Hunter Opinions and Personal Expectations Scale (HOPES)

Abstract

The Hunter Opinions and Personal Expectations Scale (HOPES) is an established psychometric instrument designed to operationalize and quantify personal hopefulness, demoralization, and existential despair in adult and clinical populations. Developed in Australia by Kenneth P. Nunn, Terry J. Lewin, J. M. Walton, and Vaughan J. Carr (1996), the HOPES addresses a long-standing conceptual gap in affective neuroscience and clinical psychology by dissociating proactive positive expectations from the mere absence of clinical depression or cognitive hopelessness. The instrument exists primarily in a comprehensive 20-item version (HOPES-20) and a psychometrically refined brief 12-item version (HOPES-12). Across both configurations, respondents evaluate self-referential statements using a five-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 0 (“NOT At All”) to 4 (“Extremely Well”). The scale yields two core correlated yet conceptually distinct subscales: the Hope Subscale (HS), reflecting personal agency, existential purpose, and anticipation of positive social and temporal outcomes; and the Despair Subscale (DS), assessing fatalism, somatic and existential dread, alienation, and perceived external control. An overarching metric, the Global Personal Hopefulness (GPH) score, is derived using a standardized algorithmic equation balancing optimism against existential despair. Extensive psychometric testing across psychiatric inpatient, outpatient, and diverse community cohorts demonstrates robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s α typically ranging from .80 to .91 for subscales and the composite index), strong test-retest reliability across 4- to 8-week intervals, and clear factorial validity via exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The HOPES demonstrates pronounced convergent validity with measures of self-efficacy, life satisfaction, and psychological well-being, as well as distinct discriminant and predictive validity against measures of major depressive episodes, suicide risk, and general demoralization.

Keywords

Hunter Opinions and Personal Expectations Scale, HOPES, personal hopefulness, despair, psychometrics, demoralization, existential meaning, suicidal ideation, mental health assessment, psychiatric epidemiology

Authors

The HOPES was developed by an interdisciplinary research team affiliated with the University of Newcastle and the Hunter Area Health Service (now Hunter New England Mental Health) in New South Wales, Australia:

• Kenneth P. Nunn, M.B., B.S., F.R.A.N.Z.C.P. — Professor and Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist; Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Newcastle, and the Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
• Terry J. Lewin, B.Com. (Hons), Dip.Psych. — Senior Research Fellow and Biostatistician; Centre for Brain and Mental Health Research, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, and Priority Research Centre for Brain and Mental Health, Newcastle, Australia.
• J. M. Walton, B.A. (Hons), M.Psych. — Clinical Psychologist; Hunter Mental Health Service, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.
• Vaughan J. Carr, M.D., F.R.A.N.Z.C.P. — Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry; School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, and Centre for Brain and Mental Health Research, University of Newcastle, Australia.
• Brian J. Kelly, Ph.D., F.R.A.N.Z.C.P. — (Co-developer of HOPES-12); Professor of Psychiatry, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Hunter Opinions and Personal Expectations Scale is to provide a theoretically robust, empirically validated, and clinically sensitive metric of personal hopefulness as an independent psychological construct. Prior to the formulation of the HOPES, measurement of future-oriented cognitive schema within psychiatric and psychological research was heavily skewed toward pathology. Assessment was dominated by instruments such as the Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS), which treats hopefulness largely as the inverse pole of hopelessness, or unidimensional goal-directed motivation scales that do not fully capture existential, interpersonal, and somatic dimensions.

