo.o ooo AoNo.o ooo Homo.o Nommmmmomo mm>m
omN H.4N HoN o.oo HoN o.o HoN o.om mHaz
oom o.oN oom o.No oom o.o oom o.om mHmeoo
ooo HHoo.o omo Homo.o omo HHNo.o ioooo AoHo.o Homozmo
MEMOS mcmvz mammz mcmwz
c H.oHooe a H.oHoo a H.ono : H.ono
moﬁoo so moEouuso moﬁoo so moﬁoouso
o>Hum oz o>HuHmom o>Hum oz 0>HUHmom
"mmuoom Bummxm "mouoom Bummxm "mouoom "mouoom

How mEdm and:

 

Mom mﬁdw coo:

 

9243 uOu mEdm coo:

 

ez<z mom masm new:

 

 

GOHuco>uoucH\:0Hmmmummo mo muoumHm m.uoonnsm mo coaumuwumuoucH popcoiom on» can
Hovcmw mo moHQMHum> OHSQwumoEoo mnu mmouu< ouHmccoauwoso xooHuso on» no
monom ucmcomﬁoo on» so moEoouso o>Hummoz paw w>HuHmom now mouoom 83m com:
pH mHnma

86

challenges was inversely related to depressive symptom severity (as well as dependency
and anxiety). Together, these studies suggest that a future outlook involving expectations
that problems will be manageable and that goals will be attainable tends to provide some
resilience against depression in the face of stresses or challenges. Correspondingly, Kant,
D'Zurilla and Maydeu-Olivares (1997) found that actual problem solving deﬁcits mediated
the relationship between everyday problems and depression in the middle-aged and elderly,
suggesting that apart from "illusion of control," (Alloy & Clements, 1992; p.234), actual
practical resources for exercising control are relevant to warding oﬁ‘ the onset of
depression.

As compared to the three OQ measures, The structure of the HS and the MHS do
not lend so readily to examination of the bases for group differences in scores. So while
these two measures functioned in dramatically diﬂ‘erent manners across subsamples
deﬁned by history of depression/intervention (i.e., differing within each subsample with
regard to supporting the curvilinearity hypothesis or not), these diﬂ‘erences suggest more
about disparate discriminative properties of the two scales than they do about the bases of
between group diﬁ‘erences in scores on them. Therefore, consideration of the differential
functioning of the HS and the MHS will be addressed in a later section that discusses the
different Operationalizations of hopelessness.

Because this study used a non-clinical sample, generalization of the above ﬁndings
and interpretations as they relate to severity of depression history to individuals with
clinical depression must be done cautiously. While the potential relevance of the ﬁndings
are supported by the contention of Hill, Kemp-Wheeler and Jones (1987), who state that

"although there are some differences of emphasis in relative symptom severity, subclinical

87

depression in students can be considered as offering a fairly accurate ‘model' of clinical
depression, " and that "we are inclined to conclude that analogue studies of depression
using students are, to a reasonable extent, justiﬁable"(p. 119), further investigation in
clinical samples is clearly warranted.

r 0'r 91. r‘ Al or to 3‘; am _I...' ‘, nu D‘u' or

Among females, HTD-consistent curvilinearity in the relationship between
hopelessness and depression was supported across all ﬁve measures of hopelessness.
Among males, however, such curvilinearity was supported only when hopelessness was
operationalized using OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction and OQ-Hopelessness scores - and in
those two instances, the increment in BDI variance accounted for by the quadratic step of
the curvilinear regression analysis was less than one third the size of the corresponding
increment for females (see Table 16).

This pattern of results raises the question of whether the relationship between
hopelessness and depression may be different for males and females. However,
examination of this question ﬁrst requires the examination of gender diﬁ'erences in
hopelessness and depression separately. The incidence of depression among adult women
is widely accepted and reliably reported to be about twice the incidence among adult men
(of. Nolen-Hoeksema, 1987, 1990; Weissman & Klerrnan, 1977). This relative prevalence
of depression among females is consistent with the ﬁnding in this study of a signiﬁcantly
higher mean BDI score among females (9.0) than among males (7.5; p = .005).

In contrast to the well established relationship between gender and depression, the
ﬁve measures of hopelessness used in this study showed inconsistent gender differences in

mean scores. Table 15 shows that males scored signiﬁcantly higher than females on the

88

HS, while no gender difference was found on the MHS. In further contrast, females scored
signiﬁcantly higher than males on the three OQ measures.

The lack of consistency in gender difference between the HS and the MHS is
interesting because the two measures differ only with respect to the range of response that
is offered to their identical items. This suggests that the forced choice format of the HS
elicits a gender based response bias that is not elicited (or which is elicited to a
signiﬁcantly different degree) by the ﬁve-point Likert scale format of the MHS. Because
of the simple stmcture of the HS and the MHS though, little data is available from within
the scales that can shed light on possible explanations for their relative diﬂ‘erence in gender
based response bias. About all that can be reasonably speculated is that males are more
likely than females to translate a moderately negative expectation to an extremely negative
one when forced to communicate through a forced choice, true-false response format.

On the other hand, the multi-component structure of the OQ provides a means for
considering how gender differences on the component scales of the CO (i.e., the Want,
Expect, Control and Care scales) contributed to females scoring signiﬁcantly higher than
males on OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction, OQ-Hopelessness and OQ-Weighted
Hopelessness. Table 17 shows mean sums of the Want, Expect, Control and Care Scales
for positive outcomes and negative outcomes items along the demographic variables of
gender and history of depression/intervention. Uniformly, mean Want Scale scores are
greater than mean Expect Scale scores for positive outcomes, and to a greater degree,
mean Expect Scale scores are greater than mean Want Scale scores for negative
outcomes. It is relative to these general differences that the gender diﬁ‘erences on these

scales must be interpreted. In this context, males show lower degrees of desire and greater

89

degrees of expectation for positive outcomes, and greater degrees of desire and lower
degrees of expectation for negative outcomes, and therefore, at every front, seem to be
moderating their vulnerability to hopelessness as measured by OQ-Expected
Dissatisfaction (the level of CO measure that ﬁrst incorporates Want and Expect Scale
scores). Further, males show greater mean Control Scale scores than females for positive
outcomes, indicating that males show a smaller degree of expectation for uncontrollability
about future positive outcomes. No gender diﬂ‘erence is found for expected control for
negative outcomes. Still, where there is a diﬂ‘erence, it is of a nature that would serve to
moderate the vulnerability of males to hopelessness as measured by OQ-Hopelessness (the
level of OQ measure that ﬁrst incorporates Control Scale scores). Finally, males show
smaller Care Scale scores for both positive and negative outcomes, a diﬁ‘erence which
serves to moderate the vulnerability of males to hopelessness as measured by OQ-
Weighted Hopelessness (the level of OQ measure that ﬁrst incorporates Care Scale
scores).

So on average, and as compared to females, males warm positive outcomes less and
negative ones more, they expect positive outcomes more and negative ones less, they
expect to control positive outcomes more and negative ones no more or less, and they
care less about the occurrence of positive or negative outcomes. Taken together, no
matter whether viewed as males showing expectations that serve to moderate their
vulnerability to hopelessness, or as females showing expectations that serve to increase
their vulnerability to hopelessness, the pattern of gender differences on the composite

scales of the OQ suggest a largely uniform basis for females showing higher hopelessness

90

scores on OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction, OQ-Hopelessness and OQ-Weighted
Hopelessness.

Taking the preceding together then, the issue of considering the impact of gender
on the relationship between hopelessness and depression must be done in view of a) a
reliable and substantially greater incidence of depression among women than among men,
b) disparate and conﬂicting estimates from different measures of hopelessness regarding
whether males or females show higher levels of hopelessness, or whether there is no
gender diﬂ‘erence, and c) consistent results showing across measures of hopelessness that
the curvilinearity hypotheses of this study are more strongly supported for females than for
males, and that for the HS, the MHS and OQ-Weighted Hopelessness, the curvilinearity
hypotheses were not supported for males.

Given this last point in particular, the question becomes how to explain why
support for the curvilinearity hypotheses of this study seems to be so strong among the
female subsample and either absent or tenuous among the male subsample. Two possible
explanations stand out. First, it is possible that the combination of depression being about
half as prevalent in men than in women, and the over two to one ratio of females to males
in the present study, together served to render the male subsample too small to provide a
robust test of the curvilinearity hypotheses. This possibility is supported by the fact that of
the 105 participants who reported having a history of depression with treatment, only 22
were male. Therefore only 8.5% of the 259 males in the research sample reported a history
of depression with treatment. This compares to 83 out of 576 females, or 14.4% reporting
a history of depression with treatment. Given that the logic supporting the formulation of

the curvilinearity hypotheses involved a consideration of the expectation that differential

91

concentrations of data points would systematically occur in the relatively oﬂ-diagonal
regions of a scatter plot (i.e., in the regions away from the linear regression line), it seems
plausible that male subsample was too small to reliably demonstrate such oﬂldiagonal data
points across all of the measures of hopelessness.

A second possible explanation is that the HTD postulate that hopelessness is a
suﬂicient, but not a necessary cause of depression is more reliably true for females than it
is for males. However, implicit in this explanation is the suggestion that females have a
lower threshold for hopelessness than males, such that lower levels of hopelessness would
be necessary to act as a sufﬁcient cause of hopelessness depression. However, the gender
differences on the component scales of the OQ suggest that rather than having a lower
threshold for hopelessness, females tend to have wants, expectations, beliefs about control
and cares about future outcomes that make them more vulnerable to experiencing higher
levels of hopelessness than males.

Taken together, the above considerations allow for the possibility that gender may
actually have no impact on the relationship between hopelessness and depression. That is,
if the OQ Operationalizations of hopelessness are accepted as accurately reﬂecting
hopelessness as conceptualized by HTD (as opposed to the HS or the MHS), then based
on the gender differences on the component scales of the OQ, it could be argued that
gender actually has its impact through females showing a higher probability of
experiencing hopelessness, and that this is then directly translated into a greater
vulnerability of females to hopelessness depression. So the direct relationship between
hopelessness and depression (i.e. the threshold for hopelessness as a suﬂicient cause of

hopelessness depression) would be no different for males or females. Rather, it would be

92

just be a relationship more frequently exercised by females than by males. This
interpretation is consistent with the ﬁnding of Johnson (1992), that attributional style and
daily negative life events interacted to predict change in hopelessness levels for females
but not for males.

However, this interpretation must be viewed as quite speculative. While it is
derived from the available data, its validity rests on the assumption of the validity of the
OQ measures of hopelessness (which is not yet ﬁrlly established), and the assumption that
the curvilinearity hypotheses of this study would be supported in a larger sample of males,
or at least in a sizable sample of depressed males. It must also be cautioned that it is
possible that gender diﬁ‘erences in the general incidence of depression could be attributable
to possible relationships between gender and the causes of non-hopelessness subtypes of
depression.

