Dispositional hope and the propensity to cope: a daily diary assessment of minority adolescents.

Adolescence is a time of great change in the developmental process. These changes occur in the physiological, emotional, and cognitive domains, and can elicit feelings of excitement, fear, and stress. Some adolescents are overwhelmed with stressful events that they have little or no control over, especially adolescents from underrepresented groups (Figueira-McDonough, 1998). In fact, dysfunctional coping styles have been identified as proximal determinants of risky behavioral choices (e.g., sexual behaviors; Cooper, Wood, Orcutt, & Albino, 2003). Although the negative characteristics and outcomes associated with stress in adolescence are certainly important, positive characteristics such as hope, optimism, resiliency, and growth are all too often overlooked. This omission ignores the possibility that (some) adolescents might, in fact, develop strengths or grow after encountering stressors. In a broader sense, resilient children are more likely to become resilient adults (Werner & Smith, 1982). Snyder (1994) noted that hope is most important for those who live in unpredictable, uncontrollable circumstances, such as minority adolescents living in urban environments. Individuals from ethnic minority groups are faced with frequent impediments, which include acculturation (acculturative stress), language difficulties, prejudice and stereotyping, and economics (Lopez et al., 2000). Given that components of hope are tied to goal-seeking behaviors as well as to experiences of overcoming obstacles in pursuing these goals, it seems reasonable to suggest that variation along hope variables would exist. Snyder originally suggested that ethnic minority individuals would have less hope than Caucasians because they are generally faced with notable and more frequent obstacles in goal attainment. However, recent evidence has shown that ethnic minority group members and Caucasians are extremely similar in hope (see Chang & Banks, 2007). Chang and Banks (2007) further argued that these obstacles might be perceived as opportunities (or challenges) for some ethnic minority group members. Perhaps more important, however, the variation along hope variables is predictive of important outcomes in some studies that have used ethnic minority samples. For example, ethnic minority individuals with a strong sense of hope (relative to those low in hope) perform well academically (Adelabu, 2008), have greater coping efficacy (Danoff-Burg, Prelow, & Swenson, 2004), and employ more problem-solving coping strategies and fewer avoidant coping strategies (Chang & Banks, 2007). As Snyder and colleagues have outlined (e.g., Snyder, Cheavens, & Michael, 1999), hope is a motivational concept but clearly has a strong cognitive component. More specifically, hope is defined as “a reciprocally derived sense of successful agency (goal-directed determination) and pathways (planning of ways to meet the goals)” (Snyder et al., 1991, p. 571). Agency and pathways are not synonymous, and neither alone is sufficient to define hope. Pathway thoughts include a central route of obtaining a goal. However, the high-hope individual cognitively generates multiple routes for goal attainment. Agency deals with the selective ability to move along the pathway(s). This motivational component provides the force to pursue goals along the imagined pathway(s). In this model, striving toward goals elicits affective responses. When goals are impeded, negative affect results (e.g., Ruehlman & Wolchik, 1988). However, individuals who are high in hope are able to persevere and think of different conduits to try to attain the goal. Hope not only facilitates attaining a goal when that goal is unimpeded, it also helps individuals better cope when negative events or feelings arise. While Snyder’s conceptualization of hope is similar to other positive psychology constructs such as optimism and self-efficacy, there are differences (see Snyder, 2000; Snyder, Rand, & Sigmon, 2002, for a full exposition). Both hope and optimism involve positive expectations. For hope, however, these expectations are for a specific goal and sustained activity toward that goal, whereas optimism as defined by Carver and Scheier (2002) is a general expectation that good things will happen. Moreover, hope is conceptualized as a disposition or trait, and thus cross-situational. In contrast, self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) is usually identified as specific abilities and skills that individuals believe they