A Summary of the Measurement of Pessimism: The ...

Hopelessness Scale 1

Running head: THE HOPELESSNESS SCALE

A Summary of the Measurement of Pessimism: The Hopelessness Scale
Sarah E. J. Baker

Antioch New England Graduate School

Hopelessness Scale 2

The Measurement of Pessimism: The Hopelessness Scale
In 1974, Aaron Beck, Arlene Weissman, David Lester and Larry Trexler created a scale
intended to measure hopelessness. They decided on developing this scale because hopelessness
had been implicated as a key feature of depression, as well as a contributor to “suicide (Beck,
1963), schizophrenia (Laing & Esterson, 1965), alcoholism (Smart, 1968), sociopathy (Melges &
Bowlby, 1969) and physical illness (Schmale, 1958)” (Beck, Weissman, Lester & Trexler, 1974,
p. 861).
A clinician named Stotland did a meta-analysis of hopelessness in 1969. The belief
among clinicians up to that point was that it was a “diffuse feeling state” (Beck, et al., 1974), too
indistinct to quantify and study. However, Stotland believed that hopelessness could be defined
“in terms of a system of negative expectancies concerning himself and his future life” (Beck, et
al., 1974). Beck used this theory to create an instrument that measured an individual’s negative
expectancies, which in turn, became the Hopelessness Scale (“HS”).
The instrument is twenty questions, in a true-false format; nine are keyed false and eleven
keyed true. All answers are given a score of 0 or 1, so the range is between 0 to 20. The items
were taken from two sources: Nine items were taken from a study by Heimberg (1961), and the
remaining eleven from a group of psychiatric patients who clinicians believed felt hopeless.
Beck, et al. (1974) gathered pessimistic statements made by this group and teased out both
comments that covered an array of negative feelings towards the future, and those that came up
repeatedly when the patients spoke. The instrument was then given to depressed and non-
depressed people, who were told what it was for, and it was modified by incorporating their
comments.

Hopelessness Scale 3

Next, it was tested for reliability on 294 hospitalized patients who had recently tried to
commit suicide. Their demographics broke down into 42.5% male and 57.5% female. Among
the men, they were 61% white, 36% black, 3% other, 31 years old, completed 11 years of school,
52% were single, 23% separated, 14% married, 4% divorced, 3% widowed, and 3% living with
someone. The women’s demographics were 44% white, 57% black, .6% other, 30 years old,
completed 11 years of school, 34% were single, 31% separated, 20% married, 4% divorced, 2%
widowed, and 9% living with someone. The internal consistency produced a reliability
coefficient of .93, the item-total correlation coefficients ranged from .39 to .76, and all
correlations were significant at .01 (Beck, et al., 1974). The instrument proved to have a high
amount of reliability.

The data from these patients also went through a factor analysis. Ultimately three factors
were lost, one labeled “Feelings about the Future,” which dealt with positive affect, a second
labeled “Loss of Motivation,” which embodied motivation, and a third called “Future
Expectations,” which had items about whether the future would work out; if it will be bleak, etc.
(Beck et al., 1974).

To test for concurrent validity, the HS was compared with clinical ratings of hopelessness
and against tests measuring negative attitudes about the future. One test compared HS to the
clinical ratings of 23 outpatients in a general medical practice; the correlation was .74. A second
test compared clinical ratings of 62 hospitalized patients who attempted suicide, and had a
correlation of .62 (Beck, et al. 1974). “The interrater reliability of the two judges was .86”
(Beck, et al., 1974, p.863). It was also tested on 59 hospitalized, depressed patients against the
Stuart Future Test, and Beck’s Depression Inventory (DI) (1967). The correlation between the
HS and the Stuart Future Test was .60. Against the DI, its highest correlation (.63) was with the

Hopelessness Scale 4

pessimism item. Interestingly, they were also able to prove that the HS scale is still perceptive
over time, since they re-administered all three tests when each patient left the hospital. The
scores changed on all three instruments. “The changes in the HS scores correlated .49 with
change scores on the Stuart Future Test and .49 with the change scores on the DI, respectively”
(Beck, et al., 1974, p. 863).

Construct validity was established by allowing the use of the scale in several studies, with
each study subsequently confirming the hypothesis. Two examples of the “hypotheses tested and
confirmed…[are] 1. Depressed patients have an unrealistically negative attitude toward the
future, and these negative expectancies are reduced when the patient recovers clinically from his
depression (Vatz, Winig, & Beck, 1969). 2. Seriousness of suicidal intent is more highly
correlated with negative expectancies than with depression. The statistical association between
suicidal intent and depression is an artifact resulting from a joint attachment to a third variable,
namely, hopelessness (Minkoff, Bergman, Beck & Beck, 1973)” (Beck, et al., 1974, p. 863). Due
to repeated confirmation, the construct validity was authenticated.

Ultimately, Beck, et al. created a tool that is both highly reliable and has been proven to
have strong validity. Since hopelessness has been shown to be a predictor of several disorders, as
well as suicide attempts, this could be a useful instrument in helping to detect, assess and work
with individuals who are at risk.

Hopelessness Scale 5

References
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.