Discrimination between hopes and expectancies for nonvolitional outcomes: psychological phenomenon or artifact?

Despite the large literature concerning the impact of hope and expectancy on various outcomes (e.g., nonvolitional), less is known about the constructs of hope and expectancy themselves. In a recent study, Montgomery et al. (2003) demonstrated that hopes and expectancies are separate but related constructs; however, because both hopes and expectancies were measured within the same context, it is possible that these findings were simply a methodological artifact. Furthermore, it is unknown whether these data would generalize to other populations. Taking into account the importance of this distinction for both the expectancy and hope literatures, the present study sought to: (1) Determine if the distinction between hope and expectancy is a general and reliable phenomenon by using a culturally different sample (i.e., Romanian sample); and (2) Examine the robustness of this distinction by controlling for the context effect. One hundred-twenty five volunteers completed items in regard to 10 nonvolitional outcome scenarios in one of five measurement contexts. The results revealed that hope and expectancy were distinct constructs (p<0.0001), and that this distinction is both general and robust across contexts. Implications for theory and research are discussed.