Pursuit of an explanation for why females may show a pattern of desire,
expectation, perceived control and caring about ﬁlture outcomes that makes them more
vulnerable to hopelessness than males might well consider the differences in the cultural
forces that come to bear on males and females in American society. While indirectly
relevant to the issue of gender, it is worth noting that Cross-cultural diﬂ‘erences in
pessimism have been identiﬁed between mainland Chinese and American sub-cultures (Lee
& Seligrnan, 1997), as have differences in pessimism between a number of American sub-
cultures (Chang, 1996; Lee & Seligrnan, 1997; Sethi & Seligrnan, 1993). While
explanations for the differences found in these studies vary and do not relate directly to

gender, when taken together with this study, it seems that a more comprehensive

93

examination of cultural, sub-cultural, and gender differences in hopelessness and its
relation to depression is warranted and could prove quite illuminating.

['1 ,.II0..2..I 0 I'.’L‘<0II.0:'\AHI!00“ I’ 41' .'0' GI

Among the more unexpected ﬁndings in this study are those showing the dramatic
differences in the functioning of the HS and the MHS, even though the structure of the
scales differ only with regard to the range of response they offer. First, males score
signiﬁcantly higher than females on the HS, while no gender diﬂ‘erence is found on the
MHS. Second, among the subsamples deﬁned by history of depression/intervention, the
HS supports the curvilinearity hypothesis only among those reporting a history of
depression with treatment, while conversely, the MHS supports the curvilinearity
hypothesis only among the remaining subsamples (i.e., history of depression without
treatment and no history of depression). Adding to these opposing results is the ﬁnding
that the quadratic step of the curvilinear regression analyses using the MHS accounts for a
larger signiﬁcant increment in BDI variance in the subsample reporting no history of
depression (6.0%; p < .01) than it does for the main research sample or any other
subsample.

Yet the HS and the MHS ﬁmction similarly in other areas. For example, both the
HS and MHS correlate comparably with the BDI. Also, the HS and MHS both support
the curvilinearity hypotheses in the main research sample and in the female subsample, but
neither support the curvilinearity hypotheses in the male subsample.

Some issues relevant to considering the inconsistent ﬁmctioning of the HS and the

MHS have been reported since the conceptualization and implementation of this study. In

94

contrast to the factor analyses conducted by Beck et al. (1974), Hill et al. (1988) and
Nekanda-Trepka et al. (1983) which collectively support a three factor interpretation of
the HS (see pp. 22-23 above), two later studies suggest that a one factor interpretation of
the HS as a uni-dimensional assessment of pessimism is more conceptually sound (Chang,
D'Zun'lla & Maydeu-Olivares, 1994; Young, Halper, Clark, Scheftner & Fawcett, 1992).
Both of these studies comment on the strong sensitivity of the HS at extreme levels of
hopelessness as well as on the apparent insensitivity of the HS to more moderate levels of
pessimism. A third study evaluating the HS implemented the scale using a ﬁve-point
response format ranging from "strongly agree" to " strongly disagree" (i.e., similar, but not
identical to the ﬁve-point response format ranging ﬁ'om "almost always true" to "never
true" used for the MHS in this study), and concluded that the scale measures separate but
related dimensions of optimism and pessimism (Marshall, Wortman, Kusulas, Hervig &
Vickers, 1992). In comparing their studies, Chang et al. (1994, p. 158) comment on the
Marshall et al. (1992) study stating that "it is possible that the 5-point Likert-type format
changed the nature of the HS from a uni-dimensional to a bi-dimensional scale... [and
that] the original HS and the modiﬁed HS may be tapping somewhat diﬂ‘erent constructs."
Integrating the comments of Chang et al. (1994) with the results of this study, it
could be argued that while the HS shows strong sensitivity at higher levels of hopelessness
and weaker sensitivity at lower levels of hopelessness, the reverse may be true of the
MHS. That is, by acting as a bi-dimensional measure of optimism as well as pessimism, the
MHS may be sacriﬁcing its sensitivity to the relatively more extreme levels of hopelessness
expected to be associated with the most severe levels of depression. Such a reality would

be consistent with the disparate functioning of the HS and the MHS across the subsamples

95

deﬁned by history of depression/intervention in this study. However, this interpretation of
the data does not explain how the HS and the MHS could both support the curvilinearity
hypotheses in the female subsample but not in the male subsample. Also, the
reinterpretation of the HS as a one factor measure has not achieved consensus. Dyce
(1996), for example, argues for the three factor model of the HS because the factors are
consistent across high and low scorers in a sample of outpatients divided into subsamples
by a median split. So without further investigation, the preceding interpretation must be
viewed as speculation.

Many facets of the similarities and differences in the ﬁmctioning of the three OQ
measures of hopelessness have already been addressed in the preceding discussions.
However, even though the OQ is only being piloted in this study, the data allow for a
preliminary consideration of the relative merits of the three OQ measures as successive
approximations of hopelessness as conceptualized by HTD.

Of the three OQ measures, OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction appears to be the most
powerful predictor of depression, both as it correlates directly with BDI scores, and as it
functions in correlational regression analyses to test the curvilinearity hypotheses within
the main research sample and across each of the demographically deﬁned subsamples
under consideration. Then, OQ-Hopelessness accounts for a greater degree of variance in
BDI scores across tests than does OQ-Weighted Hopelessness, with the exception of the
subsample deﬁned by participants reporting a history of depression with treatment. With
this one exception aside then, as the three OQ measures progress toward operationalizing
hopelessness as it is conceptualized by HTD, the measures account for smaller portions of

the variance in BDI scores (see Table I6).

96

Two explanations for this trend merit consideration. First, it is necessarily the case
that as each successive OQ measure incorporates another component variable of the OQ
(i.e., as Control Scale scores are incorporated into OQ-Hopelessness scores, and as Care
Scale scores are incorporated into OQ-Weighted Hopelessness scores), that there will be a
corresponding accumulation of measurement error. To the degree that increments in
measurement error may outweigh the increments in new and relevant information
associated with the incorporation of each additional component variable into the
successive OQ measures of hopelessness, the predictive power of the resulting measure
will be weakened.

A second possible explanation is that as the successive OQ measures of
hopelessness more accurately reﬂect hopelessness as it is conceptualized by HTD, their
true association with depression diminishes. Since HTD states that hopelessness
depression is only one of many possible subtypes of depression, it is possible that as
hopelessness as deﬁned by HTD is more accurately operationalized and distinguished from
more general Operationalizations of hopelessness, that its relationship with depression in
general may diminish as its speciﬁcity to hopelessness depression increases. This would
mean that the measurement of hopelessness on the successive OQ measures become more
reﬁned, they would account for a smaller portion of the variance in depression in general,
but would account for a greater proportion of the variance in hopelessness depression in
particular. However, without a reliable and accepted standard for hopelessness as
conceptualized by HTD to which measures can be compared, such explanations must for

now remain speculative.

97

Even if the processes in the second explanation just described were true, they
could not operate independently from the damaging effects of accumulated measurement
error, so the issue of a trade-oﬂ‘ between gains in useful information and the costs of
accumulated measurement error would remain. Such a concurrent operation of both
explanations could explain why the quadratic step of the curvilinear regression analyses
using OQ-Weighted Hopelessness accounts for a larger signiﬁcant increment in BDI
variance in the subsample reporting a history of depression with treatment (i.e., 9.3%)
than does the corresponding step in the analysis using the less complex OQ-Hopelessness,
which accounts for only a 6.1 % increment in BDI variance. That is, while the predictive
value of the conceptual accuracy of OQ-Weighted Hopelessness may be outweighed by
accumulated measurement error when the measure is applied in the main research sample
or other subsamples, the balance may shift when it is applied with participants who have a
more severe history of depression. Again though, such explanations remain speculative.

Finally, all three of OQ measures account for a signiﬁcant increment in BDI
variance (ranging from 5.5% to 10.5%) beyond that accounted for by the HS, and all but
OQ-Weighted Hopelessness account for a signiﬁcant increment in BDI variance beyond
that accounted for by the MHS. Therefore, the OQ measures seem clearly to be tapping
into a unique and sizable aspect of depression relative to that accounted for by the HS,
and to a lesser degree the MHS. Therefore, ﬁrrther research considering the differential
properties and relative merits of all of the measures of hopelessness used in this study
appears to be warranted.

The OQ, with its multi-faceted approach to assessing individuals' orientation to

possible future outcomes, may also have utility in addressing concerns raised by other

98

studies about the differential inﬂuences that independent measures of future thinking have
on research results (MacLeod & Byme, 1996; MacLeod & Cropley, 1995). Speciﬁcally,
MacLeod and Cropley (1995) state:

The role played by future-directed thinking in emotional disturbance is an

important but understudied area. General terms such as pessimism,

negative expectancies, and even hopelessness may be useful in some

contexts but it is clear that they mask diﬂerent dimensions of future-

thinking and that these dimensions may be differentially involved in

emotional disturbances such as depression, parasuicide, and anxiety. Future

research should try to map out some of the dimensions of future-thinking,

using a variety of tasks and measures, and understand how these different

dimensions relate to different forms of emotional disturbance (p. 49).

Generally speaking, inasmuch as this study has supported the HTD postulate that
hopelessness is a sufﬁcient cause of depression, efforts to inoculate at-risk individuals
against the onset of hopelessness depression through therapy and psycho-education geared
toward reducing cognitive vulnerabilities to hopelessness (as delineated by HTD and an
expanse of other relevant literature) are all the more justiﬁed. Similarly, for individuals
who are suﬁ‘ering a depression with strong concurrent feelings of hopelessness, cognitive
interventions aimed at patterns of unrealistic negative expectations about the ﬁrture
outcomes and their ability to control them also seem justiﬁed.

This study has more speciﬁc implications, however, about the practical and

relevant use of diﬂ‘erent measures of hopelessness in research and in clinical settings. This

99

study provides support for the contention that the HS has poorer discriminative power at
lower levels of hopelessness than at higher levels. However, except when applied to
participants with less severe or no depression histories, each of the alternative measures of
hopelessness accounts for a smaller portion of BDI variance than does the HS. While it is
possible that the other measures are more accurately measuring an aspect of hopelessness
(or in the case of the MHS, optimism) that correlates lower with depression than the HS,
this is far ﬁ'om determined, and is therefore a consideration better left to future research
than to clinical practice.

This is especially so when suicidality is a clinical issue. There are no data in this
study to suggest that any of the alternative measures of hopelessness might be superior to
the HS in predicting eventual suicide. Therefore, research on the utility of the OQ and the
MHS in predicting suicide related ideation and behavior would most responsibly include
the use of the HS as well.

Conversely, the OQ may have considerable potential as a clinical tool as a means
to assess the foundation of an individual's ﬁrture outlook. Speciﬁcally, the component
Want, Expect, Control and Care Scales of the OQ, with their separate evaluation of
orientation toward possible positive and negative outcomes, could assist in identifying
which aspects of an individual's ﬁrture outlook seem to be reasonable or irrational. This
information could be helpﬁrl in focusing interventions on changing maladaptive aspects of
ﬁrture orientation while reinforcing aspects that seem healthy. While the estimation norms
for the general population as well as for relevant clinically and demographically deﬁned
sub-populations would greatly increase the clinical utility of the OQ, but further

reﬁnement and validation of the measure will necessarily precede such an endeavor.

