Locus-of-hope and well-being of Filipino students 1

Interacting Dimensions of Locus-of-hope and Well-Being of Filipino Students

Allan B.I. Bernardo and Angela Lorraine P. Cunanan

De La Salle University, Philippines

Abstract

Different locus-of-hope (or LOH) dimensions predict different indicators of well-being of

students in different Asian societies. In most cases, internal and external-family LOH are a

consistent predictor of students’ well-being in different groups of Asian students, while external-

peer and external-spiritual LOH predict student well-being in specific cultures. Previous studies

investigated the direct effects of the four LOH dimensions on well-being, but recent studies

suggest that internal and external-family LOH may be working in a contingent manner. In this

study, we explored the possibility that three LOH dimensions (internal, external-family, and

external-peer) might be interacting to influence students’ well-being. This interaction is proposed

to reflect how LOH dimensions are clusters of strengths that work in synergy and in

compensatory ways. We surveyed 421 students (ages 12 to 23) from schools in two urban

regions of the Philippines (Metro Manila and Metro Davao). The students completed the LOH

and life satisfaction scales, and the results of multiple regression analysis show two significant

interaction effects on well-being. Both interactions show how external-family LOH compensates

for weak internal and external-peer LOH. The chapter discusses the implications of the

synergistic working of LOH dimensions, particularly for hope-building interventions for

students.
 Locus-of-hope and well-being of Filipino students 2

Practitioner Pointers

• Students’ parents, family members, and friends can be important hope agents.

• Hope-building interventions should encourage students to reflect on how their important

life goals relate to their aspirations for and to the expectations of significant others.

• Hope-building interventions should guide students to identify ways by which significant

others can provide, assist, or support their strategies for attaining important life goals.

• Hope-building interventions should point student to think of how significant others can

boost the self-beliefs for attaining important life goals.

• Hope-building intervention should give direction to students to appreciate how strengths

in particular hope agents in their lives can compensate for their weaknesses.
 Locus-of-hope and well-being of Filipino students 3

Introduction

Hope is one of the character strengths that been extensively studied in the educational

context. Research across various educational systems have found how hope predicts numerous

educational processes and outcomes, and some studies have documented the benefits of hope-

building interventions among students. Much of the work on hope in students in schools has

drawn from Snyder’s (2000) hope theory, which has been extended to include a broader range of

locus-of-hope dimensions (Bernardo, 2010), including hope related to how family and friends or

peers may help in helping realize one’s important hopes in life. As evidence on the benefits of

this multidimensional conception of hope in students accumulates, there is some research that

suggests how different hope dimensions might be working in a contingent manner, interacting to

influence well-being and other positive outcomes. In this chapter, we explore this notion of

interacting locus-of-hope dimensions and its relationship with well-being in a sample of Filipino

students. We assume that students are mindful of how the internal and external locus-of-hope

sources (the self, family, or peers) vary, and as such, their hopeful thoughts reflect an attempt to

compensate weaknesses in one source with the strengths of another source. In exploring these

types of compensatory interactions, we hope to provide theoretical insight to how students’

hopes relate to their well-being, and also practice guides relative to how hope-building

interventions might be better able to help students flourish.

Hope and students: Perspectives of Snyder’s hope theory

For more than two decades, hope theory has served as an influential contributor to the

theory and practice of positive education (Rand & Cheavens, 2009). Hope, as defined in hope

theory, involves two related ways of thinking about goals: pathways and agency. Pathways

thinking is the perceived ability to create specific paths leading to a desired goal or destination,
 Locus-of-hope and well-being of Filipino students 4

and agency thinking refers to the perceived confidence or level of intention to achieve such goals

(Rand & Cheavens, 2009; Snyder, 2002). Pathways and agency, together, denote a disposition

for positive, goal-oriented thinking that is different from similar constructs such as optimism and

self-efficacy (Rand, 2018; Snyder, 2000). Hope also functions as a protective factor that helps

safeguard individuals from mental and physical problems due to the recurring successful pursuit

of goals and the resulting positive affect (Snyder, 2000).

Given its positive nature, the impact of Snyder’s hope has been investigated quite

extensively in the educational or academic context. Hope helps strengthen the students’ goal-

directed behaviors, which in turn, allows students to maintain a proactive orientation towards

their goals while also considering strategies that could be counterproductive (Snyder, 2003).