Nunn and colleagues recognized that the absence of overt hopelessness does not inevitably indicate the presence of adaptive, functional hope. Conversely, an individual enduring severe situational adversity may harbor considerable dread or objective worry (despair) while maintaining a resilient, overarching belief in future meaning, interpersonal connection, and personal agency. The HOPES was designed to systematically decouple these two orientations, allowing researchers and clinicians to:

• Quantify Salutogenic and Protective Resources: Identify personal strengths, positive future expectations, and internal resilience factors in psychiatric populations, forensic settings, and individuals undergoing major life transitions or catastrophic physical illness.
• Evaluate Demoralization and Despair: Assess subjective helplessness, loss of bodily confidence, perceived lack of social concern, and existential futility independent of neurovegetative depressive symptoms.
• Enhance Clinical Risk Assessment: Improve the stratification of suicide risk by evaluating both the magnitude of despair and the compensatory presence or absolute exhaustion of personal hopefulness.
• Measure Psychotherapeutic and Pharmacological Outcomes: Serve as a sensitive tracking index in strengths-based interventions, cognitive-behavioral therapies, existential psychotherapy, and psychiatric rehabilitation programs aimed at restoring psychological agency.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct operationalized by the HOPES is personal hopefulness, formulated as a dynamic, bidirectional cognitive-affective disposition regarding an individual’s orientation toward the future, the self, the world, and interpersonal systems. Rather than viewing hope as an unalloyed positive trait or a single continuum opposing despair, the HOPES operationalizes hopefulness as a dual-construct system composed of two interacting domains:

1. The Hope Dimension (Construct of Hopefulness)

The Hope Subscale reflects a positive cognitive-affective orientation characterized by prospective optimism, perceived competence, and perceived existential value. It encompasses several core themes:

• Anticipatory Engagement: An appetitive, forward-looking orientation toward life events, reflected in eagerness for upcoming phases, activities, and challenges (e.g., Item 1: “I generally look forward to new activities and phases in my life”).
• Existential Meaning and Productivity: A deeply seated conviction that human existence possesses coherence, purpose, and subjective worth, coupled with an expectation of personal utility and generativity (e.g., Item 2: “I am the sort of person who believes that life is full of meaning”; Item 7: “I generally believe that my life will be valuable and productive”).
• Self-Efficacy and Action Orientation: Belief in one’s capacity to confront adverse circumstances, regulate outcomes, and formulate structured plans to achieve desired life objectives (e.g., Item 6: “I believe that I can handle most of the difficulties that I might have to face”; Item 18: “I am the sort of person who makes definite plans for my future”).
• Relational Connectedness: An affirmative expectation of shared experience and meaningful interpersonal integration over time (e.g., Item 15: “I generally look forward to sharing my life with others”).

2. The Despair Dimension (Construct of Demoralization and Dread)

The Despair Subscale captures apprehension, alienation, externalized fatalism, and subjective vulnerability. Despair within this framework is not merely a synonym for clinical depression, but represents an existential disintegration across three primary areas:

• Loss of Agency and External Locus of Control: The persistent perception that future outcomes are dictated by external forces, luck, or malevolent chance, leaving the self impotent (e.g., Item 4: “I often feel that my future is NOT in my own hands”; Item 13: “Even when things go right, I often fear that my future is NOT under my control”).
• Existential Futility and Societal Pessimism: Fear that subsequent life phases will lack meaning or worth, accompanied by a broader systemic disillusionment regarding the prospects of future generations (e.g., Item 9: “I really believe that the children of today CANNOT expect much from their futures”; Item 12: “I often fear that the rest of my life will NOT be worthwhile”).
• Interpersonal and Somatic Alienation: Anticipated abandonment, social isolation, and subjective physical degradation (e.g., Item 5: “I generally believe that the most important people in my life do NOT care about my future”; Item 14: “I often feel that I will be less and less comfortable with my body as time goes on”; Item 20: “I often fear that I will NOT have the personal support that I need in the future”).

Theoretical Framework

The development of the HOPES is grounded in an integration of existential psychology, cognitive schema theory, and the psychiatric construct of demoralization.