100

While the apparently weak sensitivity of the MHS to higher levels of hopelessness
is a serious limitation, it may still have utility as a research and clinical measure. Marshall
et al. (1992) identify separate optimism and pessimism factors in a similarly modiﬁed
version of the HS. While appropriate research must precede the clinical use of this
measure, the possible merits of using the MHS with individuals with either moderate levels
of hopelessness or even manic-like symptoms seems to justify research in these areas.

Summary

The results of this study provide strong, but not uniform support for the
hypotheses that the relationship between hopelessness and depression is best characterized
as curvilinear, and that this curvilinearity reﬂects depression increasing in a positively
accelerated manner with increases in hopelessness. This ﬁnding is viewed as consistent
with, but not speciﬁcally conﬁrming of the postulate of HTD that hopelessness is a
sufﬁcient, but not a necessary cause of depression.

While uniform support is found for the curvilinearity hypotheses in the main
research sample and the female subsample across all ﬁve measures of hopelessness,
support is mixed across measures of hopelessness in the male subsample and across
participants' reported histories of depression/intervention. However, these areas of mixed
supports are not viewed as speciﬁcally challenging the general support of the curvilinearity
hypotheses. Rather, they are viewed as directing attention to areas where further research
is needed to further clarify the relationship between hopelessness and depression.

Speciﬁcally, replication of this study in a large sample of depressed men and
women would be expected to clarify the impact of gender on the relationship between

hopelessness and depression. Investigation that considers other cross-cultural factors also

101

seems warranted. Also, use of the HS, MHS and the CO in studies designed to speciﬁcally
isolate instances of hopelessness depression could help clarify the relative merits of these
measures in research on HTD. More generally, ﬁrrther investigation of the general

research and clinical utility of the OQ and the MHS seems justiﬁed.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

Hypothesis One: There is a curvilinear relationship between hopelessness and
depression.

Hypothesis Two: The nature of this curvilinearity is consistent with the postulates
of HTD in that depression increases in a positively accelerated manner with increases in
hopelessness.

Hypothesis Three: MHS scores will correlate positively with BDI scores. Further,
the size of this correlation will be qualitatively similar to that of the corresponding
correlation between HS and BDI scores.

Hypothesis Four: As compared to the distribution of HS scores, the distribution of
MHS scores will be characterized by: a) a smaller coeﬁicient of variation, and b) a
skewness value that is closer to zero. Further, though qualitatively, these diﬁ‘erences will
be of a suﬂicient size to suggest that they represent truly meaningful diﬁ‘erences.

Hypothesis Five: Scores on each of the three OQ measures will correlate positively
with scores on the HS.

Hypothesis Six: Scores on each of the three OQ measures will correlate positively
with scores on the BDI. Further, the size of these correlations will be qualitatively similar
to that of the corresponding correlation between HS and BDI scores.

Hypothesis Seven: Scores on each of the three OQ measures will correlate
positively with scores on the MHS.

Hypothesis Eight: Scores on each of the OQ measures will account for a
signiﬁcant portion of the variance in BDI scores beyond that accounted for by their HS or
MHS scores.

102

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

THE HOPE INDEX

INSTRUCT I ONS

Read the item below and circle 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 on the left hand side to
indicate the extent that you would want the item mentioned. Then circle 0, 1,
2, 3, 4, or 5 on the right hand side to indicate the extent to which you
expect the thing mentioned to occur. You may add items for 17 a 18 if you
wish.

To what extend would IN THE NEXT YEAR To what extent do
you want this? you expect this?
0 = not at all 0 a not at all
5 = very much 5 = very much
0 1 2 3 4 5 1. To do well in school or in job 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 2. To have more friends 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 3. To have good health 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 4. To be competent 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 5. To achieve long range goals 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6. To be happy 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 7. To have money 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 8. To have leisure time 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 9. Other people to be helpful 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 10. The crime rate to go down 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 11. The country to be more productive O 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 12. Understanding my family 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 13. Justice in the world 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 14. Peace in the world 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 15. Personal freedom 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 16. Resources for all 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 17. 0 1 2 3 4 5

0 1 2 3 4 5 18. 0 1 2 3 4 5

103

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

THE EXPECTED BALANCE SCALE

This is a survey about how people expect to feel in the future. How will
things go in the future? Indicate the degree which you expect to feel the
following. Circle 1 if you do not expect to feel that way at all, circle 5 if
you expect to feel that way a great deal, and 2, 3, or 4, to indicate a
moderate amount.

How do you expect things to go in the next few weeks?

1 2 3 4 5 1. Will you be annoyed with someone?

I 2 3 4 5 2. Do you expect to feel lonely or remote from
Other people?

1 2 3 4 5 3. Will you feel that things are going your way?

1 2 3 4 5 4. Do you expect to feel worried?

1 2 3 4 5 5. Will you feel pleased because you have good
Friends?

1 2 3 4 5 6. Will you be afraid of what might happen?

1 2 3 4 5 7. Will you feel particularly excited or interested in
Something?

1 2 3 4 5 8. Will you feel depressed or very unhappy?

1 2 3 4 5 9. Do you expect to be full of energy?

1 2 3 4 5 10. Do you expect to feel tired?

1 2 3 4 5 11. Will you feel so restless that you can't sit long
in a chair?

1 2 3 4 5 12. Do you expect to feel that you are really enjoying
yourself?

1 2 3 4 5 13. Will you feel really cheerful?

1 2 3 4 5 14. Do you expect to feel like crying?

1 2 3 4 5 15. Do you think that you will feel like you’re on top
Of the world?

1 2 3 4 5 16. Will you feel confident about the future?

1 2 3 4 5 17. Will you ever feel bored?

1 2 3 4 5 18. ‘Will you feel pleased about having accomplished
Something?

104

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D

THE BECK DEPRESSION INVENTORY
EDI.

This questionnaire consists of 21 groups of statement. After
reading each group of statements carefully, choose the statement
in each group which best describes the way you have been feeling
the past week, including today.

Be sure to read all the statements in each group before making
your choice.

do not feel sad.

feel sad.

am sad all the time and I can't snap out of it.
am so sad or unhappy that I can't stand it.

am not particularly discouraged about the future.
feel discouraged about the future.

feel I have nothing to look forward to.

feel that the future is hopeless and that things

cannot improve.

do not feel like a failure.
feel I have failed more than the average person.

As I look back on my life, all I can see is a lot of

failures.

1. a. I
b. I
c. I
d. I
2. a. I
b. I
c. I
d. I
3. a. I
b. I
c.
d. I
4. a. I
b. I
c. I
d. I
5. a. I
b. I
c. I
d. I
6. a. I
b. I
c. I
d. I
7. a. I
b. I
c. I
d. I

feel I am a complete failure as a person.

get as much satisfaction out of things as I used to.
don’t enjoy things the way I used to.

don't get real satisfaction out of anything anymore.
am dissatisfied or bored with everything.

don't feel particularly guilty.

feel guilty a good part of the time.
feel quite guilty most of the time.
feel guilty all of the time.

don't fell I am being punished.
feel I may be punished.

expect to be punished.

feel I am being punished.

don't feel disappointed in myself.
am disappointed in myself.

am disgusted with myself.

hate myself.

105

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

(1050’

0'0)

106

don't feel I am any worse than anybody else.

am critical of myself for my weaknesses and mistakes.
blame myself all the time for my faults.

blame myself for everything bad that happens.

HHHH

I don't have any thoughts of killing myself.

I have thoughts of killing myself but I would not carry
them out.

I would like to kill myself.

I would kill myself if I had the chance.

I don’t cry anymore than usual.

I cry more now than I used to.

I cry all the time now.

I used to be able to cry, but now I can’t cry even
though I want to.

I am no more irritated now than I ever am.

I get annoyed or irritated more easily than I used to.
I feel irritated all the time now.

I don’t get irritated at all by the things that used to
irritate me.

have not lost interest in other people.

am less interested in other people than I used to be.
have lost most of my interest in other people.

have lost all of my interest in other people.

HHHH

make decisions about as well as I ever could.
put off making decisions more than I used to.
have greater difficulty in making decisions than
before.

I can't make decisions at all anymore.

HHH

I don't feel any worse than I used to.

I am worried that I am looking old or unattractive.

I feel there are permanent changes in my appearance that
make me look unattractive.

I believe that I look ugly.

I can work about as well as before.

It takes an extra effort to get started at doing
something.

I have to push myself very hard to do anything.
I can't do any work at all.

I can sleep as well as usual.

I don’t sleep as well as I used to.

I wake up 1-2 hours earlier than usual and find it hard
to get back to sleep.

I wake up several hours earlier than I used to and
cannot get back to sleep.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

107

I don't get more tired than usual.

I get tired more easily than I used to.
I get tired from doing almost anything.
I am too tired to do anything.

My appetite is no worse than usual.

My appetite is not as good as it used to be.
My appetite is much worse now.

I have no appetite at all anymore.

haven't lost much weight, if any, lately.
have lost more than 5 pounds.
have lost more than 10 pounds.
have lost more than 15 pounds.

HHHI—I

I am no more worried about my health than usual.

I am worried about physical problems such as aches and
pains; or upset stomach; or constipation.

I am very worried about physical problems and it’s hard
to think of much else.

I am so worried about my physical problems that I cannot
think about anything else.

I have not noticed any recent change in my interest in
sex.

I am less interested in sex than I used to be.

I am much less interested in sex now.

I have interest in sex completely.

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

THE MODIFIED HOPELESSNESS SCALE

The Modified HS Scale

Your answers to the items on this inventory are to be recorded on
a separate answer sheet which is attached. Print your name and any other
information requested by the examiner on the answer sheet, then finish
reading these directions.

Read each statement and then blacken the appropriate number on the
answer sheet to indicate the frequency with which the statement is 51;;
when applied to you. Use the following scale:

. Almost always true
Often true
Sometimes true
Rarely true

Never true

UIIbUJNI—l

This is a questionnaire to find out the way in which you view your
expectancies for the future. Each item is a statement about the future.
Please read each item and determine whether it is TRUE or FALSE as
applied to you. This is a measure of personal belief: obviously there
are no right or wrong answers.

22. I look forward to the future with hope and enthusiasm.

23. I might as well give up because I can't make things better for
myself.

24. When things are going badly, I am helped by knowing they can't stay
that way forever.

25. I can't imagine what my life would be like in 10 years.

26. I have enough time to accomplish the things I most want to do.
27. In the future, I expect to succeed in what concerns me most.
28. My future seems dark to me.

29. I expect to get more of the good things in life than the average
person.

30. I just don't get the breaks, and there's no reason to believe I
will in the future.

31. My past experiences have prepared me well for my future.

110

109

Read each statement and then blacken the appropriate number on the

answer sheet to indicate whether the statement is true or false when
applied to you. Use the following scale:

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

1. True
2. False

All I can see ahead of me is unpleasantness rather than
pleasantness.

