CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 108Optimism, Hope, and Well-beingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Examining hope as a transdiagnostic mechanism of change across anxiety disorders and CBT treatment protocols

Open access
Gallagher, Matthew W., Long, Laura J., Richardson, Angela, D’Souza, Johann, Boswell, James F., Farchione, Todd J., Barlow, David H.·2020·Behavior Therapy
DOI 10.1016/j.beth.2019.06.001PMC PMC7000132
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Hope is a trait that represents the capacity to identify strategies or pathways to achieve goals and the motivation or agency to effectively pursue those pathways. Hope has been demonstrated to be a robust source of resilience to anxiety and stress and there is limited evidence that, as has been suggested for decades, hope may function as a core process or transdiagnostic mechanism of change in psychotherapy. The current study examined the role of hope in predicting recovery in a clinical trial in which 223 individuals with 1 of 4 anxiety disorders were randomized to transdiagnostic cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), disorder-specific CBT, or a waitlist controlled condition. Effect size results indicated moderate to large intraindividual increases in hope, that changes in hope were consistent across the five CBT treatment protocols, that changes in hope were significantly greater in CBT relative to waitlist, and that changes in hope began early in treatment. Results of growth curve analyses indicated that CBT was a robust predictor of trajectories of change in hope compared to waitlist, and that changes in hope predicted changes in both self-reported and clinician-rated anxiety. Finally, a statistically significant indirect effect was found indicating that the effects of treatment on changes in anxiety were mediated by treatment effects on hope. Together, these results suggest that hope may be a promising transdiagnostic mechanism of change that is relevant across anxiety disorders and treatment protocols.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.beth.2019.06.001

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The predominant psychological approaches to hope and hopelessness have emphasized a cognitive-goal-expectancy perspective.

    “The predominant psychological approaches to hope and hopelessness have emphasized a cognitive-goal-expectancy perspective (e.g., Gallagher et al., 2020; Mowrer, 1960; Stotland, 1969; Snyder et al., 1991).”

    From A hope intervention for adolescents: a randomized controlled trial delivered by paraprofessionals (2025) · cites this paper as Gallagher et al., 2020

    The “Defining Hope” section describes the most widely studied model of hope as a cognitive process centered on goals, pathways, agency, and positive expectations. The paper calls hopelessness a related construct in “Evidence of Hope as a Mechanism of Recovery During CBT,” but does not describe predominant psychological approaches to hopelessness as cognitive-goal-expectancy approaches. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • CBT-oriented programs produce a moderate effect size of 0.65 from baseline to post-treatment for changes in hope defined by Snyder et al.'s 'wills and ways' goal-expectancy model.

    “For example, Gallagher et al. (2020) reported a moderate effect size of 0.65 from baseline to post-treatment for changes in hope, defined in terms of Snyder et al.’s (1991) “wills and ways” goal-expectancy model.”

    From A hope intervention for adolescents: a randomized controlled trial delivered by paraprofessionals (2025) · cites this paper as Gallagher et al., 2020

    The Results section (“Does Hope Change as a function of CBT?”; page unavailable) reports moderate-to-large increases in hope during CBT, and the Methods (“Measures”; page unavailable) describes a hope scale measuring agency and pathways, consistent with the cited goal-based definition. The accessible passages do not give a baseline-to-post-treatment effect size of 0.65, so the specific number is not verified. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Craske MG, & Barlow DH (2006). Mastery of your anxiety and worry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  2. Gallagher MW, & Lopez SJ (Eds.). (2018). The Oxford Handbook of Hope. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  3. Hayes SC, & Hofmann SG (Eds.). (2018). Process-based CBT: the science and core clinical competencies of cognitive behavioral therapy. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications.
  4. Hope DA, Heimberg RG, & Turk CL (2010). Managing social anxiety: A cognitive-behavioral therapy approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
  5. Norcross JC, & Wampold BE (Eds.) (in press). Psychotherapy relationships that work: Evidence-based responsiveness (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gallagher, M. W., Long, L. J., Richardson, A., D’Souza, J., Boswell, J. F., Farchione, T. J., & Barlow, D. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Houston (US)
  • University at Albany, State University of New York (US)
  • Boston University (US)
Corresponding author
Gallagher, Matthew W.
ORCID
Venue
Behavior Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-01
Volume
51
Issue
1
Pages
190-202
ISSN
0005-7894 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.beth.2019.06.001
PMC
PMC7000132
OpenAlex
W2951968828
Cited by
108
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4
FWCI
9.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Behavior Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • OpenBU (Boston University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Optimism, Hope, and Well-being
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
hope, anxiety disorders, cognitive behavioral therapy, treatment response, anxiety reduction, mediation, growth curve analysis, resilience
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Anxiety Disorders, Clinical Protocols, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult, Self Report, Hope

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review