BACKGROUND: In the literature, 'hope' has often been thought of as an ideal expectation. However, we believe the classification of hope as a type of expectation is problematic. Although both hopes and expectations are future-oriented cognitions, expectations are distinct in that they are an individual's probability-driven assessment of the most likely outcomes, while hopes are an assessment of the most desirable - but not necessarily the most probable - outcomes. AIM: This paper presents a conceptual model of the factors that may serve as common antecedents of hopes and expectations, and a mechanism that may mediate their differentiation. METHOD: Ovid Healthstar and PsycINFO database searches from January 1967 to October 2008 were conducted. An integrative literature review, synthesis and conceptual model development were carried out. Outcome Our model envisages the differentiation of hope from expectation as a dynamic, longitudinal process consisting of three phases: appraisal of possible outcomes, cognitive analysis for achieving hopes and goal pursuit. Key variables such as temporal proximity, controllability, external resources, goals, affect, agency and pathways may moderate the extent of divergence by influencing the perceived probability of achieving desired outcomes. CONCLUSION: Hopes and expectations are distinct, but linked, constructs. This preliminary conceptual model presents how hopes and expectations develop, become differentiated and how social-cognitive factors may moderate this relationship. A better understanding of hopes and expectations may assist health professionals in communicating illness-related expectations while maintaining the integrity of patient hopes.
BACKGROUND: In the literature, 'hope' has often been thought of as an ideal expectation. However, we believe the classification of hope as a type of expectation is problematic. Although both hopes and expectations are future-oriented cognitions, expectations are distinct in that they are an individual's probability-driven assessment of the most likely outcomes, while hopes are an assessment of the most desirable - but not necessarily the most probable - outcomes. AIM: This paper presents a conceptual model of the factors that may serve as common antecedents of hopes and expectations, and a mechanism that may mediate their differentiation. METHOD: Ovid Healthstar and PsycINFO database searches from January 1967 to October 2008 were conducted. An integrative literature review, synthesis and conceptual model development were carried out. Outcome Our model envisages the differentiation of hope from expectation as a dynamic, longitudinal process consisting of three phases: appraisal of possible outcomes, cognitive analysis for achieving hopes and goal pursuit. Key variables such as temporal proximity, controllability, external resources, goals, affect, agency and pathways may moderate the extent of divergence by influencing the perceived probability of achieving desired outcomes. CONCLUSION: Hopes and expectations are distinct, but linked, constructs. This preliminary conceptual model presents how hopes and expectations develop, become differentiated and how social-cognitive factors may moderate this relationship. A better understanding of hopes and expectations may assist health professionals in communicating illness-related expectations while maintaining the integrity of patient hopes.
Authors: C R Snyder; C Harris; J R Anderson; S A Holleran; L M Irving; S T Sigmon; L Yoshinobu; J Gibb; C Langelle; P Harney Journal: J Pers Soc Psychol Date: 1991-04
Authors: Neil Drummond; Lynn McCleary; Elizabeth Freiheit; Frank Molnar; William Dalziel; Carole Cohen; Diana Turner; Rebecca Miyagishima; James Silvius Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Rosemary Joan Gowran; Avril Kennan; Siobhán Marshall; Irene Mulcahy; Sile Ní Mhaille; Sarah Beasley; Mark Devlin Journal: Patient Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Cynthia M Khan; Christine Rini; Barbara A Bernhardt; J Scott Roberts; Kurt D Christensen; James P Evans; Kyle B Brothers; Myra I Roche; Jonathan S Berg; Gail E Henderson Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2014-12-09 Impact factor: 2.537