I don't expect to get what I really want.

When I look ahead to the future, I expect I will be happier than I
am now.

Things just won't work out the way I want them to.
I have great faith in the future.
I never get what I want so it's foolish to want anything.

It is very unlikely that I will get any real satisfaction in the
future.

The future seems vague and uncertain to me.
I can look forward to more good times than bad times.

There's no use in really trying to get something I want because I
probably won't get it.

HS Scale by Beck, Weissman, Lester and Trexler, 1974.

APPENDIX G

APPENDIX G

THE OUTLOOK QUESTIONNAIRE
The Outlook Questionnaire

This is a questionnaire to find out your outlook regarding your
future. Each page has 30 items that describe events that may or may not
happen in the next 4 months. Each page asks a different question about
the listed events, so e se ’ '
pege. Please make your responses on the answer sheet that was provided
to you. This questionnaire asks for your personal beliefs, so clearly,
there are no right or wrong answers.

For items 42 to 71, read each statement and blacken the
appropriate number to indicate the extent to which you gin; the event
that is described to happen in the next 4 months.

Please use the following rating scale:

1 2 3 4 5
not at all very much

Over the next ﬁ_nen§he, to what extent do you ﬂan: ...

42. to have an exclusive relationship (boyfriend, girlfriend, spouse)
43. to feel annoyed with someone close to you

44. to do well in school

45. to feel particularly excited or interested in something

46. to feel like a failure

47. to do poorly on an exam or on a job evaluation

48. to feel pleased with the friends you have

49. to disappoint or let down someone close to you

50. to feel depressed or very sad

51. to feel confident about your future

52. to get along with your family

53. to feel rejected

54. to have good health

55. to feel really happy

56. to feel unmotivated or uninspired

57. to have too little time for your hobbies or leisure activities
58. to feel loved by someone important to you

59. to have fewer friends than you would like

60. to feel like crying

61. to feel pleased about having accomplished something
62. to be invited to a social event or party

63. to feel lonely or remote from other people

64. to have enough money

65. to feel full of energy

66. to feel overwhelmed

67. to put off doing something you think you should do
68. to feel popular

69. to be rejected in love or romance

70. to feel worried or anxious

71. to feel competent or skillful

112

113

For items 72 to 101, read each statement and blacken the
appropriate number to indicate the extent to which you 352‘s; the event
that is described to happen in the next 4 months.

Please use the following rating scale:

1, 2 3 4 5
Not at all very much

Over the next j_geg;hg, to what extent do you EXEEQI ...

72. to have an exclusive relationship (boyfriend, girlfriend, spouse)
73. to feel annoyed with someone close to you

74. to do well in school

75. to feel particularly excited or interested in something
76. to feel like a failure

77. to do poorly on an exam or on a job evaluation

78. to feel pleased with the friends you have

79. to disappoint or let down someone close to you

80. to feel depressed or very sad

81. to feel confident about your future

82. to get along with your family

83. to feel rejected

84. to have good health

85. to feel really happy

86. to feel unmotivated or uninspired

87. to have too little time for your hobbies or leisure activities
88. to feel loved by someone important to you

89. to have fewer friends than you would like

90. to feel like crying

91. to feel pleased about having accomplished something

92. to be invited to a social event or party

93. to feel lonely or remote from other people

94. to have enough money

95. to feel full of energy

96. to feel overwhelmed

97. to put off doing something you think you should do

98. to feel popular

99. to be rejected in love or romance

100. to feel worried or anxious

101. to feel competent or skillful

114

For items 102 to 131, read each statement and blacken the
appropriate number to indicate the extent of the 9935391 you have over
whether the event that is described will happen in the next 4 months.

Please use the following rating scale:

1 2 3. 4 5
Not at all very much

Over the next iJnenehg, how much QQEIBQL do you have over ...

102. having an exclusive relationship (boyfriend, girlfriend, spouse)
103. feeling annoyed with someone close to you

104. doing well in school

105. feeling particularly excited or interested in something
106. feeling like a failure

107. doing poorly on an exam or on a job evaluation

108. feeling pleased with the friends you have

109. disappointing or letting down someone close to me.

110. feeling depressed or very sad

111. feeling confident about your future

112. getting along with your family

113. feeling rejected

114. having good health

115. feeling really happy

116. feeling unmotivated or uninspired

117. having too little time for your hobbies or leisure activities
118. feeling loved by someone important to me

119. having fewer friends than you would like

120. feeling like crying

121. feeling pleased about having accomplished something
122. being invited to a social event or party

123. feeling lonely or remote from other people

124. having enough money

125. feeling full of energy

126. feeling overwhelmed

127. putting off doing something you think you should do
128. feeling popular

129. being rejected in love or romance

130. feeling worried or anxious

131. feeling competent or skillful

115

For items 132 to 161, read each statement and blacken the
appropriate number to indicate how much you eege whether the event that
is described actually happens in the next 4 months.

Please use the following rating scale:

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all very much

Over the next j_men§he, how'much do you 9533 whether you actually...

132. had an exclusive relationship (boyfriend, girlfriend, spouse)
133. felt annoyed with someone close to me

134. did well in school

135. felt particularly excited or interested in something
136. felt like a failure

137. did poorly on an exam or on a job evaluation

138. felt pleased with the friends you have

139. disappointed or let down someone close to me.

140. felt depressed or very sad

141. felt confident about your future

142. got along with your family

143. felt rejected

144. had good health

145. felt really happy

146. felt unmotivated or uninspired

147. had too little time for your hobbies or leisure activities
148. felt loved by someone important to me

149. had fewer friends than you would like

150. felt like crying

151. felt pleased about having accomplished something
152. were invited to a social event or party

153. felt lonely or remote from other people

154. had enough money

155. felt full of energy

156. felt overwhelmed

157. put off doing something you thought you should do
158. felt popular

159. were rejected in love or romance

160. felt worried or anxious

161. felt competent or skillful

APPENDIX H

162.
163.

164.

165.

166.

167.

168.

169.
170.

171.

APPENDIX H

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION QUESTIONS

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

What is your gender?
1 = Female 2 = Male
What is your age?

1 = 19 years old or younger
2 = 20 - 25 years old

3 = 25 - 30 years old

4 = 30 - 40 years old

5 = Over 40 years old

What is your relationship

Single and never married

Married

Divorced, separated or widowed

Remarried

hat is your class in college?

Freshman

Sophomore

Junior

Senior

Graduate Student

h'ch applies to you?

Full time student

= Part time student

hich applies to you?

Work full time

Work part time

Not working currently

Have you received any medical treatment in the last year?
(e.g., for flu, sore throat, injury, illness, etc.)
1 = Yes 2 = No

Have you ever received psychological counseling?

1 = Yes 2 = No

Have you ever been depressed?

No

Yes, and received psychological counseling

Yes, and received medication

Yes, and received psychological counseling and
medication

Yes, but received no treatment

both of your parents living?

Yes

No, and one or both parents died in the past 5 years.
No, but neither parent died in the past 5 years.

otomka
"II"

S

0143me

WNHSNHS
"H II II II n

“>me

UJNFJEtﬁ
IIHIImII

For items 172-177, please choose the number that best rates how
you feel TODAY on each of the following scales.

172.
173.
174.
175.
176.
177.

I feel Depressed 1--—-2----3----4----5 I feel Cheerful

I feel Optimistic 1----2----3----4----5 I feel Pessimistic
I feel Hopeless 1----2----3----4----5 I feel Encouraged

I feel Lucky 1----2----3~---4~-~-5 I feel Unlucky

I feel Complacent 1----2----3----4----5 I feel Enthusiastic
I feel Hopeful 1----2----3----4----5 I feel Despairing

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX I

RESEARCH CONSENT STATEMENT

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Psychology

RESEARCH CONSENT STATEMENT

 

Please be sure to read this page carefully so that you understand
the terms of your consent prior to completing and returning the
questionnaire packet.

I have freely consented to take part in a scientific study

being conducted by:_MaLh_ﬂ&_ﬂadner
under the supervision of:lDr. DozierlThornton,

Academic Title: Professor of Psychology
Title of research project: The Mood Studv

 

 

This research will require that I complete three questionnaires in
class. The questionnaires measure various aspects of mood. The
experimenter will compare group results for relationships between
these measures in order to better understand the relationships
between various aspects of mood.

Participation in this experiment usually takes 1 hour.

I understand that my participation in this study is voluntary. I
may choose not to participate. If I choose to participate, I may
refuse to answer certain questions. Also I may discontinue my
participation at any time without penalty.

I understand that the results of the study will be treated in
strict confidence and that I will remain anonymous in any report
of research findings. On request, and within these restrictions,
results of the study will be made available to participants.

I understand that my participation in the study does not guarantee
any beneficial results to me.

I understand that upon the completion of data collection, a
written (and when possible, a verbal) explanation of the specific
purpose of this study will be provided to me.

I understand that if I have any concerns resulting from my
participation in this study, I may freely contact Mark H. Wagner
or Dozier W. Thornton through the graduate office of Psychology at
Snyder Hall (355-9561).

117

APPENDIX J

APPENDIX J

PARTICIPANT DEBRIEFING FORM

W
for the Mood Study

The Mood Study is intended to address two issues. They are:

1. .o 0‘ .0 .0- ‘ -10.? . 1... 1‘ ‘ -. 90.!) 9‘ "Q 900‘ ‘ ,.1‘
W.

It has already been established that hopelessness and depression
are highly related constructs. Measures of hopelessness have been shown
to correlate very highly with measures of depression.

Of the many theories that try to explain depression, the
Hopelessness Theory of Depression (HTD) makes some specific predictions
about the relationship between hopelessness and depression. HTD states
that hopelessness will always cause depression. HTD also states that
there are other causes of depression and that depression can occur in
the absence of hopelessness. Therefore, according to HTD, it would be
reasonable to expect some people to show depressive mood without any
feelings of hopelessness (since there are other causes of depression).
However, according to HTD, there should be virtually no people who have
substantial feelings of hopelessness who are not also showing some
depressive mood (since hopelessness must cause depression).

This study is testing that hypothesis by measuring both
hopelessness and depression, and examining whether the independent
incidence and coincidence of hopelessness and depression match the
patterns predicted by HTD.

2. To t ° w w .

The measure of hopelessness that is by far the most often used in
psychological research is the Beck Hopelessness Scale (HS). The HS was
originally designed to help measure very extreme levels of hopelessness
(for example, hopelessness so extreme that it is associated with
effected suicide). The HS has proven to be a sensitive and effective
tool in that area. However, the level of hopelessness expected to be
associated with depression is less than that associated with suicide.
The HS has been shown to be a less sensitive measure of these more
moderate levels of hopelessness.

This study addressed this problem by having half of the
participants fill out the HS and half fill out a modified version of the
HS that offered participants a wider range of response to each question
to make the measure more sensitive.