Existential and Meaning-Centered Foundations

A foundational theoretical pillar of the HOPES stems from Viktor Frankl’s logotherapy and existential analysis, which posit that the will to meaning is the primary motivational force in human beings. Nunn and colleagues drew upon Frankl’s assertion that psychological breakdown ensues when an individual experiences an “existential vacuum”—a profound sense of total meaninglessness and futility. By incorporating explicit markers of whether life is perceived as “pointless” or “full of meaning,” the HOPES embeds existential coherence as an indispensable prerequisite of genuine psychological hopefulness.

Cognitive Triad and the Bidirectional Schema Model

Aaron T. Beck’s cognitive model of depression established that negative cognitive schema regarding the self, the world, and the future form the cognitive triad predisposing individuals to affective disorders. While Beck’s Hopelessness Scale effectively measures the future-oriented negative cognitive schema, Nunn and Lewin argued that psychopathology research had neglected the positive cognitive triad: self-worth, environmental opportunity, and purposeful future anticipation. Grounded in Julian Rotter’s locus of control theory and Albert Bandura’s self-efficacy framework, the HOPES models an individual’s cognitive appraisals of competence and internal mastery against feelings of somatic vulnerability and fatalistic helplessness.

The Concept of Demoralization vs. Depressive Illness

The HOPES operates within Jerome Frank’s conceptual distinction between psychiatric illness (such as major depressive disorder or schizophrenia) and demoralization. Demoralization occurs when a person perceives themselves unable to cope with pressing internal or external demands, leading to feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, isolation, and diminished self-esteem. By capturing both active hope (the presence of goal-directed cognitive resources) and active despair (the experience of demoralized helplessness), the HOPES allows for four distinct quadrant profiles within a two-dimensional space:

• High Hope / Low Despair: Resilient, flourishing, high psychological capital.
• High Hope / High Despair: Ambivalent or conflicted state; experiencing acute situational crisis or existential distress while maintaining underlying personal agency and values.
• Low Hope / Low Despair: Apathetic, emotionally blunted, or resigned state; devoid of acute anguish but displaying notable lack of vitality or future orientation.
• Low Hope / High Despair: Severely demoralized, high clinical vulnerability, elevated risk for clinical depression and suicidal crisis.

Validity

Empirical validation of the Hunter Opinions and Personal Expectations Scale has been established across clinical psychiatric samples, general hospital cohorts, and large community epidemiological studies.

Construct and Factorial Validity

In the seminal psychometric validation study by Nunn, Lewin, Walton, and Carr (1996), involving 382 subjects (encompassing acute psychiatric admissions, chronic rehabilitation patients, and normal community controls), the HOPES demonstrated clear factor differentiation. Factor analytic procedures confirmed that positive hope items and negative despair items load on two separate, moderately inversely correlated dimensions (typically r = −.50 to −.65), verifying that hope and despair represent distinct psychological factors rather than mathematical reciprocals.

Convergent Validity

The HOPES exhibits robust convergent correlations with established psychometric instruments across multiple domains:

• Negative Affect and Hopelessness: The Despair Subscale (DS) correlates strongly and positively with the Beck Hopelessness Scale (r = .68 to .78) and the cognitive-affective subscale of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; r = .60 to .72). The Hope Subscale (HS) exhibits significant negative correlations with the BHS (r = −.58 to −.70).
• Self-Efficacy and Mastery: The HS demonstrates high positive correlations with the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE; r = .64 to .74) and the Pearlin Mastery Scale (r = .58 to .69), affirming its capture of personal agency and self-directed problem-solving.
• Life Satisfaction and Well-Being: Global Personal Hopefulness (GPH) correlates positively with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; r = .62 to .71) and positive affectivity measures on the PANAS (r = .55 to .65).

Discriminant and Predictive Validity

Studies evaluating clinical differentiability indicate that the HOPES successfully distinguishes between psychiatric inpatients presenting with major affective episodes, patients with non-affective psychotic disorders, and non-clinical control populations. Nunn et al. (1996) demonstrated that individuals with active suicidal ideation exhibited a marked collapse in the Hope Subscale combined with an elevation in the Despair Subscale. Crucially, longitudinal follow-ups have shown that changes in GPH predict clinical recovery, functional reintegration, and return to employment beyond the variance explained by standard symptom rating scales like the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS).