Students challenge themselves by setting more difficult goals; accordingly, they can better

evaluate the attainment of their goals (Feldman et al., 2009). Furthermore, hope among students

is positively correlated with their academic achievement (Çelik et al., 2015; Day et al., 2010;

Feldman & Kubota, 2015; Marques et al., 2011), their use of adaptive learning goal orientations

(Feldman & Dreher, 2012; Peterson et al., 2006), and their psychological well-being (Gilman et

al., 2006).

Moreover, as there are numerous benefits associated with higher levels of hope, the

construct is harnessed and operationalized through targeted interventions for students (Feldman

& Dreher, 2012; Lopez et al., 2000). Positive education researchers have developed propitious

hope-based interventions to enhance students' goal-oriented thinking and the successful pursuits

of these goals (e.g., Davidson et al., 2012; Feldman & Dreher, 2012; Marques et al., 2011). For

instance, findings from a single-session hope intervention among college students, showed that

higher levels of hope were connected to increased levels of one’s purpose in life and vocational
 Locus-of-hope and well-being of Filipino students 5

calling—that is, the degree of perceived personal meaning in one’s work (Feldman & Dreher,

2012). Another hope-based workshop which aims to foster hope also reported that more hopeful

first year college students had improved academic performance and increased sense of coherence

and self-efficacy (Davidson et al., 2012). Furthermore, in a study involving middle schoolers,

hope can also bring about other psychological benefits: an increased sense of life satisfaction and

self-worth (Marques et al., 2011). Such positive outcomes of hope-building interventions among

students point to important viable features of positive education programs.

Locus-of-hope perspective: Broadening resources of hope

Hope theory assumes that hopeful cognitions are relative to the individual’s personal

abilities and capacities in reaching their goals. This assumption reflects a more disjoint model

of agency (Markus & Kitayama, 2003), which highlights the individual’s personal intentions

and interests when doing positive actions. Concurrently, this also ignores the role of external

factors or agents contributing to the person's goal-attainment. To address this gap, Bernardo

(2010, 2015) proposed a more conjoint model of hope theory that expands the individualistic

orientation into one that is more collectivistic by adding external locus-of-hope dimensions

that refer to the external agents involved in the person’s goal-attainment processes. These

external locus-of-hope dimensions reflect the more collectivistic orientation as it highlights the

role of the individual’s social groups (i.e., family, peers) and spiritual/supernatural forces

relative to the individual’s thoughts about agency and pathways for attaining their goals. The

locus-of-hope model (Bernardo, 2010) maintained the concepts and assumptions from Snyder's

hope theory (2002) in the internal dimension but extended the theory by adding the external

dimension with three subdimensions (i.e., external-family, external-peer, external-spiritual).

 Locus-of-hope and well-being of Filipino students 6

The empirical evidence on how external locus-of-hope dimensions are linked to various

positive outcomes has been slowly growing. There are studies with East Asian and Southeast

Asian samples that show associations of locus-of-hope and indicators of student well-being and

learning experiences (e.g., Bernardo, 2015; Bernardo, Khan, et al., 2018; Bernardo et al., 2016;

Bernardo, Yeung, et al., 2018; Datu & Mateo, 2017; Du & King, 2013). External locus-of-hope

dimensions were found to be associated with satisfaction with life among high school students

(Bernardo, 2015) and university students (Bernardo, Yeung, et al., 2018), and with self-esteem

(Du et al., 2015; Bernardo, Khan, et al., 2018) in various Asian educational systems. Other

studies have also shown how the external-peer dimension is connected to the use of

collaborative learning strategies (Bernardo et al., 2016), and is a buffer against the effects of

discrimination (Datu & Mateo, 2017) and financial stress (Bernardo & Resurreccion, 2018)

among college students. There is one study that shows a positive relationship between external

locus-of-hope dimensions and achievement of college students (Lucas & Ouano, 2018).

Recently, research using the locus-of-hope model has been conducted with non-Asian

samples, thus extending the validity of the model beyond Asian cultures. For example, in a

sample from the USA, majority of whom self-identified as Caucasian or White, Wagshul

(2018) validated the locus-of-hope scale, and more importantly found that external locus-of-

home predicted lower acquired capability for suicide. Although this study did not involve

students, it is noteworthy for showing how the model that includes the external locus-of-hope

dimensions is useful in individuals from non-Asian or non-collectivist societies also.