Another issue regarding the H5 is that it defines hopelessness in
a way that is slightly different than how HTD defines hopelessness.
Therefore, a new measure (the Outlook Questionnaire) that was designed
to measure hopelessness as it is defined by HTD was given to every
participant. Tests regarding the sensitivity and the validity of both
the Outlook Questionnaire and the modified version of the HS will be
conducted.

If you are concerned about any feelings you have had during or
resulting from your participation in this study, please contact Mark H.
Wagner or Dozier W. Thornton through the graduate office of the
Department of Psychology at Snyder Hall (355-9561)

118

APPENDD( K

APPENDIX K

INDIVIDUAL TESTS OF HYPOTHESIS ONE USING EACH MEASURE OF
HOPELESSNESS ACROSS DEMOGRAPHIC SUBSAMPLES OF GENDER AND
HISTORY OF DEPRESSION/INTERVENTION (TABLES K1 T0 K25)

Because the Tables in Appendix K are in landscape orientation and require the full
margin space available, their presentation begins on the next page.

119

120

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmm.m omo. mm.o Hoo. mow. mmm. mmmz m
vmmrm ooo. om.NH omo. mow. mmm. Nmmz N
mmmtﬁ ooo. om.NmH Nmm. Nmm. mﬂo. mm: H
mo Q «m 2H mmem mom mm m ammMHZM ZOHB¢DOM mmem
mwz<mu mm ZH m>HB¢ADZDU onmmmmwmm Adeozwqom
mom m mwz¢mo mo HZMZOmEOU
oHQEMmunsm panama on» How Ammzv mmwcmmoawoom co AHQmV coﬂmmmnooo uo
coammoummm umocﬂaﬂ>uso Hmoﬂnoumuwﬂm wo muasmmm
NM magma
osmrm mme. mH.o ooo. vmv. Hmw. mmm m
HPN.N ooo. mv.om ave. vow. Hmm. «mm N
mnmrﬁ ooo. mn.mmﬁ mmv. va. Hmo. mm H
mo Q mm zH mmem mom NM m Qmmmazm onB<Dom mmem
mwzmmo mm zH m>Hemqubo onmmmmwmm AmHzozwqom
mom h mwzcmo mo BZMZOmEOO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oHQEmmIQSm meEwm ecu you

Ammv

mmocmmwawmom co

AHQmV soﬂwmouawn mo

soﬂwmouomm umwsﬁaﬂ>uso Hmoﬂnuumuoﬂm uo muasmom
HM magma

 

 

121

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mama mom. mo; Hoo. m2. «mm. mmmmcmmmHmaomoo m
orm.m ooo. mm.>m mmo. Hem. Hmm. NmmmcmmmHmoomnoo m
Hem.H ooo. om.mnH mmm. mmm. mmw. mmwsmwmedomnoo H
up he Wm.zH mmam mom mm m ommmaZm onamaom mmam
mwzmmo mm 2H m>HH¢HDZDU onmmmmwmm Hdeozwqom
mom m mazemo mo Bzmzomzou
wHQEmeQSm mHmEom on» How AmmocmmonQomuOOV mmosmmmHmaom so
AHQmV cOHmmmumwo mo GOHmmwummm umwcHHH>usu HmoHcoumumHm mo muHsmom
vM oHnma
mQOHuomumHummmHo
orm.m mew. mo.o ooo. mmm. bow. omuomaxmuoo m
«coHuommeummmHo
Hem.m ooo. ww.m> mmo. mom. woo. owuowdxmuoo N
cOHuomumHummmHo
mnm.H ooo. wm.>mm «mm. «mm. mmm. oopoodxmuoo H
up nu m 2H imam mom mm m ommmezm onHmDom mmam
02mmo m 2H m>HB¢HDZDO onmmmmwmm Hdeoszom
mom. a %ozmmo no Enzomzoo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mHQEmmnnsm meEmm ecu now
AHomv GOmemquo mo GOHmmmuomm nmmsHHH>usu HmoHcoumuon mo muHSmmm
mM mHnma

AcOHuomumHummeo oouomaxmnoov mmemmmHoQom so

 

 

122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mNH.N mHh. mH.o Hoo. mmm. NNo. «mm N
omH.H ooo. mm.Hm wmm. mmm. HNm. mm H
up nu mm 2H mmem mom mm. m ommmazm onembom imam
mwzemo «m 2H m>He<HDzDO onmmmmwmm HﬁHzoszom
mom m mwzmmo mo BZMZOmzoo
mHQEmmunsm mHmz map How Ammv mmmcmmonaom so AHQmV sonmoanQ mo
conmmuoom umosHHH>usu HmoHcoumuon mo muHsmom
ox mHnma
mmmosmmmeaom
grim So. mo.m woo. 3H. 31.. emuaonzoo m
NmmmcmmoHoQom
5mm.N ooo. mm.mN mmo. mmH. mmv. owunonzaoo N
mwmsmonoQom
mom; ooo. $5: 3H. 9:. mam. nmuanmzloo H
up Am m 2H mmam mom mm. m ommmezm onambOm imam
mwzmmo m zH m>H94HDZDO onmmmmwmm HeHzozwqom
mom m wzmmu mo ezmzomzou

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mHQEmmIQSm mHmsom can now

AmmosmmoHoQom pouconzuoov

mmwcmmonQom so

“Home :onmoume mo conmmuomm HmosHHH>uso HmoHcoumuon mo muHSmmm
mm wHQms

 

 

123

 

 

 

 

 

mcoHuommmHummmHQ
mmm.m ohm. m>.o Noo. mom. mHm. UwuuwmeIOO m
NsoHuommmHummmHo
vmm.m mHo. om.m hHo.. mwm. NHm. UmuomaxMIOO N
GOHuomumHummmHa
mmN.H ooo. mm.Nw mvN. mvN. mmv. UmuUmQxMIOO H
MU mm m 2H mmam mom mm. m QmMMBZm ZOHHﬁDOm mmem
OZ<mU m ZH m>HB<AD2DU ZOHmmmmwmm AﬂHZOZNHOm
mOm h wz¢mu ho BZHZOmZCU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mHQEmmnnsm onz ecu you AsoHuomumHummmHQ omuooaxmnoov mmwcmmmHonm so
AHomv conmqumQ mo sonmwnomm ummsHHHbuso HmoHcoumuon mo mpHsmmm

 

 

 

 

mm mHnme
NNH.N we». mo.o Hoo. omN. mew. «mm: N
mNH.H ooo. mm.vm mHN. mHN. mow. mm: H
we as «m 2H swam mom mm. m ommmezm onamsom mmem
mozmmo «m 2H m>Heaszoo onmmmmomm H<Hzozwqom
mom m mozamo so ezmzomzoo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mHQEMmIQsm mHmz can now Hmmzv mmmsmmeonm so AHQmV conmmuQmQ mo
conmmuomm ummcHHH>usU HMUHnuumume no muHsmmm

bx OHQMH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NmmocmmmHonm
mmN.N NmH. mm.H boo. NvH. nbm. pouconz|oo N
mmwsmmonQom
va.H ooo. om.mm mmH. mmH. mmm. pounonznoo H
up Q «.2H imam mom mm m ommMBZM onambom mmem
%w24mo m 2H m>HH¢HDZDO onmmmmwmm HmHzozwqom
mom m %ozgo no Hzmzomzoo
mHQEmmlnsm onz ecu now AmmosmmmHonm omunoHozuoov mmocmmoHoQom co
AHomv sonmoquQ uo conmmuowm “mosHHH>usu HmoHcoumuon wo muHsmom
OHM mHnt
4
mm
mmN.m mew. mH.o Hoo. mvN. mmv. mmmoCmmmHonmuoo m
va.N Nmo. mm.v vHo. va. vmv. NmmmCmmmHoQomuoo N
mmN.H ooo. Nv.oh HmN. HmN. omv. mmmsmmmHmdomnoo H
up Q mm.2H mmam mom mm m ammMBZm onembom imam
mozmmu mm zH m>HB<HDzDO onmmwmwmm HmHzoszom
mom Q mwzmmu mo Bzmzomzoo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wHQEmmlnsm mHmz on» How

Ammocmmeonmnoov

mmmcmmmHonm so

AHomv sonmmuQmQ mo conmoumom “mosHHH>uso HmoHcoumumHm uo muHSmmm
mM wanna

 

 

125

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

om.m mmo. wo.m mNo. mmm. mmm. mmmz m
Hm.N moo. oN.> ooo. omm. vow. Nmmz N
Nm.H ooo. oN.om ohN. ohN. mHm. mm: H
MU Q Nm ZH mmem mom mm. m QmmMHzm ZOHH<DOm mmem
moz<mu NM zH m>HB<HDZDO onmmmmomm H<Hzozwqom
mom Q modeo mo Bzmzomzoo
oHQEMmIQsm commoquQ Hw>oz ecu How Ammzv mmwcmmonQom so AHomv conmmHQmQ wo
COHmmeowm ummcHHH>usu HMUHcoumuon Mo muHSmmm
NHz oHnme
motN who. mo.o Hoo. HoH. vHv. «mm N
mhrH ooo. HN.oH ONH. onH. mHv. mm H
we Q Nm zH imam mom NM m Qmmmezm onedbom mmem
mwz<mo NM zH m>HB<HDZDo onmmmmomm HmHzoszom
mom Q mwz¢mu ho BZMZOmEOO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oHQEmmIQSm commoquo Ho>oz ecu How

Ammv

wmmcmmeonm so AHQmV

conmouowm umoaHHH>udu HmoHcoumuon mo mquwmm
HHM OHQMB

conmquoQ wo

 

 

126

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

me.N mNH. wm.N HHo. wHN. Now. NmmmcmmmHoQomuoo N
moH.H ooo. wo.Nw moN. moN. Hmw. mmocmmoHoQomuoo H
up Q NM 2.... mmem mom mm m Ommmezm ZOHBHBOM mmem
mwzmmo mm zH m>HH¢HDZDO onmmmmwmm Hdeoszom
mom m mwzmmo mo aZmZomzou
oHdEmmIQSm commouaoa um>oz ecu mom AmmmcmmoHoQomuoov mmmcmmonQom co
AHQmV sonmmquo mo sonmouomm ummsHHH>uso HmoHcoumuon mo muHSmmm
wHM oHome
msoHuomumHummmHo
NoH.m wwo. HN.o Hoo. HNN. How. omuomoxmnoo m
NcoHUUMMmHummmHo
moH.N mHo. om.m mNo. ONN. mow. oouomaxmuoo N
coHuommmHummmHo
on.H ooo. oo.mm NmH. NmH. mmw. oouoodxMIOO H
.3 Q mmem zmHE mm m ommmEm 20:15on mmam
mmozamo EHaﬁpzDo onmmmmomm Hﬁzozﬁom
mom ..H %ozéo so Bzmzomzoo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mHQEmmnnsm commouaoo um>wz ecu uou

AcoHuomumHummmHa oouomQxMIoov

AHva sonnmuQmo uo conmmuoom umocHHH>usu HmoHcoumumHm mo muHsmwm
mHM mHQme

mmmcmmmeQom so

 

 

127

 

 

 

