“False” hope is condemned in the literature on the grounds that it reflects the counterproductive use of: (a) expectations based on illusions rather than reality, (b) inappropriate goals, and (c) poor strategies to reach desired goals. Snyder, Harris, et al.'s (1991) hope theory involving self‐referential thoughts about finding routes to desired goals (pathways) and the motivation to use those routes (agency) is used as a framework for examining these three criticisms of false hope. It is concluded that the presently available evidence does not support any of the false‐hope criticisms. The implications of hope‐related issues for the applied clinical arena are discussed. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Psychol 58: 1003–1022, 2002.
Journal of Clinical Psychology – Wiley
Published: Sep 1, 2002
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.