Another study in the USA involving an adolescent female student sample (also majority

identified as Caucasian or White) validated the locus-of-hope scale and model, but more

importantly, their study showed that external-family locus-of-hope’s relationship with the
 Locus-of-hope and well-being of Filipino students 7

students’ life satisfaction was mediated by internal locus-of-hope (Muñoz et al. 2019). This

finding was explained as being related to how one’s parents and guardians are important

sources of personal agency and pathways for goal attainment. This theoretical insight prompted

us to consider the possibility that the different locus-of-hope dimensions are actually working

together, possibly in interacting ways. The study we report in this chapter begins exploring this

theoretical notion, as we explain in the next section.

Current Study

Previous research on the locus-of-hope model (LOH) assume that the four LOH

dimensions are related to each other, but their relationships with positive outcomes have always

been examined as direct effects. In this study, we explore some theoretical proposals that assume

that the different LOH dimensions are clusters of strengths, similar to the conceptualization of

psychological capital (Luthans et al., 2015) or of resource caravans (Hobfoll, 2002) as clusters of

resources that go together and interact in synergy. However, the synergistic interaction we

propose is different from these other two models mainly because hope is not conceptualized as a

resource or capital that needs to be conserved and deployed appropriately at different points in

one’s life. Instead, hope theory assumes that hope is a cognitive disposition (Snyder, 2002) that

drives goal related thoughts. In this regard, we propose that the dimensions of LOH dispositions

interact in a manner that reflect a compensatory approach.

Our compensatory model assumes that the different LOH dimensions interact so that a

strong LOH dimension may compensate for another weak dimension. Thus, a student who has

low internal LOH might still be able to have high well-being if she has strong external-family

LOH, or one with low external-family LOH but high external-peer LOH, or vice versa. Thus, it

is not necessary that students be high in all LOH dimensions to experience well-being. Indeed,
 Locus-of-hope and well-being of Filipino students 8

one dimension might be enough, because one LOH dimension can compensate for weaknesses in

other dimensions. Low well-being arises in cases when the student is low in all LOH dimensions.

We test these basic assumptions in a sample of Filipino high school and college students

who answered the LOH scales and the Satisfaction with Life scale (Diener et al., 1985). In

addition to testing the direct relationship between each LOH dimension and the students’ life

satisfaction, we also tested the different interaction effects among the different dimensions.

Previous studies among different Asian students showed that internal LOH and external-family

LOH were consistently positively related with students’ life satisfaction (Bernardo, 2015;

Bernardo, Yeung, et al., 2018) and other measures of positive well-being (Du et al., 2015;

Bernardo, Khan, et al., 2018). The data are inconsistent regarding the role of the other two

external LOH dimensions. However, there is emerging evidence that external-peer LOH buffers

the effects of stressors among Filipino students (Bernardo & Resurreccion, 2018; Datu & Mateo,

2017) and relates to positive collaborative learning strategies in schools (Bernardo et al., 2016).

On the other hand, there is evidence on how external-spiritual LOH relates to maladaptive

coping among students (Bernardo, Yeung, et al., 2018) and other Filipino samples (Bernardo &

Estrellado, 2017). In this regard, we excluded external-spiritual LOH in the test of the

hypotheses, and only examined the direct relationships and the interactions among internal,

external-family and external-peer LOH.

Method

Participants and procedures

Participants were 424 high school and university students in two large metropolitan areas

in the two biggest islands in the Philippines (Luzon and Mindanao). Some students had missing

data for the main variables and were excluded in the final analysis, so the final sample was 414
 Locus-of-hope and well-being of Filipino students 9

students. The students ages ranged from 12 to 23 years and the mean age was 16.90 years (SD

3.54); 50.24% were female. For the high school students, the school heads (principal or director)

sought permission of the parents to have their children participate in the survey, and the survey

questionnaires were answered in their classrooms. For university students, the students’ informed

consent was sought for those who answered the survey, and the questionnaires were answered

within the university premises.