Reliability

The HOPES exhibits high reliability across diverse diagnostic categories, age brackets, and cultural contexts.

Internal Consistency

In initial and subsequent normative evaluations, the internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s α) for the scales have consistently satisfied stringent psychometric standards for clinical use:

• HOPES-20 Hope Subscale (10 items): Cronbach’s α ranges between .85 and .91 in community samples, and between .83 and .89 in clinical inpatient cohorts.
• HOPES-20 Despair Subscale (10 items): Cronbach’s α ranges between .82 and .88 across diverse clinical cohorts.
• HOPES-12 Short Form (6 items per subscale): As established by Lewin, Nunn, Carr, Kelly, et al. (2008), the abbreviated subscales maintain strong internal consistency, with α = .81 to .86 for Hope-6 and α = .78 to .84 for Despair-6, with total composite reliability remaining above .85.

Test-Retest Stability

In stable non-clinical cohorts assessed over intervals of four to eight weeks, test-retest reliability intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from r = .78 to .86 for the Hope Subscale, and r = .74 to .82 for the Despair Subscale. In clinical populations undergoing active treatment, the HOPES demonstrates state-sensitive fluctuations that track subjective clinical improvement, indicating that while baseline hope functions as an enduring trait-like disposition, it remains responsive to therapeutic interventions.

Factor Analysis

The structural integrity of the HOPES has been rigorously scrutinized using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Structure

During original scale development, principal components analysis followed by oblique (Oblimin and Promax) rotations consistently yielded a clean two-factor solution explaining over 48% of the total variance:

• Factor 1: Hope / Personal Agency: Composed exclusively of items 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, 18, and 19. Item factor loadings range from .52 to .79, reflecting themes of optimism, active future planning, perceived self-efficacy, and meaning in life.
• Factor 2: Despair / Demoralization: Composed exclusively of items 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20. Item factor loadings range from .46 to .76, capturing somatic decline, perceived loss of agency, external locus of control, and interpersonal alienation.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and HOPES-12 Derivation

Subsequent psychometric modeling by Lewin, Nunn, Carr, and Kelly evaluated competing structural models:

• Unidimensional Model: Positing a single bipolar continuum (Hope vs. Despair). This model consistently failed fit criteria (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] > .10; Comparative Fit Index [CFI] < .80).
• Two-Factor Correlated Model: Modeling Hope and Despair as distinct, correlated latent constructs. This model provided superior fit across community and psychiatric datasets (χ²/df < 2.5, CFI > .94, TLI > .93, RMSEA < .055).

To optimize clinical utility and field administration efficiency, Lewin et al. (2008) derived the HOPES-12. Using item response theory (IRT) properties, modification indices, and cross-loadings, the top 6 items from the Hope dimension (Items 1, 2, 7, 10, 15, 19 of the original pool) and the top 6 items from the Despair dimension (Items 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 20 of the original pool) were retained. CFA confirmed that HOPES-12 preserves the robust two-factor structure of the 20-item parent scale with enhanced parsimony and comparable explanatory power.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Hunter Opinions and Personal Expectations Scale is self-administered and can be integrated into routine clinical assessment batteries or population health surveys.