 

soN.N mmm. ow.o Hoo. omN. owm. Nmm N
mom.H ooo. HH.mHH bmm. 5mm. mwm. mm H
on Q mm 7: mmem mom «Q Q ommmHZm onamoom mmam
mozcmo «m 2H m>He¢Hozoo onmmmmomm HcHzozsqom
mom Q mozmmo no ezmzomzoo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mHQEMmIQsm usmsummua oz nUHz COHmmoHQmQ wo muoumHm ecu no“ Ammo mmosmmmHonm so
AHQmV sonmeQmQ mo conmoHoom ummcHHH>usO HmoHcoumumHm Mo muHSmwm

 

 

 

 

on wHQmB
Nmmosmmeonm
NoH.N mom. wH.o Hoo. ONH. owm. pounOHmzuoo N
mmwsmmeoQom
8H; ooo. 8.8 mHH. mHH. mwm. empaaHmzuoo H
on Q «m 2H mmam mom «Q Q ommmHZm onemoom mmam
mozsio «m 2H m>HB<HoHHoo onmmmmomm HQHzozwqom
mom Q mozmmo so ezmzomzoo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wHQsmmuQsm ommmmquo um>oz map now

Home

mHM wHQma

AmmosmmmHonm owunoHozuoov mmocmmeoQom so
conmmHQmo uo sonmwuomm ummsHHHbusO HmoHnoumumHm mo muHSmmm

 

 

128

 

mcoHuommeummmHQ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmm.m me. oo.o Hoo. HmN. on. omuommeuoo m
NaoHuommmHummmHQ
mmm.N ooo. mN.mN mmo. omN. on. oouommeuoo N
soHuomumHuMmmHo
mmm.H ooo. wm.omH NmN. NmN. Hmw. oouommeuoo H
up Q m_2H Qmem mom mm m ommmezm ZOHBQDOH Qmem
%ogo m 2H EHeﬁozoo onmmmmomm Hﬁzozwqom
mom Q %osz no ezmzomzoo
mHQEMmunsm ucmsumoua 02 cqu conmmquo Mo >uoumHm ecu you
AcOHuommeummmHQ omuommenoov mmmcwmeonm so HHQmV GOHmmoHQmQ uo
sonmmuoom ummsHHH>Hso HmononumHm mo muHSmom
me mHnma
mmN.w mph. mo.o ooo. omm. Nmm. wmmz w
me.m mHo. mo.m mHo. omm. Hmm. mmmz m
mmN.N Hoo. mm.HH mNo. mmm. omm. «mm: N
omN.H ooo. oH.mNH mom. mom. ohm. mm: H
up Q m_2H Qmsm mom mm m ommmezm onHmDom Qmam
wzmmo m 2H m>HeQHDZDO onmmmmomm HQHZOZMHOQ
mom Q %ozmmo no .szzomzoo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oHQEmmlnsm ucmsumoua 02 nqu sonmoquQ mo muoume on» How

AHomv conmmquo mo sonmmHomm HmmsHHH>usu HmoHcoumuon mo mUHSmwm
PHK OHDMB

Hmmzv mmmsmmmHonm so

 

 

129

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmmmcmmoHoQom
mmm.m NmH. Ho.N moo. mNH. Hmm. ooucoHoznoo m
NmmmsmmonQom
ommN oHo. om.m moo. oNH. owm. nmuoonzuoo N
mumsmmoHoQom
Sm; ooo. Homo HHH. HHH. mmm. amononzuoo H
mo Q Q 2H Qmem mom mm Q ommmezm ZOE/50m Qmam
%ozsio zH EEEBSU onmmmmomm HmHzozBoo
mom Q wzmmo mo ezmzomzoo
oHQEmmIQSm uswsummue 02 nqu conmmuQmo mo >uoumHm may now
HmmmcmmmHonm omunoHosuoov mmmsmmmHonm coAHQmo conmouQmQ mo
conmouoom HmmcHHH>Hsu HmoHcoumHmHm mo muHSmmm
ONM oHnma
mmm.m moo. NN.o ooo. mmH. mww. mmmmcmmeoQomuoo m
mmm.N Hoo. om.oH mHo. NmH. www. NmmmcmmmHonmuoo N
mmm.H ooo. No.wNH NmH. NoH. me. mmwcmmmeQomuoo H
up HQ m 2H Qmem mOQ NQ Q Qmmmazm ZOHHQDOM mmam
mwzmmo Q zH m>HamHDZDU onmmmmwmm HQHZOZNHOQ
mom Q wzmmu mo azmzomzou

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mHQEmwnnsm ucmsumoue 02 cqu sonmqumQ mo >uoumHm may now
HmmmcmmmHoQomnoov mmosmmmHonm so HHomv conmmHQmo uo
conmouoom HmmcHHH>Hso HmoHnoumumHm no muHSmmm

mHM OHQMH

 

 

130

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mw.N NoH. m>.N mmo. mmw. mmo. Nmmz N
mw.H ooo. mo.Nm oow. oow. Nmo. mm: H
up HQ mm 2H Qwem mOQ NQ_ Q QmmmHZM ZOHHQDOM mmem
mwzmmu mm 2H m>HB¢HDZDU onmmmmwmm HQHEOZNHOQ
mom Q mozmmo Q0 Bzmzomzoo
mHQﬁmquSm COHumoHooz uo\osm osHHmmssou HmoHooHocome cqu
sonmmuQmQ uo QuoumHm map How Ammzv mmwammmHonm so AHva sonmouQmo uo
COHmmouomm ummcHHHbuso HmoHnoumumHm mo muHSmmm
NNx mHnme
om.m mmH. Hh.H HHo. ooo. mNm. mmm m
Hm.N woo. wH.m mmo. mom. NNm. Nmm N
Nm.H ooo. om.mm mHo. mHo. ooh. mm H
up HQ mm 2H Qmam mom mm. m ammmezm ZOHBQDOm mmsm
mmZQmo «m 2H m>HBQHDZDO onmmmmwmm HQHEOZMHOQ
mom Q mwzmmu Q0 Hzmzomzcu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mHQEMmIQSm soHumoHomz Ho\osm ocHHomssoo HMUHooHoco>mQ nqu
sonwoquQ mo >H0pmHm on» you Ammo mmosmmoHoQom so HHQmV conwmuQmo Ho
sonwouomm umosHHH>Hsu HmoHconumHm uo mDHSmom

HNM OHQMB

131

 

wsoHuomuwHummmHQ

 

 

 

 

 

mm.w moH. wm.H moo. Hmm. mmb. UmuomQxMIOO w
mcoHuommepmmmHQ
OOH.m owo. mm.w HNo. HNm. NNP. UmuomQxMIOO m
NcoHuommepmmeo
HOH.N ooo. mo.mm mMH. Hon. mom. UwuquxMIOO N
COHuomumHummmHo
NOH.H ooo. Nm.bm Nmm. Nmm. How. UmuuwaMIOO H
MU HQ NM 2H mmam mom mm. m Qmmmezm ZOHB<DOM mmew
mwz<mo NM ZH m>HBmADZDU ZOHmmmmOmm AQHZOZMAOQ
MOQ Q mwz<mu Q0 BZMZOQZOU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sonwmuQmQ no QuoumHm who you

oHQEmmnnsm soHumoHomz Ho\ocm ocHmecsou HmoHooHocome cqu
AcoHuomumHummmHo omuoonmuooo

HHQmV sonmmuQmQ mo conmouoom HmmcHHH>usu HmoHcoumumHm mo muHSwmm
MNM magma

mwocmmmeQom so

 

132

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmmmsmmmHoQom
mm.m Hom. mw.o moo. mHm. mom. pouconsuoo m
NmmocmmonQom
mm.N ooo. mw.mH mmo. me. own. pounonznoo N
mmocmmmeQom
oOH.H ooo. mN.mN oNN. oNN. omw. pounonzuoo H
mo HQ 2H Qmam QOQ NQ Am QQQHQZM onBQDOm Qmam
onmO m 2H m>HaQHDzDo onmmmmwmm HQHzoszOQ
mom Q oZQmo Qo BZmZOonu
oHQEMmIQSm soHumoHowz uo\ocm osHHomcsoo HMUHooHocome nqu
conmouQma mo muoumHm ecu How AmmosmmmHonm pounonznooo mmmsmmmHonm so
AHomv conmmuQmQ mo sonmoHoom HmmcHHH>Hso HmoHcoumHmHm mo muHsmmm
me anms
om.w Nwm. Ho.o ooo. Hom. oHo. wmmmcmmmHonmuoo w
mm.m mwo. NN.w mNo. Hmm. mHo. mmmoswmonQomuoo m
mm.N moo. Nm.m Hoo. wmm. mmm. NmmmcmmmHonmuoo N
ooH.H ooo. mm.Hw mmN. mmN. Nwm. mmmcmmoHoQomuoo H
up HQ Q 2H Qmam mom NQ. Q Qmmmezm onBQDOm Qmem
mwzmmo Q zH m>HH¢Hozoo onmmmmomm HQHzozwqoo
mOQ Q %wzmmo Qo 92mzoozoo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oHQEmwnnsm coHumoHomz uo\ocm osHHomcsou HmoHooHonUQmQ nqu
GOHmmoquQ mo QuoumHm ecu you
AHQmV sonmmqua mo cononoom umwcHHH>Hsu HmoHnoumuon uo muHSmmm

wmm OHQMB

AmmosmmmHonmuoov

mmocmmmHoQom so

 

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Abramson, L. Y., Alloy, L. B., & Metalsky, G. 1., (1988). The cognitive diathesis-
stress theories of depression: Toward an adequate evaluation of the theories' validities. In
L. B. Alloy (Ed), Cognitive processes in depression (pp. 3-30). New York: Guilford
Press.

Abramson, L. Y., Alloy, L. B., & Metalsky, G. I. (1990). The hopelessness theory
of depression: Current status and future directions. In N. L. Stein, B. Leventhal & T.

Trabasso (Eds), Psychological and biological approaches to emotion (pp. 333-358).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Abramson, L. Y., Alloy, L. B., & Metalsky, G. I. (1995). Hopelessness depression.
In G. M. Buchanan & M. E. P. Seligrnan (Eds), Explanatory Style (pp. 113-134).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Abramson, L. Y., Garber, 1., Edwards, N. B., & Seligrnan, M. E. P. (1978).
Expectancy changes in depression and schizophrenia. Journal of A bnormal Psychology,
87, 49-74.

Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Alloy, L. B. (1988). The hopelessness theory
of depression: Does the research test the theory? In L. Y. Abramson (Ed), Social
cognition and clinical psychology: A synthesis (pp. 33-65). New York: Guilford Press.

Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Alloy, L. B. (1989). Hopelessness depression:
A theory- based subtype of depression. Psychological Review, 96, 358—3 72.

Abramson, L. Y., Seligrnan, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. (1978). Learned helplessness
in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of A bnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74.

Alloy, L. B., Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. 1., & Hartlage, S. (1988). The
hopelessness theory of depression: Attributional aspects. British Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 27, 5-21.