Measures

Locus-of-hope Scale. The scale (Bernardo, 2010) had four subscales measuring the four

LOH dimensions: internal, external-family, external-peer, and external-spiritual; but the answers

in the external-spiritual subscale were not included in the analysis. Each subscale had eight items

that expressed a thought about goal attainment. Samples of items for each subscale are “I meet

the goals I set for myself” (internal), “My parents have lots of ways of helping me attain my

goals” (external-family), and “I have been able to meet my goals because of my friends’ help”

(external-peer). The students were asked to indicate their agreement with each item using a scale

from 1 (definitely false) to 4 (definitely true).

Satisfaction with life scale. The five-item scale (Diener et al., 1985) measured the

students’ general subjective well-being (sample item: “In most ways my life is close to my

ideal”). The students’ responded using a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

RESULTS

The descriptive statistics for the main variables (including the internal consistency

coefficient for the scales) are presented in Table 1. Consistent with previous studies, life

satisfaction was positively associated with both internal and external-family LOH, but a better

test of these relationships will be in the multiple regression analysis.

 Locus-of-hope and well-being of Filipino students 10

To test the proposed interacting effects among the LOH dimensions, we had to create the

interaction terms. First, the scores the three LOH scales were centered by subtracting each score

from the scale mean to reduce multicollinearity between the main effect and the interaction

terms. Centering the values also ensures that the interpretation of the interaction effects will

occur at a meaningful value (Cohen et al., 2003). The centered scores were then used to compute

the cross-product values used as the interaction term. Three two-way interaction terms were

created: internal LOH x external-family LOH, internal LOH x external-peer LOH, and external-

family LOH x external-peer LOH. One three-way interaction term was computed: internal LOH

x external-family LOH x external-peer LOH.

Table 1

Descriptive statistics for key variables

Correlations (r)

 M SD 1 2 3

1. Life satisfaction .76 4.69 1.10 —

2. Internal LOH .62 3.03 0.41 .17*** —

3. External-family LOH .75 2.90 0.62 .13** .49*** —

4. External-peer LOH .89 2.73 0.47 .03 .45*** .52***

**p < .01, **p < .001. Note: LOH = locus-of-hope

For the hierarchical regression analysis, life satisfaction was regressed to age and sex in

the first model, then the three LOH scores were added in model 2. The three two-way interaction

terms were added in model 3, and the three-way interaction term was added in model 4. The

results of the regression analysis are summarized in Table 2.

 Locus-of-hope and well-being of Filipino students 11

Table 2

Summary of hierarchical multiple regression analysis

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

β 95% CI β 95% CI β 95% CI β 95% CI
Age – .06 [–0.05, 0.01] .02 [–0.03, 0.04] .02 [–0.03, 0.04] .02 [–0.03, 0.04]

Gender .09 [–0.02, 0.40] .10* [0.01, 0.42] .09 [–0.01, 0.41] .10** [0.01, 0.42]

Internal LOH .16** [0.12, 0.74] .18** [0.19, 0.80] .17** [0.14, 0.77]

External-family LOH .12 [–0.03, 0.46] .10 [–0.06, 0.43] .09 [–0.08, 0.41]

External-peer LOH –.11 [–0.54, 0.00] –.07 [–0.44, 0.13] –.11 [-0.56, 0.05]

Internal x External-family LOH –.15** [–1.07, –1.17] –.15** [–1.08, –0.19]

Internal x External-peer LOH .10 [–0.14, 1.15] .08 [–0.25, 1.06]

External-family x External-peer LOH –.16* [–1.03, –0.12] –.16* [–1.03, -0.12]

Internal x External-family x External-peer LOH .11 [–0.13, 1.33]

R2 .01 .05 .09 .10

F 2.17 3.95** 4.97*** 4.73**
df 2, 411 5, 408 8, 405 9,404
∆R2 .04 .04 .01
∆F 5.09** 6.41*** 2.64
Df 3, 408 3, 405 1, 404
*p < .05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001; LOH = locus-of-hope
 Locus-of-hope and well-being of Filipino students 12

The three way-interaction term did not explain any additional variation in the students’

life satisfaction, so we can focus our attention on the main effects and the two-way interaction

effects. Consistent with much of the hope literature, internal LOH (or dispositional hope) was

consistently related to the students’ life satisfaction. External-family LOH was not associated

with the students’ life satisfaction, which is a departure from previous findings with other studies

that involved Filipino students. But the two-way interactions may provide some insights

regarding this result. Two interaction effects were statistically significant, and both involve

external-family LOH.