have in specific situations. Hope has been found to be associated with (a) higher competency in numerous life areas (e.g., academics; Snyder et al., 1997), (b) use of adaptive coping methods (e.g., Irving, Snyder, & Crowson, 1998), (c) more flexible and positive thoughts (Snyder et al., 1996; Snyder & McCullough, 2000), and (d) more positive appraisals of stressful events (Affleck & Tennen, 1996). Hope is conceptualized as an individual difference factor that colors one’s appraisal of stressors and the coping process (Snyder et al., 1991). Thus, individuals high in hope should appraise stressors as more challenging (as opposed to more threatening), and thus have the ability and motivation to find solutions to ameliorate the stressful feelings and resolve the stressor as a function of this orientation (consistent with the transactional model of stress and coping; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; see also Thompson, Gustafson, Hamlett, & Spock, 1992). If a strategy is blocked or ineffective, they will try others (Hinton-Nelson, Roberts, & Snyder, 1996). According to this model, individuals perceive a stressor that they must adjust to, and cognitive sets, such as hope, would indirectly influence children’s adjustment via mediating mechanisms such as appraisal and coping. The importance of the relation between hope and coping choice is realized further when theory suggests that the basic components of hope are established during infancy and toddlerhood and are relatively stable by middle childhood (Snyder, 1994). The developmental issues with regard to coping are numerous (see, e.g., Aldwin, 1994; Compas, Connor-Smith, Saltzman, Thomsen, & Wadsworth, 2001). As children develop into adolescents, their coping repertoires increase with increased life experiences. Many researchers (e.g., Eisenberg, Fabes, & Guthrie, 1997) have argued that adolescents (relative to younger children) can often alleviate stress or eliminate a stressful situation because they have the cognitive, behavioral, and material resources to do so. Related to this, Seiffge-Krenke (2000) and others (e.g., Ebata & Moos, 1994) have found that older adolescents are more active and have a broader range of coping strategies and greater ability to view problems from multiple perspectives. Increased cognitive complexity and social maturity lead to more reflection about possible options (Seiffge-Krenke, 2000). The importance of this increased coping repertoire is that building resilience is a developmental process in which, over time, successfully overcoming adverse situations increases self-efficacy (Werner, 2000) and develops effective coping skills to handle new problems (Aldwin, Sutton, & Lachman, 1996). This developmental line of reasoning is also consistent with the relationships predicted from Snyder’s hope theory. Adolescents who are high on hope–pathways are hypothesized to engage in more overall coping use because they are better able to see multiple ways to reduce the impact of the stressor. Adolescents who use approach-oriented (or primary control or engaged) strategies (e.g., problem solving) experience less depression (Seiffge-Krenke & Klessinger, 2000) and are less likely to experience internalizing and externalizing symptoms (Wadsworth & Compas, 2002). Similarly, those adolescents who engage in secondary control coping experience fewer symptoms (Wadsworth, Raviv, Compas, & Connor-Smith, 2005). However, some adolescents prefer an overly rigid avoidant (or disengaged) style of coping, which is typically associated with more depression (Seiffge-Krenke & Klessinger, 2000) and higher frequency of substance use (Eftekhari, Turner, & Larimer, 2004; Wagner, Myers, & McIninch, 1999). Moreover, avoidant coping is associated with more symptoms in low-income samples (Banyard & Graham-Bermann, 1998). At the specific strategy level, however, inconsistencies exist. For example, Wills and Vaughn (1989) found a positive relationship between social support and self-esteem, whereas others (Ayers, 1991; Sandler, Tein, & West, 1994) have not found any significant relationship. Similar inconsistencies are noted for distancing. Specific forms of distancing such as social entertainment have been show to be related to higher substance abuse and problems but not to self-esteem or self-efficacy (e.g., Glyshaw, Cohen, & Towbes, 1989). Although very few studies have been conducted on ethnic minority adolescents (see, e.g., Vaughn & Roesch, 2003), ethnic differences in coping–mental health outcomes are generally not found (see Gonzales, Tein, Sandler, & Friedman, 2001).1