Alloy, L. B., & Clements, C. M. (1992). Illusion of control: Invulnerability to

negative aﬁ‘ect and depressive symptoms after laboratory and natural stressors. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 101, 234-245.

133

134

Alloy, L. B., Hartlage, S., & Abramson, L. Y. (1988). Testing the cognitive
diathesis-stress theories of depression: Issues of research design, conceptualization, and
assessment. In L. B. Alloy (Ed), Cognitive processes in depression (pp. 31-73). New
York: Guilford Press.

Barnett, P. A., & Gotlib, I. H. (1988). Psychosocial functioning and depression:
Distinguishing among antecedents, concomitant, and consequences. Psychological
Bulletin, 104, 97-126.

Beck, A. T. (1972). Depression: Causes and Treatment. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press.

Beck, A. T., Kovacs, M., & Weissman, A (1975). Hopelessness and suicidal
behavior: An overview. Journal of the American Medical Association, 234, 1146-1149.

Beck, A T., Riskind, J. H., Brown, G., & Steer, R. A. (1988). Levels of
hopelessness in DSM-III disorders: A partial test of content-speciﬁcity in depression.
Cognitive Thercqry and Research, 12, 459-469.

Beck, A. T., Steer, R A., Beck, J. S. & Newman, C. F. (1993). Hopelessness,
depression, suicidal ideation, and clinical diagnosis of depression. Suicide and Life-
Ihreatening Behavior, 23, 139-145.

Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., Kovacs, M., & Garrison, B. (1985). Hopelessness and
eventual suicide: A 10-year prospective study of patients hospitalized with suicidal
ideation. American Journal of Psychiatry, 142, 559-563.

Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J, & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An
inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561-571.

Beck, A. T., Weissman, A., Lester, D., & Trexler, L. (1974). The measurement of
pessimism: The Hopelessness Scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42,
861-865.

Bedrosian, R. C., & Beck, A. T. (1979). Cognitive aspects of suicidal behavior.
Suicide and Life- Threatening Behavior, 9, 87-96.

Bonner, R. L., & Rich, A. (1988). Negative life stress, social problem-solving self-
appraisal, and hopelessness: Implications for suicide research. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 12, 549-556.

Bonner, L. B., & Rich, A. R. (1991). Predicting vulnerability to hopelessness: A
longitudinal analysis. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1 79, 29-32.

Brewin, C. R. (1985). Depression and causal attributions: What is their relation?
Psychological Bulletin, 98, 297-309.

135

Brown, G. W., & Harris, T. (1978). Social origins of depression. New York: Free
Press.

. Campbell, L. (1987). Hopelessness: A concept analysis. Journal of Psychosocial
Nursing, 25, 18-22.

Chang, E. C. (1996). Cultural diﬁ‘erences in optimism, pessimism, and coping:
Predictors of subsequent adjustment in Asian American and Caucasian American college
students. Journal of Counseling Psycho/0g, 43, 113-123.

Chang, E. C., D'Zurilla, T. J ., & Maydeu-Olivares, A (1994). Assessing the
dimensionality of optimism and pessimism using a multirneasure approach. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 18, 143-160.

Ciccetti, D. V., Showalter, D., & Tyrer, P. J. (1985). The eﬂ‘ect of number of
rating scale categories on levels of interrater reliability: A Monte Car investigation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 9, 3 1-3 6.

Cohen, J. (1983). The cost of dichotomization. Applied Psychological
Measurement, 7, 249-235.

Cohen, J ., & Cohen. P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis
for the Behavioral Sciences (3 rd ed). Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, New Jersey.

Cole, D. A. (1988). Hopelessness, social desirability, depression, and parasuicide
in two college student samples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 131-
136.

Coyne, J. C., & Gotlib, I. H. (1983). The role of cognition in depression: A critical
appraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 472-505.

Depue, R. A, & Monroe, S. M. (1978). Learned helplessness in the perspective of
depressive disorders. Journal of A bnormal Psychology, 87, 3-20.

Dixon, J. F., & Ahrens, A. H. (1992). Stress and attributional style as predictors of
self-reported depression in children. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 623-634.

Dixon, W. A, Heppner, P. P., & Rudd, M. D. (1994). Problem-solving appraisal,
hopelessness, and suicide ideation: Evidence for a mediational model. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 41, 91-98.

Durham, T. W. (1982). Norms, reliability, and item analysis of the hopelessness
scale in general psychiatric, forensic psychiatric, and college populations. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 38, 597-600.

136

Dyce, J. A (1996). Factor structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 52, 555-558.

Dyer, J. A T., & Kreitman, N. (1984). Hopelessness, depression and suicidal
intent in parasuicide. British Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 127-133.

Ellis, T. E. (1985). The hopelessness scale and social desirability: More data and a
contribution ﬁom the irrational beliefs test. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 634-639.

Follette, V. M., & Jacobson, N. S. (1987). Importance of attributions as a
predictor of how pe0ple cope with failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
52, 1205-1211.

Greene, S. M. (1981). Levels of measured hopelessness in the general population.
British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 20, 11-14.

Greene, S. M. (1989). The relationship between depression and hopelessness:
Implications for current theories of depression. British Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 650-
659.

Greene, S. M., O'Mahoney, P. D., & Rungawamy, P. (1982). Levels of measured
hopelessness in physically ill patients. Journal of Psychometric Research, 20, 591-593.

Guilford, J. P. (193 6). Psychometric Methods. McGraw-Hill: New York.

Haaga, D. A. F, Fine, J. A, Terrill, D. R, Stewart, B. L., & Beck, A. T. (1995).
Social problem-solving deﬁcits, dependency, and depressive symptoms. Cognitive
Iherapy and Research, 19, 147-158.

Hamilton, E. W., & Abramson, L. Y. (1983). Cognitive patterns in major
depressive disorder: A longitudinal study in a hospital setting. Journal of A bnormal
Psychology, 92, 173-184.

Haslam, N., & Beck, A. T. (1994). Subtyping major depression: A taxometric
analysis. Journal of A bnormal Psychology, 103, 686-692.

Heimberg, L. (1961). Development and construct validation of an inventory for
the measurement of future time perspective. Unpublished master’s thesis, Vanderbilt
University, Nashville, Tenn.

Hill, R. D., Gallagher, D., Thompson, L. W., & Ishida, T. (1988). Hopelessness as
a measure of suicidal intent in the depressed elderly. Psychology and Aging, 3, 230-232.

Hill, A. B., Kemp-Wheeler, S. M., & Jones, S. A. (1987). Subclinical and clinical
depression: Are analogue studies justiﬁable? Personality and Individual Diﬂ'erences, 8,
1 13-120.

137

Hilsman, R, & Garber, J. (1995). A test of the cognitive diathesis-stress model of
depression in children: Academic stressors, attributional style, perceived competence, and
control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychologi, 69, 3 70-3 80.

Holden, R. R, & F ekken, C. (1988). Test-retest reliability of the hopelessness
scale and its items in a university population. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 40-43.

Holden, R. R, & Mendonca, J. D. (1984). Hopelessness, social desirability, and
suicidal behavior: A need for conceptual and empirical disentanglement. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 40, 1342-1345.

Holden, R. R, Mendonca, J. D., & Mazmanian, D. (1985). Relation of response
set to observed suicide intent. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 17, 359-3 68.

Holden, R R, Mendonca, J. D., & Serin, R C. (1989). Suicide, hopelessness, and
social desirability: A test of an interactive model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 5 7, 500-504.

Hunsley, J. (1989). Vulnerability to depressive mood: An examination of the
temporal consistency of the reformulated learned helplessness model. Cognitive Therapy
and Research, 13, 599-608.

Jenkins, G. D., Jr., & Taber, T. D. (1977). A Monte Carlo study of factors
aﬂ‘ecting three indices of composite scale reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62,
392-398.

Johnson, J. G. (1992). Gender and mood as mediators of the relationship between
attributional style, daily life events, depression symptoms, and hopelessness. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 16, 687-697.

Johnson, J. G., & Miller, S. M. (1990). Attributional, Life-event, and affective
predictors of onset of depression, anxiety, and negative attributional style. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 14, 417-430.

Johnson, J. H., & McCutcheon, S. (1981). Correlates of adolescent pessimism: A
study of the Beck Hopelessness Scale. Journal of Youth andAdolescence, 2, 169-172.

Kant, G. L., D'Zurilla, T. J ., & Maydue-Olivares, A. (1997). Social problem
solving as a mediator of stress related depression and anxiety in middle-aged and elderly
community residents. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21, 73-96.

Kashden, J., Fremouw, W. J., Callahan, T. S. & Franzen, M. D. (1993).
Impulsivity in suicidal and nonsuicidal adolescents. Journal of A bnormal Child
Psychology, 21, 339-3 53.

138

Kendall, P. C. ,I-I.ollon,S D. ,Beck,A. T. ,.Hammen,C L. ,.&Ingram,R E.
(1987). Issues and recommendations regarding the use of the Beck Depression Inventory
Cognitive Therapy and Research, 11, 289-299.

Kerry, R. J ., & Orrne, J. E. (197 5). Varieties of depression. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 31, 607-609.

Lee, Y. T., & Seligrnan, M. E. P. (1997). Are Americans more optimistic than
Chinese? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 32-40.

Linehan, M. M., Goodstein, J. L., Nielsen, S. L., & Chiles, J. A. (1983). Reasons
for staying alive when you are thinking of killing yourself: The Reasons for Living
Inventory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 276-286.

Linehan, M. M., & Nielsen, S. L. (1981). Assessment of suicide ideation and
parasuicide: Hopelessness and social desirability. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 49, 773-775.

Linehan, M. M., & Nielsen, S. L. (1983). Social desirability: Its relevance to the
measurement of hopelessness and suicidal behaviour. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 51, 141-143.

Lunney, G. H. (1970). Using analysis of variance with a dichotomous dependent
variable: An empirical study. Journal of Educational Measurement, 7, 263 -269.

MacLeod, A. K., & Byme (1996). Anxiety, depression, and the anticipation of
ﬁrture positive and negative experiences. Journal of A bnormal Psychology, 105, 286-289.

MacLeod, A. K., & Cropley, M. L. (1995). Depressive future-thinking: The role of
valence and speciﬁcity. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 35-50.

Marshall, G. N., Wortman, C. B., Kusulas, J. W., Hervig, L. K., & Vickers, R. R
(1992). Distinguishing optimism from pessimism: Relations to fundamental dimensions of
mood and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 1067-1074.

Melges, F. T., & Bowlby, J. (1969). Types of hopelessness in psychopathological
process. Archives of General Psychiatry, 20, 690-699.

Mendonca, J. D., Holden, R R, Mazrnanian, D., & Dolan, J. (1983). The
inﬂuence of response style on the Beck Hopelessness Scale. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science, 15, 237-247.

Metalsky, G. I., Abramson, L. Y., Seligrnan, M. E. P., Semmel, A., & Peterson, C.
R. (1982). Attributional styles and life events in the classroom: Vulnerability and
invulnerability to depressive mood reactions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 43, 612-617.