The interaction between internal LOH and external-family LOH was a significant

predictor of well-being. We can refer to Figure 1 to better understand this interaction effect, and

the figure shows that among students with high internal LOH, there is no relationship between

external-family LOH and life satisfaction. Although the line seems to have a negative slope, the

gradient of simple slope = -0.47 was not statistically significant, t(413) = -1.76, p = .079. This

simple effect shows how for students with high internal LOH, it did not really make a different

whether they had low or high external-family LOH. In a sense, high internal LOH compensates

even for low external-family LOH. But among students with low internal LOH, external-family

LOH was positively associated with life satisfaction; gradient of simple slope = -0.80, t(413) =

3.15, p = .002. Those who have weak internal LOH, their high external-family LOH can

compensate and they still report relatively high life satisfaction (comparable to those with high

internal LOH).

*Insert Figures 1 & 2 here*

The interaction between external-peer and external-family LOH was also a significant

predictor of well-being, and this interaction effect is depicted in Figure 2. In interpreting this
 Locus-of-hope and well-being of Filipino students 13

interaction, we should recall that the two external LOH dimensions do not have significant direct

relationships with life satisfaction. But Figure 2 shows that among students with low external-

peer LOH, there is a strong positive relationship between external-family LOH and life

satisfaction; gradient of simple slope = 0.74, t(413) = 2.88, p = .004. Again, it seems that

external-family LOH is compensating for the students’ low external-peer LOH, so much so that

the students report high life satisfaction. On the other hand, among students with high external-

peer LOH, external-family LOH was unrelated to life satisfaction; gradient of simple slope = -

0.41, t(413) = -1.52, p = .129. In this case, it does not seem that high external-peer LOH can

compensate for low external-family LOH.

Discussion

The study was undertaken to explore the possible interactions among the different LOH

dimensions, based on the assumption that these LOH dimensions may be working

synergistically. In particular, we proposed that LOH dimensions might be compensating for

weaknesses in the other dimensions. Our results provide some evidence for this assumption. The

significant interaction effect between internal and external-family LOH on life satisfaction (see

Figure 1) could be interpreted as supporting the view that high internal LOH can compensate for

low external-family LOH, and that high external-family LOH can partly compensate for low

internal LOH. The significant interaction effect between external-peer and external-family LOH

on life satisfaction (see Figure 2) seems to partly support the same point. High external-family

LOH seems to compensate for low external-peer LOH, but not the other way around.

Limitations of the study

Before we discuss the implications of these findings, we need to acknowledge some

important limitations in our study. First, the sample size was adequate was small and recruited
 Locus-of-hope and well-being of Filipino students 14

from a small number of schools. Although there is no definite research that suggests that school

environment and other ecological factors moderate the correlates of LOH, there is a possibility

that the limited sample of students and schools might not capture variations in how LOH

dimensions interact in relation to students’ well-being. Indeed, this is an interesting factor to

pursue in future research with larger samples that consider school and other ecological variables

as distal factors that may relate to LOH and its correlates. Extending this thought further, it

would be interesting to test the same theoretical proposals using a wider variety of cultures and

educational systems. Such studies are likely to provide more nuance to understanding the

synergistic workings of LOH is educational contexts.

Also related to the relatively limited sample size, another notable limitation was that we

were not able to analyze age-related differences. An earlier study with a younger sample of

Filipino students (Bernardo 2015) found significant increases in internal LOH with age, but not

in external-family and external-peer LOH. There is a possibility that the interactive effects

involving internal LOH might also vary across age. For example, it is possible that as internal

LOH becomes more establish in older students, external-family LOH may not be as needed in a

compensatory sense. It is also possible that the relative influence of external-family over

external-peer LOH changes as the students become older adolescents and young adults. These

possibilities would be interesting to explore in studies that explicitly sample a wider range of age

groups.

Another limitation is the use of a cross-sectional research survey that relies on self-

reports. Although this approach was sufficient to point to interesting interaction effects

consistent with the proposed theoretical arguments, more confidence can be drawn from studies

that do not rely solely on self-reports gathered at one point in time. Future research can employ
 Locus-of-hope and well-being of Filipino students 15

longitudinal approaches that also have more varied measures of well-being, including those that

do not depend on self-report.