• Instrument Type: Standardized self-report rating scale / psychometric questionnaire.
• Target Population: Adolescents (aged 15+) and adults across general, psychiatric, and somatic medical populations.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil, computer-assisted self-interview (CASI), or digital survey platform.
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes for HOPES-20; 1 to 2 minutes for HOPES-12.
• Item Count:
  • Full Version: 20 items (10 Hope items, 10 Despair items).
  • Brief Version: 12 items (6 Hope items, 6 Despair items).
• Response Scale (5-Point Likert):
  • 0 = NOT At All
  • 1 = NOT Very Well
  • 2 = Moderately Well
  • 3 = Very Well
  • 4 = Extremely Well
• Item Breakdown by Subscale (HOPES-20):
  • Hope Subscale (HS) Items (10 items): 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, 18, 19
  • Despair Subscale (DS) Items (10 items): 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20
• Item Breakdown by Subscale (HOPES-12):
  • Hope Subscale Items (6 items): Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 11 of the 12-item inventory (corresponding to items 1, 2, 7, 10, 15, 19 of HOPES-20).
  • Despair Subscale Items (6 items): Items 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 of the 12-item inventory (corresponding to items 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 20 of HOPES-20).
• Scoring and Computational Rules (HOPES-20):
  • Hope Subscale (HS): Calculate the raw sum of the 10 Hope items (possible range: 0–40), then divide by 10 to obtain an average item metric:
    HS = Subtotal_Hope / 10 (Score range: 0.0 to 4.0).
  • Despair Subscale (DS): Calculate the raw sum of the 10 Despair items (possible range: 0–40), then divide by 10:
    DS = Subtotal_Despair / 10 (Score range: 0.0 to 4.0).
  • Global Personal Hopefulness (GPH): Combines both subscales into a standardized composite measure scaled from 0.0 to 4.0:
    GPH = (HS + 4 − DS) / 2
  • Interpretation of GPH: Higher scores reflect greater net personal hopefulness, characterized by high agency and low existential dread. A score of 2.0 indicates a neutral balance between hope and despair. Scores falling substantially below 2.0 indicate clinically relevant demoralization and warrant targeted assessment.
• Scoring Rules (HOPES-12):
  • HS_12 = Subtotal_Hope_6 / 6 (Score range: 0.0 to 4.0).
  • DS_12 = Subtotal_Despair_6 / 6 (Score range: 0.0 to 4.0).
  • GPH_12 = (HS_12 + 4 − DS_12) / 2 (Score range: 0.0 to 4.0).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Hunter Opinions and Personal Expectations Scale was first formally published in 1996 by Kenneth P. Nunn, Terry J. Lewin, J. M. Walton, and Vaughan J. Carr in Psychological Medicine. The refined HOPES-12 variant was introduced by Lewin, Nunn, Carr, Kelly, and colleagues in 2008.

Licensing and Fee Structure: The HOPES is considered an open-access, non-commercial clinical research instrument. It was developed with institutional and public grant support in Australia. The authors have historically made the scale accessible without licensing fees for academic research, medical education, non-profit clinical audits, and public mental health applications, provided appropriate attribution and formal citation are maintained.

Commercial clinical trials, proprietary digital health platforms, and corporate assessment software looking to incorporate the HOPES should seek explicit clearance from the copyright holders and developer representatives via the School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia.

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(6), 861–865. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037562
• Frankl, V. E. (1985). Man’s search for meaning. Simon and Schuster.
• Lewin, T. J., Nunn, K. P., Carr, V. J., Kelly, B. J., Sly, K., & Walton, J. M. (2008). Hopes revisited – introducing a 12-item scale for measuring personal hopefulness (HOPES-12). Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 42(Suppl. 3), A94.
• Nunn, K. P., Lewin, T. J., Walton, J. M., & Carr, V. J. (1996). The construction and characteristics of an instrument to measure personal hopefulness. Psychological Medicine, 26(3), 531–545. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329170003554X
• Nunn, K. P., & Lewin, T. J. (2013). Hunter Opinions and Personal Expectations Scales. In C. A. Simmons & P. Lehmann (Eds.), Tools for strengths-based assessment and evaluation (pp. 203–206). Springer Publishing Company.
• Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., Yoshinobu, L., Gibb, J., Langelle, C., & Patryk, P. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 570–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.4.570

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)