139

Metalsky, G. I., Halberstadt, L. J., & Abrarnson, L. Y. (1987). Vulnerability to
depressive mood reactions: Toward a more powerﬁrl test of the diathesis-stress and causal
mediation components of the reformulated theory of depression. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 52, 386-3 93.

Metalsky, G. I., & Joiner, T. E. (1992). Vulnerability to depressive
symptomatology: A prospective test of the diathesis-stress and causal mediation
components of the hopelessness theory of depression. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63, 667-675.

Metalsky, G. I., Joiner, T. E., Hardin, T. S., & Abrarnson, L. Y. (1993).Depressive
reactions to failure in a naturalistic setting: A test of the hopelessness and self-esteem
theories of depression. Journal of A bnormal Psychology, 102, 101-109.

Minkoﬂ‘, K., Bergman, E., Beck, A T., & Beck, R (1973). Hopelessness,
depression, and attempted suicide. American Journal of Psychiatry, 130, 455-459.

Moore, T. W., & Paolillo, J. G. P. (1984). Depression: Inﬂuence of hopelessness,
locus of control, hostility, and length of treatment. Psychological Reports, 54, 875-881.

Nekanda-Trepka, C. J. 8., Bishop, 8., & Blackburn, 1. M. (1983). Hopelessness
and depression. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22, 49-60.

Nevid, J. S. (1983). Hopelessness, social desirability, and construct validity.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 139-140.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1987). Sex differences in unipolar depression: Evidence and
theory. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 259-282.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (1990). Sex Dtﬂerences in Depression. Stanford CA:
Stanford University Press.

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Girgus, J. 8., & Seligrnan, M. E. P. (1986). Learned
helplessness in children: A longitudinal study of depression, achievement, and explanatory
style. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 , 435-442.

Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation
and Prediction. (2nd ed). Holt, Reinhart and Wmston: New York.

Peterson, 0, & Seligrnan, M. E. P. (1984). Causal explanations as a risk factor for
depression: Theory and evidence. Psychological Review, 91, 347-3 74.

Peterson, C., Villanova, P., & Raps, C. S. (1985). Depression and attributions:
Factors responsible for inconsistent results in the published literature. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 94, 165-168.

140

Prezant, D. W., & Neirneyer, R. A. (1988). Cognitive predictors of depression and
suicide ideation. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 18, 259-264.

Prociuk, T. J., Breen, L. J., & Lussier, R. J. (1976). Hopelessness, intemal-
external locus of control and depression. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 299-3 00.

Ranieri, W. F., Steer, R. A., Laverence, T. I., Rissmiller, D. J., Piper, G. E., &
Beck, A. T. (1987). Relationships of depression, hopelessness, and dysﬁmctional attitudes
to suicide ideation in psychiatric patients. Psychological Reports, 61, 967-975.

Rasmussen, J. L. (1989). Analysis of Likert-scale data: A reinterpretation of
Gregoire and Driver. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 167-170.

Rholes, W. S., Riskind, J. H., & Neville, B. (1985). The relationship of cognitions
and hopelessness to depression and anxiety. Social Cognition, 3, 36-50.

Riskind, J. H., & Rholes, W. S. (1984). Cognitive accessibility and the capacity of
cognitions to predict ﬁiture depression: A theoretical note. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 8, 1-12.

Robins, C. J., & Block, P. (1989). Cognitive theories of depression viewed ﬁ'om a
diathesis-stress perspective: Evaluations of the models of Beck and of Abramson,
Seligrnan, and Teasdale. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 13, 297-313.

Sacks, C. H., & Bugental, D. B. (1987). Attributions as moderators of affective
and behavioral responses to social failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
53, 939-947.

Schlebusch, L., & Wessels, W. H. (1988). General Hospital Psychiatry, 10, 209-
213.

Sethi, S., & Seligrnan, M. E. P. (1993). Optimism and fundamentalism.
Psychological Science, 4, 256-259.

Spangler, D. L., Sirnons, A. D., Monroe, S. M. & Thase, M. E. (1993). Evaluating
the hopelessness model of depression: Diathesis-stress and symptom components. Journal
of A bnormal Psychology, 102, 592-600.

Spitzer, R. L., Endicott, J. & Robins, E. (197 8). Research Diagnostic Criteria
(RDC) for a Selected Group of Functional Disorders, 3rd ed New York: State
Psychiatric Institute, Biometrics Research.

Staats, S. (1987). Hope: Expected positive affect in an adult sample. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 148, 357-364.

141

Staats, S. (1989). Hope: A comparison of two self report measures for adults.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 5 3, 366-3 75.

. Strosahl, K. D., Linehan, M. M., & Chiles, J. A. (1984). W111 the real social
desirability please stand up? Hopelessness, depression, Social desirability, and the
prediction of suicidal behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 449-
457.

Sweeney, P. D., Anderson, K., & Bailey, S. (1986). Attributional style in
depression: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,
974-991.

Wagner, M. H. (1991). Toward Validating the Diathesis-Stress and Causal
Mediation Components of the Hopelessness Theory of Depression. Unpublished master's
thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Watson, D., Weber, K., Assenheirner, J. S., Clark, L. A, Strauss, M. E., &
McCormick, R. A (1995). Testing a tripartite model: 1. Evaluating the convergent and
discriminant validity of anxiety and depression symptom scales. Journal of A bnormal
Psychology, 104, 3-14.

Weissman, M. M., & Klerrnan, G, L. (1977). Sex diﬂ‘erences in the epidemiology
of depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 80, 98—1 11.

Wetzel, R. D., Margulies, T., Davis, R, & Karam, E. (1980). Hopelessness,
depression, and suicide intent. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 41, 159-160.

Whisman, M. A, Miller, I. W., Norman, W. H., & Keitner, G. I. (1995).
Hopelessness depression in depressed inpatients: Symptomology, patient characteristics,
and outcome. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 19, 377-398.

Young, M. A, Halper, I. R, Clark, D. C., Scheftner, W., & Fawcett, J. (1992). An
item-response theory evaluation of the Beck Hopelessness Scale. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 16, 579-587.

Zubin, J. E., & Spring, B. (1977). Vulnerability: A new view of schizophrenia.
Journal of A bnormal Psychology, 86, 103-126.

Zuroﬁ‘, D. C. (1981). Depression and attribution: Some new data and a review of
old data. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 5, 273-281.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTES

lThe Hopelessness Theory of Depression (HTD; Abramson, Metalsky & Alloy,
1989; see also Abramson, Alloy & Metalsky, 1990 and Abramson, Alloy & Metalsky,
1995; and for earlier representations of the theory, see Abramson, Alloy & Metalsky,
1988; Abramson, Metalsky & Alloy, 1988; Alloy, Abramson, Metalsky & Hartlage, 1988;
and Alloy, Hartlage & Abramson, 1988).

2There has been criticism of the HS that has claimed the scale is severely
confounded by the degree to which it measures social desirability in addition to
hopelessness (Holden & Mendonca, 1984; Holden, Mendonca & Mazrnanian, 1985;
Holden, Mendonca & Serin, 1989', Linehan & Nielsen, 1981, 1983; Mendonca, Holden,
Mazrnanian & Dolan, 1983; Strosahl, Linehan & Chiles, 1984). The debate has focused on
high negative correlations between HS scores and measures of social desirability, and has
been justiﬁed by concern over the eﬂ‘ectiveness of the HS in predicting suicide and
parasuicide. However, Nevid (1983) argues that the co-variation of two constructs can
represent either a confound (when the constructs are theoretically unrelated) or can
represent support for construct validity (when the constructs are theoretically related and
can be shown to be distinct). Nevid (1983; p. 140) states "It seems conceivable that a
theory of hopelessness might lead to the prediction that individuals who report feeling
hopeless about their lives would be expected to be less concerned with the social

impression they leave about themselves with others. " Assessing the distinctiveness of

142

143

hopelessness and social desirability has been complicated by the fact that various scales of
social desirability seem to measure slightly to markedly different constructs (Cole, 1988;
Ellis, 1985; Strosahl et al., 1984; of Holden et al., 1989). In a comprehensive examination
of this issue, Cole (1988) concluded that hopelessness, after being controlled for
depression and social desirability, was related to parasuicide in clinical samples, but not in
non-clinical samples. Cole (1988) therefore recommended the use of the Reasons for
Living Inventory (Linehan, Goodstein, Nielsen, & Chiles, 1983) for suicidal risk
evaluation in non-clinical populations because of its low correlation with social desirability
and high correlation with suicide and parasuicide. While this debate may inspire pause in
researchers who operationalize hopelessness via the HS, it does not logically constrain
such use of the HS. The debate pivots on evaluating the HS as an operationalization of
suicidal intent and not as a measure of feelings of hopelessness per se, therefore the
criticism is less relevant in studies not addressing the issue of suicidality. That is, social
desirability has been suggested to confound the relationship between HS scores and
suicidality, but there has been no suggestion that social desirability confounds the
relationship between HS scores and other indices of hopelessness or indices of depression.
Again, the argument of Nevid (1983; above) regarding a logical relationship between
social desirability and hopelessness is quite compelling. Further, the author is not
convinced that the construct of social desirability has been operationalized with suﬁicient
consistency and therefore questions the advantages of controlling for this factor when
assessing hopelessness. For these reasons, the issue of social desirability will not be
empirically addressed in this study.

3While the purpose of combining scores for expected dissatisfaction with scores for

expected uncontrollability is to isolate an estimate of hopelessness, there are actually four

144

personal characteristics that can be deﬁned by combining extremes on the satisfaction and
controllability dimensions. As has been maintained, the degree of expected dissatisfaction
that is believed to be uncontrollable is indicative of degree of expectations of hopelessness.
Given the opposite situation, the degree of expected satisfaction that is believed to be
controllable is indicative of degree of expectations of hopeﬁrlness. Along diﬁ‘erent lines,
the degree of expected satisfaction that is believed to be uncontrollable is indicative of
degree of expectations of Was (i.e., "feeling lucky"). Finally, the degree of
expected dissatisfaction that is believed to be controllable is indicative of degree of
expectations of mmplamncy.

‘ Table 17 uses mean sums for positive vs. negative outcomes rather than mean
sums for all items so as not to obscure relationships that are not detected by the mean
sums for all scores. More speciﬁcally, on both the Want and Expect Scales, the mean sum
for all items can mask important differences because higher scores on the positive
outcome items tend to be counterbalanced by lower scores on negative outcome items.
For example, on the Want scale, complementary gender differences are found for positive
and negative outcomes, but when those scores are summed, the complementary
differences negate each other resulting in nearly identical mean sums. Therefore,
interpretation of total mean sums alone would erroneously suggest no gender differences
in responding on the Want Scale. This relative negation of group diﬁ‘erences across
positive and negative outcomes on the Want and Expect Scales is not an issue in the
calculation of OQ-Expected Dissatisfaction, OQ-Hopelessness or OQ-Weighted
Hopelessness because these scores are calculated within each positive or negative

outcome item ﬁrst, and then summed across items.

"I111111111111111