Theoretical insights

The main insight that we propose to derive from the findings is that LOH dimensions are

like clusters of strengths that work in synergy, with LOH dimensions compensating for possible

weaknesses in other dimensions. This insight is very consistent with basic assumptions of

positive psychology and positive education that emphasize the role of specific strengths (not the

weaknesses) in shaping students’ well-being. We see some evidence for how strong external-

family LOH in Filipino students can lead to life satisfaction, even as internal LOH or external-

peer LOH are weak.

We did notice that among the three LOH dimensions we studied, it was only two—

internal and external-family LOH—that seemed to be doing the compensating, so to speak. We

did not find any evidence that external-peer LOH compensated for weak internal or external-

family LOH among the students. We earlier noted that internal and external-family LOH tend to

be more consistently associated with well-being among different samples of Asian students

(Bernardo, Khan et al., 2018; Bernardo, Yeung et al., 2018). We also noted that that external-

peer tended to be less consistent even if it has been shown to buffer the effects of stress among

samples of Filipino university students (Bernardo & Resurreccion, 2018; Datu & Mateo, 2017).

We could theoretically speculate that stronger LOH dimensions are more likely to function in a

synergistic compensatory way, and we can even speculate a hierarchy of sorts among the LOH

dimensions. Indeed, the empirical evidence, at least among Asian student samples, seems to be

more consistently stacked for the positive predictive value of internal and external-family LOH.

To this stack, we can add initial evidence on the synergistic functioning of these two LOH
 Locus-of-hope and well-being of Filipino students 16

dimensions among students. These theoretical insights and speculations have some important

implications for psychologists and positive educators working on strengthening student well-

being in schools.

Practical propositions

The convergence of empirical evidence on how hope relates to student well-being and

others underscores the importance of paying attention to hopeful thoughts among students. The

research related to the different LOH dimensions points to the importance of attending to how

hope make come in different forms of strengths among diverse types of students. This viewpoint

is most important to consider as schools develop hope-building interventions for students.

As previously noted by Bernardo and Sit (2020), hope interventions in schools have

focused on dispositional hope, that is, on strengthening students’ positive goal-related thoughts

based on their personal agency (or will) and pathways (or strategies). The research on LOH

suggests that hope interventions for students should consider that students’ agency and pathways

could also draw from external sources, mainly their family (and in some other ways their peers

and spiritual beliefs). Bernardo and Sit (2020) sketch what hope interventions that consider

external LOH dimensions might look like, and we reiterate some of their suggestions here.

First, hope interventions typically involve asking students to identify and visualize

important life goals. A LOH-based intervention would also ask the students to consider how their

goals are also important to other people in their lives and their communities. In many Asian

societies, students tend to define their educational or learning goals with reference to their

aspirations for and/or to their expectations from parents and family, friends, and society at large

(Bernardo et al., 2008; Liem et al., 2008); nevertheless, pivoting goal-mapping in hope
 Locus-of-hope and well-being of Filipino students 17

interventions towards a more relational focus allows students to appreciate how their goals have

broader value.

Second, hope interventions also involve asking students to think of strategies they will

employ to meet their goals and make these strategies as concrete and detailed as possible. A

LOH-based intervention for students would also invite individual students to think of how their

parents, other family members, friends, teachers, among other significant others, can support or

help in the strategies they think of. Students could also be invited to think of strategies that these

other persons can do for and with them to meet their goals, and how these other persons might be

creating some obstacles in their pathways. This broader consideration of pathway-related

thinking might provide a more extensive and more realistic space where students build their

hope-related pathway thoughts.

Third, hope interventions typically encourage students to strengthen their sense of agency

and self-belief in their capacity to implement their strategies to meet their important goals. A

LOH-based intervention could also encourage thoughts about how they are supported by parents,

family members, friends, teachers, and other significant others in affirming their own agency. Of

course, there might be significant others in the student’s life who may not be affirming their

agency, and it is important that the student also acknowledges those cases. Nevertheless, it is

valuable for the student to know that there are other people who can help them monitor their

progress towards their goals, to provide them with positive hope-talk, and to give them stronger

motivation to persist towards their goals.

To the broad suggestions of Bernardo and Sit (2020), we add a suggestion to engage

students in explicit compensatory thinking about how different hope agents in their life can help

in their goal pursuit. As we mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, there might be significant
 Locus-of-hope and well-being of Filipino students 18

others who will be obstacles in the student’s pathways or who will not be supportive of the

student’s agency. The students can be helped to see how such “weaknesses” need not debilitate

their goal pursuit, as they can draw from the shared agency and pathways of other significant

people in their lives. We can infer some exemplars of how this might be happening from the

results of our study. Some of the students who may think that their peers and classmates are not

reliable sources of hope may be drawing instead from thoughts about how their parents are

strong sources of agency and pathways for their goals. Similarly, students who may doubt their

own personal agency and pathways, may be bolstered by their parents’ support and shared

agency. On the other hand, when one’s parents are not providing such support in meeting one’s

goals, some students may be bolstered by their self-beliefs about their capability and strategies to

meet these goals in life. It is important that hope interventions not only appreciate the range of

hopeful sources that students may have, but also that the students can let the strengths of these

sources compensate for the weaknesses.

Conclusion

The locus-of-hope model conveys an important message to students and the positive

educators who work together to build well-being in schools. This message is that hope does not

only come in in the form of thoughts about personal capacities and strategies for goal attainment,

but also that hope comes in more varied forms that are shared by significant people in the

student’s life. The results of our one study build on this message by pointing to how these varied

forms of hope may be working in synergy so that the hope-strengths can compensate for possible

weaknesses. There is still more work that can be done to fully realize how hopeful thoughts can

bolster student well-being, and we hope to have contributed to broadening the scope of this work

in meaningful and concrete ways.

 Locus-of-hope and well-being of Filipino students 19

References

Bernardo, A. B. I. (2010). Extending hope theory: Internal and external locus of trait hope.

Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 944-949.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.036

Bernardo, A. B. I. (2015). Hope in early adolescence: Measuring internal and external locus-of-

hope. Child Indicators Research, 8, 699–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-014-9254-6

Bernardo, A. B. I., & Estrellado, A. F. (2017). Locus-of-hope and help-seeking intentions of

Filipino battered women victims of intimate partner violence. Current Psychology, 36, 66-

75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9385-z

Bernardo A. B. I., Khan, A., & Salanga, M. G. C. (2018). Hope and satisfaction with life:

Testing the mediating roles of self-esteem in three Asian cultures. Acción Psicológica,

15(2), 69-82. https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.15.2.23456

Bernardo, A., & Fernando Resurreccion, K. (2018). Financial stress and well-being of Filipino

students: The moderating role of external locus-of-hope. Philippine Journal of Psychology,

51(1). https://doi.org/10.31710/pjp/0051.01.03

Bernardo, A. B. I., Salanga, M. G. C., Khan, A., & Yeung, S. S. (2016). Internal and external

loci-of-hope predict use of individual and collaborative learning strategies: Evidence from

university learners in four Asian cities. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25, 367–

376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0249-y

Bernardo, A. B. I., & Sit, H. H. Y. (2020). Hope interventions for students: Integrating cultural

perspectives. In G. A. D. Liem & D. M. McInerney (Eds.). Sociocultural perspectives on

educational interventions: Promoting motivation and learning in contexts (281-302).

Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

 Locus-of-hope and well-being of Filipino students 20

Bernardo, A. B. I., Yeung, S. S., Resurreccion, K. F., Resurreccion, R. R., & Khan, A. (2018).

External locus-of-hope, well-being, and coping of students: A cross-cultural investigation

within Asia. Psychology in the Schools, 55, 908-923. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22155

Çelik,D. A., Çetin, F., & Tutkun, E. (2015). The role of proximal and distal resilience factors and

locus of control in understanding hope, self-esteem and academic achievement among

Turkish pre-adolescents. Current Psychology, 34, 321–345.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9260-3

Datu, J. A. D., & Mateo, N. J. (2017). How to combat the negative impact of discrimination in a

collectivist context? The safeguarding function of peer-oriented hope. Psychology,

Health & Medicine, 22, 345–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2016.1164875

Davidson, O. B., Feldman, D. B., & Margalit, M. (2012). A focused intervention for 1st-Year

college students: Promoting hope, sense of coherence, and self-efficacy. The Journal of

Psychology, 146(3), 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2011.634862

Day, L., Hanson, K., Matlby, J., Proctor, C., & Wood, A. (2010). Hope uniquely predicts

objective academic achievement above intelligence, personality, and previous academic

achievement. Journal of Research on Personality, 44, 550–553.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.05.009

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction With Life

Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

Du, H., Bernardo, A. B. I., & Yeung, S. S. (2015). Locus-of-hope and life satisfaction: The

mediating roles of personal self-esteem and relational self-esteem. Personality and

Individual Differences, 83, 228–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.026

 Locus-of-hope and well-being of Filipino students 21

Du, H., & King, R. B. (2013). Placing hope in self and others: Exploring the relationships among

self-construals, locus of hope, and adjustment. Personality and Individual Differences,

54(3), 332–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.09.015

Feldman, D. B., & Dreher, D. E. (2012). Can hope be changed in 90 minutes? Testing the

efficacy of a single-session goal-pursuit intervention for college students. Journal of

Happiness Studies, 13, 745–759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-011-9292-4

Feldman, D. B., & Kubota, M. (2015). Hope, self-efficacy, optimism, and academic

achievement: Distinguishing constructs and levels of specificity in predicting college

grade-point average. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 210–216.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.022

Feldman, D. B., Rand, K. L., & Kahle-Wrobleski, K. (2009). Hope and goal attainment: Testing

a basic prediction of hope theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28, 479–497.

https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2009.28.4.479

Gilman, R., Dooley, J., & Florell, D. (2006). Relative levels of hope and their relationship with

academic and psychological indicators among adolescents. Journal of Social and Clinical

Psychology, 25, 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2006.25.2.166

Hobfoll, S. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review General

Psychology, 6, 307-324. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307

Lopez, S. J., Floyd, R. K., Ulven, J. C., & Snyder, C. R. (2000). Hope therapy: Helping clients

build a house of hope. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Handbook of hope: Theory, measures, and

applications (pp. 123–150). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012654050-

5/50009-9
 Locus-of-hope and well-being of Filipino students 22

Lucas, R. I. G., & Ouano, J. A. (2018). Hope and academic achievement among young Filipino

college indigent students. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 17(3), 160–165.

Luthans, F, Youssef-Morgan, C.M., & Avolio B. (2015). Psychological capital and beyond.

Oxford University Press

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2003). Models of agency: Sociocultural diversity in the

construction of action. In V. Murphy-Berman & J. J. Berman (Eds.), Cross-cultural

differences in perspectives on the self (pp. 1–57). University of Nebraska Press.

Marques, S. C., Lopez, S. J., & Pais-Ribeiro, J. L. (2011). ‘‘Building hope for the future’’: A

program to foster strengths in middle-school students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(1),

139–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9180-3

Muñoz, R. T., Quinton, K. A., Worley, J. A., & Hellman, C. M. (2019). Locus of hope: External

hope in parents/guardians as an antecedent of adolescents’ internal hope and life

satisfaction. Child Indicators Research, 12(3), 1107–1124.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-018-9566-z

Peterson, S. J., Gerhardt, M. W., & Rode, J. C. (2006). Hope, learning goals, and task

performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1099-1109.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.005

Rand, K. L. (2018). Hope, self-efficacy, and optimism: Conceptual and empirical differences. In

M. W. Gallagher & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook

of hope (pp. 45–58). Oxford University Press.

Rand, K. L., & Cheavens, S. (2009). Hope theory. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Oxford

handbook of positive psychology (pp. 323–334). Oxford Press.

 Locus-of-hope and well-being of Filipino students 23

Snyder, C. R. (2000). Hypothesis: There is hope. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Handbook of hope:

Theory, measures, and applications (pp. 3–21). Academic Press.

Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13(4), 249–

275. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1304_01

Snyder, C. R., Lopez, S. J., Shorey, H. S., Rand, K. L., & Feldman, D. B. (2003). Hope theory,

measurements, and applications to school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly, 18,

122–139. https://doi.org/10.1521/scpq.18.2.122.21854

Wagshul, Y. D. (2018). Effect of external locus-of-hope on acquired capability for suicide.

Suicide and life-threatening behavior, 49(6), 1541–1551.

https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.12539